Brits are forgetting the evils of big government at their peril


Big government is back in fashion, at least according to the findings of the latest British Social Attitudes survey, which revealed that 48% of Brits support the policy of “tax more, spend more”, referring of course to Keynesian-style economic policy. Considering the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, this is a very worrying trend. We are already wallowing under the weight of a government that is already too big, and yet we may be on the path of potentially electing a totalitarian to power in five years’ time, partly due to not just the incompetence of Theresa May’s campaign, but also because public attitudes are shifting in favour of government intervention.

To be fair, the free market case hasn’t been doing very well, and I blame the apathy of economic conservatives in Britain, particularly those within the Tory party. They thought that 1989 really was the end of history, and that they had won the argument against socialism so definitively that they didn’t need to argue for free market liberalism anymore. How terribly naive they were, for the war of ideas is never-ending. When Tony Blair won the general election in 1997, this heralded the slow return of big government, and of paternalistic socialism, but instead of arguing against it, the Tories began slipping back into their one-nation ways, to the point where we now have a party whose leader may as well be the leader of Blue Labour.

Of course I can’t entirely blame people for supporting big government. Since the great recession they’ve been taught the lie that free market capitalism is the root of all their problems by socialists who have been waiting impatiently for precisely such a time to occur. I also think it’s the byproduct of inevitable apathy. We had the pleasure of living in a free market society for long enough that we had forgotten what it means to live under big government. We also have a generation that was born after Margaret Thatcher came to power, and thereby having never grown up under post-war consensus policy, meaning they have never experienced what big government looks like, or at least they’ve lived such comfortable lives that they’ve never had to deal with it.

It has once been said that the death of liberty does not happen from outside, but rather it dies slowly, poisoned by apathy and indifference. Though this may sound hyperbolic I assure you that we may well be on that path if something isn’t done. When a government gets too big, it inevitably craves for more power, and that’s when you start seeing your civil liberties stripped away one by one, and they can count on the public not to fight for their liberties because they will be too apathetic to bother, or worse, actively support it because they may feel that it’s “fair and just”.

The sad reality is that there is nothing just about big government. When they raise taxes to make the rich “pay their fair share”, they reduce tax revenue because less people will be able to pay said taxes. Also, half the money raised from corporate tax (which leftists want to raise) is taken out of workers’ wages, so when you raise corporate tax just because it feels good, you’re actually doing good. But hey, you trust big government to look after so what’s the problem? Speaking of that, people also trust the government to provide free health care, but the NHS (which I will talk about in more detail some other time) is currently facing a rapidly increasing financial black hole, and is plagued by poor service and long waiting times. Without privatisation, the NHS is sure collapse, but we can’t even bring up the idea because the NHS has become a sacred cow in British politics. Just goes to show how much we love big government socialism in this country.

I hope that we Brits seriously consider the ramifications of big government. We should be working towards making government smaller if we want to see any positive change in society, because big government is the problem. Today’s economic and social woes can be directly tied to excessive interference from the state in our lives. When it creates more costly regulations aimed at large corporations, it always hurts small business owners the most. When they ban certain drugs for ancillary moralistic reasons, it forces those substances into the black market, which then grows and enriches criminal entities who take advantage of drug-users. Whenever they pass new crime and surveillance laws with the stated intent of protecting the innocent from terrorism, it instead creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding citizens, who in the end will be the biggest victims of such laws.

Big government isn’t your friend. It should be our sworn enemy, and yet a surprising number of Brits are in favour of big government spending, to the point that 40% of them would vote for a Marxist. If big government is back in fashion, then we will have dark times ahead of us, doomed to repeat history because our memory is short.

This Independence Day, let’s remember that America was always great


“From sea to shining sea.”

Today is American Independence Day, and once again, I’m compelled to remind us of the importance of patriotism in a world that is slowly but surely rejecting it as I write this. Exactly last year I wrote about the importance of national identity, and in that same spirit, I now write about why America deserves its place as the greatest nation on Earth.

