Tag Archives: Social Justice Warriors

P*ssy Hat Protest (Satire)

This satire was inspired by the SJW protests around Donald Trump’s inauguration, where many protesters showed up with “pussy hats” and giant vagina costumes. Besides engaging in frivolous rhetoric, some carried out acts of pointless destruction of public and private property alike.

Whereas I share their opinion of Donald Trump, buffoonery and vandalism are not efficient ways to make a statement.


Come join me, fellow sisters, in a majestic screech

The seals of the Antarctic could never hope to reach!

We’ll drown out all their hatred and stomp any adherent;

Just like the Wooly Mammoth, we’re slow but perseverant!


Do not be shy to handle my polyester tw*t;

You can’t get hepatitis or herpes from a hat!

Though some do say it gives them, if I may be so blunt,

A never-ending licence to label me a c*nt!


Last week I was a victor, I marched from dusk ‘till dawn,

I trampled the begonias on some cis white male’s lawn,

And after manly pummels, which left my muscles sore,

In Herculean struggles – his trash bin is no more!


I ran back in full glory after this brave foray,

Though covered in cat faeces and three-day-old soufflé;

This proves beyond suspicion, and please spare no applause,

That I’d decline no effort to further our cause!


We broke a good few windows, they cursed at us with pathos

And called for paramedics and cops to please sedate us;

I thrive in cis despair and in patriarchal dread!

We are the revolution, comrades! Full steam ahead!


We’ll show these cunts what love is, for unity we aim,

Our chants, group hugs and dances put any cult to shame!

Their faces are so pasty – but with a punch or two,

We’ll make them into rainbows, with shades of red and blue!

Feminists, Confused About… Women

It’s fair to say anyone claiming expertise in a field and simultaneously failing to properly define its most basic concepts would fail to be taken seriously.

The feminist movement, in developed countries at least, whilst apparently working towards advancing women’s rights, is confused by this seemingly volatile notion of being female.

In fact, many have such an unclear understanding of the term “woman” that they choose to avoid it altogether, using expressions such as “people with vaginas”, “people who menstruate” and “pregnant people”, in situations which only apply to women, which leads to very awkward phrasing (yes, those were all found in articles on feminist websites).

What is more, it seems the fragmentation of female identity should lead to denying or ignoring the number of women on this planet. Apparently, even census is offensive now.

“Five reasons why we need to stop saying that women are half of the world’s population” . I suspect, to some, this incentive might be a response to people pointing out that women, who are lumped in with various groups as oppressed (though things vary from one country to another), cannot be classed as a minority due to their sheer number.

The reasons given here, however, are quite different.

I don’t see this “women are half the world” thing as being intersectional, nor do I see it as being correct.

And perhaps most importantly, I don’t see it as a step in the right direction: It marginalizes other people in a heck of a lot of ways, trying to uplift women at the expense of others – specifically people of marginalized gender and sex.

Not cool.

The day when statistics are supposed to be cool instead of accurate is the day O’Brien tells Winston how many fingers to see, though Winston is not blind.

Perhaps everyone should see what they want to see, in terms of objective reality. For instance, if your landlord wants to see another zero added to your rent, though the agreement specifies otherwise, or your doctor wants to see three inches instead of seven in the gaping cut in your arm, so that there would be less to stitch up, that would be completely fine. Who needs counts and measurements after all?

It would be every politician’s dream on this planet to convince the masses that numbers don’t matter. Unemployment, war massacres casualties, people living below the poverty line, you name it.

It didn’t occur to me until I began my gender transition, living now as a genderqueer trans guy, that the phrase started to rub me the wrong way – because it erased transgender people like me, for starters.

Every category has its own statistics and is free use them to make a point. But people do belong to the male or female sex, regardless of other nuances or how they class themselves as such (by birth or transitioning). A “trans guy” is still a “guy” at the end of the day and can be counted as male.

If we want to make a case for women’s equality around the world, we need to do it in a way that doesn’t erase or harm people of other genders and identities.

Aside from straight white men, I presume, as in every discussion about inequality there has to be a “privileged” group interested in maintaining it. A group which equality is sought with. If gender is different than sex (which I don’t think is the case but anyhow), it does not erase sex but adds to it. Sex continues to exist.

It’s time we did away with this talking point once and for all. Because as you’ll see, it’s not doing women – or anyone else, for that matter – any favors. Here are five things to consider the next time you’re thinking of spouting off the “women are half the world” argument.

Of course; not only is it justified to decide what others should and should not talk about, but it is completely justifiable for neutral facts to be censored through peer pressure.

Let’s be real: This phrase isn’t logically correct. When we’re saying that women are half the world, what we’re actually saying is that roughly half the world is assigned female at birth.

We aren’t talking about gender (and therefore, women) at all. We’re talking about sex, and assuming that everyone assigned female at birth must identify as a woman.

This is totally cisnormative – reinforcing the assumption that being cisgender is the default, and centering the experiences of cisgender people, effectively erasing transgender people – and makes this phrase really problematic.

Well, data is constantly gathered from birth records, obviously, but a census is filled out by adults, and if those adults decide to transition to the opposite sex they can always state that when they wish to do so.

Making a fuss about the sex children are assigned at birth, as if that should or could change, is almost too far-fetched to mention.

No one can deny the implications of associating the word “woman” with the correct anatomy; it’s not that boys and girls/ men and women have different needs in terms of, let’s say, medical assistance, to begin with. In a medical facility, like it or not, you will be treated as your sex, not your self-appointed gender.

Healthcare providers now have to deal with terms such as pregnant men or women with testicular cancer. The legal system might also have to deal with notions such as men who are vaginally raped or a biological mother claiming the legal status of the baby’s father, and vice-versa. Because it’s totally not unusual for your sperm-producing mother to impregnate your uterus-possessing father. That must just happen every day, everywhere, to warrant a generalised policy.

Of course it does happen – but these instances are so rare they cannot create a precedent for how millions of people are recorded in statistics.

Completely disregarding these differences leads to this dangerous type of situation, when a trans-female MMA fighter, possessing male physical abilities, was allowed to fight females born as such, who were obviously disadvantaged. Anyone seeing an average looking guy punching and kicking a woman in the street would be outraged; however, in this context, one has to pretend there is a difference in terms of the major discrepancy of force.

Why are cisgender women the only women that count in this statistic?

They are not. All women are given the same type of assistance and opportunities since they are born (varying from country to country of course, and in some countries those are minimal; it also varies according to class in some places, unfortunately). That’s because they are people and are equal to others by law. One cannot say those who later identify as a different gender are being discriminated against since birth and are thus oppressed by their initial “gender assignment”. Their decision to transition has nothing to do with the state or healthcare providers; it is theirs and theirs alone.

And while trans women may not be a huge percentage of the population, your movement is not for women if it doesn’t explicitly and intentionally include all women.

What is a woman though, if we were to compile progressive standards into a brand new definition? Well, it would have to sound like this.

A woman is a person born female or male, cisgender or transgender, displaying female or male physical characteristics, holding this status permanently or temporarily, according to self-identification.

And the exact same could be said for men, according to some. Who are these people representing then?

Let’s see here. Women are half the world. So men must make up the other half of the world. That’s 100%. So presumably, this includes everyone! Right?

No, it really doesn’t.

Biologically and legally, in most regards except gender-related terminology, YES.

Let me put it this way: you will not be drafted even if you cut your hair short and call yourself a man, if you are not one. And you will not be contacted for a prostate exam when the appropriate age comes, if you are a female “identifying as gender fluid”, or for a breast exam, if you “identify as androgynous” when you’re actually a guy.

Likewise, if you are, let’s say, “trigender”, you will not be given three different legal names to switch between on a whim – because you’re actually just one person.

Anytime we normalize a phrase that says there are only two genders, we’re erasing anyone and everyone who identifies differently.

People can call themselves what they like, but when it comes to practical implications, the environment they live in must be considered, as well as  their well-being. For instance, I can call myself a driver, but that won’t make the police treat me as one if I don’t have a licence. I could identify as elderly (yes, there is something called… trans-age, or something like that), but that won’t make me eligible for a pension. As a matter of fact, I can even identify as a dog and wear one of those fake tails, like the Otherkin, but that won’t mean I’ll be put into a van and taken to the kennel if I’m seen wandering the streets by myself.

Honestly, when I identified as a cisgender woman, I didn’t notice these issues, and the phrase felt empowering – it felt radical to claim our collective power as women!

There is no we and no collective power. If there were, human rights abuses against women in backward countries would not exist. And if they did, perhaps, at least, the perpetrators in some cases would not be female. Women oppress other women on a daily basis, if they are in a position to do so.

