Tag Archive | deceit

Corporate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

As part of the “moving to Keene, New Hampshire” process, which you can speed up by buying my ebook for $2.99 or the paperback for $7.49, I’ve also been seeking a job there, since that will speed up the process far more than anything else. After receiving a series of promising emails, I found myself conducting a phone interview, at the end of which the person said, “Thank you, sir.”

Now, this is a bit more serious than “RAWR DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?” I’ve of course applied to the job as myself; one of the primary reasons for moving, actually, is that I’m transsexual, although I know that, realistically, I need vocal surgery and minor cosmetic surgery. Despite my best efforts, and use of very expensive vocal training regimens, I’ve met with no success (though I have become a much better singer, so good that I’m considering picking music back up) in feminizing my voice. Hell, eating large amounts of Hostess mini donuts is doing nothing to help me gain weight, either, which is badly needed.

So I was faced with a problem. Realistically, I know that it can create problems in a service-driven industry. Whether the employer has an issue with it or not, clients might, and individual businesses can never be compelled to continue using one vendor or another. It’s why I continue to work as a male: the clients would unanimously fire me here. Will that problem exist in New Hampshire?

Because I can’t expect the employer to risk losing clients by having an employee who makes them uncomfortable. And my voice is clearly still so off that I was called a “sir,” though I’m not surprised by that. There’s a huge mental block there that I’ll get into some other time. Realistically, I know that I need to continue working as a male until I’ve made the money (which shouldn’t be much of an issue in NH) to afford the needed surgeries. Until then, it has the potential to create issues with clients.

But what about once I’ve had those surgeries? Being a male to them one day and female the next is likely to create even more issues.

“Thank you, sir.”


How to handle this delicate issue when the vast majority of potential employers will simply refuse to discuss it in any meaningful sense, for fear of saying the wrong thing and inviting myriad lawsuits?

Yet it had to be discussed: “Thank you, sir.”

I know the SJWs out there would contend, “At most, you should have corrected him and requested he refer to you as ‘ma’am,'” and, yeah, perhaps. But that doesn’t sit well with me, and never has. It’s disingenuous and dishonest. And it invites even more problems. Following that correction, they’d certainly have googled me (honestly, I’m surprised they haven’t already). And I don’t know, but I imagine reservations would be extremely high about hiring someone who felt they had the right to be treated as a female despite not conforming sufficiently to gender expectations.

I unambiguously take the stance that being considered a female is something that I have to earn, not something to which I am entitled. Other people have expectations of female and male, and their expectations are as valid as anyone else’s. Since I’m the one who wants to be considered female, the onus falls to me to conform to their expectations, not to make them conform to mine in full disregard of their own. And this served as proof that I haven’t achieved that. Hey, no biggie–it means I have more work to do, which I already knew anyway.

But how to handle the matter now?

It immediately became clear to me that I should have sent my resume as a male, but I didn’t. Again, that’s the primary reason for the move, so I didn’t think twice about it; when I applied for a job, I did it as Aria. It just seemed normal and natural to me, not worthy of second guessing. But even if I had, I’m transitioning, and the day is inevitable (and not as far away as it used to be) that the male persona is forever put to rest. There is an entirely different, and heightened, degree of difficulty transitioning in a single job–being a male (albeit unusual) to the employer and clients one day, and a female the next. It’s actually easier to be a non-passable (I’ll not apologize for that phrase) female one day, and a more passable one the next. People are already prepared for it at that point, are already getting used to it, and it’s much less jarring.

So, ultimately, I think I made the right choice: apply as a female and tough it out, unpassable in several critical regards, and, in time, get those issues handled (cosmetic surgery is likely limited to brow bone decreases, so it’s not major and shouldn’t be expensive). With many of the employers clients being government agencies, it’s actually not terribly likely to be a problem for clients. But there is still a problem at hand:

“Thank you, sir.”

Merely mentioning my gender identity could be enough to cost me the job, for exactly the same reason that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell existed in the military; it immediately creates the danger of legal action. By mentioning it, I’d put them instantly into a No Win situation. Either they don’t hire, and then there’s the threat of lawsuit on the basis that they didn’t hire me because of my gender identity, or they do hire me simply to avoid the risk of that lawsuit. Of course, I’m an anarchist. Government is a weapon, not a tool. I didn’t sue a realty company who let their dog bite me twice in a service call, and that was the most solid lawsuit most people have ever heard. But I don’t think that’s right. But while I know there’s no chance I’m trying to bait them, a la Dale Gribble in King of the Hill applying as a waiter to Hooters, there’s no possible way they could know that. A company I’ve worked with for seven years asked me to put in writing that I would not seek any legal action, after all–the threat is very real, too real, and cannot be discounted. I know it exists, and they know it exists. Though I’d never, ever use such a vile weapon to force others into certain actions, they have no way of knowing my principled stance against such things, nor any reason to believe such claims. Yet there it was.

“Thank you, sir.”

In their zeal for anti-discrimination protections, liberals have created Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Even mentioning this disparity between my birth sex and my gender, the mention of which became necessary (as I don’t think anyone would dispute), violates that policy and places everyone into a minefield that is impossible to navigate. Say the wrong thing, bam. Lawsuit. Don’t hire me, bam. Lawsuit. Don’t respond, bam. Lawsuit. Suggest clients may have an issue with it, bam. Lawsuit.

I need them to be open an honest about whether it could impair client relationships, but they can’t be. Even if it would cost them half their clients, they simply can’t tell me so. They have to lose those clients with a smile on their face, resenting me all the while, because I’m protected by the violence of government action. They can’t fire me, because then, however roundabout, they’d be firing me for being transsexual. Nor can they use fear of that for reason not to hire me, for the same reason.

Yet it’s completely true. No amount of denial will change that, and no amount of good feelings would change my I.T. company in Mississippi going under because I worked as a female. All the liberal protestations that “gender identity shouldn’t matter” won’t make it not matter. It will matter. It does matter. And we can work on that, sure, but we can’t outlaw it, not as we’ve done, because that closes off honest communication. That conservative woman to whom it matters is as right as the liberal man to whom it doesn’t. Now, though, that woman simply can’t discuss it, and we can’t talk to her. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell reigns. She must grit her teeth and act with secret motives to avoid lawsuits and government bludgeoning. If she doesn’t want to work with a transsexual person, she has to keep that to herself, and fire them over something else. The issue goes unaddressed, and she continues unreached and unpersuaded.

“Thank you, sir.”

The reality is simply that it matters to some people, whether it matters to the potential employers or not, and we all know that. A client needs to give no reason for firing a vendor. They simply stop calling, and start calling someone else.

“Thank you, sir.”

But I can’t mention it, can I? At most I can inform them that I prefer to be referred to as a female. No further explanation, no consideration of their wants and needs, and no recognition of the fact that, you know, I share this planet with seven billion other people, many of whom disagree with me about various things. We have to deny the existence of those people. We have to deny reality itself, and behave as though x is true when we know very well that x is false.

So what did I do?

I laid it out in an email that friends criticised as being overly long. But they don’t understand. This is a matter that I live. It’s tertiary to them; they’re spectators. I live and breathe it, and I know it’s a sensitive and delicate issue, not to mention that bringing it up at all places everyone involved into a minefield where the slightest misstep, as far as they knew, was a legal explosion.

And even despite my lengthy email (it wasn’t really that long–three paragraphs, which I consider damned good for an issue of this complexity and sensitivity), they asked for clarification on a few things.

Because I expressed a willingness to work as a male. Though I don’t like it, I recognize that it may be the path of least resistance for them, and that’s a fair compromise, I think. Maybe they could still employ me post-transition, and maybe they couldn’t; we could cross that bridge later. But I recognize that being a non-passable female could create problems for them, and could harm their business. It’s WRONG to demand them unilaterally take that risk.

But they can’t even admit that it could create problems. Whether it would or wouldn’t, they can’t admit it, nor can they openly factor it into the decision of whether to hire me. Would it be a factor? Who can say? Rest assured, it wouldn’t be their personal issue with transsexualism, but their recognition that clients may have an issue with it. Therefore, hiring me would not be good for their company, because it wouldn’t be good for their client relationships, because their clients may have problems with it.

Nothing can be done about that, because they aren’t allowed to say, “Okay, yes, we think it’s prudent that you work as a male for the time being.”

They aren’t allowed to say that.

I’d rather work as a female, but I’m aware that stepping stones are a thing, and we must sometimes be uncomfortable today to secure comfort tomorrow. It’s why I’m a capitalist. That notion of investing in the future–it’s exactly the same here. Working as a male for a strong, vibrant, well-paying, successful firm in New Hampshire is an investment in my future, and one that I don’t mind making, although I’d rather avoid it. Working as a male for six months there while I save up the money for vocal and cosmetic surgery is a small price to pay considering the rewards–a much better job, a much better area, freedom to be me…

But I can’t make the decision. Government and liberals have made the decision for me. I’ll work as a female, because they can’t tell me otherwise. The only way I could make a choice at all would be if I chose to work as a male. I can’t choose to work as a female now; working as a female now would be a product of government coercion, not my personal choices. And yet, without them being able to admit even the existence of potential problems, contacting them and telling them to consider me a male by another name would be construed as flaky, uncertain, and unstable; it would be far more damaging to my employment prospects than anything else.

“Thank you, sir.”

When they replied, it predictably contained mention of Equal Opportunity Employment, and the assurance that being transgender (I went with transgender because, generally, it’s more palatable) would not factor into their decision. Upon reading it, inwardly I sighed. I know enough to know that my email was very clear in those regards, but the gauntlet was tossed back to me: “Are you saying you wish to delay the interviewing process until you’re finished transitioning?”


Thank you, sir.