Every Independence Day, or rather every year close to that time, you’re bound to get some sour grapes leftist and cultural Marxists whinging about how “America was never great”, or they’ll use the day as yet another stick with which to beat the President with. You get leftists demonising patriotism on the time of the year when people want to celebrate it. Of course we know why they constantly denigrate the American patriotic spirit, and that’s because they despise America. They despise everything America stands for because America isn’t like socialist Europe, and most Americans don’t want the country to be like socialist Europe.

This miss everything about what makes America great in the first place. What makes America great is not just the primacy of liberty in American culture, but also the opportunity for ordinary people to make something of themselves. America has a proud history of hardworking people (Henry Ford for example) busting their backs and using their free time to put their ideas into practice and make something of themselves. Many of America’s industries were born from hardworking people who were given the freedom to try out their ideas in the marketplace, and their success created jobs and wealth to an extent not seen before in the other powerful nations.

The greatness of America is also proven by the character of the American people. John F. Kennedy once said of Americans:

“The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor, and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly.”

I know from experience that Americans are generally optimistic. Not all of them of course, but I have noticed that Americans tend to be more optimistic that us pessimistic Brits. Despite what Hollywood and the left-wing media might tell you about Americans (including the amount of times people lump everyone in with the South), most Americans are decent, hard-working people just like us. In a way, the American people make America great, despite what the left will tell you.

The left has spent much of its energies downplaying and demonising American exceptionalism, because they cannot accept the reality that America really is the best country on Earth. For them to accept it means also accepting that their ideology will only harm the people they are trying to help, and they would be forced to abandon it, which they won’t do even if the facts are in their favour. Besides, American exceptionalism didn’t come out of the air. It came on the back of America’s many achievements.

  • They created the first society with liberty as one of its founding principles, and one that enshrined freedom of speech and expression.
  • They brought us much of the technology we take for granted, such as cell phones, personal computers, and the Internet.
  • They led the ideological battle against communism during the Cold War, and together with Britain and West Germany, they won.
  • America has done more to liberate the world than any other country.
  • America has created a society more welcoming of people of all different backgrounds than any other in the world, and most of the immigrants who come there want to be part of the culture.

Of course there’s a whole laundry list of achievements you could attribute to America, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it. The truth of American exceptionalism is self-evident. Why else would people like myself want to emigrate to America? If America was a horrible place to live in, why would anyone want to live there?

I’m personally sick of the idea that “America was never great”, and idea usually spouted by entitled leftist hipsters who are pissed off that the government is no longer interested in giving them free stuff to compensate for the fact that their liberal arts degrees won’t give them a paying job. These Starbucks Marxists in places like HuffPost or Vox are so bitter that they want all of us to be as bitter as they are, and they don’t care how good they have it in America. But this year, even as leftists continue to paint America as a nation in disarray (which, to be honest, is pure propaganda), remember that it’s all just agitprop, because America was always great, and I have faith that it will continue being a great nation in the future, unless of course the government screws it up again.

The greatest lie ever told

all you need is love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does despotism stand a good chance today?


So I noticed that a video from 1946 is apparently doing the rounds online again. It seems that it was released as an educational video by Encyclopaedia Britannica, and is notable for how chillingly prescient it was when it comes to America’s transformation from a free society to an authoritarian nightmare. Given that the film was made shortly after the end of World War II, the death of Adolf Hitler, and the fall of Nazi Germany, it’s easy to surmise that the film was made to warn the next generation of the signs of despotism. Assuming that’s the case, I find it tragic that today’s children simply aren’t getting that lesson.

The central premise is that you can measure any community in the world on a sliding scale with democracy on one end, and despotism on another, and that two effective yardsticks for measuring the path to despotism are respect and power. Starting off by measuring respect, the first argument is that as a community moves towards despotism, respect is reserved for increasingly few people. In theory, people in communities that would rank low on the “respect scale” tend to withhold respect for large groups of people because of their political attitudes, or when their wealth and position in life gives them that right, or if they don’t like somebody’s race or religion.

