A Nun Is Raped In Harlem

THE CRIME

Bo Dietl and Tommy Colleran were hard, cynical New York police officers. But they had never heard of anything like this.

There were still other cops on the scene, moving about quietly, softly. The nun — a white, 30-year-old, sparrowlike woman — had been taken away hours earlier. Peter Christianson, from the sex crimes unit, came up to Bo and Tommy.

“Petey, what happened?”

“Bo, it’s fucking crazy. Two guys took a nun in there, punched the shit out of her, raped and sodomized her, stuck a broom up her and some candles, carved crosses all over her butt and breasts—27 crosses, Bo, with a goddamned sharpened nail file! They pissed on her, threw her downstairs, and left her for dead. And they may have used a crucifix, we don’t know. We’re checking all the crosses inside.”

Tommy suddenly hit himself hard in the chest. The thud made everyone jump.

“You’ve got to be fucking kidding. In a convent?” His eyes filled with tears. “Oh, Mother of God, they didn’t do that.”

“Oh shit,” exhaled Bo. “How is she?”

“We don’t know. She’s in shock at the hospital.”

“Have you got anything?”

“Well, we’ve got a couple of junkies who were in the building across the street that said they saw two black guys on the corner, one tall, one short with like a limp. They never actually saw them coming out of the place though, so maybe that wasn’t them.”

Bo and Tommy crossed the street and studied the convent from there. Behind it loomed a dark, four-story brownstone with a ladder leading down from its roof.

“That’s how they got in,” said Bo flatly, pointing.

“Since when have you heard of a sex crime with two guys doing it, Tommy?”

The other said nothing. He lit a cigarette and threw the match into the gutter.

“And if they were just sex guys, they would have gone straight through the front door, not entered through the friggin’ roof! These were burglars. The sex offense was an afterthought; these bastards came here to burglarize the place.”

For a moment the two cops stood still, breathing hard and steady, not speaking.

Like a wide asphalt canal, 116th Street bisects Harlem, running from the Hudson to the East rivers. Our Lady of Mount Carmel convent sits on the southwest corner of 116th and, ironically, Pleasant Avenue. This is the heart of the tiny Italian section: a poor, detached, defiantly white, and surprisingly safe enclave tucked in the corner of the city’s huge black and Hispanic community.

The convent is a plain three-story building, light-colored and clean except for a little pale-blue and red graffiti that ribbons its front wall. Inside, it is Spartan. The small group of nuns live in tiny rooms meagerly furnished, each with a cot bed, plain wooden chair, simple night table, and small cheap chest of drawers. The walls are bare, except where the sisters have hung holy pictures and crucifixes. Unshaded bulbs light the landings with their dead glow. The chapel is small and plain.

Facing the convent, a line of buildings and a vacant lot stretch out like a row of bad teeth with one missing. The buildings in East Harlem are either tenements or shells. They stand side by side regardless—uniformly soot-darkened and braided with rusty and uncertain fire escapes, poor men’s terraces. Some of the empty apartment houses are incongruously ornate under the dilapidation, like the dirt-stained and moss-covered, but probably once fine, marble headstones of a run-down graveyard. These buildings are boarded or bricked over at street level. But they are not entirely deserted. Creeping into them, with what is left of human instinct after even the need to eat has been forgotten, are the junkies, New York’s undead.

Tom Colleran turned to Pete Christianson. “How long did these animals…violate her?” he asked.

“Apparently about an hour 45 minutes, we don’t really know. She figures she was unconscious about 45 minutes. She came to at the sound of the noon church bells and called the precinct.”

“Jee-sus,” whispered Bo. “Who’s got it?” he asked.

“Sex crimes.”

“It ain’t a sex crime.”

They got back into their car and swung west along 116th, looking for the people who usually knew everything that went on locally. They stopped at Andy’s Colonial Tavern and talked to some of the people Bo euphemistically calls “Italian businessmen”; they had not heard about the nun being attacked. The officers continued down 116th, stopping in each of the narrowly fronted, brightly glowing cigar and grocery stores still open. It was the same everywhere. No one had heard about the atrocity or could imagine who would do such a thing.

As the terrible news spread across the neighborhood, the two cops discussed the possibility that the rapists were junkies on angel dust, a drug that can inflame its users with a mindless viciousness. So they decided to hit a junkie joint on 115th Street—an abandoned apartment in a tenement that drug dealers had taken over, reinforcing the door from inside and cutting a hole in it through which to sell their wares.

The two cops drove up and parked diagonally across on the pavement. Tommy went into the building. Bo got on the hood and silently pulled himself up to the fire escape. He waited outside the blackened second-floor window. From inside, he could hear voices and people moving around, then the rapid bang of Tommy’s gun butt at the door and his muffled voice demanding: “Police! Open this fucking door!” At the furious sound of the toilet flushing as the panicked junkies tried to get rid of their drugs, Bo crashed through the window, gun drawn, bellowing: “Freeze!” He rose quickly from the floor, one hand holding his gun, the other instinctively sweeping fragments of glass off his clothes. He ordered the door opened. Seething, Tommy entered clutching his 9-millimeter automatic with both hands and yelled: “Get up against the fucking wall!”

For an hour they questioned the junkies, who were scared and suggested anyone or anything that they could think of—all obviously worthless. By the end of their tour that night, Bo and Tommy had to concede defeat. The streets were dry.

For four days the story was kept out of the press. When it broke, what ensued was the thunder of a public’s grief and outrage and behind it the reverberation of their disbelief: New York has come to live with violence, even murder, and almost no longer notices it. But this was too horrific. It cast a gray pall, an odor of bereavement, over this normally dispassionate city and, while the nun’s desecraters remained free, suspended it there.

They probably would never have been caught but for these two anticrime plainclothes cops, both Catholics. The official police task force had 100 of the city’s top detectives, with nearly another hundred backing them up part-time. But after a week and a half had passed with no results, Bo Dietl and Tommy Colleran asked to have three days to work the case on their own: Bo had received a piece of information that was so weak he was embarrassed to report it, but he inexplicably believed it would lead to cracking the case.

Later, these two men would talk about their investigation as a mission from God, a miracle. At any rate, in three days they caught both rapists.

THE COPS

At the time Bo and Tommy had worked together for four years. All over Harlem they were known and, they will tell you, respected—others will say, feared. The truth is that in areas like Harlem there is no difference; the polite semantic distinction between respect and fear has long since been worn away and the two separate concepts have merged into an instinct, a reflex. “You can’t talk to these people,” says Bo. “You’ve got to whack them a few times before you can talk to them. You’ve got to get down on their level. If you try to treat them like gentlemen, they tell you to go fuck yourself.”

In his eyes you can see the hardness the street has engendered, and the instinct it has honed. But you can also see the sensitivity that drives him: Reflected in those bright, clear brown orbs are particles of all the tragedy he has witnessed in his 14 years as a cop. He retains it not morbidly or proudly but unavoidably. All good cops do. It collects on their souls like coal dust on a miner’s lungs.

Although only five-eight, Bo is phenomenally powerful, with the chest and shoulders of a bull and the arms and fists of a heavyweight. Instead of having the usual sepulchral features of a veteran cop, he is boyishly handsome. He smiles warmly and laughs easily, with the strange sound of his laughter seeming to end before it starts. He speaks rapidly, almost percussively, in a husky, cheery voice. Sometimes in his enthusiasm to say something he explodes it, an arm flailing up and backward in a reverse karate chop that is dismissal and acceptance at the same time.

But Bo’s extraordinary career has made him a legend among his peers; they can’t talk about him without smiling and gently shaking their heads. He has over 1,300 felony arrests to his credit—the average for a police officer is 12 a year. He seems to fear nothing and on the street the “skells”—felons, whom Bo describes as “low-grade scumbags,” as if to imply there are better grades of scumbag—fear him because they suspect he is crazier than they are. Bo encourages this fear. ”I’ll fight a guy,” he understates. ”I’ll get involved. I won’t shoot a guy, but I’ll immobilize his nose, mess up his day.”

But he has never fired at a suspect, preferring to rely on his strength and speed. He confesses, however, that his reluctance to shoot is an Achilles’ heel that may someday cost him his life. Once it nearly did: With gun drawn, he was backed all the way down an alley by a suspect with a knife, and was actually stabbed before overpowering the man.

Bo came to the “Two-Five” (the Twenty­Fifth Precinct, which covers East Harlem) in 1975. By then he already had a reputation for spectacular collars and intermittent brushes with authority. His partners had aptly nicknamed him “pit bull,” and Patrolman’s Benevolent Association official Paddy Burns had defended him so many times that he later joked that when Dietl became a detective, the promotion left Burns with 50 percent more time on his hands.

In Harlem, Dietl’s new lieutenant asked him if he would work decoy. They hadn’t done it before because it was considered too dangerous, but now the Two­Five had an assault and robbery epidemic on its hands. Bo readily agreed, as long as he could train his own backup team. Tommy Colleran was one of the men assigned to work with him.

Because Colleran resembles a latter-day frontier sheriff, and because he hero-worships John Wayne, the Two-Five christened him “Cowboy.” He stands a little over six feet and is erect, square, strong, and solid-looking, though he’s neither broad-shouldered nor particularly muscular. In fact, he looks older than his 42 years. He smiles appealingly, but his eyes are hard and penetrating—not unattractive or unkind, just unafraid.

He speaks in a voice absurdly low and deep, which actually becomes harder to follow the more he drinks—and it continues to get quieter, so that you move closer and closer to hear him at all, trying desperately to disregard all other sounds and concentrate on the low hum the way you would on a faint radio signal.

His fellow cops love to tell the story of the time he was shot and lying in a hospital with five bullets just removed from him. He wouldn’t let anyone tell his wife how bad he had been hit, so when she entered the room, she found him with his usual stoical face, trying to smile. She went to him and touched his shoulder, and he winced, saying painfully: “Careful, honey, I stopped a little lead there.” Shaking, she took his hand and he, again wincing, said (the Cowboy voice getting understandably weak): “Don’t touch me there either; I caught some lead there, too.” Astonished and frightened, she sat down and put her hand on his thigh. Once more, his face registered tremendous pain, and he forced: “Not there either, honey; I got a little lead there, too.” Whereupon, almost exasperated, she asked, “Where can I touch you?”

He had been off duty when he was shot. He and a partner were drinking uptown when the partner got into an argument with a black man. Finally, Tommy said he’d fight the man, who replied, “Sure, man, you’ve got a gun!” Tommy took it out of his holster, slammed it on the bar, and hissed, “C’mon motherfucker, let’s go, you and me.” When they got out to the street, the black man pulled a gun from his trouser belt and unloaded it at Colleran. Inside, the bartender screamed: “They’re shooting your partner!” but the other cop stayed frozen on his bar stool and said he didn’t hear any shots. After Tommy got out of the hospital, he went up to his partner at the station house and said: “There’s a lot of talk, Jimmy—listen, it was your argument, I got involved, that’s okay, I went outside—but there’s a lot of talk going around that you’re one big faggot.”

Colleran lives for being a cop. His father, whom he calls “the toughest man I ever knew,” was a policeman and a rebel in the IRA in 1916 “when it really was an army, really fighting for something, and when it never would’ve killed children.” Tommy also tells you, in an almost reverent tone, that he was shot in exactly the same places as his father had been a half-century earlier.

Tommy sees himself as a pro’s pro and appears only to be really comfortable in the company of other cops. Until recently he spent his entire career, starting in 1970, at the Two-Five. He has been shot at 22 times, if you count the bullets, which he does, on seven separate occasions. He once killed a man in a fierce shoot-out on 118th Street under the rusted girders of the Park Avenue el. For four years afterward he had nightmares, although his action had been entirely justified—the man having fired at him from point-blank range. When he went to see the mother, to offer his condolences and explain what happened, she thanked him for shooting her boy. All these years later he is still affected by that: “Slap my face, get mad, scream at me, do something, but don’t thank me for killing your son!”

From the beginning, Bo liked working with Tommy. They matched as perfectly as they contrasted. When they worked decoy together Bo asked Tommy to make him a promise. “One guy got his throat slashed from ear to ear, and I was always afraid of getting stabbed in the back. So I said to Tommy, ‘You want to back me up, there’s only one thing I ask you. If I get it, if I buy it, I only want you to do me one favor: I want you to get him, and I want him to die, too. That’s my biggest thing—if he kills me, please, you kill him.’ And I used to go out with that; if somebody got me, at least Tommy would get him. Once I had that in my head, that made me feel so comfortable out there.”

Bo was the motivator of the partnership, the leader. But it was the chemistry between the two that made it work so well: the balance of indomitable scrapper and thoughtful, quietly dependable backup; affable extrovert and stoical introvert.

Bo recalls, “The great thing was, Tommy believed in me. When he believed in me, he made me believe in myself. If I quit, Tommy would quit, and I didn’t want to quit, because I always wanted to show Tommy: Lookit, we can do it.”

In the months preceding the nun’s rape, Bo and Tommy were on a roll—every case they “pulled down” was a success.

THE CASE

Although Bo and Tommy were not assigned to the rape investigation and had their hands full with other cases, everyone they knew, especially the Italians in Harlem, kept pressuring them to “go after the nun-rapers.” The Italians regarded Bo and Tommy as different from other cops and trusted them in a particular way: They liked and respected Dietl and Colleran precisely because the two were not pure. Honest, yes, and dedicated lawmen certainly, but men who, like themselves, understood and still retained the raw vulgar texture of the streets. So the community residents expected more, too; they expected, without consciously thinking about it, the two cops not merely to understand, but to share their outrage.

On the second Monday after the rape, Bo was drinking alone at the bar in Rao’s, one of his favorite neighborhood hangouts. Once again, the regulars asked Bo what he was doing about the nun’s rapists and expressed their clear opinion of the rest of the police force. At the end of the night, Vinnie Rao motioned Bo into the kitchen, where he imparted to the lawman a single strand of information that he hoped could become a rope. “Bo, I don’t know if this is anything, but I was sweeping outside the other day, and some guy came up to me and said: ‘If you want the guys who raped the nun, they come from 125th Street.’ Then he kept walking through the park.”

It did not matter to Bo that even a child would have seen that this was no real information. Even a child would have screamed back at the old man standing in the glare of his scrubbed and ancient kitchen: “This doesn’t help us, don’t you see? It wouldn’t do much for us even if this guy told you he did it himself!” It didn’t matter what a child might have said—because this time the child would have been wrong.

From Rao’s, Bo went to the Adam’s Apple. About 2:30 in the morning, the place virtually empty, Bo’s friend Felix slid into the seat next to him and asked the usual question. Bo just looked at Felix, and he felt as if a sledgehammer had suddenly come down on his head. He spurted, “Felix, we’re going to break that nun case!” Everything inside him had suddenly exploded in a brilliant flash. It seemed to him that he and Tommy had been singled out by God to rectify a terrible wrong, and for that inspired moment everything came together in his vision of certainty—their recent successes, their measure of Harlem, the faith everyone placed in them, and Rao’s morsel of vague hearsay, which Bo suddenly and inexplicably knew was the absolute truth.

The following day, Bo said nothing to Tommy. He called Pete Christianson and repeated what Rao had told him. Christianson confirmed that the old man had given other detectives the same information when they questioned everyone in the neighborhood. And Pete told Bo what he already knew—that it didn’t mean much. They had received hundreds of similar tips.

“Pete, have you got anything?” Bo asked before he hung up.

“To be honest, we don’t have a damn thing. Nothing. You might as well work on this as anybody.”

The next day, when they were finished working, Bo told Tommy he’d meet him later at the corner bar; he had to go see someone first. He went to the precinct captain, Louis Fortunato, who congratulated him for recently solved cases.

“Okay, I’ve got one for you now,” declared the stocky cop leaning over his superior’s cluttered desk. ”I’d like three days to work on this nun case with Tommy ”

“What d’you mean?”

“I’ve got a little information.” He didn’t want to go into it, but the look on Fortunato’s face insisted, so he continued, “Cap, we got some information from our people. It ain’t much, but we might have something. You might think I’m fucking crazy or something, but all Tuesday I was shaking. It was like I was hearing voices or something.”

Fortunato gave Bo three days.

He hurried to the bar and told Tommy.

When he finished, Tommy studied his partner and said, “We’ve got just about shit here. There’s no evidence, nothing.”

“No, Tommy, listen, I feel it in my bones! I don’t know what it is, something spiritual maybe; I can’t explain, but I got the strongest fucking feeling I ever got.”

“You’re out of your fucking mind.”

Bo persisted and the more they drank, the more Tommy began to believe they had a chance. “All we can do is sonofabitch try, right Bo?” They drank until 2:00 A.M. before finally deciding to get some sleep. Outside they hugged and kissed like brothers—as they always did when they separated—and Bo shouted after the retreating form of his friend, “Tommy, you better be there, Tommy. Eight o’clock, we’re starting this thing off.”

They met at the precinct, hung over awfully, and the first thing they did was get a can of beer to take the edge off the way they felt. Then they started at the East River and worked west along 125th Street. Sticking to their original hunch that the rapists were burglars, and remembering the junkies’ description of the tall and short blacks they had seen by the convent, Bo and Tommy went from building to building, questioning everyone about a “Mutt and Jeff” burglar team. They had a composite drawing of what one of the men might have looked like. Showing it to each potential witness, Bo flatly inquired, “You know anyone who looks like this Mutt?”

