Believing the lecturer (a rant)

listen and believe

So I had an interesting conversation with some of my classmates, wherein I talked about the contents of a previous lecture, in which the lecturer, attempting to explain the 50’s mystique, read from an article entitled “Only a Mad Woman would call the 50s a golden age”, which sort of implied that the nostalgic, rose-tinted view of the 50’s is a recent phenomenon attributable to the TV show Mad Men. That didn’t sound right at all. I know that’s bullshit, because I used to watch the 70’s sitcom Happy Days, a show that uncritically exonerates the 50’s is this golden decade in which nothing went wrong.

When I actually researched the article, I found out that this was lifted from The Daily Mail (I checked word for word, and it was the correct one), a tabloid newspaper with about as much credibility as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article itself was written by Liz Hodgkinson, a noted feminist who writes for the Femail column (the UK equivalent of Jezebel that’s somehow part of a fervently right-wing paper).

In the same lecture, we were treated to the first episode of a 2002 BBC documentary entitled “Century of the Self”, which was made by Adam Curtis, a glorified conspiracy theorist who apparently has a reputation for manipulative film-making tactics designed to hand-hold you towards his conclusion. The central assertion is that modern consumer culture is essentially the product of Edward Bernays and the ideas of the Freud family. Even if it was largely factual, it was exquisite propaganda, and had the tendency to imply rather bold claims that could easily be debunked. For instance, one part of the film implied that Edward Bernays was responsible for getting women to smoke, which Curtis would be successful in having you believe if you’re a moron. A quick google search will yield several photos and/or illustrations that show women smoking (I found an image dating back to 1906).

Anyways, after I explained this (in greater detail, I just condensed it in this post so I could get to the point), one of my classmates apparently told me that I should just listen to whatever the lecturer has to say, with weak arguments such as “how many degrees do I have” or “how long have I been in art”. None of those questions were even fucking relevant. My argument is that you should take what a lecturer says with at least some scepticism. You should be critically analysing what you’ve been taught, but apparently he disagrees. He thought I should basically sponge up what the lecturer says without thinking about it. Effectively, he argued that I should accept academic dogma uncritically. Gee, where have I heard this before?

anita sarkeesian

There is a very good reason I don’t just sit there and accept what the lecturer has to say unless I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s factual. As I’ve written about several times on this site, you have crazy left-wing ideologues who constantly lie about sexism, racism, so-called Islamophobia, and they run rampant on the mainstream media. Such ideologues are also found in academia, in the form of far-left academics who preach Marxism and social justice as if it were gospel. As we have seen over the past few years, we know that Marxist lecturers have been using their position to indoctrinate young people into the cult of social justice, and if that’s true, how can I not be sceptical of what they’re saying?

Besides, people forget that this “listen and believe” attitude isn’t just limited to leftists. The conservative Christians also pulled this crap too when Bush Jr. was President, or did everyone forget? In fact, you get this mentality from any brand of authoritarian ideology. Given that you get at least some Marxism in every university, I have to be sceptical of what I’m taught. Failing to be sceptical would be a dereliction of every value I hold dear.

The other reason I can’t accept such a proposition is because if you apply that logic, it can become dangerous. If you just sponge up everything a lecturer says uncritically, then you can get tricked into believing outright falsehoods such as white privilege, the patriarchy, and so on. Besides, if you’re willing to just listen and believe in the case of lecturers, then why not apply this logic to priests, imams, newsmen and politicians? If you won’t, then you’re not being consistent in your values. If you do, then your naivety will be a con artist’s best friend. After all, a good old confidence trick can only work if you trust the con artist.

I’m not trying to say that all university lecturers are con artists. I’m sure most of them have standards, and I’m certainly not suspecting art teachers, but I’m saying that students should be sceptical of their lecturers, just as they should be sceptical of the media, the politicians, and organised religion. In that sense I’m applying my sceptical principles universally, and believe that everyone else should. Is that really such a bad thing?

