This is the website of TERRY MACNEIL: the (unpublished) Anarchist Novelist and Paranoid Schizophrenic!

(written by Terry MacNeil, on April 24-25, 2024)

I saw almost every episode of the TV series Buffy The Vampire Slayer over twenty years ago – it was a show I enjoyed watching with my parents. We three were BIG FANS – and so were other relatives of mine. So after I saw the Series Finale back in 2003 – I spent over twenty years being careful to AVOID watching old episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Why? Because when it comes to every fictional TV series, I make sure I go back to watch the earliest episode, then watch every episode that comes afterwards IN ORDER. As far as I’m concerned, that’s THE ONLY WAY to properly watch a TV series – ESPECIALLY if it has storylines that are not self-contained within each episode. But I digress.

While re-watching the Season Finale of Season One of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which was the episode titled “Prophecy Girl”) several things compelled me to write this note. First, I noticed the episode was written and directed by the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Joss Whedon. And second, in this episode, we see “Xander” (Nicholas Brendon) ask out “Buffy” (Sarah Michelle Gellar). “Buffy” turns “Xander” down, then he gets angry, and says mean things to her (even though she was as kind as possible). After hearing recently about the toxic work environment that Whedon created on the set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I assumed that Whedon modelled the “Xander” character on himself. But bashing Whedon is not this note’s point.

The point, is that I saw an online comment from a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, who praised “Xander’s” courage in the episode “Prophecy Girl”. Sure, it’s WAY harder to ask out girls when you’re a teenager – which explains why I didn’t until my twenties. And it must be remembered the “Xander” character is a male teenage high schooler. And the typical teenager is unable to handle rejection in an admirable way. So “Xander” did show some balls by asking out “Buffy” – which is admirable (and he DOES risk his life to help “Buffy” later in the episode). But the way “Xander” reacted when he asked out “Buffy” was cowardly – and he should be condemned for that childish reaction (regardless of his age). And anyone in real-life who behaves like that (no matter what their age is), should also be condemned.

As for me, I have asked out women in the past – and none of them reacted with cruelty, so none of them gave me a reason to be angry. Almost all of those women turned me down – but when they did they treated me with as much kindness as was appropriate. One time in my thirties, I thought “On TV dudes ask girls they’re interested in if they want to ‘go for coffee’. I’ll say that, and see what happens!” Shortly afterwards, I said that to a female (face-to-face), and she gave me her phone number! And I thought to myself “That’s it? If I knew asking out girls was this easy back in the day, I would’ve made less of a fool of myself during my twenties.” Said female stopped answering her phone shortly afterwards. So there was no date for me – which made me sad, but not angry. Oh well. At least asking out women online is EVEN EASIER.

As for the “Xander” character? From what I recall, he has several INCREDIBLY HOT girlfriends in future episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and if memory serves me correctly, he also discards them). Then at some point he realizes he wants to fuck “Willow” (Alyson Hannigan). She’s a female who had been in love with “Xander” for ages (but never had the courage to ask him out). However, that was before “Willow” realized she’s a lesbian. Oh well. There are clueless/insensitive oafs, and then there is “Xander”. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on March 30, 2024)

There are a zillion different branches of anarchism – and I view some of those branches as despicable, even though I am a “social anarchist” (more specifically, an “anarcho-communist”). Would anarcho-communism “work” in practice? I consider it quite possible it wouldn’t – BUT I am convinced we must ATTEMPT TO TRY TO MAKE IT WORK, regardless. And THAT is why I wholeheartedly embrace the anarcho-communist label.

I have a former friend, who knows me very well – but (incorrectly) assumed I am more easily influenced than I actually am. Put simply, he worried that since I devote a lot of my time to monitoring the far-right, that I might EMBRACE the far-right someday. But the thing is – I am a social anarchist. And most of us social anarchists make it a priority to monitor the far-right. All you have to do, is look at the history of the World – for a long list of socialist movements that got squashed by reactionary (and bloody) counterrevolutions.

“Propaganda” is an interesting word – when I hear it used nowadays, most people use that word interchangeably with “lies”. But when I use the word, I use it the way it was used in the 19th century. So in the 19th century sense of the word, I consider myself a “propagandist” – because I have a pro-anarchist bias when I analyze politics, and I always try to paint anarcho-communism in a favourable light. When I promote anarcho-communism, I don’t lie – but I am biased. And so, that makes me a propagandist.

