Bill Nye the pseudo-science guy

bill nye

“Remember, either I’m right or you go to jail.”

Recently America dealt with yet another social justice haemorrhoid in the form of the “March for Science”, in which far-left ideologues try to convince ordinary people that if you like science, you must be anti-Trump, and of course they failed miserably because no sane person wants anything to do with social justice anymore. The face of that endeavour was Bill Nye, the so-called “science guy” who most people only remember for a PBS children’s show back in the 1990’s, but the March for Science isn’t why I’m talking about him.

On Saturday, Netflix put out a TV show entitled “Bill Nye Saves the World”, a late night talk show in which he talks about how sciences supposedly “intersects with politics, pop culture and society”. In other words, it’s Nye’s own entry in an overcrowded market dominated by the likes of fellow propagandists like John Oliver and Trevor Noah. One of the episodes (which were all released at the same time) focused on promoting myth of “sexuality is a spectrum” as hard science, and he even summoned Hollywood actress Rachel Bloom to do one of the worst musical numbers of all time (don’t believe me? click here if you dare).

Picture this for a moment. Bill Nye, a man who the establishment media in America has proclaimed to be the one of the go-to scientific experts, is on the “sexuality is a spectrum” bandwagon, even though the only “evidence” for it is on Tumblr, a site with as much scientific credibility as a crazy cat lady. He’s also the same person who apparently is such a fervent apostle of the cult of global warming that he believes climate skeptics should be jailed for their heresy, a sentiment also shared by Bernie Sanders and, of all people, Eric Idle.

Of course, the thing you need remember is that the so-called “science guy” isn’t even an actual scientist. His bachelor degree is in mechanical engineering, though his main trade seems to be a science educator, and before his TV show was even conceived, he was a comedian. Of course, the only reason people treat him as a scientist is because his mere presence fuels people’s nostalgia for his PBS series, which I presume works well for the editors of Buzzfeed, a fake news site that practically runs on a constant 90’s boner.

The reason why he’s so keen on promoting Tumblrisms as credible science is obvious – it’s in vogue. You see, Bill Nye is pretty much a shyster. He appeals to the left’s proclaimed love of science (except when it goes against their narrative of course) by branding himself as “the science guy” and presenting himself as a cheerleader of scientific inquiry. That’s how he managed to become a celebrity, and appealing to the left-wing establishment has gotten him rich. It’s a sham, and all around the world leftists will for it because they’ve bought into the idea that all conservatives are just science hating nutjobs who suck the cock of the oil industry all the time. People like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson know that.

The problem, however, is that Bill Nye believes that science is political, and he practically confesses this in a CNN panel discussion on climate change, wherein his facade is broken by William Happer, an actual scientist whose findings contradict Nye’s agenda-driven fearmongering. It’s generally not hard to pick apart Bill Nye’s positions. In fact, the only debate that I’m sure he won was the debate he had with Ken Ham, the famous peddler of Young Earth Creationism. Of course he would win, though doesn’t it sound rather odd that he decided to take on Ken Ham in 2014, long after creationists already lost the culture war? On the other hand it’s not surprising. After all, creationists are ridiculously easy targets for people who would just as easily be ripped apart anyone whose actually done even so much as cursory research on climate science.

Personally, I think the rise of Bill Nye can be attributed to the left’s years of elevating the prestige of the scientist, which they only did in order to make themselves look like the smart ones when compared to the religious right, who in the olden days were busy demanding that creationism should be taught as fact in schools. As a result, the scientist became sort of a priestly class within the left, someone no leftist is allowed to question, particularly if they’re talking about “global warming. When scientists are treated as people who are beyond criticism, you inevitably get flashy conmen who come to take advantage of people’s good faith. In that regard, people like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson (whose proposed government I explored in a previous post here) are no different to the likes of Ching Hai or Al Gore, and yet they garner more respect because they have the correct political views.

That Nye enjoys this prestige is dangerous because he uses this to peddle pseudo-science, and whenever he argues with an opponent who actually calls him out for his nonsense, he reveals his true nature as a shill for the green lobby. This is a guy who wants people to believe that man-made global warming is settled science, even though any idiot can point out that the ice caps haven’t completely melted, and that the Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing (though that’s not the only thing they got wrong). The alarmists have time and time again been proven wrong, and yet people like Bill Nye, with his clear leftist agenda, want us to ignore the skeptics and submit to big government climate regulations that will do far more harm to society than could ever help the planet.

