Let the value o’ mockery for any individual V be the function f( I_I, I_R ) based on the individual’s opinion o’ his own intelligence, I_I, & the individual’s actual intelligence, I_R:

f( I_I, I_R ) = I_I / I_R

For example, economists, who are deluded into thinking that replacing words with math symbols makes them smarter, have a huge opinion o’ their own intelligence, as compared to their low level, & thus the value o’ mocking them is high.

We can prove this point by assuming manufactured #s. Let I_I = 100,000 & I_R = 10:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 100,000 / 10
f( I_I, I_R ) = 10,000

Contrast this with a filthy hobo who has been taught that she’s a brainfuck who will ne’er e’en figure out how to read & should probably stick lit dynamite in her throat, but secretly knows 20 programming languages—including Haskell & Brainfuck.

Let’s assume she has an I_I o’ 5 & an I_R o’ 200:

f( I_I, I_R ) = 5 / 200
f( I_I, I_R ) = 1/40
f( I_I, I_R ) = .025

In such case, mockery would not be funny, but would be cruel & frivolous, as this person has probably blown up her intestines already, anyway, so the work o’ inducing suicide is no longer necessary.

Since I’ve been doing this fiction-writing thing for mo’ than 5 years¹, I’d been thinking o’ writing literary reviews, but actually haven’t found that many books I’ve read that I truly thought much ’bout. I try to read round 50 books a year, but I usually think o’ it as grinding I have to do to get better @ writing, rather than anything I feel passionately ’bout.

The exception is, ‘course, a book I felt very annoyed by, & therefore will be the 1st for me to rant ’bout.

Case in point: our protagonist & narrator. He’s a goody-goody shy nerd who buddies up with the raddest kids e’er, who all screw round doing deep shit, yo. 1 memorable scene was when they’re in some car, & 1 o’ the characters spreads her arms & says that she feels “invincible.” Said character is the sister o’ his other friend, whom he develops a crush on, not ’cause o’ her personality, but ’cause o’ her appearance—that’s the only reason he e’er gave for his infatuation. But this is a particularly creepy & hypocritical puritan form o’ infatuation: 1 wherein he praises her for not being like those other skanky hoes, ¡but has no problem with later feeling up her tits! Near after he 1st meets these 2, he tells her ’bout this dream he has wherein he imagines her naked, ’cause it’s cute when men tell women such creepy-ass shit; ‘stead o’ running, as any rational person would, she laughs & tells him no as one would talk to a 4-year-ol’.

Our protagonist also has a teacher who thinks he’s special & calls him the smartest student o’ his e’er². This is despite our protagonist’s writing being worse than the writing I did when I was his age.³ I don’t think this is ’cause Chbosky is developmentally challenged, but ’cause he’s trying to be, since he’s an arrogant adult with—probably—average literary skills, & tries to stimulate high school diction by dumbing his writing down, based on the assumption that high schoolers are much dumber than they truly are. Also, you know, the protagonist hardly e’er does any writing, other than these journal entries, & some simplistic book reports that’d get him an F in my high school language arts classes (they don’t just let you ramble ’bout your opinions, you know; they usually have rather strict rules in regards to organization, using citations, & analyzing aspects such as theme & authorial intent & how the style, structure, & plot o’ the work fits such). It’s the same reactionary moral that many airheaded American works give: amazing skills aren’t honed from years o’ consistent practice, aided by having favorable conditions for said practice, but by just being born special (¡’cause hooray for biological determination!). I want to emphasize that word ’cause Chbosky clearly wants to emphasize how special our protagonist is, as a shallow way o’ emotionally exploiting the kind o’ narcissistic nerds who are clearly this book’s target audience to think they’re special, too.

See, 1 o’ this book’s main moral is that you just gotta go out there & do it, man, & stand up for yourself & not let other people step all o’er you. This is both typical & ironic coming from an American: Americans don’t need to be taught to think ’bout themselves & how great they are; they need to be taught to think ’bout someone other than themselves for once. Such morals also might be mo’ valuable if they weren’t regurgitated from the mounds o’ self-help books already infesting bookstores & libraries.

