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.


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.

The Simpsons writers show their bias (in the ugliest way possible)

the simpsons 3am

It seems as if the producers of The Simpsons can’t accept that the show is now an irrelevant relic of a bygone age, so before the new season even started, they released a short clip that at first appears to skewer both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which makes sense due to the fact that they are now the definite nominees of the two main parties. It’s basically an unfunny parody of an old campaign ad from Hillary’s 2008 campaign, and it also predictably revolves around Marge and Homer, who are apparently unable to have maritals until they decide who to vote (an immediate signal that they’re in fact the dumbest couple in America right now).

Given that The Simpsons are well known for their left-wing bent, I kind of thought that it would basically be a propaganda piece in favour of Hillary Clinton, and sure enough, that becomes clear after they “skewer” both candidates. When Marge and Homer are about to have sex, they stop after Homer whispers his preference for Trump, and Marge says that “if that’s your vote, I question whether I can ever be with you again”, with Homer concluding “and that’s how I became a Democrat”. Ladies and gentlemen, Matt Groening and the other Simpsons writers have finally sunk to the depths of their own leftist echo chamber, to the point that they’re perfectly fine with making outright partisan propaganda (despite criticising such propaganda from Republicans in numerous episodes in earlier seasons).

The message of the whole clip is simple – “vote Democrat or your wife will dump you”. I can’t think of anything more soulless that they have ever written, but then again, they’re such die-hard leftists that nothing is above them. They characterise Donald Trump very poorly, as if they don’t even care about his actual policies (“Put my name on the Lincoln memorial, disband Nato…and make me some scrambled eggs on gold plates.”). That in itself is unsurprising, considering that at this point, the two major candidates are so incredibly repugnant that all the Simpsons writers can do is appeal to party loyalty, if only because the two major parties are all they know. They may as well be slaves to the two-party narrative, because they didn’t even consider the third-party candidates that are rising in popularity. The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and The Green Party’s Jill Stein both make far superior candidates compared to the ones propped up by the mainstream media, and in fact, I would have thought that Matt Groening would have preferred Jill Stein, a candidate who sounds almost exactly like Lisa Simpson. But no, Groening and the other leftists in Hollywood would rather prop up Hillary, a candidate who is unpopular even with many Democrats.

I’ve already made my stance on Hillary quite clear over the past month, and as you can tell, I hate Hillary Clinton. I think she represents everything that is wrong with America’s political system, including the corruption and corporate collusion, and the identarian partisan politics that I’ve come to expect. Given how anti-establishment The Simpsons used to be, I find it even more infuriating that Groening will now endorse someone as painfully pro-establishment as Hillary Clinton, but that’s the least of my worries. I do hope Mr. Groening can sleep at night because by endorsing Hillary, he’s giving a free pass to corruption, and what’s worse if that he’s wrapping it up in warm, bitter, mean-spirited, and terribly unfunny “family-friendly comedy”.

With other episodes, the Simpsons writers merely ridiculed the Republicans simply because they Republicans, or in earlier episodes, because they saw them as representing the horrid establishment of their day, but with the “3am” short, I think the Simpsons writers are showing that they are really scared of the possibility of Donald Trump getting elected, and that’s totally apt because they have become part of the establishment. Why else would their blatant propaganda be praised by the likes of, Huffington Post, or Rolling Stone? Like the rest of the cultural and political establishment, they’re scared because Donald Trump is the candidate that people actually want, and they now that a Trump victory is almost certain. Nothing frightens the left more than a party they don’t personally like being democratically voted into power, especially if it turns out that Donald Trump, unlike Hillary, is giving air to the concerns of the working class.

Again, I have to point out that I am not a Trump supporter. I am not a fan of Trump, but there are things about him I like, and things I don’t like. I think he’s a buffoon who’s more talk than policy, but as much as I’m against the Republicans, I hate the Democrats even worse, and I despise the blatant propaganda coming out of the mainstream media, and the way The Simpsons had done it in their short clip is so far the worst example of it. Done without care or subtlety (it’s extremely obvious that they’re pro-Clinton), it’s perhaps the most infuriating symptom of just how far they’ve fallen in pursuit of popularity, reverence, and continued adulation, and that frustrates me to no end. I used to love The Simpsons, but in just two minutes, whatever little respect I had for the show or their writers (and I’m surprised I still had any) has vanished as I see that they have become little more than a whelping Clinton Pravda. If you think I’m exaggerating here, the clip is below, but trust me, if you don’t like Hillary Clinton or the later Simpsons episodes, you will probably not like what you see one bit.

Why do neofeminists hate marriage so much?

julie bindel

Marriage always sounds immediately bleak to those who are bitter, like this woman pictured here.

