Why I think academia is irrelevant

academia

I may be a university student, but I have no real respect for academia. To be frank, I went to university with the full knowledge that I will gain something out of it. Since I do an art course, I’m mainly talking about the contextual studies module, which if you’re preparing to go to uni yourself, you should now this that this is the dry and academic part of your course. I frankly dislike academia, mainly because I see it as stingy and old fashioned, particularly when it comes down to research.

To be clear, they’re okay with you using Internet sources as long as you don’t just use a random blog as a source (incidentally, please don’t use this site as a source for your dissertation, I’m not liable for your carelessness), but they seem to be insistent that you mostly use books. That isn’t necessarily the worst of my problems, but it seems to me like they have no faith in a student’s ability to discern truth from misinformation on the Internet. The only real argument I’ve heard against using online sources is that there might be misinformation.

More to the point, they seem to be the kind of people who have the attitude of either you write the way we want you to, or you fail, and I can say this because I have actually discussed this with a member of staff working at the university, and we basically came to that conclusion looking at the kind of writing language you’re required to use. They’ll tell you its supposed to be about objectivity, but really it seems to me like you’re part of the Borg. Not even a shred of your own individuality is allowed in your writing at all, and yet I’ve heard that certain lecturers recommend that you write your dissertation with emotive, persuasive language. That sounds like they’re in favour of narrative crafting, the total opposite of objectivity.

To me, that’s the biggest problem I have with academia, that it’s stuck in its old and entrenched ways, refusing to change with the times. The most revolutionary aspect of the age of information has been the fact that now anyone who can use the internet has access to any kind of knowledge they want, and they don’t even have to go to university and go into debt to do it. The people in academia hate that. They have long been the ivory tower gatekeepers of information in the days before the information age, and now that the internet has brought about the free flow of information to the public, academia is left unable to stem the flow.

Of course, academia is one the core components of the reigning establishment (the others being the government, the media, and the cultural elite). Their gripes are the same as those of the rest of establishment at large – they are becoming irrelevant, and they can’t stand that. It doesn’t help that they cling to the ideology of cultural Marxism, that postmodern, neo-Marxist nonsense which you can easily use the Internet to disprove if you have at least two brain cells, a cursory knowledge of philosophy, and/or internet connection. If anything, this seems to be making academia (and academics) even more irrelevant and out of touch with the rest of society.

Those at least are my observations. I haven’t necessarily been in university for very long, but I get the sense that I don’t fit in well with academic culture. The way I see it, the kind of academic language taught in university isn’t going to be worth much when you get out of university and try to enter the job market, which as I speak is so oversaturated with degree-holding graduates that I dare say degrees will one day become worthless. All that debt for nothing I guess, and yet I’m supposed to have respect for the irrelevant spectre that is academic culture, which will offer nothing of worth to me unless I plan to become a teacher and/or a professor, thereby entrapping myself within the education system. It seems to me like an outdated system. Instead of encouraging young people to go to university, I think it would be best to encourage them to develop vocational skills and enter the job market. If anything, it may yet be more profitable for the next generation than locking them into the old, outdated academic culture that will continue to fail them in the long run.

Advertisements

Globalists and identitarians: Why I oppose them both

identity europa

It has often been said by some on the right that the current political spectrum is not left vs. right, but rather globalism vs. nationalism. The definition of globalism is fairly self-explanatory. It’s the idea that we should live in a world with no national borders (thus no sovereign states), governed by one or more international bodies who all adhere to a set of ideas that are in some ways rooted in cultural Marxist thought. Nationalists, meanwhile, believe in the value of a sovereign state with the rest to self-determination.

However, nationalists aren’t the subject of this post. In recent months, a group called Génération Identitaire has been making waves since last month, after they attempted to block a boat that allegedly was carrying African migrants. Since then, members of the group have attempted to rationalise their actions claiming that they are merely adopting the tactics that were already successful when used by left-wing activists. Even Lauren Southern, a formerly respectable journalist turned alt-right activist, went down this rabbit hole last week, in a video wherein she defends her embrace of far-right identity politics.

This isn’t the only reason I think identitarians are no different to SJW’s however. Identitarians generally want to preserve some semblance of their native cultural identity (in this case European identity), but how might they go about achieving that? The problem with a society that tried to preserve a notion of “cultural identity” is that in order for it to be even possible, an identitarian society must inevitably become an authoritarian society in order to ensure the cohesiveness of said “European identity”. I’m sure they have no qualms with that, considering that the far-right identitarians reject democracy altogether.

