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.

It’s time to wake up – the far-left are not your friends

Sorry I didn’t post much over these few weeks, but I’ve been quite bored with the topics of choice lately. All the anti-Trump hysteria gets repetitive after a while, and I thought I’d get overworked if I focused on that, so I thought, let’s talk about something other than Trump, because I’m getting sick of hearing from the far-left agitators in the media, especially when they all say the same things, stoking a new wave of tension as they do it. Of course, it wasn’t exactly long before the left-wing radicals decided to come out of the woodwork, and they’ve decided that their “allies” in the more liberal left are no longer useful to them.


The message couldn’t be clearer.

I am of course referring to the now infamous riot that occurred in the University of California’s Berkeley campus this week, in which masked, Antifa-affiliated communists broke windows, hurled smoke bombs, and started bonfire all because Milo Yiannopoulos came to the campus, to air opinions that the far-left don’t approve of. We know they are communists because of their general rhetoric, but also because this is the same group of people behind the riots on January 20th. The best possible sign of their communist leanings is their disdain for anyone to the right of them, and as the image above shows, this includes liberals.

It seems as if the social justice leftists, rather than accepting defeat, and helping to unify the country (which is unlikely because it means them accepting responsibility for the division they’ve caused), they’ve decided to make their enemy list bigger. It used to be that all Republicans were Nazis, then all conservatives, then all Trump supporters, and now it’s crystal clear to everyone that they hate liberals too, and what clearer way for them to say it than “liberals get the bullet too”. I’m not entirely surprised, not just because they’re communists, but also because the mainstream left in the West (and I’m not saying Antifa are part of that) has become so extreme that they disown anyone who’s just a hair to the right of them, who they label as “Nazis” (thereby watering down yet another word to the point of removing all meaning), which in their minds, excuses violence against them.

If you’re a progressive or a left-leaning liberal reading this, it’s time for you to wake up and smell your so-called allies in the social justice camp. They aren’t your friends, and they never were. In fact, I’m convinced that they’ve been waiting for a time like this for many years. In the past, it seemed as if the social justice leftists weren’t crazy, or at least it seemed that way to the moderate progressives and liberals, but that’s because the far-left have been using the terms “liberal” and “progressive” as a kind of trojan horse. They’ve infiltrated you guys, subverting the liberal left from within, and as a consequence, the mainstream left is now full of far-left ideologues who are solely interested in advancing their agenda, controlling the narrative, and suppressing those who disagree with them.

I don’t think even the moderate left-wingers even realised until now the kind of people the social justice leftists are, or what kind of world they would create. If they had their way, and we wind up having a communist regime, the liberals would be purged, along with any social justice leftists who aren’t members of the communist party.

If there is one silver lining, however, it’s that I think now we are going to start seeing more and more liberals and progressives rejecting the far-left elements that have been infiltrating them. Ever since the victory of Donald Trump, the far-left, unable to debate with the public, have resorted to violence and intimidation tactics, but such internecine flailing will come at their expense. The social justice left have been exposed for what they really are, and I don’t think we have to do anything, as the leftists will basically make themselves look bad every time Donald Trump does anything nowadays. Hopefully more people will begin to realise that they were being had by radical leftist ideologues, who are now springing into action to try and subvert America and Europe not through covert tactics as they usually would (because they have failed), but through coercion and violence, and I hope we will see the end of this repugnant nonsense once and for all.

I hope this wasn’t too much of a rant, but I wanted to get this out there, because I genuinely believe that people in the mainstream left have no idea that they are being used by those in the radical left as useful idiots to further their own agenda, and if the radicals had their way, the ordinary liberals would be shot. Now there are commies who outright state this. Is this isn’t proof enough that progressives and liberals were being duped, then I don’t know what is. I can only hope that more of the left-wingers who value individualism and democracy come to realise that they are being conned, and shun the far-left back into the scrap heap of history.

A plea to the few remaining good progressives


Let this image illustrate what progressives think they’re doing.

Following the recent victory of Donald Trump, I’d like to talk yet again about the progressives, but this time, I want to take a different approach. In my more recent posts, I have been absolutely cruel towards progressives (with good reason, namely I’m an ex-leftist who got sick of all the nonsense). In university I’ve met good people who consider themselves progressives, and surprisingly enough, are actually willing to hear my case.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I disagree with progressive ideology, and as I’ve demonstrated previously, I’m still a strong, vociferous critic of feminism in its current form, but I care less about the ideology and more about the people act. Of course, I’ve called progressives and feminists out in this site for basically treating ordinary people like absolute crap because they disagree with them.

