Well there's an explanation for all of that. First of all, Doom Town isn't Chick's first Doom Town. He rewrote the whole thing in 1991, so effectively we've got a Secret Extra Tract of the same name now.

Secondly, since we believe he is no longer with us, we want to talk about The Third Artist.

Greg Hildebrandt was a fantasy artist who alongside his twin brother Tim, made up one half of The Brothers Hildebrandt. They did iconic illustrations based on the works of Tolkien (available at occult bookstores) Greg would also draw one of the original Star Wars posters, and numerous album covers for the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

He also illustrated a handful of Chick Tracts.

We think. Allegedly.

Okay, so hear me out here. In 2004, Kurt Kuersteiner (a collector on such friendly terms with Chick that he's cameoed in TWO tracts to date) released his book The Art of Jack T. Chick. In it, he presents compelling evidence of a Greg Hildebrandt working at Chick Publications in the late 80s, illustrating a handful of the tracts in what is now the “Stories From The Bible” series, and seems pretty sure that it's the same guy. That or there was another guy with the same name working in the same area with a very similar art style.

We must mention however that we have been unable to independently verify any of this. Our intrepid reporter Toad asked Hildebrandt’s agent about this and was told in no uncertain terms to “fuck off.” We'd also be remiss if we didn't mention that since releasing his book, Kuersteiner seems to be content to rest on his laurels spewing out all manner of bigoted slop to his Facebook page.

Chick Publications for their part have been relatively unhelpful too, acknowledging that “others” besides Fred Carter have drawn for Chick but not elaborating further.

As for the tracts themselves, only one (Killer Storm) remains in print today. The others are either out of print, or have been redrawn at least in part by Fred Carter.

Still, as Dot mentioned, all of this is strictly theory and conjecture, so please be sure to take every mention of the late Hildebrandt in this dissection as being preceded by a large, bolded, flashing „ALLEDGEDLY“. For the second time around, we are proud to bring you this take down of the original version of Doom Town.

As I will delve into further down the tract, there are numerous issues with the justifications used by the tract. I will be making sure that my dissection tools are ready - I suspect they are going to be getting quite a bit of work with this particular tract and its topic of choice, and I intend to notarize my findings. I admit personal intrigue into this version of Doom Town and how much it differs from the later release, since, as alluded to by Dot in the introduction, the ‘song’ between releases of this tract may have significant differences.

I also hope that I do not wind up with another case of being 'incensed' (to put it politely), but perhaps things will play out differently this time.

Bathe in my compassionate fire! Receive my searing conflagration of kindness! Let my mercy reduce all to ash! Taste the consuming fires of my forgiveness!

An even more pertinent question though… why does that sound like something I would hear if a group of religious extremists were to want to burn my house down? And am I permitted to “fight fire with fire” as the expression goes?

As for why I mention it, because I have a… fondness if you will, for a test involving a person’s justifications and applying it against them, to see whether they will perhaps see the error of their rationale. Case in point... since you wish to murder this person because they did not laugh at your joke, if I were to tell you a joke, do I have the right of way to kill you if you do not genuinely laugh at it?

Cuz buddy, I can tell you who gets mad at me when I find their offensive jokes unfunny and it sure as fuck ain't The Gays.

I think Lot just rolled his eyes at this guy and then he took it as an insult. Typical heathen overreaction.

You and me both, Lot…

…you and me both, buddy.

And to refer to the ‘revised’ edition. I am almost certain this point has been made before, but HIV is not a homosexual-only disease. What about people who share needles (intravenous drug use) and their partners for example? Or heterosexual men who cannot keep their penis in their pants and their partners?

Still though, Lot’s definitely the kind of guy who would move into a progressive neighborhood and then complain and pray to God about it when the neighbors are actually progressive.

So, quick question, what happened to all of them? When God doesn't destroy Nineveh in the book of Jonah, he explains that he takes the lives of the local livestock into account before he starts smashing shit, so he's just fully on board with killing all the cows this time? Were there chemicals in the water that turned the freaking cows gay?

As for why they chose cakes… centuries ago, cakes were generally foods associated with the wealthy, rather than the common folk. The wealthy elite, in all their decadence and other frivolous trappings (social politics for example), were often detached and paid no mind to the circumstances of the less fortunate, doing essentially nothing to alleviate their suffering and help their fellow man. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, as it were. It is actually quite fitting nowadays, considering the current circumstances of the world and certain countries, as well as Chick and his seeming recurring messages of not practicing the Christian teachings around helping the poor and needy (as we discuss later).

And side point, but the world was already dark, even before this event, and if the story of the Bible prior to this point is anything to go from. Lot already was in a world of darkness as it were, even before Sodom existed and before he decided to move there. Was it not when ‘sin’ entered the world due to the events in the Garden that the world became dark?

