Jesus of Nazareth: Proto-Marxist

window church crucifixion church window
Photo by Pixabay on

EVERYONE hates the question: was Jesus a Marxist?

Christians don’t want to believe their founder was a pinko. Marxist would rather not entertain the thought that the founder of something they’ve traditionally rallied against might’ve agreed with them.

But more importantly, the answer is obvious: No. Marx showed up 1800 years after Christ. Jesus couldn’t have possibly been a Marxist.

But is that the question?


I’ve been obsessing over this problem for the last week. It caught my attention when I noticed that there were many MANY people in my DSA that are Christian. Additionally, atheism is growing among conservatives. The religious/political dynamic has flipped in the US. Leftist/Liberals are increasingly becoming religious, while conservatives are growing away from it. It’s either that, or religion is becoming less homogenized to one side. So this question was proposed.

Naturally, everybody wants to dismiss it for the very obvious answer that I previously stated. But this led me to ask a whole host of questions: is Marx necessary for Marxism? Did Karl Marx ‘invent’ it or ‘discover’ it? Do we say that Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz “invented” calculus? Were the processes of capitalism already beginning during the time of Jesus Christ, and was he and his followers in some ways (albeit unknowingly) responding to these processes? If it wasn’t Karl Marx, would it have been someone else that would have conceptualized “Marxism”…therefore making it a natural reaction to the forces of capital? So once when the question was dismissed, it left me with more questions.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that I’m not an expert in ANYTHING, so feel free to call me out. But in short, I felt that the question “was Jesus a Marxist?” to have a degree of merit. ESPECIALLY since certain Marxist circles embrace Spartacus, who led a slave revolt against the Romans about 100 years before Christ’s death and ministry, as an icon. Sure, Spartacus’s existence is far more easily verifiable that Jesus’s, but Jesus’s ideals were far more revolutionary. (The ideals and motivations of Spartacus aren’t well known. His revolt put a good scare into Roman society, but it didn’t appear to be “revolutionary” in any way. Although, as a former slave/gladiator, Spartacus’s intentions likely aren’t hard to figure out.) But if Spartacus can be deemed a Leftist/Marxist hero, perhaps Jesus of Nazareth isn’t getting his due.

(Additionally, it should be noted, that Jesus and Spartacus’s followers faced the same fate.)

Jesus of Nazareth: All Too Human

Of course, Jesus wasn’t a political ideologue insofar as we can tell….at least not political in any sense that we recognize today. He was a religious figure addressing (again, insofar as we can tell) religious issues. Christ wasn’t an economist. So the question “was Jesus a Marxist?” might be misleading. Perhaps a better question might be “was Jesus an egalitarian undermining certain class structures of his time?” therefore making him a proto-Marxist. When refining those search terms, I mostly found that scholars were projecting onto Jesus their current biases. So of course Jesus wasn’t an “egalitarian”, his views mostly aligned with mainstream religious thought at the time, the only thing revolutionary about him was his theology. Whatever. My search could have stopped there. But a common problem that most scholars and researchers were making, in my view (at least to the sources that I found, both academic and religious), were that they were failing to asses Jesus Christ as a product of his era.

What do I mean by that?

Of course, any scholar worth their salt should be able to assess the life of Christ in an impartial way. Unfortunately, there’s SO much working against that. We divide history by birth of Christ. It’s 2018 because, in theory, it’s 2,018 years after the birth of Jesus. When some evaluate Jesus as an historical figure, they still portray him as someone that fell out of the sky. In the West, we’ve heard stories of this guy since childhood. Christianity has so dominated western culture that it’s impossible to be altogether impartial towards the study of its history (that is, if you’re a scholar raised in the West). Whatever philosophies inspired by Christian thought likely, directly or indirectly, influenced Karl Marx (of course, defer to the experts on that one). So it’s necessary to look at Jesus of Nazareth as a product of his time.

