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.

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.

The final betrayal of the left

cia

If you ever had any doubt that the CIA was up to no good, look at the Vault 7 leaks and you’ll find the proof. They paint a picture of the CIA so frightening that it it makes the Snooper’s Charter look like a misdemeanour in terms of a breach of privacy. They revealed that the CIA is capable of hacking people’s cars and using smart TV’s to spy on people, tapping people’s phones, and has an arsenal of malware that it can use against whoever it pleases, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This is the kind of nightmarish scenario that we used to think only sci-fi writers and conspiracy theorists could think of, but Vault 7 may as well have vindicated all of them. Hell, InfoWars would have you believe that the revelations confirm everything they’ve been saying about the CIA, but at least this time they’re not totally crazy. To be fair, the CIA is the same organisation that has overseen the overthrow of democratically elected foreign leaders, experimented on mind control, and has been illegally spying on US citizens, and guess who’s defending them? The left-wing mainstream media. Since Vault 7 emerged, I’ve seen outlets like The Guardian, CNN, and the Washington Post come to the CIA’s defence, with The Guardian in particular spinning the news in a way that’s sympathetic to the CIA.

Yes, you heard right. Leftists are coming to the defence of the organisation that lied about Iraq, and I assume the only reason they’re defending the CIA is because Trump opposes it. The mere fact that a single leftist outlet is defending a government organisation as abominable as the CIA is shocking to me. I remember a time when the left used to wax lyrical about the evils of the CIA, and rally behind Julian Assange when he exposed the evils of the Bush administration. They loved him when WikiLeaks released documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars, but as soon as they started exposing corruption in the Democrat party and the CIA, Julian Assange suddenly becomes their scapegoat.

At this point it’s pretty clear what’s going on. By defending the CIA, the mainstream left has shown its true colours as the ideology for the elites. There is no way on earth that they represent the people, and certainly not ordinary Americans. They didn’t ask for organisations like the CIA to exist. They didn’t ask for an international spying ring, and they sure as hell didn’t ask for the government to be spying on them. This is what those of us in the know call the deep state, a government within a government, and the fact that the leftists of The Guardian are defending it shows unequivocally that the mainstream left has no real values. Just empty words. All they care about is power and influence. Nothing more.

I’d say that through this, they have cemented their complete betrayal of the people they claim to represent, which, to be fair, should have been obvious since the migrant crisis started. This time, however, I’m honestly stunned at how far they’ve sunk. I can see their motives for wanting open borders (wanting a reliable voting block), defending Hillary Clinton (partisan loyalty and identity politics), and gun control (they want to disarm the public), but I’m struggling to explain how the left can come to the conclusion that the CIA is a good thing. I suppose next they’ll say that America can’t function without the CIA, even though it was only a fairly recent invention. In fact, I think the Founding Fathers would have been tremendously appalled by the mere concept of the CIA, and horrified by its potential for abuse of state power.

I know the title of this rant is rather hyperbolic, but I think it’s warranted at this point. After this, there’s no going back. The left is doomed, and only drastic reform can allow it to regain the trust of the public, which I think is unlikely at this point. But then again, this is what they get for selling out to the globalists. They can’t defend liberal values anymore because real liberal values go against what globalists want, so instead they’ve allowed themselves to be co-opted by cultural Marxists, who took advantage of the weakness of the more naive liberals, and the end result is the twisted, distorted, sell-out left that you see all around you.

If they honestly think that they can win people over are deluded. The only people who listen to them are people who already believe them, and it’s probably not that hard to change most of their minds on this. In fact, I think we’ll see people on the left defecting to the right in disgust, just as I did in the wake of the Orlando massacre, disgusted by the left’s appalling unwillingness to address Islamic terrorism when it happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were to happen, in fact I encourage it, given that the left’s facade of righteousness has continued to crumble to the point of collapse. When you have people in the leftist media defending the CIA, the very thing they were up against in the 1990’s and the 2000’s, you know that the left is doomed, and it’s only a matter of time before the vast majority of the population in the Western world figures that out, and responds accordingly through the ballot box.

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.

Don’t trust the Democrats

democrats

With Hillary Clinton definitely the Democrat nominee to contest Donald Trump, the Democrat party has never seemed more like an establishment party than it has now, but as degenerate and corrupt as Hillary is, she is the least of my concerns right now. On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, a number of leaked emails were released by WikiLeaks, and the content of the leaked emails indicated that the DNC intentionally rigged the Democrat primaries in favour of Hillary Clinton, with more leaks on her expected to be released soon.