No, and they knew I wasn’t saying that. And I know they knew I wasn’t saying that, and they know I know that they knew I wasn’t saying that. They were more cleverly saying that they’d have nothing to do with it, that they would under no circumstances say “Don’t transition yet, then, if you feel it could create problems.” Instead they were saying, “We have no comment.”

Because they’re not allowed to comment, regardless of the reality in New Hampshire. Is it as big a deal there as it is here? I don’t know. If it is, they can’t admit it, and we can’t address that problem together. They airlifted themselves right out of that minefield, but the mines remain there. If it could be a potential issue for clients, that’s something that, at most, they’d have to discuss among themselves in secret, or keep to themselves entirely.

Instead of working through the problem together, if there is a problem, then they’ll simply not hire me, and will give any number of other reasons for that. Because they aren’t allowed to state the reason, if that’s the case, and so we can’t compromise to deal with it.

It’s not “Thank you, sir.”

It’s “Thank you, liberals,” said with a deep-seated, resentful anger for creating an environment where potential pitfalls and issues can’t be discussed openly and honestly.


Rantings & Ravings Reboot Ep 01

As I explained in the intro, now that the iron appears to be having an effect and my anemia is lessening, I plan to be more active–it also helps that I’ve just forced myself to proceed anyway, of course–and that means a return to podcasting. I’ve been planning to reboot Rantings & Ravings for a while, and this is episode 1: “Ryancare & Russians.”

Note: I’m certainly not doing anymore podcasts in this voice. I sound so angry. This is actually due to the fact that I edited out most of the pauses; you can tell from some of the less edited podcasts that, when recording, I tend to talk about like Obama, with a pause following every 3 or 4 words. That fits with the inflections better, but removing the silences makes it sound… like a continuous raving rant. That’s actually not intentional.

In this episode, we discuss the GOP’s attempts to modify the Affordable Care Act, and the effects we can expect that to have. Spoiler: it will really piss off the GOP’s voter base. They already have trust issues so severe that they rejected the establishment and elected Donald Trump. With him betraying them, as I predicted in this video:

… and with Paul Ryan–who already drew their ire by siding against Trump–working to further undermine their implicit desires, the 2018 midterm elections will be The Reckoning for Republicans. It will be a bloodbath that pours Democrats into office, a trend that will continue with a sure Democrat victory for the White House in 2020.

The Stupid Comment of the Week is quite possibly the most stupid thing that anyone has ever said to me, no joke. It’s seriously that stupid. The Anarchist Shemale will not be held responsible for drivers whose heads explode when they hear the stupidity and thereby have an accident. It is advised to not listen to this segment while driving.

Furthermore, Trump, Russians, and hysteria are discussed, since that’s always in the news, and we consider the implications of the Clown Sightings that people seem to have forgotten about, as well as what it might mean that the FBI isn’t looking into it. Schools were actually locked down because of alleged clown sightings, but the FBI hasn’t bothered to check it out? There’s something certainly odd about that, and the parallels between clowns and Russians are too much to ignore, so we speculate the possibility that–seriously–the entire clown sightings thing was a Psy-Ops campaign by intelligence agencies to study the effects and spread of hysteria.

We also discuss the absolutely absurd assertion that the Russians are competent enough to “hack the election” of the world’s foremost superpower and the most technologically advanced nation in human history, but are simultaneously too incompetent to click four things to change their Date & Time and keyboard settings.

Finally, there is an overview of Reductive Reasoning and how it applies to the boy/girl dichotomy, the nature of definitions, and abortion. Each week in this segment, I’ll be picking an issue and applying Reductive Reasoning to it. This week wasn’t meant to dive fully into gender or abortion, but sought to use them as examples to explain the concept.

Thanks for listening, and I hope you enjoy the reboot. 😀

The One About the CIA

For years, libertarians have been warning of the dangers posed by spy agencies and government secrets, the dangers of a powerful central government, and the threat posed by the destruction of checks and balances. When the news peddled the story that the U.S. intelligence agencies–freaking seventeen of them–concurred that Russians were behind the DNC Leaks, libertarians cautiously requested evidence.

This is, of course, the same CIA that notoriously met with Obama Bin Laden while he was hospitalized, the same CIA that has initiated coups and revolutions throughout the world, the same CIA that lied about Iraq, the same CIA that headed Project MK-ULTRA, the same CIA that planned Operation Norwood, and the same CIA that gave syphilis to black Americans in the south. The same CIA that told us to expect this sort of thing in Afghanistan:

Caution: may not be remotely representative of reality.

These people cannot be trusted. It is a documented fact that they have not merely kidnapped, tortured, and experimented on innocent American citizens, but they have also lied to the President, to Congress, and to the American people. They lied about the NSA, lied about torture, lied about surveillance, lied about Iraq.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. They’re spies. No matter how we whitewash it, assuming false identities, using deception, and infiltrating are all lies. This is an agency filled with people who have literally been trained to lie however much is necessary to accomplish their objective. It’s what they do. They lie.

We can have a discussion about whether or not it’s actually necessary to have a spy agency. I don’t think it is. Even if we kept the state in a libertarian society, we wouldn’t need a spy agency, because we wouldn’t be making enemies of everyone. I don’t need to spy on my next door neighbor, after all. And why don’t I? Because I’m not enemies with him and I’m not antagonizing him. He’s simply a neighbor. Neither does he have any reason to spy on me. This same logic applies to nations, too. Just as my neighbor wouldn’t attack me while motivated by jealousy, requiring me to spy on him to prevent it, neither would other nations, and the idea that they would stems from the proven false idea that other people are jealous of our “freedoms.”

But if we’re going to have a group of people whose only job is to lie to accomplish their goals, then it’s supremely important that they be under constant oversight. We can’t trust them when they tell us something, because they lie. They’ve already developed a history of lying to Congress and the American People, but even without that long history of deception it would be stupid, reckless, and naive to assume that we were the only people these trained liars weren’t lying to.

They’re trained to tell whatever lie is necessary to accomplish their objective. What is their objective? On paper, it’s the protection of the American People. In practice, however, we can see from just two examples that this is not their objective. Project MK-ULTRA (which, yes, actually happened) and Operation Norwood leave it indisputable that they are willing to torture and kill American citizens in pursuit of their objective. It goes without saying that if my plan doesn’t preclude the possibility of killing you, then my objective clearly isn’t to protect you.

Operation Norwood was a planned false flag attack where CIA agents were going to carry out attacks in Miami against the American People and blame them on Cuba, in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Once again, it’s obvious that their objective wasn’t to protect the American People; their objective was to justify a war with Cuba, and they were willing to kill Americans to do it. Thankfully, Kennedy rejected the plan, but that doesn’t change the reality that clearly the CIA’s objective can’t be to protect Americans.

Some people would make a “for the greater good” argument here, but it’s easily dealt with. Even if this was the case, killing some Americans to justify a war wherein more Americans die in order to more firmly entrench America’s place at the top of the world isn’t “protecting Americans.” It’s sacrificing some Americans to justify a war where more Americans are sacrificed to secure the superior position of some Americans. While I sincerely doubt anyone would support such a sick idea, at best it means that the CIA’s objective is to kill some Americans to help other Americans.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think we need a government to be doing that sort of thing.

Who is sacrificed? The poor. The lower and middle class, of course. And that’s just from the false flag attacks themselves. Once the war is under way and Cuban missiles hit American shores and American soldiers die invading Cuba, who eats the losses? Again, the poor and middle class. Who benefits from these sacrifices?

The politicians who get to grab more power through more Patriot Acts. The CIA who gets more power and secrecy, and the literal power over life and death. Upper class munitions makers and CEOs who make money from war. War, after all, is a racket.

Is that the CIA’s objective? To sacrifice the American poor and middle class in the name of war and American hegemony that enriches the ruling class?

Um… Yeah, pretty much.

If the CIA’s objective was to protect American citizens, then they’d do that. Things like Project MK-ULTRA would never even be considered, much less executed. They would never lie to the body of citizens allegedly sworn to hold the CIA accountable. But they do lie to Congress. In fact, evidence suggests that Congress doesn’t know much more about what the CIA is up to than we do.

So who is in charge? Who is holding the CIA’s feet to the fire and ensuring that their mission statement of protecting the American People doesn’t twist into “protect some people at the expense of others”?

No one.

No one is holding the CIA accountable. This is America! And we have an unaccountable spy agency with a history of lying to us and it’s overseers while it operates in nearly total secrecy. And its own history shows that it considers it perfectly okay to torture and kill some Americans in pursuit of its objective. An extremely powerful group of professional liars who operate with very little oversight and have gotten away with kidnapping, torture, murder, and conspiracy to commit terrorism. That’s not hyperbole. That’s an examination of the facts.

The CIA must be abolished.

There’s No Such Thing As the Popular Vote

It certainly hasn’t been a smooth ride, but it looks like the people–specifically, Democrats–are going to have to move out of the Bargaining Stage, since there are no bargains left to be made. I want to also credit them for mostly skipping over denial, because there weren’t very many people who really took the #NotMyPresident crap earnestly. I suspect that Denial is always the shortest stage of grief, at least when it comes to politics and elections, because people woke up on November 9th and there wasn’t really any way to live in denial. Denial requires people to enable it, and no one was willing to do that. Of course, we could make the argument–and I would make the argument–that anger and bargaining are both encapsulated by “Denial,” so the Denial Stage is actually three parts: abject denial, anger, bargaining. I would also contend that “depression” is part of the acceptance phase, but none of that is really important; it just occurred to me that anger and bargaining are part of denial–last ditch efforts to escape the consequences, to deny the outcome.

So the Electoral College voted and, to the surprise of no one with a brain and experience in politics and the ability to look at the issue rationally, Trump has been named the next President of the United States. That’s pretty much it for the denial, though, isn’t it? There are no tricks left up the denier’s sleeve, no cards left to be played, and no more opportunities to overturn the results of the fifty state elections. Jill Stein’s recounts were a total bust, only verifying the outcome in the one state that actually had a recount, and all of the anti-Russian propaganda has amounted to nothing.

