The manufactured hype over the 13th doctor

jodie whittaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The feminist war on Japanese pop culture


Ever since Gamergate, and perhaps before then, feminists, progressives and social justice warriors have been embarking on a vain and ultimately futile quest to stick their nose in all aspects of popular culture, wagging their fingers at people who just want to be entertained. Of course, when they realised that they couldn’t get gamers to bend the knee to the religion of social justice, they moved on to a new target – cute anime characters. This new zeal for finger-wagging comes fresh from The Mary Sue, an agenda-pushing feminist site that wags its finger at anything in geek culture they find “problematic”, who wrote an article called “Moé, Misogyny and Masculinity: Anime’s Cuteness Problem–and How to Fix It“.

The premise of the article is pure hogwash. It claims that moé characters, those little sister type characters in anime who are meant to be seen as adorable, are “problematic” and represent an “undercurrent of misogyny” (note: whenever someone says there’s an undercurrent of something, there’s a good chance that he or she can’t provide any evidence to back up their claim). The author, Amelia Cook, goes on a meandering sermon about how moé characters are bad because they’re “unrealistic” and “initialised”, before ultimately discrediting her own argument in the last paragraph, which effectively reads as her saying “moé should be fixed because I don’t like it”. Whether or not you don’t like something about anime (and there are things I find questionable), that’s no reason to demand that it should be changed according to your whims. In the same article she cites the My Little Pony fandom as an example of “grown men challenging perceptions of masculinity through cute pop culture”. In other words, otakus who like moé are evil perverts, but grown men watching a cartoon for six-year-old girls is a good thing? Only in feminism people. Personally I don’t know what part of the article is more contemptible, the fact that she can’t tell fantasy from reality, or the fact that she wants Westerners to “fix it”. Sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

That itself is rather baffling because usually the social justice warriors are big fans of cultural relativism (the belief that one’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that person’s culture). They’re more than willing to turn a blind eye to the most viscerally unsavoury cultural practices that can be found in the Middle East, India and parts of Africa, but for some reason they’re offended by Japanese cartoon characters. In fact, the same author seems to have a particular beef with otaku culture, having written an article bashing fanservice over a month ago, declaring that is “normalises the objectification of women”. Nevermind the fact that fanservice featuring male anime characters exists as well. Would Amelia care to mention that? Oh wait, she won’t, or if she brings it up she’ll deny it, because the concept of men being objectified in the same way as women goes against her feminist dogma. I’m honestly sick to death of the whole “objectification” argument, mainly because its only an excuse that feminists and religious conservatives alike can lean on to demand the censorship of art and entertainment. Also, fanservice can be used for comedy. I’ve heard of plenty of anime series’ that do this. Maybe Amelia Cook should check them out.

Of course, the legions of anime fans on Twitter responded swiftly, with the hashtag #OperationMoe having been doing the rounds all week. However, it’s not just anime the SJW’s are after. The Mary Sue is the same sight that accused Final Fantasy XV of being sexist for having an all-male main cast, denouncing its fans as pigs. In fact, social justice warriors have developed a special kind of hatred for Japanese games. I’ve always noticed that Western critics tend to look down on Japanese games and anime with a certain kind of supremacist snobbery, and Japanese developers take notice of this, so they try as hard as they can to make sure their games can appeal to the Western market, and sadly, that leads them to the tragedy of self-censorship. Games like Tokyo Mirage Sessions, which would be completely innocuous over in Japan, often get brutally censored when being released in the West, and sometimes it’s completely pointless.

Of course, if we want to see Japanese works uncensored, we can peruse the internet in all its glory, but my problem is this: they shouldn’t have to censor themselves at all. I think certain Japanese developers are starting to take notice of the kind of pathetic PC culture we are engaged in. When asked by a fan about the bikini costumes in Tekken 7, Tekken producer Katsuhiro Harada replied: “ask your country’s SJW’s”, calling out the self-professed culture critics who are so fragile that they get offended by swimsuits.