Remember the days when feminists were campaigning for a woman’s right to make her own choices? Apparently those days are gone, and today’s axe-crazy feminists are too busy looking for dragons to slay. That is to say that, despite the movement having accomplished the goal of establishing equality between the sexes, they’re hell bent on eliminating every last spec of “sexism”, and they see it everywhere. An easy example of this is can be found in a video produced by The Guardian, featuring the noted radical feminist Julie Bindel.

The video itself has been doing the rounds online for about a month, and since then it’s pretty much been trashed by nearly everyone on the Internet, and rightly so because you need only to watch it in order to see how bad the premise is. Bindel basically argues that marriage “can never be a feminist act” because she sees it as an institution that has “curtailed women’s freedom” for centuries. First of all, why does marriage have to be feminist, or is it merely a matter of whether or not it is compatible with the feminist gospel? Second of all, I would argue that marriage is only oppressive if you feel it to be that way. If the feminist views marriage as inherently bad, then she must have had a bad opinion of it, whether through experiencing a loveless marriage (which can and does happen), or through hearing of several accounts of abusive marriages in this country or elsewhere.

I find Bindel’s assertion of marriage as a purely patriarchal institution to be laughable. If marriage worked in men’s favour, why is it that a woman gets to take half your belongings and your house when you split up? I’m sure Ms. Bindel is bereft of an answer to this question, but it’s a real phenomenon. If marriage favoured men why do women win custody over the children more often than men do? Also, why does marriage have to be about equality or about male privilege? It’s got nothing to do with either. Isn’t marriage supposed to be about love? Isn’t that why men don’t marry until they find a woman they truly love?

She then goes on about how marriage supposedly devalues women as property through two nonsensical arguments. First, she asserts that the tradition of a bride being given away by her father is supposedly symbolic of the bride being “her father’s and then her husband’s property”. I have never heard that idea until now, and it’s completely false too. People don’t think of it in terms of property. It’s just a romantic tradition that people have kept over the centuries. I suppose the whole “property” bullshit is related to the idea that a man has to get his girlfriend’s parents’ approval to see or marry her. It’s a very old idea, but I doubt that it’s remotely necessary. If a man wants to have this tradition, then more power to him. As for the idea of “property” in the context of Mary Wallstonecraft’s claim that marriage is a “legal state of prostitution”, that’s also false. I hope there aren’t people around today who still think marriage is basically prostitution, and if there are, they probably support the government paying for free birth control products. You can’t condemn marriage as prostitution while simultaneously prostituting your birth control rights to the government, and having the taxpayer pay for it.

Secondly, she asserts that there’s a bias in favour of brides being virgins, and claiming that the mere idea of brides being virgins before marriage is “insulting to women”. It’s because we don’t view women as property that we don’t expect women to be virgins before we marry them. If all men were fussy enough that they will only marry virgins, then they’d only be alienating themselves from potential partners, and we all know that finding a partner who is a virgin will become more difficult as you get older, because it’s generally safe to assume that nearly everyone over 35 is no longer a virgin. Also, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to marry a virgin as long as she’s not forced to be a virgin, and I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with marrying a non-virgin.

I’ve written before about how virginity isn’t a bad thing, but I think it in today’s post-feminist world, virginity has become frowned upon by young people. In the old days, virginity was more highly valued, and even today men do tend to seek out virgins, not because of any “patriarchal traditions”, but because heterosexual men are biologically driven to find a partner who, to their knowledge, is a virgin. That’s still sort of true today, but nowadays, while a lot of men still like the idea of having sex with a virgin, it generally doesn’t matter whether or not you’re a virgin. Ultimately, straight men like myself want to marry a woman whose nice, caring, trustworthy, honest, and one who’ll raise a family with us. That’s the reason why promiscuous women are frowned upon in society, because anyone who’s promiscuous can’t be trusted to commit to a relationship with you, and certainly can’t be trusted to raise a family with you. It’s got nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with trust.

Ms. Bindel also appears to have confused our society with the Islamic world, where women are treated like cattle, and are expected to be virgins until they’re married. In fact, later on in the video she states that it’s still legal for a man to rape his wife in 47 countries. What she won’t mention is that in the vast majority of those countries are either Islamic countries, or African nations where Christianity is the main religion, with some exceptions. Most of those countries are third world nations with retrograde cultural values, and many of those countries have a terrible human rights record anyway. The minute you look at those facts, the idea of marriage running counter to human rights falls apart quickly. Yes, there are countries that still allow forced marriages, arranged marriages, child brides and what have you, and that’s awful, but we don’t allow that precisely because we understand that it’s immoral.

