Why Sonic should get off the nostalgia train

sonic 2017

Oh where, oh where have I seen this before?

Even though this year marks the 25th anniversary of the first Sonic the Hedgehog game, I’ve heard startlingly little about Sega’s upcoming plans for the Sonic series until now. At this year’s San Diego Comic Con, Sega showed some of the more jaded fans of the series (myself included) that they haven’t quite given up on the blue blur. After the failure of Sonic Boom, you’d think that they haven’t got anything left, but they have, though you might not be totally thrilled.

They unveiled two games, both intended for release in 2017, which is rather odd if you consider that this is meant to celebrate Sonic’s 25th anniversary. The first of these is by far the most exciting prospect – Sonic Mania. That game is basically a love letter to fans of the older Sonic games, with remixed levels from past games alongside new levels, complete with the style of the classic games. It’s basically what Sonic 4 should have been, and I want to get my hands on it. The other game, which so far has no title other than “Project Sonic 2017”, is somewhat less encouraging. It’s presented as a far more serious foil to Sonic Mania, and it worked until Classic Sonic showed up again. It’s like Sonic Generations all over again, as if Sega really had run out of ideas.

Both of those games have one key thing in common – they appear to be milking nostalgia once again. With Sonic Mania, I totally understand, because at least they want to introduce elements to the classic formula (the “drop dash” being a new addition), but with the other game, I can’t exactly stand by that. Of course, we’re told that “Project Sonic 2017” isn’t a sequel to Sonic Generations, but figuratively speaking, it might as well be. It’s made by the very same development team, and will probably have the same kind of gameplay, but saying that, with the game’s darker and visibly more serious approach, I may be inclined to doubt that it’s a Sonic Generations rehash. Indeed, the head of team, Takashi Iizuka, was keen to state that this is not a sequel to Sonic Generations. If it isn’t that, is it the Sonic Adventure 3 I’ve been waiting for?

As for nostalgia, it feels to me like the Sonic series has been riding on nostalgia for the past five years, all in an obvious attempt to preserve the market value of the series. Due to how badly the brand had been badly damaged over the past decade, I’m not surprised. I’m a lifelong Sonic fanboy who’s played most of the games (though I stayed away from Sonic Boom, partly because I don’t have a Wii U, and I knew it was going to be disaster). I’ve lived to see Sega make one mistake after the other, and like much of the fanbase, I’ve been disappointed more times than I can count. From my experience, the fanbase is only really satisfied by games that are as close to the classics as possible. We all love the original Mega Drive games, along with Sonic Adventure and its sequel. Those games (particularly the oldest Sonic games) are considered the benchmark, and Sega always tries to match that, and they end up being very averse to risk.

For me, “Project Sonic 2017” also comes across as an attempt to once again reform the series, but I doubt it will go down very well. I remember a decade ago when Sonic ’06 was announced, and how that game was supposed to modernise the series and take it into a radical new direction, and we all know how that turned out. Every time Sega tried to radicalise the franchise, it nearly destroys it, tarnishing the brand with one inferior product after another. For example, Sonic Unleashed was bad, Sonic 4 was a minuscule and ultimately pointless disappointment, and Sonic Lost World could have been good but was ultimately a failure. Sonic Boom also tried a radical new direction, but Sega was so scared of a fan backlash that they relegated it to a lowly status as a spin-off cartoon with tie-in games, and they still managed to screw it up.

With that in mind, I get why Sega is so eager to jump on the nostalgia train. They’ve been doing this for years, but they can’t keep doing it forever. As a lifelong fan, I think that if all future Sonic games were driven by nostalgia, it would be a complete disservice to the fans who want something fresh and exciting. I don’t doubt that Sonic Mania will definitely be good, and I’m somewhat interested in what that mystery game has to offer, but at the same time, I think Sega should listen to the fans. I don’t want Sega to focus on how great Sonic was in the old days, because if they keep doing that, they may as well be saying that there’s nothing left. What Sega should be doing is reminding the fans that Sonic is still great, but in order to do that, they’ve got to convince the public that Sonic isn’t just a relic of Sega’s glory years, and they’ve got to make a truly modern Sonic game that miraculously manages to please both young and old fans. Can “Project Sonic 2017” do that? I can only hope.

