February 12, 2020
On Monday, CNN employee Patrick Hogan started a moral crusade to get Daily Stormer kicked off of Google News, because I had taken the number one spot in “recommended articles” for a review I’d written of Star Trek: Picard.
It is absolutely stunning to me that Google's news product not only doesn't blacklist proudly neo-Nazi websites, but goes on to recommend their articles on Star Trek at the very top of my Android feed. pic.twitter.com/DJuz3tN7n9
— Patrick 🌆 Hogan (@phogan) February 10, 2020
As I said Tuesday, it is fascinating that members of the mainstream corporate media itself are the ones launching crusades against independent media, using the claim that we are evil to justify their attacks. But within that is the fact that Patrick Hogan is an individual person, a biological male, who saw my article on Google News and made the decision to launch a crusade. Part of that is clearly going to be guided by his position as a member of the mainstream media, and the desire to crush what he views as the competitors of his employer. But he could just as easily have said “you know what, it would really be humiliating for me to go out and complain about this, so I’m gonna let someone else do it – I’m a professional journalist and I don’t get paid to be CNN’s internet police.”
So, I thought a lot about this sad, grotesquely obese middle-aged millennial man who is clearly not even a little bit Jewish.
I was talking to a friend about it, and I said “I feel dumb psychoanalyzing people, but I mean, just look at this guy…”
And then I realized: everything anyone does is a result of some kind of internal mechanism, and if it isn’t out of hunger, horniness or a desire to be warm, then it is the result of psychology. So psychoanalyzing people is not necessarily always wrong, especially when you have a fat neckbeard going on a crusade against you because he thinks you’re morally evil because of your political views. Going out of your way to attempt to restrict everyone on earth from viewing a review of a science fiction television show because you believe the writer is morally evil is a very extreme action, which is difficult to even comprehend. There is no way you can understand it without psychoanalysis.
The reason I’m self-conscious about psychoanalyzing Patrick Hogan is really that it takes an extreme degree of psychoanalysis to unravel his motives. Plus, I know that he’s psychoanalyzing me and everyone who thinks like me in the dumbest possible way in order to justify his own existence because he has issues with his mother, and I don’t want to sink to his level.
But I mean, seriously:
I’ve had women complain about articles I wrote about women, and stating why they were complaining was very simple.
But even saying “you mad” is a form of analyzing psychological motives. It isn’t “psychoanalysis” because it is obvious.
That’s really what people like Patrick Hogan could say about us – “they’re mad because their country is controlled by Jews and they’re doing all of these weird things to them that they don’t like.”
Instead, they go into all of this bizarre stuff about our penises, our socioeconomic status and our achievements.
- My penis is fine (you’ll just have to trust me on that or ask Lauren Southern).
- I’ve got what I assume is the same socioeconomic background as Patrick Hogan (I also went to school for English literature).
- I’m proud of my achievements, which I think are objectively commendable. By the age of thirty, my publication was a household name, and I did this with nothing other than a laptop. Even the context of Patrick Hogan attacking me is about my achievement – I got to the “recommended articles” section of Google News because people were reading my article.
Of course, I’m a unique case, as I’ve destroyed my own life in order to promote the agenda of defending white men from all of our enemies.
So I probably should be psychoanalyzed beyond “he’s mad because of all of the things Jews are doing to him.” And I’m willing to do that right now, before I even touch Patrick Hogan’s fat rolls (which he grew as a result of an attempt to feed an emotional emptiness created by his relationship with his mother).
An honest psychoanalysis of myself would reveal primarily stunted adolescent traits:
- I’m romantic, in an adolescent way. I feel that fighting against injustice and oppression is something that should be done because it is the right thing to do, in a way that is mildly sappy and self-indulgent. A man of my age should be a lot more jaded, and not driven by things like “because it’s the right thing to do.”
- I’m rebellious and self-destructive, as well as outwardly destructive, in an adolescent way. My image of myself is based in some significant part on my willingness to do things that other people wouldn’t dream of doing, and laughing at the consequences. I have a sadistic and destructive sense of humor, and I believe that all suffering ultimately amounts to the universe laughing at you. And because it is only appropriate that a psychoanalysis should contain something sexual: part of the rebelliousness was probably amplified by a need to stand out to women in high school, given that I was relatively short. However, it was there before that (and I wasn’t relatively short until high school). Of course, any form of performative male rebelliousness is (probably primarily) a sexual strategy, and performative rebelliousness is not a trait exclusive to short people. To whatever extent mine is unique, it probably has more to do with the way I reacted to my parents’ divorce (and yes, of course I blame Jews for my parents’ divorce).
- I’m especially prone to religiosity (see adolescent romanticism and self-destructiveness).
