Tender is the Flesh Book Review

What happens when capitalism finally strips away every last pretense of civilization? What happens when human beings become just another commodity, their bodies reduced to inventory, their suffering transformed into profit, and their existence measured by their usefulness to the market?

Agustina Bazterrica’s Tender Is the Flesh offers a grotesque answer: nothing fundamentally changes. The language becomes more clinical, the machinery more efficient, and the violence more socially acceptable, but the underlying logic remains disturbingly familiar.

In this dystopian novel, a virus renders animal meat poisonous, forcing society to embrace the industrial slaughter and consumption of human beings. People are bred, processed, butchered, and sold as meat. An entire economy emerges around the practice, complete with factories, regulations, specialized labor, and consumers who would rather not think too hard about where their dinner comes from.

The premise is horrifying, but what makes the novel so effective is that its world isn’t governed by perpetual chaos. It is governed by bureaucracy. The slaughterhouses operate. The workers perform their duties. The wealthy purchase their products. The government establishes regulations. Society adapts. And that is precisely where the horror lies.

One of capitalism’s defining characteristics is its ability to transform the world into something that can be bought, sold, and exploited. Land becomes property. Labor becomes a commodity. Time becomes money. Human relationships become transactions. Even suffering can be packaged, marketed, and sold when somebody discovers a way to profit from it.

Tender Is the Flesh takes this logic to its most repulsive conclusion.

Human beings are no longer recognized as individuals possessing an inner life. They become products with measurable qualities, market values, and designated purposes. Their bodies are assessed, processed, and distributed according to economic demand. The distinction between a person and a product disappears, not because humanity has suddenly lost its capacity for moral reasoning, but because an entire economic system has been constructed around the financial benefits of pretending that certain human beings are no longer people. This is the terrifying brilliance of Bazterrica’s premise. The transformation doesn’t require everyone to become a sadistic monster. It requires people to accept a new category of commodity. Once that category is established, the machinery can take care of the rest.

The slaughterhouse isn’t merely a place of physical violence. It’s the logical endpoint of a worldview in which living beings possess value only insofar as somebody else can extract something from them.

What disturbed me most about the novel wasn’t simply its graphic depictions of brutality. It was the normalization of that brutality.

The characters inhabit a society in which atrocities have been incorporated into everyday routines. The language surrounding the industry is sanitized, technical, and impersonal. Euphemisms conceal the reality of what is happening, allowing people to participate in horrific practices without confronting their full implications.

Modern capitalist societies routinely obscure the human cost of their comforts. The exploitation of workers occurs far from the eyes of consumers. The suffering behind cheap products is hidden within global supply chains. Environmental destruction is treated as an externality. Poverty is reframed as personal failure, while wealth accumulated through exploitation is celebrated as success. The distance between consumer and victim makes indifference easier.

We are encouraged to see products rather than processes, prices rather than consequences, and convenience rather than the suffering that may sustain it. The system functions most smoothly when its participants can enjoy its benefits without examining its foundations. Bazterrica magnifies this arrangement until it becomes impossible to ignore. Her fictional society doesn’t eliminate violence. It industrializes it, regulates it, and gives it a respectable place in the economy. The horror isn’t that violence exists. The horror is that violence can become an ordinary job.

The novel also exposes how dehumanization can become a prerequisite for exploitation. If the victims are understood as fully human, the industry becomes morally indefensible. Their suffering becomes impossible to dismiss as a technical detail. Their existence challenges the legitimacy of the entire economic arrangement. So the system depends on distinctions: between those who count as people and those who don’t, between lives worthy of protection and lives available for consumption. These distinctions are not simply personal prejudices. They are reinforced through institutions, professional language, economic incentives, and social expectations.

Once an entire population is classified as a resource, cruelty can be presented as efficiency. Exploitation becomes production. Killing becomes processing. The moral question is replaced by a logistical one. How many units can be produced? How much can be sold? How can waste be reduced? How can demand be satisfied?