This mentality – that we are born female or male and there’s no in-between – is actually the source of a great deal of oppression and pain for intersex people.

That particular situation is an exception and advancements are being made (too late, true enough) to stop involuntary surgeries on children born with male and female genitalia.

However, that has nothing to do with how the rest of the children are identified at birth; one cannot say that when their sex is clear, their gender should remain uncertain “just in case” they later develop gender dysphoria. I know some people want this – just as some open nurseries where gendered language is forbidden.

The reality is that biological sex also exists on a spectrum

No, it doesn’t. An exception does not define the norm; that is like saying that because some people are born without an arm or a leg, the number of limbs on a human being is also on a spectrum.

I really despise the underlying message of “women are half the population” because it implicitly communicates to me that because my community isn’t as large, the fight for transgender rights is somehow less of a priority or less significant.

This typical infighting, jealousy and resentment, shows that the notion of “oppression Olympics” might be harsh but justified where some activists are concerned.

And finally, the cherry on the cake.

Here’s the thing: It’s important that when we build our movements, we create language that reflects our values. And if you take anything away from this article, it’s that we must be intentional about our words – because our words mean something.

We can do better than a lousy 50/50 percentage that lacks nuance. We can do better than a so-called “statistic” that erases people of marginalized gender and sex.

To go off on a tangent, as a concept, modifying facts according to values was also done by communist regimes. Not only did they ignore statistics; they used to make them up and present them to the population as real. Because those made-up statistics reflected their values.They wanted to live in a prosperous country, so they would simply call it that, even though the population was almost starving. They aimed for a certain agricultural production every season, so when the results did not match, they would simply change the numbers, which would make everyone feel better (well, except for the starving people, but hey, that was another matter).

There is a case to be made regarding intersex people, as their situation is different.

I’m still confused however regarding how certain progressives would define “woman” and “female” in the first place.





“You’re In My Space” – The Moral Power Trip

Is it even possible to watch a recording from a liberal protest without hearing these words directed at those who do not form part of the protesting group?

  • You’re taking up our space by being here.
  • This is not your space; if we ask, you should leave immediately.
  • You’re a guest in our space, even if you consider yourself an ally, so step back etc.
  • Be quiet and don’t pretend you’re one of us; this event is not intended for you.

As demonstrations usually take place on public property, often outdoors, and one cannot legally be barred from attending (or not easily anyway), why are social justice activists behaving as if they temporarily took ownership of any area they gather in and could expel any unwanted presence at will?

The thing is, when holding public events, a group is apparently trying to engage the community; it’s unproductive for no one aside from its members (and among them, only those with stamped opinions) to be allowed to actively participate, either as an interviewer, a dissenter or an “ally”.

Whereas it makes sense – regardless of the petulance – for them to try to silence opposing views, their attitude towards their allies is quite surprising and can only be explained through the arrogance of feeling in command of a group, movement, event etc, micromanaging everyone else’s involvement, down to which subjects can be approached and by whom.

Being an ally to these types looks more like community service, served by repentant, apologetic second-class people who can’t sit at the same table with the rest and must always be on their toes, awaiting education, directions and the permission to speak from group leaders. They are reformed offenders, oppressors by birth; they can never be fully trusted, let alone form brotherly bonds with the group. They are looked upon with a queasy coldness, sometimes a hint of pity, in the knowledge that they are trying to be less flawed but will never, ever get there.

Here are a few examples.

Although the quotes refer to a single type of event – in this case a positive one – the same rhetoric can be read and heard regarding a vast number of similar ones, whether celebratory or anger-fuelled.

Even if you’re the ally of the year, you’re entering Pride with a lot of privilege. Using that privilege thoughtfully is crucial — especially at a time when the threats of homophobia and transphobia are so apparent.

“The most important thing a straight ally can do is make sure they aren’t taking up space for LGBT people — especially in talking about and dealing with the tragedy in Orlando,” Fallarino says. (…) It’s a time when allies need to account for their unearned privilege, especially when entering our space. (…) If you can muster the bravery, call out hecklers so your LGBTQ friends and peers don’t have to.(…)Bottom line: Never be off of your ally grind — especially in a space where you are a guest.”

“Evaluate your behavior before deciding to attend Pride. Recognize that this space is the most comfort and celebration most LGBTQ people get all year. And we want you there — but only if you deserve to be.”

“We want you, as a thoughtful ally, to celebrate with us. But we also need you to accept that this celebration was not intended for you. This is a moment for the LGBTQ community, and by entering this space, it’s important to accept that your good time is secondary.”

“After all, that’s the main role of a straight ally at Pride and beyond — to lift up a community in celebration and solidarity, while helping clear space for us to be ourselves.”


The same attitude can be found here relating to anti-racist activism.

The single most important thing we can do to be better allies is to listen across difference. (…) The other side of the coin of listening is that we can always do a better job of stepping back, asserting ourselves less into spaces, and, in doing so, allowing those to whom we ally to speak their truths. (…)

Though being a better ally can mean that we must talk less, that doesn’t mean that we ought to be in total silence.

We surely need to defer to those with whom we are acting in solidarity, but we also want to make sure that we are not leaving those to whom we want to ally ourselves to be the only ones speaking. Thus, there are times we should be speaking up, times where we can amplify the voices of others with our collective perspectives. It’s just important to be sure we’re amplifying, not overshadowing.

This is unadulterated cult mentality, which applies to socialism. Allies, comrades, cult members all act as amplifiers of a collective perspective and are not permitted original ideas, as they detract from the “common work” and “overshadow” the knowledge of those who are supposed to hold the one true knowledge. They are only permitted to shut up, listen, learn and intervene when needed (when numbers are needed) as backing vocalists.

One thing that I constantly find is the SJW obsession with these “allies” joining them in order to obtain some form of notoriety; it comes up so often and rephrased in many ways. Citing from the same source:

One of the ways that we can step up more regularly is to fill in supportive roles. (…) Sometimes supportive roles are the most important ones for allies to fill, and while you definitely aren’t going to get credit for them, you shouldn’t expect credit for your work as an ally. (…) Allies should rarely be the center of attention in work for justice.

I’m not saying they should – but the tone is just unnecessary. It’s just nastiness after nastiness meant to ensure these people don’t step one inch out of place. Instead, as mentioned in the same article, they are supposed to put their lives or freedom in danger by participating in dodgy demonstrations which border on (or turn into) illegal behaviour.

The attitude is so estranged from normal human interaction, which entails connecting emotionally and intellectually, or some kind of warmth at least, between people who work together for a common cause. Or at least an ounce of niceness would do.

We at Another Round get TONS of questions from white people asking us how they can be better allies, and while we appreciate the drive to be better—people of color can’t be expected to be everyone’s diversity counselors. It’s an unfair burden. (source)

I have read quite a few opinion pieces written in an angry tone, on how POC don’t have to educate anyone, don’t owe anyone their time etc. In what context is it acceptable to demand support from others, to the point of claiming it is their duty to work with you, while treating them like smudges of dirt on your shoe?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying there’s any value in the white guilt indoctrination; its value can be seen from the attitude and violence it produces. I’m not saying anyone is better off delving into this radicalism. However, the bad attitude, which would put off even the most open of people, has to be pointed out.

Let me put it this way: you do not start a successful collaboration from a high horse, preemptively warning your would-be collaborators of any errors you think they might commit based on their presumed flaws of character. If somebody wants to work with you, it’s useful to show civility and at least not throw invented accusations at them. How would you like to be greeted by a new acquaintance in this manner?

Welcome; I’m glad you came. I’m sure we’ll enjoy our time together. But first off, I have to warn you not to shit on my carpet. This is your chair; if you sit anywhere else you’ll be out of here in two seconds. Also, DO NOT put your purse on this table. Now, would you like a cup of tea?

The proof that social justice activists see themselves as a pseudo-army resides not only in their aggressiveness but in this obsession for hierarchy, for lining up their little soldiers in orderly fashion, according to their “right” to speak and the value of their opinions.

And the little soldiers would do just about anything to become accepted by this crowd. There is a video on YouTube of Lauren Southern attempting to interview an “ally” of the transgender community, attending a demonstration. The ally would not give her own opinion in her own words, lest she overshadowed those who had a genuine right to speak. By this she was basically saying she was there to inflate the number of participants. Moments later, Lauren Southern was reprimanded for interviewing so many white males on this issue. Forget about being a person around these types – you are your gender, your skin colour, your social status etc.

And finally, everyone’s favourite acid trip, which is Everyday Feminism, explains why.

