Does despotism stand a good chance today?

despotism

So I noticed that a video from 1946 is apparently doing the rounds online again. It seems that it was released as an educational video by Encyclopaedia Britannica, and is notable for how chillingly prescient it was when it comes to America’s transformation from a free society to an authoritarian nightmare. Given that the film was made shortly after the end of World War II, the death of Adolf Hitler, and the fall of Nazi Germany, it’s easy to surmise that the film was made to warn the next generation of the signs of despotism. Assuming that’s the case, I find it tragic that today’s children simply aren’t getting that lesson.

The central premise is that you can measure any community in the world on a sliding scale with democracy on one end, and despotism on another, and that two effective yardsticks for measuring the path to despotism are respect and power. Starting off by measuring respect, the first argument is that as a community moves towards despotism, respect is reserved for increasingly few people. In theory, people in communities that would rank low on the “respect scale” tend to withhold respect for large groups of people because of their political attitudes, or when their wealth and position in life gives them that right, or if they don’t like somebody’s race or religion.

When I see leftists, social justice warriors and younger people disrespecting people just because they’re right-wing, I think there’s a whole heap of truth in that. You certainly can’t deny that in today’s society, it’s perfectly acceptable for people to deny respect to somebody just because they happen to be white, and especially if they happen to be Christians. Today we live under the illusion of tolerance, where we’re supposed to tolerate everything and everyone, but if you’re white, male, Christian and conservative, or simply have one of those traits, you’re treated as the black sheep of the family by establishment leftists.

After talking about developing one’s skills, the next yardstick is the “power scale”. Essentially it boils down to measuring how much of a share citizens have in making a community’s decisions. Communities approaching despotism, the film argues, see the power to make decisions being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, much like France under the despotic rule of Louis XIV, or fascist Italy, or the various communist dictatorships that sprung up after the film was made.

The film rightly states that the sign of despotic power is if a state can disregard the will of the people, ruling without the consent of those it governs, and sometimes, pressuring people into voting a certain way (for example, in just about every communist state, you could only vote for the local communist party). Despotic governments also tend to have legislatures that essentially have little more than a ceremonial function, lacking any real control over law-making. There is in fact a real life example of this happing – the European Commission. Once the European Commission makes any decision, you can’t vote for or against it. The EU Parliament is essentially little more than a ceremonial function, as our representatives in Brussels can’t do jack shit whenever Jean-Claude Juncker wants to ingratiate himself with more state power. I’m amazed he doesn’t just go out and exclaim “I am the state” at this point.

It’s also worth noting that EU nations were either forced to approve an EU motion, or pressured to vote in favour of it. For example, Ireland initially rejected what was then a new EU constitution, but was pressured into voting in favour of it, after it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. The Greeks also rejected a third bailout payment in a democratic vote, but the EU forced the Greek PM Alexis Tsipras to take the money anyway, leading his finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to resign. Indeed, during the EU referendum, the establishment tried to pressure us to vote Remain, but thankfully most of the voters resisted, and voted Leave. Meanwhile, in America, Obama enjoyed far too much state power, and when Trump ran for office, even the US government was backing his opponent. I think it’s fair to say that the West ranks very low on the power scale currently.

The film also argues that it is also important to measure the means of economic distribution and the spread of information in society, as those apparently affect the respect and power scales, and thus the path to democracy or despotism. The economic argument is that societies headed towards despotism generally suffer from “slanted” economic distribution, and I assume this means much of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. I believe the video has a slightly left-leaning stance on economics, but the point seems to be that in a society with slanted economic distribution, the middle class shrinks, and it just so happens that the Obama administration’s policies shrank the middle class.

Part of the economic argument concerns private land ownership being concentrated in the hands of a few, and communities that depend entirely on a single industry, such as mining. If jobs and land ownership are controlled by a few, the film argues that the community has a poorly balanced economy, and so despotism stands a good chance. I guess this makes sense in one way. Slanted economic distribution tends to result in the formation of an oligarchy, rule by a corrupt, corporatist class like we see having taken hold in Britain and America. Another major sign of economic despotism would be taxation system that unfairly attacks those in a certain income bracket. The best example would be America’s “progressive tax” system, which unfairly targets the rich. When taxes for the rich are increased, however, it’s only inevitable that the poor are hurt by the same tax hike. Come to think of it, the whole concept of an income tax sounds like a cheap way for the government to steal some of your hard-earned cash (incidentally, I’m eagerly awaiting a president who would scrap the IRS).

Finally, the film talks about the dissemination and evaluation of information in society through academia and the media, and this I feel is the most important lesson to take in. In a society ranking low on an information scale, the press, radio, TV and other forms of communication are controlled by a few, and when citizens must uncritically accept what they are being told, which is something I’ve being trying to warn people about on this site for many years. Despotism stands a good chance when teachers are taught that their role in life is to tell young people to accept what they’re told uncritically, which is exactly what happens in our public schools. When students are taught to think uncritically what they hear from the schools and from the overwhelmingly left-wing press, they are imparted with the attitude that they know what’s right because they saw it in a book, or heard it on TV.

