Let’s face facts – the “Liberal Democrats” aren’t liberal

liberal democrats

Tell me if you’ve heard this argument before. The Liberal Democrats are supposedly the only liberal party in an election with a far-left Marxist Labour leader running against a nanny state Tory party. By that logic, any real liberal should vote for the Liberal Democrats, right? Wrong! The “Liberal” Democrats are liberals in name only. They haven’t been truly liberal in a long time, certainly not under its leftist leader Tim Farron.

Their latest manifesto essentially confirms this, with the Liberal Democrats reaffirming their opposition to Brexit (never mind the fact that only 22% of the country wants Britain to stay in the EU, and that could be shrinking). In case Tim Farron hasn’t heard, opposing the popular vote makes you illiberal. It is anathema to liberty and liberalism. If that’s not enough, they want to ban the sale of diesel cars by 2025 if elected. If Tim Farron wants his party to fail, then congratulations, because now his party can only appeal to bourgeois middle-class leftists in London or Cardiff.

More importantly, the manifesto tells me that todays Liberal Democrats are more like social democrats, reading like the kind of manifesto Labour would release if it weren’t so far to the left. On economic policy they want to raise the corporate tax to 20% (it’s already at 19%, which is bad enough), and add 1p on income tax, which they say is how they’ll raise £6 billion for the NHS. On the whole, they’ve pretty much adopted Labour’s love of spending money. They plan to spend £7 billion on education, reverse universal credit at a cost of £3.6 billion, and £2 billion on flood defences. I’ll admit that this isn’t as bad as Labour’s spending plans (the flood defence pledge sounds like a good idea), but again, in order to spend that much, they have to raise taxes, which they’re pretty much open about.

They also want a second referendum on a “final Brexit deal”, which is completely ludicrous as we already voted on whether or not to leave the EU, and parliament already gave Theresa May approval to trigger Article 50. I assume once the British public inevitably votes for hard Brexit, the Lib Dems would probably ask for a third referendum until they get what they want. They also want to remain in the single market, which nobody wants anymore, and seeing as they favour freedom of movement as the EU would define it, I have reason to suspect that they’ll probably force the country to take in more migrants sent over from places like Germany or France, not that we’ll get to vote on whether or not to take in more immigrants.

The idea that the Lib Dems are liberal is complete nonsense. Only about 10% of their manifesto is liberal policy, with the rest being a bunch of idealistic socialist claptrap that’s at least moderate compared to the far-left Labour manifesto. It’s ludicrous to assume that the Lib Dems are liberal just because they want to decriminalise weed and scrap the Snooper’s Charter, both of those policies I completely agree with by the way. The sad truth is that there is no liberal party in mainstream politics. There is the Libertarian Party, but they’re only running a few candidates, and there’s a slim chance that any of them will gain a seat.

Ever since the rise of socialism, liberalism hasn’t been popular in British politics in a long time, to the point that even the supposed “liberal” party has forgotten about what it truly means to be liberal. I would argue that liberalism itself has become ineffectual in the days when the political centre is collapsing in on itself, but that’s another topic for another time. It would help if Tim Farron wasn’t such a complete moron who can’t even defend his views on abortion, or homosexuality. Let’s face facts. Liberal or not, the Liberal Democrats are a train wreck of a party, and they’re the liberal party, then liberalism is fucked.

Advertisements

Don’t just look for the usual suspects

us and them

It’s really starting to get old.

Back in the 20th century, society was essentially dominated by conservative ideology. Up until at least the 1990’s, the narrative of Western culture seemed to be based on a right-wing understanding of the world, which had become dogma. In that narrative, the conservatives were the good guys, and the liberals were painted as a threat to society. Flash forward to the 2010’s, and things are now quite different. Now, left-wing ideology forms the dominant narrative of society, so now liberals are the good guys, and anyone who shows even a slight leaning towards conservative ideology is painted as either evil or just stupid. That’s the narrative that my generation grew up on, and it’s getting old.

Political discourse now seems to be based on one side shaming the other, especially in America, where a number of violent incidents have been attributed to right-wing racists. It also doesn’t help that America’s conservative politicians have garnered a certain reputation for their bad temper, childish behaviour, contempt for the working class, and a slew of nonsensical laws. To the average man, these are reasons why conservatives are the bad guys, but a lot of the mainstream attitude towards politics in general has been based in hyperbole. Even though I’ve gone on record in my scorn for America’s conservatives, I worry that in the political arena, they’ve become the easy target, probably because it’s very hard to defend them (to be fair, even I won’t). In fact, it’s gotten so easy that political satirists have made it part of their normal routine, and even John Oliver does this when he talks about American politics. In a sense, conservatives have become easy scapegoats.