Twitter’s death warrant


I’ve already covered the ban placed on Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter in a previous post, but I think I should talk about the decline of Twitter, and the ramifications that I think will come with Twitter’s half-brained decision. Think of this as “part two” of the discussion if you will.

Firstly, like I’d like to clarify my position on Milo and the abuse towards Leslie Jones in case anyone’s in doubt. From what I could gather, Milo didn’t start the riot. In fact, his tweet aimed at Leslie was posted after Leslie became the target of trolls, not before. Contrary to what the media will tell you, Milo didn’t incite anything. All he did was provoke Leslie, like the provocateur we all know him to be. The only reason Milo got blamed for this is because (a) he wrote a scathing review of her movie, (b) he’s an easy target for people like Leslie, and (c) Twitter has already suspended him a few times, and has been aching for the chance to get rid of Milo’s account for good.

Of course, two key things bothered me. First, after Milo got banned, the mainstream media celebrated, like some savage barbarian tribe revelling in the blood of a slaughtered enemy. Without even hesitating, they took Leslie’s side because it’s painfully obvious that they despise Milo. The Guardian despises him, The Verge despises him, Esquire and Polygon despise him, and I’m very sure none of them did any of the research. Secondly, Twitter executives, when asked by Breitbart journalists, refused to say whether or not they believe in the traditional value of free speech. I’m not entirely surprised, but it should be very alarming because it essentially confirms that they have contempt for the idea that their critics should be allowed their right to free speech.

To be honest, I think they didn’t know what to say. If they were honest and they said they didn’t believe in free speech, all but the worst kinds of SJW’s and other assorted extremists would leave Twitter. If they said they believed in free speech, they would still be utter hypocrites. They’re willing to allow the most rabid Black Lives Matter supporters to call for the murder of police officers and go literally unpunished, but Milo Yiannopoulos gets struck down over a spat with a celebrity? What about the number of ISIS supporters who took to Twitter to celebrate the Nice attacks? Is Jack Dorsey going to be on the case with them? I highly doubt it. What about the hashtag that translated into “we demand the killing of atheists” that was trending on Arabic Twitter? What about the number of social justice warriors who bully people who disagree with them? It’s clear that Twitter is favour of allowing anyone other than conservatives and libertarians to speak freely on their platform.

For me, this is a sign of what some suspect has been happening for quite a while – Twitter is dying. Over the past year, Twitter’s stock market value has been going into sharp decline. Exactly a year ago, Twitter shares would have worth around $36 a share, and by now the shares only worth about half as much. In February, after Twitter saw a sharp decrease in users, the company’s share prices plummeted. Granted, they have been recovering, but I doubt that it will get much higher than $20 per share. This is just the economic side of things, but it essentially indicates the decreasing value of Twitter as a brand.

More importantly, the amount of new users coming to Twitter is stagnating. Currently the site has roughly 310 million active users, but it is apparently having trouble attracting new users, since the arrival of new users has slowed down. Twitter’s management isn’t quite the same as it used to be. In the months after Jack Dorsey became CEO last year, a number of Twitter’s staff and top executives left the company, and in February, Twitter announced a new “Trust and Safety Council”, with the neofeminist propaganda network Feminist Frequency as one of its inaugural members. Coupled with shadowbanning and Dorsey’s obvious progressive biases, it’s no wonder why a lot of people have left Twitter, and are worried about whether or not they’ll get banned too.

Banning Milo perhaps wasn’t an immediate problem, I think Twitter may as well have used it to distract Twitter users from the sites many problems. I like many other people are worried about Twitter going in an increasingly authoritarian direction. All banning Milo did was force that authoritarian streak into the spotlight, sparking a new revolt from Twitter users who are interested in free speech. By banning Milo and thereby pandering to the easily offended, Twitter may very well have signed its death warrant.