Fortunately there may be a silver lining. Eventually frauds like him are eventually exposed for the liars they are, and that shouldn’t be too far away in this case because more and more people are being skeptical of him. It also helps that most people aren’t even buying the global warming scam anymore, especially in America, where most Americans don’t even trust the “consensus of scientists” that believe in man made global warming. The green gravy train is grinding to halt, and people like Bill Nye hate that, and tasteless, degenerate stunts like what we saw on Netflix won’t change people’s attitudes towards him. If anything, it’ll only make it worse.

Why is anyone surprised about Alex Jones?

alex jones

Recently Alex Jones, the host of The Alex Jones Show and founder of InfoWars.com, has gotten embroiled in a custody battle with his ex-wife, claiming that some of his on-air rants indicate that he is “not a stable father”. In Jones’ defence, his attorney, Randall Wilhite, has argued that Jones is playing a character in his show, and that he is a “performance artist”. If he is to be believed, one must now logically come to the conclusion that everything he says really is a lie. Naturally, leftist sites like Salon and Alternet quickly latched onto the story as an excuse to say “haha, we were right all along”. Yeah, we already knew Alex Jones was a con man.

I hope some of those leftists didn’t think most of us took him seriously. This is the same man who claimed, among other things, that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged by the government, and that nobody actually died. The same man also peddles various sundries on the InfoWars store at frankly bizarre prices, and I’m not even sure if they actually work. Alex Jones’ popularity on the Internet doesn’t really come from his arguments, because they are completely ludicrous. The reason people watch him is precisely because of his loony personality.

Of course, I’m not interested in defending Alex Jones. In fact, I’m baffled as to any anyone is acting surprised at the notion that he is a fraud. We all knew that for ages. Who other than the most ardent devotee of the humble vitamin water merchant clings on to his every word as if it were gospel? Nobody. We just lived with him because he’s a good laugh every now and then.

At this point, Alex Jones is a living meme. We weren’t supposed to take him seriously anyway, and only a moron would, but apparently we’re supposed to take conspiracy quacks like Lawrence O’Donnell and Keith Olbermann seriously? O’Donnell is a man who claims that Vladimir Putin planned the chemical attack in Syria to help Donald Trump, and Olbermann claimed that Trump wants to overthrow the government, and is so unhinged in his anti-Trump stance that he literally calls his show “The Resistance” (the irony of an establishment puppet calling himself the resistance is probably lost on him).

While we’re at it, I’ve heard leftists harping on about how Alex Jones’ brand of entertainment is “dangerous”. I guess anyone who’s actually funny is somehow dangerous now. They’d probably rather we watch John Oliver, an unfunny hack “comedian” who lies about Donald Trump all the time on his show, all while grandstanding in front of an audience trained to laugh at every inside joke. In fact, I argue that people like John Oliver would be more dangerous because he is given a more powerful platform to spread his lies, along with approval from critics. It doesn’t help that the media is full of late-night propagandists like Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah and Jimmy Kimmel among others doing the same thing – masquerading as entertainers in order to push the establishment agenda.

Honestly, it seems as if leftists think we’re children who are incapable of discerning fantasy from reality, and need mommy and daddy to decide what we can and can’t watch. We know Alex Jones is a quack conspiracy theorist, and we’ve known for some time that he’s a fraud. What? Do I honestly think Alex Jones went on the Trump train because he honestly believed in his policies? No. He saw an anti-establishment candidate who was getting popular enough to piss off the legacy media, and decided he wanted to cash in. It was obviously an effective strategy, because now even he looks more credible than outlets like MSNBC or The Young Turks, who have gone so far-left that they sometimes act like bland, unfunny versions of Jones himself.

If you ask me, the recent custody case won’t do much to deflate Jones’ career, not as long as he still has a loyal fanbase to keep him afloat (his YouTube channel alone still has around 2 million subscribers). Besides, if I’m right, then none of it will be very shocking to anyone remotely familiar with his on-air antics.

