Kill all vegans.
hunt them down
shoot them in the head
hang them upside down from a metal joist
torture them with damp sponges attached to electrodes
kick them repeatedly with a giant metal boot
then make them eat their own decomposing bodies.
Washed down with liquid lard
in a slaughterhouse
by the sea
This was the witty poem that food journalist, William Sitwell, sent to a wishy washy travel blogger after she suggested he write a piece on plant based recipes. Who the hell would want to read a recipe with plants in it? Who the hell eats plants?
There has been outrage that Sitwell was pressured into resigning because in a response to further correspondence from the travel blogger he added "Did I not make it clear? How about a series on killing vegans, one by one? Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose their hypocrisy? Force-feed them meat? Make them eat steak and drink red wine?"
The blogger and many vegans chose to find this offensive. They're clearly humourless as well as weak and puny from lack of iron. Can't they see the joke? Others have. Giles Coren laughed and laughed and in between laughing added that he had "“great sympathy” for the former editor, writing on Twitter: “It was a stupid email but should not be a career-ender.
“Vegans are not a race or a gender or a sexual orientation or a differently abled group."
He even clarified why the joke is so devilishly witty: "The joke is so funny because if you forced vegans to eat meat then they wouldn't be vegans. Obviously if you killed them too, then technically they wouldn't be vegans either. It's hilarious."
Great points, Giles, who also appeared defending Sitwell on the nightly televisual programme Newsnight where quite correctly the programme had cookery man personality Coren and Tesco food labelling man Derek Sarno ("Director of plant based innovation at Tesco") and no vegans. Why on earth would you want a vegan on a panel discussing this? They would only talk endlessly about lentil power and saving the earth. So, a very even debate in which Coren reiterated that Vegans are not an oppressed minority like black or disabled people. The very astute friend of Sitwell, Jacob Rees Mogg also came out in support saying on Instagram "This is London calling, This is London calling. After Brexit, we shall make them eat meat on the beaches, we shall make them drink red wine on the landing grounds and they shall eat meat in the fields and the streets, there shall be no surrender. How do you switch this thing off? Is it gone?"
I managed a brief Q&A with William Sitwell a couple of days before he was forced to resign by a social media vegan troll backlash.
William, you must feel a little like Edward Snowden, I imagine. Sometimes the powers that be can't handle the truth.
Yes
When you say killing vegans do you actually mean we should kill vegans, trap them, force them to eat meat and red wine?
Yes
Some have argued that this seems a bit extreme. Do you think so?
No
Perhaps I should ask open questions?
Yes
You speak of vegans' hypocrisy, it's obvious what you mean but could you explain it to people who might not understand, perhaps simple village idiots or even vegans?
Yes
That's a good point. I'd like to end by asking whether there are other kinds of people that might be helped by being killed, trapped and forced to eat things against their will?
No
Just vegans?
Yes
Thank you, William Sitwell.
In the nature of balance I felt compelled to speak to someone from The Vegan Voice newspaper, Marjorie Prune.
Ms Prune, why did you find Sitwell's joke not funny at all?
It's weak technically as a joke in that it does not rely on traditional joke models; a build up to a surprise ending say, or an absurdity or ironic turn.
Could you give me examples?
Um, well, off the cuff. I suppose things like "I said to a horse, why the long face? Because I'm vegan, it replied." Or How many vegans does it take to change a lightbulb? Several because they are so weak and puny. Knock knock. Who's there? A vegan. I'm surprised you had the strength to raise your puny arm to knock, where on earth do you get your protein from?
They aren't funny.
They aren't meant to be. They're just showing joke formats. Why would there be anything intrinsically funny about veganism? Sitwell's 'joke' isn't funny, you could replace vegans with any collective noun and it would still not be a joke. Kill all horses. Kill all people named Sitwell or Coren. Kill all dead people. And so on.
Well, as you say, vegans are puny, they're self righteous, they're unnatural and it's rational to hate them
Well, obviously the most intense protein food is red meat because one is literally eating another animal's protein but generally protein is easy to come by in a vegan diet, pasta, soya/tofu...
Yawn yawn
You did ask me.
Alright, go on then with your ideological diatribe.