These morals are so bad, they’re contradicted within the very same book. See, this moral ’bout standing up for yourself comes from that female friend o’ his I mentioned earlier, after she snaps @ him for not trying to make the moves on her. In a rare case o’ sanity from our protagonist, he rightfully points out that she told him to back off, & he rationally complied. Now, earlier in this book the author made it quite clear that you’re s’posed to think that when a woman tells a man, “no,” it means “no.” There’s a point ’bout a rapist who didn’t take this advice & was demonized for it, & ‘nother point when the protagonist’s father, who is clearly meant to be a voice o’ reason, says this outright (Chbosky has ne’er heard o’ subtlety, by the way). But here, the female friend, who is also shown as a voice o’ reason here, says the opposite: when she said “no,” that was apparently s’posed to mean “yes,” a’least when you’re a cuddly nice-guy nerd, & not 1 o’ those jerk jocks, ¿amirite? What a great moral to give to the nice-guy nerds that are clearly your target audience, Chbosky.

Part o’ her big speech also involves complaining @ our protagonist for not going out there & doing stuff, getting out o’ his shell, & such, but this makes no sense. Our protagonist spends the vast majority o’ his time doing the same shit they’re doing. I mean, I would agree that screwing round & doing drugs—or worse, acting like trite, obnoxious shits @ screenings o’ Rocky Horror Picture Show—probably isn’t a wise use o’ your time; perhaps he could, if he truly wanted to be a writer, maybe practice writing. Perhaps he could read books that weren’t just assigned to him, or read some grammar books, maybe a dictionary or something. Maybe practice mo’ writing than this li’l stuff he does in the book…

Anyway, I don’t think that’s what Chbosky’s trying to say: I think he’s trying to give ‘nother typical American moral: “introverts, who are totally awesome, by the way, need to stop being their filthy selves & socialize.” Clearly the screwing round & drug use is meant to be a positive example o’ what “living” is, since… I don’t know, that just fits in with the mindless American hive mind’s traditions, & it’s the only thing that almost makes sense in this context. The problem with that, though, is that there’s no indication that our protagonist actually is introverted @ all. Quite the opposite: in 1 scene, when his friends have to do something ‘way from him, he goes crazy from friend withdrawal & bugs his sister & her boyfriend. That’s the opposite o’ an introvert. See, the thing ’bout truly asocial people is, they don’t like being round people. They truly find it enjoyable to be ‘lone, with private time. That’s probably ’cause they have this thing called “intelligence” & “creativity” & thus don’t need other people to be their personal jesters. Inane extraverts like Chbosky don’t get this ’cause they don’t understand introverts, are too narcissistic to understand that some people might be different from them, & ’cause they don’t actually respect introverts, anyway, they just want to exploit them ’cause they’re too asocial to speak for themselves publicly, & therefore a weak class, & ’cause they’re hip due to that weakness.

Actually, that I think could be the core problem with this book: it tries to build itself up as this very caring book, but it’s shallow, & it’s clear that Chbosky cares mo’ ’bout making himself look profound & caring, without actually putting the effort into doing so. This isn’t true writing, from an author’s heart & unique creativity; it’s a cynical marketing ploy—the kind that probably started as 1 o’ those inane elevator speeches before being written.

Also, having a secret backstory wherein the protagonist was sexually molested by his aunt is both the most cliché desperate grab for critic praise & forced into the plot for no relevance. It could’ve been cut out, & the story would’ve been just fine. So could all the stupid bullshit he did with his dumbass friends, like that trite bullshit with the Rocky Horror Picture Show shit.

