Mortal Recall

For some unknown reason, I have to tell you about this one time in the mid 90s when I was playing Mortal Kombat with some black dudes at the Landmark arcade (an iconic establishment in Milwaukee which incredibly still exists.) First though, some brief background info. Playing arcade games against random people of all kinds was a common activity for teenagers and young adults at that time, as everyone my age probably remembers. When I say “all kinds,” I mean people whom you would be unlikely to associate with or have neutral interactions with under almost any other circumstances. Sometimes games had the potential to become awkwardly tense, if the person one was playing against had a bad temper or was some kind of thug/wannabe gangster. I myself had a tendency to enrage players by winning in a cheap fashion (such as doing the same move over and over.) There were a few times I nearly got my smarmy ass pummeled by Starter jacket wearing “wiggers” that didn’t take kindly to being hit with Nightwolf’s cheesy Shoulder Charge move like 5 times in a row (and having to continuously insert more quarters in the machine to subject themselves to it.) Before getting “mad online” and “rage quitting” social media was a thing, there were people who got angry about video games.

Anyway, that didn’t happen on this particular occasion, and it’s not my intention to go off on a social tangent here. There is no hidden Klostermanesque pop culture “metaphor for society” lurking in this post, unless I’m expressing it subconsciously and don’t realize it. Digression over….

So, this one fine 90’s afternoon, I was playing Mortal Kombat with a group of local young black dudes (probably all astronauts by now.) One of them looked at the screen and yelled “Sub-Zero! That nigga coooooold!”

(To get the full effect, you have to realize he pronounced “cold” like the word code,)

For some reason the quote has stuck with me ever since then, and I have never been able to forget that moment in time. Even to this day, whenever there is a slight chill in the air (by Arizona standards, which equates to about 60 degrees in winter or that shivery feeling when you’ve just stepped out of a swimming pool,) my friends and I will blurt out something along the lines of “Sub-Zero! This nigga cold.”

Of course, one can’t really get away with saying that anymore since it is 2018 and all, but I still do, and I don’t really care.


Rose McGowan – “Hateful” in a Flash

Rose McGowan got heckled by some insane transwoman the other day, and the video went viral. Apparently this was because McGowan had made some “transphobic” comments in an interview with RuPaul. Basically, Rose talked about how transwomen were different than other women because they didn’t have the same biological experiences (like periods, etc.) As these were obviously empirically true statements, I suppose it’s not surprising they caused such outrage. Of course transwomen are not the same as biological women. For one thing, they are born with penises. So that’s one difference right there. Anyone could have learned this much by simply watching Kindergarten Cop.

I mean how dumb/insane do you have to be to go after someone like Rose McGowan because she “doesn’t do enough for transwomen” or whatever. Even the great-hearted among us can only politely entertain this kind of stupidity with a straight face for so long.

In all honesty, this is exactly the kind of thing that pushes people over the edge. You go through life walking on eggshells, careful to be respectful and not offend others, but you discover it’s never enough. So you just stop caring and even begin to take pleasure in offending them. Others who haven’t had quite reached their breaking point yet (some perhaps never will) wonder how you can say such “insensitive,” and “hurtful” things. but they don’t realize how you’ve come to be desensitized. Tell people enough times that they are racist/sexist/transphobic no matter what they say or do, and they will eventually decide it’s not worth trying to appease the unappeasable. This doesn’t mean they will subsequently go out of their way to be huge assholes to everyone, but they might very well stop caring so much if sharing their honest opinion or joke causes people to think they’re huge assholes. Rose McGowan’s not there yet. She’s still under the illusion that there’s a place for “white feminists” within the intersectional community. There isn’t really. These people will never accept them as their own, and the behavioral demands and speech parameters will only get more unreasonable as time goes on.

Admittedly, I haven’t seen too many of Rose McGowan’s movies. I vaguely remember watching The Doom Generation, but since I watched it at a girl’s house with a few friends on some random night in 1997, I wasn’t really paying attention. It seemed like a movie that was trying too hard to seem hip and edgy. Rose also had a small role in the movie Encino Man, which I never realized until I noticed it in her Wikipedia (it’s been a long time since I’ve seen the movie.) Perhaps, in the case of Encino Man was just too preoccupied with Megan Ward, who had already left a lasting impression on my psyche with her demonic mirror seduction scene in Amityville 1992: It’s About Time. Oh, and I forgot that McGowan had a supporting role in Scream also, where she gets killed while trying to escape through a doggy door.