Nutritionists will tell you that our western diets are very rich in protein anyway without meat, lack of protein isn't the problem, cholesterol from meat and dairy and eggs, sugar and saturated fats are the problem. As to self righteousness is there anything self righteous in stating facts? Say, the earth revolves around the sun?
What, are you going to tell me the sun is vegan?
The sun is a giant gasball of hydrogen. Technically, I suppose one could argue it is vegan but that's akin to anthropomorphizing. No, my point is that it isn't ideological to argue that a vegan diet has a hugely reduced carbon footprint, that animal farming is the single biggest factor affecting climate change outside of fossil fuel use, that factory farming is cruel, that killing animals is morally wrong when there are alternatives. The latter might not be a fact but is very persuasive.
But it's unnatural not to eat meat. We have teeth.
If you think logically, we're all born vegan, just as we're born without a faith. We suckle from our mother's breast (ideally) in infancy, there's absolutely no reason to consume meat and dairy.
That might be rational but it's also rational to hate vegans. Right?
Why? Why are meat eaters so defensive? Could it be because the United Nations, a notoriously conservative organization, now even argue we must consider veganism in order to stop runaway climate change? Is it because deep down you know it's morally indefensible to eat meat? I mean, everyone, except psychopaths, shy away from seeing slaughterhouse imagery. We all, also, know that animals feel pain and suffering in very similar ways to us humans, it's why we keep pets, because they are like us, because we can love them like we do humans, they can even replace that love, so why would we inflict pain and suffering on them for a want (meat and dairy) rather than a need (food)?
Marjorie, this is a level, dignified and balanced debate but you are talking out of your anus. That might all be true but what about the taste of bacon? Hmmmm? Literally thousands of commenters on vegan articles agree, they love the taste of bacon. And anyway, you still haven't said why you didn't find William Sitwell's joke funny?
Well, obviously because it isn't a joke. There was nothing, as I point out above, in the way of the mechanics of a joke. It was a personal diatribe masquerading as humour. Whilst veganism isn't like, say, race, the concept of the joke is exactly the same as the concept of racist diatribes from the past. I have an idea, why don't we send them all back? Send them back to the jungle. Force bones through their noses and make them dance around a fire singing oogaboogaooga.
That's just racist.
The concept is the same. Veganism is a belief. Religion is a belief. So what if Sitwell had said, I have an idea, let's kill Muslims or Jews, trap them, force them to eat pork, expose their hypocrisy?
That's just unpleasant. He's not Jeremy Corbyn, for god's sake. What about interrogating you though? What about exposing your hypocrisy?
What hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy that Sitwell rightly points out.
He doesn't enlighten us with what this hypocrisy is. He talks about red wine but a great deal of red wine is now produced without blood or isinglass. Even traditional beer brewers like Guinness have gone vegan. It's pretty difficult, if you're vegan, to end up eating non vegan produce as everything is so clearly labelled now.
Hayley Soen at online magazine The Tab points out that "Vegans must think they have it really hard. Just planning meals or eating out is a struggle when nothing is suitable, and most menus at restaurants have only one vegan dish on them. Well, not to be the bearer of even more bad news for the vegans of the world, but there are actually a lot of things that aren't vegan – and you might have thought they are. In summary – you can't eat, drink or do anything if you are vegan. Sorry."
Did you read this 'article'?
What? Yes.
It's in a digital 'lifestyle journal' obsessed with dating and chic flicks. And it includes smoking. Cigarettes haven't been tested on animals in the west for thirty years. It includes fruits because they're pollinated by bees. It thinks in the west that charcoal is still produced from burning bones, bang goes all that toothpaste then, huh? It has £5 notes. Vegan hypocrisy, still using common currency, why don't vegans use their own made from carrot peelings? It says make up, but you have to be an idiot not to know about cruelty free products which have been around since the late 1980s. Orange juice! Then explains it means drinks with D3 in. That isn't orange juice. I could go on, but if that's the best you have.
Whatever, vegans are not an oppressed minority so none of this matters anyway.
Who says so?
