The moral bankruptcy of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act

israel protest

Recently in America, a bipartisan group of senators and congressman signed a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which, if signed into law, would make it a crime to support a boycott against Israel. More shockingly, the proposed punishment for violating this law includes a minimum fine of $250,000 and a maximum fine of $1 million, and you could be thrown in jail for a maximum of 20 years. The AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) acts as if it’s a necessary part of what they see as a fight against the “delegitimisation of Israel”, and indeed, this was a top priority for the lobbying organisation this year.

My own views on Israel notwithstanding, this is simply an extremely abhorrent piece of legislation that I’m shocked anyone supports. The people who support it seem to have no idea of the ramifications this bill might have, namely regarding free speech. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly forbids any laws abridging freedom of speech. Of course their politicians, so I almost except them to skirt the constitution, but not so brazenly as they will do if this law passes.

Note that this bill was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. You have prominent conservative senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio supporting it (thereby throwing Ted Cruz’s commitment to the constitution in question), along with left-wing senators such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Adam Schiff and Maria Cantwell. That should basically tell you that they’re all career politicians who want money wherever they can get it, and apparently the Israel Lobby is an indispensable source of income to them, so they have to appease them however they can.

Before you misconstrue me for some anti-Israel leftist, consider this. I actually oppose Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, because it’s an obvious attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel through hard-left moralising, and is one-sidedly in favour of the Palestinian side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I’m about as supportive of Israel as I can get, but as a matter of principle, I am diametrically opposed to any law that threatens freedom of speech in any country, especially the West. We are facing enough threats to freedom of speech from potential totalitarians in our own governments (and in opposition). The last thing we want is more.

What’s really sad is that this can go on because there is no real opposition. Bipartisanship notwithstanding, this is the kind of bill I would have expected from a die-hard Republican back in the late 2000’s. In fact, I bet it’s mainly the chickenhawk neo-cons who want this, but the so-called liberals aren’t doing anything, and that’s because the left has lost its mind. Instead of focusing on serious issues like this, they’re focusing on non-issues like the wage gap, Islamophobia and the so-called “Trump-Russia collusion”, none of which are even real things, let alone things that Americans care about. The “liberal left” has spent so much of its energies on fantasy issues that it lost track of the real ones, and now its left to the functionally retarded ACLU to try and stop this. Yes, the very same ACLU that came out in defence of Islamist SJW Linda Sarsour.

In my opinion, this is the true moral bankruptcy of the bill. It’s an opportunistic piece of authoritarian legislation being trotted out by a bunch of unscrupulous political sellouts who know that they can slip it past the radar while the mainstream left is busy drumming up that phoney Russian collusion scandal. It’s exactly like how the British Parliament managed to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill while the opposition was in chaos and the left was too busy trying to undo Brexit.

The manufactured hype over the 13th doctor

jodie whittaker

Yesterday it was apparently announced that the actor to succeed Peter Capaldi on Doctor Who will be Jodie Whittaker, meaning that for the first time ever, the role of The Doctor will be played be a woman. Being that I haven’t ban a fan for nearly a decade, I wouldn’t really care less, but apparently the progressives and social justice warriors have decided they want to rub their noses about it, and use it as an opportunity to virtue signal after a number of viewers took issue with it. Indeed, plenty of people on Facebook, including people I know personally, seem to have missed the point entirely.

First, Doctor Who hasn’t “broken the glass ceiling”. Not only is the “glass ceiling a myth invented by feminists to justify their authoritarian quota policies, but Doctor Who is also not the first sci-fi franchise to have a female lead. The Alien franchise did just that since 1979. Did everyone suddenly forget about Sigourney Weaver, or is she too old to even be a part of pop culture history at this point? Second of all, from what I can tell the reason some people don’t like the idea of a female Doctor Who isn’t because she’s a woman. It’s because the BBC has a very poor reputation as one of the most politically correct institutions in the UK. Naturally this would give rise to the idea that they only selected a female doctor to appease progressives.