It is a well-established fact that the more control the government has over the means of communication (read, they’re next target is the Internet), the easier it is for the people to believe exactly what the powers that be want them to. Government censorship and/or oversight is perhaps the classic example of press censorship, which manifests itself in Britain as Ofcom (a tyrannical media censorship organisation launched in 2003), and in America as the FCC (which, frankly shouldn’t even exist according to the constitution). However, freedom of the press can also be neutered by private interests, namely advertisers threatening to pull their ads if a newspaper runs a certain story. I remember a classic case of this happening to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. During the 1980’s they relied ad revenue, and ran ads from a tobacco corporation. When the magazine ran a story that wasn’t friendly to the tobacco industry, they had their ads pulled, costing the magazine valuable ad revenue. Today, private interests still pose a threat to people who speak the truth on YouTube, which can now cut off a YouTuber’s ad revenue from videos that offend’s the site’s purposely vague content guidelines.

This is the kind of thing I have been against since I founded this site, and I think it’s stunning to find out that people in the 1940’s were more aware of this sort of thing then we are today, and yet we look at them now as backwards just because they had different values than we do (for better or worse by the way). I’d say Western civilisation stands very low in all the scales, because when you look at the signs, the only conclusion I can draw is that the West is headed for the path of despotism, and has been treading this path since the middle of the Cold War.

The signs are obvious. Government is getting bigger and more illiberal, with more power concentrated into the hands of a few, the media is a tightly controlled propaganda mechanism, information is controlled and forcibly accepted as academic truth, the economy is slanted in favour of corporate interests, and respect is reserved for an elite celebrity class, all of whom say the same things (climate change is real, Trump is bad, Brexit is bad, borders are racist, etc.). At this point, how can I not come up with the conclusion that we are on the path to despotism?

However, I believe that there is a way out. We need to shrink the role of government, abandon cultural Marxism, stop ingratiating the multi-national corporations with more privileges than they already have, and we need to teach the next generation to question what they’re being told. I believe that we are capable of reversing the damage done, so that we can return to the path of liberty, but we want to have very little time. I believe that either the West has only two options. Either it can turn away from the path of despotism, or become consumed by it and be compelled to repeat history, whether it falls prey to communism or fascism. Neither outcome would be desirable, and both outcomes would lead to the ruination of a once great civilisation.

Mared Parry, what are you defending?

binge drinking

I came across an article published by The Tab, a news site clearly aimed at young people, entitled “‘Today’s young women’ can do as they please, Sarah Vine“, written by a young lady named Mared Parry. It was written as a response to an article written in The Daily Mail by Sarah Vine, which mostly came across as a sensationalist brand of moralising on the drunk youngsters on New Years Eve (which is something they seem to do every year after NYE). I read Mared’s article, and I was thoroughly disgusted, mainly because of the sub-heading, which reads as follows.

Drunk girls on NYE aren’t the disgrace the Daily Mail wants them to be. They’re an inspiration.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?

I’m sure the majority are not a complete disgrace, but to say they’re an inspiration makes me sick. I genuinely hate articles like this, because they illicit a gutturally conservative reaction from me, and it makes me think that she and the other writers at The Tab can’t really see the bigger picture here. The article itself seems to celebrate young women getting drunk and out of control. To her, it’s just them “having fun”, and the photos that get taken are “positive”. Earth to Mared Parry, they aren’t positive. I’m pretty sure most people would find them embarrassing when they’re posted. If I got drunk and people took pictures of me acting like a moron, I would be embarrassed, and worse still I would want them taken down if they got published.

Given that she’s talking about Sarah Vine’s article on the Daily Mail, I did read the other article, for which she has been kind enough to provide a link. Vine’s article, clearly written from a socially conservative point of view, makes a lot of bold claims that can easily be disproven with a bit of Google searching (including some bogus stats), and constantly stresses the moral issue. I disagree with her style of writing. I’ve found other sensationalist Daily Mail articles released just after New Year’s Eve, and the whole reason those articles exist is that they’re emotional porn for the site’s readership. It’s easy bait, but apparently Ms. Parry fell for it, and in her article she makes herself look even more retarded than The Daily Mail, which, a year or two ago, I thought would have been impossible.

Apparently her main problem with the Sarah Vine’s coverage isn’t that it’s sensationalist (which is true), nor that it’s inaccurate (which is also true), but with the fact that the article is not only aimed at women, but is also written by a woman. First of all, if that’s her main problem, I can only assume that she must be a feminist (why else would she focus on women). Second, I think this makes her a hypocrite, in the sense that if The Daily Mail wrote an article about drunk boys, she wouldn’t give a damn unless it suited her. Indeed, she does ask the question of “where are the pictures of the young men getting too drunk? Why aren’t they being shamed for it?”. If she wants to see drunk boys, she can find them on Google. There’s plenty of them out there.

I kind of suspected that Parry might be a feminist social justice warrior, which is ultimately proven by her dismissal of Sarah Vine and anyone like her as “clinging to their internalised misogyny”. Only feminists and social justice warriors believe in the myth of internalised misogyny. It’s basically their word for women who aren’t feminist. Of course, the same author previously wrote an article calling for girls to “stop assuming guys will pay for their dates“, claiming that it “doesn’t fit the fight for equality”. In other words, she sounds exactly like the kind of bilgy writers that infest far-left papers such as The Guardian or The Independent.

