My thoughts on the Berkeley “protests”.

So I’m sure at this point that most people are aware of the recent rioting that occurred on the UC Berkeley campus. And I do want to make it quite clear that these were riots, not “peaceful protests”, no matter what narrative, delusional people suffering from severe cognitive dissonance might try and spin instead.

Smashing windows. Starting fires. Brutally beating and attempting to silence people, whose political opinions they don’t approve of. These are not peaceful protests.

It’s difficult for me to really find the words to explain how I’m feeling right now. I can barely even comprehend the reality of what is actually going on, that’s just how nonsensical everything is. Nevertheless, I’ll try my best.

So let’s begin with what exactly these people were so upset about. Breitbart writer, and professional internet troll, Milo Yiannopoulos was set to give a talk at the university (something which he has done in numerous universities already). Typically, he tends to talk about topics that are not welcomed by the so called “liberals”: his opposition to feminism, his opposition to Muslim immigration to the West, his opposition to political correctness, his support for Donald Trump, etc. These opinions have resulted in many people (naive left leaning college students in particular), thinking that he’s some kind of Neo-Nazi, white supremacist. There’s just three major flaws with this assessment.

  1. Milo is gay (and a very flamboyant one at that).
  2. He has a Jewish grandmother (not enough to be a full Jew, but enough for actual Neo-Nazis, like those on the Daily Stormer to reject him.
  3. He has a particular affinity for sleeping with black men, and never shuts up about it.
Here is the Neo-Nazi movement in 2017. A gay, partially Jewish man, who dresses in drag, and is always talking about how much he loves black cock.

The whole narrative makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, except when you realise that a lot of the people who are protesting against him, don’t even know who he is, and have never actually listened to anything that he has said. They’re going on second hand information, and are protesting against a racist, sexist (and even hilariously enough, homophobic) caricature that has been built up for them to oppose, without ever having researched him themselves.

“This man is a bigot”, says the guy who wants to shut down the speech of someone he knows nothing about. I don’t think that word means what you think it does…

Yeah… who is the real bigot here?

In fact, Milo isn’t a bigot at all. Crude, maybe. Controversial, definitely. Bigoted? Absolutely not. He tends to just make his speeches citing whatever facts or statistics he feels are necessary to back up his claims, and when he’s done, takes questions from the audience and if necessary, will debate them openly, without the need to try and silence and censor them. Just look at this video for example.

The idiot student accuses him of being a white supremacist and of course, Milo brings up the same points I mentioned already: his love of black men’s penises, the fact that actual white supremacists like those of the Daily Stormer, hate him, etc. Eventually, the student, realising that he hadn’t really thought things through (and visibly annoyed and dumbfounded at this point) settles with the lame argument of “You’re a white supremacists because you support Trump”. Yep, this is the kind of circular argument they’ll use.

Q: “Why am I a white supremacist?”

A: “Because you support Trump.”

Q: “But why does supporting Trump make me a white supremacist?”

A: “Because only white supremacists support Trump.”

Q: “But how can you be sure they’re white supremacists?”

A: “Because they support Trump.”

Q: “But why does supporting Trump make them white supremacists?”

A: “Because only white supremacists support Trump.”

And this circular argument repeats until you lose patience, give up, and they declare victory in their own mind. The point of posting the video above is to illustrate that these people haven’t really thought about the logic behind their belief systems, and when they actually attempt to do so, they’re quite simply incapable of winning the debate based on the merit of their arguments. So this is why they use violence and intimidation instead to try and shut talks like these down. Why engage in a fair and reasoned debate with your ideological opponents, when you know that you’ll lose? Shutting people down is their go to tactic instead because they know it’s the only one that has any chance of working.

So anyway, lets get back to the main point of this post, rather than continuing to get sidetracked talking about Milo. The riots seem to be pretty big news right now, but the reality is, these Antifa/Anarchist/Marxist scum are nothing new. They’ve been doing this sort of thing in both America and Europe for decades now. Even here in Ireland, where we’ve been relatively sheltered from what’s been happening in the rest of the world, we still occasionally see their thuggish behaviour occurring.

How dare he start a political party to represent the interests of the Irish people… in Ireland?

Their standard tactic is to dress in black, and to cover their faces using scarves and hoods, or masks, and to to attack people in groups of 5-10 against one. They do this while claiming to be “anti-fascists”, who are just trying to prevent fascism from gaining strength. The problem is, that their definition of “Fascism” seems to be “anyone who has political opinions that we don’t approve of” and more often than not, the victims of their violence are just normal people, no different than you or I, who are simply supporting policies that they feel are best for themselves and their loved ones.