They continued this type of elementary, painstaking questioning until midnight. Then, exhausted and wanting a drink, they decided to call it a night and go to the corner bar.

As they walked from their car to the bar, Tommy said, “This is getting futile, Bo.” And Bo himself was thinking, I’m playing with myself. We ain’t gonna catch anybody like this. But he didn’t let on to Colleran. Inside they found their sergeant, Bob Stephens, and a couple of others from the squad.

“What the hell are you guys working on?” asked Stephens.

“The captain gave us special permission on the nun case.” Bo told them what he and Tommy were doing. The others, except Stephens, laughed. Bo burned inside. “We’re going to break this case,” he said, more hurt than angry.

They played poker in the back of the bar and continued drinking. At about 4:00 A.M., Bo announced, “C’mon Tommy, let’s go, it’s time to work again.”

They drove slowly up Park Avenue and witnessed what they had seen a hundred times before: the savage landscape of Harlem mysteriously softened by the kindness of night. The burnt-out buildings that in daylight soundlessly glared with their charred, sardonic grimaces, now dissolved into the dreamlike darkness—the darkness itself stained by the gentle frozen light of street lamps, by the burning white eyes of the few cars gliding and bumping over the roads like giant rats hurrying along a corridor, by the now limp, then furious light of the all-night grocery stores and fast-food places, and by, where it is seen between the impervious and sleeping buildings, the city’s reflected iron glow in the sky.

The only people on the streets were prostitutes, pimps, and nickel- and dime­bag pushers. Bo and Tommy got heavy with all of them, threatening to lock them up every night from now on if they didn’t come back with information.

They worked through the not-morning, while the pimps and prostitutes disappeared, withdrawing like shadows banished by the fuller light, and were replaced by the thick flow of humanity that surges through Harlem by day. Around noon, a Hispanic informant directed them to a nearby tenement. Inside, said the man, lived a burglar named Harold Wells. Wells had a friend, a short guy, who had helped him rip off a discotheque owned by a Harlem mobster, Nicky Barnes.

The building, at 62 East 125th Street, was five stories high, dirty brown, and partially abandoned. Inside, garbage was strewn on the floor and stairs, and its smell permeated the narrow hallway. Bo knocked at the first apartment. Through the door, he and Tommy heard a girl calling, “Cops are here, cops are here!” The door opened, and a crowd of youngsters, giggling and slapping each other quiet, faced them. In the background, Bo thought he heard the sounds of a couple in bed.

“Where’s Harold?” he asked.

“He lives upstairs, second floor.”

“Does he have a friend he hangs out with?”

“Yeah, a short guy.”

“What’s he look like? Does he limp?” All the kids were talking at once. Someone said, “No, he walks with a bop.”

“He walks with a bop?” In the hallway, Bo imitated an exaggerated ghetto bounce.

“Yeah, he walks like that!” shrieked one of the little girls.

Bo looked at Tommy. “Which apartment does Harold live in?”

Someone told them and they went to it. An old man with a glass eye opened the door. He was Wells’s stepfather and the building superintendent. He invited them into an untidy but clean single room with the kitchen in the center. The pale, colorless light of indirect sunshine washed the room. A pretty, wide-eyed three-year-old girl sat on the couch.

The two cops explained about the nun and showed their drawing. The old man shrugged; it didn’t look like Harold, he said. He was cordial but evasive, saying that he hadn’t seen his stepson for a week. Finally, Bo handed him a card. “Lookit, please call if you hear anything.”

They crossed the hall to an abandoned apartment into which a cable ran under a slightly ajar door. They pushed it open and entered. The apartment was dark except for a candle flickering on the floor. Suddenly a huge, seven-foot-three black man tried to slam the door shut. Bo and Tommy pulled their guns and shouted, “Police!” The giraffelike black man stared murderously at them.

“We’re not looking for you. Chill out, chill out!” screamed Bo. “I don’t give a fuck what you’re into! I want info on your friend Harold.”

“He hangs out with Max. I haven’t seen him since Monday. He lives with the old man.” His voice was tremendously deep, and his eyes were wild. When he was sure the cops weren’t interested in him, he became extremely cooperative, telling them that Harold’s nickname was “Chicago” and that Nicky Barnes’s men were looking for them. No, he didn’t know anything about the nun.

They went back to the old man: “Look, don’t fuck us around! Where’s Harold?”

“I haven’t seen him since Monday,” he replied sheepishly.

“All we’re concerned about is the nun case. We don’t give a fuck about any of these other burglaries.”

They left the building and continued along 125th. By late afternoon, they were deep in the heart of Harlem and going through the projects. The evening turned nasty as a tremendous rainstorm crashed over the city.

They drove to the Colonial, parking right outside and dashing through the torrent into the restaurant. Inside, they slapped the rain off themselves, and Bo kissed the Italians at the bar and told them he was working on “the nun caper.” He lamented, “I think I fucking missed the guys that did it. I think we missed them. I feel these are the freakin’ guys. I don’t know what Tommy feels.” He looked at his partner, then turned back and blurted: “Tommy feels like another scotch and soda!”

Their seafood salad arrived and Tommy, still just drinking, didn’t eat. He stared at his gleaming plate of octopus, calamari, and shellfish. “C’mon Tommy, eat,” implored Bo, his mouth full.

“How can you eat that fucking stuff?” returned the other. “I never eat anything that has one eye and looks back at me.”

The phone rang at the bar. It was for Bo. When he returned to the table, his face was deadly serious. “The old man just called. The precinct is looking for us. He’s got info, let’s go.”

They raced back to the precinct, picked up Bob Stephens, and then tore up Park Avenue to 62 East 125th Street. The old man opened the door to their knock and looked cautiously along the corridor, then invited the rain-soaked cops in.

Two black women in their fifties sat on the couch, silent and apprehensive. The little girl was still there, awake, now lying on the bed propped on her elbows. Bo and Tommy went with the old man to the kitchen table.

“What’s up?” Bo asked.

“I don’t know if my stepson did anything, but…he was here earlier.”

“Listen,” interjected Tommy softly, “wouldn’t you rather him be vindicated in your own mind? Cooperate with us and we’ll talk to him.”

The old man nodded. “Let me tell you something: If my stepson had anything to do with this nun rape, I want to know,” and he jabbed himself in the chest, his glass eye peering in one direction, his good eye looking straight at Bo.

“I should have called you earlier,” he went on. “After you guys were here this afternoon, Harold came here. He had a girl with him. When he heard you were looking for him, he asked me for money. I gave him money, and he left for Chicago with his girl. They went from Port Authority. He was very nervous. If he had anything to do with raping the nun, I want him to be caught.”

Stephens’s and Tommy’s eyes widened; Bo was shaking in the chair. “What time did he leave?”

“About five o’clock, for the Port Authority.”

It was 11:00 P.M. now—Wells would have been on the road six hours. Even though Bo was cautioning himself, This is still nothing, we haven’t talked to the guy yet, he was so excited that he bounced up and kissed the old man, telling him, “There’s a $10,000 reward. You’re going to get it if this is the man who did it.”

“I don’t want any reward. If my stepson had anything to do with this, I want you to arrest him.”

Emotionally, Bo hugged him. “l love you. You don’t know what you’re doing for us! If ever I can help you with anything in your life, you call me and tell me.”

Back at the precinct, Bo phoned Captain Creane, who was with the task force, and told him about the old man. Creane told Bo to contact the sex crimes unit. But it was midnight and no one answered. When Creane called back, he told Bo that he had just spoken with Inspector Sibone, then chief of detectives for Manhattan North, who remembered them from a previous case. Sibone said that if Dietl and Colleran thought they were onto something, then he would be willing to take it seriously. Moments later, Sibone himself called.

“What have you really got?”

“Inspector, I don’t know what we fucking got, but I’ve got the strongest feeling I ever had in my life. We got a guy on the run to Chicago because he heard we were looking for him. He’s definitely a burglar, and he’s tall and works with a short guy that bops, and those might be the guys those skells saw at the convent. We haven’t spoken to the fucking guy, but I think he’s one of them.”

“Okay, I’m authorizing you to fly out there. See what flight you can get.”

They phoned the airports, but there were no more flights leaving that night for anywhere. It wasn’t even possible to charter a plane.

Bo got a brainstorm. He called the Chicago police violent crimes section. A Sergeant Kelly answered.

“Lookit,” explained Bo, after telling him the background, “we’ve got a guy coming out on a bus, a possible suspect. We haven’t talked to him, but you’ve been a cop a lot of years, and my partner and I have got a feeling that’s unbelievable. We want you to follow him when he gets off the bus.” Kelly willingly agreed—the Chicago papers had been full of the case, too. Bo described Wells from a photo the stepfather had given him. “Just follow him, now, till we get there. Don’t pick him up,” stressed Bo.

When Sibone called back, Bo told him what he’d done, and the inspector said he’d see them both in the morning. The two cops could not go to sleep. Instead, they spent the night trying to piece together an ID on Wells. They couldn’t. He had no previous record.

Sibone arrived a little before 7:00 A.M. Tommy was out getting breakfast. Suddenly the phone rang. It was Sergeant Kelly. “We’ve got your boy!”

Bo went cold all over. “What do you mean, you’ve got our boy? You’re supposed to follow the guy, not grab him!”

“No, no, no,” protested Kelly, “he ‘fessed up to everything.”

“Why’d you pick him up?” stammered Dietl.

“He got off the bus with his girlfriend and he told us everything. All the details. He was afraid the mob was going to get him.”

Tommy had returned and was standing over his partner, their breakfast on a tray in his hands. Bo abruptly leapt up and threw the tray into the air. “Tommy, we got him!”

For the next few minutes, mayhem erupted in the precinct. Like an inflated but untied balloon released, Bo tore through the station house. He came back into the squad room and he and Tommy bear-hugged.

Wells had named Max Lindeman as the man with him at the convent. Tommy recognized the name—he had locked him up during the 1977 blackout for looting. Now Tommy called home and woke up his son to locate Lindeman’s record in his dad’s arrest files.

Meanwhile, Bo ran outside, took one of the blue-and-white radio cars, and, with lights flashing and siren wailing, rushed over to 116th Street to yell the news at the waking neighborhood—screaming out the window in a voice soon hoarse from the effort and brittle from accumulated exhaustion and exhilaration. Some old Italian widows on their way to early morning mass, dressed all in black and looking like ageless and enduring crows, came up to the car that he had stopped in order to speak to them. As he told them the news, he could see the emotion on their faces—faces that looked as if they had long since exceeded the time when it was necessary to express emotion—and he heard their ancient, weak, but indomitable voices blessing him.

He went to the convent and told the nun who answered the door that he and his partner caught the rapists. They hugged each other, silently, for a moment. From there, he went to Rao’s, pounding on the restaurant door till Vinnie, still half asleep, irritably opened it. Bo planted a big kiss on his cheek and spurted, “We got ’em, the guys that raped the nun!” Rao’s face lit up and then they, too, embraced.

When Bo returned to the precinct, he found it full of police brass, case investigators, and press. The squad room was as crowded as a platform waiting room after a train has been canceled, and just as impatiently tense. But Bo discovered that he and Tommy were being pushed out. All over the station house, meetings were being conducted without them. He couldn’t even get to speak to Sergeant Kelly again; the sex crimes detectives had him exclusively. To add to the insult, some task force detectives were wandering around dousing enthusiasm by saying they didn’t think Wells was guilty—they suspected the Chicago police had beaten a confession out of him.

Bo and Tommy became as depressed as they had been elated. And then Bob Stephens walked quietly over and said, “Let’s go get Max.” In the confusion, everyone had forgotten about Lindeman.

First the trio went to his mother’s address, but found only her and her boyfriend there. Like three crazed men, they hit the most likely junkie joints, broke down doors and grabbed junkies, slapping them around and putting their heads down toilets—”Where’s Max? Where’s Max, you fucking junkie!” they shouted each time.

Eventually they returned to the precinct where there was a message waiting. Max’s mother had called: He was with her now and wanted to surrender to Tommy, who, he remembered, had bought him a packet of cigarettes when he was in jail in 1977.

So Tommy went to collect the fugitive. Lindeman walked into the squad room between Stephens and Colleran, almost hidden by the two much larger men. Lindeman was very short, just over five feet, and wimpy looking, though with an attempt at arrogance.

“Your partner gave you up in Chicago,” growled Bo.

“Fuck you, I didn’t do nothing,” spat back Lindeman.

Bo’s mind went black and the anger burst inside him. He threw a punch into Lindeman’s face, sending the man sprawling across the wall of the interrogation room. Tommy jumped on Bo and held him down while his partner seethed at Lindeman through gritted teeth: “You fucking scumbag! After what you did—what did you do in there? How did you rape that nun?”

Lindeman was against the far wall holding his face and pleading, “Keep that little guy off me!”

“What happened out there? WHAT DID YOU DO TO THIS NUN? Let me go, Tommy, I want to shoot this motherfucker now!”

Tommy held on and dragged him out of the room. “Bo, just take it easy, take it easy.”

Bo calmed down and went into the viewing room where he could watch and listen to the interrogation. For four hours, Pete Christianson and Danny Ruffle, from sex crimes, and Tommy questioned him, never losing their patience, although not getting anywhere with the frightened, 22-year-old suspect who kept repeating, “I don’t know what I should do….” To which Tommy would reply, leaning forward with a soothing voice that sounded like a priest’s, “You’re going to have to answer to that man upstairs. Cleanse your soul.” When he could see that they were getting absolutely nothing out of Lindeman, Bo would burst into the room and pretend to go for him, screaming that he was going to let him go so the Mafia could get him, while the others “restrained ” him. After each explosion, Lindeman would be nervous for a while and talk, but still deny being in the convent.

Once more, the people in the squad room were saying they didn’t think this was the rapist. Detectives stood with Bo in the cramped dark viewing room, leaning against the filing cabinets or sitting on the spare desk and watching the proceedings going on in the brightly lit room next door. Repeatedly they shook their heads, “Dietl, this ain’t the guy.”

Now it was late afternoon. Bo was watching alone—leaning forward against the lighted glass like a child pressing his face against the window of a closed toy store on a dark Christmas Eve, any sense of how long he had been there, or in how much discomfort, washed away by his obsession with what lies on the other side of the glass—when Lindeman, alone with Danny, suddenly but slowly dropped his head into his hands and mumbled: “We were smoking dust that day and all I remember is grabbing the nun…”

A sensation more intense than any Bo had ever known overwhelmed him. He described it later as “20,000 of your best orgasms rolled into one.” For a second he didn’t move. Then he flung open the door and burst into the squad room. It was mostly empty now. Tommy was smoking and talking with two cops from the DA’s office.

“Tommy, he ‘fessed up,” Bo shouted. “We’ve got two guys, now, in two places, that said they did it! Tommy, it’s over! It’s over!”

TWO YEARS LATER

It was a summer evening. Bo and Tommy had been reassigned to different precincts in Brooklyn soon after they broke the case. But they had returned to the Two-Five for a retirement party.

They came off the East River Drive at 116th and stopped the car opposite the convent. A few lights shone in windows on the corner of the dark street. In the car, there was only the glow of the dashboard as Bo spoke quietly to a friend in the back seat.

The rapists had been able to cop pleas, Bo explained. Because the nun didn’t want to testify, Lindeman got 20 years and Wells 15 years. In fact, Bo said, the nun even forgave her assailants and prayed for their souls.

The friend asked if they ever met her.

“No. The only contact we ever had with her was after we cracked the case; she sent Tommy and me a dozen red roses, and said she would say a prayer for us every morning for the rest of her life.”

For a moment, no one said anything. Then Bo broke the silence. “We don’t go to church every Sunday, but believe it or not, after we broke the case we started to go.

“Everybody said it was great police work, but I go beyond that. Did you ever believe in miracles? We had nothing, but we were steered to take on the case, we were steered to go to the building where the old man lived: It was a miracle.

”And after that,” he continued shortly, “nightly we would be drinking up at the corner bar, me and Tommy would start hugging. This was months after. We would get a feeling sitting there talking where our whole bodies would go into a thing and the chills would come back. And I’d say to Tommy, or he’d say to me, ‘We did something, Tommy, something no one else could have done. And they can never take it away from us!’”

The car was purring, the engine still on. Bo turned to face his friend behind him and, his eyes alive with the recollection, told how his young daughter had brought some of his clippings to school and declared: “My daddy is a famous detective. He raped and killed a nun!” Then he roared the laugh that exploded over everyone else’s—”Aaahahaa!”—threw the car into drive, and lurched it away from the curb toward the party.

Generation Xanax

Fifty million prescriptions for alprazolam — Xanax’s generic name — were filled in the U.S. in 2013, making it the most prescribed psychiatric medication in the country. Prescriptions were rising by nearly 10 percent a year back then, with no indication of slowing down, so 2018 numbers are presumably much higher. And judging by how quickly a casual complaint about an upcoming transatlantic flight is met these days by an offer of a couple of “Xans” to smooth out the trip, there are untold legions of additional Americans taking it off-prescription for at least semi-legitimate reasons. Xanax belongs to America’s most popular family of mood-altering drugs, called benzodiazepines. Even if you only count users with prescriptions, benzos are more popular than MDMA, LSD, heroin, and meth.

