The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRaches' Political Proems
Hate Speech
Take your best shot at me, ad hominem—or ad feminam, if you prefer.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mood music:  Listen whilst you read.  Let’s keep it classy.

People are known by the company they keep.  On the same grounds, they who stand bravely for good and right on controversial issues may be measured by the hatred they evoke from their enemies.

To cultivate a high-quality discussion on my Proems, I lay down the law with a moderation policy that is assuredly more “Nazi” than literally-Hitler.  Thereupon, I will soon start to open comments.  However, as a self-described philological hate-speech intellectual terrorist” and “literary hyper-troll”, I do not want to miss the hate mail!

I am an observer of human nature; and amidst a world gone mad, I collect every scrap of rudeness and stupidity.  I will therefore keep a topic exclusively devoted to off-topic personal attacks and insults against me.

Do you hate me?  Take your best shot!  Hereby in this thread, and in future installments of “Hate Speech” on Proems, the only limitations here for anti-Raches ad hominem attacks shall be the laws applicable to The Unz Review, sanity checks against spam and flooding, and the extremely lenient moderation policy that Mr. Unz generally sets for his site.  (As a believer in private territory, and a very firm believer in hierarchy, I know that this is his site, not mine; although I could exercise my free speech to criticize Mr. Unz’s policies if I were to dislike them, I cannot peremptorily countermand the man whose name is in the banner at the top.)  Also, I will not permit this topic to be used unjustifiably to attack others.  This topic is about me.

I am rich in haters.  Some have cursed me out; some have armchair-psychoanalyzed me; many have hurled false accusations at me, and spun conspiracy theories about my motives, my alleged associates, and my identity.  Here, I will merely pick a few examples of haters whom I found exemplary of all that I am against.

I reject the concept of brotherly love, and I damn Christianity as a religion of hate.  In reply to my such commentary, “obwandiyag” and “WorkingClass” proved my point by showing their Christian “love”, the love of those who preach most about “brotherhood”:


I hope you are poor someday. I hope you are sick. I hope you lose your loved ones and your friends and everything that is dear to you.

So that I can not give a shit about you.

Thanks: WorkingClass

Troll: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Ask Nietzsche to explain the genealogy of those morals.  Wishing extreme personal harm not only on me, but on “[my] loved ones and [my] friends and everything that is dear to [me]”:  An it be not “hate speech”, what is?  That revelation of the inner nature of Christian apologists exceeded the hate-benchmark previously set by a Moon Landing Denier and “redpill” addict, Jonathan Revusky—the emphasis is Adon Revusky’s:


Dude, why don’t you avail yourself of your Second Amendment rights, get a gun, and blow your brains out? Even a WW2 surplus Carcano rifle would do the job.

Just shove it up your ass and pull the trigger.

Troll: Raches

As a right-to-die absolutist (and one who, incidentally, rejects any notion of a so-called “right to life”), I do not get my glands exercised by such a proposition.  Adon Revusky, I will file your kindly advice in “taken under advisement”.

So as for overall hatefulness:  They who achieve the nadir of worst-in-class hate speech, or were at least runners-up down.  Now, let’s have a show of hands:  How many of you readers agree with all that hate against me?  I want to know who you are.  Stand up and be counted!

For the special prize in pitiable attempts to insult my intelligence, Yevardian leads the way:


[…internal quote hereby trimmed by Raches.]  All modern “liberalism” and “progressivism” are only cultural residues of Christianity…  Christian egalitarianism, Christian jealousy, Christian hatred for anything beautiful, strong, healthy, and superior, and Christian love for all that is ugly, sick, lowly, inferior, irrational, debased, diseased, deformed, and degenerate. ®

Troll: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Yevardian’s social-media churchboy meme was an unimpressive Ersatz for an argument, as I pointed out while providing another image as a visual hint.  The hint went straight over his head; and he subsequently attempted to blame me for his meming (!), in a comment which, besides reflecting a severe distortion of Western culture and religion, speaks as if Nietzsche were eminently discreditable—an attitude that says more about Yevardian than about Nietzsche or me; and he thereby chalked up my argument to Nietzsche.

