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.

Why is anyone surprised about Alex Jones?

alex jones

Recently Alex Jones, the host of The Alex Jones Show and founder of InfoWars.com, has gotten embroiled in a custody battle with his ex-wife, claiming that some of his on-air rants indicate that he is “not a stable father”. In Jones’ defence, his attorney, Randall Wilhite, has argued that Jones is playing a character in his show, and that he is a “performance artist”. If he is to be believed, one must now logically come to the conclusion that everything he says really is a lie. Naturally, leftist sites like Salon and Alternet quickly latched onto the story as an excuse to say “haha, we were right all along”. Yeah, we already knew Alex Jones was a con man.

I hope some of those leftists didn’t think most of us took him seriously. This is the same man who claimed, among other things, that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged by the government, and that nobody actually died. The same man also peddles various sundries on the InfoWars store at frankly bizarre prices, and I’m not even sure if they actually work. Alex Jones’ popularity on the Internet doesn’t really come from his arguments, because they are completely ludicrous. The reason people watch him is precisely because of his loony personality.

Of course, I’m not interested in defending Alex Jones. In fact, I’m baffled as to any anyone is acting surprised at the notion that he is a fraud. We all knew that for ages. Who other than the most ardent devotee of the humble vitamin water merchant clings on to his every word as if it were gospel? Nobody. We just lived with him because he’s a good laugh every now and then.

At this point, Alex Jones is a living meme. We weren’t supposed to take him seriously anyway, and only a moron would, but apparently we’re supposed to take conspiracy quacks like Lawrence O’Donnell and Keith Olbermann seriously? O’Donnell is a man who claims that Vladimir Putin planned the chemical attack in Syria to help Donald Trump, and Olbermann claimed that Trump wants to overthrow the government, and is so unhinged in his anti-Trump stance that he literally calls his show “The Resistance” (the irony of an establishment puppet calling himself the resistance is probably lost on him).

While we’re at it, I’ve heard leftists harping on about how Alex Jones’ brand of entertainment is “dangerous”. I guess anyone who’s actually funny is somehow dangerous now. They’d probably rather we watch John Oliver, an unfunny hack “comedian” who lies about Donald Trump all the time on his show, all while grandstanding in front of an audience trained to laugh at every inside joke. In fact, I argue that people like John Oliver would be more dangerous because he is given a more powerful platform to spread his lies, along with approval from critics. It doesn’t help that the media is full of late-night propagandists like Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah and Jimmy Kimmel among others doing the same thing – masquerading as entertainers in order to push the establishment agenda.

Honestly, it seems as if leftists think we’re children who are incapable of discerning fantasy from reality, and need mommy and daddy to decide what we can and can’t watch. We know Alex Jones is a quack conspiracy theorist, and we’ve known for some time that he’s a fraud. What? Do I honestly think Alex Jones went on the Trump train because he honestly believed in his policies? No. He saw an anti-establishment candidate who was getting popular enough to piss off the legacy media, and decided he wanted to cash in. It was obviously an effective strategy, because now even he looks more credible than outlets like MSNBC or The Young Turks, who have gone so far-left that they sometimes act like bland, unfunny versions of Jones himself.

If you ask me, the recent custody case won’t do much to deflate Jones’ career, not as long as he still has a loyal fanbase to keep him afloat (his YouTube channel alone still has around 2 million subscribers). Besides, if I’m right, then none of it will be very shocking to anyone remotely familiar with his on-air antics.

Emma Watson simply doesn’t get it

emma watson

I normally don’t like to write too many articles on celebrities (with my previous post being an exception), but given that this is about Emma Watson, the self-appointed Khaleesi of feminism, I simply couldn’t resist this time. Apparently the feminist film star drew the ire of sex-negative feminists when a photo of her in Vanity Fair showed her with her breasts barely covered by a white crocheted capelet. It shouldn’t really be a big deal, but as soon as it got out, she was branded as a hypocrite by other feminists, and her many critics. The reason I’m writing about it is because of her response to all this:

“It just always reveals to me how many misconceptions and what a misunderstanding there is about what feminism is. Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing.I’m confused. Most people are confused. No, I’m just always just quietly stunned.”

At that point I couldn’t help but laugh, because Emma obviously doesn’t realise what feminism truly is. Maybe in the past, feminism was about liberation, but today, feminism has barely anything to do with freedom. Certainly not for men, and apparently not for women if they’re the wrong kind of feminist. She has no idea what’s become of feminism. The movement had already accomplished its historical goal of ensuring that men and women are equal under the law, but without any legitimate causes to fight for in the West, the movement has become a hotbed of infighting wherein feminists consistently shout out those who aren’t ideologically pure enough. How it got this way has been explained many times, but I generally think that there are three simplified ways of explaining it:

  1. The misandrists were allowed to take control of movement and represent it in the public.
  2. The movement got tainted by Marxist ideological principles, which is way feminists see women as a class.
  3. Having been subsumed into progressivism and cultural Marxism, the movement in its current form (third-wave feminism) is now unwilling to deal with legitimate women’s rights issues in countries where feminism would actually do some good (e.g. India, China, Saudia Arabia, Mauritania, etc.), and are thus condemned to vapid first-world issues, as well as the by now thoroughly debunked myth of the gender wage gap.