What about liberals? On top of being as idealistic as an after school special, left-wing politicians expect the state to handle everything. Recently the left-wingers have been focusing heavily on equality, bashing the rich, and protecting women (and themselves) from hateful speech online, but they have not given much thought about freedom. In fact, one thing I’ve noticed is that left-wing politicians only seem to care about freedom when it’s being threatened by their right-wing adversaries. When liberal politicians aren’t defending freedom to make the other side look bad, they threaten to undermine the liberties of the wealthy and of businesses, and sometimes, they threaten our online liberties in order to appeal to victim mentality (this is increasingly and depressingly truer in Britain), and yet when liberals threaten civil liberties, only the intelligent raise a finger and nobody cares, but when conservatives threaten civil liberties, everyone gangs up on them like their the evil monster who’s been killing all their livestock.

To be fair, some conservative politicians, such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, have proven themselves to be genuinely despicable figures, but not all conservatives are like them. In fact, it’s this kind of blanket judgement that a lot of left-wing news outlets practice constantly. Okay, right-wingers do it a lot as well, but that’s the thing – there’s no difference in how liberals and conservatives conduct themselves. It doesn’t matter when both sides wants to tell you how to live, just that they’ll turn people against each other for a bit of entertainment, and how apt that would be, considering it’s all just a game. The only reason we elevate it above other games is that this particular game has very real consequences.

The ultimate problem, as I see it, is precisely the fact that we get too caught up in the game, and we take it for more than what it is. It’s simply a game where the prize is dominance. We forget that left and right are simply teams that demand the loyalty of players. Very few of those team members truly believe their own hype whatever side they’re playing, and even if they do, you shouldn’t trust them too much. In other words, don’t waste time picking on the easy targets when you can’t even trust the other side either. Yes, I still despise the right, but I can’t say I totally trust the left.

Smart thinking

science and religion

“Science and Religion” by Chris Johnston

Whenever I go into Waterstone’s, I always get at least one glance at the so-called “smart thinking” section, and as you might expect it’s filled with books about science, but they share this category with books about politics, economy, and popular ideology. They’ve got books by Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin and Michio Kaku in the same group as books by Noam Chomsky, and an assortment of left-wing authors. Back when I was in school, there used to be separate shelves for politics, science and economy, or at least that’s how I remember it. To me, it seems like the store seems to have given in to the common mentality that scientific thinking and left-wing philosophy are automatically intelligent. By that logic anything else must be balderdash, except that’s not entirely true.

The modern mentality appears to be that science is the new religion, and liberalism the new conservatism. Of course, it was bound to happen. They both offer a path to enlightenment that requires you to have some form of trust in it, and its advocates. In today’s world, science is assumed to have all the answers, and people who don’t trust it are generally assumed to be morons. A thousand years ago, it was thought that God knew everything, and since the church claimed to know the word of God, anyone who didn’t trust or follow the church was shunned, and sometimes condemned as a heretic.

In a liberal society, most conservatives are often labelled as morons. Often, this is purely because of the political narrative of the times. The common folk have shifted towards liberal values, and so the conservatives must be evil (and in fairness, there are many conservative politicians who really are evil). In the past, conservatism would have been considered smart thinking, and liberalism was considered the domain of the working poor. At this point, what we would now call “smart thinking” is merely a difference in narrative. For me, it’s getting to be a worrying case of people using legitimate ideas and philosophies to make themselves sound intelligent.

It has often been argued that modern society is getting dumber, often in a very debatable context (often pointing only to America as an example). In my opinion, that would certainly explain why science is touted so highly by anyone who wants to look smart, but the problem is that most people like science only because of the flashy facts. They never think about the little things, or about the various kinds of sciences that don’t sound as attractive (arachnology, urology, and neuroparasitology come to mind). When it comes to science, I think most people don’t love science as much as it can seem. They just look at its butt while its walking by. Somehow, I think it’s the same with left-wing politics.

Another problem is that most people aren’t listening to real science. They’re listening to scientific theories that have been deliberately sensationalized for the purpose of drawing mass appeal. That is what we would call “pop science”, and it usually manifests in the form of news outlets reporting studies that sound either too good to be true, or too exaggeratedly terrifying to be real. You usually find this being trotted out on morning news shows desperate for filler material, and it’s bad when you consider that many viewers have continually confused pop science with real science, and even after it’s proven false, people continue to believe newer and more bizarre claims passed off as scientific studies.