From an anarchist perspective, this is especially disturbing because it reveals how institutional power can organize domination until it appears natural. People learn their assigned roles, obey established procedures, and reproduce the system through everyday actions. Nobody needs to defend the entire arrangement every morning. They only need to perform their individual tasks.

Oppression becomes routine. And routine is one of the most effective ways to make the intolerable seem inevitable. The banality of evil and the machinery of obedience

There is something profoundly unsettling about the novel’s emphasis on procedure. The people operating this industry are not all depicted as extraordinary villains. They are workers, managers, officials, and consumers occupying recognizable social roles.

Their participation raises a question that extends far beyond the fictional world: how much cruelty can a society normalize before its members stop recognizing it as cruelty?

We often imagine that evil announces itself. We expect it to look monstrous, to speak openly about its intentions, to announce its hatred of humanity. But institutional violence rarely needs such theatricality.

It can arrive in paperwork, regulations, workplace expectations, and the reassuring claim that everyone is simply doing their job. It can be defended as necessary, profitable, legal, or unavoidable. People can distance themselves from responsibility by insisting that the system would continue without them.

And perhaps it would.

But that does not absolve them of their participation.

One of the novel’s bleakest implications is that civilization is not necessarily the opposite of barbarism. Civilization can provide barbarism with infrastructure. It can make cruelty more organized, more productive, and more difficult to challenge.

What makes Tender Is the Flesh such an effective anti-capitalist novel is that its central horror does not depend on the existence of universal hatred. The people being exploited do not have to be hated by every person who benefits from their exploitation. They simply have to be profitable. That distinction matters.

A system organized around accumulation does not need to recognize the intrinsic worth of the lives it consumes. It needs only to identify resources, establish ownership, organize production, and generate returns. Human suffering can become an acceptable cost when it is borne by somebody whose interests carry little economic or political weight. This is why the novel’s world feels less like an impossible nightmare than an exaggeration of existing tendencies.

Capitalism has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to adapt to moral criticism without surrendering its underlying priorities. It can market ethical consumption, celebrate corporate responsibility, and turn rebellion itself into a brand. It can acknowledge suffering while continuing to profit from the conditions that produce it. The system does not necessarily collapse when its contradictions become visible. Sometimes it simply finds a new way to sell them.

Bazterrica pushes that adaptability into the realm of the grotesque. Even the unspeakable becomes an industry.

The novel is also interested in the psychological consequences of living inside such a society. Its protagonist, Marcos, occupies a position within the very industry that makes the novel’s world possible. His private life and emotional struggles unfold against a background of organized human exploitation. This creates an uncomfortable tension between individual feeling and systemic violence.

Can a person remain compassionate in one area of life while participating in cruelty elsewhere? Can private grief or tenderness compensate for complicity in a brutal institution? Does an individual’s capacity to care for particular people mean much if they continue to benefit from a structure that treats others as disposable?

These questions resist easy answers.

We’re often eager to judge ourselves by our intentions, our private virtues, and the people we love. But institutions are sustained by actions as well as beliefs. A person can experience genuine tenderness without challenging the machinery of exploitation surrounding them. Compassion confined to the private sphere may offer personal comfort while leaving the public world untouched. That is one of the novel’s most uncomfortable challenges: whether our morality extends beyond the boundaries of our own lives, and what happens when it doesn’t.

Beyond its political critique, Tender Is the Flesh is a deeply existential work. Its world offers no comforting assurance that human beings are naturally moral, that civilization steadily improves, or that technological and bureaucratic sophistication represents genuine progress. Instead, it presents a society capable of organizing immense cruelty while continuing to regard itself as functional. The result is a particularly bleak vision of humanity.

Perhaps the most frightening possibility isn’t that people are inherently incapable of compassion, but that compassion is fragile when confronted with convenience, conformity, and material incentives. People can recognize suffering and still look away. They can understand that something is monstrous and still participate in it. They can construct elaborate moral justifications for arrangements that benefit them.

The novel doesn’t allow the reader the comfort of imagining that barbarism belongs exclusively to some distant, uncivilized other. Its monsters wear ordinary clothes. They have jobs. They follow procedures. They live in a society that has decided certain lives are worth less than others. And they eat dinner.

