This past May, I posted a couple short comics about Jeremy Mill, a depressed, anthropomorphic rabbit with a dead-end office job. I’ve drawn a few additional comics about Jeremy since then, and I’ve finally gotten around to uploading them here. They’re available on the Comics page, and from this point forward I’m going to make an effort to post new content to that page somewhat regularly. Which probably means I’ll upload new things in spurts every couple months. So check that out, I guess.
I thought I’d fire off a quick missive about this. Reports have been circulating about Robert Ransdell, the neo-Nazi who is running as a write-in candidate against Mitch McConnell. Ransdell has been setting up lawn signs throughout the northern Kentucky area emblazoned with the pithy slogan “With Jews We Lose.” Though he has stated publicly that he does not expect to win, he still sees the campaign as an opportunity to spread his white nationalist message and put the fear of God into anyone who isn’t of pure white stock. In sum, he seems like an all-around fine gentleman, if by “fine” you mean “vile,” and if by “gentleman” you mean “putrid clump of diseased pus.”
I made a cartoon. It is called “Gruzinsky’s Numbers Are Terrible.” It is about a man who is bad at his job. I wrote it when I was very tired, and I animated it when I was very bored. I have embedded it above. You can watch it, if you’d like.
When, in the pursuance of constitutionally mandated juridical “procedures,” one encounters a signifier with varied and numerous signifieds, how does one proceed? If this polysemous aberration presents itself, makes itself known, in the realm of substantiation, attestation, corroboration, and thus the determination of culpability or irreproachability, the repercussions of equivocation could “be” dire. How does one reconcile a linear––or (rather) binarist––proceduralism with a rhizomatic reality, replete with untold (even untellable?) metonymic slippages and acrimonious ambiguities? For that matter, can one safely assume a rhizomatism in “reality,” or even a “reality” of static persistence? Might not one be better off substituting a sort of verisimilitude for “reality” or “truth,” acknowledging the perfomativities and uncertainties inherent to routine and necessary, but all the same bedraggled “procedures?” Continue reading
An impulse exists among radicals to characterize any and all repressive or reactionary state behavior as “fascist.” Police officers assaulting demonstrators are a display of fascism. The United States government’s numerous illegal wars or wiretaps are fascist. The actions of the IDF in the Occupied Territories are fascist. Any conspicuous display of state violence is fascist. Oddly enough, though, most state actions that left-wing activists readily declare fascist are carried out by liberal democratic governments. Radicals are often tempted to boil “fascism,” a term referring to a complex and uniquely offensive ideology, down to a simple synonym for “repression.”
As anyone who has the misfortune of following me on Twitter knows, I’m pretty critical of the Israeli government. I’ve been particularly disturbed by the recent unfolding of Operation Protective Edge, an airstrike campaign in reaction to the abduction and murder of three Israeli teens.* This campaign has killed scores of Palestinians, the bulk of whom have been civilians, and many of whom have been children. This recent attack on Gaza is reprehensibly disproportionate in a manner unfortunately typical of Israeli military campaigns. As such, it has rightfully reignited a great deal of outcry from various peace groups and critics of Zionism. One charge I see repeatedly, though, bothers me; not infrequently, one hears fervent anti-Zionists compare Israel to Nazi Germany. This comparison strikes me as highly irresponsible for a few reasons.