At this point, I could probably make the argument that people tend to take things out of hand, and this case, science has been put on the same pedestal as God, and established theory the new holy writ. The only difference is that most of the Western world don’t go about killing those who disagree with us. However, I think we should ask ourselves – is it really smart thinking just because it sounds like the right thing? Furthermore, is it really smart thinking if it’s just popular philosophy? I realize that I may have opened more questions than I answered here tonight, but these are questions I’d prefer people to answer themselves, because if anything, smart thinking would require one to think independently.

5 ways that Family Guy and the Simpsons are the same

original comedy

I’ve already talked about Family Guy and The Simpsons before. But now, I want to be more specific on the faults. Many people have asserted that Family Guy is nothing more than a rip-off of The Simpsons. In some ways, I agree. I want to point out of the things which make it similar.

1. Episodes

saving private brian

Often, Family Guy has been accused of stealing ideas from The Simpsons. Actually, there were plenty of instances where The Simpsons stole from Family Guy. The example shown here refers to “Saving Private Brian”. The main plot of this episode involved Brian going to the army to tear up Chris’ premature contract with the army, and ends up joining the army. In the Simpsons’ version, Homer successfully undoes Bart’s contract and enlists himself (never mind that he already joined the Navy in the classic “Simpson Tide”).

The Simpsons episode “GI (Annoyed Grunt)” is technically a rip-off of Family Guy because the Family Guy version aired earlier.

  • Saving Private Brian aired on November 5, 2006
  • GI (Annoyed Grunt) aired exactly a week later.

This isn’t the only time this has happened. They ripped off two Family Guy episodes from the year 2000. In “The Great Louse Detective” (2002), they ripped off Family Guy’s parody of “I’ve Grown Accustomed to Her Face” from My Fair Lady. The first segment in “Treehouse of Horror XIV” (2003) is essentially a massive copy of the Family Guy episode “Death is a Bitch”.

I can’t say I blame the producers. The Simpsons has shown its age, and has been competing against Family Guy and South Park for years.

2. The basic formula

The most glaring example of plagiarism within Family Guy is the basic formula. The basic premise revolves around the antics of a dysfunctional family consisting of:

  • A dim-witted patriarch (Homer/Peter)
  • A moralistic and hypocritical wife (Marge/Lois)
  • A son with increasingly low grades (Bart/Chris)
  • A socially unpopular daughter who is disillusioned with the rest of the family (Lisa/Meg)
  • At least one baby (Maggie/Stewie)
  • A dog (Santa’s Little Helper/Brian)

It seems really obvious if you’ve watched the Simpsons first. In fact, it is. It’s no secret that Seth McFarlane was inspired by The Simpsons, along with numerous other TV shows from the 70’s and 80’s, but this is ridiculous.

3. The pretentious liberalism

pretentious crap

It just won’t shut up won’t it?

Both Simpsons creator Matt Groening and Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane are liberals, and they’ve admitted it. Nowadays, they both treat liberals/Democrats like gods, while always making conservatives/Republicans seem either stupid or evil. For instance, since Obama was elected President, both shows have kept quiet about politics for the most part, because they don’t want to mock their precious President.

In the meantime, The Simpsons focused more on family relationships, while Family Guy became an outright sounding board for Seth McFarlane’s religious and political views.

Even in their early days, both shows did share some pretty stereotypical moral messages (like  “God is always watching”, “men are always selfish”, or “selling out is wrong”). Not only is the moralism completely fallible, but in the case of “selling out is wrong”, it’s quite hypocritical considering the next entry in this list.

4. Selling out

Wish it, Want it, Do it. I wish I didn’t have to live with Brian’s crap, I want to punch him in the face, but I don’t know if I should do it.

At some point in their long run, both shows have decried selling out. They are master hypocrites when it comes to this, because over the years, Fox has lent the rights to The Simpsons and Family Guy to whomever they please.

Over the past 23 years, The Simpsons has been selling out to the point that there are numerous bad games, cheap merchandise, and a movie to their name. Over the past 14 years, Family Guy has been doing the exact same thing, and last year, they released a (terrible) game based on one of their episodes.

In the episode “Brian Writes a Bestseller” (represented in the above image), Brian spreads his wings as a sellout by writing a self-help book within a day, and selling it in stores. In a way, the plot is meant to be a stab at the plethora of self-help books fed to the American populace, but it does so in such a pretentious and hypocritical manner.