O, god, or what ’bout that fucking hacky conversation ’bout Kurt Cobain. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the exact wording,—actually, fuck that, I’m immensely satisfied with that outcome—but it went something like this:

[Some jerkoff] said ’twas grown ups, man; [other jerkoff] said ’twas corporate media.

[The absolute biggest waste o’ flesh on the planet] said he was hungry.

Fucking hilarious.

Man, I just realized how utterly unlikeable all the characters were. What a triumph.

---

The Reviews

‘Cause I’m mean-spirited, I’m also going to bash some o’ the idiots online who actually thought this tripe was good.

Our 1st example is the 1 that inspired this in the 1st place, someone with the misspelled name “Wandergurl,” which I think is a character from My Immortal, on stupidly-named Book Thingo, which “earns commissions through affiliate links and Skimlinks. So if you buy a book using a link from [their] site,” you got god damn played, sucker.

Anyway, you can already tell this review if inane by its headline: “This book needs a hug.”

Then in the 1st paragraph we can see that this reviewer didn’t actually read the book, or wasn’t paying attention: she claims that the protagonist’s writing “is filled with raw emotion,” when I remember it being Chbosky’s clumsy & offensive attempt to pretend to know how an autistic writes, with the classic technique o’ having the character describe sensitive events like a 4-year-ol’ medical scientist.

O, fuck, wait, ¿what? Look @ what comes right after—right after—that quote I just put in: “in what I imagine to be Charlie’s matter-of-fact, possibly even slightly monotone—but always honest—passive voice.” Yes, that’s right: monotone, passive raw emotion. This book needs a hug, & this reviewer needs a fucking dictionary.

At first, Charlie doesn’t have any friends.

This lasts for less than 20 pages. Boo fucking hoo.

He is a little weird—even weirder than the cool kind of weird[.]

Um, I’d like to see some mathematical formula so we can deductively prove that this weirdness level has gone beyond the threshold o’ “cool” weird. Noah Smith would not be happy by such sloppy economics.

He makes friends with two seniors, Patrick and Sam, and begins to experience life, sometimes without really trying.

By the way, I can feel the raw emotions in these sentences written by a person who just figured out how to write sentences yesterday.

“And begins to experience life.” Fun fact: Charlie was born just before he met these 2 seniors. That’s why he had such trouble making friends; nothing’s mo’ uncooly weird than a newborn baby in high school.

I first heard of this book when it was released and kept meaning to read it, not realising, ten years later, that I would be determined to read it because they’ve made it into a movie!

Either this reviewer didn’t realize they would do something 10 years later based on events she couldn’t predict, or she wasn’t realizing that she was doing something 10 years later as she was doing it; but either way, ’twas quite amazing ‘nough to merit that exclamation point.

I thought it would be a typical coming of age book…

Surprisingly, ’twas worse.

[A]nd I expected to be caught up and be able to relate to the story, because who hasn’t felt like a wallflower sometimes—on the outside looking in? It was a lot more than I expected.

I can tell by the way you’re so excited that you couldn’t e’en stop to break your review into coherent sentences.

For one thing, it’s actually quite a serious book.

The fact that you e’en have to say that proves elsewise. Nobody says something like, “The truth is that Toni Morrison’s Beloved is quite a serious book,” ’cause anyone who needs to be told that’s too stupid to know how to read.

There are serious undertones beyond just the typical teenage drama of boys, clothes, girls, football and prom.

Yeah, it talks ’bout important things, like Rocky Horror Picture Show & what the characters’ favorite books & movies are. (¡Charlie’s is This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, which is super serious, guys!)

The book touches themes of abuse…

(Laughs.) Worst diction e’er.

I question whether everything bad really had to have happened to everyone in this book, but at the same time, it’s not unrealistic[.]

Yeah, it’s not unrealistic for real life to be like a badly-written book.

[S]hit does happen.

Best summary o’ this book.

The reviewer then babbles on ’bout the 90s & other bullshit.

It took me a while to read this book[.]

