His rotting corpse has been invited to speak at NYU to a teeming crowd of 14 students.

In a class sure to spook liberals, NYU’s controversial anti-PC Professor Michael Rectenwald has enlisted conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak Wednesday about “the politics of Halloween.”

Apparently, the professor wants the shambling zombie to address the pressing topic of why he can’t dress up in blackface or as Hitler on Halloween without people looking at him like he’s a sick goon with no social graces at all. He just doesn’t get it.

I presume the professor will also show up in costume. Probably dressed as a dinosaur.

One who wasn’t a clown bloated with hate? This might stir up a few recollections.

That’s the kind of guy I’d like to sit down and have a beer with.

It was recommended that I look at The Stranger’s political endorsements for the 2018 election in Washington state — they’re great. If I still lived in Washington, I’d have a crystal-clear idea of who I’d vote for in November. There isn’t a single man mentioned until the 9th race they cover! That’s becoming my rule of thumb now, when in doubt, vote for the woman.

It’s not always a good rule, because there are horrible women, too. For example, here in Minnesota we have a non-partisan election for the Minnesota Supreme Court, with Margaret Chutich vs. Michelle MacDonald. Oh no! Both women! How will I decide? Well, it turns out MacDonald is running because Chutich is married to a woman.

In a recent interview, MacDonald singled out Chutich’s sexuality as helping her decide who to challenge in this year’s election. Three other members of the court are on the ballot this year but are unopposed. “It factored in, but it wasn’t the only reason,” MacDonald said. “ … When that came to me, that piece, I’m just like, ‘Yep, that’s the one.’ ”

MacDonald said she views Chutich’s marital status as her right but cast it as a “liberal view” counter to MacDonald’s conservative philosophy.

“Spiritually, the reason why you connect with somebody is to procreate, basically,” MacDonald said. “And I’m pro-life. You can certainly publish that. I’m not afraid to be pro-life.”

Modified rule of thumb: when in doubt, vote for the lesbian.

Also, her opponent is named “Michelle”. Minnesota Michelle’s tend to be a bit…problematic.

The elections in Minnesota don’t have the clarity of the one’s in Washington, Chutich not withstanding. I’ve got to go in with a clothespin over my nose because too many of our choices stink. Locally, or state rep is Collin Peterson, a blue dog Democrat who opposes abortion rights, because we’re in a rural conservative district and he’s the kind of guy the Trumpistanis out here will support. I can’t stand him. Most years I look at his standing before the election, and if it looks like he’s going to win it in a walk I just abstain from voting for him. Of course, if that’s the kind of Democrat we get out here, you can imagine what kind of slobbering, barely-evolved horror he gets to oppose him from the Republican side, and what kind of odors the ballot is exuding.

You can look at OurRevolution’s 2018 endorsements. They don’t even mention my congressional district. They’re just quietly looking the other way and recognizing that we’re hopeless.

I’m also unhappy with the gubernatorial race. Our Dem candidate is Tim Walz, another conservative Democrat who was taking lots of money from the NRA and is condescendingly position by the state DFL as the kind of guy who will do well “outstate” — the term Twin Cities politicians use for all us yokels living out in the sticks. It’s our local version of “flyover country”. There’s always someone lower than you to sneer at.

I’ll probably vote for him, because his opponent is an even bigger asshole.

And then there’s the tragic case of Keith Ellison, who is running for state attorney general. He has had multiple accusations of abusing his girlfriends, which have been investigated and found baseless…but still, it’s undeniable that the women he’s been in relationships with end up not liking him very much. This is another case where I’d be leery of voting for him, except that his opponent, Doug Wardlow, is stunningly regressive, openly transphobic and homophobic, and a proud member of the Alliance Defending Freedom. Just ask the SPLC about the ADF.

Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion. Since the election of President Donald Trump, the ADF has become one of the most influential groups informing the administration’s attack on LGBT rights working with an ally in Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Yeah, no.

Anyway, I hope everyone is planning to turn out and VOTE. Even if your ballot reeks a bit and you have to wash your hands afterwards. If you don’t vote now, you’re going to have to wear a biohazard suit to enter the voting booth in 2020.