Thankfully I haven’t found any of those characters on campus (for now at least, I’ve been sort of steeling myself for the past two months), but it remains crystal clear to me that these “good progressives” and “good feminists” aren’t making their voices heard loudly enough. I don’t doubt that they have good intentions. Of course they do. But the problem is that the movement is clearly dominated by the reprehensible social justice warriors, and many of the mainstream progressives (celebrities, politicians, artists, etc.) aren’t even trying to distance themselves from the bad actors, often because they’re trying to pander to them.

This and the many other failures of the progressives practically ensured Trump’s victory, and now even other progressives (the one’s who aren’t still pouting and pooping their diapers over a Trump presidency) are starting to realise that it’s partly their fault, along with the media, and which point we’re finally on the same page. Realising that there’s a problem in the movement is a good start, but I think it’s going to take a lot more than to get the public back on their side, and if you’re one of the good progressives, like the ones I know in real life, I’m willing to help, if that is you’re willing to listen. Let’s break this down into a few points.

1) Don’t shut down the conversation by calling the opponent “racist”, “sexist”, or any other “-ist” or “-phobe” you feel like.

Seriously, that’s one of the biggest gripes people have with progressives right now. They’re not willing to have a conversation on meaty issues such as immigration, black-on-black crime, radical Islam, or the biased family courts, probably because doing so would mean taking off the ideological lens, if only for a while.

If you didn’t want Donald Trump to win because you thought he was a racist, or a sexist, or a xenophobe (neither claim holds up to scrutiny by the way), then that’s too bad. Calling him those things didn’t work, and trying to shame his supporters with the same tactic definitely didn’t work. You can’t persuade people to side by telling them they’re bad people if they aren’t. It didn’t work when conservative Christians tried it, and it isn’t working today.

Besides, by abusing these very words, you effectively reduce their value. If every trivial thing is racist, it means nothing because the word “racist” has lost meaning, and it’s nothing other than a disservice to people suffering from actual racism around the world. Same with sexism and sexual harassment. It’s only baffling how a dad joke can now be considered “sexual harassment”, but the consequence is that it might end up being harder for people to take genuine sexual harassment claims seriously.

2) – Kick Marxism out of the movement

Today’s progressives get much of their ideas from Marxist theory, as well as critical theory as prescribed by the Frankfurt School. Such nonsense must be purged from progressivism if you have any hope of winning back public acceptance, and possibly winning elections. Marxism is not only illiberal at its core, but it has repeatedly demonstrated itself as a failing ideology. Every country that has tried Marxist ideals ultimately becomes an impoverished dictatorship where all the wealth, power and resources are concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Critical theory is also pure nonsense. All it teaches you is to deconstruct everything you see, while offering no positive alternative. Today’s modern social justice warriors think almost entirely with critical theory (they’re practically breast-fed with it in universities), and that’s why they see the bedrocks of society – marriage, capitalism, the family unit, – as problematic at best, and enslavement at worst.

Also, in what way does Marxism, or indeed socialism, represent the best interests of the working class? In the 1980’s, the Labour Party began to tilt extremely to far to left, and went full Marxist under Michael Foot. The end result was Labour being kept out of power until 1997. I can see the same thing happening to Jeremy Corbyn. He’s already turned the party into a living joke, and as long he’s continuing down his current path, Labour will be virtually unelectable. To me, it seems as if today’s progressives, by embracing Marxist ideals (to the extent that racism and sexism are redefined through the Marxist framework of “oppressor vs. oppressed”), have isolated themselves from the working class, to the point that progressivism is now an ideal home for champagne socialists like Russell Brand or Owen Jones.

What I’m trying to say is that capitalism doesn’t have to be your enemy. In fact, capitalism is arguably the fairest economic system we have because you’re rewarded based on the effort you put into your work, whereas in a socialist system, everyone would be paid the same no matter how hard they worked, assuming they work at all. Instead of trying to get rid of capitalism entirely, why not focus on reforming the existing system so that it is harder for poor people to be exploited? I’m not saying that I’m advocating this, I’m just suggesting a possible route progressives can take.

