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.

Advertisements

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.

A matter of violence

natural born killers

When watching graphic TV shows like Game of Thrones and Oz, and movies like Natural Born Killers, the violence certainly doesn’t get lost on me. Realistic depictions of torture and brutality also tend to make me think why it’s there (not that I’m particularly sensitive; in fact, I tend to like those violent action films of the 80’s). If think, I can see why some people would be upset, particularly parents who don’t want their children seeing it. Where there’s upset, you invariably hear cries for graphic violence in entertainment media to be banned, or at least more tightly controlled. The problem, however, is that we need to be able to see violence in fiction.

I say this because the world is a pretty miserable place to live in. Conflict and drama are right in front of you wherever you can find it, and in the real world, violence is not a very pleasant thing. All too often, we’ve seen violence in the name of religion, profit, territory, and whatever else man can think of. What I’m trying to say is that we have to have violence in films, comic books, video games and TV shows because those outlets can teach us through entertainment why violence is a bad thing to begin with (or because it can often be a catharsis in itself).

Entertainment can offer a perspective of and reflection on the real world, and that’s why censoring violence is a bad thing. If you take away our freedom to depict acts of violence and torture, then it becomes much harder to learn the lessons such depictions would offer. I will readily admit that sometimes gratuitous violence is there just for the sake of gratuitous violence, but that’s why they’re called gore movies, or, in the case of video games, hack and slash action games.

The problem, as I see it, is that the amount of gratuitous violence in entertainment media has eclipsed the level of realistic violence, and whatever message violence may carry. In the case of Game of Thrones, I feel that the reason there’s a lot of violence, sex and other things is because it’s a fantasy setting that reflects of real life. In this context, Westeros is unpleasant and full of dishonourable characters because our world is unpleasant and full of nasty people who do terrible things. If writers and artists couldn’t accurately reflect on violence, brutality and torture, the only thing left is for people to try and experience it themselves, which will undoubtedly have terrible consequences.

Without fictional violence, or even pretend violence, we have only real violence, and that’s where the power of entertainment would truly be needed. If all we had was real violence, then we would all be killing each other for no real reason. I acknowledge that we can already see this happening around the world, but if we had nothing showing us why violence is a bad thing, then it would be even worse.

Violence is not an issue people like to confront, but at the same time, most people don’t like it being censored either. It could be the case that most people are wiser than I think when it comes to violence in entertainment, but we still need to be aware of the power entertainment has to make us aware of things, especially violence. Used responsibly, it can be a force that allows us to be aware of the morality (or immorality) of violence before we actually inflict it upon each other. Used irresponsibly, it can reduce violence to the level of being little more than gratuitous gore for the satisfaction of a baser desire that still lingers in us all.

Heavy Metal

heavy metal

They sure knew how to sell it.

A month ago, bought and watched the DVD for the cult animated film Heavy Metal. The appeal of this movie was very obvious. Then I looked into it more. Given the title, I was expecting a rather ear-splitting soundtrack, until I learned that the movie is actually based on some of the serials in the Heavy Metal magazine. Even the logo for the movie is the same as the magazine.

Either way, before any of you feminists complain, this was a movie designed for men. If you have a problem with it, take it somewhere else, because I really don’t need any of that mindless “girl power” crap that’s thrown around a lot.

As I just said, this movie was made for men, and I really like it. I think it holds up as one of the greatest animated films of all time. Why? That’s what this post is about. Sit tight, and be wary that there are spoilers in this post. If you don’t to ruin the movie, look away. Or, if you’re like me, you won’t care about spoilers, and look on ahead.

The story is divided into little vignettes (short stories that present a scene) that are all somehow connected. In this case, the thing that connects all the stories together is the Loc-Nar, a glowing green orb that is “the sum of all evils”. The (briefly summarized) vignettes are as follows:

  • Soft Landing – The opening scene of the movie
  • Grimaldi – The eponymous astronaut brought back a green cystal (later revealed to be the Loc-Nar), which later melts him.
  • Harry Canyon – A taxi driver named Harry Canyon investigates an incident involving a group of gangsters chasing an archaeologist’s daughter for the Loc-Nar.
  • Den – A nerdy teenager is transported into a fantasy world, where he is a mighty warrior and spoiler of women.
  • Captain Sternn – An amoral space captain named Captain Lincoln F. Sternn is being tried on a plethora of serious charges, and Sternn’s witness quickly turns against him.
  • B-17 – A World War II fighter plane flying through space lands on a place where the crew have turned into zombies.
  • So Beautiful and So Dangerous – A woman is taken up to a spaceship where she stays in bed with a robot.
  • Taarna – The final segment, which follows the quest of the last descendant of a warrior race.

The story is actually brilliantly constructed, and with great voice talent from the likes of John Candy (as Den and a robot), Rodger Bumpass (as Hanover Fiste), and Richard Romanus (as Johnny Canyon), the latter two being relatively unknown actors. Like the magazine, the movie is abundant with strong language, graphic violence, nudity and sexuality, the perfect ingredients for a men’s movie, all benefiting from the unique animation.