Know Your (Lack of a) Role: Honoring Healing Spaces as an Ally

You arrive at an awesome conference brimming with solidarity. Scanning through the program book, you spot the perfect workshop title, and you’re pumped for the conversation! Someone finally gets me!

Then! The italics below: “Closed to trans identified participants only.”POC only.” “For those who identify as women.”

Oof. The deep, gut-punch realization that even though you come with golden intentions and this potential conversation sounds safer than any you’ve encountered, this space isn’t for you.

Why can’t I join? Oppression also hurts me as an ally. Can’t we join together?

It sounds like you’ve come across a healing space.

I love the phrasing; it reminds me of nature programs. It sounds like you’ve come across a strange, rare animal you’ve never seen before.

It also reminds me of places of worship, submerged in religious dogma, where there are strict rules about who can enter, where to sit, what to wear and what to say.

It’s in these moments that we need to remember that being committed to a cause does not make us immune to perpetuating the problem. An ally taking up airtime in a healing space not only silences the voices of those directly experiencing oppression, but replicates the exact oppression we’re trying to address.

Which means an ally is also an oppressor, regardless of the good intentions.

Wait, are you advocating for segregation?

Segregation isn’t a choice. It’s forced removal. Segregation doesn’t challenge oppression – it strengthens it.

Actually, the definition of the word does not include state policies or any mention of force, merely describing it as the separation of one group from another.

Unlike healing spaces, safe spaces don’t require that someone share a particular identity. Safe spaces simply require members to be accountable for the influence of the power and privilege they carry. So healing spaces may also be safe spaces under those agreements. Or they may not. (…)

Asian Employee Group is a healing space marker because it indicates a choice on behalf of Asian employees to create community free from white supremacy. (…)Thus, the existence of this group challenges that status quo.

I’m sure referring to your employers and coworkers as “white supremacy” is conducive to a very relaxed, respectful working environment. And very realistic as well.

      (…)I sat and watched as they leaned in and their eyes lit up at meeting someone who shared their story – who not just knew of it, but felt it.

Inside, my mind swirled: Why aren’t they including me? Neither of them has even looked at me in 30 minutes. I want to participate in the conversation, too!

And yet: I don’t have anything to share. I don’t actually have this kind of ancestral understanding of my gender. In fact, my ancestors probably colonized their land.

I sat in silence and mourned the distance I felt given my lack of a shared identity.

But what would it have meant for me to step in and ask my friends to take care of my feelings? What might it have done to their stories?

The celebration and solidarity they had built might have been muddied or shifted focus.

Sorry to say, but ignoring someone for half an hour straight, after having set up a meeting with them, is dead rude. However high the intensity of the conversation, two people don’t just forget that a third one is sitting right beside them. But that’s OK apparently, because her ancestors must have colonised their ancestors’ land. Which pretty much excuses any level of rudeness today.

 I was privileged to witness this healing conversation between two new friends, a place free from the impact of the dominant group. To insert myself into the conversation would be to centralize my whiteness in a space that was reveling in its absence. Instead, my role was to step back.True solidarity means knowing that though we may experience oppression ourselves, we also can act in the role of the oppressor.

Reveling in its absence? So the conversation was not about gender, but about the absence of whiteness? All I see here is self-loathing, self-deprecation, to the point of accepting other people being uncivil and thinking that asking to be treated like a human being and not an accessory, to be used when needed, is “oppressive”.

The world has few healing spaces for marginalized identities.Systems of oppression set the context in which marginalized groups are kicked to the curb in favor of privileged or dominant groups.

The pinnacle of  irony is when a group voluntarily segregates itself, rejecting any intent of deeper interaction from the majority, and after that still calls itself marginalised by said majority.

As an ally, I know that my experiences with oppression do not give me access to all experiences of oppression or relieve me from responsibility for my privileged or dominant identities.

I’m interested in finding out how this plays out in one’s daily life. It seems that the same person who is otherwise a friend to those needing healing spaces, once they are in those spaces, is suddenly reduced to a “white person” and thus deserves less respect than in different environments. That is one odd way of approaching friendship.

And I honor that sometimes I can’t contribute shared experiences to the healing spaces of others because my own privileged or dominant identities contribute to their need for them.

Yes, yes, whites are nuclear waste. You’re personally responsible for any negative experience of the people you befriend and treat with consideration.

A queer women’s group has opened up at the LGBTQIA+ center. You’re new to town and want to find community. You identify as a trans man, but didn’t feel safe when you attended the queer men’s group. You wonder if maybe you could check it out.

Here’s a new one: apparently there are those who don’t feel safe even in safe spaces. A trans man who doesn’t feel safe around men, although he identifies as one. Because they have, you know, penises. And the trans man is well aware of possessing a vagina. And as we all know, a person with a vagina is meant to be afraid of a person with a penis, even if said penis has no reaction to vaginas whatsoever. And, you know, these safe spaces where people go to whine into a tissue are meant to be all about rape. Nice scenario.

What do you do?

Check in with yourself and the space. Is this space exclusive to those who identify as women? Or is it for those who somehow identify with a female gendered experience?

Identify what you are seeking from this space. Are you looking to discuss your experience being misgendered female? Or are you looking to socialize? These are different things that will differently impact the healing space.

Know thy self!

The last bit of advice is delightfully ironic, as there seems to be so much confusion not only regarding these spaces but in these people’s minds in general.Their identity and those of others seem to always get in the way of human interaction.

You’re with a group of straight friends, and they want to go dance at a gay bar. (…) Check in with yourself and your group: What are your intentions? Are you looking to dance or do some experiential learning? Is there any other way you could achieve those goals? If you do choose to go, minimize your impact on the space. Rolling 12-deep and loudly staking out the center of the dance floor is different from subtly participating in the existing culture of the bar.

Right. A bar of all places is where you go for an educational experience. It’s not like you can be around these people just to have a good time together; the only type of interaction you are permitted with them is one of quiet, respectful learning about how you oppress them. And if you do go to the bar, just sit awkwardly in a corner, because that makes others feel very comfortable around you. Feel and behave like the leper that you are.

And always remember – your personality doesn’t matter. All that matters is the little role the SJW hierarchy has put you in. Welcome to socialism; please leave your dignity at the door.







Leftist “Persuasion” Methods, From The Horse’s Mouth

Have you ever wondered how to reach a state of being able to live with yourself as a white or generally privileged person? It’s a tough one. But worry not; radical leftists have peppered the Internet with detailed instructions on what to think and feel, how to speak, how to behave and who you’re allowed to socialise with.

The articles quoted below give instructions on how to:

  • Cut family and friends out of your life for disagreements on social media;
  • Pester them until they cut you out of theirs, as an alternative;
  • Stop detractors from “harming” minorities by keeping their minds busy;
  • Pity them as fools and try to help them see the error in their ways;
  • Mob them in order to force them into acquiescence.

It’s very common these days to read articles which approach whiteness as some kind of degenerative disease which renders a person morally hopeless if not treated in good time.

Some of these articles are downright disturbing. They encourage – or even demand – that white people who aspire to be decent human beings should promote leftism to the point of cutting contact with all dissenting friends and family members over opinions on leftist activism.

There are guides on how to do it, which glorify this self-inflicted isolation as moral superiority. It is reminiscent of what Alan Watt often mentioned, regarding the Marxist push to completely isolate the individual by destroying bonds of loyalty and love, and only subordinating their mind to the state ideology.

To qualify for your contempt, your loved ones needn’t actually be racist; they only need to disagree with the methods militant organisations such as BLM employ and how they conduct themselves. Anyone who sees nuances in racial relations or disapproves of disruptive protesting is an intolerable bigot.The next phase might be advocating divorce over this stuff – seriously.

Let’s start with this article, which spells it out for us. It’s titled “The 7 stages of white people getting woke”. The most relevant paragraph is as follows:

Every woke white person eventually has to go through an exhaustive social media purge. (…) The random person from high school who’s always like, “Why doesn’t anyone care when a white person gets killed by the police?” Anyone who supports Donald Trump? Block. 

Ironically, whereas the psychological processes described in the list are internal and have no bearing on how society works, the only palpable result of this maniacal purge is alienation, resulting in a person only interacting with the echo chamber of like-minded radicals. The freshly groomed radical, much like a cult member, will now depend on an ideological group for all social needs, such as company, sharing thoughts and ideas etc. To be fair, the article only received criticism; however, this mentality is quite common.

A couple of comments are very relevant, pointing out the futility of the proposed method while simultaneously urging for action as opposed to mental wanking. Which means that one should not only support groups such as BLM by propagandising but actually participate in what they do. However obsessed the radical becomes with race relations, chances are they will encounter disdain from the very people they claim solidarity with, for still being a useless oppressor. Apparently, the only way to not be an oppressor is to join the front line (protesting, rioting etc). Otherwise, they oppress these people simply by existing, even if fanatically in accordance with their stance.