5. The status quo reigns supreme

If there’s one thing both shows have in common, it’s the fact that everything is forced to go back to normal unless the plot calls for it. In the Simpsons, it’s clear that Marge actually likes the status quo, which is really sad to say the least, considering how royally screwed up it usually is. In the Simpsons universe, this means that Lisa will always be able to lift herself above others, having already done the 2nd grade, but it also means that Mr. Burns will never die, and never be punished for his actions.

In the case of Family Guy however, the status quo is a godsend for someone like Peter, because it means that his selfish, idiotic, and generally destructive attitude towards his family will never be punished. It also means that Meg will suffer forever, Mayor West will always be childish and corrupt, Joe will always be paralyzed, Herbert will always walk the streets potentially stalking Chris.

herbert

STAY AWAY FROM OUR KIDS YOU FREAK!!!

This effectively makes Quahog into a nightmarish dystopia from which there is no escape (a scenario I may explore in the future).

The differences

There are a few differences, most notably the characterization.

In the Simpsons, Homer is a lovable idiot, Marge is a hypocritical, overprotective, paranoid nag, Bart is a destructive sociopath who feeds on others’ suffering, and Lisa is a liberal prude who loves pointless activism.

In Family Guy, Peter is now a cruel, abusive, and extremely selfish exaggeration of Homer Simpson, Lois is a hypocritical and uncaring nymphomaniac, Chris just kept getting dumber, Meg is a punching bag whose desperate situation is appalling, Brian is a straw liberal and a failure, and Stewie is the show’s conduit for gay innuendos.

With regards to the liberalism of both shows, in The Simpsons, politics doesn’t often show up, so the extreme liberalism of writers shows up when the writers want. In Family Guy, the writers’ liberal views show up practically all the time now.

Conclusion

In conclusion, The Simpsons has had a long and storied history, and Family Guy ripped off that history over the course of its so far 14-year run. If you want me to pick, The Simpsons is obviously much better. There are a lot more good episodes to come out of The Simpsons than Family Guy, and at least the Simpsons is more subtle than Family Guy, whose newer episodes can only appeal to those with no understanding of subtlety.

Our dependence on ideology

Have you ever noticed how, regardless of political ideology, politicians from all around the world seem to constantly repeat the mistakes of the past? This is probably proof that ideology doesn’t matter once you’re in power. However, an ideology can become dominant in a society. What happens then is that it becomes a part of our cultural values.

For centuries, conservatism was the domination political ideology of the day, and history has shown what that has led to. The church persecuted every other religion, fascist leaders engaged in genocide, corruption was allowed to fester, and the fear of God had pretty much altered human nature. Everyone who wasn’t a Christian, white male was treated as a second-class citizen, big corporations had absolute freedom to do as they pleased, and the environment took a serious beating. With conservatism as the dominant ideology, society pretty much looked like this:

conservatism

A microcosm of Hell.

It’s only been a few decades since liberalism became the dominant ideology of our time, and we’ve already seen the sad consequences. Freedom is being curtailed in the name of political correctness, we’re forced to pick up the environmental mess caused by corporate waste dumping, and we can’t compliment a pretty girl without it being misconstrued as perversion, harassment, or misogyny. Now, we’re actively destroying any tradition that isn’t “ethnic”, and speaking of ethnic, society is being more open-minded about other cultures, while shunning its own culture, and we’re now obsessed with collective responsibility. With liberalism as the dominant ideology, society now looks like this:

jersey shore

GET IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!

With that in mind, I believe that society is so dependent on ideology that it hasn’t even considered the possibility of rejecting both ideologies entirely. Why is that good? Because liberalism and conservatism are nothing more than two extremes.

  • With liberalism, society is a bunch of wimps who are always watching their tongue, hoping not to offend anyone.
  • Conservatism is the other extreme, where society imposes outdated dogma upon others, and treats everyone like crap.

Maybe we should just stick to having a middle ground, because it’s obvious that relying on one of two extremes is not working. In fact, most people don’t even care for either extreme. They just want to live their lives without having to care for whose beliefs are right or wrong.

Without power, ideologies are harmless sets of beliefs. When they are in power, and imposed on the masses, as during today, they’re flimsy pretexts for the rape of freedom, just like religion. The problem is that in a democracy, this cycle is going to continue until mankind collapses, unless we do something. But what?