It’s time to wake up – the far-left are not your friends

Sorry I didn’t post much over these few weeks, but I’ve been quite bored with the topics of choice lately. All the anti-Trump hysteria gets repetitive after a while, and I thought I’d get overworked if I focused on that, so I thought, let’s talk about something other than Trump, because I’m getting sick of hearing from the far-left agitators in the media, especially when they all say the same things, stoking a new wave of tension as they do it. Of course, it wasn’t exactly long before the left-wing radicals decided to come out of the woodwork, and they’ve decided that their “allies” in the more liberal left are no longer useful to them.


The message couldn’t be clearer.

I am of course referring to the now infamous riot that occurred in the University of California’s Berkeley campus this week, in which masked, Antifa-affiliated communists broke windows, hurled smoke bombs, and started bonfire all because Milo Yiannopoulos came to the campus, to air opinions that the far-left don’t approve of. We know they are communists because of their general rhetoric, but also because this is the same group of people behind the riots on January 20th. The best possible sign of their communist leanings is their disdain for anyone to the right of them, and as the image above shows, this includes liberals.

It seems as if the social justice leftists, rather than accepting defeat, and helping to unify the country (which is unlikely because it means them accepting responsibility for the division they’ve caused), they’ve decided to make their enemy list bigger. It used to be that all Republicans were Nazis, then all conservatives, then all Trump supporters, and now it’s crystal clear to everyone that they hate liberals too, and what clearer way for them to say it than “liberals get the bullet too”. I’m not entirely surprised, not just because they’re communists, but also because the mainstream left in the West (and I’m not saying Antifa are part of that) has become so extreme that they disown anyone who’s just a hair to the right of them, who they label as “Nazis” (thereby watering down yet another word to the point of removing all meaning), which in their minds, excuses violence against them.

If you’re a progressive or a left-leaning liberal reading this, it’s time for you to wake up and smell your so-called allies in the social justice camp. They aren’t your friends, and they never were. In fact, I’m convinced that they’ve been waiting for a time like this for many years. In the past, it seemed as if the social justice leftists weren’t crazy, or at least it seemed that way to the moderate progressives and liberals, but that’s because the far-left have been using the terms “liberal” and “progressive” as a kind of trojan horse. They’ve infiltrated you guys, subverting the liberal left from within, and as a consequence, the mainstream left is now full of far-left ideologues who are solely interested in advancing their agenda, controlling the narrative, and suppressing those who disagree with them.

I don’t think even the moderate left-wingers even realised until now the kind of people the social justice leftists are, or what kind of world they would create. If they had their way, and we wind up having a communist regime, the liberals would be purged, along with any social justice leftists who aren’t members of the communist party.

If there is one silver lining, however, it’s that I think now we are going to start seeing more and more liberals and progressives rejecting the far-left elements that have been infiltrating them. Ever since the victory of Donald Trump, the far-left, unable to debate with the public, have resorted to violence and intimidation tactics, but such internecine flailing will come at their expense. The social justice left have been exposed for what they really are, and I don’t think we have to do anything, as the leftists will basically make themselves look bad every time Donald Trump does anything nowadays. Hopefully more people will begin to realise that they were being had by radical leftist ideologues, who are now springing into action to try and subvert America and Europe not through covert tactics as they usually would (because they have failed), but through coercion and violence, and I hope we will see the end of this repugnant nonsense once and for all.

I hope this wasn’t too much of a rant, but I wanted to get this out there, because I genuinely believe that people in the mainstream left have no idea that they are being used by those in the radical left as useful idiots to further their own agenda, and if the radicals had their way, the ordinary liberals would be shot. Now there are commies who outright state this. Is this isn’t proof enough that progressives and liberals were being duped, then I don’t know what is. I can only hope that more of the left-wingers who value individualism and democracy come to realise that they are being conned, and shun the far-left back into the scrap heap of history.

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

women's march

On Saturday the presidential inauguration was followed by the Women’s March protests, and since then I have yet to hear the end of it. The women were protesting the inauguration of Donald Trump, so the media reported on it as if it were some sort of righteous feat of activism, pretending that they were standing up for women’s rights, but really it was just a bunch of over-privileged nutjobs whining that the candidate they didn’t like won and was inaugurated without a hitch. It was a waste of everyone’s time, and in such a way that it was literally no different to when a bunch of Tea Party protestors agitated vainly against the re-election of Barack Obama.

