The appalling defence of Gawker and Nick Denton

nick denton

A new documentary has apparently surfaced on Netflix. Entitled Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, it’s subject matter is ostensibly about the Hulk Hogan lawsuit which brought down Gawker, but judging by its dreadfully pretentious trailer, you’ll find that this an attempt to defend Gawker by framing the lawsuit as an assault on the so-called free press. Yes, Netflix has a documentary defending Gawker – perhaps the scummiest name in mass media – and the most mainstream media outlets that talk about it are all in favour of its pro-Gawker message.

For those who don’t know or have forgotten, Gawker was the cancer of the Internet back before it closed down. Founded in 2003 by Nick Denton, Gawker was a blog that acquired a reputation for its deliberately sensationalist tactics and often sleazy headlines, which it employed strictly to grab headlines. Gawker also had several spin-off blogs that are still active to this day. You may already be familiar with some of them. There’s Kotaku, a corrupt gaming blog that injected social justice ideology in its reporting, while their own journalists were involved in the scandal that eventually lead to #GamerGate. They also had Jezebel, a feminist blog known for its writers’ vile and repulsive hatred towards men, particularly straight white men. Then there’s Gizmodo, an okay tech blog, the very same site through which it was revealed that Facebook was deliberately altering its trending list to block out conservative news sources. The others are i09, Lifehacker, Deadspin and Jalspine.

Gawker was also notorious for reporting rumours that they don’t often fact check, a fact confirmed by Nick Denton himself in an interview on NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams. In that regard, it had a reputation that was almost as bad as, if not worse than Britain’s News of the World did before it was shut down in 2011. Gawker was also known for outing gay men behind their backs, usually a vendetta against them. Billionaire philanthropist Peter Thiel was one such man, but they also tried to out actor James Franco, and also outed Condé Nast executive David Giethner in one of their articles. Why exactly did Gawker do this? No reason, other than they had no problem with publishing it.

This and many other rancid tales are how Gawker acquired reputation of sleaze. Former employees would publicly condemn the site, and a few years ago, even the most retarded left-wing rags such as Vice or Salon lined up to condemn Gawker. Of course, all that changed when Hulk Hogan decided to sue Gawker, and when Donald Trump called to tighten US libel laws.

In 2012, Gawker leaked a sex tape featuring WWE star Hulk Hogan (whose real name is Terry Bollea), and when a judge ordered Gawker to remove it following legal action taken by Bollea, they refused, because why wouldn’t they? In response, Bollea filed a $100 million lawsuit against Gawker, and in 2016, Gawker was found liable, and forced to declare bankruptcy. This was of course a major victory for the individual right to privacy. After all, aren’t we all tired of tabloids invading people’s private lives just the sake of easy money? Of course, Gawker’s defence rested on the shaky argument that case could “hurt freedom of speech”. Nobody could really explain how, but the left ate it up, and after Trump called on the expansion of libel laws, Nick Denton suddenly became a hero for the left.

I shouldn’t really be surprised. The left has a nasty habit of making saints out of reprehensible, truly evil people. They revere Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, a racist eugenicist who wanted to use abortion to control the black population. They revere Che Guevara, a psychopathic mass murderer who helped make Fidel Castro’s reign of terror in Cuba possible. They revere Hillary Clinton, and let’s just say the less said about her the better. But with Nick Denton I find this to be extremely baffling. Not only was Nick Denton an unscrupulous scumbag of the highest order, but he believes that he is thoroughly justified in engaging in the behaviour of such a person. This man justified outing closet homosexuals by claiming that people were happier “living in the truth”.

This is a man truly without morals, so when I see the trailer for Brian Knappenberger’s new documentary seemingly making him seem like the victim of a “war against the free press”, I can’t help but be outraged over this. It seems that people like him really do believe that Gawker was a victim in a war against the free press waged by “shadowy billionaires” who want absolute control over the media. This is a complete falsehood. Gawker does not represent the press. It is a corporation. The press is simply any form of media where you disseminate information. Your own blog is part of the press. By this definition some guy on YouTube can be considered a part of the press, but that’s not the point. What Gawker did was illegal. What worth does the “muh press freedom” argument have when the outlet you’re defending broke the law?

