Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Year in Stupid： 2014

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 2, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:32:00

This Year in Stupid： 2014

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to the first this year in Stupid for 2014.
	And oh my, hasn't it been a stupid year?
	Let's start as we mean to go on.
	First on the list are Westerners joining the Islamic State.
	The Islamic State has been recruiting from all over the Western world, seeking out new members through social media or known jihadi supporters in Canada, Britain, the US and other largely non-Muslim nations.
	Apparently they have a sophisticated media center, and it's a vital part of spreading their message.
	Join us or die.
	Presumably a message that the people joining ISIS from the West have been taking as a literal threat.
	As there have apparently been dozens of US citizens fighting, the Canadian government knows that there are at least 130 and the British government's most recent headcount is 500.
	Naturally, they weren't looking for the best and brightest.
	There were certain things we looked for, Shaikh said, speaking of his time as a recruiter.
	People who didn't know the religion much.
	People who are converts because converts would probably have problems with their parents at home, so they were more likely to stay in our company.
	So poor vulnerable idiots then.
	The vast majority of Westerners joining up with ISIS are extraordinarily ignorant when it comes to religion, said Max Abrams, the Northeastern University professor who studies jihadist groups.
	Most recruits had no prior connection to Syria and had never even thought to visit.
	Personally, I would have thought that the question isn't so much why are Westerners fighting for ISIS?
	I would have thought it would be why is ISIS accepting the stupidest people from our nations.
	But anyway, I mean it's not like the village idiots we're sending over there don't know that ISIS aren't a monstrous group of barbaric terrorists.
	There are in fact dozens of videos showing beheadings and mass killings from ISIS online.
	But for many people that's not a problem.
	The problem is that they're lacking a strong sense of identity and purpose and the violent radical global narrative of ISIS provides easy answers and solutions.
	Apparently it can be a very powerful message for complete fucking retards who are looking for answers.
	And according to Matthew Levitt, the director of counterterrorism and intelligence at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, their online material shows capturing territory, establishing states, beheading enemies, they show that they are the sexiest jihadi group on the block, which I'm sure is completely true for any wannabe militants.
	But we'll get back to the sexiness of the Islamic State in a minute.
	The US State Department estimates that 12,000 foreigners have travelled to Syria from at least 50 different countries to fight with a number of different groups including ISIS.
	That is a highly concentrated amount of stupid in any one area.
	Normally these idiots are dispersed around the world, so they've come together in ISIS to form a kind of critical mass of complete morons.
	Just one look at Cleatus here will show you everything you need to know about the people joining ISIS.
	This picture purports to show a boy named Jonathan Edwards who joined ISIS after failing to secure a university place.
	I know what you're thinking, that's fucking retarded.
	However, we've got an entire section dedicated to university students, so we'll pass over this for the moment.
	Indeed, ISIS is even accepting disaffected teenagers who are looking to get back at their parents.
	Frankly, I don't know who's worse off here, the teenagers or ISIS themselves.
	How many holy wars they expect to win with a bunch of disaffected hipsters, I don't know.
	Whatever the individual idiots' reasons for joining, ISIS's recruitment methods are surprisingly effective, with 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria now partaking in the jihad.
	And for some reason, Western teenagers are out in the streets cheering behind the Islamic State.
	It seems apparently that being an Islamic terrorist is the new cool thing that all the kids are doing.
	And of course, the bad boy Islamic jihadis are too much for Western teenage girls to resist as well.
	They have been flocking there in fucking droves.
	Dad, you don't understand him like I do.
	I can change them.
	I'm really not making this up when I say schoolgirl jihadis, the female Islamists leaving home to join ISIS fighters.
	Hundreds of girls and women are going missing in the West, reappearing in Iraq and Syria to bear children for the caliphate.
	Suddenly, middle-class Western parents are very much in favour of their daughters dating that kid with the leather jacket and the bike who always smells of weed.
	Hundreds of young women and girls are leaving their homes in Western countries to join Islamic fighters in the Middle East, causing increasing concern amongst counter-terrorism investigators.
	Girls as young as 14 or 15 are travelling mainly to Syria to marry jihadis, bear their children, and join communities of fighters with a small number taking up arms.
	Presumably they're the feminists.
	We'll get to them later.
	Around 10% of the recruits from Western countries have been women and girls, and in most cases, they appear to have left homes who marry jihadis drawn to the idea of supporting their brother fighters and having jihadist children to continue the spread of Islam.
	And Louis Caprioli, former head of a French security agency, says, if their husband dies, they will be given adulation as the wife of a martyr, which I'm sure is far better than living in a first world Western country that isn't currently racked with war.
	Counter-terrorism experts in the UK believe about 50 British girls and women have joined ISIS, the youngest of which was 13 years old, and they left with the romantic idea of jihad marriage and married young male fighters who they'd got to know via the internet.
	This is not an unusual phenomenon at all.
	Dozens of young women from Western countries are literally travelling to Syria with some ridiculous pretense that it's going to be a beautiful romantic experience.
	And really, what could be more romantic than being raped and enslaved by a terrorist group?
	ISIS does have strict rules on women's dress and restrictions on their behaviour which seem designed to subjugate them.
	But strangely, ISIS reportedly fields two all-female brigades.
	So I imagine that it's actually a lot of Western feminists who are joining the Islamic State.
	They apparently do not fight on the front lines of battle but serve primarily in a policing role.
	They enforce civilian women's compliance with ISIS's strict rules of Islamist morality, if indeed that isn't a contradiction in terms.
	And they also accompany the male fighters at checkpoints and on home raids, so they can search women and look for male fighters who might have concealed their identities under a veil.
	Because god forbid a male jihadi looks under the veil and finds it's actually a female there.
	Women apparently can help ISIS cement its control over civilian populations in ways that men cannot.
	For all its cruelty to civilians, ISIS knows that it needs some degree of popular support to maintain control, and it sees women as crucial to that.