I won’t go through the rest of her argument, since it basically falls apart on its own, but her overall message seems to be about convincing women that marriage cannot be a feminist act. Here’s my question – why should marriage be a feminist act? Marriage shouldn’t be about politics, or ideology, or equality, or power, or anything else other than love between two people. The fact that neofeminists like Julie Bindel are incapable of grasping that tells you everything you need to know about their ideology. They assume the worst of every choice you make. When the feminists see a married couple, they see a sex slave controlled by a man. When the feminists see an independent woman dressing lightly because she feels like it, they see a woman dressing to gain the attention of a man. Even innocuous conversations between a man and a woman can be interpreted by feminists as a man harassing a woman. The feminist worldview in this case is a very bleak and ugly worldview where the agency of a woman is always in doubt. This and other logical fallacies are why I find feminism and progressivism so abhorrent.

I think that feminists, along the SJW’s and their allies in the left-wing media, just want to abolish the institution of marriage altogether because they are ideologically opposed to it, so they’ll use any argument they can to try and repel young people away from marriage, and in America at least they’re succeeding. A growing number of American men are giving up on marriage, with just 26% of millennials choosing to get married compared to 48% of baby boomers. Meanwhile, monogamy itself has come to be seen as uncool, old-fashioned and naive, and I personally blame the feminists and the progressives in the mainstream media for it. They’ve created the myth that marriage is like a prison, and they’ve convinced men to despise marriage by convincing them that they’ll be spending their married lives with a wife metaphorically pulling him on leash, when in reality, there is no evidence to support that narrative.

I also find it very hypocritical that the mainstream media will denigrate straight marriage at every possible opportunity, while celebrating gay marriage all day long. If marriage is supposed to be about love between two people, then isn’t love universal? Why value the love of one couple over another because of their sexual orientation? Isn’t that the very same kind of bias that the progressives are supposed to be fighting against? It’s not just marriage that leftists are against. They want to destroy the traditional institutions of Western civilisation so that their distorted worldview can be translated into reality, because reality will almost always contradict the social justice leftists of the world. That’s why they want to silence speech that disagrees with them, to avoid being defeated intellectually by a more rational argument.

The ideas that the older generation grew up with – the idea of free speech, the desire for a happy marriage and a family, the right to self-defence – those are ideas that I admire, and the feminists, Marxists, SJW’s and Guardianistas want to destroy them. I imagine that the idea of little children going “Mommy I’m glad you’re home” is like nails on a chalkboard to them, but I don’t think most people actually believe the feminist narrative. Am I supposed to believe that Julie Bindel is happier than the average feminine-looking woman who has a devoted husband and children who are happy to see her?

Of course, marriage is by no means perfect, but I personally feel that a marriage is only as good or bad as the people who marry, and that a marriage only survives when both partners commit to it. A good and stable marriage requires both partners to attend to each other’s needs and care for each other, and I guess that’s too much work for marriage-bashing SJW’s like Julie Bindel. Whether or not you want to get married, it’s perfectly fine, but I feel there’s a reason that both men and women want to get married. They’re attracted to the idea of being together with someone who they love and trust, and when I have kids, I would rather they grow up in loving married family than in a single-parent household with them glued to the TV.

Pros and cons of war


I haven’t talked about war a whole lot on this site, mainly because it’s been very hard for me to decide my stance on the issue of war. On the one hand, it results in many, many innocent lives being lost. But on the other hand, it can provide money and jobs, and hey, it wasn’t always that bad.

In the ancient times, there were more honourable reasons for war, and if there weren’t, then at least the conflicting nations were fighting honestly (as in no chemical warfare). Now flash forward to the present, where today we have cowardly methods of fighting, which include chemical warfare, the H-bomb, and even the ability to coax nations into submission by threatening them with the big bad nuclear bomb.

In order to determine my own stance on war, I’m going to list the perceived advantages and disadvantages, weigh them against each other, and then make a rational conclusion. Without further ado, here’s the list.


  • Economic growth – War can strengthen an economy by providing jobs. Also, war allows manufacturing to thrive, especially weapons and ammo manufacturing. In times of conflict, more people buy weapons and ammo, and thus more money changes hands, which benefits the people selling the weapons, and boosts the economy.
  • Technological advancement – Competition and conflict tend to lead to nations trying to develop better technology than their opponents. Think of the accelerated progress in aviation technology. By the year 1900, we barely had any. By the time World War II had ended, we had fully functional fighter planes. Also, the technology that is created can still be useful after the conflict is over.
  • You get to play your part in history – History is written when conflict happens, and those who participate in wars play a role in shaping the course of history.
  • The aftermath of winning – Of course, what happens as a result of victory depends from country to country, but generally it means that they avoid suffering under the yoke of another power, that is if it’s that kind of war.