3) – Censorship is never justified, no matter who’s been offended

One thing that appals me about today’s progressives is that they find themselves justifying, and sometimes advocating for what is effectively censorship. Usually this takes the form of a progressive arguing that a Christian preacher shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public. Any progressive can make that argument, but that doesn’t make it a morally justifiable one.

The problem with modern progressives when it comes to censorship is that when you take away anybody’s right to free speech, for any reason, it sets an uncomfortable precedent. If the fundamentalist Christian is silenced, then it’s only a matter of time before anyone else can be silenced as well, and for any given reason.

That’s why I think progressives should abandon the whole concept of “hate speech” (which is essentially a secular equivalent to the concept of “blasphemy”), as it is invariably used to justify censorship. In a truly free and equal society, all speech is protected, without exception. The concept of hate speech serves only to demonstrate how authoritarian the progressive ideology has become.

4) – Stop thinking in terms of race and gender

What’s the most effective why to combat sexism and racism? Stop judging people based on race and gender. It’s really that simple, unless you’re a social justice warrior who can’t help but think in terms of race and gender. A consistent problem that many progressives are having today is that they’re thinking of men, women and ethnicities as collective groups, wherein everyone in that box is supposed to think the same way. This is how today’s progressives have been convinced that insulting one woman means that you hate all women, or that only white men vote Republican.

Identity politics, once the preserve of nationalists during the 1930’s, has become a hallmark of the contemporary left, and this has to stop. Nobody is buying into this identity politics crap anymore, because people don’t want to be judged by what they were born as. Most people can see straight away that the identitarian train of thought exhibited by progressives is no different to the very racist thinking that they claim to oppose.

Some progressives and social justice warriors are actually convinced that being colour blind (read: not paying attention to one’s skin colour) contributes to racism, if it’s not a form of racism. This, of course, is nonsense. I would argue that it is more progressive to be colour blind than to continue focusing on race, and therein lies the problem. In today’s world, most people are colour blind when it comes to race, and that’s a good thing because it means most people don’t give a crap about race. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about when he dreamed of a world where people would be judged based on the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin. What today’s progressives do, however, is slap to Dr. King’s face.

5) Globalism is not your friend

In today’s world, the overarching conflict in politics is not simply a matter of left vs. right. It is now a matter of globalism vs. nationalism, and nationalism isn’t as bad most people think (it’s only when you have extreme nationalists who think in terms of race that you start getting problems). It’s no coincidence that the progressives have been on the losing side in 2016. In Britain, they sided with the Remain camp, because the EU represents their dream of a borderless Europe. In America, they sided with Hillary Clinton, the epitome of 90’s-era globalist, neoliberal politics, despite the fact that she is overwhelmingly corrupt.

Coincidence? I think not. Today’s progressives are globalists, whether they want to admit it or not. The problem is that the globalist elites don’t give a damn about progressive ideals. It may sound like it because they are centrists, but really, all the globalists care about is enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the population. The irony is stunning because progressives often claim they are helping the working class, and like to think that they’re going against the establishment. The reality is that globalism is the establishment, and the people on the top don’t care about the working class. They don’t care about the progressives either. To them, you’re useful idiots who can help them propel their agenda.

By selling out to globalism (which I assume they only did because they don’t like the sound of nationalism), the progressives have alienated themselves from the working class, thus ensuring that they will be defeated in the elections and referendums to come, just as they have been defeated this year.

I know this might be a lot to swallow, but if you’re a progressive and you care about the future of your ideology, and if you don’t want to see a whole decade of right-wing governments dominating the west, then the onus is on you to be the change you wish to see. I know there are good progressives who are tired of the antics of those social justice warriors, and if you’re one of them, take my advice to heart. I’m trying to help you get your groove back. All you have to do is talk to people who disagree with you, listen to their criticisms, maybe challenging them. You can either take my advice, and the advice of other good-hearted liberals, or you can continue doubling down on the failures of progressivism, and ensure your continued failure for years to come.