It’s impossible for a drug to permeate a society that thoroughly without leaving a mark on its culture, and the popularity of benzodiazepines — Klonopin, Valium, and Ativan are the other top antianxiety meds in this drug family — among America’s creative class has only amplified its impact. Four decades after Xanax first hit the market, this particular benzo surrounds us completely, a primary element in our cultural atmosphere.

The drugs we take have been defining the aesthetics of our times since the dawn of pop culture. Back during the Jazz Age, when radio and records came within reach of the working-class, weed-smoking big band leaders became our first rock stars. Psychedelics gave the sixties their Day-Glo vividness. The hard-edged gloss that got wrapped around nearly every cultural product created during the eighties was so clearly derived from massive piles of cocaine it’s become a cliché. The style of the nineties was shaped by “heroin chic” and Ecstasy-fueled rave visuals.

The past decade was all about weed, as marijuana began to get legalized and Adult Swim-style stoner humor took over the mainstream. But this decade’s been about benzos. Deeper into our century, when people look back at the media we’re making and consuming today, they’ll see the influence of benzodiazepines as clearly as we see coke residue on Reagan-era cultural artifacts. As more of us get on benzos, the dominant cultural aesthetic is getting softer, gentler, and more compatible with the cozy benzo high. Opiates get more press, but in truth, we’re living in the Age of Xanax, this drug being the most popular antianxiety med in a world where anxiety has become the dominant mental state.

How we got here is clear enough. Our brains’ insatiable hunger for information drove us to connect them to fat data-pipelines and we gorged on the ceaseless flow. Then we required increasingly more extreme stuff — from esoteric porn genres to hyperpolarized culture war propaganda — in order to get a response from our fried-out dopamine receptors. Like any addict who’s drifted into the ugly side of a bender, we’re reaching for tranquilizers to take the edge off, only we’re doing it collectively, as an entire nation.

Everyone on this planet right now is fucking crazy. Life under Trump is a nightmare state of doom just over the horizon for anyone on any part of the political spectrum, whether it’s liberals freaking out over the executive branch’s relentless attacks on civil rights or conservative MAGA types constantly on frantic guard against the deep-state coup attempt or an invasion by MS-13 that they’ve been told are inevitable.

War, the economy, the environment, hackers, and the general sense that we’ve already crossed some invisible line on a path toward destruction have us all perpetually on edge, and since we can’t seem to turn off the endless news-feed of everything bad happening in the world, we feel anxiety all the time. The human mind can only handle so much negative stimulation without medication, or else it falls apart entirely.

Opiates are brutally effective at reducing that agitation, but they cloud the mind. And in a hyper-stratified society like ours, creative elites want a better class of drugs than the working-class. According to the prejudices of the day, opioids are for Appalachian Trump voters — expendable, blue-collar hillbillies fueling small-town drug economies with workers’ comp checks.

Benzos, on the other hand, are a more refined downer, designed to cure a more cerebral affliction — a brain that can’t stop working. There’s a not-so-subtle hint of a brag in the way a lot of people in the creative class discuss their anxiety and the way they medicate it, implying that their real problem is that they’re literally just too smart for their own good.

And since benzodiazepines give the illusion of acting on the mind and not the body, with its icky, working-class associations, it’s easy to ignore the fact that they’re highly addictive and extremely dangerous when mixed with the most common intoxicants, such as alcohol.

But the main thing is that they work. They really, really work.

Inside our brains we have millions of receptors for a neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid, or GABA, which, among other roles, regulates the neurons in our brains and central nervous system, reducing their activity when we get too stressed. If something lights up our primitive fight-or-flight response — a loud noise, a traumatic memory, an article about climate change — GABA can apply the brakes and slow things down so we don’t cross over into full-blown panic. Benzodiazepines work by flooding our GABA receptors and binding them all together, telling sweet lies to our nervous system that everything’s fine, that there’s nothing to worry about after all.

Benzos feel like the blissful first fraction of a second after an orgasm, stretched out into hours.

That state of anxiety-free grace — a feeling of complete all-rightness — is what we spend our whole lives chasing. Reducing the amount of stress the world inflicts on us, whether it’s financial or emotional or societal, dictates so much of our behavior, from recreational pursuits, self-improvement regimens, and self-medicating, to career choices, relationship choices, and devotion to domestic sheltering. Popping a Xanax gets you there without the work, and not only much quicker than through non-chemical means, but deeper into the state of chill. I can say from personal experience that a month’s worth of daily meditation can’t hold a candle to the worry-negating effects of .5 milligrams of alprazolam.

Benzos make you feel like you’re floating in a warm bubble bath the size of an ocean. They feel like the blissful first fraction of a second after an orgasm, stretched out into hours. They feel like an off-switch for the part of your brain that gives a shit, allowing you to float above the world as aloof and unbothered as a cloud.

When I’m anxious, the inside of my head feels like a crowded rush-hour subway platform, with different worries elbowing their way to the front of the pack and yelling for my attention. On Xanax, it feels like I’m the only person in a Greek and Roman museum wing, walking in pristine silence, surrounded by nothing but air and light and marble, smooth and serene. After feeling crushed by anxiety, it’s like being weightless. That sensation alone would be enough to get hooked on, even if it wasn’t one of the most dangerously addictive chemical compounds we’ve ever invented.

The Xanax aesthetic is a way of externalizing that sensation of absolute detached mental tranquility. It’s an utterly unbothered style, without the haziness that comes with more stoner-y perspectives. Benzos clear the mind rather than cloud it (at least when you take them on their own), so their vibe is soft but crystalline, uncluttered and unchaotic. It is, above all other things, intensely comfy.

The current popularity of muted pastel colors — from album covers to hair dye — is part of the benzo look, whether they’re used as fields of flat tones to create a perfectly placid mood, or combined in soft ombré gradients to add the suggestion of languorous movement and the floaty, bubble bath sensation of a brain awash in friendly neurotransmitters.

Pastels fit nicely with the trend of dressing softly. The rise of benzo use in the U.S. has corresponded with a steep decline in anything approaching formal attire. T-shirts and sneakers are now acceptable in settings that only recently demanded suits and ties, including weddings and funerals. By calling sweats and sneakers “athleisure” wear, and making them more expensive, we’ve been able to justify bringing the fleecy comfort of homebound self-care days into our everyday public lives. The more tranquilizers we consume as a nation, the more we’re starting to dress like the zonked-out, sweat-suited residents of a psych ward.

Orderly minimalism is another major visual component of the style. Things in tidy rows and columns can soothe the parts of our brains that flare up in people with anxiety, particularly those with obsessive-compulsive disorder. For people with OCD, the feeling of a benzo flooding your GABA receptors gives the same sensation of just-rightness that you get from indulging whatever organizational kink you feel compelled by.

So it’s no surprise that advertising has become increasingly tidy, as well as flat, minimalist, and pastel in recent years, particularly in advertising aimed at urban creative professionals and those who aspire to an urban creative lifestyle. In the past, ads fought loudly for our attention, but in a world where overstimulation has become the norm, serenity has become a valuable product. If people are willing to shell out good money for inner peace — the meditation app Headspace is currently worth about a quarter of a billion dollars — giving consumers even a small taste of calm during their commute or while they’re overstimulating themselves on the internet is like giving them an expensive gift.

And if that sensation maybe reminds them of the tranquil feeling they get from having a benzo in their system — or even happens to vibe with the wave they’re on from the Klonopin that they popped first thing that morning — that wouldn’t be bad either.

Which is why New York City subways and Instagram are so plastered with ads showing reasonably hip, youngish city dwellers resting peacefully on their backs in tidy arrangements against tonal color-on-color backgrounds. Whether the product is retro-inspired eyeglasses or memory foam mattresses or pills for erectile dysfunction doesn’t matter at this point. This kind of starkly serene late-capitalist still life has taken on a life of its own as a visual genre. There isn’t a contemporary artist working who’s doing a better job of capturing our current moment’s distinctive blend of hyper-consumerism and tranquilized shellshock.

For people with OCD, the feeling of a benzo flooding your GABA receptors gives the same sensation of just-rightness that you get from indulging whatever organizational kink you feel compelled by.

Musicians have responded to benzos with a push into sonic softness. Despite the tumultuous state of the world, angry music is out of style. Today’s most relevant pop artists aren’t raging against the machine, but creating cozy sonic nooks where listeners can hide out and forget about the machine altogether. Drums have become muted, singing has become more whispery, and loud electric guitars have almost entirely disappeared from the Top 40.

But unlike the warm soft rock of the Quaalude-heavy seventies, the artists whose work has spread the most easily and organically into the zeitgeist today are cool and more than a little aloof.

Kanye West’s album 808s & Heartbreak — whose sense of detached loss should be familiar to anyone who’s dealt with the death of a family member through a veil of pills — gave pop and hip-hop its first taste of benzo cool. Frank Ocean has become one of the most important performers of his generation singing about intense emotions held at arm’s length, in the way that benzos allow you to observe your own feelings as if they were happening to someone else. Lana Del Rey’s cult icon status comes from her ability to channel a cryptic, otherworldly glamor inspired by the sensation of being “Xanned” halfway into another plane of existence.

But no one has made art more openly indebted to benzodiazepines than today’s young rappers. And what their art says about them says a lot about the dark turn that the Xanax boom has taken.

Rappers have been at the leading edge of Xanax’s cultural takeover from the beginning. Back when the rest of the pop world was still high on Molly and Obama-era optimism, Southern mixtape rappers like Lil Wayne, Gucci Mane, and Future promoted Xanax as part of a world-obliterating pharmaceutical cocktail, mixed in with Vicodin, Percocet, and prescription cough syrup containing codeine and promethazine.

Sometime just after the beginning of the decade, a pack of young, independent hip-hop artists emerged through free platforms like SoundCloud and YouTube with a sound that opened up the ratcheting rhythms and dialed-back tempos of Southern hip-hop to a breezier atmosphere. Rappers like A$AP Rocky, Lil B, Main Attrakionz, and Yung Lean shook off the suffocating darkness of hip-hop’s lean-sipping years with dreamy flows over weightless beats that were more New Age than boom-bap. Fittingly, the style earned itself the name “cloud rap.”

This new breed of hip-hop phenoms made music that had the same spacey, lighter-than-air feel of a benzo high, and it didn’t take much critical guesswork to make the connection. Yung Lean rapped about his Xanax habit before it landed him in the hospital. The scene’s spiritual leader, A$AP Yams, who, among other things, helped curate its aesthetic on his cult-popular Tumblr account, had Xanax bars tattooed on his arms next to the words “Black Out,” and eventually died from mixing it with the codeine-based lean (aka sizzurp or purple drank). Cloud-rap-adjacent artists like Travis Scott, Earl Sweatshirt, and Danny Brown talked openly about popping benzos for both business and pleasure.

Cloud rap was a relatively niche phenomenon that happened mostly underground and online, but a wave of musicians that it inspired have spent the past few years upending the rap game and making inroads deep into the mainstream.

So-called “SoundCloud rappers” like Lil Uzi Vert, 6ix9ine, Smokepurpp, Kodak Black, and XXXTentacion have scandalized the hip-hop world by embracing unorthodox influences like emo, and scandalized the pop world by attracting massive teen fan bases to their Instagrammed rock star lifestyles, which frequently feature reckless levels of benzo intoxication (not to mention face tattoos and sexual abuse allegations).

This strain of hip-hop occupies a remarkably similar place on the pop landscape as alternative rock did back in the nineties — a semi-official sound of alienated youth that’s managed to sneak past pop’s old guard and get its hand on the wheel of the zeitgeist. It’s dominating the pop charts, setting the stylistic agenda that even superstars are following, and giving the media a field day with outrageous, headline-making behavior. It’s like Nirvana multiplied by the dozens, which makes it fitting that so many of them have adopted Kurt Cobain’s uniform of ripped jeans, chin-length dyed hair, and cat-eye sunglasses.

The major sonic difference between this new soundtrack for dissatisfied teens and nineties alternative rock is mostly a matter of volume. Where Cobain and his peers got their angst out through loud, distorted guitars and guttural screams, Xanax rap is spacey, quieter, and cool to the touch. The beats shuffle more than they bang, laced with twinkling synthesizers and softly susurrating white noise, and the vocals tend to be delivered in a dissociated melodic mumble.

When this almost abstractly chill sound is paired with the genre’s lyrical fixation on despair and death, the results can be profoundly unsettling. It would be one thing to hear a kid in his early twenties scream, “Push me to the edge/ all my friends are dead” — we have a template for that kind of thing, and rage feels like a natural reaction to desperation. Hearing Lil Uzi Vert slurring it with an aura of absolute benzo-inspired detachment — sounding like he’s tranquilized beyond the point of being physically able to give a fuck about whether he lives or dies — leaves you shaken.

Xanax rap invokes a feeling of genuine nihilism that makes Gen X’s rebellious phase look like a tantrum. And Xanax rappers’ behavior backs it up. To anyone who knows how benzos work — how easy it is to take too many, how wrong things can go when you mix them with other substances, how effortlessly you can end up hooked on them — the level of benzo abuse that these kids engage in is jaw-dropping.

So is their age. When Lil Pump hit a million followers on Instagram, he celebrated with a cake shaped like a giant Xanax bar and did the same two months later when he turned 17. Lil Xan was still below the legal drinking age when he began his come-up with an image centered around continuous pill popping. (He’s since publicly sworn off alprazolam, and has repeatedly talked about changing his stage name, although he hasn’t followed through yet.) Lil Peep, who’d collected the most “voice of a generation” accolades of anyone in the cadre, died from overdosing on fentanyl and alprazolam when he was only 21.

Today’s most relevant pop artists aren’t raging against the machine but creating cozy sonic nooks where listeners can forget about the machine altogether.

Music has always been the art form with the closest relationship to drug culture, uniquely able to both reflect trends in getting high and to influence them. It’s impossible to imagine Sgt. Pepper’s being made without LSD; it’s just as impossible to imagine LSD becoming as mainstream as it did without Sgt. Pepper’s. (TV and movies are occasionally able to capture an era’s druggy identity — you can feel benzos in Atlanta’s bemused detachment, Big Little Lies’ dissociated trauma, and the all-too-relatable robots in Westworld, Blade Runner 2049, and Ex Machina — but their size and budget constraints make it difficult.) But social media, blindingly fast-moving, infinitely mutable, and by now as much a conduit for aesthetics as information, could be taking over.

Most of the look and feel of this era of anxiety and panic barely held in check by massive amounts of tranquilizers first originated on Tumblr, the social media platform that only minimally blipped on the mainstream’s radar but which reshaped youth culture in ways that are only just now making themselves apparent. Tumblr is where much of the Xanax rap trend got started. It’s where the cult of Lana Del Rey grew its deepest roots. And it’s the birthplace of vaporwave, an obscure internet trend that’s had a disproportionately large influence on pop culture.

Joan Didion

We wanted to find out, so we hired reality television legend Farrah Abraham as our book critic. After enduring a working-class childhood and life as a single teen mom, Farrah’s blossomed into an entrepreneur. She’s bringing her unique perspective to reviews of new and classic literature, starting with Joan Didion’s seminal tome Slouching Towards Bethlehem. New Yorker and New York Review of Books, it’s time to get real. A new critic is in town!

As a devout reader, I believe women should write their life stories because most journeys teach valuable lessons. But if you want consumers to trust you, you probably should avoid starting a book with your gin issues. Journalist and screenwriter Joan Didion apparently never received this message.

In 1968 she published Slouching Towards Bethlehem. If you’re looking to find out what not to do as a writer, this is a great book for you. Over the course of twenty essays, Didion describes her life in Los Angeles during the sixties. She jumps from year to year, often for no rhyme or reason. The non-linear structure confuses me. I had to wonder, “Was Didion even trying when she wrote this junk?”

According to her Wikipedia page, Didion is some sort of queen of nonfiction, but I doubt Slouching Towards Bethlehem’s credibility. How would she remember all these quotes? Did she walk around with a recorder in her purse? I suspect Didion wrote many half-truths because she prides herself on her diva behavior. At one point, Didion brags about her missed deadlines. Who does that? If Didion behaved this way on a reality tv set, she would be fired for unprofessionalism.

Overall, I did not connect with this book. I don’t think the writer herself was even connected to the material. In a dull boring style, Didion goes on and on about John Wayne and Charles Manson and all her alcohol-fueled parties. Although some people online called Didion snobby, I wouldn’t consider her writing snobby. I don’t care what Didion thought about some old Western movie. There are more important issues taking place in America, like the rising cost of child care and sexism in the workplace.

Maybe lost souls in my generation connect to Didion? I think this book is best suited for readers in their fifties, sixties, and seventies. Personally, I find the behavior of Didion and her friends obnoxious. Without ever feeling the need to grow up, these baby boomers drink their way through life, developing all sorts of problems with drug use and addiction. They never consider the future. They only think about drinking and drugs.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem is a great book for people who abuse substances every day. When you need a book to read and ponder your drug problems, pick up a Didion essay collection. If you’re looking for a book that discusses real issues, you are better off picking up my memoir, My Teenage Dream Ended. My life story is closer to the truth of life.