The amount of corruption and collusion revealed by the leaks was so great that it led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as chair of the DNC, only to become a part of Hillary’s campaign. Of course, if you were a Bernie supporter, you’re probably furious right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole scandal spawned a new wave of Never Hillary voters, which it absolutely should because Hillary is such a fundamentally unlikable politician. The thing to be remembered, however, is that Hillary is the creature of the Democrat establishment, and this isn’t the first time that the Democrats have dabbled in corruption. In fact, some would argue that the Democrats have always been corrupt. Now I don’t personally feel that the Democrats have always been corrupt, but I think they are definitely the shadiest of all political parties, and believe me, corruption is just one aspect of why the Democrats are untrustworthy.

I’ll start by talking about an issue that Democrats just love to exploit – race. Back in the 19th century, it was the Democrats who wanted to keep black people in chains. What progressives tend to forget is that slavery was abolished in 1865, by a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the Republican Party was founded primarily as an abolitionist party back in 1854. The 13th Amendment, which effectively made slavery unconstitutional, was universally supported by Republicans in congress, but curiously, only 23% of Democrats in congress supported it. So why did the Democrats want to maintain slavery in America? Some would say this is because the Democrats in those days were simply the more conservative party back in the day (much like today’s Republicans). However, I personally think that for them to want to preserve slavery obviously meant that they profited in some way from it, as that was certainly the case for most of the world until Britain abolished slavery. The main reason the Democrats supported slavery seems to have been to maintain support from the Southern factions, including the wealthy slaveholders who may or may not have been backing the party.

Even after the abolition of slavery, the Democrats still held deeply racist attitudes that would make the modern Democrat party look very hypocritical. The Democrats supported Jim Crow laws that were in effect from the Reconstruction era up until 1965, and despite what the left may have told you, it was actually the Democrats who established the KKK. In the mid-1860’s, the fact that many black people identified with the Republican Party made it difficult for Southern Democrats to attain power, so they created the KKK with the sole purpose of controlling the electorate by intimidating Republicans (both black and white by the way). The Democrats were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws, and even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is considered one of the best Presidents to ever run the union, held back anti-lynching laws. People didn’t start thinking that the Republicans were racist until Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Right Act of 1964 (which inevitably attracted the support of racist Democrats), giving leftists the opportunity to smear all Republicans as vile racists for the next five decades, this despite the fact that it was the Republicans who were pushing the Civil Rights Act through. Since then, the left has now been able to shame gullible voters onto their side by smearing white Republicans as racists, and black Republicans as “Uncle Toms”. The Democrats and Republicans never switched positions. The Democrats simply adopted a different strategy for dealing with black voters – namely by becoming the party of the welfare state, which brings us to our next topic.

Since the days of the civil rights struggle, the Democrats had essentially become the party of the left, and that meant big government, and a pushing of the welfare state. Democrats will constantly proclaim that they care about the working class, but if you ask me, there’s nothing kind about keeping poor people dependant on government money. In fact, I feel that the only purpose for expanding the welfare state is to keep lazy people dependant on it, who will in term vote for bigger government, which is exactly what the Democrats want. What they won’t tell you is that Democrat policies, implemented without restraint, ruin local communities. A good example would be the city of Detroit, Michigan, a city that used to be famous for being the centre of the automotive industry in America, but after being consistently run by incompetent Democrat mayors for the past five decades, the city gradually became one of the sorriest, most run-down cities in America, to the point that it declared bankruptcy in 2013.

It’s also rich to hear Democrat supporters claim that they’re the party for the working class, when this is the same party that nominated one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory. As I mentioned in my post three weeks ago, Hillary is backed by large corporations and hedge funds who probably don’t give a damn about the working class, and it’s their interests that Hillary will be answering to in the end. If they cared about the working class, they would probably nominate the candidate who actually gave a damn (Bernie was a socialist, but at least he gave air to the concerns of the poor), but they’re main goal this year is to ensure Hillary’s coronation.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Democrats claim to be the liberal opposition to the Republicans, but a cursory glance tells me that the only truly liberal party is the Libertarian Party. It makes no sense that a party that actively seeks to empower the state could honestly be called liberal. In fact, the Democrats are actively trying to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms, under the guise of common sense. The true liberals would support your right to self-defence. What we’re seeing from the Democrats, meanwhile, is cold statism in the making, and yet the Republicans are the bad guys.