I also enjoy the creative fusion of sci-fi and traditional fantasy elements, which is genuinely creative, and serves as an inspiration for me. The other notable aspect of this film is that it features a stand-out soundtrack from such artists as Black Sabbath (during the Ronnie James Dio era), Devo, Blue Öyster Cult, Sammy Hagar, and many more. I can’t get over the Heavy Metal theme song for bizarre reason, and songs like “Veteran of the Psychic Wars” and “Through Being Cool” have become some of my favourite songs.

In conclusion, I feel that this movie is a beacon of masculinity. It’s unashamed, it’s fantastical, and it’s really bold. They released a sequel called Heavy Metal 2000, which has a soundtrack featuring contemporary 90’s metal bands like System of a Down, Pantera, and Insane Clown Posse. I’m not so sure about the sequel, but I may give it a shot.

5 reasons why we must despise Big Brother

big brother

The eye of evil.

On Thursday, the new series of Celebrity Big Brother came out to disgrace culture once again. Honestly, I’ve never seen Big Brother, but I’ve always hated it. It represents the devolution of our culture as a whole, especially since Big Brother is what started the popularity of reality TV during the 2000’s.

The show itself gets its name from the supreme dictator in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four, which coined the phrase “Big Brother is watching”. The book itself was a warning against totalitarian government and state surviellance. Call me crazy, but I think the makers of Big Brother have actually, in part, fulfilled the prophecy made by many speculative science fiction writers: that we as a people will be swallowed and stupefied by a tidal wave of lowest common denominator entertainment.

I think I’m the only one who’s going to say it: we need to take Big Brother off the air. Why? Because it’s bad for us. Why? I’m about to tell you why.

  1. It’s full of untalented, unfamous wannabes who only want their 15 minutes of fame – Allow me to make this point clear. Nobody who has ever appeared on Big Brother has done anything to earn our respect. Not Jade Goody, not Katie Price, not whoever the obligatory sex-crazed freak was, and certainly not Davina McCall, the presenter of the show. In fact, Davina McCall’s entire career has been kept going solely because of her fame presenting Big Brother.
  2. It encourages voyeurism – The central theme of the show is that a bunch of idiots who nobody cares about are in a house, and their actions are spied on throughout the whole run of the show. Call me crazy, but this is every government’s wet dream. If the government could do something like that, and for the whole of society, their authority could be unstoppable, and that simply isn’t morally right. Also, it implicitly spreads the idea that voyeurism is acceptable, when it’s not. Speaking of morality…
  3. It sets a bad example to society – Everyone on Big Brother just wants an excuse to be some kind of depraved, sex-crazed freak. They just want to make themselves, and their country look horrible on national television. It tries to tell us that having orgies non-stop while being monitored by a camera is somehow acceptable, that lots of makeup and fake tan is somehow attractive. Guess what? None of that is true! Imagine what Big Brother must be doing to the young generation. It’s probably distorting their view of the world right now.
  4. It’s fuel for the tabloids – The aforementioned depraved sex acts are a vehicle for no good wannabes like the Big Brother contestants to be famous. Why? Because the tabloid editors are perverts. They’ll look for any excuse possible to run smut on their newspapers, and with no regard for who’s reading it. Naturally, Big Brother is a gold mine for tabloids like the Daily Star to put the sleazy goings on of the Big Brother house on the front page, instead of potentially more important news stories that make us think. All the while, they use this to say that this sort of behaviour is wrong, but they’re being hypocritical because they revel in it all the time.
  5. Since Channel 5 brought Big Brother back, all of it has gotten worse – Ever since it started in the year 2000, Channel 4 was swimming in ratings, at the cost of whatever soul it had. But then, 10 years after it started, it finally came off the air. We thought that it would be the end, until Channel 5 ruined everything by re-airing it in 2011. From there on out, it could only get worse. Channel 5 was always a crappy channel, unfailingly setting a bad example of British TV. But when they aired Big Brother, they sealed the deal for their reputation of the lowest common denominator channel of Britain. The only question is, how much worse could it get?

Big Brother also has the side effect of ripping away all the credibility that any genuine celebrity may have had. One infamous example of this degradation is Coolio, a rapper who became famous when he made the 1995 single “Gangsta’s Paradise”. As soon as he entered the Big Brother house, he lost all his street cred, and now everyone hates him.

Isn’t this the kind of culture we should be despising? According to our self-imposed “morality”, this kind of thing should be wrong. But the continued survival of Big Brother says something horrible about our culture, and our moral values. What exactly does it say about our society? It says that we are actually hypocrites when it comes to morality, that we don’t even care that our culture is going straight to hell.

We as human beings should demand quality TV. I think we should campaign to get Big Brother off the air, this time for good, because nobody deserves to be subjected to the horror of any reality TV show. Think about it this way, if we get rid of Big Brother, it will send a message that we don’t approve of this kind of culture, and that the big corporations who shove it down our throats should just pack up their bags, and stop destroying our culture.

