The Vomit Cake Principle
You eat the vomit, I hold the principle. Deal?
Okay, let’s say there’s a cake you like. A cake you really like. It could be any type of cake, any flavor, so let’s just call it “TheCakeYouLike.” And there’s a bakery you go to because it does TheCakeYouLike to perfection. So you’ve been going there for years.
And one day the bakery owner tells you, “Hey - we have a new thing going on. You can get TheCakeYouLike, but with vomit icing on top!”
And you’re like, “Vomit icing? What do you mean?”
The owner explains: “Oh, we collect human vomit, mostly from hospitals - people with stomach flu or intestinal parasites, but also from Skid Row and the toilets of popular bars, and we let it sit at room temperature for two days, to make sure we get some flyspeck in there, and then we use it as the icing on TheCakeYouLike.”
And you’re like, “My God, that’s horrible! Can I get TheCakeILike but without the vomit icing?”
“Well of course! We’d never force the vomit on you. It’s just an option. Feel free to get TheCakeYouLike with NO vomit icing.”
So a few weeks later, you see a friend of yours, a friend who shares your love of TheCakeYouLike, and there they are, eating the cake but WITH the vomit icing.
You say to your friend, “Jesus Christ almighty, why are you eating the cake WITH the vomit icing?”
And your friend replies, “Oh you big sillybilly, I don’t like the vomit icing at all! By golly, who would? It’s vomit, it’s disgusting. I just like the cake underneath.”
So of course you ask, “But then why didn’t you order the cake without the vomit icing? You can get the cake without the vomit, it’s totally an option, so why don’t you?”
Well now your friend turns sour. “What, are you accusing me of liking vomit icing? How dare you. I like the cake, as do you. I’m eating for the cake underneath, not for the vomit icing on top. I’m eating around the vomit!”
You try to reason with your friend. “You can get the cake without the vomit icing! It’s the same fucking price! It’s the cake we both like, but just the cake, with no human vomit on top.”
And now your friend gets angry. “You bastard; you’re accusing me of liking human vomit? I like the CAKE. It’s defamation to accuse me of liking vomit.”
Your mind can’t accept this. Your friend doesn’t have to order the vomit icing. They can just get the cake. Why are they ordering it with the vomit when they claim to hate the vomit?
I have several good friends who, in recent weeks, have written/blogged/posted about how Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson aren’t that bad after all. Oh sure, the Nazi part of them is bad. The Holocaust denial part of them is bad. Fuentes’ “we will execute all Jews” is bad. Tucker damning Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Hell for daring to oppose Hitler is bad. Fuentes’ “Hitler was cool” is bad. Tucker’s “Hitler was the good guy in WWII, and Jews killed Charlie Kirk” is bad.
But by gum, we need to embrace the part of them that’s NOT bad. Other than the Nazi stuff, they have some great views!
That’s quite literally what my friends have said.
But isn’t it reasonable to ask, what exactly are those “great” views? The views that are so amazing they merit ignoring the Nazi shit?
Well, according to my friends, Fuentes points out that Gen Z feels disenfranchised. Too much college debt, too hard to buy a house. Gen Z is bitter.
And Tucker? Well, he’s against foreign wars and foreign aid.
Wait…aren’t those two issues - Gen Z’s feelings of bitterness and isolation, and opposition to foreign wars and aid - expressed by people who don’t, at the same time, promote killing Jews and hailing Hitler?
JD Vance, the likely (not if I have anything to do with it) next GOP presidential nominee, has said that while he’s not a fan of Fuentes’ Nazi views, he thinks it’s important to focus on Fuentes’ non-Nazi views.
But are those Fuentes’ views? Apart from the Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust stuff, apart from the “cookie monster” meme - dead Jews compared to baked cookies, which was definitely a unique Fuentes innovation - what other views of his can be said to be uniquely his?
Many, many commentators who are NOT Nazis have skillfully and insightfully written about Gen Z, college debt, the housing market for young people, and alienation from the political process. Many commentators who are not Tucker Carlson, who are not Holocaust deniers who claim that hating Hitler is anti-Christian, have opposed foreign wars and foreign aid.
You see my cake analogy coming into focus. The “good things” expressed by Fuentes and Carlson - concern over Gen Z and the economy, worries over foreign intervention - have long been expressed by commentators who DON’T add the “love Nazis/kill Jews” icing on top. In other words, you can easily get that cake without the vomit. There is nothing that Fuentes and Carlson say that’s original or exclusive, other than the Nazi shit (and in Carlson’s case, the “demons raped me” bit). Fuentes’ “good views” are things he’s simply copied and pasted from others. Fuentes isn’t an economist; he’s a gay Mexican Nazi who makes $900,000 a year going “kill the Jews.” Anything Fuentes says about Gen Z and its economic woes, he’s cribbed from other, better, saner commentators.
So why not promote THOSE guys? Why not promote the sane ones, the non-Nazi ones? Why promote the guys who copy the cake but add the vomit?
You have a choice. You have the choice to promote opponents of foreign wars and foreign aid who are NOT Nazis, or to promote opponents of foreign wars and foreign aid who also, at the same time, say “The Holocaust didn’t happen but let’s make it happen now.” You have the choice to promote non-Nazi commentators who rationally examine Gen Z in relation to the economy, or to promote guys who parrot those views but ADD Holocaust denial and genocide advocacy.
You can have the cake without the vomit icing, or you can have the cake with the vomit icing.
When you choose the cake with the vomit icing, you are making a choice. And you should be held to it.