I’m no Republican, but I certainly don’t trust the Democrats, especially not with Hillary as their nominee. What’s even sadder is that the presidential race has essentially come down to two of the worst candidates either party has had in history. As bad as Donald Trump might sound, I think Hillary will do more harm to the country by depriving it of the change it so desperately craves because it is suffocating under the Democrat status quo. If America elects Hillary, then the only person who wins is Hillary.

Why the left have lost it

owen jones walks out

In the wake of Sunday’s massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the whole world sent their thoughts and prayers to the victims. Once again, a deranged radical Islamic terrorist sought out to cause chaos and intimidate us into submission, as had previously happened in Paris and Brussels respectively, and in similar fashion, various cities around the world have lit up in rainbow colours to show their solidarity for the victims what has come to be known as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Of course, there was no shortage of shady characters who sought to politicise the tragedy for their own agendas.

A Sky News conversation involving The Guardian’s Owen Jones quickly comes to mind. On a recent broadcast of Sky News Press Preview, the journalist clashed with the show’s host Mark Longhurst and guest Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Owen threw a hissy fit because they treated the Orlando attack as an act of terror (which it clearly was). Owen attempted to use his TV appearance to politicise the Orlando attack and frame it as an exclusively gay issue (though personally I think he was trying to make the Orlando attack about him), and Mark and Julia saw right through it. Whenever they pointed about the religious motivations behind the attack, he accused them of denying homophobia, which is an assumption he makes purely based on emotion, completely obfuscating the facts. In the end he found himself unable to provide a reasonable counterargument, and was unable to intimidate the two into submission, and so with no other options, walked out off the set in disgrace. On his subsequent article in The Guardian, he attempts to gloss over his lousy performance in a diatribe that’s filled with blatant lies. The problem here is that as a leftist, he simply can’t accept the fact that radical Muslims target homosexuals because it threatens the left-wing narrative of tolerance. He also won’t accept the possibility that the gunman was mentally disturbed, because it threatens his own personal narrative. In fact, using the word “lunatic” to describe the gunman evidently triggers him.

After it was revealed that the gunman, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was an Islamic extremist who pledged allegiance to ISIS and was also a registered Democrat, the mainstream media scrambled to look for something else to blame, fearing that addressing radical Islam would make them sound racist (even though Islam is a religion, not a race). To my dismay, this meant that video games were once again the target of opportunistic virtue signallers and self-appointed moral crusaders. In fact, the gaming press seemed to completely turn on the games industry, with news outlets such as The Verge and Polygon condemning shooter games for glorifying gun violence and so-called ” gun culture”. Of course, there’s no evidence that Omar Mateen was influenced by violent video games, but that apparently doesn’t concern the likes of Jonathan McIntosh, Bob Chipman (better known as “MovieBob”) and Jonathan Blow (the has-been creator of Braid), all of whom wish to use the Orlando attack to advance their agenda of injecting the gaming industry with social justice. It probably didn’t occur to them that as video games became more popular the rate of violent crime in America has actually decreased.

Video games weren’t the only thing put on the chopping block to avoid addressing radical Islam. Within hours after Omar Mateen’s death, Twitter was flooded with hashtags pressing for gun control (#GunControlNow springs to mind instantly). Indeed, Democrats in the US senate quickly moved to use the tragedy to push for greater gun control, and nearly every progressive has jumped on the bandwagon, pinning the blame squarely on the National Rifle Association. Let’s clear things up. In Florida, it’s actually illegal to openly carry a gun, but it allows you to carry many concealed weapons, which I guess is where the debate is coming from at least in that state. However, Omar Mateen was known to have carried a semi-automatic rifle, ownership of which is illegal under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Contrary to what you might have been told, it’s not legal for an American to own an assault weapon, but that doesn’t completely stop people like Omar Mateen from acquiring one. Gun control doesn’t work because criminals don’t obey laws. If anything, increased gun restrictions will do nothing other than disarm law-abiding citizens, making the country less safe. France has some of the harshest gun control laws in all of Europe, and that didn’t stop the massacre in Paris, nor did it stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre several months earlier. Violating America’s second amendment rights, as many suspect Hillary will do, is about as effective at stopping mass shooters as a Jägerbomb is good for treating alcoholism. Once again, all of this is because the leftists in the mainstream media are so scared of inadvertently giving Donald Trump any sort of credibility that they’d rather disarm the country than admit that Islamic extremism is still a major problem that needs to be dealt with now more than ever.