Art by Official Sean Penn

Farrah Abraham

Farrah Abraham

Feminist Terrorist

“What can we do now,” asked Emmeline Pankhurst, “but carry on this fight ourselves?” She was speaking to a crowded meeting of the WSPU in Hampstead Town Hall, a leader reaffirming her soldiers’ commitment to war. “I want you not to see these as isolated acts of hysterical women, but to see that it is being carried out with a definite intention and purpose. It can only be stopped in one way: that is by giving us the vote!” Powerful words, at a time when the glorious cause had become a “guerrilla war,” fought in the dark with weapons women were not supposed to have. In the years since Kitty had suffered attacks at the hands of the police, endured abuse selling suffrage propaganda, disrupted political meetings, hounded the prime minister, and suffered through horrendous force-feedings while on hunger strike, the WSPU had moved from being a war of words to a war of weapons.

We think of this as a period of window-smashing, women chaining themselves to railings and the rushes on Parliament, but the reality was far more extreme. Guns, bombs, and arson attacks became second nature to the women involved, radicalized by a combination of the revolutionary leadership of the WSPU and the physical violence they experienced at the hands of anti-suffragists, the police, and the prison system. As the government repeatedly betrayed and discounted the suffragettes, the rage felt by the women who only wanted to be seen as equal, and have ownership over their own destinies rather than leave them to the decisions of men, drove the organization to commit highly aggressive acts that have since been erased from our history. The violence of the suffragettes has been sanitized, downplayed, and, in some cases, simply denied — a final injustice to those brave women who made impossible choices in the hope that the ends could somehow justify the means.

From 1912 to 1914, Christabel Pankhurst orchestrated a nationwide bombing and arson campaign the likes of which Britain had never seen before and hasn’t experienced since. Hundreds of attacks by either bombs or fire, carried out by women using codenames and aliases, destroyed timber yards, cotton mills, railway stations, MPs’ homes, mansions, racecourses, sporting pavilions, churches, glasshouses, even Edinburgh’s Royal Observatory. Chemical attacks on postmen, postboxes, golfing greens, and even the prime minister — whenever a suffragette could get close enough — left victims with terrible burns and sorely irritated eyes and throats, and destroyed precious correspondence.

Imagine the internet suddenly becoming inaccessible all the way from London to Glasgow, and all phone communication suddenly ceasing. That was the impact of the suffragettes cutting the huge trunk telegram and telephone posts across the country, on numerous occasions taking out communications for the government, police, and ordinary people. Bombs were left outside banks and newspaper offices and could also be sent in the post — one discovered at the South Eastern London District Post Office, made of nitroglycerin and gunpowder, was so large that if it had gone off it would have destroyed the entire building, killing all 200 people inside.

At the site of one of the most daring attacks, on the St Leonards home of the MP Arthur Du Cros in April 1913, the immediate aftermath of the destruction was caught on film. The newsreels were a growing business, and Pathé’s camera arrived while the ruins were still smoldering. As it pans along the shell of the house, figures fill the frame; men trying to salvage roof tiles, women observing the wreckage and a young schoolgirl, standing on the lawn, staring directly into the camera. She turns, looking up at the remnants behind her, while all the other figures hurry across the frame. What did she think of the arson executed in her name, to secure her a future in a utopia of political equality? The dull thud as the workmen’s hammers hit the charred wood was not recorded, but even without sound, the power of the arson attack is clear, a century later. Kitty was the author of this destruction. Did she watch Pathé’s newsreel of the attack’s aftermath, wearing her suffragette colors as the images flickered across the screen?

Du Cros had consistently voted against the enfranchisement of women, which was why he had been chosen as a target, and the razing of his house to the ground was part of the growing “Reign of Terror” that Christabel Pankhurst organized from her Parisian hideaway. She had fled the country after the grand window-smashing campaign and taken up residence in France. Her commitment, and her commitment of the WSPU, to this radical aggressive action, caused a deep schism within the leadership. The Pethick-Lawrences, who had for so long stood beside the Pankhursts and whose newspaper Votes For Women Kitty sold on the streets, were ousted by Christabel and her mother for their opposition to the growing violence at the end of 1912. Determined to exercise full and total control over every aspect of the WSPU, Christabel created a new weekly newspaper for the Union, The Suffragette, priced at a single penny, to carry forward both her edicts and the reports of the actions of other members. Kitty was devoted to the new paper: “The Suffragette became more and more daring and defiant and was continually being raided, everybody, including the printers, being arrested, but never missing an issue since secret reserves were always ready to “carry on.” Many of her fellow suffragettes had now been tasked to carry out destructive and dangerous attacks. As words had not worked, the WSPU issued a new manifesto warning of a “fiercer spirit of revolt” that was now awakened and was “impossible to control.” Emmeline Pankhurst made her directives clear in a now legendary speech:

“Be militant each in your own way… Those of you who can break windows — break them. Those of you who can still further attack the secret idol of property, so as to make the Government realize that property is as greatly endangered by women’s suffrage as it was by the Chartists of old — do so. And my last word is to the Government: I incite this meeting to rebellion.”

Arrested in 1914 Emmeline Pankhurst being arrested while trying to present a petition to the King at Buckingham Palace, 21 May 1914

On the platform, Kitty rose to cheer wildly. She was committed to the new violence with a radical and burning passion. The women involved were given many different names in the press, from “wreckers” to “wild women” or the individual “professional petroleuse,” language that conjures up images of these women as the daughters of the French Revolution — a rejected social group bent on political representation, brandishing the colors of the WSPU and shouting out an anglicized war cry reminiscent of “Liberté, Unité, Égalité.” Christabel lost no time in linking the cause to a Francophile revolutionary spirit; she appropriated the image of Joan of Arc, a female martyr who gave her life for what she believed in and was the equal of any man and, under the headings of “Reign of Terror,” “Guerilla Warfare,” and “Fire and Bombs!,” devoted double-page spreads in the Suffragette to reporting the bomb and arson attacks that were now occurring around the country. Following on from photographs and articles of suffragettes still suffering after force-feeding would come the photographs of burned-out buildings and railway stations and parks wrecked by bombs or chemical attacks.

On 29 January 1913, letters addressed to “Mr. George” and “Mr. Asquith” exploded into flames as they were lifted out of postboxes. The envelopes contained fragile glass tubes full of a chemical liquid that, when broken and exposed to the air, immediately caught fire. In the following weeks, further attacks on letters and postboxes came in Coventry, London, Edinburgh, Northampton, and York.

The first bomb attack, and one of the most spectacular in its daring, came on 19 February, when Emily Wilding Davison and her companions succeeded in blowing up David Lloyd George’s new holiday cottage at Walton-on-the-Hill, near Epsom. The Pall Mall Gazette reported the attack under the headline “SUFFRAGETTE TERRORISM,” and that “the perpetrators of the outrage appear to have used a motor-car, and they got away, leaving only two broken hatpins as clues.”

In July 1912, an abortive arson attack on the Nuneham home of Lewis Harcourt, by Helen Craggs and Ethel Smyth, had demonstrated the lengths the suffragettes were now willing to go to. After they had refined their methods, the arson campaign kicked off in earnest on 20 February 1913, when Lilian Lenton and Joyce Locke successfully burned down Kew Gardens’ tea pavilion.

In March, fires raged at railway stations and private homes across Surrey, and railway signal wires, telegram, and telephone trunk masts were cut in Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Llantarnam. Watching the escalating violence, Sylvia Pankhurst recalled, “Telegraph and telephone wires were severed with long handed clippers; fuse boxes were blown up, communication between London and Glasgow being cut off for some hours.”

April brought with it a full-scale war on the railways: carriages at Davenport Junction, Stockport, exploded after devices were placed underneath the seats. Oxted railway station was decimated by a bomb left in the lavatory. A traveling basket was found, containing a clock timed to go off at 3 A.M., while the fuse had been laid with gunpowder. On 9 April, two bombs were left on the Waterloo to Kingston line, placed on trains going in opposite directions. One bomb was found at Battersea on the train coming from Kingston. In a previously crowded third-class carriage, the railway porter had seen smoke slowly creeping from under a seat. He discovered a white wooden box containing a tin canister, measuring about eight inches by four, in which sixteen live gun cartridges, wired together and joined up with a small double battery, had been attached to a tube of explosive. Packed in among the cartridges were lumps of jagged metal, bullets, and scraps of lead. Four hours later, as a train from Waterloo pulled into Kingston, the third-class carriage exploded and was quickly consumed by fire. Although it was empty, the rest of the carriages were full of passengers, and the risk to their lives was considerable.

Throughout the month, bomb and arson attacks occurred in Abercorn, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Bath, Aberdeen, Tunbridge Wells, Plymouth Hoe, York, Thanet, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff, Preston, London, and Manchester. There was even an attempt to bomb the Bank of England, using a device containing about two ounces of gunpowder, a quantity of hairpins, and a small electric battery, attached by wire to a small chronometer watch, set to explode the bomb at eleven o’clock.

At many of the attacks, copies of the Suffragette were found scattered, or postcards scrawled with message such as “Votes For Women!,” “More To Come/Give Us The Vote,” “Votes for women, and damn the consequences,” “In honour of Mrs Pankhurst,” “Burning for the Vote!,” “Beware of the bomb, run for your lives!” or “Votes For Women R.I.P.” A bomb discovered at the Lyceum Theatre, Taunton, was revealed in the press to have the words “Votes For Women,” “Judges Beware,” “Martyrs of the law,” and “Release our Sisters” painted along its side. At the Smeaton Tower, an old lighthouse on Plymouth Hoe, a bomb — a circular tin canister, containing explosive material and a lit but defused wick — had been painted with the words, “Votes For Women. Death In Ten Minutes.”  Every attack was reprinted in detail in the Suffragette; Christabel was determined to use the paper to heighten the passion and commitment of those instructed to carry out these attacks.

Kitty Marion Selling Birth Control Review

(Original Caption) New York, NY: Kitty Marion ready to sell Birth Control Review in the streets of New York. Photograph, 1915.

Our Children Our Shame

The recent torrent of headlines about child sex abuse has poured forth from all over the country. In Minnesota, 24 adults were indicted for sexually abusing children. The ages of the victims ranged from 2 to 17 years old; in some cases, they were the children of those charged with crimes. In New York and California, reports of sex abuse at nursery schools and daycare centers have started an outcry for greater regulation at such facilities. Also in California, a woman accused of running the world’s largest child pornography mail-order business was convicted and sentenced to prison. And from nursery schools around the country, young children—2, 3, and 4 years old—are overcoming their fears and are telling the world how they’ve been sexually abused by those who have been charged to care for them.

We are seeing these headlines almost every day. And further reports of the outrage are coming from sources other than the news media. In 1983, the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice estimated that more than 1.5 million Americans under the age of 16 were involved in prostitution or child pornography. The department also believes that thousands of unsolved murders of children were related to their involvement in the commercial sexual marketplace. Medical researchers at the University of California in Los Angeles have discovered an alarming number of cases of venereal disease among children under 5. 

The reaction of many to these stories has been almost hysterical. Parents have become frightened about the prospect of leaving their children in the care of schoolteachers and daycare workers. A woman in Los Angeles, shaken by the recent spate of child sex-abuse headlines, notified the police when her nursery-school child returned home from school with a sweater button missing. She was certain that her daughter had been molested. She was wrong, but who could fault her for being alarmed? 

On the other hand, there are those who fear that we are overreacting to the headlines. Stan J. Katz, a psychologist who conducts evaluations in child-abuse cases for the Los Angeles Superior Court, believes that the nation has become hysterical and irrational about the issue of child sex abuse: “The public impact of constant news stories about molestation has been greater than any of us would have predicted. It is this shock that has created a hysterical atmosphere and driven some people to go on witch hunts to find sexual abusers.” 

And then there are some others who have reacted to the headlines—the pedophiles themselves. Rarely as individuals, but often in the newsletters of organizations that promote and celebrate their sexual interest, child sex abusers have spoken out and attacked their critics. They like to portray themselves as the oppressed, the victims. NAMBLA—the North American Man-Boy Love Association—is the most articulate and best organized of such groups. “So, when you kiss the boy you love,” they have proclaimed, “when you fondle him in your sleeping bag beside the fire, even when you like [sic] naked beside a boy you have never dared touch, you have gone beyond the pale. You have placed yourself outside the normal protections of courtesy, civility, humane treatment and legal rights.” 

In April 1983, Penthouse published its first article on child sex abuse, “Close Encounters of the Worst Kind.” We investigated various aspects of the problem—child pornography, incest, pedophiles and their organizations, violence, and law enforcement—and discovered some shocking news. Everyone we spoke to, police officers, psychiatrists, victims, and victimizers, had convinced us that a widespread and underreported form of abuse was being perpetrated upon our children. A year later, the media began bombarding us with the current horrors of child sex abuse. Had the problem gotten worse? Is it only a problem created by the media? What we discovered, and what this article will report, is that the crime of child sex abuse is far more widespread than anything yet reported. 

The recent headlines concerning child sex abuse leave the impression that there is a randomness about the crime—a scandal at a nursery school in Manhattan Beach, California; allegations of child molestations 3,000 miles away at a daycare center in the Bronx, New York; adults trading children to other adults for sex in Minnesota. It is a misleading impression. In fact, millions of children across the country are sexually abused each year. Estimates by experts put the figure at 20 percent, or one out of every five children under the age of 16. And it is not a new phenomenon. It has been this way for a long time. 

Ralph Bennett is a man with a thankless job. He supervises the Sexually Exploited Child Unit at the Los Angeles Police Department. He has investigated thousands of child sex-abuse cases over the years and sees no end to the problem: “I don’t think there are any more people committing the acts today than, say, two years ago when I talked to you. No one knows the scope of pedophile activity, because it is a very much underreported crime. It involves children, and children in abusive situations oftentimes don’t come forward for maybe weeks, months, years, or never come forward. No one really knows the scope of it, but our work load here remains pretty constant….

“It just gets depressing at times, because the problem is always going to be here. I can’t really make that much of an impact on the problem. On an individual level, yes, and it’s encouraging to get some of these kids out of this situation and put these guys away. But it is so minuscule, what I am really accomplishing. I know there are so many more kids whose lives are being totally ruined. When you see this in young children, it is depressing.” 

Bennett’s feelings of frustration are justified. Pedophiles come from all walks of life. “I’ve gotten child sex abusers who were doctors, lawyers, just about everything,” a researcher and therapist once told us. “The only thing that I haven’t seen was an Indian chief.” At a visit to a sex offenders prison in New Jersey, we spoke with former policemen, clergymen, and doctors who were serving time for the molestation of children. They were from the rich, the poor, and the middle class. Yet this disparity among pedophiles masks the fact that many are organized and in constant touch with one another. These are not random crimes committed by deviants isolated from one another, but rather they are crimes perpetrated by individuals who often aid and abet—and in almost all cases, morally support—their fellow pedophiles. 

Furthermore, contrary to many people’s expectations, these criminals do not see their activities as antisocial behavior. Because they believe that what they are doing is positive and good for children, they have organized themselves as advocates for what they call “intergenerational sex.” 

The danger here, as Ralph Bennett explained, is not that they can convince the average American that they’re right. “The danger I do see in that type of organization is, first of all, they reinforce what pedophiles are doing. That, I think, is very damaging. Secondly, they do have some influence in getting laws changed, in a very subtle way. They don’t do it in a way that the average person knows what is going on, because the public doesn’t even know these organizations exist. One example is how hard they have been trying to lower the age of consent, and actually eliminate it.” 

Every statement made about pedophile organizations by Bennett is supported by evidence. A look at the literature put out by these organizations reveals just how acts of child molestation are encouraged in their writings. 

“Because of our efforts, the day will come, and come soon, when children will have sex freedom (provided contraceptives are used) of a bisexual nature with other children and adults. They will be allowed to happily participate in kid-porn activity.” 

This pronouncement was published in the bulletin of the Rene Guyon Society, named after a French psychologist who conducted research on childhood sexuality. The Rene Guyon Society is a pedophile organization that parades its slogan, “Sex by year eight or else it’s too late.” Although its spokesman, Tim O’Hara, denies its members engage in illegal sexual activities with children, the father of an abused and murdered child claims that the society’s 5,000 members openly admit to having “deflowered” children under 8 years old. The society spends a great deal of its time encouraging pedophiliac activities among its members. They have even gone so far as to instruct pedophiles on how to participate in anal sex with 4-year-old children: “Decade of Anal Sex Research Ends. One half hour after a bowel movement, no rectal matter remains in the anal cavity. The cavity is large enough at age 4 for boys and girls to painlessly hold an adult’s penis—an act they constantly desire from adult males they love.” 

Shockingly, there is nothing illegal about the material published by the Rene Guyon Society. As blatant and obvious as it is, nowhere do its writers actually tell readers to go out and molest a child. But this literature does demonstrate the existence of a nationwide conspiracy. Kee MacFarlane, director of the Child Sexual Abuse Diagnostic Center of the Children’s Institute International in Los Angeles, recently told members of Congress in a special hearing on daycare programs that such a network among pedophiles does exist: “I believe that we’re dealing with a conspiracy, an organized operation of child predators designed to prevent detection.” MacFarlane told members of Congress not to be deceived by the current headlines revealing child sex-abuse scandals in nursery schools. “The preschool, in such a case, serves as a ruse for a larger, unthinkable network of crimes against children.” 

The evidence is overwhelming that pedophile organizations exist to promote, organize, and encourage others to commit crimes against children. Is there any other reason why the Rene Guyon Society’s newsletters carry the blurb: “Children keep family sex secrets”? 