To label everyone who has ever been influenced by Nietzsche as a Nietzschean is as absurd as to call everyone who has ever been influenced by Aristotle an Aristotlean, or everyone who has ever quoted Seneca a Stoic.  And although I frankly admit to having cribbed that particular argument to a degree that I nearly risk a charge of plagiarism, Professor Nietzsche was not the classical philologist who propounded this particular argument, in this particular form, about the law of cultural residues (see note 1), and the metaphor of Christianity as racial “AIDS”.  Protip for Yevardian:  “AIDS” did not yet exist in Nietzsche’s time.

The current award for attempts to belittle me goes to an admitted sockpuppet who called himself “Dr. Fasci, America’s Doctor”, who did tantamount to telling me ad feminam to shut up and get back in the kitchen:


Now I’m just a simple minded country physician, but when I see your screen name I can only picture this:

Busy whipping up another trifle.

Thanks: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me; and when my personal space is invaded, I find it objectionable.  I therefore took Dr. Fasci’s suggestion, and whipped up a recipe to feed him his own little anatomical micro-banana with some orchiectomy beans…

Awesome!  Literally awesome:  I inspire awe, in the sense of fear.  […]  I am imagined as a hot girl, with an allicient waist-to-hip hourglass signal that she yearns to be injected with good genes—i.e., not yours.

She looks as if she is about to give you a real case of “penis envy”, as Revenge® for your invasion of her personal space.  The banana is symbolic.  It is a practical application of eugenics, but without Hitler’s mercy.

If I can jab Miss Iris till she swallows her tongue, then I can needle you to eat your own prick.  ’Tis surely a trifle.

…and, for me, a nice Chianti. “Forty-nine scientists, led by Enrico Fermi, were present in a converted squash court at the University of Chicago’s abandoned Stagg Field on Dec. 2, 1942, when Chicago Pile 1, the world’s first nuclear reactor went critical.  To celebrate their success, Eugene Wigner opened a bottle of Chianti he had purchased months before in anticipation of the event.  The group silently sipped Chianti from paper cups, then passed the bottle around and signed the straw wrapping.”

—Well, have at it!  Let fools be known for follies.  With those unshining examples to set the mood, my dear haters, tell me what you really think of me.  I support “hate speech”, so go ahead and speechify on how much you hate me. ®

Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Raches says: • Website

    ΛΟΛ: Eris, one of the most feminine of all goddesses.

    \(\Huge\uparrow\) Should be καλλίστῃ, but it was butchered by a drugged-out “Discordian” idiot who, in the fringes but except at the fringes, had more skill in graphics than Greek. ®

  2. Beb says:

    I don’t hate you. You hold your view of the world dear, as do I. Nietzsche is an interesting, if tortured soul. Would you agree that when he declared “God is dead.”, he was not exulting, but was horrified. He correctly anticipated that the concept of a supreme God would be replaced by something far worse?

  3. JimDandy says:

    Do you personally consider A Confederacy of Dunces to be hate speech?

  4. As … one who, incidentally, rejects any notion of a so-called “right to life”, I do not get my glands exercised by such a proposition.

    Fair enough.

    On the other hand, given that the recent era that has rejected the “right to life” in favor of the “right to choose” is turning out to be massively dysgenic, while the former right-to-life era was relatively eugenic, perhaps a general inclination against abortion on demand is healthier than an inclination toward abortion on demand after all.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Brás Cubas
  5. From what you’ve posted so far, I think I’m going to like you instead.

  6. anarchyst says:
    @Almost Missouri

    There is an easy solution to the “abortion problem”.
    A woman desiring an abortion should be required to get “permission” from the father. Since there has been only one (purported) “immaculate conception” in recorded history, it should be no problem for a woman to get permission from the father to abort their child…

    • Replies: @Charles
  7. Charles says:

    The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was conceived naturally, by her mother and father, but without the taint of Original Sin. The Virgin Birth is something else altogether; the two beliefs are often confused.

    • Agree: Raches
    • Thanks: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Anon
  8. @Almost Missouri

    Correlation is not causation.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  9. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: we are formed and moulded by our thoughts. Those whose minds are shaped by selfish thoughts cause misery when they speak or act. Sorrows roll over them as the wheels of a cart roll over the tracks of the bullock that draws it.

    All that we are is the result of what we have thought: we are formed and moulded by our thoughts. Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy whenever they speak or act. Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them.

    “He insulted me, he struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me”: those caught in resentful thoughts never find peace.