Meanwhile, when these “Anti-fascists” encounter actual fascists…

…they turn into a bunch of spineless cowards, who are about ready to wet themselves, even despite holding a significant numerical advantage.

The thing that bothers me the most about these Antifa scum is that the majority of them are a part of my own generation. It saddens me to see that so many of my generational peers are this angry  and consumed with such powerful hatred, and are so brainwashed, that they’re lashing out violently at people who don’t even deserve it. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I really cannot help but think of Orwell’s 1984, when I look at the current situation. In the novel, we have a “Ministry of Love” which inflicts pain on people, we have a “Ministry of Truth”, which lies to the people, and we have contradictory slogans such as “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength”. In the real world right now, we have violent “protesters” yelling slogans like “Love Trumps Hate”, while they brutally beat people, a lying mainstream media which is decrying the spread of truth (or “Fake News” as they call it), and we hear the often repeated motto of “Diversity is our greatest strength”, when it’s clear to see that diversity by it’s very definition, leads to division, and a divided people is anything but strong. How can diversity possibly be a strength, when in times past, when there was unity rather than diversity, we weren’t seeing social cohesion collapse like this?

I really feel as if we’re looking at history repeating itself. We’re all at least somewhat familiar with the rise of Fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, but what is often neglected from the information we hear, is the circumstances that led up to it. In Germany for example, there were a lot of problems with Communists using violence against political opponents, and even attempting to overthrow the government, such as in 1918, and in 1923. Obviously, the German people, having heard about what the Communists in the Soviet Union had done to people (such as the Red Terror and the Holodomor), didn’t want something similar to happen to them, and in turn, became more extreme in their resistance to a potential Communist takeover. And of course, who were the strongest and most outspoken anti-Communists in Germany at the time, and were seen as the best option for a frightened and fed up people to turn to, to protect them from Communist violence?


I don’t think these so called “Antifa” have any idea of what they’re doing. Their use of violence and intimidation against ordinary people (whom they refer to as Nazis), isn’t going to win them any support. They aren’t offering people a vision of a world that anyone would want to live in. What they’re offering, is the same kind of nightmarish dystopia that the German people, ironically enough, tried to avoid, by supporting the Nazis.  This kind of behaviour isn’t going to convince them that they were wrong to vote for Trump, or that they’re wrong to listen to Milo’s speeches or whatever else they’re supposedly wrong about. It’s just going to cause them to double-down in their beliefs, and lead to greater division.

We’ve heard a lot of hysterical rumblings about the possibility of a second American civil war. That possibility becomes more and more realistic in my mind, when I see things like this happening. In fact, I’m not sure they aren’t already in one at this point, that’s how bad it’s getting.

Male feminist whines about how sexist Mario is.

Social justice has no end in sight. There’ll never be a point were its advocates will feel that enough is enough. They’ll always find some new “problem” to have a hissy fit over. You can just tell at this point that we’ve long gotten past the point of actual real problems, when they’re starting to complain about stupid shit like this.

From The Sun

VIDEO game critics have claimed the family-friendly Super Mario video games series is unsuitable for children because it’s SEXIST.

Mario, a video game series that has been enjoyed by millions of children, girls and boys alike, over the past three decades, the majority of whom have grown up to be perfectly normal, well-adjusted adults, is suddenly unsuitable for children, because some dickhead on the internet says so.

The Japanese games firm Nintendo recently released an iPhone game called Super Mario Run which is the first smartphone title to feature its much-loved character.

But feminists have rounded upon the game, with one writer suggesting it was time Mario was rescued BY his love interest Princess Peach, rather than going on missions to save her.

That has already happened. The game is called Super Princess Peach, and it came out about ten years ago.

Would you look at that. Mario is tied up, and the Princess has to rescue him for a change.

The game sold relatively poorly in comparison to the regular Mario series by the way, which is probably why they haven’t made another. Point is, at least they tried to do something like this, and a full decade before this dickhead started whining on the internet about it.

Chris Suellentrop, a top games reviewers at the New York Times, said the recent iPhone Super Mario Game was “inappropriate for children”.

It’s just incredible how arrogant this comes off. 30 years worth of children have been playing this series without being negatively impacted by it, but apparently it’s inappropriate for children because this guy says so.

“In an era where we can watch Frozen or Moana…this is not okay,” he said on his podcast, Shall We Play, according to Heat Street.

“Different options are not OK. Because the Princesses in Frozen and Moana are strong characters who aren’t in need of being rescued, no Princess can ever be portrayed like that again.”

I guess going by the same logic, we can’t allow children to watch any of the older Disney animated films like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Cinderella, because they have outdated portrayals of princesses, which will somehow mess up young girls today, even though they didn’t mess up young girls from previous generations.