There is another dimension to the SJWs’ new war on anime, one that makes the “progressive” label that they brandish so much seem bitterly ironic. I think that the Western critics who bash anime so much do this because they think lowly of Japanese culture, or at least their attitudes towards sex. What we have to remember is that Japanese culture is very different to ours. They’re attitude towards gender roles are distinctly more conservative than those in the West, and they perceive sexuality differently. Namely, the Japanese have historically had more permissive attitudes to sex and nudity, and in some ways they persist to this day. Of course, Western critics are entrenched in their own culture, and Japanese attitudes towards sex and/or erotic material is an affront to what feminism has taught them, hence they find it acceptable to avoid an opponent’s argument by mocking his/her anime avatar (if an avatar is present). The ethnocentric bias is present in today’s “culture critics”, which is ironic because they consider themselves diametrically opposed to racism (yet their repeated emphasis on race has all the hallmarks of a racist). If anything, the fact that they treat anime with particular disdain because of Japanese attitudes towards sex makes them the bigots.

To me, this is perhaps an example of the hypocrisy of progressives, as their belief in cultural relativism stops at the borders of Japan, a country that doesn’t seem to be having the same problem with social justice warriors that we’re having. Anime appears to be next front that social justice warriors are fighting, but it’s not a fight that they can nor should win. If I have any advice for Japanese game developers and anime producers who are thinking about the West’s social justice warriors, I think they should ignore them. The SJW’s will always look for new targets, and they will never be satisfied. As for the anime fans, I say keep fighting. The social justice advocates will try and subjugate everything in their midst until everything conforms to their ideological agenda. If you love anime, keep fighting the good fight against social justice warriors who want to police everything you love. The gamers will be at your side, having fought their own battle against agenda-pushing feminists in video games industry (as a side note, most of the games Anita Sarkeesian condemns as “sexist” happen to have been made in Japan). If there are any social justice warriors perusing my site, this message from Twitter is for them.


My beef with TV licensing (and the BBC)

tv licensing

So I heard that the BBC are rolling out new changes to the TV licensing laws, which effectively mean that, starting from September 1st, you will have to get a TV license in order to download or even watch BBC programs via iPlayer. What it means it that, if you want to watch TV shows on BBC iPlayer on any broadcasting device at all (including tablets by the way), you have to pay the extortionate TV licensing fee (which as of 2010 is frozen at £145.50 per year).

For starters, it means that I have to basically stop watching anything from the BBC (which I can totally do because I don’t even like the BBC, for reasons we’re about to get into) because that rule extends to university students like myself. However, the main thing about this new law is that it shows how desperate the BBC has gotten. When I first heard of this, I thought it was basically an obvious attempt to target university students (as if we don’t have enough expenses to pay as it is) just to keep the god-awful BBC Three alive.

To clear things up, BBC Three died a natural death. Viewership began declining as young people moved towards tablets and online on-demand content, and so the BBC couldn’t afford to keep the channel anymore, as would inevitably happen over a period of time. They kept it running as an online channel, but while its rating aren’t catastrophically bad, I don’t see a lot of people clamouring to watch it. I personally don’t feel that people living in halls should have to pay an arm and a leg every year just to keep a dreggy, ancillary channel alive in a era where it is no longer relevant, and clearly can’t survive in a free market.

In fact, I’ve always despised the TV licensing fees. For those of my readers who live outside Britain, the TV licensing fee is an annual fee that we in Britain are forced to pay if we have a TV, and because the BBC is owned, operated and controlled by the government, that fee is basically how the BBC is funded (this is why BBC channels and radio stations don’t need ad revenue, and therefore have no ads). To me, this sounds like a blatantly socialist concept, as it is counter to the idea that a TV station should survive or collapse on its own in the free market. I also find it very bizarre that the majority of Brits actually defend the institution that forces you to pay extortionate amounts of money just to stay alive, so here are a few reasons why I think we should abolish the TV licensing fee.