Why I’m voting Conservative in the snap election

theresa may

Yesterday, from out of nowhere, Prime Minister Theresa May decided to call a snap general election, which was passed in the House of Commons today, meaning of course that we’ll have yet another round of voting for us beleaguered Brits in about seven weeks time. To be honest, I had a slight suspicion that there might be an early election, but I was taken aback by how soon and sudden this came up. Before that, I decided that if a snap election were to occur, I would vote for the Conservatives, and now that there is a snap election, you probably know where this is going.

Some of you may find this odd. Why would I willingly cast my vote for the party that I spent the past few years excoriating with ceaseless zeal? Well for starters I am not the leftist teenager that I used to be, and I wish I had actually done more research back then too. Second, let’s consider the reality of the political situation in Britain today. Brexit is definitely happening now despite all the establishment’s attempts to stop it, and right now, Theresa May, whatever you may think of her policies, is the only politician with the ability and the will to make it happen.

UKIP is probably closer to my more libertarian positions, but they’re completely useless. Think about it for a moment. The one thing UKIP was founded for, Britain leaving the EU, is already being accomplished under the current government. As long as this is the case, UKIP has no purpose in the political arena, other than potentially stealing Labour seats from the north. In a normal election I suppose I would endorse the UK Libertarian Party, but I don’t think they will have much of an impact in a sudden snap election. Plus, I don’t know anyone running as an MP for the Libertarian Party who I can vote for.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the other parties. I hope nobody tries to convince me to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they will quickly find it impossible to convince me to vote for the pack of snivelling sell-outs that the Lib Dems. Under Tim Farron, they’ve become a party for social justice warriors, as if the Green Party wasn’t already. I honestly think the Lib Dems want to fail. Their leader is a useless wimp, and they don’t seem to know how to appeal to ordinary voters. And then there’s Labour, the sad socialist club whose leader was practically salivating over the prospect of a snap election, one in which he will undoubtedly be crushed because he is less popular than most British politicians. At this point, they’d do better if they kept Ed Miliband as leader. Even worse are Corbyn’s deluded fans, those larping revolutionaries who will finally get the chance to campaign for their dear leader, lose, then protest the outcome and start a petition to kick the Tories out.

I should reiterate that I don’t actually agree with most of the Tories’ policies. In fact, if I was a Tory, I’d probably be a very crappy Tory. My policies, which would be considered centre-right in America, would probably be considered too far-right for the Conservatives, which I mostly consider to be conservative in name only. The main reason I am voting Conservative in this election is because I know exactly why Theresa May called this election. It’s a move to strengthen her majority, and giver her government democratic legitimacy, all while thinning out the Labour opposition while it’s already weak. In short, I think she wants to attain a larger majority, which will be easier for her to work with while she’s negotiating the Brexit terms with Brussels.

I know full well that the snap election is a political power move on Theresa May’s part, but I am not voting for the Tories on ideological lines. You may remember that I wrote in favour of leaving the EU. Now that we are leaving the EU, this country needs a capable leader who will deliver on the will of the people, and at the moment the only one who can rise to the challenge is Theresa May. I dislike much of her policies, but I think leaving the European Union takes precedent over everything else at the moment, and I want a government that will deliver on its promise. If Theresa May wants her democratic mandate then as far as I’m concerned she can have it. After all, she has thus far demonstrated that she is more than capable of delivering Brexit, while Labour, the Lib Dems and the Green Party have openly opposed it, and UKIP will do nothing to help, having served its purpose.

I leave you with some predictions for the election in June:

  1. The Tories will win in a landslide victory, increasing their majority by at least 40 seats.
  2. Labour will lose at least 30 seats, and Jeremy Corbyn will either resign or be challenged in a new leadership contest some time in the autumn.
  3. The Lib Dems won’t gain or lose many seats, UKIP will probably steal seats from Labour if they gain any at all.

I doubt that it will be a very exciting campaign however, given how exhausted the general public is when it comes to national politics. One thing I can guarantee is that, after the Tories win again, the left-wing media and the progressive busy-bodies will throw a hissy fit yet again, but this time nobody will care.

