Byeeee! 2020 Season, Episode 1

In the week that Ricky Gervais drove the first weapons-grade skewer into the Hollywood Wankerati Hydra, their timing couldn’t more peccable.

Screen Shot 2020-01-09 at 14.54.35.png

Coming soon, the exodus of people who promised to leave the country if Boris won the election.


UPDATE: I’ve just had General Motors on the phone. They want to licence the name “Hollywood Wankerati Hydra” for their new electric SUV.

The Poison Drips…

The Spectraitor continues its descent into becoming a period rag at the hands of queen-of-wo(k)e Isabel Hardman and spineless cuck Fraser Nelson.

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 18.30.24

Julie Bindel – about whom I’ve written before here and here – thinks that women who kill their husbands with hammers should get clemency and is part of a team that has successfully campaigned for a woman who did just that.

She also thinks that we should ‘believe all women’. Because they’re saints, right? Well, the headline itself contains a crafty little sleight of hand that sets the tone for the entire article.

It demands what we used to call a Fisking.

Are women inherently dishonest?

Well, some of them demonstrably are, yes, as are some men. But no-one is asserting that they ALL are.

We must be, particularly when accusing men of rape. This is one of the most pervasive of all rape myths: that women love nothing better than maliciously and falsely accusing decent, law-abiding men of sexual violation.

It’s a matter of public record that there are some women – however small a minority – who wish to geld or kill men, particularly white ones.  Women, too, who have openly asserted that ‘all men are rapists’. Why would such women not be equally apt to exploit the levers of power that the law places in their hands?

But that would be a tiny – if disproportionately strident – minority. More likely is that in most cases of falsely reported rape, the truth is more prosaic. Young woman gets herself into a situation that she doesn’t know how to get out of, and for any number of reasons, finds it to be expedient (if regrettable) to make a false accusation.

Some of the coverage of the poor young woman in Cyprus would lead you to believe that men are walking targets for female fantasists hellbent on destroying their lives. Having met the young woman convicted of making false allegations of rape against 12 men, I am very clear that she’s not lying. Why is it then that we are so keen to believe that young women in particular lie about rape?

Again with the semantic legerdemain. Not all women, some women.

Look, I don’t know anything about this young woman. The whole situation in this case is pretty shabby. I think – whether or not they actually committed a crime – the men involved seem to be detestable animals, the Cypriot criminal justice system seems as corrupt and deplorable as it ever was in the Mediterranean region, and the young woman involved is deeply unfortunate. I hope she’s able to come home and move on from this.

However, the case raises a number of points that the partisan lesbian feminist Bindel will never ever acknowledge, let alone address.

Let’s look at the recent figures from the UK. We know, from the government’s own research, and expertise from rape crisis centres that only a tiny minority of sexual assaults are ever reported to police.

Yes, and to explain that, we need to understand the sheer breadth of things that ‘women’s groups’ are apt to call ‘sexual assault’. The definition is broad and getting ever broader to encompass every instance of a woman being touched, spoken to, gestured at or looked at, which may be construed (rightly or wrongly) as sexually motivated.

Right now in the UK, the conviction rate for those cases reported to police stands at a shocking 1.4 per cent, one of the lowest in Europe, and the worst in the UK since records began over a decade ago.

And what are we to conclude from that? Well, it can be interpreted many ways, not all of which support the feminst narrative.

Bearing this in mind, is it really possible that anywhere approaching the figure of 98.6 per cent of complainants are making false allegations for malicious, trivial purposes?

Again, compounding separate things together. Of those 98.6%, some will be malicious, some will be for trivial purposes, some will be both. Others will simply be trivial complaints where the law says no crime was committed, contrary to whatever feminist doctrine the woman in question was force-fed by her university, the media, politicians and her Facebook ‘friends’.

So, those women that do go to the trouble of reporting rape are, according to some, making it up.

There we go eliding ‘some’ to ‘all’.

Their motives? They hate men and want to punish them for some minor transgression or other.

This will be true in some cases, however few.

Perhaps the man they falsely accused of rape dumped and humiliated the complainant, so she decided to get her own back?

This will be true in some cases, however few.

Or these women have been told that they can pull in a load of compensation (the average pay-out by Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is around £11,000) which would no doubt take them on numerous luxury holidays.

This will be true in some cases, however few.