When anyone breaks the law, be they private individuals or corporations, they should expect to be punished. Gawker deserved everything it had coming to them, and yet because they don’t like the people opposing Gawker, the left acts as though we’re deciding what media outlets are permissible and what’s not. The irony is that they do this all the time, deeming anti-establishment news outlets and independent journalists and commentators as “fake news”. This glaring hypocrisy is perhaps the foulest aspect of the left’s pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. They try to defend Gawker by accusing its enemies of doing something that they themselves are already doing.

To me, this is perhaps the most obvious sign of something that should have been obvious a while ago. Netflix has been compromised by the corporate establishment, and now they offer up trash that serves the liberal elite, effectively becoming a HBO for your laptop. Don’t believe me? They were responsible for the Dear White People TV series, which basically amounted to racist SJW propaganda designed to fellate the progressive ego. They made Amy Schumer’s infamous “leather special”, which ended up getting so many negative reviews from viewers that they changed the ratings system just to placate Schumer and her fans. Netflix was supposed to be an alternative to the crap we had to deal with on mainstream TV, with all its leftist nonsense infected into entertainment. Now Netflix has become part of the mainstream, and inevitably became corrupted by the same establishment ideology that infests the rest of the mainstream media.

The greatest lie ever told

all you need is love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

women's march

On Saturday the presidential inauguration was followed by the Women’s March protests, and since then I have yet to hear the end of it. The women were protesting the inauguration of Donald Trump, so the media reported on it as if it were some sort of righteous feat of activism, pretending that they were standing up for women’s rights, but really it was just a bunch of over-privileged nutjobs whining that the candidate they didn’t like won and was inaugurated without a hitch. It was a waste of everyone’s time, and in such a way that it was literally no different to when a bunch of Tea Party protestors agitated vainly against the re-election of Barack Obama.

It’s easy to guess why the women were marching in droves. They still believe that Donald Trump is a brazen misogynist who views women is little more than pieces of meat, and they probably believe the accusations of sexual assault levied against him. Of course, it’s all a lie. There’s no proof that Donald Trump is a sexist, nothing but hearsay, conjecture and ad hominem slurs. The idea that Trump hates women comes from the cultural Marxist view of women as a class. For the progressives (who themselves have adopted the ideology of cultural Marxism), insulting one woman means insulting all women. After Donald Trump insulted Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News presenter who will now work for NBC), many progressives invented the narrative that Donald Trump is a sexist, a misogynist, and by extension, and enemy of women’s rights.

Of course, it’s all a big lie, but that in itself is the problem at heart. The more outrageous the lie, the more easily people who aren’t informed will believe it, and if a lie is repeated often enough, many will perceive it as the inescapable truth. This is how we got to the point where millions of women believe that Donald Trump is a chauvinistic caveman who just grabs vaginas all the time. In other words, the Women’s March is based on a lie, a lie that has been perpetuated by the establishment because they see the populist Donald Trump as a threat to their interests. Unsurprisingly, the feminists, who see Donald Trump as the patriarchy made flesh, are more than willing to help them spread this nonsense, which is part of how you see a lot of young people believing what is provably a lie.

The opposition to Trump has become incredibly childish, having taken a lie as the truth, to the point that they have become emotionally invested in the narrative they have created for themselves, all without a shred of evidence. After all, if he truly were a misogynist, why would he hire Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager, and later his counselor? If he were truly a misogynist, he would never have become friends with Hillary Clinton before running against her, and nor would he think of his wife Melania very highly.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. Modern feminism is a religion built on lies. They believe that women are eternally held back by “the patriarchy”, and must be given special treatment in order to advance in life. They also believe that women are purposefully paid less than men, despite this being illegal under the law. They also believe that all men are potential rapists who reduce women to objects simply by looking at them, never mind that it’s the feminists, with their ghastly rhetoric, that are the ones who reduce women to little more than their bodies, or even their vaginas.

Before people start confusing my words, I’m not against the idea of marching. I believe that people must have the right to protest, but I don’t think every protest is just. In fact, I think the Women’s March was little more than feminists protesting the democratically elected President of the United States based on accusations of misogyny, and the false notion that Donald Trump poses a threat to women’s rights. Oh, and it turns out that many of the organisations involved in the Women’s March are tied with George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who was revealed to have given money to Black Lives Matter, and backed Hillary Clinton during the election. Why am I not surprised?

