(written by Terry MacNeil, on August 24, 2026)

I rely on the CBC News Network (a channel I ALWAYS forget is no longer called CBC Newsworld) to get an IDEA of what’s going on in Canada (at the national level). So I’m used to seeing various CBC anchors and television hosts going into panic mode on a regular basis. The MAIN THING thing that makes them panic – whenever it looks like the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) is going to win a federal election. Why? The CPC slogan “Defund the CBC” explains everything. The CBC also panics (though to a much lesser extent) whenever the State of Israel is caught red-handed in the act of committing crimes against humanity against Palestinians (something the State of Israel has been doing to various degrees for its entire existence). And ever since Donald Trump began his second term as President of the USA – the CBC have been in a chronic state of panic that has lasted years. Well, news stories about Mr. Trump also result in good ratings for the CBC. But I digress.

I have not read the book The Art of the Deal (which was allegedly written by Mr. Trump, but was actually ENTIRELY ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz, an author with a VERY embarrassing output of books). Though I did buy a second-hand copy of The Art of the Deal, at my favourite used bookstore. I actually intend on reading it soon – because I like to read what I consider “joke books” every so often. However, it SOUNDS as though that book WILL NOT give you any insight into Mr. Trump’s thought processes, nor the way he does “business”. And since I consider Mr. Trump to be so illiterate, I expect another of his other joke books (titled Crippled America, and which I refuse to believe he wrote one word for) will be even more unintentionally hilarious than The Art of the Deal.

As far as I can tell, the subhumans in the most important posts in Mr. Trump’s government – have all adopted Mr. Trump’s fratboy mentality that the World is divided into “winners” and “losers”, and that Mr. Trump’s government opposes any agreement where the USA does not emerge “winning” in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY and the other side “loses” in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY. They’ve even tried to do this with regard to the War on Iran – a war they’ve consistently lost, no matter how many ceasefires they negotiate AND THEN unilaterally break, because the Trump administration is too insecure to accept defeat.

Even though I regard Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as “banker scum”, he played CPC leader Pierre Poilievre like a fiddle. A while ago, Mr. Poilievre whined Mr. Carney was being “too tough” when negotiating with the Trump Administration. More recently, Mr. Poilievre said Mr. Carney “wasn’t being tough enough” with the Trump Administration. And right before the collapse of the trade negotiations, the Canadian media made it SOUND as though Mr. Carney would do ANYTHING the Trump Administration demanded. THAT was when Mr. Carney showed his backbone. But he always knew – Canadians prefer NO TRADE DEAL with the USA, rather than A BAD TRADE DEAL. And a bad trade deal (for Canada) is what the USA wanted.

So, am I panicking about the Canada vs USA trade war? Nope. I live in the province of Nova Scotia – which has long been regarded as a “have-not” province of Canada. So we in the NS are way less (collectively) impacted by tariffs on our exports to the USA than, say, Ontario. I’m mainly worried about the impact of Canada’s counter-tariffs on American goods coming into Canada – which I expect will cause my grocery bill to skyrocket. Oh well. We (and by “we” I mean “the poor”) have all been suffering under the cruel yoke of global inflation for years. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on July 9, 2026)

The night of July 7th, 2026 was one of those “funny nights” that occasionally happen to schizophrenics – I had run out of my anti-psychotics (aka meds) the night before, and I COULD’VE gotten a helpful relative to go to town and pick up my meds for me. But I ASSUMED that would be too much of an inconvenience for my relative – and I was curious to see what would happen to ME if I went a day without my meds (since I’ve been extra careful to take them EVERY day for the last decade or so). All I experienced on the night of July 7th – was I had a strong bout of insomnia, and the posts I wrote (about the FernGully children’s animated movies) on the Bluesky website were slightly sillier than my usual silly posts. Other than that, it was a typical night for Terry MacNeil. I did NOT experience ANY DEGREE of mania.