Recently an organization was put out of business for publishing a magazine called the Person to Person Directory. For years, its publishers were able to bring thousands of pedophiles from all across the nation together in recruiting children for sex and child pornography. Each month its publishers would run dozens of ads that read: 

“Man, 41, wishes to meet people with similar interests in girls 6 to 12. Desire letters from woman with young girl, or anyone with open mind.” 

“Lolita lover with 13 year old [sic] lover that looks 9, wishes correspondence with woman or couple with daughter 5 to 13. Meetings possible.”

“Young Married Couple 21 & 26 plan on having 4 to 6 children. Become friends now and ‘grow with us.’ Desire couples with children, photos, literature.” 

“Have Peek-A-Boo shots of Tomorrow’s Ladies. I’m interested in the little strippers of tomorrow.” 

When law-enforcement authorities finally closed down this operation, its subscriber list had grown to 10,000. Nobody knows how many children were sexually abused because of its existence. And the Person to Person Directory was not an isolated case of a contact magazine published to encourage and expedite pedophile activity. Last year, authorities disbanded a Colorado pedophile group that published something called The Broad Street Journal, which claimed to be “The Nation’s best and most popular ad listing service.” For one dollar an issue, men interested in young boys could scan ads that typically read: “Gay, young, male-33, wishes to hear from and meet young gays 11-15, photo a must.” 

There is little that pedophiles and their organizations will stop short of doing to promote and encourage sexual abuse of young children. The Howard Nichols Society, based in Austin, Texas, serves a dual purpose for pedophiles around the nation. Members and readers are constantly reassured that what they are doing is normal and in the best interests of children.

One of the society’s early publications discusses the question, “What is Pedophilia Anyway?”:

What ages of children attract pedophiles? 

Pedophiles are usually attracted to prepubescents, people from about age 8 to puberty, although many pedophiles have had enjoyable relations with younger or older children. 

Aren’t pedophiles interested sexually in all children? 

Most pedophiles are able to consider any child as a possible sex partner. 

But aren’t pedophiles afraid of or unable to sexually relate to other adults? 

Many do not have sex with other adults because sex with children is better: it can be more intense, more satisfying, more productive, and more fun. 

Shouldn’t pedophiles be cured or at least treated? 

Since there is no disease of pedophilia, there is nothing to cure. 

How do pedophiles feel about incest? 

Generally, there is no reason to prohibit families from sharing physical affection and sex. 

Don’t pedophiles exploit children by forcing them to pose for pornographic pictures? 

Many take pictures of their partners for the same reason others take pictures of their children: because they like them and have affection for them. Pedophiles will take pictures of themselves and their partners doing the things they mutually enjoy—going places, being silly, having sex. Children and many adults like to pose and clown for photos and they enjoy sharing the memories. One can see children’s faces reflecting intimidation, uneasiness, and embarrassment more often in family albums than in the collections of pedophiles. There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of good relationships, sexual or otherwise. 

After the Howard Nichols Society finishes reassuring and encouraging pedophiles, it then provides instructions in procuring and having sex with children. The examples taken from this “primer” show that pedophiles are not acting out an uncontrollable and unconscious sexual impulse. It is a deliberate, conscious, and conspiratorial activity. It is nothing less than the rape of children.

Here are some excerpts:

(1) The important thing about meeting kids is that it happens best when you meet in places or in doing things that interest both of you.

(2) You can get to know kids through your job. It can be tricky if you’re in an authoritarian role, such as a teacher, because it is hard to tell if some kids are being friendly (or rude) just because of your position.

(3) Friends are a good source.

(4) After you get to know each other and start having a sexual relationship, you can go to unknown and secret places. 

(5) How to Have Sex With Kids: Ways to start sex vary and it ought to be relative to the situation. Sometimes a kid will make the first move, sometimes the adult…. Sometimes a touch—and not always on the genitals either—or a word or two will be enough.

The network of pedophile groups and organizations extends internationally. London’s PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) sends out its message across the Channel and the Atlantic Ocean. In France, pedophiles are encouraged by GRED (Groupe de Recherche pour une Enfance Differente). In the United States, San Diego’s Childhood Sensuality Circle preaches the message that children thrive best when they are able to have sex with one another and adults. But one organization has constantly been the most vocal: the aforementioned North American Man-Boy Love Association—NAMBLA. 

NAMBLA is well-organized, heavily financed, and an articulate voice for the promotion and legalization of pedophiliac activity in this country. It boasts a membership composed of doctors, lawyers, artists, writers, and businessmen. Its members and supporters have in common a predilection for having sex with young boys. Because this activity runs counter to the laws in the states it operates in, NAMBLA’s main concern and service for child abusers lies in defending them in the courts. In addition to financing the legal battles of pedophiles, NAMBLA lends advice. For example: 

“Prepare the boys for questioning by the police. Explain to them that police will lie to them about you, that police will threaten the boys with arrest and other troubles, that boys need not ever say anything at all about their sexual lives, that they need not go with the police or answer any questions…. I suggest preparing the boys for the brutal experience of police abuse, and then making sure they are fully and emotionally prepared for their relationship with me [sic]. 

“Finally, all men who love boys must take steps in advance to deal with sudden police raids. Have an attorney ready to meet you in the middle of the night. Find an attorney who has a progressive record on civil liberties issues.” 

In reading the legal advice offered by NAMBLA to its readers, one may imagine that they are advocating the protection of some constitutional right. But the right that NAMBLA champions is that of having sex with five-, six-, seven-, and eight­year-old children. Those who have the temerity to attack NAMBLA for its activities and advocacy are dealt with severely. NAMBLA slings anti-Semitic epithets and vitriolic personal slurs at its enemies through its NAMBLA News. NAMBLA knows the names of those who are fighting child sex abuse and goes after them. 

Judianne Densen-Gerber, for example—a psychiatrist, attorney, founder of the drug-rehabilitation program Odyssey House in New York City, and the mother of four children. For many years, Dr. Densen-Gerber has been aware of a pedophiliac conspiracy and has done her best to awaken the public and authorities to the extent and seriousness of child sex abuse in this country. Obviously, she is an enemy of NAMBLA. This is how they attack her in their newsletter: 

“That the New York press (even the left­wing Guardian!) still swallow Judi as a legit source proves their gullibility—and their complicity in the ongoing witch hunt. Judi’s abuses have time and again been publicly documented. Yet, like the proverbial bad penny, she keeps turning up. And like any other brazen loud Jewish kvetch, she won’t close that motormouth filled with lies. Every time that fat trap opens, she jeopardizes public safety. 

“It is my fervent prayer each night—to whichever god will listen—that some day, the legions of drug addicts she cages and spits on and humiliates at the Odyssey House will rise up in a spontaneous fit of righteous fury and quickly put an end to this blathering, dark, demented daughter of dead Moses.”

The police are especially feared and hated by child sex abusers. And if one cop stands out and personifies this fear, his name is Lloyd Martin. As Ralph Bennett’s predecessor as head of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit, Martin was zealous, aggressive, and vocal in pursuing child molesters. Martin has seen what one hopes very few of us will ever see: the victims of pedophiles. He witnessed the emotional trauma and the horrible physical damage done to the children by pedophiles. He went after them and earned NAMBLA’s wrath:

“At one point, I wanted so much to be the personal nemesis of Martin. A militant faggot with pen-in-hand bringing down a crooked, pro-fascist Christer cop who hangs boys over cliffs and threatens them with death unless they name boy-lovers! 

“Freaks like Martin can be dangerous. On the bright side, Martin is so obviously greedy, so demonstrably stupid, aggressive, and obsessed, it is clear his fate will be something between Willy Loman and Jack Ruby.” 

While the pedophiles are very cautious in their newsletters to avoid overtly admitting that they have committed illegal acts, they are very open, indeed boastful, when communicating with one another. Pedophiles correspond through the mail with one another, freely describing, even to strangers, their sexual experiences with children. Often the children are described as their own.

For example, the following letter was written from a pedophile in Texas to a pen pal in California. “First, I ought to give you some background on myself and ask for some of the same from you. I am 37 years, married to a lovely understanding wife of 29 [sic] who knows about my interests in the younger set. We have two children. Heather, age 4, and Harris, age 2, almost 3. My wife and family are nudists and a club is outside Austin. Heather and Harris were both born nudists and that is the way you will find them anytime you come to the house. Heather usually does not wear anything to bed and asks me for a special goodnight kiss. She likes her vulva licked and sucked. Harris likes his penis sucked but not as often as Heather. I have enjoyed pleasing both of them.” 

Another sickening exchange occurred between two pedophile pen pals in Florida and California: “How I envy you all being able to get together and freely talk about our common interest. I can’t tell you how much I look forward to Robie’s tapes. The tape that Robie sent was of a little girl and her male babysitter, and it is FUCKIN FANTASTIC!!!! I couldn’t believe it. Yes, my girls were scheduled to be in the next issue of Nudist Moppets. 

“I have a number of photos of Tami (7) and LeAnn (6) and would like very much to swap them with you for photos of your little friend(s). All I ask is that the photos show that sweet little slit that little girls are blessed with, and if possible, the first name, age, and general location.” 

While one would be hard put to find an “adult” bookstore that stocks and sells child pornography, the public would be deceived if it believed that there is less kiddie porn in existence today than before it became a crime, in 1977, to produce and sell such material. While child pornography from overseas is available (Bennett says most of the material is produced in the Netherlands), the greatest amount comes from American pedophiles themselves. They are obsessed with taking pictures of young children, often in the act of having sex with adults. As one of the letters above indicated, pedophiles maintain their relationships with other pedophiles by exchanging photos and movies of their young victims. Bennett explained: 

“The biggest source of child pornography is the pedophile. First of all, they have these pictures for years sometimes, and when the kid is 25, they still have these pictures to fantasize with. Also, they can use these photos to seduce other children. And they can trade them, they can sell them, they can do a lot of different things with them. Private child pornography is a thriving business, although I don’t think ‘business’ is the proper term.” 

To demonstrate his point that pedophiles are producing the bulk of child pornography in this country, Bennett allowed me to see the collection of the material seized by police officers. His files contain pictures of literally thousands of children in various sexual acts. Most of the photography by child sex abusers is taken in homes or motel rooms. In fact, Bennett’s officers had recently arrested a character who hung around Hollywood Boulevard looking for young girls. Many of them were runaways. The suspect offered them drugs in exchange for photographs of them and sex. When he got them to his hotel, they would pose with him and other adults in various sexual activities. At the time of his arrest, the police found bags full of photos of dozens of girls. Many of the girls had not reached their 15th birthdays. 

Another example involved a pedophile who had more than 600 photos of very young boys engaged in oral and anal copulation. The pedophile, who was eventually convicted, would gather information from other “boy lovers”—names, mailing lists—and put it in a computer. He then was able to sell his homemade photos to individuals across the country. 

The amount of so-called private pornography in this country is enormous, judging from the collection in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department. In Penthouse‘s earlier article on child sex abuse, we had noted that a great deal of this material was produced by the parents of the abused children. Authorities stress that while commercial child pornography is rarely available, the existence of homemade kiddie porn remains a serious problem. 

Recognizing the serious problem of child sex abuse is not enough. If we are going to protect our children it is critical to understand what has been done about the problem, what is being done about it, and what more can be done to fight the predators. While most of the answers to these questions relate to the police, the courts, and the legislature, the role that parents play in protecting their children is also at issue. 

For quite some time now, many young children have had to be left with strangers so that their parents could work. Most of the time parents know little about these people. “I think, going back years ago,” Ralph Bennett explained to me, “we had more of an extended family. If there was a mother or father working, there was a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle; somebody to take care of that child. Well, today we don’t have that; in fact, in many cases we don’t even have a nuclear family. It may be a one-parent family. Well, that parent’s got to work and so that child has to be somewhere, out of the family’s control. I think this makes kids more vulnerable. I think that these children are more at risk, and the kids that we are seeing in here do not as a rule come from a good, strong, two-parent-family situation. Now, obviously, there are going to be exceptions to this because in all of these preschool and daycare centers we can’t say all the parents were negligent. But daycare centers and nursery schools are becoming more prevalent because of the breakup of the family arrangement we knew in the past.” 

In no way do Bennett or other authorities who are familiar with the problem of child molestation point a finger at preschools as the main cause of our child sex-abuse problem. What they are concerned about is that the opportunities are far greater for harm to children who are spending more and more of their day with strangers. And, at least until very recently, there has been little adequate screening of the individuals who work in any capacity with children. This includes teachers, playground workers, and volunteers in the Boy and Girl Scouts and similar organizations. 

“I’d say that about 25 percent of pedophiles brought in here have prior records,” Bennett explained. “Security checks of individuals applying for these jobs is a good idea. We’ve had that law in California for two-and-a-half years. If an individual applies for a job with a daycare center, Boy Scouts or Big Brothers, or any type of youth-service group, that group has the right to check with the Department of Justice in Sacramento to see if that person has a record of sex offenses. Not that they’re going to discover it, because 99 percent of the time when they do check these people through the Department of Justice they don’t come up showing a record. It is a good law because those people who do have a record of offenses will be dissuaded from applying for these jobs.” 

While nobody would challenge the sincerity of police officers in pursuing child sex offenders, there are some who believe that law-enforcement officers are not trained to adequately fight the problem. “They really don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t know how to go about doing an investigation of this sort,” Bennett believes. 

“We had a case in Pennsylvania and contacted everybody we could think of back there, from all kinds of police jurisdictions. We couldn’t get anybody to help us. The same thing in a case in Arkansas. We got a guy out here in Los Angeles who’s a schoolteacher. We got a search warrant on his house and recovered photographs of young boys. We found out that these photographs were taken in Arkansas and identified some of the kids back there. We got in touch with someone from that jurisdiction, asked them to help us, and we didn’t hear one word.” 

We’ve noted several times that child sex abuse is an underreported crime, and that is one important reason why some police agencies are not prepared to act in these situations. “Many people, not necessarily police persons,” Bennett pointed out to me, “are of the opinion that if there are no complaints you don’t have any crimes. There is not a lot of proactive investigation in this area. Unless you go looking for them, there’s a lot of them that you’re not going to discover. 

“One of the reasons I think that we’ve been successful in this unit in getting convictions…is because if we get one child who complains, we know that there are other children involved as well, and we go looking for those children.” Often, if one child makes a complaint it is very difficult to get a conviction, especially if the abused child is very young. ”And if you don’t look for other victims, you probably won’t have a case.” 

Getting child molesters convicted has also proven very difficult. Recently, the legislature and the courts have improved upon the situation. Linda Fairstein, chief of the Sex Crimes Unit of the New York County District Attorney’s office, believes that the recent change in the corroboration requirement has made it easier to put child sex offenders in prison. The requirement of corroboration in molestation cases meant that the word of the victim was not sufficient for conviction. But how does one get independent corroboration of a crime that is usually done in private? Legislators have become aware of that fact, and with the exceptions of Nebraska and the District of Columbia, the corroboration requirement no longer exists in the prosecution of child sex abusers. 

Linda Fairstein told Penthouse of another difficulty in the prosecution of child sex molesters: “Many of them are people who, to us from the outside, seem to be ‘normal’ people. They don’t look like criminals. They are people who are well­dressed, well-educated, often professionals. Therefore, when a child says, ‘Johnny did this to me’ or ‘Uncle Joe did this to me,’ the first reaction of the adult is disbelief of the child because that person, the adult offender, doesn’t seem to be what we consider a molester. So it’s a problem of convincing the jury of the same thing—that the defendant who looks very proper might have the problem that causes him to commit the act.” 

Jurors, Fairstein continued, “don’t see children as objects of someone’s sexual interest. They can’t conceive of someone being interested in a nonconsenting relationship to begin with.” 

Fairstein agrees with people like Ralph Bennett who believe that, once convicted, child molesters should receive harsh sentences. She feels that because there is no known therapy to treat child molesters, offenders should at the very least be isolated from the community. Child molesters show no remorse over what they have done, and to allow them back in the community would only endanger children, Fairstein said. “When they are questioned by us they justify that what they’re doing is better for the child than what anybody else does.” 

Daryll Gates, chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, has tried for many years to awaken the public to the widespread problem of child sex abuse. Gates told Penthouse what he believes must be done to combat this crime: “Educational programs must be developed for the children, their parents, and the community. Children must be made aware of the potential for molestation in their neighborhood, schools, and even their homes by persons familiar to them. They must be encouraged to report instances of molestation to their parents, teachers, or others in authority. 

“Parents must learn to be sensitive to changes in their children’s moods and behavior, patterns which might indicate molestation. The community as a whole must take responsibility for the safety of all children. Residents should be aware of strangers loitering about schools and playgrounds. They should not remain complacent when they see someone cruising the area attempting to make contact with children. Such instances should be reported immediately to local law-enforcement authorities. 

“The focus of family law should be changed from family unification to protection of child victims in cases in which family members are involved in the sexual abuse of the child. 

“Finally, the legislature must provide the resources necessary to mount an effective campaign against child molesters and sexual abusers. It is unrealistic to expect understaffed police, probation, and social service departments to successfully combat this problem.”

Dr. Judianne Densen-Gerber began a program in January 1984 that should prove to be an effective weapon in the war against child sex abusers. It is called PACT (Protect America’s Children Today)—a grassroots organization for people to help prevent situations in which their children might become victims. It offers information for children as young as 3 years old as to how they may protect themselves against child molesters. 