	ISIS is actually literally using women to oppress other women in the conquered territories.
	There really is no sisterhood, because apparently female insurgents are particularly useful in that regard, for they have better ability to access civilian women to engage civilian women and also recruit.
	They actively enlist women in morality policing, and unlike al-Qaeda, which strongly discouraged women from fighting, ISIS are in fact a very progressive terrorist movement and seem to completely understand women's role in oppressing women in the future Islamist state.
	I said we'd be back to the sex jihad and I wasn't joking.
	ISIS gives orders in Mosul give over girls for sex jihad.
	Posters in public places told residents to bring their girls to fulfil their duty in the sex jihad or feel the full force of the Sharia consequences.
	You would think that women wouldn't enforce this, but apparently there is a certain kind of sociopath who is just fine with it.
	After taking over Mosul, ISIS ordered a jihad al-nikar, which refers to women joining the jihad by offering sex to the male fighters.
	The posters read, We call upon the people of this country to bring their unmarried girls so they can fulfill their duty in sex jihad for their warrior brothers in the city, and anyone who will not appear will feel the full force of the Sharia law upon him.
	And apparently, this is actually working.
	Where Tunisian women return from Syria pregnant by the rebels.
	Tunisian women who have travelled to Syria to partake in the sexual jihad by comforting rebel fighters have had sexual relations with 20, 30 to 100 militants, says Interior Minister Lofty bin Jadu.
	After the sexual liaisons that they have there in the name of Jihad al-Nika, the sexual holy war, they come home pregnant.
	So all of this sounds wonderful.
	Why would anyone want to quit such an exciting, romantic life that joining a pariah terrorist state would give you?
	Well, apparently it's not all smiles and sunshine.
	And indeed, some of those Westerners who are used to their modern comforts are finding life in Iraq a bit difficult.
	And they want to come home.
	Britons who have travelled to the Middle East to join Islamic fundamentalists have said they want to come home.
	The men told Professor Peter Newman of King's College that they regret their decision after becoming frustrated that rival rebel groups are fighting amongst themselves instead of targeting President Assad's forces.
	We came to fight the regime and instead we're involved in gang warfare.
	It's not what we came for, but if we go back to Britain we will go to jail.
	Well that is just awful.
	I can't believe.
	I can't believe that going off on a whirlwind romantic adventure to fight in a jihad turns out that it's actually being wildly mismanaged and has devolved into gang warfare.
	I just can't believe it.
	I can't believe that you thought it wasn't going to be like that and I can't believe you're surprised that if you come back to Britain you are going to be arrested because you are a fucking terrorist.
	I did say that we'd sent our village idiots over there didn't I?
	Because I wasn't joking.
	And unbelievably, the Islamic State is not happy with these British jihadists wanting to come home and has punished them for this.
	And frankly I'm outraged that the jihadists won't just let them go home because they want to.
	And I'm outraged that the British government won't let them just come home because they want to.
	It's almost like joining a terrorist group has consequences.
	What a fucking strange world we live in.
	Five UK-born members of the Islamic State have reportedly been taken to a punishment centre in the group's adopted capital of Raqqa, Syria, and stripped of their weapons after telling their superiors that they no longer wanted to fight for the group.
	I can't believe they didn't just give you an honourable discharge.
	Frankly, I can't believe they didn't just murder you like they did to 150 women who didn't want to partake in the sex jihad.
	Apparently more than 150 women and girls in Fallujah, some of whom were pregnant, were executed because they refused to accept the policy of sexual jihad that ISIS is enforcing.
	I guess this must be one of the invisible privileges of jihading while male.
	Except it's probably not, and ISIS are in fact executing defectors because fuck it, they are ISIS, you Cretans.
	What did you think they were going to do?
	Several foreign jihadists who have joined the so-called Islamic State in Syria but then tried to desert have faced arrest and execution at the hands of the radical group, said activists on Friday.
	Those who have tried to flee are usually young and mostly non-Arabs who regretted joining ISIS once they saw the reality on the ground.
	Well done, you fucking idiots.
	So it turns out that in 2014, one of the stupidest things you could do was join ISIS.
	Let that be a lesson to any moronic kids in 2015 who are thinking, I really like the idea of taking an exciting, romantic trip over to the Islamic State, and it'll really piss off my parents.
	Just go and dye your hair and get your nose pierced like a normal kid, and maybe you won't find yourself trapped in an Islamic hellhole, being used as a sex slave and executed when you try to escape.
	You fucking cretins!
	Ah yes, 2014.
	The year feminism jumped the shark and became all about first world problems.
	It's not like there are women being oppressed and murdered in the Islamic State or anything.
	First world feminists had much more pressing issues to deal with.
	What started with the Tumblr blog called Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train, which is apparently a classic among public assertions of privilege, blossomed into a fully-fledged feminist movement known as man-spreading.
	Man spreading refers to male passengers who sit with their legs apart in a V-shape on crowded subways and buses.
	The inelegant male posture has been the bane of many public transit users and has been written about in blogs and those who are guilty of it have been publicly mocked on social media.
	The campaign to stop man spreading has since been picked up by New York's public transit body, presumably because there are no other actual problems to deal with.
	The Metropolitan Transport Authority is set to launch a series of public ads that encourage male passengers to stop infringing on the space of their fellow passengers, the New York Times reported.
	The launch of the upcoming campaign has caught the attention of many public transport users, including those in Toronto who say that man spreading is also a problem in the city.
	Yes, I'm sure that this is a dire problem that women simply cannot endure.
	There is nothing petty about this.
	This is in no way pathetic beyond all reason.
	I mean, what other issues do the feminist movement really need to tackle, other than men taking up too much space on trains?
	Of course, farting is a feminist issue.
	Of course it is.
	It seems that there is literally nothing too pathetic to be a feminist issue.
	I mean, it says to exhibit any kind of bodily function in public, whether it's pissing against the wall, spitting in the street, picking and flicking earwax while one waits in a queue, is still seen as a male thing to do.