The life, work, and death of Steve Kangas

steve kangas

This post is dedicated to Steve Kangas, the obscure author of the website Liberalism Resurgent who died on this day 14 years ago. Why? Some of his articles contributed to my beliefs, and, despite not being a full-on liberal, those beliefs still persist today, 2 years after I first discovered his articles in 2011.

This post will talk about his life, his work, and the strange mystery surrounding his death in 1999. Now, this is not a biography, and I am not a biographer. This is just a way to spread the word of the late Steve Kangas, and his website. Without further ado, let the commentary begin.

Steve Kangas was born May 1961, as Steven Robert Esh, to a conservative Christian family. After graduating from high school in 1979, he joined the army, where he worked for military intelligence. During his time, he spent a year learning the Russian language, before eventually being shipped off to Grenada, after then-president Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of the Central America nation in 1983.

He was eventually shipped off to Berlin on the following year in order to electronically eavesdrop on Soviet units in Eastern Europe. Whilst there, he learned that it would be impossible for the communist Soviet Union to invade Western Europe, because the Soviet soldiers lacked certain skills (according to Steve Kangas, they lacked driving skills). In spite of this, Western leaders were trying to convince us of the grave threat of a Soviet invasion of Europe.

Later, Kangas bore witness to the terrorist bombing of a discotheque in Berlin, which he said was a few blocks away from his living quarters. It was this terrorist act that led Ronald Reagan to order the bombing of Libya, in spite of the lack of evidence that Libya was responsible.

The moment which led him to abandon his conservative beliefs, he wrote, was the assassination of Major Arthur D. Nicholson, a fellow intelligence officer whose funeral was attended by Kangas. When talking about his beliefs, he wrote:

“The image of his 4-year old daughter clutching a Cabbage Patch doll throughout the entire service is one that is forever burned into my memory. This was a pivotal moment in my life, causing me to question my conservative beliefs and take a more serious look at the costs and benefits of the arms race.”

He also witnessed the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986, after which Berlin was bathed in nuclear radiation. In the same year, he flew back to California with an honorable discharge. Once there, he attended the University of California in Santa Cruz, a city in California which was a frequent target of Rush Limbaugh’s right-wing fury.

After some time, he created the Liberalism Resurgent website (dated 1996), which he made as “a response to the right”. The website itself is highly critical of business propaganda, the right-wing media, the American overclass (a powerful and privileged social class), and the CIA.

Since he’s done so much that I have yet to read, I’ll give you the links to the articles I’ve read and have been influenced by in some way:

The website itself is very well done for something out of the 90’s. Kangas researched his arguments very well, almost like he was writing a thesis in university, which I guess is not surprising considering he went to college after leaving the army.

It was rumored that was planning on writing a book on CIA atrocities, when on February 8th 1999, he was found dead in the men’s bathroom on the 39th floor of the One Oxford Center, inside the office of one Richard Mellon Scaife, the political enemy of Steve Kangas.

The police ruled said death as a suicide, but since Scaife sent his own private investigator, Rex Armistead, to investigate the “suicide”, it became the subject of conspiracy. There are two theories as to how Steve Kangas died:

  1. Steve Kangas went to the One Oxford Center to try and kill Richard Mellon Scaife, but was himself apprehended by Scaife’s men, and then killed.
  2. Steve Kangas went to the One Oxford Center and killed himself in order to incite the authorities into launching an investigation of Scaife.

Let’s look at a few things. Richard Mellon Scaife is a staunchly conservative member of the wealthy elite who was known for being reclusive, and vindictive. He is quick to use lawsuits and private detectives against his critics, so when he got wind of Kangas’ website (which is scathingly critical towards Scaife), he hired his own private detective Rex Armistead to investigate Kangas and his website. Keep in mind that Rex Armistead is a private detective hired by Scaife and other anti-Democrats to smear Democrat politicians. Also keep in mind that Rex Armistead has an expertise in organized crime.

In the 60’s, Rex Armistead worked to enforce racial segregation laws. After a distinguished career in the 70’s, he was later hired by people like Richard Mellon Scaife to run smear campaigns against Democrats on behalf of the Republican party. Most famously, he ran a smear campaign against Democrat Bill Allain, in which Armistead spread rumors that Allain was having a homosexual relationship with three transvestites, until the plot was eventually uncovered by ABC’s 20/20.

With that in mind, I have come to the conclusion that Richard Mellon Scaife personally held a grudge against Steve Kangas, and therefore ordered his murder in order to eliminate him as a political enemy.

richard mellon scaife

Look at the face of evil.

