How Rick From The Young Ones Predicted Social Justice Warriors

Image result for how Russell Brand sees himself

The Young Ones was one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. Though only lasting two short series of 6 episodes, it helped launch the careers of Ade Edmondson and Rik Mayall, one of Britain’s most beloved comedy double acts, and inspired generations of British comedians with its unique mix of physical, political, surrealist, and anarchic humour.

Whilst the show still has a very loyal following around the world, a few contemporary critics have accused The Young Ones of being somewhat dated, as many of the jokes in the series were topical. Ironically however I feel that if anything the Young Ones is more relevant now than it was in the 1980s.

The character of Rick, played by Rik Mayall (who also co-created and co-wrote the series) is the perfect representation for the modern Social Justice Warrior, or third wave feminist, or regressive leftist.

Rik Mayall was not right wing himself. In fact after The Young Ones, one of his biggest successes was The New Statesman, which marvellously skewered the Tory government. (Much like the Young Ones, though written about topical events at the time, sadly many of the jokes are still just as applicable today about the current Tory government.)

Rik Mayall was politically very left wing in many ways, but like a lot of people he could see that the left in general was being overtaken by tribalism and worst of all chancers and posers looking to make a name (and some money!) For themselves.

In my opinion there has been no greater satire of the regressive left than Rick and in this article we are going to explore how he captured their neurosis, hypocrisy and insincerity perfectly.

1/ He claims to be a Marxist, Socialist, and Communist without knowing anything about those ideologies

Image result for lenin

The character of Rick identified as a communist, a Leninist and an anarchist. Of course he knew next to nothing about any of those ideologies (for one thing Lenin absolutely despised anarchism.) Rick is in fact shown specifically to have fallen asleep in one episode whilst reading Das Kapital.

Rick also appears to be somewhat conservative at heart. Despite constantly going on about hating Thatcher, he says in the final episode that she “bloody well got the country back on its feet”.

Many on the regressive left, including Antifa will identify as communists, socialists and even anarchists without really having any understanding of those ideologies.

They will praise the likes of Fidel Castro, Vladamir Lenin, even in some cases Joseph Stalin without any knowledge of the horrors these men inflicted on their people.

Nearly 20 percent of Millennials Think Stalin Was A Hero

Whenever you see a millennial “communist” arguing with a right winger like Sargon of Akkad, they will almost always be stumped when asked to justify the horrors of communism or even just explain what the ideology actually is.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I am NOT a right winger like Sargon. In some ways I think that Sargon is as wrong as the leftists he argues with.

Sargon in my opinion is as tribal about capitalism as the leftists are about communism. Sargon’s attempts to justify the horrors carried out by capitalism from the Vietnam war to the Iraq war, to the depression, to the first world war, to the Libyan crisis are exactly the same as the “communists” defence of the horrors carried out by communism “they just weren’t doing it right.”

Sargon is also willing to look the other way when it comes to fascists who support his ideology like Agusto Pinochet and Joseph McCarthy just like Antifa do for monsters like Stalin.

Personally I do support a number of socialist ideals such as the NHS, the welfare state and re-nationalised railways and gas and electricity, but I do not believe in handing over all power to the government. Independent companies who manufacture their own product should still be allowed to own it, and the media should remain independent.

I think unchecked capitalism and socialism lead to problems. Socialism will hand over too much power to the government leading to fascism, but capitalism does lead to corprotism. Sadly however neither side will admit their chosen ideology has any problems and so we’re locked in an endless cycle of whataboutism.

Still at the very least Sargon and others like him do have a basic understanding of the ideology they claim to support, where as I find a lot of these modern SJWs literally don’t even know anything about communism, or socialism or anarchism.

Basically its cooler and more trendy to be left wing, so they adopt the label of communist for their image.

Take for instance Caitlin Moran, a lefty journalist who identifies as a Marxist. Moran is a massive fan of Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was one of the most crooked, right wing, hawkish politicians in the entire history of US politics (and that’s saying a lot.) Clinton voted in favour of the Iraq war, and for a war in Iran in 2005 (which even the most crooked war hawks in the Republican party were opposed too. Imagine how disasterous a war between the USA led by George W Bush and Iran would have been.)

Then there is the fact that Clinton played a key role in the Libyan crisis and the coup in Honduras, both of which destabilised those countries and plunged them into anarchy.  In the Libyan crisis’ case Clinton’s interference also led to the rise of ISIS and the current refugee crisis.

Hillary Clinton’s Huge Libya Disaster

Africans Are Being Sold At Libyan Slave Markets

The Clinton foundation has also made a career out of robbing the poor and corporate fraud on a truly unprecedented scale.

How The Clinton Foundation Stole From The Poor

The idea that anyone on the left could support this woman is truly laughable.

What actual Socialists think of this war hawk.

Wading Through The Hillary Clinton Book

What a poser who clearly doesn’t actually know anything about Clinton, but likes her for superficial reasons thinks of her.

You can see how based on this, Moran’s left wing politics are as superficial as can be just like Ricks. She is clearly happy to overlook the fact that Clinton is a war monger, a wall street shill, and takes money from Saudi Arabia, a country that treats women as less than fully human, all because it suits her narcissistic desire to see herself represented.

2/ He’s a soft, scared, middle class, privileged brat

Image result for antifa

The character of Rick loved to paint himself as a hard, working class, revolutionary. A catchphrase of his was “I’m so street and hard and cool”.

The great irony was that Rick came from a very well off family, had never done a day’s work in his life, was a total physical coward, and would probably own a publishing company by the age of 26 that his parents bought for him.

Rick was also shown to be a bully to Neil, the most vulnerable and defenceless member of the house, who he would push around and demean at every opportunity simply because it made him feel big.

The same is true of many of the regressive left. A good proportion of Antifa are upper middle class kids who want to look hard, so they’ll attack single protesters, or speakers in large groups with baseball bats, or pepper spray women in the eyes!

Whenever they are faced with an actual confrontation however, many regressive leftists tend to fold rather quickly.

This video from Sargon does a brilliant job of breaking down how many SJWs are attracted to the movement more because it gives them a chance to shove others around and look big, just like Rick.

You only have to look at a lot of the targets these regressive lefties go after to see what cowards they are.

SJWs tend to either invent battles, or go after fights that have already been won. The gender wage gap for instance is a prime example of this. The gender wage gap does exist, but not for the reasons that feminists make out. It is illegal to pay women less for the same work as men, women end up making less than men because they have to take more time off to have children, or go into professions that pay less.

See here. The Gender Wage Gap And 5 Other Feminist Myths

Feminists however still insist on rallying against this because its an easy target. Similarly feminists go after the science fiction and fantasy genres because they are an easy target too.

Sci fi and fantasy, historically have always been among the most progressive genres. They have broken new ground in terms of representation in television series and films and comic books with things like Star Trek, Wonder Woman and the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Why Star Trek Was So Important To MLK JR

The Transcendental Effect Of The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Yet despite all of this, these are the genres that SJWs target more than any other? That’s simply because they are easy to bully. Sci fi and fantasy are looked down on by the mainstream media, even with the geek chic culture, people who take them too seriously (IE care about them in a non superficial way.) Are looked down on as sad nerds, losers and outcasts.

Not only will the media ALWAYS be on the side of the feminists against the sad, smelly basement dwellers, but many of the nerds themselves will not want to be seen as sad losers, so they will take the side of the feminists. Self loathing fanboyism is a terrible affliction that affects many franchises.

Feminists however will never go after genres that aren’t so easy to bully like say Westerns in quite the same way. Westerns in contrast to Sci Fi and Fantasy haven’t ever really given strong roles to women, black people or other minorities in quite the same way (of course that’s because of the time they are set in.)

Still the SJWs don’t target these genres? Not that I want them to of course, but hey why is it only Sci Fi they go after for supposedly having too many white, male heroes?

The reason for that is again because its harder to bully Westerns. Not only is the genre more respected, but Western fans, at least stereotypically are seen as big, rough, gun toting, good ol boys who are probably not going to be happy being told by some posh, privileged middle class woman like Claudia Boleyn or Anita Sarkeesian, that they can’t enjoy their Lee Van Cleef or Clint Eastwood films anymore because they promote “toxic masculinity.”

That’s probably the reaction they’d get, so it makes sense that they go after, nerdy, shy, guys with low self esteem who try and cover up being nerdy. (Only to fail miserably.)

Related image

Nerds are to modern day SJWs what Neil was to Rick. The easy target they love pushing around to feel big.

3/ He throws words like racist, sexist, fascist and Nazi around at the drop of a hat

Image result for have you had enough nazi or do you want some more

The character of Rik regularly refers to just about any figure of authority from police men, to bus drivers, to receptionists as Nazis or fascists. He also desperately tries to get offended on behalf of women and minorities over the most trivial bullshit too.

RICK: Absolutely pathetic! There’s nothing on at all! Humph! Don’t know why we bother to pay our license!

MIKE: We don’t.

RICK: But, haven’t we got a license?

MIKE: No.

RICK: But that makes me a criminal! [thinks about it] Right on! Yeah, this will shake them up at the Anarchists Society! Occupying the refectories! So what? This is the real stuff! I’m a fugitive! A desperado! I’m going to form a new union society, right? With me as president! ‘People Who Don’t Pay Their TV Licenses Against the Nazis!‘ [takes out pad and pen and starts writing] This is only the beginning! 

The left nowadays of course will regularly refer to anyone who disagrees with them as racists, sexists, Nazis, fascists and bigots.

In fact those terms have sadly been somewhat been devalued as a result of the SJWs throwing them around so often. Nazi has just become another generic insult. Left leaning, liberal people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Maryam Namazie have been tarred as racists and sexists simply due to their criticisms of Islam and feminism.

Quite frankly its ridiculous to call even hard line right wingers like Sargon of Akkad, Paul Joseph Watson and Milo Yiannopoulis Nazis. The Nazis were a political spectrum on their own, completely separate from left or right. Neither thinking everything should be nationalised or privatised should lead you to thinking that entire sections of society should be exterminated.

Similarly having legitimate criticisms against ideologies like Islam and feminism doesn’t mean you are bigoted against one group of people, never mind want to exterminate them!

Sadly however just as with Rick, modern day leftists will still tar anyone they don’t like as a Nazi or a racist out of a combination of hysteria, and simply not having an argument, so they have to smear their opponents.

4/ He’s a letch behind closed doors

Image result for macktivist

Rick is a hard lined feminist who often screams at the other housemates for their supposedly sexist attitudes.

Ironically however in secret Rick is a pervert who has a stash of porn magazines and is later shown to grope Jennifer Saunders character (Helen Mucas) and look down her top whilst she sleeps.

It may be a cliche that male feminists are only doing it for sex, but sadly in recent years it certainly has proven to be the case with many high profile male feminists.

A recent and hilarious example was Chris Hardwick. Hardwick is your typical woke, male feminist geek who slanders anyone that doesn’t LOVE the new Ghostbusters movie, or the female Doctor Who as horrible, disgusting man baby sexists.

See for yourself.

Flash forward a few months however and guess who is the recipient of serious abuse allegations.

Chris Hardwick Abuse Allegations

Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and another famous male feminist was also recently accused by his own wife, Kai Cole of cheating on her for a period of 15 years.

It is hilarious in hindsight when you think back to Joss Whedon slandering other nerds and geeks and film makers as sexists, such as when he called the director of Jurassic World a sexist, or when he also smeared those who were unhappy at a female Doctor Who as sexists, or when he compared Gamer Gators to the KKK! The entire time he was showing the one woman who supposedly mattered the most to him, no respect whatsoever.

Image result for Joss Whedon jurassic world

Image result for Joss Whedon feminist frequency

I’m All For Progress

Joss Whedon is a hypocrite preaching feminist ideals

Joss Whedon’s wife accuses him of feminist hypocrisy

In addition to this many prominent anti gamer gators have similarly been revealed to be harassers themselves.

There are many other notable examples, but still you can definitely see a pattern emerging here.

A lot of these men use their position to get close to women and make themselves untouchable, but I feel there is also perhaps a genuine sense of guilt in their actions. They think (incorrectly of course) that by white knighting for women like Anita Sarkeesian they can perhaps make up for the appalling way they treat the other women in their life.

5/ The AWFUL Poetry

The character of Rick was an aspiring poet who used to refer to himself as “The People’s Poet”. All of his poems that were meant to be about topical issues that were affecting “the kids”, but they ended up being insular, narcisstic, self indulgent pieces about his own petty little problems.

The character skewered the emerging punk poet scene at the time, but in the decades since he has become just as valid a parody of the emerging feminist poetry scene, which is similarly often hysterical, self indulgent and focused only on the problems of privileged middle class teenagers like mansplaining, or someone being rude to them on twitter.

See for yourself how there is really little difference between Rick’s poetry and modern feminists.

I actually think Rik’s were better.

6/ He is a tantrum throwing child

Whenever Rik didn’t get his way he would scream and shout and stamp his foot like a little child. Mayall would even say that The Young Ones were conceived as a family, with Mike as the father, Neil as the put upon mother, and Rik and Vyv as the squabbling children.

Rik’s childishness was further proof of his privileged upbringing. He was used to ALWAYS getting his way from his rich parents and couldn’t take it out in the real world.

The same is of course true of many SJWs and feminists who similarly are spoiled brats used to always getting their on way from their parents, so when that doesn’t happen they’ll scream and throw Rick style tantrums in public.

7/ He wants to censor violent forms of entertainment

In the episode Flood, Rick tells Vyvian that he hates violent comic books, because all the characters do is fight all the time. Naturally Vyvian ridicules his argument.

Here is the exchange.

Rick: And what is it you’re reading, Vyvyan? A bit of Pretarkian verse, is it? Little bit of French drama? 

Vyvyan: It’s called, ‘SS Death Camp Criminal Battalion go to Monte Casino for the Massacre’. 

Rick: [snatching comic] That’s MY bloody comic! 

Vyvyan: Give it back!

Rick: No, Vyvyan! It’s mine! [sits down and reads] Anyway, there’s no point in reading comics, they’re stupid! They treat the kids is if they we’re…well, as if they were, you know, kids! Nothing but war in them! War! War! Bloody war! Why can’t they have stories about love and peace? 

Vyvyan: Because it’s sissy, you girly!

Rick: I’m not being girly, Vyvyan. Longing for a peaceful world is not being girly. 

Vyvyan: It is! It’s being soppy and very very girly! 

Rick: I AM NOT BEING G…Look, this entire discussion is completely sexist anyway and I don’t intend to continue it! [pause] But, for your information, it is not soppy of me to long for a world where a man will love his brother. 

Vyvyan: Poof! 

Rick: You’re deliberately trying to provoke me, aren’t you? 

Vyvyan: Yeah! 

Rick: For one man to love another, Vyvyan, is not poofy. It’s actually very beautiful. It’s only when they start touching each others bottoms that it gets poofy. 

Vyvyan: I’m going to tell Mike and Neil that you said you love men. Hey, Mike...

Rick: Look, all I said was this comic is a reactionary militaristic pamphlet! All they ever do is fight all the time! 

Vyvyan: And what’s so wrong with that? I suppose you think we should all go around touching each others bottoms! ‘Dan Dare touches The Mekon’s bottom!’ ‘Exciting new story: Batman gooses the Joker’s crack!’ 

Rick: Alright! Alright! Alright! What’s this? [makes weird hippie body movement] 

Vyvyan: Being poofy! 

Rick: No, that’s peace! What’s this? [places his bottom in VYVYAN’s face] That’s my bottom, isn’t it? They’re two completely different things!

This is pretty much EXACTLY what modern day SJWs like Jonathan McIntosh say about video games, comic books and tv shows that are too violent.

He argues that they encourage the children who enjoy them to be violent, he also argues that heroes like Spider-Man and Batman are reactionary and reinforce both white supremacy and toxic masculinity.

Image result for jonathan mcIntosh Avengers

Image result for jonathan mcIntosh violence comic books

Related image

Image result for jonathan mcIntosh violence comic books

 

Of course any time a franchise panders to these types of people (which is fairly often) then it ends up becoming exactly how Vyvyan described.

Take a look at Doctor Who. Okay old ground for me, but its true. Doctor Who began to pander to SJWs from about 2014 onwards. They launched a vicious smear campaign against Steven Moffat, the then producer of Doctor Who. They slandered him as a sexist, homophobic, racist until he started to pander to them in various ways (which by sheer coincidence I’m sure coincided with a massive drop in Doctor Who’s viewing figures.)

At any rate as soon as the show started to pander to these people then the Doctor went from a swash buckling, dashing hero, into a sissy hating himself because he is a man (well at that point).

These two quotes sum it all up.

Pre SJW Doctor

CLAIRE: What are you doing, John? 
ANDREWS: I’m going to trash this fellow within an inch of his life! 
(Jo takes the Doctor’s jacket.)
ANDREWS: Still sticking to that stupid story? 
DOCTOR: I’m afraid so, old chap. 
ANDREWS: You’ll regret it, sir. I think I ought to warn you, I used to box for my school. 
DOCTOR: And I think I ought to warn you that I took lessons from John L Sullivan himself. 
DALY: By Jiminy, the old fellow’s got some pluck. 
DOCTOR: Queensbury rules?
ANDREWS: Naturally. 

This is John L Sullivan by the way. Badass of the Week: John L Sullivan

SJW Doctor

CYBER-BILL: Stand aside.
DOCTOR: Do as she says.
CYBER-BILL: Stand aside.
MASTER: Do as she says. Is the future going to be all girl?
DOCTOR: We can only hope. 

You can see how much as Rick wanted to make the violent comics Vyvyan loved toothless, the same thing has basically happened to Doctor Who.

Look at the characters relationships with his archenemies. In the original Doctor Who series, the Doctor regularly tried to kill his archenemies the Master and Davros, but in the post SJW era of the revival he is in love with the Master (who has now become a woman, called Missy, in a further effort to pander to feminists by setting a precedent for a female Doctor) and he also got all weepy with Davros in a recent two part story.

See for yourself.

Pre SJW Doctor Who

All they ever do is fight all the time. War, war, bloody war! Why can’t they have stories about love and peace.

SJW Who

And what’s so wrong with that? I suppose you think we should all go around touching each others bottoms! ‘Dan Dare touches The Mekon’s bottom!’ ‘Exciting new story: Batman gooses the Joker’s crack!’ 

8/ They are desperate to be seen as weird and edgy

Image result for pink haired feminist

Rick constantly tries to show off how “nutty”, and eccentric he is to impress everyone around him. Sadly however since he has virtually no personality then his attempts to be edgy are always pedestrian and cringey.

RICK: Oh, hello! [runs over] Pleased to meet you! Sorry, so many essays to write! [laughs, snorts] I’m surprised my arms aren’t falling off! Perhaps they are, look out, bonk! [flails his arms wildly] You’ll have to watch out for me because I’m a bit nutty. Aren’t I, everybody?! A bit nutty?

[sticks out his tongue and blows a raspberry]

RICK: Last night, right, we were all watching the television, and it was a programme
we wanted to watch, you know, and then we were just watching it, and right in the middle of it, I just got up and turned it off. Mad!
I don’t care what I do, you know. Unless it’s work or something. You know, last Wednesday we stayed up until one o’clock in the morning!

MIKE: Why are you smashing up saucers, Rick? Your prints on ’em? 

RICK: I suppose you think it’s pretty weird, don’t you Mike? Well. You’d be right. ‘Cause THAT’S the kind of guy I am, right? WEIRD. Which is why I go over people’s heads! A bit like an aeroplane! You think I’m an aeroplane, don’t you, Mike? Well, I’m not.

MIKE: I don’t think you’re an aeroplane, Rick.

RICK: Sycophant!

Many modern day SJWs similarly want to appear edgy in mundane or boring ways like dying their hair pink, growing arm pit hair if they are women or saying that they love Satan.

Jump to 5 minutes 26 seconds in to see what is essentially a woman acting exactly like Rick trying to be edgy by declaring that she has armpit hair to the rest of the world.

9/ He claims that he is an anarchist, yet always goes to authority whenever anything goes wrong

Image result for Rik Mayall

Rick always goes on about how anti establishment he is,  and how the police are fascists and pigs. Yet at the first sign of trouble he will instantly go to the police or any figure of authority.

Neil: Oh well. well, we’ll all probably get drowned or eaten by octopuses, then.
Rick: WHAT? Phone the police!
Neil: But they’re fascists!
Rick: Well, never mind about that now! Telephone, Vyvyan!

RICK: It’s stealing, Vyvyan! It’s common stealing! And if you ever touch it again, EVER, I’m going to the police. I really will! I will go to the police!

VYVYAN: Why aren’t you dead?

RICK: I’m not prepared to discuss it with you, Vyvyan. You will be hearing from my solicitors in the morning. I’m going to write to my MP.

[takes out paper and pencil]

NEIL: You haven’t got an MP, Rick. You’re an anarchist.

RICK: Oh. Well, then I shall write to the lead singer of Echo and the Bunnymen!

The same is true of many modern day feminists and social justice warriors who despite being communists, anarchists and anti establishment, will still instantly go to someone they disagree with’s employer to get them fired, or go to the police to get them arrested! I’m not joking.

See here.

Once again this ties rather nicely into the fact that Rick and others like him are such spoiled brats, always used to getting someone else to fix things for them.

10/ His hatred of Thatcher is based on nothing

Image result for Thatcher

Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that there weren’t plenty of reasons to hate Thatcher.

In my opinion its a toss up between Thatcher and Tony Blair for who is the worst post war Prime Minister of all time.

Still Rick is shown to not really have a reason to hate Thatcher, simply because he is completely A political. Its all about image with him, so he simply hates Thatcher to fit in.

We see a similar set up with feminists and Donald Trump today. Once again there are many reasons one would hate the Donald, but certainly a good portion of these virtue signalling feminists and SJWs only hate him because its trendy.

The most recent Trump protest was perhaps the finest example of this. So many more feminists came to protest Trump visiting than when the Prince of Saudi Arabia came to visit the UK earlier this year.

Now I’m sure that some of the same people who did protest Trump’s visit also protested that for the Prince of Saudi Arabia, but the overwhelming majority did not.

Over 4 times as many people came to protest Trump than the Prince of Saudi Arabia. To me this showed how the Trump protest wasn’t about standing up for women’s rights, as ultimately these people don’t mind when someone who is the head of country that treats women as less than fully human turns up. The Prince of Saudi Arabia is simply not as trendy to hate as Trump, so the posers don’t bother to protest him.

Conclusion

As you can see Rick’s successors have sadly turned left wing politics into a joke. Its time that people who cared about genuine left wing ideals did all they could to separate themselves from the Rick’s of this world.

Its a shame in contrast to Mayall, who called out those on both the left and the right, modern, “edgy” comedians like Frankie Boyle are utterly terrified of saying anything against those on the left. They know their place. Whilst SJW is an ironic term, many of them stupidly take it as a compliment, as they think its some racist or homophobe that hates social justice.

Comparing them to Rick in my opinion is much better.

Thanks for reading.

Right Wing SJWs and The Horse Shoe Effect

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

I have identified as a socialist for pretty much most of my adult life, but in the last few years I have come to see that socialism is obviously far from perfect. No political ideology is. I still believe in socialised concepts such as the welfare state and the NHS, but now I think a mixed economy utilising the best aspects of both socialism and capitalism is the way forward for the west, until we are ready for a full socialist society.

Sadly however despite still having some overlap with them on many key issues, I would never wish to associate myself with the left as in the last few years it has become a sick parody of its former self.

Its bigoted towards white men, its fascist and threatens to shut people who disagree with it down, it is willing to look the other way in the face of atrocities for its own agendas, and finally the left also has a soft bigotry of low expectations towards dark skinned people.

As a result of this many young people have abandoned the left and turned towards right wingers. In fact generation Z is said to be the most conservative generation since World War 2.

I myself whilst never abandoning my left wing principles, would certainly in the last few years have probably viewed the right as being better than the left overall I must admit.

However fortunately I have realised that actually there are just as many SJWs on the right.

Right wing SJWs currently are not as big a threat as left wing SJWs as its the left that has all of the institutional power. Yes we do have a right wing government in power in both the UK and the US, but ultimately the media is where the real power lies, and it is totally dominated by left wing identity politics. Also in real life if you say you disagree with any piece of received left wing dogma, like say the gender wage gap which has been debunked time and time again.

The gender wage gap is a myth

Then you are more likely to become a social pariah among friends you’ve known for years, even decades. You might actually be fired from your job and black listed.

Still this doesn’t mean that right wing SJWs wouldn’t do the same if they were in power. They can appear to be more logical, and reasonable because they are attacking the current fascists in power, but don’t be fooled.

An SJW, right wing or left wing is still an SJW. They are not really political. They are tribal and they have decided to latch onto one team, and will follow everything their home team does regardless.

Things like capitalism, socialism and feminism have really replaced religion in modern secular societies. If you dare to question anything these ideologies preach, then you will be attacked by their followers for being a heretic.

In this article I am going to run through the ways that the right and the left really are no different in terms of their behaviour.

Politics is not the same as religion. It should be looked at in an objective and fair way, and what is best for the current situation we are in, but sadly the following examples of tribalism from both sides prevents that from happening.

1/ Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet

These two fine gentlemen dindunuffin.

When the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died, the left lined up to canonise him as a great man and a fighter for justice and freedom around the world.

Naturally many people on the right called them out on their hypocrisy. They pointed out that Castro was above all else a dictator who took away people’s right to vote, and that in the earlier years of his rule he, by his own admission persecuted homosexuals.

Fidel Castro Takes Blame For Persecution of Gay People

Yet the same people like Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn who love to virtue signal about how much they hate Trump for supposedly being homophobic were singing the praises of this man.

The leftists will often try and justify Castro’s human rights violations by pointing to the good things he did for his country, such as freeing it from the corrupt government owned by the American Mafia (who were definitely worse), and bringing in free education and health care for his people.

Still this obviously does not even begin to excuse the inhuman barbarity that LGBT people in Cuba were subjected too for years from Castro’s government.

This Is How Fidel Castro Persecuted Gay People

Still whilst the rightists were correct to call the left out on their hypocrisy here, at the same time they ultimately lost the moral high ground when they started defending Augusto Pinochet.

Pinochet was a Chilean dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990. He overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Chile and imposed a truly brutal regime that silenced any opposition.

Whilst it did not cause as many deaths as some other dictatorships, the Pinochet regime was still nevertheless notorious for its horrific sadism.

Pinochet’s soldiers tortured men, women and children in such gruesome ways as electrocuting their genitals, raping them, and forcing them to carry out incest, pedophillia and even cannibalism at gun point. He even had women raped by dogs!

Here are some sources to back this up.

Law Lords Told of Pinochet Atrocities

Agusto Pinochet’s Nazi Pedophile Cult

The Absurd Defence of Augusto Pinochet

Yet in spite of this and the fact that he was a dictator, the very same right who ridiculed leftists like Justin Trudeau for overlooking Castro’s sins all lined up one after another to actually try and defend a monster like Pinochet.

Sargon of Akkad who did a whole video attacking Castro and his apologists for instance is an apologist for Pinochet to some extent. He said in a recent video that all Pinochet did was get rid of his communist problem.

Its disgusting that Sargon would dismiss women who were forced to have sex with their own children, had spiders shoved up their genitals, and men who were raped in front of the rest of the prisoners and were forced to eat their own shit; as just being Pinochet getting rid of his communist problem.

Look at this video from Coach Red Pill.

All of the same arguments the left used to try and overlook Castro’s faults are used by Coach Red Pill.

1/ There were no atrocities in Cuba or Chile, because I lived there, went on holiday there and I didn’t see anything.

2/ Yes he was a dictator who took away the people’s right to vote, and he silenced all opposition in the most brutal ways possible, and normally I’m a big supporter of democracy and freedom of speech, but well it was okay when Pinochet/Castro did it because of the uh, economy.

3/ All of the people they tortured and killed were just trouble makers trying to overthrow their rightful leader, even though a lot of their victims were just citizens, innocent people, even children who suffered the most horrific deaths, I’m still going to dismiss them as getting what they deserved.

Now sometimes it is true that in order to prevent a greater threat we have to take the side of a dictator. For instance in Syria right now Assad though a brutal and evil man is a better option than ISIS as if they were to take control from him, even more innocent people would die.

This article here from a gay man, a group that Assad is persecuting sums up why its better to side with Assad over ISIS as with Assad for the most part you can still live under him, even if it isn’t exactly a good existence, yet with ISIS they would throw you off a roof for being gay.

We Don’t Have Rights But We Are Alive

However the right and the lefts defence for Pinochet and Castro isn’t just a lesser of two evils attitude. To be fair an argument could be made for Castro being the lesser of two evils compared to what ruled before him. But again the likes of Corbyn don’t come at it from that attitude. They praise him as a great man and overlook all of his faults.

Pinochet meanwhile was ironically only able to seize power thanks to American intervention. Many of the rightists who are apologists for Pinochet are also against intervention in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq (hence their support for Trump.)

I agree with them of course on foreign intervention in countries like Iraq and Libya just making the existing problems worse, but still how can these people then suddenly think it’s okay to remove an actual democratically elected leader which Salvador Allende was, and back a brutal dictator when its Pinochet?

Image result for pinochet pepes

(Look at the comments from right wing SJWs on this video which actually documents the horrors of the Pinochet regime. You can see more demonizing of Pinochet’s victims.)

These people just simply can’t accept that their favoured political ideology might be open to abuse, and might lead to things like the above, so they do their best to cover it up, or even just stick their fingers in their ears when being presented with the horrors it has caused.

This in turn just leads to my next point.

2/ “They Just Weren’t Doing It Right”

Right wingers will often sneer at SJWs who identify as communists and socialists. Whenever people bring up the communist and socialist states that have failed and led to massive human loss, the left wing SJWs response will always be “they just weren’t doing communism right”.

Hilariously however right wingers like Paul Joseph Watson and Sargon of Akkad use the exact same defence when trying to excuse the horrors and atrocities that capitalism has caused on a global scale too of “that’s not real capitalism, that’s just corprotism, or crony capitalism.”.

In the above video we see a debate between a socialist and a capitalist. Now again on the surface the capitalist obviously seems more reasonable, and he is more reasonable. The left winger who was given the unfortunate nickname of Aids Skrillex by the internet, screams and shouts, is openly bigoted towards white men, and dog piles with his friends on the one guy.

Still ultimately Aids Skrillex and the Info Wars Journalist’s arguments on socialism and capitalism are really no different.

They both say that they have never seen real socialism or real capitalism and also try and score points against the other side “yeah socialism may be failing in Venezeula, but capitalism caused the Iraq war”.

Of course trying to simply score points against the other side doesn’t always have to have anything to even do with politics. It can often lead to cringy attempts at proving who is cooler and more trendy with the young crowd (often by people who are completely out of touch), such as this.

As a result neither side is able to look at the failings of their own political ideologies, acknowledge them and try to fix them. Leftists and rightists are both locked in a cycle of “no its just bad people” and whataboutism.

Free market capitalism does lead to corprotism. In the free market you have to eliminate all competition, so naturally the biggest business will want to crush all of the smaller ones, leading to everything eventually being owned by one corrupt organisation. I’d also argue that globalism comes from free market capitalism too. After all a business will have to expand beyond even its home country, and eventually become the dominant global business.

Ironically all of the people that those on the right despise, George Soros, and Hillary Clinton are free market capitalists who are just simply trying to make their business the top one, regardless of the cost.

Of course at the same time, yes communism and socialism are ideologies that want to hand more power over to the government and so are obviously more open to fascism.

This is why I favour a mixed economy. A mixed economy would in my opinion help to overcome many of the problems inherent in both capitalism and socialism.

On the one hand I would like to see free health care and the welfare state be provided to people as safety nets. I also would like to see the railways, and basic resources such as gas and electricity be nationalised too. However at the same time independent businesses that can create their own product, (rather than simply monopolise something that should be for everyone) and the media should all be independent too.