When I see leftists, social justice warriors and younger people disrespecting people just because they’re right-wing, I think there’s a whole heap of truth in that. You certainly can’t deny that in today’s society, it’s perfectly acceptable for people to deny respect to somebody just because they happen to be white, and especially if they happen to be Christians. Today we live under the illusion of tolerance, where we’re supposed to tolerate everything and everyone, but if you’re white, male, Christian and conservative, or simply have one of those traits, you’re treated as the black sheep of the family by establishment leftists.

After talking about developing one’s skills, the next yardstick is the “power scale”. Essentially it boils down to measuring how much of a share citizens have in making a community’s decisions. Communities approaching despotism, the film argues, see the power to make decisions being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals, much like France under the despotic rule of Louis XIV, or fascist Italy, or the various communist dictatorships that sprung up after the film was made.

The film rightly states that the sign of despotic power is if a state can disregard the will of the people, ruling without the consent of those it governs, and sometimes, pressuring people into voting a certain way (for example, in just about every communist state, you could only vote for the local communist party). Despotic governments also tend to have legislatures that essentially have little more than a ceremonial function, lacking any real control over law-making. There is in fact a real life example of this happing – the European Commission. Once the European Commission makes any decision, you can’t vote for or against it. The EU Parliament is essentially little more than a ceremonial function, as our representatives in Brussels can’t do jack shit whenever Jean-Claude Juncker wants to ingratiate himself with more state power. I’m amazed he doesn’t just go out and exclaim “I am the state” at this point.

It’s also worth noting that EU nations were either forced to approve an EU motion, or pressured to vote in favour of it. For example, Ireland initially rejected what was then a new EU constitution, but was pressured into voting in favour of it, after it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty. The Greeks also rejected a third bailout payment in a democratic vote, but the EU forced the Greek PM Alexis Tsipras to take the money anyway, leading his finance minister Yanis Varoufakis to resign. Indeed, during the EU referendum, the establishment tried to pressure us to vote Remain, but thankfully most of the voters resisted, and voted Leave. Meanwhile, in America, Obama enjoyed far too much state power, and when Trump ran for office, even the US government was backing his opponent. I think it’s fair to say that the West ranks very low on the power scale currently.

The film also argues that it is also important to measure the means of economic distribution and the spread of information in society, as those apparently affect the respect and power scales, and thus the path to democracy or despotism. The economic argument is that societies headed towards despotism generally suffer from “slanted” economic distribution, and I assume this means much of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. I believe the video has a slightly left-leaning stance on economics, but the point seems to be that in a society with slanted economic distribution, the middle class shrinks, and it just so happens that the Obama administration’s policies shrank the middle class.

Part of the economic argument concerns private land ownership being concentrated in the hands of a few, and communities that depend entirely on a single industry, such as mining. If jobs and land ownership are controlled by a few, the film argues that the community has a poorly balanced economy, and so despotism stands a good chance. I guess this makes sense in one way. Slanted economic distribution tends to result in the formation of an oligarchy, rule by a corrupt, corporatist class like we see having taken hold in Britain and America. Another major sign of economic despotism would be taxation system that unfairly attacks those in a certain income bracket. The best example would be America’s “progressive tax” system, which unfairly targets the rich. When taxes for the rich are increased, however, it’s only inevitable that the poor are hurt by the same tax hike. Come to think of it, the whole concept of an income tax sounds like a cheap way for the government to steal some of your hard-earned cash (incidentally, I’m eagerly awaiting a president who would scrap the IRS).

Finally, the film talks about the dissemination and evaluation of information in society through academia and the media, and this I feel is the most important lesson to take in. In a society ranking low on an information scale, the press, radio, TV and other forms of communication are controlled by a few, and when citizens must uncritically accept what they are being told, which is something I’ve being trying to warn people about on this site for many years. Despotism stands a good chance when teachers are taught that their role in life is to tell young people to accept what they’re told uncritically, which is exactly what happens in our public schools. When students are taught to think uncritically what they hear from the schools and from the overwhelmingly left-wing press, they are imparted with the attitude that they know what’s right because they saw it in a book, or heard it on TV.