Will these lefty loonies just give it up already? Trump has won, and he has taken the oath of office. There’s nothing you can do, other than call him out when he actually does something wrong. All the feminists were doing was making the cause of women’s rights look like a joke in the eyes of people who had already had enough of the feminists and their nonsense, which in the end will only hurt their movement in the long run. Good going. At least rate, even the moderate, and often more naive liberals who support you will eventually come to the conclusion that you’re delusional, and all the support you’ll have left are the far-left gender ideologues who will harm your movement further as it completes its transformation into a toxic echo chamber.

If nothing else, what the were doing is an example of the kind of hyperbole that we are seeing. Yes, Trump is a questionable choice of President, he has made questionable business decisions, and I reserve some skepticism of some of his policy positions, but he is not a monster. He hasn’t thrown people off of buildings, he hasn’t rigged elections, he isn’t a rampant sexual predator, and he absolutely isn’t Hitler. This kind of hyperbole does nothing other than turn people against each other, and now against the head of state, and in the end they’ll be crying wolf so often that when it is time to question Trump on policy, nobody will care, and it will be the left’s fault, because they were too busy creating the same kind of division that they will then accuse Trump of creating.

Why I was right about Obama

obama

Four years ago, on the inauguration of former president Barack Obama’s second term, I wrote a post wherein I argued that his second term would be no different to the previous term. After all, America under Obama’s first term was still divided, thanks to the race-baiters in the media, and the economy barely improved at all. Meanwhile, America was still conducting silent wars in the Middle East under Obama’s watch, all while the corporatist establishment still made a killing. Obama spoke of “change”, and brought nothing under his first term.

With that in mind, I saw no reason why the second term would be any different, and apparently I was right. Months after Obama’s second term began, it was revealed that the NSA was secretly spying on everyone, and Obama approved of it. It was a massive scandal on par with the diplomatic cables scandal in 2010, went WikiLeaks revealed that the US government was spying on its own allies. Yet the Obama fanboys remained silent. How was that any different to George W. Bush pushing for the Patriot Act just because Obama has a D after his name? It isn’t, and yet the Obama worshippers in the mainstream media pretend that he’s somehow justified in doing all this.

I also predicted that America’s involvement in Afghanistan wouldn’t end until around 2014. I was right, though some US troops are still in Afghanistan in the war currently being fought against ISIS. Meanwhile, it’s also become apparent that the Obama administration’s ineptitude in the Middle East has created the ideal conditions for ISIS to flourish. His failures are compounded by his apparent refusal to say “radical Islam” (refusing to acknowledge it as a possible motivation for the Orlando massacre), demonstrating to ordinary Americans that he has no interest in combatting the single biggest existential threat to Western civilisation.

The US economy still didn’t improve, save for the urban and coastal areas, many of which vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat party. The Rust Belt and the flyover states didn’t get any help under Obama, and that’s one of the reasons why Donald Trump won in most of the states. All the while, Obama was trying to get America on board with the TPP, a trade agreement that would give multi-national corporations the power to sue a sovereign nation, or even private individuals. In terms of economics, Obama has been nothing other than a friend for the rich and powerful, and yet his adoring fans still give him a free pass.

However, I think there is one difference I should have taken into account. Given that Obama can’t ever seek re-election after the second term, he didn’t have to appease the voters anymore, so he set about a torridly partisan agenda that appeased the progressive overclass, but agitated Republicans and people who aren’t necessarily partisan either way. Thus, we saw Obama’s true colours. He was a sellout globalist who doesn’t give a crap about anyone who doesn’t think like him. In fact, his presidency was little more than a left-wing rehash of George W. Bush, an authoritarian expression of the deep state, which I would argue had expanded under Obama.

However, I was wrong in one way. When Obama promised change, he did affect some kind of change, but not in the way I expected. Under his watch, American society shifted further left, slowly being seduced by progressive platitudes as it desperately tries proving to the world that it can be more like Europe. Meanwhile, race relations have gotten worse, thanks to social justice warriors and organisations like Black Lives Matter (a black supremacist hate group founded on the lie that police deliberately target black youths because of their race), which is astounding because many people thought Obama would be the one to help fix race relations. How delusional they were.