However you vote in June’s election, I hope that people won’t pick each other apart over they plan to vote, or are at least less enthused about it than they were in last year’s bitterly divisive referendum campaign.

The first betrayal of Donald Trump?

missile strike

When Donald Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, we were at least certain that he didn’t want to go to war with Russia, and that, along with Hillary’s atrocious track record, made Trump the lesser of two evils. After he was inaugurated, we were confident that the days of American foreign intervention were over, but we were wrong. After an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, Donald Trump decided to do the one thing we didn’t him to do – potentially start another fucking proxy war. On Thursday evening, Trump ordered a missile strike against an airfield in Syria from where the attack was supposedly conducted. All the more shocking is that President Trump, a man known for keeping his word, has decided to contradict his own stance on interventionism for the sake of appeasing the outraged. Never mind the fact that the “chemical weapons” narrative is flimsier than the Democrat National Committee’s excuses, and reeks of a false flag operation.

Now how did I come to that conclusion? Well, there’s a video that shows the “dead” victim of a sarin attack coming back to life (the same Twitter account has a few other interesting images for your consideration). I’ve read that reports of chemical weapons attacks from Syria tend to be unreliable, but then there’s the logical question. What does Bashar al-Assad, a man who has somehow managed to maintain power throughout the Syrian civil war thanks to foreign intervention, have to gain by gassing his own civilians?

Once that’s out of the way, you’ll probably come to conclusion that Assad has no interest in gassing his own citizens, as that would destroy nearly every alliance he has, leaving him a sitting duck in front of the rebels. That in mind, I think that either the attack was a hoax, or it wasn’t carried out by Syria. The Pentagon is already looking into the possibility of Russian involvement, but why would Russia frame one of its allies? In fact, what am I to make of this Daily Mail article dating back four years ago, suggesting a US backed plan to frame Assad for a chemical weapon attack, that was suspiciously deleted after the missile strikes?

While were here, I think it’s time to clear up my opinions of Assad, since I never did in this site. All I used to hear when I was a teenager is that Assad is a barbarous fiend who needs to be dealt with, but while he is a truly detestable individual, I oppose any effort by the West to remove Assad from power. The reason I oppose this is because this regime change philosophy has been done before in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and the end result is that those countries have been adversely affected by our attempts at “liberating” them from tyranny, because as bad as the previous dictators were, they were keeping the Islamists at bay. After they were gotten rid of, the Islamists were there to the fill the power vacuum left behind by their more secular predecessors, and they did exactly that, and now we have ISIS to deal with.

Simply put it, if Assad is killed, then it will create a situation where either ISIS can takeover, or the capital could be taken over by the Free Syrian Army, who are themselves Islamists. Either way, now is the wrong time to get rid of Assad, and I wish people would study the situation more before giving into moral panic next time we bring up Assad at the dinner table.

Going back to the main point, I also believe that that Trump was being misled, either by people within his own administration, or by his daughter. Think about it for a moment. Two days before the missiles were launched, Trump’s daughter Ivanka posted this tweet:

“Heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack yesterday.”

I think you can guess who this is going to work out. Daughter cries about something she saw on TV, and then Daddy makes her feel better by taking care of it. Cute. Also consider the fact that her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior advisor to Donald Trump (take a good guess as to how he got there), and apparently competes with Steven Bannon for influence within the administration. Call it a hunch, but I think Trump was being misled or pressured into striking the Syrian airfield by people who have their own agendas, and given the track records of people like John McCain, who praised the strikes, this isn’t a total leap of faith. It’s ultimately pointless for him to try and prove it anyway, because even the neo-cons know that the Russia narrative is a scam. We know Trump is not under the thumb of Vladimir Putin, and we know that Russia didn’t hack the elections, so why should he have to prove anything to them?

Either way, will it ignite a potential war with Syria? I don’t particularly think so. I think this is basically Trump throwing the neo-cons a bone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s not in bed with Russia, and that he’s not a complete isolationist. In fact, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this may only be a single punitive act. If that’s true, I might be thankful, but I don’t think he should have done it in the first place, because I know the reasons for doing so are based on outright lies. In fact, this is the same kind of manipulation that led the US to a pointless war in Iraq.