My main problem with the identitarians is that to achieve their long-term goals would require a totalitarian system to be implemented. I agree with the identitarians only on the point that mass immigration needs to be curtailed because it is becoming unsustainable, but I think this issue can be solved democratically, especially once the SJW’s stop being a nuisance. The problem is that whenever people try to take ownership of a culture, as I believe the identitarians secretly want to do, they end up nearly destroying it. For a few historical examples, the Nazis burned books that went against their ideology, Francisco Franco banned the Basque language and tried to destroy the Basque and Catalan cultures, and Mao Tse Tung tried to destroy every article of pre-Communist Chinese culture he and his student minions could get his hands on.

Every self-appointed defender of their culture who’s tried to take control of it has ended up nearly destroying it, and given the chance, I believe that the identitarians in the alt-right would do the same. In practice and in principle, I think that the identitarians are no different to the social justice warriors on the far-left. After all, the social justice warriors are so focused on protecting BAME culture from the clutches of white people, but in doing so they would isolate different cultures by ethnicity, and stunt their development.

Don’t get me wrong, I oppose globalism all the same, but not for entirely the same reasons as the identitarians might. My main reason for opposing globalism is because it is the ultimate enemy of liberty. Robbing nations of their sovereign identity notwithstanding, the creation of a globalist system would require an extremely authoritarian system with an impossibly large, centralised government. Liberty can’t exist in such a system, and in such a system where all the power and the money are concentrated into the hands of a global elite, personal choice and freedom of opportunity would be crushed. I also oppose globalism because I know that the problems society faces now, along with the complete degradation of modern culture, are the result of decades-long shift towards globalism.

It is the globalists that have caused the economic sickness that we in the West live with today, not that I expect identitarians to be concerned with economics, and that’s another problem I have with these alt-right identitarian types. Social (or indeed racial) issues come first, economics comes second. Ask a neo-Nazi what economic policy he might want to implement and I doubt he’ll give you a coherent answer, unless they’re directly quoting from the Hitler playbook. But their views one economics might be oddly similar with that of the socialists – they both despise capitalism. It is said that it was easy to convert a nazi into a communist and vice versa, because both hated Western liberal values, and both hated capitalism. Adolf Hitler, a socialist who ran a command economy, viewed the Great Depression as a sign of capitalism’s supposed failures, and of the need for state intervention. I have no reason to assume that the identitarians give a damn about free market economics, and for me that’s a big problem because I firmly believe in free market capitalism. If the identitarians and the alt-right wanted to dismantle that system, even if to oppose globalism, I would oppose them.

So there you have it. I oppose globalists because they’re the rotten, corrupt establishment we have today, and I oppose identitarians because their ideology is frankly a retarded brand of collectivism all the same. They’re the sort of people that we conservatives rightly distance ourselves from (not least because the left-wing media uncharitably lumps the far-right extremists in with the rest of us whenever they get the opportunity), and why not? They don’t want anything to do with us more moderately right-wing conservatives. To them, I may as well be the equivalent of a left-wing pinko because I want the government out of my bedroom and my wallet.

What bothers me more is supposedly more moderate conservatives like Lauren Southern going to bed with these extremist identitarians and abandoning all sense of principle in the process. They honestly believe that these people are their friends because they have the same enemy, but the reason I don’t see it that way is because once in power the identitarians would turn on the very concept of rights, and they’d shit on the US Constitution if they felt like it. They would be just as authoritarian as the social justice warriors we all criticise, and that alone should be reason enough to stay away from these people.

James Hodgkinson and the zeitgeist of faux heroism

So earlier today, a man from Illinois marched his way to the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia, where several Republican congressman were something called the Congressional Baseball Game. He opened fire and shot five Republicans, including the house majority whip Steve Scalise, who was shot in the hip, but thankfully is still alive. Eventually the gunman was identified as one James T. Hodgkinson, who was revealed to be a hardcore progressive who supported Bernie Sanders’ campaign, vindicating anyone who guessed that he had a political motive for trying to kill them. As a matter of fact, he was a member of a number of left-wing Facebook groups, including the far-left “Terminate the Republican Party”, a partisan Democrat group whose members will undoubtedly deny condoning violence against conservatives.