It’s easy to guess why the women were marching in droves. They still believe that Donald Trump is a brazen misogynist who views women is little more than pieces of meat, and they probably believe the accusations of sexual assault levied against him. Of course, it’s all a lie. There’s no proof that Donald Trump is a sexist, nothing but hearsay, conjecture and ad hominem slurs. The idea that Trump hates women comes from the cultural Marxist view of women as a class. For the progressives (who themselves have adopted the ideology of cultural Marxism), insulting one woman means insulting all women. After Donald Trump insulted Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News presenter who will now work for NBC), many progressives invented the narrative that Donald Trump is a sexist, a misogynist, and by extension, and enemy of women’s rights.

Of course, it’s all a big lie, but that in itself is the problem at heart. The more outrageous the lie, the more easily people who aren’t informed will believe it, and if a lie is repeated often enough, many will perceive it as the inescapable truth. This is how we got to the point where millions of women believe that Donald Trump is a chauvinistic caveman who just grabs vaginas all the time. In other words, the Women’s March is based on a lie, a lie that has been perpetuated by the establishment because they see the populist Donald Trump as a threat to their interests. Unsurprisingly, the feminists, who see Donald Trump as the patriarchy made flesh, are more than willing to help them spread this nonsense, which is part of how you see a lot of young people believing what is provably a lie.

The opposition to Trump has become incredibly childish, having taken a lie as the truth, to the point that they have become emotionally invested in the narrative they have created for themselves, all without a shred of evidence. After all, if he truly were a misogynist, why would he hire Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager, and later his counselor? If he were truly a misogynist, he would never have become friends with Hillary Clinton before running against her, and nor would he think of his wife Melania very highly.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. Modern feminism is a religion built on lies. They believe that women are eternally held back by “the patriarchy”, and must be given special treatment in order to advance in life. They also believe that women are purposefully paid less than men, despite this being illegal under the law. They also believe that all men are potential rapists who reduce women to objects simply by looking at them, never mind that it’s the feminists, with their ghastly rhetoric, that are the ones who reduce women to little more than their bodies, or even their vaginas.

Before people start confusing my words, I’m not against the idea of marching. I believe that people must have the right to protest, but I don’t think every protest is just. In fact, I think the Women’s March was little more than feminists protesting the democratically elected President of the United States based on accusations of misogyny, and the false notion that Donald Trump poses a threat to women’s rights. Oh, and it turns out that many of the organisations involved in the Women’s March are tied with George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who was revealed to have given money to Black Lives Matter, and backed Hillary Clinton during the election. Why am I not surprised?

Will these lefty loonies just give it up already? Trump has won, and he has taken the oath of office. There’s nothing you can do, other than call him out when he actually does something wrong. All the feminists were doing was making the cause of women’s rights look like a joke in the eyes of people who had already had enough of the feminists and their nonsense, which in the end will only hurt their movement in the long run. Good going. At least rate, even the moderate, and often more naive liberals who support you will eventually come to the conclusion that you’re delusional, and all the support you’ll have left are the far-left gender ideologues who will harm your movement further as it completes its transformation into a toxic echo chamber.

If nothing else, what the were doing is an example of the kind of hyperbole that we are seeing. Yes, Trump is a questionable choice of President, he has made questionable business decisions, and I reserve some skepticism of some of his policy positions, but he is not a monster. He hasn’t thrown people off of buildings, he hasn’t rigged elections, he isn’t a rampant sexual predator, and he absolutely isn’t Hitler. This kind of hyperbole does nothing other than turn people against each other, and now against the head of state, and in the end they’ll be crying wolf so often that when it is time to question Trump on policy, nobody will care, and it will be the left’s fault, because they were too busy creating the same kind of division that they will then accuse Trump of creating.