What the American family movie has to say about Hollywood

With around 30 days left to Christmas, there’s one thing you’ll be seeing a hell of a lot more of. That right, those damn family movies! I hate family movies of today, especially the ones that come out of Hollywood, especially if it happens to be a Christmas movie. Christmas specials of the old days weren’t so bad, and they might be enjoyable for…well…everyone. But after Jingle all the Way (“put the cookie down, now!”), Christmas movies and Christmas TV specials began to change for the worse. They began to be seen as something just for kids. Ergo, Hollywood has either a) decided to not even try, or b) deliberately keep them as goofy and camp, and above all clichéd as possible, complete with using the exact same cliché soundtrack over, and over again, especially in trailers.

And all the time, they all have same tired plot, and the same Hollywood message. I’ll give you a personal example of such deterioration.

The Santa Claus 3: The Escape Clause

This menace came straight from the icy depths of Hell, where Satan has to watch it every day in December.

When I was 12, I went to see this Christmas pile when it came out, and it was absolutely horrible. It was as though the movie itself had no soul, which is true because it came out of Hollywood. Nothing about it was right! The movie is a symptom of what’s wrong with the American family movie nowadays.

In the past, family movies had the capacity become timeless classics because they were for everyone, literally. Sure they can be a little too idealistic (The Neverending Story), a little too improbable (Honey I Shrunk the Kids), or even a little too dumb (A Troll in Central Park), but back in the old days, they at least had a chance, because the people making them actually gave a damn about what they were making.

Nowadays, Hollywood doesn’t give a damn anymore. They see it as “just for kids”, when the term “family movie” is meant for everyone. Yet Hollywood has been dumbing down family movies to an even deeper level for so long that even regular people now have this assumption.

For me, all movie genres are deserving of a fair chance, just that Hollywood has done so much damage that the genre is pretty much irredeemable nowadays. The reason why they still do it is because the processed garbage they created makes so much money compared to actual creativity, and that is what the American family movie of the 21st century has to say about Hollywood as a whole.

4 Reasons Why “I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here” Does Not Represent UK culture

There are a lot of things I truly hate about our media. Its assumption that all teenagers are brainless hooligans, its mindlessly false sense of moralism, the flood of bad daytime programming, in my opinion at least, it’s all just awful. But the worst part is its obsession with celebrities, and it’s assumption that we worship the ground they walk on, and like to spy on their equally mediocre lives. Recently, all the UK media seems to talk about is the universally terrible ITV show, “I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here”, which has been mucking up our perception of culture since the last decade. If anyone told me that this is what British culture is about, then I’d frankly be outraged, because it isn’t what our culture is about, and here’s why.

  1. The central premise is mindless garbage – From what I understand, the whole point of the show is that a bunch of Z-list celebrities are flown to a jungle in Australia and must perform a series of trials, the completion of which determines who stays and leaves. Along the while, they have shots of celebrities interacting with one another. It’s not garbage because of the trials, it’s garbage because it’s so purely lowest-common denominator in nature, and only serves to feed some base desire to watch those of higher status get humiliated. That, and it just adds to the glut of reality TV shows taking after Big Brother, which started the craze in 1999.
  2. The celebrities are completely shallow – Let’s take a look at other famous Britons. Hugh Grant is a famous Hollywood actor. PaulMcCartney is a legendary singer who was part of the Beatles, and Wings, and campaigned on so many social issues. What are these celebrities famous for? Barely anything of worth. Let’s take note of the fact that Katie Price and Peter Andre were hardly recognisable until they appeared on the show, which says more about the show than the celebrities. But think about it. What if someone from another country saw it, and assumed all Brits are like this? Would you be offended? They are so unlikable, that they don’t even relate to real people.
  3. It shares the same false moralism as the tabloids – Why do I hate tabloids? Because they claim to be moral, and yet they are completely immoral in their practices, as we witnessed in July 2011. I think that the show itself is an effort on ITV’s part to try and say that celebrities are only as moral as you or I. But it fails at that. Not only do they not actually uphold this principle, but they are completely amoral in these practices. I know from experience that ITV1 consistently tries to act all moral and stuff, right down to their news anchors, but they’re another heartless corporation, which means their only concern is ratings.
  4. It could corrupt the next generation – What’s worse than airing mindless garbage? Airing mindless garbage to children. Even if they don’t watch it with their families, they can still watch it freely without their parents’ consent. Which is fine, but I’m more concerned with the potential damage done to future generations. Imagine if your young son or daughter grew up thinking the way these celebrities act on the show is perfectly acceptable. Imagine if every child in the UK grew up thinking that? The boys would be doing the unspeakable to girls, and the consequences could be dire. Worse still, imagine if young girls grew up molding themselves like some of the female celebrities. I don’t even want to imagine that!

Well, that was quite long. In conclusion, I apologize if I sound like some preacher with nothing better to do. But to me, everybody knows that we aren’t like the people on the show, but nobody’s going to stand up and say it. I hope I don’t have to talk about this again. But that’s just my opinion. What about you?