Of course, some of us on the right have learned to expect this sort of thing to happen at some point or another. The media has spent nearly two years casting Donald Trump as the cream of evil, the next Lord Voldemort if you will, and his Republican cabinet as a shadowy cabal of assorted villains. No doubt many leftists young and old have swallowed this narrative wholesale, and now see themselves as #TheResistance. The new Dumbledore’s Army, the last hope in the mythical battle of love versus hate. Such delusions inevitably give these leftists power fantasies of rising up against the government and hopefully killing Donald Trump, or at least as many Republican politicians as possible. So it’s no wonder why you have a number of Democrat supporters going violent, or at least calling for it, and yet it’s the Republicans who are supposed to be hateful.

Consider for instance Kathy Griffin’s recent stunt, in which she posted an edgy photo of herself holding the bloodied, decapitated head of an effigy of Donald Trump. People were naturally outraged, and when people found out that Trump’s youngest son Barron thought it was really him, not even CNN wanted anything to do with her, and she was promptly barred from appearing in their annual New Year’s Eve program. Some have said that Mr. Hodgkinson may have been inspired or at leased incensed by Kathy Griffin’s stunt, but because he’s now dead, there’s no way we can ever know for certain, and so it’s basically a coincidence. I only brought it up because she has become a prime example of the hatefulness of the left today. They are so fixated on Donald Trump, and how they’d like to kill him. It reminds me eerily of how the British left during the 1980’s treated Margaret Thatcher, and then someone tried to kill her in 1984.

We live in a time where many of us grew up with a black and white view of the world, as reinforced by pop cultural artefacts such as the Harry Potter films, along with the tribalism of contemporary politics as interpreted by the mainstream left-wing media. In such a culture, the leftie college student may consider himself a hero simply by joining the campus branch of Antifa. After all, through their pop culture-addled leftist lens, Donald Trump is the ultimate bad guy now, and anyone who opposes him is a friend in the “fight against evil” (evidently they’ve never known true evil). It used to be that said tribalism was confined to heated arguments and the odd filibuster. Now you have Democrats calling for bloodshed out in the open, and people honestly wonder where people like James Hodgkinson came from? They came from the anti-Trump frenzy that the neoliberal establishment has created.

When the US media spends nearly two years painting Donald Trump as the next Lord Voldemort, it’s only a matter of time before the lunatic left casts themselves as Dumbledore’s army, and forget that this isn’t Hogwarts. This fake sense of “heroism” is merely a guise for the left’s rampant narcissism, and 2017 has so far has been the year in which such narcissism is leading to terrible consequences. I know Hodgkinson was a man in his 60’s, but he clearly inculcated himself into the worldview of a child. Usually people abandon the notion that the people you disagree with politically are automatically the villains when they get older, but this is what far-left ideology does to people. It turns you into an adult toddler, at least in the mental sense.

So it should be no surprise that America now has progressive assassins potentially waiting in the wings. They’re delusional worldview has been validated by the establishment media and Hollywood celebrities who are telling them it’s okay to wish for the death of conservatives. After all, we’re the new Little Eichmanns aren’t we? Those willing accomplices in the transformation of the republic into a fascist dictatorship by the hands of a Cheetoh man in collusion with the Russians. That’s how they want people to see us, and in their minds, that justifies people wanting to kill Republican politicians.

I take two things away from this. Firstly that we need to a better job at raising the next generation, so that they don’t succumb to the fatal narcissism that the left prescribes as it loses its way. Secondly, assuming progressive ideology was Mr. Hodgkinson’s prime motive for the attempted attack, we must now come to the conclusion that progressivism has become a thing of pure malevolence – an ideology that requires its adherents to kill in order to preserve its existence. At least we know for sure that the progressive apple doesn’t fall very far from the Marxist tree.

An unhealthy culture

marco battaglini

Artwork by Marco Battaglini

I came across an interesting comment on the Facebook page Traditionalist Western Art (I don’t agree with their overall philosophy, I follow it for the artworks), which was made in response to a shared article entitled “The Individualism of the Herd”. The title of the article reads like an oxymoron, and the article itself aims to convince you that the past has been abandoned, and that previously condemned transgressions of social norms are the new orthodoxy. It’s one of those articles that preaches to an audience that may already agree with the author. The comment I found on Facebook asked what exactly the author stood for, but it’s this quote that had me thinking:

“Culture and the individual should by no means be at odds: A healthy culture generates a healthy individual, who supports a healthy culture. You cannot have a healthy culture without healthy individuals. An individual, however, may thrive despite an unhealthy culture; though the unhealthy culture does all it can to thwart this.”