Between 10-15 years ago – I was FREQUENTLY skipping my anti-psychotics. Why? One reason was because I assumed my hangovers would be worse if I took my meds the same night I got drunk. BUT it turned out the OPPOSITE was true – I would have 24 (and sometimes 48) hour hangovers on nights I skipped my meds. To be clear, 24 and 48 hour hangovers result in non-stop puking, then non-stop retching. Then one fortuitous night many years ago, I thought “Let’s see what happens when I take my meds, THEN IMMEDIATELY start drinking.” That night, I had NO hangover. I feel like that’s info of MONUMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE my former psychiatrists deliberately withheld from me.

As for the second reason I would skip my meds? To write. Though I must emphasize, between 10-15 years ago – I would go into mania on nights I would skip my meds. So I would go into mania, and write lots of weird off-the-wall shit on my computer. Then I would crash, and be so exhausted – I’d be so drowsy and out of commission for the next 48 hours. But I would always be IMPRESSED by what I wrote while manic. It was usually “insane” writing, but when non-manic I would edit what I wrote into “more normal/acceptable” writing for the novel I was working on at the time.

My Mom said she doesn’t remember ever seeing me manic – until AFTER I was diagnosed as a schizophrenic and started taking my meds. But I remember my later university years – those were years I lived away from home, and BEFORE I had been diagnosed as insane. Those were the days I started getting loaded as often as I thought I could – and while drinking I remember the energy rush I would get was OFF THE CHARTS, and all I wanted to do was talk to everyone in sight (and hopefully become friends with them). But in the end, I ended up with a million acquaintances – and a small number of friends. A former friend of mine was dumbfounded that I could be as well known as I was in university – and STILL remain a virgin after I moved back home. All I could say was “In university, I was looking for a girlfriend – but I’d always set my sights on girls that were uninterested in me.” And much to my embarrassment, I GENUINELY THOUGHT those girls were interested in ME. Then it would seem like THE END OF THE WORLD when I realized they had no interest in me. So sad.

A former friend of mine said his psychiatrist said that I (Terry) would be experiencing mania less and less frequently (and less and less intensely) the more often I skipped my anti-psychotics. That does indeed seem to be true. I can’t remember the last time I experienced mania. Though I wonder, if I’ll ever experience it again. All I can say is, it was a blast – while it lasted. Though I hope it remains in my past. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on May 30 – June 3, 2026)

Having recently read the Marquis de Sade’s novel The 120 Days of Sodom (unabridged), I say it amounts to little more than vague (and repetitive) descriptions of four French libertine male psychopaths (in the 18th century) committing near-constant sexual assaults against people – often children. But Sade’s readers can count themselves lucky he did not go into more detail than he did (though I assume he would have, if he knew how to do so). That said, as a writer – Sade was certainly a trailblazer.

Also, Sade did not get to finish writing The 120 Days of Sodom – though he did write fairly detailed outlines of the remainder of that novel. And those outlines clearly reveal the horrors he had in store for the reader. So Sade infused his work with incest, humiliation, bestiality, farting, necrophilia, mental torture, physical torture, mutilation, murder, piss-drinking, shit-eating, blasphemy, child rape, and the rape of adults. Also, some of the instances of bestiality result in “monsters” (aka hybrids) being born – something I presume Sade did not know is biologically impossible. That makes Sade seem more hilariously “innocent” than he was.

So Sade’s The 120 Days of Sodom is intended to be the ultimate sadomasochistic fantasy – featuring cartoonishly/absurdly submissive victims. And these victims are routinely abused by cartoonishly sadistic psychopaths (who are incredibly wealthy, elitist, bisexual, and turned on by just about every depraved sexual kink imaginable). Well, the psychopath known as “The Bishop” is technically more homosexual than bisexual (no surprise there). But that’s beside the point.