“Toxic masculinity” is a dangerous myth


One of the most common buzzwords spread around by third-wave feminists and progressives is the phrase “toxic masculinity”, which is basically their way of saying “we don’t want men to assert themselves at all, even when it’s appropriate”. What they’ll tell you is that the term “toxic masculinity” is a way in which “the patriarchy” (yes, this comes from feminist circles) is harmful to men, referring to what feminists perceive as socially constructed attitudes that compel men to be violent, unemotional, and sexually aggressive.

Not only does the toxic masculinity narrative espouse that all men are inherently violent (which in turn becomes the feminist rationale for the “teach men not to rape” argument), but it also presents men as incapable of being any better than creatures of animalistic passion and rage. Of course, progressives and feminists love this kind of postmodern claptrap because in their mind, it lets them justify treating men as inferior, broken creatures, with the added bonus of giving them an imaginary bogeyman for whenever men commit violent crimes (for example, this Think Progress article, which tries to connect “toxic masculinity” with the Orlando massacre).

I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced that the whole toxic masculinity nonsense is not only sexist, but also ludicrous, and dangerous. I firmly believe that the idea of “toxic masculinity”, preached by charlatans and bought by impressionable readers, is a dangerous myth that can only bring harm to those who believe it, including men. How? Well put it this way, what could be more harmful to a man than being taught that his masculinity, the natural state of being a man, is inherently evil? It’s not even based on anything that could be demonstrated as observable facts. Everytime I glance at an article with “toxic masculinity” in its title, I can immediately assume that it’s dabbling in postmodernist nonsense.

And the thing is, I’m not entirely wrong. The idea comes across to me as what happens when feminists look at hypermasculine stereotypes of men and assume that all men act like that, or are inclined to. The problem is that in today’s world, men are taught to see masculinity in general as something to resent, and in the process, we a new generation of more sensitive, neurotic men who don’t stand up for themselves. I know this because I almost became one of them. I know what it’s like to question the very things that make a man what he is, until I realised that a lot of what I felt was based solely on resentment towards feeling unable to meet what I perceived were social expectations. To me, that’s literally what toxic masculinity sounds like – a way for third-wave feminists to tap into weak, battered boys by feeding into their delusions. It makes men weaker by giving them the idea that their self-confidence is “toxic”, and even a hint of aggression (which is sometimes necessary when sticking up for your interests) is misogynistic, it deludes them into seeking approval from others instead of commanding respect, and it instils a victim complex into men who are unfortunate enough to be infected with the ideology that inspired it. In short, it disempowers men.

Of course, the religion of toxic masculinity may benefit feminists, but what about women who aren’t feminists? It’s a time-tested fact that the majority of women are attracted to self-confident men who assert themselves when the time is right. They don’t even have to be the hypermasculine type, as long as a man can outwardly express self-confidence and self-control, then it’s safe to assume that those men have a reasonable chance of finding a partner. With the idea of toxic masculinity convincing men that they are the problem, the men who buy into it become outwardly weak, much like neurotic thralls who try to constantly appease women. The reality is that most women aren’t attracted to weak-willed men, passionless men who self-flagellate themselves in front of them, and yet those are the kind of men that feminism and the myth of “toxic masculinity” are creating, and so I’m not surprised when a man writes about how he allowed his wife to cheat on him with other men.

For me, the fact that major news outlets are propagating the idea of “toxic masculinity” represents a startling shift, but it says more about feminism than anything else. In its current incarnation, feminism has sought to tear men down every turn, and I’m convinced that it’s merely a way of exercising vengeance against men for what they perceive as a “male-dominated culture”. The feminists, progressives, and left-wing liberals in general have given up on trying to change the world for the better, so they are now engaged in the cultural destruction of the old world, because only by degrading the existing culture can you justify creating a new one.

The most hypocritical part as that the people propagating the myth of toxic masculinity claim to be in favour of empowering women, or creating equality. If people of one gender are allowed to feel empowered while people of the other gender are to feel ashamed of themselves, then I’m afraid we live in an unequal society at best, and a totalitarian society at worst. I’ve already known this for some time, but at this point it should be clear that third-wave feminists aren’t really in favour of equality as they claim. You can’t say you’re in favour of gender equality and yet espouse the notion that men are evil. It’s literally no different to how men used to treat women over a hundred years ago, just that today the roles are switched, and now the establishment media denigrates or objectifies men, all while hypocritically decrying female objectification.

huffington post hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of the media is never-ending.