“Ally porn.
Misguided, misled and as miserably narcissistic as one could expect from a wp that uses the term “woke” to apply to the oppressor becoming comfortable with their privilege, and feeling validated as sociopathic cog in a murderous, antiBlack system.”

“If white people block racist white people instead of confronting them, they aren’t allies, they’re tourists. You want to make change,? Use your power as a white person to confront and try to change all those white people you want to block.” 

I would like to stress that even though this blocking caper seems effortless, it does entail cutting contact with actual people in your life, as opposed to simply erasing names from internet lists. This can lead to isolation.

Other militants for white guilt as a general concept (which should apply to every individual indiscriminately) argue an activist should manipulate reluctant relatives and friends into cutting contact instead, as to avoid appearing aggressive – by displaying such as obsession with the issue others will simply grow tired and cease the interaction.

Fill your social media posts with so much wise and unapologetic love and support for the struggles of people of color that your intractable white friends and family just can’t take it anymore.

They’ll either hide you from their feed or block you. Good riddance.

This is very twisted as it is phrased to give the impression that cutting contact is the actual purpose of the radical’s proselytism, as opposed to pursuing systemic changes. Which makes the whole endeavour look superficial and infantile.

Moreover, the article makes it clear that when attempting to change someone’s attitude, the activist should proceed with caution, witholding the automatically presumed disdain and masking it in an aura of compassion.

Imagine that within every oblivious white person is a racial justice ally waiting to come out. Invite in a little compassion for these white folks. 

You know they’re embarrassing themselves. You know they’re on the wrong side of history. It sucks to unknowingly say something ignorant or untrue or get stuck pigheadedly in a belief just because we’re afraid to entertain the truth.

The disdain becomes even more poignant further on.

Remember, every minute you spend engaging with a racially unaware white person is a minute they can’t spend antagonizing a person of color with their micro- and macro- aggressions.

By drawing hostile fire, you divert their energy away from expressing their frustrations in more harmful ways. And you exhaust them. And you might – slowly and imperceptibly – change their minds.

This somehow entails that antagonising minorities is the purpose of that person’s life, so that every minute of diverting their attention is an heroic act of stopping them from harming others. That’s what it comes down to in an SJW’s mind. 

No middle ground, no appreciation of that person’s character or an attempt to determine whether they are indeed racist or disagree on methods of activism, social policies etc. The person in front of the SJW is an aggressor, an inferior intellect who needs to be acted upon, diverted, manipulated and exhausted.

Another method of “persuasion” is silencing by mobbing.

Enlist Your Other Conscious White Friends

Have them engage with your commenters. Send them this article, tell them about your compassion strategy, privately message them, and ask them to step up for you on a trying comment thread.

Sometimes a second, third, or fourth voice can start to nudge a white person in the direction of greater logic and self-regulation.

There’s nothing like knowing other folks are paying attention and agreeing with the other side to elevate a conversation beyond name-calling.

Mobbing does not prove the validity of an argument; all it does is apply pressure by surrounding someone and bombarding them with an idea. It’s all about the number of like-minded people being mobilised at the same time into a discussion, to overwhelm a person or a smaller group. The direction of greater logic and self-regulation translates as backing off after being cornered, shamed or/and threatened.

There are numerous online resources to help conscious lefties deal with bigots in their families, as they take to the internet to seek guidance, unsure of how to behave. This is another example, involving someone who was agitated about his/her uncle making a supposedly racist comment online (referring to BLM, which means the comment could merely have been common sense), without inconveniencing him/ her on purpose. The advice given is predictable – to engage with the opinionated uncle and pester him with BLM propaganda.

A peace built on silence and censorship is a dumb peace – literally. And that peace is already broken as far as you are concerned, anyway, right? He broke it by saying something offensive and hurtful in public. That was his choice.

Now I have no idea what the guy actually wrote, it could have been bad indeed; the issue here is that he did not choose to break the peace with his niece or nephew, as the latter was not the recipient of said message. In fact, like every other person, he probably feels entitled to his opinion, which this article dismisses, suggesting that a leftie has every right to to try to dominate the speech and behaviour of everyone around them. They have to police, correct, persuade and even hassle, at all times. It’s fair enough to contradict someone if they make bigoted remarks in your presence, but hunting down their online activity as if it impacted you directly is a step too far.

The propagandist handbook is thick and intricate, and contains all the ingredients for fanaticism. When every person’s opinion becomes your business (or better yet, your crusade), the only one likely to end up being excluded is you.












“Homonormativity” – Progressives Going After Gay People Now

The ultimate proof that progressives are only after their ultimate goal – which is a socialist revolution – without caring a straw about the people they claim to stand up for resides in their spiteful attitude towards those who achieve social reforms and settle for them.

After decades of constantly pursuing rights for gay people, progressives have suddenly turned on them, as they too have become part of the “normality” the left so despises. In a way it makes sense, as nothing currently perceived as normal is acceptable to them.

This incredibly entitled article depicts non-heterosexuals as pawns in a larger chess game, with no agency or individual choices of their own.

Homonormativity explains how certain aspects of the queer community can perpetuate assumptions, values, and behaviors that hurt and marginalize many folks within this community, as well as those with whom the community should be working in solidarity. (…)

It also describes the assumption that queer people want to be a part of the dominant, mainstream, heterosexual culture, and the way in which our society rewards those who do so, identifying them as most worthy and deserving of visibility and rights.  

The author ignores the fact that sexual minorities are not homogenous groups, somehow programmed to make the same lifestyle choices, and almost attacks those who enjoy being part of the “dominant culture” (being monogamous, getting married, raising a family etc), which becomes even more blatant in subsequent paragraphs.

It is important to note that for many years, the advancement of gay rights has been based on the very idea that non-heterosexuals seeked this exact integration, as opposed to being discriminated against, either systemically or through social disapproval.

By dismissing its validity, the author basicly affirms what certain traditionalist activists have argued all along – that the entire movement was based on some Folsom Street Fair culture (do not click if prone to vomiting), which is apparently not the case as it has given rights to regular people seeking to get on with their lives. Where progressives are concerned, however, it seems they have always interpreted this campaign as a way to open the gates for all proclivities formerly deemed unacceptable.

Their focus was not on obtaining rights and visibility for those who wanted normal lives (I’ll use normal for lack of a better word). For all progressives care, now that they have abandoned the radical bandwagon, these people can go fuck themselves, as they are contributing to the oppression of others simply by existing in the way they have chosen.

As social attitudes change around queer relationships, we’re seeing more representations of queer people in the media, though this representation is incredibly limited.

Turn on the TV or flip through a magazine – for each of the few times that you’ll see a queer person, they’ll more than likely be a cisgender, gender-normative, White, middle class, gay-identifying person.

My interaction with the mainstream media is non-existent so I don’t have a clue whether that is true or not; I can however assume, through mere logic, that exposure in certain environments depends on the context. In other words, their exposure might have nothing to do with their sexual orientation but other aspects altogether. But as expected, progressives see them not as individuals but as ambassadors, who must present a desired image (an image chosen by the so-called community). At present, this image doesn not seem to include undesirable traits such as being “cis”, white or not confused about their gender.

What is more, no group out there today, in the western world anyway, can complain of the lack of a platform to share their experiences, as they can build their own visibility on social media.

This is not some inocuous demand for diversity, but a description of how the image of real life people who happen to have these traits while being gay at the same time is hurting the community. And here’s why.

(…) the voices that are given space and visibility tend to be those of a particular class, of a particular gender expression, and of a particular race.

The kinds of queer relationships we see represented in the media are also limiting, in that they tend to mimic heteronormative binary gender expressions.

Which is, of course, wrong, as the author puts it.

Fighting for sexual liberation and equality is, of course, so much more than fighting for the right to marry, but how is the positioning of marriage equality as the major issue also promoting homonormativity?

Marriage as an issue sets up the requirement that all relationships should mimic this heteronormative standard of sexuality and family structure. It promotes the idea that all people want to emulate straight monogamous couples.

Well, some queer people must have wanted this to happen, or else they wouldn’t have campaigned for it for so long. Which means some of them genuinely embrace this type of life – spiting progressives who want it out the window to the detriment of everyone else – including them.

When we focus only on this issue, we exclude polyamorous and other non-normative relationship structures as acceptable, as well as, of course, those who don’t want to get married.

Even as marriage becomes inclusive of a particular kind of queer relationship, it perpetuates a policing of other kinds of relationships, maintaining the borderline of what is an “acceptable queer relationship.”

