(written by Terry MacNeil, on October 10 and 25, 2024)

During Israel’s war on Gaza during late-2023 and most of 2024 – I did not call what Israel’s military was doing genocidal. For me, the casualties were too low (I kept dwelling on Holocaust statistics, from WWII). But the body count kept climbing, the percentage of the population of Gaza being mass murdered kept increasing. And now, I can deny it no longer.

In 2023, from what I remember, I’d say it was clear Israel wanted to commit ethnic cleansing – by pushing everyone in the Gaza Strip into Egypt. But the Egyptian government refused to let that happen (for good reason, because it would have been abetting in a crime against humanity, in addition to creating a humanitarian crisis it did not want to deal with).

So, since the Palestinians were remaining in Gaza – the new Israeli goal was to make Gaza uninhabitable. So Gaza was bombed back into the stone age, food aid was blocked by Israel, and Gazans began to die of starvation and disease (like polio).

BUT in more recent days, since Palestinians are still committed to remaining in the Gaza Strip (a part of Palestine), the Israeli goal now seems to keep bombing Palestinian civilians – until they’re ALL dead. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if at a certain point in the future, Israel will allow the surviving Gazans a one-way ticket into permanent exile in a foreign country(s).

What’s wonderful about these choices – is that now Israelis will become conscious of their genocidal wars/strategies. But the sad thing – is that MANY Israelis cheer on the genocide.

The way MANY Jewish Israelis react (in public) to the genocide of Palestinians, is with applause – which is the exact reaction neo-Nazis in the Western World LOVE to see, because it suits their anti-Semitic propaganda.

But it must be remembered Israel is doing TODAY what it knows it must do – if it wants to keep the apartheid state going. Israel is convinced it MUST prevent a two-state solution (or else Jewish Israelis think the Jewish state will end). And Israel MUST prevent a unitary state where Israelis and Palestinians live in the same country while having equal voting rights – because then the Palestinians will be the majority (and if that happens, Jewish Israelis think the Jewish state will end). But would Palestinians become the ruling class in a unitary state? If Nelson Mandela’s South Africa is anything to go by – then no, they won’t. Because Mandela granted South Africa’s blacks political freedom – but did NOT grant them economic equality with South Africa’s whites (there was no redistribution of wealth/property). And I’d expect the same in Israel/Palestine.

Also, I’m older than a lot of today’s critics of Israel – many of them, are “Gen-Z”. For MANY years, I had criticisms of the Israeli state – that I would never publicly express, because I feared that if I did, I’d be branded an “anti-Semite”. And I’m a Millennial, and that fear seems to be even MORE pronounced for OLDER shitheads like Joe Biden. But the youth of today, are CLEARLY LESS afraid of being painted as anti-Semitic – because they are concerned about JUSTICE more than anything else. And so… I think there is hope for a better future.

In closing, would the Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023 have happened IF Israel had NOT been an oppressive/violent apartheid state, that hadn’t blocked a two-state solution? Would it have happened if Israel treated all Palestinians as the political equals of all Jewish Israelis? The answer is clearly NO – the only reason organizations like Hamas has support among Palestinians, is because of atrocities routinely carried out by the State of Israel. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on August 13-14, 2024)

I remember I showed flashes of empathy in my childhood – those were moments when I would try to get other schoolchildren (who looked lonely) to play with me and my friends. BUT those were only mere moments – because I was (overall) a pretty despicable child. In my childhood, I would (overall) PRETEND like I was kind and well-behaved when I was around adults, then treat (most) children around my age like shit. Oh well. Adults rarely get to know what their child is REALLY LIKE, until the child is much older.

In later life, I don’t recall displaying empathy until I was in university – that was when I overcame my desire to exterminate the entire human race (including myself). Put simply, overcoming my fear of socializing with other humans resulted in my misanthropy becoming less intense – though I didn’t completely overcome that hatred of humanity until I embraced anarcho-communism. The common assumption is that ALL anarchists are of the “egoist” variety, and that society is under constant threat from these anarchists committing acts of terrorism. When did the era of “anarchist terrorism” end? About a hundred years ago – even though many of us see no harm in throwing molotov cocktails at police (something way more common in Europe than in North America). But I digress.

Something I’ve never been happy about, is the common assumption that all heterosexual “Virgin Wizards” (like myself) are misogynists. Well, I have never been a misogynist in my entire life (although I’m convinced that if I had had a girlfriend in university, I wouldn’t have treated her with as much respect and consideration as she would’ve deserved). But I digress.