All in all, I was mostly right in the sense that Obama’s second term was essentially the same old routine, except Obama could do almost anything he wanted to. Of course, the one thing I could guarantee remained the same was the sickening cult of personality that surrounded him, which just reeks of state worship. I always thought it was disturbing that people give any reverence to politicians, people who you know are going to lie. Evidently people expected Obama to be different, as if he’s above everyone else just because he was the first black president. Anyone who thought that has been thoroughly taken for a ride. The cult of personality around Obama was so widely accepted it’d make Kim Jong Un blush, as even people in Britain don’t question his actions.

Honestly, I’m glad that US presidents can’t have more than two terms, because it means that the most overrated president behind FDR doesn’t get the chance to screw up America even worse than he already had. With the way Obama’s been acting, along with the collusion within the Democrat party, a Republican presidency was inevitable. I just hope that Donald Trump does a halfway decent job, which would be miles better compared to Obama. I’m fairly optimistic too, considering Trump has already withdrawn from the TPP, which he said he’d do within the first few days of taking office. At this point, America after Obama is starting to look better. Maybe now more people will see beyond the cult of personality around Obama, and realise what a failure he truly was.

Why we don’t need feminism

While in university, I found a somewhat cringeworthy poster presumably written up by art students (I found this in the fine art area, it’s not hard to connect the dots) which basically attempts to convince the viewer of why the modern world would “need” feminism. What I get is that they’re obviously misinformed, having drunken the feminist Kool-Aid from a keg. That said, I think of it as an opportunity to break down each statement, showing the obvious holes in the ideology, and why we don’t need feminism.

imag0303

Statement #1 – “Because society does not accept vulnerability in men, or strength in women”

I have a question – why do you have to care what other people think of you? It always seems to me like feminists and other assorted leftists place an unhealthy emphasis on society, and that’s because leftists believe that a person’s problems come from society, and that to fix them requires changing society. If a woman wants to be strong, that’s fine. In fact, from my experience, strong women tend to be praised in mainstream culture, and nobody I know seems to have a problem with more vulnerable (translation: less assertive) men.

Statement #2 – “We need to teach our children that they are in charge of their bodies, and not force them to give affection.”

And how do you feminists propose to do that? Do you plan on teaching sex education in primary school, or lower? Because if so I would have some serious problems. This isn’t the sort of subject that should be taught to children, and certainly not in the way feminists have in mind. As for “force them to give affection”, what on Earth have they been reading? I swear that whenever you wear the feminist lens you always see problems wherever you go, and whoever wrote it hasn’t bothered to explain this position. Not that I would expect one from something that’s meant to appeal solely to people within their echo chamber.

Statement #3 – “Because all over the world, there are people who don’t understand that NO means NO.”

Yes, you are absolutely going to get people like that, and if they are breaking the law then they should be punished. That’s all it has to be. You don’t need feminism just because there are assholes in this world. At any rate, most people already accept that no means no, and you’ll always get people who don’t, just as you’ll always have murderers even though murder is illegal. I fail to see how feminism is necessary in this sense.

Statement #4 – “Because women and men still become victims of domestic violence everyday.”

Gee, I didn’t know feminists suddenly cared when men are abused.

Anyway, you don’t need feminism to address domestic violence. Of course, any feminists interested in helping to tackle the issue are welcome, but domestic violence is not an inherently feminist issue, especially if, as whoever wrote this pointed out, it’s not just women being affected. The most useful thing feminists could do is to empower women to break their silence, and hopefully call the police. Other than that, you don’t need feminism for this.

Statement #5 – “Women are seen as second class citizens.”

That’s definitely true in Saudi Arabia, along with the other countries in the Islamic world, but not here in Britain.

Statement #6 – “Feminism has become synonymous with man-hating – this further emphasises the gender divide that feminism was created to break down.”