The only real Rose McGowan centric film I’ve seen in its entirety is Devil in the Flesh, a throwaway direct-to-video “erotic” thriller from 1998 where McGowan plays,a psycho teenage girl who becomes infatuated with her teacher and tries to murder his fiancee (after successfully killing several other people.) I recall being highly annoyed with this film as a young man, because it did not deliver any payoffs on the sexual tension building up in the plot. It fell clearly into the “more tease than sleaze” category. People who make these kinds of erotic thriller movies need to realize that the viewers aren’t rooting for the good guys (or the bad guys for that matter.) They’re rooting for sex scenes to happen involving the most physically attractive characters in the movie, prefaced by an underlying sexual tension within the context of a forbidden premise. The viewer wants to see the teacher succumb to his psycho student’s advances (after resisting at first.) The viewer doesn’t care about him being a good guy and saving the day by rescuing his cheesy fiancee. Not in this kind of movie anyway. As a side note, in the sequel Devil in the Flesh II (this time starring Jodi Lyn O’Keefe) the girl does manage to successfully seduce her teacher, (albeit with the same predictably disappointing ending) so in this sense it is the superior film.

Fast forward 20 years and these days McGowan has a shaved head because she no longer wants to be seen as a “sex object.” It might seem strange coming from someone who wrote the paragraphs above, but I can’t say that I blame her really. Even average everyday girls get hit on or have to fend off creeps in pretty much any situation where human interaction can possibly occur. I can only imagine that for an actress with a public image as a sex symbol, this kind of attention would be amplified to unimaginable levels. At some point a girl may want to be noticed for something else, anything else. Not only that, but McGowan herself has (allegedly) been subjected to actual abuse by Harvey Weinstein and probably a few others as well.

So she’s a hardcore feminist activist now and an icon. Good for her I suppose. As a cynical, somewhat apathetic guy I find her interviews painful to watch, with all the excessive, misplaced self-aggrandizement and melodramatic talk about “bravery,” “revolutions” etc. It all comes across really awkward and delusional to anyone outside of her own head. It is also pretty lame to use “Brave” as the title of your autobiographical book about yourself. Still, I can’t bring myself to dislike her. For all her bombastic bluster, she still seems like a nice girl and a sincere person. This is a girl that had a rough time and went through some bad stuff and just wants to break free of all the bullshit. Anyone that displays an ability to stop giving a fuck about conforming to groupthink on any level always has the potential to go further, even if they ultimately choose to just embrace a bunch of other dumb stuff instead.

The Hand is Pinker Than the Eye

Apologies for borrowing the title of this article from one my favorite Pink Panther cartoons, but it seems as appropriate as ever. The AltRight was quick to embrace Harvard professor Steven Pinker’s recent remarks referring to them as “highly intelligent and internet savvy.” This was somewhat laughable to me, as it should be clear to anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills that in the overall context,(as Jesse Singal correctly observed) Pinker was saying that people in the AltRight held incorrect views and were simply just not exposed to the powerful counter arguments and explanations which would refute their ideas. He referred to them or (or those potentially susceptible to persuasion toward their way of thinking) as lacking the necessary facts which would provide ideological immunity toward embracing identitarian views.

Now you might think at this point that someone as intelligent as Pinker must hold some kind of trump (small t) card and that these counter arguments he has must be devastating. Well, far from me to come off like an anti-vaxxer, but let’s just say that the “immunity” that Pinker offers to inject you with consists mainly of the same basic bitch arguments you’ve likely already heard a thousand times already and rejected.

Allow me to give a couple of examples:
Pinker claims that the “the majority of domestic terrorism is committed by right-wing extremist groups.” First off, this statement is rather vague and misleading in and off itself. For one thing, Muslims represent a tiny percentage of the population relative to whites and other demographics, so who commits the “majority” of domestic terrorist acts isn’t the most relevant statistic. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

A. Muslims commit terrorism at a rate which is vastly disproportionate to their percentage of the population.

B. Islamic groups self identify as Muslims and almost always clearly state their religious motivations for carrying out their attacks, whereas “right-wing extremist group” or “white supremacist” are dubious, subjective classifications often attributed by third parties and which may or may not be accurate or even have served as primary motivations for the attacks.