I also find it laughable that she says that “there’s no point getting angry at the ignorance Sarah Vine spouts in her article”, yet that’s exactly what she’s doing. The entire article, inconsistent and riddled with hyperbole, is little more than leftist bilge, but I can’t help but think it’s worse than that. Ms. Parry is effectively an apologist for one of the worst excesses of modern society, and I don’t care if it happens on New Year’s Eve or Halloween. Binge drinking is a problem whenever it happens, and during the holiday season it’s even worse because it makes the NHS less able to deal with more serious medical emergencies because the hospitals and ambulances get flooded with young drunkards.

Does she have any idea what she is defending? She is effectively trying to make the case that binge drinking is a-okay just because she’s a student, and she seems to suffer the delusion that all students like to get drunk. I don’t. In fact, I hate the idea of binge drinking, and I especially hate it when people like Ms. Parry binge drink, because it makes the rest of us young people look like irresponsible jackasses, and Ms. Parry’s defence essentially amounts to “YOLO”, which has never, in all of human history, been a strong counter-argument.

To me, her attitude represents the kind of overly permissive attitudes we have on binge drinking that we as a society have cultivated over the years, due chiefly to poor parenting, and the promotion of American-style alcohol culture as seen in films like Animal HouseSuperbad, and American Pie. Normally I’m not this conservative on anything, but on this, I can’t help but react this way. When I look at binge drinking, I don’t see a good time, or even something that could be considered normal. Instead I see a generation that, if only for brief moments of our time, surrenders itself to nihilistic excess, trading in their better judgment for cheap, short-term thrills, all while squandering what little money they have in the process. I see it happening all too frequently in university (not all young people, but most of them).

Both Mared Parry and Sarah Vine are disingenuous pearl-clutchers, but I think Ms. Parry’s article is far worse because it illustrates a complete lack of regard for self-control, essentially saying its great to get shitfaced, and it shows the self-centeredness of modern student culture, and indeed the modern left.

Stop moaning about 2016 already!

2016

Pictured: Two entitled leftists moaning about how they lost everything.

As the current year draws to a close, the one thing that’s absolutely is that clear my Facebook feed is flooded with memes that are effectively designed to persuade you that “2016 is the worst”, as if I hadn’t already heard that from everyone in the fossilized media, including resident shill John Oliver. Pretty much everyone in the left-leaning commentariat is screeching from their soapboxes that 2016 was the worst year on record, and the reason why is obvious – they lost, and they have shown the world that leftists are terrible losers, because when the going gets tough for them, they cry “RACIST”. Of course the veritable avalance of celebrity deaths hasn’t helped, and to be fair, I don’t appreciate having lost David Bowie, and two parts of Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

In spite of the negatives, I actually think that 2016 is actually one of the best years I’ve had the luxury of living through. First of all, this was the year I finally made it to university, and possibly a future career. Second of all, this was the year in which I finally overcame the nihilistic predilections of modern youth (I’m still a goth, but at least I’m finally out of the depressive phase that dominated the previous two years). Third, and the most important point, this was the year in which most of the population finally realised that they had been lied to by the media and political establishment, and vented their rage in the ballot box, including me. I realised that I was being lied to by the left. Now, I’m a hardened right-wing anti-SJW, and yes, I feel absolutely no shame in calling myself “right-wing”, because the left-wing political establishment has turned it into yet another meaningless insult.

The left-wing commentariat doesn’t even realise it, but most of the world is tired of being told what to think by an ideological overclass that has become increasingly out of touch with reality, and increasingly more authoritarian, which is why I abandoned the left. They’re so privileged that they can’t see why the public are revolting against them, because instead of talking to them, they’re talking down to them, and in doing so, the left has dug its own grave, as I’ve spent a few posts recently pointing that out (though my uni work has taken over, so it’s been hard posting again).

And therein lies the crux of the matter, the leftists are mad that they lost, and they’ve resorted to fearmongering and whinging, and nothing exemplifies this better than Flo and Joan’s “2016 Song”, which essentially amounts to two minutes of potty-mouthed regressive whinging from people who have obviously been brainwashed by the mainstream media, which ultimately reinforces the biggest lesson of 2016. We have all been lied to, and now we see the liars as they truly are. It was ultimately heartening for me to see the general public come to the conclusion I had already reached four years ago, that the mainstream media is full of agenda-driven liars who are more interested in lining their pockets with cash than informing the public, who they look upon as plebs anyway.

The point is, 2016 has been a great year because it proves that the spirit of rebellion hasn’t been killed yet, and that if things go bad for us, we have the ability to turn things around if we desire it. If anything, 2016 has been the most positive year in a long time. If you want a bad year, try 1914 (the start of World War I), or 1929 (the start of the Great Depression), or 1347 (when the Black Death broke out in Europe)? Hell, why not try the year 476, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed? I’m sure that was way worse than all the “horrors” that 2016 had to offer. If you think we have it bad in the West right now just because the right-wingers are coming back into power, you obviously haven’t been to the Philippines, where upwards of 6,000 people have been killed in a nonsensical “war on drugs”. What about Libya, which is essentially a failed state thanks to Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State? What about Venezuela, a country that can’t afford to feed its people? What about Syria, a country that became a war zone thanks to intervention from the West and Russia? All of those countries and more have it FAR worse than we do, and yet the left acts like the world is coming to an end just because a man they personally hate became the President?