When I say this, I mean that Twitter may have exposed its true disdain for free speech, and thus a disdain for its users. If Twitter is that willing to censor those critical of Jack Dorsey’s progressive ideology, then we may yet see more users exiting Twitter in fear that their powers of censorship may be used on them. At any rate, I will continue keeping abreast of Twitter’s situation, because it seems like every time people say that Twitter is dying, everything turns to be fine in the end, but I have no doubt that Twitter will only get worse from this point on. How long will it be before ordinary people find themselves censored when Twitter’s authoritarian attitude reaches its logical conclusion? Only time will tell.

Don’t ban @Nero (or, why we can’t have nice things)


Oh boy.

Let’s face it, the new Ghostbusters film was an unmitigated disaster. The writing was bad, the characters and acting were terrible, the effects were pretty but ineffectual plastic, and the humour was almost nonexistent. In other words, it sucked. Of course I go into more detail than that in my review on Movies for Earthlings, but I wasn’t alone. Indeed, Breitbart’s very own Milo Yiannopoulos delivered a much more brilliantly scathing review, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Of course not everybody enjoyed it. Indeed, Milo eventually got into a spat with one of the main actors, Leslie Jones, who blamed Milo for the tide of bizarre comments and photos (which included pictures of her face with semen on it). Leslie then reported Milo to Twitter hoping that they lock his account, all while drawing ire from his fans. In fact, when a Milo supporter called her out for trying to censor him, she called him “a racist bitch”. Of course, Milo took it all in classic stride, but apparently the SJW’s wouldn’t let it slide, and so they try to silence him with the hashtag #BanNero, which was near-universally panned and mocked on Twitter. Most people on Twitter saw it for what it was – a bunch of whining SJW’s who hate Milo so much that they desperately want to censor him.

Were they all so desperately attached to the new Ghostbusters film that they were willing to silence critics? Apparently so, but this is only the latest attempt by wailing fanboys to try and dismiss critics of Paul Feig’s summer flop. Reviews from all across the establishment papers have come out singing praises of the new film, which I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t just dismiss us critics as “sexist trolls” (like The Guardian and The Telegraph did in their reviews). Paul Feig himself, the king of male feminist white knights, even went on to describe those who hated the idea of the new Ghostbusters as sexists. No surprises here. This is a man so entrenched in male feminist thinking that he once wrote a rambling article in which he espoused the bold claim that men aren’t funny.

The progressives, neofeminists and SJW’s are all obvious very desperate to defend the film from all forms of criticism, in spite of the fact that nobody wanted this film other than the jaded Hollywood establishment that is equally desperate to appeal to millennial social justice warriors, and I’ve heard that even they have managed to find fault with it (I’ve heard complaints from SJW’s that Leslie Jones’ character is a racist stereotype). In this case, Hollywood and the progressive elites have found themselves on a sinking ship. Most of the audience doesn’t even like or care about the new Ghostbusters film, and worse still, the film has so far made only $69 million against a $144 million budget. The film was a terrible investment, and I bet that Sony realises that. The film was basically a vanity project, and the fact that the film’s producers, actors, the SJW’s and Guardian writers are so fervent in trying to defend it speaks volumes about their character. These are the same people who write off popular dislike of the Ghostbusters trailer as a “campaign” to downvote it into oblivion.

If they know that the new Ghostbusters film was going to be largely unpopular, then surely they should have grasped by now that calling critics “sexist trolls” or “misogynists” isn’t working, and trying to censor a conservative journalist for criticising the film only mad them look worse. To be honest, I would have had higher expectations of the film itself if it weren’t for the regressive left’s campaign to smear anyone who didn’t like the Ghostbusters trailer back in March (granted, even after I took my mind off that, I still hated it). This is precisely why we can’t have nice things nowadays, and if anything else, this is the direct result of what happens when you retool a beloved comedy classic and market it toward a mob of brainless SJW’s. With results this bad, I highly doubt that there will ever be a Ghostbusters sequel. Just as well, I want the whole fiasco to be laid to rest as much as anyone does. Of course, that can only happen if the SJW’s on Twitter can stop whinging for at least five minutes.