“People give Nintendo a pass because they’re family-friendly, you know what? This is not family-friendly.”

How is it not family friendly? What exactly isn’t family friendly about a man going to great lengths to save the woman he loves from danger? Are we just going to deny the basic biological drives of our species, in order to promote ideological nonsense? In harsher time periods, while our species was still evolving, women tended to choose a strong man, who could protect them from danger, and provide for them, as a mate. In the same way, men have a natural, biological drive to protect women because it is through women, that we are able to pass on our own genes.

In our current social environment, this kind of dynamic is less of a necessity because of the way civilisation is set up. In the modern world, in which we aren’t at war with nature and rival tribes for resources, women are quite capable of providing for themselves, and they don’t need a strong man to protect them, because we have law and order to do that instead. However, absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, as civilisation has developed quicker than our biological evolution.

As a result, despite how much our lifestyles may have changed in the last few thousand years, ultimately, we still have the same animal instincts now that our stone age ancestors had when women instinctively sought out strong men to protect and provide for them, and men had a biological drive to want to protect from harm, the women who would potentially bear their offspring. Therefore, I would contend that because our biological instincts haven’t changed, that most males will naturally identify with the male power fantasy of rescuing a princess, and most females will identify with the fantasy of being rescued and protected by a brave hero, rather than being the hero themselves. I’m not saying every single person will conform to these gender stereotypes, and for those who don’t, their preferences are perfectly valid as well, but a lot of people will identify with the gender stereotypes, so having games that cater to these perfectly natural fantasies is hardly “inappropriate for children”.

I regard these things as being inappropriate for children. Therefore, they’re inappropriate for children, because I’m the authority on these things, because I say so”.

“How dare they have fictional video game woman bake a cake for the man she loves? This sends such a horrible message to young girls somehow, even the ones who just happen to enjoy baking.”

Most Mario games involve saving Princess Peach, who has inevitably been kidnapped by the plumber’s arch enemy, Bowser.

Ina Fried, a respected technology journalist, said these old-school storylines do not reflect the modern world.

“It’s *current year*, therefore everything has to change. We won’t give any reasons why this is suddenly necessary, other than the fact that we now think the old way is outdated because of the current year.”

“We can’t allow certain types of stories to be told anymore because we consider them outdated now. Only stories that we personally approve of can be told now.”

In an article for Re/Code, she wrote: “It has been 30 years since Mario first rescued the princess back in 1985. Since that time, more than 50 women have gone into space, more than two dozen have been elected to the U.S. Senate and several hundred have climbed Mount Everest.

Wait, you mean these women managed to accomplish all those incredible things, despite such a “sexist” video game series existing? Wow, that almost makes me think that capable women are capable no matter what, and the existence of a video game series that utilises an “outdated” story, is not going to stop them from achieving. I’d also bet that statistically speaking, with how popular the Mario series is, that at least a few of these highly accomplished women have played at least one Mario game in their lifetime and yet all that “sexism” didn’t harm them in any way.

This all goes back to the point I made in my article about the campaign to convince parents to buy their sons a Barbie doll. I don’t believe for a second that there is actually any real problem here at all, but what is happening, is a bunch of insecure adults are projecting their own insecurities and failures onto children, and are finding a scapegoat to blame for these insecurities and failures, rather than taking responsibility instead.

“It’s not fair. I was well on my way to studying law at Harvard, curing the HIV virus, and becoming President. However, when I was 8 years old, I played a Super Mario game, and the sexism traumatised me so much, that I gave up on all my dreams, started living on benefits, gained about 500 pounds, and am not motivated to clean up the mess around me. None of this is my fault. It’s all Nintendo’s fault for being so sexist.

I mean come on, lets really be honest with ourselves here. How many people (and this question is for both men and women) played Mario games in their youth and started thinking that women were worth less than men because of it? Obviously, I can only cite anecdotal evidence which in the grand scheme of things, means nothing, but I will say that I certainly wasn’t thinking about gender stereotypes when I played these games. I just enjoyed them for what they were, and I’ve known plenty of female gamers who played the series, enjoyed it, and are now perfectly normal, well-adjusted young women, who haven’t been negatively affected in any way from doing so. They didn’t feel insecure as females playing a game in which the male hero has to rescue the princess. They just had fun playing the game and didn’t think any deeper than that.

“More importantly, the next generation of girls and boys are learning gender norms from, among other things, games like Super Mario Run. Personally, I think it is about time for a game where Peach rescues Mario.”

Just in case you missed it the first time.