But there are plenty of other possible contributory factors, some of which I allude to above. Other include:

  • The Crown Prosecution Service is reeling after a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice against accused men, and has become far more risk-averse in what cases it chooses to prosecute. This is the nature of bureaucracies in the wake of a crisis of their own making.
  • Perhaps the CPS have found that juries of any gender, ethnicity and orientation are disinclined to believe women who are shown to have multiple concurrent short-term partners, post their barely concealed T&A all over social media 24/7, and have left an audit trail of social media and whatsapp messages casting their integrity in a generally poor light.
  • Police driven to refer all sorts of paper-thin cases to the CPS because of targets, which subsequently do not go to trial, contrary to the false impression given to complainants by PC Plod.
  • Police unable to adequately resource rape investigations due to time and money spent on politically motivated wild goose chases and witch-hunts, on policing speech on social media, and on the whole panoply of counter-terrorism activities that are consequent to the vast army of alien cultures that the left have gleefully imported into the country, and the clusterfuck of middle-eastern war mongering pursued by western ‘leaders’.

Either way, the disproportionate media coverage on cases of women convicted of making false allegations of rape can give much of the general public, and therefore those that sit on juries in rape trials, the impression that women are dangerous fantasists that imagine being raped.

Once again, it is demonstrable that there are some women out there – however few – of whom this impression is accurate, and it is a fundamentally deluded, unjust and dysfunctional society that refuses to acknowledge the possibility.

And who is to decide the correct amount of coverage to give to a case where a woman is shown to have made a false claim, malicious or not, leading to an innocent man being publically named, hounded out of his job, and society and, in some cases, spending time in prison on remand?

Are we to suppress reporting of these cases? Why?

Increasingly, the defence used by men accused of rape in consent cases is that the complainant has happily and enthusiastically participated in the type of sex that tends to be a popular porn narrative – such as having a gang bang with a load of strange men. If the complainant is forensically examined and found to have suffered internal bleeding, extensive bruising, and signs of serious trauma, this is dismissed as merely signs of the rough-and-tumble of sexual activity.

Well yes, the gamification and pornification of dating and sex is a bad thing. There’s plenty of blame to spread around on that score. Some young men develop grotesquely unrealistic expectations about how sexual encounters ought to be. Why? Because of the sheer volume of porn available everywhere all the time, because of the media, because of the feminist message that women are free and liberated, and their value is in no way diminished by them exercising a voracious sexual appetite. Ask your nearest Slutwalk for details.

For that matter, from whence comes the seemingly endless supply of young women prepared to participate in making pornography?

So, this subset of young men having developed unreasonable expectations, some young women will acquiesce to them for a variety of reasons. Amongst them that the raft of protections built up by society (a.k.a. the patriarchy) to prevent young women falling prey to men’s most animal insticts, have been summarily torn apart in the last 50 years. Gone is sin, gone is shame, gone is modesty, gone is personal responsibility and accountability.

For feminists, the idea of suggesting that women dress modestly, remain chaste and take sensible precautions against the possibility of attack is simply beyond the pale. ‘Slut-shaming… victim blaming… just teach men not to rape’ go the howls of outrage.

The impression given by the focus on women supposedly lying about sexual assault is that whilst countless men languish in prison, their accusers are having a rare old time buying vodka shots, while snogging any half decent man available and setting him up as her next victim.

Yes, and there are certainly instances that this is the case, though no-one at all has suggested that it is all, or even a majority of cases.

Presumably, part of her holiday fun is getting ready to give a detailed statement to police alleging serious sexual assault if things don’t work out for her on their date. It must be a major cheap thrill to recount humiliating details of previous sexual history in public, and enduring, on the very rare occasion it gets this far, a Crown Court trial where she, rather than the accused, is judged.

This is just utterly fatuous. Playing to the feminist gallery.

After 40 years of campaigning to end rape, I am well aware that the real injustice relating to rape is that the vast majority of men who commit rape will never even be reported to police, let alone locked in a prison cell.

And right back we go to the problem of definitions.

Have a think about any 18 to 19 year old young women you know, perhaps in your friendship circle, or the daughter or granddaughter of your friends. Do you really think these young women are fair game for a gang bang with several strangers in a cheap hotel room, or might that be the fantasy of young, porn sick men?

Not against their will, no. In fact, not at all. But also have a think about whether these young women have realistic expectations themselves. Whether they continue to shirk the responsibility they have for their own safety, by avoiding getting into situations where they may be taken advantage of. Whether the modern cultists have stripped these young women of their agency and their accountability, leaving them mere passengers on a ride.