	I think it's rather just seen as a gross thing to do.
	We might consider such things disgusting, but men can assume the right to be disgusting in a way that women can't.
	That is so oppressive.
	That is just awful.
	Men are allowed to be disgusting and women are being oppressed by it.
	They're being oppressed by not being gross.
	It's understood that male bodies are a part of what men are.
	Female bodies don't have that status.
	No, no, female bodies are not part of what females are.
	I mean, I personally recall that scene from Gone with the Wind, where Clark Gable says, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn, and then spits in her face while picking his nose and eating it.
	These days, the phrase real woman is associated with dove adverts, not with women who fart and burp and might occasionally want to cough up some phlegm when out on a jog.
	Fucking gross.
	I'm not saying that these are pleasant things to do, good because they're not.
	And I'm not proposing we organise a feminist fart in unless it's held at Claridge's, which is something I think we encourage that they do because it would be hilarious.
	But I do think we need to ask ourselves whether the perceived maleness of bodily functions is harmful to women.
	She doesn't obviously state what kind of harm it's going to do to women, but if we pretend that other women don't snore, sweat, or have smelly feet, how much more ashamed will we feel of our own bodies simply for existing in their natural state?
	I completely agree.
	I mean, feminism is on a desperate quest to lower standards all across the world, starting primarily in first world countries because feminists are lazy, and feminists have got the right to be gross all they want.
	Hell, why even bother bathing?
	Changes in sexual mores have allowed us to pretend that women are no longer under enormous pressure to be ladylike.
	However, being ladylike and being chaste are not the same thing, which begs the question, why the fuck are you talking about them?
	If anything, the more flesh we are permitted to have on show, the greater the pressure upon us to make said flesh hairless, unscented, and perspiration-free.
	You know, just be hairy and sweaty.
	It's fine.
	Female bodies don't just exist to be looked at.
	They leak, smell, and make involuntary noises.
	And what's more, if they do all that, then it's also likely that they think and feel.
	Which just goes to show that feminism is actually on a crusade to lower the standards of women everywhere.
	So instead of trying to aspire to this, women are managing to aspire to this.
	And people wonder why the marriage rates are plummeting.
	If being disgusting wasn't enough, dragging women down to the same level as animals is on the agenda of some feminists by making animal rights a feminist issue.
	The objectification and exploitation of animal lives and bodies ought to come under greater scrutiny by feminists given that feminism is all about fighting against the way patriarchy dismisses certain beings' interests and subjectivity for the benefit of arbitrarily designated superior beings.
	I really don't think the delineation between human and animal is arbitrary.
	But then again, I am a card-carrying member of the patriarchy, and by the definition of feminism, that makes me a superior being.
	Because animals cannot fight back, give to us or deny consent, or organise in opposition, we as humans feel we can do as we please with them, usually under the guise of looking out for their interests.
	A number of barriers generally prevent us from understanding the situation with animals as oppressive.
	As a result, it might not be obvious why some feminists hold this to be a feminist issue.
	I won't lie, it's not obvious.
	But thankfully, this feminist has provided us with five bullet points to help us understand.
	One, animal bodies are objectified too.
	To be objectified means that one's body and life exists for the pleasure or benefit of someone else.
	Jesus fucking Christ.
	No, no, I mean, no, that's totally, totally the same in which women are used by men.
	I'm completely sure of it.
	Two, animal bodies are used to normalize rape culture.
	Factory farming and even measures used in happy farms institutionalizes forced sex and violent systems of oppression.
	The majority of animals who are killed each year are slaughtered through the factory farming system.
	Female animals endure a life of repeated rape and perpetual pregnancies and after they're spent they are slaughtered, just like first world women.
	Number four, domestic violence harms animals.
	According to the New York Times article, animal abuse is one of the four indicators that the FBI profilers use to assess future violent behaviour.
	there's a clear correlation between hurting non-human animals early in your life and then harming humans, which, indeed, comes under the classification of domestic abuse.
	You fucking... Jesus Christ.
	Number four again, because this article is written by a fucking moron, intersectionality must include all oppressed groups.
	The reality is this.
	People of colour, women, people with disabilities, the LGBTQIA plus community, etc., have it pretty bad.
	And animals also have it pretty bad.
	So these people are the equivalent of animals, according to feminists.
	It's ridiculous to try and rank how bad each group has it.
	Did you think I was joking?
	Or to assume all of our attention must be devoted to one group's fight for rights.
	Or to assume that if much of our attention is focused on one group at a certain time, that means the other group are less important or have it better.
	I agree.
	I totally think that animals should be able to get abortions.
	They should be able to vote and work and drive.
	And to declare that one of these groups is treated better than the other is to completely miss the ways in which these oppressions are intertwined and even dependent on one another.
	Holy shit.
	That is fucking barking.
	And number five, our society spreads lies about animals too.
	Most of us feminists already know that cultural scripts are used to naturalize problematic behaviours.
	While cheese and hamburgers might taste great, this script deflects from the systemic reality that non-human animals are tortured, slaughtered, and raped so that we can eat to satisfy our addictions to taste.
	Which is exactly what happens to women all over the Western world right now.
	And no, the holidays are not safe either.
	A feminist Christmas tale, God raped Mary.
	Of course he did.
	Of course he did.
	I just, no, there is nothing that doesn't get raped if you're a feminist.
	Because let's face it, rape is intrinsic to religion.
	Stories like the virgin birth lack freely given female consent, and it's telling how ready we still are to embrace them.
	Powerful gods and demigods impregnating human women, it's a common theme in the history of religion, and it's more than a little rapey.
	It's also more than a little made up.
	Many Christians are surprised when told that nowhere in the Bible, either the Old Testament or new, does any writer say that a woman's consent is necessary or even desirable before sex.
	I can't believe that 2,000 years ago when they were writing down the Bible and believing in magical sky fairies, that they weren't also feminists.
	But the thing is, in the Bible, there were also some actual real rapes as well, such as this one where Lot's daughters decide to get him drunk and take advantage of him because they want children.