Tender Is the Flesh isn’t a political treatise, and it shouldn’t be reduced to a simplistic allegory in which capitalism alone explains every act of human cruelty. Its dystopia is also concerned with conformity, institutional power, moral compartmentalization, and the disturbing ease with which human beings adapt to the unacceptable.

Nevertheless, its central premise lends itself to a devastating anti-capitalist interpretation.

When everything must justify its existence through utility, when every resource must be exploited, and when profitability becomes more important than the lives sacrificed to achieve it, the distinction between a society’s productive capacity and its moral progress begins to collapse.

A society can become more efficient without becoming more humane. It can become wealthier without becoming more compassionate. It can develop increasingly sophisticated institutions while using those institutions to administer increasingly sophisticated forms of cruelty.

Progress measured exclusively through production, consumption, and economic growth is a profoundly impoverished definition of progress.

As an anarchist, I find the novel’s portrayal of normalized domination especially compelling. It exposes the danger of accepting institutions simply because they’re established, laws simply because they are enforceable, or economic arrangements simply because they are profitable. Legality does not make something ethical. Social acceptance does not make something just. And the fact that a system functions does not mean it deserves to survive.

The most horrifying aspect of Tender Is the Flesh isn’t the idea that humanity might one day become meat. It’s the suggestion that we could construct a world in which this happens, surround it with regulations and professional terminology, turn it into a source of employment and revenue, and eventually stop asking whether it should happen at all.

Capitalism’s ultimate horror is not merely that it can turn everything into a commodity, it’s that, given the right conditions, it can teach us to mistake the commodification of life for the natural order of things. And once that happens, the slaughterhouse no longer looks like an aberration.

It looks like business as usual.

Heart of Darkness from an Anarchist Perspective

Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness remains one of the most unsettling critiques of colonialism ever written. While the novella is often discussed in terms of race, psychology, or literary style, it also offers a powerful lens through which anarchists can examine the relationship between power, domination, and human corruption.

At its core, it’s a story about authority unleashed from restraint. The European powers claim to be bringing civilization to Africa, but Conrad quickly strips away this illusion. The colonial project is revealed not as a humanitarian mission but as a system of exploitation, extraction, and violence. The rhetoric of progress serves as a mask for the pursuit of ivory, wealth, and control.

For anarchists, this critique feels immediately familiar. States and empires often justify their power by claiming to act in the interests of civilization, security, or prosperity. Yet beneath these justifications lies coercion. The Congo in Conrad’s novella is not an aberration of imperialism but a logical consequence of concentrated power operating without accountability.

The character of Kurtz emodies this dynamic. He arrives in Africa with lofty ideals and grand ambitions. He is eloquent, educated, and apparently committed to humanitarian principles. Yet given near-total authority over his station and separated from meaningful social constraints, he transforms into a tyrant. The heads displayed on stakes outside his compound are not merely symbols of what happens when one individual gains unchecked power over others.

An anarchist reading rejects the comforting notion that Kurtz was simply an exceptionally evil man. The more disturbing possibility is that the structures around him encouraged and rewarded domination. The company admired him because he produced results. His brutality became acceptable as long as it served the economic interests of those in power. Kurtz is less a monster than a product of a system built on hierarchy and extraction.

Heart of Darkness also challenges the colonial distinction between “civilized” and “savage.” Throughout the story, it is the supposedly civilized Europeans who commit acts of extraordinary cruelty. Conrad suggests that civilization itself does not eliminate violence; it often organizes and legitimizes it. This insight resonates strongly with anarchist critiques of the state. Governments frequently claim a monopoly on legitimate violence, presenting themselves as guardians of order while engaging in warfare, repression, and exploitation on a massive scale.