I know this is more of a rant than usual, but as 2016 draws its last breath, I thought it was time to finally show how I really felt about the current year, in all its blazing glory as the “progressive”, globalist establishment finally crumbles before my eyes. Do any of these people think I care what they think, after they’ve lied to me for the past five years? I used to be a liberal progressive until I found that The Guardian showed its true colours, and after I found out that the right-wing arguments, for the most part, actually made sense when you don’t look at them through the progressive lens (which I’ll talk more about in a later post).

I honestly hope 2017 will shape up to be better than 2016, not just for political reasons, but because I think this the year where we finally venture out into a brave new world where anything is possible, though I think that attitude will change if things suddenly go to shit. Unlike the doom-and-gloom Clintonites, Europhiles and social justice warriors, I’m open-minded about the future, and I’m going to continue walking forward while the regressives in the establishment lurch backward into their caves and throw their little tantrums. Peace out!

The truth about “fake news”

fake news

After Donald Trump got elected President, the mainstream media quickly rushed to figure out how this could have happened. I could tell them how, but it appears that the media are doing everything do dodge the obvious answer, and so they turned to another scapegoat – “fake news”. They’ll tell you that when they say fake news, they mean unofficial news sites that spread deceptive, unsourced stories passed around as journalism, but they’re really referring to anyone who isn’t CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, CBS, RT or NPR. Basically “fake news” refers to anyone not part of the exclusive club known as the mainstream media.

Given the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump, it’s painfully obvious that the mainstream media is devoid of the journalistic integrity they claim to uphold. Only 6% of ordinary people actually trust the mainstream media, with alternative news outlets slowly but surely poised to take their place in terms of relevance. You don’t even need a journalism degree to report the news anymore. Somebody on YouTube, if proper diligence is done, could give far more accurate commentary than the likes of CNN. Alternative Internet voices are making themselves heard, and the established media doesn’t like that, because it means their glory days are over.

When the mainstream media was at the zenith of its influence, there was no internet. Control of the spread of information was concentrated in the hands of the cultural and political elites. Knowledge was controlled at the time, but thanks to the Internet, we now have access to any kind of information and point of view you could possibly imagine. Of course, the elites hate that, and now they want all the non-mainstream media outlets, regardless of journalistic quality, to be stricken down, and it’s been implied that Facebook is joining in on the witch hunt, along with the EU.

Of course, I’m painfully aware of the fact that there are genuinely fake news sites out there that spread false information and yet gain millions of views. Buzzfeed is a good example of one. However, most people can easily tell a fake news site just by looking at it. Also, all the people crying “fake news” ad nauseam generally agree that Breitbart is a “fake news” site, and unless you’re a far-left progressive, you probably know that Breitbart doesn’t even come close to being “fake news”. In fact, I’ve read enough Breitbart articles to come to the conclusion that they are capable of solid journalism, more so I would argue than the likes of CNN.

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream media hates Breitbart solely because of they are a right-wing populist news site that actively promoted Trump (thus they see Breitbart as a key contributing factor in Trump’s victory). In a globalist world heavily marinating in failed lefty ideals, Breitbart represents the counterculture, and thus they are the enemy of the establishment. That’s why they freaked out when Trump appointed Breitbart’s (now-ex) boss Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Hillary Clinton was once caught proclaiming that Breitbart “has no right to exist”, implying that if she had succeeded in getting elected, she would work to have it shut down. Of course, now that Hillary has lost, her cronies want to do it for her.

To me, the whole “fake news” controversy is just a whingefest carried out by a failing, irrelevant mainstream media hell bent on maintaining its power. The irony here is that they want to punish right-wing news sites for the kind of practices that CNN regularly committed throughout the election. We all know that it’s a useless way of distracting the public, and it’s not working. People are starting to realise what’s actually going on, that the media has been lying to them all this time, and I’m glad. When I first started this site, I was constantly speaking out against the lying mainstream media, and it seems that the MSM never learned their lesson.

“Fake news” didn’t influence the election, unless you count CNN pissing off enough of the public for Trump to win. The reason Trump won was because the people have had enough of living under the Democrats, and they didn’t trust Hillary Clinton at all. All they’re doing by persecuting people and news sites with opposing opinions is proving to everyone that they are a bunch of ivory tower elitists who don’t care about freedom of speech, and by doing so, they will have fully alienated themselves from the public.

A plea to the few remaining good progressives

solidarity

Let this image illustrate what progressives think they’re doing.

Following the recent victory of Donald Trump, I’d like to talk yet again about the progressives, but this time, I want to take a different approach. In my more recent posts, I have been absolutely cruel towards progressives (with good reason, namely I’m an ex-leftist who got sick of all the nonsense). In university I’ve met good people who consider themselves progressives, and surprisingly enough, are actually willing to hear my case.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I disagree with progressive ideology, and as I’ve demonstrated previously, I’m still a strong, vociferous critic of feminism in its current form, but I care less about the ideology and more about the people act. Of course, I’ve called progressives and feminists out in this site for basically treating ordinary people like absolute crap because they disagree with them.