Sadly however the left and the right’s tribalism will prevent there from ever being a discussion about the merits of both capitalism and socialism, as they have to demonise the other side, whilst ignoring any of the faults with their own.

3/ Soft Bigotry Of Low Expectations Towards Dark Skinned People

People hate me just because I am a strong black/Muslim woman. Its totally not because I am a lying, two faced, scummy, money grubbing bigot.

Neither the left nor the right these days hate dark skinned people. well the alt right does, but since its such a tiny minority among the actual right then it doesn’t really matter.

Still both have sadly shown that they do not treat dark skinned people as equals. They often don’t hold dark skinned people to the same high moral standard as they do white people, and worse they are also fond of using black people as human shields to defend their arguments and use them as trophies to show how not racist they are to their enemies.

The left’s soft bigotry of low expectations is most notable in their attempts to shut down any criticism of Islam.

Islam is possibly the most evil ideology on the planet. Its holy book the Quran tells all Muslims to exterminate non believers, that women are inferior to men, that all gay people be exterminated and that all black people are ugly pug nosed raisin headed animals, fit only to serve white people.

Ironically Muhammad was not only described as being snow white, but in the Hadith it is said that to describe him as dark skinned is punishable by death! Its also worth noting that Arabs are classed as Caucasians too.

Here are sources to back up what I am saying about Islam.

Quranic verses of violence

Islamic Slave Trade

Islamic View of Homosexuality

Now this is not to say that all Muslims are evil. There are many decent Muslims in the west. These Muslims either ignore the heinous parts of the Quran, or I think in some cases they haven’t even read it, and have just taken their parents or their local Imam’s word that Islam is a peaceful religion. After all not all Jewish people have read the Old Testament in the west, and not all Christians have read the bible either.

For these kinds of Muslims, their religion is either just a source of comfort for the hardships of life, like losing a loved one, or its just a series of traditions and a way of keeping their people together in a community, or even just a social thing.

However Muslims who do follow and are raised on what the Quran actually says at least hold bigoted views towards women, Jews and LGBT people, as well as other religious groups such as Hindus and Christians.

In any country where Islam is allowed to call the shots such as Saudi Arabia, or Iran then homosexuality is illegal, or even punishable by death and women hold fewer rights than men, whilst many Muslim countries still hold Africans as slaves.

Twenty First Century African Slaves in Islamic Countries

Christians are also as a result of Muslims actions, the most persecuted religious group worldwide

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group Worldwide

Christians Most Persecuted Religious Group

Then of course there is the historic genocide of Hindus as a result of Islamic actions, and their current persecution of Hindus in countries like Bangladesh.

Muslim Persecution of Hindus In Bangladeshi

Muslim Persecution of Hindus in India

The Biggest Genocide In Human History: Islamic Invasion of India

Islamic Genocide In India

Even in the United Kingdom over 50 percent of British Muslims think homosexuality should be criminalised, compared to 2 percent of all other groups in the UK.

Over 50 Percent of British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Criminalised

The majority of grooming gangs are also Muslim as well. This behaviour stems from what Islam says about women. Muhammed outright said that “your women are your fields, so go into your fields whenever and whichever way you want.”

Not surprisingly when one group of people are raised on these types of beliefs then they are probably going to be better represented in things like grooming gangs rather than in things like winning the Nobel Prize.

Grooming Gang Statistics

Now again this is not to say that ALL Muslims are like this, or that we should ban Muslims from coming to the country. However a proper and sensible discussion needs to be had about Islam.

The same problems are not happening with other religious groups like Sikhs and Christians. To say that all religions are equally bad is not only dishonest, its utter cowardice.

As Sam Harris has pointed out many times in the past, you could hardly say Buddhism or Jainism are in any way comparable to Islam. Jainism specifically tells its followers to preserve all forms of life, even insects! In what way is that comparable to a religion whose founder tells his followers “I have been made victorious with terror!”

Yes there are dodgy passages in the New Testament, but overall Jesus is a benevolent figure. He was someone who ultimately said to love your enemies, he made a point of separating the Church from the state, and didn’t command his followers to conquer people.

The Old Testament meanwhile is morally every bit as disgusting as the Quran. However from a practical point of view it is less dangerous in the modern world than the Quran is for a number of reasons.

To start with its open to interpretation. There are so many contradictions in the Old Testament, and it is also not presented as the actual word of God, but a second hand account. Also the Old Testament doesn’t actually promise its followers an afterlife if they martyr themselves either.

The Quran however is presented as the definitive word of God and therefore everything in it has to be taken literally. Also it is not full of contradictions either. Muhammed does preach love and acceptance in the early stages of his career, but he later tells his followers to ignore these teachings.

The reason Muhammed preached peace in the earlier passages of the Quran was simply because at that point his forces weren’t as strong. Once they were however Muhammed abandoned these teachings and even told his followers that when they are low in number, they should lie about being peaceful to non Muslims until their forces are strong enough to slaughter the non believers.

Muhammed named this process Taqiyya.

David Wood sums it up as always.

Taqiyya in action.

Finally the Jewish and Christian faiths have also had many reformations too that have purged them of their violent passages.

For all of these reasons Islam is currently the most dangerous ideology, never mind religion on the face of the planet.

I would love if it just vanished, but its too deeply rooted for that. So instead I think it needs to be made toothless until it does just become a harmless faith.

Peaceful measures can be taken to achieve this that don’t involve tarring all Muslims as the same.

To start with Saudi Arabia should be boycotted the same way that South Africa was. Also Islamic reformers such as Imam Tawhidi should be given more air time and support.

Also no more concessions should be made to Islam. All Sharia courts, Muslim faith schools etc, should be shut down right away. Islam needs to integrate with OUR culture, not the other way around.

Also Islam should be criticised in public as much as any other ideology and religion to ensure that there are no double standards against other faiths.

Shutting down all legit criticism of Islam will lead to more suffering for everyone.

Obviously the victims of Islam, here and around the world will be left out in the cold to suffer in silence.

Rochdale Grooming Gang

Politically Correct Do Gooders Shutting Down Discussion About Muslim Grooming Gangs

Silencing Rochdale Grooming Gangs Is Foul Snub To Victims

Furthermore the Muslim reformers who are threatened with death every day will be more vulnerable as a result too, as no one will know the danger they are placing themselves in, in trying to reform the most retrograde ideology, as hey Islam is already peaceful right?

Imam Tawhidi Sent Chilling Death Threat

Assault Threats To Australian Imam Over Calls To Close Muslim School

Death Threats Are Nothing New For Muslim Reformers.

Finally the more problems Islam causes in our society, the more anger there will be directed towards the Muslim community as a whole, but with no practical solution being offered up, people will eventually turn to genuine right wing extremists who will smear all Muslims as potential terrorists.

Acid Threats To Muslims

Sadly however the left are the people who are preventing any reasonable discussion about Islam being had, as they see all criticism of Islam as racist (despite Islam not being a race), simply because most Muslims have brown skin.

That literally is it. If Islam was a religion practised by mostly white people like Christianity or Scientology, then left wingers would have no problem with attacking it. Hell they’d probably be calling for it to be banned.

Of course ironically the left ends up betraying many of the groups that it sees itself as champions of such as women and LGBT people when it tries to silence all reasonable criticism of Islam as racism.

Goldsmith University Feminists Side With Islamists

I know Kraut is a doxxing arsehole, but this vid is probably the best run down on the horrific extent of Islamic homophobia there is. Set some time aside and give it a watch.

These leftists don’t view dark skinned people as their equals. They view them as children who shouldn’t be held accountable in the same way as white people, so its okay if a dark skinned person hates gay people, hates women, or if they follow a religion that says gay people are inferior, as well you don’t expect the same kind of morality from a dark skinned person do you?

Case in point look at Donald Trump and Linda Sarsour. Trump’s comments about grabbing women by the pussy were pathetic and stupid, but they were not contrary to popular belief advocating rape.

Trump says in the video “they let me do it“, so he isn’t boasting about grabbing women without their consent. What he is actually saying if you listen to the full clip is that because he is a big tv star and millionaire, women who normally wouldn’t look at him throw themselves at him and let him grab them by the pussy.

It doesn’t show much respect for his exes, but to be fair Trump has probably dealt with more than his fair share of gold diggers (and no that’s not saying gold diggers are all women. I think most billionaires of both genders are probably going to have to deal with a few gold diggers.)

Linda Sarsour meanwhile is a Muslim woman, and the left’s new darling. She actually organised the woman’s march in both 2017 and 18. Now this woman also like Trump made a vagina related remark.

She said that she wanted to take Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a feminist critic of Islam’s vagina away from her. Ayaan Hirsi Ali who grew up in Somalia had her genitals mutilated as a child.

I would have thought it was worse to make a remark about wanting to remove a former child victim of FGM’s vagina away in public to all of your followers, than to make a stupid joke about how because you’re rich, women will let you grab their genitals to your friends in private.

Yet the left organises marches to protest Trumps sexism, whilst making Sarsour their darling? The reason for that is again because Trump is a white man, so ironically these supposedly not racist people hold him to a higher moral standard than they do the Muslim woman.

Look at slavery. White people are made to feel guilty as a whole for slavery that happened over 100 years ago by SJWs, yet Muslims are never made to feel guilty as a whole for not only having a far more brutal slave trade, which lasted longer, but is still going strong today. In fact there are more Islamic slaves today than there ever were in the European slave trade.

https://clarionproject.org/islamists-still-perpetuating-slavery-today/

Yet white people should still feel guilty for things that happened over 100 years ago, and Muslims shouldn’t? PS I am not saying that all Muslims SHOULD be made to feel guilty for the actions of others, but again if leftists think that about white people (despite being white not actually being an ideology like Islam is.) Then again why don’t these same leftists make Muslim children do things like this.

Simple because yet again they don’t hold them to the same ridiculously high moral standard that they do white people which makes them racist.

You only have to look at a lot of these edgy fedora wearing atheists who regularly ridiculed Christians in an effort to show how smart and logical they were, but when it comes to Islam they are either nowhere near as harsh or worse adopt a “noble savages” view of, we can’t criticise their culture just because its different.

Rational Wiki are a prime example of this. Rational Wiki is a website that I dislike greatly. They do make some valid points, particularly about the hypocrisy of right wingers like Sargon of Akkad. Sadly however not only is a lot of the information on the website biased, but they also though making some critiques of Islam, are far easier on it than Christianity.

Take a look at the following two Youtubers, NonStampCollector and Syeten. Both of them do cartoons mocking religion. NonStampCollector focuses solely on the Judeo Christian faith, whilst Syeten focuses primarily on Islam.

Both do humorous recreations of stories and passages from the bible and the Quran (in Syeten’s case he has modern day figures represent those from the Quran. For instance radical Muslim preachers such as Anjem Choudrary represent Muhammed and his followers, whilst Tommy Robinson represents the pagans who were terrified of Muhammed’s influence growing throughout their land, and feminists like Steve Shives represent the pagans who foolishly thought Muhammed could integrate.)

Both men also point out the corruption, and outright stupidity in both the old testament and the Quran too.

You can see that Non Stamp Collector and Syeten’s styles are similar in that their humour is very unapologetic, shocking and doesn’t hold anything back. Yet Rational Wiki brands Syeten a bigot simply because he targets the Islamic faith.

About Syetens videos they say. “Prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: Nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws and broken keyboards“. Whilst about Non Stamp Collectors they say “Warning this video may cause excessive hilarity.

The youtuber Logicked meanwhile (whose work I highly recommend) also commented on how Rational Wiki used to like his videos when he skewered the Christian faith, but now that he attacks Islam he is on their bigots and Webshites list.

Rational Wiki Doesn’t Like Me Now That I Criticise Muslims.

Richard Dawkins meanwhile a long time critic of religion has been deplatformed from many events for tweeting negative things against Islam.

Richard Dawkins Banned From Event For “Hate Speech” Against Islam

Richard Dawkins Dropped From Science Event

The left haven’t bothered to analyse or read into anything they claim to be experts of like Islam. As they are a little tribe, then they will naturally just follow what the received wisdom is for that tribe. The received wisdom for the left is of course, that dark skinned people are always the poor victims of evil white people, so it doesn’t matter that Islam is the most conservative, bigoted, retrograde, backwards and misogynistic ideology there has possibly ever been. The fact that Muslims are mostly brown, means that they have to be the poor victims of evil white people.

Hence we get Owen Jones, a socialist, a feminist and supposed man of the people white knighting over Islamophobia, whilst telling us that white people don’t experience racism in the United Kingdom, right in the middle of a scandal involving hundreds of thousands of white girls being sexually abused and tortured on an unprecedented scale, because they are white all across the country!

White Women Are Only Good For One Thing

White People Are Not Victims Of Racism In The United Kingdom

Owen Jones is an utter disgrace, but sadly he is typical of people on the left these days.

Now when it comes to Islam then the right have obviously done a better job than the left. They have actually spoken out against the ideology, and indeed I think this possibly more than anything else, is why they have gained more support in the last few years.

Even then though I find some right wingers are less willing to be as critical of Islam as they are of other ideologies. Take Sargon of Akkad for instance.

Now Sargon has criticised Islam many times, and I respect him for that. However Sargon I feel is still more willing to say he hates an ideology and all of the people in it, if that ideology is practised mostly by white people.

He has openly said that he thinks if you are a communist, then you are a bad person, and has said that he wanted to bring McCarthy a man who took away communists rights and blacklisted them back.

I could never imagine him saying the same thing about Muslims. If you follow Islam then you are a bad person, and that he wants Muslims fired from their jobs and black listed so they’ll never work again.

Not that I want him to say that about Muslims of course, but still if he is going to say it about communists, then be consistent. When it comes to Islam, Sargon will say “not all Muslims” but when its communists, then it IS “all communists are evil people” simply because again most Muslims are brown so he doesn’t want to be seen as a racist.

Still whilst the right might be more willing to criticise Islam overall they have been shown to be just as willing to talk down to dark skinned people in other ways too.

The recent Candace Owens/Red Pill Black fiasco was quite illuminating. Candace Owens was a former left wing SJW who had tried to set up a website called Social Autopsy that would doxx people who said mean words online and reveal where they lived.

Thankfully the website never got launched but Candace a few months later returned as a supposedly reformed conservative. She still didn’t take the website down however until the youtuber Tree of Logic did a video exposing “Red Pill Black” for who she was.

Now it can be debated as to whether or not Candace wanted to still launch the Social Autopsy website. Personally I don’t think she was an actual left wing SJW like Tree said, though I can understand why Tree would say that.

I think Candace is just cynical and simply goes wherever the money is. This great video by April Reigne sums up the type of person Candace is.

Whatever her intentions the fact that so many right wingers like Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneaux, and Dave Rubin not only welcomed her with open arms, but did all they could to promote her, without checking her background first showed that they were desperate to have a black woman on their side.

Almost everything about the way every right winger promoted Candace was to do with the fact that she was black. Hell even her youtube name “Red Pill Black” . Who cares if she’s a black conservative? All that matters is if you agree with her opinions or not. Its hilarious that Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, two people who often attack identity politics would revel in it.

In one interview with Candace, Alex Jones even agrees with her that he needs to have more women on his show to get the female perspective.

Hmmm isn’t that the kind of thing a left wing SJW would say? So much for the meritocracy and hiring people based on their ideas and talent which the right always claims they are for. When they can get several women and minorities on their side as trophies to show that their side isn’t racist. Then ironically they are all for diversity hirings and using black people as trophies just like the left.

Furthermore the fact that these conservatives kept white knighting for Candace when she was found out, and even lied for her, shows how desperate they were not to have their novelty of a black conservative end.

Paul Joseph Watson for instance lied that Social Autopsy was from 4 years ago, and he still promotes her.

In this video here, Tree of Logic, a black conservative talks about how disappointed she was to find out that in some ways her side was really no better in terms of talking down to black people and viewing them as their children.

Sadly this type of thinking will always happen when people become part of little tribes and are desperate to score points against the other.

The great irony is that Candace Owens and Linda Sarsour are two people that no one in their right mind would want to associate with if it wasn’t for their minority status that they shamelessly exploit.

Candace has nothing original or intelligent to say, and she is an arrogant, obnoxious bigot too. Look at her debate with Blaire White on the Rubin Report. She not only shouts over Blaire but resorts to calling Blaire, a trans woman, a man several times.

In fact all of the times she called Blaire a man have been gathered together in a video here.

Linda Sarsour meanwhile aside from saying she wants to cut out women’s vaginas is also a racist against white people (even dismissing a man’s opinion in public because he was white.) And is a terrorist supporter too.

Democrats Revere Linda Sarsour

Why would you want to associate yourself with these people, other than to have a minority trophy to show people how not racist you are.

I understand that it must have been extremely frustrating for Tree, a black woman to learn that both sides didn’t treat her with actual respect because of her skin colour, but again that’s just further proof of why its best not to be a part of either

4/ They Are Both Okay With Censorship And Ruining People’s Reputations

We all know that left wing SJWs are happy to get someone fired from their job and even ruin their life if they disagree with them.

The first thing a feminist will often do if they lose an argument with you is ask to speak to your employer.

Again it kind of reminds me of when people would speak out against religion centuries ago and they would be branded as heretics and ostracised. Just replace heretic with misogynist and that’s pretty much the situation we are in today.

The MeTooMovement meanwhile is a witch hunt.

Obviously there is corruption in Hollywood, but that does not mean that A/ there is a patriarchy designed to oppress women throughout all of western society or that B/ all men are rapists.

People at the top will obviously be able to cover up their sleazy actions and crimes and so its not surprising that we see abuses of power for many different crimes, not just sexual assault in places like Hollywood.

The problem with the MeTooMovement however is that first of all in most cases its advocates adopt a guilty until proven innocent stance as seen recently with Stan Lee.

Also worst of all they are trying to equate things like cat calling, and wolf whistling with actual sexual assault which not only threatens to undermine the real horror of sexual assault, but also further demonize men.

Hell some feminists have even tried to make it impossible for men to approach women as they are so wrapped up in this ridiculous all men are rapists crap.

Bar Where Men Are Not Allowed To Approach Women

The MeTooMovement however doesn’t care about the innocent men who are accused and then instantly treated as though they are guilty’s lives being destroyed.

Teen Vogue Columnist Not Concerned If Innocent Men Go To Prison

Of course the right is no better. Many on the right including Sargon of Akkad and Stefan Molyneaux have defended Joseph McCarthy of all people. Indeed he has become quite the hero among the Pepes for apparently saving America from the evil Commies in the 50s.

The hilarious irony of all this is that McCarthy was the SJWs, Third Wave Feminism and MeTooMovement of his day.

Like them he was against free speech and would try and shut any of his critics down.

Like them he was also such a foaming at the mouth fanatic that he would smear anyone who he even slightly disagreed with as the worst thing he could think of.

A feminist will call a man who cat calls a rapist, a man who makes a stupid joke a promoter of sexual assault or even tell people who say things like “I don’t want a female Doctor Who or I don’t like the new Ghostbusters move” a misogynist.

McCarthy meanwhile was exactly the same. Anyone who even associated with a person that had the most mild left wing views was tarred as a Stalinist. As Humphrey Bogart said “They’ll nail anyone who ever scratched their ass during the national anthem.”

McCarthy also famously not only got people fired from their jobs for expressing political views he didn’t like, but he also blacklisted them to the point where they wouldn’t be able to find any work after.

Many innocent people’s careers and lives were completely ruined.

Modern third wave feminism is of course exactly the same. As we have seen they are quick to try and get people fired simply for expressing political opinions that they don’t like such as Thunderf00t, and just like with McCarthy if you are fired for supposedly espousing “sexist views” like Thunderf00t would have been, then you will be unlikely to get another job afterwards, and you will be made a social pariah, as seen with Tim Hunt a noble prize winner whose career was completely derailed by feminists.

Victims of McCarthyism

Tim Hunt “I’ve been hung out to dry.”

Again at present the left wing censors are more dangerous, but in 50s America, it was the right wing censors that were the threat and I can easily see it swinging back that way in a few decades time. If generation Z is the most conservative generation since World War 2, then yes, thanks to people like Sargon and Stefan Molyneaux who are trying to reassess McCarthy as a hero, and are even saying that they want him back; I can quite easily see the next generation not only smearing anyone with even the slightest left wing or liberal beliefs as a communist, but also wanting to shut them down too.

Don’t let someone like Sargon fool you. He may seem like a champion for free speech now because he is talking against the likes of the MeTooMovement, but the fact that he has said he wants to see McCarthy, one of the biggest threats to free speech in America of the 20th century back, shows that he’s okay with the people he dislikes being shut down for the sake of his greater good, just like an SJW.

It is true that McCarthyism and MeToo will have rooted out genuine threats to Western society and genuine sexual predators, but unfortunately for every actual communist spy or Harvey Weinstein they caught or exposed, about 1000 other innocent people were slimed as communists, sexual predators, misogynists etc until all they really accomplished was to sadly make the public doubt any actual claims of a threat to the west or sexual assault.

McCarthyism and the MeTooMovement do far more harm for the cause they supposedly champion than good as well as ruin the lives of many innocent people, and attack free speech.

5/ They Both Have Utter Contempt For The Working Class

Related image

The left have in the past 30 or so years forgotten what the main thing that divides people in society actually is, class.

The modern left is too hung up on the civil rights movement. The leftists who fought for the rights of black people in the 60s are more revered, than those who simply fought for the rights of workers and the underprivileged in general. John Maclean for instance isn’t as attractive a figure for young University students as say Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, because in order to know what Maclean accomplished you actually have to be political and analyse exactly what it was he was fighting for.

Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, though not to do them down of course, but what they accomplished is a lot easier to understand because they were so obviously in the right. Their main goal was after all to simply want equal rights for everyone.

Unfortunately for the modern day SJWs the civil rights movement has more or less been won. I’m not saying that out modern society is perfect, but the general population are not racist, there are no laws designed to discriminate people based on their skin colour or sexuality or gender. Its illegal in fact to do so, and would make you a social pariah anywhere you go.

Class inequality however is still a pressing issue, but again the modern day so called leftists don’t give a shit about under privileged working class white people, nor do they even care about ethnic minorities if they don’t fit their idea of what they should be.

Worse than that however the modern day SJWs, many of whom come from privileged, upper middle class back grounds themselves, will often sneer at the “plebs” who they think are idiots that are easily duped.

Look at all the “low information voters” crap we see about Brexit. Its the most condescending, “these stupid little Englanders don’t know what was good for them” attitude I have ever seen.

I’m Disappointed About Brexit But The Remainers Snobbery Is Ridiculous

How Brexit Gave Us A Different Class Of Snob

Remainers Sneering and Snobbery Must Stop

GSCE Post Demonstrates Shameful Snob Culture

Now I am not pro Brexit. I actually didn’t vote one way or the other because I couldn’t decide.

On the one hand the EU is a good concept, but it has become corrupt and degenerate in the last few decades. Furthermore I did enjoy watching the mainstream media get an absolute kicking. For once things didn’t go their way and it was glorious.

On the other however I think we might be seeing a change and reformation of the EU, and Britain could very well be leaving at the worst time. Of course this change will only have been motivated by a large country like Britain leaving, but sadly it could have been another country. We I think ended up being the sacrificial lamb.

Don’t think that because of Brexit I never vote or decide one way or another in other situations. I voted yes to Scottish independence and would do so again, even despite my utter loathing for the SNP. I feel that Scotland should be independent simply because when connected to England, a much larger country, it tends to be forced to go along with its decisions about important issues.

For instance the Scottish vote has made 0 difference in any election outcome for the UK since WW2. Remember it was supposed to be a United Kingdom, not a smaller country becoming part of a bigger one.

A lot of people in England voted for Brexit for the same reason of wanting to decide their own future and whilst the situation with Brexit and Scottish independence is obviously not exactly the same, in that respect I completely understood and respected the people in England who were confident enough to want to decide their future.

I also in regards to Trump and Hillary was completely on Trump’s side too. I don’t like Trump. He’s obviously far more to the right than I am in a lot of ways, as his recent attack on the NHS shows.

Still Hillary Clinton was a vicious war monger who was by far a bigger threat to world peace.

Thank god this woman didn’t win!

Trump at the time of his election promised to improve relations with Russia and China.

You may not like Putin, but it would have been foolish to not want to see an improvement to the relationship between the two great nuclear powers.

Now obviously there have been some bumpy moments in Trump’s first year as President such as his attack on Syria. The biggest problem with Trump is that he is a flip flopper and unpredictable. He may very will still provoke Russia, but ultimately back in 2016 he was the one who promised to improve things with them to avoid a war, whilst Hillary openly said she would attack them over suspected cyber attacks!

Trump has actually in his first year already taken the USA further away from a war with Russia in some respects.

Ask yourself this. Would you have rather this woman here

than this man here

Putin Thanks Trump For Intelligence In Foiling Terror Attack

be the President at a time when Russia and America were teetering on the brink of a full scale nuclear war over Syria?

So again don’t think that I am so much of a centrist that I will never come down on one side. Brexit I just simply found to be a bit more of a difficult decision to make, but regardless of whether it was right or wrong, it brought out a lot of the left’s ugly contempt for the working class.

The same applies to Trump’s victory. Trump supporters are often derided as a basket of deplorables and stupid hicks who simply didn’t know the full facts.

Look at this article Stephen King wrote about what he imagines Trump supporters to be like. It has all of the most sneering, arrogant and condescending stereotypes he can conjor up. Apparently Trump supporters in his mind are stupid plebs who voted for Trump because Hillary looked like a lesbian.

Stephen King: How Do Such Men Rise

It never occurs to King that people could have genuine reasons for voting for Trump, or indeed that actual left wing people voted for Trump too because of his anti war stance.

Here’s a video that John Pilger did in 2016 on why it was better to support Trump than Hillary Clinton. Pilger for those of you who don’t know is a left wing journalist, and possibly the most influential left wing journalist of the 20th century.

He has done more to expose the full horrors of western imperialism than anybody else in the media, yet he of all people still wanted Trump to win over Hillary.

Please watch the video if you have time its great.

The lefts class snobbery even extends to more first world issues such as its takeover of certain franchises and series.

Take a look at what Dan Aykroyd said about the racists that attacked Leslie Jones on Twitter. He made a point of saying that they are all people with low income jobs who are probably on benefits, as though someone from a high paying job, with a lot of money can never be a racist asshole (I direct you towards Hillary Clinton who called black people super predators back in the 90s.)

See here Dan Aykroyd Attacks Leslie Jones Haters

Similarly take a look at what Whovian Feminism had to say about those who didn’t want a female Doctor.

Now Whovian Feminism, real name Alyssa Franke, is a blogger who as her name would suggest looks at Doctor Who from a feminist perspective. She is an absolute curse on the Who fandom.

Like Dan Aykroyd before her, Whovian Feminism equates being a horrible sexist to having a low income, and states that we wouldn’t want these people with low incomes to be watching Doctor Who anyway.

“If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise you more fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”

Tommy Robinson meanwhile, an outspoken critic of Islam has often been the recipient of the left’s condescending attitude, and outright contempt towards the working class.

In early 2017 Tommy Robinson and Lily Allen clashed on twitter over Islam. Lily having lost the argument with Tommy actually threatened to sue him!

Now I used to be a massive fan of Lily Allen, but sadly she has become a feminist/Islam apologist/SJW in the last few years. Even then though that wouldn’t have been enough to put me off her. It was this particular argument however where sadly I think Lily showed her true colours as a spoiled rich girl and a class snob.

Not only was Lily willing to shut someone down simply for disagreeing with her (like a true feminist), but she also gloated to Tommy Robinson for apparently not having as much money as her, telling Tommy “to get saving HA.”

George Galloway, a famous left wing politician despite claiming to be a socialist and supposed man of the people, also let his ugly attitudes to the working class slip out when debating Tommy Robinson.

Its interesting when you compare Galloways debate with Tommy to his debate with Nigel Farage. Both have pretty much exactly the same views on Islam, but Galloway treats the posh, erudite, well spoken Farage with the utmost respect, whilst with Tommy Robinson he calls him a knuckle scarping moron.

The left as you can see really view the working class as idiots who are all easily led into being racists and Nazis without their superior moral guidance. Also most hilariously of all the left who are critics of capitalism when it suits them, will nevertheless deride their opponents for not making enough money, as seen with the likes of Lily Allen and Whovian Feminism.

The right however once again is not really any better. Many right wingers like Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneaux are so tribal about capitalism that they will dismiss all of the poverty it inevitably creates as being simply the people who can’t compete in a fair, free market.

Paul Joseph Watson will often dismiss critics of capitalism as being benefit scroungers, too lazy to get an actual job (often when he has absolutely no idea who they are.) Whilst Sargon had this to say about those living in poverty.

“The only people who are actually oppressed by capitalism are people who either can’t work, people who’ve lost a leg or are morbidly obese or something like that, or people who don’t want to work because they are fucking lazy, or people who don’t have any other skills because they did gender studies degrees. Believe it or not everyone else actually does pretty well out of capitalism, y’know something like a house, a car, holidays, food on the table, entertainment, luxuries.”

These right wing SJWs hate the working class for a different reason. They can’t stand seeing people in western societies like Britain and America who live in genuine poverty because their plight demonstrate the flaws in right wingers beloved political system.

Its like the fundamentalist Christians despising Darwin for disproving their theories about how life developed wrong.

All poverty created by socialism in the right’s eyes is 100 percent proof of how socialism doesn’t work, whilst all poverty created by capitalism is just lazy people not bothering to get off their arses and use a system that works for everybody else.

The only place the working class are likely to find any ounce of sympathy for their problems is among more politically neutral people.

Tommy Robinson for instance has done more for the working class of this country than most others in the media.

Tommy is himself working class and he has been an outspoken critic of Islam, and has as raised other issues affecting those living in poverty in areas of Britain.

Sadly Tommy Robinson has been slimed as a racist by the leftist media because of his views on Islam.

Tommy Robinson as far as I’m concerned doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. I’m not saying he hasn’t made mistakes. Personally I wasn’t keen on the EDL that he founded, and I don’t think street protests are really ever that successful as they do often just lead to clashes with the police.

Still at the same time Tommy is not a racist. He has simply attacked the ideology of Islam. He has never even said that all Muslims are evil. He has gone out of his way to say that isn’t the case, and has worked with Muslim reformers in the past too.

You should definitely watch these two interviews if you have the time. They are both long, but its good to hear from Tommy’s perspective, given how much the media tries to tar him as a Nazi. In the second video meanwhile Tommy and a true Muslim reformer, Imam Tawhidi have a very interesting discussion about dealing with the problems Islam is creating in our society, as well as how Islam can be changed to be more peaceful.

Someone like Tawhidi, who does represent the future for Islam will ironically only ever be given a platform by a supposed racist like Tommy Robinson.

Tommy Robinson isn’t really political. I’m not saying that to do him down. He’s someone who focuses more on social issues affecting people, which yes obviously are linked to politics, but still ultimately I wouldn’t say that Tommy belongs to any political party or side.

The right may use him, and even claim him because they have a mutual enemy in Islam, but it would be wrong to say Tommy is far right, or far left. As a result he actually cares for the working class of this country.

For instance a leftist like Owen Jones, dismisses the problems women like Chelsey Wright , a working class white woman, targeted and violently sexually assaulted for her skin colour go through by saying that “white people don’t suffer racism in the United Kingdom” as would most SJWs on University campus’s such as those who chastised an Asian woman for saying that dark skinned people can be racist too.

Hell white women are now seen as being as privileged as white men by many feminists.

White Women Stop Pretending That We Don’t Benefit From White Privilege

You wouldn’t think that people would write articles like that, right in the middle of things like this going on.