    “He insulted me, he struck me, he cheated me, he robbed me”: those who give up resentful thoughts surely find peace.

    For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love. This is an unalterable law.

    Dhammapada, Twin Verses, 1-5.

    Stop your hate Raches. It does not benefit you.

  10. @Brás Cubas

    No but assassinating quality future citizens in utero while gratuitously conceiving future underclass parasites certainly is.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  11. When I first saw the picture of Jennifer Aniston, I took it much differently than you have. In that picture, she is playing a character called Rachel, which is close to your handle Raches. Maybe he had more ill intent behind it, but I wanted to clarify a bit of wordplay on the commenter’s part.

    Anyways, I think you’re putting too much stock in negative comments. This is the internet, after all, and negative comments are one side to an open forum. It’s probably best not to obsess over them. I hope, in the future, you worry a little less about the naysayers and make more substantive posts. Mean comments don’t really warrant any kind of response, let alone 1000+ word posts.

    • Replies: @Raches
  12. @Almost Missouri

    You’d have to prove that this would be likelier than the reverse.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  13. Franz says:

    In your “troll” file you’ve quoted this one correctly in my view. But it’s also an example of someone delivering an insult unaware he was exposing his ignorance.

    The attack:


    Dude, why don’t you avail yourself of your Second Amendment rights, get a gun, and blow your brains out? Even a WW2 surplus Carcano rifle would do the job.

    Just shove it up your ass and pull the trigger.

    The problem:

    Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm M.91 is a European rifle, the product of more than one patent. The 91 in the designation means 1891, the starting date for that particular model. It was a successful gun, which is why Lee Harvey Oswald got a good deal on it for \$19 plus postage in the early (only) Kennedy years. (Do it up in current dollar value, figure \$25 altogether.)

    If anything at least call it a “WWI” rifle since that’s when most of them saw action.

    Bonus — Is everyone aware this is ALSO the rifle that gave Rudolf Hess the wound that took him out of the Infantry? It could have been a kill, and if so to what extent would that have on Germany in the years following?

    • Replies: @Raches
  14. Raches says: • Website

    I suspect that what got Adon Revusky riled about Carcano rifles was this—which, if I recall correctly, I found whilst perusing Adon Revusky’s comment history, not Alden’s:

    Alden says:
    September 8, 2021 at 9:04 pm GMT • 100 Words


    The Carcano rifle used to kill JFK was the official Italian army infantry rifle for decades. Italy is a first world European country. Italy would not have used a substandard rifle. The Carcanos were manufactured in Italy. Italy has a long, long history of superb manufacturing of cars guns and numerous other things. Italian guns cars and clothes are the best in the world. Expensive yes out of reach of most people yes. But excellent including the Carcano rifle.

    The lying “Who Killed Kennedy” writers claiming the Carcano was a substandard rifle are just that; liars. 2,000 books, 2,000 theories. Each more ludicrous than the last.

    Agree: Wizard of Oz, David In TN

    Thanks: Raches

    Troll: Jonathan Revusky

    I gave thanks for that, because Alden sighted a poor argument, and she shot it dead (so to speak).  Cf. the arguments that the alleged hijackers on 9/11 could not have navigated without radar (!).  Stupid arguments obscure the truth, rather than helping to find it. ®

    • Replies: @Anon
  15. Raches says: • Website
    @Pop Warner

    See the accompany remark, which emphasizes the visual context:  “Busy whipping up another trifle.”

    —So that’s Jennifer Aniston, playing a character called Rachel?  I knew that I should have reverse image-searched it.  I am not hip with all this pop-culture stuff.  I simply assumed that it must be from some cooking show—perhaps one with less anthropophagy directed at rude people, a problem that I decided to fix. ®

  16. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    The common denominator being that both concepts are complete, utter nonsense and have been corrosive to the mental health of all who’ve been exposed to it, usually as children.

    • Agree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  17. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve always thought it was common knowledge that the Carcano rifle that was allegedly used by LHO was said to have had a faulty sight mechanism rather than it being an inferior weapon.

    It’s not terribly important anyway since the real questions are, who had the power to remove the existing layers of security? Who had the power to immediately insert a false narrative into the media? And who had the power to effect a cover up? Not LHO, that’s for sure.