^See the problem here. These idiots don’t even have any understanding of what they’re even complaining about. They just take a quick, superficial glance at things, think they’re suddenly well informed on the topic, and start complaining and demanding changes to things they aren’t really interested in. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, while this uninformed moron is complaining about the Mario series and acting as if it’s the be-all, and end-all of the video game industry, he’s ignoring the existence of the many strong female video game characters that already exist, some of whom have existed almost as long as the “sexist” Princess Peach character.

Samus Aran, first seen in “Metroid”, 1986.
Tyris Flare, first seen in “Golden Axe”, 1989.
Blaze Fielding, first seen in “Streets of Rage”, 1991.
Sonya Blade, first seen in “Mortal Kombat”, 1993
Lara Croft, first seen in “Tomb Raider”, 1996.
Jill Valentine, first seen in “Resident Evil”, 1996.
Alexandra Roivas, first seen in “Eternal Darkness”, 2002.
Bayonetta, first seen in “Bayonetta”, 2009.

And all the above are just a small example, specifically limited to strong playable female characters. There are plenty of other strong female characters in games, both playable and those in a supporting role, as well as games which allow the player to create a blank avatar from scratch of either gender.

The point I’m trying to close on, is this. The Mario series has existed for decades and has been popular with generations of children (including girls) the entire time. Women who have grown up in a post-Mario world have still managed to accomplish amazing things, despite its apparent “sexism”. Acting as if Mario’s traditional “hero rescues a princess” storyline, is somehow damaging little girls, without presenting any supporting evidence to back up this claim, is completely idiotic and intellectually dishonest. However, if you still feel that Mario is not suitable for girls because Princess Peach is a bad role model, then that’s your choice, and there are plenty of alternative games out there with strong female characters to play instead. Not every game needs to have a badass female protagonist though. There is plenty of room in the gaming industry for different options, and Mario just fills one of many. You don’t like it, then don’t play it. It’s really that simple.

The demand for “hate crimes” outweighs the supply.

The typical “anti-semitic” hate crime, follows a very predictable trajectory. Usually, a crudely drawn swastika and hate filled message (often poorly spelled for extra effect) are found on the wall of a Jewish business or home. The media goes crazy and starts demanding something be done and there is a big moral panic over the “alarming increase in racial hatred”. A few days pass by and people start asking questions. Suddenly, holes start turning up in the original story, and this causes suspicion. Then the Jew who faked the hate crime is exposed, a brief retraction is made by the media for the purpose of feigning plausibility, and the whole sordid affair is quickly flushed down the memory hole. The lesson we’re supposed to take from all this is not that we should be skeptical about these bogus hate crime lies. No, what matters is it COULD have been real and next time, it may very well be. Then of course, “next time” comes along and the exact same process plays out.

Some day, it will happen for real, and then we’ll be sorry for not trusting them.

However, it seems that “fake hate crimes” are no longer the exclusive domain of the Jews. In the post-Trump world, everyone is getting in on the fun.

From The Blaze

Another story that the mainstream press wielded against Trump is now being exposed as a possible hoax as police have arrested an black man in the “racist” arson attack on a black church in Mississippi.

And it appears that the suspect is a member of the church:

They’ve learned well from the Jews.

The mainstream media went on a whirlwind of hand-wringing and moral haranguing after the Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church was burned down and “Vote Trump” was spray-painted on its wall. Clearly this was a racist attack animated by all the racism spouted off by the Trump campaign, right?

Of course. It makes perfect sense, right? If Trump supporters want to encourage people to vote for Trump, then what better way to do it than burning down a church and writing “Vote Trump”, so people will associate their burned down church with the voting for Trump. It’s such a brilliant plan.

Not so, say police:

“We do not believe it was politically motivated. There may have been some efforts to make it appear politically motivated,” Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, who is also the state fire marshal, told The Associated Press.

Of course it was politically motivated, just not in the way originally suspected. It was politically motivated in terms of making Trump voters look like racist caricatures who burn down black churches for absolutely no reason.

Andrew McClinton was arrested and charged with first-degree arson of a place of worship, which occurred one week before the election, no doubt in an attempt to produce ire against Trump by attempting to frame his followers.

“But it wasn’t politically motivated”.

Take this from “the Daily Beast” for example:

Will they now call McClinton an anti-Trump terrorist? Doubtful.

The investigation will continue into the arson, but it looks like the mainstream media won’t be able to pin this horrible act on Trump and his “deplorable” followers.

So it will likely just go down the memory hole instead.

“Fake hate crimes? I don’t remember any fake hate crimes”.

Oh but wait, there’s another.

From Garden City Patch.

A Plainview man was arrested Tuesday and charged with drawing hateful graffiti on the Nassau Community College campus in East Garden City on multiple different occasions, police say.