Thankfully I haven’t found any of those characters on campus (for now at least, I’ve been sort of steeling myself for the past two months), but it remains crystal clear to me that these “good progressives” and “good feminists” aren’t making their voices heard loudly enough. I don’t doubt that they have good intentions. Of course they do. But the problem is that the movement is clearly dominated by the reprehensible social justice warriors, and many of the mainstream progressives (celebrities, politicians, artists, etc.) aren’t even trying to distance themselves from the bad actors, often because they’re trying to pander to them.

This and the many other failures of the progressives practically ensured Trump’s victory, and now even other progressives (the one’s who aren’t still pouting and pooping their diapers over a Trump presidency) are starting to realise that it’s partly their fault, along with the media, and which point we’re finally on the same page. Realising that there’s a problem in the movement is a good start, but I think it’s going to take a lot more than to get the public back on their side, and if you’re one of the good progressives, like the ones I know in real life, I’m willing to help, if that is you’re willing to listen. Let’s break this down into a few points.

1) Don’t shut down the conversation by calling the opponent “racist”, “sexist”, or any other “-ist” or “-phobe” you feel like.

Seriously, that’s one of the biggest gripes people have with progressives right now. They’re not willing to have a conversation on meaty issues such as immigration, black-on-black crime, radical Islam, or the biased family courts, probably because doing so would mean taking off the ideological lens, if only for a while.

If you didn’t want Donald Trump to win because you thought he was a racist, or a sexist, or a xenophobe (neither claim holds up to scrutiny by the way), then that’s too bad. Calling him those things didn’t work, and trying to shame his supporters with the same tactic definitely didn’t work. You can’t persuade people to side by telling them they’re bad people if they aren’t. It didn’t work when conservative Christians tried it, and it isn’t working today.

Besides, by abusing these very words, you effectively reduce their value. If every trivial thing is racist, it means nothing because the word “racist” has lost meaning, and it’s nothing other than a disservice to people suffering from actual racism around the world. Same with sexism and sexual harassment. It’s only baffling how a dad joke can now be considered “sexual harassment”, but the consequence is that it might end up being harder for people to take genuine sexual harassment claims seriously.

2) – Kick Marxism out of the movement

Today’s progressives get much of their ideas from Marxist theory, as well as critical theory as prescribed by the Frankfurt School. Such nonsense must be purged from progressivism if you have any hope of winning back public acceptance, and possibly winning elections. Marxism is not only illiberal at its core, but it has repeatedly demonstrated itself as a failing ideology. Every country that has tried Marxist ideals ultimately becomes an impoverished dictatorship where all the wealth, power and resources are concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Critical theory is also pure nonsense. All it teaches you is to deconstruct everything you see, while offering no positive alternative. Today’s modern social justice warriors think almost entirely with critical theory (they’re practically breast-fed with it in universities), and that’s why they see the bedrocks of society – marriage, capitalism, the family unit, – as problematic at best, and enslavement at worst.

Also, in what way does Marxism, or indeed socialism, represent the best interests of the working class? In the 1980’s, the Labour Party began to tilt extremely to far to left, and went full Marxist under Michael Foot. The end result was Labour being kept out of power until 1997. I can see the same thing happening to Jeremy Corbyn. He’s already turned the party into a living joke, and as long he’s continuing down his current path, Labour will be virtually unelectable. To me, it seems as if today’s progressives, by embracing Marxist ideals (to the extent that racism and sexism are redefined through the Marxist framework of “oppressor vs. oppressed”), have isolated themselves from the working class, to the point that progressivism is now an ideal home for champagne socialists like Russell Brand or Owen Jones.

What I’m trying to say is that capitalism doesn’t have to be your enemy. In fact, capitalism is arguably the fairest economic system we have because you’re rewarded based on the effort you put into your work, whereas in a socialist system, everyone would be paid the same no matter how hard they worked, assuming they work at all. Instead of trying to get rid of capitalism entirely, why not focus on reforming the existing system so that it is harder for poor people to be exploited? I’m not saying that I’m advocating this, I’m just suggesting a possible route progressives can take.

3) – Censorship is never justified, no matter who’s been offended

One thing that appals me about today’s progressives is that they find themselves justifying, and sometimes advocating for what is effectively censorship. Usually this takes the form of a progressive arguing that a Christian preacher shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public. Any progressive can make that argument, but that doesn’t make it a morally justifiable one.

The problem with modern progressives when it comes to censorship is that when you take away anybody’s right to free speech, for any reason, it sets an uncomfortable precedent. If the fundamentalist Christian is silenced, then it’s only a matter of time before anyone else can be silenced as well, and for any given reason.

That’s why I think progressives should abandon the whole concept of “hate speech” (which is essentially a secular equivalent to the concept of “blasphemy”), as it is invariably used to justify censorship. In a truly free and equal society, all speech is protected, without exception. The concept of hate speech serves only to demonstrate how authoritarian the progressive ideology has become.

4) – Stop thinking in terms of race and gender

What’s the most effective why to combat sexism and racism? Stop judging people based on race and gender. It’s really that simple, unless you’re a social justice warrior who can’t help but think in terms of race and gender. A consistent problem that many progressives are having today is that they’re thinking of men, women and ethnicities as collective groups, wherein everyone in that box is supposed to think the same way. This is how today’s progressives have been convinced that insulting one woman means that you hate all women, or that only white men vote Republican.