Titania McGrath: BAD Patriarchy

Under the cacophony of social justice clap-backs; during the rise of the Congresswoman as Teen Vogue blogger; during Gadsby’s tragicomic rise in popularity, something even more hideously humorless happened: Titania McGrath, the pseudonym of a satirist who tweets like a radical feminist writing for Teen Vogue, was suspended by Twitter for being funny, actually, funny.

McGrath, who has an on-brand avatar that looks like a depressingly progressive yoga teacher, is basically undisguisable from who McGrath is making fun of with her gags, like her SlutWalk to protest Islamophobia meme. McGrath’s tweets provide a necessary release for English-speaking people tired of being humiliated for being pale, apathetic to veganism, or simply pro-comedy. I suppose this is why Ricky Gervais likes McGrath’s tweets. I suppose this is also why she was reprimanded by the POC police at Twitter.

McGrath, whose real identity is as mysterious as the gender of a 20-year-old Islamic Evergreen student-activist in a burka, has told us something we can actually unveil: This week, UK publisher Little, Brown is releasing her first book, Woke: A Guide to Social Justice, a work of satire designed to teach young girls how to be authoritarian herbivores and spoiled student-activists.

McGrath was reinstated by Twitter after a 24-hour ban where, presumably, Twitter’s moderators had no idea she was a parody of the woke puritans they continuously shove down our throats with nauseating “Twitter Moments,” the pop-up ads of the Trump-era. McGrath currently has over 182,000 followers on Twitter; about 80 percent are in on the joke, while the rest are precisely why McGrath is the most magnificently played troll of bourgeois society, well, since the invention of that misogynistic and phallocentric genre of theater known as vaudeville.

A self-described “radical intersectional poet,” Titania agreed to be interviewed on the grounds that she was given unprecedented editorial control over her semi-nude photoshoot, like Beyoncé in the September issue of Vogue. The only difference being that Titania McGrath isn’t a deep-state plant.

[Disclaimer: The paragraphs above and the interview that follows are works of political satire. They are not meant to be protested or taken literally. … Unless you really enjoy protesting, in which case, “Rock On!” … You do you.]

Penthouse: Do you believe Twitter banning your account was the result of a clerical error?

Titania McGrath: Absolutely not. Twitter is run by crypto-fascists who seek to suppress woke voices and enable the far right. If that weren’t the case, why wouldn’t they ban all accounts that I disagree with?

They reinstated your account in 24 hours. Were you at all annoyed by their lack of resolve?

Once I was banned, the online woke community was in [an] uproar. My disciples were barraging Jack Dorsey and his minions with complaints, and some activists had chained themselves to the gates of Twitter HQ smeared in menses as a protest again this obvious act of misogyny. Inevitably, Twitter caved under pressure, which just goes to show how weak they are.

Will you ever change your avatar?

I change it every other week. You just haven’t noticed because I only have one facial expression.  

Why are you blonde?

I do not identify as a blonde. Please do not assume my hair color.

Do you view Margaret Thatcher as a feminist icon?

I view her as a wretched harpy who was only a “woman” in a strictly biological sense.

Have you read History vs Women by Ebony Adams and Anita Sarkeesian?

I have no interest in written works that I have not directly authored.

Who would you have included in their list of “heroic” women erased from history?

Titania McGrath.

Do you ever feel guilty when someone takes your tweets seriously?

I am incapable of guilt. But more to the point, why wouldn’t they take my tweets seriously? I am dismantling the patriarchy, one tweet at a time.

Do you believe men’s lifestyle magazines should focus more on [other genders’]?

The concepts of “men” and “women” are outdated expressions of biological essentialism. There is no such thing as sexual dimorphism. Men need to get this into their thick skulls.  

Is misogyny different in British and American men?

Males are males, irrespective of their country of origin. To even identify as male involves a seething hatred of women.  If a man hasn’t transitioned to female, he’s a misogynist.

What do you believe is the appropriate punishment for the following misogynists: 1) Aziz Ansari. 2) Louis CK?

1) Death by hemlock.
2) Death by fire.

Comedian Ricky Gervais has liked a number of your tweets. Do you care?

I did not consent for this straight white male to retweet or like any of my tweets. I consider it an act of sexual violence.

Please define “woke.”

I don’t need to. I am the living definition of woke.

Who is the publisher of your book?

Little, Brown. It’s the most radical book they have ever published. In a sense I regret accepting an offer from such a mainstream company, but on the other hand, it was a generous advance and I’m saving up for a new broodmare.

Will your book be available at Revolution Books (located near the campus of UC Berkeley)?

I hope so. I wish to offer whatever support I can to those brave students and Antifa activists standing up against the tyranny of free speech.

Who is the target demo of your book?

The book is aimed at those who fail in their wokeness. Anyone except me in other words.

Are you more inclined to read the Guardian or the Daily Mirror?

What a fucking stupid question. In terms of newspapers, I only ever read the Guardian. They’re the only publication that prioritizes feelings over facts.

You’ve accused British Prime Minister Winston Churchill of being a white supremacist. Fair enough, but does he have any redeeming qualities that woke people can appreciate?

None whatsoever. Winston Churchill did more to enable the spread of fascism than any other figure in human history.

Do you believe joining “Food Not Bombs” should be mandatory?

I’ve never heard of “Food Not Bombs.”  But you can’t eat a bomb, so it sounds sensible to me.  

What’s your favorite vegan restaurant?

Tabitha Loxley’s Herbivore Snug. I perform slam poetry there on Friday evenings after my amateur hemp-weaving class.

Do you plan on having children?

Reproduction is unnecessary. If Darwin was right, we are likely to evolve out of such primitive behavior.

Have you ever had consensual sex to Mort Garson’s “Plantasia”?

There is no such thing as consensual sex. All sex is rape.

Be the judge: Is Axl Rose actually “woke”?

Given that his name is an anagram of “Oral Sex” his very existence is an act of rape. 

Is it fair to say that Hannah Gadsby’s comedy is only funny if you’re a manic-depressive?

Hannah Gadsby is a genius. If you find yourself laughing at stand-up comedy, it probably isn’t sufficiently progressive.

Do you view politically-incorrect comedy as a gateway to the alt-right?

It’s not a “gateway.” It’s a direct form of fascism. Politically incorrect comedians are literally Hitler.

Who is your favorite female comedian?

I like it when Kathy Griffin points out that Donald Trump has small hands and orange skin.

Comedian Sebastian Maniscalco recently referred to Apple AirPods as “bitch” pods. Should someone take him down?

The state should intervene in such cases of hate speech. The death penalty shouldn’t be out of the question.

What’s your favorite Jim Carrey movie?

I have no interest in movies that do not feature a trans black lesbian in the lead role.

Is the gay actor Stephen Fry alt-right for standing up against political correctness?

By refusing to do so, he can no longer claim to be gay.  All LBGTQIA+ people think exactly the same way and forfeit their queerness if they stray from the righteous path.  It’s the same reason that Kanye West ceased to be black once he declared his support for Donald Trump.

Have you ever wished death upon someone because of a simple disagreement?

Every single day of my adult life.

Do you believe Oscar Wilde, as evidenced by the character of Lord Henry in The Picture of Dorian Gray, was a misogynist?

All men are misogynists. All works of fiction by males should be incinerated.   

Was Wilde a colonizer?

In a sense. When a male author puts pen to paper, they are normalizing the pernicious notion that writing is a specifically male endeavor. Even an illiterate woman would make a better writer than Wilde.   

How can I, as an accused misogynist, be a better ally?

Kill yourself.

“Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.” Oscar Wilde

The original Penthouse story did not include the Oscar Wilde quote, but we felt it particularly appropriate. And for the record, the photos we could NOT show in this venue were hysterical.

RIP Jordyn Woods

She was gone before we knew her. This week, Kylie Jenner’s live-in best friend Jordyn Woods, 21, was cancelled. Her quick death began on Sunday, February 17. On that fateful evening, Woods made out with Khloe Kardashian’s boyfriend-cum-baby daddy, the C-list NBA player Tristan Thompson. Jason Lee, a Hollywood Unlocked blogger, spotted Woods. After she met the Jenners through the Smiths, Woods had become a Keeping up with the Kardashians regular, a reality star in her own right. The next morning, Lee published a clip on his site. Within minutes, Twitter cancelled Woods.

Khloe confirmed the news. While she unfollowed Woods (but not Thompson who had cheated on her), the Kardashian-Jenners’ friends/employees went into attack mode. As Harpers Bazaar reported, Malika Haq wrote, “STRONG FACTS.” “Amen!!!” Larsa Pippen said. Adding gas to the witch burning, Kim Kardashian posted a video of herself lip-synching “find your own man.”

Nevermind that Kim allegedly homewrecked Kanye West and Amber Rose’s happy relationship and Khloe allegedly first fucked Thompson while his then-girlfriend was pregnant. (The Kardashians have denied the rumors.) As always, context doesn’t affect a cancellation. “[sic] Why is she a simple cunt,” tweeted one woman. “enjoy it cunt,” said another. Offline, Khloe fired Woods as a model for her Good American jeans line, and Kylie discounted Woods’s lip-liner.

Woods achieved these jobs after years in the Kardashian orbit. Raised in Calabasas, Woods grew up around celebrities. Her mother was a celebrity manager. As Kris Jenner manages her children, Elizabeth Woods managed Jordyn. She befriended Kylie in middle school, and they quickly became best friends, which in Kardashian world means Woods quickly became a Keeping up with the Kardashians guest star. By the time she was a legal adult, Woods was a cast member. She moved into Kylie’s guest house and helped raise her baby, Stormi.

It’s fair for them to cut Woods off—she betrayed the family—but along with losing her livelihood, Woods is getting smeared. (Two traumas for the price of one.) Only Lena Dunham defended her, tweeting, “Can you imagine if who you’d made out with when you were 21 had massive public shaming consequences?” Although all 21-year-olds fuck the wrong people, the public attacked Dunham.

Today, Woods will appear on Jada Pinkett Smith’s The Red Table, hoping to restore her reputation. Woods wants to climb out of the hole, but as all cancelled people eventually learn, she’s not in a hole. Being cancelled is being buried alive. All Woods can do is grieve.

UPDATE: After this story was published, Woods appeared on Jada Pinkett Smith’s Red Table Talk. Twitter subsequently uncancelled Woods (a social media first) and then cancelled Khloe Kardashian, who is pushing 40, for shaming a 21-year-old. Woods has been resurrected and likely will get her own makeup line. Kylie, watch out!!!

We Love Michael Cohen

Here at Penthouse magazine, we’ve known President Donald J. Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen for some time. Last year, while fact-checking our definitive profile of Stormy Daniels, we called him. He admitted he was a New York lawyer named Michael Cohen, but refused to “confirm or deny” that he was the Michael Cohen. We pushed him further, but the second he heard “Stormy,” he said, “I can’t comment, but I do love Penthouse.” Then he hung up.

It was a brief moment, but it summed up why America digs Cohen. When he lies, he winks, letting you know he’s fibbed.

Cohen displayed this trashy, immoral charisma at his Wednesday congressional hearing. In his opening statement, he said, “I lied but I’m not a liar.” Cohen then called Trump a “cheat” and a “conman.” When asked what that made him, Cohen replied, “A fool.” Representative Jackie Speier presumed Cohen threatened “an individual on [Trump’s] behalf” on 50 occasions, but the disbarred attorney corrected her: It was “probably” 500 times.

Republican congressmen were less open about their assholery. Instead of questioning Cohen, Representative Jim Jordan accused Cohen of lying. Yesterday, Jordan and other Republicans doubled down, asking the attorney general to investigate Cohen for perjury. Although these GOP foot soldiers were clearly protecting their political boss, President Trump, they insisted they just loved Lady Justice. As middle schoolers say, “Suuuuuuuuuure!”

Trump’s Republican cohort are disguising their crookedness with a righteous air, like Democrats who preach wokeness then union bust when they enter the private sector. In a nation of self-righteous crooks, Cohen is a blatant asshole. During these hypocritical times, that makes him honorable chap—and Penthouse’s Man of the Moment. Congrats, Cohen. If you’d like a free subscription to Penthouse Gold, contact us!

Jennifer Herrema of Royal Trux is Back

And what is a rock star these days, really? The term’s been degraded and neutered with overuse, its totemic influence sapped by rock’s downfall from the position of power it held in global pop culture for half a century.

“Rock star” is a compliment issued in a human resources manager’s email. It’s a line in a rap song. It’s a guy buying a $900 John Varvatos biker jacket where the punk club CBGB used to be.

“Honestly, it’s a term of privilege,” Herrema continues, a twinge of exasperated disdain rising in her voice to join the raspy evidence of a million cigarettes. “Like someone saying, ‘You’re a rock star’ to the head coach of a pro football team or something. It’s this thing to bestow upon people who don’t play music. That always seemed so cheesy to me.”

Herrema’s contempt for the term—her refusal to act overly reverential toward rock ’n’ roll in general—is, of course, just more reason to consider her a rock star.

Musicians trying to uphold rock’s crumbling mythological stature have a way of looking desperate and, sadly, it’s become almost the default mode for an entire generation of rock ’n’ rollers living in a world that’s moved on to hip-hop and dance music. (It’s worth noting that Herrema was one of the few rock musicians in the nineties who seemed comfortable around rap music.)

Herrema has spent her career—pretty much her whole life, really—making scuzzy, druggy, capital letter Rock ’n’ Fucking Roll that taps into something close to the genre’s beating, molten heart. It’s music that’s never been affected by trends, never been tailored to a particular audience, and never strayed from her artistic vision, which she shares on a deep level with Neil Michael Hagerty, her longtime creative (and one-time romantic) partner in her best-known—or maybe just most notorious—band, Royal Trux.

At times, when rock ’n’ roll’s drifted furthest from its core, it’s seemed like Jennifer Herrema is one of the few people on Earth keeping it from spinning out entirely.

Times like right now, for instance. The genre’s in sorry shape, with its mainstream aspect defined by monumentally banal arena acts like Imagine Dragons and Muse, and an underground crawling with bands that would rather dig around for obscure nuggets of rock history to revive than come up with a new idea.

To rock fans desperate for a real kick, the new Royal Trux album, White Stuff—the band’s first release in nearly 20 years following a Harrema-Hagerty reunion—registers like a glitter-caked weirdo stumbling into a polite discussion about which boutique overdrive pedal best replicates the guitar sound on a particular obscure New Zealand punk album from the seventies. White Stuff is the reason why we haven’t walked out on rock ’n’ roll altogether.

For her years of service, Herrema has been repaid with three decades of frowning reviews, audiences perplexed to the point of outrage, and a lifetime number of albums sold that the next Drake single will probably blow past in the first couple minutes it’s available.

If you’re like most people, you’ve never heard a Royal Trux song, never seen a Royal Trux T-shirt, or ever heard of Herrema before you started reading this article. But none of that matters in assessing her worthiness as America’s greatest living rock star. Moreover, music popularity—fame and the money that comes with it—never seemed to matter to her anyway.

“Neil and I always felt out of place,” she says, shrugging. “It’s not like it really bummed us out. There was just kinda this wall we were behind and we didn’t even understand how you get over there where all the normal people were. So we didn’t bother to try. We didn’t get the playbook or something. We decided to be happy with the way we called our own shots.”

One of the many ironies of Herrema’s career is that her entire body of work has been built on an utterly unironic embrace of cock-rock sounds and styles like the Rolling Stones’ smacked-out, early-seventies boogie and the cocaine-shiny bubblegum metal of the 1980s Sunset Strip, but has found most of its audience in the world of indie rock. And this is a world—which she fell into mostly by accident—that has a painfully complicated relationship with that kind of big, testosterone-fueled rock music and the dick-swinging hedonism it symbolized.

JENNIFER Herrema’s musical education began when she was a white girl in a majority-black middle school in funk-obsessed southeast Washington, D.C., during funk’s transition from the gooey, warm lysergic vibes of Parliament-Funkadelic into its more hard-edged, synthesized 1980s incarnation.

In high school, she fell in with a stoner crowd that used drugs primarily as a means to more deeply obsess over Led Zeppelin and Grateful Dead records. Somewhere in between, her dad started dropping her off at all-ages D.C. hardcore shows, where she found Neil Michael Hagerty and her musical destiny.

Hagerty was connected enough in the hardcore scene to play guitar in a band with one of the guys from Government Issue, a seminal D.C. punk band, but too genuinely weird to fit in with this subculture’s fairly rigorous social norms. While other D.C. hardcore kids were into political protest and a drug-free, “straight edge” lifestyle, Hagerty was living in a warehouse and dropping huge amounts of acid. One day, Herrema joined him for a three-day acid trip, and they ended up spending the next 15 years bound to each other by love, music, and drugs.

Herrema and Hagerty began making their first music together, laying down the foundation for Royal Trux, in the mid-eighties. At the same time, other former hardcore kids were starting to explore musical directions outside of the genre’s “loud fast” directives while keeping its DIY ethos, in the process creating what came to be known as indie rock.

Hagerty was recruited by one of the early indie scene’s most notorious acts, Pussy Galore, a sneeringly primitivist noise-rock band that flouted hardcore’s political correctness with outrageously objectionable song titles like “You Look Like a Jew.” Hagerty cemented the group’s reputation, and earned a well-deserved place in rock history, when he proposed the concept behind their masterwork, an album-length cover of the Stones’ Exile on Main St. that brilliantly set fire to rock music’s legacy and pissed on its ashes.