At least there’s some self-awareness in this crowd, but I would argue that feminism has done much more damage than simply emphasising a gender divide. The reason feminism has become synonymous with man-hating is because most feminists don’t care about men. Not all of them are misandrists, but there are enough misandrists in the movement that people can see feminism for what it is – a movement that primarily benefits women, and advocates for the supremacy of the female gender. As I’ve written about before, the actions of modern feminists have served to damage relations between men and women, mainly because if you keep beating men with the “sexist” and “misogynist” labels all the time, they’re going to get sick of it. Also, what positive thing did they think treating men like a privileged overclass to be overthrown would do?

The fact of the matter is that misandry has become a normal thing in modern feminism, and none of the mainstream feminists are challenging this.

Statement #7 – “Because fathers are not considered as important in their child’s development as mothers.”

I thought that’s what you feminists wanted. Make up your minds already!

Even if the feminists wanted to address this, how do they plan on doing this? I would argue that the men’s rights activists would be more qualified to handle this, but the thing is, feminists refuse to work with them. They view men’s rights as nothing, because for them, why would privileged patriarchs have problems in the first place?

If they want to address this issue, maybe they should stop constantly demonising men, and maybe they’ll get some results.

Statement #8 – “Donald Trump believes women are slaves! He will put an end to feminism.”

Well this sounds very bizarre, because I’ve never heard Donald Trump say anything of the sort. It’s another wild claim that sounds like the writer pulled out of Raw Story, or Salon, or some other progressive propaganda outlet.

As for whether or not he’ll end feminism, I severely doubt that Trump himself cares about feminism at all, but I believe him being elected represents the beginning of a cultural shift away from political correctness. A Trump presidency wouldn’t mean the end of feminism (you can’t really kill an idea after all). All that would be dead is the power and influence feminism has to shame people with, and in a way the feminists deserve it. The movement has clearly been corrupted by power, and has completely lost touch with ordinary people. Trump getting elected is the kick in the ass that they so desperately need.

Statement #9 – “Because women are denied the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies.”

No they aren’t, not here in Britain, and certainly not over in America. This is bold claim that, while it would be accurate in the Islamic world, doesn’t fly here.

Statement #10 – “Because men and women are the same at their core – we are all human and deserve to be treated as such.”

There are biological difference between men and women, and those should not be overlooked, but I agree that in terms of character and what we are capable of, men and women are equals, and here in the West we are treated as equals. We’re all treated based on the choices we make and our character as individuals, and that’s great. The problem is that feminism is not an egalitarian movement. They want equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, so they won’t be happy anyway so long as we live in a free and open society.

Statement #11 – “Because no country in the world can say it has achieved equality of the sexes.”

Britain has. America has. Sweden has. In any Western country, men and women are equal under the law. But that’s not what feminists mean isn’t it? No, they want gender quotas to force companies, governments, schools and other establishments to make sure that 50% of all employees are female. That is not what I would call an egalitarian society. Feminists don’t want gender equality. They want gender parity, just that equality sounds like a much better word to most people.

Statement #12 – “Grab them by the pussy.”

Oh give it a rest already! It was no more than locker room banter, that was recorded eleven years ago. It sounds unpleasant to a lot of people, but it doesn’t justify feminism. That you feminists are so concerned with men saying things that sound unpleasant to you tells me that you are more focused on policing other people’s speech than actual equality.

Statement #13 – “Because feminism can create a better world – for ALL the sexes.”

No it can’t. In fact, in its current form, all feminism can do is make the world a much worse place for both the sexes. You have men who are so afraid of how women will treat them that they are checking out of society to avoid any sort of risk, and you have women who actually decide to pursue a career in the same way as men do, and it turns out they are more likely to suffer from depression. Also, marriage rates are declining, more men are committing suicide, and we now live in a world where you can’t address any of those and more issues without having your reputation tarnished by some shrill social justice warriors who may want to get you fired. Is that what you might call a better world for all the sexes? I would think not.

Also, shouldn’t that be for both the sexes? There’s only two.

Statement #14 – “We are still stuck in the way of blaming the women/victim when they are raped or harassed. ‘What were they wearing?'”

Some people do this, but not everybody does this. Feminists seem to have the habit of sweeping everything and everyone with the same brush.