In our atheist and conspiracy-laden internet landscape, it’s popular to dismiss Jesus as a myth, a fabricated character. If true, that would raise more questions than it answers, namely why would followers choose to create a regular person that was killed rather than say…a king or a warrior? Other than the miracles, there’s nothing particularly interesting about the life of Jesus in the surviving accounts. If we take away the supernatural aspects to the Gospels, what we find is a regular guy, a carpenter, that goes from town to town preaching and gains a few followers until he shows up in Jerusalem, angers the authorities, and is crucified. Cool story, right? Since there’s nothing particularly too outrageous (other than the miracles) in these accounts….in fact, this could be considered downright embarrassing to the followers since he was crucified and killed….in all likelihood, Jesus was a REAL person.

Historians generally agree that these two things happened: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and, as we all know, he was crucified. Other than general historical consensus, I am basing my opinions mostly on the Gospel of Mark. This Gospel is almost certainly the oldest surviving account, written roughly 30 years after the death of Jesus (I personally think it was written later, but that’s a different story). The game of “telephone” explains why I dismiss the later accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John.  Early in the Book of Mark, Jesus is baptized and then disappears into the wilderness. John the Baptist is imprisoned not long after. It is not clear if John is taken captive DURING Jesus’s adventures in the wilderness or right AFTER his return. Nevertheless, I’ve always found it strange that these two events occurred at roughly the same time. Like Jesus, John the Baptist probably existed and probably had a significant following. Unlike Josephus’s 1st Century account of Jesus, the account of John the Baptist is largely undisputed….meaning there’s more independent, scholarly consensus of John the Baptist’s existence than Jesus’s. So, John likely created as big of a ruckus as Jesus would later do. There is much debate over whether or not Jesus was a follower of the Baptist. Clearly he was baptized, but was he a disciple? If we assume that Jesus was NOT born under any special circumstance, as in no one claimed that he was the “Son of God” during his lifetime or before the death of John, then the question has an obvious answer: yes. Jesus, in all likelihood, was a disciple of John the Baptist. Even Herod, upon learning of Jesus, thought that he was John the Baptist resurrected. Therefore, Jesus didn’t go into the wilderness to be “tempted”…he was in hiding after John’s imprisonment and subsequent execution. True, this is based on an account written over 30 years after the death of Jesus….BUT the death of John the Baptist at least provides a degree of motivation for Jesus’s ideals and motivations (likely conceived during his hiding in the wilderness).

John the Baptist

I’d argue that we can’t understand Jesus without understanding John the Baptist. Unfortunately, there’s not much to go one here either. It is highly speculated that he was an Essene. The Essenes were a Jewish sect that, supposedly, lived semi-ascetic lives and embraced communal living. There’s plenty of scholarly work regarding the existence of the Essenes, but almost no evidence regarding their connection to John the Baptist. Again, this is all speculation. But I point this out to illustrate the possible influences on Jesus. Jesus was a Jew, and he must be understood in that light. He most certainly did not predict the rise of a new religion centered around him and he absolutely did not receive his theology from any sort of “divine intervention”. Jesus was influenced by someone and John the Baptist (and by extension, the Essenes) are a strong candidate…especially since many scholars believe Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

As for the Essenes, to an extent, it’s easy to see their “proto-Marxist” or “communist” views with their anti-materialist and communal living. From here, I can only speculate. It’s impossible to determine where their views were coming from (but honestly, I didn’t do much research on these guys. So maybe it isn’t impossible). Judaism at this time was heavily influenced by Hellenism, so it isn’t unreasonable to assume that certain Greek schools of philosophy were bleeding into Jewish practice. It’s entirely possible that Jesus wasn’t ideologically influenced by John the Baptist or the Essenes at all, but by the Greeks directly (it’s unlikely). We’ll never know. But information is scarce regarding the roots of “egalitarian” thought…a term that I’m using very broadly here, but what I mean is “equality of all peoples”. “Liberal theory” is of course traceable back to the Ancient Greeks. But in western thought at the time, egalitarian beliefs weren’t so prevalent. The East, particularly in India…namely Jainism….such ideas were common place. Although we make a distinction between East and West, it is very likely that ideas were flowing back and forth between India and the Greco/Roman world. To what extent they would have influenced Jesus and/or Judaism is unknown, but the image that we have of Jesus being an egalitarian “revolutionary” would not have been new…these were ideas that were flowing around long before him.