Imagine, if you are lucky enough not to have experienced it, what it must feel like to be raped, traumatised, hurt and scared,

Well, yes… and listen to what feminists far and wide think about men and boys who are raped. A great many of them don’t care at all or think it doesn’t count. A sick few delight in hearing of men falling victim to predators.

Because the reality about rape is that women who report sexual assault are far more likely to be judged and blamed than the accused.

According to you. Why not go out into the street and find me a man who doesn’t find rape and genuine sexual assault to be utterly abhorrent, and those who commit such crimes to be beyond contempt. See how long it takes you. They are so few and far between they are practically non-existant.

A large part of the case for accused men remaining anonymous until convicted rests on the fact that accused men are put at great risk of being assaulted or killed by men who take a dim view of any such behaviour, and that the public record of the accusation – however baseless – will follow them around for the rest of their lives, both on the Internet and in the official records that are disclosed by authorities to any potential employer.

The real takeaway from this, though, is that there is no ‘all women’ or ‘all men’. But there is an ‘all feminists’, and they are all intent on giving women enough rope to hang themselves, and on convicting the nearest convenient man, however culpable. In their largely successful quest to impose their will on society, they are presiding over its dissolution and degeneration.

They have to be stopped.


Well done Britain, I didn’t think you had it in you

I clearly underestimated the ability of a muted Tory machine and a cautious Boris to get British people out to vote for them, and the degree to which Corbyn and his band of berks inspired fear and loathing.

So we have at least one danger put out to pasture for a generation.

Time we understand just what Britan has voted for here. Because of course we really don’t know. But from the indicators, we can look forward to:

  • Magic money tree plantations.
  • Liberal immigration policy with a filigree decoration of hardline talk.
  • Almost inevitable capitulation in EU trade talks due to an irrational promise to get it done by the end of next year. EU and US delegates to run rings around our idiot civil servants in trade negotitions.
  • Further layers of knee jerk legislation relating to terrorism that erodes everyones rights and privacy while not addressing the actual problem.
  • A total failure to address national over-crowding in infrastructure and housing stock.
  • Total ruinous supplication to the green blob.
  • Further ground ceded to hatchet-faced feminists & the trans-mental.
  • A tenner say HS2 will go the distance, and eat £150Bn of our money to no discernible benefit.
  • Ruination of the contract employment market will continue according to plan
  • The tax code will continue to get more complex, loopholes for spivs, slebs and toffs will continue to spawn, HMRC will get even more power and even less accountability.

I’m sure there are things I’ve missed. Anyone celebrating this Boris moment may just look back on this moment with a degree of embarassment. Haven’t we all been here before, at the dawn of a new day?

Actually, we do have something we can celebrate… I think every lost seat tells a story that is music to my ears. Especially Jo Swinson and Dominic Grieve.


Update: I have to admit, I’m uplifted by Jo Swinson’s twitter replies.

And the prospect of putting Scottish independence back on the table is delightful.

Nobody cares about Labour’s anti-semitism…

There, I said it. Most of the criticisms levelled at Corbyn by what passes for conservative media will not cut through because nobody in the real world cares about the shit these Westminster bubblers are trying to make important.

What’s more, where there was a so-called ‘shy Tory’ vote in previous elections, undetected by opinion polls, it’s entirely possible that there will be a ‘shy Labour’ voter effect this time round, due to the stigma that some have tried to attach to Corbyn and his views.

Such a lot of noise has been made about Corbyn’s unconventional views, that there will be plenty of people out there who won’t say to a pollster or media type that they will be voting Labour, but they’ll do it anyway… or they won’t make up their mind until in the polling booth, then they’ll vote the way they always have done.

However much the Tories wish people would get their knickers in a twist about the anti-semitism issue – god knows the Spectator hasn’t shut up about it since forever – it’s just not happening.

Also, no-one cares about the IRA, or Corbyn’s links to them. A lot of people didn’t care (or secretly rejoiced) when the IRA blew up the Tory conference in Brighton in 1984. A lot of people in England couldn’t care less about Northern Ireland… it rightfully belongs to the Irish, not to us, and we don’t want our cities blowing up by people fighting a righteous cause against us – and this, by the way, differentiates the IRA’s cause from any the Muslims might have.

Now, it’s possible that there are still some ‘shy tories’ out there… but not very many… very few have hidden their Brexit preferences under a bushel, and in a great many cases, that means they have no choice – if they vote at all – but to vote Tory if they want Brexit.