I am finished with hearing friends say, “Oh, I’m only choosing the Nazi frosting for the cake underneath.” Because if you can get that exact same cake without the Nazi frosting, and you CHOOSE to get the one with the Nazi frosting, you are a fucking Nazi.
If you choose the vomit icing cake over the same cake without the vomit, then you are a degenerate lover of human vomit.
Period.
I’m done with pretending otherwise.
Vance says, “I don’t like Fuentes as a person, of course! I don’t like the Nazi part of his views. But we need to appreciate all the good things he says!”
Vance is a Nazi. Because there’s not a single “good” thing Fuentes says that isn’t cribbed from non-Nazis who could easily be platformed in Fuentes’ place.
If you have the option of ordering the cake without the vomit topping, but you order it with the vomit topping, that means you like eating vomit.
If you choose the Nazi topping when a non-Nazi version of the same cake is available, you’re a Nazi, or at least a Nazi sympathizer.
Yeah, I get it. You’re bitter because “we Jews” forced Trump to abandon immigration restrictionism in favor of the Iran War. Oh, but wait…wait, ye shitstains. On May 7th I Substacked about how the retreat from violent confrontational ICE surges had nothing to do with “tha Jews” or Iran, but rather internal Trump administration concerns that the collateral damage from the surges was hurting Trump’s numbers.
And lo and behold, on May 11, The Atlantic ran a piece documenting that the retreat from violent confrontational ICE surges had nothing to do with “tha Jews” or Iran, but rather, internal Trump administration concerns that the collateral damage from the surges was hurting Trump’s numbers.
I called it right. As I usually do.
But still, you consume the vomit cake because you need someone to blame for the fact that ICE isn’t beating enough Mexicans and shooting enough white leftists.
The ugly, ugly truth is that the people eating the Nazi icing genuinely do believe that a little Nazism is good for “the white race.” A little Nazism in the diet will toughen ‘em up! Toughen weak sentimental whites in the face of brown invading hordes. A little Holocaust denial will immunize whites against Jewish emotional blackmail. They are not eating “around” the icing; the icing’s the point. The icing’s more important to them than the cake.
I can’t stress this enough: the people who claim they’re eating around the Nazi icing are lying to you. The icing’s what they want. Otherwise they’d eat the cake without it. There’s no such thing as indulging “just a little Nazism,” any more than there’s such a thing as enjoying “just a little vomit.” You either have a revulsion to such things, or you’re an active consumer.
There’s no middle ground. Literally. You’re either revulsed by the taste of human vomit, or you like it.
Ditto Nazism.
Dead Man Caulking
A week ago the old dude (who wasn’t really that old) in the room next to mine died, and hotel staff is still cleaning out his shit. The dude had been living here for several years, and he’d adopted the place as his home.
It’s a difference of philosophy. Me? I refuse to “spread out” in long-term hotel housing. I keep all my shit in my duffel bag, so that I can take off at a moment’s notice for whatever reason.
This is not my home. I do not have a home, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. This is a hotel. I have limited rights here, and generally speaking management can kick me out for many a reason. At the Beverly Hills hotel where I lived last year, one of the other long-termers was given three-days notice to vacate after an argument with the assistant GM over the quality of the food in the restaurant. That long-termer was a Palisades fire refugee, but still, the hotel said “yer outta here.”
This is a hotel, not a home. I can never allow myself to see it as otherwise.
So I refuse to make myself comfortable, in terms of settling in. I don’t use the dresser drawers, I don’t use the closets. All I own in this world (not counting my book collection, which is in storage) is in my duffel.
I could call an Uber and be out of here tonight, leaving no trace.
It’s interesting how two people can have such diametrically opposed reactions to the same conditions. The old man had no home, for whatever reason, so he chose to recreate his home in a hotel room, to such an extent that it’s been a week and housekeeping and maintenance still haven’t been able to clear out all his shit and put the room back online for a new guest.
For the old man, what he needed for his mental wellbeing was the belief that this place was a home, which of course it isn’t. It’s a fucking hotel.
For me, what I find necessary as I approach the one year anniversary of leaving my house is a feeling of freedom. A recognition that I don’t have a home, that I am unbound, unanchored, untethered, rootless (cosmopolitan). I celebrate the end of responsibility. The end of decades of upkeep, water charges, sewer charges, gas charges, insurance, property taxes, HOA fees. The only way I can psychologically deal with losing my house is to believe that it was for the best. The very notion of trying to recreate my house would be an admission that I wish I still had one.
But that poor old man…he wanted to think he still had a home. Nailing framed photos to the walls, the holes from which now have to be patched. Imprinting his domestic touch onto every square inch of the place. He’s been dead over a week, yet he still exists in the calloused hands of the cheery Mexicans who’ve been logging overtime trying to turn his faux home back into what it always was - a faceless soulless cookie-cutter corporate hotel-chain room-for-hire.
When I leave, or when I die, I will provide little overtime for Rosa and Gustavo. I’m a tiny man…damn near a Dinklage. And I try to make my footprint smaller every day.
My only remaining traces when they peel my putrefied body from the bedsheets will be my writing. My legacy.
And I’ll get into that in more detail next week.
Fun fact: There's actually a restaurant near me called Wandering Dave's.
Also years back I saw Vomit Cake open up for Suicidal Tendencies at CBGB's.
Great job as usual!
I saw an interview with Charles Manson on tv years ago, and he spoke very eloquently about environmental policy and how we needed to protect the planet. He made some good points! A minute later, he threatened to beat the interviewer to death with a book. So yeah, I don’t think I’d be reposting Charles Manson if he was on Twitter either. Cause if I did, it means I either support or at the very least am not bothered by the murder stuff.