It’s fascinating that so much attention was paid not just on the Electoral College but on the people themselves. One day Democrats argue that the Electoral College should be abolished, that it isn’t democratic, and that it’s not right. Then the next they’re lining up and begging the Electoral College to curtail the will of the people they represent. All of this confusion comes from the misunderstanding Democrats have, not realizing that we are fifty individual republics and there is no national popular vote; there are fifty elections on Election Day–one in each state–and the outcome of those elections determine who those states give their votes to. The people of Mississippi didn’t vote for the President. The State of Mississippi did, and the People of Mississippi simply told the state who to give its votes to.

Not as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics has so much focus been put on the Electoral College, not even in 2000. Both articles I’ve seen on the subject tonight express a sort of disappointment, saying things like “Trump clears the final hurdle…” and “Trump completes the final lap…” as though there was ever any doubt. The election is over, and it has been over since 2:00 AM on November 9th. Everything that has happened since in the mainstream media–all of the anti-Trump stuff anyway–has been a form of denial, up to and including the absolutely preposterous notion that there was ever any chance at all that the Electoral College might fail to install Trump.

This is the first time in my life that I’ve even bothered to look at what the Electors’ results were; even though I fully expected them to be what they were–though I didn’t expect any Republicans to defect*–but that really speaks to how sensationalized and extravagant the media and Democrats have been, that even though I knew beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the electors would elect Trump, I still went to see the results. I can only imagine how people less grounded in reality–like the Democrats who have accepted the swill that Trump is a tool of Putin–feel right now, their hopes again dashed on the rocks.

But none of this is really what I want to talk about. I want to talk about this fully insane article from the Washington Post.


Donald Trump clinched the presidency Monday as members of the electoral college cast ballots declaring him the victor, a perfunctory conclusion to the most stunning presidential contest in modern history.

Trump became the winner Monday afternoon after electors from Texas cast ballots and put him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Results will be officially announced Jan. 6 in a special joint session of Congress.

While Democrat Hillary Clinton amassed a nearly 3 million-vote lead in the popular vote, Trump won the state-by-state electoral map, making him president-elect. That political dichotomy sparked special scrutiny and intense lobbying of electors by Trump’s opponents in recent weeks, including mass protests. It also drew outsize attention to the usually overlooked, constitutionally obligated gatherings of 538 electors in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Sorry, but I do have to call you out on this. See, Washington Post, I went to your article from the Electoral College votes in 2012, and… Oh. You don’t have such an article. You didn’t write an article when the electors voted in 2008 or 2012, because the process is pretty automatic, isn’t it? It’s a formality.

Anyway, the reason I bolded that part is that it’s kinda sore-loser-ish, isn’t it? First of all, stop saying “the popular vote.” There is not, and never has been, any such thing as “the popular vote.” When you speak of this, you are cultivating and spreading a myth and a lie. Hillary Clinton absolutely does not “lead in the popular vote” because there is no “the popular vote.” There were fifty popular votes. By a large margin, Donald Trump won most of the popular votes. Popular votes. As in–plural. Because there is no “the.”

The mostly symbolic calls for an electoral college rejection of Trump grew after revelations of a CIA assessment that Russian hacking could have boosted his campaign, which in the view of many Trump critics raised doubts about his legitimacy.

You just can’t help it, can you? I compared this to your article from where Obama defeated Romney in 2012. For it to be fair, you would have had to have mentioned the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya, because I’ve figured it out, Washington Post and Democrats. This whole “Trump is a Russian puppet!” thing–it’s just your Birther Movement. Don’t pretend like it’s more than that, or that it’s more dignified than that. This is you demanding to see Trump’s long-form birth certificate. However, you didn’t mention the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya in your article celebrating Obama’s victory.

And why did you say Obama won? Well, obviously, for very positive reasons. Let’s take a look at your language:

  • “reassembling the political coalition that boosted…”
  • “remaking himself from a hopeful uniter into a fighter…”
  • “scored a decisive victory…”
  • “capped a night of gains…”
  • “run as a symbol of limitless hope…”
  • “Obama’s promises had won…”
  • “had promised to fight the hardest…”

Wow! One might say you had your lips to his ass so fully that you were tonguing his large intestine.

For curiosity’s sake, let’s compare that to your language about Trump’s victory on November 9.

  • “Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first female president…” [C’mon. Seriously?]
  • “Trump, a 70-year-old celebrity businessman who had never before run for office, is poised to become the oldest president ever elected to a first term. ” [Just had to take that whole sentence.] [Age Discrimination–you liberals aren’t fans of that, right?]
  • “After running a divisive campaign…”
  • “With Trump’s ascension to the White House, the nationalist wave that has swept capitals around the world — including in Britain, which voted to break from the European Union this year — came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Again, just… wow.] [“Came crashing” is obviously heavily loaded language]

In fact, I’m going to stop here a moment to reflect on the horrifically biased language, because word choice is exceedingly important–it’s what gives away the bias. Hillary, you see, was on a quest. Quick, what do you think of when you hear the word “quest?” Unless you’re a World of Warcraft player, you think of an honorable, just mission undertaken to do something good and righteous. Trump is a “celebrity businessman.” Quite a contrast to Hillary’s quest.

Obama “capped a night of gains.” Powerful, positive language. Trump “came crashing onto U.S. shores.”

The primary reason I care isn’t that I like Trump. I don’t. I care because lots and lots of people don’t see the bias, and generally believe the Washington Post is neutral. You can’t claim neutrality while using language like “run as a symbol of limitless hope” for a Democrat, language like “quest to become the first female President” for a democrat, and stacking it against “built his campaign around the single contention…” [Romney] and “came crashing onto U.S. shores.” [Trump]

Moving on.

Trump has dismissed the intelligence community’s analysis of Russia’s role in the election and has boasted, including on Monday, of a “historic” electoral landslide. But his 305-to-232 win over Clinton ranks just 46th out of 58 electoral college margins.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. The intelligence community’s analysis? There has been no such analysis.

You mean this one?

I realize you guys are the experts at this, but isn’t this, you know… bullshit?

His detractors called on electors to buck the president-elect in favor of Clinton — or Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, or another Republican such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Yes, and you denialists enabled that delusion by pandering to those detractors and giving the false hope that there was ever any chance in hell that this was a possibility. I don’t mean to say that it was a “one in a million” chance or that it was “really long odds.” There was no chance; there were no odds. It was an impossibility, and you guys knew it. You knew most of these states have laws in place preventing it, and that most of the electors would be replaced if they wouldn’t vote for the person they were supposed to.

But not even once did any mainstream media outlet mention that little detail. I read the news everyday, and a lot of those are liberal outlets, and I never once saw any of these liberal sites mention the fact that most of these electors have alternates standing by and ready to go if the first elector doesn’t vote for the person they’re supposed to vote for. That’s a pretty big detail, but I never saw it mentioned. If it was mentioned, it certainly wasn’t stated nearly enough, and why not? Because that little fact nips the whole delusion in the bud and renders it absolutely impossible.

Across the country, critics of the president-elect braved cold temperatures and rallied outside state capitol buildings in hopes that electors might act as an emergency brake on Trump.

More examples in shockingly biased language. “Braved cold temperatures… rallied outside… hopes that electors… act as an emergency brake…”

And how does it convey the message about Republicans immediately after that sentence?

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, a few hundred shell-shocked Democrats protested in Harrisburg while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protesters booed and shouted “Shame on you” as the state’s six electors cast votes for Trump in a capitol building conference room in Salt Lake City.

  • “shell-shocked Democrats…”
  • “booed and shouted…”
  • “‘Shame on you'”

I know what you’re thinking. “They’re just reporting what happened!” Yes, and that’s the problem–the language with which they are reporting it is extremely biased. Allow me to rewrite this <sigh> two sentence “paragraph” without all the loaded language:

In Pennsylvania, which voted for a Republican president for the first time since 1988, Democrat detractors continued protesting while all 20 electors backed Trump. In Utah, protestors jeered as the state’s electors cast their votes from Trump.

See? That is just reporting what happened. I’m not a big fan of “jeered,” to be honest, and if I was a journalist I would spend the time to look for a more neutral word, as “jeered” sounds negative to me. Why is that? The use of “jeered” paints the protestors as snarling, grimacing, unhappy people–which, by all accounts, is exactly right. “…booed” and “shouted” have the same effect, of course, unless you agree with those people, in which case it doesn’t sound so negative.

Ooh! I especially love this:

In Florida, a crucial swing state where Trump defeated Clinton by about a percentage point, Trump won all 29 electoral votes.

I’ll fill that out for you. I’ll fill you in on what the Washington Post actually meant.

In Florida, Trump defeated Clinton by one measly percentage point. One freaking point. But even though he won by only a single point, Trump gets all 29 electoral votes, which is bullshit and unfair. At the very least, Clinton should have gotten 14 of them. Fuck you, white America, you racist, misogynistic pieces of sh–

Okay, maybe not that last part.

What’s the point of even bringing up this info about Trump’s victory in Florida, the margin of his victory, and the distribution of electoral votes? Specifically to make you think what I said. Really, I mean that–they said that, and they put it the way they put it, precisely to make you think what I just said. It’s called manipulation, and there is a reason they spend billions upon billions of dollars each year learning the best ways to manipulate public opinion. Look how subtle it is!

They don’t have to state it. They just have to tell you the facts in the right way.

Again, I can hear you. “But that’s all they did! They just stated the facts!”

But they didn’t. Here. I’ll state the facts.

Due to his narrow victory in Florida, Trump claims its 29 electoral votes.