Statement #15 – “Because I still do not feel safe walking home at night as a woman.”

Probably because you’ve been fed lies by the news media. Trust me. I used to think I wouldn’t be safe at night on my own as well, but I was wrong. In fact, it turns out that women are safer out at night than they think, and that men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women. I’m so sick of this narrative that women aren’t safe at night just because of widely publicised incidents on the news. All it does is scare people into not having a life, and it seems to me like feminism is scaring women into thinking solely about how vulnerable they are. That’s the total opposite of empowering women.

Statement #16 – “Women in developing countries are still being discriminated against and are at a disadvantage regarding their education and their bodies. Being forced into marriage or having their genitals mutilated.”

Finally, a feminist talking point that is actually on point. I agree wholeheartedly that feminism might be needed in the developing world, and that’s partly why I’m concerned that most feminists aren’t interested in that at all. Maybe if you spent less time on safe spaces and trigger warnings, you might actually be able to get something done in those other countries. It’s too bad that’s the only statement that makes any sense.

Statement #17 – “It needs to be understood that ‘cat-calling’ is NOT flattering.”

Some people might find it flattering, and others might not, but I think it’s mostly considered rude nowadays. If you don’t like being cat-called, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t force everyone to think the same way as you. That feminists are so adamant that everyone think the same as them is precisely why feminism has become such a bad word in the first place. That most feminists aren’t aware of this is truly astonishing.

And yet people wonder why I don’t like feminism.

Honestly, I shouldn’t be too surprised, but it’s genuinely concerning what people in my generation are buying into. I know there are good feminists out there (and I sense that I will have to constantly point this out), but these good feminists aren’t being given enough of a voice. It’s the bad feminists who are commanding the dialogue through the mainstream media, and even though some people can say “they aren’t feminists” or “they aren’t what feminism is about”, but the sad truth is that a rotten egg is still ultimately an egg. The bad feminists are still ultimately part of the movement, and it’s because the moderate feminists allowed them to take over the movement that feminism has taken on its current shape.

In the end, we don’t need feminism. What we need is egalitarianism, which is superior principally because when you’re an egalitarian you don’t care about what gender, colour or creed you are. Feminism has failed because it wants to have all the power and influence it can get, and in the process, it has ultimately tarnished itself.

Why Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted

hillary clinton

For most people, the US election has come down to two candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Personally I would rather that people consider Gary Johnson instead, but it looks like most people are only concerned with Trump vs. Clinton. However, if I was forced to choose between just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as so many Americans feel compelled to, something tells me that I would rather see Donald Trump be elected president. Trump isn’t my candidate of choice, but I like that he is actually capable of appealing to the average man, and he does so often entertainingly. Besides, out of all the candidates, the one I hate the most is Hillary Clinton.

Before anyone gets rubbed the wrong way, hear me out. Ever since I heard about Hillary, I mainly knew her as the wife of Bill Clinton, and for a while, that’s all she was to me. Even when she was Secretary of State, I never got what I was supposed to see in her, or why she was even in that position (though I later found out that the Secretary of State is appointed by the President). I personally believe that people only support Hillary for the following reasons.

  1. She is a woman, and that means electing the first female President (given that I come from a country that elected the Iron Lady, that distinction is completely meaningless to me).
  2. She is apparently very experienced (never mind that her negligence led to an attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed).
  3. Voting for her means voting against Trump (probably one of the stupidest reasons to vote for a candidate).

The problem with American politics is that many Americans tend to be very tribal and simplistic when it comes to politics. If you’re not a Republican, then you must be a Democrat, and vice versa. In this case, that also means that if you’re a liberal, you must support Hillary Clinton, and if you’re a conservative, you must support Donald Trump. Neither assumption is true, giving the number of liberals who denounce Hillary, and the number of Republicans who want Trump gone.

