Why fire anyone? Screw the FCC!

I’ve always hated Federal Communications Commission, not just as an institution but the mere idea of it. How is it that the US constitution enshrines your right to say whatever you want, but somehow that right is not extended to TV? As someone who values free expression the FCC appals me, and it should appal all supporters of free speech whether you’re left-wing or right-wing. So it bothered me when the whole #FireColbert fracas showed up. Apparently the failing agitprop artist Stephen Colbert made a lame quip about Donald Trump’s mouth being fit only for being “Putin’s cock holster”, which is about the edgiest thing he’s said in years.

With #FireColbert, I think it was both the left and the right willing to piggyback on this, and I wouldn’t feel the need to bring it up at all were it not for the emergence of a second FCC-related hashtag campaign, this time targeting someone who I cannot believe I am forced to defend here. This week, John Oliver did a segment where he again campaigns for net neutrality (which is actually one of the few things I agree with him on), in light of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality laws.

He launched a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself”, in which he urged viewers to send complaints to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, in the hope that he might reconsider his plans axe regulations put in place under the Obama administration. However, the campaign seems to have been marked by DDOS attacks against the FCC, which appear to have happened soon after the campaign. FCC executive Matthew Berry also took to Twitter to denounce the many racist messages and death threats that people have submitted seemingly through Oliver’s campaign.

Many people have lashed out against John Oliver on Twitter, including Rebel Media reporter Jack Posobiec, who accuses John Oliver of deliberately inciting “racist fans” to attack the FCC, as if the FCC did nothing wrong. Oh but it gets better. Now Posobiec wants you to think John Oliver is some sort of “racist hatemonger”. What the hell is he thinking? He’s literally playing the race card in the same way the SJW’s always done, and his followers are eating it up. In fact, various other right-wingers, in their zeal to get him fired, are now starting to sound exactly like the authoritarian leftists they despise. It’s not just on Twitter. On Milo Yiannopoulos’ post sharing an article I found, several commenters seem more interested in the fact that John Oliver is a leftist, than the dilemma posed by the FCC getting involved. They don’t care because John Oliver is a political opponent of theirs.

They don’t seem to be getting that this is the exact same problem, but because the FCC is targeting leftist comedians for “obscenity”, somehow it’s okay. I can guarantee however that if the FCC-compliant Steven Crowder did the exact same kind of campaign that John Oliver did, and people sent racist messages through it, he would likely come under fire from the authorities too, but everyone on the right would defend him. In fact, I suspect that most of these right-wingers don’t care about the FCC now that Donald Trump is the president, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, then they would be the first to oppose the very existence of the FCC.

I really dislike having to defend John Oliver, but this time, he is actually innocent, or at least I think he had good intentions with his campaign, but he grossly underestimated what could happen with online campaigns. The problem here is that the campaign was a golden opportunity for people who wanted to screw with him. Think about it. The campaign was filled with bot accounts, and was apparently a conduit for DDOS attackers. This tells me that his campaign might have been intercepted by malevolent individuals who probably hate John Oliver to the point that they wanted to make him look bad, so they hijack his online campaign by sending DDOS attacks to the FCC, and flooding the comment section with racist bot comments in order to make it look like John Oliver was leading an army of racists, hackers and trolls against the FCC. That’s my theory at least.

Of course, nobody seems to be interested in the more important question – why does the FCC even exist? All it does is impose stifling regulations on TV and radio, and thanks to them, American cable television is so heavily regulated that nearly all of it is boring, offensively bland, and so formulaic that it it’s incapable of edgy, boundary-pushing content. Just about all the TV imported to Britain is forced to comply with these regulations, so for me, it’s no different to watching heavily regulated British television.