There may be a vanishingly small handful of people who were not on the establishment side in the battle of Orgreave yet will put aside a lifelong grudge to vote Tory today, but will never admit it to a living soul. These will be well within the margin of error, compared to the millions who – contrary to the expectations of London-centred pollsters – will trot to the polls and vote Labour because that’s what they have always done, and a vote for the Tories and the toff philanderer Boris would be the worst political betrayal they could commit against their own consciences. 

Some leftish Brexiters may even reason that since the Brexit Party so clearly isn’t going to deliver, that they’d be better off with no Brexit than with whatever corporatist sellout the untrustworthy Boris is promising, and so default to Labour or fall into the wobbly, hairy bosom of Jo Swinson.

Hell, it’s cold, it’s pissing down and the cat needs to go to the vet. Many will probably decide, like me, not to dignify this shabby election at all.

If you’ve got any bets placed on today’s outcomes, good luck! My money is on a low turnout and no-overall majority.


There be dragons

There’s an ancient band of bampots who we might have thought were dead and buried, but are struggling their way back to the surface to tell us about an urgent new threat to our health and wellbeing.

In 2001, I moved out of London and into the shires. As a newly minted IT contractor with a bunch of years in the City under my belt, internet access and mobile phones were the lifeblood of my working day before most people had either.

So having to trade London’s 0.5megabit broadband for a 0.125mbit ISDN line was a bit of a pain. Worse though, was having a mobile phone that was of no use within a half mile of my house.

One campaigning man, backed by a gaggle of gullible parents straight off the set of South Park, was responsible for this blackspot. I went to war with him in the local papers over his scientifically ignorant scaremongering and his superstitious attitude to progress.

At this time, all the arguing about global warming had gained momentum, and one of the key concepts that had entered the consciousness of broadsheet readers was the ‘precautionary principle’. This, in a nutshell, says that ‘unless we can be absolutely sure that there is no risk attached to this action, it should not proceed’.

This is classic warmist psi-ops. It is a fallacy that projects an air of virtuous concern for the common good, and forces the opponent of the argument to prove a negative in order to make their case, which is impossible. Such is the power of this legerdemain that it spread and took on many forms, including anti-vax and opposition to mobile phone masts.

The phone will cook your brain and, when you put it in your pocket, your organs. The masts will slowly bake all babies within a 1 mile radius. This is literally what they said, in the most emphatic of terms. But it didn’t happen. 18 years later, none of it has happened.

But this time it’s different, of course. Because these are much higher frequencies and need far more antennas and stations. And microwaves. And also black cats walking under ladders, while stepping on pavement cracks.

Of course, all of the national and global authorities on the matter say 5G is safe. But the doubters don’t trust these authorities who, they say, have a vested interest in the successful rollout of the technology.

These are the same authorities, of course, who are trusted (and don’t you dare say otherwise!) to build the roads, run the hospitals, house the poor, keep law and order, police our borders, carry out their democratic mandates, take a big chunk of all our earnings and deliver value for our money and equitable outcomes.

As with so many of these things, I wonder quite how consistent these people are in their principles. How many would fiercely insist that ‘the science is settled’ on global warming while opposing mobile phone masts on the grounds that scientists and lawmakers are in the pockets of lobbyists and big business and – paradoxically perhaps – have a vested interest in wiping us all out via cancer and infertility?

And it tickles me how certain these people are of their position. I need to ‘educate myself’ and ‘do my research’. Some of them are even gulled by this Walter Mitty bampot in Gateshead… an alleged ex-jailbird – who claims to be a weapons technology expert but has a sociology qualification from the OU and, importantly, a bronze swimming certificate – who’s set about convincing the good burghers of Gateshead, that the LED streetlights there have secret trial 5G antennas on them, which are causing sickness, nosebleeds and miscarriages, killing birds and insects and, presumably, making Newcastle United lose at home.

The council denies this of course, but nobody trusts a word the council says, until some filthy Tory bastard threatens to cut the council down to size, then it’s suddenly Our Lady of Lindisfarne, Mother of God and Saviour of Mankind. But I digress. Likewise the NHS.

Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 13.30.07

Not that the guy is a monomaniac, by the way, but he’s been crapping on about mobile signals and Wifi cooking ‘our children’ (the ones that are still, by some miracle, being born) since 2016 at least.