After Pussy Galore somewhat predictably self-destructed, Hagerty and Herrema started work on their Royal Trux songwriting in earnest. And as soon as their music got out there, people struggled to categorize it, or even understand what they were doing.

The era’s underground music scene was full of bands deconstructing rock in all kinds of clever ways, but no one went further with the enterprise than Hagerty and Herrema.

They tore seventies boogie rock to shreds until all that was left was a few skeletal riffs, some primordial howling, and a heavily narcotic contact high. It was a singular approach—idiosyncratic to the point of indecipherability for most listeners. The few fans they did have tended to be music critics and owners of small, taste-making record labels.

Their live shows were so shambolic they even managed to affront punk-weened audiences who considered amateurishness a virtue. Around the time of their first album, Gerard Cosloy, the indie-music visionary and Homestead Records exec, described Royal Trux as people who are “barely able to conduct daily order of affairs, whether it’s buying a newspaper or picking up the telephone, trying to be a rock band onstage.”

Still, he found them “really exciting”—more stimulating than Sonic Youth. It was probably the highest praise they received in that era.

Jennifer Herrema Photo by David Black

Herrema and Hagerty weren’t trolls, but in pursuit of their art they managed to alienate huge swaths of the underground scene. Indie rock fans were offended by their aggressively esoteric noise, their openness about the heroin habits they’d developed, and the air of celebrity and salaciousness that clung to the breathless fanzine and alt-weekly coverage of this scruffily photogenic couple’s thunderous records and narcotics use.

Royal Trux was widely accused of making pretentious, cryptic bullshit, when in fact they were always straight-up about who they were or what they were doing—two people who loved drugs and the Rolling Stones, and wanted to make druggy, Stonesy music.

They may have once been the go-to band for anyone looking to mock indie-music snobs—those connoisseurs of underground sounds who claimed to like, and sometimes actually did like, Royal Trux—but Herrema insists they themselves did not fetishize obscurity.

“Back in the day, indie music was very exclusive and [some of the bands] would try to only have a certain kind of fan,” Herrema remembers. “With Royal Trux, our M.O. was always inclusivity. We didn’t care who you were, where you were from. We didn’t even care if the only band you ever listened to was the Partridge Family.”

After taking reams of criticism for being unlistenable, Herrema and Hagerty managed to piss off a lot of the same people when they started writing songs with recognizable pop structures and hooks on their 1993 breakthrough, Cats and Dogs.

That was followed, in 1994, by Virgin Records signing them to a million-dollar deal, which some observers smirkingly viewed as proof that the major label’s alternative-rock buying spree had reached a new summit of bad decision-making, reckless spending, and unchecked greed. If these two flagrant junkies could get a record contract of that size, the thinking went, then this looking-for-the-next-Nirvana bubble had to be close to bursting.

The deal did turn out to be a disaster for Virgin, but not for the reasons everyone expected.

Instead of simply running off and shooting up their recording budget, Herrema and Hagerty used it to buy a large house in rural Virginia, equip it with a home studio, and get clean, while starting work on three of the most fractured-genius rock albums of the alt-rock era.

By the time they set out to make 1995’s Thank You, the pair turned from deconstructing rock ’n’ roll to its bones to rebuilding it into a Frankenstein monster of clashing essences–canonical “Serious Rock” like Neil Young and Exile-era Stones colliding with the kind of squealing synthesizer prog-rock and high-gloss glam metal that can make critics cringe. The Trilogy, as Herrema-Hagerty called the work Virgin bankrolled, forms a multi-album masterpiece.

Unfortunately for Virgin, the records didn’t make sense to many people outside the band, and the label had no idea how to sell them. To complicate matters, Hagerty and Herrema had no interest in being marketed, and since they had complete creative control written into their contracts, they could veto any of the label’s attempts to make them do boring, profitable things like shoot music videos or tour overseas. The fact that it would be 20 or so years before audiences were truly ready for Royal Trux didn’t help the recording giant at all.

Label execs eventually threw up their hands and let Herrema and Hagerty walk away with the Trilogy’s final album, Accelerator, which they recorded on Virgin’s dime and released through their old Chicago-based indie label, Drag City. Unlike the majority of bands that got caught up in the alt-rock buying spree, Herrema and Hagerty emerged from their major-label period in better financial shape than when they went in, but the stress of years of intense creative and romantic codependency, compounded by their famously ferocious drug habits, eventually overwhelmed them. Herrema’s crisis deepened after the death of her father. Amid rumors of relapses and rivalry, the band dissolved in early 2001.

Looking back at that difficult juncture, and to earlier years with her band and even before then, Herrema says, “Drugs have really had a big impact on my life. All kinds of them.”

Jennifer Herrema of Royal Trux by David Black Jennifer Herrema of Royal Trux by David Black

A friends’s older sister turned her on to weed when Herrema was 12. Alcohol and acid followed. When she got into heroin, she got into it deep, developing the kind of rapacious addiction where the user deals with abscessed veins and doctors talk about amputating fingers—the kind of habit that’s just the thinnest of veils for suicide.

“It’s like, which came first?” Herrema reflects. “The chicken or the egg? Were you clinically depressed or did you just do a lot of drugs and then got into a dark space?”

Eventually, antidepressants helped Herrema find stability and stay off smack. Meanwhile, the dissolution of Royal Trux gave her an opportunity to prove that she was more than just her partnership with Hagerty. While he went off to explore the shamanic frequencies of his next project, Howling Hex, Herrema continued refining her trash-rock vision with a new creative partner, Jaimo Welch.

“He was like 17 at the time,” Herrema recalls, “and all he really listened to was Rush and White Lion.”

With their duo RTX (which later evolved into a bigger band, Black Bananas, the only traditionally structured rock combo Herrema’s been in), they used digital production techniques to make her music even more ecstatically trashy and overwhelming.

Somewhere along the way, people started giving Herrema something at least approximating the credit she deserves. Recognition also came from a huge wave of new fans that found her through fashion. As with her becoming a rock star, Herrema never specifically set out to be a style icon, but she’s excelled at it nonetheless.

In the nineties, she perfected a look that—like her music—blended a bunch of seemingly unrelated cultural signifiers: tattered rock ’n’ roller bell-bottoms, truck-stop aviator sunglasses, ratty flannels, oversized Raider jerseys redolent of the era’s gangsta rap aesthetics, and a shaggy mess of blonde hair with long bangs that conjured a 1960s go-go girl gone feral.

Her style seemed thrown together for reasons that had little to do with how its components met the eye. For example, there was that huge parka with a fur-lined hood she seemed perpetually wrapped in, no matter what she was doing or the time of year.

“Basically, I wanted to be inside of myself,” Herrema explains. “So I kind of cocooned myself and put on shades and my hood and had my hair [that way], so I was like basically in my own world.”

Back in the day, her signature underground style earned her a spot in a Calvin Klein ad campaign shot by the legendary fashion photographer Steven Meisel. Herrema was the company’s first model for an iconic, mid-nineties look that came to be called “heroin chic.”

But her biggest fan base didn’t emerge until internet sites like Tumblr took hold, which elevated her postmodern look and appreciation for clothes sourced far from a fashion runway—Herrema once told Vogue magazine her favorite place to shop was Sports Authority—into something like a sartorial philosophy.

She’s had gigs designing jeans for skate-surf brand Volcom, and modeled and designed for Japan’s Hysteric Glamour (Sofia Coppola shot one of the ads). But her biggest mark on fashion comes through appreciation posts collecting her most iconic looks, since these images propagate online, creating new members of a growing Jennifer Herrema fashion cult.

jennifer herrema -by david black

ROYAL Trux is far from the first pioneering indie group to reunite years after the fact, once the rest of the world has caught up to them. But since Herrema is terminally averse to nostalgia and repetition, her reunion with Neil Hagerty feels less like the usual sentimental victory lap and more like returning to a path they’d each wandered away from for a while.

“I played the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland when I was a kid at school,” she remembers, while discussing her dislike of repetition. “I had to do the same lines every weekend for three months. I was like, This is so fucking boring.”

Though rock ’n’ roll might be suffering these days, it’s an art form that thrives on unexpected comebacks. It’s been declared dead dozens of times before and has always sprung back. Herrema knows that the ideas Royal Trux put out into the world—do things your way at all costs, make treasures out of other people’s trash, never back down—have taken root in the hearts and minds of a new generation of artists. And you can’t discount the idea that a new Royal Trux album could catalyze a reaction that’ll launch a thousand scuzzy rock bands and jolt the genre back to life—at least for a minute or two.

But one thing you learn in recovery is to recognize when a problem is somebody else’s to deal with, not yours, and Herrema’s quite reasonably decided that the future of rock ’n’ roll is somebody else’s problem. Besides, the reckless, anarchic spirit that rock used to overflow with—that energy she’s been chasing her entire time on Earth—is alive and well in other parts of the pop world. Take, for example, the wave of young rappers who have used internet savvy to upend the music business, to Herrema’s clear delight.

Her favorite example of this is a rapper she read about who hired a hacker to briefly make him the No. 1 artist on SoundCloud, until the platform noticed and ended the rebel takeover.

“Everything blew up and it got shut right down,” Herrema says admiringly. “But that’s all it took—like an hour—for him to be at the top spot and cause all this hullabaloo.” The underground music and fashion icon smiles. “I like that kind of uneven playing-field thing,” she says. “You can find your own ways through the nooks and crannies.”

AOC: Dreamy Sexy Socialist

Among the wishy-washy, big-money politicians that typically populate Washington, this Bronx-born badass stands out as one of the few bright spots in an otherwise drab political machine. She’s basically a Democrat’s wet dream: she’s young, she’s driven, she’s outspoken and magnanimous, and, most importantly, she’s not an old white man.

Progressive socialism has never looked so good.

This week, AOC proved that she’s more than a good-looking idealist. At Michael Cohen’s congressional hearing, she was one of the few House members who asked legit questions. While older congressman grandstanded, Ocasio-Cortez quizzed Trump’s scumbag lawyer about the president’s finances.   

Every time Ocasio-Cortez ruthlessly roasts trolls on Twitter or holds impromptu Q&A’s while making black bean soup, her already cult-like following is only bolstered, because, honestly, what’s not to love?

A true champion of the working class, this proud daughter of Puerto Rican parents has actually lived the struggle. Fresh out of college, when most of her politician peers were taking six-figure positions, she instead returned home to work as bartender and waitress to help keep her family’s apartment out of foreclosure.

At 29 years old, not only is Ocasio-Cortez set to become the youngest woman to ever serve in Congress, but she’s also already proven herself capable of standing up to corporate cronies on both sides of the aisle.

Less than a week after a one-sided victory in the polls, the freshman congresswoman was seen rallying with climate-change demonstrators waging a sit-in outside the office of fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Her calls for a “Green Deal,” while lambasted by some pundits, later prompted Pelosi to tweet that she was “deeply inspired” by the display and that she would “strongly support” creating a committee to address climate concerns.

Meanwhile on the right, Ocasio-Cortez found herself in the crosshairs of everyone from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson to political zombies Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin, even before she was sworn into office. And if you’re pissing off this crowd, you must be doing something right.

Salem 2.0

I recently picked up a paperback by a New York Times journalist in a bookshop and read the following on the back cover: “A major metropolitan newspaper announces that half of its new employees will have to be women and the other half members of minority groups. At a Milwaukee school district, ‘inappropriate staring’ has been labeled a form of sexual harassment, punishable by dismissal. And a proposed new American history syllabus features such topics as ‘Why I Am Not Thankful for Thanksgiving,’ ‘Once Upon A Genocide,’ and ‘George Washington: Speculator in Native Lands.’” It went on to describe these incidents as representative of a new, puritanical, left-wing movement that’s sweeping contemporary America. The author—Richard Bernstein—has labeled this crusade “the Inquisition.”

Oh no, I thought. That’s exactly the book I want to write. For the last nine months, I’ve been collecting stories like these, from the two white women who were forced to shut down their business selling burritos out of a food truck in Portland after they were accused of “cultural appropriation,” to the editor of a prestigious New York magazine who was fired for publishing an article by a Canadian radio host, a man charged with sexual assault and then acquitted on all counts.

I even have a title: Salem 2.0.

But there was a journalist ­who got there before me. Damn him.

Then I took a closer look. The book, called Dictatorship of Virtue, had been published in 1995. It was 23 years old. I was relieved, obviously, but also a bit puzzled: Had the liberal left really been this batshit-crazy for decades? Were the “Social Justice Warriors” who had appeared since the election of Donald Trump—“the Resistance”—just the latest troops in a culture war dating back to the Reagan era? Was the Great Awakening (another title I’ve been thinking about) just a cyclical recurrence of political correctness? Would I have to call my book Salem 3.0 instead? That didn’t have quite the same ring to it.

I returned to my writer’s desk feeling a bit disheartened, but after some reflection, I began to perk up. There’s no question that the current moment in American culture—and across the Anglosphere more generally—is firmly embedded in an anti-Western, anti-bourgeois ideology that stretches back decades. But it’s also true that something’s happened in the past few years to turbocharge this movement and it’s gathered such momentum we seem to be on the verge of a tipping point.

Put it another way: It’s as if the discontent that had been rumbling away among left-wing intellectuals for years has suddenly exploded into a cacophonous rage. A regressive political philosophy fueled by guilt, self-loathing, and resentment that used to be confined to Ivy League universities, Hollywood liberals and the fringes of the Democratic Party has gone viral and infected millions of people in the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

If you’re a white heterosexual male, look out.

The mob already came for me, incidentally. At the beginning of the year, I was appointed to the board of a regulatory body in the U.K., and as soon as it was announced an army of hashtag activists started trawling through my social media history to find evidence that I wasn’t a fit person to serve as a member of this august public institution.

No one had ever heard of it before I was appointed, my role was incredibly minor, and there was no salary attached, but the fact that I’d been appointed by a conservative prime minister meant there was an opportunity to score some political points. It didn’t take the online metal-detectorists long to strike gold.

Ten years ago, I was a judge on a food reality-show with the Indian supermodel Padma Lakshmi, and I’d composed a handful of tweets late at night salivating over her boobs. There were some other, equally sophomoric comments about the breasts of other celebrities. Not exactly Harvey Weinstein territory, but it didn’t stop me being targeted by #MeToo activists. An outraged mob sprung up on Twitter, baying for my blood. According to them, I embodied everything that was wrong with the British establishment: male, pale, and stale. A message was relayed from the prime minister’s office that it might be in everyone’s best interests if I stood down. I duly obliged and, shortly afterward, I was stripped of my honorary fellowship from the University of Buckingham, kicked off the boards of two charities, and had to resign from my full-time job.

That’s what gave me the idea for the book, obviously, but the fact that I was skewered by a twitchfork mob doesn’t mean I’m wrong. This latest manifestation of political activism is different from earlier versions by an order of magnitude.

For one thing, there’s the sheer, muddle-headed, Bizarro World nuttiness of it. We’re told that “hate speech” is a great evil, unless you’re advocating the hatred of men (a recent column in the Washington Post was headlined “Why can’t we hate men?”), which is absolutely fine. According to a recent poll of “woke” academics and policy experts, the United States is the tenth most dangerous country in the world for women—far more dangerous than Iran, even though Iranian women caught not wearing the full hijab by the religious police are routinely sentenced to 74 lashes. All men are “privileged”—we’re just supposed to accept that without question—in spite of the fact that 75 percent of the suicides reported in the U.K. in 2016 were men, 79 percent of homicide victims across the world are men, 93 percent of prison inmates in the U.S. are men94 percent of Americans killed in industrial accidents are men, and 99.9 percent of soldiers killed in combat are men.

And, of course, all white people are “privileged” as well, including the victims of the opioid epidemic, known as “the White Death” because the majority of the 72,000 people estimated to have died from drug overdoses in 2017 were white, and in spite of the fact that poor white boys do worse in school than any other ethnic group, there are fewer white births than deaths in a majority of U.S. states, American black women have higher college attendance rates than white men, and college-educated black women have higher incomes than college-educated white women. For the Social Justice Warrior on the left, it’s as if reality itself is a social construct, not just race and gender.

Then there’s the insidious way in which Maoist intolerance of those who dissent from progressive orthodoxy has embedded itself in company policies, bureaucratic procedures, and legal systems. I’m not just talking about the punishment meted out to James Damore, the Google employee who dared to question the company’s diversity and inclusion policy. He was fired for creating a “hostile work environment”—a decision that was rubber-stamped by the National Labor Relations Board. (So much for the First Amendment.)

I’m also thinking of the change to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code which makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by law, if you refuse to use a trans person’s preferred gender pronoun. Jordan Peterson warned us about that last year and, of course, was immediately accused of “helping to foster a climate for hate to thrive” by trans activists, left-wing academics, and labor unions.

Twenty-five years ago, we had the “Antioch Rules,” which made it an offense at Antioch College for a man to engage in a sexual encounter without receiving “affirmative consent” at every stage of the seduction process. But that was regarded by most people at the time as an example of political correctness gone mad and parodied on Saturday Night Live. Today, following President Obama’s supercharging of Title IX, the “Antioch Rules” apply in virtually every American university, and hundreds of young men have been branded “rapists” by kangaroo courts and kicked out of college for failing to observe this absurd protocol. One poor guy was found guilty of “rape” because he couldn’t remember whether he’d asked for permission to remove his girlfriend’s belt, even though they’d dated for over a year after that initial encounter.