But yeah, did Lot just want to go as far away from conflict as possible? Isn’t moving into Sodom inviting conflict instead?

…and after he arrived and saw how positively fabulous the inhabitants were, why didn't he just pack up again and go someplace else? It's not like he was there first and Sodom sprung up around him. If you have a serious philosophical objection to gay people and you mistakenly move into the Castro District because it’s just so gosh-darned convenient to the Bay Area, do you stay there and fume over how many gay bars the place has, or do you just bite the bullet and move to Oakland?

In all seriousness, though… I'm sure the term Chick was actually groping for was “describes”. Hire a proofreader, Jack!

You also point to Genesis 13:13, but there isn’t any mention of what exactly makes Sodom wicked and full of sinners, if you read from the start of Genesis up to this point. It does not say anything about their supposed sin and wickedness until the incident involving the angels.

Please kindly forgive me if I choose to express cynicism that the individual and associated company who wrote tracts like Lisa, Wounded Children and Home Alone? might not be one hundred percent honest in their statements and twist things to suit their fearmongering agenda to push corrupted and perverted drivel to try to scare people.

I know Chick needs to paint the “Sodomites” as having absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever so as to better justify their inevitable holocaust… but how would that honestly work? How would a city that actually functions that way last more than a few weeks at most?

That said, between this, ignoring the words of Ezekiel and your tract Macho, I am noticing a theme in which you seem to resent the idea of Christians helping the poor and needy… something that is actually encouraged of Christians as part of their practices and teachings. After all, faith without good works is dead.

At least this version doesn’t have the hairy backed man… *shudder*

1. It's interesting to observe that “The Littlest Sex Crime Victim” has been present in the tract since its very inception. I think that speaks volumes on Jack's priorities when it comes to discussing his beefs and misconceptions with gay people.


2. He also took a look at this picture a few years later and said “Know what? I don't think this really gets the point across. Fred, could you actually draw in the grown adult that's preparing to wishbone the kid? I think that will help to drive the whole idea home. Plus, you seem to have a curious talent for drawing hairy, homosexually coded men for some reason. Best to put that to good use.”


3. In the meantime, Jack/Fred clearly felt the worst thing about this particular illustration that warranted “fixing” was replacing the poor kid's bulbous, macrocephalic dome and giving him a full head of hair rather than, you know, removing him from the tract entirely; and…


4. Fred was so completely disinterested and put such little effort into doing so that you can still clearly see how the Number 2 eraser he used to decapitate the poor toddler left something of a “halo” around his brand new head in the stone wall behind him. Just flip back and forth using the mouse-over a few times and you can obviously see what I mean.

One problem (for those who think like you, Chick) is that a large threat to children is also arguably the person who wrote and pushes your corrupted narrative (and other such narratives that you aim at children). Considering the cries of the children who may have read some of your works, I profess sadness that God has yet to investigate you (and others who think as you do) and at minimum, puts to action the words spoken in Exodus 22:23-24. That would be quite the spectacle and a fitting fate for those who endangers children via words and/or actions, no? *smirks*

I also imagine that it would be kind of similar to when you give someone hope, looking for the moment their hopes are highest… just to subsequently crush those hopes and see their lamentations.

Plus, the less said about Rumpleforeskin there sniggering next to him, the better.

Based on the verses you linked (Genesis 19:2-3), I can very much argue that it is a hospitality element. Indeed, beings like angels would not turn up with wings showing and give away they are angels that easily. The entire premise of these two verses can be considered a demonstration of hospitality, since Lot himself calls them ‘lords’, and offers his home for them to stay in as they were likely visiting him, which is what good hosts do. To banish expected guests when they arrive at your house is a sign of disrespect, irrespective of whether the person happens to be a divine being or not.

Honestly it makes more sense that the Devil's trying to get the crowd riled up so that they DO get nuked with zero survivors, giving him extra company in hell.

Seriously guys, why the long, hideously distended faces?

I have a high degree of confidence that almost no reasonable parent would offer their own children in such a situation and would rather die to protect their children. Yet the inner conflict rages as it were - my idealism in the inherent good in humanity is tempered by cynicism. I would not be surprised if people who feel justified in excusing their own spiteful and hateful actions because of events like this in the Bible would also, by extension, offer their own children in a similar circumstance as Lot. Which is contrary to the Bible and warrants a millstone around the neck as per Bible teaching.

I'm sorry… that will never stop being funny to me.

Perhaps they did not want to deal with the paperwork and have their boss do the killing instead. The joys of bureaucracy indeed, especially if God was actually running a company back then.

It is not like it is outside the remit of God and his omnipotent abilities to do any of those things.