Perhaps because they’re not acceptable to just anybody, be they straight or not? Perhaps because there are biological reasons why monogamy is more viable and free-for-all arrangements tend to result in offspring of uncertain paternity, who might face some trouble due to their nebulous origins?

The link will take you to an expose on the ills of marriage, which is, apparently, a tool of oppression, even of those who want it.

By showing that people outside of the heterosexual norm want the same things that “traditional, straight America” wants, themarriage equality movement fights to gain access to this social institution by reproducing, rather than challenging, heterosexual dominance and normativity andusing this as a basis for who deserves rights.

Perhaps the stated goals, which were attained, had nothing to do with “challenging heterosexual normativity”? Maybe, just maybe, some people don’t want to push the envelope every time they gain a right or privilege.

Furthermore, some have committed the ultimate sin of letting their political views lean towards the right – unpardonable indeed, since progressives assume people of a different sexual orientation than the majority should all think the same way in terms of politics, through some biological determinism, probably.

The term homonationalism takes the concept of homonormativity one step further to refer to the way in which queer people — largely White, Western gay men — have aligned with nationalist ideologies of their countries.

While homonormativity describes the alignment of queer people, spaces, and struggles with heterosexual cultural norms, homonationalism describes this alignment within the nation-state, through patriotism, nationalism, and support for a nation’s military and other forms of state violence.

This is not surprising from a Marxist (internationalist) point of view; however, trying to paint patriotism (a dirty word nowadays) as a betrayal of one’s queer activism is laughable; the issues are unrelated, to anyone with half a brain.

Isn’t it strange how they try to control every facet of someone’s personality, by guilting them into thinking it’s not in line with the values they are supposed to espouse?

This is from another article on roughly the same topic:

Marriage was originally constructed to transfer property ownership across generations (especially for white people). Maintaining that married families are superior to other formations, like single parent households, has been key to demonizing low-income black people.

Actually, arguing that single parent households are just as easy to manage is belittling the difficulties single parents face on a daily basis and denying the proven reality that two parents (and ideally an extended family) provide more stability. Far from engaging in any religious puritanism, which sets fixed guidelines for how these families should be, one cannot deny this reality.

Back to the original article:

Some examples include (…) the infuriating participation of White queer people in the denial of their position of privilege and complicity in the current discourse around police violence against Black communities.

(…)And it’s important for us to remember our history: The queer right’s movement’s beginningswere based in a radical politics that consistently challenged corporate capitalism, the military, and the heteronormative structure of marriage.

It is by honoring this legacy of radical politics and prioritizing the needs and voices of those most marginalized that we can truly work toward greater sexual and gender liberation and equality.

And it’s also important to note that the success of said movement was mainly due to a diligent PR campain which detached it from the aspects and purposes progressives are pushing for now. For years, the “hidden goals” of the “gay agenda” were laughed off as conspiratorial nonsense religious fanatics were using as scare tactics. And obviously, it was wrong to paint all gay people with the same brush, just like it’s wrong now for radical leftists to question whether the rights they obtained were actually beneficial. While the right wing argued they didn’t really want marriage, the left now argues they shouldn’t have wanted it.

Instead of the wishes of individuals mattering, it was (and still is) all about political groups and their attempt to micromanage everyone, down to very personal decisions.

The first thing an outsider needs to understand about leftist groups is that they are plagued with infighting, and plenty of it. Far from collaborating peacefully towards a common goal, factions battle each other for oppression points, which leads to a dysfunctionality they are trying to inflict on the rest of society. The success of one faction can bring about not only the envy but the actual disdain of another – that’s how no matter what is achieved, an issue will never be considered resolved in the progressive camp.




“Building A Consent Castle” – Parody-Like, Creepy Feminist Guide

This Metaphor for Consent Might Be Just the Thing You Need to Make It Click

Trying to decide what is creepiest about this comic is a bit difficult. The presumptuousness of humans needing help to understand how not to rape (that’s what I get from someone’s attempt to explain consent to me), the otherworldly ideas or the way the text is formulated.

It is evocative of a parody as it seems so derisory, infantilising and exaggerated all throughout you’d think its purpose was to generate an awkward laugh. Unfortunately, it seems this person just might be serious.

Gear up to build the Consent Castle! It’s an awesome metaphor for how to establish consent before and during intimacy – and how to change the negotiation terms as you build a relationship.

We hope this can give you and the people you share it with a solid foundation for fun, healthy, and mutually satisfying intimate relationships.

I was managing just fine until present day, thank you, like most people who are not psychos or severely mentally impaired as to not automatically discern when consent is present or not.

My partner and I give workshops on consent. We talk a lot about consent activities – things to think about and things you can talk about to establish consent before and during intimacy.

Again, our species seemed to be managing just fine without tutorials. There’s something called a brain which provides us with enough skills to decode the signals received from others; humans generally don’t need an instructions manual.

Then comes a list of boxes to tick:

  • Talking
  • Texts
  • E-mails
  • Checking in before
  • Checking in during
  • Checking in after
  • Touch
  • Body language
  • Sharing fantasies
  • Setting boundaries and limits
  • Safe words
  • Power dynamics
  • Drug and alcohol use
  • Emotional and mental state
  • Triggers

Obviously, it reads like a list of steps to complete a project, mechanically and meticulously. Which is the opposite of passion and spur-of the-moment decisions, often involved when two people become intimate. It might come in handy to non-humans wanting to live on Earth in disguise, after doing some studying. But not much else.

Social justice warriors don’t seem to get the difference between intimacy, largely based on instincts and intuition, and bureaucracy, which is all about ticking boxes on a piece of paper.This behaviour is highly unnatural. If anything, this objectifies others, as opposed to the natural way people behave.

Consent isn’t a checkbox. And it isn’t just a legal entity.

That’s funny enough after listing all mandatory aspects to be discussed.

You’ve met someone awesome and you decide to build a castle together/ plan some sexy times. You’ll probably talk about what you want and what you don’t want.

This is followed by a parallel between the so-called castle building and organising the “play date” – I choose this specific language as the whole thing, although addressing people who are over 18, infantilises them to the point of insult. There is no need to make such allegories when approaching an adult theme.

And, the author should have considered the implications of “probably” when listing imagined conversations which are off this planet in most cases, between people who have recently met and are trying to get to know each other (and are of course represented in the images as genderless so one can’t really tell what’s going on there).

    “I’d really love to give you a blow job.”

“I’m not really into getting oral, but I love giving it.”

I’m not sure what happens where the creator of this wonderful comic lives, but in a lot of places that would not be a starting conversation between people who barely know each other. Unless a lot of alcohol consumption was involved. And I mean a lot. And for most people, not even then. These things are rarely discussed in such a blunt manner but rather happen as matters evolve. Having this sort of conversation, especially in a public place, where strangers generally meet, would be very inappropriate, to say the least. I would not recommend trying to “earn” someone’s consent by outright offering them oral. However, this is not the creepiest suggestion by far.

      You might even draw up some diagrams…

“So, I was thinking about…”

“Ooooh! That looks neat!”

The text is on an image of an individual holding a piece of paper where they’d drawn what the act would look like, showing it to the other person, with arrows pointing to certain body parts.

Who does that? Who the hell does that? 

That’s like drawing a sketch of building a machine, indicating where every part should go.

It’s even weirder than showing someone porn or the Kama Sutra and asking them to imitate what they see. Actually giving someone personalised, illustrated instructions of what to do with you?

      And it’s a good idea to check in to see how it’s going.

“How does this feel? Is this okay?”

I don’t know why, as the questions are innocuous in and of themselves, I get a strange vibe when reading that correlated with consent. It indicates a certain power dynamic and is a bit suggestive of manipulation – perhaps an older person trying to talk a much younger person through a sex act they’d never experienced. It’s the whole idea of “checking in” to make sure one isn’t doing anything the other might perceive as wrong (maybe because it is wrong?), and is calculatedly asking questions to feel safe in that sense. Maybe I’m exaggerating but that’s the feeling I get.

        The point is, when you’re building something with someone, you           usually start out by being really careful.

Like offering them oral when you hardly know them.

The great thing about consent castles is that they are always works in progress. You may need to do some maintenance.

“I’ve been feeling really self-conscious about my body during sex lately.”

“OK. Can I help with those feelings?”

“I think… I think I’d like to try using a strap-on with you.”

“That might be fun! What does that look like for you?”

I’ll tell you what it looks like to me.

The article is clearly not written for heterosexuals, though apparently it addresses everyone, and seeks to convince that this is the way most people actually behave. The person wanting to use that type of thing is clearly not male, and heterosexual men (who are the majority by the way) generally do not enjoy being fucked up the ass with a toy by their girlfriends or wives.