The misandrist bias in the mainstream media is basically why Gawker thought it was okay to realise a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan, while also releasing an article condemning the leaked nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence. It’s also the reason why feminism enjoys such a lofty position in contemporary culture, despite the fact that nearly all issues regarding gender bias against women in the West have been resolved, while men’s rights advocates, who wish to address gender biases against men (such as the family court system, and the fact that prostate cancer research doesn’t get as much funding), are either ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by the mainstream media.

Next time you see an article decrying “toxic masculinity”, my advice is to ignore it. It’s essentially another progressive writer using postmodern gibberish to lecture you about why masculinity is somehow evil, and that’s just what they do if they aren’t calling masculinity fragile. It’s no wonder why both men and women alike have now been abandoning feminism, because it has ultimately become the means by which crazed gender ideologues can rationalise misandry, and because of that, relations between the two genders are more tensed than ever before. Masculinity isn’t toxic and men aren’t evil (most of them anyway). In fact, for the most part, men try to be good to women, but in today’s culture, a lot of men are so scared of crossing the line that they don’t know what to do, and we can thank feminists and the mainstream culture for telling them that anything they do is harassment. If masculinity is seen as toxic in the distant future, it will be because of the culture the progressives have created today.

A bad time to be a libertarian on Facebook


It seems that free speech on Facebook is circling the drain with each day. I’ve written before about how Facebook has been caught censoring conservative news outlets from the trending section, but now I’ve been hearing about how they’re removing conservative and libertarian pages from Facebook. Recently, the Facebook pages Being Libertarian and Occupy Democrats Logic, both of which were critical of the progressive ideology that Facebook marinates in, were shut down by Facebook simply for posting memes.

How bad were they you might ask? Not at all. They were basically innocuous, satirical memes. Being Libertarian got struck down for a meme that said “hating white people makes me non-racist”, which was a jab at the racial politics of the regressive left. Occupy Democrats Logic, a page that debunks content from the notorious left-wing propaganda page Occupy Democrats, was targeted for a meme that pointed out liberal hypocrisy on homophobia, highlighting how, despite the fact that both Christianity and Islam proscribe homosexuality, progressives denounce Christians as bigots, but don’t give Islam the same treatment.

Of course, the progressives over in Facebook don’t like satire (unless it mocks conservatives or is very tame), and they certainly don’t like they’re ideology being questioned, so they removed the posts under the false pretence of “violating community standards”, and before long the group page was removed. The same happened with Being Libertarian, as well as Liberty Memes, a page that shared the “silly Americans, laws are for poor people meme”, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. It’s not just libertarians who are being targeted. When news of Facebook censoring conservative news outlets from its trending feed broke out, Facebook began to censor conservatives who spoke out on Facebook. According to Lauren Southern, a conservative libertarian journalist from Rebel Media, Facebook had apparently banned all the moderator accounts running the conservative Disdain for Plebs page merely for arguing in defence of Donald Trump. When another Disdain for Plebs moderator called Facebook out for censoring conservatives he was banned too, as was Lauren Southern when she called Facebook out for it.

One thing is becoming clear – much like Twitter, Facebook is becoming increasingly intolerant of conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who thinks outside the progressive line of thinking that Mark Zuckerberg is clearly entrenched in. Indeed, we free-thinkers may be living in dark times, what with the social justice takeover of academia and Obama’s plan to relinquish US control of the Internet to an international body. Am I to believe that freedom of speech has become completely dispensable to the establishment? That’s basically what’s happening, and the controlled media is silent on this because they’re essentially on the same side as Facebook. With social media CEO’s like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey so trigger happy about censoring ideas and speech that counters their views, I can’t help but be concerned about the future of political discussion on social media. After all, if conservative and libertarian pages get censored so easily, how long will it be before people who post dissenting opinions on their timeline get censored?

All the more galling is Facebook’s hypocrisy on the matter of what constitutes offensive speech. They will ban people for defending Donald Trump, and pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals, and yet they allow Occupy Democrats to spread blatant lies, Black Lives Matter gets to spread their hateful propaganda on the site, and the far-left Class War group, which was responsible for arranging a violent riot in Shoreditch last year and are actually considering partying on the grave of the deceased Duke of Westminster, gets to spread all manner of hateful propaganda, including stuff that might actually qualify as “hate speech”, and they’re able to get away with it.