The likely suspect.

According to authorities, Jasskirat Saini, 20, of Central Park Road, was arrested at 12:38 p.m. for multiple bias incidents at Nassau Community College. Police say Saini drew two swastikas on the exterior wall of Building H and “KKK” on the floor of F Building Cluster 225 before his arrest on Tuesday.

Just your typical Neo-Nazi White supremacist right here.

Police had been responding to the campus for instances of swastikas drawn on buildings since October. Most of the swastikas were found drawn in men’s bathrooms in the various buildings around campus.

Saini is charged with multiple counts of aggravated harassment and is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday at First District Court in Hempstead.

Now just watch as both these stories are quickly forgotten about the next time we hear about an alleged “white supremacist hate crime”, as the media instantly assumes the worst. I guarantee it will happen.

“Teach Islam in Irish schools to stop radicalisation.”

Always with the demands. You would think that if they wanted to have Islam have much greater prominence in their lives, that they would choose to live in Muslim countries but no, instead they’re more interested in coming to our countries and demanding that we make them more like the countries they originally came from.

From Irish Independent

A leading imam has said he is “disappointed” at the Catholic Church’s rejection of a world religions curriculum for primary schools – a move he feared could encourage radicalism among young Muslims.

Would Muslim run schools teach a curriculum that included lessons about other religions? I seriously doubt they would from looking at how non-Muslim religions are treated in Muslim majority countries. So why should the schools which are run by the Catholic Church in a country which has historically been majority Catholic do so? I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church which quite frankly, is an organisation I don’t particularly care for, but in a conflict between Islam and the Catholic Church, I’ll take them any day.

Also, why is he suggesting that young Muslims might become radicalised if their religion isn’t taught in schools? Isn’t it strange how there’s this fear that young Muslims might get radicalised, unless we teach classes about their belief system, but nobody ever seems to worry about the possibility of members of other minority religions becoming radicalised. It almost makes me think that perhaps Islam is different from other religions somehow.

Shaykh Dr Umar Al-Qadri, chairman of the Irish Muslim Peace and Integration Council, made his comments after it was reported by the Irish Independent that plans by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) to introduce a new curriculum on religion had been blocked by figures in the Church concerned about children receiving mixed messages.

Makes sense. Why should Irish children be confused with a mixed message in order to accommodate the needs of an alien group who voluntarily chose to come here? If they don’t like how Ireland does things, then they’re quite free to fuck off back to wherever they came from. We will not change our ways to accommodate the demands of an alien group who should be thankful just for the opportunity to live in our country.

Dr Al-Qadri warned that integration of Ireland’s Muslims was vital to avoid their potential radicalisation, and suggested visits to mosques, temples and churches as well as school visits from rabbis, imams and priests during which children could put questions to them.

Still doesn’t answer the obvious question from before. Why is there no worry about young members of other religions besides Islam becoming radicalised?

Buddhist extremists getting ready to suicide bomb a hospital, all because the Irish school system didn’t teach Buddhism as part of its curriculum.

He said that in “a handful” of places in Ireland, Muslims espoused the intolerant views that would, for example, instruct Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims. “That is the beginning of radicalisation,” he told the Irish Independent.

Why did we allow people like this into our country? We had no legal obligation, no moral obligation, and there is no tangible benefits to having them here. What was the point in doing this? We already had the example set in countries like England, France, Belgium, and Sweden as to what would inevitably happen. Why did we think Ireland would be any different?

Dr Al-Qadri was critical of the current educational provision, where pupils in Muslim schools are not regularly taught about other faiths, and Muslim children in State schools are separated from others for religious education, because he said these practices led to their “isolation from a young age”.

You know where they wouldn’t feel isolated? In Muslim majority countries, among other Muslims with a belief system similar to their own.

Explaining his disagreement with the bishops’ position, he said that while denominational schools had a right to teach their faith from their perspective, he believed there would be many benefits to adding “a standard curriculum taught in all schools that reflected the diversity” of contemporary Ireland, and that this “should try to develop acceptance, tolerance and understanding of other faiths in the child”.

There’s that horrible “d” word again, the thing we’re supposed to pretend is a strength, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

We didn’t ask for this diversity. It hasn’t benefited any country that it has been forced upon. All it has done is led to more and more conflict and division. It’s not as if this diversity is the result of a natural progression. There was one homogenous group living in Ireland, other groups were brought in, without consulting those of us already living here, and then we’re told that we need to change things in order to be more “accepting” and “tolerant” of these other groups. Why should we?

“I don’t know what the bishops were thinking,” he said.