But they can’t can they? Before the “Gays for Trump” party, Milo’s account was permanently suspended by Twitter, thus confirming that Twitter has become a safe space for progressives, neofeminists, SJW’s and BLM extremists, but a no-go zone for anyone who happens to disagree, especially if you’re a conservative like Milo. Of course, the hashtag #FreeNero has come up as a response, but this proves that free speech today is under threat. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, no one is free until we are all free. When the rights of one are endangered, then it threatens us all. When ideas are censored, tyranny is inevitable, and I worry that Twitter is on the path to becoming a far-left echo chamber where dissenting views are struck down.

MGTOW: The canary in the coal mine?


On this website, I’ve written about feminism a number of times, and if you’re familiar with this site, you’ll know that I’m an ardent critic of feminism as an ideology. As I’ve mentioned before, feminism, though it began with good intentions, has been hijacked by self-seeking misandrists. In its current form, better known as third-wave feminism, it has become an ideology built around shaming men because they were born men, and the rise and impact of third-wave feminism has led to a state where relations between men and women are strained like never before. One of the effects of this is that a number of men are dropping out of society and giving up on women in general, and that has led to creation of extreme third-wave feminism’s male counterpart – MGTOW.

MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way, is a mostly online community of men who are disaffected from sexual relationships, in part due to how third-wave feminism has warped society’s view on men. It was established in the 2000’s by men like Rob Fedders (owner of NO MA’AM, an early MGTOW blog) as an anti-movement with a conservative libertarian ideology (as evidenced in the original MGTOW manifesto, which dates back to 2001). MGTOW’s will generally tell you that the movement is a reaction to what they perceive as the gynocentric biases found in society, along with all the anti-male slander coming from feminists (which includes feminists considering all men to be potential rapists).

At first glance, MGTOW can seem like a good thing for men, but it isn’t. Just like feminism, the MGTOW movement was eventually hijacked by self-seeking losers, slobs, and genuine misogynists who saw it as a way of rationalising their hatred for women, and thus the movement became the very stereotype third-wave feminists see in all men. A good example of the contemporary MGTOW is a YouTuber who identifies as the “Mayor of MGTOWN” (narcissism much?), a man from Hollywood who become a MGTOW purely because his mother treated his father like a eunuch, and responds by viewing all women as “dumb bitches” (seriously, he refers to all women as this, but he also refers to women as “the enemy”), and advocating that men pick up girls and dump them after four months. I know the word misogynist has been passed around an awful lot by feminists, but if the word misogynist could accurately describe anyone, it would be the so-called “Mayor of MGTOWN”.

Described by Return of Kings writer Matt Forney as a “cult of male loserdom”, MGTOW has become an ideology centred around literally cutting women out of your life. For the MGTOW’s, marriage is emasculation and slavery, and women are considered by the most rabid MGTOW’s as non-human. Sound familiar? Third-wave feminists view marriage as degradation and slavery, and the most rabid of that lot think men are basically monsters. The difference here is that MGTOW’s feel that marriage is doomed to failure and should be avoided, while third-wave feminists want to abolish the institution of marriage entirely. On marriage, MGTOW are a mirror image of feminists, and how appropriate, because MGTOW are the monsters that third-wave feminists have created.

Both ideologies deny the fundamental nature of human beings. Third-wave feminism denies the biological reality that women are inherently feminine in some way, while the MGTOW’s deny the biological need of straight males to seek female companionship. Both movements are actually quite sex-negative, but MGTOW is very hypocritical when it comes to sex. Many MGTOW’s view women as only being good for sex, while simultaneously buying into an ideology that prescribes avoiding women entirely (in fact, they sound more like Catholic celibates).

Both are insistent on spreading their ideology as far as they can. The “Mayor of MGTOWN” openly calls on other MGTOW’s to convert men to the movement through clickbait. Of course, that’s about as far as MGTOW’s can get. Meanwhile, third-wave feminism is dominant in the mainstream media. It has a number of gender ideologues (Anita Sarkeesian, Laurie Penny, Lena Dunham, etc.) who are ready and willing to spread the ideology along with its many disposable myths, and the ideology is regularly distributed through established publications such as The IndependentThe Guardian, and Huffington Post, along with ostensibly feminist sites such as JezebelVox, and The Mary Sue. Third-wave feminism is also prevalent in academia also enjoys a vast army of keyboard warriors who troll anyone who disagrees with the neofeminist narrative, as prescribed by a plethora of “social justice” courses. Given the kind of unfair advantage the third-wave feminists have, it’s hardly surprising that MGTOW’s would try and propagate their ideas as far as they can.