As for (committed Marxist) Pier Paolo Pasolini’s (fairly faithful) movie adaptation of Sade’s novel, titled Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, this film (taking place during WWII) centres on four libertine male psychopaths (who are also Italian fascists). So I imagine there aren’t many fascist fans of this movie. And everyone says Pasolini was criticizing “consumerism” in the Western World – though as I watched the movie, it never seemed he was doing that. Sade’s novel had WAY more shit-eating, and Sade certainly wasn’t concerned with “consumerism” – so I consider Pasolini’s criticism to be WEAK. Though I would argue that to properly appreciate this movie – it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to read Sade’s novel first. Although, I also hear I ought to have read The Divine Comedy before seeing this movie – as well as certain works by Friedrich Nietzsche, Ezra Pound, and Marcel Proust. Oh well. Someday…

In closing, as someone who tries to write novels that SEEM to have been written by a psychopath – I will say that in terms of horrifying content, I will never top the Marquis de Sade. And props to that guy, since he was writing hundreds of years before I was born. I admire The 120 Days of Sodom, though it’s so relentlessly unpleasant and dour – I only enjoyed a few brief parts of that LONG novel (when the psychopaths are unintentionally hilariously explaining why committing virtually every crime under the sun is so great). But I am glad to have read his novel!

Also, I’ve heard it said the novel Naked Lunch is horrifying – though I say The 120 Days of Sodom is WAY more horrifying. I’m convinced Sade wanted his novel to be MORE horrifying than it was – but lacked the imagination/talent to pull that off. And I say Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom is rightly regarded as a horrifying movie – but if you’ve already read Sade’s novel, you’ll be desensitized. Put simply, Pasolini was way less daring than Sade – in terms of what they presented. But it’s usually unreasonable to expect a movie to be more explicit than a novel. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 10-13, 2026)

I first head of Chester Brown’s graphic memoir Paying for It: A Comic-Strip Memoir About Being a John after it was recommended to me by Amazon. I don’t read many graphic novels or graphic memoirs – but reading one about a real-life john sounded like something I’d be willing to pay for. See what I did there? I’m so clever.

Mr. Brown’s graphic memoir is well-made, thoughtful, preachy, and never boring. And if Mr. Brown is to be believed – he’s always treated the (female) prostitutes he hired with a higher degree of consideration/respect than most johns do. BUT Mr. Brown is not nearly as “empathetic” as he sees himself. If anything, he’d be passive-aggressive whenever he’d be unimpressed with his experience with a prostitute – he’d typically punish the prostitute by writing mean comments/reviews about their interaction on websites (where johns anonymously critique prostitutes), which can make it more difficult for the prostitute to be hired in the future (if she gets a negative review).

Also, Mr. Brown’s book more than lives up to its sub-title – because the graphic memoir is told almost entirely from the viewpoint of the typical (heterosexual) male john. So the prostitutes’ viewpoints are almost entirely absent, and the myriad unpleasantries commonly experienced by prostitutes are almost completely glossed over (because Mr. Brown emphasizes he was afraid if he revealed ANY details about the prostitutes’ lives, they might be identified by people that know them). As far as Mr. Brown is concerned, prostitution is a (mutually) happy business transaction that (in the end) is no less pleasant for the prostitute than it is for the john – EXCEPT when the prostitutes fail to totally satisfy Mr. Brown. He sees himself as an “ordinary customer”, who is ENTITLED to whatever he thinks is his “money’s worth” – and if he doesn’t get that (for whatever reason), he gets passive-aggressive (as already mentioned). So it is no surprise that Mr. Brown is a “minarchist libertarian” – who feels most comfortable when treating everyday life as a series of impersonal “business transactions”.

Mr. Brown’s real-life(!) ex-girlfriend(!) is the STILL HOT Sook-Yin Lee(!). She also directed a movie adaptation of Paying for It – her movie retains the graphic memoir’s main title (but dropped the sub-title, because she made sure her movie had less focus on prostitution from the perspective of heterosexual male johns). Interestingly, Ms. Lee’s movie presents “Chester Brown” in a less cold and more likeable light than Mr. Brown presented himself in his own graphic memoir. Mercifully, the movie also had way less emphasis on the pro-prostitution preaching (in the graphic memoir) that Mr. Brown would FREQUENTLY hammer over the head of his readers. And the movie has an Emma Goldman reference – which pleased me.