At the same time, the novella is not a straightforward revolutionary text. Conrad offers little hope for resistance or liberation. His worldview is deeply pessimistic, often portraying darkness as an inherent aspect of human nature. Many anarchists would disagree with this conclusion. Thinkers such as Kropotkin argued that cooperation and mutual aid are just as natural to humanity as competition and domination. From this perspective, the problem is not humanity itself but the institution that concentrate power and reward exploitation.

This tension is what makes the novella so compelling. Conrad diagnoses the sickness of empire with remarkable clarity but remains skeptical that humanity can overcome it. Anarchists may accept his critique of authority while rejecting his pessimism about human potential.

More than a century after its publication, Heart of Darkness remains relevant because the questions it raises have not disappeared. How do systems of power corrupt those who wield them? How do institutions justify violence in the name of civilization? And what happens when economic interests are placed above human dignity?

Conrad doesn’t provide answers. He leaves us with Kurtz dying words: “The horror! The horror!” For anarchists, those words can be read as a final recognition of what lies at the heart of empire: not civilization, but domination.

No Longer Human: A Review

There are books that entertain you, books that challenge you, and then there are books that feel like they quietly crawl inside your head and sit there long after you finish them. No Longer Human is one of those books.

At first glance, the novel seems simple: a deeply alienated man drifts through life unable to connect with other people. However, the deeper you get into the book, the harder it becomes to reduce it to something that neat. It’s not just about social anxiety. It’s not even just about despair. It’s about what happens when someone becomes convinced they are fundamentally incompatible with humanity itself.

What struck me most was how early Yozo (main character) learns to perform. As a child, he realizes he doesn’t understand people, so he becomes a clown. Humor becomes camouflage. Every joke, every exaggerated expression, every ridiculous act is really an attempt to avoid scrutiny. He isn’t trying to stand out. He’s trying to survive unnoticed. The idea hit harder than I expected.

The novel repeatedly asks an uncomfortable question: how much of social life is performance? Yozo just experiences that performance at an unbearable intensity. He watches other people interact as if everyone else received a secret manual on how to be human and he somehow missed it. And yet, despite all his insistence that he is “disqualified” from humanity, the emotions driving him are painfully human:

Fear.

Shame.

Loneliness.

The desire to be accepted.

Terror of rejection.

That’s what makes the title so tragic. By the end of the novel, I didn’t feel like I had read about an inhuman person. I felt like I had watched a human being slowly convince himself that he wasn’t one.

The epilogue completely reframed the book for me. After spending hundreds of pages inside Yozo’s self-hatred, another character casually describes him almost tenderly, as an “angel.” That single moment changes everything. Suddenly you realize the story may not be about a man who truly lacked humanity, but about someone whose self-perception had become catastrophically distorted. That possibly makes the novel far sadder.

There’s also something disturbingly modern about the book. Even though it was published in 1948, it feels intensely contemporary in its depiction of masking, alienation, and emotional dissociation. Yozo constantly performs versions of himself for other people while privately feeling hollow and fraudulent. That experience feels familiar to a lot of people now, especially in a world where identity itself can become performative.

What makes Osamu Dazai’s writing so effective is that he never turns Yozo into a romantic antihero. He can be passive, frustrating, selfish, self-destructive, and emotionally exhausting. But the novel doesn’t ask you to admire him. It asks you to understand the psychology of someone collapsing under shame.

Maybe that’s why the book lingers. It’s not because most readers literally feel “no longer human,” but because many people know what it’s like to feel out of sync with the world around them, to wear masks for survival, or to fear there is something fundamentally wrong with them.

The horror of the novel isn’t that Yozo loses his humanity. It’s that he can no longer see it in himself.

On Remaining, Regrettably

I regret to inform you that I will not be dying today.

This is not out of hope, nor courage, nor any particularly admirable trait. Let the record show: I remain unconvinced by life’s supposed “beauty,” unmoved by its sales pitch, and deeply suspicious of anyone who describes it as a gift without including a receipt.

No, my continued existence is, at best, a clerical error I have chosen not to correct.
I have reviewed the arguments. I have read The Myth of Sisyphus and noted the insistence that one must imagine Sisyphus happy. I do not imagine him happy. I imagine him tired, irritated, and increasingly passive-aggressive toward the rock. And yet, he pushes.