  18. Raches says: • Website

    In the other thread, some are complaining that I have not yet made many posts.  You are anticipating that thing which may annoy them. ®

  19. @Almost Missouri

    Now I have. But it didn’t change my mind. I agree that abortion, by itself, does not cut crime or other social ills. But that does not mean that banning abortion, by itself, will aggravate those ills. The discussions contained in those links you provided intend to show that welfare is the great culprit for those social ills. Though I agree that, viewed in a simplistic, social-darwinistic manner, those arguments are not easy to dismiss, I don’t think I’d agree that cutting down welfare is a solution, because there are other factors — ethical, political, etc — to consider.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  20. @Brás Cubas

    I committed an error: where I wrote “aggravate those ills”, please read “alleviate those ills”.

  21. For the life of me, I can’t understand this phenomenon of viciously hating random people on the internet, or media figures in general for that matter.

    I may find certain commenters or pundits to be somewhat distasteful, obnoxious, rude, or ignorant; but I certainly can’t be bothered to work up any emotion more intense than passing annoyance or bemusement for random jackasses on the internet who will never have any actual impact on my life.

    Anyone who does express strong hatred or personal attacks on the internet is probably to be pitied. Why Linh Dinh or Raches would give more than a passing thought to such emotional midgets is beyond me.
    It seems like an utter waste of time and energy at the very least.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  22. Kuru says:

    Interesting new columnists. Although I think you should allow for open commenting (without moderation) as is the case with Anatoly Karlin’s blog.

  23. I don’t hate you, but I do marvel at where your energy comes from.

    Consistently maintaining a high Nietzschean style takes talent rather than practice, and talent is simply a brute fact. There is nothing to be asked about talent.

    But there are only so many hours in a day.

  24. Raches says: • Website

    In reply to Carolyn Yeager’s comment #4962587 in another thread.

    In context, this quote was from a comment about your factually false statement that I said I lived in Australia, which I have already adequately addressed for my own part; but it better applies to something else you said:

    I am not trying to smear you. I know better than to behave like that, being the target of smear campaigns on the Internet myself, but they were years ago.

    Indeed, given your experience with the rumors that swirl over your married surname, I was surprised at how casually you try to Judaize me in ways that are, in my case, entirely false.  (Please don’t assume that I am so terrifically ignorant of this milieu.  I do not opine either way about you on that point, because I avoid such matters in the absence of adequate evidence; and I know that it is a very common type of smear.)  Due to your own experience, and because you have otherwise said that I am “not forthcoming”, I hope that you would be the last person in the world to misconstrue it if I address the following issue yet again, at length, in a quite forthcoming way.  That would be a Kafkatrap.

    This episode exemplifies one of the problems with the American so-called “far-right”—not all of it, but much too much of it.  I have observed so much of its petty infighting, rumor-mongering, scandal-spreading, backstabbing, personal bickering, and tantrums suitable for superannuated toddlers, I am glad to be fully independent of it.  Although I am more or less sympathetic to some organizations, and I much respect some individuals, all of the former are politically ineffective, and most of the latter are dead.  For my part, I just tend usually to treat others as they treat me.  When I fail at that, I usually err to the side of being too trusting—a trait that the Jews of my past acquaintance ridiculed as a weakness and a flaw, even as they exploited it.

    Now, anyone who has the patience to read the entire exchange between us will see that I have practically bent over backwards to be fair to you.  In fairness to myself, I need to draw a line here.

    I formally request that you do what you should have done of your own initiative:  Retract on the record, in the thread where you said it and in reply to your own comments where you said it ([1], [2]), your factually false and baseless accusation that I “identified as a Jew”.

    Given your aforementioned experience, I think that you would want no less, if someone were not only to accuse you of things that you deny, but outright to put words in your mouth and twist your own statements—as you did to me.  And you do understand that outside either of our control, others will probably sooner or later link to those comments as “Carolyn Yeager said about Raches…”  As, indeed, you did.

    If our positions were reversed here, I would make appropriate correction—such that others finding those comments in the future would see my corrections properly linked at the bottom.  If I had other disputes with you (as you seem to have with me), then I would take that up separately (and you could answer or ignore them, as appropriate to the merits thereof).

    Everybody makes mistakes, or has moments of misreading or being hasty.  Reliable people strive to be more careful, in matters that could severely damage others’ reputations; and even when they have a really bad day, they correct themselves.  In contradistinction stand those who disregard the facts when they have an axe to grind, who must be treated with the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.