There aren’t many anarchists in the World – and most of them seem to be young people (teenagers and people in their twenties). By anarchist standards, I am old. And most anarchists have a bad habit of becoming enraged whenever they encounter anyone with whom they are not in complete agreement (politically). When I interact with a human, I prefer to focus on points where we politically agree. So if I am dealing with a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada, we can agree that Justin Trudeau is scum (even though I can tell Pierre Poilievre would be an even worse Prime Minister than Trudeau). And if I am dealing with a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada, I can mention CERTAIN policies of Trudeau that I approve of (even though I hate Trudeau, overall). So while I prefer to focus on points of agreement with other people, if they bring up something with which I disagree – I consider it important to express my own stance.

For instance, there is much talk of immigration these days. Most Canadians think Canada needs to cut back on the level of immigrants currently being admitted – mostly because of the housing crisis that afflicts the ENTIRE country. My stance? We need to bring in WAY more immigrants – AND set them up with affordable housing. Why? Because if we redirect our resources, it is possible to accommodate these immigrants – and we must also focus more on accommodating “the poor” in general. Global warming is increasingly turning the Earth into uninhabitable desert wasteland. Are we supposed to just IGNORE the suffering of humans in the rest of the planet – with all the land, resources, and wealth that Canada has?

In closing, even though I’m not politically incorrect – there is a lot of politically incorrect humour out there that is hilarious. That said, it is humour in the worst possible taste – and politically incorrect humour can be used to seduce certain people into embracing the far-right (especially Nazism). As an internet troll, I love to be offensive – but I have limits. Nazis don’t. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on February 21-22, 2024)

In case you, dear reader, were wondering – I am a heterosexual male. And I don’t have a sex life to speak of – unless consuming porn counts. But I seem to find the sex lives of every human on Earth interesting in one way or another – perhaps because I’m a Virgin Wizard. One of my best friends is a homosexual male – and he always worries about grossing me out, when he talks about his sex life (my guess is, he’s grossed out heterosexual men in the past). And I always have to say (paraphrased): “You won’t gross me out. And go into as much detail as you feel comfortable.” Hearing descriptions of homosexual males fucking doesn’t arouse me sexually – though I find the descriptions fascinating. And no disrespect to the male homosexual community, but I get way more enjoyment from hearing about the sex lives of women than I do of men. That’s because I’m also a pervert. While chatting with my male homosexual friend back in the day, we discussed our preferred body types. I assumed he’d say a gay dude that’s built like Arnold Schwarzenegger – but he said no, which surprised me. And he was surprised when I said I don’t have a preferred female body type.

Before I go further into detail, I must mention an old episode I saw of the CBC TV show The Hour (with George Stroumboulopoulos). I saw this particular episode about… fifteen years ago, I guess. And George was in front of a magazine rack, chatting with the incredibly hot actress Sitara Hewitt about what was featured on the magazine covers. Since most of the magazines featured female models on their covers, this inspired Ms. Hewitt to ask George what his preferred female body type was. I don’t remember George’s exact words – but he said something like this: “I don’t have a preferred female body type – I appreciate all female body types.” And then Ms. Hewitt accused George of lying. Personally, I think George was exaggerating – so in the end, I’d say his answer was less than honest. Do I think he’d fuck a “fat chick”? I doubt it.

As for me? I love slender women. But I also love full-figured women (though NOT obese women). And a former friend of mine would refer to “athletic” women who had muscular legs as having “soccer legs” (which he considered a turnoff, much to my amusement). One HUGE problem – many slender women have SMALL tits. But for me, there’s something that is WAY MORE IMPORTANT than body type – and that’s face. I can handle a woman with small tits as long as her face impresses me (aka a pretty face). That’s because as far as I go – THE FACE is the most arousing feature on EVERY woman. A woman’s body is completely irrelevant, if I don’t like her face. And this will sound terrible – but I doubt I could handle a woman with a typically short middle-aged female haircut (in that case I’d prefer her to shave her head, but that’s just me).

Anyway, today I was in town (for the first time in over a month). When I was on my way to check bread prices, my jaw almost hit the floor when I walked past an “athletic” female – big ass, big tits, wide hips, “soccer legs”, great face, etc. Well, I tried to AVOID ogling her – although some of her physical features left an impression on me. I’m not sure it would be appropriate to say she was “THICC” (that said, that’s youngster lingo with which I’m not familiar enough). The thing is, she had a body type that I had not seen with my own eyes in SO LONG – that it drove me mad with lust. I had seen various slender mothers earlier in the day – and yes, I checked them out. But most of the mothers I saw today were quite thin. None of the mothers were “athletic”.