Back to my point. What really irks me is when people say that “you’re gonna vote Hillary rather than Trump”, assuming that voting Hillary is the sane option. It’s very odd that young people, the people who should be diametrically opposed to the establishment, would rather support a candidate who represents the establishment more than any other candidate. It also bothers me that the establishment media outlets give Hillary unwavering praise, and that the Democratic Party is so willing to hand the nomination to her. That’s one reason why I don’t trust her. The other reason is that she will say literally say anything for public approval. In the past, she used to be opposed to gay marriage, but by the time of last year’s Supreme Court ruling, she appears to be fully in favour of it. Don’t even bother trusting her on the Iraq War, because she voted on favour of it. She also frequently avoids answering questions addressed to her, such as on the ABC interview where Hillary refused to clarify whether she was in favour of the Second Amendment, despite saying in 2008 that she supported gun rights. You literally can’t trust her on any position at all.

She’s also a pathological liar. Aside from all the times she’s flip-flopped on various positions, she once claimed that she landed under sniper fire during her visit to Bosnia in 1996, but even CBS could prove that was an utter lie. In reality, she was greeted peacefully, and there was no sniper fire at any of the army outposts she visited. Say what you will about Donald Trump lying, but Hillary always knows that she’s lying, and she lies more than anyone else in politics. Some role model she must be for young girls.

As bad as Donald Trump might be, he’s certainly no worse than Hillary, one of the most corrupt politicians in recent history. Besides the email server scandal, there’s a wealth of evidence that points to Hillary’s brazen corruption. Hillary used to be a strong advocate of socialised healthcare (I don’t know if I agree with the idea, but it’s nice that she once stood by that), but in 2006, she became the second-most highly paid recipient of donations from the healthcare industry, and since then she has never spoken about the matter again. Hillary is also known to have taken money from a number of multi-national corporations, including Citigroup, Time Warner, Dreamworks and Goldman Sachs (the company whose support I suspect is what gets people elected, since Obama had their support and he won), and shady investors such as Haim Saban and George Soros (who some suspect is paying people to disrupt Donald Trump’s rallies). She also takes in millions of dollars from regressive nations in the Middle East where being gay is punishable by death, with the biggest contributions coming from Saudi Arabia, who donated up to $50 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of Bill, Hillary also has a history of covering up her husbands affairs, as evidenced by the numerous former mistresses and rape victims who have come out and revealed the extent to which Hillary has been an enabler for Bill’s rampant sexual assaults. Juanita Broaddrick, a woman Bill Clinton allegedly raped in 1978, recalled that in a meeting with Hillary, she implied that Juanita should remain silent about the incident. It seems laughable that Hillary can campaign on women’s issues when she practically allowed Bill to abuse women.

And then of course there’s the recent scandal surrounding leaked emails from her private server. This was being covered up by her, her husband, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, with the latter being accused of taking bribes from Hillary. If you need final proof of Hillary’s corruption, yesterday’s verdict should suffice. The Justice Department decided not to press charges against Hillary, this coming after FBI director James Comey decided that there was “no basis for a criminal case”, despite the mounds of evidence for a criminal case in the form of the leaked emails.

What’s really telling is that David Petraeus can be charged for mishandling classified information while Hillary Clinton can walk away a free woman shows how corrupt she is. She is so entrenched within the political establishment that she can literally avoid punishment. It’s gotten so bad that open the revelation that she wouldn’t be charged, the people took to the Internet to express their disgust through memes.

laws are for poor people

At this rate, I fail to see how Donald Trump isn’t going to be elected. In my mind, Hillary represents everything that is so disgustingly corrupt about the American political establishment. She is a symbol of the status quo, and I’m not surprised why the elites want Hillary for president. However, we can’t trust Hillary. Her Machiavellian scheming has contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS, and if elected president, she will basically continue the status quo of the Obama administration, and she will do this because the elites benefit from this.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a damn about ordinary Americans. If she did, she would address the issues that Donald Trump has taken on board as part of his platform. I believe that she won’t because she is incapable of effectively challenging Trump on the issues that matter, and she would rather that ordinary people shut up and do what she tells them to do. She’s the American equivalent of Britain’s Theresa May, but she’s a thousand times worse. One of my biggest worries about 2016 is that America could do something completely insane – electing the most corrupt politician the world has ever seen. I fear this will happen because the mainstream media will most likely shame them into voting against their self-interest by guilt-tripping them into electing her because of her gender. So to my American readers, I would strongly reject Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption, a vote for the globalist elites, and a vote for the cancerous old politics of yesteryear.