And they would be right, but I think what we’re all missing the real reason they cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor – it’s basically a massive PR stunt. You might not believe me, but it will make perfect sense when you hear of the circumstances. You see, Doctor Who’s ratings are actually falling, to the point that it’s been suggest as a reason for Peter Capaldi’s departure from the show. I’m not sure how much further Jodie Whittaker could ruin Doctor Who, being that Steven Moffat had already done that since the start of the decade.

From what I’ve been hearing under his helm the show has become yet another mouthpiece for the BBC’s lefty social justice propaganda. Perhaps the most nakedly obvious expression of that agenda is the creation of Bill Potts, a black lesbian who looks like a near-exact caricature of a middle class social justice warrior type, who I have to assume was created solely to win praise from middle class lefty fans and media critics. The result? It won over the intended targets, with many media outlets heaping praise on the show and Bill Potts, at the cost of losing more and more regular viewers who are growing tired of the pernicious invasion of social justice in their TV.

They cast Jodie Whittaker with the same exact thing in mind, and I think it what happens next will look something like this. Right now the producers are busy congratulating themselves on how progressive they are, and generating hype by blowing the sexist comments out of proportion because it’s an easy way to get clicks from you. When they air the first episode with Jodie Whittaker, I predict that the show will enjoy a slight ratings increase on the next season premiere, only for ratings to continue plummeting further and further when people realise it’s the same boring show with the same declining quality in writing. After the producers realise that ratings haven’t gotten any better as a result of this publicity stunt, the producers will probably blame sexism for their declining ratings, and insist that the show needs to be more progressive, more political, all while they have to once again fight off speculation that the show will be cancelled, which will probably be more likely to happen if I’m proven right.

After that, the new doctor will be treated with the same fondness as the new all-female Ghostbusters did last year, as one of the most cringe-inducing symptoms of a time gone wrong, and even the producers will distance themselves from it. If you think about it the idea of the 13th Doctor is almost exactly like last year’s reboot of Ghostbusters. The producers shoehorned a female lead into the series for the sake of appealing to progressives and identity politicians, using her a conduit for some sort of feminist moralising, and they expect you to lap it all up, deeming anyone who criticises the new feminist icon to be a sexist. The problem was that by calling everyone sexist, you will alienated most of the fanbase, along with ordinary cinema goers. With Ghostbusters it lead to the film failing to turn a profit, killing off all hopes of a sequel and forcing the film to be given a subtitle on all home releases.

With Doctor Who, I think you will get exactly the same result. If Doctor Who doesn’t get cancelled, it will probably come back with a reduced budget, and the next season will have even lower ratings, so either way the show is doomed, and its reputation will be thrown down the garbage chute. This whole big to-do over the new Doctor Who star being a woman simply reeks of a manufactured controversy designed to sell a failing TV show. It’ll probably succeed temporarily, but once people realise that the show is still in its zombie years they’ll probably tune out. The people who wanted a female doctor probably won’t even care. They just want to celebrate the show “breaking muh glass ceiling” and insert their agenda as far as they can. They don’t care that they’re destroying a show that lots of people like. They only care about whether or not popular culture is progressive, and if you’re not in line with their agenda, then they’ll smear you as a backwards-thinking bigot or a misogynist until you either comply, or watch your career burn to the ground.

That’s what it’s all about in the end. The BBC, and indeed the entire mainstream entertainment industry, has been taken over by toxic ideologues who want nothing more than to control the way we think, and they want to use entertainment to influence us into accepting their way of thinking, and it’s not working anymore. They realise that they’re obsolete thanks to the Internet, and they don’t like it one bit. They’re probably wondering “why do people not like our totally progressive revolutionary TV show”, and of course nobody has even considered that TV is simply outdated, and so is Doctor Who.