I wish there was a better time for me to talk about this as opposed to while the world is still reeling from a horrific tragedy, but I really feel that the way the leftist media has tried to use the tragedy to advance their own agenda is just disgusting. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he’s willing to address the problem of radical Islam directly, which is more than could be said of America’s current President and his preferred successor. I think that justice could only be served if we openly addressed the extreme ideas that influenced Omar Mateen to commit this atrocity upon humanity in the first place. The left’s ineptitude in this regard is why conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos are gaining in popularity. It’s gotten to a point where even the LGBT community is willing to support Trump now, and that’s because the left has thrown them under the bus by refusing to address Islamic extremism, and instead trying to blame conservative Christians, despite the growing amount of Christians who are okay with gays. Also, isn’t it a little suspicious that the media criticises Trump for “point scoring”, while they’re perfectly fine with Obama and Hillary doing the same? I swear that this kind of nonsense from the left makes me want to turn to the right, because I can’t support the side that’s so engage in such a flagrant obfuscation of facts in order to advance their collectivist agenda.

The worst part about it is that while we sit here watching the left cannibalise itself over what they should call the Orlando shooting, ISIS is still running roughshod over the Middle East, and if they are directly responsible for the recent killings, then they’re taking advantage of the weakness of Western leaders. I say that we cannot sit in silence for much longer. We know what inspired Omar Mateen to go out and kill innocent people, and we need to be strong in the face of despair. By caving into leftist nihilism and political correctness, we are showing our enemy that we are weak, and will be intimidated by terror, and as long as that’s happening, the terrorists have already won.

Can you trust The Guardian?

guardian

“Can you believe this shit?”

In high school, I was apparently very interested in the topic of media bias, but I never addressed my own biases. I was mainly grilling the obviously right-wing news outlets, and while I mentioned the left-wing outlets (thinking MSNBC might be too biased to the left), there was always one news outlet that I apparently trusted, seemingly with blind faith – The Guardian. They seemed like the a rational, reasonable news outlet. I knew they were left-wing, but I didn’t think they were extreme. But something’s been troubling me lately – their latest patronising campaign freedom of speech.

All week long, the Guardian website has been running a series of articles which, they claim are about the growing phenomenon of online harassment. In reality, it’s their excuse to wag their fingers at everyone on the web. One example of such articles is “the dark side of Guardian comments”, which basically comprises of a bunch of privileged London-centric writers reading over some of the “vile and abusive” comments they’ve received, and the article only shows you the point of view of the writers who were offended. It also contains a quiz in which you are given the opportunity to moderate a selection of comments. Whatever you answer, you’ll find that the Guardian is very keen on blocking any comments that they find ideologically unappetising (they will block any comments critical of feminism without question).

While we’re on that subject, The Guardian’s statistics on the matter are very shaky. They claim that “of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black”. To me, that just screams of not just sexism, but also racism and ideological cherrypicking. Of course they would make this up, because that would fit the left-wing narrative that anyone who isn’t a white male is a victim needing our protection. If you ask me, that narrative sounds a bit unsettling, mainly because it now seems like the Guardian is now pushing internet censorship, almost in Orwellian fashion. More worryingly though, their mentality on this reeks of leftist self-flagellation for ancestral sins. For them, all the world’s woes are caused by “privileged” white people, and they never corroborate this notion with any real facts.

For a paper that claims to love democracy, it seems to have completely turned its back on freedom of speech. One article, written by a clearly oversensitive writer named Owen Jones, wrote an article about trolls, but used it to proclaim that freedom of speech could “poison the very bloodstream of democracy”. If anything’s poisoning our democracy, it’s obviously people like him, and all those like him who wish to use fear to turn the public against freedom, and this is not an isolated case. For The Guardian, freedom of speech is “elitist”, and yet they never explain how, as if everyone who reads it is supposed to know. Then again, this is the exact same news outlet that claimed that banning porn on campus gave students more freedom of choice. Not only is it lunacy, but it’s also poorly justified.