Ms. Lee also made the fictionalized character based on herself (“Sonny Lee”) have a way more prominent role in her movie, than she herself had in Mr. Brown’s graphic memoir. I consider that to have been to the movie’s benefit, because Mr. Brown is a VERY boring person – and simply paying for sex is not in itself enough to make someone “interesting”. Well, at least that is the way he is presented in the graphic memoir AND the movie.

In closing, I enjoyed Ms. Lee’s movie more than Mr. Brown’s graphic memoir. I wouldn’t say it’s a great movie – but it IS good! This was the first movie I’ve seen directed by Ms. Lee – and I look forward to seeing more of her work in the future. As for Mr. Brown, I actually really want to read his Louis Riel someday – I expect great things from it! Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on February 8-10, 2026)

When I was a university student – Noam Chomsky came to my university, to read a speech he wrote about the USA’s Occupation of Iraq. And I was lucky enough to attend the speech in person! However, I considered the speech disappointing – he didn’t say much that I didn’t already know about the occupation. When the speech ended, I was surprised Chomsky didn’t exit the building through a backdoor – he was led right through the audience by one of my university’s professors. And as Chomsky and his escort made their way out, they walked right past me – and Chomsky made eye contact with me, and he had an uncomfortable smile on his face (he looked like he was thinking “Get me the fuck out of here”). And then Chomsky was supposed to do a meet and greet with the senior political science students (as I was at the time). And they were serving free wine there – so me and a friend of mine took the opportunity to get drunk. Then Chomsky arrived for the meet and greet – and almost as soon as he arrived, he headed straight toward an exit. But he was cut off by the President of the Political Science Society – and the President shook Chomsky’s hand. Then Chomsky quickly went through the exit, and that was the last any of us saw of him. My friend and I kept drinking. The next day, I woke up with a hangover – and vomited. And that – is the story of the time I saw Noam Chomsky.

As for the Epstein Files – Chomsky is in there. So at best, Chomsky’s a horrible judge of character (when it comes to his friends/acquaintances). And at worst, Chomsky’s a sex criminal. From what I’ve heard of Jeffrey Epstein – that guy was intent on tainting as many powerful and/or influential people as possible. So I’m convinced Epstein was running an elaborate sexual blackmail operation – and hoped to be able to blackmail people like Chomsky. And I’ve seen countless recent comments about Chomsky in social media, made by naive people who say it’s NOT possible for an adult man to be naive, and that ANY adult man CANNOT be manipulated by a slimy/sociopathic character like Epstein (unless said adult man is cognitively disabled). Well, it is POSSIBLE to be an intellectual genius (as Chomsky is) AND be too easily trusting, when it comes to your dealings/interactions with other people (which Chomsky might be).

I’m an adult man, and SOME people I know would say I’m too naive and easily trusting (though I’m certainly not an intellectual genius). That said, I’ve had my trust betrayed by various people (at various times) in the past. But one thing about being an anarchist (as Chomsky and I are) is that you’re SUPPOSED to look for the good in people – to give people a chance. And if they betray you – they (in my book) have had their chance. BUT I also consider forgiveness important. So there’s lots of people I’ve known over the years, that I forgave in the past – when I shouldn’t have. And that’s the price you will pay, if you’re an honest believer in second chances. That said, I don’t believe in unlimited chances. And neither should anyone. But I digress.

In closing, it wouldn’t surprise me if Chomsky is a rotten sex criminal. And he was way too skeptical of people who came forward with allegations of sexual abuse, than he should’ve been. I regard many “older” anarchists (like Chomsky) as being insufficiently “woke” – so keep in mind, he was a flawed anarchist (as many of us are, in one way or another). But does the controversies around Chomsky make his books completely valueless? NO! If you want to read far-left/anarchist books – I still say some of Chomsky’s books are required reading. But it would be a HUGE MISTAKE to make his books the only far-left/anarchist books you read. These days, there’s LOTS of “woke” anarchist books out there – make sure you read lots of them! Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on January 16-18, 21-22, 2026)

Frequently, slasher movies will feature (underage) teenage characters in high school – but those characters are usually portrayed by actresses in their twenties. So when I usually watch those slasher movies – I imagine I’m seeing characters onscreen that are NOT underage (and are in their twenties). I see no harm in lusting for an actress you’ve CONFIRMED is an adult.