Not because it matters. Not because it ends. But because the alternative would grant the universe a kind of victory it has not earned.

I have also consulted Emil Cioran, who kindly confirmed that existence is, in fact, a mistake. A relief, honestly. It’s nice to have that in writing. Still, even he lingered; complaining, observing, refusing to exit the stage he so clearly despised.
Which brings me here: not hopeful, not redeemed, but… present.

Let it be known that I do not stay for the usual reasons. Not for destiny, nor progress, nor the vague promise that things will “get better.” I stay out of curiosity, irritation, and a stubborn refusal to let absurdity have the last word.
If existence insists on being meaningless, then I will insist on experiencing it anyway. If only to document the failure.
I will drink bad coffee. I will argue with strangers. I will laugh at things that probably shouldn’t be funny. I will continue to observe humanity with a mix of fascination and disappointment, like a critic who refuses to leave a terrible play.

And yes, I will continue to wake up—begrudgingly, skeptically, but consistently.
Not as an act of faith.
As an act of defiance.
So no, this is not a farewell. It is, if anything, a protest. A refusal to resolve the tension. A decision to remain, not because life is good, but because it is absurd, and I am not finished mocking it.

Sincerely,
Someone who is still, inexplicably, here

The Lie of Glory

I started reading Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo for one reason: Republicans said not to. They said it was anti-American and socialist. What it is is anti-war and anti-imperialism. If the people who glorify war and worship a flag are afraid of a book then that’s usually a sign the book is telling the truth.

The book isn’t just anti-war. It’s anti-illusion. It’s about Joe Bonham, a World War I soldier who wakes up in a hospital with no arms, no legs, no face; he’s deaf, mute, and blind. His body is gone, but his mind is still very much alive. The entire book consists of his thoughts, his memories, his realization that he’s become a piece of government property in a bed.

There’s no glory in this book. There’s no heroism. There’s silence, darkness, and the sound of your own mind refusing to die.

The deeper I got into the book, the more it hit me: everything recruiters promise — pride, purpose, brotherhood — it’s all marketing. The same system that feeds you “honor” will turn you into cannon fodder the second you sign on the dotted line. When you’re useful, they decorate you. When you’re broken, they hide you.

There’s a chapter where Joe hallucinates Christ walking among the dead and mutilated soldiers. It’s not divine. It’s horrifying. Christ doesn’t save anyone, He just watches humanity destroy itself again, in His name this time. That’s when Trumbo’s message cuts through: war isn’t sacrifice, it’s slaughter dressed up as salvation.

Joe eventually figures out how to communicate: by tapping his head against his pillow in Morse code. What he asks for is simple: let him be seen. Roll him through the streets in a glass case so people can see what “sacrifice for freedom” actually looks like. Of course, they refuse. The military can’t afford truth. They sedate him and shove him back into silence.

That’s how the machine works. It eats you, then buries what’s left under words like “honor” and “duty.”

Johnny Got His Gun isn’t an easy read, but it’s the kind that wakes something up in you. It makes every flag-waving speech sound like a sales pitch. It makes every “support our troops” bumper sticker feel hollow. The book isn’t anti-American. It’s anti-lie. And that’s exactly why they don’t want you to read it.

Infinite Jest and the Test of Boredom

Infinite Jest is one of those books I re-visit a lot on this site. It’s in my top five favorite books of all time. When people ask what it’s about I tell them the surface level answer: It’s about a film so entertaining that people watch it without doing anything else until they die. Oh, and tennis. It’s more than that though. I talked to a friend of mine about it who introduced me to the book in the first place. I told him, “I think, at its core, Infinite Jest is a book about our inability to deal with boredom.” Not even our inability, our refusal. It’s about the sheer panic that rises in us when we’re left alone with our thoughts, without a screen or distraction to drown out the noise inside.