1. The concept of a public TV station is outdated

As I mentioned earlier, the BBC has slowly become an irrelevant institution. In the old days, people were basically stuck to the live channels as they were the only source of TV programs, sport and news updates, and whatever they had what was you got. Flash forward to 2016 – now people can get their news from an array of online sources, including social media websites, and thanks to the invention of tablets and streaming services like Netflix, you can stream any TV programme you want without the need of a TV.

In today’s world, the TV is becoming a relic of the 20th century, and by consequence, so is the BBC, and they know that. Why else would you have thousands of British households cancelling their TV licensees? In a world where you can catch up on BBC’s programmes through the iPlayer service, why even would you bother paying the license for something you don’t need? With that in mind, we come to the only reason the new law is being rolled out – the BBC is losing money.

The BBC has apparently lost £238 million because people have decided that, with tablets, there’s no need to pay an expensive TV license fee. Of course, the regressive government institution that it is, they want to close that loophole because they’re afraid of becoming irrelevant, and thus unprofitable. The new law is simply a way for the BBC to try and make money by forcing people to pay for iPlayer, a service that, by all rights, should be available for free. All the new law will end up doing is driving people over to the alternative streaming services, which are significantly cheaper if not available for free, further crippling the BBC.

2. Why should I pay for bad TV?

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but most of the shows on BBC’s channels are mediocre at best. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (such as “The A Word”, which is due for a new season), but most of the BBC’s programming consists of much of the same kind of claptrap you find on its competitors (Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5), all of which can exist without the licensing fee.

The only good thing I can say is that BBC’s shows have better production values than their competitors (the nature documentaries look and sound fantastic), and I have no doubt that BBC programmes might have been much better in the past, but I don’t feel it to be the case now. I’m aware that there are quite a few popular and highly-regarded shows on the BBC, like Doctor Who and Sherlock, but I feel that if people really like them enough, then they will survive without the need of a licensing fee. I don’t really care what people watch. If they like it, it’s their prerogative, but I shouldn’t have to pay for them. I don’t see why people should be prosecuted just because they don’t want to have to pay to keep Flog It on the air.

I’m also aware of the fact that the licensing fee also funds BBC Radio. To me that means it sustains one of my most hated institutions – BBC Radio 1. If I were to pay the licensing fee, I’d be paying to sustain the vapid cesspool of decadence and garbage that I always thought of Radio 1 as back in high school. The other radio stations, however, I have a mixed opinion of.

3. Why should I pay for propaganda?

In the old days, most people got their news from the BBC, and when I was young, it was generally assumed that BBC News is completely unbiased, but that’s complete balderdash. Because the BBC is essentially owned by the government, BBC News is the state news network, meaning that it will invariably be promoting some sort of agenda.

Many right-wing newspapers accuse the BBC of having a blatant left-wing bias, and they’re absolutely right. I noticed this during the Brexit vote, and the BBC showed an obvious bias in favour of the Remain camp (but then, most of the establishment media was in the same boat). They’ve also been known to spin anything involving Donald Trump (I don’t support him, but I dislike the intellectual dishonesty displayed by the media right now). Recently, Donald Trump said that supporters of the Second Amendment could hinder Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He said this while making a point about how gun rights may be endangered if Hillary got to appoint her own judges of the Supreme Court (which, if she’s president, she will). However, the mainstream media, including the BBC, reported it as if Trump was calling for Hillary’s assassination.

The BBC is also very much entrenched in the ideology of political correctness, which makes sense coming from a pro-government channel. The BBC have made various documentaries that serve to promote an ideological agenda, and the best example I could think of is on BBC Three, who made a documentary entitled Porn: What’s the Harm. What was it? It was basically a piece that promotes the lie that porn causes sexual violence, child abuse, and rampant underage sexual activity, with no proof at all. This came in around the time when David Cameron’s government came under fire for attempting to implement a controversial porn filter (which was also going to block a number of non-pornographic sites), and since the BBC does the bidding of the government, the BBC, through it’s teen-oriented channel, was focused on trying to convince young people that porn is evil. They even brought in a former child actor to promote the lie. They also love to tout the merits of cultural diversity, while simultaneously chiding American Christians because they believe in angels (as they did in at least one BBC Three documentary).