The unprecedented rape and abuse of white girls across the country because of the colour of their skin.

The sad fact is that Chelsey again isn’t as attractive a victim to champion for the left wing SJWs because she is white and in their minds a “pleb”. They will virtue signal about things like there not being enough black superheroes in Marvel, but Chelsey’s plight goes completely un-commented on. I guess she has white privilege.

At the same time however someone like this veteran who, having had a stroke, is now living in poverty, would be dismissed by many right wing SJWs.

This veteran is proof that hey capitalism isn’t perfect. Its a system where someone like this isn’t able to get money he needs for rehabilitation, but 8 people own half the money of the entire world.

World’s 8 Richest People Have Almost The Same Wealth as The Poorest 50 Percent

A right wing SJW either doesn’t want to hear about a situation like the one Tommy Robinson describes, or worse, would dismiss the veteran who is paralysed as just being too lazy to help himself, and playing at being a victim.

Take a look at this video from Candace Owens. I understand if you don’t want to watch it, as its rather cringey, but still its interesting as a display of tribalism and the rights mentality.

Candace talks about her admiration for a disabled person who still goes to work and doesn’t want us to pay for their medical care and says that he is proof that anyone can work hard if need be.

This video from Stefan Molyneux is even worse.

If you can’t be arsed watching that video (and I wouldn’t blame you. Molyneux’s videos are always an ordeal to sit through.) Molyneux basically says that he considers people who work 9-5 jobs, 40 hour weeks to be parasites who are leeching off of the hard working entrepreneurs. He also regards anyone with a low paying job to be a moron, and less hard working than he is.

Molyneaux’s arguments are of course pig ignorant and don’t address wealth that is inherited, or how things in the public sector have been taken over by businessmen, and he does not take into account why wages, hours and conditions for workers even in the most well developed Western countries are worse than they should be.

How Wages Fell In The United Kingdom

The 8 Hour Work Day Doesn’t Work

The 5 Day Work Week Is Bad For Business

Effects of Bedroom Tax On Children In The United Kingdom

Scale of Food Bank Use In The United Kingdom

Construction Fatalities Rise

Work Related Deaths Arising In United Kingdom

Austerity Leads To 120,000 deaths

Molyneaux’s arguments are a straw man. He tries to paint all of those at the top as honest entrepreneurs who got to the top through their own hard work. Obviously I am not saying that there aren’t people who start honest businesses and get to the top because they deserve it.

I just don’t think that wages need to be as low as they are, that working conditions need to be quite so poor, and that basic essentials such as electricity should not be owned by private companies any more than other basic essentials such as water.

That has nothing to do with wanting to take money away from all of those who have earned it. Its also extremely naive just to think that because you are at the top you are automatically the best. There are many talented writers, artists and musicians that died in poverty, whilst talentless cretins like Tracy Emin have spent their entire life farting their arse through silk.

Is Tracy Emin a more talented person than Vincent Van Gough Stefan? She’s at the top, he died at the bottom?

Things like luck, connections and what family you’re born into in most cases are what help people get to the top, hence why the likes of Van Gough, one of the greatest talents who ever lived died in poverty, whilst Justin Bieber was a millionaire by the age of 15.

You can’t just dismiss those at the bottom as not being hard working, or stupid, or even talented, and you certainly can not use the fact that they are at the bottom as proof that they are deserving of the most appalling working and living conditions.

This borderline sociopathic attitude of “me first” that people on the right like Stefan Molyneaux use to excuse the horrors of capitalism stems from Ayn Rand, a woman that many right wingers and even anti SJWs see as a hero.

In reality Ayn Rand was a disgusting person who ironically worshipped a serial killer that hacked young women to death. In fact the ideology that the likes Molyneaux get their free market crap from, comes from her worship of a serial killer.

Trump Praises Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand: Paul Joseph Watson

The Left Attacks Ayn Rand: Stefan Molyneaux

Sargon of Akkad and Yaron Brook on Ayn Rand

THIS is the woman they admire?

Ayn Rand: Sociopath That Admired A Serial Killer

Ayn Rand Loved A Serial Killer.

Stefan Moluyneaux and many other major figures on the rights entire beliefs around the working class stem from a sociopath’s view of clemency being wrong!

The left and the right are never going to comment on class, the single greatest cause of inequality in the western world today.

Only people in the centre like Tommy Robinson are going to try and bring attention to problems faced by those at the bottom of society, because he has no axe to grind against one particular side.

6/ They Both Have Horrible Attitudes Towards One Gender

Image result for Anita Sarkeesian

Image result for anita sarkeesian stefan molyneux

In the lefts case they are obviously bigoted towards white men, whilst among the right I have noticed some sexist attitudes towards women developing.

Feminism has in the last 30 or so years become a sick parody of its former self. Whilst the movement like many others always had its own problems, (mostly idiotic infighting.) It still did a lot of good for women in the past, and produced many admirable people from Sylvia Pankhurst, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to Christina Hoff Sommers. Feminism however began to decline for many reasons.

First and foremost it became trendy from round about the 80s on. When that happened we started to get people like Anita Sarkeesian, people who didn’t actually give a shit about women, but wanted the glory that actual champions for women in the past were now getting.

So they picked an easy target, like say video games, or sci fi and they smeared them as sexist for the most petty, ridiculous reasons, and with a little media manipulation they were able to look like they were fighting a worthy cause.

Of course ironically when it came to actual issues affecting women like FGM, these “feminists” were either as silent as ghosts, or worse outright apologists!

Still sadly as the media was on their side, these feminists had a greater influence on the next generation of young men and women, who came to believe their bullshit, than the few genuine feminists who were left like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

On top of this a lot of women I feel started to use feminism as a way of venting their frustrations against the opposite sex too which led to bigotry against men being legitimised as it was now just seen as complaints from a previously respected movement.

Finally feminism as I have pointed out before kind of replaced religion for a lot of people. It became this holy, sacred thing that must never be criticised. If you dare to even say that you don’t believe in something like the gender wage gap (which is bullshit.) Then you are branded as someone who hates all women and may even be ostracised from people you’ve known for years.

As it couldn’t look in on itself and see where it was going wrong, then feminism became stagnated and out of date and the bigotry towards men was also allowed to foster to the point where it sadly did become a defining feature of modern day feminism.

Feminists love grouping all men together as privileged. They also love to demonise them as being potential rapists, and even ban them from certain events, jobs and activities simply for their gender.

Swedish Music Festival To Be Men Free Until Men Learn How To Behave

Women Only Wonder Woman Screenings Illegal

Banning Men Is Only Way For Women

British Transport Office Bans White Men

Man Hating Feminism Not Just A Myth

23 Quotes That Will Make You Rethink Feminism

Owner of Men’s Rights Abuse Shelter Kills Himself

Anita Sarkeesian “You Can’t Be Sexist Against Men”

Image result for men banned from university male tears

NUS Defends Banning White Men From Positions

As feminists have their talons wrapped around the left now then their anti men bigotry has seeped its way into left wing politics in general.

Labour Bans White Straight Men From Equality Conference

The right meanwhile are in their own way just as sexist towards women. Of course ironically the right has often been accused of being sexist against women for the wrong reasons. Idiots like Rational Wiki will often call right wingers sexist because they criticise feminism.

Feminism does not equal all women. It is a social and political movement and must therefore be judged on its own merits, not the group it claims to be fighting for.

Ironically most women whilst supporting the equality between sexes, do NOT identify as feminists, which is a bloody good thing.

Only 7 Percent Of Britons Consider Themselves Feminists

So no, criticising this movement in principle does not make you a sexist. I’d argue that its actually fewer than 7 percent of women that identify as feminists.

Feminists are intolerant bullies who will often attack any woman that doesn’t identify as a feminist.

Take a look at Kaley Cuoco, Taylor Swift, Lily Allen and Katy Perry ALL of whom merely said initially that they weren’t feminists but were attacked by feminists until they actually apologised for not being a part of this particular political movement, and said they were feminists.

Attacks on Kaley Cuoco Expose More Feminist Hypocrisy

Lily Allen Feminism Shouldn’t Be A Thing Anymore

Lily Allen Tells Feminist Critics To Fuck Off

Lana Del Ray and The Fault Of Our Feminist Stars

Incidentally I feel that when many of these women cave and become feminists, ironically they end up becoming much less empowered, individual and independent.

Take a look at Lily Allen and Katy Perry. Before they were brainwashed/bullied into being feminists, they at the very least regardless of whether you were a fan of them or not, where their own women.

Look at them in these videos from before their feminist days.

They are unique and clearly in charge of everything to do with their music, fashion, look, etc.

Now look at them. You’d be hard pushed to tell them apart. Both have the same hairstyles, looks, both have the same personalities. Spouting vapid, meaningless, first year political student crap that just makes everybody cringe, interspersed with the most vile bigotry against white men.

To me feminists are kind of like the Cybermen from Doctor Who.

The Cybermen for those of you who don’t watch the show were originally a race of organic creatures who slowly transformed themselves into machine creatures with no individual personalities, and who seek to transform any other organic life form they come across. They are a dead race who in order to reproduce have to force themselves on other species, and once they convert you, you loose all individuality.

Feminism similarly is a dying movement, as demonstrated by the fact that women, the people who it claims to be fighting for are turning against it. So in order to survive it needs to force itself on popular culture, the education system and even forms of entertainment, like comic books, video games and even ironically Doctor Who!

Also much like the Cybermen, feminists have no individual personalities. They all follow the group think of ” the wage gap is real, white men are all evil, Islam is a religion of peace etc” and in much the same way as the Cybermen’s main aim is to convert people, the actual main aim of feminists, rather than helping women is “lets get more people to be feminists and ruin the lives of those who refuse.”

The question is of course how many women are there like this in the supposed 7 percent, that have been forced into just going along with the movement out of fear of being ostracised from their social groups or slimed as a sexist or a traitor to their own gender?

Feminism can also be seen as an abusive spouse to all women. It actually demeans them, tells them in society they are worthless, unless they support this movement, tries to make out that all of women’s accomplishments are to do with feminism etc.

In addition to their bullying ways, feminists I feel finally are often able to get people on their side by spreading this bullshit idea that if you support equality between the sexes, then you are a feminist.

No you’re not. You are just a decent person. Again its similar to when religious fanatics used to say that if you didn’t believe in god then you lacked a moral centre.

No group or ideology has a right to claim a trait that all decent humans should have. It would be like if I set up a new ideology called say Burrunjorist, and then said if you don’t think innocent people should be hacked to death by psychopaths then congratulations, you are a Burrunjorist! And then I tried to force you to go along with all of my other beliefs, and if you didn’t agree with them, I accused you of being pro hacking innocent people to death because you were anti Burrunjorist.

Its a slimey tactic and yet more proof that feminists don’t actually care about women, just in forcing more people to be part of their little tribe, and silencing opposition.

So yes with this in mind, I  absolutely do not think that right wingers are sexist for hating feminists. I think hating modern feminism can be seen as a sign of common sense!

Sadly however many on the right have I feel now crossed over into actual woman hating.

Take a look at this video from a popular conservative youtuber Naked Ape to see what I mean. He outright says that he hates the majority of modern women. Not feminists, WOMEN, because he believes that women when they are younger are selfish sluts who reject nice guys, so that they can sleep around with jocks, but when they get older, they get saggy and ugly and no man wants to fuck them. Most revolting of all, he actually compares older women to used meat, and calls them “roasties”

Naked Ape claims that women become bitter rejects when they’re older because they want to settle down and have families but by that time its too late. I might add by older he means 30!

He’s a charmer isn’t he.

This is like something I’d expect a blue haired feminist, the type of people Naked Ape obnoxiously thinks he is a logical alternative too, to say about men. A problem in society comes about simply because the other half of population are all selfish, lazy, privileged, evil etc.

I do agree that modern women are a lot less happy now, but there are many reasons for that. I think that to start with more modern people in general in some ways are less happy now because there are more distractions and the population is more fragmented.

In the 60s for instance there was no internet, no computer games, even tv wasn’t what it is now. There was no netflix, no DVDs, no repeat showings. TV wasn’t even ON during the day. There were also only two channels as well.

As a result of this people obviously wouldn’t feel as tempted to stay in, as there wasn’t as much to do, and they couldn’t chat to their friends online either, so they’d have to go out to socialise with people.

Nowadays however whilst younger people obviously have it better in many ways, they are more tempted to stay in, play video games, and can generally feel more lonely as a result.

Lauren Southern actually did a great video on the subject here.

Now it can be worse for a woman, for her sake, to leave it to start things like settling down and having a family until later in life, simply because there is a time limit for when a woman can have children.

Men can waste the first half of their life playing video games, and still settle down and have a family, but a woman who might just want to bum around, enjoy the many distractions there are for her, could end up coming to regret it when she reaches 40 and realises she wants to have a family but can’t unless she adopts which isn’t always as easy.

Its not fair, but its biology. Also a further problem for women is that I think that women in certain professions have to make a choice between actually having children and having a career, as obviously in order to have children, a woman will need to take lots of time off unlike her husband. Sadly however in professions like say the medical profession, taking lots of time off can derail your entire career.

Females In Medicine

Shared paternity leave and proper accommodations for single mothers would solve a lot of these problems.

This is a pressing issue for women today and it is yet another one that modern day feminists have not really addressed as often as trivial bullshit, like changing the sex of male super heroes on tv, or banning men from things!

Most people want to have children. There is nothing wrong with someone who doesn’t of course, but still I feel that many people today are unhappy because they A/ feel like they are wasting their lives as they are spending too much time on hobbies, are B/ much lonelier because its harder to meet people as more people prefer to stay indoors and the population is fragmented, and C/ in the case of women, not only can they not afford to mess around for as long as men if they want to have children, but also whilst women thankfully have been given more roles and opportunities, sadly society has not taken into account that in some situations, women might need accommodated in a way men don’t simply because they have children.

Sadly however feminists are never going to solve these issues because they’ll just say its because men hate all women, whilst people like Naked Ape won’t either as they’ll just say its because women are lazy whores who want to “ride the chad cock” and never have any responsibility.

Naked Ape isn’t alone in his vile views towards women among the right. A lot of people on the right seem to have this idea that the more opportunities women are given in society the worse it is for them and society as a whole.

The right thinks that a woman’s role is to raise the children, and that they are at their happiest when doing that, and that for a woman to want to do anything else is a woman trying to be a man.

See for yourself.

How To Make Women Happy? MILO

Stefan Molyneux meanwhile not only supports this view that a woman’s place is essentially in the home, but he also holds women responsible for all the ills of the world.

Molyneux claims that men are evil when they are not raised properly by women. He also much like Black Pigeon Speaks and Naked Ape blames women for “choosing assholes”.

“Women who choose assholes will fucking end this race. They will fucking end this human race, if we don’t start holding them a-fucking-countable.

Look women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality. Sociopathy. Politicians. All the cold hearted jerks who run the world came out of vaginas of women who married assholes. And I don’t know how to make this world a better place without holding women accountable for choosing assholes.

If asshole wasn’t a great reproductive strategy it would have been gone long ago. Women keep that black bastard flame alive. If women choose nice guys over assholes we would have a glorious and peaceful world in one generation. 

Stop fucking monsters, we get a great world. Keep fucking monsters, we get catastrophes. We get war, we get nuclear weapons, we get national debt, we get incarcerations and prison guards and all the other florid assholes who rule the world. 

Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil? And then you know what they say? We’re victims. Poor us.”

There are disadvantages that both men and women face in the world today. I feel that they stem from the fact that society doesn’t take the differences between men and women into account, rather than because we live in a society designed to oppress women, or because women are all apparently selfish whores.

Men and women are equal, but they are different. That’s not sexist to say that as I am not saying because of those differences one gender is smarter or better. However in certain situations one gender might have an advantage more than the other as a result of those differences.

In the medical profession men have the advantage, as they don’t need to take time off to start a family.

In the education system however women have the advantage as the education system is geared more towards feminine interests, hence why fewer boys are going to university.

Christina Hoff Sommers has done a lot to bring attention to the issues faced by men in modern society. Of course she’s become a pariah among the left as a result. The great irony is if most feminists were like Christina Hoff Sommers then they wouldn’t have to  try and bully people like Kaley Cuoco and Katy Perry into being feminists as most people would be okay with the movement.

We need to try and take the differences between men and women into account and deal with the problems both genders face to stamp out the last traces of inequality in our society.

Becoming part of little tribes and listening to bigoted, bitter, pseudo intellectuals like Stefan Molyneux and chancers like Anita Sarkeesian is not just a dead end. Its fucking toxic!

7/ They Both Ignore Science When It Suits Them

Image result for 56 genders

In yet a further parallel with religious fanatics, both the left and the right will deny scientific facts and even accuse you of some kind of bigotry if you disagree with their consensus.

For the left this is primarily to do with gender, whilst with the right its a variety of things.

Left wingers often claim that there are no real differences between men and women, whilst also somewhat paradoxically claiming that there are hundreds of genders.

Its total nonsense and a misguided attempt to help trans people and women.

Obviously I am not saying trans people don’t exist or that intersex people don’t exist, or that women are inferior to men.

Trans people are proof that there are differences between the genders. If there weren’t why would these people go through long, costly and incredibly painful operations to change?

Gender dysphoria, which trans people suffer from is a serious condition where people feel they were born in the wrong body. There is also a growing body of scientific evidence that trans people are actually born with brains that match the opposite gender to the one they are born in, which is why its better for their well being to change.

Men and women do have different brains, and no that’s not saying that one is smarter.

Being Trans Is Not A Choice

So again being trans is a proper, medical condition, and obviously I have 0 issue with someone changing their gender. Its more or less proven that that’s the best way to treat gender dysphoria, and obviously there’s nothing wrong with it either.

However at the same time gender dysphoria does not prove that trans people are a third gender. In fact it proves the opposite. They are one gender, and then change into another gender. If anything trying to make out that they are neither men, nor women is more offensive to them, as basically you are saying that they aren’t the gender they want to be?

There are only two genders. As always there will be some exceptions to the role. Men born with more feminine brains, people born with both sets of genitals, but these are anomalies. That doesn’t mean these people are freaks, or amoral. Depression is caused by an anamoly in brain chemistry, but again that doesn’t mean people with depression are freaks or amoral.

Still that’s the point intersex isn’t a new gender. You are a woman born with male reproductive organs or traits as well, or vice versa. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that’s all it is.

Similarly if you are a man with more feminine traits, or a Tomboy that doesn’t justify creating a whole new gender either.

Here from a trans person.

A lot of these people who claim to be trans but don’t do anything about it, ie don’t have any surgery, don’t dress in clothing that they opposite gender wears, don’t act like the opposite gender, but just insist that they are somehow trans, in my opinion are merely doing it to be trendy.

I have no issue with them doing this in principle, and if they insist on being called Xe, or whatever then I’ll do it to be polite. However there is no scientific validation for this. At the end of the day it is just self indulgence in my opinion, and wanting to cash in on a craze.

Furthermore I think it trivialises what trans people go through, as it makes it look like being trans is this easy thing. Apparently you can switch from between being a man and a woman by say, not wearing lipstick if you are a woman, or wearing lipstick if you are a man, because gender is fluid.

No gender is not fluid. Changing gender is a big deal, and gender dysphoria is a very difficult condition to live with.

You can’t just say “you are trans”, not do anything to show it, and expect that people will see you as the opposite gender as much as someone like Blaire White who has gone through a full operation and surgery to be the opposite sex. Being a Tomboy or being a an effeminate man is not the same as actually hating the body you were born in and changing it through surgery.

Furthermore, you can’t get someone fired from their job for not seeing you as the opposite sex, when you do NOTHING to look or act like the opposite sex, which has actually happened.

Teacher Fired For Misgendering Pupil By Mistake

I wouldn’t want Candace Owens fired for calling Blaire a man. I think it was pathetic, and a dirty tactic to try and throw Blaire. Also in contrast to the above instance, Candace had to constantly keep reminding herself to call Blaire a man, as when you look at Blaire, you’ll just instinctively think of and refer to her as a woman.

The hilarious thing is that Candace DOES refer to Blaire as she and her, several times throughout the interview, when she obviously isn’t thinking and deliberately trying to rattle Blaire.

However even if you had someone who was more of a “trans trender” than Blaire White, I still wouldn’t go out of my way to deliberately “misgender” them, but if someone however instinctively calls someone who looks, acts, dresses and talks like a man, a man, or calls them it without even knowing that they are transgender, then they do not deserve to be black listed!

Sadly however much like religious fanatics these leftists cannot stand it when reality threatens their delusion.

With the right however meanwhile like I said I find that they tend to deny a broader spectrum of things that don’t suit their agenda.

Paul Joseph Watson did a hilariously ignorant video on depression. He argued that depression doesn’t really exist and that its just a lot of attention seeking millenials.

Sadly this is just the tip of the iceberg for both Paul and the right.

Paul Joseph Watson and many on the right are also climate change deniers. Now I agree that its open for debate as to what is causing climate change, whether its a natural process or man made, I am willing to listen to both sides.

Still Paul and many on the right take it that one step further and deny that there is ANY climate change whatsoever.

I am still a fan of PJW. As Eazy himself says in the video, there are some topics where he gets it spot on like Islam and feminism, but sadly he is a classic example of a right wing SJW in other respects, and is certainly one of the easiest places to go if you want to see how the right comes out with bullshit pseudo science.

His latest was claiming that soy makes men more womanly and left wing.

Seriously!

Soy boy has since become a popular insult to use online (I hate to say I used it once.) To be fair though using it doesn’t mean you believe in Paul’s ridiculous idea that soy turns you into a left wing SJW.

Its more just that a lot of left wing SJWs eat soy, because they are vegans.

Paul Joseph Watson is a Complete Idiot (Re Soy Boys.)

Whatever the case you can see how both sides are willing to buy into the most ridiculous nonsense from that there are billions of genders, to eating soy makes you a cuck, if it suits their agenda.

8/ They Want To Take Over Entertainment

Image result for anita sarkeesian

Now this is a bit more of a first world problem. Obviously compared to the other things on this list this isn’t as important, and I was unsure about including it at first for that reason.

Still I decided to include it as I think this shows how the fanatics on both sides operate. Also they often go after the entertainment industry before anything else, because that’s the easiest to take over. Most people will tell someone that complains “oh stop whining about that its just a tv show, video game, comic book etc”

Still whilst it might seem trivial at first, its an important thing to stand up for in the long run.

Let the SJWs take over a big part of your culture and they won’t stop. After the entertainment industry, then its the media, and after the media its your education system, and then you have a whole generation weaned on nothing but this particular political belief, which obviously then finally spills its way into, and tries to control every aspect of your life.

You should always stop this type of censorship at the start and hopefully the sad fate of the following major forms of entertainment that have been hit the hardest by right wing and left wing SJWs should serve as a warning to the rest of us.

Even if you don’t care for any of these forms of entertainment that have been affected, ask yourself. How long before they come for your hobbies and way of life?

Doctor Who

Image result for TARDIS

The series to suffer the most at the hands of SJWs. Obviously I have commented on this before, and again as a result I wasn’t originally going to talk about it again here, but its needs mentioning as Doctor Who has been hit harder than any other form of entertainment.

Doctor Who for those of you who don’t watch it is the worlds longest running science fiction series. Originally premiering in 1963, the show revolves a mysterious alien called the Doctor who travels through time and space in his magnificent machine called the TARDIS which is also bigger on the inside than the outside.

The Doctor also has the power when he dies, to come back to life, with his appearance and outer personality changing as a result, though all of the Doctors are still meant to be the same person with the same core persona. This power of the Doctors, called regeneration is what has allowed the show to endure for so long, with 13 and counting actors playing the Doctor over its 50 plus year history.

Sadly however despite the shows big international following, throughout its history its had to deal with a few whiny crybabies demanding that it cater entirely to their interests.

We’ll start with Mary Whitehouse. Now to those of you who haven’t heard of her, Mary Whitehouse was a right wing SJW. She was a conservative woman who constantly attempted to censor television series, films and music that she found offensive.

Doctor Who was a particular pet peeve of hers. Whitehouse complained that Doctor Who was far too violent, and frightening. Of course she also admitted that she never watched it, but still she wanted this show, that she had no interest in and really knew nothing about to cater to her, instead of the people who actually did watch it.

Whitehouse also personally slandered and insulted the makers of the series, calling them “dumb” and twisted in interviews.

Sadly the BBC eventually caved to her, and others like hers constant whining about the shows violent nature and the then producer of the series Phillip Hinchcliff was actually dismissed from the show as a result.

There were no other reasons for Hinchcliff’s dismissal. His era is ironically regarded as a golden age for the show, that many feel has still never been surpassed. Furthermore it was also at that point the most successful era in terms of ratings and mainstream critical acclaim too.

To get rid of of someone who had produced the most successful era of a show, with its fans and mainstream viewers, that had been running for over a decade would have seemed ridiculous and it was, but it shows you how the loud minority really can get their own way if they push hard enough.

Graham Williams who was brought in to replace Hinchcliff, was told to make the show lighter and more comedic. Now personally I like the Williams era, and have no problems with the humour he brought to the show as for the most part it didn’t undermine the drama.

Still the point isn’t however whether Williams was good or not. Its that the show should not have gotten rid of its existing producer, whose take on the show at that point was the most successful, simply because of a small group of whiny viewers.

Sadly Whitehouse didn’t stop there. She continued to claim that the show was too violent during producer John Nathan Turner’s era. This was eventually used by Michael Grade, the controller of the BBC as one of the reasons for cancelling the show in 1985, when its viewers were still strong, both in the UK and abroad.

To be fair Grade openly hated Doctor Who and wanted to cancel it anyway. Still Whitehouse’s constant attacks on the show for being too violent gave him the ammunition that he needed, and it also contributed to the shows reputation falling.

Worse the show once again when it came back (after international outrage) was forced to be lighter and more humorous to pander to Whitehouse and her cronies during season 24, Sylvester McCoy’s first season as the Doctor.

Unlike the Williams era this was an utter disaster with fans, critics and mainstream viewers, and contributed to the shows viewers, which had already been hurt by the 1985 cancellation to fall even further.

Whitehouse contributed to the demise of the original 1963-1989 series. There were other factors, such as the BBC’s hatred for it, but Whitehouse still nevertheless contributed her part to its reputation falling.

Sadly however Whitehouse’s actions would pale in comparison to the left wing SJWs in the 2010s.

Feminists began to latch onto the Doctor Who franchise from about 2010 on. Before they had always dismissed it as sexist in the 80s (and even played a role in denting its reputation too.) Doctor Who was never actually sexist of course.

The simple fact that it had a male hero and a female sidekick didn’t make it sexist. By that logic, Xena is misandristic as it has a female hero and a male sidekick.

The female companions in Doctor Who were often strong, brave and resourceful characters in their own right. Yes some of them were wimpy, but there were plenty of wimpy male characters too. Not every male or female character can be an unstoppable badass.

Still from 2010 when the revival was at the peak of its popularity, then feminists latched onto the shows fanbase and in typical fashion, they tried to take it over.

Much like Whitehouse they accused the show of not espousing the correct values, and harming the youth of today. They also tarred its makers as horrible things too.

Steven Moffat the producer of Doctor Who throughout most of the 10s was called a sexist, a racist, a homophobe, a transphobe, an abelist etc by feminists, the same way that Philip Hinchcliff was called a purveyor of violent and degenerate material in the 70s by Mary Whitehouse.

The man’s reputation was completely ruined as a result, as the mainstream media picked up on these stupid “Doctor Who and Steven Moffat are sexist” theories and started printing them as fact.

Here are examples of the smear campaign against Moffat.

Doctor Who Is Racist New Book Claims

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault In Doctor Who

Problematic Posters for Doctor Who

Steven Moffat Is A Classist

Why Does The Man Behind Doctor Who And Sherlock Still Have A Job

Because You Are Not Autistic You Are Not Complaining

Steven Moffat is Ableist

Asylum of the Daleks Is Problematic

Doctor Who Returns New Direction

As you can see these complaints are really no different to Mary Whitehouse. Mary Whitehouse was worried that stories like The Deadly Assassin would convince young boys to become murderers when they grew up, by filling their heads full of violent images.

The feminists and the the left wing SJWs meanwhile actually thought that Matt Smith’s Doctor, of all Doctors, the most childlike, innocent and sweet, would convince young boys to start sexually assaulting young women because of a scene where Matt Smith kisses Rory in a eureka moment and doesn’t get his consent.

The Captain Kirk Problem: How Doctor Who Let Down Matt Smith

Sadly all of these ridiculous complaints evidently bothered Steven Moffat, and the BBC, as much like Mary Whitehouse, the complaints weren’t just a simple critique of the show, but designed to slander it and its makers.

See here.

BBC Responds To Sexist Claims

Karen Gillan: Steven Moffat Is Not Sexist

Peter Capaldi Denies Steven Moffat Is A Misogynist Claims

As a result of this the BBC and Moffat, just like the Beeb did when they fired Phillip Hinchliff to cater to Mary Whitehouse in the 70s, began to pander to these people, and eventually identity politics bullshit not only began to seep its way into Doctor Who, but took it completely over from about 2014 on.

Its worth noting that directors and producers on the series began to speak with and promote Whovian Feminism, a hard line feminist blogger too.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

You can see what audience they were going for with this in mind.

To start with there were many anti men, and anti white people remarks throughout Doctor Who and its spin off the short lived, disasterous Class throughout this period.

Master/ Do as she says is the future going to be all girl?

Doctor/ We can only hope.

Tanya/ White people

April/ White people what? 

Tanya/ Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well because they usually do.

April/ My Dad tried to kill me when I was eight.

Tanya/ But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white person happy ending.

Yeah things always work out for white people don’t they?

Newcastle Grooming Victim Suicidal And Sleeps With Knife

I guess this also applies to Van Gough too? Remember when Doctor Who did a very nuanced, sympathetic, and acclaimed episode on Van Gough back in 2010?

The episode, called “Vincent and the Doctor” saw the Time Lord take Van Gough into the future to see what a celebrated artist he will become. Sadly however Van Gough’s long standing mental health problems still cause his death, but the Doctor takes solace in the fact that he at least made Van Gough’s life a bit happier.

The story makes a brilliant point of how when dealing with someone who suffers depression, every single little bit of help matters. People will often blame themselves if they can’t help someone they care for who is suffering from mental health problems, but sometimes a person can be so far gone that nothing could help them, but at the very least you can take comfort that you made their lives happy for even just a short time.

Quite a big comedown for a franchise to go from this, to telling all white people that they are privileged shitlords isn’t it?

I guess Vincent got his white person happy ending didn’t he? Vincent can get to fuck actually. He is white, AND he’s a man! The bastard!

Clara/ Hush. Go, now. Go and find Vikings on other planets. The universe is full of testosterone. Trust me, its unbearable.

River Song/ What’s that face, are you thinking? Stop it, you’re a man. It looks weird. 

Now I wouldn’t mind these remarks if they were both ways, but they aren’t. Furthermore again when you look at the rest of the show, you can see an obvious agenda behind them.

The actual stories of the Peter Capaldi era of Doctor Who (2014-2017) began to cater to what the SJWs wanted too,

Clara the Doctors female companion began to take over the show to an insane degree. Most of the stories during series 8 revolved around her and her place of work.

Also there was a lot of rewriting of the shows history and lore to make her the most important person, and Clara was also shown to emasculate the Doctor too. She even slapped him a few times.

The reason for this was because again SJWs had complained that Doctor Who was sexist simply for having a male lead. So basically until they could turn the Doctor into a woman, Steven Moffat had to undermine the male Doctor for Clara.

The Depressing Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

Doctor Who Feminist

To be fair there were elements of undermining the Doctor for his female companion in the Russell T Davies era (2005-10). Russell was a bit of an SJW himself, but still it reached new heights during Clara’s time on the show.