Most of The Guardian’s editorials are concerned with the safety of women. Why? Don’t we live in a safe country? If they wanted to worry about women’s safety, what about those poorer countries where young girls are impregnated and forced to marry older men at a young age? I don’t hear their concern about that. Their only concern appears to be privileged middle class women, especially if they happen to be female journalists. They’ve basically become a sounding board for the worst brand of highly processed neofeminism under the guise of journalism. If you don’t believe me, then it’s worth noting that whenever the men’s rights movement ever comes up in one of their articles, they always patronise the idea, as if men are too privileged for their concern. That patronising tone only masks the obvious sexism of the writers. For them, women are always the victims, and when you associate women with a perpetual state of victimhood, then you’re a sexist pretending not to be, and by my books, there’s absolutely no difference.

Worst of all is The Guardian’s insistence that the Internet is a dangerous place. Those privileged, London-centric writers apparently can’t stand the idea of there being a place with no rules. Oh wait, there’s already such a place. It’s called life. All those rules we have, we’ve literally just made them up from paper. Tear all that away, and life here on Earth would be just as lawless as the Internet, but I digress. The Guardian writers insist that the Internet needs more regulation in order to protect women from online harassment, which is fine until they run an article which explicitly states that writers “shouldn’t have to put up with abuse and insults”. To be fair, they don’t. They could just quit, or better yet, stop reading the comment section! If you want my opinion, the possibility of being harassed by virulent trolls is simply a part of having your opinions out in the open. I certainly didn’t care about that when I started this site, and I was 18 years old. Considering that the average Guardian writer must be over 30, I’d say that, even in my early days, I’m definitely more mature than a bunch of writers who complain about harassment.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don’t condone harassment or rape threats anymore than the next man, but this is not the way to handle it. I was once harassed by a swathe of Welsh nationalists over a post I had written in 2013 (the post was since deleted, which I’ll admit was a bad move on my part). In that post, I tried to make the argument that we shouldn’t be forced to learn the Welsh language, but I accused the Welsh nationalists of fascism (which, again, was a bad move on my part). Even after being bombarded with annoying and ideologically unpalatable comments, I didn’t clamour for increased regulation. I moved on, like I feel we should all be doing, and I’m not alone. Stephen Fry, in an interview with Dave Rubin, expressed worry about the climate of censorious self-pity currently dominating our society, and, perhaps because of how he phrased it more than anything else, most of the media turned on him, especially social media and, surprise surprise, The Guardian, who claimed that nobody would be listening to him if he were poor. Does that sound like the standard bearer of quality journalism, or the wailing throngs of the failed excuse for a journalist, drowning in his own biases, presumably while locked away in his safe space.

They keep screeching about how we have to stop online harassment, but they have no intention of explaining how they think we should do so, and neither have they attempted to reconcile that with the need to preserve free speech. What they fail to realise is that you can’t stop online harassment. You can’t stop any form of expression that goes on in the Internet, at least not without punishing the innocent first, because inevitably the innocent are always prosecuted before the guilty when pandering to mass hysteria. Of course, The Guardian doesn’t care. They’re only interested in stirring up moral panic. Ladies and gentlemen, they’ve become Mary Whitehouse, but this time, the target of their witch hunt seems to be anyone on the Internet who dares disagree with them, because they’ve been lumped into the same group as the genuine abusers, who are the ones that should be punished in the first place.

To me, all this sounds like The Guardian never really got over Gamergate, because the rhetoric of The Guardian is largely indifferent to the rhetoric of the social justice warriors, except for the fact that The Guardian’s writers go through contortions to sound cultured, purely for the purpose of making its readers feel like idiots (or smarter for having read them, which they’re not). At least with “The Web We Want”, the mask has finally crumbled, and we can now see The Guardian for what it really is – an illiberally leftist mouthpiece for those who wish to advance their authoritarian narrative. At this point, you can’t trust them anymore than you can trust such skeezy tabloids as The Sun or The Daily Star. If you see a copy of the paper in your local newspaper, don’t pick it up. Buying their papers only supports their agenda, as the writers and editors carefully count their money,  while presumably locked away in their safe spaces as they write the next post about how we’re apparently evil for using the Internet, ignorant of the fact that most Internet users probably aren’t as bad as they think. Maybe if they took their heads out of their asses for just a minute, they’d probably see that.