My thoughts on Jacob Rees-Mogg

jacob rees-mogg

I’ve noticed that there’s a rising star shining within the Conservative Party, and to my surprise it’s Jacob Rees-Mogg, the whimsically anachronistic MP from North East Somerset. Recently he’s been gaining in popularity thanks to a grassroots online campaign called #Moggmentum, which seems to be an emerging right-wing equivalent of the kind of grassroots support that swept Jeremy Corbyn into power as leader of the opposition.

Where is his support coming from? Primarily from the Internet of course. He’s been a viral sensation among the right for about five years, attaining viral status through his use of the word “floccinaucinihilipilification”. Since then he’s won himself a loyal following through his gentlemanly attitude and his dry English wit. He also made his name as a supporter of the Leave campaign in last year’s referendum, and now you will find plenty of Rees-Mogg moments on YouTube, which individual views for each video typically reaching the tens of thousands. If that’s not enough, in the wake of Theresa May’s weakness, there’s an unofficial campaign to get Jacob Rees-Mogg to become leader of the Conservative Party, and thus become Prime Minister.

The momentum appears to be having results. It used to be that Boris Johnson or David Davis would be the most likely person to succeed Theresa May if she were to resign, or if a leadership contest were held soon. Recently, however, he is becoming the new favourite to potentially succeed Theresa May. The betting odds for him becoming leader have also gotten better. On PaddyPower he currently has a 10/1 chance of becoming leader (putting him in 4th place, behind Boris Johnson and Phillip Hammond), and according to Oddschecker, the outlook is similar across the board.

So, what do I think of him? I kind of like him. He composes himself very well in debates, he always speaks politely, and he has mostly sensible positions on the important issues, coming from a conservative background of course. He’s a breath of fresh air compared to most politicians in this country. A sane alternative to Chairman May, the Corbynistas (along with their meaner and uglier politics), and the establishment Tories (indeed, Rees-Mogg seems to have more in common with UKIP than the Tories). Compared to Theresa May, I think he would be a superior leader. He the “strong and stable” conservative that May acted like she was throughout her whole campaign, but unlike May, he can hold his own in a debate, and he’s willing to debate on national TV.

As for his political views, he seems to be a bit more conservative than the establishment conservatives. I firmly agree with him on Brexit, and I agree with his support of the DUP deal (which was ultimately based on pragmatism). He has also said that, on the issue of climate change, he would prefer solutions that don’t hinder technological progress, and the way see it, that could mean he’s open to letting the free market solve it. The main thing I disagree with him on is his opposition to the legalisation of gay marriage. He voted against the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act of 2013, and his main reasoning is simply because he was a Catholic, and he felt it was a matter of “what is sacrament”. It’s a stupid argument against gay marriage, but I’m willing to let his stance of gay marriage slide for two reasons. Firstly, gay marriage is an irrelevant topic because the argument is over. Gay marriage is legal in Britain and nobody has any real argument against it. Secondly, the way I see it, if Rees-Mogg does become leader of the Tories, he may eventually have to moderate his own public position on the matter.

I’m also concerned with the idea of another old-fashioned Etonian running the Tory party, which has been dogged by a nasty reputation as a party of Etonians for a long time, and David Cameron’s tenure only exacerbated this. However, I think Rees-Mogg will get by the same way he became a viral sensation, through the way he composes himself in debates and on public appearances. It also helps that he’s actually attracting potential voters. He may very well be the kryptonite to Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of victory in the next election, possibly because he talks to people instead of talking down to them. An actually right-wing leader of the party, which Rees-Mogg would be, would present an actual alternative to Corbynite socialism, one that the voters could believe in.

