Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

women's march

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Is the anti-smoking movement getting it wrong?

Even though I am against smoking, and the tobacco industry, I don’t judge smokers because of this. In fact, I never go around preaching about the dangers of smoking. If I did, I wouldn’t make any progress whatsoever. That being said, I have more than a few objections with the way smoking has often been opposed.


I’m quite sure that going around plastering the word “stop” everywhere isn’t very productive.

In case you’re wondering, this is about the Stoptober campaign. Every year, this government campaign attempts to encourage smokers to quit smoking, using only an annoying ad campaign backed up by regurgitated government statistics. This year, meanwhile, the government decided that this campaign needed Paddy McGuiness to promote it. If I were a smoker, and saw Paddy McGuiness telling people to stop smoking, that’d make me want to smoke even more.

For me, the way the campaign is being marketed is ridiculous, mainly because the people advertising the campaign are basically idiotic comedians who I don’t think I could stand being around. If you go to the official Stoptober website and hover over the thumbnails of the celebrities shown on the website, you’ll see a speech bubble where they say something incredibly stupid. For example, Andi Osho’s argument basically compares giving up smoking to life in a hip hop video. On top of being just plain stupid, it doesn’t even come close to being a logical argument.

To be fair, I’m not at all surprised. The government apparently thinks they can convince a generation of young people to give up smoking by using media personalities. For me, the “no smoking” mentality has become mainstream, and the anti-smoking movement is no longer about public health. Now that the anti-smoking movement is seen as “the good guy” in almost any discussion about smoking, the anti-smoking movement is basically about politics, and making sure that you can’t smoke, even if you enjoy smoking.

Of all the publicly funded anti-smoking campaigns, how many of them are even aware that people actually choose to smoke? The anti-smoking movement survives on the notion that all smokers started smoking because of peer pressure, or because they were “brainwashed” by advertising. While that might be true in some cases, the reality is that most smokers started doing so on their own free will, which brings me to the biggest problem with anti-smoking campaigns – they apparently have no regard for smokers’ freedom of choice.

When it comes to freedom of choice, I find that there anti-smoking movement can be hypocritical. They don’t mind if you want to quit smoking, but if you smoke and enjoy it, they’ll probably preach down your throat about how smoking is unhealthy. What’s worse is that anti-smoking campaigns only focus on the fact that it’s bad for you, and since a lot of anti-smoking campaigns in the UK are funded by the government, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it’s basically a socially acceptable way for the government to tell you what you can and can’t do, all under the banner of “health and safety”.


Just in case you thought they weren’t that bad.

In conclusion, while I despise the tobacco industry, I find that the anti-smoking movement isn’t exactly better, especially if the government is willing to have some of the most unlikable “comedians” I know to endorse the Stoptober campaign. In general, I simply don’t have a lot of respect for most of these anti-smoking campaign. After all, what’s the point of getting on the anti-smoking high horse if you don’t respect people when they choose to smoke?

Deconstructing feminist arguments


I’m getting pretty tired of that.

If there’s one group whose comments I’m sick of hearing, it’s the feminists. Almost every feminist that’s shown on the media is practically an ugly, man-hating lesbian who’s jealous of all the good-looking ladies who get more respect than them. Even the ones that don’t somehow manage to be completely illogical.

With all seriousness, feminism is the belief that restrictions on women and girls should be removed in order to bring harmony and equality to the sexes. Now, I believe in equality, but I don’t believe that it should be forced. In fact, the feminists we’re familiar with actually want to make it so that women have more privileges than men, which is not what most feminists believe anyway.

I’m here because I want to take some of the common feminist arguments, and rip them apart, and tell you why they’re nonsense.

Argument 1: “The sex industry objectifies and exploits women”

This is obviously a false statement to make. Why? Consider this; if a porn actress actively appears in porn, and continues to do so, then she must have chosen to do this, and is enjoying her work. It’s the same with strippers. If a women is making money, and likes talking to the men who pay her, it’s obvious that most strippers are enjoying their work, and are not being exploited. It’s only the ones that have pimps that are exploited.

If porn stars and strippers were being exploited, then they would have come out with the police by now. Why do feminists and female politicians try to ban porn? Simple. Because their jealous of the porn stars because they didn’t get laid when they were still young, like many other women might have done. I have a feeling that if they did make it with a boy, they wouldn’t be complaining.

Argument 2: “Men are always violent, and women are always good”

This argument is wrong because it’s a stereotype, and it amounts to gender bias, which is a form of sexism, which feminists claim to be fighting.

Men aren’t always violent. In fact, many men, including myself, are actually non-violent. We get angry, and so do women, but we don’t usually take it out on women. We vent it somewhere else, hopefully where it won’t have any long-term consequences.

Women like to pass off the image that they’re always good and innocent, but men everywhere know that it’s not true. Women are capable of cheating just as much as men are, and some women even try withholding sex if a man doesn’t act the she wants her to. Some girls are outright brats. I’m sure there were plenty of girls who acted like brats during my childhood, and the situation probably hasn’t changed.

To say that all men are bad, and all women are good is outright sexist. Moreover, it’s a backwards version of the sexism that used to be subjected to women. It’s all part of the feminist agenda.

Argument 3: “The patriarchy is responsible for oppressing women”

“The patriarchy” is simply a buzz word used by feminists to blacken the image of the male gender. Patriarchy doesn’t oppress women, people do.

Let’s face it, in Western society, very few people want to actively oppress women, because they know that it will hinder their chances of getting laid. The only societies that seek to actively control women are the poor Islamic countries in the Middle East.

Feminists use this to add rhetoric to cause, and if anyone criticizes their arguments, as I am bravely doing right now, then they will automatically paint you as a “misogynist” in order to silence you.




Feminists have gotten very far in their quest for female dominance. They’ve entered mainstream acceptance, they have the media on their side, and they now have the power to quash logic and reason if they stand in the way. Feminism has become a religion of the false idea of “female innocence” and “male evil”, and if something is not done, then they will succeed.

Fortunately, there are plenty of intelligent thinkers who stand in the way, and plenty of men willing to fight anti-male rhetoric. The sooner we end the notion of a “battle of the sexes”, the sooner we’ll achieve real equality.