C. The media and the government frequently downplay Islamic violent acts, to sustain the narrative, minimize panic and prevent the dreaded backlash against Muslims. Often attacks will be comically categorized as “workplace violence” and the Islamic component of the crime will be ignored, even when explicitly stated by the perp as an inspiration for committing the act.

D. When Pinker says “the majority of domestic terrorism is committed by right-wing extremist groups,” what metric is he using? Are we talking body counts or number of incidents? Can we really give the same weight to an incident like 9/11 where 3000 people were killed to a situation where someone whom happens to be AltRight panics and drives into some people while his car is being surrounded and attacked? I’m looking over the list of recent domestic terrorist incidents, and I’m just not seeing a whole lot of “right-wing extremist groups” or even whites being implicated. There is the Vegas shooting of course, but as yet we have no information as to the motive.

E. Unlike other forms of domestic terrorism, Islamic terrorist is almost entirely preventable. It’s like “bonus” terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers were all here as a result of student Visas. If we did not continue import people (whom we do not benefit from anyway) from Islamic countries, our risk for this particular brand of terrorism would be greatly reduced. Since these people explicitly state their hostility toward western values and express no desire to assimilate to our cultural and social norms, one wonders what the point is.

Another factoid Pinker touts as some kind of antidote to AltRight ideas is that even though Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, the Irish also once had high crime rates, therefore it’s possible for groups’ criminality to change over time. Okay sure, but so what? A few points:

A. What parameters are we talking about? The Irish once had higher crime rates, but what was the murder/violent sexual assault rate relative to the rate among blacks for the same types of crimes? This would be useful information to know. Italians also were once over represented in crime. It’s perhaps telling though, that the nature of their criminality was vastly different from that of blacks. Italian crime took the form of organized and sophisticated syndicates which often involved committing murders and robberies in association with those activities. The mob built and managed casino resort hotels though. It didn’t rape old ladies or kill random people on the street for 5 bucks. There was a degree of impulse control and future time orientation in play even within the criminal element.

B. While crime rates do fluctuate among groups depending upon their circumstances and cultural environment, the violent crime rate among blacks is consistently higher throughout the entire world, remaining elevated, spanning over a wide variety of countries and radically different environments. Sure, it’s certainly possible that over the next 80 years, the violent crime rate among blacks will be greatly reduced…but so what? Why are we obligated to subject ourselves to it in the meantime and accept this finality as a given. It’s a bet I didn’t agree to take. Since the vast majority of blacks have little interest in assuming any responsibility for their own behavior and would rather blame white people, wouldn’t it make more sense to go our separate ways and allow blacks the self-determination to flourish to remove whites as a variable in their equation for success/failure? Then in 80 years, after nations like Haiti have advanced space programs, established functioning sewage systems and can sustain violent crime rates equal to those of poor white communities if West Virginia, perhaps we can revisit the possibility of multiracial integration. If in 80 years blacks have demonstrated they have the ability to act civilized and courteous in public in accordance with western ideals, then we can give it another go.

C. Using the argument of Irish or Italian crime fluctuation is unlikely to persuade people with potentially AltRight leanings to embrace multiracialism or mass immigration from non-white countries. In fact, most people who hold these views believe that allowing migrants from Italy, Greece, etc into the US was a mistake to begin with (I say this as someone whose 1/4 Italian by the way.) These migrant waves did irreparably transform the country in culturally undesirable ways for the Anglos who were here at the time, and they had every right to resist being overwhelmed by them. Just because the status quo seems “normal” to us in the contemporary, that isn’t inherently indicative of it being an improvement for those who pre-existed its manifestation. As F Scott Fitzgerald (part Irish!) wrote in This Side of Paradise:

When Amory went to Washington the next week-end he caught some of the spirit of crisis which changed to repulsion in the Pullman car coming back, for the berths across from him were occupied by stinking aliens-Greeks, he guessed, or Russians. He thought how much easier patriotism had been to a homogeneous race, how much easier it would have been to fight as the Colonies fought, or as the Confederacy fought. And he did no sleeping that night, but listened to the aliens guffaw and snore while they filled the car with the heavy scent of latest America.

