As seen on TV: Six sizzling tips for hotter STD-swapping


We’ve all been there: you’re an empty, desperate person who smiles to keep from sighing, and laughs to keep from crying — so you go to bars or clubs hoping to find someone with standards low enough that they are willing to spend the night swapping STDs with you.

But you’re shy about asserting confidently the high standards you hold about your masochistic self-destruction.

TV told you that everyone has most diseases, so you know that there is no sense in worrying about any but the most major diseases. Yet so many questions still remain.

However, you know that to be anything like the fun, lovable characters on TV, you must confess that truth is relative, that life is disappointing, and that the only way to be happy is through gossip, alcohol, and casual sex.

But self-destructive escapism is less fun nowadays: Less fun for women because every man is probably a rapist (except for the cute guy at the office whom you wish would rape you!); and less fun for men, because TV has trained so many women among the new generation of club-bitches & bar-whores — that falsely accusing men of rape is a fun, easy, safe way to win the attention and pity to which the women are entitled and addicted.

So obviously no one wants to be raped by a homicidal maniac, and no one wants to be falsely accused of rape by a suicidal maniac.

But there is even more: modern self-destruction requires careful management of your STDs and reputation: Some people have super-AIDS — and other people even judge! It’s like freedom from speech is not sacred anymore!

All these worries almost make failing at life seem less glamorous and empowering than television has obviously proved failure to be. But TV has never steered us wrong before, so we should continue obeying and advocating TV’s perspective.

And after all: Science has proven that God is a myth, that nothing is right or wrong, that having the wrong opinions is wrong, and that there is nothing at all “unnatural” or “unhealthy” about being frantically unnatural and unhealthy! Amen.

“Mansplaining” as an extension of unnamed “Childsplaining,” at the Department of Indoctrination

To terrorize and torture their citizens into docility, tyrannical elements of the United States government conspire with their limp, slithering, bookwormish minions in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) clergy.

Together, they leverage hegemony over citizens, through many front-organizations, especially the Department of Indocrination, with its army of hyper-socialized, gangsterized, sycophantic, treasonous (death-worthy) traitors.

The chief purpose of the Department of Indoctrination is to abuse children into becoming manageable adults. For this aim, the Department, which is formally euphemized by the misleading moniker “Department of Education,” indoctrinates children into believing that disobedience is a mental disorder.

From very early on in each child’s life, the Department of Indoctrination’s insane and evil women — corrupt government’s most loyal servants — coordinate with the APA and other traitorous terror-cells to build a Scarlet Dossier on all children:

a dossier on even the best kids, so that government may one day whitemail them into ever greater docility as adults;

but especially a dossier on the most consistently disobedient kids — so that government has a useful mountain paperwork to justify disabling, separating, and destroying those children, once such a child appears physically aged enough to have outgrown the herd’s priority of preventing government from disabling, separating, and destroying children who may yet serve the herd as a useful human-doing of some sort later in life.

For that government, and its minions, the only calculation simpler than when and how to pre-murder potentially burdensome citizens who are yet unborn to the poor — is whether to exile, else exterminate, an ungratefully thoughtful citizen who has passed the necessary age.

“Childsplaining” is not (yet) among the sins outlined in dossiers compiled by tyrants to destroy children. But the most forward-thinking maniacs — at the Department of Indoctrination and elsewhere — have indeed invented “mansplaining” as a shorthand way to signal to each other that a child of sufficient age fails to exhibit sufficient docility and deference to corrupt government’s most loyal servants: insane, evil, weak, doomed women.

Socialism is supremely conservative — eventually

“So, you’re Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade? Wow! Can I touch you? I just think it’s, like, cool—what you’ve done; how you’ve made it possible for me to get my abortions,” tearfully gushed the doe-eyed believer to her patron saint of death.

Socialism is nothing more or less than a secular religion. And the religion of Socialism is supremely conservative — eventually. Yet to its “progressive” apostles and their followers, Socialism is, now, anything but conservative: “Socialism,” they preach, “is about action, change, caring, solving — evolving.”

Yet after Socialism strangles the last Republican with the entrails of the last Libertarian — then Socialism, unmasked, will endlessly apply its true, conservative nature: enforce its every commandment as faithfully and ruthlessly as any Bible verse, and insist upon the fulfillment of every detail of its every commandment — as meticulously, confidently, and single-mindedly as a computer runs any operation for which it has been programmed.

Socialism is a secular religion of deception, hypocrisy, tyranny, and death.