Clara was retconned into being the hero of every Doctor Who story ever made in an adventure called The Name of the Doctor, where an enemy of the Doctors, the Great Intelligence travels in time and rewrites his entire past to make every victory a defeat. Clara goes back however and undoes the Great Intelligence’s actions.

She also goes back in time in another story, meets the Doctor as a boy, and helps him overcome his fear which leads to him becoming a hero.

In yet another episode, another time travelling version of Clara is also revealed to have told him what TARDIS to steal too.

As if that wasn’t enough she was also the one who convinced the Doctor to save the Time Lords, and later convinced the Time Lords to give him more regenerations too.

Worst of all perhaps was in a story called Kill The Moon. In this adventure the Doctor discovers that the moon is about to hatch, as apparently, the moon is an egg for a giant space dragon.

The Doctor for some reason leaves Clara to deal with the dilemma of should they kill the Dragon to stop it hatching and spare humanity, or should they let it live and doom the world when broken bits of moon fall to the earth.

The entire world votes to kill the Dragon, but Clara on nothing more than a hunch spares the Dragon, and so it hatches. The moon harmlessly disintegrates, sparing the earth, after which it lays a second egg/moon (bigger than its whole body.)

Not only that, but the sight of the Dragon hatching is apparently what inspires humanity to exist to the end of time. So Clara is the most important person in the history of the universe.

You can see how the need to pander to people hurt the writing of the series.

At the end of her time on the series, Clara ended up becoming a better Doctor than the Doctor himself, as she became completely indestructable and gained her own TARDIS that she could travel the universe in.

Everything in Capaldi’s first two series was about making Clara more important than the Doctor to prove that the show wasn’t sexist, which undermined the Doctor, caused the writers to ironically make Clara unlikable, caused them to come up with ridiculous, over the top ideas to make her important, like the moon egg, shifted the focus onto her boring school, and finally the rewriting of Doctor Who’s mythology to insert Clara into it both alienated new viewers, with its continuity references, whilst also ironically pissing off the only people who got those constant continuity references too.

The makers of Doctor Who during this time also started to replace all of the male roles in the show with women.

UNIT, a military organisation designed to track aliens and monsters down, was staffed entirely by women in the Capaldi era.

Now this was of course unrealistic as the majority of soldiers are men. Personally though I didn’t mind the all female UNIT in principle, and I even liked one of the characters, Osgood played by Ingrid Oliver.

However again when you look at everything else that is happening in the show, the female UNIT sadly becomes yet another part of an agenda.

Worst of all however was when Steven Moffat brought the Doctors archenemy, the Master back as a woman.

Now The Master had been in the show since the 70s. He was a Time Lord like the Doctor who could regenerate into a different form. All of the Masters however were meant to be the same character underneath their different faces, much like the Doctor.

The Masters three main aims in the original Doctor Who series were to conquer the universe, because he believed that under his rule things would be better, to kill the Doctor his most hated enemy, and to prolong his own miserable life. (In later stories the villain loses the power to regenerate and ends up trapped in a decaying, zombie body, though he does get more regenerations later.)

Moffat however not only brought the Master back as a woman, but had the female version of the Master be in love with the Doctor and try and win him back. Missy, the female Master doesn’t try and conquer the universe like the old male Masters. Instead her plans are spent trying to win her “boyfriend” back and getting rid of women like Osgood and Clara that she sees as rivals for her man.

This was a huge comedown for the villain, and worse made a mockery of his past characterisation for the last 40 years. When you look at old stories where the Master was motivated by his hatred of the Doctor, you laugh now.

Either the Master was a repressed homosexual who couldn’t accept that he was gay for the Doctor, which led to him wanting to kill him, or worse, the Master regenerating into a woman caused him to suddenly notice how much more attractive his archfoe was before.

Are we supposed to expect that a Time Lords sexuality changes when they regenerate? How ridiculous. Does that mean then that Christopher Eccelston could have morphed into Jennifer Lawrence and then fallen in love with Mickey, Rose’s boyfriend? Or that Susan could have morphed into Russell Brand and abandoned the love of her life, David?

Also worst of all Moffat salted the earth for future writers to do something interesting with the Master. You can’t go back to writing the Master as the Master anymore after the drastic change to his and the Doctors relationship. That villain has essentially been written out of the show and replaced with another character.

See for yourself.

This is what the Master was for 40 years. He was the Doctors archfoe. He hated the Doctor more than anything else, and he wanted to rule the universe. His creators had intended for him to be Moriarty to the Doctors Holmes and that’s what he was.

However in order to pander to feminists, Steven Moffat turned the Master into this instead.

Those are just not the same characters, in fact they are the opposite to each other. Why would you bother to make Missy the Master? She could easily have been a new character.

The answer is that Moffat only made her the Master in order to set up a female Doctor to pander to feminists and SJWs who had been pushing for a female Doctor for years.

Sadly despite the failure of Missy, a female Doctor did finally happen in 2017.

Image result for Jodie Whittaker

Now a female Doctor is an idea that the overwhelming majority of Doctor Who fans hate.

It began as a joke by Tom Baker to make then producer John Nathan Turner (who he hated.) Look inept to the press.

It was never contrary to what SJWs always say, been part of the canon of the show until the early 10s when they bullied Steven Moffat into making it canon, with things like the Corsair, Missy and the General.

For the first 50 years we never saw any Time Lord change gender when regenerating. Furthermore we saw Time Lords use up all of their regenerations in many instances and not change gender. A Time Lord can only regenerate 13 times, and characters like Morbius, the Master, Azmahel and even the Doctor himself went through all 13 regenerations as the one gender.

Furthermore its been said many times that Time Lords choose how they are going to look when they regenerate.

With this in mind if they had no preference, why the fuck would they use up all of their lives as the one sex?

All Time Lords and Time Lady’s been written as male characters, and female characters. Some Time Lords have even been in romantic relationships with humans. The Doctors grand daughter Susan went off to live with David a human male, and Leela a human woman went off to live with a Time Lord male.

Their relationship is going to be awkward to say the least if Susan trips and bangs her head and turns into Brian Blessed! And don’t say that Brian Blessed is a ridiculous choice for Susan. If you support the bullshit idea of the Doctor can be absolutely anybody, and there is no template to how the Doctor should be, then okay same applies for every Time Lord character. In that case why can’t Susan regenerate into Brian Blessed?

Also not to get into the details of it, but if Time Lords have no gender, how does that work in the bedroom with a human? Finally I might add that the Master was written as a violent misogynist before in his male incarnations. How the fuck does that work if Time Lords have no concept of gender?

This whole gender bending Time Lords crap doesn’t work because its too late in Time Lords development to introduce it. No one minds a race of gender neutral aliens, but actually come up with a new race like that. At this stage, trying to rewrite it that Susan and Romana can technically regenerate into Brian Blessed and Vinnie Jones and that William Hartnell can turn into Jodie Whittaker is like trying to take a square peg and make it fit a round hole.

All of the Doctors are not meant to be different people. They are the same person whose body has simply changed. Yes his outer persona is a little bit different, but that’s explained in universe as simply being because of the shake up of regeneration, and also because living in a different body would affect your personality too. The Third Doctor for instance is more willing to fight his enemies because he is in the body of a 6 foot 3 guy with a ripped build than the Second Doctor who is in the body of a little overweight, middle aged guy.

The Doctors core personality always remains unchanged, from incarnation to incarnation. This isn’t just my interpretation. The most prominent people involved in Classic Who all said this.

Terrance Dicks the shows longest running script editor said that the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors character too much. Tom Baker the shows longest running and most popular Doctor also said the character was the most limited role he had ever played, as there were so many things he couldn’t do in the role as then he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

The character can not change into absolutely anybody. There is a definite template to the character. Now the Doctors gender is a part of this template really by default.

He was never, until the early 2010s written as a genderless character. Even then he wasn’t actually written as a genderless character. It was just mentioned that he was.

The character of the Doctor has always been written as a man, played as a man, all of his relationships have been from a male perspective, he is recognised in popular culture as a man. To act as though he could switch gender and it would be no different is ridiculous.

I’d also argue that rewriting it to be that the Doctor can be genderless and anybody is insulting the makers of Classic Who. Its creating an idea in popular culture that the Doctor could have always been a woman, but they never did it because they were sexist. The makers of Classic Who ironically were often ahead of their time in their portrayals of female characters.

Pretty impressive for a teenager to take on an alien war machine/mini tank with a baseball bat and make it call for reinforcements!

Yet now the makers of Classic Who and its fans will forever be tarred as sexists who were too scared to have a woman as the hero, to future generations who don’t know the show and will think “oh well a female Doctor could have happened, they just didn’t do it,” when that wasn’t the case at all.

The makers and fans clearly had no problems with strong women as seen with characters like Barbara, Ace, Leela, Sarah Jane etc. I might add that there were always series starring female leads that ran concurrently to Doctor Who. The Avengers, Wonder Woman, The Survivors, Alien film series, The Bionic Woman, Xena, Buffy, Once Upon A Time, Ghost Whisperer, so its not even like a female lead would have been seen as unprofitable from a business point of view.

Its just that the makers and fans felt that that the particular character of the Doctor, who had an established history and personality, was set as a man, so it would be awkward to change that, and since there was nothing to suggest that he could turn into a woman (and plenty to contradict it.) Why bother going down that minefield? Particularly when there are so many great female heroes out there like Buffy, Xena and Ripley?

Also within the narrative of the show its going to be a difficult thing to pull off. Its not like a female Doctor is even a female character. She’s a man forced to turn into a woman against his will. She’s not a transexual character either. In fact shes the opposite. Trans people change gender because they feel they were born in the wrong body. The Doctor meanwhile apparently doesn’t care and has been changed in a flash against his will.

Having a character change gender against their will really seems kind of silly. Its like this episode of Futurama, and bogs the show down too much in gender politics as the character will obviously have to comment on those differences. Gender politics isn’t good for any series.

Jodie’s first moment as the Doctor, her gurning “Aw Bwilliant!” at her gender changing, after having been a man for 20000 years, and not feeling uncomfortable at all (apparently gender dysphoria doesn’t exist), already reminds me of this episode of Futurama, as do Missy’s cringey lines about becoming a woman being an upgrade and the Generals about all men being egotists.

Funny how even though Time Lords are supposedly gender neutral we haven’t seen ANY female Time Lords regenerating into men and preferring it? What about Susan, the Doctors grand daughter? Or The Rani a female adversary of the Doctor, or Romana.

When its all the one way, you can’t help but feel there is an agenda here.

I might add that even from the point of view of “I need muh representation” a female Doctor is a terrible idea.

I personally think the need for representation is a lot of self indulgent, narcissistic tripe, but more on that later.

Still if you do think it matters why on earth would you be for a female Doctor? Its not going to do anything for female representation to start with. The character of the Doctor is a man. There have been 13 versions of him as a man, he’s known around the entire world as a man, the longest running and most popular versions of him are men, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, David Tennant etc.

One female version after that is not going to cause people to always view him as a female character.

Furthermore by making out that a female Doctor is a milestone you are actually at this stage harming female representation. Jodie Whitaker recently gave an interview where she went on about how groundbreaking she was, simply for being a female lead in a television series. So then Charmed, Xena, Buffy, Once Upon A Time, Nikita, Alias, Dark Angel, Charlies Angels, Wonder Woman, Ghost Whisperer, Star Trek Voyager, Ab Fab, etc were all meaningless.

Its Nice To Be A Milestone, But People Need To Grow Up

Apparently they were according to Jodie. Apparently, all of these original, iconic female characters, mean nothing compared to a male character being turned into a woman? The only way a woman can be iconic is if she was once a he?

Its a terrible message to young women, and at the same time its not giving them a hero of their own.

It would have been better if the makers of Doctor Who had brought back any of the three Time Lady characters from the shows past, Romana the Doctors old companion, Jenny his daughter, or even Susan his grand daughter, made them  popular with new viewers and then given them their own spin off series.

The SJWs didn’t want an original female character however, because they wanted to A/ spite male viewers whom they despise, and B/ impose their agenda on as many people as possible by taking over a beloved character.

Sadly however the SJWs, even though they couldn’t supply one reason for a female Doctor, won and worse they were vicious bullies to those who weren’t happy about the decision including former Doctor Peter Davison, who they eventually chased off of twitter.

Peter Davison Quits Twitter Over Toxicity of Doctor Who Fandom

Finally as if this wasn’t enough, the conventions and the shows fandom have also been completely taken over for the SJWs agendas.

Here’s a Doctor Who convention from the 90s.

Related image

Here is one from this year.

It might as well be a feminist convention now. If you were to show someone the first picture they’d obviously know it was Doctor Who related as there is a Dalek and the TARDIS there, but the second? What the hell does it actually have to do with Doctor Who at all!

Even if you were actually at a convention you’d probably be unaware that it was about Doctor Who.

See here.

A Wonderful MeTooMoment Unfolded At Gallifrey One

Rachel Talalay on MeToo At Gallifrey One

Its hilarious that Rachel Talalay even says in the above article that at the entire panel, there was only ONE short story about Doctor Who.

You might think “well MeToo is more important than a silly sci fi show” but the point is, it was a convention designed to celebrate that silly sci fi show! It would be like if I took over the Buffy fandom and insisted that Buffy conventions all be about Scottish Independence, and that anyone who just wanted to talk about Buffy, was an anti Scots bigot.

Doctor Who is not long for this world. Its viewing figures have decreased every single year since 2014, when the SJW pandering really took hold. Matt Smith’s final episode was seen by over ten million viewers. During the latest Peter Capaldi series, the shows viewers sunk to barely over 2 million at one point. Literally the lowest in the shows entire 50 plus year history.

Doctor Who Ratings Fall To Record Lows

Doctor Who Lowest Ratings

Whovian Feminism and her fellow SJWs have done far more harm to the show than even Mary Whitehouse. They’ve dragged it to literally the lowest point in its history.

And it is solely them, make no mistake. Nobody else wanted a female Doctor. The general public as you can see above, switched off in droves at things like Missy, all the anti men remarks, Clara taking over the show.

The fans have also not only always been historically opposed to a female Doctor, but made it clear just before Jodie was cast that they still didn’t want a female Doctor either.

Woman Do Not Want A Female Doctor

Most Fans Against A Female Doctor

Yet even with all of this the producers still pandered to the Whovian Feminism crowd?

Its quite fascinating in a way. The vast majority who loved Hinchcliffs darker, edgier take on Doctor Who, and who switched off in droves at Steven Moffat’s SJW friendly version, clearly didn’t matter as much to the makers of the show as the tiny, complaining audience of Mary Whitehouse and Whovian Feminism.

Why would anyone who wanted their show to succeed do that? Simple because the Whovian Feminism and Mary Whitehouse minority were bullies who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted.

They made themselves appear as the majority, and also slandered the makers of the show as well. The key is not to ever give in to these people. Mary Whitehouse and Whovian Feminism should have both been told to fuck off. They were spoiled brats used to getting their own way, whose ideas for making the show better were utter crap.

I might add that a lot of the SJWs much like Mary Whitehouse don’t even like Doctor Who. Whovian Feminism claims to be a fan, but truth be told she hasn’t seen that much of the show. She hadn’t even seen any stories featuring Colin Baker, the 6th Doctor until 2015.

Joss Whedon meanwhile who openly mocked those who don’t want a female Doctor, ironically said he hated Doctor Who growing up and openly ridiculed the show too.

See here.

Joss Whedon says he thought Doctor Who was cheesy

Joss Whedon on Female Doctor Who

Why the hell does this guy care about who plays the Doctor with this in mind? He according to his own biography, watched one episode and thought it looked shit!

PS its also ironic that Joss would try and whittle down the only differences between men and women to genitals. By that logic, Blaire White shouldn’t be called a woman, as hey she still has a penis. Same applies to an intersex woman who has a penis too. I guess Joss sees her as a man?

The reason Joss and Mary Whitehouse despite having 0 interest in Doctor Who still want it to fit their vision, is because they are such intolerant people, they literally can’t stand something that doesn’t espouse their views even existing!

Doctor Who isn’t the only sci fi franchise the SJWs have influenced. They seem to have their talons locked around the sci fi and fantasy genres like no other.

The irony is that the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been among the most progressive. Its had plenty of strong black characters like Blade, dozens of strong female characters like Xena, Buffy, Charmed Ones, Wonder Woman, Bionic Woman, and plenty of LGBT characters like Xena, Buffy, Willow, Captain Jack.

In fact the sci fi and fantasy genres have often been ahead of the curve in terms of representation, with things like Star Trek the original series featuring the first ever interracial kiss in an American drama series, and being praised by none other than Martin Luther King who called it important to the civil rights movement.

You won’t find anywhere near as many female, black or LGBT heroes in other genres like spy espionage, crime thriller or westerns. Yet feminists don’t target them?

That’s because like all bullies, SJWs and feminists are pitiful cowards. As I said earlier people like Anita Sarkeesian and Whovian Feminism want to be seen as champions for female empowerment, but they are too scared to go after the single biggest cause of inequality for women in the world today, Islam.

They aren’t going to want to go through what someone like Tommy Robinson does in trying to bring attention to girls like Chelsea Wright who have been raped. They aren’t even going to want to go through what someone like Pat Condell who gets called a racist goes through.

So they pick a target that is completely benign and smear it as sexist, so they can appear to be “fighting the good fight”, and get all the credit for that whilst not doing a bloody thing to help any women.

Sci fi and fantasy are easy genres to bully because their fans are often nerds with low self esteem, and furthermore, sci fi fans in contrast to say western fans won’t want to stand up for their love of the genre quite so passionately, because its looked down on.

Fans of sci fi and fantasy are often seen as sad gits by the media after all, so people like Will Wheaton will not only not want to stand up for their favourite franchises, but may even bully those who do, to show that they are not sad gits whose lives revolve around Doctor Who and Star Trek.

Still even among sci fi franchises Doctor Who has been hit the absolute worst and sadly its turned from a show that was once a global phenomenon, to a show that most people probably aren’t even aware is still on.

Video Games

Image result for anita sarkeesian

Video games are probably the SJWs favourite whipping boy after Doctor Who. Fortunately unlike a lot of other spineless fandoms, gamers have stood up to both right wing and left wing SJWs that tried to take over their industry. (As a result they were tarred as Nazis by the mainstream media, during the whole Gamer Gate fiasco.)

Still I’m proud of video game fans for being about the only group who did stand up to these puritanical bullies.

Video games like many other popular forms of entertainment were derided by right wing SJWs for apparently corrupting the youth of today and encouraging violence.

The most famous example of this was Jack Thompson, who led a decades long campaign to get video games banned for encouraging violence.

His arguments have been debunked time and time again. Studies have shown that there is absolutely no link between playing violent video games and being violent in real life.

Long Term Study Shows No Link Between Violence And Video Games

Yet in spite of this Thompson would continue to trot out the same arguments, never offering any counter claims, and would play the victim by going on about all the death threats he had received from video game fans.

I don’t doubt that Thompson did receive some death threats. That doesn’t prove that video game fans by and large are violent psychopaths however. There are loonies in any group, including feminists.

Look at the death threats Thunderf00t received for speaking out against feminism.

Does that prove that feminists are all psychopaths?

Thompson resorted to these tactics because he couldn’t debunk the gamers arguments against him.

Fortunately in the long run Thompson lost, but he was ultimately replaced by Anita Sarkeesian.

Sarkeesian who was obviously the epitome of a left wing SJW, said she felt that video games were corrupting the youth of today by making them sexist.

Sarkeesian had 0 proof of this and her arguments such as that there are no strong roles for women in video games, or the gaming community is misogynistic overall, were easily debunked.

Of course just like Thompson, rather than try and respond to these reasoned arguments. Sarkeesian went down the pity route by making out that all of her critics were just people sending her death threats.

The great irony was that many of the same liberals who mocked Thompson as being an old fashioned conservative kill joy, were lining up to white knight for Anita Sarkeesian.

Of course the same was true of Doctor Who as well. As much of an influence as she had over the series, at the very least the media and all Doctor Who fans hated Mary Whitehouse and the influence she had on the show, whilst with Whovian Feminism and the people who smeared Moffat as promoting sexual assault, the media were completely on their side.

This video from Chris Ray Gun (one of my favourite youtubers along with ShoeOnHead, Barbara 4U2C and Blaire White) did on the liberals hypocrisy as well as how SJWs are able to take things over is great.

It doesn’t mention Doctor Who, but it does cover how SJWs took over and sunk the New Atheist Movement too. Chris probably won’t appreciate this video being shared however as since he made it, he and Laci Green, who is among the feminists he includes that sunk the Atheist movement, are now dating! Still its a good video anyway.

When you’re part of a tribe you don’t really have any principles or actual beliefs. If your tribe says something you had previously attacked another tribe for, like saying that video games influence people to do bad things, then you’ll be for it.

Comic Books

Image result for comics code authority

Related image

Comic Books have had a long and difficult history with SJWs.

Initially it was the right who tried to censor comics, and even outright ban them. Just like Jack Thompson with video games, and Mary Whitehouse with Doctor Who, many right wing activists saw comic books as being a threat to our values because they were too violent and demanded that their content change and that in some cases they even be banned.

Of course like all whiny, narcissistic, intolerant bullies they got their way, despite not representing the majority viewpoint by constantly attacking comic books in all forms of media they could.

The result of this was several horror comics being banned in the UK, and restrictions being imposed on what Comic Book creators could write about.

The Comics Code Authority was eventually established in the 50s to give Comic Book creators a chance to have a greater freedom, but it sadly ended up leading to even greater censorship.

By the late 50s, the CCA had almost sunk the industry, with almost 75 percent of the industry having gone out of business in 1954.

5 Memorable Moments of Comic Book Censorship

The CCA had a very right wing slant and for decades it prevented there from being stories about things that they thought would corrupt the youth. Sadly as a result of this, there were no LGBT characters in comic books for decades.

How The Code Authority Kept LGBT People Out Of Comic Books

CCA vs LGBT People: Battle of the Century!

Fortunately the CCA’s influence began to die down and comic book writers and creators began to experience more freedom, and could tell the stories they WANTED to tell.

Sadly however just like with Doctor Who and Video Games, left wing bullies would start to take the place of the right wing censors.

Nowadays every comic has to basically be approved by the SJWs first. If not much like with Steven Moffat and video games they’ll tar it as racist, homophobic, and sexist.

Now you might be thinking “well all the SJWs want is more women, LGBT, and black characters so what’s wrong with that?”

Obviously the overwhelming majority of comic book fans don’t have a problem with non white, non straight, and non male characters. As I have said before the sci fi, and comic book fandoms were often among the most progressive in terms of representation.

An SJW comic however is totally different to one that simply has a leading black character like Blade or X-Men.

An SJW comic, or tv show first of all will have negative comments directed towards white men in general, and white men will often be depicted in a negative way because they’re white and men.

Also the female and LGBT and black characters will have to constantly remind us of how they are black, female and LGBT in the most obnoxious way, that’s basically the writer telling the audience “I’m going to teach you plebs watching/reading at home that minorities and women are people too.”

Take a look at Red Dwarf, or Blade. They both feature black leads, but its not mentioned in either case as it shouldn’t be. As a result no one even noticed that they had black leads. When do you ever see Red Dwarf, which is actually the second longest running sci fi show in the UK after Doctor Who, get hailed as this big progressive series? Its main love story between Lister and Kochanski is an interracial one. In fact half of the cast is black! Yet no one noticed!

Compare that to the ridiculous bullshit there has been around the Black Panther movie where people have been told that they shouldn’t be allowed to watch it.

I’m not joking see here.

Image result for white people shouldn't be allowed to see black panther

 

Image result for black panther representation tweets

I think this is proof that the SJWs have done far more harm for representation than good. In the 90s we got stuff like this.

And nobody gave a shit. Nobody even noticed! Yet here we are in an age where you can’t have a film with a black lead without all of this ridiculous race baiting shit being propped up by those on the left who ironically claim to be fighting racism?

Anita Sarkeesian even said in a recent episode of her Feminist Frequency Radio series (which listening to is a truly stomach churning experience.) That she was angry that there were any sympathetic white characters in Black Panther.

Also the SJWs want to change and even outright replace existing characters just to suit their agenda. Wolverine, Iron Man and Thor have all been replaced with new female characters who have taken up the mantle.

Comic book fans obviously are never happy when their favourite character is written out and replaced with somebody else. Regardless of whether that someone is a white man or not. When Damian Wayne for instance took over from Bruce Wayne as Batman there was fan outrage.

However you didn’t get called a bigot for not wanting Damian Wayne to replace Bruce Wayne the same way you get called a bigot for not wanting a new character, who happens to be a black woman, to take over as Iron Man instead of Tony Stark.

Added to that other characters sexualities have suddenly been changed too.

Whilst no one has a problem with a gay character obviously people don’t like their favourite characters, (whose story that they have followed for years) suddenly being changed in a big way for no reason, and in a way that completely contradicts their established history.

And yes that applies all ways. I for instance wouldn’t want an LGBT character to suddenly say that they aren’t LGBT. Like take Captain Jack Harkness for instance. A big part of his character is that he is bisexual. Imagine if I suddenly came in and rewrote it so that he was actually always asexual and that his previous bisexual tendencies were just complete lies that he made up because?

Retcons to characters histories can sometimes work, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis. You need to take into account how big of a contradiction it is, whether the audience can accept it, and whether it changes the character beyond all recognition, and how good of a story it is.

The SJWs however never want to look at anything in a nuanced way. They just trample over other people’s characters with their size 12s and demand that all characters regardless of their history and characterisation be changed to their liking, and if you don’t like THEIR ideas for other people’s characters you are a sexist, racist, or a homophobe.

There is nothing to stop these people from going out there and creating their own characters. If they are great, then people will love them just like they did Blade, Xena and Buffy.

I acknowledge that this might be harder with DC and Marvel. Not because their fans are racists or sexists, but because its hard to introduce any new character to Marvel and DC that is going to be as popular as the classics like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, or even the likes of The Flash. As these characters were created in the 30s and 50s and 60s then obviously the bulk of them will be men.

Still that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try if you really are so desperate. After all Wolverine was created much later than most of the X-Men and he is now the most popular.

I think it is also somewhat harder to have a woman occupy all of the same roles a man can in a sci fi and fantasy adventure, not because women are less believable as the hero, or people have problems with a woman being the hero. TBH I think most nerdy comic book guys prefer female heroes to male heroes.

The problem is however that a hero has to obviously get tortured, beaten up, even regularly killed in order for their adventures to be exciting.

Being a hero can be tough sometimes.

I don’t think people are as willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy watching a female hero get tortured, beaten up or killed as much as they would with a male hero.

I’m not saying that’s right of course. A large part of why I always thought Xena the Warrior Princess was so good for women in the genre (aside from just being a great show.) Was because it didn’t hold back in terms of what its female characters, both heroic and villainous went through. Xena got beaten up, tortured, crippled just as much as Batman would, her female enemies like Callisto and Alti got killed in horrific ways like being blown up, impaled, submerged in quicksand the same way any male villain would.

Sadly however I don’t think as many writers and directors are as willing to show women go through it as much, which is why there are fewer roles for women overall, not just heroic roles. Obviously a villain has to get beaten up and killed, men also make up the henchman the hero kills, his sidekicks and the victims too. Look at the Jurassic Park film series for instance. It has far more male characters than female, but that’s because most of its male characters get killed by Dinosaurs. So far only ONE woman has been killed on screen in all 4 Jurassic Park films.

Feminists certainly aren’t making it easier for comic book writers to give women more interesting roles as they complain every time anything even remotely violent happens to a female character as being an example of how misogynistic the writer is, inspiring the young men who read it to go out and kill young women etc.

Fox Apologises For X-Men Poster

DC Comics Forced To Pull Batgirl Poster

With this in mind how are writers supposed to make stories about female characters as exciting as those about male character? Wolverine can be impaled with a massive steal girder and thrown half way across the city and drowned. Mystique in comparison can’t even be grabbed by the throat without it being some kind of violent sexist agenda against women.

If anything feminists are actually standing in the way of women being able to occupy all of the same roles that men are. Much like the CCA before them, they are attempting to police what types of stories people are allowed to tell.

Also much like the CCA, the feminists and SJWs don’t actually care about the quality of the stories, just in A/ pushing their agenda to as many people and B/ making sure that everything, even something they have 0 interest in, behaves in what they believe to be the “correct” way.

The proof of that is the fact that all of these people who are desperate for a female Doctor Who, a female Thor, a female Iron Man etc, always go on about how representation is important, and growing up they just desperately wanted to see a character who was gay/black/a woman etc. Are the people who are most likely to NEVER watch or read anything starring female/black/LGBT heroes.

Look at Claudia Boleyn, a popular youtuber who always goes on about how she wants to see more female heroes, LGBT heroes like her. All of the shows she watches, and talks about star men like Doctor Who, Supernatural, Merlin etc. Furthermore there are actually female counterparts to every single one of her favourite shows.

Merlin, a pseudo historical fantasy series, that is not only completely historically inaccurate, but revels in its inaccuracies in humorous ways and blends hard, gritty drama with the most over the top, broad, camp humour.

The same is also true of Xena the Warrior Princess which stars two bisexual women as the leads, yet Claudia NEVER even comments on Xena? PS Xena was even cited by the makers of Merlin as one of their biggest influences!

Then there is Supernatural, another of Claudia’s favourite series about two brothers who battle Demons and come from a long line of people who battle Demons. The youngest of them however falls in love with a Demon who wavers between good and evil, who the elder sibling despises, and who he is eventually forced to kill. The elder sibling meanwhile develops a really close relationship with a Celestial being.

What about Charmed however? A series about three sisters who battle Demons and who come from a long line of Demon hunters. The youngest of the Charmed sisters also falls for a Demon, that the other two despise, and who wavers between good and evil, before they have to kill him for good, whilst the older one develops a relationship with a celestial being.

Then there is Class the awful Doctor Who Spin off Claudia likes, which revolves around a school where there is a rip in time and space that allows monsters to come through. A group of misfit students have to cover up the rip and save the world. Oh and one of them is a blonde, who used to be an enemy of the main character, but got something stuck in their head which stops them from even hurting someone anybody, and they always whine about how they want to get this out of their head.

Gee where have I head that before? Oh that’s right. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the most celebrated genre series of all time, which stars a female hero, and has a lesbian woman as the most powerful character in the universe, but which Claudia has also never commented on.

With this in mind I can’t exactly take her claims for wanting to see someone like her seriously. There are existing alternatives to series she already adores, that star female heroes, yet she shows non interest in them.

Whovian Feminism is another one who ironically NEVER talks about female led series. Seriously why the fuck does she talk about Doctor Who if she is interested in female led shows?

It would be like if I went on about wanting to explore themes of Scottish independence and nationalism in film and television, and then only ever looked at say Xena, and whined because it wasn’t about that?

Look at the blog, youtube channel of anyone who goes on about representation, from angry feminists like Whovian Feminism to white knights like Mr Tardis Reviews and you will be lucky if they are a fan of even one female led series.

Most of the people in the industry who go on about representation meanwhile are posers like Neil Gaiman and J J Abrams who want to make themselves look better. People like Gene Roddenberry (creator of Star Trek), Frank Hampson (creator of Dan Dare) and Terry Nation (creator of the Daleks) all still receive praise for how progressive their stories were in the 60s and 70s and rightfully so.

They did combat the genuine racism and sexism around them, but again in the modern world, its not edgy or a big deal to have a black or female leading character. So people like Gaiman and Abrams have to try and make out that it is so they can basque in the praise from ignorant SJWs who don’t know any better.

Neil Gaiman On Buffy

Thank you Neil for telling a sexist pleb like me that women are people too! Representation is yet another way for cowards like Anita Sarkeesian and Neil Gaiman to make themselves look like social justice champions, without doing a thing to help women or minorities.