In fact, on the website this is published on, it’s very difficult to find an author who is not part of a minority based on “gender” or sexual orientation. And yet they claim to understand the psyche of the average individual and proselytise about how things should be in everyone else’s lives. They clearly have little understanding of that.

After a quick reinforcement of why negotiating sex with someone is always necessary and positive, the finale is an image of a construction worker in lingerie holding yet another sketch of two people and some instructions on what to do.

“So gear up! Because this is going to be a lot of fun!”

Fucking creepy.

Utterly creepy.

This is what “education” is coming down to nowadays.



SJWs, “Gaslighted” By Common Sense

Although 99.9% of articles written by (and for) social justice crusaders are off this planet, some manage to take reason into an even deeper black hole, never to be recovered again.

This is one of them. “Six unhelpful comments that gaslight people in conversations about social justice.” Leaving aside the nonsensical notion of unintentional gaslighting, which appears later in the article, the piece proves beyond doubt that SJWs are allergic to debate and to being questioned.

This would be a summary:

The result of this repeated questioning and doubting is that people start feeling like their observations of their oppression are wrong, they don’t have the right to talk about it, and it’s not real. (…)

Even if it feels like you’re just playing the devil’s advocate, providing food for thought, or helping people understand the other side, what seems like friendly debate to you can be deeply hurtful to someone else.

So, instead of invalidating someone’s experiences, thank them for teaching you. That can take a lot of mental and emotional energy.

And let them know you believe them. That’s something people who talk about their oppression unfortunately don’t hear enough.

That’s right. If anybody claims oppression, it must be real and your duty is to believe every word they say, in spite of any objection your brain matter or instincts might raise.

What seems like a friendly debate to you could just be a callous put-down and mockery, able to cause someone actual trauma. You’re so stupid you have no awareness of your own tone, vocabulary and manners; you can’t possibly determine the dynamics of this discussion with the judgement you use in your everyday life.

So you’d better shut up and thank them for teaching you, like the brainwashed little cultist that you are, because they are correct by default and whatever they say goes.

“This is a first world problem”

“How can you talk about microaggressions when girls in the Middle East are killed for trying to get an education?”

“Eating disorders are a first-world problem. Some people don’t even have food.”

This argument frequently comes up when people talk about issues faced by relatively privileged groups. It can have racist undertones, since the people with “real problems” are often from a different culture that the speaker doesn’t really understand.

There’s nothing racist about mentioning human rights abuses and the barbaric treatment some people face in other parts of the world. A different culture that the speaker doesn’t really understand can be subject to criticism regardless. I don’t need to “understand” why women are being stoned to death in order to know it’s horrific and undeserved. But for lack of better arguments, let’s just throw racism in to shut people up.

There is no logical comparison between eating disorders, which can cause serious health problems or even death, and are proper medical conditions, and the perceived microaggressions which twist a word or look or any minutia into a serious act of oppression.

Since we’re on this subject, here are a few relevant headlines from the same website, covering “issues” I’m sure would never occur to anyone with a real disadvantage in life (I’m not putting even more of their links here but you can find them by using the search bar):

  • “Why these toys need a body image make-over”
  • “Where are you from? How a seemingly innocent question is racist”
  • “5 ways to avoid sexism in your kid’s Halloween costumes”
  • “How to explore your gender when you’re a person who was assigned male at birth”

Adding to that numerous exposes of how you oppress others by eating foreign dishes without knowing the culture you’re “borrowing” from and so forth. These “problems” are not only demoted by tragedies from abroad but also by any other real issue anyone can come across.

It’s also dangerous because it implies that we should be grateful for being less oppressed than some people, rather than demand not to be oppressed at all.

No, it’s simply stating a fact. Prioritisation is a matter of mere logic. You don’t scream for medical attention for a scratch while someone next to you needs CPR. Whatever these middle class feminists claim to be enduring is not nearly as serious as facing beatings, maimings, executions or imprisonment for idiotic reasons. That is fact and mentioning it, whilst uncomfortable, is no less true.

As a woman, a person of color, or another member of an oppressed group, it’s easy to feel lucky when a man doesn’t rape you or a white person listens to you or anyone treats you like a human being.

This almost sounds like people of colour are being treated awfully in the western world, which is generally multicultural and has been for decades (if not centuries in some places) as to be grateful “when a white person listens to them”. It’s easy to feel lucky when a man doesn’t rape you? Do you expect every man to potentially do so, every day?

But as Susan B. Antony said, “Our [j]ob is not to make young women grateful. It is to make them ungrateful so they keep going. Gratitude never radicalized anybody.”

Pardon me again but since when is radicalisation anything to aspire to, as opposed to measured and rational thinking? What good has ever come out of extremism lately? Or ever?

Knowing that some people get third-degree burns doesn’t make first-degree burns hurt less. And bringing up more severe injuries is totally inappropriate when someone needs medical attention.

When is a crucial word here. Fortunately, no medical attention is needed by these activists – although some people might disagree! – but simply attention. Turning every displeasure into an injury to your psyche is not in itself healthy.

“We all bleed the same color” 

Feminism and other social justice movements are sometimes accused of being divisive, as if the divisions they’re calling attention to didn’t already exist. (…)

But here’s the thing: For a long time, people haven’t acknowledged that we’re all human and that commonalities between groups are stronger than the differences. And as a consequence, different groups of people have different experiences.

For a long time. Human history has indeed been long, filled with bloodshed and intolerance. But by and large, they do acknowledge that now – so why the hell sabotage that concept, so long fought for? Why emphasise the differences when at last there is a better way on the horizon? What makes SJWs better – or different – than the average skinhead, who is obsessed with these differences and cannot look past them?

Once, a man told me he understood what it was like to self-objectify because he often worried about how professional he looked. When I tried to explain that I was talking about something entirely different, he claimed that we’re all humans, so we should be able to understand one another’s emotions.

“Pain is pain,” his friend agreed.

But there are many different kinds of pain. And if it seems to you like a distinct form of pain someone else describes does not actually exist, maybe that’s because you’re too privileged to have experienced it.

The last paragraph is a fine example of projection. The man in question was not refusing to acknowledge the author’s experience but merely adding to the conversation by describing his own, albeit different. The author could not stand the focus being shifted or someone perceiving these internal struggles as similar.

I have a question – why insist on describing an experience or a feeling to someone you think is incapable of relating to it? It seems attempts to understand it by comparison are met with a door slammed in the face. It’s like saying you will never ever understand me, so just shut up and listen to me instead, just for the sake of it; any comments you make should be a direct recitation from my words; anything else is unacceptable.

 “Don’t let it get to you”

But even if we were all robots who could decide not to mind when others mistreated us, that wouldn’t change the fact that they were mistreating us. It would just make us really good at handling mistreatment.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news when real (but not systemic) mistreatment is involved: you will never change an asshole. What you can do is get away from them and find a different environment. There is no way to escape nastiness completely, unless you live in self-imposed isolation. Assholes will be assholes and no amount of coercion to behave differently will have an impact on them (aside from making them covert and devious, which also makes them more dangerous). The only impact the PC brigade is having is on innocent people targeted for unintended trifles or differences of opinion, such as opposing this trend.

Political correctness is really just being a good person. By making it sound like some formal code of conduct, people demonize basic efforts to make others feel comfortable and included.

To members of a privileged group, expectations like using gender-inclusive language and avoiding ableist expressions can feel like arbitrary rules. But for the people personally affected by political incorrectness, this behavior makes a huge difference.

Sorry to be a bad person, but you’re not going to shove down my throat language which was literally invented yesterday to please groups of the same recent formation, of which some are merely trends. I’m not going to learn a whole dictionary of 300 gender identities, 20 preferred pronouns and 50 different types of sexual preferences. You’re not going to turn my entire life into a tireless, neurotic attempt to not offend anyone around me, which is impossible anyway.

Even if we don’t fully understand how certain ways of speaking or acting affect groups we don’t belong to, it takes very little out of us when we accommodate them, while it takes a lot out of them when we don’t.

To those who have lost their jobs or have been fined or imprisoned for not being PC, I believe this is a far more serious and dangerous matter than just “being nice”. And when something is demanded in such a radical, poisonous and intolerant way, you can be sure that most will either reject it or claim to embrace it out of fear, which will in turn cause seething hatred for the groups making these demands, whether they are at fault or simply being used by Marxist radicals. Either way, nothing good comes out of it. I doubt those people would rather be secretly hated or feared than hearing the “wrong pronouns” beings used when others refer to them.

Political correctness isn’t hurting anyone. Political incorrectness is. No brainer. Next.