Of course, this is all presumption. In politics things have a nasty habit of changing when you least expect it. But I think it’s possible, and at any rate I would be in favour of Jacob Rees-Mogg leading the Tory party, not least because his growing popularity is spooking the left. Sites like The Canary and The New Statesman are apparently struggling to comprehend Rees-Mogg’s popularity, and are quick to demonise #Moggmentum as a “cult of personality”. And I suppose Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t have a cult of personality. Corbyn has the biggest cult of personality in British politics. Nobody on the left dares question the messianic cult of personality surrounding Corbyn, but if somebody on the right has that kind of support, somehow that disturbs them. That tells me that Rees-Mogg is the perfect candidate to lead the Tory party. Not only does he actually believe in Brexit, but he also has far more personality than the Maybot could ever offer, and his popularity upsets the right amount of people. I don’t think it’s likely he’ll lead the party, but I hope this #Moggmentum lasts longer than just a few months.

Brits are forgetting the evils of big government at their peril

uk

Big government is back in fashion, at least according to the findings of the latest British Social Attitudes survey, which revealed that 48% of Brits support the policy of “tax more, spend more”, referring of course to Keynesian-style economic policy. Considering the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, this is a very worrying trend. We are already wallowing under the weight of a government that is already too big, and yet we may be on the path of potentially electing a totalitarian to power in five years’ time, partly due to not just the incompetence of Theresa May’s campaign, but also because public attitudes are shifting in favour of government intervention.

To be fair, the free market case hasn’t been doing very well, and I blame the apathy of economic conservatives in Britain, particularly those within the Tory party. They thought that 1989 really was the end of history, and that they had won the argument against socialism so definitively that they didn’t need to argue for free market liberalism anymore. How terribly naive they were, for the war of ideas is never-ending. When Tony Blair won the general election in 1997, this heralded the slow return of big government, and of paternalistic socialism, but instead of arguing against it, the Tories began slipping back into their one-nation ways, to the point where we now have a party whose leader may as well be the leader of Blue Labour.

Of course I can’t entirely blame people for supporting big government. Since the great recession they’ve been taught the lie that free market capitalism is the root of all their problems by socialists who have been waiting impatiently for precisely such a time to occur. I also think it’s the byproduct of inevitable apathy. We had the pleasure of living in a free market society for long enough that we had forgotten what it means to live under big government. We also have a generation that was born after Margaret Thatcher came to power, and thereby having never grown up under post-war consensus policy, meaning they have never experienced what big government looks like, or at least they’ve lived such comfortable lives that they’ve never had to deal with it.

It has once been said that the death of liberty does not happen from outside, but rather it dies slowly, poisoned by apathy and indifference. Though this may sound hyperbolic I assure you that we may well be on that path if something isn’t done. When a government gets too big, it inevitably craves for more power, and that’s when you start seeing your civil liberties stripped away one by one, and they can count on the public not to fight for their liberties because they will be too apathetic to bother, or worse, actively support it because they may feel that it’s “fair and just”.

The sad reality is that there is nothing just about big government. When they raise taxes to make the rich “pay their fair share”, they reduce tax revenue because less people will be able to pay said taxes. Also, half the money raised from corporate tax (which leftists want to raise) is taken out of workers’ wages, so when you raise corporate tax just because it feels good, you’re actually doing good. But hey, you trust big government to look after so what’s the problem? Speaking of that, people also trust the government to provide free health care, but the NHS (which I will talk about in more detail some other time) is currently facing a rapidly increasing financial black hole, and is plagued by poor service and long waiting times. Without privatisation, the NHS is sure collapse, but we can’t even bring up the idea because the NHS has become a sacred cow in British politics. Just goes to show how much we love big government socialism in this country.

I hope that we Brits seriously consider the ramifications of big government. We should be working towards making government smaller if we want to see any positive change in society, because big government is the problem. Today’s economic and social woes can be directly tied to excessive interference from the state in our lives. When it creates more costly regulations aimed at large corporations, it always hurts small business owners the most. When they ban certain drugs for ancillary moralistic reasons, it forces those substances into the black market, which then grows and enriches criminal entities who take advantage of drug-users. Whenever they pass new crime and surveillance laws with the stated intent of protecting the innocent from terrorism, it instead creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding citizens, who in the end will be the biggest victims of such laws.