And a few months ago, one of my best friends got me to watch Season One of The Legendary Hero Is Dead! That was an anime where the protagonist is a male pervert – who is constantly lusting for the women around him. My friend assumed I could relate to the protagonist – and he was correct. That was an anime with HOT anime women, that I lusted for.

I’m not an anime fanatic (as many people are). But I would say I’ve seen enough anime to comment on certain things I’ve seen, over the years. The most disconcerting thing I’ve noticed – is that anime child characters often have the exact same facial features as anime adult characters. It is common to see anime child characters with the same huge/bright eyes as anime adult characters – which, if you’re not paying attention, can make you think you’re viewing adults, when you’re viewing children (or vice versa). SOMETIMES, anime adult characters will have squinty eyes – which more clearly sets them apart from the underage characters in the anime. But (normally) in terms of facial features – it is oftentimes not possible to distinguish between anime adult characters and anime child characters. That said, anime child characters are usually physically shorter than anime adult characters – and I don’t remember ever seeing anime child characters with protruding bosoms. Though I do remember being shocked while watching Ghost Stories, because that was a show about children – and occasionally the male child characters would be sexually aroused by glimpses of the panties of the female child characters. When I mentioned that to my friend, he basically said “Yeah, you unfortunately see a lot of that underage sexual shit in Japanese anime.” To be clear, my friend is not a pervert (but I am). So I wasn’t turned on by Ghost Stories. But I was turned on by The Legendary Hero Is Dead!

For Christmas 2025, my friend got me a DVD set of the anime High School DxD. There was a quote on the DVD case from a reviewer named Bamboo Dong(!) saying “An action explosion of hot, deadly ladies, PUNCTUATED WITH BOOBS.” The DVD case also revealed the show has a male pervert as the protagonist. So I told my friend “WE MUST STREAM THIS SHOW TOGETHER”. But he said “NO”. I asked why. He said he was convinced that if we streamed the show together, I’d be masturbating non-stop (at my computer). And he does not like the thought of that – but he DOES want me to watch High School DxD, on my own (so far, I haven’t gotten around to that – yet). Well, for decades I’ve (unintentionally) given my friend the impression that I am an ultra-pervert. And I can say he’s a dude, that despite being an anime buff – derives no sexual pleasure (that I know of) from anime women. When it comes to anime, he seems to only care about ACTION and/or HUMOUR. Nothing else.

Quick side note – I have, on occasion, looked up “hentai” porn online. “Hentai” would basically translate as “anime porn”. And it seems to me, that hentai animators haven’t figured out how to make “anime porn” that a NON-WEIRDO can jack off to. I recall one hentai video from back in the day, showing what was (kinda like) an x-ray visual of a penis going in and out of a vagina. And I thought to myself “This is about as arousing as a video of an autopsy.”

The MAIN reasons I watch anime? For the HUMOUR (and/or the T&A)! Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 18, 2025 and January 2, 2026)

For “old/geriatric” Millennials (and anyone older than Millennials) in Nova Scotia, you all know what Live at 5 is – the ATV News show that would air before the ATV Evening News. The ATV Evening News was considered “the REAL news going on in Nova Scotia”, though I’ve often said they should’ve been ashamed of the amount of shitty CNN footage they used. As for Live at 5, that was considered “soft news” (though when I was young, I’d watch the show to ogle Nancy Regan). To be perfectly frank, it’s probably been more than 25 years since I watched an entire episode of Live at 5. If someone I know appears on the show – I’ll watch the segment (but definitely NOT the entire episode) online.