Political correctness gets capable people fired, gets innocent people treated as criminals and puts society into a state of paranoia. No brain. Next.

But sometimes, we’re not trying to attract positivity into our lives. Social injustice isn’t about individual lives. And we won’t get rid of it by doing yoga or taking baths or doing whatever people suggest with this advice.

Being positive doesn’t help when there are issues that need addressing.

Nope. Being negative every second of your life, about everything you or others experience, is entirely healthy and realistic; so is the goal of not resting until you solve every problem on this planet, down to petty nastiness, real or imagined (irony intended).

Maybe the rest of society just doesn’t want to become this.

Maybe others do care about their own wellbeing, refuse to soak themselves in your constant negativity and aggressiveness.

It’s funny how SJWs (feminists in particular) always extrapolate their feelings to exemplify worldwide issues, and then claim their fight is not about individual lives but something far greater. When their grievances are related to very personal experiences and all of a sudden they are forms oppression many are suffering from daily.

We’re allowed to feel what we feel, and we shouldn’t have to hide or mute our feelings just to reward someone for meaning well.

You don’t have to reward anyone. But you can leave them the hell alone.

On that note, people who say these things don’t always intend to gaslight. They’re often just operating off a false idea of what the other person wants.

No rational person knows what social justice warriors actually want. One day they complain about racism, the next day they invent cultural appropriation to make sure groups become voluntarily segregated. One day they claim they are vulnerable, the next day they complain others are treating them as weak and thus disrespecting them. One day they want “allies”, the next day they turn on them for “benevolent” this-and-that, when they get the unnatural praises they had asked for.

There is no way to please them. End of story.

Disgusting Cult-like Training: “I Am A Racist”

For anyone who still doubts there is actual brainwashing going on by the “progressive” left – have a look at this. It’s a step-by-step guide on how to realise you are a racist, as it appears that if you’re “privileged” enough to be born white, you are one by default.

It involves repeating mantras inside your head until you finally crack and label yourself as such, even if you’d never thought you were one your entire life. Repeat to yourself enough that you are guilty and you will eventually end up believing it.

First, there is the prepping.

So cut yourself some slack if you have internalized racist ideas. It doesn’t mean you are bad; it means you watched Peter Pan as a kid (or the thousands of other biased films and television shows). It means you were likely raised by folks who too fled racism.

Then repeat the following:

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

“I can internalize racist beliefs and still be a good person.”

And that statement can be true, as long as you complete this next step.

Notice at first the article seems to address those who knowingly have internalised racist ideas; however, the next step, titled “unearth your racism and challenge it”, proves it also addresses those who have never associated themselves with this notion. So basically this is for everyone.

Most of our racial biases go unnoticed. There’s even a name for them: Implicit biases, which can be defined as the “thoughts about people you didn’t know you had.”

Remember that smog? It means our bodies are full of polluted thoughts. Even mine. Even yours.

But you are never going to unearth these biases until you finally pick up the shovel. In other words, it takes work – deliberate and sustained effort.

You must actively bring your implicit biases to the surface. (There’s even a test for them here!) You must actively challenge the stereotypes you have internalized (which generally don’t hold up). You must actively learn about microaggressions and cultural appropriation so that you aren’t perpetrating them.

Do the work, and you won’t be able to help but repeat the inevitable:

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

“I am racist.”

To start with, I do not believe in the concept of a self-deprecating genuine racist; it’s a contradictory notion. Not only are these people full of themselves enough to believe they are genetically superior to millions or billions of others; they are also angry and have destructive aspirations. This article clearly does not address them.

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a racist who doesn’t identify himself/herself as such. You cannot hold extreme views and not be aware of it; it’s nonsensical.

This is a brainwashing endeavour seeking to convince everyone that if they look hard enough, they will find the bigot within, repent and be saved, much like sin is treated by religions by examining one’s every thought and feeling.

Like religious leaders, they claim to be inside your head, to know you better than you know yourself, seeking to bring you on the right path.

The point is: Racism is bigger than one person; it’s not about you.

At the same time – and I don’t think this is stressed enough – individuals make up systems.

White individuals can become cashiers who make the checkout line an unpleasant experience for shoppers of Color. White individuals can become teachers who don’t recognize the brilliance of their students of Color. White individuals will invariably make up many hiring committees, holding the keys that open the doors to upward mobility.

Thus, it’s crucial to analyze how the individual interacts with and connects to the institution.

All of this is redundant considering the fact that the addressee in this case is not even aware of having racial biases, thus having to fish for them in the abyss of their subconscious mind – never mind being an overt racist likely to cause trouble to others in the form of hiring discrimination or “unpleasant experiences”, whatever that means.

If it’s not about me, then leave me the fuck alone, why don’t you. Except it is aimed at every single individual who can be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of something they never took part in.

Of course, there is a reason to all this besides causing needless mortification.

Dismantling these systems will require action. Awareness and education are certainly part of the process but, alone, they are not enough.

Once this imaginary guilt is established, the fun part comes – enrollment in their social justice activism, to wash away the sin that was never committed. They want to inflate their numbers by pulling at the heartstrings of gullible strangers to help them “change the world”. Just like a good old-fashioned cult.

Racial injustice infects pretty much every facet of our world.

This fact can be overwhelming, but it also makes it relatively easy to find a struggle to join. Maybe it’s at your workplace, in your child’s school, in front of your computer, or on the streets during rush hour. 

There is no shortage of ways to act. In fact, in a search engine of your choice, type the words “White people fight racism” and you will find endless articles with ideas (many of which are compiled here).

It’s quite something when the people behind a movement (an intended Marxist revolution in this case) manage to convince the masses to join them not on the basis of hope and positivity but to redeem themselves as human beings.

The Rich And Spoilt Suffering Over The Gender Binary

Welcome to the pit of gender confusion, where you can drift as far away from reality as your brain cells will allow you before they eventually disintegrate. Presumably, this happens because every atom in your body becomes disoriented, forgetting its natural purpose and refusing to function as it was designed to.

To start with, this is a list of all genders invented so far, which someone took the trouble (and I suspect the headache) to compile. What started as a slight nuancing of male and female stereotypes has morphed into a giant octopus with hundreds of tentacles. The letter A alone encompasses no less than 46 “gender identities”.

Here is a fragment selected at random:

  • Canisgender– A small, doglike gender.
  • Caprigender– A capricious, rapidly changing/untrackable gender.
  • Carmigender– A gender which is poetic and rhythmic in nature.
  • Cassflux– When your level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates.
  • Cassgender– Feeling as if the very concept of gender is unimportant to you.
  • Caveagender–  Having a “trapped” or “imprisoned” gender.
  • Cavusgender– For people with depression. You feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed. The gender felt whilst depressed can be attached as a suffix (eg cavusboy, cavusgirl, cavusnonbinary, cavusace).
  • Chaosgender– When your gender does a lot of things that have no identifiable pattern or logic.
  • Cheiragender– A fluid gender that is always or often in opposition to its owner’s desires, or is manipulative towards its owner. 

You might wonder what arguments anyone could bring in favour of this bad acid trip.

Well, there is a very interesting depiction here, in the form of a cartoon, seemingly aimed at pre-school children considering the level of intelligence the artist presumes any reader must have. The text itself is quite funny, in a … dark sort of way. It’s called “The ultimate breakdown of the gender binary – why it hurts us all.” For an ultimate breakdown, in terms of depth, it reads like something scribbled down in a train station toilet stall, in a hurry.

Suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two animals: dogs and cats. We’d have to sort completely different animals into two camps! Silly, isn’t it?

On a side note, suppose we grew up “knowing” there were only two types of people: progressives, who possess the ultimate truth and morality (backed up by absolutely no empirical evidence), and the evil rest. We’d have to sort completely different individuals into two camps! Insane, isn’t it?

But that’s what we’ve done with gender!

Except we haven’t. Mother nature has, or whatever you want to call it. The differentiation between sex and gender is a new phenomenon, without which the human species has evolved and thrived since its earliest days. They used to be synonymous; what we have done is redefine the term “gender”. In other words, we turned a word recogising reality into one attempting to reinvent it. This attempt however cannot and will not change reality; not now, not ever. Nature doesn’t operate with abstractions; only humans do.

We do this for rather arbitrary reasons.

Yes; studying and documenting the human body, down to brain chemistry and the way both sexes are affected by it, has always been an arbitrary, futile practice. That’s how we ended up with this international cohort of eccentrics known as doctors, whose utility we only remember when convenient.

The most common argument is that our genitals correspond to our gender.