This had me thinking. What constitutes a healthy culture? What constitutes an unhealthy culture? Then I considered the kind of society we inhabit today, and I consider it to be the most obvious example of a very unhealthy culture. Why? Well I think it’s obvious to all that the culture we inhabit has gone to the doghouse. Everybody knows it deep down, but they’re afraid to say it because when they speak out about the state of our current culture, they’re quickly dismissed as reactionary old fogeys. But to explain how, let’s look at the signs.

The first sign I can see is the enshrinement of narcissism. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have already facilitated an environment in which we broadcast ourselves to the world, but on those sites many of us cultivate a fabrication of ourselves. We broadcast the views, thoughts, and aspects of our lives that we believe everyone will approve. It’s a quest for recognition and validation that arguably stems from the daycare craze, when the mainstream media pushed the narrative that kids are fine if you deposit them in daycare, where they are deprived of the parental attention they so desperately need in order to develop into functioning adults.

I also believe that many of the mass shooters of modern history were deeply depressed narcissists. For example, the recent Weis Market Massacre, the perpetrator of which, one Randy Stair, left behind a disturbing series of videos hinting that he was going to go on a killing spree. The way I see it, Stair was basically a disturbed individual convinced of his lack of self-worth, who desperately wanted to make his mark on the world. His explanation also convinces me of his narcissistic tendencies. After all, how self-centered must you be for you to see yourself as the “last soul alive”? And he’s not alone. What people like Randy Stair, Elliot Rodger, Seung-hui Cho and the Columbine killers had in common was not just their profound hatred of the world around them, but that their rage was fuelled by their rampant narcissism, which leads them to blame society for their own failings. Of course, every time this happens the left uses this to push for tighter gun control regulations, but guns aren’t the problem. For the gun control argument to make sense, there would have to be record of the kind of mass shooting problem we have today existing prior to the 1950’s, or even as far back as the revolutionary era. The problem is that these killers were raised in a culture that coddles them into thinking that they are the centre of the universe, all because some thirty or forty-odd years ago, parents decided that the effective method of parenting was “too harsh”, and flocked to television’s pop parenting experts for guidance. These are the generation of parents who helped to create this phenomenon. Gun control advocacy is merely a convenient way for progressives and liberals alike to avoid the difficult questions of the culture they helped to create.

The next sign I can think of is a general antipathy towards the value of hard work (which I will likely touch upon in a later post). We used to teach our kids that if we work hard we can achieve anything. Whether or not that was entirely true, we taught them that because we wanted them to work hard and earn a good living. But apparently that’s a lie now. Why even bother working when the government can look after you? That appears to be the prevailing attitude now, at least in the West. Thanks to generous welfare handouts, we’re in a situation where you practically make more money on welfare than you would make if you actually got a job. It’s the same in Britain. Indeed, in my country, the Conservatives are usually condemned by the mainstream chattering class because they have the temerity to make welfare cuts. I agree that austerity cuts are the wrong way to reduce spending, but it seems like in my country there is a zeitgeist in mainstream culture that is in favour of increased spending, and preserving and/or expanding the welfare state. This is one of the biggest reasons that a Marxist could likely become Prime Minister in the next election. Young people in particular grew attached to Jeremy Corbyn (and Bernie Sanders in America) because he is offering them free stuff. This antipathy for hard work and sensible economics, and the exaltation of mindless indulgence, can best be summed up as “most people just want the easy way out”.

Speaking of indulgence, I feel that personal responsibility is something that is looked down upon these days. Instead of allowing people to make their own choices and take responsibility for them, we try to make a society wherein you can’t choose at all. I saw this all the time when it comes to so-called junk food, alcohol and smoking. Instead of encouraging the state to ban or restrict our ability to consume things that are bad for them, why don’t we simply let people make unhealthy choices and face the consequences themselves. If people want to screw up their own bodies it’s not the state’s business, or at least it wouldn’t be were it not for the existence of state-run healthcare. More to the point, marriage, the ultimate contract of responsible adults, is now frowned upon. Marriage is regularly vilified in Hollywood films and TV shows, and has been for a long time. We’re told that marriage is a prison where we “lose our personal freedom” (translation: we have to be responsible adults, therefore marriage sucks), when in reality, there is proof that married couples are actually happier than people who are single. If marriage is such a bad deal, what’s supposed to be the alternative? The reigning culture instead not only recommends promiscuous casual sex, a message expounded by today’s pop musicians (e.g. Katy Perry and Ariana Grande), but also somehow manages to make sex itself meaningless. Small wonder that when young people follow the message of pop starlets, they end up being more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression. As imperfect and difficult as marriage can be for a lot of people, I believe that the alternative that popular culture is suggesting is far worse in the long run, and the embrace of the alternative can only lead to ruin.