See? That is what the facts look like. The other stuff–that’s called “slant.”

And they are good at it. Man, are they good at it. It’s all about context, phrasing, and word choice–calling attention to the right facts at the right time and using the right words to convey it.

Some held signs, including one that read, “Resist Putin’s Puppet.”

Pictured: signs with EXACTLY as much truth, credibility, and decency as the sign that called Trump Putin’s puppet.

I mean, if you’re going to hold up a stupid sign, you might as well go all the way, and hold up the most stupid sign you can find, right? “Resist Putin’s Puppet,” are you freaking kidding me? It’s no surprise this idiot was out protesting the electors and evidently believing that there was even a remote chance that the electors wouldn’t elect Trump: clearly, this person is woefully out of touch with reality.

It’s probably because he gets his news from the Washington Post.

* On that note, congratulations Ron Paul, on securing an electoral college vote!

Fellow LGBTQ: It’s Time to Divorce the Democrats

If you’re LGBTQ, I want you to take an hour or two to sit down and read this, consider it carefully, and then proceed. I want you to forget for a moment everything that you’ve been told by Democrats; I want you to come at this with a fresh perspective and an open mind, because I am watching–I am watching, my fellow LGBTQ people–as you are abused, used, and manipulated by the Democratic Party, and it breaks my heart. You are human beings, and you are not being treated as human beings. You are being treated as resources, as votes, and not much else. You, the proud LGBTQ community who stood and fought for your rights, found solace in a Democratic Party that offered you acceptance, only to pull a bait and switch; what they offered, it has turned out, was not acceptance but compliance.

We have much to thank the Democratic Party for. It was, after all, the Republicans who fought so hard against us, and the Democratic Party took us in at a time when we needed allies most. However, it has become painfully clear that they did not take us in out of any care or compassion for us; they took us in solely because they were building a political coalition to take on their chosen scapegoat, and so they needed us and our support. It was almost a quid pro quo–we used them and they used us–but it was never truly egalitarianism or equality that they sought.

Our goal is, and must be, to create a world where gender identity and sexual orientation do not matter. I believe that this is a goal we can all agree on, that we should move toward a world where transgender people are accepted as people, where homosexuals are accepted as people, where lesbians are accepted as people, and where, regardless of a person’s gender and sexual inclinations, they are accepted as people. The left has deceived us by pretending that they wanted this, too, but it has become clear that they didn’t.

The Democratic Party wants a world where sexual orientation matters, because if sexual orientation does not matter, then there is no longer an LGBTQ community that is part of their coalition. Egalitarianism would destroy the modern Democratic Party. It needs it to matter that a person is gay, that a person is black, that a person is Muslim, because it has built a coalition from these people. If suddenly these characteristics cease being places at which lines are drawn, then their coalition literally falls apart. They want you to be a pariah and, even if you’re not, they’re going to consistently tell you that you are.

transI am a transgender polyamorous lesbian.

I’m as LGBTQ as a person can get. I fight my battles alone here in the state of Mississippi, though, generally with nothing but disdain heaped upon me by liberal elements within the LGBTQ community, because I do not toe the party line. Because I will not sign on with the Democratic Party, I am a pariah. I have been attacked by supposed allies of the LGBTQ community, all because I’m not a Democrat. I’m not exaggerating; it has happened repeatedly. Their alliance with LGBTQ people is not built upon their compassion and acceptance of LGBTQ people; it is built upon our willingness to ascribe to their ideology, and the moment we don’t do that, they turn against us with all the fury that they otherwise direct at straight white Christian men.

“Allies” they call themselves, and that’s true, but only in the sense of “political allies.” Their alliance with you is not derived from their desire for egalitarianism and equality, but their realization that you side with them politically, and the very moment you don’t do that, the kangaroo will turn and hang the jury with the innocent. This is all the evidence we need that they don’t care about us. They care about our votes. They care about our obedience to their political ideology.

Someone who truly cares about you won’t turn their back on you the very moment you step out of their political line.

Behold: the response of "Allies" when you aren't a Democrat.

Behold: the response of “Allies” when you aren’t a Democrat.

It’s a horrific group-based mob mentality. “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us.” It’s not “being LGBTQ” that they care about–clearly. Just look at those comments. How dare I disagree with a liberal! All because I dared speak up and speak my mind and not be a liberal, they turned on me viciously, highlighting in the process exactly how they view the world: Us and Them. Once I spoke out against a liberal, I was no longer LGBTQ–I was one of Them. I was an enemy. I, an LGBTQ person, was no longer LGBTQ to these Allies of the LGBTQ community.

And why?

Because I didn’t toe the party line.

It’s inescapably clear that their concern for you is not built on the fact that you’re LGBTQ, but on the fact that you’ll side with them politically. I think I’ve made this case clearly–we have only to read above and see exactly what happened.

Consider Milo at Breitbart, as well. He’s a Republican, and widely despised by these same “allies” of the LGBTQ community, all because he dares disagree politically. It’s right in our faces. “Toe the party line, go along with what we say, bow to us, and we’ll ‘accept’ you. Challenge us, show any dissent, and we’ll turn and hang you with them.”

In order to keep you siding with them politically, they will lie. Oh, good God, they will lie, manipulate, and fearmonger.

transI am a strict advocate of non-violence, but I swear I would probably beat the hell out of Donovan Paisley for this. So he terrorized a “friend” of his by telling her that she would be captured and imprisoned, until she broke down and cried. He did this to force her to bow to his anti-Trump, Democratic hysteria. He doesn’t give a shit about her. How could he care about her? You don’t terrorize your friends. You can warn your friends, sure, but what he’s saying here isn’t a warning; it’s hysterical terrorism with absolutely no basis in reality.

Trump has said several times that he thinks transgender people should use whatever bathroom they want. The leader of the Republican Party is on record saying that he doesn’t really care about the transgender issue, that he doesn’t care what bathroom people use. I am no Trump supporter, but I do advocate truth, and the undeniable truth is that Trump is on record advocating transgender rights. Full stop: Trump is on record advocating transgender rights. He even said this during the Republican Primary, when he was in Full Conservative mode. This is a man who poses you no danger whatsoever.

Donald Trump is on record saying that he is fine with same sex marriage. These statements are not hard to find. Donald Trump has never said or suggested or implied anything that indicated he is ever going to do anything that would harm the LGBTQ community. In fact, Donald Trump has gone on record vowing to protect the LGBTQ community.

Compare these undeniable facts with the fearmongering that your “allies” are using on you.

Your “Allies” are telling you that you’ll be electrocuted and tortured in conversion therapy against your will. Your “allies” are telling you that you’ll be caught and sent to death camps. Your “allies” are telling you that you will be captured and imprisoned. Your allies are doing everything they can to terrorize you, when the facts–when the actual, verifiable facts–point in exactly the opposite direction: Donald Trump has long been an ally of the LGBTQ community. For fuck’s sake, Hillary Clinton opposed same sex marriage as recently as 2013, while Trump has been an actual ally since the 90s.

I don’t know how much plainer I can make it, fellow LGBTQ people. First, I’m generally not considered one of you at all, and why? Because I’m a libertarian, not a liberal. Simply for being a libertarian rather than a liberal, “Allies” of the LGBTQ community have turned and attacked me viciously–and not just me, but every outspoken LGBTQ person who dares to not be a Democrat. Your allies are doing everything they can to convince you to be afraid, to terrorize you into submission, to make you cower and weep in fear. It’s so pervasive that these same people consider me an enemy of the LGBTQ community! I am LGBTQ!

They don’t accept you because you’re LGBTQ. They accept you because you vote Democrat. And they will pull out every trick in the book from deceit to manipulation to terrorism to keep you voting Democrat. They don’t care about you. They care about forcing you to bow to their political ideology.

Trust Me. Please.

I can show you to a group of people who genuinely don’t care about your political ideology or your sexual orientation. I can show you to a group of people who care about you not because you vote for their political party, not because you’re gay, not because you’re a minority, but because you are an individual and a human being. I can show you to people who will respect you regardless of what you say, who will stand up for you and your rights regardless of where you fall on the political spectra, who will stand up for you and your rights regardless of the clothes you wear, how you do your hair, or what you do with your genitals.

No, they are not Republicans. I would not ever send you to Republicans. Conservatives have certainly gotten a lot better in recent decades, but abandoning one political party to sign up to another won’t help–you’ll just become a tool to be manipulated and used by them, as well.

But first you must divorce yourselves from the Democratic Party. They do not care about you, and they do not accept you. Their care and their acceptance of you depends wholly on your willingness to vote for their political ideology. And when they need to, they will throw you under the bus in a heartbeat to further their political ends.

transIt’s time to stand up. It’s time to end this abusive relationship.

I should point out that it’s entirely possible Donovan’s post was satire, in which case I’d owe him an apology–but not the Democrats. Because though his is the only one I saved, I’ve seen countless sincere ones exactly like this. Poe’s Law should never apply to something like this.

M16 is Still Here, and Deserves the Libertarian Vote

Call it a failure to stay on top of things if you’d like, but one way or another I had no idea that McAfee was still remotely interested in the 2016 presidential race; I wasn’t aware that he was willing to “fracture the party” as so many people accuse Darryl Perry of doing. The truth, though, is that McAfee isn’t fracturing anything, and neither is Perry; there was never any chance that I was going to vote for Gary Johnson, and I’ve been clear from the start that I’ve intended to write in John McAfee even though Gary Johnson won the nomination. My loyalty is to liberty, not to the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

These two should be aligned. My loyalty to liberty should mean that I am loyal to the Libertarian Party and its presidential candidate. However, that is not the case this year, as Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are running a campaign that is contrary to the principles of liberty and, in many cases, to the actual party platform.