Big government isn’t your friend. It should be our sworn enemy, and yet a surprising number of Brits are in favour of big government spending, to the point that 40% of them would vote for a Marxist. If big government is back in fashion, then we will have dark times ahead of us, doomed to repeat history because our memory is short.

CNN – Criminal News Network

cnn

I’m honestly surprised at how rarely I’ve mentioned CNN on this site before. After all, from the earliest days of this site’s history I’ve spoken out against the corrosive, cultural poison that is the mainstream media, and it just so happens that the one news outlet that represents all aspects of the sickness of the media, and it’s name is CNN. Since 2015, they’ve been waging an unceasing smear campaign against Donald Trump, and have long been cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton. They tried to paint Trump as the next Hitler, and painted all his supporters as uncaring bigots. Then when he won the Presidency, they tried to delegitimise him by spreading the phony Russian collusion conspiracy, which even CNN’s own staff will admit is bullshit.

Then, after it became clear as day that the Russian collusion nonsense was finished, CNN somehow managed to sink even lower than they ever have before. A few days ago, Donald Trump tweeted out a meme showing himself wrestling Vince McMahon with the CNN logo superimposed on his face. Surprisingly it’s one of those memes that you can interpret however you want. I think that it might be symbolic of Trump winning against the media’s smear campaign, especially in light of the Russia narrative’s collapse. How did CNN react? They tried to paint it as an incitement of violence against the media. Yes, in the world of CNN, memes are now officially violence, and journalists are supposedly now in danger of losing their lives because the President shared a meme that, by the way, he didn’t make. This is all quite rich coming from the company that hired Kathy Griffin, and the same media establishment that constantly tells people that under Donald Trump you or your loved ones could die because he’s supposedly an unhinged crazy dictator.

They have been fermenting a climate of political violence against right-wingers since Trump got elected, and yet they have the nerve to proclaim that the President sharing a meme is an incitement of violence. But that’s not the worst. Apparently CNN got so offended by the meme that they had one of their muckrackers track down its creator, one “HanAssholeSolo”, and apparently managed to coerce him into an apology, with the implication that they might doxx him if they think he’s out of line. Forget the term Clinton News Network, they’ve officially become the Criminal News Network. In case they didn’t know, threatening to expose a private citizen’s personal details is a crime, and they may well have broken the law in the state in which they are headquartered.

So there you have it. CNN have officially become the Cosa Nostra of the American media, except the actual mafia would probably be punished. Not even Buzzfeed, the rag that published the so-called “piss dossier”, has stooped this low. As far as I know, no other news outlet in America is willing to operate so far outside the law just to bandage their petty ego because they were offended. CNN has long been a symbol of everything wrong with the mainstream news media, but now it has transcended mere propaganda-pushing, showing that they’re the sort of people who will intimidate critics into silence.

That being said, the professional doxxer CNN hired may as well be cut from the same cloth as Buzzfeed. In fact, he used to work for them. The doxxer, Andrew Kaczynski, has a sordid history of muckraking and yellow journalism. In 2013, Kaczynski shared false information from Reddit regarding the identity of the Boston Marathon bombers, naming Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Tripathi – two innocent men – as the suspected bombers. The actual culprits were Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but before the actual suspects were named, Kaczynski’s false reporting led to Sunil Tripathi’s family being bombarded with calls and messages, leading Tripathi himself to commit suicide.

Later in the same year, he retweeted a stupid tweet from a PR woman named Justine Sacco (in which she made a bad joke about AIDS being white), declaring it to be “the worst tweet of all time”. Soon after that, the media elite went about destroying her reputation, and the incident may well have destroyed her professional career. Kaczynski’s career as a whole is based on digging up old footage (often of politicians) and using it as part of smear campaigns against his targets. He is the very definition of a muckraker, and yet he is rewarded for this behaviour by the journalistic community, to the pointed that he was nominated for the Shorty Awards’ “Best Journalist” award. I’m sure Joseph Pulitzer himself would be proud.

