"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions and handmade cardboard signs"

Welcome Global TV viewers. Ask yourselves why you're reading this, and what it says about the sodomite agenda


Over the last four years at Third Edge of the Sword, our annual Fringe play reviews remain some of the most popular individual posts (most traffic comes to the main site via my Twitter page or the monthly archive posts via Google). Last year's review of Sigmund Freud's Last Session garnered almost 1000 page hits a month for the latter half of 2013 -- and this was for a review posted after the Fringe festival was already over. Many of the older reviews were also quite popular, one of the reasons I decided to stop doing it day-by-day and concentrate instead on individual reviews for individual plays: people coming to this page obviously were looking at The Sputniks. Pagetraffic to this page, however, is harder to gauge: were they interested in the ludicrous female-friendly (read: bad) Inviting Desires or that ridiculous "my vagina is 8 miles wide" song sung during it; or were visitors after the more introspective and female-nonfriendly (though, also, kind of bad) Manners for Men? Hard to say, really.

This year, unlike other years, outside of people actually visiting the page, my reviews certainly got noticed. The first to get noticed, with a flurry of angry comments until one jackass from Saskatchewan posted a wonky link and wrecked it for everyone, was this one specifically kicking the Fringe off with a "pre-review", a "preview" if you will, of various shows at the festival that I wouldn't be reviewing: mostly because I recognized the "oh gawd another one of these plays" warning signs right from the get-go, and a few that I'd either already reviewed. Naturally, a lot of the plays that fell into the category of horrible subject matter were ones prominently featuring uranists.

Zanna, Don't: Our first of many fringe plays celebrating sodomites, imagining a topsy-turvy world where disgusting sexual practises are the norm. Aye-void.
This, as it turns out, brought the fagosphere out in full effect. It may wind up being the Third Edge of the Sword blogpost which gets discussed by more people than actually read it, which happens more often to bigger conservative names like Mom or Rush Limbaugh. So that's what that feels like. Cool.

How cruel, how cruel, they cried out dramatically that somebody would dare to talk about plays before watching them. How can you pass judgement, they declared, on something unseen!

The thing with liberals is they don't want you to actually do the thing that they're asking you to do, and they themselves want to do it even less. This is of course one of their more aggravating personal traits: they say they want to be judged on the content of character until the millisecond it is more profitable to be judged based on race. They love bleeting that Harper is conducting a "war on science" until they find the government siding with science a war worth fighting. You're admonished to "check the facts"...but then heaven forbid you check them and find out the facts don't say what they claimed. The biggest online sensation for liberals has been "net neutrality", which they also abandon at the first sign of trouble. Finally, pertinent to this discussion, they say they want to "start a dialogue" but then immediately try to end that dialog with only their half of the conversation allowed to proceed.