Giles Coren. Diyora Shadijanova. Brendan O'neill at Spiked, who rightly argues vegans were merely "confirming their reputation as not only meatless but joyless too (there could be a connection between those two things), vegans went for Sitwell’s jugular, metaphorically, natch, after it was revealed he made a not-so-wisecrack about bumping off members of their meat-phobic tribe....I think that’s pretty funny. Others will think it isn’t funny. That’s subjective taste for you. But there are two things that are objectively true about Sitwell’s vegan-bashing: 1) it was a joke and 2) it was made privately, in response to one other person, and was not intended for public consumption. Now, some might say it was foolish of Sitwell to take such a wicked pop at vegans in response to a vegan, not least because if vegans are known for anything it is that they are self-important and ever so slightly intolerant. Intolerant of criticism, I mean, not just lactose. But the facts still stand: he was not being serious and he was not speaking publicly...Sitwell was mocked and raged against and accused of stirring up murderous hatred against vegans (Grow. Up)."
Brendan O'Neill is a libertarian polemicist who makes outrageous remarks for a living (Jimmy Saville abuse survivors, environmentalists, same sex marriage advocates, etc. have faced his penmanship). His logic is, as ever, faulty (but that's the point of Spiked, it's just Twitter with many more characters). Anti-semites found the Count Dankula Nazi saluting pug funny. So is that just subjective humour? No one was hurt. It was just a dog putting its paw out. That's the point, it's the intention of the joke not necessarily the joke itself. Sitwell wrote his 'joke' in response to a customer asking about a diet series. What purpose did it have other than offence to the writer, and if they share it, other vegans? If he didn't realize she would share it he's an idiot who hasn't heard of digital media (though ironically e-mailing it) if he knew she would share it then it shows complete contempt for customers and vegans alike (oh ha ha ha). It's not about being po-faced, I would laugh if the joke was funny and not just Sitwell letting off a stream of bile about vegans. The 'joke' clearly isn't private, though, is it? By that rationale, most hate crime is merely private humour, as you say privately on a bus to a Muslim woman in full burka "can I post a letter in you?" Ha ha ha ha. That was a private joke comment between me and her until she made it a public hate crime. The worst of Sitwell's 'crimes' is that he was a bloody food editor for a major supermarket magazine, how unprofessional is that? In what way are vegans self important and intolerant? Surely by definition vegans are the opposite of self important as they give up meat and dairy with no moral or financial recompense, that's about the purest altruism you could find. Surely again, by definition, vegans are more tolerant than meat eaters as they don't eat meat yet are surrounded by meat products. If you have no understanding of how ideology works then you could be simply deemed ignorant in the assumption that there are default human positions, like meat eating or heterosexuality, etc. but O'Neill professes to be a Marxist and Libertarian so he must understand how ideology works so he's either disingenuous or an idiot.
Shadijonava writes for The Tab. She's a moron who argues that veganism is really expensive because she bought some humous, carrot sticks and bread for lunch from a Tesco Express and it cost a lot. That veganism isn't the only way to cut your carbon footprint and some vegan foods use lots of water too. She argues: "Problematic? This entire situation would be problematic if vegans were some sort of oppressed group, but they're not. As far as I'm aware, they haven't been historically persecuted. Veganism is a choice." Like religion? Vegans are a minority. Um, isn't this oppression? Making joke at their expense for no purpose beyond personal hatred?
Giles Coren wrote back in 2009 "Do a pig a favour! Ban vegetarianism now!
People who don't eat meat are not just pale, boring, vain and flaky. They are also suffering from an eating disorder." That's historical. Or further back? George Orwell wrote vegetarians are"that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking to the smell of “progress” like bluebottles to a dead cat."
Whilst, of course, veganism isn't biological like race, ethnicity, dis/ability, sex, and obviously religions like Islam, Sikhism or Hinduism is generally practiced by Asian and African peoples so there is a racial angle to their persecution is veganism any different to homosexuality or transgender politics? Whilst I believe homosexuality is more than a lifestyle choice there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this. As to transgender, this can appear, on the surface at least, to be a lifestyle choice. Yet who would wish to make a "joke" saying kill all transgender women, make them wear men's clothes, show their hypocrisy? It would rightly be considered hate speech. And, like the Sitwell 'joke' not be funny in any way.
Have you finished? You see, this is why we hate you, myuh myuh myuh oppressed, myuh myuh myuh tofu. Thanks for your contribution.