In a way, the whole fiasco shows just how rotten the journalism industry has become, and the core of it all is CNN, a network that has gone a step further than everyone else in the mainstream media, proving that there is nothing they won’t do in order to stay relevant in an era where the mainstream media is dying. If that’s not enough, they’re also completely incompetent at what they do, and I say this mainly because it turns out that “HanAssholeSolo” may not even be the original creator of the meme. It seems to me that everything CNN does in order to try and get at Donald Trump is destined to fail miserably, and that’s because CNN, and indeed the news media at large, simply doesn’t understand what’s going on. They never did, but they can’t just accept their obsolescence peaceably, and I think it’s too late for them.

Given that CNN is willing to associate with some of the scummiest people on Earth, and silence private citizens that offend them, nothing can redeem them now. I can expect a few people to use the “muh freedom of the press” argument to defend CNN, but of course that’s nonsense. The right to freedom of the press only guarantees that you can print whatever you like, as long as it doesn’t constitute slander or personal details. The “free press” defence is wholly inadequate because, and I can’t make this any clearer, CNN broke the law. It’s just like how Gawker broke the law, and yet free press fundamentalists came to their defence because somehow they had “the right” to invade Hulk Hogan’s private life. I ask, does CNN have the right to threaten a private citizen because they are a news agency? No, they don’t, but they did so anyway, and that makes them criminals.

This Independence Day, let’s remember that America was always great

america

“From sea to shining sea.”

Today is American Independence Day, and once again, I’m compelled to remind us of the importance of patriotism in a world that is slowly but surely rejecting it as I write this. Exactly last year I wrote about the importance of national identity, and in that same spirit, I now write about why America deserves its place as the greatest nation on Earth.

Every Independence Day, or rather every year close to that time, you’re bound to get some sour grapes leftist and cultural Marxists whinging about how “America was never great”, or they’ll use the day as yet another stick with which to beat the President with. You get leftists demonising patriotism on the time of the year when people want to celebrate it. Of course we know why they constantly denigrate the American patriotic spirit, and that’s because they despise America. They despise everything America stands for because America isn’t like socialist Europe, and most Americans don’t want the country to be like socialist Europe.

This miss everything about what makes America great in the first place. What makes America great is not just the primacy of liberty in American culture, but also the opportunity for ordinary people to make something of themselves. America has a proud history of hardworking people (Henry Ford for example) busting their backs and using their free time to put their ideas into practice and make something of themselves. Many of America’s industries were born from hardworking people who were given the freedom to try out their ideas in the marketplace, and their success created jobs and wealth to an extent not seen before in the other powerful nations.

The greatness of America is also proven by the character of the American people. John F. Kennedy once said of Americans:

“The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor, and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly.”

I know from experience that Americans are generally optimistic. Not all of them of course, but I have noticed that Americans tend to be more optimistic that us pessimistic Brits. Despite what Hollywood and the left-wing media might tell you about Americans (including the amount of times people lump everyone in with the South), most Americans are decent, hard-working people just like us. In a way, the American people make America great, despite what the left will tell you.

The left has spent much of its energies downplaying and demonising American exceptionalism, because they cannot accept the reality that America really is the best country on Earth. For them to accept it means also accepting that their ideology will only harm the people they are trying to help, and they would be forced to abandon it, which they won’t do even if the facts are in their favour. Besides, American exceptionalism didn’t come out of the air. It came on the back of America’s many achievements.

  • They created the first society with liberty as one of its founding principles, and one that enshrined freedom of speech and expression.
  • They brought us much of the technology we take for granted, such as cell phones, personal computers, and the Internet.
  • They led the ideological battle against communism during the Cold War, and together with Britain and West Germany, they won.
  • America has done more to liberate the world than any other country.
  • America has created a society more welcoming of people of all different backgrounds than any other in the world, and most of the immigrants who come there want to be part of the culture.