4. If the BBC can’t survive on its own, what’s the point of keeping it alive?

Being a filthy capitalist libertarian pig dog, I believe in the virtues of the free market. Hence, I’m diametrically opposed to the idea of the citizenry being forced to pay for something against their will. That is why I oppose state-funded media and arts, because it comes at the expense of the taxpayer.

As I mentioned earlier, the BBC is clearly struggling to survive in an era where we can live without it. If it weren’t for the fact that we’re forced to pay the license fee, the BBC would probably be dead, or at least it wouldn’t have the money to keep producing so much content, or it might have shrunk to just a few TV channels and possibly one radio station.

Besides, I remember watching the BBC often because nothing else. Whenever I could choose something better, I would never watch the BBC. Of course, what bothers me even more is the concept of a TV license enforcement division, with officers that can search your home if they have a warrant. I haven’t heard of any other country in the world that has them around. And of course, the enemy of the BBC, which controls 70% of news output on TV and radio, is competition. If it was freed from government control, it would be forced to succeed or fail by its own merits, like all the other channels, but apparently the government doesn’t want that.


5. What are the arguments in favour of it?

Since the BBC is entrenched into the fabric of British society, it generally goes unquestioned despite the horrendous extortion Brits have to put up with. Naturally, a number of arguments in favour of the licensing fee (and the BBC) have come up, so I’d like to address the main arguments before I tune out.

  • The BBC does wonderful work and we must protect it – From what? The BBC is a corporation. It doesn’t or shouldn’t need government protection. And further more, what wonderful work? If you mean TV programming, then that’s completely subjective. For instance, I can’t stand Strictly Come Dancing. I find it a vapid exercise in brain-melting distraction. That’s why I’ve stayed away from it ever since I was 14. If you mean the news, then, as I’ve already said earlier, the BBC’s news service is essentially politically correct propaganda that omits any details that are inconvenient to their narrative.
  • The BBC does not have to sell advertising – I agree that ads are extremely annoying, with their universally crappy jingles and barely passable actors, but I don’t think that the licensing fee is the best solution. Besides, you can now streaming videos online with minimal ads, and on Netflix, you can stream TV programmes with no ads at all, which means the point about having no ads is a moot one.
  • The BBC delivers a variety of content – So does the Internet, which provides the greatest possible amount of variety known to man, catering to every niche you can imagine, and the best part is that you can pick and choose what you want to watch or listen to online, and it usually doesn’t you a dime (even the internet bill in my house isn’t as expensive as the TV licensing fee).
  • The BBC charter defines quality content – Again, that’s entirely subjective. Of course, the BBC can boast higher production values than their competitors, but remember, that money comes from leeching the public dry. Also, you can find great content that the BBC doesn’t have online, for free. You don’t have to go to the BBC at all for high quality content. Hell, if you were rich, you could afford access to content that is even better than the BBC if you knew where to look.
  • The BBC is an essential public service – Let me be clear on this final argument. Television is not an essential public service, and neither is the BBC. To those who say the BBC’s remit is to inform and educate as well as entertain, education should be the responsibility of either schools or your parents, not a state-owned propaganda outlet such as the BBC. As for entertainment, you can literally get entertainment anywhere other than the BBC, and for information in relation to news, you can get your news anywhere else online. Barely anyone watches broadcast news anymore since you can get it all online now. BBC News even has its own website, and with iPlayer around (which they’re going to charge you for through the license fee), you don’t even have to watch the channels proper.