I don’t know Kate Beaton – though I certainly know of her. For her recent appearance on Live at 5, she was briefly interviewed about the Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands postage stamp she designed for Canada Post! And since this is Live at 5, they forced Beaton to be filmed at times – while acting as though she was unaware she was being filmed. Like I said, I don’t know Beaton – but my guess is, she thought “This is good publicity for the stamp and Canada Post – even though this staged shit is stupid.”

I recall my uncle – a Catholic priest, who died a few years ago. My theory, is that the stress from the heavy workload of being a priest running multiple churches (and doing near-constant funerals and hospital visits) was fatal. There was some controversy near the end of his life – because he flew the LGBTQIA+ Pride Flag at one (if memory serves me correctly) of his churches. I remember him as an overall very humane man (and socialist), who admired Che Guevara – and who was also FUCKING HILARIOUS. If you were someone he had no respect for – he probably said hilarious shit about you, behind closed doors. But, like I said – he’s dead. So as far as I’m concerned, there’s no harm in making that info public. When it comes to the dead – I like to think that THE REAL PERSON should be made MORE public, even if it makes some (living) people uncomfortable. And my uncle had THE LEAST RESPECT for the bible-thumpers. Shortly after the Pride Flag event occurred, the CTV News Atlantic wanted to do a story on my uncle. They filmed him giving a statement (speaking directly to the camera) on why he did what he did, which, in my opinion, was fine/appropriate – there was no silly “staged shit”.

I’m also 99% certain my uncle appeared on Live at 5 many years earlier – though I can’t remember the reason they did a story on him. That was an appearance I found… unintentionally hilarious. If memory serves me correctly, my uncle (later) told us Live at 5 told him (paraphrased) “We’ll film you delivering your statement directly to the camera. AND we are ALSO going to film you in your church – but you need to pretend we’re not there. And make sure you wear your priest robes, and pretend you’re doing ‘religious shit’ in your church (as we film you).” And I remember my uncle had a wide smirk on his face as they filmed those staged scenes. From what I knew of him – he was clearly thinking “This staged shit is fucking stupid. Oh well…”

Though I must add, some of my fondest memories that myself (and my brother) have of our uncle – was when he’d be slamming beers (with a high alcohol content). We never drank with our uncle – though I wish we had. That said, I suspect he wouldn’t have been comfortable, if he were drinking with me and my brother. But I must say, he was a character – the good kind. RIP. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 13-14, 2025)

These days, Facebook always sends me Reels to click on – these being short video clips. And these are always Reels that zoom in on women’s asses. But of course, the Facebook algorithm is merely operating the way it should – because Facebook sends me the kind of Reels that I am likely to click on. Although these days, I am trying to get the Facebook algorithm to send me more Reels of women with thick thighs – regardless of ass size. One such female that often posts Facebook Reels I click on – is Jules Ari (I think). That might not be her real name – so for the remainder of this note, I shall only refer to her as “the woman”. In the video, the woman claims to be 26 years old – and since I’m in my forties, I imagine I’ll be taking SOME criticism from SOME OF YOU HUMANS for ogling a woman in her twenties. Oh well. Fuck you all.

Anyway, in the video – the woman is frustrated to be dealing with unconfident men whom she labels “boys” (I know that’s an insult, but I can think of a million way crueller insults than that for such men). “WHERE ARE THE MEN AT?” she asks, before stating she “shouldn’t be the one to have to take control in the situation when it comes to kissing”. She then cites one man and their first date together, and says it had been going well – until they were about to part ways. She says the man was unassertive – and she was unimpressed. The woman then (in the video) makes it clear she expects tongue for a good night kiss (on a first date). And I say that’s great! Though I would ask the woman – did the man specifically know that was what you wanted? And, if he knew you wanted tongue – was he too sexually inexperienced to kiss you the way you wanted? If so, why not teach him? Also, is it possible he was simply trying to be “considerate”?