I think that’s pretty self-critical, no? I’m sure there’s more that I’m not aware of, but I don’t think my psychological profile is particularly unique or interesting. What is unique about me is primarily that I was born at the exact time when being irrationally romantic and rebellious meant being right-wing, and that I happened to be more intelligent and creative than most people who carry these particular adolescent psychological traits. Much more importantly: I have a work ethic that is not in any way typically associated with these adolescent traits. Most importantly: I was uniquely able to avoid developing an addiction to opiates. (Never forget that 99% of the people God sent us to be artists are lying on some floor with a needle in their arm as you read this.)
You would find a lot of left-wing people who have a similar psychological profile. Due to lesser intelligence, they believe that they, as rebellious individuals, should be fighting Donald Trump’s fascism and romantic people should be defending the human rights of Somalian refugees.
And before someone says “OMG you just put your entire psychological profile on the internet!” – it’s all available here, every day, in the text of this site, for anyone who is interested. All I’ve done just now is demonstrate that I’m aware of it.
When you add in the fact that weev showed up to keep the site online for me for his own psychological reasons (he’s certainly not doing it for the money), and the way everything else has come together so perfectly, you end up with something which I believe was ordained by God. But that may well simply be my romantic psychology talking.
So, let’s move on to Patrick Hogan.
Patrick Hogan is a Wasted Human Life, And Thinking About Him Makes Me Sad
Patrick Hogan would not do his own psychoanalysis, as I just did my own psychoanalysis, because he is a weak and pathetic individual. For I tell you this: there is no such thing as a noble fatboy. Maybe a man over 50 who develops health problems that cause him to gain weight can be both noble and fat, but a man in his mid-thirties is fat simply because he is weak and pathetic and there is no excuse.
I know that some of the readers are fat, and it would be easier for me to simply not be so hard on fat people, especially given that the site is totally broke and we function on donations, but this is simply the truth: if you are fat, you are weak and pathetic and you are putting your personal inability to control something so basic as what you shovel into your mouth on public display for the world to see. And you should be ashamed. You should let that shame drive you to change what you are. And yes, it is “what you are” – if you are fat, then being fat is the defining characteristic of your personhood.
If you do not respect yourself, no one else ever will. All achievement is based on self-control, and the ability to control oneself is the defining aspect of manhood.
Most aspects of this pitiful man are not interesting. He is a normal white guy who in previous times would have been a farmer or a factory worker, but his soul has been crushed by modernity. He is the epitome of the ideal form of what Jews want us all to be, and that is why he is interesting to me. He is an impotent, fat, weak, spineless coward who believes what he’s supposed to believe, watches what he’s supposed to watch, says what he’s supposed to say, and thinks what he’s supposed to think.
By looking at his face, I can tell you with a 99% certainty:
- He either really likes Marvel movies or makes a big thing of how he is unique because he doesn’t like Marvel movies.
- He is too dumb to like any actually good science fiction. He unironically watches Star Trek: Discovery – and Picard. He liked the JJ Abrams movies. He has only seen the odd episode of the actual Star Trek, but he likes to think he knows something about them. He is the target audience of Alex Kurtzman’s Star Trek.
- He has never been intimate with a woman and is too much of a coward to fly to Southeast Asia and have sex with hookers. He justifies his fear with white knight bullshit about “exploitation,” even while he has no problem basing his entire sexual psychology around pornography. He has a favorite porn star that he imagines is his girlfriend. He has weird sexual fetishes which may include being a furry.
- His entire identity is wrapped up in the shittiest conceivable bits of pop culture.
- He plays the worst imaginable video games. Games which are neither nerd games nor normie games.
- He came from a middle class background.
- He isn’t from New York City and is really excited about living there.
- He’s been in therapy since he was a child and is on psychotropic drugs for “depression and/or anxiety.”
- He went to college for a humanities degree, probably English literature or film, probably got a master’s degree, and his image of himself is as some kind of creative.
- He looks up to Kevin Smith as a fat loser who was also creative and so was able to marry a normal looking woman.
- If you asked him if he loved science, he would say “yes.”
- He was raised Irish Catholic.
- His father is a weak man, but not as weak as he is. His father has always said “I’ll support you in whatever you do,” because his father was affected by stupid boomer memes of evil parents controlling their kids’ lives. And yet, somewhere inside of him, he can’t help being ashamed that this roly-poly blob is his legacy.
- Although he himself is a heterosexual, he thinks homosexual issues are much more important than his own life.
- He collects toys.
I can tell you with 100% certainty:
- He thinks he’s special.
In the most gross sense, Patrick Hogan believes that there is something unique about him, some magic inside of him that makes him different than other people. Due to the fat in his brain exacerbating his crippling lack of self-awareness, he would never be capable of even wondering if this belief that he is special came from Harry Potter. (It did come from Harry Potter.)
He believes in his heart that some day he will meet a woman who recognizes that specialness inside of him, and she will fulfill him.
Of course, as any grown adult knows, no one is special. Everyone is just a combination of genetics and experiences. But if he were to let go of his belief that he is special, his entire psyche would collapse, because he would have to acknowledge that he is nothing more than a fat slob with a completely meaningless existence.