Through all of this, I my principal argument is that the TV licensing fee should be abolished. All it does in the long run is preserve an outdated institution at the expensive of the taxpayer, which I find to be a frivolous excess. As for the BBC, I think it should be privatised, which of course would force it to compete in a free market, freeing the citizenry of an arbitrary expense. Yes, this will probably mean ads, but if I were watching TV, I would rather sit through terrible ads than be forced to pay for a channel I don’t want to use. Besides, I’m very certain that privatising the BBC will have no effect on the quality of the BBC’s programming. I’m sure the BBC can still capably produce programming to its viewers’ liking without forcing the rest of us to pay for it.

Why pandering to social justice warriors has failed

suicide squad vs. ghostbusters

This summer, two films have been placed on the spotlight. One of them is Suicide Squad, a film that, despite its shortcomings in terms of narrative, is a decently entertaining comic book film. The other one is Paul Feig’s terrible Ghostbusters remake, in which he ruins a beloved film by pandering to social justice warriors. Consider this for a moment. When the Ghostbusters trailer was revealed, nearly everyone, including myself, absolutely hated it, while mainstream film critics, social justice warriors, and the film’s producers, sung praises of the film before it was even released, and tried to dismiss anyone who didn’t like it as a horrible sexist.

Meanwhile, Suicide Squad was denounced by the very same kind of people who defended the genuinely terrible Ghostbusters reboot (you know, the middle class “critics” I mentioned in the first paragraph). They accused Suicide Squad of being “sexist”, “racist”, and “insensitive”, all without any particular reason. Of course, while the critics spent their time flailing around and trying to convince people not to see Suicide Squad because they don’t like it, Suicide Squad has so far broken many box office records, and made well over its production budget within less than a week of its release, making $294 million at the time of this writing, against a bloated production budget of $175 million (it’s not enough if you count marketing costs, but at this rate, it’s getting there). Contrast that with Ghostbusters, which apparently opened to empty theatres, and only made $80 million within the first ten days since its release in July, and as of now has made $180 million against a budget of $144 million. That doesn’t sound bad, but if you account for the marketing costs, Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters needs to make at least $300 million in order to break even, and given how unlikely it is that is, Ghostbusters is a box office bomb.

I think Hollywood should take two lessons from this. Firstly, it shows that film critics have virtually no influence on the public’s taste in films, though in my opinion, that should have been obvious. Critics usually pan action films and formulaic rom-coms, and yet they tend to make a killing in the box office. Secondly, it should show Paul Feig and other progressive directors that pandering to social justice warriors doesn’t work.

In my opinion, the failure of the new Ghostbusters film had nothing to do with its largely unfunny cast, and everything to do with its monumentally poor marketing strategy. The whole point of the marketing campaign was to get people to accept that Melissa McCarthy, Kirsten Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are the new Ghostbusters, but all the trailer did was convince people that it would be a howlingly unfunny disaster, and the mere fact that they had to play the sexism card in order to defend it made matters even worse. By contrast, Suicide Squad didn’t discriminate. Rather than trying to market the all-female cast as a sign of how “progressive” the film is supposed to be, the mission of Suicide Squad’s marketing campaign was to make it look edgy and stylish, or at least in the eyes of young teenagers. That film’s marketing campaign didn’t discriminate, because DC and Warner Bros. know that if they did, it would be commercial suicide, and the end result is Suicide Squad making far more money then Ghostbusters did.

You don’t need a degree in advertising to know that it isn’t wise to alienate your audience. Ghostbusters’ marketing, with its blatant attempt at pushing Paul Feig’s ideological agenda, pretty much killed the film’s chances of commercial success by alienating a huge chunk of the audience, namely the people who loved Ghostbusters when they were children and are now horrified at what the maker of Bridesmaids has done to it. How does that not alienate an audience? Add a dash of gender politics to the mix (courtesy of left-wing news outlets and left-leaning entertainment sites) and you make an already bad PR disaster cataclysmically worse.