The final sign that comes to my mind is the demand for conformity. It would make sense that in a healthy culture, people would embrace said culture voluntarily, and would defend it if the time came. An unhealthy culture has no real value, and so people won’t really care for it, and can’t think of an argument in its defence. Hence, an unhealthy culture requires conformity in order to survive. Consider the rise of the social justice warriors which began a few years ago, and the people who try to get conservatives fired from their jobs. Consider the recent push for increased censorship by Western governments, with Germany wanting to censor social media, Britain’s Prime Minister wanting to regulate the Internet, and American pundits attempting and failing to use the “fake news” narrative to try and get alternative media outlets shut down. This would probably be what the poster meant when he suggested that the unhealthy culture does all it can to thwart the development of the individual.

So with that in mind, it is no wonder why I consider today’s culture to be extremely unhealthy. It has abandoned the very principles upon which it was founded, and we are already witnessing the deterioration of society as a whole. It may yet be possible that we will enter a point where the culture itself is a hinderance to the individual. The culture and the individual would be at odds with one another because the culture would be hostile to the individual. When the culture is hostile to individual expression, there can be no liberty, and if we get to that point, the path towards self-destruction is sealed.

The greatest lie ever told

all you need is love

“All you need is love”. It’s a nice sentiment is it not? Never has there been a more palliative lie for a generation that craves it. Ever since The Beatles popularised the phrase fifty years ago, most of the population is convinced of this lie (which, if anything, is a testament to how John Lennon intended the song to be written as propaganda), and now we live in a time where virtually any debate can be whittled down to “love vs. hate”, and a mushy generation of know-nothings chanting “love trumps hate” at any given opportunity.

It’s really the last refuge that those who know nothing can turn to when they don’t have any arguments, or any solutions to solve any kind of problem. Why else would Hillary Clinton have made “love trumps hate” one of her campaign slogans? Worst of all is whenever a terrorist attack happens in 2017, and the inevitable responses from the Twitterati include “turn to love”, or “we won’t let hate win”, and other nonsensical slogans, and I’m absolutely sick of it. It feels like every time a terrorist attack happens, the response is exactly the same, driven by a combination of liberal guilt, and the “all you need is love” mentality that has been festering in our culture since the hippie era, culimnating in the One Love concert, in which a bunch of mainstream performers gather to deliver palliative and ultimately meaningless platitudes with no solutions, with the irrelevant Katy Perry harping on about how she wants you “choose love, no matter how difficult it is”, whatever the hell that means.

This is a problem that seems to be unique to the 2010’s. We have become so scared of offending people that we turn to the age-old “all you need is love” nonsense to comfort ourselves in the short term, and now this peacenik mentality has infected the way we deal with major problems. The problem is that when you boil any given discussion to a matter of love versus hate, you make both terms painfully subjective, in that you can define “love” or “hate” as whatever you want, and in today’s culture, “love” is conveniently defined as virtue signalling about how “tolerant” you are, and “hate” has come to mean actively tackling the problem in a way progressives don’t like.

It’s complete nonsense. Surely if we were a more loving and caring society, we would seek to stop more terrorist attacks from happening because we care about our loved ones. If you ask me, the current culture is a manifestation of self-centredness. We’re unwilling to make supreme sacrifices for the preservation of our society and its values because we don’t want to be called bigots, and if we care more about looking tolerant in front of the chattering class than about saving lives, isn’t that the most insidious form of selfishness, putting your vain sense of image and self-righteousness above protecting the lives and rights of others?

For too long, we’ve been convinced of the idea that “all you need is love”, and now we have a generation that won’t take action in times that demand it because they don’t want to “let hate win”. Of course it is but one aspect of a truly decadent and unhealthy culture, but it is an egregious excuse for inaction all the same, and we are already paying the price for this indulgence of utopian fantasy. I’m amazed that nobody’s tried to invade the Western countries yet, but if they did I bet we’d try and stuff a flower in their rifles, end up getting ourselves shot and then surrendering shortly afterward.