I think a lot of the controversy, particularly with regards to Stephen Colbert, could be resolved if President Trump did the noble thing, and simply axed the FCC. If he did that, not only would he save money by eliminating a pointless regulatory body, but he would also attract more supporters, especially from libertarians such as myself. Again, I don’t like defending people like John Oliver. I’ve gone on record denouncing him as a liar, and I consider him to be a hypocrite (which I’ll talk about in a later post), but I also believe that it’s wrong to try and get him fired because of something that offended you, which is what the left has been doing for the past few years. With Trump in power, am I going to have to sit here and watch the right turn into the left? I should hope not, but as the Trump years drag on, I worry that this may be an inevitable reality.

Advertisements

Bill Nye the pseudo-science guy

bill nye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is anyone surprised about Alex Jones?

alex jones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emma Watson simply doesn’t get it

emma watson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hypocrisy

This is what a feminist looks like.

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

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

President Oprah?

oprah winfrey

Oh God no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The failure of comedians

frankie boyle

Comedy is a pretty delicate art form, but it is often at its best when its offensive, or when it shocks the establishment and mainstream society. I remember a time where stand-up comedians were actually funny enough to be offensive, but in this decade, though some can still a pack a comedic punch, it seems as though comedians have lost their bite, and most of the time, that’s because they’ve sold themselves out to the celebrity industry, where they work as spokesmen, game show hosts, and most often panel show guests.

Some find new life as newspaper columnists. Remember when Frankie Boyle used to be offensive? When I was a teenager, he was one of the most controversial comics I knew, but now he’s a columnist for The Guardian and The Sun (two of the most loathsome news outlets in Britain), where he’s essentially an advocate for Jeremy Corbyn. He has effectively become part of the very establishment that was offended by him, and he’s not the only comic to have fallen into that pattern. Another comic named Stewart Lee became a columnist for The Observer, and David Mitchell, who I used to like as a teenager, is now a writer for The Guardian.

That seems to be a recurring problem with comedians in this country – they establish a career as stand-up comedians, and then become popular as celebrities, and become part of the celebrity industry, which then puts them in a situation where they find themselves shilling products on TV, but the comedians who go on to write columns are given a podium with which to advance their own views, which is not what a good comedian should do. That apparently doesn’t stop them from doing so. This happened frequently on Channel 4’s Ten O’Clock Live, a satirical news programme where comedians like Charlie Brooker and Jimmy Carr use their privileged position to promote a partisan left-wing agenda.

Though Channel 4’s pretentious spin on nightly news was cancelled in 2013, looking back on it, I find it remarkably similar to a more popular American show with pretty much the same format. Of course, I’m talking about The Daily Show, which has been declining in quality ever since Jon Stewart left. However, I noticed that The Daily Show has a very strong progressive bias, or at least has been used by Comedy Central to advance a progressive agenda. During Trevor Noah’s tenure, the show had become focused on enforcing a progressive narrative on TV, to the point that they are willing to ignore the facts when attempting to present an issue.

A recent example of this manifested when they attempted to “investigate” the wage gap in women’s soccer. The Daily Show presented a very progressive spin on the issue, arguing that female soccer players should receive the same pay as male soccer players. Once you actually do the research on that subject, you’ll find out that this simply can’t be done, due to the fact that women’s soccer is less profitable than men’s soccer. Once you realize that, it follows that The Daily Show is essentially talking nonsense that may as well sound like they got it from a gender studies course. In fact, they interviewed a non-progressive writer, Gavin McInnes, and McInnes stated in a recent article that the producers altered the interview in order to make him sound like a crazy sexist, while missing the point of his argument. As it stands, The Daily Show has become a platform by which the personalities in it can spew whatever progressive nonsense they want, and the audience will accept it.

For me, there’s something awfully wrong with comedy if this can happen. The majority of comedians and comedy shows have become so tamed by the modern climate of political correctness that they have no bite left. That isn’t true for all comedians, but it’s a pattern that I’ve noticed, and that’s certainly the prevalent direction that many are taking, and it indicates to me that comedians are now more afraid of offending a mass audience than ever. With all the easily-offendable neo-progressive activists just waiting to pounce on people who say the “wrong words”, I’m not surprised, but comedians should never be afraid to offend people’s sensibilities, because they can only be truly validated if they are challenged.