I’m an anarcho-capitalist, so why don’t I support Darryl Perry? That’s just it: Darryl Perry is an anarcho-capitalist. We are talking about the Libertarian Party, not the Anarcho-Capitalist Party. Obviously, there is no AnCap Party–there can never be one–and the party to which we AnCaps most closely align is the Libertarian Party. I’ve often had people accuse me of wanting the LP to become the AnCap Party, but that isn’t the case; I want the Libertarian Party to nominate libertarians, not anarcho-capitalists.

In the long-run, of course, it is my position that libertarianism would lead to anarcho-capitalism, just as classical liberalism led to libertarianism. If we don’t include the rise of Fascism in the 20th century, that would be the case, anyway, but that’s really just a stern warning that we must always stay on guard against regressing back toward authoritarianism and losing the right to self-governance. We did used to be a society of classical liberals. Now we’re a society of fascists. I’ll substantiate that claim some other time, but if you’re reading this about why you should vote for John McAfee, then chances are you already know what I mean.

There’s some confusion about what distinguishes a minarchist from a libertarian. Quite a bit, actually, as minarchists and libertarians address totally different things. A lot of people think they’re synonyms; they’re not. A minarchist believes in a minimal state–one that provides for hospitals, schools, roads, or other similar things. There’s some debate among minarchists about what the state should provide, but it’s not important for our conversation. One way or another, the minarchist position is that some degree of state is necessary in order to provide for some services.

The Libertarian position, however, is that the role of the state should be to protect liberty. That’s it. That’s where the role of the state begins and ends to the libertarian. “Taxation is theft,” says the libertarian, while taxation is the only viable way of paying for the roads, hospitals, and schools that the minarchists want. So right there, we find a critical distinction between them.

An anarchist is someone who holds that the state is fundamentally and constitutionally incapable of protecting liberty and that it’s very existence is, in fact, an assault on liberty. This is the position that I hold. However, I know enough about human nature and power vacuums to know that abolishing the state today would do absolutely no good; before the end of the year, we would have simply produced a new state that rose in the vacuum. The goal of classical liberalism was to put 51% of the power back into the hands of the people. The goal of minarchism is to put 75% of the power back into the hands of the people. The goal of libertarianism is to put 99% of the power back into the hands of the people. The goal of anarchism is to put 100% of the power back into the hands of the people. To go from the 49% we have today under an unaccountable fascist government where we are tyrannized by a thousand bureuacratic despots to 100% would be an unmitigated disaster; the vacuum of power would be filled by the power-hungry, violent, and bloodthirsty, and it would immediately produce another state.

That’s my favorite thing to point out to people. What is the worst thing that could happen if we gave anarchy a chance? The absolute worst that could happen… is that we’d simply create another state. :/

Anyway, all that said, Darryl Perry is an Anarcho-Capitalist. I don’t know enough about his official platform, but I imagine that ideologically he is almost identical to John McAfee and to myself; the difference is that he’s an AnCap who is willing to become President and institute libertarian policy. Obviously, you can’t “institute” ancap policy. I don’t have a problem with this. I’m an anarcho-capitalist and I intend to vote, after all. It’s all about seeing the big picture and doing something in the short-term today that will pave the way for the future.

But that’s an excuse, really. Going from his positions, John McAfee could very well be an anarcho-capitalist himself.


The truth is that John McAfee has my support because he’s the first candidate who I’ve ever heard speak with whom I agreed 100%.

Voting for John McAfee is like voting for myself.

Perry wasn’t in the Stossel Debate. Maybe if he had been, I would have been torn between him and John McAfee, but, honestly, it seems that it would have been redundant for Perry to have been in the debate too. When you have two actual libertarians talking, both of whom actually understand the NAP and abide it, you’re not going to get much argument between them. You’ll hear me squee in those podcasts as the awesomeness that is John McAfee washed over and converted me.

Let’s not forget–I went into the debate as a Gary Johnson supporter. Just moments before the debate, I tweeted that it was pointless; they’re libertarians, so what could they possibly disagree about? Minutes into the debate, Johnson had revealed how horribly un-libertarian he is, and Petersen was rejected from the outset for actively speaking out against the NAP. Meanwhile, there was John McAfee, saying exactly what you’d expect a libertarian to say, sticking to the principles of liberty, and advocating the NAP.

People like saying that “no libertarian is libertarian enough for an AnCap.”

Bullshit. John McAfee is.

I don’t demand that libertarians be anarcho-capitalists. I demand that they be libertarians.

I don’t demand that the Libertarian Party nominate anarcho-capitalists. I demand that they nominate libertarians.

I don’t demand that the Libertarian Party become the anarcho-capitalist party. I demand that they be the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party has failed us horrifically by giving us a candidate who doesn’t seem to have ever read anything about libertarian philosophy, a candidate who “Thinks everyone should have liberty, as long as they don’t want to do something that I really, really dislike,” and a candidate who breaks from the NAP in a number of places. To add insult to injury, they also gave us Bill Weld, after Gary Johnson called him “the original Libertarian.”

Lots of people have fallen for the trap. Yes, it’s a trap.

They say that we hare hurting the “liberty movement” by standing by the principles of liberty. No, seriously–they actually say that. I’ve had countless people tell me that I’m hurting the movement because I dare to stand by the principles that founded the movement, that are the movement. One person accused us of “sabotaging” the liberty movement.

I think these people could use a dictionary. Sabotage:

deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.

These people took the liberty movement, destroyed its principles–by their own admission–and twisted it into some liberty-leaning conservative “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” stuff that only resembles libertarianism in the way that, if you squint and turn your head and gouge out one of your eyes, I look kinda like Victoria Justice.

You've gotta squint really hard.

You’ve gotta squint really hard.

The principle of liberty is the NAP. Live and let live. A truce, as John McAfee and Judd Weiss rightly say. Liberty is tolerance; it is maximized tolerance. It is “I do not agree or support what you say and do, but as it does no harm to me or anyone else, I certainly will not stop you.”

Quote of the Day: “Gary Johnson looks like a libertarian in the same way that I look like Victoria Justice.”

This watering down of the principles, twisting them and distorting them, and sometimes outright discarding them is, by definition, sabotaging the movement.

Imagine if the Communist Party had an influx of Socialists, and the Socialists nominated a Socialist to be the presidential candidate of the Communist Party. Now imagine that the Communists in the party were ridiculed, mocked, and told that they were hurting the communist movement. Now imagine that the Communist Presidential candidate goes on television and tells people that his socialism is what “Communism is all about,” so masses upon masses upon masses of people come to believe that communism is socialism. Now imagine the sheer audacity, the arrogance, the stupidity, the deceit, the self-deceit… of having one of those socialists tell the communist, “No, you’re hurting the communist movement. This [Socialist] candidate is what the communist party is really about! We’re helping the movement! We’re growing the movement!”

No. You’re not.

You’re tainting the communist movement by twisting it into the socialist movement.

Worse yet, you’re actively destroying the communist movement by taking the name of their movement and using it as your own for your socialist movement, all the while refusing to admit that there’s an enormous, fundamental difference between the socialism you’re peddling and actual communism. Now the rest of the world is looking at those few communists who are actually communists and who actually advocate the communist movement and calling them “wackos,” “extremists” and “fringe lunatics,” because they are taking their cues from you. You have redefined “communism.” Whereas it once was a reflection of the communist movement, it has become a reflection of the socialist movement, and you’ve muddied the waters so much that no one even knows the difference, and those few who do know the difference are busy being attacked by you for daring to stand by the principles of the movement and for daring to try to stop you from destroying it.

You are not helping the liberty movement by turning it into some twisted “liberty-lite conservativist small government” movement that calls itself the “liberty movement.” You are, in fact, actively destroying the actual liberty movement. And you’re so convinced that you’re absolutely right, so convinced of your own self-righteous glory, and so convinced of your ultimate rightness that you are incapable of seeing that you are the reason it has become impossible to nominate an actual libertarian.

A: “We’re the x movement, and we’re built on y principle.”

B: “Yep, it’s great.”

A: “So let’s nominate someone who stands by y principle.”

B: “No. Let’s nominate someone who stands against y principle half the time, and who argues z principle the other half.”

A: “No, let’s not.”

C: “I agree with B.”

A: “But y is literally the principle of our movement.”

B: “We’re still the x movement, even if we don’t support y. Our nominee’s z positions are vaguely similar to y. Support our nominee. Stop trying to hurt the movement.”

A: “No. We’re x movement, and we stand with y principle.”

B: “You’re sabotaging the x movement.”

A: “The nominee doesn’t stand by the x movement’s principles!”

B: “Stop trying to sabotage the x movement.”

This is what has happened with the Libertarian Party. And we are the heretics.

I’d never even heard the word “purist” thrown at a libertarian until this election. Previously, I heard “not a libertarian” and “is a libertarian.” The idea that someone could be a libertarian without being… a libertarian… was nonsense. Maybe people were throwing it out in 2008, I don’t know; I was a bit young then. 2012 I wrote in Ron Paul anyway. I might have voted for Johnson, I don’t recall. It was a decision I struggled with. Loyalty is important to me. Once I pick a candidate, I pick a candidate.

Come to think of it, having an LNC nominate a candidate is somewhat counter to the party’s principles anyway. It’s not fully counter to it, but it doesn’t make sense. The Libertarian Party should handle its candidates exactly how it’s doing, except that an “official” nomination shouldn’t have been given to Johnson. We don’t do it that way with other offices–in fact, that’s been a problem in the past, with that Invictus clown who declared himself a libertarian. No LNC nominated him to be the party’s candidate. He simply said he was, and thus he was a libertarian candidate for that office.

Why do we change the rules when we’re discussing the Presidency?

The Libertarian Party just generally does strange stuff when it comes to the White House. Nominating a candidate at all is a great symbol of that. John McAfee is a Libertarian presidential candidate because he says he is. End of story, just like Invictus was a Libertarian representative candidate because he said he was.