Of course much like Doctor Who, Comic Books sales have begun to sink as a result of pandering to these people.

Comic Book Sales Tanking

Retailers Complain About Collapsing DC and Marvel Sales

The fact that Doctor Who and comic books have nose dived as a result of pandering to these people whilst video games whose fans fought back have remained strong shows why you need to stand up to these bullies.

Yes you will get tarred as bigots like the gamer gators were, but at the end of the day the thing you love will be saved.

I think comic book geeks and Doctor Who fans biggest problem however was in not seeing that the feminists and the SJWs were no different to the likes of the CCA and Mary Whitehouse.

Video game fans saw right away that Anita Sarkeesian was no different to Jack Thompson. All she had done was replace the idea that games are making people violent with games are making people sexist.

With comic book fans a lot of them however I think foolishly came to think that this representation crap was important, because it had been in the 60s, and came to see the feminists as being like the people who fought against the CCA in the 60s and the 70s.

Ironically they had no idea that they were now becoming the new CCA, as they were supporting people who wanted to limit and control what types of stories people could tell like the CCA, and were actually bigots just like the CCA, except rather than against homosexuals, they are bigoted against white people.

Comedy

Image result for John Cleese political correctness

Much like Doctor Who, video games, and comic books, comedy is something that has historically been limited and censored by right wing SJWs, but in the last few decades its really more the left wing SJWs that have begun to censor comedy.

It was always the conservative Christians that wanted to get outrageous comics they found offensive banned.

Probably the most notorious example of this was the banning of Life of Brian in certain areas of the UK, including Glasgow, as well as the constant attacks on it from the right wing media for supposedly mocking Jesus (which missed the whole point of the movie.)

See here. City Lifts Ban on Life Of Brian

Then of course there was also Terry Rakolta’s famous campaign against classic American 90s comedy Married With Children.

Rakolta was basically the American counterpart to Mary Whitehouse. She was a conservative woman who founded the organisation known as Americans For Responsible Television. Her favourite target was Married With Children which she believed to be obscene.

The campaign she launched against the show caused many of the shows sponsors to pull out. It was also moved to a late slot at her urging, and the content of the show had to be toned down after a public boycott she launched against the series.

Terry Rakolta, The Bitch Who Tried To Get Married With Children Off The Air

Nowadays of course comedy series have to regulated from a more feminist/left wing perspective or outright banned.

So many prominent comedians from Jerry Seinfeld to John Cleese to Stephen Merchant have mentioned how their comedy would not work today because of left wing censors.

Stephen Merchant Says BBC Would Be Too Scared Of Liberal Left To Make The Office

Then of course there are the SJWs recent attacks on Friends of all shows.

Why Friends Is Actually A Super Problematic Show

The One With The Homophobia

Friends is the lightest, most feel good, non offensive comedy imaginable. That was why it had such a mass appeal. It was really good escapism, its main characters though obviously flawed, where basically nice, likable people.

Yet the SJWs are such delicate little snowflakes that they can’t even cope with Friends? How the fuck are they going to cope with genuinely dark comedies like Seinfeld, Bottom, The Young Ones, any iteration of Blackadder, South Park etc?

I honestly never thought that I would see a time when Friends of all shows was the outrageous one! I think with this the left wing SJWs have outdone the right wing SJWs.

But hey who needs Friends, Married With Children and Seinfeld when you have this type of comedy from SJWs.

To be fair a lot of this stuff is funny, but not in the way they had hoped.

I could list may other examples of forms of entertainment that have been taken over, sunk or otherwise limited by these crybullies, but you probably get the point.

The important things to learn here are.

1/ That it makes no difference between left and right. All that matters is whichever one is in power. They’ll both try and take over every aspect of your life, and they are both such intolerant fanatics that they can’t stand any thing that doesn’t agree with them, or espouse their views even existing. Even if its something they have no interest in, or have outright contempt for (like Joss Whedon and Doctor Who.) It doesn’t matter. They’ll still demand that it goes their way and tell people who do love it that they are the intolerant bigots.

2/ That it doesn’t matter whether they are an extreme minority. They ALWAYS get their way, because they are willing to play dirty tricks like smearing a man’s reputation as seen with Steven Moffat.

3/ You should NEVER give in to these people. Not only is what they want often to the detriment of whatever it is they are taking over (because they don’t actually care about it, only in pushing their agenda.) But they also want to take it all over. Like with Doctor Who, it wasn’t even just a female Doctor, they had to have the male Doctor be emasculated, a female Master, an all female UNIT, anti men jokes etc.

4/ They hilariously will often complain about the other side, without realising that they are exactly the same, as seen with the liberals who rightfully criticised Jack Thompson but later went on to white knight for Anita Sarkeesian, or the “edgy” comedians who spent years attacking Mary Whitehouse for being censorious yet now stick up for feminists attempts to police all forms of entertainment from sci fi series to comedy.

5/ If you see this happening to any form of entertainment, call it out. I think that there has been a problem where people won’t comment on it if its not something they like being affected.

Take a look at Doctor Who. Many of the people who defended video games from feminists and SJWs either didn’t care when Doctor Who was taken over in exactly the same way, or were even apologists for it!

ShoeOnHead for instance said that there was no problem with the Doctor having a female body, whilst centrist Youtuber Top Hats and Champagne said that a female Doctor was a good idea. Of course both admitted that they have never even watched a second of Doctor Who.

So with this in mind why comment on it? They both have no idea that the Doctor does have a consistent character and that it is jarring to suddenly change it in such a huge way, or that it only happened because of a calculated smear campaign against the show, its makers and fans.

Just a little bit of research would have shown them that Doctor Who is in the same boat as video games (both of which they admirably stood up for), and that if it gets taken over, then that’s a huge victory for SJWs. Far bigger than them taking over the Atheist Movement, which Shoe commented on many times.

Doctor Who is arguably the most influential British television series of all time. It has a history of over 50 years and is seen in over 150 countries by over 160 million people, yet these bullies were actually able to completely take everything about it over, from its lore (gender neutral Time Lords), to its casting choices (Jodie Whittaker, Michelle Gomez) to its story arcs (Clara being retconed to being the most important person in its history,) to its fandom (like a Doctor Who Convention that only mentions DOCTOR WHO once, because the rest of the time they are talking about feminism and MeToo.)

If the SJWs can take over Doctor Who in such a drastic way, then really no television series is safe, and once they have a monopoly on tv, then other forms of entertainment are in danger, and from there other areas of popular culture, and media too.

Fair enough Shoe and Top Hats are not Who fans, but again a little research before they commented on it wouldn’t have killed them. I’m not the biggest gamer either, but I still comment on what the feminists are doing to video games because I can recognise it is another form of entertainment that is going through what Doctor Who is right now. It would be ridiculous of me to say that what Anita says about video games is just fine, but then criticise Whovian Feminism, when both are exactly the fucking same.

I still like Shoe of course, but I was a little disappointed in her with this, and really it reminds me of that old saying “I didn’t stick up for them when they came after so and so, but then when they came after me there was no one left.

Always call this shit out. Even if its a show you don’t like, even if its your side that is now doing what you always criticised the other side for doing. Call it out for the sake of free speech, and writers, artists, directors and actors basic right to tell the types of stories they want to.

9/ They Both Like Fake News

Image result for you are fake news

He’s talking to both his supporters and critics.

Both sides will distort the facts to suit their own agendas whilst hilariously trying to take the moral high ground against the other.

As the left currently has the media backing, its fake news is obviously a lot more dangerous and noticable.

CNN have been caught lying about so many things, from editing a black woman calling for violence to make it look as though she is objecting to it, to their hilarious in hindsight polls about Clinton having 90 percent of the vote over Trump.

CNN Apologies For Editing Clip

CNN edits Trump Video on Japan

Then of course there is the leftist media’s disgusting attempts to smear individuals they don’t like such as Tommy Robinson as white nationalists and racists.

The lefts most recent attempts to slander Tommy Robinson, attempt to paint him as being in contact with the terrorist behind the Finsbury Mosque attack. See here.

As you can see this isn’t just a lack of research. This is outright lying. Editing clips, trying to connect Tommy to criminals and fanatics that ironically hate him in real life.

Whilst many on the right such as Paul Joseph Watson have rightfully called out the leftist media on their bias, they too have been guilty of peddling lies and mistruths to promote their own agendas

Paul Joseph Watson famously tweeted a parody photo of Antifa (who for the record I despise too.) Holdin a NAMBLA sign. NAMBLA are an infamous pedophile organisation.

When it was later pointed out to Paul that it was a hoax, he actually said “Does it matter if its a false flag or not, given how funny it is?”

Sargon of Akkad is no better. He regularly refers to Hugo Chavez as a dictator. Whilst Chavez was far from perfect, he was most certainly not a dictator.

Jimmy Carter Calls Hugo Chavez Election The Most Fair He Has Ever Seen

Added to that Sargon always leaves out the devastating effect the US has had on Venezuela, because it doesn’t suit his narrative that its all to do with socialism.

US is tearing Venezeula apart

Now I am not saying that this is the whole reason that Venezeula is failing, but it is a valid idea that Sargon completely overlooks. Similarly in his Castro video Sargon cites a picture on Google image as proof that Cuba’s hospitals were all shit. He has no idea where this photo came from or who made it, he literally just said he put Cuban hospital into Google image.

Seriously Sargon? Google image is your source? I can find pictures of Amy Winehouse and Elvis Presley sitting together on Google image.

Image result for Amy Winehouse Elvis Presley

So by Sargon’s logic then Amy and Elvis must have had an affair? I mean hey I got this on Google images after all?

In some ways this compulsive lying ties right into the left and the right’s contempt for the working class. They think that they are idiots, the great unwashed who are so thick they will believe anything they are told. Fortunately however people are waking up to their lies.

10/ They Think That People Can Change Their Sexuality

Image result for Riley Dennis

We all know how the right for years believed that homosexuality was a sign of degeneracy, and tried to “cure” homosexuality through electro conversion therapy or the notorious “Pray the Gay Away”.

Pray The Gay Away

Now obviously its not reached the same extent, but we have incredibly enough, started to a similar attitude from the left of people being attacked for their sexual preferences. Many on the left such as Dennis O’Reilly have called straight men who don’t want to sleep with trans women bigoted.

Now personally I find trans women like Blaire White attractive, however I can understand why a straight man might not want to sleep with a trans woman, as most of them still have male genitals.

Sadly however the left believe that sexual preferences are bigoted if they are straight, and think a straight man should just change his sexual preferences right away.

Blaire White did a great video on the subject here, and even commented on how ironic it was that the left are now trying to police people’s sexual preferences.

Conclusion 

Don’t end up like this guy.

Tribalism is the biggest enemy to true progress. We are all supsceptible to it in many areas of life, even if its just what band, football team or tv fandom we are a part of.

Still when it creeps its way into politics then it leads to the current brand of right wing and left wing identity politics that is causing severe problems for both actual left wing and right wing politics.

I feel that this tribalism is being promoted by the people at the top to keep those who could make a positive change fighting among themselves.

George Soros for instance funds things like Black Lives Matter and the 2017 Women’s March. Why do you think billionaire and former Nazi collaborator George Soros supports these movements? Out of the goodness of his heart?

No its because it splinters left wing politics. Rather than work together as a united front, people are instead fighting each other over the most stupid differences, whilst ironically thinking they are fighting for equality.

Women are telling men that they have male privilege, black people hate white people for their supposed white privilege, even among the LGBT community there are divisions.

Identity politics has such a stranglehold on the left that some leftists have actually said that a millionaire who is black is still not as privileged as a white person who is homeless, whilst gay men are viewed as not suffering persecution if they are white, as well as racists because they are white.

NUS Tells LGBT Societies To Abolish Gay Rights Because They Don’t Suffer Persecution

White Students Are Told They Are Born Racist

Added to that because the majority of the critics of capitalism are also wrapped up in rubbish identity politics, I feel more left of centre people are drawn to the right as a result.

Sargon of Akkad is a classic example of this. I don’t think Sargon is a bad guy personally at all, and I used to really like a lot of his videos. I also above all else still respect him for giving people like Tommy Robinson a platform when so few others were willing too.

Sargon also believe it or not used to even say that he was quite a socialist in some ways and he supported a socialised health service and welfare state. He also used to criticise capitalism regularly and even supported Bernie Sanders before he was torpedoed by Hillary. (Though I agree with more of Sanders policies than Trump, I think Sanders still revelled in identity politics too, such as his bullshit comments like “white people don’t know what its like to be poor.”)

Still Sargon I think ended up becoming a right wing SJW because he grew so disgusted with the left and its racism against white people and Islam apologism, that he completely turned towards the right.

Watch any of his recent videos and I’d wager he can’t go 5 minutes without ranting about how much he hates socialists. Then there is his wish to see the Tory party saved, and his ridiculous apologism for capitalism to the point where he outright said furiously that its not causing any problems around the world.

Really Sargon?

5th Of United Kingdom Population Live In Poverty

Child Poverty In Britain Set To Soar To New High

Effects of Agent Orange On Vietnam

What We Lost: 10 Ways The Iraq War Harmed The US

10 Years Later: Death, Disease, Destruction: The Legacy of The Iraq War

The Human Cost Of The War In Iraq

Obama The Butcherer Of Women And Children

Death Toll Of Capitalism

(Note: I don’t agree with all of these figures in the last article, but there is a lot of other interesting bits of information here. The author includes World War 2 as a war caused by capitalism for instance which I absolutely do not agree with. Nazism was a political spectrum beyond either left and right. Still saying the Nazis evil came from capitalism is no more ridiculous than saying that there were communists or socialists which Sargon and other right wingers have done.)

Sargon ignores all of this however and only focuses on socialism’s faults to the point where having once defended socialised health care and welfare, he now has a hatred of all socialists that’s quite frankly comparable to SJWs demonisation of right wingers.

In despising one tribe, Sargon has become part of another. He might refer to himself as a classical liberal, but he is a total right winger now.

The best thing you can do so you don’t end up like Sargon is not think that because you agree with the left or the right on one big issue, that means you have to agree with everything they say.

Political policies should be looked on in a purely practical way, and that’s why I personally favour a mixed economy that takes aspects from both socialism and capitalism.

I’m not saying a mixed economy is perfect as no system is. Human beings aren’t perfect so I doubt we could ever invent a perfect ideology.

12 Pros and Cons Of A Mixed Economy

However a mixed economy can overcome many of the problems inherent in socialism and capitalism and I feel it has a better success rate at getting countries out of poverty.

Take a look at the United Kingdom for instance. We leaned more towards a mixed economy after World War 2 with the introduction of the NHS and the nationalisation of coal, gas and electricity.

Clement Attlee: Our Greatest Post War Prime Minister

It would be wrong to say that Attlee made Britain into a total socialist state however. He still kept certain aspects of a capitalist economy for the United Kingdom and for the next 30 or so years our economy flourished as we continued to function under a mixed economy.

Later when we switched to more of a capitalist economy in the late 70s under Thatcher, then poverty and unemployment increased dramatically. Yes its true we still have the NHS, but Thatcher as well as the current Tory government have done everything they can to attack and undermine the NHS to the point where it is sadly on its last legs, as more Doctors are turning to private practice due to a lack of money and support for the NHS.

Lack of Funding For The NHS

As soon as the NHS, the last semblance of our former mixed economy is dismantled by the current right wing government, then the poorest in this country will suffer even more.

China meanwhile is another example of a mixed economy being a success in terms of lifting people out of poverty. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying for one second that that justifies China’s human rights abuses or its censorship, or that the people who have suffered as a result deserved it.

China demonstrates that a mixed economy can still be open to becoming fascist.

The battle for free speech is separate to which economy you think works best, or equal rights for men and women and all ethnic minorities, and for LGBT people too.

This is why you must always fight for freedom of speech regardless of whether you are left or right, and not fall into a “its okay if the people I don’t like are shut down by McCarthy because they are communists, or if they are shut down by feminists because they are sexist.”

Still whilst I am not going to defend the police state in China, at the same time it cannot be denied that the mixed economy has been a success in terms of getting the general population out of poverty.

China Lifts 68 Million People Out Of Poverty In 5 Years

China Lifts 800 Million Out Of Poverty Since 1999

China Lifts 13 Million Out Of Poverty Each Year

All the while our more capitalist economy is floundering and Venezuela is suffering terrible poverty.

Ultimately I think we should eventually move towards a socialist economy, but I don’t think that should be for some time yet (even Sargon has said that he thinks socialism will work, but not for possibly centuries.)

However I don’t think we should stay in a strict capitalist economy. It is demonstrably failing in the UK alone and has been since the 1980s.

A mixed economy is the way to go. I believe in the NHS and the Welfare State. I also think that conditions for workers, hours, money, etc should be greatly improved from what they are now, and essentials such as electricity and gas should be made public sector again.

However at the same time independent businesses should be allowed to thrive. I don’t believe in allowing the government to control every single business.

All of these things I believe will allow more money to come into our economy and provide safety nets for people during dark times.

A final thing you can do to stop becoming tribal is to look at as many sources as you possibly can from both the left and the right.

Even people you hate, as that way you wont just be in your own little echo chamber. Watch as many debates as you can, criticise people you are normally fans of, if you think they say something you disagree with. Hell even if its your friend (though don’t be a condescending asshole about it.)

All of these things in my opinion stop you from feeling as though you are boxxed into one little side and as a result have to defend everything that side says and does.

Image result for the fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists

Thanks for reading.

Why William Shatner Has Done More For Social Justice Than Any SJW

Okay now I know I am a little late to this, but still I feel I had to comment on it.

Recently William Shatner provoked outrage among the regressive left when he posted a series of tweets bashing SJW’s.

Now I have always been a massive fan of William Shatner. The original Star Trek series is still my favourite incarnation of Star Trek, but my respect for him just went up even further after this.

As many of my regular readers will know I feel that the SJW’s have had their talons locked around the sci fi and fantasy genres for the past few years. They ALWAYS have to take over everything they become “fans” of. Famous examples of this include Doctor Who, Ghostbusters and both Marvel and DC.

Sadly however whilst most people hate the influence these people are having on things like Doctor Who and Ghostbusters. (As evidenced by the fact that all the SJW versions of these formerly beloved franchises like Doctor Who, Marvel and DC have all to the last been huge flops.)

Figures Reveal Sharp Decline In Viewers For Doctor Who

Marvel and DC Suffer Slump in Sales

Virtually no one within the entertainment industry at least has spoken out against them. The reason for that is simply because the SJW’s are bullies who will slander anyone who disagrees with them and may even finish their careers.

Peter Davison who played the 5th Doctor for instance merely said that people should go a bit easier on those who are unhappy with a female Doctor and was chased off of twitter as a result.

See here. Peter Davison Quits Twitter After Female Doctor Comments

Tim Allen meanwhile in this clip points out how anyone in Hollywood who is even remotely pro Trump is treated like a Jew in 1930’s Germany.

Of course it later cost him his career.

Things aren’t any better for women either.

Nicole Kidman similarly tweeted that since Trump is our President now we better just get behind him. She didn’t even say that she had voted for him, or that she thought he would be a good President, just that at this stage there is no point in complaining about something we can’t change.

Kidman subsequently had to endure a barrage of abusive tweets, including ironically from Anita Sarkeesian fanboy Joss Whedon, who mocked Kidman’s appearance.

Remember kids the feminist thing to do is call a woman who disagrees with you a turd and mock her appearance.

Then of course any woman who says that she isn’t a feminist is often bullied and forced to say she is one, like Taylor Swift.

So with this in mind first of all I think its incredibly brave of William Shatner to not only say anything even remotely negative about SJW’s, but to do so in such a blunt, aggressive way too.

Also I think its brilliant that not only has such a major figure from the sci fi genre come out and stood up for geek culture by attacking the biggest threat to it. But the fact that William Shatner was also someone who did combat genuine racism, sexism and prejudice in the entertainment industry just further highlights how the SJW’s are not true progressives, but mere posers.

William Shatner starred in one of the most progressive series ever made, Star Trek. It featured a Japanese man a few decades after World War 2, a Russian at the height of the cold war paranoia and a black woman during the height of the civil rights movement among the main cast.

Shatner’s character Captain Kirk also had the first ever interracial kiss in the history of American drama. Both he and Nichelle Nichols sabotaged attempts by the network to block the kiss too.

William Shatner on Interracial Kiss

In addition to Star Trek, William Shatner also starred in a Roger Corman film called The Intruder in 1962.

Based on the novel of the same name by Charles Beaumont, Shatner plays the villain of the piece Adam Cramer who attempts to whip up hatred against the black townspeople. At one point he even goes as far as to frame a black man for raping a young girl.

After Wrath of Khan I’d say its the greatest performance of Shatners career. He is every bit as good as the villain as he would later be as the hero.

The Intruder was a remarkable film. Released two years before the Civil Rights Act, it showed how easy it was to whip up racial violence, and the dangerous effect people like Cramer can have on communities.

Of course Shatner wasn’t the only famous entertainer who had helped to combat prejudice decades ago, but now viewed the modern day SJW’s with disdain.

The late great John Hurt in one of the last ever interviews he gave complained about how modern day society had become too politically correct and how angry he was that people can just decide something is offensive and that’s that its not open for discussion.

Sir John Hurt Slams Modern Society For Political Correctness

John Hurt starred in The Naked Civil Servant back in the 1970’s which told the life of Quentin Crisp, and much as The Intruder showed us the full extent of racism in 60’s America, then The Naked Civil Servant showed us the full extent of homophobia in British society.

Its very telling that people like John Hurt and William Shatner would view the modern day “progressives” as nothing more than posers and bullies.

These are people who did combat genuine prejudice within the entertainment industry and now they have to see a bunch of spoiled brats, who’ve never dealt with any kind of genuine prejudice, not only making words like racist, sexist and homophobic lose all meaning by applying them to everything, but also ironically employing genuinely racist and sexist attitudes and policies against people.

From barring all white men from being allowed to audition for a character like the Doctor, to calling all white people racist, to accusing all men of being privileged etc.

And on top of that they have the cheek to compare themselves to people from the 60’s a decade where combating racism wasn’t things like being upset over a Halloween costume, or tweeting about how much you hate Trump to your friends who all think EXACTLY the same way, but instead actually fighting to have equal rights.

So yes I now have even greater respect for William Shatner from not only standing up to these bullies, but also disassociating the true progressives from the modern day posers.

Of course Shatner has since been accused now of being a racist, a sexist, homophobic etc. Fortunately however anyone who has followed his career knows that Shatner has done more for true social justice than posers like these people

Will ever do.

 

 

 

 

Why I Hate Owen Jones

Owen Jones for those of you lucky enough to be unfamiliar with him is a left leaning political activist, and journalist for The Guardian and The New Statesman. He is also the author of such books as Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class.

Now in spite of what people have said about me being alt right I would consider myself a socialist. I believe a total capitalist system leads to corporatism and that we need to at least start making our way towards socialism. Despite its problems for instance I still think the NHS is vastly superior to a privatised health service.

So with this in mind there are probably a lot of things I overlap with Owen Jones on. However ultimately I find him to be someone who does far more harm than good. He is almost a walking parody of a “Social Justice Warrior”.

Now normally simply being an SJW wouldn’t be enough to make me dislike someone. Claudia Boleyn for instance who is a total SJW I actually rather like personally. Whilst I think a lot of her beliefs are silly (as I am sure she does mine.) Claudia’s still always been very polite to me and other people, and has never EVER tried to shut anyone she disagrees with down. Indeed she doesn’t even delete comments on her channel. So really its very hard to dislike Claudia.

However Owen Jones is actually a threat to free speech, as well as a total hypocrite and a racist, on top of being one of the most high profile apologists for the most retrograde system on earth, and in this article I am going to show you why as I run through the reasons I hate Owen Jones.

Hypocrite on Free Speech

My biggest beef with Owen Jones is the way he tries to present himself in his youtube series such as in the video above, as a laid back, nice guy who is open to hearing other people’s opinions. He even ends his video with a “tell me what you think in the comments below”. The truth of the matter is its best not to disagree with Owen Jones too much or else he will try to shut you down and maybe even get you fired from your job and ruin your life.

A notorious example of this was when he complained about there not being enough LGBT voices being allowed to talk about the Orlando massacre, yet he deplatformed Douglas Murray, a gay man by refusing to appear on Channel 4 with him because he disagreed with Murray’s views on Islam (and other things).

A more recent example of Jones shutting down people he disagreed with was when he got Katie Hopkins fired from LBC.

Now I generally don’t like Katie Hopkins. Much like Milo Yiannopoulis, she is someone who does make some valid points, but generally seems more obsessed with presenting herself as outrageous.

Still Jones behaviour towards her was absolutely disgusting. Hopkins said there needed to be a final solution to the Islamic problem after the recent Manchester attack.

Now obviously “final solution” was a very poor choice of words, but Hopkins after realising how bad it sounded apologised and said that she did not mean to encourage violence against Muslims, simply that people needed to wake up to the problems Islamic extremism caused.

That wasn’t good enough for Owen Jones however. Jones started a campaign to get Hopkins fired from her job and sent tweets to her employers. He called for a public boycott against LBC until they fired Hopkins.

Sadly LBC relented and after Hopkins was dismissed from her position Owen Jones spent the next day gloating about it in the most nasty and childish ways.

See for yourself

Owen Jones Tweets About Katie Hopkins Being Fired

Owen Jones Gloats Over Katie Hopkins Firing

Of course after the next Islamic massacre in London, Owen Jones ended up putting his foot in his mouth just as Hopkins did when he tweeted after the attack that he was sitting in a pub having a great time.

Many people took it the wrong way and thought that he was gloating over the victims by pointing out that he was having a nice night whilst they were being butchered. Jones however claimed that people were taking him out of context and that he simply meant that he was trying to show how the Islamic extremists have not won as people are still having a nice time in London despite their efforts.

Personally I still thought it was an insensitive remark, but whatever ridiculous statement Jones was trying to make, it was nice seeing him have people refuse to accept his apology, and refuse to believe that his words could be taken out of context and jump down his throat like he did to Hopkins.

Owen Jones is a like a little spoiled child, stamping his foot, and refusing to appear on tv if someone he doesn’t like is on with him, or storming off on live tv if everybody isn’t talking about what he wants. Compare him to another left leaning journalist John Pilger who in this clip interviews a truly disgusting individual named Duane Clarridge yet keeps his cool.

And Owen Jones couldn’t even share the stage with Douglas Murray! To even call him a journalist is an insult to true journalists like John Pilger.

Ultimately I don’t think Jones has actually harmed the career of Katie Hopkins or Douglas Murray in the long run, but its not through lack of trying. The fact that he would want to prevent some opinions from being heard, and even ruin people who express a view he doesn’t like’s entire livelihood makes him a threat to free speech and a nasty bully all around.

Rank Islam Apologist

Owen Jones despite being openly gay is an utter apologist for a belief system that wants to criminalise his entire way of life. He treats all legitimate criticism of Islam as comparable to people who want to drag Muslims off the streets and kill them.

The fact is that apart from a few genuine right wing fanatics nobody has ever even tarred all Muslims as evil.

People like Tommy Robinson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Paul Joseph Watson, Sam Harris and Douglas Murray (all of whom have been tarred as Islamophobes and racists by Jones.) Have always stressed that not all Muslims are evil. Indeed the likes of Murray and Harris are close friends with Maajid Nawaz a devout Muslim man and reformer of the Islamic faith. Sam Harris has even written a book with Nawaz.

However whilst there are obviously many decent Muslims, the fact is that Islam itself is a dangerous, violent and evil ideology.

Its holy books the Quran and the Hadith command ALL Muslims to murder all non believers, and apostates, and all LGBT people too. It also says that all women are inferior to men, and that white people are superior to black people too.

Here are some sources to back this up.

Note: I also lost all respect for Kraut the maker of this video after he got Rage After Storm a youtuber fired by contacting her employers. I didn’t agree with Rage’s video that he replied too about race realism, but Kraut much like Owen Jones should not have tried to harm someone’s career. I am no longer subscribed to Kraut on Youtube, and I will not support him any longer. However that said this video is probably the most detailed and well researched on Islam’s violent hatred towards LGBT people, so I will still use it for the purposes of this article. I can dislike someone and still agree with them on some things. Hell like I said before, there are plenty of things I will agree with Owen Jones on too. 

Muslim Grooming Gang Statistics

Easy Meat: Britain’s Islamic Rape Gang Problem.

The Proof That Islam Has A Problem With Homophobia

52 Percent of British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Illegal

Now again there are many decent Muslims in the west, but these Muslims tend to either be cherry pickers who select only the good parts of their religion and dump the bad bits, or in some cases I think a lot of them haven’t even read their holy book as David Wood has often pointed out.

However the many Muslims who are raised on genuine Islamic beliefs hold very bigoted views towards women, LGBT people, Jews and Atheists. And this is before we get into the rise in Islamic terrorism which has struck nearly every major European city over the past 4 or 5 years from Paris to Barcelona to London.

Islam’s influence needs limited in the west. All Madrassess and Muslim faith schools should be shut down and a limit must be placed on immigration from any Muslim majority country until these issues can be dealt with. Furthermore all of Islam’s flaws need to aired out in the open, and the religion needs criticised as often as other faiths such as Christianity.  Finally the religion also needs reformed by people like Maajid Nawaz, Imam Tahwidi and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Ironically thanks to the likes of Owen Jones who shut down any discussion about Islam, Muslim reformers such as Imam Tahwidi are actually in greater danger as even they are deemed as Islamophobic, and thus their message isn’t able to reach as wide an audience leaving them more vulnerable.

This is not about race, this is about stopping a dangerous and poisonous ideology’s influence from spreading throughout Europe.

Sadly however Owen Jones and others like him have to make it all about race simply because a lot of Muslims have dark skin. This in itself ironically is racist as basically Owen Jones and others like him are not holding dark skinned people to the same high moral standard as white people.

Owen has done all he can to make it impossible for people to talk about the problems with Islamic extremism.

First of all he has tried to slander and ruin the reputations of anyone who talks about Islam as a racist like Richard Dawkins.

On Owen Jones Fallacy That Richard Dawkins Is A Bigot

Owen Jones on Anti Muslim Bigotry

Then of course as we have been over there are his attempts to actively ruin the livelihood of critics of Islam such as Katie Hopkins and Douglas Murray.

Jones has also I’ve noticed almost every time there is an Islamic terror attack managed to shift the discussion away from Islam and onto some kind of manufactured offence against the mainstream media.

After the Orlando massacre, Owen Jones I feel gave a lot of the SJWs an excuse to not talk about what it was that caused the massacre, the Islamic hatred of gays. For the first few hours after the slaughter I noticed a lot of SJWs I follow like Claudia Boleyn and Paul Cornell being oddly quiet on social media.

I think it could have been a turning point for many of them as this was one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history directed solely at a group of people whose rights they claim to fight for. Here for once they couldn’t just sweep it under the rug. They’d have to confront Islamic hatred of LGBT people as dictated by the Quran, but sadly Owen Jones on air, childish tantrums allowed them to side swerve it once again.

Instead all the SJWs would talk about the next day was “Sky News is so homophobic because it didn’t say LGBT every two seconds and apparently mistreated Owen Jones because of that.”

Similarly after the Manchester bombing, Owen Jones once again diverted attention to Katie Hopkins, and again gave the SJWs a chance to not talk about the real issue, a religion that commands that all non believers be killed and is inspiring people to do that all over Europe.

Finally Owen Jones has often tried to compare the hatred towards Muslims in modern society as being comparable to the hatred Jews experienced in Nazi Germany.

I think its disgusting that Owen would try and compare people like Tommy Robinson and Paul Joseph Watson to the Nazis. Jones ironically with his obsession with comparing everything to World War 2 (Trump is Hitler, the Muslim ban is like the Holocaust, the EDL are the Fourth Reich etc.) Is actually in danger of trivialising the true horror of the Nazis.

