Millennial Feminism and the Internet Vlog Bubble.

The more I look at YouTube commentators (or Vloggers) the more I'm amused by the whole thing and really, really glad I'm not a part of it.

It seems to be entirely made up of different sides of arguments lobbing verbal bricks at each other. No debate, just "your viewpoint is shit, my viewpoint is better" school playgound type stuff.

The worst of the bunch seem to be the Feminist vloggers. It's a case of my viewpoint is correct: if you disagree you are evil and l will ignore you Nah, Nah, Nah...

Back in the Sixties and Seventies, feminism stood for something substantial. Yes, women had got the vote, but way back then there was still true inequality. Women couldn't do certain jobs, in some cases prevented by legislation from doing them.

Over the decades legislation has been brought in to even things up: Women can do any job they like backed by legislation, true wage inequality is a thing of the past.

Germaine Greer, a true feminist is the sort of woman that was an Icon of the movement. She's proud to be female and is determined that there should be full equality of the sexes. Very certainly not a victim, I'm convinced she could give as good as she got in any debate, wouldn't shy away from confrontation.

But that's where the previous generation of feminists differ from those of the millennial generation. Now all I see on YouTube are whiny feminists that bitch and winge about nothing. Literally nothing. God, they are a whiny bunch, it's hard listening to them. But you know, to be fair I've suffered and given it a crack. Germaine Greer I have lots of time for and she's a pretty eloquent speaker and has interesting and witty things to say on the subject. She doesn't whine, bitch and moan.

The millennials come across not as proud feminists, but whiny attention-seeking victims forever on the brink of tears if you don't listen to then, let alone criticise their viewpoint. They have no real platform to stand on, I would imagine because the hard work for feminism has already been done. Now aparrently all men are Satan, there's a patriarchy holding women back and they are all victims.

The recent issue about equality of wages in the BBC is a case in point: Aparrently some of the male celebrities get more money than the females. But that's only for males that are leading programmes and are bigger audience draws. That's the headline: males get paid more.

But no reporting on where two celebrities of equal status host a programme: no mention that they're on similar wages. Note I said similar: two humans with different career paths will eventually earn different salaries. It could be the woman makes more money than the man if she was the main draw to the programme. There's nothing to stop that at all.

The same goes in industry. A male and female following the same career path in separate businesses will end up with diffferent salaries. Two men or two women in different companies following similar career paths will still end up on different wages. It's not sexism, gender is not the defining issue but instead it's the different wage structures in the businesses that affect the end result.

It's a viewpoint that everything should be equal across the board, without understanding that differences in life are the things that motivate humans (of either sex). Want a higher wage? Move to XYZ across the road because they pay more.

The whiny feminists are already starting to insist that businesses pay identical salaries across the board, without understanding that what they are proposing is effectivelly Communism, or Marxism.

Marxist millennial feminists want identical wages regardless of any extenuating factors.

They also want equality without doing the work.

They also think victimhood is the way to achieve their aims.

They forget, no-one (with a spine and a sense of pride) loves a victim. Victimhood also not a valid political platform.

Neither is "You are male and therefore you are automatically opressing me by being male  in my presence". It's the sort of whiny, submissive, non-feminist, lazy sort of argument that someone who wants all the benefits without earning them would come up with.

Sargon of Akkad

I've been blogging for nearly 10 years now. Way back when Labour were fucking things up in a major way and I was forced to put hand to keyboard as a sort of therapy to vent my angst and frustration. Things went a bit wayward on here and I unconciously decided bollocks to it, I'll concentrate more on sailing than politics. But this years especially things have been bugging me again.

I've been happy to use this medium and I get bugger all followers these days since I removed the rants about social workers that started to attract some very ugly comment wars.

Lately I've been looking at YouTube, fascinated by how some of the political commentators on there can actually make a living commentating on politics.

YouTube, Patreon, they're all a bit out there to me. I mean, why would someone pay me to comment on politics? What is their agenda? 

Also, it seems a bit tenuous: voices can to easily be shut down if you depend on a certain revenue stream to do what you do. Far better in my opinion to earn the pittance I do and continue semi-independantly.

Anyway, one of the best moderate, truly liberal voices out there is a chap that goes under the moniker of Sargon of Akkad.  The other thing is he's just joined UKIP just like I have, so well done that man. Fair play to him, he's been to America for Christ's sake, so he must be making good coin out of the "business" of political VLoggiing.

I've just had a tidy up of my links over there---->>> and added him to them. There are other YouTubers out there but most of them seem to be American-biased rather than looking at UK politics. (Lots of Trumping and mentions of MAG hats).

I shall search out some more video sites. It appears to be the way forward. Probably not for a bloke like me with a face for radio and a voice like fingernails down a blackboard, but hey I can still carry on writing....