The failure of Ghostbusters was entirely Hollywood’s fault, but then, what did they expect? They were trying to make a film specifically for third-wave feminists, progressives and social justice warriors. They’re the kind of people who, because the personal is political to them, will get up in arms other everything they don’t like, so no matter how hard you try, you can’t please them. Hell, you even had people complaining that Leslie Jones’ character was a racist stereotype of black people (and to be fair, she played an extremely stereotypical character). There is simply no profit in appealing to a demographic that cannot be pleased, and by trying to appease the unappeasable, what inevitably happens is that you alienate everybody else.

I would also blame Hollywood’s increasingly bloated budgets and increasingly extravagant expectations. With a production budget of $144 million, and a marketing budget of around $150 million (totalling $294 million), Ghostbusters would need to make a worldwide gross of around $300 million in order to break even, and if Paul Feig is to be believed, it would have to make upwards of $500 million in order to turn a sizeable profit. Even Suicide Squad, which easily outdid Ghostbusters within its first week, will need to make well over $350 million to turn a profit, because comic book films are now placed under higher expectations than ever before. That’s how Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice can make $872 million worldwide, well above the combined total of its production and marketing budget (which would be around $415 million), can still be considered by Hollywood to be a disappointment.

I sincerely hope that Suicide Squad finishes its box office run as a success, because it would prove my point – that the progressive film critics have no real influence over whether a film is considered good or bad, or whether a film succeeds or fails. Meanwhile, I expect Ghostbusters to not only end its box office run as a failure, but I also hope that it serves a cautionary tale of how appealing to social justice warriors is a monumentally bad tactic. If after all this, Ghostbusters somehow gets a sequel, then I’ll know that Hollywood has truly gone off the deep end. Then again, I doubt that Hollywood ever learns from its mistakes.

The Simpsons writers show their bias (in the ugliest way possible)

the simpsons 3am

It seems as if the producers of The Simpsons can’t accept that the show is now an irrelevant relic of a bygone age, so before the new season even started, they released a short clip that at first appears to skewer both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which makes sense due to the fact that they are now the definite nominees of the two main parties. It’s basically an unfunny parody of an old campaign ad from Hillary’s 2008 campaign, and it also predictably revolves around Marge and Homer, who are apparently unable to have maritals until they decide who to vote (an immediate signal that they’re in fact the dumbest couple in America right now).

Given that The Simpsons are well known for their left-wing bent, I kind of thought that it would basically be a propaganda piece in favour of Hillary Clinton, and sure enough, that becomes clear after they “skewer” both candidates. When Marge and Homer are about to have sex, they stop after Homer whispers his preference for Trump, and Marge says that “if that’s your vote, I question whether I can ever be with you again”, with Homer concluding “and that’s how I became a Democrat”. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Groening and the other Simpsons writers have finally sunk to the depths of their own leftist echo chamber, to the point that they’re perfectly fine with making outright partisan propaganda (despite criticising such propaganda from Republicans in numerous episodes in earlier seasons).

The message of the whole clip is simple – “vote Democrat or your wife will dump you”. I can’t think of anything more soulless that they have ever written, but then again, they’re such die-hard leftists that nothing is above them. They characterise Donald Trump very poorly, as if they don’t even care about his actual policies (“Put my name on the Lincoln memorial, disband Nato…and make me some scrambled eggs on gold plates.”). That in itself is unsurprising, considering that at this point, the two major candidates are so incredibly repugnant that all the Simpsons writers can do is appeal to party loyalty, if only because the two major parties are all they know. They may as well be slaves to the two-party narrative, because they didn’t even consider the third-party candidates that are rising in popularity. The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and The Green Party’s Jill Stein both make far superior candidates compared to the ones propped up by the mainstream media, and in fact, I would have thought that Matt Groening would have preferred Jill Stein, a candidate who sounds almost exactly like Lisa Simpson. But no, Groening and the other leftists in Hollywood would rather prop up Hillary, a candidate who is unpopular even with many Democrats.