    To reiterate for my part what I know first-hand, which I have always consistently expressed here:

    In the past, I used to identify myself as a Zionist—a political alignment, an ideological belief, and perhaps one may even say, a modern religion or quasi-religion.  I myself was the one who broached that subject about myself at The Unz Review, because it is an interesting topic.  I think that I have some unique insights about Zionism, the Jews, and also, the neat symmetry which Kevin MacDonald observed entirely from the outside.  I have certainly never evaded that particular part of my past—which no one here would know about, if I had not brought it up.

    I should add that as an ex-Zionist, I am not against Zionism because of its fundamental racism:  I turned against Zionism because I discovered that it is based on lies, it attacks good people based on lies, and it is, taken as a whole, a fundamental perversion of the truth.  If Zionism were a good-faith, honest ethnic nationalist movement as the German National-Socialists were, then I would still support Zionism today—just as the German National-Socialists tried in good faith to work with the Zionists (and I do still have some small admiration for Chaim Arlosoroff, whom I suspect was probably too-earnest in his negotiations—I think that’s probably why his fellow Jews murdered him).  Instead, I repudiate with disgust and utmost condemnation the Zionist agenda of attacking and destroying everyone from the Germans to the Palestinians, in a long-term campaign of pure hatred and megalomania, all based on deceit.

    I have never identified myself as a Jew.  That is an ethnic status which I could never claim because, to the best of my knowledge, I do not have any Jewish ancestors whatsoever.  I always perceived Zionism as Jewish ethnic nationalism:  That is what first attracted me to it.  For my part, when I was a Zionist, I was striving to be a so-called “righteous Gentile” (really, a Shabbos goy), not a Jew myself.  I did think that maybe I could have acceptably Jewish offspring someday—a prospect that now fills me with utmost horror, for it would have committed me to the Jews forever, irrevocably and inescapably.  I now quite deeply understand why the Germans banned intermarriage.


    You seem to rely on accusing people of accusing you of things, by just mentioning it and trying to clarify.

    In substantial essence, you rather pointedly suggested that I edited an unspecified comment to remove the statement to which you referred.  —Thus by implication, deceitfully yanking the rug from under you so that I could deny having said something which, in fact, I never said.  That is an accusation—and one of a poisonous nature, which may tend to make others reluctant to comment here at all.  Your attempt to play innocent, and to turn it around on me, does not speak well for you.

    Suspicion is a natural reaction when a person is not forthcoming.


    When you want to keep so many secrets, it naturally makes people very curious, and wondering what you’re hiding. That’s all there is to it.

    Failure to have considered the following does not show wise judgment:

    • People who express opinions (or even objective facts) that are completely illegal in some countries may have good cause to remain unidentifiable, when discussing same in a magazine that is legally protected by the American Constitution.

    I would hope that you don’t try to pry identifying details out of people in Germany and countries with similar laws; but that would require you to know which country they are in, which, for the same reason, they may not want to tell you.  Your approach may get someone hurt someday.

    • More generally, people who express extremely controversial opinions sometimes desire anonymity.  That, indeed, is why anonymous political speech is expressly protected by the Supreme Court of your country, the United States (not Germany, where anonymous speech is in some circumstances illegal due to “Impressum” requirements).

    • People who express controversial opinions sometimes have past personal experience with unjust retaliation—potentially ranging from pseudolegal persecution, to economic warfare, to Antifa-style violence, and many other real-world personal catastrophes.  “Once burnt, twice shy.”

    • The foregoing are mere possibilities, of the type which any astute observer would see as possibilities.  On another note, people who express a principled concern for privacy are practicing what they preach.  Specifically in the context of discussing privacy, I have declared:  “I believe in praxis.  Ideology must be lived.  The political is personal.  Whether or not you agree with my principles, it is unwarranted to toss at me a something to hide type of chestnut.

    If you think that “Suspicion is a natural reaction when a person is not forthcoming” about personally identifying details in the world as it is today, in this type of political discourse, then perhaps you are out of place here.  A respect for privacy is a practical necessity for effective political activism:  Even if you are publicly identified, you need to deal with people who may have good reason not to be. ®

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Moderated by Raches (Cancel Reply

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Raches Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives