The manufactured hype over the 13th doctor

jodie whittaker

Yesterday it was apparently announced that the actor to succeed Peter Capaldi on Doctor Who will be Jodie Whittaker, meaning that for the first time ever, the role of The Doctor will be played be a woman. Being that I haven’t ban a fan for nearly a decade, I wouldn’t really care less, but apparently the progressives and social justice warriors have decided they want to rub their noses about it, and use it as an opportunity to virtue signal after a number of viewers took issue with it. Indeed, plenty of people on Facebook, including people I know personally, seem to have missed the point entirely.

First, Doctor Who hasn’t “broken the glass ceiling”. Not only is the “glass ceiling a myth invented by feminists to justify their authoritarian quota policies, but Doctor Who is also not the first sci-fi franchise to have a female lead. The Alien franchise did just that since 1979. Did everyone suddenly forget about Sigourney Weaver, or is she too old to even be a part of pop culture history at this point? Second of all, from what I can tell the reason some people don’t like the idea of a female Doctor Who isn’t because she’s a woman. It’s because the BBC has a very poor reputation as one of the most politically correct institutions in the UK. Naturally this would give rise to the idea that they only selected a female doctor to appease progressives.

And they would be right, but I think what we’re all missing the real reason they cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor – it’s basically a massive PR stunt. You might not believe me, but it will make perfect sense when you hear of the circumstances. You see, Doctor Who’s ratings are actually falling, to the point that it’s been suggest as a reason for Peter Capaldi’s departure from the show. I’m not sure how much further Jodie Whittaker could ruin Doctor Who, being that Steven Moffat had already done that since the start of the decade.

From what I’ve been hearing under his helm the show has become yet another mouthpiece for the BBC’s lefty social justice propaganda. Perhaps the most nakedly obvious expression of that agenda is the creation of Bill Potts, a black lesbian who looks like a near-exact caricature of a middle class social justice warrior type, who I have to assume was created solely to win praise from middle class lefty fans and media critics. The result? It won over the intended targets, with many media outlets heaping praise on the show and Bill Potts, at the cost of losing more and more regular viewers who are growing tired of the pernicious invasion of social justice in their TV.

They cast Jodie Whittaker with the same exact thing in mind, and I think it what happens next will look something like this. Right now the producers are busy congratulating themselves on how progressive they are, and generating hype by blowing the sexist comments out of proportion because it’s an easy way to get clicks from you. When they air the first episode with Jodie Whittaker, I predict that the show will enjoy a slight ratings increase on the next season premiere, only for ratings to continue plummeting further and further when people realise it’s the same boring show with the same declining quality in writing. After the producers realise that ratings haven’t gotten any better as a result of this publicity stunt, the producers will probably blame sexism for their declining ratings, and insist that the show needs to be more progressive, more political, all while they have to once again fight off speculation that the show will be cancelled, which will probably be more likely to happen if I’m proven right.

After that, the new doctor will be treated with the same fondness as the new all-female Ghostbusters did last year, as one of the most cringe-inducing symptoms of a time gone wrong, and even the producers will distance themselves from it. If you think about it the idea of the 13th Doctor is almost exactly like last year’s reboot of Ghostbusters. The producers shoehorned a female lead into the series for the sake of appealing to progressives and identity politicians, using her a conduit for some sort of feminist moralising, and they expect you to lap it all up, deeming anyone who criticises the new feminist icon to be a sexist. The problem was that by calling everyone sexist, you will alienated most of the fanbase, along with ordinary cinema goers. With Ghostbusters it lead to the film failing to turn a profit, killing off all hopes of a sequel and forcing the film to be given a subtitle on all home releases.

With Doctor Who, I think you will get exactly the same result. If Doctor Who doesn’t get cancelled, it will probably come back with a reduced budget, and the next season will have even lower ratings, so either way the show is doomed, and its reputation will be thrown down the garbage chute. This whole big to-do over the new Doctor Who star being a woman simply reeks of a manufactured controversy designed to sell a failing TV show. It’ll probably succeed temporarily, but once people realise that the show is still in its zombie years they’ll probably tune out. The people who wanted a female doctor probably won’t even care. They just want to celebrate the show “breaking muh glass ceiling” and insert their agenda as far as they can. They don’t care that they’re destroying a show that lots of people like. They only care about whether or not popular culture is progressive, and if you’re not in line with their agenda, then they’ll smear you as a backwards-thinking bigot or a misogynist until you either comply, or watch your career burn to the ground.

That’s what it’s all about in the end. The BBC, and indeed the entire mainstream entertainment industry, has been taken over by toxic ideologues who want nothing more than to control the way we think, and they want to use entertainment to influence us into accepting their way of thinking, and it’s not working anymore. They realise that they’re obsolete thanks to the Internet, and they don’t like it one bit. They’re probably wondering “why do people not like our totally progressive revolutionary TV show”, and of course nobody has even considered that TV is simply outdated, and so is Doctor Who.


The violent year


So far, the year 2016 has been a year marked by violent acts of terror across the world. The recent terrorist attack in Nice is just the latest a string of terrorist attacks against the West, and the third major attack in recent memory in which the terrorists attack France. As was the case with a majority of these attack, the culprit was an Islamic extremist, but apparently he wasn’t on France’s database of suspected Islamic militants. As the world watched in horror and grievance, the Nice attack was followed by another sign of our times – politicians and the media doing whatever they could to dance around the issue in the name of political correctness.

France’s prime minister Manuel Valls has actually said that France should “learn to live with terrorism”, as though he would rather take it lying down than fight the obvious problem. He’s not alone in dodging the issue, as various mainstream media outlets have turned to blaming the truck the terrorist was driving, in a move that is somehow more baffling than blaming the gun a mass shooter was firing. Trucks don’t kill people, their drivers do, and in this case, the driver deliberately drove into a truck into a crowd of Bastille day celebrators.

It’s not that hard to come to the conclusion that this was a terrorist attack, and yet the left-wing media doesn’t want you to point the finger at Islamic extremists because they’re afraid that it means vindicating right-wing populist politicians like Donald Trump or Marine le Pen. The leftist way of handling terrorism is to talk about the evils of Western foreign policy as if the Iraq War hadn’t ended yet, blaming anything other than ISIS and Islamic extremism for attacks that were obviously perpetrated by Islamic extremists, and replacing honest discussion with virtue-signalling hashtags. None of that is doing anything productive, and the people are getting tired of it.

This weak-kneed handling of terrorism is precisely what ISIS is exploiting. Why else do Islamic extremists keep attacking France? If the terrorist’s goal is to inspire fear and capitulation, then obviously they think it’s working. I’m getting very sick and tired of society’s inept handling of the situation, and I worry that the recent wave of terror attacks is, in part, making us as a society numb to the existential threat that ISIS poses to Western civilisation.

As I see it, people are afraid to have a frank and adult discussion on terrorism and extremism because they’re afraid of being called racists, despite the obvious fact that Islamism is not a race, and neither is Islam. Islam is a religion, and Islamism is an ideology based on the more extreme elements of Islam. The media has failed to make this distinction, and has instead created a paralysing climate of fear. Political correctness in the West has gotten so bad that the word “racist” has become the nuclear weapon with which all discussion is silenced. In the case of terrorism, people are afraid of being called Islamophobes for simply discussing Islamic terrorism, even though it should be pretty clear that the majority of people can tell the difference between an ordinary Muslim (who wouldn’t kill in the name of Islam) and a Muslim extremist (who takes the Koran literally, and would kill in the name of Islam). I guarantee that if the perpetrator was a Christian, the media would spend a whole week making Christians look like the bad guys.

I’m getting really sick of this attitude from the media. I’m not a racist, nor an Islamophobe, and nor do I associate with bigots. I’m also absolutely certain that most people aren’t racists or Islamophobes either, and in fact, from what I’ve heard, most people just want to live without fear or terrorism happening in their own country. This is why Donald Trump enjoys so much support in America, especially after what happened in Orlando. The reason right-wing populists have gained a surge of popularity is because right now they’re the only ones giving a platform to the people’s concerns about terrorism, while the media and the political establishment continue to ignore or silence their voice in the name of political correctness.

As the dust settles on Nice, I worry about what country will be the next target, and how long the media, in all its pusillanimous narcissism, can deny the obvious reality of our situation. ISIS wants to wage war against the West. That much is obvious, but for some, the danger is that fighting in the Middle East will only destabilise the region even further, and some in the media refuse to address the issue at all because it gives credence to right-wing politicians. I admit that I fervently believe that if we intervene recklessly it will inevitably cause more problems, but the risks of not intervening are currently too great. If we really want to see less terrorism in the world, then first we must do away with the climate of political correctness. Second, we need to stop sending drones over to the Middle East, because that isn’t working. All drone strikes do is kill innocent people, and thus potentially galvanise anyone who hates the West into joining ISIS. If the West wishes to fight ISIS, then, as much as I hate to say it, the only option is to send troops to fight on the ground.

Yes, this goes against my pacifist beliefs, but if what we have been witnessing over the past year tells us anything, it’s that the West has two options – it can either sit there bogging itself down in PC semantics as innocent people are killed, or it can stand up and fight to defend its values, and fight for the freedom to live without fear.

Gay rights and gay jokes should co-exist

gay marriage

I now pronounce you…

In all the time the site was run, I never even touched the issue of homosexuality. I’m going to use this to present a less than mainstream version of the mainstream opinion.

Gay rights are overwhelmingly popular. Thanks to media, you’d have to be a monster to oppose gay marriage. I do agree that gays should be allowed to get married, but it’s more to do with common sense than anything else (e.g. “Of course gays should get married”). I really don’t care whether or not gays do get married, but I feel people should be allowed to make gay jokes.

You know what I mean. In today’s PC age, you can’t say anything that could risk offence. It’s not really a law, it’s just one of those unwritten cultural rules that people can pass off as common sense. What’s wrong with gay jokes? They’re funny! They’re not meant to be bigoted in any way. In fact, the way I see it, if you try and censor someone for making gay jokes, then you’re being bigoted yourself.

Before you ask, I do make abstract gay jokes at home, or sometimes in college, and I get away with it all the time. I don’t get somebody walking and saying “you’re bigoted”, probably because in real life, people don’t care about offending other people, let alone gays.

I certainly don’t care about offending other people, because why the hell should I constantly feel guilty about what I say under the delusion that everyone is listening, and anybody can be offended? If someone does want me to stop making gay jokes, maybe it’s a sign that he or she are insecure about his or her own sexuality.

The point is, I do believe that gays should have equal rights, but not at the cost of not being able to make gay jokes. To make one thing clear, I have nothing against homosexuals. I just don’t think anyone should receive “special protection” from what are ultimately harmless jokes.

Why we shouldn’t impose multiculturalism


Let me be frank, multiculturalism is fine, and I think people from other countries have the right to their own culture. But what I don’t like about our “neo-liberal” society is that it likes to force everyone to accept multiculturalism. It’s not the people who are doing it, it’s the media. Once again, the media is guilty of a flaw in our society.

How do they force people to accept multiculturalism? By painting anyone who doesn’t as a complete, racist monster, even if he/she isn’t racist.

My view on multiculturalism is this: if people of different races and cultures are actually living in peace with one another, as its supporters claim, then I’m perfectly fine. But if it means some of our crucial freedoms must be lost, then I think we need to have a little talk.

Obviously I’m not a racist, but do like the odd politically incorrect joke whenever I feel like it. If multiculturalism means that I can’t joke about whatever I feel like, then I think we have a serious problem. In this scenario, multiculturalism would end up encouraging political correctness, and we all know how bad that is.

There also exist a number of problems with multiculturalism. The main problem with it is that it actually encourages the idea that people of different races are different to white people, which would make the equality-loving supporters of multiculturalism guilty of hypocrisy. With this in mind, this also leads to a nation being divided over culture, which doesn’t help the cause of equality. Think about it this way: if any culture formed a community in a foreign nation, and complained about their culture “not being respected”, said multicultural nation would end up passing laws that restrict the freedoms of innocent people, just to protect other cultures from offence.

The other problem is that different cultures can, and do clash as a result. For example, one culture may find it acceptable for women to walk around not wearing much clothes, while another culture in the same area may oppose it. For another example, the Jews have a taboo against eating pork. Say a Jewish community was in the same area as another culture, which might accept eating pork. The two cultures would clash.

This has the same effect as hate crime laws: treating people of different races as though they are different groups, who need to be singled out for “protection”. That actually might make people more disillusioned with the ideal of multiculturalism.

On the other hand, the many flaws of multiculturalism do not justify racism and bigotry. Nothing really does. I think politicians secretly want to be racist, and are thus hiding behind things like multiculturalism as a way of treating people differently, in a manner in which it can be passed off as acceptable.

wolf in sheep's clothing

Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

In my opinion, multiculturalism is a solid concept, but due to the many problems it has, we shouldn’t make it the dominant mantra of our society. It just carries too many risks of culture clashes, rather than cultural unity.

Don’t let political correctness ruin Christmas

happy holidays

Don’t let the poster fool you: I’m not a Christian, and I’m not a right-wing conservative. I’m just an atheist who’s sick and tired of the notion of the “war on Christmas” coming up every year! Let me tell you something about the war on Christmas. It’s just a sham created by Fox News so they can attack atheists all December long. In fact, even if there were, it’s the conservatives that are doing most, if not all of the hating.