This book is short & extremely simplistic. It took me a day to read—& I’m a damn slow reader. Now I’m seriously wondering if I’m an e’en bigger asshole than I thought & whether this might be a middle schooler writing this.

Charlie can get a bit depressive, but he pulls through and you find yourself barracking for him, especially at the end when he figures things out.

“I didn’t actually read this book: but I’m sure this sad character has [insert conflicts], but [does something to not be killed by them] & then [like, figures something out, I guess].

I spent most of this book just wanting to give him a hug.

Stop touching the imaginary character’s abuse, please.

Author Stephen Chbosky fills the book with pithy observations, the most famous (and my favorite) being, ‘We accept the love we think we deserve.’

I’m glad I forgot that 1, since it’s as inane as the others. It’s borderline tautological, & @ the very least meaningless, since one doesn’t have much control o’er either (a’least I like to think that I think I deserve things based on what seems to be objective reality, & don’t magically consciously trick my own mind into thinking I deserve something simply ’cause I want to—rendering the whole idea o’ “deserve” nugatory). Man, think how easy psychological issues would be to solve if people didn’t have them. & while we’re @ it, ¿why don’t idiots like Chbosky just stop being dumb? ¿Can that be my pithy quote? “Dumb people are just people who haven’t learned that they’re dumb yet.” That definitely belongs on a mug.

It spits you out, a little tired and worse for wear, but somehow I feel like I’ve been made better by it.

Well, I’m glad that you’ve been made so much better off by my being spit out & made all tired by this shit. Way to rub it in.

Its raw honesty makes it truly one of the best [YOU CAN BUY PHANTASIA SCHLOCK BY ANNIE MELANINE & GET IT TODAY WITH A FREE TRIAL O’ AMAZON PRIME] books I’ve ever read.

Thank you, Adbot3031 for your wonderful review.

---

Next review:

Charlie’s a master of observation. Much like with the essays he writes about literary classics, he constantly tries to discern meaning in the events and people around him.

The fact that you think his literary essays showed his ability @ discerning meaning is ample evidence for why you’re a “professional cat pamperer” & not a literary major, “Kate” Nosurname McGee.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower reminded me of coming-of-age classics like The Catcher in the Rye…

…in that they’re both shitty & both have protagonists who were utter wastes o’ oxygen.

[…] and, to a lesser extent, The Bell Jar[…]

A li’l too much actual thought put into that 1. Plus, it’s likely that protagonist isn’t a waste o’ oxygen anymo’—ha, ha… ugh… I’m sorry…

Something I wasn’t expecting from this book was the focus on women and how girls develop as a result of society. This theme is present throughout the story, and particularly demonstrates how girls – young, old, popular, activist – are taught to define their value based on the opinion of men and whether or not they’re seen as attractive.

Kinda like how Sam is pretty much just the generically cute girl that our protagonist lusts after, with hardly any development (¡but a’least he gets some undershirt action, ¿amiri—? Wait…). Also Mary Elizabeth is just that yappy bitch who needs to learn to shut her trap.

Yeah, Chbosky’s an amazing feminist.

---

You can find a bunch o’ 1 paragraph clumps o’ incoherent reviewing @ AMAZON.COM, WHERE YOU CAN ALSO BUY MUCH BETTER BOOKS, LIKE 13 REASONS WHY, WHICH IS ‘BOUT A CHARACTER WITH AN ACTUAL PERSONALITY & WASN’T A WASTE O’ OXYGEN, E’EN BEFORE BEING DEAD.

---

The Guardian shows their power to bullshit:

The writing here is so rhythmic that it’s almost hypnotic.

Chbosky’s approach is always unflinching[.]

¿What? ¿You’re not going to make some trite metaphor ’bout this book being “savored” like a fucking stew? ¿You’re not going to talk ’bout how this book “reaches inside of you and pulls everything to the surface,” like 1 o’ those paragraphs WHICH YOU CAN FIND @ AMAZON.COM? Which is just proof that if any o’ those people e’er learn what a paragraph break is, they’ll be qualified to write reviews for The Guardian.