Of course there’s a whole laundry list of achievements you could attribute to America, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it. The truth of American exceptionalism is self-evident. Why else would people like myself want to emigrate to America? If America was a horrible place to live in, why would anyone want to live there?

I’m personally sick of the idea that “America was never great”, and idea usually spouted by entitled leftist hipsters who are pissed off that the government is no longer interested in giving them free stuff to compensate for the fact that their liberal arts degrees won’t give them a paying job. These Starbucks Marxists in places like HuffPost or Vox are so bitter that they want all of us to be as bitter as they are, and they don’t care how good they have it in America. But this year, even as leftists continue to paint America as a nation in disarray (which, to be honest, is pure propaganda), remember that it’s all just agitprop, because America was always great, and I have faith that it will continue being a great nation in the future, unless of course the government screws it up again.

Why I think academia is irrelevant

academia

I may be a university student, but I have no real respect for academia. To be frank, I went to university with the full knowledge that I will gain something out of it. Since I do an art course, I’m mainly talking about the contextual studies module, which if you’re preparing to go to uni yourself, you should now this that this is the dry and academic part of your course. I frankly dislike academia, mainly because I see it as stingy and old fashioned, particularly when it comes down to research.

To be clear, they’re okay with you using Internet sources as long as you don’t just use a random blog as a source (incidentally, please don’t use this site as a source for your dissertation, I’m not liable for your carelessness), but they seem to be insistent that you mostly use books. That isn’t necessarily the worst of my problems, but it seems to me like they have no faith in a student’s ability to discern truth from misinformation on the Internet. The only real argument I’ve heard against using online sources is that there might be misinformation.

More to the point, they seem to be the kind of people who have the attitude of either you write the way we want you to, or you fail, and I can say this because I have actually discussed this with a member of staff working at the university, and we basically came to that conclusion looking at the kind of writing language you’re required to use. They’ll tell you its supposed to be about objectivity, but really it seems to me like you’re part of the Borg. Not even a shred of your own individuality is allowed in your writing at all, and yet I’ve heard that certain lecturers recommend that you write your dissertation with emotive, persuasive language. That sounds like they’re in favour of narrative crafting, the total opposite of objectivity.

To me, that’s the biggest problem I have with academia, that it’s stuck in its old and entrenched ways, refusing to change with the times. The most revolutionary aspect of the age of information has been the fact that now anyone who can use the internet has access to any kind of knowledge they want, and they don’t even have to go to university and go into debt to do it. The people in academia hate that. They have long been the ivory tower gatekeepers of information in the days before the information age, and now that the internet has brought about the free flow of information to the public, academia is left unable to stem the flow.

Of course, academia is one the core components of the reigning establishment (the others being the government, the media, and the cultural elite). Their gripes are the same as those of the rest of establishment at large – they are becoming irrelevant, and they can’t stand that. It doesn’t help that they cling to the ideology of cultural Marxism, that postmodern, neo-Marxist nonsense which you can easily use the Internet to disprove if you have at least two brain cells, a cursory knowledge of philosophy, and/or internet connection. If anything, this seems to be making academia (and academics) even more irrelevant and out of touch with the rest of society.

Those at least are my observations. I haven’t necessarily been in university for very long, but I get the sense that I don’t fit in well with academic culture. The way I see it, the kind of academic language taught in university isn’t going to be worth much when you get out of university and try to enter the job market, which as I speak is so oversaturated with degree-holding graduates that I dare say degrees will one day become worthless. All that debt for nothing I guess, and yet I’m supposed to have respect for the irrelevant spectre that is academic culture, which will offer nothing of worth to me unless I plan to become a teacher and/or a professor, thereby entrapping myself within the education system. It seems to me like an outdated system. Instead of encouraging young people to go to university, I think it would be best to encourage them to develop vocational skills and enter the job market. If anything, it may yet be more profitable for the next generation than locking them into the old, outdated academic culture that will continue to fail them in the long run.