Why I was right about Obama


Four years ago, on the inauguration of former president Barack Obama’s second term, I wrote a post wherein I argued that his second term would be no different to the previous term. After all, America under Obama’s first term was still divided, thanks to the race-baiters in the media, and the economy barely improved at all. Meanwhile, America was still conducting silent wars in the Middle East under Obama’s watch, all while the corporatist establishment still made a killing. Obama spoke of “change”, and brought nothing under his first term.

With that in mind, I saw no reason why the second term would be any different, and apparently I was right. Months after Obama’s second term began, it was revealed that the NSA was secretly spying on everyone, and Obama approved of it. It was a massive scandal on par with the diplomatic cables scandal in 2010, went WikiLeaks revealed that the US government was spying on its own allies. Yet the Obama fanboys remained silent. How was that any different to George W. Bush pushing for the Patriot Act just because Obama has a D after his name? It isn’t, and yet the Obama worshippers in the mainstream media pretend that he’s somehow justified in doing all this.

I also predicted that America’s involvement in Afghanistan wouldn’t end until around 2014. I was right, though some US troops are still in Afghanistan in the war currently being fought against ISIS. Meanwhile, it’s also become apparent that the Obama administration’s ineptitude in the Middle East has created the ideal conditions for ISIS to flourish. His failures are compounded by his apparent refusal to say “radical Islam” (refusing to acknowledge it as a possible motivation for the Orlando massacre), demonstrating to ordinary Americans that he has no interest in combatting the single biggest existential threat to Western civilisation.

The US economy still didn’t improve, save for the urban and coastal areas, many of which vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat party. The Rust Belt and the flyover states didn’t get any help under Obama, and that’s one of the reasons why Donald Trump won in most of the states. All the while, Obama was trying to get America on board with the TPP, a trade agreement that would give multi-national corporations the power to sue a sovereign nation, or even private individuals. In terms of economics, Obama has been nothing other than a friend for the rich and powerful, and yet his adoring fans still give him a free pass.

However, I think there is one difference I should have taken into account. Given that Obama can’t ever seek re-election after the second term, he didn’t have to appease the voters anymore, so he set about a torridly partisan agenda that appeased the progressive overclass, but agitated Republicans and people who aren’t necessarily partisan either way. Thus, we saw Obama’s true colours. He was a sellout globalist who doesn’t give a crap about anyone who doesn’t think like him. In fact, his presidency was little more than a left-wing rehash of George W. Bush, an authoritarian expression of the deep state, which I would argue had expanded under Obama.

However, I was wrong in one way. When Obama promised change, he did affect some kind of change, but not in the way I expected. Under his watch, American society shifted further left, slowly being seduced by progressive platitudes as it desperately tries proving to the world that it can be more like Europe. Meanwhile, race relations have gotten worse, thanks to social justice warriors and organisations like Black Lives Matter (a black supremacist hate group founded on the lie that police deliberately target black youths because of their race), which is astounding because many people thought Obama would be the one to help fix race relations. How delusional they were.

All in all, I was mostly right in the sense that Obama’s second term was essentially the same old routine, except Obama could do almost anything he wanted to. Of course, the one thing I could guarantee remained the same was the sickening cult of personality that surrounded him, which just reeks of state worship. I always thought it was disturbing that people give any reverence to politicians, people who you know are going to lie. Evidently people expected Obama to be different, as if he’s above everyone else just because he was the first black president. Anyone who thought that has been thoroughly taken for a ride. The cult of personality around Obama was so widely accepted it’d make Kim Jong Un blush, as even people in Britain don’t question his actions.

Honestly, I’m glad that US presidents can’t have more than two terms, because it means that the most overrated president behind FDR doesn’t get the chance to screw up America even worse than he already had. With the way Obama’s been acting, along with the collusion within the Democrat party, a Republican presidency was inevitable. I just hope that Donald Trump does a halfway decent job, which would be miles better compared to Obama. I’m fairly optimistic too, considering Trump has already withdrawn from the TPP, which he said he’d do within the first few days of taking office. At this point, America after Obama is starting to look better. Maybe now more people will see beyond the cult of personality around Obama, and realise what a failure he truly was.

Does despotism stand a good chance today?


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.


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!


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!