I also love how this idiot complains ’bout this book being sexist ’cause it had a male gay character, but not all the immensely sexist shit I mentioned earlier. This fucker didn’t e’en read this book.

---

Holy shit, fuck everything I wrote here: This Tumblr post summarized everything I had to say ’bout this book in just a couple, succinct paragraphs. It’s like the Euler’s Identity o’ Perks reviews.

---

Last Words ’bout the Film

1. The guy who plays the protagonist looks like a smug douche.

2. That Chbosky is a film director isn’t surprising, since The Perks of Being a Wallflower has that shallow stench o’ Hollywood.

---

Footnotes:

1 day walking
I saw a guy raking up my leaves.
I punched a motherfucker.
No, I didn’t.
I lied.
I wasn’t e’en walking.
I didn’t want to lose my warm blanket.
But the leaves were raked, either way.
I haven’t seen them since.
They’ll be OK, maybe.
(dot dot dot)
¡Itchy blanket!

We can represent this cycle thusly:

M → G → M

M can stand for either “money” or “market.” Market is perhaps mo’ accurate, since the “M” could potentially represent goods–any form o’ property power. G stands for government policy.

The way this cycle works is simple: with economic advantages will inevitably come political advantages. E’en if we don’t include outright campaign contributions, the fact that the means o’ communication is primarily privately owned means that mo’ wealth means better access to that means o’ communication–& we can’t seriously deny that the means o’ communication influence public electoral choices–or any other behavior that affects the political system in some way. “Think tanks” are probably the most prominent way.

Now, in any case wherein you have income inequality, you will have someone with mo’ M to affect G, & will almost certainly have some way to improve their M through G (e’en if just outright income redistribution from those with less M sway on G to resist it).

That this cycle begins & ends with M, & not G, is notable. After all, the primary goal is to get mo’ wealth; thus, this is not only the end point, the end goal, but also the start as the point o’ inspiration.

This leads to an important stresspoint: “corrupt capitalism,” as laissy libs call it to distinguish it from the pure laissez-faire capitalism that exists purely in their fantasies, originates not from corrupt government that infects some otherwise pure market, but from the market itself–the urgent competition for profits that pushes people into using all the tools they can to win, or else lose to someone who is willing to use all the tools. Much as entrepreneurs that superstitiously refuse to use cost-effective measures will only limit themselves under those that don’t, entrepreneurs that refuse to use the potent tool o’ government force are only disadvantaging themselves gainst those who do.

Thus, it can be no surprise that corporations operate on this practical necessity o’ competition, rather than the fairy tales o’ laissy libs–for example, the Koch Bros., who, despite their regurgitated antitax bullshit have no problem supporting taxes gainst green energy, their competitors.

Then ‘gain, ¿why criticize them for hypocrisy? Considering the added flexibility o’ being able to act gainst principles they spew simply to improve their own image when it’s convenient for them in contrast to those who lose profitable opportunities for the empty, abstract “gain” o’ consistency, it would seem that hypocrisy should be a competitively advantageous tool, too.

For those, such as Lord Keynes, some o’ the commenters @ Naked Capitalism, or other dumb “rural progressives” who think that the victory o’ a corrupt billionaire as president is somehow a case o’ the will o’ working-class whites¹, simply ’cause most other billionaires were too embarrassed to be associated with Hairpiece to have him be the face o’ their interests, one must remember that all exit polls show that lowerclass people preferred Clinton.

But then, the arguments for Hairpiece’s s’posed representation for the lowerclass are based on the same infuriatingly insulting stereotypes as right-wingers have oft given. ‘Cept this time leftists like Naked Capitalism are spewing it:

(“Less educated” is a proxy, for “working class.”)