Another thing she doesn’t realise is that feminism has become a culturally authoritarian ideology, in this case the left-wing equivalent of the Catholic church, and like all authoritarian ideologies, they don’t care about human nature (and they think they can change the way humans think), and they are only happy when everyone thinks the same way they do. So we shouldn’t be surprised when feminists lash at Emma Watson for showing a bit of her breasts in a Vanity Fair photo – this is them acting as if she has committed heresy against their ideological puritanism.

Ultimately that’s the only reason for this pointless fracas. Feminists and progressives in general have become the new puritans, and that’s fundamentally why people like me actively oppose them. In fact, they’re so similar to the old Christian puritans that sometimes criticising feminism can be just as socially awkward as criticising a Christian used to be. Instead of the New Christian Right of the 1980’s, we now have third-wave feminism, and these feminists are the new pearl clutching class.

However, I think the nonsense is also Emma Watson’s fault, but not because she volunteered to pose in the photo. After the Harry Potter film series finished (ending perhaps her only real claim to fame if we’re totally honest), she’s spent the past few years building up an image as the face of feminism in Hollywood, unaware of the reasons why feminists are so unpopular. Through her He for She campaign, she presented herself as the “righteous” feminist who only wants to spread the word of feminism, while condemning other celebrities for expressing their feminism in ways she doesn’t like. She’s basically the feminist equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart, and this is the moment where she’s exposed as a hypocrite.

hypocrisy

This is what a feminist looks like.

In a way, it’s great to see self-righteous hypocrites like her get taken down a peg in a way they so evidently deserve. This is a woman who talks about how women need feminism because they’re oppressed, speaking from an awesomely lofty position of wealth, privilege and celebrity status, and yet she has the nerve to accuse critics like myself of not understanding feminism. She has no idea why we don’t want anything to do with feminism, and at some point, we’re going to get tired of telling her. She’s a champagne feminist at heart, and I say this because she talks about how we “need” feminism (and her army of professional ass-kissers in the left-wing media parrot this), but let’s be honest. Emma Watson isn’t oppressed. Any woman who made it in Hollywood can never be considered oppressed, unless you see women as a collective class.

Overall, I think Emma Watson constantly talks out of her ass like most Hollywood celebrities do, but to her credit, I believe her when she says she’s confused, because she has absolutely no idea of the beast that feminism really is. If she did, then trust me, she wouldn’t be calling herself a feminist.

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.

Does despotism stand a good chance today?

despotism

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.

The truth about “fake news”

fake news

After Donald Trump got elected President, the mainstream media quickly rushed to figure out how this could have happened. I could tell them how, but it appears that the media are doing everything do dodge the obvious answer, and so they turned to another scapegoat – “fake news”. They’ll tell you that when they say fake news, they mean unofficial news sites that spread deceptive, unsourced stories passed around as journalism, but they’re really referring to anyone who isn’t CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, CBS, RT or NPR. Basically “fake news” refers to anyone not part of the exclusive club known as the mainstream media.

Given the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump, it’s painfully obvious that the mainstream media is devoid of the journalistic integrity they claim to uphold. Only 6% of ordinary people actually trust the mainstream media, with alternative news outlets slowly but surely poised to take their place in terms of relevance. You don’t even need a journalism degree to report the news anymore. Somebody on YouTube, if proper diligence is done, could give far more accurate commentary than the likes of CNN. Alternative Internet voices are making themselves heard, and the established media doesn’t like that, because it means their glory days are over.

When the mainstream media was at the zenith of its influence, there was no internet. Control of the spread of information was concentrated in the hands of the cultural and political elites. Knowledge was controlled at the time, but thanks to the Internet, we now have access to any kind of information and point of view you could possibly imagine. Of course, the elites hate that, and now they want all the non-mainstream media outlets, regardless of journalistic quality, to be stricken down, and it’s been implied that Facebook is joining in on the witch hunt, along with the EU.

Of course, I’m painfully aware of the fact that there are genuinely fake news sites out there that spread false information and yet gain millions of views. Buzzfeed is a good example of one. However, most people can easily tell a fake news site just by looking at it. Also, all the people crying “fake news” ad nauseam generally agree that Breitbart is a “fake news” site, and unless you’re a far-left progressive, you probably know that Breitbart doesn’t even come close to being “fake news”. In fact, I’ve read enough Breitbart articles to come to the conclusion that they are capable of solid journalism, more so I would argue than the likes of CNN.

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream media hates Breitbart solely because of they are a right-wing populist news site that actively promoted Trump (thus they see Breitbart as a key contributing factor in Trump’s victory). In a globalist world heavily marinating in failed lefty ideals, Breitbart represents the counterculture, and thus they are the enemy of the establishment. That’s why they freaked out when Trump appointed Breitbart’s (now-ex) boss Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Hillary Clinton was once caught proclaiming that Breitbart “has no right to exist”, implying that if she had succeeded in getting elected, she would work to have it shut down. Of course, now that Hillary has lost, her cronies want to do it for her.