As one could expect from gender movements that become so heavily entrenched in their ideology, they have both reached a point where they automatically box you into their ideology because of your genitals. Third-wave feminists assume that if you care about women’s equality, you must be a feminist, but if a woman dares to point out that not all men are misogynists or potential rapists, they accuse her of having “internalised misogyny” (whatever the hell that means). Similarly, MGTOW’s assume that men are MGTOW’s without even knowing it, but if a man dares to point out that not all women are mean-spirited gold-diggers, they accuse him of being a “white knight” (a pejorative term for a man who constantly defends or praises a woman, presumably expecting a romantic or sexual reward in return). This is a good example of we gender and ideology should be kept separate, but that apparently doesn’t stop insane gender ideologues, whether they’re male or female, and both ideologies end up suffering the problem – for all the good and rational feminists and MGTOW’s out there, the movements invariably wind up being judged by the actions of their bad actors (never mind that both ideologies are fundamentally flawed anyway).

Okay, I think I’m done comparing the two ideologies together, so I think I should return to my central point. Through all of this, I have attempted to illustrate the main point – MGTOW as a movement arose as a reaction to the dominance of third-wave feminism, and although it’s not as powerful as third-wave feminism, it is a symptom of the damage third-wave feminism has done to gender relations. I am not a MGTOW myself, nor am I a men’s rights activist (mainly because I know very little about MRA’s). In fact, I don’t like the MGTOW movement because it glamorises the tepid bachelor lifestyle that a man should ideally strive to get out of, but I understand why some men may become MGTOW’s. Third-wave feminism has sought to destroy all the traditional values that they deem to be sexist, but what they don’t realise is that some of the traditions they’re out to destroy may have been better for male-female relationships than the alternative. In their relentless crusade against marriage and flirting, the third-wave feminists have wound up driving the least desirable men of our society to one place, and it might come back to haunt them one day.

On another note, the third-wave feminists’ constant demonising of “toxic masculinity” has caused the majority of men to lose confidence in themselves, and so I’m not surprised that a number of men (not significant but still) to MGTOW, which is essentially just a mirror image of third-wave feminism. The climate of gender relations is now more toxic before, and we have third-wave feminists and MGTOW’s to thank for that. There may yet be dark times ahead.

The violent year


So far, the year 2016 has been a year marked by violent acts of terror across the world. The recent terrorist attack in Nice is just the latest a string of terrorist attacks against the West, and the third major attack in recent memory in which the terrorists attack France. As was the case with a majority of these attack, the culprit was an Islamic extremist, but apparently he wasn’t on France’s database of suspected Islamic militants. As the world watched in horror and grievance, the Nice attack was followed by another sign of our times – politicians and the media doing whatever they could to dance around the issue in the name of political correctness.

France’s prime minister Manuel Valls has actually said that France should “learn to live with terrorism”, as though he would rather take it lying down than fight the obvious problem. He’s not alone in dodging the issue, as various mainstream media outlets have turned to blaming the truck the terrorist was driving, in a move that is somehow more baffling than blaming the gun a mass shooter was firing. Trucks don’t kill people, their drivers do, and in this case, the driver deliberately drove into a truck into a crowd of Bastille day celebrators.

It’s not that hard to come to the conclusion that this was a terrorist attack, and yet the left-wing media doesn’t want you to point the finger at Islamic extremists because they’re afraid that it means vindicating right-wing populist politicians like Donald Trump or Marine le Pen. The leftist way of handling terrorism is to talk about the evils of Western foreign policy as if the Iraq War hadn’t ended yet, blaming anything other than ISIS and Islamic extremism for attacks that were obviously perpetrated by Islamic extremists, and replacing honest discussion with virtue-signalling hashtags. None of that is doing anything productive, and the people are getting tired of it.