Around the time I finished my fourth year of university, I had a major depression that was so crippling, I was pretty much bedridden for half a year. And I pretty much spent the next ten years hiding from the World outside of my house, as much as possible. But when that depression ended, I found my level of empathy went way higher than it had ever been. But I digress.

As I’ve already said elsewhere, I don’t get angry at women that turn me down (if I ask them out). I DO become disappointed, but who doesn’t? That said, I’ve never been treated cruelly by any woman I asked out – if I were treated with cruelty, THEN I would get angry. But even if I am treated cruelly and become angry, it’s still no excuse to ever become a misogynist.

When I’m being hit on by someone I’m uninterested in – I play dumb. I just act completely oblivious to their intentions – and most of those people eventually give up without me having to specifically tell them I’m uninterested. I do this, because I am aware of how devastated some people can become when they are turned down. I’ve done this with physically unattractive women who were interested in me, as well as homosexual men. To be clear – I’m not homosexual, and I’m not bisexual. But I know a lot of heterosexual dudes FREAK OUT if a gay male hits on them – which is the WORST way they can react. I regard it as a compliment if a gay dude hits on me – and I’ve been hit on by more than one gay dude in my life. But I have zero interest in fucking men – so all I can do is try not to hurt their feelings, while making sure they get the message that they will not be getting into my pants. But I digress.

I’m assuming this has something to do with my Catholic upbringing and my New Age readings in high school, but I do worry some of the insensitive tweets I write will result in me paying a severe price in terms of “karma”. Oh well. I guess I’m fucked. Ⓐ

(written by Terry MacNeil, on July 29-30, 2024)

First off, I must point out – there is no anti-white racism in the movie White Chicks. The only content that could be described as racist in that movie – was directed against Latinos. So for that reason, I consider White Chicks an ugly/despicable movie (even though I, overall, love the film). But this isn’t the only despicable film I love (Revenge of the Nerds is another one, for other reasons). So, why do I love White Chicks? Because it’s a FUCKING HILARIOUS film (though I’m repulsed by the film’s opening scene of racist Latino caricatures). As for THE REST of the movie (AFTER the scene of anti-Latino racism) – I love it.

I recently heard Marlon Wayans (one of the dudes who made White Chicks) refused to condemn ANYTHING in White Chicks. In my opinion, Hollywood wouldn’t dare make a movie like White Chicks today – but twenty years ago, non-whites were able to get away with certain forms of politically incorrect/controversial/offensive comedy that whites couldn’t. THAT is something that white right-wingers have been angry about for AGES.

Today’s controversy over White Chicks reminds me of a stand-up comedian (who was incredibly popular back in the day) and would’ve been incredibly controversial today – Russell Peters. That dude (a man of Indian descent) based his entire stand-up act on him saying a lot of shit that white comedians wouldn’t dare say (because if they did, they would’ve been branded racists and “cancelled” by “cancel culture”). I’m not sure what happened to Peters – but it SEEMS he’s no longer popular. Well, as far as I know, he was never “cancelled” – but he’d definitely get “cancelled” today, if he continued doing the same politically incorrect stand-up comedy he was doing a decade and a half ago.

I feel the need to emphasize, that, as a white dude, I’ve heard various anti-white slurs over the years: such as “whitey”, “honky”, “cracker”, and “white-devil”. However, if I were to be referred to by any of those insults – it wouldn’t bother me. Last night, my sister (a bartender) pointed out that she knows way more anti-white slurs than I do. And I concede that point.

The thing is, at least within “the Western World” – insults directed against whites have no effect on me. And I doubt those insults matter much to the average white. THAT shows the power of “white privilege” – the insults WHITES come up with for the rest of the World’s ethnicities have way more punch than what is deployed against us. This shouldn’t be a competition. But in terms of offensiveness on this planet, whites seem to come up with more offensive insults than anyone else.

But as we move toward an increasingly multipolar planet – I expect that anti-white insults from people in India, China, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, etc will have more punch. And I expect white right-wingers in the Western World will cry about those insults more than anyone else will. But I digress.

In closing – I must emphasize White Chicks is (overall) a HILARIOUS movie, even if you’ve heard it isn’t. The naysayers would be wrong, especially if they are oversensitive film critics. It is possible for your film to be incredibly offensive and politically incorrect, and still be great! Ⓐ

(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! Ⓐ