In Britain, there’s been a massive uptick in “hate crimes”—a new category of criminal offense created in 2007, not by an Act of Parliament, but by a group of unelected officials. If you say or write something that another person is offended by, and that person thinks you’re motivated by hostility or prejudice toward them based on a personal characteristic, you’re guilty of a “hate crime.” Doesn’t matter whether that is, in fact, your motive, all that counts is that the offended person perceives it to be.

At present, there are five “protected characteristics”—disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity—but the British government is thinking of adding “gender” to the list and outlawing “misogyny.” Given that some feminists think climate change is caused by “misogyny,” God knows who will end up in the dock. The executive board of British Petroleum? Earlier this year, a comedy writer called Graham Linehan was given a “verbal harassment warning” by the West Yorkshire Police for “deadnaming” trans activists on Twitter—i.e., using her original male name, rather than her new chosen name.

I could go on. Scarcely a day passes without a “cishet” white male being “called out” on Twitter for some thought crime or other. A twitchfork mob immediately forms up and within days, sometimes hours, the guy is tossed to the wolves. Recent examples include Kevin Williamson, who was hired then fired by The Atlantic after some intemperate remarks about abortion were dug up; Alessandro Strumia, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was immediately suspended and placed under “investigation” after he challenged the feminist dogma about why more women don’t do physics; and Stephen Galloway, a creative writing professor who lost his job at the University of British Columbia after he was falsely accused of rape by a disgruntled ex-girlfriend.

Still don’t believe me? A Harvard University survey conducted two years ago found that 51 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 do not support capitalism, compared to 42 percent who said they support it. That’s up four percentage points from a 2011 Pew survey where already 47 percent of the same age-group held a negative view of capitalism.

So what accounts for this explosion in ultra-liberal attitudes? How did political correctness metastasize?

One possibility, not to be lightly dismissed, is that the world has become a much more unfair place in the past few years. Of course people are protesting more—there’s more to protest about. But is that true?

The answer is no. Take racism, for instance. By almost every measure, racism is declining in the United States. In 1967, when miscegenation laws were repealed, three percent of all newlyweds were married to someone of a different race. In 2015, that number had risen to 17 percent. Next time some placard-carrying millennial tells you that all white Americans are racist, point out that more than one in ten white newlyweds has married a person of a different race.

Economically, African-American men have never been doing better. According to a recent report by the American Enterprise Institute, 57 percent of black Americans now belong to the upper or middle class, compared to just 38 percent in 1960. The share of black men in poverty, by contrast, has fallen from 41 percent in 1960 to 18 percent today. It’s the same story for Hispanic-Americans—55 percent belong to the upper or middle class—and Asian-Americans (73 percent). Police shootings? According to the Harvard economist Roland Fryer, blacks are no more likely to be shot by police officers than whites.

When comparing different countries, one way of measuring the level of racism is to ask whether people in that country would object if a person of another race moved in next-door. By that metric, the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are among the least racist countries in the world. Less than five percent of Britons said they would object, compared to more than 40 percent of Indians and Jordanians.

What about homophobia? Again, all the survey data suggests attitudes toward homosexuals across the Anglosphere have never been more liberal. For instance, just 35 percent of Americans were in favor of gay marriage in 2001. By 2017, that number had grown to 62 percent. Ditto for the U.K., where the number approving same-sex marriage has climbed from 17 percent in 1983 to 64 percent by 2016.

Gender? Contrary to the views of gender studies professors, the fairer sex has never had it so good. In the U.S., women comprise over 56 percent of students in college, while in the U.K., 40,000 more women than men enrolled at universities this fall.

As for the so-called “rape epidemic” on American college campuses, it’s a myth. Sexual assaults of female college students in the U.S. dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and in the same period, young women in college were less likely to be assaulted than those who weren’t in college.

The gender pay gap? Once you control for the fact that women are more interested in lower-paying jobs than men (only nine percent of nurses are male), are more likely to take time out to start a family, and have a higher preference for part-time work, the gap disappears. Gender studies professors will tell you different, of course, but a recent survey found that they are paid, on average, $15,000 a year more than male professors in STEM subjects.

Okay, you might say. Maybe those lucky enough to live in the West are doing all right. But what about the less fortunate? No one would question that capitalism is wreaking a terrible toll on the developing world, would they? Well, yes, they would. Since 1990, more than a billion people across the planet have been lifted out of extreme poverty—113 million of them in a single year (2013)—thanks to the free enterprise system. The people millennials should be feeling sorry for are the citizens of the people’s republic of Venezuela. When Hugo Chavez came to power in 1998, 40 percent of Venezuelan households were living in poverty. Last year, that figure had climbed to 82 percent.

When you look at the data, there is less for liberals to protest about than there has been at any point in the past 50 years. So why have they gone crazy? What gives?

According to Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt (a First Amendment lawyer and social psychologist, respectively), who’ve made a study of the anti-free speech culture on American campuses, the reason for this sea change is because today’s students and recent college graduates have been raised by overprotective, liberal parents and spend too much time on the internet. These digital natives believe the world is divided between good people and evil people, are impervious to reason once they’ve made up their mind about someone, and think the best way to deal with that person is to push them out of the body politic as if they are a pollutant or a pathogen. Not literally, but metaphorically, by “no-platforming” them, heckling them, ordering them to “check their privilege,” and, if necessary, “calling them out” on social media, i.e., publicly shaming them.

In their new book The Coddling of the American Mind, Lukianoff and Haidt note that millennials couch their objections to these “bad people” in psychological rather than ideological terms. Thus, the reason they don’t want conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter appearing on campus is not that they disagree with their political views, but because they “trigger” them or make them feel “unsafe.” Most people would take these claims with a pinch of salt, suspecting that students are weaponizing their mental health in order to push their liberal agenda. But Lukianoff and Haidt take them seriously. They believe there is something actually wrong with young Americans: They are far more psychologically fragile than they should be, thanks to the bubbles and echo chambers they’ve spent their lives in, and cannot cope with conflict or challenge. The solution, then, is to get them to toughen up—or, at least, persuade them that engaging with someone holding different views won’t cause them lasting psychological harm.

One problem with this analysis is that it fails to account for why these authoritarian Young Turks skew left rather than right. After all, if their main concern is to avoid the anxiety they believe arises out of viewpoint diversity, wouldn’t any political creed serve as well as any other provided everyone signs up to it? Why have they embraced the teachings of Karl Marx and Michel Foucault rather than Edmund Burke and Friedrich Hayek? Lukianoff and Haidt have an answer to this. It’s because their professors are overwhelmingly left-wing.

The expert on political bias in the American academy is the political scientist Stanley Rothman. According to him, the proportion of U.S. professors describing themselves as right-wing declined from 34 percent in 1984 to 15 percent in 1999, and those describing themselves as left-wing increased from 39 percent to 72 percent in the same period. And the shift has continued—accelerated, even—in the last two decades. According to a study carried out by Econ Journal Watch in 2016, which looked at the voter registration of faculty members at 40 leading American universities in the fields of economics, history, law, psychology, and journalism/communications, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 11.5 to one on average. In psychology, the ratio is 17.4 to one; in history, it’s 33.5 to one. A more recent study of 51 of the top-ranked 66 liberal arts colleges by Mitchell Langbert, carried out in 2018, found that 39 percent of them had no Republican staff on their faculties at all.

“The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation,” writes Langbert. “Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.”

Whether Lukianoff and Haidt are correct in their core analysis, this extraordinary political imbalance in American universities must have played a part in radicalizing the generation that has come of age in the new millennium. And the same pattern emerges in other parts of the Anglosphere. In the U.K., for instance, those academics saying they would vote for right-of-center parties declined from 35 percent in 1964 to 11 percent in 2011, and those saying they’d vote for left-of-center parties increased from 64 percent in 1964 to 77 percent in 2015.

Other factors are surely at play, too. One thing that used to act as a firebreak on the spread of radical, socialist ideas was the distinction between the regressive left and the progressive left. Moderate liberals have generally treated hard-left political activists with caution, knowing that in the twentieth century, communist regimes were responsible for something like 100 million unnecessary deaths. But the line between the progressive and regressive left has always been quite fuzzy, and it’s become blurrier still since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. That event—and to a lesser extent the electoral success of right-wing populist movements across Europe, including Brexit—has polarized party politics and enabled the regressive left to capture large swathes of the moderate left.

In addition, the melding of hard-left dogma with postmodernism—what Jordan Peterson calls “postmodern Neo-Marxism”—has helped with its rapid spread in the last few years, even though that phenomenon dates back to the 1960s. It’s almost as if a group of cultural terrorists had been perfecting a virus in a lab for 50 years and then waited for just the right moment to release it.

Many progressive liberals have ended up feeling like apostates just because they have remained true to their original values, while all around them friends and allies have shifted leftwards. Some of them—such as the former Evergreen State College professor Bret Weinstein, who was hounded off campus by baseball-bat wielding thugs—have ended up as leading lights of what’s been called the Intellectual Dark Web.

Another theory, this one propounded by the African-American intellectual John McWhorter, is that the phenomenon of “wokeness” is a new, secular religion, and one reason it has grown so fast is that traditional, organized religions have experienced a steep decline in recent years. That would explain why Social Justice Warriors expect you to take so much of what they say on faith and why they treat those who challenge them as apostates—evildoers, motivated by venal self-interest—rather than worthy intellectual opponents.

It also fits with their fondness for reciting bits of dogma as if they were liturgical incantations, like the protestors at Middlebury College who responded to a speech by the conservative political scientist Charles Murray by chanting the following catechism in unison: “Science has always been used to legitimize racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, ableism, and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact, and supported by the government and state. In this world today, there is little that is true ‘fact’.” Finally, it explains why straight white males who want to be accepted into the church of political correctness have to confess to being racist—the woke version of original sin.

So what can you do, particularly if a mob is gathering outside your home chanting “Time’s up”? (I literally had a pack of jackals on my doorstep, although, to be fair, they were all journalists.) A ray of hope was provided by a recent report for an organization called More in Common which divided Americans into seven camps: Devoted Conservatives, Traditional Conservatives, Moderates, Politically Disengaged, Passive Liberals, Traditional Liberals, and Progressive Activists. According to the report, only people in the last category are members of Team Woke. They may shout the loudest, and, in doing so, persuade the rest of us that they’re far more numerous than they are, but in fact, they only constitute eight percent of American adults. By contrast, 80 percent of people polled by the report’s authors agreed with the statement “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Social Justice Warriors, it turns out, are in a tiny minority.

The answer, then, is for the “frustrated majority”—that’s how we’re referred to in this report—to stop kowtowing to these self-appointed commissars of the public square and start standing up to them. The reason they have such unprecedented power at this moment in our culture and can cast into the outer darkness anyone who dissents from their sacred beliefs is because we’ve allowed them to have it. To quote the phrase that empowered the British people to vote to leave the European Union, it’s time to “take back control.”

Okay, where’s my typewriter? Time to get going on Salem 2.0.

Busted Bro Bernie Sanders

Men think of sex workers as wealthy goddesses, but we’re actually working class. Like most middle-income Americans, we’re afraid to discuss money, but twice a month, my column “The Working Girl Diaries” will cover porn stars’ wallets. From how class affects porn stars’ financial habits to how much we spend on lube and kitty litter, I’ve got you covered. There is no taboo (economic) topic I won’t touch. You used to think of me as the Weiner girl, but now I’m the Barbara Ehrenreich of sex!

When I sexted a congressman, I learned the hard way that no politician is perfect. Well, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has forced me to learn that all over again.

I’ve always thought of the Vermont Senator has a working-class hero. In his three decades in Washington DC, Sanders has fought to raise the minimum wage, bolster unions, and tax the rich. His policies would help most middle-class people, but there’s one group of small business owners that Sanders has fucked up the ass again and again: sex workers.

Along with every Senator besides Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Ron Wyden, Sanders voted for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, a.k.a. FOSTA/SESTA. On the surface, SESTA sounds great; politicians branded the bills like Instagram influencers promoting the Fyre Festival. But the legislation limited free speech and shut down sites like Backpage, where sex workers posted ads. Although Backpage came with more than its fair share of clients, it gave women a safer way to work. Instead of prowlings dangerous streets for johns, working girls could advertise their services. FOSTA/SESTA has forced girls back into risky neighborhoods, where they face robbery and sometimes murder. Prostitutes can’t even continue to share bad client lists, which once warned sex workers of abusive men, because FOSTA/SESTA banned the practice.

FOSTA/SESTA has harmed the very community it’s supposed to protect, and sex workers expected Sanders to do better. “I called Bernie’s office when I was lobbying against FOSTA/SESTA and the aide didn’t know the bill,” says adult performer, writer and sex workers advocate Janice Griffith. “They couldn’t say whether or not Bernie had even read it or if he had an opinion.” As a sex worker and devout liberal, I wanted to ignore these stories. “Bernie’s just ignorant!” I cried. But politicians, especially progressives like Sanders, should be held to high standards. A guy as smart as Sanders should know that if you’re passing legislation that will impact a group of people, you should talk to that group of people. When analyzing education issues, Sanders has met with teachers unions. But nobody wants to meet with hookers to discuss politics. Senators only engage sex workers behind closed doors when they want sexts or blowjobs.

It’s frustrating to feel like progressives have ignored sex worker’s voices. And it’s even more frustrating that almost every Democratic candidate for the 2020 election has been pretending our marginalized community doesn’t exist. (Everyone’s intersectional until a repressed minority group overlaps with prostitutes!)

On the rare occasion a liberal politician acknowledges sex workers, he or she sides with the religious right and paint us as victims. As Out magazine reported, Senator Kamala Harris said she endorsed FOSTA/SESTA because the bill “makes it possible for victims and state prosecutors to hold online sex traffickers accountable.” As Griffith points out, “A lot of anti-sex work legislation comes out under the guise of protecting people and everyone wants to protect people on paper, but what does that actually mean.” Harris couldn’t fathom a girl choosing sex work. Maybe she should leave upper-class San Francisco for a day and speak to a working girl.

But until johns, and men who don’t buy sex, defend sex workers, politicians will continue to ignore us. “Sex workers shouldn’t be the only people making these calls,” Griffith says. “We need people who have less to lose standing with us and using their voices.” Most sex workers doubt this will ever happen. “Bernie and Bernie bros aren’t able to see sex workers as a legitimate demographic of the labor rights movement,” Feminist Stripper says. “Until that happens, we’re all, for a lack of a better term, fucked.”

Illustration by Amanda Lanzone

Dershowitz on Growing Old

I’m sprouting hairs in places where nature never intended them to grow, while the hair on my head is thinning. My stomach has grown, while my height has diminished. My gums are growing, while my teeth are disappearing. My store of anecdotes is growing, while my memory of recent events is shrinking. My interest in working harder is growing, but my energy is waning. My visits to doctors are growing, but my life expectancy is diminishing.

Growth is not linear, but there are patterns. The key is to recognize the patterns and use them to your advantage. Age provides some advantages and strengths that we can exploit. 

I remember, as a young adult, wanting very much to grow—in height, in strength, in intellectual capacity, and in success. I thought of growth as only moving in a positive direction. But now I realize that growth is multidimensional and multidirectional.

As a person who has been active all of my life and blessed with the energy to sustain my activities, I find it difficult to get used to the negative aspects of growth—of “growing” old. But as Churchill reminded us, growing old is better than its alternative. I see that alternative all around me as contemporaries die, while others become disabled. It’s as if our expiration date—our “sell by”—has come and gone.

As an old man, I value every day. A friend of mine said that when you’re 80, if you seem to wake up one morning and nothing hurts, it probably means you’ve passed on. Even pain, a companion to old age, can be a blessing. It reminds you that you’re still alive and enduring the trials and tribulations of growing old. 

Philip Roth once observed that growing old is not a battle—it’s a massacre! Your reliable old body begins to turn against you. It’s like a game of whack-a-mole where every time you cure one malady, another pops up. It is a never-ending battle whose ultimate ending is entirely foreseeable. There is darkness, not light, at the end of the tunnel.

I always seem to be waiting for test results from one doctor or another. My principle exercise is walking from one doctor to another. The trajectory is the opposite of what it was when we were young. “Growth” now means tumors, plaque, kidney stones, and bunions. No more growth of that kind, please!

I don’t want to sound morose. I have lived a good life with no serious illnesses and look forward to more productive years. At least physically, I am happy with the status quo. But I know the status quo will not persist. Nor will my physical situation get better. 

Now I want to grow emotionally. I treasure my relationships, with family and friends. I don’t need the number of my friends to grow. I have enough. But I would like to see growth in the intimacy of my relationships. I no longer value ambition for ambition’s sake. I don’t need more successes or accomplishments. I don’t have to prove anything. I don’t have to answer every criticism, of which there are still many. I no longer keep score—except for my blood sugar and PSA numbers. Quality has become more important than quantity.

Change does not come easily to me. I still think of myself as a young man on the move—until I look in the mirror. I have to fight against long-honed competitive instincts. I find it hard to say no to new challenges and opportunities. 

I’m trying, with the help of my wonderful wife, Carolyn, to be more in the moment—to go to matinees, to turn my cell phone off, to take long walks without particular destinations. My life with Carolyn continues to be a source of great pleasure and joy, and I’m excited to share more time with her.  

My eternal optimism has not waned with age. So when I gaze toward the future, I do so with expectation. I look forward to enjoying my remaining years.