It’s been nearly 100 years since This Side of Paradise was published, and Fitzgerald’s sentiments still ring as true as ever, while Pinker’s ideological inoculations carry the familiar scent of snake oil.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Discussing AltLeft Chaos Magic on The Stark Truth

Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Brandon Adamson. Brandon blogs at, is the author of Beatnik Fascism, and has a Youtube channel, Self Checkout.

The entire podcast can be found here.


-Brandon’s Official Response to Trump’s Remarks on the AltLeft
-The context of Trump using the term “Alt-Left” to describe the antifa as opposed to the original Alt Left
-The media’s references to Brandon’s Alt Left site and how the only semi accurate one was The Week’s article (since the time when this podcast was recorded there was another accurate article which appeared in Salon)
-Confusing political news junkies with esoteric and outlandish cultural references
-The “Orange Pill”
-How the less aggro elements of the Left and the Alt-Right should combine forces for single payer health care, student debt relief, and the dismantling the College Football Industrial Complex
-How massive online censorship is forcing people to build an alternative tech universe
-Corporations enforcing a uniform culture of consensus among workers
-Companies policing employees behavior outside of work
-Why a 6 hour work day would be more efficient
People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do
New Suburbanism

The Outer Limits of an Ideological Future

“See, it’s always the same. Clouseau is sitting there, in a chair, just like you, with his back to me. Then suddenly, my hands go round his throat, and I begin to squeeze. It’s wonderful. It’s marvelous. I’m squeezing. And the more I squeeze, the freer I feel. I’m in ecstasy. And then suddenly, suddenly my problem is solv-ved.” -Inspector Dreyfus

My old friend Millennial Woes has been cranking out a lot of thought provoking content as of late. One thing I like about his videos is that he tends to leave them somewhat open ended, often hinting at a conclusion but leaving it for the audience to ponder. One of his recent videos, titled “Signs of An Ideological Future” he talks about how we’re reaching (or have reached) a stage when many people are no longer interested in debating or even hearing from people that have views which don’t conform to their in-group orthodoxy opinions (even if the debate comes from someone within their own movement, and whose involvement in said movement predates their own by many years.) I’ll come back to this later. Near the end of the video, Woes floats the possibility that for those on the left that hate SJWs, there may be no alternative for them but to join the AltRight. A year or two ago I might have agreed with this likelihood but not now. I’m not sure what form they will take, but alternatives inevitably will emerge when push comes to shove. Why do I think this? Another of Millennial Woes videos offers a partial clue.

To put it mildly, there are too many crazy and retarded people in the AltRight itself. I’m not talking about people with “extreme beliefs” (or whatever.) I recognize the importance of desensitizing people to social taboos through trolling, irony and shock humor, and I operate on the principal that anything should be up for rational (small r) discussion. I addressed this before, defending Richard Spencer during the NPI “salutegate” uproar as well as the Milo controversy. What I’m talking about now though is the issue of personalities. There are substantial numbers of vocal groups in the AltRight that are outright lunatics and an even greater number that have such insufferable personalities that one wouldn’t want to get stuck hanging out with these jugheads alone for 5 minutes at a party, let alone live in an ethnostate with them and thousands of their cohorts, even if one might agree with them ideologically on 90% of issues.

Of course I’m not talking about the primary AltRight thought leaders like Spencer, Woes, and Greg Johnson (who are frequently attacked by the same socially abrasive mobs whenever they say something interesting) or other minor figures and writers. I’ll give some examples…

This happens to Richard Spencer almost weekly where he casually spouts an opinion that deviates from the traditional right wing dogma. Instances of this include his skepticism of the “holodomor,” his arguments against local ethnonationalism in favor of a European racial superstate, his support for universal health care and his having the audacity to express even the vaguest tolerance for transgendered individuals. In many cases these contrarian type statements are simply thought experiments, but according to ideological enforcers, no exploration of ideas is allowed, no creative thinking will be tolerated. You’re not permitted to question anything in the unwritten AltRight sacred mythological canon, no matter how many holes or inaccuracies you can demonstrate in it.