Identity politics, once the preserve of nationalists during the 1930’s, has become a hallmark of the contemporary left, and this has to stop. Nobody is buying into this identity politics crap anymore, because people don’t want to be judged by what they were born as. Most people can see straight away that the identitarian train of thought exhibited by progressives is no different to the very racist thinking that they claim to oppose.

Some progressives and social justice warriors are actually convinced that being colour blind (read: not paying attention to one’s skin colour) contributes to racism, if it’s not a form of racism. This, of course, is nonsense. I would argue that it is more progressive to be colour blind than to continue focusing on race, and therein lies the problem. In today’s world, most people are colour blind when it comes to race, and that’s a good thing because it means most people don’t give a crap about race. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about when he dreamed of a world where people would be judged based on the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin. What today’s progressives do, however, is slap to Dr. King’s face.

5) Globalism is not your friend

In today’s world, the overarching conflict in politics is not simply a matter of left vs. right. It is now a matter of globalism vs. nationalism, and nationalism isn’t as bad most people think (it’s only when you have extreme nationalists who think in terms of race that you start getting problems). It’s no coincidence that the progressives have been on the losing side in 2016. In Britain, they sided with the Remain camp, because the EU represents their dream of a borderless Europe. In America, they sided with Hillary Clinton, the epitome of 90’s-era globalist, neoliberal politics, despite the fact that she is overwhelmingly corrupt.

Coincidence? I think not. Today’s progressives are globalists, whether they want to admit it or not. The problem is that the globalist elites don’t give a damn about progressive ideals. It may sound like it because they are centrists, but really, all the globalists care about is enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the population. The irony is stunning because progressives often claim they are helping the working class, and like to think that they’re going against the establishment. The reality is that globalism is the establishment, and the people on the top don’t care about the working class. They don’t care about the progressives either. To them, you’re useful idiots who can help them propel their agenda.

By selling out to globalism (which I assume they only did because they don’t like the sound of nationalism), the progressives have alienated themselves from the working class, thus ensuring that they will be defeated in the elections and referendums to come, just as they have been defeated this year.

I know this might be a lot to swallow, but if you’re a progressive and you care about the future of your ideology, and if you don’t want to see a whole decade of right-wing governments dominating the west, then the onus is on you to be the change you wish to see. I know there are good progressives who are tired of the antics of those social justice warriors, and if you’re one of them, take my advice to heart. I’m trying to help you get your groove back. All you have to do is talk to people who disagree with you, listen to their criticisms, maybe challenging them. You can either take my advice, and the advice of other good-hearted liberals, or you can continue doubling down on the failures of progressivism, and ensure your continued failure for years to come.

 

Why we don’t need feminism

While in university, I found a somewhat cringeworthy poster presumably written up by art students (I found this in the fine art area, it’s not hard to connect the dots) which basically attempts to convince the viewer of why the modern world would “need” feminism. What I get is that they’re obviously misinformed, having drunken the feminist Kool-Aid from a keg. That said, I think of it as an opportunity to break down each statement, showing the obvious holes in the ideology, and why we don’t need feminism.

imag0303

Statement #1 – “Because society does not accept vulnerability in men, or strength in women”

I have a question – why do you have to care what other people think of you? It always seems to me like feminists and other assorted leftists place an unhealthy emphasis on society, and that’s because leftists believe that a person’s problems come from society, and that to fix them requires changing society. If a woman wants to be strong, that’s fine. In fact, from my experience, strong women tend to be praised in mainstream culture, and nobody I know seems to have a problem with more vulnerable (translation: less assertive) men.

Statement #2 – “We need to teach our children that they are in charge of their bodies, and not force them to give affection.”

And how do you feminists propose to do that? Do you plan on teaching sex education in primary school, or lower? Because if so I would have some serious problems. This isn’t the sort of subject that should be taught to children, and certainly not in the way feminists have in mind. As for “force them to give affection”, what on Earth have they been reading? I swear that whenever you wear the feminist lens you always see problems wherever you go, and whoever wrote it hasn’t bothered to explain this position. Not that I would expect one from something that’s meant to appeal solely to people within their echo chamber.

Statement #3 – “Because all over the world, there are people who don’t understand that NO means NO.”

Yes, you are absolutely going to get people like that, and if they are breaking the law then they should be punished. That’s all it has to be. You don’t need feminism just because there are assholes in this world. At any rate, most people already accept that no means no, and you’ll always get people who don’t, just as you’ll always have murderers even though murder is illegal. I fail to see how feminism is necessary in this sense.

Statement #4 – “Because women and men still become victims of domestic violence everyday.”

Gee, I didn’t know feminists suddenly cared when men are abused.

Anyway, you don’t need feminism to address domestic violence. Of course, any feminists interested in helping to tackle the issue are welcome, but domestic violence is not an inherently feminist issue, especially if, as whoever wrote this pointed out, it’s not just women being affected. The most useful thing feminists could do is to empower women to break their silence, and hopefully call the police. Other than that, you don’t need feminism for this.

Statement #5 – “Women are seen as second class citizens.”

That’s definitely true in Saudi Arabia, along with the other countries in the Islamic world, but not here in Britain.