One of their other aggravating personality traits is of course groupthink, and getting into righteous victimhood anger based on it. How did Mom put it again? Oh, right:
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. The Democratic Party activates mobs, depends on mobs, coddles mobs, publicizes and celebrates mobs—it is the mob. Sweeping in its scope and relentless in its argument, Demonic explains the peculiarities of liberals as standard groupthink behavior. To understand mobs is to understand liberals.
So it was inevitable, I suppose, that the only thing that would make them madder than reviewing plays without seeing them would be to review plays after seeing them. (In the past, of course, the objection has been that people didn't see plays at all, so we're surfing the entire spectrum of possibilities here and finding them unhappy at pretty much every turn. The play that I actually reviewed that really got everybody's anger up is Swordplay. To wit:
The story isn't necessarily easy to follow, and throwing in a bunch of clearly out-of-place songs here and there doesn't help the audience keep up: half the running time of each song is dedicated to arguing whether or not there's going to be a chorus of backup singers available. As this play has an obnoxious running time of two hours, cutting out 20 or even 35 minutes of unnecessary singing would be just what the doctor ordered.
There has been, obviously, a mosquito infestation at the 2014 Fringe, and the Holy Trinity Anglican Church (Venues 14, 15, and 16) have a nice big yard and a garden. The little bloodsucking bastards will brutalize you in line and in the building: every time a spotlight was shone on the stage, the crowd gasped in horror as we saw the mosquito plague fill the air. This may also be God's punishment for hiring a poofter to write the music, or something else the Anglican church has been screwing up this decade.
The cast and crew of Swordplay didn't seem to like this review, and posted it to Facebook to drum up some fagosphere support. It's worth noting, of course, that minus the hellfire talk the Edmonton SUN posted almost exactly the same review. It has finally culminated in this:
For those keeping score, the current argument is "because you disagree with us on a political topic you should stop sharing your views about dramatic works". The method of delivering this argument is flawed of course, but let's address the argument first. This will appear radical, mostly because you'll notice the people mad at me never make the argument nor can they particularly verbalize why they are making it. There's a good reason for this, of course (it's clueless), but let's briefly deconstruct. What we have here is a blatant desire to ensure that the only people that they have in the audience is "their kind of people". Rigid ideological purity of all Edmonton Fringe theatre-goers must be strictly enforced at all times! We can't have people who disagree with our sick politics and our sicker lifestyles in the audience! That way lies madness! No, we must band together and work to make sure that we only entertain our devotees and sycophants. Allowing conservativesinto the works will sullen and cheapen it. They may hear our stories, our tales, and learn too much! Especially serious is the thought that these same conservatives might have the gall, the audacity, to share their opinions of our works! Those opinions may differ than ours! We may even by accident one day read of them ourselves, or worse, others may read them. No no no, this cannot stand, this must end. One deluded nutter takes it even further, demanding that I avoid his play (presented to the public) and don't even mention it on my blog (too late! Bill Pats' show "Executing Justice" will be coming to Edmonton in 2015. It's anti-death penalty. You can't wait to read my politically-tinged review). Sometimes they give the game away a little too early in the show, and Pats admonishment that he doesn't want people who might, say, enjoy a return to capital punishment, to see his attempt to convince them otherwise. One assumes, of course, that if you put on a pro-death penalty play that Pats wouldn't go see it or even mention it, and certainly not dare ever review it.

The sheer ridiculous of it almost makes me giggle, but it's the standard fare. If you haven't learned this lesson yet, go back to square one and come back when you're finished. This is the same level of attack that has been aimed at far bigger names than me: Dinesh D’Souza. Mark Steyn. Ann Coulter. Katie Pavlich. Jennifer Gratz. Karl Rove. Don Feder. David Horowitz. Again, discussion isn't something they're interested in having as much as ending. And look, we have literally a demon with a mob.

But now let's move onto probably the most ridiculous aspect of the entire affair: the scheme that when reviewing the plays I have bought (or been given, or had bought for me) tickets for, the crew of Swordplay is going to donate money to a local cocksucking charity. It's satisfying to know that for these poofters their knowledge of economics is about as strong as their knowledge of where a dick is supposed to go. As I tweeted a couple of days ago, this is just a bunch of faggots moving money between each other.
Let's imagine what would happen if I'd never posted a review all Fringe long. Does Darren Hagin not donate to the @yegasspiracyclinic already? Where would this money have gone, exactly? The answer is easy: it would have gone to 'fabulous' fundraisers for Ben Henderson's harpy wife, or back into the revenues for another pro-fudgepacker play next year. It's not exactly like the revenue from Swordplay, previously being earmarked for worthy causes such as The People's Gospel Hour or REAL Women of Canada or Allan Hunsperger's House Ministries, is now being directed to vile charities promoting a sick lifestyle. That money was always going there! It is, as I said before, just moving money around. The next time I write a cheque to the Canadian Taxpayer Federation will it mean anything if I tweet Jason Hardwick and let him know I've decided to do it in his name? If my cousin in the States decides to again donate to The National Organization for Marriage can't he just attribute it to Hardwick and balance everything out? Of course not. It's no different in this situation. The ultimate facts on the ground don't change: I will continue to post reviews and trust me that my view will not be silenced by lame cardboard sign gags based on foolish assumptions. The faggots are still the proponents of a sick undesirable lifestyle, a lustful expression of the mental illness that exists within them, and no matter how much money one uranist gives his favourite pro-uranist charity that doesn't change.

Nor does it change that Swordplay was too long and the musical numbers routinely dragged it down. But maybe changing that conversation was their plan all along. Wouldn't be the first time.