  • The obvious casualties – An inevitable part of war is of course the loss of life. Sadly, lots of the lives that get lost are innocent people who get caught up in the situation, and of course, many opponents of war (and advocates of world peace) tend to only see that side of war.
  • Hatred and propaganda – War is often used to justify hatred and discrimination against certain groups, which is obviously not good. The opportunity to rile people up against a certain group of people also gives rise to propaganda, as we’ve seen in World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the current Mid-East conflicts.
  • Environmental damage – Modern warfare has been known to cause damage to the environment. One notable example is the damage done to the oilfields of Kuwait during the Gulf War of the early 90’s. Before the Gulf War, Kuwait’s desert was healthy, in spite of centuries of nomadic grazing, and years of oil development. In the 60’s and 70’s, America sprayed herbicides over the forests of Vietnam in an attempt to deprive guerilla fighters of any cover the trees provided them with. This resulted in numerous toxins sinking into the soil and sea, many plants dying, many animals siring deformed offspring, and numerous other dreadful consequences.
  • What if the “bad guy” wins? – If a tyrannical nation wins a war, then they can do whatever they want whatever free nation they conquer. I don’t think I need to describe it.
  • Liberty takes a back seat to patriotism – In times of conflict, nations will want the people to support the war. This is why anyone who criticizes the conflict is seen as a “traitor”. This is most particularly true in America (which is ironically still called the land of the free), where several civil liberties have been occasionally curtailed in the named of patriotism. This was true in World War II, and in Vietnam, and it was true after 9/11, and when the US lands itself in other stupid war, the same will happen again.
  • It’s just pointless now – In the old days, wars would be fought to restore order, settle scores between rival powers, and for various other reasons. Nowadays, rich nations get bored so easily, that they need to come up with excuses to fight. However, when they do decided to fight, it’s only ever really for the money. The US invaded the Middle East for oil, that was established as a fact years ago. However, the media still tries to convince us that it’s a war being fought in the name of “counter-terrorism”. There’s no real, honourable excuse for war now, especially in the era of automatic weapons.

So now I’ve got four arguments in favour of war, and six arguments against it. Well, I guess I’ve never been supportive of modern warfare, nor have I ever believed the reasons for war. I can enjoy war in fiction and fantasy, but only because in there, it’s meant to be entertainment and nothing else.

Overall, yes, I do oppose war, but not in the way that Hollywood liberals and hippies do, because I do realize that some wars had to be fought in the past. But here’s hoping we don’t have to fight any wars for the wrong reasons in the future.

The myth of global citizenship

global citizenship


In college, there was one thing they were trying to push on us – the idea of “global citizenship”. What is global citizenship? Global citizenship is the idea of a “one world government” system in which all humans are joined as “citizens of Earth”, hence the term “global citizen”.

I can see through the bullsh*t, and I can tell that it actually sounds like blueprints for a one-world dictatorship, where all are united under one flag. They say that nations don’t have to go away, but if we are all “global citizens”, then that defeats the purpose of there being individual nations, as the concept of nations implies individual cultures. Global citizenship is just a ploy for what the preachers of world peace really want for the world.

In college, the posters said “we are all global citizens – play your part”. F*ck no. I’m not a global citizen. I’m a free kid! Even if I were a global citizen, who said I was? Who decided that for me? Whoever it is should come out right now!

People who push the idea of global citizenship hide behind the cause of “anti-racism” and “equality”. I guess that would be the logical extreme of equality for everyone. What really sickens me is that they’re pushing it on children. That’s right, innocent kids are being brainwashed into believing the lie of “global citizenship”.

This idea is obviously being propagated by vengeful communists who aren’t happy with the fact that collectivism doesn’t run the world. If I’m wrong about the “communist” part, please let me know, but for the purpose of taking them down a notch, I want to point out a few reasons why a society of global citizenship is logically impossible.

  1. Cultures will inevitably clash when they’re made to co-exist. This is the same reason why state multiculturalism is destined to fail.
  2. People will never accept a one-world government, especially not Americans. Maybe that’s why it’s being sugar-coated as “global citizenship”.
  3. People want to have their own culture. What do you think the Britons, the Americans, the Italians, and the Japanese all have in common? They all have a strong sense of tradition. Tradition is like the glue that holds together a cultural identity. Without that, there’s nothing that makes us distinct from everyone else. Distinction is the word. Distinction is a thing of individuality, which itself is a thing of glory.

What I’m trying to say is that “global citizenship” is merely a mask for a one-world government plot. Such mass collectivism can’t be tolerated. Now that I’ve told you the truth about global citizenship, choose now what you are in all this.

  • A free man
  • A slave to a one-world government (a.k.a. “global citizen”)
  • Or somewhere in the middle