So powerful is his message (as he gives barnstorming speeches into his hairbrush, in front of his bathroom mirror, in his pants) that he’s not even felt it necessary to present a scientific case to back up his ramshackle collection of assertions.

He has no shortage of internet adherants, of course, who will go angrily into battle against anyone who dares to shake the foundations of their deeply held beliefs.

And these people will all be voting on Thursday, where the choice is Magic Grandpa or Boffo the Clown. Happy days.


Shitting on the Shoulders of Giants…

The yoot have a point with their ‘OK Boomer’ meme.

The post war generation were the first and biggest beneficiaries of the magic money tree. In on the ground floor of the welfare ponzi scheme, powered by print-on-demand fiat money. In the face of privation by post-war malaises from rationing to fallen fathers, they welcomed the largesse of Clement Attlee’s Labour government with open arms.

Ever since then the welfare state has grown and grown, by turns squeezed and released, the toothpaste never quite going back in the tube no matter now much the Tories tried. What passed for austerity in the 2010s  was simply a slowing of the rate at which national debt increased, and to call it austerity makes a mockery of the universal deprivation that coined the term in the 50s.

Unfortunately for the kids so keen to blame the boomers for everything and angrily express their feelings of betrayal, they don’t have any answers. and they’re actually part of the problem.

For as long as I can remember now, Gen-X right-wingers of a libertarian, Misesian persuasion like me have pointed out that debt-fuelled public spending today is borrowing from the future generations who would have to pay it back. And that’s all very fine in theory. But people – including Millenials and Gen-Z – want free stuff today, and politicians want the votes of people – including Millenials and Gen-Z – who want free stuff. They want the government – repeatedly proven to be inefficient, callous and incompetent – to do more and more things for more and more groups of people.

They deride their elders as resistant to change (in spite of their elders boldly voting for Brexit and them opting for the status quo), as overwhelmed technophobes while overlooking that every gadget they now cherish was designed by Gen-X’ers and built with boomer money, exploiting a mastery of quantum physics and applied mathematics that was earned in the first half of the 20th century.

They fret about the ‘climate emergency’, which amounts to a nagging feeling that we’re using up natural resources with gay abandon for frivolous purposes. But they’re blaming people who never flew abroad on holiday for the first halves of their lives, had one car per family if they were lucky, whose phones were wired to a table by the front door, and for whom recycling meant wearing your older siblings clothes once they had outgrown them, darning your socks, and eating soup on Monday made from Sunday’s leftovers.

In fact the whole damned ‘climate emergency’ was a spurious Boomer invention that took on a life of its own under power of lobbying, state subsidies, advocacy science and residual post-Christian guilt. A lot of slightly older people who have seen the evolution of this climate religion over the last 20-30 years are sceptical, having seen lots of evidence of corruption, cynical manipulation, and outright scientific fraud. But the ‘woke’ Gen-Z noobs have embraced climate change utterly uncritically and are shouting at us for lacking zeal.

It’s true that you could go to university in the 1980s basically for free. Your tuition would be paid and you’d get a grant to live on. But only 1 in 20 kids went to university in the 1980s UK. If we look at degrees that actually make you any money and do anything to empirically advance humanity, I suspect we’d still come out at around 1 in 20 today. But it’s actually 1 in 2 school leavers that attend university now – most of them learning something that will add nothing to mankind’s sum of knowledge or mastery fo our environment, fuelling a burgeoning class of aimless mediocrities, middle managers, charity workers, and lobbyists. We could not possibly afford to fund that publicly without piling on that national debt which we’ve already covered.

It’s true that it’s far harder now to get on the property ladder than it was 20 years ago. And it’s true that politicians and bankers deserve to be coruscated for this. But what’s the answer? It’s not one that Gen-Z will want to hear. Stop and reverse immigration, deregulate property development by alleviating environmental constraints on planning permission, build more roads and more railways, place a social expectation on families that that parents should stay together, rather than spreading their fractured modern families across multiple households, that siblings should share bedrooms and live cheek-by-jowl in less than salubrious housing.

Gen-Z are basically blaming older generations for – against all the odds – making progress and giving them everything that makes their lives different from those that went before. They’re tacitly or explicitly rejecting all that. They may think they want what we had in the 1970s. I say let them have it. Let them vote Corbyn into power, and have the lot. The oil crisis, the strikes, the 3-day weeks, the power cuts, the piled up garbage and the unburied dead, the brutal paleolithic dentistry.

Enjoy, bitches.