They were putting their own group interests first and foremost, exactly like what you and your people do when you try to change things about your host societies.

“I don’t know what they were thinking”.
“I don’t know what they were thinking”.
“I don’t know what they were thinking”.


Dr Al-Qadri said it was vital that children and young people saw how the Bible and Islamic scriptures promote respect and understanding to one another.

So much respect and understanding…


“We’re not trying to convert anybody, we’re just trying to create understanding

Yes, and I’m sure the same thing was said in every other country your people have tried this trick in.


. . . I want non-Muslim children to learn that Islamic scriptures teach tolerance; there’s so much misconception about Islam,” he said.

See the “Black Pigeon Speaks” video above, or look at the information below to see that, no, there is no misconception.


A small sample of what we’re up against: Part 3

I’m having a bad case of writer’s block right now. There isn’t a whole lot going on right now that I find worth discussing, or at least, not a whole lot worth discussing that doesn’t require me going into massive depth in order to do it the proper justice. There is for example, the ongoing Pizzagate online investigation of a possible massive child trafficking scandal, but that story is unconfirmed so far, so I would prefer to wait until confirmation before discussing it.

That, and I really haven’t any insights of my own to add to that particular topic. There are already thousands of people online involved in researching the evidence available who have a much better understanding of it than I do. I simply can’t do it justice, so rather than trying to, I would suggest that people look it up and become aware of it.

The more people who know about it, the harder it will be for the media to just dismiss it as nothing more than “fake news”, making it more likely that there’ll be demand for a proper investigation at some point which will either confirm the suspicions of those researching it, or put it to rest once and for all.

The people investigating it have brought up a very good point though. If the people being accused are innocent, why aren’t they doing more to defend themselves? That alone is very suspicious. I know that if I was being wrongfully accused of child trafficking and molestation, I would be up in arms defending myself, rather than staying quiet. I will say that I absolutely don’t endorse a “guilty until proven innocent” approach, but I do think that people need to at least be made aware of this potential scandal so that a proper investigation can be pushed for.

Anyway, I’m losing track of myself. For a guy who claims to be suffering from writer’s block, I sure wrote a lot there. I need to get back on topic. On two previous occasions, when I’ve had trouble writing for a while, I’ve made posts full of screenshots taken from the tumblrinaction reddit board, which illustrate some of the stupidity that is infecting the world, and therefore can potentially give us an insight into why things are going the way they are. These people aren’t funny, and should be seen as a threat. If more and more people start thinking like this, who knows what impact it will have on the world. Parts one and two of this series can be read here and here.

So now, I would like to present part three to you.

Unnecessary except for you know, keeping us from going extinct.
How dare the straight guy feel uncomfortable that he was deceived into having sex under false pretenses. You could have told him before sleeping with him, but you deliberately waited until you got what you wanted and then told him afterwards, and somehow you’re the victim in this.
No straight couples love each other apparently. They only exist for the sake of procreation, which according to the person in the first screenshot, is “unnecessary” anyway.
Woman engages in statutory rape, but gets away with it for drinking too much. If she got into a car and knocked someone down, would she also get away with it because she was too drunk to know she shouldn’t drive?
You just can’t win with these people. You try to get a progressive message across, and they’ll still find something to complain about.
All white, straight, males, are oppressors. It’s perfectly acceptable to judge us all for traits we were born with, but God help us, if we were to do the same to any other group. But we’re the ones who are “privileged” apparently.
And again, all white people are bad. This is why I don’t understand all the white guilt infested morons who try to appeal to these people. They’ll never respect you no matter how much you try to appease them so you may as well just tell them to fuck off.
I honestly don’t understand how this guy can look at these pieces of clothing and see oppression towards gay people. Seriously, where is it?
How dare the job have certain requirements for you to meet? If you really cared about getting the job, you would make the effort to lose the weight.
First of all “them” is not a gendered term you fucking moron. Second of all, you have to be a really arrogant prick to demand other people refer to you as such. Third of all, it isn’t archaic to use “them” and “they” as plural terms. Fourth of all, pronouns are only used in a third person context, so if anyone “misgenders you” by using “he” or “she” instead of “them”, it will happen when they’re talking about you to someone else, rather than talking to you, so you won’t be around to hear it anyway.
I think this one has to be satire. At least, I sure hope it is.
Yes, because it is just biological reality that female genitalia and male genitalia are two distinct things.
Yes what would white people have to be proud of? You know besides most inventions, most medical advances, most contributions to art, philosophy, literature etc. throughout history, what do they have to be proud of? Only black people have a right to have pride in their heritage.
If a woman forces unwanted sex onto a man, it isn’t rape, because only men have the power and privilege to commit rape. This is almost as bad as the time someone tried to claim that if a white woman was raped by a black man, it isn’t actually rape, but rather just “non-consensual sex”, because the black man doesn’t have the power to rape a white woman.
They’ll find racism anywhere.
Polish game studio makes a video game about Polish mythology, and features all white characters because Poland is, and always has been (particularly in the game’s time period) a near 100% white country. Guy whines about racism because there are no  non-white characters and makes the ridiculous claim that Poland is only so white because the Nazis killed all the non-white people living there. He gets destroyed with reality so he chooses to block rather than admit defeat.
The sheer stupidity of this statement should be obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of history. Of course, these scumbags just try to rewrite history to suit their narrative instead of actually learning the truth.
How dare men have sexual preferences? Meanwhile, I can 100% guarantee that this girl would never date a fat guy, no matter how many other attractive “qualities” he has.
The attention seeking special snowflake can’t decide if he wants to be a fox or a wolf.
Black people have their own distinct genders now that are different from those of other races. Of course, if some white attention seeker tried to claim that they have their own white specific gender, they would be told that they’re racist.