I can only hope that Trump has no plans to go to war in Syria, because if he does, we will have to come to the realisation that the supposed anti-establishment candidate, who we thought would signal the end of regime change, will have decided to engage in yet more regime change, and therefore becoming another establishment President.

The final betrayal of the left

cia

If you ever had any doubt that the CIA was up to no good, look at the Vault 7 leaks and you’ll find the proof. They paint a picture of the CIA so frightening that it it makes the Snooper’s Charter look like a misdemeanour in terms of a breach of privacy. They revealed that the CIA is capable of hacking people’s cars and using smart TV’s to spy on people, tapping people’s phones, and has an arsenal of malware that it can use against whoever it pleases, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This is the kind of nightmarish scenario that we used to think only sci-fi writers and conspiracy theorists could think of, but Vault 7 may as well have vindicated all of them. Hell, InfoWars would have you believe that the revelations confirm everything they’ve been saying about the CIA, but at least this time they’re not totally crazy. To be fair, the CIA is the same organisation that has overseen the overthrow of democratically elected foreign leaders, experimented on mind control, and has been illegally spying on US citizens, and guess who’s defending them? The left-wing mainstream media. Since Vault 7 emerged, I’ve seen outlets like The Guardian, CNN, and the Washington Post come to the CIA’s defence, with The Guardian in particular spinning the news in a way that’s sympathetic to the CIA.

Yes, you heard right. Leftists are coming to the defence of the organisation that lied about Iraq, and I assume the only reason they’re defending the CIA is because Trump opposes it. The mere fact that a single leftist outlet is defending a government organisation as abominable as the CIA is shocking to me. I remember a time when the left used to wax lyrical about the evils of the CIA, and rally behind Julian Assange when he exposed the evils of the Bush administration. They loved him when WikiLeaks released documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars, but as soon as they started exposing corruption in the Democrat party and the CIA, Julian Assange suddenly becomes their scapegoat.

At this point it’s pretty clear what’s going on. By defending the CIA, the mainstream left has shown its true colours as the ideology for the elites. There is no way on earth that they represent the people, and certainly not ordinary Americans. They didn’t ask for organisations like the CIA to exist. They didn’t ask for an international spying ring, and they sure as hell didn’t ask for the government to be spying on them. This is what those of us in the know call the deep state, a government within a government, and the fact that the leftists of The Guardian are defending it shows unequivocally that the mainstream left has no real values. Just empty words. All they care about is power and influence. Nothing more.

I’d say that through this, they have cemented their complete betrayal of the people they claim to represent, which, to be fair, should have been obvious since the migrant crisis started. This time, however, I’m honestly stunned at how far they’ve sunk. I can see their motives for wanting open borders (wanting a reliable voting block), defending Hillary Clinton (partisan loyalty and identity politics), and gun control (they want to disarm the public), but I’m struggling to explain how the left can come to the conclusion that the CIA is a good thing. I suppose next they’ll say that America can’t function without the CIA, even though it was only a fairly recent invention. In fact, I think the Founding Fathers would have been tremendously appalled by the mere concept of the CIA, and horrified by its potential for abuse of state power.

I know the title of this rant is rather hyperbolic, but I think it’s warranted at this point. After this, there’s no going back. The left is doomed, and only drastic reform can allow it to regain the trust of the public, which I think is unlikely at this point. But then again, this is what they get for selling out to the globalists. They can’t defend liberal values anymore because real liberal values go against what globalists want, so instead they’ve allowed themselves to be co-opted by cultural Marxists, who took advantage of the weakness of the more naive liberals, and the end result is the twisted, distorted, sell-out left that you see all around you.

If they honestly think that they can win people over are deluded. The only people who listen to them are people who already believe them, and it’s probably not that hard to change most of their minds on this. In fact, I think we’ll see people on the left defecting to the right in disgust, just as I did in the wake of the Orlando massacre, disgusted by the left’s appalling unwillingness to address Islamic terrorism when it happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were to happen, in fact I encourage it, given that the left’s facade of righteousness has continued to crumble to the point of collapse. When you have people in the leftist media defending the CIA, the very thing they were up against in the 1990’s and the 2000’s, you know that the left is doomed, and it’s only a matter of time before the vast majority of the population in the Western world figures that out, and responds accordingly through the ballot box.