I recall a conversation I had not so long ago, with a male homosexual friend of mine. I was explaining to him that as an anarchist, that before I do anything sexually – I NEED to have 100% confirmation that it’s OK with the woman. So I guess having sex with me would be pretty fucking mechanical: “Can I kiss your lips?”, “Can I put my tongue in your mouth?”, “Can I put my hand on your thigh?”, “Can I put my hand on your tit?”, “Can I put my dick in your mouth?”, etc. My friend pointed out most people simply “read the situation”, and instinctively “know” what their sexual partner wants. My reply, is that I am completely fucking clueless when it comes to “reading the situation”. And so are an increasing number of men this day and age. Feminism has (thankfully) made a lot of headway – when it comes to getting men to be more “sensitive/considerate” (in multiple ways) of women (especially since the “Me Too” movement).

Why are so many men so clueless at “reading the situation”? I blame teenagers choosing isolation, smartphones, and video games instead of socializing face-to-face with their peers (I also blame “helicopter parents” that are WAY too protective of their teens). Teens NEED to be going to parties on weekends, getting drunk, hitting on the girls/boys that they’re attracted to, etc. When I was a teenager – I was so depressed and so psychotic, I was terrified of socializing. So long before I ever became an anarchist – I was completely socially inept. And yes, I regularly whack off to porn – but I would never forgive myself if I tried to convince a woman to let me do the things to her that I see depicted in virtually every pornographic video I have ever seen. My point is – we men (not all of us, but many of us), are TRYING to be “considerate” feminists.

The info the woman (in the Facebook Reel) leaves unsaid – is if she had ever been sexually assaulted. Yes, we “considerate” men are boring/passionless. But I can say with a VERY HIGH degree of certainty, that any “considerate” man is preferable to an “inconsiderate” man. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 19-21, 2025)

I don’t read about Canada as often as I should – for the past decade or so, I’ve mainly been reading about anarchism, Marxism, and (global) capitalism. But I recently heard Emily Grafton being interviewed on the CBC Radio (to promote her new book, co-edited with David BA MacDonald, titled Settler Colonialism in Canada: Lands & Peoples). As a white settler, I figured it would be just the book I need – so that I’d become more informed and sensitive to indigenous issues in Canada. In the end, I think the book did for me what I hoped it would.

Over my many years, I’ve often heard terms used by the Canadian news media (almost always without explanation or clarification) when they would be doing “indigenous” news stories. Such terms included “nation-to-nation”, “land back”, “colonialism”, “genocide”, “treaty rights”, “unceded territory”, etc. So I shall list a few questions I would wonder, thanks to the vagueness of those Canadian news media reports. “Didn’t colonialism disappear (to be replaced by neo-colonialism) when all those Asian and African countries gained their ‘independence’ in the mid-twentieth century?” “Do the indigenous want every square inch of land (that is today considered ‘Canada’) back, and will all settlers become refugees?” “Were there really enough indigenous deaths to warrant charges of genocide against the Canadian state?” And so on. Well, those were thoughts I had – and I’m embarrassed I ever had them. Oh well. Live and learn.

A reply: I have never heard any indigenous person advocate taking back ALL the land in Canada. From what I can tell, they want a lot (but certainly not ALL) of Crown Land to be handed over to indigenous nations, for them to live on (and off) as they please. If the indigenous nations ever get their wish – I just hope they won’t embrace capitalism. “Don’t make the same mistake us white (male) settlers did!” I will plead.

A reply: Some genocides have way higher body counts than others. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide lists various categories of what qualifies as genocide. So many genocides are more “subdued” than what Nazi Germany did, or what Israel is doing. Forced sterilization programs? Residential School systems? Allowing large segments of the indigenous population to die of disease? Seizing indigenous children and putting them in white households? The UN considers all of these actions to be acts of genocide – because the Canadian state’s aim was (and still is) to drive every indigenous nation into non-existence.