Personally, I'm more interested in the fact that William Sitwell is related to the poet, Edith Sitwell. Could a poetic soul be genetic? I'm genuinely interested in whether the ability to write poetry could be in one's DNA. The only evidence I have is Sitwell himself and his wonderful poem above with the lilting cadences reminiscent of Whitman and the ending echoing Poe's Annabel Lee, and, of course, Leo Larkin, the late son of the late Philip Larkin. Of course, Leo Larkin is famous for the poem dedicated to his father which echoes his parent's poetic skill and ability with meter (though some probably would now argue that it's not funny or some such nonsense):
Each day I awake
And head to dreary work
To stave off my fear of death
And of negroes.
hunt them down
shoot them in the head
hang them upside down from a metal joist
torture them with damp sponges attached to electrodes
kick them repeatedly with a giant metal boot
then make them eat their own decomposing bodies.
Washed down with liquid lard
in a slaughterhouse
by the sea
This was the witty poem that food journalist, William Sitwell, sent to a wishy washy travel blogger after she suggested he write a piece on plant based recipes. Who the hell would want to read a recipe with plants in it? Who the hell eats plants?
William Sitwell, food poet.
The blogger and many vegans chose to find this offensive. They're clearly humourless as well as weak and puny from lack of iron. Can't they see the joke? Others have. Giles Coren laughed and laughed and in between laughing added that he had "“great sympathy” for the former editor, writing on Twitter: “It was a stupid email but should not be a career-ender.
“Vegans are not a race or a gender or a sexual orientation or a differently abled group."
He even clarified why the joke is so devilishly witty: "The joke is so funny because if you forced vegans to eat meat then they wouldn't be vegans. Obviously if you killed them too, then technically they wouldn't be vegans either. It's hilarious."
Giles Coren, left, making another attempt at eating his sister, Victoria. Ha, he'll eat anything that Giles.
Jacob Rees Mogg, a kind of unlikable Peter Mandelson*
* I should clarify that as a joke in case I get calls to be sacked from my blog for suggesting we should like Peter Mandelson. Mandelson is, of course, utterly repellent and both of them should be trapped and killed. And forced to eat Theresa May dipped in guacamole.
William, you must feel a little like Edward Snowden, I imagine. Sometimes the powers that be can't handle the truth.
Yes
When you say killing vegans do you actually mean we should kill vegans, trap them, force them to eat meat and red wine?
Yes
Some have argued that this seems a bit extreme. Do you think so?
No
Perhaps I should ask open questions?
Yes
You speak of vegans' hypocrisy, it's obvious what you mean but could you explain it to people who might not understand, perhaps simple village idiots or even vegans?
Yes
That's a good point. I'd like to end by asking whether there are other kinds of people that might be helped by being killed, trapped and forced to eat things against their will?
No
Just vegans?
Yes
Thank you, William Sitwell.
In the nature of balance I felt compelled to speak to someone from The Vegan Voice newspaper, Marjorie Prune.
Marjorie Prune, 36, health expert and vegan activistist and staff writer for The Vegan Voice ("Giving voice to vegans to say things without eating animals while they are speaking.")
It's weak technically as a joke in that it does not rely on traditional joke models; a build up to a surprise ending say, or an absurdity or ironic turn.
Could you give me examples?
Um, well, off the cuff. I suppose things like "I said to a horse, why the long face? Because I'm vegan, it replied." Or How many vegans does it take to change a lightbulb? Several because they are so weak and puny. Knock knock. Who's there? A vegan. I'm surprised you had the strength to raise your puny arm to knock, where on earth do you get your protein from?
They aren't funny.
They aren't meant to be. They're just showing joke formats. Why would there be anything intrinsically funny about veganism? Sitwell's 'joke' isn't funny, you could replace vegans with any collective noun and it would still not be a joke. Kill all horses. Kill all people named Sitwell or Coren. Kill all dead people. And so on.
Well, as you say, vegans are puny, they're self righteous, they're unnatural and it's rational to hate them
Well, obviously the most intense protein food is red meat because one is literally eating another animal's protein but generally protein is easy to come by in a vegan diet, pasta, soya/tofu...
Yawn yawn
You did ask me.
Alright, go on then with your ideological diatribe.
Nutritionists will tell you that our western diets are very rich in protein anyway without meat, lack of protein isn't the problem, cholesterol from meat and dairy and eggs, sugar and saturated fats are the problem. As to self righteousness is there anything self righteous in stating facts? Say, the earth revolves around the sun?