As opposed to non-working classes like him who can’t be bothered to so much as mention any o’ the easily-found counter-evidence–which is much mo’ objective than the admittedly relevant rise o’ white deaths (though this may have been exaggerated) & the looser connection o’ “people [who] are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today. [Emphasis mine.]” He did, however, have time to scrounge together some less relevant hit piece gainst Hairpiece supporters as a strawman argument, since we can see that Naked Capitalism is a shining example o’ intellectual honesty.

& when you consider how much she was hated by anyone who wasn’t connected to her or a blindly obedient liberal, that’s telling. & ’course, it’s obvious to everyone that Hairpiece lost the popular vote, which should debunk the idea that Hairpiece was anything close to a case o’ popular will. But then for all their talk o’ being gainst the “elite” (while hypocritically trying to aristocratically keep people from the same opportunities they have simply ’cause they were born gainst their will with the need to actually work to get those opportunities), these Hairpiece Liberals are generally quite conservative in their views o’ the election system, preferring to settle with its current nonsense with the electoral college² & what’s practical (accepting the same ol’, same ol’, essentially) than actually trying to devise a way to fix things ’cause they’re mentally lazy.

So, basically, this is ’nother W. Bush election, people. We shouldn’t be this surprised. Indeed, I couldn’t help noticing that the high-strung left-wing reaction is just like what was given to W. Bush’s election. They couldn’t believe such an idiotic fascist—¿remember when everyone thought Bush would be the next Hitler?—would be elected into power. Hairpiece is hardly any different. I think it’s mo’ that we thought things had changed since then; I think it’s less that the idiots who voted for Bush became mo’ intelligent & mo’ that they had been rather demoralized & in a state o’ confusion after Bush made the entire right-wing look like a joke, but then became mo’ moralized when they could be deluded into thinking this shallow rich billionaire was somehow different ’cause he verbally attacked weaker classes in some Orwellian concept o’ “anti-elitism.” But then, this Orwellian kind o’ “anti-elitism” existed long before anyone cared ’bout Hairpiece. It’s the same inane shit: he’s the President moronic wastes o’ oxygen can have a beer with, ’cause they have nothing mo’ important in their shallow lives. Clinton could be compared with Al Gore & Kerry in that nobody liked either o’ them, either.

I know some gullible Hairpiece lovers—’specially Lord Keynes—would tell me that I’m “crazy” to compare a known flip-flopper who gave half-assed promises ’bout protectionism to Bush II, despite this same flip-flopper getting buddy-buddy with laissy libertarian bozo Paul Ryan. But remember, folks, this is the working-class, anti-neoliberal hero, all ’cause he says he’s gainst immigration. Forget Obamacare, which Hairpiece’s promises to cut back, or his attack on welfare, despite being a “welfare king” himself. But, ’gain: anti-neoliberal hero.

If this all sounds familiar, it’s ’cause it’s just like W. Bush. O, & Bush supported protectionism, too. He was also the 1st 1 to come up with the idea o’ building a wall ’tween the US & Mexico. ¿Deficit spending? ¿Who created the deficit we have in the 1st place? Idiots like Lord Keynes & the rest should actually do research for once before they get fooled in by US politicians. & yes, I know Bush said he didn’t support Hairpiece. This could be either him learning that his idiocy didn’t work or, mo’ likely, the fact that he’s too dumb & hypocritical to notice how dumb & hypocritical he is.

Let’s get this clear to anyone with any rationality: any outcome o’ this election would’ve been terrible. What’s truly terrible is that we’re still having 2000-style elections in 2016 & haven’t improved anything—& I would bet that’s ’cause we’ve done jack shit to change the electoral system itself. Maybe if we can get leftists—both the bozos @ Daily Kos or all the idiots on the newspapers people actually read erroneously bitching ’bout how this is poor people or Jill Stein’s fault & the idiotic liberals who defended Hairpiece & mostly just bitch ’bout how the lamestream media was totally bad @ predicting the election, man, as if anyone gives a shit—to talk mo’ ’bout the need for The National Popular Vote Act to spread & for there to be equal support for ranked-choice voting we could fix things before we accidentally put a toddler who plays in mud all day in charge o’ the most powerful country in the world.