Also, I’m reminded of a CBC Radio News report a year or so ago (I forget exactly when or where it took place, but I know it was somewhere in Nova Scotia). And it was about settler fishers becoming enraged that Mi’kmaw indigenous fishers were fishing (at a time, according to the Canadian state, that NO ONE was supposed to be fishing). Of course, the news report made no mention of the Mi’kmaw treaty right of hunting and fishing. But the CBC got a quote from one settler dude, who said (paraphrased): “We’re committed to equality for all fishers to fish, when it is permitted for EVERYONE to fish AT THE SAME TIME.” OK asshole, but by denying the Mi’kmaw their treaty rights – you are making a case for the Mi’kmaw to say “OK, you settlers have broken the treaty. So we’re just going to kick ALL settlers off ALL Mi’kmaw territory.” Granted, it’s HIGHLY unlikely that would ever actually happen – but I consider it proof that settlers need to be WAY more considerate when dealing with the indigenous. Nova Scotia HAS been recognized as MI’KMAW land, whether you settler fishers like it or not.

Should there be “Indigenous Privilege”? I say yes (UNTIL the anarchist revolution). Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on November 2, 2025)

The brilliant film Observe and Report (written and directed by Jody Hill) is among my favourite comedies – it is as consistently hilarious as it is appropriately mean-spirited. So I consider it a “vicious” comedy, because of the varied (often cartoonish) forms of cruelty that virtually every character in the film is forced to endure at some point(s).

The film is centred on a childish, rude, antisocial, nasty, and extremely dangerous/unstable bipolar security guard (aka “mall cop”). For simplicity’s sake, I shall refer to him as the “boss mall cop”. Well, only a TINY MINORITY of bipolar people are a menace to society – and the boss mall cop sure is. So for me, more movies (especially comedies) should have more protagonists as interesting/vicious as the boss mall cop. The boss mall cop has three main goals in his life:

1. Arrest a local flasher,
2. Become a “real cop”, and
3. Win the heart of the hot (AND uninterested AND clearly sociopathic) blonde female party animal he’s OBSESSED with.

Generally speaking, some of the most vicious movies I’ve ever seen – were movies that TRIED to make rape “funny” or “hilarious” in one way or another. And Observe and Report is one movie that is able to SUCCESSFULLY pull off that very difficult feat. In the film, the blonde female party animal grudgingly/reluctantly agrees to go to dinner with the boss mall cop – only because he’s so annoyingly persistent. At the restaurant, she gets incredibly drunk – after consuming A LOT of alcohol AND a lot of the boss mall cop’s prescription medication (specifically clonazepam, which is also the moment the boss mall cop hilariously decides he doesn’t need to take ANY medication EVER AGAIN). The boss mall cop then takes the barely conscious blonde female party animal back to her apartment – and they have sex. And many point out that this was a case of “date rape” – because she would’ve been too incapacitated to give informed consent. Even when she hilariously (and belatedly) consents to sex (while he is in the middle of fucking her), she STILL seems to be too incapacitated to fully consent. So I consider this a scene where we must condemn the actions of the boss mall cop – though he must also be condemned for an incredibly long list of hilariously violent acts throughout the film.

Observe And Report was made before the Me Too movement got going – back in the day when men (generally) were even more ignorant about sexual consent than they are today. The date rape scene in the film IS hilarious, though in the worst taste. But the entirety of this movie is unapologetically in bad taste – and that is why I love it so.

Should the mentally ill be offended by Observe and Report? Well, I’m not bipolar – but I’ll say this. This is a VERY silly film that is NOT meant to be taken seriously. You’d have to be pretty naive to think the boss mall cop is representative of common behaviour of people with bipolar disorder. Also, with a bit of tweaking to the character of the boss mall cop – he could’ve easily been a schizophrenic (a direction I wish Jody Hill had decided to go in). Oh well.

In closing, Observe and Report is a GREAT film – even if you’ve heard it isn’t. But I have better taste than the World’s “film critics”. So you should trust me, more than “them” – and as I type these words, Roger Ebert is spinning in his grave. Ⓐ