	I'm not saying this happened.
	I'm saying though that this didn't require any divine intervention.
	But you won't ever hear the feminists talking about this because it's a man being raped by a woman and that's an uncomfortable thing for feminists.
	Because it does tend to undermine the narrative somewhat.
	Flying in the face of hard feminist evidence, men are apparently really more stupid than women.
	It's official.
	Men are really stupider than women, accounting for 90% of the people who have died in foolish ways according to the Darwin Awards.
	Ah yes, the most scientific way of measuring the relative intelligence of men and women.
	A 20-year study of the Darwin Awards has showed that 90% were won by males.
	Named after Charles Darwin, who postulated the survival of the fittest, it recognises those who have inadvertently improved the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race by astonishingly stupid methods.
	This of course is no great surprise.
	If you were actually to do something that approached scientific research though, and plotted the intelligence of men and women on a graph, you'd find that you get two different bell curves, where men have got a higher standard deviation, meaning that there's more difference at the extremes, whereas women tend to cluster more to the center, meaning that on average, men and women have the same IQ, but if you break it down, there are more men who have got higher IQ and more men who have got lower IQ on average.
	This is probably one factor in explaining why more men win Nobel Prizes, but less women end up receiving Darwin awards.
	But when you're in the feminist worldview and you think that men are officially stupider than women, it must be really baffling that the majority of CEOs are still men.
	Because the Workplace Gender Equality Agency has seized on international research which indicates the pay disparity in an organization begins to shrink when the boss has a daughter.
	They are actually convinced that men are paying women less based on their gender, despite every Western country having laws against this.
	And dozens of studies proving exactly why women in aggregate earn less than men in aggregate.
	But we'll get to those in a minute.
	Because feminists find the gender pay gap, as they call it, absolutely baffling.
	Every year we talk about the pay gap and we have equal payday and nothing changes.
	It's just inexplicable.
	We've got laws, we've got public awareness campaigns, we've got Jessica Valenti suggesting that we just pay men less based on their gender, literally suggesting that we should bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls.
	And even when the legal advice she receives says no, that would be illegal and sexist discrimination, Valenti's reply is bummer, because apparently the alternatives sure don't seem to be working.
	Except they are.
	At least in Britain.
	The gender pay gap in the UK has fallen to a record low.
	Women in their 20s and 30s now earn more than their male counterparts.
	You fucking morons, that is not a quote-unquote record low.
	That means it does not exist.
	If anything, it is inverted.
	You now have a gender pay gap against men, but that's not very important because now apparently the Tories must help quote unquote all women thrive.
	It's weird how the feminists can literally say something like, if we have the same rates of men and women participating in the labour market, it could increase GDP around 10% by 2030.
	And I know if women started businesses at the same rate as men, we would have an extra million entrepreneurs.
	And since 2010, the number of women in employment has increased by 774,000, causing the gender pay gap to fall to a record low.
	Are you listening, feminists?
	It's not because you're getting paid differently for the job you're doing, you fucking halfwits.
	It's because a lot of women aren't in work.
	You.
	No, I'm not.
	I'm not angry.
	They're just moronic.
	They are just, they have something wrong with their brains.
	And despite women out-earning men, even though they work less than men, Jessica Valenti still thinks that women need to be given free stuff.
	And says that Gloria Steinem wrote that if men got periods, they would brag about how long and how much.
	And asks, seriously, why aren't tampons free?
	Jessica, you would have to pay for them via tax, which would have to be used to support the bureaucracy that organized the free tampons.
	It would probably work out more expensive than if you just bought your own fucking tampons, you cretin.
	Oh, except men would be paying for them, wouldn't they?
	That's why you want them to be free, because you would probably actually, in the long run, be paying less because men would be paying for something that you exclusively need.
	So, when idiotic feminist comedian Sarah Silverman says, it's a $500,000 vagina tax, and goes penis shopping in a new campaign to highlight the gender pay gap that feminists have already shown only exists because some women choose not to work or to work in jobs that don't pay as high as jobs men tend to choose.
	Is it any wonder that she makes herself look like an absolute fucking fool?
	She did a quote-unquote comedy video explaining that every year the average woman loses $11,000 to the wage gap.
	A statement so retarded it could only have come from the mouth of a feminist and explains that from a doctor's office flinging around a selection of prosthetic penises.
	Over the course of her working life, that's almost half a million dollars.
	That's half a million dollar vagina tax.
	That's why I'm becoming a dude.
	Sarah, you cretin, you will also have to change your job.
	But the thing is, Sarah, I think you're probably quite wealthy already.
	So what you're saying is that the average woman will have to quit the job that she may well enjoy and get a job as a fucking truck driver or something, or possibly a maintenance worker or a construction worker.
	Because those jobs that are majority women, say nursing aides, kindergarten teachers and childcare workers, are just not high-paying jobs.
	And they never fucking will be.
	Sorry, ladies, the feminists have decreed that you are not earning enough money.
	You now need to become a long-distance truck driver.
	Possibly one of the worst jobs I can imagine.
	Being stuck on your own, on the road, for days on end, without anyone to talk to.
	I know you may have enjoyed being a childcare worker or a kindergarten teacher, but I'm sorry, these feminists have decided that you do not earn enough money doing those jobs.
	But luckily for the average woman, before the feminists can shackle them off into the labor camps to make sure that they earn as much as the men, they are going to be saved from this life of unending labor by a feminist civil war.
	Sarah Silverman's viral video promoting forcing women into forced labor camps is facing backlash over the premise some claim makes light of gender confirmation surgery and the plight of transgender people in a country where they can still be fired in 32 states for simply being trans.
	In her video, the National Women's Law Center's Equal Payback Project, the comedian aimed to highlight the gender-based wage disparity by proposing a facetious way to close the wage gap herself.
	Having surgery to add a penis to her body, I'm becoming a dude, Silverman says.