This was a strange incident at a recent convention. There was a debate between Hasan Piker, on the Left, and Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point USA guy on the far, far Right, and at one point Kirk asks Piker what his salary was…which, apparently, Piker answered, although I haven’t seen any video of that exchange. But then someone in the audience (Cenk Uygar) asks Kirk the same question, and he just exploded in a ranting fury. I guess it was a sensitive question for him. That bit has been caught on video.

dare I say, it looks like Charlie Kirk was triggered at Politicon pic.twitter.com/GpduUR8Z1e

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 21, 2018

He tells Piker to go live like a socialist, and he yells at Uygur, I live like a capitalist every single day, Cenk. I live as a capitalist, OK. I live what I believe, as he gets up and marches across the stage, pointing and shouting. Aside from the fact that it’s an odd thing to get so upset about, especially after you’ve just asked the same question of someone else, I have to wonder…what does that mean? Kirk uses the words like some people would use “Christian” and “Atheist”, as if there is some deeper moral meaning to living as a capitalist, and he’s a noble, upright figure for following the way of the prophetess Ayn Rand. I don’t get it.

I live as a capitalist, I guess, because I’m imbedded deep in a capitalist society, and the same is true for everyone at that event, including Hasan Piker. Kirk’s rant wasn’t even sensible, because it’s a statement about a system, not an individual.

But let’s play the game. What would it mean to live as a socialist? I think, in my imaginary ideal, it would mean living as part of a larger community where everyone has equal rights and equal shared opportunity. I would have less money — in a perfect socialist society, which doesn’t exist, I’d have no money — but my needs would be met, and I would be freed from a lot of worries. Do I have to panic about what I’m going to live on in retirement? Can I be bankrupted by a medical emergency? Will my neighbors starve if they lose their jobs? All of that worry would be nonexistent. I’d still have to be concerned about maintaining that society and contributing to its survival, but the individual existential fears would be gone.

It’s all a bit murky and idealistic, because I don’t live in a socialist culture, so I have to rely on a rose-colored imagination.

I do know what it’s like to live as a capitalist, because in live in that society. What that means is that some of us — like me — live in a reasonably prosperous and stable state, are an overall beneficiary of inequity. We’re doing mostly OK, but there is that dread that we’re one heartbeat away from total financial ruin (need I mention that a bozo exists who wants to destroy me and my friends with a ridiculous lawsuit? And the system allows that?) At the same time, many people are living in extremes of poverty, and others are living in extremes of undeserved wealth. There is no economic justice in this country.

This is not something to be proud of.

But we could focus a little more narrowly. What does it mean that Charlie Kirk lives as a capitalist? We can just look at him as an exemplar.

As it turns out, Charlie Kirk lives rent-free with his wealthy parents in a million dollar home. He claims his salary comes from grass-roots donations, but that is a lie. The tax forms for his non-profit (wait, how capitalist is that?) organization tell the true story.

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, TPUSA is not required to disclose its donors. But based on public tax records and some reporting by other outlets, IBT has identified the sources of over $900,000 in funding for TPUSA. Republican mega-donor families, GOP politicians and other wealthy individuals have provided large amounts of money so the organization can spread free-market principles — from which the donors benefit — among young people, the majority of whom, overall, lean liberal.

Working to appeal to millennials, TPUSA is funded by a substantial number of older, wealthy individuals whose economic views the group promotes. IBT identified 17 donors to TPUSA, including nine from publicly available Internal Revenue Service records. The documented donations came mostly in 2014 and 2015, as tax records from many of the foundational donors are not yet available for 2016.

Well, now we know what it means to live as an ideal capitalist. It means living as a parasite and a pawn of plutocrats.

I wouldn’t be bragging about that, Charlie Kirk.

The latest excuse from Saudi Arabia for the death of Jamal Khashoggi is that he started it — he started a fist fight with a team of 15 professional killers, and they had to defend themselves by hacking him apart with a bonesaw. Our president* might well be willing to accept that story, but it’s out of character for Khashoggi and not compatible with the intent of Mohammed bin Salman and the ruling class of Saudi Arabia.

The murder is nothing new: the regime has been vicious and repressive for a long time, and this is just one case that has erupted into the public eye — it is actually a major error by Mohammed bin Salman, who has been trying to misrepresent himself as a progressive reformer. He’s not. He’s just another criminal thug who has been handed vast sums of money and excessive power by an archaic political system. We’ve seen all the warning signs that he was not a power for reform. Remember Raif Badawi?