Emma Watson simply doesn’t get it

emma watson

I normally don’t like to write too many articles on celebrities (with my previous post being an exception), but given that this is about Emma Watson, the self-appointed Khaleesi of feminism, I simply couldn’t resist this time. Apparently the feminist film star drew the ire of sex-negative feminists when a photo of her in Vanity Fair showed her with her breasts barely covered by a white crocheted capelet. It shouldn’t really be a big deal, but as soon as it got out, she was branded as a hypocrite by other feminists, and her many critics. The reason I’m writing about it is because of her response to all this:

“It just always reveals to me how many misconceptions and what a misunderstanding there is about what feminism is. Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing.I’m confused. Most people are confused. No, I’m just always just quietly stunned.”

At that point I couldn’t help but laugh, because Emma obviously doesn’t realise what feminism truly is. Maybe in the past, feminism was about liberation, but today, feminism has barely anything to do with freedom. Certainly not for men, and apparently not for women if they’re the wrong kind of feminist. She has no idea what’s become of feminism. The movement had already accomplished its historical goal of ensuring that men and women are equal under the law, but without any legitimate causes to fight for in the West, the movement has become a hotbed of infighting wherein feminists consistently shout out those who aren’t ideologically pure enough. How it got this way has been explained many times, but I generally think that there are three simplified ways of explaining it:

  1. The misandrists were allowed to take control of movement and represent it in the public.
  2. The movement got tainted by Marxist ideological principles, which is way feminists see women as a class.
  3. Having been subsumed into progressivism and cultural Marxism, the movement in its current form (third-wave feminism) is now unwilling to deal with legitimate women’s rights issues in countries where feminism would actually do some good (e.g. India, China, Saudia Arabia, Mauritania, etc.), and are thus condemned to vapid first-world issues, as well as the by now thoroughly debunked myth of the gender wage gap.

Another thing she doesn’t realise is that feminism has become a culturally authoritarian ideology, in this case the left-wing equivalent of the Catholic church, and like all authoritarian ideologies, they don’t care about human nature (and they think they can change the way humans think), and they are only happy when everyone thinks the same way they do. So we shouldn’t be surprised when feminists lash at Emma Watson for showing a bit of her breasts in a Vanity Fair photo – this is them acting as if she has committed heresy against their ideological puritanism.

Ultimately that’s the only reason for this pointless fracas. Feminists and progressives in general have become the new puritans, and that’s fundamentally why people like me actively oppose them. In fact, they’re so similar to the old Christian puritans that sometimes criticising feminism can be just as socially awkward as criticising a Christian used to be. Instead of the New Christian Right of the 1980’s, we now have third-wave feminism, and these feminists are the new pearl clutching class.

However, I think the nonsense is also Emma Watson’s fault, but not because she volunteered to pose in the photo. After the Harry Potter film series finished (ending perhaps her only real claim to fame if we’re totally honest), she’s spent the past few years building up an image as the face of feminism in Hollywood, unaware of the reasons why feminists are so unpopular. Through her He for She campaign, she presented herself as the “righteous” feminist who only wants to spread the word of feminism, while condemning other celebrities for expressing their feminism in ways she doesn’t like. She’s basically the feminist equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart, and this is the moment where she’s exposed as a hypocrite.

hypocrisy

This is what a feminist looks like.

In a way, it’s great to see self-righteous hypocrites like her get taken down a peg in a way they so evidently deserve. This is a woman who talks about how women need feminism because they’re oppressed, speaking from an awesomely lofty position of wealth, privilege and celebrity status, and yet she has the nerve to accuse critics like myself of not understanding feminism. She has no idea why we don’t want anything to do with feminism, and at some point, we’re going to get tired of telling her. She’s a champagne feminist at heart, and I say this because she talks about how we “need” feminism (and her army of professional ass-kissers in the left-wing media parrot this), but let’s be honest. Emma Watson isn’t oppressed. Any woman who made it in Hollywood can never be considered oppressed, unless you see women as a collective class.