Anyway, that’s it for now. I can’t handle anymore craziness at this point. Plus, I gotta save the rest of my material for the inevitable part 4 in this series.

British universities are apparently causing “psychological distress” to black students.

The whining just never stops with these people. Unlike in America, where most blacks are descendants of slaves who were brought there against their will, every single black person living in Britain is there by choice, either their own, or that of their parents. No black person in Britain was forced to go there against their will. They all willingly chose to do so, because they wanted an opportunity to create a better life for themselves than they would have had back home in whichever black majority country they came from (it doesn’t matter which one, they all have much lower living standards than Britain does). You would think they would be grateful to have been giving the opportunity to live in a much better country, but no, they always find something stupid to whine about.

From RT

Universities across Britain might be causing psychological distress to black students because they’re forced to learn about mostly white Europeans, the National Union of Students (NUS) leader has said.
Who would have thought that a university in a European country, with a historically and pre-dominantly white European population, would mostly focus on the work, history, and accomplishments of white Europeans? I am shocked, shocked I tell you that something like this is happening.

NUS president Malia Bouattia, herself a black woman of Algerian heritage, believes that as most higher education is based on “Eurocentric” subjects, non-white undergraduates end up lagging behind.

The reason why it’s so “Eurocentric” is because most historical accomplishments, discoveries, inventions, etc, is of European origin, either directly, or from European derived societies such as America and Canada. That’s not to say that other parts of the world haven’t contributed as well, but these contributions are fairly minute compared to the contributions of Europe and North America.

Her comments follow an announcement from the UK government that universities need to increase their numbers of black and minority ethnic students fivefold by 2020.

Why do they “need” this? On the one hand, we’re always told that race is just skin pigmentation, and there are no other significant differences between us. At the same time, they’re demanding a drastic increase in racial diversity because we “need” it. How does this make sense? Why exactly is an increase in ethnic minorities attending university a necessity?

This situation again. We’re all “one race” when it suits the narrative, but we’re all different when it doesn’t suit.

In an interview with the Guardian, Bouattia attacked how ‘white’ British university curricula can be, saying: “When we look at the incredibly Eurocentric curriculum, where people don’t see themselves in what they’re studying, and can’t relate to it, and feel that their European counterparts hit the ground running, they can’t see themselves advancing in the subjects.”

Then why did you choose to study at a British university then? If it upsets you so much attending a university which focuses more on its own culture and other European cultures, then why not go to some African university instead? You would feel a lot more at home, and we wouldn’t have to put up with your pathetic whining and demands. Everybody wins.

She added that on top of the “vast amounts of debt” many students have accumulated by the time they reach higher education, the lack of relatable topics of study available could be “psychologically destructive.”

Again, go to an African university to study “relatable topic” then. Why should a British university which you chose to attend, change its curriculum to  accommodate your specific demands you arrogant and self-centered child?

The 28 year-old is the first black Muslim woman to lead the student body. She has previously talked about feeling estranged from her studies after being abused by online trolls and Islamophobes. 

I don’t condone online harassment myself, but at the same time, my main sympathies are with the indigenous British people, whose culture and way of life is in the crosshairs. As I’ve said time and time again, multiculturalism does not work. Why not just admit that it has failed and allow the British people to study what’s relevant to them in a British university, and allow Muslim/Black people to study what’s relevant to them in their own countries of origin? This whole thing of trying to change European institutions to accommodate the needs and desires of everybody is never going to work. Changes might satisfy the minorites, but in doing so, you run the risk of upsetting the indigenous majorities, whose needs should come first in their own countries.