What we need is to abandon the lie of “all we need is love”. Taken as a worldview, it doesn’t pan out in the real world, and is mainly good for getting yourself killed. It sounds like a nice platitude, but is it really the hill we wish to collectively die on? I know we aren’t that stupid. In fact, I think most people don’t even take it seriously but they’re pressured to go along with it out of fear of social alienation, and any who go against this sacred dictate are the new heretics, blaspheming against the cult of “love” and “tolerance”.

If we continue down the path we’re on, then we will inevitably march down the path of self-destruction, if not immediately, then slowly. We will destroy ourselves by turning our countries into police states, as Britain looks like its headed towards, therefore overthrowing our own liberal values. The terrorists won’t even need to do anything more. We’ll have destroyed our own culture for them, and the country will be so demoralised that barely anyone will fight for it. Great civilisations have fallen because of the apathy we have created for ourselves, but all we need is love, am I right?

The smug leftist

john oliver

That face when a hypocrite self-righteously scolds the entire country for not being as progressive as he is.

Over the past decade we in the West have had to live with a chattering, self-righteous left-wing elite that has somehow attached itself to mainstream culture, and in America, they are best represented by late night “comedians” such as Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, and of course, John Oliver. You may remember that I recently wrote a post in which I defended him from the more dimwitted members of the right (e.g. Jack Posobiec) who were acting like SJW’s in calling for him to be fired. Let the following be known – I still hate him!

I only defended him because my principles demanded it. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and a devious propagandist. At this point, his entire raison d’être is to try and be more anti-Trump than his peers. Indeed, he has been one of the most ardent critics of the Trump administration, and in his criticism he has come to exemplify the smug liberal problem (Samantha Bee may deny it, but they really are the problem). Of course, like all the smug liberal elites, he doesn’t even practice what he preaches, and it turns out that John Oliver and his wife had purchased a $9.5 million Manhattan penthouse, using a tax loophole used by Donald Trump himself a few decades ago. And to add insult to injury, he did this months before his episode on the wealth gap.

The loophole I’m talking about is the 421-a tax exemption, which was designed in 1971 in order to encourage new development in vacant or underutilised property locations. Apparently Donald Trump wanted to use it in 1980 in order to turn the Bonwit Teller building into the famous Trump Tower. When the then-mayor Ed Koch wouldn’t allow him to, he sued the city, and won a $50 million tax exemption, and thereby established that all new developments could be written off under that provision. Years later, John Oliver, who condemns the wealthy elites on a regular basis, not only used that same rule to buy an expensive penthouse, but to do so he also hired Proskauer Rose LLP, a law firm that specialises in helping the wealthy find tax breaks.

I knew John Oliver was a liar, but this surprised even me. There you have definitive proof that John Oliver is a snake with no guiding principles, and that is because he is a neoliberal corporatist. He has to feign his left-wing stance in order to keep his career afloat. It should be fairly obvious that he and his ilk are rich enough that they would stand to gain from Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts. He’s not even the only one to directly contradict himself. Take Samantha Bee, a woman generally known for barking on about how white people have “ruined America”, but her husband opposed a move to relocate their children’s school to an area that would make it more accessible to black schoolchildren (and claims that his opposition isn’t racist).

Of course, do we really expect the likes of John Oliver and Samantha Bee to have any principles? They’re the smug leftists, the bourgeoisie if you will. All that stops them from being true aristocrats is the fact that they probably weren’t born with blue blood. In the end, they only care about their self-centred, frivolous wants, even as they have the gall to criticise other rich people for the same kind of behaviour. Come to think about it, that whole progressive shtick is probably a scam too. I wonder how many wealthy socialites they know? If they’re celebrities they’ve surely attended a number of high-class parties that only the rich and famous will ever be invited to. As for that crap about caring for the poor, I wouldn’t be surprised if they cracked jokes about poor people with chortling laughter.

They’re all the same, and I guarantee that this anti-Trump crap is just for ratings. When John Oliver did his first anti-Trump rant, he got far more online traffic than anything else he had done prior to that. What that tells me is that he’s all too aware of what drive traffic to him, and he’s capitalising on that in order to further his career. They’re all liars, and the people who still watch them and take him with a little more than a grain of salt are either idiots who have never ventured outside cable TV, or their leftists themselves who buy the propaganda. Either way they’re a diminishing audience. TV as a medium is dying anyway, and in its death throes you still have the vestigial kings and queens of late night “comedy” attempting to preserve their hold on the public consciousness, and failing because on the Internet, the people can reveal how the really feel about the smug leftists who constantly talk down to them.

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.