Statement #6 – “Feminism has become synonymous with man-hating – this further emphasises the gender divide that feminism was created to break down.”

At least there’s some self-awareness in this crowd, but I would argue that feminism has done much more damage than simply emphasising a gender divide. The reason feminism has become synonymous with man-hating is because most feminists don’t care about men. Not all of them are misandrists, but there are enough misandrists in the movement that people can see feminism for what it is – a movement that primarily benefits women, and advocates for the supremacy of the female gender. As I’ve written about before, the actions of modern feminists have served to damage relations between men and women, mainly because if you keep beating men with the “sexist” and “misogynist” labels all the time, they’re going to get sick of it. Also, what positive thing did they think treating men like a privileged overclass to be overthrown would do?

The fact of the matter is that misandry has become a normal thing in modern feminism, and none of the mainstream feminists are challenging this.

Statement #7 – “Because fathers are not considered as important in their child’s development as mothers.”

I thought that’s what you feminists wanted. Make up your minds already!

Even if the feminists wanted to address this, how do they plan on doing this? I would argue that the men’s rights activists would be more qualified to handle this, but the thing is, feminists refuse to work with them. They view men’s rights as nothing, because for them, why would privileged patriarchs have problems in the first place?

If they want to address this issue, maybe they should stop constantly demonising men, and maybe they’ll get some results.

Statement #8 – “Donald Trump believes women are slaves! He will put an end to feminism.”

Well this sounds very bizarre, because I’ve never heard Donald Trump say anything of the sort. It’s another wild claim that sounds like the writer pulled out of Raw Story, or Salon, or some other progressive propaganda outlet.

As for whether or not he’ll end feminism, I severely doubt that Trump himself cares about feminism at all, but I believe him being elected represents the beginning of a cultural shift away from political correctness. A Trump presidency wouldn’t mean the end of feminism (you can’t really kill an idea after all). All that would be dead is the power and influence feminism has to shame people with, and in a way the feminists deserve it. The movement has clearly been corrupted by power, and has completely lost touch with ordinary people. Trump getting elected is the kick in the ass that they so desperately need.

Statement #9 – “Because women are denied the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies.”

No they aren’t, not here in Britain, and certainly not over in America. This is bold claim that, while it would be accurate in the Islamic world, doesn’t fly here.

Statement #10 – “Because men and women are the same at their core – we are all human and deserve to be treated as such.”

There are biological difference between men and women, and those should not be overlooked, but I agree that in terms of character and what we are capable of, men and women are equals, and here in the West we are treated as equals. We’re all treated based on the choices we make and our character as individuals, and that’s great. The problem is that feminism is not an egalitarian movement. They want equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, so they won’t be happy anyway so long as we live in a free and open society.

Statement #11 – “Because no country in the world can say it has achieved equality of the sexes.”

Britain has. America has. Sweden has. In any Western country, men and women are equal under the law. But that’s not what feminists mean isn’t it? No, they want gender quotas to force companies, governments, schools and other establishments to make sure that 50% of all employees are female. That is not what I would call an egalitarian society. Feminists don’t want gender equality. They want gender parity, just that equality sounds like a much better word to most people.

Statement #12 – “Grab them by the pussy.”

Oh give it a rest already! It was no more than locker room banter, that was recorded eleven years ago. It sounds unpleasant to a lot of people, but it doesn’t justify feminism. That you feminists are so concerned with men saying things that sound unpleasant to you tells me that you are more focused on policing other people’s speech than actual equality.

Statement #13 – “Because feminism can create a better world – for ALL the sexes.”

No it can’t. In fact, in its current form, all feminism can do is make the world a much worse place for both the sexes. You have men who are so afraid of how women will treat them that they are checking out of society to avoid any sort of risk, and you have women who actually decide to pursue a career in the same way as men do, and it turns out they are more likely to suffer from depression. Also, marriage rates are declining, more men are committing suicide, and we now live in a world where you can’t address any of those and more issues without having your reputation tarnished by some shrill social justice warriors who may want to get you fired. Is that what you might call a better world for all the sexes? I would think not.

Also, shouldn’t that be for both the sexes? There’s only two.

Statement #14 – “We are still stuck in the way of blaming the women/victim when they are raped or harassed. ‘What were they wearing?'”

Some people do this, but not everybody does this. Feminists seem to have the habit of sweeping everything and everyone with the same brush.

Statement #15 – “Because I still do not feel safe walking home at night as a woman.”

Probably because you’ve been fed lies by the news media. Trust me. I used to think I wouldn’t be safe at night on my own as well, but I was wrong. In fact, it turns out that women are safer out at night than they think, and that men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women. I’m so sick of this narrative that women aren’t safe at night just because of widely publicised incidents on the news. All it does is scare people into not having a life, and it seems to me like feminism is scaring women into thinking solely about how vulnerable they are. That’s the total opposite of empowering women.

Statement #16 – “Women in developing countries are still being discriminated against and are at a disadvantage regarding their education and their bodies. Being forced into marriage or having their genitals mutilated.”

Finally, a feminist talking point that is actually on point. I agree wholeheartedly that feminism might be needed in the developing world, and that’s partly why I’m concerned that most feminists aren’t interested in that at all. Maybe if you spent less time on safe spaces and trigger warnings, you might actually be able to get something done in those other countries. It’s too bad that’s the only statement that makes any sense.