This weak-kneed handling of terrorism is precisely what ISIS is exploiting. Why else do Islamic extremists keep attacking France? If the terrorist’s goal is to inspire fear and capitulation, then obviously they think it’s working. I’m getting very sick and tired of society’s inept handling of the situation, and I worry that the recent wave of terror attacks is, in part, making us as a society numb to the existential threat that ISIS poses to Western civilisation.

As I see it, people are afraid to have a frank and adult discussion on terrorism and extremism because they’re afraid of being called racists, despite the obvious fact that Islamism is not a race, and neither is Islam. Islam is a religion, and Islamism is an ideology based on the more extreme elements of Islam. The media has failed to make this distinction, and has instead created a paralysing climate of fear. Political correctness in the West has gotten so bad that the word “racist” has become the nuclear weapon with which all discussion is silenced. In the case of terrorism, people are afraid of being called Islamophobes for simply discussing Islamic terrorism, even though it should be pretty clear that the majority of people can tell the difference between an ordinary Muslim (who wouldn’t kill in the name of Islam) and a Muslim extremist (who takes the Koran literally, and would kill in the name of Islam). I guarantee that if the perpetrator was a Christian, the media would spend a whole week making Christians look like the bad guys.

I’m getting really sick of this attitude from the media. I’m not a racist, nor an Islamophobe, and nor do I associate with bigots. I’m also absolutely certain that most people aren’t racists or Islamophobes either, and in fact, from what I’ve heard, most people just want to live without fear or terrorism happening in their own country. This is why Donald Trump enjoys so much support in America, especially after what happened in Orlando. The reason right-wing populists have gained a surge of popularity is because right now they’re the only ones giving a platform to the people’s concerns about terrorism, while the media and the political establishment continue to ignore or silence their voice in the name of political correctness.

As the dust settles on Nice, I worry about what country will be the next target, and how long the media, in all its pusillanimous narcissism, can deny the obvious reality of our situation. ISIS wants to wage war against the West. That much is obvious, but for some, the danger is that fighting in the Middle East will only destabilise the region even further, and some in the media refuse to address the issue at all because it gives credence to right-wing politicians. I admit that I fervently believe that if we intervene recklessly it will inevitably cause more problems, but the risks of not intervening are currently too great. If we really want to see less terrorism in the world, then first we must do away with the climate of political correctness. Second, we need to stop sending drones over to the Middle East, because that isn’t working. All drone strikes do is kill innocent people, and thus potentially galvanise anyone who hates the West into joining ISIS. If the West wishes to fight ISIS, then, as much as I hate to say it, the only option is to send troops to fight on the ground.

Yes, this goes against my pacifist beliefs, but if what we have been witnessing over the past year tells us anything, it’s that the West has two options – it can either sit there bogging itself down in PC semantics as innocent people are killed, or it can stand up and fight to defend its values, and fight for the freedom to live without fear.

Can we trust Theresa May?

theresa may

What I worried might happen was happened. Yesterday, Theresa May was elected the next Prime Minister after David Cameron, and I use the term “elected” loosely. The thing that bothers me the most about this is that she only got there so early because Andrea Leadsom, my preferred candidate, dropped out of the race, which meant Theresa May effectively ran unopposed. That doesn’t sound very democratic to me, but I guess Theresa will to suffice as the party leader.

Anyway, now that the whole Conservative leadership contest is over, I think the topic of discussion should be whether or not I could trust Theresa May as Prime Minister. My longstanding bias against the Tories aside, it’s Theresa May’s character that bothers me. Her supporters argue that she is strong, experienced and competent, and to be fair, I like the idea of a PM who is at least more competent than David Cameron. Critics, however, argue that as Home Secretary, she was very lacklustre in the area of immigration (Nigel Farage is very sure that she was the worst Home Secretary on immigration). Some people have compared her unfavourably to Margaret Thatcher, but I’m no expert on Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as PM, so draw your own conclusions.

Personally, I don’t trust her at all. For starters, she campaigned for the Remain side in the EU referendum, just that she never really got her face out there. Some have called her a soft Remainer, but it appears that she has accepted the people’s mandate, and with any hope will give us the best deal for Britain. For me, it’s not Brexit that’s the issue here. The issue is that Theresa May is very much an authoritarian. I remember when Theresa May was attempting to justify the dreaded Snooper’s Charter, a bill that would allow the government to spy on people’s internet use. That she was in favour of such Orwellian legislation should cast her integrity in doubt.