The Crucifixion

Was Jesus a class warrior? Well….let’s look at the only other piece of evidence regarding the life of Jesus: the crucifixion. The Romans used crucifixion as a means of punishment for enemies of the state. This means the powers that be would have had to of seen Jesus as a genuine threat. It’s highly unlikely that the Gospels, including Mark, were accurate in their recreation of this event. Pontius Pilate was probably all too happy to send Jesus to his death. The Romans crucified Jesus, even the Gospels agree, yet strangely the Jews get blamed.  It’s unknown what role the Jewish authorities had in regards to the apprehension of Jesus (a story for another day), but what we can say with absolute authority is that the Romans signed, sealed, and fostered Jesus’s crucifixion. Whatever story the Gospels try to sell in this regard is nonsense. So it’s interesting to ponder the effect that Roman intrusion had on Jewish society (Again, defer to the experts). It’s safe to assume that it caused deep rifts within its cultural hierarchy. And understandably so. Some, particularly those at the top, might’ve benefited from Roman presence while others, like those at the bottom in Jesus’s class, might’ve resented this. Was there a feeling among the poorer Jews that the authorities “sold them out?” (feel free to chime in) Were there feelings of disillusionment or a loss of Jewish identity during this time? If so, then it’s no wonder why there were so many apocalyptic preachers appearing….Jewish culture was in the midst of a socio-economic crisis. We can say with relative certainty that Jesus was not of nobility. He was an average joe. Had he been of any higher order, it’s possible that his actions would have been better documented. But because he was a nobody, the educated, or those that knew how to read and write, took no notice of his actions. Nevertheless, despite his nobody status, Jesus mobilized a group of fellow nobodies which Roman authorities perceived to be a genuine threat. It’s either that or because these insurrectionaries were so commonplace, the Romans simply crucified individuals for the most minor offenses as a means of deterring others. Whatever the case, because he was crucified, it’s entirely possible that Jesus’s intentions were to disrupt the established order….and he (likely) wanted to use the poor to do so.

But Jesus as an “apocalyptic preacher” would mean that he wasn’t a class revolutionary of any sort. It would have meant that he was more of a proto-David Koresh than Vladimir Lenin. If so, then he was just a lunatic on the fringes of Jewish society whose message would take off decades later. That is, unless we want to consider the possibility of the mysterious Q source.

What was the Q Source?

As stated earlier, the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels. It was written some 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. The epistles of Paul actually predate the gospels (I Thessalonians is, I believe, the oldest surviving New Testament work). In fact, it’s not certain that Paul knew anything about the life of Jesus. Paul’s interpretation of Christianity might’ve, to a certain degree, influenced the theology and Christology presented in the gospels. Therefore, Christianity as a religion today is largely the creation of the Apostle Paul and NOT Jesus of Nazareth. However, early Christians right after the crucifixion almost certainly used particular documents or oral traditions to recall the message of Jesus. Unfortunately, NONE of these sources survive. Moreover, nothing is ever mentioned about them in any other source. Therefore we can only provide speculation on their existence. But there is one source, the Q Source, that scholars almost universally agree upon. Better yet, we know what was contained in the source (if it in fact existed). Scholars know this by comparing the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and discovering that they shared Mark as a source, but there’s another source that Matthew and Luke used that Mark did not. From this, Q was hypothesized. (There’s a lot more to this that I won’t go into here. But it’s a fascinating theory, and I highly recommend you research this.)

Scholars generally believe that was not a narrative, but was instead a collection of sayings from Jesus. Which sayings would they have contained? Well…The Beatitudes (Blessed are the poor….), The Golden Rule, Parable of the Leaven, the Lost Sheep, etc, to name a few. It’s uncertain when this source was written. All we can say was that it was composed before the writing of Matthew and Luke (roughly 80-90 CE). Some believe that it might’ve existed in it’s earliest form right after the crucifixion in the 30s and completed during the 50s. If true, then the earliest (conceptualized) depictions of Jesus was not so much as an apocalyptic preacher, but as a sage teacher with a religious bent. He wasn’t as radical as say David Koresh, but not quite a revolutionary either. This would have placed Jesus down the line of a Buddha or Socrates.

So the obvious question is why didn’t this text survive, and why didn’t anybody else mention it? Defenders of this theory explain that once when it was incorporated with context into the gospels, it wasn’t necessary to preserve it especially since it was likely copied verbatim. As to why it was never mentioned, I don’t have a good enough answer. My expertise and desire to research is limited. But I can say that early Christianity was quite fragmented. The leading New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman states that it wasn’t so much “early Christianity” but “early Christianities”. Which would be odd considering the seeds of this Christian movement would have come from a relatively small group of followers. What happened to Jesus’s followers immediately after the crucifixion is a great mystery. Did the surviving “11 Apostles” (or Jesus’s inner circle. I say 11 because Judas would have been dead by this time) ever reconvene to hash out the theological details of Jesus’s ministry and decide to spread the word? Evidence would suggest a hard ‘no’. Since early Christianity was so fragmented, this would suggest that there was chaos immediately after the crucifixion. There were probably power struggles over command of the movement. This would account for the wide ranging interpretations and probable conflicts. The Q source might not have been available to, or fully accepted by, the various schools of thought that were blossoming in early Christendom. It wouldn’t have been until the arrival of Paul, or even the Gospel of Mark, that Christianity began to coalesce around a “proto-Orthodox” movement…which would have later provided the illusion theological consistency within Christ’s teachings (there are infamously many contradictions and variations within the canonical New Testament, even in the writings of Paul).

Granted, the Q Source might not have existed or have been a single source. However, it would be difficult to accept that the first written sources of Jesus didn’t appear until 20 years after the crucifixion, as in the writings of Paul, and 30-40 years as in the Gospel of Mark. There were absolutely other (likely written) sources floating around very early, none of which survive today, that would have had to of existed. And analytical research of these sources suggests that Jesus wasn’t all gloom and doom. (These apocalyptic interpretations were applied to Jesus around the build-up to and during the Jewish Revolt of 66-73CE which involved the destruction of the Second Temple. Correct me if I’m wrong though).


So was Jesus a “proto-Marxist”? There’s no hard evidence to support that. The conceptual evidence would suggest that Jesus wasn’t as apocalyptic as previously hypothesized and he likely had egalitarian leanings with his views on poverty (and presumed disdain for the rich). But I’m having to stretch the interpretation of “Marxism” and the conceptual evidence to agree with one another. We can view Jesus as a “sage teacher”, but in my view he was a religious leader addressing religious needs first and foremost.

But perhaps I’m missing the point.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be assessing the historical Jesus of Nazareth as a Marxist hero, but should be appreciating him for what he ushered in. Or rather what his early followers ushered in. It’s amazing that the beliefs of small group of poor people, living in the armpit of the Roman Empire, managed to shape Western Civilization. Despite some of the heartache that Christianity would bring about in subsequent centuries, I suppose we can consider the religion a “proletarian triumph” of sorts. “Salvation for All”, regardless of race, seems like a pretty revolutionary (though not new) idea. It’s pretty cool that it was all brought about by some inconsequential dude (or people) in some inconsequential part of the world….and we are still talking about it.

So no, I don’t think that Jesus of Nazareth was Marxist, but I do think the question holds a degree of merit. And a Marxist interpretation of Jesus’s life and times, along with early Christianity, is certainly valid.

Breaking America

Anna Gunn recently discussed the hatred her character received during her time on Breaking Bad.

AMC had one hell of a run with Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead (a show that should have been put out of its misery seasons ago). In my view, all three of those shows shared a common theme: they centered on a white guy dealing with sudden changes. Don Draper was trying to lose himself in consumerism, and conceal his past, during the transitional decade of the 1960s. Walter White infamously made his descent from a meek high school teacher into drug overlord. And while less discussed, Rick Grimes too followed the Walter White arc into darkness by embracing the very evil he was initially fighting against. The Walking Dead is a bit more explicit in its appeal to white male/libertarian fantasy: it’s a world where society has collapsed and “might makes right”. This amoral sentiment is very much echoed in Breaking Bad, although viewers lost track of that during its initial run. (However TWD is nowhere near as an intelligent as BB, hence fans turned on Rick as where they embraced Walter White). This is why fans hated Skyler: she got in the way of her husbands nihilistic turn.

Out of all of those shows, Walter White best encapsulated that white male rage which would later turn mainstream during the 2016 elections. Don Draper was too high society and Rick’s concerns were too over-the-top to be relatable. White’s, however, were all too real: a cancer-stricken teacher that never lived the life he wanted.

It’s no wonder then why fans reacted so viscerally to Skyler (although she often played along with her husband’s deranged fantasies) She stood in the way of Walter’s fulfillment, of his entitlement. She symbolized what many white men feared: emasculation. In many ways, Gunn was perfectly cast. Her relatively similar height to Bryan Cranston likely contributed to audiences feeling intimidated by her. Much was made of the Walter/Jesse relationship, but it was Walter/Skyler relationship that also contributed to the show’s distinctiveness. Skyler was as much of an obstacle for Walter White to foil as all the other villains he came across. So she was a hindrance to his “entitlement”.

But he felt entitled to kill and manipulate. Despite the creators long losing sympathy for Walter, audiences overwhelmingly sided with him. Because Walter White was paralleling the projection that many American men were feeling.

The Best Days Of Our Lives

silhouette of group of people between tree line
Photo by Daan Stevens on

I’ve met a lot of crazy people. Good people.

Like I always say: everyone should be institutionalize at least once in their life. Of course, it comes at great cost to your social and family life, wallet, and possibly even mental stability. But it’s totally worth it. It exposes you to the fragility of this phenomenon we call society.

I often think back on the fellow lunatics I encountered in these halls. One guy, I only knew for three days. We laughed. We cried. We bonded over our love of drumming. Then he was shipped away to some other institution. I never heard from him again. That was one of the best friendships I’ve ever had. Another guy…quiet, distant. Had a Ph.D in psychology, yet was in there with the rest of us crazies. Smartest man I’ve ever met. In rehab, I made countless connections with interesting, talented, and intelligent people. Have no idea what happened to them all.

After spending weeks or months together, we’re suddenly thrust back into society and become reacclimated to sane life.

Except for a few days, particularly the days where I had to survive a hurricane, I embraced my time in these halls. People struggle. They want others to understand that they are struggling. And that understanding becomes harder to find out on the streets. Even family and friends fail to muster up a shred of sympathy. It’s a tough world. It doesn’t favor the weak. Not even moments of weakness. Yet it’s those fleeting moments of compassion that can make all the difference in the world. Sometimes those moments can only be found in the strangest of places.

Sure, those were some dark days. The darkest, in fact. But the light was never more clear.

who cares?

The only way to survive today is to be stupid.

Mark Levin was yelling on the radio when I came into work. Someone was blasting his annoying voice. I don’t think conservatives actually listen to him. They just have him playing in the background because it makes them feel smart. To be fair, he makes me feel smart too. I usually tune him out, but then I started hearing some familiar terms: “absolute spirit” and some bullshit. I thought “what the fuck is this guy talking about?”.

Then he said it: “Hegel”.

Hegel? HEGEL?!

Well that explains it.

I guess Levin was trying to explain to his audience why Marxism and leftism is a threat to the constitution or some shit. I’m not sure though. Maybe one of his fans can explain to me why he was talking about a widely disfavored philosopher.

But this is why I quit writing about philosophy: Fuckin nerds.

Conservatives have somewhat revived the popularity of philosophy. They like to think of themselves as successors in the Enlightenment tradition. Those ideals are, after all, the foundations in the American tradition. At least they like to think they are. So they cling to this foundationalism/fundamentalism and they mistakenly project that onto their opponents.

Conservatives believe that all leftist, liberals, atheists, etc hold Darwin, Marx, and Derrida with the same reverence that they hold the Bible and Constitution. Some like to blame Christianity for this flaw in conservative reasoning, but that’s not entirely correct. The nature of conservatism and reactionary thought is to appeal to, and preserve, authority. They could just well support Islam had Muslims come to America first. So this appeal to authoritative texts is deeply engrained into right-wing discourse.

Therefore we have this prevalence of pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and everyone at the National Review, because they all fancy themselves as stuffy armchair philosophers.

So whenever someone brings up Nietzsche or Kant, they sound like my man here:

Fuckin nerds ruin everything.

10 rulz 4 sucksess- a antidot 4 unsuccess

someone asked me if I was ok. I said no. im still depressed for no fuckin reason at all. that’s why my posts have been shitty. don’t worry tho. that’s how I express myself. I type whatever stopid thing pops into my head. 

blur bottle bright candle
Photo by Pixabay on

hi everybodee!