To me, the whole “fake news” controversy is just a whingefest carried out by a failing, irrelevant mainstream media hell bent on maintaining its power. The irony here is that they want to punish right-wing news sites for the kind of practices that CNN regularly committed throughout the election. We all know that it’s a useless way of distracting the public, and it’s not working. People are starting to realise what’s actually going on, that the media has been lying to them all this time, and I’m glad. When I first started this site, I was constantly speaking out against the lying mainstream media, and it seems that the MSM never learned their lesson.

“Fake news” didn’t influence the election, unless you count CNN pissing off enough of the public for Trump to win. The reason Trump won was because the people have had enough of living under the Democrats, and they didn’t trust Hillary Clinton at all. All they’re doing by persecuting people and news sites with opposing opinions is proving to everyone that they are a bunch of ivory tower elitists who don’t care about freedom of speech, and by doing so, they will have fully alienated themselves from the public.

The return of the moral busybodies

stop funding hate

It appears that in today’s world, the home of persistent, self-appointed moral guardians is in the left, and this is evident in a divisive new campaign called “Stop Funding Hate”. What is it? It’s a campaign that aims to pressure major companies into withdrawing ads from right-wing tabloids such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Express. In other words, it’s a thinly disguised attempt at censoring newspapers they disagree with. They made news this month when they released a John Lewis style mock advert calling on them to stop funding right-wing papers. Sadly they’ve already gotten one company to cave in, as Lego announced that they will stop advertising in The Daily Mail. The Co-op Group (for those who don’t know, they’re a British supermarket chain) has also announced that they are “reviewing their policies”, and Waitrose and M&S are also being urged by the group.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but this campaign sounds exactly like the self-appointed moral crusaders of the 1980’s, and it’s sickening. It seems as if today’s progressives are obsessed with silencing opposing opinions, and to be fair, that’s all the left can do nowadays. They’re losing elections, their propaganda is being rejected, and their ideas are being proven wrong in the face of reality. Incidentally, the main targets of this campaign – The Sun, The Daily Express, and The Daily Mail – are all right-wing, populist and most importantly Eurosceptic publications, and all of them backed Brexit. Taking that into account, it’s no surprise that they’re targeting those publications in particular.

Even more baffling is the fact that somebody is actually giving these moral busy-bodies what they want. My question to Lego is this – are you insane? The first rule of handling social justice warriors is that you shouldn’t give them what they want. If you do, then they know that they will have power over you, and they can demand more from you, and they will because they are never happy. This is why you never apologise to a social justice warrior, it shows them that you are weak, and that’s exactly what Lego has done in this situation. At least John Lewis, the company being targeted by the group’s latest ad, has shown some sense, having stated that they “never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper”.

I had a quick look at their Facebook page, and according to their about page, they claim to stand for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice, impartiality, inclusiveness, consistency and universality, and at this point, I know they’re full of shit. They are not in favour of free speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of choice for that matter. They cannot be if the point of their campaign is to stop companies from advertising on newspapers they disapprove of. That is not the goal of a group that values freedom of speech. It is in fact censorship, and it’s wrong when anybody calls for it, no matter how noble you think your goal may be.

Their claim to stand for impartiality is also bullshit, mainly because they’re deliberately targeting newspapers that supported Brexit, and oppose mass immigration. As for inclusiveness, I’m definitely sure that’s what an SJW would stand for, but I’m pretty sure that they’re the kind of people who would ostracise you if you expressed any opinions that differed from theirs (for example, feminism). The only two principles I can say they do hold sincerely are consistency and universality, given that they are consistent in their petulant, self-righteous moralism.

Given that the focus of their campaign is coverage involving immigration, Stop Funding Hate exemplifies the reason why nationalism is coming back into vogue here in Europe, because the left refuses to allow an honest discussion on immigration to take place, preferring instead to talk down to the common man, labelling anyone who opposes immigration at all as a “racist”, “xenophobe” or an “Islamophobe” (more common than ever due to the Syrian migrant crisis). To me, this campaign is yet another symptom of just how terribly simplified political discussion has become. We live in a time where the left has turned any discussion on immigration or almost anything else political into a matter of “love versus hate”, which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of San Angeles in the movie Demolition Man (which is a classic I would recommend to everyone reading this), in which the rules of society are geared toward engineering a world where people aren’t assholes.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like the sensationalist rhetoric of these right-wing newspapers, and I’ve always criticised them because of it, but that doesn’t make it right to pressure companies into withdrawing ads from those papers. To me, that fundamentally contradicts the right to a free press, goes against a company’s right to freedom of association, and could very much set a dangerous precedent. In the future, maybe a Christian pressure group could force a company to pull their ads from a paper that constantly criticises their religion. If that happened, we would basically have a scenario where the censorship that the left demands so much is used on them.