The author — David Foster Wallace — saw boredom as the truest test of freedom. Not freedom in the political sense, but the freedom to exist without the constant need to be entertained. The freedom to pay attention — to life, to others, to ourselves — without numbing out. The irony, of course, is that we’ve built a society where that kind of freedom feels unbearable.

The book also tackles addiction, and the addicts in Infinite Jest aren’t just addicted to substances, they’re addicted to escape. To anything that shields them from the crushing weight of unfiltered consciousness. But Wallace’s genius was showing that this isn’t limited to drug users. We all have our fix. Some people chase achievement. Some chase pleasure. Some chase attention. The forms change, but the hunger doesn’t.

At the center of the book is “the Entertainment,” a film so irresistibly pleasurable that viewers lose the will to do anything but watch it until they die. It sounds absurd, but it’s not that far off. Every endless scroll, every algorithmic loop, every dopamine hit of digital validation is a step toward that same self-erasure. Wallace wrote the book in the 1990s, but he saw where we were heading: a culture where overstimulation replaces meaning, and distraction becomes the dominant mode of existence.

What makes the book so overwhelming — so sprawling, so labyrinthine — is that it mirrors the chaos of modern consciousness. The fragmented attention, the tangled connections, the endless search for something that feels real. The structure itself resists our hunger for easy satisfaction. You can’t skim it; you have to wrestle with it. And maybe that’s the point. Reading it is an act of resistance against the same forces it warns about.

Wallace once said that “the real, profound boredom” we experience in everyday life is where freedom begins. But to get there, we have to stop running from it. We have to stop medicating every quiet moment with noise. Boredom is uncomfortable because it strips us bare. It forces us to confront who we are when we’re not performing, producing, or consuming.

That’s the real terror of the book. Not addiction, not death, not even despair, but the silence underneath it all. The realization that maybe we’ve built our entire lives around avoiding ourselves.

In that sense, the novel is both a warning and a mirror. It asks whether we can still be present in a world designed to keep us from ever being present. It asks whether we can stand the boredom long enough to rediscover what’s real.

Boredom, it turns out, isn’t the enemy. It’s the doorway back to awareness. It’s where meaning has been hiding all along: in the space we’re just too afraid to enter.

Candide Through an Absurd and Anti-Natalist Lens

I finished Voltaire’s Candide. I bought it I don’t know how long ago, but I’d get distracted with other books as I often do and just forgot about it until recently. All I can say is “Wow!” It was an excellent satire of philosophy in general. Me, being who I am though, I read it through a lens of pessimism, absurdism, and anti-natalism. It’s surprisingly modern and disturbingly relevant.

Right from the start the main character — Candide — and his world are full of relentless misfortune: he starts out expelled from his home, pushed into a brutal army; he witnesses earthquakes, massacres, and hangings. Everywhere he goes, human cruelty and disaster dominate.

For someone like me that’s attuned to anti-natalist thought, the lesson is clear: life is unpredictably cruel, and no amount of idealism or hope can shield anyone from suffering. The character of Pangloss and his philosophy — “this is the best of all possible worlds” — is not comforting. It’s absurd. Voltaire mocks it precisely to show that optimism can blind us to reality.

Candide meets kings unthroned, slaves chained to oars, prostitutes forced by circumstance, and monks trapped in religious life against their will. From the sites of Libson to El Dorado and Paris to Venice, suffering is universal. It doesn’t discriminate by wealth, status, or virtue.

All of this perfectly aligns with anti-natalism. Why bring new life into a world so unpredictable, so cruel, and so universally painful? Voltaire’s stories of absurdly recurring disasters reinforce the ethical argument that procreation inevitably imposes suffering on others. Human ideas are fragile. Pursuits that seem meaningful such as love, wealth, status, and fame often collapse under the weight of reality. For an absurdist like myself, this is expected. The universe offers no inherent purpose and our “ideals” are more likely than not arbitrary constructs.

The end of the book says “We must cultivate our garden.” This is Voltaire’s practical work. Life is absurd and full of suffering, but we can still create meaning in small, tangible ways: tending to our responsibilities, helping others, or our own little personal projects. For an absurdist anti-natalist this means to me:

Accept the universe’s lack’s lack of inherent meaning. Do what you can to reduce suffering wherever possible. And focus on tangible, ethical, or creative work rather than abstract speculation.