2day we r gonna talk about how 2 b sucksessful n r lifes. u shud be askin me bc I make 6 figures tellin ppl how 2 make $$$. I hold phd in sykology @ yale and mba @ penn.

yung ppl cum up 2 me and ask “hey wes, I jus gradated from collage. wat shud I do 2 find success?’ I al ways tell them: “u shud always do wat ur employur asks u 2 do. if ur boss waats 2 c ur penus, u must show them. when I was a inturn @ whoreton skool of biznass, I worked on wahl street. mi boss told me 2 putt kwarters n pennies in hiz ass. I did so wit g8 pleasure untill he dyed of led poisoning 4 having 2 many dimes n his ass 😦

2day I xpect the same from mi inturns and they kontenue to put pennies in my butt.

otter ppl ass me “wat if I want 2 run my own businass? how can I cree8 a produkt that will satisfi custermers?”

im all about satisfactshun.  like puting monee in to ur bosses ass, u must b wiling to suck the costumer off 2 compleeshun. swurl the sperm around n ur mouth and sho it back 2 te costomer. let tham kno that u injoyed havin there peenus in ur mouth.  sukksess is all aboot goin above n beeond

so follo my 10 rulz 4 life:

  1. some times u hav 2 put things n ppls butz
  2. allways suck the consumer off
  3. tickle the ballz 2
  4. swallow
  5. never cry
  6. if u do cri, keep it 2 urself
  7. despise every1
  8. jus lie aboot everythin
  9. denial is healthy
  10. some day u will die.


sorry sir

addiction aid bottle capsule
Photo by Pixabay on

An automated call from my pharmacy tells me to come in because they had a few questions. So I sacrificed valuable porno time to stop by. Then the girl at the front desk tells me

“Sorry sir. Your doctor is no longer filling this prescription.”

“Who was fucking filling that prescription?”, I thought. Then it occurred to me: “those assholes”.

I called them up.

“Look mother fuckers”, I told them, “I’m crazy. CRAZY. I need those drugs!”

“Sorry sir, but we have to monitor you with regular check ups. You must have a psychiatrist before that prescription can be filled.”

“I’ve been waiting months for a psychiatrist! And you assholes nearly let me drown in a hurricane. I haven’t ran my car off a bridge. I haven’t licked a hobos asshole for coke. I say I’m progressing nicely. Just fill the prescription and we’ll call it even!”

“We just can’t do that sir”.

Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!

So I left and found the nearest hobo.

The end.

thanks cum town!

thanks for reminding me of my favorite moment of the Obama years

No. 44 once told a trans Mexican woman heckling him “youre in my house bitch!”.

Then the crowd cheers and chants “Obama!”

Remember that shit? And all the liberals were like “how dare a fuckin trans Mexican protest the fuckin prez. stooped fuckin bitch.”

And she was protesting him because of all the deporting that he…more than any other president…was doing. Classic.

so thanks Obama! Thanks for creating the very institutions that allow our current deranged president to do his stupid shit.

or maybe we should be thankful that Trump got elected. Cuz if Hillary got it, the masses might not have ever learned about the concentration camps for kids or be outraged by the modern gestapo known as ICE.

so thanks again Cum Town!

best shit on youtube

Ive logged millions of hours watching bullshit on youtube. The best shit is are the ghost and demon vids. Theres a subtitle art to them that’s unappreciated.

A message to all of the kids that want to make their own ghost vid: less is more. Don’t halfass it either…don’t use cgi. People can smell that shit a mile away. Always use practical effects when possible. Some like to oversell it…not necessary. If you want to spook the shit out of people…keep it short n simple.

Here are the best examples:

I don’t know what the fuck is up with this video. Is it an actual news report? Who the hell knows. But when that kid got dragged? Sure i’ll buy that.


I vaguely recall there being a better resolution of this video somewhere on the internet. Oh well. I don’t have time to look for that shit.


Something very subtitle was done here. When the “alien” is frozen on the roof, it looks pretty, well…alien. Once when it moves, it suddenly turns back into a naked man. Still though, there was some decent alien sound effects and if you listen closely, you can hear the cameraman begin to breath heavy when he discovers the creature. So these guys did an excellent job or someone in Mexico has a perv neighbor. Either way, it makes you stop and say ‘shit!’.