The hatred of Jews by the Nazis was widespread, violent, and culminated in an attempted genocide. Its obscene to even attempt to pretend that some bad tweets against Muslims is even remotely comparable.

Furthermore hatred of Jews in Nazi Germany was obviously sanctioned by the government. Laws were brought in against Jewish citizens, police officers wouldn’t charge people who carried out acts of violence against Jews.

In modern European societies there have been some occasions of the authorities actually covering up crimes carried out by Muslims out of fear of looking racist.

Police Cover Up Islamic Hate Crimes

Why Did The Police Cover Up The Abuse Of 1400 Girls

Its Not Only Germany That Covers Up Muslim Sex Attacks

Swedish Police Cover Up Migrant Crime Spree

Can you imagine the Nazis doing all they could to cover up a crime carried out by a Jewish man so as not to appear racist?

The Nazis’ hatred of the Jews was also founded on a racist belief that the Jews were racially inferior, the unter mensch.

Now I’m sure that there are some individual bigots who hate Muslims because a lot of them have brown skin, and yes there have been some violent crimes against Muslims in the United Kingdom too.

Still certainly the majority of, as well as the most high profile critics of Islam are not racist.

Watch any video by the likes of Paul Joseph Watson, David Wood, Tommy Robinson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and all of their objections against Islam are to do with the beliefs of Islam, NOT the race of any of its followers.

Ironically Islam as an ideology is comparable to Nazism. Both have a pathological hatred of the Jews, both despise LGBT people, both view dark skinned people as inferior to white people, and both want to impose their own fascist rule on all societies across the world.

With this in mind Owen Jones ironically can only be viewed as a modern day Quisling or Lord Haw Haw. He is betraying everything he claims to support such as free speech, LGBT rights, gender equality, and equality for all based on skin colour by making it virtually impossible to say anything negative about Islam.

Racist, Sexist Hypocrite

Owen Jones as we have been over is not only a racist towards dark skinned people, as he never holds them to the same high moral standard as white people. He is also ironically happy to demonise all white people, in much the same way he claims people like Tommy Robinson and Paul Joseph Watson do to Muslims.

Want proof? Take a look at this article that Owen wrote about the supposed rape culture in the west.

Not All Men Commit Rape, But All Must Condemn It

In this article Owen argues that all men in the United Kingdom are complicit in the widespread abuse of women due to the culture they live in. Apparently even though we live in a culture where rape is rightfully viewed as one of the worst crimes a man or woman can commit, and where an accusation of rape is enough to ruin a man’s entire life. Our culture still somehow tells men that rape is okay?

Yes there are terrible miscarriages of justice in some rape cases, but the same is true for many crimes. Our justice system overall is not perfect.

Still lets play Devils advocate here and suppose that Owen is right that there is a rape culture in the west.

Okay Owen so if all western men, even those who do not commit crimes are still complicit in it because they are part of a culture that promotes it, why does the same not apply to Muslims? Even all of those innocent Muslims? They are part of the same ideology that does say to kill all LGBT people, kill all non believers and that all women are inferior? So using YOUR logic Owen ALL Muslims are complicit even if they don’t take part in the extremists atrocities.

Yet you won’t find Owen ever saying that all Muslims need to take responsibility for the crimes carried out by their religion. In fact quite the opposite

Is Islam the Problem? No

“Look At The Difference In Owen Jones Articles When Its An Islamic Terrorist And A Far Right One

The great irony here is that Owen is judging people for something beyond their control, whilst famous critics of Islam like Tommy Robinson that he regularly derides as bigots are not.

If you are a Muslim then that means you have actually chosen to be one, as Islam is NOT a race or a gender. Its a belief system. Yes okay some people are born into Muslim families, and in a lot of cases are scared to leave the religion out of fear of being killed. Though these people are most certainly not helped by the likes of Jones who shout down anyone willing to talk about the problems of Islam as a racist.

Still in most cases Muslims have chosen to be Muslims and so therefore its not unreasonable to ask them to defend their faith, any more that it would be to ask a communist or a socialist like me to explain why they have chosen to associate themselves with this particular political ideology.

Being a man however is simply how you are born. Yet apparently all men are still somehow guilty because of the actions of a few in Owen’s mind?

Of course ironically I have never, nor indeed have any of the major critics of Islam like Paul Joseph Watson, Tommy Robinson, Sargon of Akkad, Douglas Murray Sam Harris, and David Wood said that all Muslims are evil or that they are accountable for what the extremists do.

Indeed as I have been over many of these people have worked with and promoted Muslim reformers such as Maajid Nawaz and Imam Tahwidi.

Still Owen dismisses them all as bigots because they apparently tar all Muslims as evil by simply saying that there is a problem with the ideology of Islam.

So then by his own standards Owen Jones is a bigot too. Not only is he holding people accountable based on how they were born, but he is also tarring an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Still I suppose because they are white men, then in Owen Jones’ mind that’s okay which makes him a genuine racist.

Worse than that however, Owen Jones has also publicly said that white people are not victims of racism in the United Kingdom.

See here White People Are Not Victims Of Racism In The United Kingdom

Really Owen? So in that case anti semitism doesn’t count as racism? Also what about the unprecedented epidemic of white girls being abused by Muslim men who openly say that they abuse them because they view white women as inferior.

White Women Are Inferior Says Muslim Grooming Gangs

All White Women Are Only Good For One Thing For Me To Fuck Them And Use Them As Trash

Owen Jones for all his talk of socialism and feminism is perfectly happy to throw these young underprivileged girls under the bus by basically denying that they were victims of racism, as hey by his logic they can’t as they are white.

Its very telling that Naz Shah recently retweeted and liked a tweet from an Owen Jones parody account telling white girls who had been abused to shut up for the sake of diversity, thinking it was actually a real tweet of Owen’s.

Naz Shah Shared And Liked Tweet From Parody Account Of Owen Jones Telling Abused Girls To Shut Up For Sake Of Diversity

It amazes me that Owen Jones after this didn’t maybe rethink a few things? Imagine knowing that someone could do a parody of you saying that young girls who have been raped should shut up, and people would actually think it was you!

Personally if that was me I’d definitely reassess my position as a champion of women’s rights and the little guy.

Conclusion

Owen Jones is a bully and a threat to free speech, and is actually helping to stop genuine progress in the United Kingdom. There is a real problem with Islam that needs to be talked about, but the longer it goes unsaid the more not only will innocent people like the victims of the Muslim grooming gangs continue to suffer in silence, but also Muslim reformers will continue to be in danger as they will be left out in cold, and finally there will be a greater chance of a genuine right wing backlash against ALL Muslims.

Finally Owen Jones also seemingly doesn’t care about people as much if their skin is white. He’s happy to demonize a group and hold them all accountable if their skin is white (and their gender male), and he’ll deny that white people are victims of racism in this country even when hordes of young white girls are being sexually assaulted because of the colour of their skin.

With all of this in mind Owen Jones in my opinion can only be viewed as an utter disgrace and a Quisling to genuine left wing and progressive politics.

 

 

 

 

 

5 People Who Killed Doctor Who

It was announced just a few days ago that the next Doctor will be a woman played by Jodie Whitaker.

In my opinion this is the final nail in the coffin of Doctor Who. To me there is no way the show can recover now, but to be fair its not just been this single action that has sunk what was once the most wonderful of series.

Its been a long and slow process leading up to the death of Doctor Who, and in this article I am going to run through the 5 people who have contributed more to the demise of the Time Lord than anyone else.

Why A Female Doctor Kills The Show

Before we start I’d just like to establish why I feel a female Doctor isn’t a great idea, and could potentially sink Doctor Who. (If you are already that way inclined then I’d recommend just skipping this section.)

Of course feminists and virtue signallers will often just say that the reason I and others can’t stand a female Doctor is because we hate the idea of any women having leading roles on tv. This is of course nonsense and this blog alone which has 10 thousand word articles on shows like Xena prove that I have 0 problems with a female lead.

Personally I think its a double standard the way that those of us who don’t want a female Doctor are told we don’t like female heroes, but those who couldn’t bare the thought of the Doctor staying male aren’t treated as though they can’t stand male heroes on tv.

The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

I’m not the one whinging on about how annoying it is that an iconic female character like Xena, Buffy or the Charmed Ones are female!

Anyway getting back on point, a female Doctor is a horrendous idea in my opinion for many reasons.

To start with contrary to what the media says, all of the Doctors are not meant to be different people.

All of the Doctors are meant to be the same person underneath their different persona’s and faces.

In Classic Who regeneration was always treated as essentially an advanced form of healing. A Time Lord’s body broke down, and then it repaired itself, but in doing so it took on a totally different appearance. Essentially it rebuilt itself from scratch. As a result of this process, the Time Lord’s outer persona would change too. For example the previous version might have been deadly serious, whilst the next might be more flippant and humorous.

However the core personality, consciousness, and of course memories of a Time Lord were all the same from incarnation to incarnation.

This isn’t just my interpretation. All of the most prominent people involved in Classic Who wrote/played/produced the character as being the same person.

Terrance Dicks, the shows longest running script editor said that the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors character too much.

Robert Holmes who wrote more episodes than anybody else and who is often regarded as the shows best script editor also said that he always wrote the Doctor as being the same character, and simply allowed the actor to reinterpret his lines however they wanted.

Terry Nation who wrote the most episodes after Bob Holmes said exactly the same thing too. Obviously they’d make a few small allowances for each actor. If it were Jon Pertwee they might write in a fight scene for him, and if it were William Hartnell then they obviously wouldn’t put in too many physical scenes. But the point is overall, Bob Holmes and Terry Nation treated the Doctor as being the same character from incarnation to incarnation.

John Nathan Turner, the shows longest running producer meanwhile also said that he always treated them as the same person, hence his strict policy about the Doctor never falling in love with his companions, and even little minor details, like making each of the three actors he cast as the Doctor grow their hair out, as short back and sides weren’t the Doctors style.

All of the actors who played the role from Jon Pertwee on meanwhile all voiced a similar sentiment. Jon Pertwee was always adamant about the Doctor being portrayed as an asexual, grandfatherly figure because that’s what the character had always been. Tom Baker says in a 1970s documentary called “Whose Doctor Who” which was recorded whilst he was at the height of his popularity in the role (which is collected on the Talons of Weng Chiang DVD.) That the Doctor is the most limited role he ever played, as there are so many things he can’t do as he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

Peter Davison meanwhile also mentioned amalgating aspects of previous Doctors into his own persona, whilst bringing something new to it. Colin Baker also said he spent hours after being cast, watching old stories to get an idea of who the Doctor was under his different faces, and then stay within that.

Finally McCoy said that he also was inspired by the first two Doctors and wanted to essentially update their performances for a new generation.

Essentially the character of the Doctor always follows a template, and its both the job of the actor playing it, and the writer and producer to do something new within that template, not completely break it.

The same is true of just about any long running character. With Batman for instance, he has changed on the surface to an even greater extent than the Doctor over the decades. He has been a comedy character, a gritty, down to earth crime fighter, a more gothic, tragic, dark hero who murders his enemies etc. But underneath it all, he has always stayed within the same template that defines Batman. All versions of Batman live in Gotham, work with Commissioner Gordon, are called Bruce Wayne, are motivated to fight criminals by the death of their parents, fight the Joker, have a butler named Alfred, have no super powers, and use gadgets, have a batmobile etc.

Thus for the Doctor its the same. All versions of the Doctor in Classic Who are mysterious. We never find out his real name in ANY incarnation. They are written as older, more mature, fatherly characters to their companions, are motivated by a desire to explore the universe, and find out its secrets, and have a very strict moral code where they will kill an enemy if need be, but only in self defence.

Even little, more superficial aspects carry on from Doctor to Doctor. For instance all Doctors in Classic Who dress in frock coats, and tend to wear more elaborate, old fashioned, Edwardian, Victorian era clothing. Also John Nathan Turner is right, they do all have long hair in the classic era too.

Finally the TARDIS is always a police box on the outside, as all of the Doctors have either been unable to fix the chamelion circuit, or have grown fond of the police box shape.

Really you could argue that there is no point to regeneration if all of the Doctors are different people. Back in 1966 you could have easily had another character take over from William Hartnell.

Since we knew NOTHING about his history or people, it could have easily been introduced that the Doctor is a title passed on to various members of his kind whose job is to explore the universe, and after Hartnell’s character died, then the TARDIS would be recalled to Gallifrey, and handed over to a new member of his kind who would become the new Doctor, and so on and so on.

I honestly think that audiences would have accepted that explanation, and had they done that, then obviously no one would object to a female Doctor. Indeed it undoubtedly would have happened long before now.

However regeneration in many ways was the best of all options, as it allowed them to keep the original character, but change him slightly, so that the new actor could make it his own, whilst still staying within a template that ensured it was recognisably the same character as before.

Making it that all of a Time Lords incarnations are completely different people however, destroys the character of the Doctor. Now if nothing carries over from incarnation to incarnation, why not have one Doctor being evil? Why not have one Doctor be a James Bond style lothario shagging every companion he comes into contact with?

There has to be a template to ensure that the Doctor is a character overall, and not just a title passed on to different characters.

Now in all fairness New Who has broken the template of the character of the Doctor before and I have criticised it in the past. Tennant’s Doctor was written too much like a young man for instance (such as when he tells Wilfred Mott that he would be proud if her were his dad.)

Also there is the Doctors notorious romantic interest in various companions throughout New Who, such as Rose and Clara, which has been attacked by fans, both old and new who see them as out of character.

Still I’d argue that turning the Doctor into a woman is a bigger change. Obviously a woman could embody many aspects of the Doctors personality such as his intelligence, his curiosity.

However, the Doctors gender is part of the template of his persona, really by default at this stage. He has always been written and played as a man. His relationships were all from a male persona, grandfather, father, father figure, boyfriend, husband, etc. He always dresses in masculine clothes, even his look, of having the long hair, stood out because it was more unusual for a male hero to have long hair.

Added to that the character is inspired by, and really follows in the tradition of other British gentlemanly heroes, such as Bernard Quatermass, and Sherlock Holmes. It is for this reason that many fans would not be happy with a non British actor playing the role too.

No one is saying that you can’t have a female hero like the Doctor, but the Doctor is kind of set as a man, so trying to change him at this stage, would feel jarring, and it wouldn’t even feel like the Doctor anymore.

I think there are only 3 ways you can change a characters gender and make it work, none of which would work for the Doctor.

1/ Change their gender in a remake.

This isn’t always guaranteed to work (and that applies both ways of course. Try and change Buffy’s gender for instance in a remake and watch the very same people cheering for a female Doctor lose it!)

Still this can work as obviously the new female version isn’t connected to the original, so it isn’t jarring. Had Chris Chibnall decided to do a remake of Doctor Who, akin to the Peter Cushing movies with a female lead, then no one would have cared.

Even then though, whilst it wouldn’t have seemed jarring, I still say that if you want to give women their own hero then it is always better to create a new character. Even if say a female version of Batman in a remake is really good, then Batman is still always going to be seen as a male character, because he was introduced that way, and the most famous versions of him are men.

However a new character like Xena is a role solely for women that has gone on to become as iconic as any male character. I would have thought that’s what feminists would have wanted, rather than a hand me down of an existing male character.

2/ Write them like a transexual who wants to change gender: I obviously have 0 issues with either trans people, or with a trans character being introduced. However I don’t think you can suddenly make the Doctor suffer from gender dysphoria after 50 years (several thousand in the shows universe.) It wouldn’t make any sense that he has never had any problem being a man for all of his regenerations before, and would if anything be in danger of trivialising gender dysphoria, by making it look like just a phase people go through (as presumably the Doctor would turn back into a man at some point?)

3/ Create a character who is genuinely genderless and can switch between the genders at will: This worked with the character of Brainiac in Smallville who was written as a machine creature and regularly switched between male and female forms.

For the Doctor however, again this isn’t an option. Steven Moffat, after being bullied by SJWs, did recently rewrite it that all Time Lords are genderless, but still that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t jar with what came before.

Time Lords have never for 50 years been written as a genderless race. In terms of how they dress, their attitude to the opposite sex, their relationships with each other and other species. Trying to crowbar it in that Susan can morph into Brian Blessed after 50 years once again is in danger of turning the show into a parody.

Of course whilst those are my reasons for disliking a female Doctor, others have expressed anger at a role model being taken away from young boys. Personally I have never cared much about role models, but still considering that the feminists entire argument is “we need a role model by turning the Doctor into a woman”, then fair enough.

Why take a role model away from little boys, just to give it to little girls? Did Xena, take a role away from men? Nope, Xena existed happily alongside another male hero, Hercules. Why couldn’t we have done the same thing with Romana (an existing female character that is popular and could easily be brought back)  and the Doctor?

Ultimately whilst these are the reasons that I an others think a female Doctor is a poor idea all around, the reason I and many others have grown to despise the change is because it has been forced on us by a pushy political group.

The feminists and the SJWs are essentially the modern day version of Mary Whitehouse. A tiny, but very vocal minority, who forced their own opinions on the show through slandering its makers, and in this article we will take a look at the 5 people who made it possible for them to do that.

5/ Neil Gaiman

This acclaimed comic book writer began the whole female Doctor idea in the 2011 story The Doctors Wife.

Prior to this as we have been over Time Lords changing gender had never been a part of the shows canon.

The idea of the Doctor becoming a woman to be fair was mentioned in the press before. It first started when Tom Baker said it as a joke when he was leaving. Apparently he did it to wind up then producer John Nathan Turner (who later openly said that a woman should NEVER play the Doctor.)

Sydney Newman one of the creators of Doctor Who also brought up the idea in the 80’s but again that doesn’t mean much. Sydney Newman was obviously a great producer, but he didn’t always know what was best for his show.

For instance Newman famously hated the Daleks and didn’t want them to appear in the series at all. He also didn’t want any monsters in it either, and furthermore he wanted to have the Doctor regenerate back into Patrick Troughton and then become a woman.

Thus unless you also think that the Daleks should never have been in the show, and the Doctor should turn back into a previous incarnation then its really quite a lame argument to use “but the creator wanted it in a desperate attempt to keep it afloat in the 80’s.”

I might add that Newman wasn’t even the sole creator of Doctor Who. It was really more of a team effort. Verity Lambert (who was against a female Doctor) had a lot of input and cast William Hartnell, whilst it was David Whitaker who suggested the TARDIS be bigger on the inside than the outside.

Ultimately apart from a few jokes in the media, and one suggestion from Newman that was immediately dismissed by John Nathan Turner right away, gender bending Time Lords was never established in the show for close to 50 years.

Neil Gaiman was the one who retroactively rewrote the shows actual lore to make Time Lords non binary. Personally I think he did it to make himself into a Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson type figure.

For those of you unfamiliar with those two men, they were iconic sci fi writers (with Hampson creating Dan Dare and Roddenberry creating Star Trek.) Dan Dare and Star Trek both gave strong roles for ethnic minorities and women at a time when such a thing was almost unheard of. As a result of this both Roddenberry and Hampson are celebrated as liberal icons within the entertainment industry to this day.

Times have moved on however. Back in the 50’s when Dan Dare was first released, you could break new ground simply having a black character be Dan’s boss. However now in the 2010’s would anyone give a shit if the main characters boss was black? Would anyone care if the main character was black?

Similarly Gene Roddenberry could break new ground in the 60’s by having a black woman and a white guy just snog, but now does anyone even notice if there is an interracial love story like say Lister and Kochanski, that practically drives whole seasons of Red Dwarf?

However people like Neil Gaiman clearly wanted to be seen as a liberal icon who challenged the sexism and racism around him like Hampson and Roddenberry and I feel he saw a female Doctor as being his opportunity to make himself that.

With a female Doctor, Gaiman would be creating a process that led to one of the most popular male heroes becoming female. Gaiman could then present himself as the progressive champion as it would be easy to tar those who didn’t want a female Doctor as sexists. After all to people who don’t know about Doctor Who and probably think that the Doctors are all different characters, then it can sadly appear sexist to not want a female Doctor.

I might be doing Gaiman a disservice here. Until recently I used to see him as being somewhat more misguided in his desire for representation than a poser, but it was after reading these interviews with him I started to see him as being more in it for his own ego.

Neil Gaiman On A Female Doctor

Neil Gaiman On Buffy

You can see what I mean from those interviews its very much a “I’m going to teach you stupid little plebs about women” attitude from the way he tells us if we want to write great female characters to “go out and hang around with women” or when he says that the Doctor should be strong minded, and brave, but that women can have these qualities too. Thank you Mr Gaiman I never knew that until you told me!

Now you might be thinking “well it was only one line, and it was vague, so that didn’t solely lead to a female Doctor”. However the thing with the SJW’s, who are the people who pushed for this the most. (I know some fans probably thought it was an okay idea, and were up for it, and that’s fine.) Still the people who REALLY pushed for it were the SJWs who simply saw it as a victory without really knowing why.

These people should NEVER be pandered too. Give them an inch (in this case a throwaway line) and they will take a trillion miles!

For ages afterwards SJWs who wanted a female Doctor would always says “its canon that they change gender so it has to happen eventually.” Which they could only do thanks to Gaiman and this in turn just meant that the pressure for there to be a female Doctor became overwhelming when Peter Capaldi was cast.

It would be great poetic justice if some alt right writer came along and revived Gaimans most famous work, and completely rewrote its lore and all of its core characters to fit their divisive political agenda and then slandered anyone who didn’t like it.

4/ Paul Cornell

Now Paul Cornell’s role in sinking Doctor Who is more in relation to how he has behaved outside of the show.

I don’t like any of the episodes he wrote for the series, but they didn’t if I am being fair have any impact on the state of the show now.

Paul Cornell however was one of the most vocal supporters of a female Doctor. Now obviously Paul is entitled to his opinion (though I genuinely don’t understand how anyone who is actually a Doctor Who fan could say that they wanted a female Doctor?)

Still Paul was responsible for pioneering a lot of bad arguments for a female Doctor that ended up being picked up by the papers and a lot of the SJW’s.

First and foremost Paul called anyone who didn’t want a female Doctor a sexist.

Take a look at this quote.

“The absolute worst extreme of that trait is the sort of fan that thinks there shouldn’t be a female Doctor.  They’re sure they’re good people, so there must, their reasoning goes, be a good reason why they feel that way.  They’re not bigots, after all.  They can’t be.  So they find some very awkward ‘reason’ that can just about be made to sound okay.  But it must be okay.  Because they’re good people.

And they are good people.  It’s just that good people sometimes express bigoted thoughts.  I had a fanzine article published about why the Doctor should always be ‘a fair-skinned being’.  I wasn’t a villain then, I was just infected by bigotry.  Because we all are.  It took many years, but I finally realised I didn’t have a good reason to think that.  (I also needed to realise that admitting I didn’t have a good reason didn’t mean I was suddenly a horrible person, a fear that, I think, lies behind a lot of entrenched fan opinion about this sort of thing.)  I was being a bigot when I said it, but I probably said something entirely sincere against bigotry a few minutes later.  That’s how the vast majority of people are.  These days the consensus is that it’s not okay to have any sort of reason why there shouldn’t be a Doctor Of Colour.  That’s only become the case in the last two or three years.  Though everyone is unconsciously pushing that date further and further back, to the point where soon nobody could ever have believed something as terrible as that.  In a few years, it’ll be the same with the possibility of a female Doctor.”

After Dark Water aired and the overwhelming majority of people expressed anger at the Masters sex change, Paul Cornell took to twitter saying

“Anyone who doesn’t like their favourite character changing gender is exactly the type of person who would turn on their own family member for changing gender.”

Sadly many other female Doctor advocates began to use similar arguments and it became more difficult to say you were against it without being slandered as a sexist.

Whilst Paul obviously didn’t create this type of argument he did popularise it within the Doctor Who fan community as he was a major figure with a large influence (as well as a close personal friend of Steven Moffat too.)

Furthermore Paul Cornell also pioneered the disasterous argument that “Doctor Who is all about change and therefore all change in it is automatically great.”

“It still amazes me that there’s a kind of Doctor Who fan  who like certainty above all things, who hate change, emotional conservatives whose first response to a development in Doctor Who that they like is to declare that there’s a precedent for it.  Or worse, who can’t deal with any development in Doctor Whountil it’s a few years old.  They have, almost masochistically, opted to follow a show that changes all the time.  (I suspect they’re represented in the show itself by the creature Light in ‘Ghost Light’.) I think several creators of Doctor Who over the decades have instinctively realised that that particular fan gene is in opposition to creativity, and have therefore set their faces against it, sometimes too much.  There are also those who’ve gone too far the other way.  To be a good writer, you have to smash things up.  To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step.  Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy.  Doctor Who lives because of that process boiling away in its cells.”

I must admit even I bought into that crap argument for a while, but its nonsense. No one is saying that NOTHING in Doctor Who can change, but its equally stupid to say that everything in it must change.

The smart thing to do is just take each change on a case by case basis.

Colin Baker’s coat was a change was that great? So was his strangling Peri? So was making the Doctor half human? So was the new Dalek Paradigm? Were all of this great for the future of the show?

Also I think its wrong to compare changes made now, after 50 years of established lore, to ones made during the first 4 Doctors eras.

At that point Doctor Who was really establishing itself. In Hartnell’s time for instance we didn’t know anything about the Doctors people and we knew very little about his own personal history.

Therefore there were many gaps to fill. You weren’t going back and saying “hey actually it went like this instead”.

Telling us his planet is named Gallifrey, his people are the Time Lords, that he left because he wanted to explore the universe, that he can regenerate and that he only has 12 regenerations doesn’t actually contradict anything that came before. It fills it in.

Of course that’s not to say there weren’t continuity errors as there would be in any show that lasts for so long. Still making a continuity mistake is not the same thing as completely changing an entire characters motivation, like in the case of the Master who went from wanting to kill the Doctor to wanting to shag him in Moffat’s time.

All of the previous writers that Cornell cites as being willing to change the show like Robert Holmes, were actually able to justify their changes on a case by case basis.

The concept of regeneration for instance can be justified because its the only way the show could go on as Hartnell was too ill. Also it had an added benefit of being able to extend the shows life for many years, beyond even the actor brought in to replace Hartnell. Similarly changing the Doctors outer personality meant that a new actor could play it the way he wanted.

Therefore it wasn’t just a change for the sake of it. It had a reason.

Similarly when Robert Holmes seemingly rewrote the Time Lords society by showing them to be more corrupt than before in The Deadly Assassin. Holmes was able to justify to fans why he felt it wasn’t a contradiction.

Holmes said that in his mind the Time Lords had always appeared corrupt, and when you think about it, he wasn’t entirely wrong.

In stories that were not written by Holmes and came long before he wrote the Deadly Assassin. We saw that the Time Lords still had the death penalty (as seen in The War Games). Even modern day British society has abolished the death penalty. Are they really so peaceful with this in mind?

Also why has their society produced so many renegades and psychopaths like the Master, the Meddling Monk, The War Chief, and Morbius?

Then there is their rank hypocrisy in exiling the Doctor for interfering in the affairs of other planets and later sending him on missions to interfere in the affairs of other planets like Peladon.

Finally even just the question of why would the Doctor want to leave Gallifrey if it was such a perfect society might lead you to think that it wasn’t so rosey after all?

Similarly Terry Nation justified his changes in Genesis of the Daleks by saying that before we had only heard a few scant historical records of the Daleks origins whilst Genesis gave us a first hand account. He also said that he felt Genesis explained why the Daleks had always behaved in exactly the same way, as they had been conditioned too by Davros.

Also its worth mentioning that Doctor Who is also actually a show with many traditions too. In fact one could argue that its its traditions that are the key to its success as they ultimately are what enables it to still feel like the same show in spite of its many changes.

The TARDIS is still a blue police box after 50 plus years.

Unlike Time Lord gender bending the Tardis’ ability to change shape has been established from the start. So why in a show that according to Paul Cornell is all about change is that thing still a police box?

Added to that the Daleks have still met every Doctor onscreen (bar the 8th) the Cybermen, the Master, and UNIT have met almost every Doctor, other characters like Sarah Jane, the Brig, the Sontarans, the Ice Warriors, have spanned many Doctors too.

The Daleks also have the same basic characterisation. Yes other writers have added to their characters over the years and that’s fine. However their basic characterisation of despising all other life forms and being pitiless conquerors has remained the same. As by the way has their basic design too.

The Cybermen also have always remained the same emotionless machine creatures who want to convert people into members of their own kind.

Even the Sontarans have the same design and personality of being extreme war mongers.

So why have we kept all of these traditions if in Paul’s mind there are no constants in the show?

Simple because Doctor Who has a very flexible format that can allow you to change something if need be, which is why changes like regeneration and say focusing on monster stories instead of historicals have happened in the past and worked.

Changes just for the sake of changes however, like permanently changing the TARDIS’ shape, or permanently changing the Daleks core characterisation have never happened, because there is NO reason for them to happen.

A female Doctor therefore should be viewed in the same light as changing the TARDIS’ shape. If someone could come up with a reason as to why a female Doctor worked on its merits then no one would mind one bit. However for over 30 years not one person has managed too.

Thus people like Paul Cornell instead push this ridiculous “ALL CHANGE IS GOOD BECAUSE WILLIAM HARTNELL CHANGED INTO PATRICK TROUGHTON” to try and justify a female Doctor.

Sadly self loathing fanboys who don’t want to be seen as sad anoraks will lap it up. Of course they often contradict themselves. I find fans who claim to be impartial, but come down hard on people like me for not accepting a female Doctor, as that apparently means I am against all change. Will later ironically bitch about a change that they didn’t like, like say the Doctor being half human in the 96 movie. Paul Cornell himself ironically even complains about the Doctor using a gun too often in 80s stories. Hey Paul isn’t that a change?

I think Paul Cornell much like Neil Gaiman wants to be seen as the Hampson, Roddenberry style, wise man who fought against the prejudices of his times and will be revered years from now. The reason I say that about Paul is because in any interview he gives about feminism or a female Doctor, or representation he basically goes on about how great he is compared to the disgusting sexists in the industry about him.

See this quote here

“I think he’s a great choice!” Cornell enthuses, “I would’ve preferred a woman though… I got really annoyed at lots of my friends in the Doctor Who fandom, I’d no idea they’d react so conservatively and negatively to [the idea of a female Doctor]. They seemed to think it was okay to say an awful lot of s***.” Does he think we’ll ever see a female doctor? “Maybe! Neil [Gaiman] changed the world by including that one line in his script about a woman having been a Timelord before, so that opened up the possibility”

Sadly however Paul’s opinion became dominant, and this not only helped to lead to a female Doctor, but it also led to what can only be described as pieces of Doctor Who lore being vandalised in the Moffat era, because the attitude became “all change was good lets do what we want”.

So we got things like it being rewritten that the Doctor left Gallifrey because of the silly Hybrid story line, the Daleks suddenly having a concept of pity, the Master being in love with the Doctor, and of course the notorious Cyber Brig.

You have to like this, because Doctor Who is all about change and so therefore every single change is automatically brilliant. If you don’t like a beloved Doctor Who characters rotting corpse being ripped up out of the ground and turned into a Cyberman you are just an emotional conservative who would have hated William Hartnell becoming Patrick Troughton. That makes sense.

3/ Whovian Feminism

A blogger, this woman is to Doctor Who fandom what Anita Sarkeesian is to video game fandom (and trust me I don’t mean that as a compliment.)

Feminists and SJW “fans” played a huge role in the downfall of Doctor Who in general, but of all of them Whovian Feminism holds a larger percentage of the blame for many reasons.

To start with she is the one who spoke to people involved in the show directly. People always go on about how Ian Levine had a negative impact on Doctor Who in the 80’s for the same reason. For those of you who don’t know who he is, Ian Levine was a high profile fan in the 80’s who became the show’s unofficial continuity adviser.