The kingdom has long been an absolute monarchy that does not tolerate open dissent, but this kind of repression is new. In earlier times, Saudi rulers restricted behavior, often under severe interpretations of Islamic law, and carried out barbaric punishments. We have often called attention to the unjust treatment of blogger Raif Badawi, who was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to 1,000 lashes — 50 were delivered in a public square in Jeddah before it was stopped — and 10 years in prison for online posts that challenged the religious authorities to allow a more pluralistic and moderate practice of Islam. The system was intolerant and harsh.

The powers-that-be in Saudi Arabia have been reshaping their laws to allow themselves greater latitude to oppress.

Almost all prosecutions of political and human rights activists have been channeled through the Specialized Criminal Court, originally established in 2008 to handle terrorism cases, where defendants often do not have lawyers during the investigative phase, and pretrial detentions can be arbitrary and lengthy. In October 2017, the kingdom updated its counterterrorism law, which was already overly broad, to add a host of tripwires to criminalize free expression. For example, the definition of terrorism was extended to those who “describe” the king or crown prince “in any way offensive to religion or justice.”

Oh, great. Now I’m a terrorist, because I’m going to openly say that the king and crown prince are goddamn evil motherfuckers.

That actually felt good. I’m going to have to curse the elites of Saudia Arabian society more often.

I remember, once upon a time, feeling that maybe Saudi Arabia was making progress — like when they started allowing women to drive. I was mistaken. It seems that one good reason to allow women to drive is that it gives you an easy way to tag a female dissident.

A good example of how the environment has changed is the case of female activists who had long sought the right to drive, and to change the guardianship system, which gives men the authority to make critical decisions on behalf of their female relatives. For years, the women had carefully pushed for change while staying largely within bounds the government could accept. But the new crown prince could not tolerate their voices. He granted women the right to drive — and then punished those who had worked for that reform. In May, 11 of them were arrested. Several remain in jail, accused of serious crimes that could bring long prison sentences, including “suspicious contact with foreign parties” and undermining the “security and stability” of the state. They have been vilified in the media; a pro-government Twitter account posted images of those arrested with the word “traitor” splattered in red across their faces, Human Rights Watch reported.

Cancel that arms deal our goddamn evil motherfucker of a president is so proud of. It’s the least we can do. Unfortunately, our GEM of a president aspires to by the tyrant ruler of a pariah state, just like the Saudi king, and is going to do nothing.

Because that’s how they bankroll hate speech. The cries of “Free Speech!” have devolved into whining about “no-platforming” because it was never about expressing their ideas — they can still do that all they want — it was about getting paid. What really has them upset that the money train is being derailed.

“I wouldn’t say they’re faring very well,” Keegan Hankes, a senior research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Splinter of the “alt-right’s” financial status. “The vast majority of outspoken white supremacists or otherwise extremist groups have lost access to fundraising platforms like PayPal, Google Pay, and others like [them] have started enforcing their longstanding terms of services.” The white nationalist movement has by no means been entirely taken out by these efforts, but they’re not exactly rolling in dough right now.

One largely under-reported contributor to these circumstances is the meticulous, ongoing work of anti-racist and anti-fascist activists and civil rights groups. Using a common anti-fascist tactic called “no platform” which denies a person or group a platform to speak or organize (it’s sometimes called “de-platforming”), activists have helped make it difficult for white nationalists to fundraise online, stymying fascist activism by cutting off their income and fundraising capabilities. In a financial context, no platform means cutting the far right off from fundraising—both from crowdsourced fundraising platforms such as Patreon, and from collecting money directly via their own websites.

It’s all part of an anti-fascist strategy — yeah, paranoid far right goons, they are coming to get you. This is even better and more effective than punching them in the face.

Identifying which platforms continue to enable the far right fundraising is tedious and constant work, but restricting their fundraising capabilities is of the utmost importance. “Like with anything, if you take money out of the equation, it’s going to fold, or at least not flourish,” Daryle Lamont Jenkins, founder and executive director of the anti-fascist organization One People’s Project, told Splinter. “The best way to cure fascism is to starve it to death, and that’s exactly what people are trying to do,” he said.

No one should be profiting from hate. Shut ’em all down.

By the way, Twitter is still a festering shithole of misogyny. When will that be fixed?