An old one but a good one. I’ve seen a few breakdowns of this video. Apparently you can see the ‘ghost’ in a window as they’re walking up to the house. This one is good for several reason. Probably because it might be genuine.

fackss n historie

boy field grass green
Photo by Pixabay on

For the record, I don’t give a shit how you write. I’M just saying that if you start your piece one of two ways…I instantly don’t give a shit.

Now I have a lot of leeway at Philosophy Redux. I can say whatever the fuck I want. I can write an entire article saying “shit shit fuck fuck piss ass i poo pooed in my pantz”. Of course, it’s my blog and nobody reads this shit. So who gives a fuck?

But I was visiting The Week when an article instantly caught my eye: “what the pro-life movement can learn from the dsa” or some shit. Unfortunately the article started off saying: “in January of 1970, a bunch of protesters” blah blah blah. “Fuck this”, I thought. And I didn’t read any farther.

“But Wes, history is important. Don’t you want to learn about history?”

fuck history.

Look, I read a lot. If you got something to say, just say it. Don’t give me a history lesson. I’m lazy. So unless you’re Ken Burns or Peter Coyote, shut the fuck up.

You know what else I hate?


Every other article starts off like this:

“The American Penis Society measured and sucked off 40,000 dicks and they discovered that uncircumcised penises have the best sperm. They also discovered that uncircumcised cocks are bigger. My father had a small cock and it ruined his life”

You know who else uses a lot of facts? Conspiracy theorists. It’s like, the MORE facts you use, the MORE convinced I am that you’re lying to me.

Stop trying so hard dude.

Some English teacher probably taught you to tell the audience an “interesting story” or “a startling fact” to instantly engage your audience. Now every article sounds like shit.

Man of the Century…a dark century

We don’t get to choose our internet fates. It choses us.

Of course being in a drunken stupor for a half decade, and only using the web to post shitty poetry and podcasts , I missed much of what the internet had to offer. Sorry if you’ve heard of Chris Chan, the most well-documented person who ever lived, but I only learned who she is yesterday. Boy did I learn a lot.

I say ‘she’ out of respect to how she, Chris, identifies now. Much of her fame came from when she was a ‘he’. Perhaps this is common knowledge. Don’t know because it’s not covered in this documentary:

I only learned of Chris when scrolling Cum Town’s subreddit. Apparently she was recently kicked out of some gaming convention for being too handsy, to put it mildly, with other gamers. No sane person would condone her behavior. Chris, in both male and female forms, has a long history of outrageous interactions with others. (Chris also maced a game store employee, hit someone with a car, and has held unsavory views)

As stated in the documentary, and I’m sure Chris would tell you, she has high-functioning autism. People have heard my arguments about so-called “disorders”. I prefer not to think of them that way. And I still stand by that. Nevertheless, people need help with adapting to modern civilization…now more than ever. Both “sane” people and those with “disorders” need this. Technology has created such a barrier and we’re all struggling to keep up…particularly those with “disorders” that society disfavors. So, I’m in agreement with the documentarian: the story of Chris Chan is a tragic one.

At first I thought Chris was something created in the internet’s collective imagination. But this is a real person, which makes the trolling and bullying…and our obsession…all the more morbid.


It’s obvious that Chris’s towering achievement, Sonichu, lacks…to put it nicely…certain creative benchmarks. But the Internet stepped up, partially filled in the creative gaps, and subsequently mythologized it. We can say that the Internet was just trolling Chris. But when this trolling turns into obsession, can obsession evolve into passion?

Watch this:

It’s a joke right now. But A LOT of time and energy has been put into this. Entire documentaries, books probably, and countless blogs have been dedicated towards the study of Sonichu and Chris Chan. It might be decades, centuries even, before scholars realize that this might be the largest piece of interactive art ever constructed despite the questionable behavior of all parties involved.

As for Chris Chan, sometimes we don’t get to choose who best represents us. When historians reflect on our time, they’re going to see in Chris Chan someone that was lost, needed help, had lots to say…yet found no sympathy from the marauding hordes that roamed the Internet. We despise Chris because WE ARE Chris.