On the matter of immigration, May oversaw new rules which allow the deportation of any non-EU nationals who earn less than £35,000 a year. With this policy as justification, she is responsible for the wrongful deportation of up to 50,000 non-EU students for something as minuscule as failing a maths test, and yet she supported the side of the referendum that says it’s racist to control immigration. She also suggested that EU nationals may be a “useful negotiating point” when talking to Brussels about our deal. She is effectively in favour of using human lives as a bargaining chip, a card that she can play in order to win a favourable deal. How is she not a repugnant character?

More concerning is her general attitude to civil liberties. She sees them merely as obstacles to “getting the job done”, and that authoritarian attitude should be deeply concerning in the modern world. She introduced the Psychoactive Substances Bill, a bill that, on the surface, was intended to crack down on “legal highs”, but it criminalises any psychoactive substance that isn’t on a list of government approved substances. She’s also in charge of the Prevent scheme, which requires local authorities, the police, prisons, probation services, and even our educational institutions (schools, colleges, and, even universities) to monitor people’s behaviour for any signs of extremism. If that wasn’t enough, our Prime Minister is in favour of giving Ofcom the power to strike down any TV show that includes “extremist content”, which I think will eventually become just a code word for anything that disagrees with Theresa May’s government.

What’s worrying about her authoritarian position is her ability to dress it up as managerial competence. Why worry about the loss of our civil liberties? It’s just her getting her job done, right? Call me old-fashioned, but I think that if you have to put our civil liberties at risk to do your job right, then you shouldn’t be doing this job at all. The worst part of all is that she is a technocrat, and that means she doesn’t really care about ideology. If ideology got in the way of getting what she wants, she would toss it to the curb without shedding a tear.

She represents the bland, boring politics we’ve come to expect from the career politicians that fester in the lumbering dinosaur that is the Third Way, and though her outlook is vaguely conservative, it lacks the ideological spark that drives the more strident conservatives, like Andrea Leadsom. Even Margaret Thatcher had a driving ideology, but what does Theresa May have? All she has is the pretence of managerial competence, but it’s not enough. We the people should be able to trust the Prime Minister to protect our civil liberties, and because Theresa May is a proven enemy of civil liberties, we cannot trust Theresa May at all. I can only hope that Theresa May at least does a better job than David Cameron, but I don’t think that we can trust her, especially with her authoritarian track record. Tomorrow she takes office as PM, but when David Cameron hands the keys to No. 10 to her, I can only hope that his faith in her is not misplaced.

#BlackLivesMatter: Enough is enough

On Thursday night, five policemen in Dallas were shot and killed by a man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an army reserve veteran who was reportedly angered by the shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, which happened earlier last week. Micah also stated explicitly that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers. According to Dallas police chief David O. Brown, he had been planning the shooting before the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and had an interest in black nationalist groups (he was a member of the New Black Panther Party for at least six months), using the Black Lives Matter protest at Dallas as an opportunity to attack.

Call it a hunch, but I think that a lot of Micah’s racist anti-cop sentiment was nourished by the Black Lives Matter movement. For those who are unaware, Black Lives Matter (sometimes stylised as #BlackLivesMatter) is a far-left activist movement that emerged in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Though initially confined to Twitter and still lacking in organisation, they became famous in 2014 for its demonstrations following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Their ideology is inspired by the black power movement, black feminism, pan-Africanism, and they claim to be inspired by LGBT social movements and Occupy Wall Street.

They claim to be a movement opposing racially motivated violence against African-Americans, but as has been demonstrated over the past year, they have been behaving like the left-wing equivalent of white nationalists. Online, BLM supporters have been posting racist abuse towards white people, and have been openly calling for the killing of cops. In fact, after Micah Johnson was shot, BLM supporters took to Twitter to effectively treat him like a martyr.


These tweets speak for themselves.