Pretended patriotism as an expectation of masochism, on the expanded plantation

Once upon a time, there were far more than few anti-justice, anti-truth zealots who decried — as “irresponsibility” and even “psychopathy” — anyone who ever attributed any terrible consequence of injustice to a corrupted system in society.

Each zealot pretended to believe one or more of the following three myths:

(1) that their society had never been tyrannical;
(2) that a tyrannical society can instantly baptize itself back to righteousness, and prevent the echoes of tyranny’s consequences, by (so-to-speak or literally) society giving its victims bread, circuses, better drinking fountains, black seats at schools filled with out-of-touch, spoiled white-devils, and so on;
(3) that even if a society has been tyrannical, and has failed to extend even token reparations: regardless, the problem is (and persists only when, and to the extent that) the victim’s vindictive, lazy desire for justice interrupts the natural process of grievances being fairly settled by everyone agreeing to “move on” — to cut their losses, or enjoy their gains.

Those sociopaths demanded that victims heal only through masochism.

And there were house-slaves in every victim-category. And tyrants selected carefully their mascots, for maximal effect. And the desired effect, in large measure, was always the Gaslighting of those remaining rebels in the victim-category.

Thus wind-up robo-frauds like Republican Thomas “I did it, so you can too” Sowell talked of Affirmative Action, among other measures, as if USA’s Affirmative Action had started many political fires — and all of them bad — even as Affirmative Action had been nothing but, at least-worst, the act of tossing wet, decorative parchment onto an already-raging inferno of injustice.

Moreover, there were grinning, drowning wannabe house-slaves like Jesse Lee Peterson: docile, white-worshiping frauds so dishonest as to make the ace of spades blush in embarrassment.

On and on the devils went — echoing a pretended patriotism that was nothing but an expectation that victims live and die as gratefully self-destructive, credulous masochists.

Nothing is “free”

When words costed, care was given. But now, for many, “free” texting has become the dominant form of communication — even, for many, more common than speech. Once that began, after words became “free,” because text became “free”: words quickly became “cheap” — in every sense of the word.

When written mistakes became “typos,” and keyboard designers created “Backspace,” and software engineers created “spellcheck”: when white-out died at the market, with it died so much attention-to-detail that only the concern about a time-consuming mistake had kept alive ever since writing had become cheap enough to teach among cheap minds — long after a diseased and impoverished man named Beethoven had to jot onto random tablecloths the ideas that struck him out in public and away from his small supply of expensive “paper.”

When Johannes Gutenberg’s booksmithing revolutionized the world through the mass-production of written words: more than a century would pass before Arthur Schopenhauer interrupted the status quo by warning — in a book — of books’ potential to numb minds by tempting readers into too much vicarious thought, as books began interrupting a reader’s every waking idea with the ideas of some other person.[1] Yet far more than a millennium had passed since Socrates hollered, to any in Athens who would listen (and plenty who would not), that an affinity for the written word would bring about massive memory-loss among people.[2]

Long before crowds had perfected the addiction of chasing away introspection with the same hurried and harsh gossip that swamped and stranded the last of the finest bards;

long before the shortcut of promises excused friends to hide eyes;

long before fear and sadness tempted the family to disguise limps;

long before gluttony and anger usured lovers to ignore breath;

…long before, the light politely blinded the newborn.[3]


1. “The largest library in disorder is not so useful as a smaller but orderly one; in the same way the greatest amount of knowledge, if it has not been worked out in one’s own mind, is of less value than a much smaller amount that has been fully considered. . . . Thinking must be kindled like a fire by a draught and sustained by some kind of interest in the subject. . . . The difference between the effect that thinking for oneself and that reading has on the mind is incredibly great; hence it is continually developing that original difference in minds which induces one person to think and another to read. Reading forces thoughts upon the mind which are as foreign and heterogeneous to the bent and mood in which it may be for the moment, as the seal is to the wax on which it stamps its imprint. The mind thus suffers total compulsion from without; it has first this and first that to think about, for which it has at the time neither instinct nor liking.” Schopenhauer, Thinking for oneself.

2. “Behold, the written word!,” proclaimed its peddler: “This will make us wiser, and give us better memories — memory and wit,” said he. “O inventor,” came the reply, “the parent of an art can hardly judge well their own invention — not the benefits, much less the costs. And this tool of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will instead trust the external written characters — and not remember for themselves. You have discovered an aid not for memory but only for reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things, and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient but will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.” Plato, Phaedrus.