That is something that needs to be addressed and fixed: the Libertarian Party’s insanity regarding the Oval Office. The party totally loses its mind when it starts looking at the White House, and I think that we even have an “official” candidate is the best example of that–if not that, then how about the fact that this “official” candidate stands counter to the party’s platform?

McAfee is a Libertarian Presidential candidate.

I hereby retract my endorsement of Darryl Perry, and instead endorse John McAfee. I apologize for the confusion, to all four people who give a shit.

I had no idea that McAfee was still interested in the 2016 race. This is probably my fault for not following him closely, but half of the stuff he shares–if not 90%–is regarding his I.T. firm, not politics, and many of his official candidate accounts have been quiet since the LNC stupidly gave the nomination to a guy who couldn’t possibly stand up to Trump and Hillary. Even after my endorsement, I made it clear that it was still a toss-up, and that I might still vote for McAfee. There’s no “might” to it now.

McAfee unequivocally has my support.

Nice Work, Millennials: Your Word is Garbage

If Facebook news feeds are to be believed–and they’re generally not–President Obama has done “something” that offers people with student loans three years of payment deferment, although the loan can also be forgiven entirely. I don’t know the details, and I’m not going to pretend to. Recently, I wrote about how students who attended ITT Tech were organizing a campaign to refuse to pay their student loans, because they claimed that their degrees were suddenly worthless and that this, presumably, was the fault of the loaner.

When I said that, I used this analogy:

Let’s say that you ask me to borrow $5,000 so that you can buy a used car. You agree to pay the money back at $200 a month for 30 months–paying quite a bit of interest, but it’s not important. We can omit the interest entirely and it won’t matter. I tell you that those are my terms, though. “I’ll loan you the money, but only if you pay me back $200 a month, starting next month, and continuing for thirty months.” You agree, and I give you the money.

Then it turns out that you bought a piece of shit. The transmission blows, the block is cracked from overheating, the vehicle was evidently wrecked–basically, you didn’t check the CarFax. The next month rolls around, and I don’t hear from you. I go by your house, and you finally open the door.

“What?” you demand irritably.

“Um… You agreed to start paying me back today,” I say. “So… Do you have my two hundred dollars?”

“Fuck you, I’m not paying you shit for this piece of shit car,” you reply. “It’s your fucking fault I have this piece of shit. You shouldn’t have loaned me that money that I used to buy it. Hell no, I’m not paying you back. Get off my porch.”

It’s pretty easy to see here who is in the wrong. In this example, you are in the wrong. What type of car you used the money to buy isn’t important to our agreement. We didn’t stipulate that you would only pay me back if the car was reliable. If you’re not happy with the car, then take that shit up with the person who sold you the car; it’s got nothing to do with me. If you think you overpaid them and that they cheated you, then sue them. I don’t care what you have to do–none of that has anything to do with me. The bottom line is simple: you agreed to pay back the money that I loaned you.

You might have said, “I’m going to use the money to record a new demo for my rock band,” and it wouldn’t matter whether your band was successful. You asked to borrow the money, and I loaned it to you. It’s your responsibility to verify that your purchase will pay back dividends and that you aren’t just throwing that money away. It is not my fault that you didn’t look into what you were buying.

I happen to have a degree in the tech field. I began my college career majoring in Physics, intending to take on the General Relativity program at the University of Mississippi, because, believe it or not, Ole Miss has one of the best Physics programs in the world. However, I became disillusioned very quickly, and my uncle suggested to me at a family reunion that I enter the tech industry, because he worked for the IRS and had observed it is the only field that continues to grow. I took his advice and changed my major.

Plenty of people suggested that I stop attending what was then a community college–I was doing the 2+2 program between that college and the University of Mississippi–and to just attend ITT Tech instead. I made the conscious decision not to do it, for one simple reason. I didn’t trust ITT Tech. I didn’t distrust them, either–I had no reason to distrust them. The University of Mississippi, however, has been around for a very long time and is respectable enough as a school that I had no worry that my degree from them would be useful. If you have $140,000 loaned to you for college, why on fucking Earth would you use it to go to a school that you know little-to-nothing about? That is madness.

But you did. And then you blamed the people who were kind enough to loan you the money.

“We’re not irresponsible brats whining about our loans,” said Joseph White, 39, who graduated from ITT Tech in 2008 with more than $80,000 in student loans. “ITT lied to us. It’s fraud.”

But you are. That is the very definition of being an irresponsible brat! Yes, they lied to you. You believed them. There are two people involved in every lie, sir: the liar and the believer. One guy even confesses that he was swayed by the recruiter’s promises, that the recruiter basically promised him a life of luxury and ease. And rather than being an adult and saying, “Wait a minute. This recruiter has a job: to sell me something. Recruiters from the military have a very, very long history of lying to people to get them to sign up. Why should I think this recruiter is any different? Perhaps I should look into his claims objectively,” this guy grinned, nodded, and signed on the dotted line.

Dude, that is your fault.

You can’t just cry “They lied to me!” and escape your responsibility. If you are such a baby that you need to be protected from the lies that people tell every single day, then what chance do you have of making it in the world? That’s what this is ultimately about: is it the government’s responsibility to bail you out when you don’t question what you’re told and you believe someone’s lies? Let it be a learning experience for you. People lie.

I think I’m probably lucky in this regard. Thanks to the fucked up childhood I had, I learned from a very early age that everyone will lie to me to try to get what they want. I am nothing more than a resource to everyone else, and all they want to do is suck what they can from me before I either am sucked dry or tell them to fuck off. If you are an adult and you haven’t learned this lesson, then, I’m sorry to say, your parents failed you. You parents should have taught you to look incredulously at the Snake Oil Salesman and to demand that he substantiate his claims. They didn’t.

So now you’re turning to Nanny to do what Mommy and Daddy didn’t–the Nanny Government, that you’re begging to swoop in and save you from the Big Bad Liar whose claims you didn’t evaluate critically. Oh, no doubt–and I’m not excusing the recruiter. The recruiter should be held responsible for the lies. Keeping your word is also a two-way street–ITT Tech should have kept its word to you, and they didn’t. But that doesn’t justify you failing to keep your word to a third party. It’s not ITT Tech that you’re refusing to pay. It’s some third party who loaned you the money and who has nothing to do with you and ITT Tech. That’s between you and ITT Tech.

One girl says that she almost immediately noticed that something wasn’t right, but she continued and amassed $30,000 in debt anyway. Are you kidding me? What kind of attitude is that? “My intuition tells me something is wrong here, but I’m going to continue on and pretend like everything is fine.” You ignored your intuition–that is also on you.

Everyone is to blame here. I’m not saying ITT Tech is blameless.

But if you enter into an agreement with someone, then keep your word. Honesty starts with you.

Some years ago, I needed to buy a second vehicle. My wife and I were going through a rough patch, and it looked like I might leave her. Neither of us had any credit history. After talking extensively with my employer about it, he loaned me $1,000 for the downpayment. About three months later, I’d gone totally off the deep end and was no longer working for him, and had paid back only about $350. This is a true story, by the way. I went completely off the deep end and lost everything, including that vehicle.

But I build myself back up, went back and finished college, earned my degree, and got a much better job as a slot technician. And then do you know what I did? I emailed that guy about the money that I owed him, and started paying him $50 every week. After a few rough weeks where I wasn’t able to send him anything, I said “Fuck it,” busted my ass with a bunch of overtime, and mailed him a $450 money order that covered the rest of it. Three years elapsed between the last payment when I worked for him and the first payment when I’d recovered. But I said that I would pay him back, and I did. If I needed to borrow $1,000 from him today, he wouldn’t hesitate to do it–provided that he had it–because he knows first-hand that I will always pay it back.

Because I gave my word to pay it back.


So here’s the simple question for everyone who wants to not pay off their student loans:

You gave your word. Why is it okay for you to go back on that?

Your attempt to go back on your word, whether you are ultimately successful or not, means that your word is garbage. I told this same guy–because he has helped me considerably over the years–that when I have a book published that sells very well, I’m going to buy him a car or a house or something, it kinda depends on how good “very well” is. And he knows I’ll do it. Besides, who else am I going to do something like that for? My dad? My sister? Are you kidding? Neither of them are ever even going to know about it. But don’t get me started on their recent shenanigans.

Your word is garbage. How does that make you feel?

I can tell you this: you can fucking bank on my word. If I give you my word on something, then neither god nor the devil will make me break it. It might take me three years to get around to fulfilling it, but I will never discard it. And, to be totally honest, that’s a good thing, because, if I’m being honest, I’m an expert manipulator. I get that from my parents, both of whom lived as manipulators through their entire lives. My mom’s word was so bad that when she disappeared, some people didn’t believe it. My dad’s word is so  bad that no one believes anything he says–the man has said that he was drafted to Vietnam, for fuck’s sake. So don’t criticize me for saying that I’m an expert manipulator–it’s just what I was taught to be from the time I was born.

However, I rejected that and consciously choose honesty over lies. It’s why you will never hear me say that someone “passed away.” Jarring though it is for people, I always say “died.” My mother didn’t pass away. She died. Why do I do that? Because even euphemisms are deceitful, regardless of their intentions, and the point of deceit is always to manipulate. By saying “passed away” instead of “died,” you are trying to manipulate them into not feeling that bad about someone’s death. What gives you the right to manipulate them? Fuck that. Be honest.

Everyone lies. Everyone is trying to manipulate you, to one degree or another and for one reason or another. Well, stop it. Say no to lies. Say no to manipulation. Say no to deceit.

Keep your goddamned word.