What, are you going to tell me the sun is vegan?
The sun is a giant gasball of hydrogen. Technically, I suppose one could argue it is vegan but that's akin to anthropomorphizing. No, my point is that it isn't ideological to argue that a vegan diet has a hugely reduced carbon footprint, that animal farming is the single biggest factor affecting climate change outside of fossil fuel use, that factory farming is cruel, that killing animals is morally wrong when there are alternatives. The latter might not be a fact but is very persuasive.
But it's unnatural not to eat meat. We have teeth.
If you think logically, we're all born vegan, just as we're born without a faith. We suckle from our mother's breast (ideally) in infancy, there's absolutely no reason to consume meat and dairy.
That might be rational but it's also rational to hate vegans. Right?
Why? Why are meat eaters so defensive? Could it be because the United Nations, a notoriously conservative organization, now even argue we must consider veganism in order to stop runaway climate change? Is it because deep down you know it's morally indefensible to eat meat? I mean, everyone, except psychopaths, shy away from seeing slaughterhouse imagery. We all, also, know that animals feel pain and suffering in very similar ways to us humans, it's why we keep pets, because they are like us, because we can love them like we do humans, they can even replace that love, so why would we inflict pain and suffering on them for a want (meat and dairy) rather than a need (food)?
Marjorie, this is a level, dignified and balanced debate but you are talking out of your anus. That might all be true but what about the taste of bacon? Hmmmm? Literally thousands of commenters on vegan articles agree, they love the taste of bacon. And anyway, you still haven't said why you didn't find William Sitwell's joke funny?
Well, obviously because it isn't a joke. There was nothing, as I point out above, in the way of the mechanics of a joke. It was a personal diatribe masquerading as humour. Whilst veganism isn't like, say, race, the concept of the joke is exactly the same as the concept of racist diatribes from the past. I have an idea, why don't we send them all back? Send them back to the jungle. Force bones through their noses and make them dance around a fire singing oogaboogaooga.
That's just racist.
The concept is the same. Veganism is a belief. Religion is a belief. So what if Sitwell had said, I have an idea, let's kill Muslims or Jews, trap them, force them to eat pork, expose their hypocrisy?
That's just unpleasant. He's not Jeremy Corbyn, for god's sake. What about interrogating you though? What about exposing your hypocrisy?
What hypocrisy?
The hypocrisy that Sitwell rightly points out.
He doesn't enlighten us with what this hypocrisy is. He talks about red wine but a great deal of red wine is now produced without blood or isinglass. Even traditional beer brewers like Guinness have gone vegan. It's pretty difficult, if you're vegan, to end up eating non vegan produce as everything is so clearly labelled now.
Hayley Soen at online magazine The Tab points out that "Vegans must think they have it really hard. Just planning meals or eating out is a struggle when nothing is suitable, and most menus at restaurants have only one vegan dish on them. Well, not to be the bearer of even more bad news for the vegans of the world, but there are actually a lot of things that aren't vegan – and you might have thought they are. In summary – you can't eat, drink or do anything if you are vegan. Sorry."
Did you read this 'article'?
What? Yes.
It's in a digital 'lifestyle journal' obsessed with dating and chic flicks. And it includes smoking. Cigarettes haven't been tested on animals in the west for thirty years. It includes fruits because they're pollinated by bees. It thinks in the west that charcoal is still produced from burning bones, bang goes all that toothpaste then, huh? It has £5 notes. Vegan hypocrisy, still using common currency, why don't vegans use their own made from carrot peelings? It says make up, but you have to be an idiot not to know about cruelty free products which have been around since the late 1980s. Orange juice! Then explains it means drinks with D3 in. That isn't orange juice. I could go on, but if that's the best you have.
Whatever, vegans are not an oppressed minority so none of this matters anyway.
Who says so?