Overall, I think Emma Watson constantly talks out of her ass like most Hollywood celebrities do, but to her credit, I believe her when she says she’s confused, because she has absolutely no idea of the beast that feminism really is. If she did, then trust me, she wouldn’t be calling herself a feminist.

President Oprah?

oprah winfrey

Oh God no.

By now leftists are still trying to figure out ways of defeating the Donald (they can’t, but it’s both entertaining and frustrating to watch them try), but one fundamental problem is that there is no Democrat that has anything close to the kind of charisma that can allow him or her to match up to Donald Trump. However, there’s a chance that the Democrats’ prayers may yet be answered, as the shrill reality TV host Oprah Winfrey has hinted that she may yet run against President Trump, presumably as a Democrat.

I can guarantee that there will be clueless leftist salivating over this very possibility (indeed, somewhat at Salon did write about this), but am I the only one who thinks an Oprah presidency is a retarded idea? After all, I’m sure many leftists seemed to object to the very idea of a TV star running for President, and now they’re going to throw their support for another TV star, let alone the kind of personality who, believe it or not, is even more of a lowest-common-denominator candidate than they perceive Trump to be (her show was literally vapid daytime TV, there’s nothing worse than that). Still, at least the left has finally accepted that you don’t need political experience to run for office, if only because reality hit them hard.

All that aside, I sincerely doubt that Oprah Winfrey would be a viable candidate, even if the DNC decided to run her against Donald Trump. The way I see it is that Oprah will make the same mistake Hillary did, by running on her gender. The Winfrey campaign would be focused almost entirely on identity politics, and why not? As a black woman, Winfrey would automatically gain favour amongst race-baiting progressives, but that’s about it. If she did run, she would probably be the favourite candidate of a media class that doesn’t want to get out of the 1990’s, when cable news and wedge-issue politics were actually effective.

Also, if they did run Oprah, I think it would be a sign that the Democrats have officially given up, that they are utterly incapable of thinking outside the box. Not that I’d have a problem. I want the Democratic Party to sink like the Titanic, that being the only adequate punishment for its years of corruption. However, it’s bad for anyone who wants the Republican Party to have any meaningful election. The way Trump’s going, he might stay in power until 2024. Hell, we may be in for a full repeat of the 12-year reign the Republicans enjoyed starting in 1980.

I can’t help but think that Oprah would be the candidate for the few Obama worshippers left in America, the people who want to forget all of Obama’s failings as a president, and the fact that nothing really improved for the working class under Obama. Winfrey, to put it bluntly, would be another candidate for the rich and powerful, another corporatist Democrat. That, I think, is why she will be doomed to failure.

Winfrey may have the establishment media, celebrity culture, and name recognition on her side, but it won’t make a difference. The establishment media is dying, as evidenced by its naked attempts to attack the alternative media (let’s face it, the PewDiePie ruckus was conjured up by the Wall Street Journal just to try and sink his career), and celebrity culture is becoming increasingly irrelevant (as evidenced by the Oscars’ low ratings). Name recognition can also be a double-edged sword. Hillary Clinton had plenty of name recognition too, because of the many skeletons lurking in her closet.

That’s not the only thing that might sink Winfrey’s chances. If Trump can do a good enough job during his first term, and it looks as if he is, he’ll likely be handed a second term on a silver platter. It wouldn’t be the first time. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won all but 15 electoral votes against a weak Democratic candidate. Given the historical precedent, I think that no Democrat candidate, let alone Oprah Winfrey, stands even a remote chance of winning, and yet there are people there who think that Oprah would make a better President than Donald Trump.

Still, I can partially understand the fantasy behind a Winfrey presidency. The contemporary left is beaten, broken and battered, presently shackled to an unashamedly corporate party that pretends to represent left-wing values, only to run an extremely corrupt candidate for President, and select yet another corporatist as its chair. If only they had a candidate with the kind of celebrity status that Trump has, maybe then they would have had a fighting chance. The truth is that the Democrats are finished unless they are willing to change. If they actually run Oprah against Trump, then that will just prove to everyone that the Democrats are the same old party that they’ve been for years, and they’ll continue to lose until they either reform or collapse. Yes, the Democrats are in an existential crisis, but Oprah is certainly not the answer.