To me, it’s becoming more and more obvious that Facebook has a left-wing bias. I’ve known this for the past three months, and this concerns me because of how much I believe in free speech. I believe that everyone is entitled to have a platform, no matter how uncomfortable or repulsive their views may seem to us. If even one person is silenced, then the rights of all of us are endangered, because of one person is silenced, who will be next? How long will it be before everyone else on Facebook becomes too afraid to speak their own mind? If that happens, Facebook will end suffering the fate that Twitter is know – it will become an echo chamber for progressives and the far-left, and anyone who disagrees with the progressive ideology of its CEO will be censored or banned. That is the future I see for Facebook if this continues, and I can only look on in worry.

Satanic progressives

satanic temple

As an atheist, I tend to view all religions and religious organisations from an ideological perspective rather than a spiritual one. This is one of the primary reasons why I oppose the three main Abrahamic religions, because they are ideologically authoritarian (specifically, they would fall under the authoritarian right). How exactly does this lead me to talk about Satanism you might ask? Well, I am aware of the ideology of Satanism, and compared to most religions, it is actually quite sound, with its distinctly liberal attitude towards man’s earthly desires. Though I personally am not a Satanist, I know quite a bit about it, and I get that it is quite a libertarian religion, in the sense that Satanists believe that you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t infringe open the rights of others (including the right to life, and the right to bodily integrity).

Of course, there’s nothing the social justice progressives won’t try and invade, and in my opinion, the progressives are making their way into Satanist circles, and the main way this manifests is through an organisation called The Satanic Temple. Who are they? They’re essentially an atheistic Satanist organisation that focuses on activism, and utilises typical Satanic imagery in order to promote social justice (I wonder how long I have to wait for the Satanist equivalent of Chanty Binks to arrive on scene). Given their marketing tactics, you may be led to believe that they are a genuine Satanist organisation, but the reality is further from the truth.

They’re essentially little more than secular, liberal humanists who appropriate Satanic imagery just to agitate Christians, who seem to be they’re primary targets. Since their founding in 2012, everything they’ve been doing has been for the sole purpose of trolling the Christian right, despite the fact that the authority and prestige of the Christian right in America has been dwindling to point of irrelevance. The Satanic Temple have been doing so through a number of attention-grabbing shock tactics such as erecting a statue of Baphomet next to the Ten Commandments monument in the Oklahoma State Capitol Building (they’ll say it’s to do with separation of church and state, but they only target Christians), countering a Florida capitol nativity scene with their own fallen angel display, showing up at a high school game to protest pregame prayer, and most recently, releasing children’s colouring books for the purpose of promoting their religious ideology, and most recently, they’ve started up an after school club called “After School Satan” just because a Christian group thought of the same idea (never mind that the Christians have been doing this for quite a while now).

Those who know nothing about Satanism, including the mainstream media, will think that The Satanic Temple represents Satanism, but in fact they don’t. The Church of Satan, originally founded by Atnon Szandor LaVey in 1966, has denounced The Satanic Temple, calling their behaviour “disgusting”, “deplorable”, and “un-Satanic”, and for anyone who knows anything about what Satanism is actually about, they would be right. At its core, Satanism is a religion that stresses individualism and self-responsibility above all else. Meanwhile, the Satanic Temple does not. They emphasise compassion and empathy, and they openly state that “the spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written and spoken word”, which perhaps explains their consistently vapid troll activism throughout the years. Given the mindset of these people, what they define as “justice” could just as easily be interpreted as “social justice”, and their tactics and emphasis on feels is eerily similar to another cult that is rampaging through our society like rabid locusts – the social justice warriors.

They even have their own parallel set of tenets, one of which says that “beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world”, which literally goes against Satanic principles. The Satanic Temple are literally a bunch of progressives attempting to infiltrate Satanism, appropriating the religion as an excuse to harass Christians. Their mindset appears to be stuck in the 1980’s, when the conservative-dominated media participated in the “Satanic Panic”, in which they spread malicious false reports about Satanic ritual abuse in order vilify Satanists. The Satanic Panic eventually petered out during the early 1990’s, after the FBI proved that every case of Satanic ritual abuse propagated by the media was false. Since then, the religious right has been steadily declining in relevance, to the point that now they are simply seen by most people as a joke. Meanwhile, the Satanic Temple can’t get the old Satanic Panic out of their minds, otherwise their organisation has no credibility.