Is variety the spice of life? I say yes, but only if I’d hit it. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on January 19-20, 2024)

One of the latest men of scandal is… Russell Brand. I remember that guy. First I heard about some of his roles in movies, later he became a spokesman for “the left” in Britain. During his era where he spoke for “the left”, he’d occasionally appear on a RT TV show called The Keiser Report, where he would promote his socialist causes. And I was most impressed by Brand’s ability to SPEAK. He himself admitted he should’ve read more books before becoming one of the spokesmen of “the left” – but he seemed to perform reasonably well (in that position) for a man who was not well-read. He had the gift of gab.

His gift of gab resulted in numerous interviews that were entertaining, which would go off the rails whenever Brand was displeased with the questions he was facing. I have a particularly fond memory of his appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, where Brand spent the interview making Jimmy Fallon uncomfortable – and Fallon was trying as hard as possible not to discuss anything remotely “revolutionary” (which had been the subject of the book Brand was promoting, if memory serves me correctly).

I recall that Brand sounded like an anarcho-pacifist – until he told his followers to vote for the Labour Party (in certain ridings – as in, voting for “the lesser of two evils”). And that recommendation basically annihilated all the good will he had with “the left”. Facing harsh criticism, Brand disappeared for a while, and abandoned activism – and focused on acting again.

Brand seemed to reappear (from what I recall), by moving toward right-wing populism – a number of years after Donald Trump became president of the USA. But Brand was not unique in embracing “the right” – there were other prominent leftists who sold out around the time of Trump’s presidency.

WHY do so many leftist commentators sell out? The main reason, seems to be for money. It’s easier to make money promoting right-wing viewpoints on websites like Rumble, than promoting left-wing viewpoints anywhere else on the internet.

As for Russell Brand, I’ve heard some say he went right-wing, because he knew he’d be exposed as a rapist someday – and he allegedly calculated if he had a right-wing base, they’d never turn on him. So the theory goes.

I must emphasize, I’ve dealt with men who are skeptical of rape allegations when a long list of women come forward – because said men assume these women are just conspiring to screw over the accused (for money/fame/whatever). Said men are unaware that unless the accusations are being made by MANY people – if it boils down to “his word against her word”, the case rarely goes forward. And it must also be remembered, that the typical rapist has MANY victims (most of whom remain silent).

Most leftists say they believe EVERY person who claims to be a victim of rape or sexual assault – but that is only USUALLY true. With regard to Julian Assange’s accusers, I disbelieve them for the same reason I’m convinced the USA blew up the Nord Stream pipeline – because I don’t trust the CIA. And I say that, even though I KNOW most people won’t “believe the victims” when it’s “their guy/girl” that is being accused of sex crimes. For instance, many liberals refuse to accept Bill Clinton is a sex criminal, and many conservatives refuse to accept Donald Trump is a sex criminal. That said, even if Russell Brand hadn’t made his right-wing populist turn – I bet I’d still assume he’s guilty of sex crimes. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on January 14-15, 2024)

Last week, I recorded the 2024 Golden Globes on my PVR – and didn’t get around to watching it until tonight. Though I had heard the host was Jo Koy – a man I watched on my television BEING HILARIOUS on the show Chelsea Lately (many years ago). And I saw his name was trending on Twitter for the ensuing several days – which is usually a bad sign. In the aftermath of the Golden Globes, the consensus on Twitter was that he was a shitty host. Many of the prominent complainers on Twitter were criticizing (what they called) Koy’s “woke humour”.

To be clear, I consider myself “woke” – and I embrace the label. Most people use “woke” as a pejorative, though I do not. However, these days I am always forced to go out of my way (to explain to every random stranger I encounter) that I am NOT “anti-woke”. But I digress.

So I heard many people describe Koy’s comedy (at the Golden Globes) as “woke humour”. After seeing the show, I guess… I would say that label is… appropriate – though I must add, I’ve been known to make tasteless boob tweets myself. The problem with Koy’s comedy, wasn’t that it offended anyone (except perhaps for certain right-wing snowflakes, or perhaps certain Hollywood celebrities). The problem, is that Koy was painfully unfunny (EXCEPT when he joked about the crowd being pedophiles). I also felt bad for Koy – because he KNEW he was bombing, and was frequently apologizing to the audience (and occasionally taking shots at his writers for writing unfunny material). Overall, he did better as host than most people have said (I have seen EVEN WORSE award show hosts over my many years – such as Norm Macdonald hosting the 2016 Canadian Screen Awards).