Of course, that’s just theory. But Armistead was a real private investigator, and Scaife definitely had something against Kangas, the perfect motive for murder. Then again, there has been no real answer. Why? Because if Scaife really was responsible, then he would use his wealth and power to cover up the incident, meaning there can be no answer until Scaife dies (he’s 80, so that shouldn’t be long).

I believe that Steve Kangas was wrongly killed, and that his death should be avenged, and properly investigated by an independent body. Kangas had a good website, with scholarly arguments that you can actually rely on. The good news is that his site still lives on. If you want to see it for yourself, click here.

I think that the whole thing actually makes for a great story. Now if only a Hollywood scriptwriter got a hold of it…

Why Jamie Oliver is an idiot

jamie oliver

This man is an idiot. Don’t let him tell you what to eat.

If there’s one kind of person I have always hated, it’s healthy eating advocates. What are they? They’re people who want to bring down fast food corporations because they “corrupt our kids”. They want to force us all to eat healthier, and the schools are caving in as we speak.

In Britain, Jamie Oliver leads the charge, along with other celebrity hacks like Heston Blumenthal and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (whose very name and accent makes him sound like a pretentious jackass). What exactly is Jamie Oliver doing? He’s running several TV programs on Channel 4 in order to espouse his belief that all meals should be healthy.

I actually hate Jamie Oliver, because he is a didactic jackass who thinks that what he’s doing is actually best for society, when in reality it’s not. I’ll give you a famous example of his attitude.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, in 2005, Jamie Oliver launched a documentary series called Jamie’s School Dinners, in which he campaigned to “improve the quality of food fed to pupils”. What was his actual plan? To force kids to have at least two portions of fruit and three vegetables a day. Back then, it made parents all over the country, to the point that in the following year, parents in South Yorkshire openly rebelled against Jamie Oliver’s tyrannical lunch plan by sneaking “junk food” from local takeaway stores to the pupils via the school fences.

They did it because they believed that students should have a healthy option made available to them, while still being given the right to choose what they want to eat, something Jamie Oliver’s system would have denied.

Like all healthy eating advocates, Jamie Oliver wants to deny free choice under the assumption that fast food, and the fast food corporations, are making everyone fat. The truth is that we have an obesity problem because we made ourselves fat, therefore, the nation’s obese should be taking responsibility for something they did to themselves. By seeing obesity as something to be stopped, and therefore denying the obese a sense of responsibilty, then they are guilty of weightism (discrimination against fat people).

People like him also don’t realize why students in school and college eat more “junk food” than “healthy food”. We do it because it’s cheaper to have a meal with chips every day than it is to have a gourmet healthy meal every day, and the current economic situation doesn’t make things any better. In fact, some families are so poor that they can’t afford healthier alternatives. If, in these times of economic hardship, “everyone was forced to eat healthy or don’t eat anything” (which is what Jamie Oliver would want), the poorer families would actually starve to death because they can’t afford it.

If we want to solve our obesity problem, while still keeping our free choice, we should make healthy foods just as cheap as “junk food”, while not taxing either. This way, more people can eat healthier, while we still have free choice. In that scenario, everybody wins.

But apparently, Jamie Oliver wouldn’t want that. He wants “junk food” to be annihilated, while leaving the price of healthy food unchanged. He also wants every menu to operate his way. It’s called fascism, and that’s why he was booted out of LA.

jamie sad

He’s apparently crying in this picture. Good.

Finally, let me point that Jamie Oliver is a complete sell-out. Why? Well, he’s made so many TV shows, released so many books with his name on it, and in Britain, he is not only a big celebrity, but he also had lunch with Tony Blair (one of the biggest lairs the world has ever seen), and was awarded an MBE, thereby making him a member of Britain’s cultural elite, and thus, a sell-out.

To summarize him, Jamie Oliver is a weightist, didactic sell-out who basically amounts to nothing more than a pimple on the face of Britain. He wants to tell us what we can and can’t eat, and wants the government to do the same. He’s a no good meddler who thinks the American way is wrong just for offering free choice, he’s a pretentious environmentalist, and he’s a sell-out for Channel 4, and not even any of that amounts to any worth.

I hope he realizes all of this, because somebody has to speak out against people like him, and if the media won’t, then I have. I’ve always hated being told what I “should or shouldn’t eat”, and anyone who tells me what to eat, and that’s why I’ll always hate Jamie Oliver for as long as he still lives, and if Jamie Oliver’s career finished, then it would put a smile on my face.