The Satanic Temple constantly pushes the narrative that America is a Judeo-Christian society, despite the fact that the American Founding Fathers were deist Christians, and designed the nation so that the separation of church and state is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Just because most of the US population identifies as Christian doesn’t mean that America is a Christian nation. In fact, Christianity in America is actually on the decline. Last year, a Pew Research poll found that the number of American Christians dropped from 78% in 2007 to 71% in 2014. The established media doesn’t even prop up Christianity anymore, and the Republican party, once the bane of liberal atheists, has effectively dropped God from their platform with the nomination of Donald Trump, a candidate who is decidedly less focused on religion than any previous GOP nominee.

Of course, that doesn’t change their tune at all. They’ll attack Christianity all day and all night, but I have not heard of them criticising other religions. What about Hinduism, a religion whose followers still practice a caste system, despite that it is not a part of the tenets of Hinduism? Nothing. What about Scientology, a faux-religion that regularly robs people of thousands of dollars for psychological therapy that doesn’t even work, and is known to litigate against its critics? Not a word on Scientology from them. What about Islam, the world’s most misogynistic and regressive religious ideology, wherein a woman’s voice is considered to be worth half that of a man’s, where a man is allowed to rape and beat his wife, and where homosexuality is punishable by death, often by such brutal methods as stoning and hanging (especially in Muslim majority countries)? They never say a word about it, unless it’s about Islamophobia. They’re willing to help defend Muslims from Islamophobia, but where are they when Christians get harassed for being Christian? The hypocrisy of the leftist Satanic Temple is truly astonishing, and even as it flies in the face of actual Satanic values, it seems to fit perfectly in line with the progressive way of thinking. In my mind, The Satanic Temple is literally no different in principle to the Evangelical Christian “Moral Majority” of the 1980’s, with the sole different being that while Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority operated in the conservative right, The Satanic Temple operates in the progressive left, just that we haven’t had any Satanist college students asking for a safe space from “nasty Christians”.

Like all social justice warriors, The Satanic Temple perverts the cultural identity it claims to represent in order to suit their own agenda, and I think this is happening. We live in a time where progressive busy-bodies are trying as hard as they can to subsume as many cultural groups as possible – whether they are religious, ideological, sub-cultural, sexual, or even racial – in order to increase support for their ideology, and it looks like the progressives have found a way to infiltrate Satanism, through an atheist organisation that is more ideological than religious. The real danger with organisations that pretend to be religious is the very fact that it is ideologically driven. Much like the social justice warriors, The Satanic Temple are driven by their ideology, such to the extent that they will not think on any other terms, and if you think I’m exaggerating, I have seen what SJW’s do, and I have seen the mentality of SJW’s in action. This is all too predictable, and I doubt that the SJW’s will stop here.

Buzzfeed’s privilege quiz (and why it’s dumb)


A few weeks ago, I was introduced by a friend of mine to a famous YouTuber known as The Amazing Atheist, who I now follow (I find him entertaining and brutally honest, and he seems to click with me in some way). One of his most recent videos addresses a new video excreted by those cultural neanderthals at Buzzfeed, which was apparently supposed to promote a “check your privilege” quiz that the same site published two years ago (but apparently is “trending” on their site, and the video for it seems to be doing the rounds online). The whole video was basically a putrid exercise in virtue signalling and blatant racism, and I enjoyed watching the Amazing Atheist rip into it. As for the test itself, it’s absolute nonsense, and in this article, I’m going to go through why.

For starters, it’s not so much a quiz as it is a tick the box form, except instead of giving you actual choices, you’re given a long list of statements that you’re supposed to click on if they apply to you, the problem is that the quiz writers are under the assumption that all of the statements correctly apply to one specific group – young, white, straight men who identify as the gender they were born. Given that I fall right into Buzzfeed’s most hated demographic, let’s see how privileged I could possibly get according to this possibly insane social experiment quiz.

Right off the bat, it starts out by asking if you’re white, and if it does that, you should know what kind of insanity we’re dealing with. In fact, the first bunch of questions address race, probably because race is at the top of the so-called progressive stack. A lot of the questions are completely ridiculous. For example it asks if you’ve been mocked for your accent, or if you’ve been told you “sound white”. Of course I haven’t been asked that, because most people in Britain have the decency not to ask me that.