It is a well-established fact that the more control the government has over the means of communication (read, they’re next target is the Internet), the easier it is for the people to believe exactly what the powers that be want them to. Government censorship and/or oversight is perhaps the classic example of press censorship, which manifests itself in Britain as Ofcom (a tyrannical media censorship organisation launched in 2003), and in America as the FCC (which, frankly shouldn’t even exist according to the constitution). However, freedom of the press can also be neutered by private interests, namely advertisers threatening to pull their ads if a newspaper runs a certain story. I remember a classic case of this happening to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. During the 1980’s they relied ad revenue, and ran ads from a tobacco corporation. When the magazine ran a story that wasn’t friendly to the tobacco industry, they had their ads pulled, costing the magazine valuable ad revenue. Today, private interests still pose a threat to people who speak the truth on YouTube, which can now cut off a YouTuber’s ad revenue from videos that offend’s the site’s purposely vague content guidelines.

This is the kind of thing I have been against since I founded this site, and I think it’s stunning to find out that people in the 1940’s were more aware of this sort of thing then we are today, and yet we look at them now as backwards just because they had different values than we do (for better or worse by the way). I’d say Western civilisation stands very low in all the scales, because when you look at the signs, the only conclusion I can draw is that the West is headed for the path of despotism, and has been treading this path since the middle of the Cold War.

The signs are obvious. Government is getting bigger and more illiberal, with more power concentrated into the hands of a few, the media is a tightly controlled propaganda mechanism, information is controlled and forcibly accepted as academic truth, the economy is slanted in favour of corporate interests, and respect is reserved for an elite celebrity class, all of whom say the same things (climate change is real, Trump is bad, Brexit is bad, borders are racist, etc.). At this point, how can I not come up with the conclusion that we are on the path to despotism?

However, I believe that there is a way out. We need to shrink the role of government, abandon cultural Marxism, stop ingratiating the multi-national corporations with more privileges than they already have, and we need to teach the next generation to question what they’re being told. I believe that we are capable of reversing the damage done, so that we can return to the path of liberty, but we want to have very little time. I believe that either the West has only two options. Either it can turn away from the path of despotism, or become consumed by it and be compelled to repeat history, whether it falls prey to communism or fascism. Neither outcome would be desirable, and both outcomes would lead to the ruination of a once great civilisation.

Mared Parry, what are you defending?

binge drinking

I came across an article published by The Tab, a news site clearly aimed at young people, entitled “‘Today’s young women’ can do as they please, Sarah Vine“, written by a young lady named Mared Parry. It was written as a response to an article written in The Daily Mail by Sarah Vine, which mostly came across as a sensationalist brand of moralising on the drunk youngsters on New Years Eve (which is something they seem to do every year after NYE). I read Mared’s article, and I was thoroughly disgusted, mainly because of the sub-heading, which reads as follows.

Drunk girls on NYE aren’t the disgrace the Daily Mail wants them to be. They’re an inspiration.


I’m sure the majority are not a complete disgrace, but to say they’re an inspiration makes me sick. I genuinely hate articles like this, because they illicit a gutturally conservative reaction from me, and it makes me think that she and the other writers at The Tab can’t really see the bigger picture here. The article itself seems to celebrate young women getting drunk and out of control. To her, it’s just them “having fun”, and the photos that get taken are “positive”. Earth to Mared Parry, they aren’t positive. I’m pretty sure most people would find them embarrassing when they’re posted. If I got drunk and people took pictures of me acting like a moron, I would be embarrassed, and worse still I would want them taken down if they got published.