I’ve already made my stance on Hillary quite clear over the past month, and as you can tell, I hate Hillary Clinton. I think she represents everything that is wrong with America’s political system, including the corruption and corporate collusion, and the identarian partisan politics that I’ve come to expect. Given how anti-establishment The Simpsons used to be, I find it even more infuriating that Groening will now endorse someone as painfully pro-establishment as Hillary Clinton, but that’s the least of my worries. I do hope Mr. Groening can sleep at night because by endorsing Hillary, he’s giving a free pass to corruption, and what’s worse if that he’s wrapping it up in warm, bitter, mean-spirited, and terribly unfunny “family-friendly comedy”.

With other episodes, the Simpsons writers merely ridiculed the Republicans simply because they Republicans, or in earlier episodes, because they saw them as representing the horrid establishment of their day, but with the “3am” short, I think the Simpsons writers are showing that they are really scared of the possibility of Donald Trump getting elected, and that’s totally apt because they have become part of the establishment. Why else would their blatant propaganda be praised by the likes of, Huffington Post, or Rolling Stone? Like the rest of the cultural and political establishment, they’re scared because Donald Trump is the candidate that people actually want, and they now that a Trump victory is almost certain. Nothing frightens the left more than a party they don’t personally like being democratically voted into power, especially if it turns out that Donald Trump, unlike Hillary, is giving air to the concerns of the working class.

Again, I have to point out that I am not a Trump supporter. I am not a fan of Trump, but there are things about him I like, and things I don’t like. I think he’s a buffoon who’s more talk than policy, but as much as I’m against the Republicans, I hate the Democrats even worse, and I despise the blatant propaganda coming out of the mainstream media, and the way The Simpsons had done it in their short clip is so far the worst example of it. Done without care or subtlety (it’s extremely obvious that they’re pro-Clinton), it’s perhaps the most infuriating symptom of just how far they’ve fallen in pursuit of popularity, reverence, and continued adulation, and that frustrates me to no end. I used to love The Simpsons, but in just two minutes, whatever little respect I had for the show or their writers (and I’m surprised I still had any) has vanished as I see that they have become little more than a whelping Clinton Pravda. If you think I’m exaggerating here, the clip is below, but trust me, if you don’t like Hillary Clinton or the later Simpsons episodes, you will probably not like what you see one bit.

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.

Taken with a pinch of salt

john oliver

If there’s one person who I haven’t subjected to scrutiny on this site quite yet, it’s John Oliver, the former Daily Show correspondent who left and launched his own show on HBO. As the host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver became a widely acclaimed comedian who regularly receives praise from progressive news outlets like Salon (yes, THAT Salon), Huffington Post, and The Guardian (who regularly kisses his ass). To be fair, John Oliver is also popular with other outlets, and he’s become something of a household name in America. To be fair, I actually like the show. I like that John Oliver takes his choice of subject matter both lightly and seriously, with his longer segments being both witty and insightful…most of the time.

However, I think he deserves a good dose of scepticism, especially when you consider that he has an enormous platform from which he could espouse a certain political agenda. From what I can gather, John Oliver is clearly a progressive. Fortunately he isn’t the lunatic progressive we see amongst the social justice crowd, but I think there are moments that give away his particular political leanings.

For starters, throughout the show’s third season, he has placed particular focus on Donald Trump, especially now that he’s the presumptive nominee for the Republican party. In February, he ran a long segment about Donald Trump which was funny and well-argued. However, he made one fatal error – he ended it on the assumption that the source of Trump’s success is his name, and made a satirical campaign (Make Donald Drumpf Again) using the name of one of Trump’s ancestors, Friedrich Drumpf.

Aside from being very silly, it’s kind of childish. Friedrich Drumpf would likely have changed his name to blend in with American society, as many German immigrants would have done in Friedrich’s time. Also, it demonstrates a critical failure on Oliver’s part to understand why Trump is so popular. Trump’s supporters are drawn to him because he’s more outrageous than all the other candidates, and because they are tired of being betrayed and told what to think by the political class. That John Oliver doesn’t get this forces me to question his intellectual position. No wonder Americans decided not to make Donald Drumpf again. It certainly doesn’t help that he’s been relatively uncritical of the two Democrat candidates, though in a recent episode he did make the convincing case that Bernie Sanders would have lost even if you accounted for all the caucuses and other factors (sorry if I’m being rather glib, but the US primary system is seriously confusing even for me).