Independent think tank Social Market director Emran Mian told the Times that “while senior academic ranks may still be insufficiently diverse, the representation of minority perspectives in UK higher education should be improving.”

“About 14 percent of academic staff in UK universities identify as being from a black or minority ethnic background and almost 17 percent of students,” he added.

So that would mean that about 86% of students and 83% of academic staff are white then. But according to the 2011 census results2011 census results (the most recent available), the British population was 87.17% white. In the five years since, it has probably seen a slight decline in the population percentage, meaning an 86% representation of students, is in line with their population percentage, and 83% staff representation, is actually slightly lower than their population percentage. So in that case, why is there such a need for an increase in minorities at university level, when they’re already been represented quite fairly in relation to their population percentage?

They won’t be satisfied until they have 100% representation. Then when we’re gone, they’ll still find some reason to complain about us.

Bouattia has been previously involved in controversy when she was accused of anti-Semitism after arguing that the University of Birmingham, which has a large Jewish student body, was a “Zionist outpost.” She denied the charges.

Yeah funny how that works, isn’t it? In the supposedly racist, white supremacist, British society, people like this are free to criticise the white British population to their heart’s content. Say something bad about the Jews, and suddenly it’s a problem. I wonder why that could be?



The lack of self awareness is astounding.

The typical modern day university student.

One of the things most noticeable about Trump rallies is the amount of pissed off Bernie and Hillary supporters who attend them for the sole purpose of causing trouble. We often hear about “violence” occurring at these rallies, and the media usually blames Trump and his supporters for it, even though it’s the protesters who almost always start it. You would think that if these people hated Trump so much, they wouldn’t bother going to see him speak, but they do so anyway because they are determined to silence him by acting up, and to intimidate anyone who supports him with their violent behaviour.

“We won’t actually provide any evidence for this claim. We’ll just keep saying it, and go to his rallies to beat up anybody who disagrees with us.”

Why am I bringing this up? Well, simply to show the double standards that exist on the left. They’re perfectly OK with seeing some of their own using violence and intimidation to silence their ideological opponents, but when someone on the right simply uses facts and statistics to shut down their flawed arguments (no violent methods at all), they suddenly act as if they themselves are victims of violence and intimidation, and are outraged. They demand protection from the “hate” (ie. facts and logic), while at the same time being fully supportive of those who use genuine violence and hate against their own enemies.

“No differing opinions allowed in here. But I have no problem with opinions I approve of being violently forced upon those I disagree with.”

Today, I’ve found a brief example of an insight into the thought patterns of these people.

To the editor:

Our department is committed to the principle of free speech.

Watch how they completely contradict this right away.

We wish, therefore, to go on record as opposing in the strongest possible terms the invitation that has been issued to Milo Yiannopoulos, who has tried to silence the free speech of others by drowning it out with abusive, hate-filled rhetoric.

“We are committed to the principle of free speech. However, this Milo guy has said mean words that hurt our feelings. Because unlike him, we don’t have any actual facts or statistics to back up any of the claims that we make, we’re simply incapable of having an honest and open discussion with him. Therefore, we’re going to ignore the facts and evidence in his arguments, accuse him of being abusive and hate-filled, and call for him to be silenced. But seriously, we’re totally on board with free speech, just free speech that we approve of.”

That’s literally what’s happening right now. They say that Milo silences the speech of others, but he isn’t doing it through abuse, or “hate”. He’s doing it through logical arguments and facts that his opponents aren’t intelligent or informed enough to argue against, which therefore leaves them unable to respond.

He doesn’t silence these people with hate or abuse. He doesn’t need to. They’re just fucking idiots who embarrass themselves whenever they try to defend their flawed ideologies. This is why they want to deny him a platform. They can’t win in a debate, so they have to silence him instead.

In an educational context, there is nothing to be learned from his presence except a negative lesson—that the most deliberately offensive and divisive voices are rewarded with attention they do not deserve. That is not what UD should be teaching.

Remember when universities where a place for fostering intellectual debate and discussion? A place where anyone could feel free to present an idea or argument, and others in turn had the freedom to either agree with it, or disagree and present their own counter idea instead. A place where young minds would be challenged so that might think outside the box for a change.

The whole point of education is to expand your mind by being exposed to new ideas and opinions. Today’s university students would rather be given an echo chamber to confirm what they already believe, rather than having their current worldviews challenged.

“Waaahhh. That meanie Milo said something that I disagreed with. Instead of countering it with an argument of my own, I’ll just cry until he’s not allowed to speak anymore.”

The Department of Women and Gender Studies

The department of future unemployables and professional victims.