The problem here is that Black Lives Matter has been lying to the American public for the past few years. They claim that black people are systematically and savagely targeted by the state, and yet to this day I have found no evidence in support of their claims. They’d also have you believe that white American police officers are out to kill young black people, but statistics show that black men are more likely to be killed by other black men than white police officers. If you look for the statistics, you can easily draw the conclusion that there is no epidemic of cops killing innocent black people in American, but Black Lives Matter want you to believe this so that they can paint the police as racists, and thus generate hated towards them.

Ever noticed how Black Lives Matter never talks about the murders of innocent black people by other black people? As I mentioned earlier, this happens far more often, but the BLM movement can’t use those incidents in order to guilt trip white people into supporting the movement by making them think they’re racist if they don’t. BLM supporters like to think that the movement is opposing racism, but by focusing solely on black lives, aren’t they implying that only black lives matter? In fact, the best way to annoy people in the BLM movement is to say “#AllLivesMatter” instead of just “#BlackLivesMatter”. If you do that, BLM supporters and progressives will somehow claim you’re a racist, presumably in the absence of a logical counterargument.

Hang on a minute, did I miss a boardroom meeting or something? I thought the whole point of the civil rights movement was that black people were tired of being discriminated based on their skin colour. Didn’t Martin Luther King Jr. himself say that he wanted his children to live in a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin? It seems to me that Black Lives Matter, and indeed their progressive allies in the mainstream media, are encouraging people to judge each other based on the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.

I personally doubt that a majority of people actually believe the lies that the BLM movement is peddling, but the mainstream media has been putting them on a pedestal for the past few years. The mainstream media has a history of propping up ideas that aren’t popular with the masses. They spew the wage gap myth several times, and I don’t believe for a minute that most people actually believe it. They spend their energies promoting feminist ideology, even though only a small minority of people actually agree with feminism. Sure enough, they’re parroting the Black Lives Matter narrative, even though only 43% of Americans actually support the movement.

The scepticism of the public is justified. After all, what kind of right-minded person supports a movement that is actively calling for the murder of police officers? Of course, what most people don’t know is that the co-founder of the movement, Alicia Garza, was inspired by Assata Shakur (a.k.a. Joanne Deborah Chesimard), a convicted cop killer who is still on the FBI’s most wanted list. Assata Shakur eventually escaped prison with the help of her allies in the Weather Underground, a notorious far-left terror group that was active during the 1970’s. You now have a movement that is operating very much like the Black Panthers used to, and in doing so, they are harming the very cause that the media would like you to believe that they represent.

I believe that Black Lives Matter is actively fuelling racial tension between young black people and the police, and there’s enough evidence out there to convince me that it’s not a far-fetched scenario, but I personally feel that we wouldn’t be at this point were it not for the media propping up the movement by making it out to be something that it’s not. The mainstream media has been fostering a toxic atmosphere of liberal guilt that has allowed for race-based extremism and anti-cop sentiment to fester in America. By convincing otherwise right-minded people that we live in a society of systemic oppression, the BLM movement and their progressive allies have generated such an extreme hatred for the American police force that, frankly, it was only a matter of time before somebody put that sentiment into action.

You have these crazy left-wing ideologues who are putting so much emphasis on race, that they almost demand race to be part of the conversation, and yet if conservatives do that, then they’re the racists. It’s the BLM movement and their allies that have corrupted the dialogue on race so badly, that I think it will take a long time for America to recover. One thing I am sure of is that race as an issue won’t go away unless we stop talking about it, and I guarantee that this won’t happen as long as Black Lives Matter continues to operate, because they want us to focus on race. America’s neurotic obsession with something as meaningless as race is how the BLM movement thrives, and it’s this intensified frenzy about race that has allowed BLM to make the leap from activism to terrorism.

My first solution is that Black Lives Matter should now be classified as an extremist hate group, because they actively call for the murder of police officers. My second solution, as I mentioned earlier, is to simply stop viewing people in terms of race. Not only is it stupid and terribly retrograde to judge based on race anyway, but by ignoring race entirely, we can weaken the intellectual positions of both white nationalists like Stormfront, and black supremacists like those in Black Lives Matter. I’ll end this article by leaving you with this video, which, if more than anything else, makes the best case for what I’m talking about.