It then moves on to sexuality, wherein it’s obvious that the writers believe that straight people are privileged because they have been insulted. Of course, it only highlights problems that may be faced by homosexuals in places like the American bible belt (which Buzzfeed assumes is what all of working class America is like). Not once do they consider that straight men may have problems engaging in sexual or romantic relationships with women, as I have had in the past. Of course, even if I were gay, I wouldn’t hide it. What about other gay men or women who don’t hide their sexuality. Are they “privileged” because they didn’t have the same experience as one might have in another country? This the kind of nuance that the writers at Buzzfeed would prefer not to explore, as it would wreck their entire narrative.

The next topic is gender, and along with it the assumption that all men are privileged (especially if you’re white and identify as the gender you were born with). Then again, Buzzfeed is rafter infamous for its SJW politics. None of the questions make any sense from my perspective, and most of the gender-related questions seem like a transparent attempt to shame men into “checking their privilege”. And of course, there’s one question which asks if you make more money than a professional counterpart of a different gender. What difference does it make if I don’t even have a job? I live in the UK, and right now it’s hard enough as it is for people of my age to get a job. Why would I even care if I get paid more or less than a woman doing the same work? Never mind that the whole gender pay gap is pure nonsense. Not only do women not get paid less than men, they’ve been getting paid more than men over the past few years, so Buzzfeed doesn’t have any right to try and convince me otherwise.

Speaking of money, the next section is one I could actually take a bit more lightly, but again, this is an American quiz. Here in the UK, there are a number of people who don’t have a car and thus rely on public transportation to get around. I myself regularly took a bus to college, and I still have to use a bus or a train whenever I go out of my hometown. Suddenly the idea of white male privilege starts to crumble. However, a number of these questions don’t make sense because I don’t live on my own yet (I still have three more months before I move into halls, then I can worry about rent). Then we move on to education. This may astonish some people, but I actually did spend five years in a private school (the Boston Higashi School to be specific), but it wasn’t a sign of privilege. I had to go there because my parents felt it would do the most good for me, and believe me, it was ludicrously expensive. We almost had to sell our house. Does that sound like the position of somebody from a privileged family? Again, this is a website that doesn’t like nuance, and assumes you’re privileged if you don’t know what Sallie Mae is (I’ve heard that it’s an American student loans organisation, but that’s about all I know).

The questions on religion I find to be quite laughable. I’m an atheist in a country that is mostly atheists. I don’t think that necessarily counts as any form of privilege. It just means that people in the UK don’t give a shit if you’re atheist (unless you live in one of those Sharia law zones I’ve been hearing about). And then you have some questions that are just pure nonsense. “I have never lied about my ethnicity as self-defence” for example. I have a few questions for Buzzfeed. Why on Earth would I do that? Why would anyone in Britain or America lie about their ethnicity or religion as self-defence? What time period does Buzzfeed think we live in?

After all that nonsense and more, how “privileged” am I?


I don’t know what I find more amusing – the result of the quiz or the hypocrisy of the analysis. The logic here is that being “quite privileged” is not a bad thing nor something to be ashamed of. And here I thought the raging SJW’s at Buzzfeed despised privilege of all kinds. It’s like original sin to them, though in my case I think it’s just them being pompous. Also, I find the description rather disingenuous. I have had quite a few struggles, and many of them involved being taken seriously as someone with autism. Finally, what “advantages” do I have, why should I “work to help others who don’t have them”? Is there any reason why my life can’t be anything other than a progressive social justice cause?

No answer? I thought not.

There you have it. Buzzfeed has some very warped priorities if it spends its time convincing white boys that they’re awful because of how they’re born. Recently they’ve made a whole heap of stupid videos like this, and they all share the same bigoted premise. They’re in the same camp as the social justice morons who think that being not seeing race at all (sometimes referred to as “colour blindness”) is still somehow racist, and yet people basically just gobble it up without even thinking about it. I can’t help but think Buzzfeed is simply peddling this SJW nonsense to an impressionable young audience simply because it’s trendy, but then who am I to criticise. Aren’t I “privileged” after all?

check your privilege

And here come the SJW’s.