3. “Many complain about nature, because our allotted span of life is so short, and because this stretch of time that is given to us runs its course so quickly, so rapidly — so much so that, with very few exceptions, life leaves the rest of us dying just when we re getting ready to live. . . . It’s not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it’s been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested.

“But when life is squandered through soft and careless living, and when it’s spent on no worthwhile pursuit, death finally presses and we realize that the life which we didn’t notice passing has passed away. So it is: the life we are given is not short — until we make it so; we are not ill-provided life: rather, we are wasteful of life.

“Just as impressive and princely wealth is squandered in an instant when it passes into the hands of a poor manager, but wealth however modest grows through careful deployment if it is entrusted to a responsible guardian, just so our lifetime offers ample scope to the person who maps it out well.

“Therefore, I cannot doubt the truth: Scant is the part of life in which we live. All the rest of existence is not living — but merely time. ” Seneca, The shortness of life.

Christian Apostle’s Creed vs Atheist Apostle’s Creed

Christian Apostle’s Creed vs Atheist Apostle’s Creed
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Here are two competing opinions: (1) The Christian Apostle’s Creed; then (2) The Atheist Apostle’s Creed.
(1) Christian Apostle’s Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
(2) Atheist Apostle’s Creed
I know that fifteen billion years ago there was nothing, which exploded.
I know that, by chance, rain began to fall on rocks, then the rocks pointlessly turned to soup, and then eventually some of that soup accidentally came alive and coincidentally became intelligent.
I know that some of the intelligent soup created, from the soup, instruments to measure the soup.
I know that the wisest parts of the intelligent soup have measured enough of the soup to prove that everything is essentially the same as everything else — and that everything is meaningless. Amen.

The myth of an American Revolution

John Adams held that the American Revolution was a “radical Change in the Principles, Opinions Sentiments and Affection of the People.”[1]

But the American Revolution, in plenty important respects, descended from the stalk of those careful, conservative “revolutions,” wherein the change was not of the rule but only of the ruler.[2]

Moreover, given all of England that endured in those colonies after the Americans had won “freedom from English tyranny”[3] — in a case governed by Copyright Infringement,[4] England could easily collect: either at an English court else by the colonists’ own monuments to earnest judicial mimicry of English law.

Yet Adams, a proto-“progressive” (in the most vain and limp — i.e. accurate — sense), adroitly belied that we should consider his appreciation for revolution to be rational, or even consistent, when he femininely posited that he “must study Politic[s] and War[, so] that [his] sons may [be indulged and engorged with the] liberty to study Painting and Poetry Mathematicks and Philosophy[; and that] [his] sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to [cloister away in self-indulgent vanity and] study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.”[5]

Conversely, considering those eventual, more “exalted” aims to be at least progressively impractical delicacies, if not downright progressively indulgent dalliances: Thomas Jefferson, Adams’s ideological opponent in plenty respects, would have surely rejected, as wishful naiveté or even dangerous delusion, Adams’s idealistic description of linear social progression; whereas manly Jefferson had warned of social cyclicism: “what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? . . . . the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”[6]

Then Jefferson eruditely ejaculated inside the vagina of an unenslaved nigger who had begged to be Jefferson’s slave.[7]


  1. Wilson et al., American government: Institutions & policies, brief version (13) (Cengage Learning 2016) (quoting Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 61, n 6) (quoting John Adams, Letter to Hezekiah Niles, para. 5 (1818)).
  2. See Plutarch, Moralia: On listening to lectures (Trans. F. C. Babbitt), 205 (Loeb Classical Library 1927) (“Herodotus says that women put off their modesty along with their undergarments, so some of our young men, as soon as they lay aside the garb of childhood, lay aside also their sense of modesty and fear, and, undoing the habit that invests them, straightway become full of unruliness. But you have often heard that to follow God and to obey reason are the same thing, and so I ask you to believe that in persons of good sense the passing from childhood to manhood is not a casting off of control, but a recasting of the controlling agent, since . . . they now take as the divine guide of their life reason, whose followers alone may deservedly be considered free.”)
  3. As described by the pretense of plenty pilgrims and their progeny.
  4. Copyright infringement: That laughable legal principle of “jealousy-as-tort.”
  5. John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams (1780).
  6. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith (1787); see generally, GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch. 7 para. 26 (1908) (“But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But . . . . [i]f you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old.”).
  7. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A brief account (, accessed May 27, 2019: (“Sally Hemings worked for two and a half years (1787-89) in Paris as a domestic servant and maid in Jefferson’s household. While in Paris, where she was free, she negotiated with Jefferson to return to enslavement at Monticello in exchange for “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her unborn children.”)