Given that she’s talking about Sarah Vine’s article on the Daily Mail, I did read the other article, for which she has been kind enough to provide a link. Vine’s article, clearly written from a socially conservative point of view, makes a lot of bold claims that can easily be disproven with a bit of Google searching (including some bogus stats), and constantly stresses the moral issue. I disagree with her style of writing. I’ve found other sensationalist Daily Mail articles released just after New Year’s Eve, and the whole reason those articles exist is that they’re emotional porn for the site’s readership. It’s easy bait, but apparently Ms. Parry fell for it, and in her article she makes herself look even more retarded than The Daily Mail, which, a year or two ago, I thought would have been impossible.

Apparently her main problem with the Sarah Vine’s coverage isn’t that it’s sensationalist (which is true), nor that it’s inaccurate (which is also true), but with the fact that the article is not only aimed at women, but is also written by a woman. First of all, if that’s her main problem, I can only assume that she must be a feminist (why else would she focus on women). Second, I think this makes her a hypocrite, in the sense that if The Daily Mail wrote an article about drunk boys, she wouldn’t give a damn unless it suited her. Indeed, she does ask the question of “where are the pictures of the young men getting too drunk? Why aren’t they being shamed for it?”. If she wants to see drunk boys, she can find them on Google. There’s plenty of them out there.

I kind of suspected that Parry might be a feminist social justice warrior, which is ultimately proven by her dismissal of Sarah Vine and anyone like her as “clinging to their internalised misogyny”. Only feminists and social justice warriors believe in the myth of internalised misogyny. It’s basically their word for women who aren’t feminist. Of course, the same author previously wrote an article calling for girls to “stop assuming guys will pay for their dates“, claiming that it “doesn’t fit the fight for equality”. In other words, she sounds exactly like the kind of bilgy writers that infest far-left papers such as The Guardian or The Independent.

I also find it laughable that she says that “there’s no point getting angry at the ignorance Sarah Vine spouts in her article”, yet that’s exactly what she’s doing. The entire article, inconsistent and riddled with hyperbole, is little more than leftist bilge, but I can’t help but think it’s worse than that. Ms. Parry is effectively an apologist for one of the worst excesses of modern society, and I don’t care if it happens on New Year’s Eve or Halloween. Binge drinking is a problem whenever it happens, and during the holiday season it’s even worse because it makes the NHS less able to deal with more serious medical emergencies because the hospitals and ambulances get flooded with young drunkards.

Does she have any idea what she is defending? She is effectively trying to make the case that binge drinking is a-okay just because she’s a student, and she seems to suffer the delusion that all students like to get drunk. I don’t. In fact, I hate the idea of binge drinking, and I especially hate it when people like Ms. Parry binge drink, because it makes the rest of us young people look like irresponsible jackasses, and Ms. Parry’s defence essentially amounts to “YOLO”, which has never, in all of human history, been a strong counter-argument.

To me, her attitude represents the kind of overly permissive attitudes we have on binge drinking that we as a society have cultivated over the years, due chiefly to poor parenting, and the promotion of American-style alcohol culture as seen in films like Animal HouseSuperbad, and American Pie. Normally I’m not this conservative on anything, but on this, I can’t help but react this way. When I look at binge drinking, I don’t see a good time, or even something that could be considered normal. Instead I see a generation that, if only for brief moments of our time, surrenders itself to nihilistic excess, trading in their better judgment for cheap, short-term thrills, all while squandering what little money they have in the process. I see it happening all too frequently in university (not all young people, but most of them).

Both Mared Parry and Sarah Vine are disingenuous pearl-clutchers, but I think Ms. Parry’s article is far worse because it illustrates a complete lack of regard for self-control, essentially saying its great to get shitfaced, and it shows the self-centeredness of modern student culture, and indeed the modern left.

Stop moaning about 2016 already!


Pictured: Two entitled leftists moaning about how they lost everything.