Many have blamed Levine for encouraging John Nathan Turner to include too many references to past stories which alienated new viewers. Many have also blasted JNT for giving too many interviews with the fans and caring about what they thought instead of mainstream audiences.

Yet somewhat hypocritically I haven’t seen anybody complaining about the writers and the directors from the new series meeting up with Whovian Feminism to give her interviews or even promote her blog?

I might add that whilst Ian Levine has done some outrageous things, at the very least he has also saved dozens and dozens of 60’s Doctor Who stories from destruction, including the first Dalek story. Also Levine only became a part of the show due to his genuine encyclopedic knowledge of the series.

Whovian Feminism however has done fuck all for the good of the show, and only gets to talk to the makers of the series because of her aggressive political agenda where she smears anyone who doesn’t agree with her as a sexist. In contrast to Levine who knew the show inside out, this is a woman who until 2015 hadn’t seen a single Colin Baker story.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

She has clearly had more of an influence on the show than other fans. Obviously its makers have come to see her as representing what most people want and have therefore tailored it to please fans like her in general.

Whovian Feminism is desperate for a female Doctor. She has labelled just about everyone who is opposed to it a sexist.

Take a look at this gem of a quote.

Supposedly well-meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans simply won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there is always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to a majority. And even if it were true, we should not let the direction of the show be dictated by the worst of its fans. If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise, plenty of new fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”

The best thing about this quote is how Whovian Feminism for all her talk of equality clearly is a class snob the way she automatically equates having a low income to being a sad, lowlife sexist and bigot.

I guess we don’t want any riff raff, or commoners watching Doctor Who cause they’re all such disgusting sexists eh Whovian Feminism?

Sorry ladies you’re not welcome on the TARDIS anymore. You don’t have enough disposable income!

Still you can see that Whovian Feminism is your typical feminist fan, IE the most non inclusive type of fan there is. The type of fan who can never just watch something, but has to take it over completely (look at her tagline “My Fandom Will Be Feminist!“) The type of fan who will never compromise under any circumstance. It always has to go 100 percent her way or else you’re a disgusting sexist.

Even if what she and others like her want is not right for a certain character then it still doesn’t matter, it has to happen, and YOU have to like it as well or else you’re a sexist.

Whovian Feminism is also the type of viewer who is never going to be happy either. She wants to complain because its her bread and butter, so she’ll still find something to be unhappy about in the female Doctors portrayal.

Look at this article where she goes out of her way to find sexism in New Who stories.

Introducing Damsels In Distress Vs Doctor Who

Finally and perhaps worst of all someone like Whovian Feminism advocates that people are not hired on merit but simply for representation. She not only wants women cast in the role of the Master and the Doctor just simply for her agenda, but she also wants women hired behind the scenes just simply to fill diversity quota’s. She has even promoted a petition to make sure that there is an equal number of men and women writing for the series.

Now whilst this might sound like a decent idea in theory its actually a terrible way to run a series. Ultimately you are not hiring based on talent, but just to tick boxes. You could get a fantastic script like say Survival from a female writer like Rona Munro, but you couldn’t use that script because you’d already taken in your set amount of female writers that year.

Furthermore you could obviously have a great script like say Caves of Androzani from a male writer like Robert Holmes that you couldn’t use as you had your specific amount of male writers for that year.

At the end of the day people should only ever be hired based on their ideas and talent, NOT their gender and skin colour as Whovian Feminism advocates.

Yet sadly as seen from the interviews and promotion they have given her, the new who production team saw Whovian Feminism as someone who should be listened too, as well as the audience they were going for.

2/ Steven Moffat

The Quisling of Doctor Who fandom.

For what its worth I used to like his era during Matt Smith’s time, but the damage he wreaked on the series during Capaldi’s tenure was too great.

I don’t think that Steven Moffat was desperate to prove how progressive he was. Sadly however I think he was bullied into making it ultra feminist by the SJW’s who launched an absolutely vicious smear campaign against the man from 2012 on.

They accused him of being a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, etc. All of their accusations were hollow. Indeed they were often over the most petty things like Karen Gillan is too sexy, his female companions lives revolve too much around the Doctor, the companion is just a sidekick and should be as important as the Doctor etc.

Sadly however Moff took their criticisms to heart and began to write the show for the feminist/SJW’s. This affected the quality of the show in so many ways.

To start with Clara came to dominate the series. Not only did many episodes revolve around her and her place of work too much such as The Caretaker, Kill the Moon, In The Forest of the Night (all very poorly received stories), but they also bigged up her role in the continuity to an absurd degree.

She was retconned into being the hero of every DW story ever made, the reason the Doctor conquered his fear as a boy, the reason he left Gallifrey, the reason he undid the time war, the reason the Time Lords gave him more lives etc. And she even ended the series gaining her own TARDIS and becoming completely unkillable, thus making her a better Doctor than the Doctor himself.

All of this understandably made Clara one of the most hated companions in Who history. Nobody likes a side character who comes in, thinks they are better than the hero, is proven to be better than the main hero, and on top of that regularly slaps the main hero.

Then of course there was the Masters controversial (to say the least) sex change and her sudden infatuation with the Doctor as well as the constant anti men and anti white jokes all helped to drive people away in spades.

The viewers for Matt Smith’s last episode were over 10 million. By the end of Peter Capaldi’s last season they were down at barely over 2 million. Now it is true that viewing figures are down for tv in general these days, but still even with that Doctor Who has still suffered a catastrophic fall in viewers. 5 times fewer people are watching it now.

To be fair not all of Moffat’s problems can be blamed on his pandering to feminists. The Cyber Brig for instance, one of the most hated ideas in the history of the show (and with good reason.) Has nothing to do with pandering.

Still for whatever reasons Moffat managed to completely destroy classic characters like the Brig (who he gave an atrocious ending to), and the Master who he turned into a literal parody of himself.

Even if Chris Chibnall hadn’t cast a woman it would have been difficult to carry the show on after the damage Moffat had done, but still in spite of things like Missy and the Cyber Brig, Moffat incredibly enough isn’t the worst thing to happen to Doctor Who.

Sources to back up what I was saying about Moffat pandering to feminists.

In this video Mundane Matt says that Moffat at a convention said that a female Doctor would never happen on his watch back in early 2011.

Feminists slander Moff from about 2011 on.

Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusation of Sexism

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault in Doctor Who

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

Doctor Who is Racist New Book Claims

2014 on we get a new Master who is a woman, as well as more examples of feminist pandering.

Steven Moffat We Need More Female Writers

Stop Assuming I’m A Sexist Demon

Steven Moffat “Doctor Who needs to do better on diversity”

This great scene from The Simpsons sums up Moff’s relationship with the feminist audience of Doctor Who, with Moff obviously representing Skinner (except rather than wear a dress, he forced the Master to wear one.)

“Just tell me how to write Doctor Who!!!!!”

1/ Chris Chibnall

It takes some going to be worse than your predecessor before you’ve even produced a single episode (even more so when your predecessor is Steven Moffat.)

Still Chris Chibnall has managed it with his first ever move in casting a woman as the Doctor.

Now as I have been over a female Doctor is to me a terrible idea that completely ruins the show, but its also opened up a can of worms for whoever comes after Chibnall.

What happens if someone wants to make the Doctor a male again? We are going to have to deal with the media and the Whovian Feminist types saying Doctor Who is transphobic and taking a role away from women (ironically).

So what will we have to have 13 women now? In that case the character is now completely different. Don’t even call it Doctor Who anymore because it has nothing to do with William Hartnell’s original character.

Also if we have cast a woman as the Doctor why stop there? Why not demand a black Doctor, an Asian Doctor, a French Doctor, an American Doctor etc. Not that I have any problems with those however, but the point I am trying to make is that we are now casting the role solely to tick boxes rather than because a particular actor is the best for the role.

All of these problems have emerged because of a single foolish decision on Chibnalls part. I don’t know why he did it. If it was pandering to feminists like Steven Moffat, virtue signalling, or maybe even just as a cheap gimmick, but whatever the case Chibnall has as Ian Levine said “put the final nail into Doctor Who

In my opinion the show is not long for this world and if you want to blame anyone then blame these 5 people. Whilst the SJW’s wanted the show to be done their way, if it hadn’t been for the actions of these 5 individuals then Doctor Who would still be strong and healthy.

Thanks for reading.

Why Do Geeks and Nerds Hate Feminists?

In the last couple of years the sci fi and fantasy fan community as well as the gaming community in particular have developed a very hostile attitude towards third wave feminism.

Whilst many high profile geeks in the industry itself such as Will Wheaton have welcomed what they feel are progressive changes to the industry brought about by feminists. Most fans I think its fair to say feel that the current brand of identity politics has had a poisonous influence on many large franchises.

In this article I am going to run through the reasons feminists are the most hated group in any fandom. Note: Obviously I am not saying all feminists are this bad. I am sure that there are many feminists who bring a lot to their fandoms, and obviously I am not condoning any abuse feminists have received online, though its worth mentioning that many anti feminists have received similar abuse.

There are psychos in any group and its a poor argument if they are the only people you can use to discredit the other side.

Also when I say feminists I really mean third wave feminists as the first and second wave feminists were by and large genuinely worthwhile movements. However in the modern western world, sadly third wave feminists represent the majority of feminists and so I won’t bother with the distinction here.

Feminists Have To Make Everything About Them

Again nobody has a problem with female led, or even feminist themed shows like Buffy, but the problem is that feminists have to make everything about their movement.

Often feminists will find a way to criticise something that is completely benign as being sexist and demand that it be changed. They will accuse anyone who disagrees of sexism, and rather than talk about the show, film, comic book, or game that we would normally have just talked about and enjoyed. Everyone instead has to talk about the feminists ridiculous accusations of sexism. Furthermore the work itself will later begin to pander to feminists too, regardless of how it affects it.

A classic example of this was the recent animated adaptation of Alan Moore’s classic comic The Killing Joke. Now fans had been clamouring for an animated adaptation of this story for many years starring Mark Hamill, long regarded as the greatest Joker.

Finally in 2015 it was announced that Mark Hamill would be reprising his role as the Clown Prince of Crime in an animated adaptation of the story after all.

Sadly however feminists complained that the story was sexist and even demanded that it not be adapted.

See here.

Batman The Killing Joke And Its Edgy Rape Storyline Is Not A Comeback I Want To See

Its Time To Kill The Killing Joke

Now the accusations of sexism against The Killing Joke are in my opinion contradictory and hollow.

Feminists have argued that it normalises violence against women due to what happens to Batgirl. That is complete nonsense of course as the Jokers actions against Batgirl are meant to be him finally crossing the line (which given how evil the Joker normally is, is really saying something!)

Feminists main beef with The Killing Joke however is that it is part of a supposed sexist trend in comic books where a female character is crippled, tortured or killed just to further a male characters story. This trend is referred to as “Women in Refrigerators” and personally I find it to be hypocritical.

There are plenty of instances of supporting male characters being tortured, crippled or killed in order to further a female heroes story. In Xena her son Solon is killed by her adversary Hope, Gabrielle’s husband Perdicus is sliced open by arch enemy Callisto. In Once Upon A Time meanwhile, the three main female characters Emma and Regina and Snow all lose their male loved ones, whilst in Charmed two of the sisters Prue and Phoebe’s main male love interests are killed off. In Buffy and Nikita male supporting characters are crippled horribly. Xander has his eye poked out by the evil Caleb, whilst Birkhoff is brutally tortured by Nikita’s nemesis Amanda who smashes his thumbs.

How is this scene any different to what the Joker does to Batgirl? Both involve the villain brutalising someone close to the hero, but when its a male villain doing it to a female supporting character its sexist? At the end of the day I don’t think that either this torture scene or the crippling of Batgirl are sexist. Both are just examples of the writer trying to up the ante between the hero and villain.

Sadly however feminists slandered The Killing Joke as sexist and so that was all anyone ended up talking about when the film was released. Even reviews on non feminist sites had to mention how sexist the story was and put a heavier focus on Batgirl’s treatment than was necessary.

Even the film itself was compromised by a need to pander to feminists. The opening 30 minutes of the film revolve entirely around Batgirl. The producers did this in order to counteract the claims that the story was sexist by expanding on Batgirls role.

Now personally whilst I enjoyed the film overall I think this was a mistake. The Killing Joke is NOT Batgirls story. Its about the Joker and Batman. It makes 0 sense to focus on Batgirl as we ultimately have to abandon her when the story actually starts. Thus the first 30 minutes is completely detatched from the rest of the movie.

Of course the great irony is that feminists found the opening 30 minutes even more sexist. Still the point is the fact that it was Mark’s last proper performance as the Joker (he has since voiced the character in Justice League Action, but since that is a short series, aimed at a younger audience, then its really his last performance in a serious, feature length production.) And just simply the fact that it was an adaptation of a much loved, and highly influential comic book was completely overshadowed by the feminists complaints.

Another example of feminists completely overshadowing a product is of course Doctor Who, the worlds longest running and along with Star Trek most successful sci fi series. From about 2011 on feminists began to sink their claws into the Doctor Who franchise.

They targeted its showrunner Steven Moffat in particular and slandered him as a vile sexist, homophobic,  racist, abelist etc. Sadly it became received wisdom that Steven Moffat was incapable of writing women, that he hated minorities and the man’s reputation was harmed greatly.

See here.

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault In Doctor Who

Doctor Who Is Racist

Doctor Who Returns New Direction

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

Steven Moffat Is A Classist

University Study On Sexism On Doctor Who

Steven Moffat And His Problem Representing Women Of Colour

Sadly just like with The Killing Joke it got to the point where all anyone could ever talk about in regards to Doctor Who was whether or not it was sexist, should the next Doctor be a woman, are male Doctor Who fans entitled etc. Practically all Steven Moffat talks about in interviews nowadays is that he is not sexist.

Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusations Of Sexism

Steven Moffat On Sexism

Stop Assuming I’m A Sexist Demon

Steven Moffat much like the makers of The Killing Joke began to pander to his feminists critics as a result in many ways.

He cast a woman as the Master, the Doctors archenemy, and rewrote him to be in love with the Doctor to pave the way for a female Doctor. He also beefed up the role of the Doctors companion, Clara to be far more important than she should be (to the point where she was even billed first instead of Capaldi the actor playing the Doctor). Finally he also included many anti male, and even anti white remarks throughout the show and its spin off too such as the following.

TANYA: White people. 
APRIL: White people what? 
TANYA: Always so optimistic. Always so certain things are going to work out for you. Oh, well, because they usually do. 
APRIL: My dad tried to kill me when I was eight. 
TANYA: But you got your mum up walking again. Typical white-person happy ending.

Finally it was recently been announced that the next Doctor will be a woman after all (though more on that later.)

Marvel Comic books are yet another example of feminists having to make something all about them. Marvel comics just like Doctor Who have begun to pander to feminist audiences recently to the point where they have replaced longstanding male characters with female counterparts just like the Doctor (including Iron Man, Thor and Wolverine) and have begun to fill their comics themselves with more divisive SJW propaganda.

These videos cover the SJW propaganda in Marvels and to a lesser extent DC’s latest comics brilliantly.

Now again you can see the problem here. People who just want to read a fun story about monsters and superheroes have to have all of this crap shoved down their throats constantly.

I’m not saying you can’t ever make a story that features a political allegory. Sometimes a writer of a long running series like Doctor Who might write a story with a particular political slant its, but again that’s different as it won’t be featured all the time. Also if a character was previously politically neutral then I don’t think its a good idea to change them to being a political metaphor.

For instance Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Wonder-Woman are all characters that everyone can enjoy, liberals, conservatives, socialists, capitalists. They are just escapism.

Take a look at these scenes from CW’s adaptation of Supergirl to see how a previously politically neutral character can be hijacked by feminists and SJWs.

Supergirl has NOTHING to do with feminism. Just because she is a female hero doesn’t mean she has to be a feminist. By that logic then does Batman have to be reinterpreted as an MRA and complain about things like unfair custody battles, and the high rate of male suicide in the next Batman movie?

No other political or social group has to inflict their ideology on a work of entertainment that’s supposed to be for everybody like feminists do.

Take for instance a well known right wing sci fi geek and Doctor Who fan in particular like Dave Cullen. Dave is better known under his youtube moniker “Computing Forever”, and probably most famous for his youtube series “The Regressive News”. Dave thinks socialism is among the most destructive and dangerous ideologies ever devised, and he also voted against gay marriage in Ireland.

Now does Dave insist that Doctor Who be a conservative show and revolve around his political opinions and that the Doctor become a conservative character with the same political opinions as him? No Dave and others conservative Whovians just accept the Doctor for what he is and enjoy the show.

I on the other hand, though I agree with Dave on a number of things like Islam, and third wave feminism and I enjoy a lot of his work; politically I am on the opposite end of the spectrum to Dave in a number of ways. I am a socialist, and I also support gay marriage very strongly.

However again do I insist that Doctor Who follow my political beliefs and have the Doctor rant about how socialism is the only way forward for humanity? Or do I just take it as a sci fi show?

Feminists like the blogger Whovian Feminism however HAVE to make Doctor Who completely revolve around their political movement. Her slogan is actually “My fandom will be feminist.

Thus not surprisingly as a result of this feminists earn the hatred of nerds more than any other political or social group because they are the only ones who have to take over the entire product they become “fans” of.

To be fair this is not just specific to the sci fi and fantasy genres. Feminists have a habit of taking over everything they latch onto. Take a look at the new atheist movement. Now I was never that interested in the new atheist Movement, but it was at one point a healthy, thriving movement filled with diverse opinion, but once again feminists complained that it was sexist (over the most trivial reasons) and ultimately took it over, creating Atheism +

This video by Chris Ray Gun sums up how they took over the new atheist movement superbly, but really he could be talking about Doctor Who, Marvel Comics or just about any fandom that feminists have taken over just as well.

They Claim To Speak For All Women

Tumblr inline np3i5eWuFg1s7lmou 500.jpg

Courtesy of Drunken Peasants Wiki.

Ironically among the people who despise feminists and their influence on fandoms the most are women.

The reason for this is because feminists often act as though they represent women in general. Any criticism of feminism by nerds is seen as an attack against ALL women by evil white men. Similarly anything the feminists want is apparently what ALL women who are sci fi fans want to happen.

Examples of this include Will Wheaton’s fawning article about Anita Sarkeesian where he says about her critics.

“She also talks about her life as a target in the online culture war known as Gamergate, waged by entitled male gamers who fear change in an industry that is evolving while they seem determined to remain 15 forever.”

The irony is that many of the things feminists like Anita Sarkeesian champion, most female nerds despise.

Again take for instance a female Doctor. The likes of Whovian Feminism would have you believe that all women who watch Doctor Who desperately want a female Doctor. Truth be told most people against a female Doctor are women!

See here

Women Do Not Want To See A Female Time Lord

Similarly whilst Will Wheaton might be quick to tar Anita’s critics as being all entitled male gamers, many of her harshest critics are women!

See for yourself.

Ironically Will Wheaton is doing a better job of ignoring what women have to say, as he isn’t even acknowledging certain women’s existence because they don’t fit into his “evil men attacking poor little damsel Anita Sarkeesian” narrative.

Indeed feminism has done more to silence women in the sci fi and fantasy fandoms than anything else as female fans like Ciarra McCord’s opinions are NEVER represented in the mainstream media. They’d have you believe that every woman automatically agrees with Anita Sarkeesian. Furthermore feminists often have a condescending attitude towards any women that disagrees with their narrative of “you don’t know what’s good for you”, “trust me in the long run you’ll thank us” or the classic “you’re suffering from internalised misogyny by disagreeing with us”.

Fact is many women despise the influence the likes of Anita Sarkeesian and Whovian Feminism are having on certain franchises just as much as any male fan. However they end up being more pissed than male fans because they end up being lumped in with toxic people like Sarkeesian simply for being women by feminists and the mainstream media.

They Limit Female Characters

SJWs and feminists are really more desperate to be offended than they are to enjoy something. Thus it doesn’t matter how interesting or well written, or well acted a female character is, they’ll still find one way to call her portrayal “problematic” to say the least.

Ironically however this just prevents writers from being able to do as many interesting things with female characters as they are with their male counterparts.

Lets take a look at one of the all time greatest female characters, Xena the Warrior Princess.

Now for those of you might be unfamiliar with her, Xena played by Lucy Lawless began as a supporting villain on Hercules the Legendary Journey’s. She was a cruel warlord who eventually learned the error of her ways thanks to Hercules. Such was her popularity that she eventually gained her own series which ended up being not only the most successful genre series of the 90’s (in terms of overseas sales it was the most popular show in the world at the height of its success.) But also ran longer than its parent show Hercules.

Xena would travel the world in her own show alongside her sidekick Gabrielle. The two fought evil warlords,  Gods, and figures from history like Julius Cesaer. Though some critics have dismissed Xena as just a camp 90’s show its impact on the entertainment industry was immeasurable. It led to a massive craze of female led shows which included Buffy, and it influenced the likes of Quentin Tarrantino who based his movies Kill Bill on the feud between Xena and her archfoe Callisto. It also was even one of the key influences on the revived Doctor Who and Torchwood.

The character of Xena meanwhile has remained an icon around the world ever since and recently it was announced that there were plans for a remake over 20 years after the original series.

Sadly however if it were up to feminists and SJWs then Xena may very well have never been made as when you think about it Xena based on what they have said in the past would offend them too much.

To start with Xena is obviously too sexy for feminist fans. Feminist fans always complain about the male gaze and have also argued that the heroines like Wonder Woman set a bad example for little girls by not being more realistic, or even overweight.

When Will Wonder Woman Be A Fat, Femme, Woman of Colour

Wonder Woman Fired From Job At UN

So again it goes without saying that Xena, the stunningly beautiful amazon that men like Ares are desperately in love with would NOT be popular with modern day feminists.

Furthermore feminists would NOT be happy with extreme levels of violence directed towards women in Xena the Warrior Princess.

Recently a poster for X-Men Appocalypse was banned after complaints from feminists because it featured the titular villain grabbing Jennifer Lawrence’s character Mystique by the throat.

Feminists complained that it was promoting violence against women so Fox actually had to pull the poster.

Fox Apologises For Offensive X-Men Poster

Similarly a recent poster of the Joker threatening Batgirl also had to be pulled for the same reason.

DC Pull Cover Of Joker Menacing Batgirl After Complaints

Also Whovian Feminism, among others have also complained any time a female or LGBT character is killed or harmed in the revived Doctor Who.

An Open Letter To Steven Moffat

With this in mind how the hell would these people cope when Xena is strung from the ceiling, beaten with clubs, crucified, shot with dozens of arrows, has her back broken, her legs smashed with a hammer, decapitated, drowned, whacked with a log etc.

All of these scenes would clearly have to be cut, which would make Xena’s adventures a little more boring to say the least.

Finally far too many of Xena’s storylines revolve around men too. There is her longstanding romantic relationship with Ares, there is the death of her brother which turns her evil, the death of her son which drives a huge wedge between her and Gabrielle, her ongoing feud with Cesar, her redemption at the hands of Hercules. Undoubtedly many episodes of Xena where she battles Ares, Cesar and other male adversaries won’t pass the Bechdel test.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Bechdel test it is where feminists judge something in terms of how sexist it is by looking at how many times women talk about men, obviously the fewer times they talk about men the better.

If you ever wanted proof that the Bechdel test is nonsense take a look at the scene where Xena finds Solon’s dead body.  Its easily the most powerful scene in the series.

Earlier Gabrielle had given birth to a half human, half Demon child that she named Hope. Sadly Hopes evil side was too great and she began to murder innocent people (including those who had risked their life for her.) Xena wanted to kill her for the greater good, but Gabrielle lied to Xena that she had already killed her, when in truth she managed to get Hope to safety.

Hope later returns and murders Xena’s only son Solon after tricking Gabrielle again. Its an amazing twist in the series to have Xena’s son die not at the hands of archenemy Callisto, but because of her best friend. Its also probably the best performance of Lucy Lawless’ career as we see Xena cradle her lifeless teenage son in her arms.

However technically it doesn’t pass the Bechdel test as hey, Xena and Gabrielle are talking about a male character.

Now obviously its not good if the only thing women talk about is men, but at the same time the Bechdel test is too flawed a way to measure it clearly.

Naturally as a result of all this many writers find it more difficult to write for women nowadays. They don’t have to worry about having a male character whose life revolves around a female character like say the Doctor and his grand daughter Susan, or the Doctor and Rose, or Spider-Man and his many love interests.

They don’t have to worry about making male heroes big, strapping, sexy muscle bound heroes. Nobody is pushing for a fat, bald, ugly James Bond are they?

Furthermore nobody cares whenever anything violent happens to male heroes. There have been plenty of posters of male heroes being attacked and beaten that nobody has ever complained about, as well they shouldn’t.

Oh my god Batman is being tortured by Bane on the cover, quick pull it, pull it, this is promoting the most heinous violence against men.

Ironically writers nowadays will be more inclined to write for male characters instead as they are given more artistic freedom, and their characters aren’t looked at by crazed MRAs desperate to find everything about Batman’s portrayal problematic for vulnerable young men.

Their Complaints Are Often Hypocritical

Many of the things that feminist fans feel are problematic about portrayals of female characters in the genre apply to men too.

Personally I don’t want them to complain as much about portrayals of male characters either. If that happens there will be no stories left to tell anymore.

Still if the feminists are after true equality then they should be just as angry about “problematic” portrayals of men in the genre.

For instance they only ever get upset when female characters are killed off, even though far more men are killed off than women in sci fi and fantasy.

A poster of a woman being strangled by a male villain is enough to provoke extreme outrage yet a scene from that same film of Wolverine slicing and dicing hundreds of guys goes unnoticed.

Men make up a far larger amount of victims of the weeks, mooks the hero slaughters, and far, far more male villains are killed in gruesome ways too.

Look at this scene from Buffy season 6. Now imagine a male hero killing a female villain in this way.

Think people would cheer him on? Granted Willow is meant to have crossed a line here, but even then most fans in my experience tend to support Willow, and indeed the show often makes out that she was right anyway. Xander in the next episode says that Warren had it coming and Buffy doesn’t entirely disagree.

Feminists also complain about oversexualised images of female characters and also how fanboys drool over them being sexist and examples of “male gaze”.

Now I am not going to deny that female heroes like Wonder Woman, Xena, Buffy and the Charmed ones obviously have a lot of sex appeal.

However what’s wrong with that? Its perfectly natural and furthermore there are just as many examples of over sexualised male characters for the female fans too.

Feminists however never complain about this at all which ironically creates a double standard against men and women. Men are shamed for their natural sexual urges in a way women are not, whilst at the same time female performers like Lucy Lawless and Gal Gadot are shamed for looking gorgeous and using their sex appeal in a way that hunky male leads are not.

At the same time ironically it could be argued that actually there is a greater market for the “female gaze”.

Put it this way do male fans of Charmed go online and write pornographic stories about Shannen Doherty and Alyssa Milano the way that fan girls do about the male lead characters in Supernatural, the Winchester brothers?

Its not just Supernatural of course. Slash fiction is a phenomenon in many major fandoms and its almost always female dominated. Now again I have no problem with it, but imagine the scorn feminists would have for a male fan who constantly wrote lesbian porn stories about two sexy female characters that he spent all of his time drooling over on fan forums.

Furthermore non sexualized male characters like the Doctor have been completely sexualized in order to appeal to female viewers.

For 26 years the Doctor was a completely asexual character and was often played by older men like Jon Pertwee and William Hartnell.

However for the revival Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat both said they wanted women to like Doctor Who so they decided to make the character more appealing to women. As a result of this they not only for many years cast younger actors in the role, but they completely rewrote the character of the Doctor to be more romantic and sensitive to make him appealing to the fangirls.

Again imagine the absolute outrage there would be from feminists if there was a major, completely sexless female character like say Miss Marple who had to be reimagined to be sexy for male viewers and they not only cast an actress like Maggie Q in the role, but also deliberately rewrote her to act like what they think a young man’s idea of the perfect woman is.

The Doctor in the 1970s. A completely sexless character in every respect.

The Doctor of the 21st Century who was tailor made for a female audience.

You can see how this is just sheer and utter hypocrisy. Apparently a character who was always sexualized like Wonder Woman needs to be rewritten to be completely non sexualized or else its sexist. Meanwhile a completely sexless character has to be rewritten to be a love struck emo hero snogging every woman he comes into contact with to win round female audiences?

Another example of feminists hypocrisy is the way that they complain whenever a female characters story revolves around a man. Again Steven Moffat is often slated as being unable to write for women because he makes their lives revolve around the Doctor in Doctor Who.

However once again these feminists NEVER comment on examples of male characters lives having to revolve around women (not that I think they should but again either comment on both or none at all.)

Spider-Man’s existence revolves entirely around his love interests, the Doctor from 2005 onward’s life usually revolved around a woman, Rose, Donna, River Song etc, Dave Lister the lead protagonist from Red Dwarf’s life revolves around his love for Kristine Kochanski. Many of Angel’s story arcs revolve around his love interest on both Buffy and his own show.

Similarly supporting male characters in female led shows like Riley in Buffy, Ares in Xena, and Cole in Charmed’s lives revolve around the female leads, yet feminists don’t condemn those series as anti men the same way they did the 11th Doctors era, because Rivers life revolved around the Doctors.

Feminists basically look at things one way with male characters and another with female ones.

Worst of all however is the way that feminists on the one hand can’t stand there being any franchise that’s aimed more towards men, yet on the other they want men kept away from any that is aimed towards women.

Again take a look at Doctor Who. Doctor Who despite having always had a large female following, was generally seen as a guys thing.

Sci fi in general is seen as a guys thing, the Doctor is a male character, whilst his sidekicks are women, and the show was always somewhat action packed, even in the Hartnell era, so its not hard to see why people would assume that it was more for men.

As a result of this feminists initially despised Doctor Who in the 80s and through the 90s. They always slandered it as inherently anti women and contributed to its reputation falling.

By the 2010s however when Doctor Who was popular again then the feminists latched onto it, but this time they demanded that it all be changed to suit them. They argued that Doctor Who was a horrible little boys only club and needed to be more inclusive to the point where the Master had to become a woman, UNIT a longstanding military organisation has to be occupied entirely by women, and finally the Doctor himself has to be a woman.

We are constantly told that Doctor Who now becoming completely female dominated is a good thing as its more inclusive to female fans.

A Female Doctor Who Is The Feminist Hero We Need Now

The Time Lady Project: Whovian Feminism

Meanwhile for the Wonder Woman movie there were actually all female screenings held for it.

Of course its not like this is a one off. Whovian Feminism has hypocritically demanded that white men be limited from writing or directing series starring female or minority leads whilst always pushing for more women to both write and direct Doctor Who. She has argued that female characters written by women are always superior.

Of course the great irony is that the two most famous genre characters of the past at least 50 years, Xena and Buffy were both created by men. I’m not saying that this means men write better female characters, but you can see how it doesn’t matter? (Incidentally this is another reason Xena would struggle in the SJW/feminist dominated environment of today ironically.)

Basically feminists want sci fi and fantasy to be something where men are killed in the most horrible and gruesome ways regularly on screen, but if a woman even gets threatened in something then it has to be pulled and the makers apologise for promoting violence against women.

Also at the same time there are to be no pin ups for men, and men who fancy Buffy are to be shamed as perverts, whilst female fans can spend all their time drooling over the likes of James Marsters, Jensen Ackles and David Tennant and even write gay fan fic stories about the male leads they are attracted too.

Similarly we are allowed to have countless male characters like Rory Williams and Spike follow a strong female character around and have his life utterly revolve around her, but as soon as we have a strong male character like the Doctor with a female sidekick, then that is sexist, and we have to focus more on her, have her be the real hero of the story to the point where she takes his place in the opening credits, and gains his powers and use them much better than he ever did.