This modern conception of “specialness” has to do with a religious-type belief that something magical will happen in the future. This is usually associated with some romantic achievement. This modern “my thing is that I’m special” identity really only is actually relevant to men, as every woman on earth from the beginning of time has always believed she was the center of the universe. It is the defining characteristic of the human female, and I would not be the least bit surprised if the principle applies to all female primates.
This entire phenomenon of everyone wanting to be “creative” is a result of the delusion of specialness. The idea that everyone is somehow a uniquely talented artist is obscene and actually dystopian.
This is really Patrick Hogan’s background on his Twitter profile:
Just for the record, I had already written most of this essay before I saw that. Everything about this repulsive individual is written all over his face in the one publicly available picture of him.
And you might say: “but Anglin, didn’t you just describe to us how you’re special?”
No, I did the exact opposite. I explained how everything about me was shaped by very normal mechanisms, and that anything unique about me is simply a result of mundane factors lining up by providence.
So, let’s get to the meat of the thing: Why did he report my article?
We’re going to need subheadings here.
I know for a fact that this fatboy wants to be some kind of “creative,” and has been told his whole life he can “be whatever he wants to be” (literally the worst possible thing to tell children, by the way, and I don’t even think Jews were responsible for that one), if he did all the right things. I did none of the right things – in fact, I did all of the opposite of the right things – and became a successful and infamous cultural figure.
With all of these journalists that go out of their way to attack me, there is an underlying stench of simple jealousy that they have failed in their creative pursuits, and I have not. That leads to them wanting to destroy me.
I also think there’s a second type of jealousy that is more general among these weaklings: I think they are jealous of the courage to question the system, to use critical thinking and analyze what we’re being fed. It takes a lot of strength to question anything when you grow up in this complete system of control, and the ability to question it is masculine. So the cowardly fatboy is jealous of my audacity to think critically in the same way that he is jealous of my shredded abs.
The idea that anyone, anywhere, is not going along with the system strikes fear into the hearts of cogs in this system. They fear that someone else could be right. To have someone as hated as a “neo-Nazi” hitting the top of the charts on Google terrifies them. This makes them question just how many people there are that are not going along with it.
There is no one on earth more alienated than Patrick Hogan; the system he has embraced is defined by alienation and he is the perfect disciple of that system. But he can’t admit that it is the system that made him this way, because the system must be good, as it defines him and he is good. So the alienation must be coming from those few people who remain outside of this system. These people talk about how we “blame the other” in-between hunts for Russian hackers and politically incorrect Star Trek reviews.
If the fatboy Patrick Hogan were to ever question any single aspect of what he believes, the whole thing would come crumbling down. And far from simply changing his world outlook, he would be required to accept that everything he did in life was wrong. He was never special. It wasn’t okay to be fat. His “depression” wasn’t the result of a “chemical imbalance.” He is not creative and no one will ever think he is. No woman will ever love him.
He doesn’t think about any of this, but there is a deep fear in him of anything that could make him think about this. He just wants the bad people who think the bad things to go away, so he can think the good things and be a good boy with his toys.
Social Approval (Good Boy Points)
Modern post-man men like Patrick Hogan have a deep psychological association between social approval and the approval of their mothers and female school teachers. This is one of the primary reasons why we have so many empowered women: because this kind of creature thinks he needs them around to pat him on the head.
Everything they do is just: “mommy, look what I made at school today!”
It is a Stockholm syndrome situation, where overbearing women defined his childhood, and so everything he does in life revolves around trying to please women.
Signaling virtuousness is at the core of the quest for female approval for most men with Mommy syndrome. Demonstrating how much they love immigrants and homosexuals and Michael Burnham and how much they hate Nazis and Donald Trump are acts equivalent of bringing home an A+ on the test to show mommy.
Note that this is the opposite of what it should be, where the boy’s value after the age of 5 is instead defined by his ability to please his father, not by being a subservient “good boy,” but by accomplishing things that are useful. A mother wants boys to be obedient and a father wants them to be independent. But there were no strong men around for most boys. Most were surrounded by women throughout all of their developmental years, with fathers that were either run out of the house or cowed into submission by the mother. (I often wonder if boys with divorced parents aren’t likely to have had a better childhood, as it indicates it was less likely that the father’s will was broken by the mother.) These boys never emerged from the early childhood stages of trying to please their mothers in order to get the reward of affection, and that is where they remain, psychologically.
This is of course mixed in with sexuality (homosexual men do not have this same desire to please women, despite their severe issues with their mothers), where the men vaguely believe that sexual attention is a kind of reward for good behavior.
The soft nature of these men is also a part of being subservient to women.
Fundamentally, these perverse mockeries of men are little tattletale rats, because teacher will be happy if he tells her what the bad boys are up to.
Of course, maybe this is all a lot of gibberish. Maybe he was just mad that the article called him a dumbass for liking Picard.