But that doesn’t shield the liberals and the atheists from guilt at all. The mythical war on Christmas is partially their fault. What exactly did they do? They tried to ban such classic Christmas staples as:

  • The nativity scene (which is sacred to Christians)
  • Any mention of Santa Claus
  • Christmas trees (believe it or not)
  • The word Christmas (it would have to replaced with “Holidays” or “Xmas”

I can see how Christians would be angry, especially with the nativity scene (it being the only thing related to Christmas in the whole Bible). Why are the more liberal governors doing this? Simple: political correctness. Yep. Once again, political correctness is ruining lives. The idea is that they don’t want to offend people of other religions that don’t celebrate Christmas. The problem with catering to those other religions is that now you’ve pissed off the Christians too. You can’t strive to be inoffensive to everyone whilst simultaneously offending another group. In that sense, they’ve failed their purpose as egalitarians.

There is a knock-on effect of fighting over “what’s wrong with Christmas” – it ruins the whole point of Christmas.

The point of Christmas isn’t about celebrating Jesus. It’s about getting together, having a good time, and ignoring all the world’s problems. Putting politics into it will just make it worse. Do we really want the happiest day on Earth to be ruined by the same ideological warfare that has made the world a rotten place? Absolutely not. So if you’re going to stand up for Christmas, then fight to keep ideology out of Christmas.

christmas in new york

In the words of Dennis Leary, Merry f*ckin’ Christmas!

The truth about political correctness – UNCENSORED

People of the world, we are living in dark times. I’m not talking about an economic crisis, or global warming. I’m talking about the continued rise of political correctness. What is it? A dictionary definition defines political correctness as “the avoidance of expressions or actions that might be perceived as insulting to people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against”. Nobody uses that definition though. The more popular definition is “the censorship of free speech based on a perceived fear of offending certain groups of people”. In a way, the latter is the truest of meanings. I want to tell you that it’s not only hypocritical, but also dangerous to any free society. To do so, I have divided this post into three sections.

1. Political correctness and racism

On the issue of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, we as a society are encouraged to treat everyone equally, regardless of who they are, and a lot of the time we do. That is where political correctness is a problem. Political correctness is actually very hypocritical in this regard, because just like hate crime laws, they encourage the idea that certain groups should be treated differently. If we curtail our right to free speech just because someone of a different gender, race, or sexual orientation could get offended, then we’re actually letting the issue of discrimination dominate us. Do we want that? I say, absolutely not! If we want to be free, we can’t have something as hypocritical as political correctness.

2. Political correctness and religion

In 2005, the animated comedy series South Park aired the episode “Trapped in the Closet”, a vicious satirical attack on the Church of Happy-ology (I’d use their real name, but I hear they like to sue people for everything they’ve got, nothing), which they believed was nothing more than a diabolical cult. They also used it to mock Tom Cruise. Naturally, the episode was pulled by Viacom, who wanted Tom Cruise to keep his promotional obligations for Mission Impossible III, which was released in the middle of 2006. What this means is that any religion can complain about being offended, and exploit sensitivities towards religion. Say an episode of any TV show was pulled because it offended, for example, Muslims. If that happened, other religious groups can demand that other episodes be pulled, and so on and so on until the show’s eventual cancellation. This is the exact same issue raised in the section before, political correctness is also hypcocritical with regards to respecting people’s religious beliefs.

3. Political correctness and terrorism

This one’s another South Park example. In 2010, two episodes aired, “200” and “201”, which, as the title implies, are the 200th and 201st episodes in all of South Park. They were pulled because Comedy Central censored an awful lot of them. Why? A radical Islamic website known as Revolution Muslim posted a warning that the South Park creators risked “getting murdered” for airing the episode. I’m certain it’s just an empty threat that the media took way out of proportion, especially since the man who posted it said himself that it was a “call to protest”, rather than a violent threat. Guess what happened after they were pulled? The “terrorists” won. And I put that word in quote marks because those weren’t terrorists. They were just radical nutjobs posing as terrorist wannabes, and yet they struck a critical blow to the values of our society. And after that victory, more and more of them will undoubtedly try to screw up the free world. This is the reason we shouldn’t cave in to political correctness, because if we do, we’re letting the extremists win. If we oppose extremism in our society, then we must oppose political correctness. Besides, this is based only on some radical, and thus false, interpretations of the Koran.

My point remains, if we support censorship based on fear and paranoia, then we are not a free society. If we pride ourselves on equality and freedom, then we must abandon the notion of political correctness, because if we do so, then I think we’ll be more likely to embrace equality for all. Political correctness is actually an antithesis to equality as well as freedom because, much like hate crime laws, it still views certain groups of people as needing special treatment, whereas in equality everyone would be treated the same way.