The Myth of the Social Contract

It has been said repeatedly that we, as individuals, have a debt to society. While I have addressed this idea in a limited way via video, I want to criticize the idea itself this time, because this is a song we’ve heard before, and a dance we’ve jigged before.

Lazily pulling from Wikipedia, the social contract is basically this:

the theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.

We can discard most of that, because most of it is irrelevant. We know the origin of society, and we recognize that an agreement between individuals to work together for the betterment of everyone involved in no way, shape, or form necessitates a state. In other words, “the nature and origin of society” is wholly and completely unrelated to the state’s authority over the individual. Society is a product of people coming together and agreeing to work together. Under no circumstances does this mean anyone needs authority over anyone else.

For example, my wife and I have decided to work together. It is quite obviously not necessary that one of us have authority over the other. Hierarchies will rise and fall, of course, but we do have to remember here that the key feature of the state is that it is compulsory, and that if someone does not wish to take part in one hierarchy, the state does not allow it. Think about it.

If you don’t like the hierarchy at your job, you are perfectly free to quit and go to a different company. If, however, you are unhappy with the state, you don’t have the option of being subservient to a different state (short of moving to another country, but since that isn’t necessary when we were dealing with companies, it shouldn’t be necessary now).

Plus, if we look further beyond the confines of our own nation, we will see that every acre of land on the planet has been parceled out to one state or another, and that if you reject the hierarchy of the state you have no options for doing so. It is why I fervently campaign for the institution of an anarchy somewhere in the world, so that the state does have to compete with the social guidance methods of someone else. As it is, the state absolutely controls the planet; the entire planet is firmly beneath the iron boots of the state.



I’m not trying to be overly crass here, but… Yeah.

That’s the nature of our relationship to the state, and it has been the nature of our relationship for a very long time. It is precisely the confusion of “society” with “the state” that has allowed this travesty to happen, as people have become so accustomed to the state that they are incapable of even imagining that there might be some other mechanism–besides beating people into compliance (which, obviously, is what the state does, with its military, police, and prisons)–of getting people to work together.

In reality, the “social contract” is not about what debt one individual may have to “society,” but we can get into that–just not right now. In actuality, the social contract is merely about why it’s okay for the state to beat us. Is further elaboration necessary? That’s its own definition, after all–it is a method of justifying state authority over individuals, and we know how the state exercises that authority.

You can’t argue that the state exercises its authority in less brutal means, because millennia of evidence show us exactly how the state does what it does: force, violence, and coercion. The state will rob you, taking the fruit of your labors for itself. If you don’t obey the state, it kidnaps you and imprisons you. If you resist, it kills you. While it has you kidnapped and imprisoned, it may very well rape you. It will torture you. Is further elaboration necessary?

We would have no difficulty seeing the unbridled moral atrocity of the man above doing this horrendous stuff to the cowering slave. “You will work on my plantation, or I will lock you in the dungeon! While you’re in the torture, I’ll have people rape you, and I will torture you! If you still don’t comply, then I will simply kill you.”

But when the state does it, we’re like…


The whole thing is simply a euphemism for slavery, especially when taxes become involved and we have unapportioned taxes as I mentioned above. Because yes, in case people weren’t paying attention, the state has first dibs on your paycheck, in case you haven’t noticed. By the time you get your paycheck, the state has already taken its share, and you have no say-so in what the state gets. The state simply takes what it wants, and lets you keep the rest.

The result of this is that we have something that is identical either to slavery or feudalism–take your pick.


The amazing thing here is how quickly people lose sight of the fact that if they want to submit themselves to their feudal lord, or to their slavemaster, then that is their prerogative*. However, the fact that the woman on the left is telling the woman on the right, “Master gave you that dress, didn’t he? Well, then you owe him! So get to working! I don’t mind working for Master!” doesn’t… really mean that the woman on the right has to consent. The woman on the left has no authority to tell Master, “She does submit, Master. I’ve explained to her that she owes you for that fine dress you gave her and for the roof you put over her head.”

How shall I explain to you that a circle is round?

Does the point need to be labored any longer? Is it not ridiculously and glaringly obvious that all of this shit is simply a euphemism for slavery?

“You owe Master because he put a roof over your head, he gave you the hoe you’re using to work, and he gave you the dress you’re wearing!”

Be that as it may, did the woman on the right have any choice? Did she have the option of walking away from Master and finding somewhere that she could be free?

No. She didn’t–as I pointed out, every single inch of land on the planet is controlled by one slave owner or another. What would be the point of fleeing one plantation to go to another plantation? That is what people are suggesting we do, when they say, “If you don’t like it, then you can get out!” Get out where? There are literally only plantations in every direction, as far as the eye can see, and all the way around the world. There is no place where the woman on the right could go to not have a master.

So instead you’ll tell her to be thankful that her master is allowing her to work in peace, and isn’t in the process of cutting off her toes and raping her?



* Possibly. I’d have to do some more thought about this, because I find it really hard to imagine that anyone would voluntarily submit to slavery or feudalism if there wasn’t coercion involved.

The Story of How Google Attempted to Intimidate Me Into Silence


Apparently my very existence is offensive.

transgender not acceptable

Google would have me stop saying that I’m transgender, because apparently that’s offensive to someone. Since “transgender” is the politically correct term for people like me, Google is saying that I’m not allowed to tell people I’m transgender. I mean that literally. That’s literally what they said–there is the email. I only edited out my name. Apparently, my being transgender is offensive. Evidently, my existence is offensive.

I exist, Google. And I am proud to be who I am, and I will continue to be who I am whether people like it or not. You have now lied to me. You have attempted to intimidate me. And now you have told me that my very existence is objectionable. I will not give you another penny, Google. And thanks to Ghostery, you won’t get any money from me through your advertising, either, and I’ve long preferred Duckduckgo as a search engine. I will not give you money after you have explicitly said that my very existence is offensive.

Here is a podcast on the matter:

The Original Post

A few days ago, I started running ads through Google that directed people to this website, the “Trans Anarchist.” I had very little choice but to do that, because Google wouldn’t let me use the word “Shemale” in the ad itself (even though the ad leads to a website that has “shemale” in its URL, banner, and title…). I’ve contacted Google to get that worked out, explaining to them that it’s my responsibility to communicate effectively, and the most effective way that I can communicate my nature is with the word “shemale,” that the word can only be tied to pornography if we the people allow it to be, and I, as a shemale, refuse to allow the word to be inextricably tied to pornography. That’s my word. I am a shemale, so, yes, I absolutely have the right to disassociate the word from pornography.

The ad was approved, and it ran for a few days, and then I decided to change its target so that it pointed to my podcast, the RSS Feed for which is to the right. This meant that the ad had to be approved again (ugh), but I figured “That’s fine. It’s pretty much just my website, but in spoken form,” so I submitted it.


Click for larger image.

Oh, Google, you’ve stepped in it now… and you don’t even realize it, do you? That’s okay. I don’t mind that you’re a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation. I’m going to rip you apart anyway. So, Google, sit back, grab a cup of coffee, and be prepared to be ripped apart for your blatant hypocrisy and favoritism. I hope you’re prepared for this. Oh, it’s not likely that I can actually do anything about it. Don’t get me wrong–I’m well aware of that. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to allow such horrific hypocrisy to stand uncontested. It is my duty, as The Shemale Anarchist, to rip apart hypocrisy wherever I may find it, because it is that hypocrisy–that “say one thing and do another” bullshit–that has allowed the world to fall into such a terrible state. It is our duty, as rational, logical, and principled people, to launch assaults on hypocrisy whenever it appears.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

My issue isn’t that Google finds me offensive. Really, it’s not. I’m well aware that many people find me offensive, and I don’t care. I laughed when I saw the response, until I began wondering what it was that they actually found offensive. Because there aren’t very many things that anyone can definitively demonstrate are objectionable.

Only in a Fascist society that has lost its mind can liberty and tolerance be considered offensive.

My first thought was that it was because I was titled at Podbean “The Shemale Anarchist.” But that can’t be the case. “The Shemale” has been tied to my website here from the beginning. Could it be the foul language? Definitely not. My website contains plenty of foul language. Beyond that, it clearly can’t be the podcasts themselves. Why? Because of the RSS Feed you see over on the right. My Podcasts from Podbean feed directly to this website. If the podcasts are offensive at Podbean, then they must be offensive here. Yet my website was approved, so that can’t be the case, can it?

It can’t be that “R&R Ep 03 – You Intolerant Bastards” is a problem, because, though that does appear at Podbean, at the time it was one of the most recent episodes and certainly appeared here at Shemale Diary, as well, right there on the right, in the RSS Feed. That podcast was in both places. One was approved, one was not. So the logical conclusion is that the podcast isn’t the problem.

When I called Google Adwords (Kudos to them for low wait times and for connecting me with an American, I must say), the woman with whom I spoke referenced that episode as the problem. I objected, of course. There is worse material here on this website, and that podcast itself was (at the time) here on this website. When I requested that the disapproved ad be sent back to the approval team, I was told that it’s an automatic process and that nothing can be done about it.

That’s clearly not the case. Human judgment was clearly involved, and human mistakes are clearly what caused the initial ad to be approved. If one is offensive and must be disapproved, then both are offensive and must be disapproved. So that one of the ads made it through fine is, ipso facto, proof that there is human judgment involved and that the process is not automatic. This means the woman lied to me, but it gets worse.

Her response was that she could send the initial ad back through and make sure that both of them are disapproved. This seemed to be a threat, and I certainly took it as one. “Take what you can get,” is basically what she said, “or we’ll take away them both.”

Well. I don’t respond well to threats. Threatening to take both of my ads away if I continue to raise a ruckus about your hypocrisy is not going to have the effect you want it to have, Google. And it didn’t. So what did I say in response to this threat?