	Oh dear Sarah, I think you may have forgotten there can be no such thing as a feminist comedian, because feminists do not like fun and have no sense of humour.
	She has of course raised the ire of LGBT organisations who say we call upon the NWLC to take down the video immediately.
	It was created at the expense of the transgender community, an already vulnerable, often misunderstood and targeted population.
	And it does more than leave transgender women and men out from an important conversation on employment discrimination.
	It's dehumanizing and puts a stamp of approval on jokes about transgender people's lives.
	Janet Mock here helps us really exemplify just how little humour feminists have when she says sex reassignment doesn't help one advance in the workplace.
	Ask one of the most underemployed populations, trans people.
	No, it wasn't actually a joke, Janet.
	She was being deadly serious.
	She was genuinely going to get a prosthetic penis in order that she would be paid more.
	But this is a wonderful example that really highlights the fundamental flaw in the ideology of modern feminism, especially for feminists like Sarah Silverman and Jessica Valenti.
	Because as the progressive stack goes, white women are only slightly below white men.
	And black women and transgender women and whatnot are all far below white women on the privilege scale.
	And so, after overthrowing white men as the most privileged class in society, white women are now next.
	And the black women know it.
	For example, when I read what comes off as a kind of self-assured smugness, I think to myself, the future of feminism cannot be left to the hands of white women.
	And that's because white privilege allows most white women not to have to do this kind of work.
	Not to have to cultivate this kind of empathy for women who are not white.
	White women's feminisms still center around equality, whereas black women's feminisms demand justice.
	There is a difference and God knows what that is.
	It actually kind of appears to be overthrowing the state.
	I'm not joking, one kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing American system.
	The other recognizes the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation.
	So feminism appears to be breeding some kind of revolutionary movement within itself, as well as dragging women down to the lowest common denominator, so they can piss shit and fart along with the animals as they all roll around in each other's filth.
	So it's not really surprising that men don't really want to be associated with feminism, even though they may well support gender equality.
	The picture here is a prime example of why.
	I mean, that t-shirt costs £45, if you were to buy it in a shop.
	It costs £62p to make by female sweatshop workers in the third world.
	But modern first world feminists do not see a problem with this.
	In the instantly interactive, increasingly hostile world of 21st century sexual politics, to me the word now symbolizes a megalith of negativity, a lightning rod for all that is bad about how men and women interact.
	Few other words in the English language instill such immediate, powerful and usually negative responses in men, and interestingly, quite a lot of women, as the F word.
	But why?
	Racism doesn't automatically offend all whites.
	Atheism doesn't automatically get the goat of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
	Well, I think it's quite self-evident really.
	If it was called maleism, then it'd probably piss off women.
	If it was called whitism, it'd probably piss off black people.
	And if it was called Zeusism, it'd probably piss off religious people.
	Some say that radical feminists, affectionately labelled the feminine Nazis, have made the whole concept damage goods.
	I'll stop you there.
	There have already been plenty of feminists saying, here's a radical idea.
	Let's do something radical.
	It is in fact becoming increasingly more difficult to find feminists who aren't radical.
	But for example, the all-men are rapists might only have been said once, but it can't be unsaid.
	And sadly, it's the one feminist soundbite that most men remember.
	I wonder why.
	Has feminism become less of a positive movement and more of a bad attitude?
	Yes.
	The next problem with feminism in 2014 is male feminists who say that men accept feminism isn't about you.
	Feminism may be a difficult word for men to hear, but that doesn't excuse ignoring the entire movement.
	No, but it is the reason that people try to ignore the entire movement.
	Feminist language might put some off, but that certainly doesn't mean it's broken.
	No, it means it's fucking barking.
	It's fucking damaging, for Christ's sake.
	Talking about gender equality means having to become fluent in a new lexicon with terms like intersectionality, rape culture, and patriarchy.
	Men I know who are otherwise intelligent have managed to grapple with quantitative easing and Large Hadron Collider, suddenly become flummox, exasperated and often give up.
	What's so difficult about feminism?
	It's not that it's difficult, it's that it's balmy, it's wrong, it's fucking horrible.
	And it seeks to pursue injustices against men, and it is so self-evident that even men, black women, other white women, and lesbian, gay, transsexual, queer people can see it.
	Because as a man who supports feminism, one of the first things you have to do is accept the movement really isn't about you.
	It's just not intended for your benefit.
	Well, holy shit, I can't believe that men don't want to become feminists.
	It's glad that they can at least say that this is exclusively for the benefit of women.
	You know, like, not putting women in jail for anything.
	It sounds like a radical idea.
	stop incarcerating women in closed-down women's prisons.
	Yes, there are a surprisingly number of radical feminists proposing radical ideas that are being given a radical amount of credence.
	Thankfully though, most of these things never actually come to pass.
	And that is because feminists are monumentally lazy.
	So lazy in fact that most of the activism that they actually do involves them sitting on their fat, unwashed hairy asses and tweeting.
	Tweeting like their lives depended on it.
	Tweeting like their hashtag activism was going to change anything.
	For example, the hashtag yes all women has absolutely prevented men from approaching women in the street.
	Oh wait, no it hasn't.
	How about hashtag bring back our girls which absolutely got those girls returned from Boko Haram?
	Except no it didn't.
	There was hashtag dudes greeting dudes which was apparently a way to try and encourage men to catcall each other which now happens constantly and I'm afraid to walk to the shops for fear of being sexually assaulted.
	Oh wait no I'm not.
	There was hashtag cancel Colbert which got Stephen Colbert's show cancelled.
	Except it didn't.
	There was hashtag why I stayed which just told people why women stayed with their abusive boyfriends or husbands.
	I mean that one actually might have done its job.
	How about hashtag stopGamergates which absolutely just put the brakes on Gamergate?
	Except that didn't work either.
	And I know you might be thinking yes but what about Gamergate?
	That was hashtag activism.
	That's correct.
	But Gamergate was hashtag activism that actually had an effect.