Throughout the show, John Oliver has given coverage to a wide range of news stories and topics of all shapes and sizes, from the more serious topics to the bizarre, and sometimes the pointless (such as a Gloria Steinem interview and the Queen insulting Chinese officials). On the longer segments, Oliver’s investigatory skills show a serious journalistic interest in various subjects, and they have had an impact on the outside world. However, there are a few that I would call into question.

For me, the most obviously questionable segment is the one he ran last year on online harassment. My main area of criticism is that he essentially bought into the narrative of Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn as victims of online harassment, and the mainstream media outlets praised him for it. He assumed that all her critics were misogynist trolls, and gave no coverage to why the GamerGate movement hated them in the first place. Sarkeesian, Wu and Quinn are all militant neofeminists who were hell bent on destroying gamer culture, and many of the comments they received were people who simply disagreed with them. What John Oliver didn’t mention is that they made a living as professional victims, with Sarkeesian and Quinn later begging the UN to censor online speech just to protect their feelings. Not only that, but he ignored the evidence that suggests that not only do men receive more harassment online than women, but also that Sarkeesian and Wu generated fraudulent harassment against themselves in order to get media attention. They’re total frauds, and John Oliver gave them a platform. This is no surprise, considering how the mainstream media is now in bed with progressive social justice activists. In a way, this highlights how corrupt the mainstream media is (and let’s face it, HBO is totally mainstream now).

Another segment I have a problem with is the one he ran about the migrant crisis, which saw him taking the side of the European Union, and attempting to explain the situation to Americans using the soap opera Days of Our Lives. Granted, the media coverage was still skewed one way or the other, but Oliver was part of that. Not only did he dismiss the idea that terrorists could take advantage of the migrant crisis without even giving it a fair hearing, but he also joined the rest of the mainstream media in picking on a camera woman who was caught kicking a migrant in the stomach (she was in the wrong, but that’s no excuse for mindless virtue signalling). I agree with his point that we shouldn’t treat people like garbage because of their religion, but he also ignored other factors, such as EU countries not being able to take in the amount of migrants that were coming in, and attempted to rationalise a reckless open border policy using the declining birth rates of EU nations. What he doesn’t know is that this was being taken advantage of by radical clerics such as Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, who called for Muslim migrants to breed with Europeans as a way of conquering EU states.

The whole segment, though hilarious, was essentially a masterclass exercise in virtue signalling, and on top of that, when the Paris attacks happened, he didn’t consider for a moment that the EU’s open border policy may have had something to do with it. Instead, he dedicated two minutes to yet more virtue signalling. He’s also a naive believer in the idea that ISIS is fighting a cultural war, when we can all see that they’re fighting an actual war, with real weapons. Of course, these facts aren’t mentioned because they’re inconvenient to Oliver’s clearly left-wing narrative, and any facts that contradict it would threaten his ability to position himself as the smug British man who’s always right about everything.

Of course, John Oliver is a comedian, and so you shouldn’t really be relying on him as a journalist, but many people actually take him seriously, and so do the progressive news outlets that like to kiss his ass. They take his comedic diatribes as gospel when it’s supposed to be entertainment, and John Oliver knows this. He knows that the Daily Show format he continues is capable of advancing a political position, and he uses it very shrewdly, pontificating a political position wrapped in objective journalism. The worst part about it is that he could easily dodge criticism by making of them, and his millions of followers will agree with him. As much as I like John Oliver as a comedian, I worry that he runs the risk of being a progressive demagogue, and once you become a demagogue, it becomes increasingly more difficult to resist the urge to use that power at its most dangerous level.