So, what did I take away from the satirical work? I learned through its absurd coincidences, relentless misfortunes, and philosophical debates that it mirrors these truths: life is cruel, unpredictable, and often meaningless.

However, like Candide, we are not powerless. We can act, work, and cultivate our little gardens in such a chaotic world, and in doing so, carve out a fragile, ethical, and perhaps even joyful corner of existence.

Favorite Books #6-10

A while back, I gave you a list of my top 5 favorite books. It’s taken me some time and a lot of thinking to think of numbers 6-10, but I think I’ve got them. So, here they are:

6. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti

Ligotti’s philosophical pessimism is a cold and meditative. It’s about the horrors of consciousness and human suffering. He argues that awareness itself is a curse, and it’s a theme that lingers in your brain long after you finish the book.

7. Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The main character embodies self-loathing, resentment, and intellectual rebellion. His critique of optimism exposes the contradictions of human desire and freedom which reveals our capacity for irrationality and cruelty.

8. Thus Spake Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

I know I’ve moved away from Nietzsche over the years, but this book was my introduction to philosophy. It helped me discover other philosophers and led me to my favorite (Albert Camus.) This book challenges traditional morality, urging the creation of new values. It’s sometimes difficult, but it’s also poetic and absurd which I love. It insists we confront the void with courage and creativity.

9. Pet Sematary by Stephen King

The author that made me a lover of reading and books in general. It’s still the most terrifying book I’ve ever read. It isn’t just about the supernatural. It’s a meditation on grief, denial, and the impossibility of reversing death. It confronts us with the inevitability of loss and the consequences of trying to cheat the natural order.

10. Blindness by Jose Saramago

A society stripped of sight which exposes the fragility and moral ambiguity of civilization. It’s a very grim reflection on human nature. Survival instincts clash with morality which can lead to brutality. It’s been a while since I read it, but it still lingers in the back of my mind so I had to put it on the list.

A Prophet and a Nihilist Walk into a Bar

I’ve loved stand-up comedy since high school. I even did my own set a few times years ago (I wasn’t very good at it. Need to research comedic timing more.) My all-time favorite comedian is Bill Hicks (rest in power.) He wasn’t just a comic, he was a prophet. He tried to open the eyes of the public at large to how they were being fucked and just sitting back and taking it. He was a fierce social critic. Other aspiring comedians might want to be like Carlin or Pryor or Lenny Bruce or Sam Kinison. I wanted to be like Bill Hicks.

Another comedian I love — who I think carries Hicks’ torch and also burns the world down with it — is Doug Stanhope. He doesn’t care about waking people up. He doesn’t even give a shit if he bombs on stage. He’ll just get bombed on alcohol while he bombs on stage.

Comedy has always had its rebels and these two fit that description. Hicks wanted to wake you up. Stanhope wants to drag you into the abyss with him. Both are/were uncompromising, dark, and unwilling to sell out. However, their philosophies couldn’t be more different.

Let’s start with Hicks. Hicks gave a shit. He wasn’t just telling jokes; he was preaching. Every set was a sermon against consumerism, war, censorship, and blind conformity. He wanted audiences to see through the veil, to wake up. When a joke bombed, it stung him. It didn’t just mean the laugh was missing, it meant the message hadn’t landed. Hicks carried the weight of a prophet, a sense that comedy could save humanity if only enough people listened. His core drive was enlightenment through laughter. His tone — righteous, sermon-like; a preacher in a smokey comedy club. His view of humanity was misanthropic but hopeful. Humanity was flawed, but people would wake up. And when he bombed on stage it was a personal wound, proof at how far gone society was.

Hicks’ legacy is almost biblical. Fans and admirers treat him less like a comic and more like a visionary who used a microphone as his pulpit.