And before people try to argue “corruption due to the sins of Sodom” or some other ‘guilt by association’ rationale… this is yet another one of those ‘test’ moments. So by application and extension of argument, if a random Christian (for arguments’ sake, let us use a fundamentalist evangelical) was to subsequently engage in sin (let us choose the sin of of lack of hospitality to guests/strangers for arguments’ sake), does that give right of way to subsequently burn his house and neighbourhood to the ground?

But seriously, this sort of “Black-and-White” thinking is so incredibly ridiculous. What if you believe neither God nor the Devil even exists? Haven't you jackwagons ever heard of a False Dichotomy?

As for this particular discussion, Leviticus was written two books after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in the chronology of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus), which occurred after Moses wrote the Commandments. If we are going to go down this road of condemnation (such as Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13), then you really ought to be aware of Leviticus 19:18-19 and Leviticus 19:33-35. You do not get to decide what rules apply and when just because you feel like it, or because said rules apply and cause you inconvenience. I believe the term for those who choose which rules they follow and which rules they do not follow with such things is ‘hypocrites’.

And lest you aim to accuse me of bearing false witness, I am not without evidence of your willful hypocrisy.

"Unrighteousness, wickedness, maliciousness, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, despiteful, inventors of evil things, without understanding and unmerciful"

But with the unstated implication that pretty much anyone can lie with a child, it was edited to the homophobic commandment that we see now.

You'd think it would be a bit more inconvenient though that right after Chick cuts away from the story, Lot and his daughters proceed to violate Leviticus 18:6.

As per the Bible, all sin leads to separation of the individual from God (not just the sexual sins). I wager that those who believe Chick's twisted interpretations of the Bible are guilty of sins, including the sin of hatred against others and the other sins I pointed out on the previous page. Lest you try to argue the rationale of ‘approving of sin means you are just as guilty'...using a sin (such as not treating your neighbours/strangers as you wish to be treated, or being malicious to others) to justify not committing a sin (such as approving of sexual sins) is unto itself, still a sin.

Gay is fucking brilliant!!!

…as opposed to the alternative then, right?

Something that I have yet to see from you or your kinds of believers, Jack.

And ultimately, if the third artist was Hildebrandt, then honestly good on him for getting out of there before fully tanking his own career. While disappointing that he'd be okay drawing this crap in the first place, if I'd been involved in something this unfathomably embarrassing, I'd probably tell people who brought it up to fuck off too.

Even though homosexuality is against Christian teaching, the mere fact you have used such reasons to justify any sort of violence and discrimination against other humans at all despite it not being your place to do so as per what you believe means you know NOTHING about the aspects of Christianity involving kindness, charity, humility and living in peace with others. The rhetoric of hate is that thinly veiled under a facade of righteousness and love that you could substitute homosexuality with almost anything else that does not believe your very specific interpretations (e.g. other denominations such as Catholicism), and it would still be the same intention. Just perhaps with the possibility of less people being set on fire and having their homes destroyed.

*scowls, the lights becoming choked with darkness, dimming to mere slivers* Is it not per the Bible that only those without sin can cast the first stone? Or what about “judge not, lest you be judged as well”? Yet this entire tract is spent in the judgment of others. Are you therefore not in violation of your own beliefs? No believer of any religion gets to choose what rules apply and when they do not apply. Especially if the tenets of their belief have elements of kindness to others, not judging others and other such tenets. Does engaging in contradiction of your own beliefs not therefore make you hypocrites? Woe unto you, indeed.

*sighs, taking a breath, as the lights return to their original brightness* While I would love to write more, I have to attend to other pressing matters, and I must not tarry, dear readers. Though I shall leave you with two 'items' before I depart. The first is that you are welcome to reach out if so desired, whether by electronic letters or via a program called 'Discord', and shall note that I genuinely enjoy writing letters, for what they are worth in this day and age. The second is to leave you with a well-wish before my departure...

May your days and dreams be most kind to you, the roads you travel on in life be straight and smooth, with nary an obstacle or occurance to waylay you, the winds be at your back and the skies blue above you.

Whether or not Hildebrandt was indeed the mysterious “Third Artist” of legend and just decided it was ultimately more lucrative and better for his professional image to draw completely rocking tits instead of thinly veiled, bigoted hate, we'll probably never really know now that both he and Chick have gone to meet their respective makers. However, I think it's still important for us to remember that we each have that same decision to make every single day. Are we going to allow our hate and bigotry to permit us to be stripped of our compassion and humanity so that we can be exploited by con men for their own avaricious benefit? Or are we instead going to choose to take the harder road… the road less traveled? And hopefully, along that road, we might just be able to all enjoy some really great tits together on the way to building a better world… a world big enough for all of us to live in.

Until next time people, keep fighting the good fight.