I’m not a Howard Stern fan, though I did hear a clip from his show – where he commented on Koy as Golden Globes host. And Stern said (paraphrased) “This is why you never agree to host these shows on short notice”. And Koy did mention that fact, during his opening monologue (from what I hear, he accepted the job ten days before the show). So Koy and his writers had not nearly enough time to come up with material (on paper) that is FUNNY, and is ALSO FUNNY when Koy would deliver it to the audience at the Golden Globes. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I will NEVER, EVER attempt stand-up comedy (nor attempt to host the Golden Globes).

Now, I must pose the question – is “woke humour” ever funny? It depends on how you define it. I think of “woke humour” as being humour that doesn’t attack/humiliate/dehumanize anyone for being part of a racial/sexual/gender minority community – but DOES attack (some of) the more “powerful/privileged” members of our society. And if the material is funny, depends on the writer(s) as well as the person doing the delivery. Yes, a lot of what’s considered “anti-woke humour” is where you’re simply being as offensive as possible. And I love being offensive – even though there’s stuff I used to say a decade ago, that I would never say today.

Put simply, if you’re anti-woke – you have more freedom of expression, when it comes to humour/comedy (though you’ll be more likely to be facing hostile audiences). So it takes more work/effort to attempt humour that is FUNNY – if you’re woke. And I say this, as someone that was (in certain ways) anti-woke not so long ago.

As for the acceptance speeches at the 2024 Golden Globes? I fast forwarded all of them. And I expect to do the same for the 2024 Oscars. Why? Well, I have no tolerance for lists of “thank yous”, and even less tolerance for preachy liberal platitudes. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on December 4-5, 2023)

Before I begin, I must emphasize that I’ve been a fan of the heavy metal band Slayer for most of my life. They’re pretty much the only metal band I (as an adult) still love to listen to. And I am quite certain Slayer never was a racist band.

I must also emphasize, that (as a white male) I was INCREDIBLY ignorant when I was in high school and university. Back then, I thought racism had disappeared in the USA – after Jim Crow was outlawed. And I thought racism had never been a problem in Canada. Needless to say, I had no idea whatsoever of what constitutes “White Privilege” – and even if I had, I would’ve concluded that white privilege does not exist. If my parents had known I was so ignorant, they would’ve kicked my arse.

As for Slayer, they ran into controversy on their “Undisputed Attitude” album (released in 1996, which was mostly punk rock songs that were covered by Slayer). Most Slayer fans hate punk rock, and most Slayer fans did not enjoy “Undisputed Attitude”. Personally, I LOVE “Undisputed Attitude”, even though I don’t consider it a “true” Slayer album. But I must point out – punk rock is my fave kind of rock, and I am NOT a metal fan. But I digress.

The controversy of the “Undisputed Attitude” album centred on a Minor Threat song called “Guilty of Being White”. For the last couple of decades, I thought the song was about a white man complaining about being criticized by parts of American society – for the sins of the USA’s past (such as slavery, genocide, economic injustice/exploitation, etc). For Slayer’s cover of the song, they changed the final line from “Guilty of Being White” to “Guilty of Being Right” – which led many people to believe that Slayer was endorsing the viewpoint of whiny whites. According to Wikipedia, Slayer claimed to not be endorsing any racist viewpoint – but that they were ridiculing it. As far as this issue goes, I am giving Slayer the benefit of the doubt. That said, I’m betting Slayer wouldn’t have changed that line in the song – if “Undisputed Attitude” had been released during the first presidential campaign of Donald Trump (or during the years since).

And now, we get back to me. As a teenager, and later a young adult, I interpreted the song “Guilty of Being White” not as being racist – but that it was about whites (in general) being unfairly criticized for “being white”. Back then, I (as a white dude) did (absurdly) feel as though I was under attack and being unfairly criticized by segments of Canadian society (especially by racial minorities), and by anti-racists in general. In a way, it felt as though the song was about me. It took me a LONG time to smarten up – and to reject the racism of my youth. More than anything else, it was anarchism that saved me from my ignorance, self-centredness, and idiocy. And for that, I’ll always be grateful.

As for the song “Guilty of Being White” – yesterday I got one hell of a surprise when I saw on Wikipedia what the song was originally about. Back in the day, Minor Threat’s lead singer Ian MacKaye was a white student at a majority black high school – and was getting bullied (by blacks) for the sins of white Americans (in general) committed long ago. So I consider it a non-racist song – but that it is NOT a song being critical of white racists (as I had incorrectly assumed it was). Oh dear. The things you learn on the internet! Ⓐ