Statement #17 – “It needs to be understood that ‘cat-calling’ is NOT flattering.”

Some people might find it flattering, and others might not, but I think it’s mostly considered rude nowadays. If you don’t like being cat-called, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t force everyone to think the same way as you. That feminists are so adamant that everyone think the same as them is precisely why feminism has become such a bad word in the first place. That most feminists aren’t aware of this is truly astonishing.

And yet people wonder why I don’t like feminism.

Honestly, I shouldn’t be too surprised, but it’s genuinely concerning what people in my generation are buying into. I know there are good feminists out there (and I sense that I will have to constantly point this out), but these good feminists aren’t being given enough of a voice. It’s the bad feminists who are commanding the dialogue through the mainstream media, and even though some people can say “they aren’t feminists” or “they aren’t what feminism is about”, but the sad truth is that a rotten egg is still ultimately an egg. The bad feminists are still ultimately part of the movement, and it’s because the moderate feminists allowed them to take over the movement that feminism has taken on its current shape.

In the end, we don’t need feminism. What we need is egalitarianism, which is superior principally because when you’re an egalitarian you don’t care about what gender, colour or creed you are. Feminism has failed because it wants to have all the power and influence it can get, and in the process, it has ultimately tarnished itself.

The return of the moral busybodies

stop funding hate

It appears that in today’s world, the home of persistent, self-appointed moral guardians is in the left, and this is evident in a divisive new campaign called “Stop Funding Hate”. What is it? It’s a campaign that aims to pressure major companies into withdrawing ads from right-wing tabloids such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Express. In other words, it’s a thinly disguised attempt at censoring newspapers they disagree with. They made news this month when they released a John Lewis style mock advert calling on them to stop funding right-wing papers. Sadly they’ve already gotten one company to cave in, as Lego announced that they will stop advertising in The Daily Mail. The Co-op Group (for those who don’t know, they’re a British supermarket chain) has also announced that they are “reviewing their policies”, and Waitrose and M&S are also being urged by the group.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but this campaign sounds exactly like the self-appointed moral crusaders of the 1980’s, and it’s sickening. It seems as if today’s progressives are obsessed with silencing opposing opinions, and to be fair, that’s all the left can do nowadays. They’re losing elections, their propaganda is being rejected, and their ideas are being proven wrong in the face of reality. Incidentally, the main targets of this campaign – The Sun, The Daily Express, and The Daily Mail – are all right-wing, populist and most importantly Eurosceptic publications, and all of them backed Brexit. Taking that into account, it’s no surprise that they’re targeting those publications in particular.

Even more baffling is the fact that somebody is actually giving these moral busy-bodies what they want. My question to Lego is this – are you insane? The first rule of handling social justice warriors is that you shouldn’t give them what they want. If you do, then they know that they will have power over you, and they can demand more from you, and they will because they are never happy. This is why you never apologise to a social justice warrior, it shows them that you are weak, and that’s exactly what Lego has done in this situation. At least John Lewis, the company being targeted by the group’s latest ad, has shown some sense, having stated that they “never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper”.

I had a quick look at their Facebook page, and according to their about page, they claim to stand for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice, impartiality, inclusiveness, consistency and universality, and at this point, I know they’re full of shit. They are not in favour of free speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of choice for that matter. They cannot be if the point of their campaign is to stop companies from advertising on newspapers they disapprove of. That is not the goal of a group that values freedom of speech. It is in fact censorship, and it’s wrong when anybody calls for it, no matter how noble you think your goal may be.

Their claim to stand for impartiality is also bullshit, mainly because they’re deliberately targeting newspapers that supported Brexit, and oppose mass immigration. As for inclusiveness, I’m definitely sure that’s what an SJW would stand for, but I’m pretty sure that they’re the kind of people who would ostracise you if you expressed any opinions that differed from theirs (for example, feminism). The only two principles I can say they do hold sincerely are consistency and universality, given that they are consistent in their petulant, self-righteous moralism.

Given that the focus of their campaign is coverage involving immigration, Stop Funding Hate exemplifies the reason why nationalism is coming back into vogue here in Europe, because the left refuses to allow an honest discussion on immigration to take place, preferring instead to talk down to the common man, labelling anyone who opposes immigration at all as a “racist”, “xenophobe” or an “Islamophobe” (more common than ever due to the Syrian migrant crisis). To me, this campaign is yet another symptom of just how terribly simplified political discussion has become. We live in a time where the left has turned any discussion on immigration or almost anything else political into a matter of “love versus hate”, which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of San Angeles in the movie Demolition Man (which is a classic I would recommend to everyone reading this), in which the rules of society are geared toward engineering a world where people aren’t assholes.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like the sensationalist rhetoric of these right-wing newspapers, and I’ve always criticised them because of it, but that doesn’t make it right to pressure companies into withdrawing ads from those papers. To me, that fundamentally contradicts the right to a free press, goes against a company’s right to freedom of association, and could very much set a dangerous precedent. In the future, maybe a Christian pressure group could force a company to pull their ads from a paper that constantly criticises their religion. If that happened, we would basically have a scenario where the censorship that the left demands so much is used on them.