As the current year draws to a close, the one thing that’s absolutely is that clear my Facebook feed is flooded with memes that are effectively designed to persuade you that “2016 is the worst”, as if I hadn’t already heard that from everyone in the fossilized media, including resident shill John Oliver. Pretty much everyone in the left-leaning commentariat is screeching from their soapboxes that 2016 was the worst year on record, and the reason why is obvious – they lost, and they have shown the world that leftists are terrible losers, because when the going gets tough for them, they cry “RACIST”. Of course the veritable avalance of celebrity deaths hasn’t helped, and to be fair, I don’t appreciate having lost David Bowie, and two parts of Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

In spite of the negatives, I actually think that 2016 is actually one of the best years I’ve had the luxury of living through. First of all, this was the year I finally made it to university, and possibly a future career. Second of all, this was the year in which I finally overcame the nihilistic predilections of modern youth (I’m still a goth, but at least I’m finally out of the depressive phase that dominated the previous two years). Third, and the most important point, this was the year in which most of the population finally realised that they had been lied to by the media and political establishment, and vented their rage in the ballot box, including me. I realised that I was being lied to by the left. Now, I’m a hardened right-wing anti-SJW, and yes, I feel absolutely no shame in calling myself “right-wing”, because the left-wing political establishment has turned it into yet another meaningless insult.

The left-wing commentariat doesn’t even realise it, but most of the world is tired of being told what to think by an ideological overclass that has become increasingly out of touch with reality, and increasingly more authoritarian, which is why I abandoned the left. They’re so privileged that they can’t see why the public are revolting against them, because instead of talking to them, they’re talking down to them, and in doing so, the left has dug its own grave, as I’ve spent a few posts recently pointing that out (though my uni work has taken over, so it’s been hard posting again).

And therein lies the crux of the matter, the leftists are mad that they lost, and they’ve resorted to fearmongering and whinging, and nothing exemplifies this better than Flo and Joan’s “2016 Song”, which essentially amounts to two minutes of potty-mouthed regressive whinging from people who have obviously been brainwashed by the mainstream media, which ultimately reinforces the biggest lesson of 2016. We have all been lied to, and now we see the liars as they truly are. It was ultimately heartening for me to see the general public come to the conclusion I had already reached four years ago, that the mainstream media is full of agenda-driven liars who are more interested in lining their pockets with cash than informing the public, who they look upon as plebs anyway.

The point is, 2016 has been a great year because it proves that the spirit of rebellion hasn’t been killed yet, and that if things go bad for us, we have the ability to turn things around if we desire it. If anything, 2016 has been the most positive year in a long time. If you want a bad year, try 1914 (the start of World War I), or 1929 (the start of the Great Depression), or 1347 (when the Black Death broke out in Europe)? Hell, why not try the year 476, when the Western Roman Empire collapsed? I’m sure that was way worse than all the “horrors” that 2016 had to offer. If you think we have it bad in the West right now just because the right-wingers are coming back into power, you obviously haven’t been to the Philippines, where upwards of 6,000 people have been killed in a nonsensical “war on drugs”. What about Libya, which is essentially a failed state thanks to Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State? What about Venezuela, a country that can’t afford to feed its people? What about Syria, a country that became a war zone thanks to intervention from the West and Russia? All of those countries and more have it FAR worse than we do, and yet the left acts like the world is coming to an end just because a man they personally hate became the President?

I know this is more of a rant than usual, but as 2016 draws its last breath, I thought it was time to finally show how I really felt about the current year, in all its blazing glory as the “progressive”, globalist establishment finally crumbles before my eyes. Do any of these people think I care what they think, after they’ve lied to me for the past five years? I used to be a liberal progressive until I found that The Guardian showed its true colours, and after I found out that the right-wing arguments, for the most part, actually made sense when you don’t look at them through the progressive lens (which I’ll talk more about in a later post).

I honestly hope 2017 will shape up to be better than 2016, not just for political reasons, but because I think this the year where we finally venture out into a brave new world where anything is possible, though I think that attitude will change if things suddenly go to shit. Unlike the doom-and-gloom Clintonites, Europhiles and social justice warriors, I’m open-minded about the future, and I’m going to continue walking forward while the regressives in the establishment lurch backward into their caves and throw their little tantrums. Peace out!

“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.