I wonder if Jodie will get a male companion that takes her place in the opening credits and gets her powers and uses them better than she does and tells her she has been useless compared to him?

And finally now all male led things like Doctor Who have to be feminised from top to bottom to not be a little boys only club, whilst anything starring a female hero has to be seen by women first, and can only be written and directed by women.

Yeah not hard to see why feminists are viewed as a bunch of anti men hypocrites with this in mind.

They Never Create Their Own Characters

Feminists and SJWs can never create their own characters. They always instead demand that other people’s characters be changed to their liking. Examples of this include Wolverine, Thor, The Doctor, The Master and Iron Man who have all been replaced with or been turned into women.

SJWs always claim that representation is important, but the thing is there is nothing to stop them from going out there and coming up with their own characters. However there are two reasons they don’t.

One is that they want to push their agenda to as many people as possible. Thus they want to use an already established and iconic character like say the Doctor, rather than create a new character and take the time and effort to make them an icon.

Take a look at Frank Hampson the creator of Dan Dare in contrast. Hampson felt at that time that comic books weren’t teaching children proper values. Hampson was a devout Christian and a socialist. As a result of this he decided to create Dan Dare (who went on to be arguably the most influential British comic book character of all time) that espoused those values.

If he had been like the feminist fans of today however he would have simply attacked other people’s work as sexist, racist etc until they did it the way he wanted.

Also there is a certain level of spite involved if the product stars white men and its fans are white men. Feminists always LOVE to go on about how they have made sexist male fans heads explode by taking away their characters. Thing is you are not a sexist if you don’t want your favourite character to be replaced which has essentially happened in all of these cases. Fans have similarly not liked it when beloved characters have been replaced by other men such as Damian Wayne taking over as Batman.

However the difference was you didn’t have to get other fans relishing in the fact you were upset or telling you, you were a bigot for not liking Damian Wayne.

They Never Bring Attention To Original Female Characters

Continuing on from my last point, feminist fans are often the last people who actually ever like, never mind talk about female led series.

Take a look at Claudia Boleyn. Now I certainly don’t hate Claudia Boleyn personally. She is a really nice, intelligent girl, and any time I have spoken to her on twitter she has always been nice. She just seems a little bit misguided to me.

Still however Claudia sadly I feel cares more about turning male heroes into women to get back at the perceived “entitled male fans” than she does about actual female heroes.

The reason I think that is because Claudia virtually never comments on female led shows. Look at her blog or her youtube account. Almost all of the shows she reviews or is most passionate about star men. Doctor Who, Class, Torchwood, Merlin, Supernatural.

Where are her videos about Charmed? About Xena? About Buffy? About Earth 2? About Ghost Whisperer? About Once Upon A Time? She goes on and on about desperately wanting to see women and LGBT people like her on tv, yet Xena, a series about two bisexual women who are the worlds greatest heroes has never interested her?

Clearly Claudia actually doesn’t need to see someone who is like her on tv to enjoy a show. She has 0 interest in the massive franchises that already feature them. In fact ironically there are female counterparts to all of her favorite shows.

Supernatural and Charmed are two very similar shows. Both revolve around siblings who battle Demons. In both cases one of the siblings develops a close relationship with an Angel, whilst the youngest develops a romantic relationship with a Demon who wavers between good and evil and is eventually killed by the siblings. Both shows also feature a finale called All Hell Breaks Loose where one of the siblings is killed and the other is forced to make a deal with a Demon to save them which results in bad consequences for the eldest sibling.

Charmed however stars women and was created by a woman, whilst Supernatural stars men and was created by a guy.

Which one is Claudia a devoted fan of? Yep the masculine version.

Similarly look at Merlin and Xena. Both very similar shows in terms of style. Pseudo historicals, which mix fantasy, surrealism and humour. Take a look at two of the main villains in Merlin, Cenred and Morgause, a cocky egotistical guy with all the power, and a psycho blonde who eventually turns the tables on him.

Where have I seen that before?

Yet again between these two similar series which is the one Claudia loves? The one starring the two bisexual women or the one starring two white dudes?

Torchwood and Class also both have a similar premise to Buffy another female led series. All three revolve around portals to other universes below modern cities which attract monsters to them. Class is even set in a school!

However again which is the only one ironically out of those three Claudia isn’t a devoted fan of? That would be Buffy, the one starring a female lead.

I’m not saying this makes Claudia a liar. I think like a lot of these young fangirls she’s been worked up by a lot of the crap around her into thinking that representation is important (as indeed I was at one point) without even realizing that most of the shows she likes star men, so clearly she actually doesn’t need to see someone like her to enjoy something.

She also has no doubt been convinced that anyone who doesn’t say want a female Doctor is trying to limit what women can do in the genre.

However if she stopped and thought about it then she would probably realise that actually she clearly doesn’t care about representation at all.

If Claudia’s going to call people who don’t like Missy sexist, then by her “logic”. We can call her a self loathing woman for not liking Xena, Buffy, and Charmed over Merlin, Torchwood and Supernatural.

The same applies for Whovian Feminism. This woman claims that she is desperate to see things starring women, yet she always reviews Doctor Who? I put this question to her on twitter that she cared more about taking the role of the Doctor away from men than in female heroes.

All Whovian Feminism could say (aside from calling me a random white dude, like skin colour has anything to do with it) was that she liked the Wonder Woman movie.

That hardly shows an extensive knowledge of female heroes Whovian Feminism that you like the one currently in the cinemas. I doubt she has even heard of Callisto or Alti.

Paul Cornell is another male example who claims to care about female representation yet I have never seen him even once mention any of the classic female led series. Almost everything he reviews or indeed has written for is male led apart from a very few exceptions.

Doctor Who, Wolverine, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Dan Dare. Where are Paul’s extensive reviews of every episode of Xena? Where are his Buffy comics, his novel showing us what happened to the Charmed sisters, his character who is a love letter to 90’s female heroes?

He doesn’t give a shit about any female heroes. Same applies to Will Wheaton. The only things I have ever seen Will Wheaton talk about are male led shows like Doctor Who, Star Trek (obviously) or films like Star Wars.

Now again normally I wouldn’t give a shit about how many female heroes someone likes, but it does make me laugh that all of these people who go around telling everybody else “you need to get used to seeing women on the tv”, “its about time that we got to see more female heroes”, “I’m so fed up with seeing heroes be nothing but white men”, NEVER watch anything starring a female lead.

To be honest when they tell they rest of us that we need to get used to seeing female heroes I think they are projecting. They are terrified that actually that applies to them because they prefer male led shows like Doctor Who to any female led one.

Of course again I’m not saying that preferring Doctor Who to Xena or Buffy makes you a sexist, but considering that a lot of these people will accuse you of being a sexist if you don’t like Missy, Jodie Whitaker as the Doctor, then its not so hard to believe that they worry that applies to them too.

Whenever you see someone complain about representation then you can be pretty sure that they don’t actually like that many female led shows. 

The same also applies to all of these women and men who keep going on about “now that the Doctor is a woman my daughters will finally have someone to look up to”.

If they didn’t before then that’s your fault! You were the one who chose to show them nothing but male led things like Doctor Who or Star Trek.

You could have maybe, just maybe shown them one of the following, Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Once Upon A Time, Relic Hunter, Nikita, Charlies Angels, Terminator 1 and 2, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Alien film series, Star Trek Voyager, Resident Evil film series, Underworld film series, Day of the Dead, Wonder Woman tv series, The Bionic Woman, Jessica Jones, Penny Dreadful, Stranger Things, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Sleepy Hollow tv series, Alias, Ghost Whisperer, Dark Angel?

Of course feminists earn the hatred of nerds not only because they go around telling the rest of us we need to get used to female heroes (despite never watching anything with female heroes) but they also ironically do down the contributions of many iconic female led series too.

The way feminists act now  you’d think that the likes of Xena and Buffy never existed!

As a devoted, life long fan of Xena I am fucking fed up of it constantly being overlooked, but the reason for that is that it doesn’t fit into the “women are never allowed to be the heroes narrative” which is fuelled by feminist fans.

If feminist fans really cared about female representation in the genre, they’d either go out and create new characters or try and bring attention to female led classics like Xena and Charmed that are perhaps a bit overlooked. Instead however they are obsessed with making as many male characters into women as they possibly can, showing that its more about taking it away from men than a true desire for equality.

They ALWAYS Get Their Own Way

Sheldon’s a better representation for feminist fans in this scene than any female hero like Wonder Woman.

No group in any fandom gets their own way quite like feminists. Just take a look at the Doctor Who series.

As soon as they started complaining, EVERYTHING in the show was tailored to suit their needs. The Master was made into a woman, there were constant references to the Doctor changing gender, another timelord gender flipped, and finally the Doctor got turned into a woman even though the majority of fans were against it.

Most Fans Against A Female Doctor

Similarly Marvel has also killed off and dropped many of their greatest and most popular heroes like Iron Man and Wolverine just because feminists wanted more diversity.

The reason they have so much more power is because they slander the makers of series personally, calling them names such as sexist, homophobic, racist etc. Also as ShoeOnHead has pointed out many times, people are more sympathetic to women’s problems, and as people associate feminism with all women sadly, then people are more likely to listen to and feel they have to try and fix a feminists complaint.

Also the mainstream media is on their side too and thus will often skewer things like Gamergate are Nazis, all people who don’t want a female Doctor are evil sexists etc, whilst not presenting the other side of the argument at all.

Now all of this is understandably annoying, but what makes it even worse is the way that feminists always go on about white male fans being privileged and that they need to get used to things not going their way!

In her review for Death in Heaven Claudia Boleyn comments on how the death of Osgood represented accurately how the fangirls had been treated by the writers of the show all season.

Are you fucking kidding me! For those of you unfamiliar with Doctor Who the season Claudia was referring to was one where the Doctors archenemy, the Master was turned into a bisexual, trans woman who wanted to shag the Doctor, where the groundwork was laid for a female Doctor, where Clara not only completely took over the show but also even took Capaldi’s place in the opening credits and was billed first. All to satisfy the feminist fan girls who complained throughout the 50th about the companion not being given enough to do, that another white man had been cast as the Doctor and that there weren’t enough LGBT characters.

The idea that Claudia could think that was a season that went out of its way to antagonise the fan girls is laughable. In fact it reminds me of a line from the Doctor Who story Resurrection of the Daleks “No matter how you react the Daleks see it as an act of provocation.”

They Only Bully Sci Fi Because It Is An Easy Target

Its funny the way feminists and SJWs have singled out these two genres to attack more than any other.

Sci fi and fantasy have a long history of being among the most progressive and left wing genres, particularly when it comes to female lead series and representation for minorities.

There aren’t nearly as many leading roles for women in other popular genres like westerns, crime thrillers, and spy and espionage stories.

So why don’t feminists go after these genres? Simple, because they are not as easy to bully. Sci fi and fantasy are sadly looked down on. Even with the recent geek fad, they are still often seen as sad and childish interests. Thus not only are the papers often going to be on the side of the feminists against the sad gits who like silly childish things, but many nerds are also at the same time not going to want to defend their interests so vigorously out of fear of looking like sad gits.

Thus they will often only be too happy to let the feminists tread all over their franchise. Also to be fair again as the genres have always historically been progressive and forward thinking places then its fans will initially be more open minded.

Thus for all their talk of fighting for equality, feminists pick the easiest prey so to speak.

They Sink Every Franchise They Latch Onto

Not Cast On Merit

Every time a franchise panders to feminists (which as we have seen is often) its viewers, readers, audience in general will sink dramatically.

Doctor Who has shed two million viewers every single year since it started pandering to feminists. In fact the last series scored the two lowest rated episodes in the shows entire 50 plus year history, with viewers dropping to barely above 2 million at one point.

Marvel have of course begun to suffer record losses too since their SJW pandering began.

Doctor Who Viewers Down At 2 Million

Marvel Executive Diversity To Blame For Low Sales

The reason they drive away viewers is because ironically for all their talk of diversity they make things like Doctor Who that could previously be enjoyed by anyone into things that only they can like.

Another reason they sink each franchise they influence is because they don’t actually care about what is the best thing for the franchise. Only in pushing an agenda. Thus stories take a back seat to virtue signalling, actors and actresses aren’t cast on merit, writers aren’t hired on merit either. They are all just there to tick boxs.

Take a look at Whovian Feminism, a woman who undoubtedly had an influence to some extent on the direction of Doctor Who (as she has interviewed several writers and directors from the show so they are at least aware of her blog.)

She has regularly said she wants a female Doctor and Master, just because. Thus neither Jodie Whitaker or Michelle Gomez were cast on merit. On top of that Whovian Feminism is demanding that there be an equal amount of female and male writers for the next season. I obviously have no problem with female writers, but nobody should be hired solely for their gender.

When you do that you are obviously not going to end up with the best person, and I a fan want the best people hired for Doctor Who. Whovian Feminism however doesn’t and again as she is the type of fan they listen too,  the show doesn’t always have the best people working on it and thus its quality falls.

Conclusion

Feminists are the most hated group in any fandom they become a part of and for good reason. They ultimately are the only group who can never just simply be a part of any franchise they claim to be fans of. We all have our own expectations and ways we want franchises to go. Difference is we don’t all bully anyone who doesn’t want it to go the way we want to as sexists, or racist, or homophobic.

I mean hey I wanted Osgood to be 12’s companion. When Bill was announced I didn’t try and bully Moff into still making Osgood the new companion. I just accepted it. Feminists however sadly have to make everything go their way, and they always get it, whilst at the same time claiming that they are the victims.

Until feminists take a long hard look at how they have been acting and step back from making absolutely everything about them and their movement, then they will always remain the most hated members of any fandom.

 

Why I Hate Rational Wiki

 

A website devoted to debunking bullshit claims, whilst at the same time praising Anita Sarkeesian as a feminist hero.

Rational Wiki is a popular website which as its name would suggest attempts to offer up a more logical and practical approach to political and social issues as well as debunk what it sees as pseudo scientific theories.

Sadly over the last few years it has developed a strong left wing bias to the point where I and many others feel it has actually become more of a propaganda piece for the regressive left than anything else.

In this article I am going to highlight what I feel are the main problems with Rational Wiki.

Its worth baring in mind that as it is a Wiki that anyone can edit, then its content may change over time. Who knows in 2 years time it could actually do what it says on the tin and offer up impartial, fair and even handed articles on subjects.

At the current time of writing however Rational Wiki is nothing more than an SJW propaganda piece. Again normally I wouldn’t mind if it was. After all everyone is entitled to their opinions. However its the fact that they present themselves as Rational Wiki that bugs me as that makes it look like it is an impartial and logical website when it is nothing more than an opinion piece.

Rational Wiki Has A Double Standard When It Comes To Islam

Rational Wiki in a nutshell.

Now to be fair to Rational Wiki it has provided some criticism of Islam and many notable Islamic preachers. However like many on the left I feel that it goes easier on Islam simply because its a religion practised by mostly dark skinned people.

Its a classic case of having a soft bigotry of low expectations. Basically its okay to attack people for their beliefs and ideologies as long as they are white.

An example of this can be found on their Webshites and Websites pages. The Webshites page as its name would suggest is a list of sites and bloggers that Rational Wiki considers to be biased, untrustworthy and even harmful. The description on the page warns that citing any of the people in this list will cause you to automatically lose the argument.

Now in their Webshites page they have a youtuber called Syeten. Syeten does cartoons parodying religion, but he places a greater emphasis on Islam than other faiths.

Rational Wiki says to avoid his channel because it isn’t even handed when attacking religions as it focuses too much on Islam.

At the same time however Rational Wiki has Non Stamp Collector on its Websites page which are sites that it not only recommends but uses as reliable sources for its articles.

Non Stamp Collector is a youtuber who does cartoons parodying the Judeo Christian faith and only the Judeo Christian faith (as that is the one he grew up with, and thus has the most experience of.)

Now personally I am a fan of both youtubers. I’m not always keen on Syeten’s videos mind you. I’ve never really been a fan of jokes about other people’s appearances which Syeten sometimes does like his Jaclyn Glen video. Still that’s just my personal taste, and overall I have immense respect for them both as their cartoons really bring to light just how twisted the Old Testament and the Quran are.

Here are some examples of both men’s work.

There is really no difference in either men’s work as you can see, but about Syeten Rational Wiki says “Prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, and broken keyboards.”

About Non Stamp Collector however they say “Warning this video may cause excessive hilarity“.

The funny thing is, Syeten has actually done videos parodying Christianity too, whilst Non Stamp Collector has only ever stuck to one religion. Again I don’t think that makes Non Stamp Collector a bigot either, as he only goes after Christianity because he has extensive knowledge of it.

Still the great irony is that by Rational Wiki’s standards then Non Stamp Collector is the bigot not Syeten as his channel is devoted completely to one religion.

In this respect I find it hard to take Rational Wiki seriously as critics of religious dogma when they clearly are more oversensitive to criticism of the fastest growing and currently the most dangerous religion on the planet.

Obviously as you can see from both men’s videos the Old Testament and the Quran are among the most disgusting books ever written. However Islam is currently more dangerous than Judaism or Christianity for the following reasons.

The Jewish religion has been reformed many times over the years, and is a more loose, tribal religion that’s laws and traditions are not as strict. Also the Jewish faith is much more vague about its concept of the afterlife and tends to focus on the here and now. Thus radical Jews are not as likely to blow themselves up because they think they will get 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Christianity meanwhile is a more benign religion overall. There are some dodgy parts in the New Testament sure, but overall Jesus’ message is to love your enemies, grant unto others as you would unto yourself, and he is presented as someone who genuinely loves everyone around him and even begs god to forgive his murderers. Added to that Christianity has had a reformation too.

Islam meanwhile has had no such reformation. It is presented as the definitive word of god, and so therefore there isn’t really room for interpretation. It tells its followers to slay all nonbelievers, to kill all homosexuals, and that all black people and women are inferior to white men. It also promises its believers an afterlife if they wage war on non believers and martyr themselves in conflict with them!

Now this does not mean that all Muslims are violent bigots. Many Muslims in western society have never even read the Quran, just as many Jewish people have never read the Old Testament. Other meanwhile undoubtedly cherry pick the good bits of their faith too.

However those who are raised on genuine Islamic beliefs do at least hold prejudiced views against women, LGBT people and Jews, even in the most civil western societies. In the United Kingdom for instance over 50 percent of Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.

50 Percent Of All British Muslims Think Homosexuality Should Be Criminalized

Rational Wiki however apart from a few exceptions will shout down almost any reasonable critic of Islam like David Wood, Pat Condell, and Tommy Robinson as racists and people you should ignore, but they’ll praise an equally harsh critic of the Judeo Christian faith.

Again the reason for this is because basically Muslims are mostly brown and in Rational Wiki’s condescending mindset, all brown people are oppressed and victims of evil white men.

Ultimately Rational Wiki are the brave type of skeptics who will go after people who believe in heaven or spirits or the afterlife for comfort and ridicule them in order to look smart and superior, but they will slander people such as Tommy Robinson, Thunderf00t and Kraut and Tea who call out religiously motivated hatred of LGBT people, and misogyny as bigots and tell you not to listen to them

Videos that Rational Wiki, who care so much about tackling misogyny, homophobia and religious dogma absolutely do not want you to see according to their Webshites page.

Rational Wiki can only be viewed in my opinion as shameless hypocrites and cowards.

White Knighting For Antia Sarkeesian

Apparently the only reason anyone could hate this liar, charlatan, and fraud who went to the UN to try and shut down her critics is because they are sexist according to Rational Wiki.

Now I dislike Anita Sarkeesian in general. The woman has done more to harm genuine feminism than any actual misogynist. She is a cynical, lying opportunist who wants to bask in the feminist glory but doesn’t actually combat any genuine sexism.

Thus she picks perfectly benign targets like video games, sci fi, comic books and lego and calls them sexist for the most petty reasons in order to make herself look like a feminist champion.

Clearly she just hates Anita Sarkeesian because she hates women. Seriously. Rational Wiki has written under a picture of Anita “Oh My God A Woman On The Internet!” A very nuanced and rational rebuttal to her detractors of course.

However simply liking Anita Sarkeesian wouldn’t bother me to the point where I’d bother writing an article attacking someone for it. In Rational Wiki’s case however I dislike the way that they defend Anita for various reasons.

To start with ironically they turn her into a damsel in distress. Look at their article about her. Its mostly just about how she has suffered horrendous online abuse.

Now I don’t doubt that Anita Sarkeesian has had a lot of genuine online abuse, but still so what? Everybody gets abuse online. There are psychos and trolls on every side.

However Rational Wiki not only tries to make it look as though she gets it worse for being a woman, but they also at one point actively say that because of the harsh online treatment Anita Sarkeesian has received we can’t criticize her.

Take a look at this quote from Jim Sterling that they have on her Rational Wiki page

There are some solid criticisms you can level at Sarkeesians work. I’m not 100 percent on her side, you know. She’s not perfect by a long shot and her video series is a little off base, with some of the examples she’s named as targets. But we can’t talk about that anymore, because the debates not about whether she’s right or wrong. The debate was invalidated as soon as people tried to ruin her life en masse. The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her

What a ridiculous assertion, and whilst Rational Wiki may not have written it originally they still quoted it, showing that they agree with it.

Apparently because some of Sarkeesian’s critics are assholes then that means no one is allowed to say anything bad about her?

By that logic then Rational Wiki can’t criticize half of the people they do.

Take a look at Thunderf00t whom they despise. He too has received death threats, rape threats, has had people mock his father dying of cancer and has even had people try and get him fired from his job!

See here

So then going by Sterling and Rational Wiki’s logic the chance to debate Thunderf00t was gone as soon as people started to try and ruin his life and told him he deserved to be raped for all eternity!

Lauren Southern is another notable youtuber who they attack, and again by their own logic they shouldn’t. Lauren has not only had death threats and rape threats but has been physically assaulted many times and even had urine thrown over her!

That’s worse than anything that’s happened to Anita Sarkeesian. Mean tweets can’t actually hurt you. Getting punched in the face, and having urine thrown over you however?

Rational Wiki likes to go on about Anita’s law or Anita’s irony which is where a woman who complains about sexism is then forced to endure sexist abuse by men telling her there is no sexism. (Of course in Rational Wiki’s mind, telling her she is wrong probably counts as “sexist abuse”. On top of that what about the women like Mercedes Carrera’s criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian too?)

Still I’ve decided to coin a new term here (assuming it hasn’t been coined already. If it has apologies) Lauren’s Law which means when feminists and white knights complain about sexism but then don’t care when women who don’t share their opinions are treated in sexist ways up to and including physical assault. Example: Rational Wiki white knighting over poor little Anita’s mean tweets whilst ignoring the abuse the likes of Lauren Southern and other conservative women receive.

Finally Blaire White is another person that Rational Wiki despises and she not only regularly receives death threats but was actually attacked and nearly stabbed by her crazed feminist roommate.

Slightly worse than being called a mean name on Twitter (which Blaire is anyway, every fucking day!)

The abuse the likes of Blaire, Lauren or Thunderf00t have received is either mentioned fleetingly or not all on their Rational Wiki pages.

To be fair they do call the person who threw urine over Lauren a douche on her page, but still that’s it. They don’t try and present Lauren as a victim that we should all feel sorry for, have entire sections devoted to the abuse she has gotten from people online, and have quotes about “As soon as people started hitting Lauren then the chance to debate her on merit was gone”.

Again however the reason for that is because ironically they want everyone to feel sorry for Anita because they know that her arguments don’t actually hold up under any fair, rational analysis.

Also finally I feel that they deliberately misrepresent her critics. For instance they claim that the majority of her critics think she wants to ban video games. Whilst I am sure that some of her online trolls have said this, its ridiculous to act as though that’s what the majority of her critics such as Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad have accused her of.

Also at the same time they don’t address other more frequently cited and valid criticisms of her such as the fact that she complains about sexualized female characters, whilst never commenting on sexualized images of male characters.

According to Anita and Rational Wiki only one of these images is sexist. Why do I think there is a double standard? I don’t think either image is sexist by the way. Let viewers both oggle Xena and drool over Spike. Its natural. Still to only focus on one as a bad thing creates a gross double standard against both genders as men are shamed for their natural sexual urges, whilst women are ironically shamed and even made to feel guilty for cashing in on their sex appeal as performers whilst men are not.

Then there is of course the fact that Anita complains about female characters being killed in video games such as Hitman, despite the fact that far more male characters are killed regularly in video games (and indeed all forms of media.)

And then there is her rampant hypocrisy for slating video games for being too violent overall and for featuring heroes who solve their problems through violence whilst constantly praising Buffy a show about a female character who regularly stakes, decapitates, and burns her enemies to death!

The great irony is that Buffy is actually among the very few heroes who always kills her enemies. Most heroes like Sherlock Holmes, Batman (in some versions), Superman and Spider-Man have a moral code where they will never kill. Others meanwhile like the Doctor, Xena, Captain Kirk, even Wolverine will only kill if they need too. Buffy however? Due to the nature of her enemies she always kills them. She is actually the most violent popular hero of all time. Yet Anita who can’t stand video games that teach kids that violence solves problems loves Buffy and holds it as the pinnacle of genre series.

Rather than address these types of criticisms on her page however (or bring up her endorsement of gender and racial segregation.) Rational Wiki instead will bring up things like Mundane Matt’s silly comment (that he later regretted) about her smiling like a white person or claim that a picture of her playing a game when she was ten proves that she always liked video games (despite the fact that plenty of people play games as children and then grow out of them later.) Or they claim that people said she chased Joss Whedon off of twitter (which again people by and large didn’t say. They did however point out that Jonathan McIntosh her producer did join in the hate mob against Whedon which eventually drove him off Twitter.)

Their attempts to refute Thunderf00t’s criticisms of Anita are also mostly hollow.

They claim for instance that there is a problem with representation of women in video games, that there aren’t enough female heroes, that women have a hard time from gamers etc, whilst offering no sources to back these claims up, and never commenting on the various sources that contradict Anita’s statements such as.

Interview with Liz Finnegan

On top of that they also say that Sarkeesian disables the comments on her videos because of the abuse she gets. They completely leave out the fact that again all youtubers get abuse in their comments sections, but also that in the various re-upload’s of and responses to her videos, comments about raping her and vicious abuse in general are in the extreme minority.

They also fail to mention in their “debunking” of Thunderf00t’s claims about Hitman that he criticises Anita first of all for her double standard in only complaining about female characters being killed, when far more male characters are gruesomely killed in video games, and also that the game does punish players for murdering female characters (and only female characters) and furthermore that it is ridiculous to say having strippers in a strip club is somehow sexist. Rational Wiki even says “why have the strippers there at all”. How about because its a strip club!

Also they claim that the damsel in distress trope should be phased out once games stories become more complex and involved, completely ignoring the fact that they have been phased out as video games have become more complex and developed more involved stories.

Basically Rational Wiki does its best to misrepresent Anita’s critics and ironically turn her into a damsel in distress to make casual readers feel immense sympathy with her. They jump through the most ridiculous hoops to defend this utter disgrace to feminism.

Bare Faced Lies And Slander

OMG a woman I’m scared (using Rational Wiki’s “logic” against them.)

Rational Wiki regularly slanders those whose opinions it disagrees with. For instance on its Webshites page it says that the youtuber Some Black Guy thinks Donald Trump is a great guy. This is a total distortion of his opinion. Having now watched many of his videos all Some Black Guy has ever said is that he thinks Donald Trump was less dangerous than Hillary Clinton as Clinton was a war monger who openly antagonized Russia and China.

However he made it clear that he did not actually like Trump several times. Some Black Guy’s opinion of Trump was no different to John Pilgers who also said that he hoped Trump would win instead of Hillary Clinton due to Hillary’s track record in countries such as Iraq, Libya and Honduras.

By Rational Wiki’s logic then John Pilger of all people is a Trump fanboy as his opinions on him are pretty much exactly the same as Some Black Guy’s.

Furthermore they also claim that Blaire White advocates bullying fat people and that she may not have been joking about having refugees gassed. Whilst I don’t think it was one of Blaire’s best jokes, again it was clearly a joke. When you look at the context its obvious that Blaire is just trying to get a rise. Again you might think it was an inappropriate joke, but that’s Blaire’s style.

The fact that Rational Wiki would even try and suggest that it wasn’t a joke however shows how desperate they are to discredit her. Blaire also has explicitly said that she does not want to see people be bullied for their weight, but at the same time she doesn’t think being obese is a healthy lifestyle choice and therefore should not be promoted as such by things like “the body positivity movement.

This is a perfectly fair view to hold. Most people don’t think smoking is a healthy lifestyle choice, but that doesn’t mean they want to publicly humiliate and shame smokers or even stop them from smoking. But at the same time they are going to call out someone who says that smoking is a healthy lifestyle.

Furthermore they claim that Blaire White has attacked Riley O’Dennis simply for claiming to be trans and still having a penis. Again this is a gross misinterpretation of Blaire’s views. Blaire criticized Riley because she believed he had not undergone any form of transitioning (though she later apologized when she found out that he had.)

Still Blaire’s criticisms against Riley are more to do with his political leanings such as his ridiculous claims that straight men and gay women who don’t find him attractive are transphobic.

Rational Wiki again however doesn’t address these criticisms that Blaire has for Riley and simply lies that her issue with him is that he still has a penis. Blaire has said many times that most trans women keep their male genitals, so she certainly would not mock Riley Dennis for it.

Rational Wiki has also been very deceptive on the feud between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Linda Sarsour too.

Rational Wiki thinks very highly of Linda Sarsour. It includes her among the websites it recommends and uses as a valuable source. Ayaan Hirsi Ali meanwhile, though it acknowledges that some of her claims are valid, it generally tends to dismiss her as an Islamophobe.

Rational Wiki actually tries to make Hirsi Ali the bad guy as best it can.

All it mentions about her feud with Linda Sarsour is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali said Linda Sarsour could not be a feminist because she was a Muslim. Now personally I don’t see anything wrong with this statement anyway, as Islam says that women are inferior to men, so if you are actually a devout Muslim then you obviously can’t be a champion for women’s rights.

Still Rational Wiki completely leaves out the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali says Linda Sarsour can’t be a feminist because she supports Sharia Law (a law that deprives women of basic human rights.) And also that Linda Sarsour said she wanted to beat the shit out of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and take away her vagina (Ali is a survivor of female genital mutilation.) This is actually what began their feud, but again you wouldn’t know it going by Rational Wiki.

Furthermore Rational Wiki is often quick to dismiss people like Chris Ray Gun, Mundane Matt and Some Black Guy as sexists and members of the alt right, simply because they are critics of feminism. All 3 of them are fairly left leaning, liberals (Ray Gun supported Bernie Sanders and refused to vote for either Trump or Clinton in the 2016 election.)

Finally they also failed to mention the abuse Laci Green has received from feminists (including being called a slut, getting death threats, and being doxxed) simply for dating Chris Ray Gun!

Once again we can see Lauren’s Law in full effect here. When Anita is subject to harassment, Rational Wiki devote practically an entire page to it. Whilst Laci Green, not only another woman, but a feminist is subject to doxxing, death threats and sexist abuse Rational Wiki doesn’t comment on it as it doesn’t fit their narrative now that she is simply associating with an anti feminist Chris Ray Gun in her private life.

All they say is that her fans aren’t happy with her dating Chris to say the least, which doesn’t even begin to cover the abuse Laci has received.

Conclusion

As you can see Rational Wiki is really nothing more than a propaganda piece for SJWs which tries to present itself as an impartial and well rational source.

For this reason I think its very important to call them out on their bullshit and show that at the end of the day whilst they claim to be impartial and level headed, they regularly lie and misinterpret things to suit their own agenda.

Thanks for reading.