In another glowing example, Tara McCarthy took a break from promoting unfounded pizzagate conspiracy theories to make a video called “The Dark Side of the AltRight.” In this video she sensibly chronicles and denounces some of the recent incidents of random violence by a few kook members of the AltRight. Scores of morons in the comments pounced on her, attacking her for daring to suggest these acts of violence were dumb and counter-productive. Note that we’re not even talking about self-defense or some kind of perhaps inevitable political violence that could conceivably lead to a declared objective. These were instances of a lunatic killing other people in “his own movement” and another was just
some drunken idiot randomly stabbing an ordinary black guy on the street. There were other incidents and stories as well, but they featured more or less the same level of nuttiness. We all understand why the media amplifies these stories and downplays black on white crime, but at the end of the day it’s not unreasonable to demand mentally coherent conduct in public from members of a movement which purports to be fighting to preserve/restore civilization.

Yet another recent instance where hordes of unhinged AltRight people freaked out was when Beardson Beardly made what I thought was a very persuasive video in which he articulated the mildest criticisms of the ultra lame “white sharia” meme. I don’t even tend to agree with half of Beardson’s opinions, but I enjoy his vids because he has a fun going, down to Earth personality and more importantly he is able to think for himself. He’s someone you could get along with. Also he likes the Beach Boys and wore a Ween shirt in one of his videos, so you can’t really go wrong there. Anyway, later in the video Beardson takes issue with the people in the AltRight who were making fun of “Aids Skrillex” for working in a grocery store. Beardson makes an appeal to empathy and argues that they should prioritize directing their energy toward more big league opponents rather than harass some random kid who made a few anti-white comments at a shitty Trump rally. Incidentally I would have asked the question, “What’s wrong with working at a grocery store?” Especially the one he supposedly works at, which appears to be an awesome heath food / farmers market type of store. Even if it wasn’t though, who cares? I though the AltRight was supposed to be on the side of the working class. Why would they be shaming someone for working a perfectly respectable job? This hypocrisy reveals many of them to be no different from normie rat race republicans, equating someone’s worth in life with how much money they make. Anyway, commenters didn’t hesitate to pile on and trash Beardson for making this video. The significance of this is that Beardson is a far right, radical traditionalist and race realist. If the AltRight rank and file are willing to go berserk and shun someone like him over a minor disagreement, then it hardly seems worth it for people who have broader cultural disagreements to bother entertaining the idea of getting involved with the AltRight.

As Greg Johnson has pointed out, “bullying only works on psychologically weak people.” Intelligent, self-confident and capable individuals don’t care if you call them “beta males” or tell them they have “too much soy in their diet.” They don’t care about being called a “cuck” (a once clever insult which had a specific racial meaning that has since been ruined by misuse.) They don’t give a shit about being called a faggot or degenerate. They will just laugh it off and conclude you and your squad are a bunch of insecure halfwits. Ultimately though, they will dismiss you and move on.

At this point you might be thinking “Yes, but if these leftists or AltLite people hate SJWs enough they will come to the AltRight anyway. They’ll be forced to.” Don’t be so sure. If someone like me (who has been writing explicitly pro-white articles for several years) can deduce that the personalities that makeup the AltRight legions are so insufferable and illogical that one could actually find themselves preferring the company of the skeptic community or even actual SJWs…then what are the odds that normal people will take the Nestea Plunge into the AltRight and stay there? By normal, I don’t mean “normies” either, just intelligent open-minded people who may be willing to give identitarian ideas a fair consideration. Indeed, many writers and thinkers that have been pushed into the AltRight over the last few years as a result of excessive anti-white hatred and political correctness, have already come and gone, having grown weary of the toxic and loony atmosphere. They reached back into the medicine cabinet for another colored pill, the first one they could find…and checked out.

It’s become clearer and clearer over time, that when many in the AltRight talk about preserving “our people,” they’re certainly not talking about White people or Europeans. They’re talking about a teeny tiny subset of Whites that embrace radical traditionalism (which traditions though?,) “White Sharia,” arranged marriages, primitivism, Little House on the Prairie living, specific types of architecture, “nofap,” weird conspiracy theories, and a host of other things bundled in, which hundreds of millions of healthy and well-adjusted White people would want absolutely nothing to do with. Yet if one expresses a different preference on any of these issues, the AltRight mall security busybodies are out in full force to shake you down.