	Various websites now have ethics policies.
	Various advertisers have pulled out certain websites causing those websites to absolutely plummet in the rankings and costing Gorka millions of dollars.
	If anything Gamergate should have been an example to feminists how to do hashtag activism.
	But feminist hashtag activism did have one notable accomplishment this year.
	It made a very distinguished scientist who landed a probe on a comet, a first for mankind no less, break down in tears and make the focus of the event the shirts he was wearing rather than he and his team's magnificent achievement.
	Well done feminism, you got a man who was wearing a shirt made for him by a female friend to cry when he made an apology for offending you because you bullied him so fucking much.
	Well fucking done, you sick pieces of shit.
	Was this enough though?
	That's the question.
	Was it enough that he broke down in tears over what should have been the greatest achievement of his life?
	Was it fucking hell?
	Rachel Feltman, a science writer for the Washington Post, an all-around scummy human being, blogged, of course I personally hope that one day Taylor will say a bit more on the subject and show that he understands why the shirt wasn't okay.
	Rachel Feltman, how about you go and fuck yourself.
	Washington Post, why are you employing such vile human beings?
	And so finally, after proving themselves to be the scum of the earth, second only to ISIS, absolutely devoid of merit in any way, when Time magazine had the gall to run a poll asking which word should be banned in 2015 and feminist appeared on that list, is it any wonder that the word feminist won in a fucking landslide?
	Needless to say, feminists flipped the fuck out about banning the word feminist and proceeded to go ahead and bully the shit out of Time magazine en masse to the point where Time magazine cancelled the poll and issued an apology for doing so.
	The despicable, despicable events and actions of feminists in 2014 should be a wake-up call to feminism.
	If feminists had any kind of sense or humility, they would do some fucking navel gazing and realize that everyone hates them.
	You are fucking annoying.
	You are humorous, screeching bullies who, harridan-like, will harass people until you get what you want.
	And everyone, everyone outside of your feminist circle wants you to go away.
	Education in 2014 was a topic that went decidedly south.
	With examples being trying to call kids purple penguins because boys and girls was not inclusive to transgender folks, or kids being suspended from school for pointing their fingers in the shape of a gun.
	But really, 2014's prizes for being incredibly stupid in the realms of education go to universities.
	Because holy shit, do these show that modern Western civilization is on the decline.
	Take for example the microaggression, which is apparently the hottest concept on campus today, used to call out racism otherwise invisible to the naked eye, where the school sacrificed the reputation of a beloved and respected professor in order to placate a group of ignorant students making specious charges of racism.
	Now you might be thinking, well that's bloody pathetic, but it gets worse.
	Students at one college seek a pass on failing grades because they were busy out protesting.
	Many of the students have been out protesting since summer and missed important classes and assignments.
	As a result, they may end up flunking their course, to which the world sits back and says, no shit, Sherlock.
	Students asked college president Martin Kryslov to suspend the standard grading system, which thankfully he said he would not do.
	My god, you fucking retards.
	It's like you think that you can get it's like you think the past is important.
	It's not knowing the information that's important.
	It's not knowing the subject it's important.
	It's having the grade that's important.
	You fucking crattins.
	But more than that, look at the entitlement.
	Yes, we know we didn't do the work.
	Yes, we know we were out being annoying and protesting first world problems.
	But we still deserve the past because, I mean, we're students.
	We totally earned it, even though we didn't do the work.
	Imagine if you had to tell your grandkids, I didn't go out and fight for what is right because I had to finish a chemistry final.
	said Oberlin student senator Nick Canavan.
	Nick, you fucking retard.
	They would say, why didn't you just finish your course first and then spend the rest of your life protesting?
	Why did it have to be in the middle of your fucking exams, you absolute, mind-bogglingly stupid fool.
	But I mean, what this is really about is white people sticking up for brown people and all those micro-aggressions that they suffer.
	Because class is important, said Megan Bautista, a student senator.
	At the end of the day, this is not just about me, not just about her.
	This is about advocating for black and brown bodies and the assault on them.
	A way to dehumanize black people.
	Jesus fucking Christ, they're human beings, you sicko.
	But what's more, over 1,300 students signed a petition asking for failing grades to be suspended for the semester with, you know, the students advocating that the lowest they get is a C. You know, I mean, that's reasonable, isn't it?
	They didn't turn up to the classes, they didn't take the exams, but they deserve a C.
	I mean, they were out protesting against invisible racism.
	As we said though, the university said no.
	Please know I have taken your request to suspend grading protocols seriously.
	Why?
	Why wouldn't you just laugh in their fucking faces?
	But anyway, I have considered your petition carefully with the academic deans.
	We are in firm agreement that suspending grading protocols is not a way to achieve our shared goal of ensuring the students have every opportunity and resource to succeed.
	Thank fuck someone is left with common sense at these universities.
	But the thing is, in 10 years' time, is that professor going to be there?
	Is it going to be a social justice professor who has taken over and says, well, you know what, students, I'm going to suspend grading.
	Because that's what I protested for when I was a student.
	And I had to retake my year because I was out protesting.
	But I've done that now and now I'm the dean of this university and now you can go out and protest instead of studying for your exams.
	It's the fact that this was fucking entertained.
	You should have laughed them out of your university.
	So is it any wonder that students were then petitioning to say, hey, black students should just be exempt from failing grades altogether?
	Because they might be traumatized by recent protests.
	But the students are claiming that the African-American students be completely exempt from failing this semester because they are so deeply affected in times like this.
	Well, if there's one thing that black people really want, it's annoying privileged white kids telling them just how deeply affected they are by things in these times.
	How about being unable to teach about rape laws because the very concept or word rape is triggering to students?
	One teacher's experience at Harvard over the past couple of years tells him that the environment for teaching rape law and other subjects involving gender and violence is changing.
	Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular than they have ever been in his eight years as a law professor.
	Student organizations representing women's interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, which might therefore be traumatic.
	This is the next generation of leaders the Western world is producing.