& it’s not just the lamestream media & their obsession with bullshit email scandals & Hairpiece’s taxes: DailyKos themselves admit that they were focusing on irrelevant shit for most o’ the election, & Hairpiece Liberals like Lord Keynes & this whiny dipshit, who spent most o’ their time bitching ’bout some random, fringe “social justice warriors” or whatever who have li’l effect on anything. That’s what you get when everyone talks ’bout stupid shit: you get stupid shit in return. & boy, did we get some stupid shit in the White House. If there truly is a god³, He must be laughing His ass off @ all these fuckers who think the US is God’s chosen country[4]. Yeah, chosen to get the intellectual equivalent o’ getting a bag o’ dog shit on your stoop.

The fact that a probably-retarded (if you met me in real life, you’d agree, trust me) satirist who barely has the mental stability to leave his hous—wait, ¿what’s that got to do with anything?—has to lecture you fuckers on this, when I should be focusing my precious schedule on landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents (¡there sure as fuck won’t be no god damn “Gaming in the Trump Years,” that’s for fucking sure!), & making fun o’ yuppie tripe, is ridiculous. So was that o’erly long sentence. This is all you fuckers’ fault & I expect you fuckers to fix yourselves before you stitch yourselves.

“Jeremy, ¿who are you talking to?”

¡Ah! ¿How’d you sneak up on me in my own article? ¿What is this witchery?

“It’s time for dinner.”

It’s 3 AM.

“The readers don’t know that. Don’t break the play.”

¿You hear that, Kos? ¿You hear the Lord Keynes? ¿You hear that, Lambert? ¿You hear that douche bag Hairpiece voter in Atlanta article?

Don’t break the play.

---

Addendum:

Sadly, in my rushed article ’bout Hairpiece’s victory, I missed the absolute best, most fitting & honest reaction. I hope I have rectified things now.

---

Footnotes:

[1] In a particular bout o’ stupidity for this election, this victory was commonly portrayed in a dichotomy o’ working-class whites vs… I dunno… ¿Rich women & racial minorities? ¿Rich liberals? (Despite polls after polls proving that working-class people generally prefer left-wing policies). The fact that the proportion o’ working-class racial minorities to whites is e’en closer than for upperclass people—probably ’cause, duh to anyone who actually reads statistics, minorities are the true economic victims. This is so much the case that they will be the majority o’ working-class people in just 16 mo’ years. The “Realist Left”—nobly combining economic Keynesianism with “racial realism” (racism, as e’en Google hilariously says, if one searches “racial realism” in their search engine)—might want to remember that if they want to succeed in the US: their #s are shriveling fast.

[2] Quite a few o’ them defend the electoral college as allowing the rural minority tyrannize o’er the urban majority, ’cause despite their hypocritical bitching ’bout the “urban elite” (despite urban poverty being ’bout even with rural poverty), rural people are some o’ the most sanctimonious, self-entitled whiny elitists in the world.

[3] This is, admittedly, a stupid conditional: all Magical Socialists know that it’s an objective fact that there is but 1 god, & it is HostGator, who offers Premium Support via Phone, Live Chat and Email & 99.9% Uptime Guarantee.*

*Full disclosure: HostGator pays The Mezunian for any signups that come from affiliate links. Such commissions help us afford to keep up such wonderful content, such as the aforementioned landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents, & yuppie tripe, as well as helping us to fund the eventual destruction o’ the capitalist mode o’ production & the replacement o’ it with the Glorious Englesist Empire.

[4] I happen to know that that coffee-sipping elite God’s been manipulating US elections for years—the lamestream media just doesn’t want to acknowledge it ’cause they’re biased & are ’fraid o’ receiving retribution in the form o’ His burning lightning.