Then there’s Doug Stanhope: the nihilist who doesn’t give a fuck. Comedy isn’t a sermon to him. It’s a dare. Can he say the most obscene, brutally honest thing in the room and still stand there, beer in hand, while the audience squirms? If Hicks bombed, it hurt. If Stanhope bombs, it’s just another outcome. Sometimes it’s even the point. Walkouts, police calls, physical confrontations, they’re not failures … they’re souvenirs. Stanhope is more amusement through honesty. He’s kind of like your drunk, nihilistic, misanthropic uncle who doesn’t sugarcoat shit. His view of humanity is that it’s hopeless and it’s best to laugh at the chaos. When he bombs, he’s neutral and sometimes even celebrates and that shows that he’s not just pandering to his audience.

Stanhope’s legacy isn’t prophetic, it’s apocalyptic. He doesn’t offer hope; he offers anesthesia. He’s not here to save you; he’s here to mock you while the ship goes down.

So you have a prophet and a nihilist. There’s a good set up: “A prophet and a nihilist walk into a bar.” Hicks wanted comedy to save the world. Stanhope wants comedy to burn it all down … or at least make the collapse funnier.

Hicks was a preacher who believed in laughter as a path to truth. Stanhope is a nihilist who believes truth is unbearable, so we might as well laugh while we’re here. Hicks aimed for transcendence. Stanhope embraces the gutter. Both approaches matter. Both expose the absurdity of life and culture. But where Hicks offered a vision of redemption, Stanhope only offers a toast to the void.

Hicks is remembered as a voice of moral clarity in a corrupt world. Stanhope is like Heath Ledger’s Joker. One pointed toward the light. The other cackles in the dark. Maybe comedy needs both: the prophet to believe change is possible, and the nihilist to remind us that, even if it isn’t, the laugh is still worth it.

Elon Musk Has a Breeding Fetish and it Creeps Me Out

Let’s talk about Apartheid Clyde again. Not the genius inventor, not the Mars guy, not the billionaire memelord, but the man on a bizarre, almost dystopian crusade to impregnate the planet. At this point it’s not just “having a lot of kids.” It’s a full-blown ideology. A fetish wrapped in futurism. A techno-breeding manifesto disguised as civilization-saving.

Apartheid Clyde has at least 14 children (that we know of) with multiple women, including employees. He’s tweeted things like “population collapse is the biggest threat to humanity” and “I’m doing my part haha,” as if civilization hinges on him personally repopulating the Earth — or Mars — with his offspring. That’s not family planning. That’s legacy-building with a hint of sci-fi eugenics.

He’s literally turned human reproduction into a status symbol. It’s not about love or parenting or raising decent people. It’s about seeding the future … with himself. He thinks he’s a mythological figure tasked with restarting the species after the collapse.

It’s not subtle. He has said he believes “smart people” aren’t reproducing enough. He reportedly fathered twins with a Neuralink executive. He once called birth control a “civilization-ending experiment.” He’s flirted with the logic of eugenics while acting like he’s just being a rationalist.

In any other context, this would be horrifying. But because he’s rich and quirky, people brush it off as just another Musk-ism. But imagine any regular man walking around, telling the world it’s his moral duty to have as many children as possible because his DNA is just that important. That’s not just arrogant. That’s a fetish.

This isn’t about children. It’s about control. Power. Legacy. Apartheid Clyde talks about colonizing Mars, building superintelligence, and rewriting human history, always with himself as the central node. He doesn’t want to save the word. He wants to remake it in his image, and apparently that starts in the bedroom. He’s not trying to be your kid’s role model. He’s trying to be their ancestor.

Here’s the kicker: Apartheid Clyde doesn’t believe in collective solutions. He doesn’t trust democracy. He doesn’t care about building a better society. He wants a genetically optimized future ruled by the right kind of people: him and his kind.

And that’s why his weird, hyper-capitalist breeding campaign is so creepy. Because it’s not just personal. It’s political. It’s patriarchal. And it’s deeply authoritarian in disguise. We don’t need more Musk children. We need fewer billionaires treating the Earth — and our bodies — like a startup they can scale.