To be successful, these movements will require a unionization of many different types of White Europeans and even non-whites who display a willingness to contribute and prove they have a role to play in these societies. The choice though, won’t simply be limited to SJWs and AltRight. Whether it’s Nazbol, transhumanism, corporate monarchism, neoliberalism, communism, anarcho capitalism, LandBrand neoreaction, chic nihilism or whatever…there will be many different options for people to gravitate to, for those that decide not to lock themselves into what’s fast becoming the equivalent of an ideological padded room.

Brandon Adamson is the author of Beatnik Fascism

Strange Bedfellows – Defending Milo


Robert Stark, Pilleater and I discussed the recent Milo controversy on The Stark Truth. The episode is available, here.

I hate having to write an article like this. I’ve never really been a fan of Milo (and have written so quite clearly in the past.) People who prioritize or spend a lot of time obsessed with political issues relating to what depraved activities they can or can’t do sexually, have always kind of annoyed me. Really, of all the problems in our society that could require attention, that’s what you chose to devote your activism to? Your dick?

Anyway, I’m just going to go ahead and say it…

Milo never defended “pedophilia.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that he did. In the video interview in question, he’s discussing teenagers. Pedophilia applies only to prepubescent children. Whether or not someone is legally a “minor” in a particular has nothing to do with these classifications. Age of consent and what constitutes a minor vary widely among different countries. In any case, debating the subject of attraction and consent relating to post pubescent or sexually developed minors cannot be construed in any way as being the same thing as “advocating pedophilia” (which would involve a conversation about pre-pubescent minors.) That a great many people are too dumb or ignorant to comprehend such distinctions, shouldn’t be Milo’s problem.

Now, to those who would accuse me of  just “splitting hairs” or claim that I’m talking about a distinction without a difference, I can only say that words mean things. Definitions matter. Categorizing ideas accurately is a critical component of civilized discussion. I can already hear people saying “Whatever. It’s all degeneracy! You sound like pedo apologist! Blah Blah Blah.”

Well, think about this…these same individuals are the ones who often complain that people mischaracterize them as Nazis, white supremacists, when they are merely white nationalists, race realists or in some cases even civic nationalists. “Whatever you’re all nazis! Trump supporters are all nazis. Bannon is a white supremacist! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..!”
Of course, we all know a civic nationalist is not the same thing as a white nationalist, and a white nationalist is not necessarily a white supremacist or even a biological race realist for that matter. When you claim that Milo was “defending pedophilia,” it is as ignorant and absurd as when the media labels some basic bitch republican like Paul Ryan a white supremacist. It just isn’t true. I don’t want to hear these people complaining next time they get categorized as Nazi KKK members just for advocating for a moratorium on immigration from the third world. “Like what do you mean, dude? Don’t you see how ridiculous and autistic you seem by insisting that people accurately characterize your views? What’s that? You say you’re not a white supremacist or neo Nazi? You’re just an ‘ethnonationalist?’ Haha, as if that makes your opinions any less disgusting, you Nazi apologist.”

Part of what has always attracted me to dissident politics was the willingness to honestly explore any topic relating to biology, human nature, or psychology, no matter how socially taboo. When some AltRight person says “I don’t know how anyone could defend Milo or his remarks at this point. The things he said were simply indefensible,” I have to wonder where their self awareness is. Do they not realize that the average person thinks their views and statements on race realism are just as indefensible (if not more) than Milo’s expressed opinions on age of consent? Indeed they don’t. Didn’t people say the AltRight could no longer be defended after the NPI “Roman salute” controversy? Look, if someone holds what you deem to be a disturbing opinion that runs contrary to your values, the solution is simple. You can disagree with them and state your case.

I suspect though that there are other things in play here. Milo has made a great deal of enemies and often talks a lot of shit. Therefore, people see it as an opportunity to settle old personal scores, and they salivate at the prospect of finally skewering him and getting revenge. This may be a good short term strategy, but I don’t see it playing out well long term. Anyone that unfairly has their lives ruined by the media for simply stating “weird” opinions, requires defense whether we like them or not. Though I admit Milo is easily unlikable, and I was never much of a fan of his obnoxious shtick or faux edginess, I relate to him slightly more now that he’s become genuinely ostracized and alienated like the rest of us.