How Islam Wins at Politics.

I've seen many posts on many blogs and videos about the so-callled special protection for those of the Muslim faith. It's true that a Muslim minority appears to get preferential political treatment. But you have to understand the cause to understand the effect.

You'll hear that the Labour party favour Muslims to a pathological degree, because they rely on Muslim votes and to an extent that's true.

But you need to understand Islam first before you can understand how it can subvert Western laws with impunity, how it can garner political support far in excess of the numbers in the general population.

The first thing to understand is Islam is not a religion, or more accurately not merely a religion. It is many things; it is an ideology, a way of life, it is all-encompassing. It is a good Muslim's duty to embrace Islam in all aspects of his or her life.

This affects the way Muslims view politics. If you take the rule that is is a good Muslim's duty to involve Islam in all things, then you start to understand how Muslims have a greater affect on politics far in advance of their actual numbers in society.

It is a good Muslim's duty to vote for another Muslim if there is one to vote for (especially if the other options are non-Muslim) or failing that the most Muslim-friendly candidate.

No matter how mad, bad, right, wrong..... if the candidate favours Muslims or is a Muslim then Muslim voters understand it is their duty to vote for them.

Now then, given that the average voter turnout in the UK can be as low as 59%, That means that thanks to our first past the post election system candidates only need to get just over half of that to win. So candidates can win elections even if only 30% of the population vote for them.

Now, imagine a block of people in your constituency that vote en-masse in a particular way. They are a useful boost to your chances of getting elected when they start to approach 10% of the local population. When they approach 20% they can virtually guarantee your election and when they approach 30% you lock out any other candidate. Christians? Jews? Atheists? Socialists? Liberals? Don't need 'em. In fact if you are a Muslim candidate and sound moderate, some of the non-Muslim fools will actually vote for you.

You cannot lose because any other candidate has to garner the support of 30% of the population just to get parity. While you are certain of your 20 or 30 percent block vote, your nearest rival is busy herding cats doing deals trying to get the rest of the population to vote for them.

That's why in any situation in local or National politics, the Muslim block vote gets preference on policies. It's how a Muslim population can punch above is weight when it comes to politics. It's why Theresa May wears a headscarf in Mosques, it's why supposedly pro-feminist Labour candidates put up with addressing gender-segregated audiences.

Now then, comes the big question: How do you deal with that bias in the voting system?

I'm not going to deal with how the political elites see the Muslim block-vote as a usefull ally, that's maybe for another time. Especially as to how dangerous it is to underestimate it and just think of it as just a voting "trend". Until it bites them on the arse and they can do nothing about it.

Huge Gains for Swedish Nationalists: We all Know Why

It looks like the Swedish nationalists have made significant gains in the latest elections.

So much for Sweden being a beacon of light and multicultural peace as European leaders keep telling us. Instead the voters there are so fed up with the issues raised by mass immigration the incumbent parties are losing huge percentages to nationalists.

But those of us at the bottom of the pile, forced to suffer the indignities of the muticultural mass-immigration experiment know only too well why these nationalist feelings have come to the fore.

Of course the many stories about immigrants and rapes of femaales, the inability of people to feel safe on the streets are false.  yeah, that's why the nationalists are increasing in popularity.

Let me be clear: this is not a far-right phenomenon.

No, this is ordinary people fed up with the political elite ignoring our complaints about "multiculturalism" and the elites trying to cover up the falout that ordinary people are having to suffer.

As an example, there have been two stabbing incidents in France involving Muslims. Anything on the BBC News website about them?

Nope. Not one iota of information about a serious security issue.

Here's the first: Paris stabbing: Two UK tourists among seven injured in knife attack outside cinema

Considering two UK tourists were injured, you'd think it would be more newsworthy than who Boris Johnson is nobbing. But not a squeak on the BBC News front page. Instead hidden on the world news page without even a picture headline there it lies. It's almost as if someone wants the story to die quickly...

But wait, there was a second stabbing where a postman was stabbed in the throat, hours after the other by an Afghani national:

Man 'stabs postman in the throat and attacks others before police Taser him in Paris' - hours after 'Afghan' knifeman wounded seven people the French capital

Not a peep on the BBC website about that one.

It's this hiding of the truth, the downright lies of the elite that everything is ok that the ordinary people are sick of. If the elites won't get a grip of the situation, then the ordinary people will.

Call it populism, nationalism, whatever. The people will be heard and they will have their say.

UPDATE: I see the Spectator is hailing the fact the Nationalists didn't win, but going up from 12% to 18% is still a gain, to almost half of the vote the two major parties got. They got almost 40% each, so almost 20% is stil a significant block of votes to have to deal with.

Enjoy it Sweeden...