As mentioned earlier, gender and sex used to be synonymous. One’s genitals correspond to their sex (though they’re trying to demolish that as well now), hence, until recently, they implicitly corresponded to their gender. In this  new understanding, gender is indeed a social construct, now detached from biological reality.

We value the physical… over the abstract.

I hate to break it to you but that’s how living beings survive on this planet, at the very basic level. They tend to worry about preserving the physical first, so they would have the opportunity to delve into that fascinating world of ideas and thought systems. For instance by acknowledging their anatomy and the way their bodies work. An otherkin may well think they are an eagle, but would normally know that attempting to fly from a rooftop would be a poorly inspired idea. That is how some people who identify as trans still refuse to mutilate themselves through irreversible operations; it must be the survival instinct inside of them.

This all made sense when I was a child. After all…

And here come some bullying remarks the child makes towards others for being disabled, fat, homeless and short. Therefore, this comparison associates the general acception of sex and gender with an underdeveloped intelect, lack of sufficient education and a lacking ability to empathise – you know, in most people across the planet, all aside from the illumined progressive bunch. Which would be quite insulting, if it could be taken seriously.

As a kid, I was proud to state all the things I knew were “true”… But as I aged, I realised my understanding had an impact on those around me!

The thing is, the weaknesses noticed by young bullies are usually objective observations that they use to their best advantage (much like sharks drawn to blood in the water). What they lack is wisdom and kindness; however, it does not mean they are unable,100%, to discern reality from fiction.

My values evolved! And yet, most people are still stuck on “gender”.We get ideas about gender. And somehow, they remain stagnant! “I’m a man cuz I can go pee standing up!”

This person’s values may have evolved in terms of feeling compassion and having a different attitude towards those he used to bully – however, values are not meant to distort someone’s perception until they start seeing what isn’t there as real (such as the ever-expanding gender list).

The general acception of what is and isn’t real (aside from spiritual beliefs, which are by default subjective) tends to only change when indisputable discoveries are made about the world. Therefore, there is no need to constantly question the fact that we use our eyes to see and our feet to walk – just as there is no need to re-evaluate male and female genitalia and associated traits.

“This has led to an entire planet… full of people suffering over outdated ideas.”

Perhaps I’m wrong but I doubt the Tumblr crowd ammounts to an entire planet. Across the world, people suffer for a multitude of reasons: war, famine, diseases, poverty, persecution, impairment, the loss of loved ones etc. If a primary cause of suffering was the  antiquated gender binary, that would make one rich, spoilt and secure world. Which it isn’t. This “suffering” is a whim of an immature segment of prosperous societies.

You can tell a lot about a person’s difficulties judging by their priorities. When your house has just burned down you don’t stress over missing a film on television later that night. The more shallow and capricious people are in their grievances, the more obvious it becomes that they don’t have serious problems to worry about.

We have boys who aren’t boyish enough, girls not girlish enough, boys who are too boyish, girls who are too girlish. And they all grow up with serious problems! They’re all victims!

That’s because no individual is spared bullying in this wonderful human tribe; many people seek to raise their self-esteem in the lowest way possible, by exploiting the weaknesses of others and feeling better by comparison. Everyone has issues, unpleasant memories and a string of embarrassing events throughout life. You cannot be good enough to avoid being taunted or rejected by one group or another. Someone, somewhere will take a dislike to you and express it; if you want to avoid that you might as well hide in a crypt . Social adversity is part of being human.

In this mindset, we would all, down to the last human being, be considered victims who victimise each other on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, us queer people catch hell just for being queer! If people aren’t going out of their way to harm us? Then we tend to harm ourselves. And it’s all because of this silly, antiquated, dangerous, shallow gender binary!

Hold on a second here. You can’t just include, under the “queer” umbrella, people who genuinely are homosexual or suffer from gender dysphoria and the adepts of made-up concepts such as the one below, randomly chosen from a list of hundreds:

Cendgender– When your gender changes between one gender and its polar opposite, OR a gender that can be summed up as an unidentifiable thing which manifests as hundreds of different genders or none at all at any given time, at the same time and/or separately, fluid, and ever changing.

Gay people were (and are) persecuted for religious reasons, not because of the gender binary, as left by nature and detailed by millennia of studying the human anatomy. As for the Tumblr snowflakes, you cannot talk about the persecution of categories which aren’t even valid; they were literally dreamt up yesterday by people with way too much time on their hands.

It’s time to try something new. Lets’ put the gender binary where it belongs (in the bin). Let’s express our gender as we please.

And in the process, force others to reconsider their idea of gender. Why not; let’s try something new; it sounds as easy as changing your brand of washing up liquid. Let’s just tear down our civilisation, rebuild it according to this new idea and see what happens.

Is maintaining the gender binary sustainable? Because I don’t think it is!

It’s not like it’s been in place since humans started walking this planet. Suddenly, it’s no longer sustainable. For the feelings of special snowflakes that is. As our species seems to keep advancing, at least technologically, without any hindrance caused by the gender binary monster.

What we’re doing now sure isn’t working for me!

And that’s why the entire world needs to change. Totally reasonable.

Has it done YOU any favours?

This is so funny as an argument that I don’t think it needs any comments.

I’d also like to point out a friendly nudge from the editors of Everyday Feminism, which is very relevant.

How do you defy traditional gender norms?

In other words, from a simple individual preference, defying the gender norms has become some sort of political statement or even social obligation we should all partake in.

Nice try.

Celebrities’ Opinions – Why They Can Shove Them


Right up their most marketable body part.

It is often said that opinions are like assholes – everybody’s got one. And they are more than entitled to it, as well as expressing it in every way they see fit. The problem arises when some people, from an arrogance brought on by their popularity, come to believe that their opinions – often derived from insufficient knowledge – are axioms and start proselytising to those who admire them.

In this post I’m not referring to those with actual expertise in their fields, whose conclusions are well studied and carry more weight than simple opinions thrown around in society.

I am referring specifically to shallow entertainers who use their platforms in the attempt to create social changes (sometimes radical ones), based on nothing more than their likeability.

It is no secret that political campaigns today (in fact, since the days of Edward Bernays) are nothing more than marketing and centre on how appealing, how likeable politicians can be made to appear. Their agendas and promises are intermingled with aspects of human interest such as their dancing, singing, praying or apparent moments of spontaneity (well rehearsed in advance, of course). If ever there was an informative Hollywood production, it’s definitely Wag The Dog.

In this exercise and through exposure by the media, among film stars and singers, politicians are (even subconsciously) regarded as entertainers – and the reverse is true as well: through the size of their platforms, entertainers have become social reformers, even when they show no depth or life experience.

I’m in no way saying that someone who becomes famous for a talent cannot be brilliant at discussing very important issues. But the reality today is that many celebrities are the mouthpieces of those who finance them and seem to form an ideological clique in order to remain favoured. The leftist, Marxist bias is plain to see in the film and music industry, which are tools of indoctrination.

And often, the victims of this indoctrination are young, regarding these people as  sources of knowledge and virtue (I know this is a platitude yet it’s reality, judging by the thousands/ hundreds of thousands/ millions of youngsters who follow them on social media, intoxicating themselves with their every word). They mobilise so many in pointless campaigns, petition signing and can even influence votes (which may or may not matter, but still, it’s a sad phenomenon to be persuaded by those who have such little contact with real life anymore).

They have replaced the priesthood of olden days, which used to mediate between heads of state and the populace, urging “commoners” to support whatever decision was made by the ruling class. Our society has replaced theism with celebrity worship, thinking one must know better if they pose in bikinis or kick a ball around for a living.

With the aid of social media, anything that comes out of a celebrity’s orifice can become international news within 15 minutes, as if it actually mattered. Some even have their own “cults”, so to speak, with fanclubs choosing nicknames for fans and “battling” each other in Facebook and Twitter wars. Barbz, Selenators, Lovatics… It’s like something out of Babylon 5.

Besides aiding politicians to appear more human through photo opportunities, they weigh in on the day’s hottest topics and shape debates by the sheer numbers they influence. The recent case of Harambe the gorilla, (which took the limelight away from much more important issues such as massacres abroad) was very unsettling in terms of watching these very rich, well protected individuals direct a witch hunt against those who were accidentally involved in the situation. They did so from their comfortable luxury homes, presumably surrounded by security, as their targets, a simple working family, had nowhere to hide from death threats and half a million hysterical people calling for their lynching. Which is, of course, disgusting.

While they engage in mental masturbation over their principles, tweeting beside a 300$ champagne bottle, they are able – and likely – to encourage, if not cause actual violence. Perhaps those who have the ability to incite hate mobs instantaneously might want to think twice before posting messages regarding who should be killed or jailed in certain situations.