	And they are traumatized by talking about the laws that govern rape allegations.
	These organizations also ask criminal law teachers to warn their classes that the rape law unit might trigger traumatic memories.
	Holy shit, they're trying to turn the world into a fucking hugbox.
	Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well.
	One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word violate in class, as in does this conduct violate the law, because the word was triggering.
	Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
	And it's in the context of students not understanding rape laws and not caring to understand them either that we come to Rolling Stone's article on a rape on campus, a brutal assault and struggle for justice at the University of Virginia.
	Jackie was just starting her freshman year at University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party.
	When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began.
	Except it didn't.
	It seems that Jackie was actually making up the entire episode to try and get the attention of a friend she had a crush on.
	But that didn't stop maniacs from saying that no matter what Jackie said, as in, it doesn't matter that Jackie was talking out of her ass, we should generally believe rape claims.
	Because in 2014, there was a solid push to get rape the one accusation that laid the accused under a presumption of guilt.
	After all, incredulity hurts victims more than it hurts wrongly accused perps.
	This is absurd.
	Just the very sentence, wrongly accused perpetrators.
	They weren't perpetrators if they were wrongly accused, Zelina Maxwell.
	You fucking cretin!
	Jesus Christ, think about the words you're writing down, you moron!
	She goes on to explain that Jackie's narrative is falling apart.
	Her rapist wasn't in the frat that she says he was a member of.
	There was no house party held on the night of the alleged assault.
	Not the assault, Zelina.
	You fucking moron, the alleged assault.
	And other details are, quote-unquote, wobbly.
	Many people will be tempted to see this as a reminder that officials, reporters, and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases.
	Yes, like sensible, rational, moral people who do not want to see injustices perpetrated.
	After all, look what happened to the Duke Lacrosse players.
	I'll cover that in a minute.
	Let's just see how unhinged Zelina is.
	In important ways, this is wrong.
	Didn't fail to disappoint, did you, Zelina?
	We should believe as a matter of default what an accuser says.
	Are you fucking mad?
	Are you actually batshit insane?
	Do you not think that is going to cause a spate of accusations based on malicious reasons?
	I mean, just like this case right now.
	Ultimately, though, the cost of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweighs the cost of calling someone a rapist.
	I am lost for fucking words.
	I am.
	What?
	Nothing further is going to happen to someone who has been raped.
	At worst, the criminal doesn't go to jail.
	That's the worst that happens.
	more harm comes to that person.
	If you believe any accusation, whether you know it to be true or not, then you are going to fucking convict people who aren't guilty.
	People who aren't guilty don't deserve to be punished, you fucking sociopath.
	Even if Jackie fabricated her account, UVA should have taken her at her word for it during the period while they endeavoured to prove or disprove the accusation.
	This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in the courts.
	It's a moral one.
	It's a moral one.
	Okay, I think now is the time that we should look at the Duke Lacrosse one from 2006.
	To make a long and disgraceful story short, in March 2006, an exotic dancer named Crystal Magnum accused three members of Duke University Lacrosse team of having racially slurred, beaten and gang raped her at a team party.
	Despite the lack of credible evidence of the players' guilt, then Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong charged the players with rape and publicly smeared their characters using a number of sordid and unethical tactics.
	Many members of the Duke student body and media pilloried the defendants without ever personally laying their eyes on a shred of evidence.
	Most shamefully, a number of Duke professors known as the Group of 88, fucking professors, published a statement in the campus newspaper implying that the accusations were true and expressing approval of student protesters who had rushed to judgment.
	Even the president of the campus, Richard Broadhead, failed to urge the campus community to respect the presumption of their innocence.
	When the accusations were proved to be false, Nifong was disbarred and Broadhead had to apologize for abandoning his own students to the mob.
	Let's be clear.
	These three students were accused of raping a woman and with no evidence whatsoever, none at all, the student body and the fucking professors, including the dean, ranged themselves against these kids because they listened and believed.
	And protesters stood outside with signs like Sunday morning, time to confess, give them equal measure, like they're part of a fucking religion.
	How about their best impression of a church?
	Get a conscience and not a lawyer.
	Repent your sins.
	Or my personal favourite, absolute depth of depravity, castrate these three innocent men.
	Look at these fuckers.
	Castrate them.
	We've got no evidence.
	It's just on an accusation, but they should be mutilated.
	So needless to say, when in 2014 there are people calling for colleges to use a lower standard of evidence than criminal courts when adjudicated sexual assault complaints, many civil liberties advocates, lawyers and politicians have accused the federal government of trampling on students' rights to due process.
	Campus officials for the most part have stressed that adjudication is an educational experience where the students are found responsible rather than guilty.
	Responsible for rapes they didn't commit because the standard of evidence was fucking lowered.
	They're not guilty though, they're just responsible.
	I'm sure that'll make them feel so much fucking better.
	I'm sure this won't be used as a way to publicly exile them from the social scene of the campus.
	But for some, including Amanda Chaldress, sexual assault awareness program coordinator at Dartmouth College, campus policies aren't going far enough to protect students.
	Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?
	Well, Amanda, you fucking lunatic, has it ever occurred to you that you are asking such a monstrous thing because you occupy a position of privilege by which you will never be laid under the allegation of rape?
	Of course it hasn't.
	But what is worse than this is that the university is defending her request to expel students based on allegations.
	I would say it's unbelievable, but it's very clear at this point that universities are a fucking whole.
	And the myth that one in five college women are sexually assaulted is still being perpetuated and you get people saying things like, and yet some men accused of such assaults are playing the victim.
	Holy shit.
	I cannot believe how degenerate and debased the higher education system has become.
	I am fucking disgusted.
	just fuck me.
	Following on from the university's really not being able to teach rape law without being retarded, yes means yes is a terrible law and I completely support it.
	Well done Urza Klein.
	I'm baffled why anyone would support something they openly admit is terrible.