“Yes! Absolutely! Do what you’ve gotta do. If you have to disapprove both of them, fine. But since the same exact content is available in both places, you cannot justify the position that one is acceptable and one is offensive. By all means, then, do that.”

“Well, resubmit the first ad,” the woman said. “And I can’t guarantee that it will be disapproved…”

And that is the problem, lady! Don’t you see how blatantly hypocritical and deceitful that is? You clearly lied to me. If it was an automatic process, then you would be able to guarantee that the resubmission would be disapproved. Principles, their expression through Policy, and the application of these Policies is an automatic process. I know that, because I’m an anarchist. I do have principles and policies, and I do apply them without discrimination. I know exactly how principles and policies work, Google, and that is precisely why I support John McAfee. When you rely on principles, you always come to the same results. That you can’t guarantee the same result, Google, is proof that you do not rely on principles and policies.

The woman was clearly not prepared to have me call her bluff. How dare she threaten me like that, though. How dare she say to me, “If you want, we can make sure that both of your ads are disapproved. But you can instead just take the one we’re giving you, and not make us take both of them away.” No, hell no, not going to allow that.

You want to bluff me, Google? I will call your bluff. Every single time.

You can’t now hide behind your policy and say that you can’t do anything about the ad that was disapproved. That’s obviously and demonstrably false. If it was true that ad approval is an automatic process, then:

  • www.shemalediary.wordpress.com wouldn’t have been approved, because it contains an RSS Feed directly from the “offensive material.”
  • You would be able to guarantee me that a re-submission of the original ad wouldn’t get approved.
  • Which is just remarkably stupid when you think about it, because my entire point is that the initial ad shouldn’t have been approved if the podcast in question is the objectionable material, but it was, and now they’re disapproving the ad on the basis of that podcast, yet can’t guarantee that this site, which contains an RSS Feed that has that podcast, will be disapproved.

And you want to tell me that your policy justifies that insane rambling of doublethink and nothink? So I’m going to extend the RSS Feed so that it absolutely contains “You Intolerant Bastards” in the feed, and then I’m going to resubmit. And, yes, I’m going to post this and leave it here, because Google has either violated their own policy or they are unfairly targeting my podcast page.

Why do I say that? Because the only difference between ariadimezzo.podbean.com and shemalediary.wordpress.com is that one is far more accessible (being a spoken podcast) than the other (being written articles). The word “fucking” appears all over the place on this website. In fact, I did a search for the word “fucking” in the search bar, then did the “find in page”. 37 matches.

It appears once on the podcasts.

So don’t bullshit me, Google. If the word “fucking” is a problem, then you should have disapproved my first ad “with extreme prejudice.” But you didn’t. You approved it, and you’ll probably approve it again. And, yes, I’m going to have this right there at the top of the website when I submit the ad so that I know someone at Google has seen it. Either you have to approve both, or you have to disapprove both. You can’t hide behind principles and policies when I can demonstrate that you didn’t apply principles and policies. You applied some arbitrary criteria that is unknown, but you certainly didn’t uniformly apply your policies. And you clearly don’t uniformly apply them, because you still can’t guarantee that this website will be disapproved.

Ad to a website of written content that the average surfer won’t want to read? That’s okay.

Ad to a website of spoken content that the average surfer might listen to? That’s not okay.

There’s literally no other difference between the two URLs in the ads I submitted. One goes to written content, and one goes to spoken content. The content itself is virtually identical.

If you want to have a policy that means you can’t approve my ads, Google, that’s fine. I’m an anarchist. I’m 100% in support of your right to do that. And I acknowledge your right to be hypocrites, just as I recognize the right of conservatives to discriminate against LGBT people. But just as I’m going to call them out on their ill-considered position, so will I call you out on yours. Just as I’ll blast the hypocritical left for being intolerant, so will I assault the hypocritical Google.

People can say a lot of things about me. “Offensive” is certainly one of those things, and I don’t bother to deny that the average Politically Correct libtard will find me offensive, and so will most of the religious right. I really don’t care. But one thing that people cannot and will never be able to say about me is that I’m a hypocrite.

I suggest you re-evaluate your policies, Google, and the mechanisms by which you apply those policies in tandem with the criteria with which you cherry-pick when to apply those policies. Until then, you are hypocrites, and I am left to conclude, on the grounds that the only difference between the two sites is accessibility, that you merely want to keep the cause of Liberty quiet. Do I think that’s really the case? No. But I can make that case.

Oh, yes, and–since you recorded that call (as did I)–you may be interested to play it back and hear how your employee did threaten me with having both ads pulled if I continued to make a big deal about it. I’m pretty sure that making threats–even those that aren’t violent in nature–is against your policies, isn’t it? Maybe you’d like to apply those policies here. Because I don’t appreciate being threatened, and neither will I allow someone to intimidate me into silence.

That your employee tried to intimidate me into silence, Google, reveals quite a lot about what really happened here. People who are on the side of principles don’t have to intimidate people trying to shut them up. You are so in the moral wrong here, Google, that it’s astounding. Not only do you pick and choose when to apply arbitrary policies, but you also have employees bullying customers and attempting to intimidate them into submission. I don’t know what part of the world your headquarters is in, Google, but here, where I am, attempting to intimidate people into submission is not okay. It’s bullying, actually… You’re like the waiter at a restaurant who said “Yeah, the cook spit in your steak. Sure, I can send your steak back, and I can get the cook to spit in your fries, too.”

If that’s how you treat customers, Google–with intimidation, bullying, and threats to back up your hypocrisy while trying to hide behind your arbitrarily applied principles, then I don’t want to do business with you.

P.S. Enjoy the PR. 😉

Ignorance: The Psychopath’s New Weapon

I actually do want to make the case at some point that humanity is in real trouble, especially in the United States, where we have cultivated ignorance and exonerated it consistently enough that there’s little prospect for continued growth. I frequently have people say “I’m not reading that book you wrote” about one of my comments, proudly broadcasting to the world that they can’t be bothered to read, and this is worsened by it being said as though I’m the one in the wrong, I’m the fool, for writing a reply that was too long for their particular brand of idiocy. But that’s for another day, and the title I’ve chosen isn’t actually related to that.

Someone recently asked me how I can publish a story that Bradley* wrote, and I was told that “Aria didn’t write the story. Bradley wrote the story.”

Needless to say, my mind was positively boggled. And, of course, this was from the psychopath (told you–see this post to learn what I mean), no doubt trying a different tactic to get an emotional reaction out of me–you know, as the psychopath needs. I’m proud to say I didn’t give it, and I won’t give it now, because there was no emotion to my reply. There was only cold brutality.

I replied pointing out that humans evolved from apes, yet there are still monkeys. My point was actually that the psychopath’s question was just as ignorant as the Christians who ask how there can still be monkeys if we evolved from them, and to point out that, yes, I did evolve from Bradley. It was the perfect metaphor for the situation. But the psychopath doubled down on the ignorance and said “Yet we don’t claim credit for the work of the monkeys” or something like that.

I replied three times. First, simply “I did write it.” Then I gave a mini-explanation, a very short one of just a few sentences, and then I said predictable. Well. The psychopath was predictable, to the extent that I couldn’t even pretend to be surprised or pretend to have an emotional reaction. That’s what the psychopath does, remember? I explained that in the last post about it. The psychopath attempts to elicit an emotional response, presumably to feel in control but I don’t care enough to ask “Why,” and then immediately drops back to short replies and no replies. The psychopath simply wants drama, simply feeds on emotion, and is incapable of caring what those emotions are.

So rather than feeding that, I rebuked the psychopath extensively, shredding the thought process and revealing the ignorance underlying it. “You can’t publish that story you wrote yesterday, because you were wearing different socks yesterday, and since you’re not wearing the same socks today you’re a different person and therefore not the person who wrote the story,” I used as a slippery slope. It’s perfectly true, though. The reasoning is as asinine as it was faulty, and rivaled only by the almost pathetic attempt to elicit an emotional response.

There’s just no context where the psychopath’s question and replies make any sense. Even the people at the Westborough Baptist Church aren’t that looney. No one is so confused on the matter that they think a transgender person is literally a different person mid and post transition, especially not to the extent that I wouldn’t be able to rightfully claim to have written something that I wrote.

In another brazen display of the psychopath’s out-of-control ego, I was asked how I expected her to react. I must admit that I took some vindictive pleasure in pointing out that… I didn’t. I never gave a moment of thought to how the psychopath would react. I didn’t consider how George W. Bush, my Aunt Diane, my ex-wife, or Asheik Mohammed Samar, random name in India that I just made up, would react, either. Because these people aren’t part of my life. I don’t make it a habit of wondering what random people who aren’t part of my life will think or feel about what I do. I consider the reactions only of people in my life and people who care about me–not random people thousands of miles away.

Of course, it’s not true that the psychopath is a random person thousands of miles away, but that’s the thing–she might as well be. I didn’t destroy the relationship and friendship, and I clinged to them far longer than I should have.

When I told a friend of this, she asked what could the psychopath say that I would take as sincere. The answer is…


The time for words is long over. There is absolutely nothing that she could say to me that I would accept as sincere. Only actions can speak loudly enough to be heard over the blood pouring from the knives she put in my back.

It still isn’t any easier for me. I doubt it ever will be, and she surely knows that; she certainly knows that I still love her and want to believe she’s sincere. But I can’t.

In the interest of our friendship and years of circles, I did give her time to reply and apologize for the fucked up thing she’d said. She hasn’t done so. Again–predictable.

One thing is all it would take from her. And, believe me, I want to let it all go. You have no idea how badly I want to just release all of it. It would be so easy. One thing to convince me that she’s sincere, that she’s not just a psychopath, that I’m not just her victim, and that she is the person she claims to be. One thing.

And it is the one thing a psychopath would never do.

As I said.


* My “Other name” isn’t Bradley, but that’s close enough.