Giles Coren. Diyora Shadijanova. Brendan O'neill at Spiked, who rightly argues vegans were merely "confirming their reputation as not only meatless but joyless too (there could be a connection between those two things), vegans went for Sitwell’s jugular, metaphorically, natch, after it was revealed he made a not-so-wisecrack about bumping off members of their meat-phobic tribe....I think that’s pretty funny. Others will think it isn’t funny. That’s subjective taste for you. But there are two things that are objectively true about Sitwell’s vegan-bashing: 1) it was a joke and 2) it was made privately, in response to one other person, and was not intended for public consumption. Now, some might say it was foolish of Sitwell to take such a wicked pop at vegans in response to a vegan, not least because if vegans are known for anything it is that they are self-important and ever so slightly intolerant. Intolerant of criticism, I mean, not just lactose. But the facts still stand: he was not being serious and he was not speaking publicly...Sitwell was mocked and raged against and accused of stirring up murderous hatred against vegans (Grow. Up)."
Brendan O'Neill is a libertarian polemicist who makes outrageous remarks for a living (Jimmy Saville abuse survivors, environmentalists, same sex marriage advocates, etc. have faced his penmanship). His logic is, as ever, faulty (but that's the point of Spiked, it's just Twitter with many more characters). Anti-semites found the Count Dankula Nazi saluting pug funny. So is that just subjective humour? No one was hurt. It was just a dog putting its paw out. That's the point, it's the intention of the joke not necessarily the joke itself. Sitwell wrote his 'joke' in response to a customer asking about a diet series. What purpose did it have other than offence to the writer, and if they share it, other vegans? If he didn't realize she would share it he's an idiot who hasn't heard of digital media (though ironically e-mailing it) if he knew she would share it then it shows complete contempt for customers and vegans alike (oh ha ha ha). It's not about being po-faced, I would laugh if the joke was funny and not just Sitwell letting off a stream of bile about vegans. The 'joke' clearly isn't private, though, is it? By that rationale, most hate crime is merely private humour, as you say privately on a bus to a Muslim woman in full burka "can I post a letter in you?" Ha ha ha ha. That was a private joke comment between me and her until she made it a public hate crime. The worst of Sitwell's 'crimes' is that he was a bloody food editor for a major supermarket magazine, how unprofessional is that? In what way are vegans self important and intolerant? Surely by definition vegans are the opposite of self important as they give up meat and dairy with no moral or financial recompense, that's about the purest altruism you could find. Surely again, by definition, vegans are more tolerant than meat eaters as they don't eat meat yet are surrounded by meat products. If you have no understanding of how ideology works then you could be simply deemed ignorant in the assumption that there are default human positions, like meat eating or heterosexuality, etc. but O'Neill professes to be a Marxist and Libertarian so he must understand how ideology works so he's either disingenuous or an idiot.
Brendan O'Neill, a Marxist libertarian who apparently has no grounding in the concept of ideology...he has a lovely beard though.
Giles Coren wrote back in 2009 "Do a pig a favour! Ban vegetarianism now!
People who don't eat meat are not just pale, boring, vain and flaky. They are also suffering from an eating disorder." That's historical. Or further back? George Orwell wrote vegetarians are"that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking to the smell of “progress” like bluebottles to a dead cat."
Whilst, of course, veganism isn't biological like race, ethnicity, dis/ability, sex, and obviously religions like Islam, Sikhism or Hinduism is generally practiced by Asian and African peoples so there is a racial angle to their persecution is veganism any different to homosexuality or transgender politics? Whilst I believe homosexuality is more than a lifestyle choice there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this. As to transgender, this can appear, on the surface at least, to be a lifestyle choice. Yet who would wish to make a "joke" saying kill all transgender women, make them wear men's clothes, show their hypocrisy? It would rightly be considered hate speech. And, like the Sitwell 'joke' not be funny in any way.
Have you finished? You see, this is why we hate you, myuh myuh myuh oppressed, myuh myuh myuh tofu. Thanks for your contribution.
Personally, I'm more interested in the fact that William Sitwell is related to the poet, Edith Sitwell. Could a poetic soul be genetic? I'm genuinely interested in whether the ability to write poetry could be in one's DNA. The only evidence I have is Sitwell himself and his wonderful poem above with the lilting cadences reminiscent of Whitman and the ending echoing Poe's Annabel Lee, and, of course, Leo Larkin, the late son of the late Philip Larkin. Of course, Leo Larkin is famous for the poem dedicated to his father which echoes his parent's poetic skill and ability with meter (though some probably would now argue that it's not funny or some such nonsense):
Each day I awake
And head to dreary work
To stave off my fear of death
And of negroes.
Comments
Post a Comment