	The yes means yes law is a new law that's been brought in by the state of California and under the new law colleges have to set a standard to determine whether the victim provided quote affirmative conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.
	In other words did she not say she either say yes or make it very clear that she meant yes.
	Which is brilliant.
	I mean I'm sure that this law is going to prevent so many rapes from happening.
	So any sex without affirmative consent must literally be defined as sexual assault by California colleges now.
	Yes, but colleges are not going to be looking into whether their students have had sex without affirmative consent except in cases where one party believes she has been sexually assaulted and reports it.
	Couples who have sex without providing affirmative consent but are both willing participants are not going to be tracked down and punished by their schools yet.
	Obviously this law isn't really going to help because it is indeed going to create he said she said situations.
	Which is presumably why so many women are pushing for the let's just believe women when they tell someone that they were raped.
	Rachel Van Cleve, Dean of Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, oh fucking hell told Bloomberg in an interview that it's true that the allegations of sexual assault in the context of this new law may come down to he said she said but she added rape always comes down to that.
	Does it though?
	Does it always come down to that?
	But here's the crux of why they've done this.
	This new law changes the nature of the topic about which the accuser and accused are testifying.
	In the criminal context, the question the court asks is did she say no?
	In the California California college campus context, it will change to did she say yes.
	Again, if she didn't explicitly say yes, then you were a rapist.
	Even if she did consent without saying yes, and you aren't in fact a rapist.
	Of course, the author thinks that the yes means yes law is terrible but necessary.
	And because one in five women report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended.
	And that, and I'm quoting verbatim here, men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.
	And to work, yes means yes needs to create a world where men are afraid.
	Which is an attitude as bestial as it is retarded.
	Honestly, you complain that women are oppressed, 50% of the population are oppressed, but you actually make laws designed to oppress 50% of the population.
	Fucking come on.
	The author does concede that false rape allegations happen and that they are awful, but apparently they happen very rarely, although he gives no statistics.
	But by contrast, rape and sexual assault happens constantly.
	And the thing is, it's like these morons think that things are static, stationary, unchangeable.
	It's like they don't think that if you have laws that assume the guilt of the accused and the truth of the accuser, it's not going to incentivize people to create false rape claims.
	And the reason that the false claims might be quite low at the moment is because we have a system that disincentivizes false rape claims.
	But no, I mean, it's just going to remain low because women are fucking saints.
	And one in five women do suffer from being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, aren't they?
	Or are they?
	Because it turns out that actual data on the subject issued by the Department of Justice says otherwise.
	In fact, it says that the social justice warriors who are pushing for this law are talking complete shit.
	Not only is the number not one in five, it is actually 0.03 in five, but students have a lower rate of sexual assault than the general population, in which it is 0.67%.
	Seriously, the one in five statistics, the one in four statistics, whatever statistics they throw at you are bullshit.
	Total, unmitigated, unvarnished bullshit.
	It's just, there is nothing else to say about them.
	They are not true.
	They are factually inaccurate.
	And these people willfully disseminate these lies because it gives them the advantage because then they get everything they are asking for.
	Coming back to Europe, in other stupid laws, Britain's been forced by the EU to pay an extra £100 million a year, which isn't all that much really, but it's more the gall of it.
	Because this was done after the fact.
	The forecast contributions for 2015-2016 had been cut by 800 million to 9.9 billion and increased by almost a billion for 2016-17.
	The revisions, which balance out £100 million a year until 2019, follow a controversial recalculation of EU member states' budget contributions.
	That was based on how each European economy was performing, meaning Britain is effectively being punished for success.
	No great surprise there, given that European politicians have got a storied history of not liking Britain and enacting legislation that almost exclusively targets Britain.
	For example, the European financial transaction tax from 2011, which was a tax on all financial transactions that occur within the EU.
	Which sounds fair enough.
	Until you realise that almost 80% of the revenues that any Europe-wide financial tax would raise would come exclusively from London.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend bankers, but this is clearly a political maneuver.
	Anyway.
	This recalculation saw Britain landed with a retrospective bill of £1.7 billion, triggering a furious row between Cameron and other European leaders at the meeting of the European Council, because these things had been decided almost in secret and then handed to Britain.
	Why is this retarded?
	This is retarded because there is a rapidly rising sentiment to leave Europe in the UK.
	So you would think that they wouldn't take unnecessarily provocative steps or try to milk the cash cow any more than necessary.
	In fact, UKIP's rise has been startling.
	They're not going to win in 15, but they really expect by 2020 to have significant gains.
	And this is causing hundreds of thousands of plebs to come out in support of organisations like Britain First.
	I'm sure you've heard of them, and if you haven't, you can Google them.
	But they aren't really the sorts of people that I personally would like to see in power in this country, so handing them political victories on a plate is a really stupid thing to do.
	But more than that, it is causing the rise of far-right parties all across Europe.
	In fact, the EU's belligerent stance since 2007 has caused a pan-European alliance of far-right parties led by the French National Front and the Dutch Freedom Party vowing to slay the monster in Brussels.
	And the worst thing is, there is a monster in Brussels that needs slaying.
	European bureaucrats are fucking Cretans.
	They are so bafflingly determined to ruin the European Union that Mikhail Gorbachev has said the most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.
	Well done EU leaders, you are literally going about the right way to ruin Europe.
	It's almost a joke to say that the fucking communists have come in and taken over and now the fascists are going to rise up and overthrow them.
	It would be funny if it wasn't looking like it might actually happen.
	You can only piss people off for so long, you Muppets.
	Coming back to Britain, in 2013, David Cameron decided that pornography should be blocked by default by internet service providers.
	Why?
	Because parents aren't doing any fucking parenting anymore and won't someone think of the children.
	This was a bad thing for two reasons.
	One, it really does alleviate parents of any responsibility of their own to monitor their own kids.
	And two, it means that people have to ask to see something they are legally allowed to view.
	Going along with the tacit implication that the government has the right to make you ask them for something that you were entitled to.
	And apparently at the end of 2013, we had nothing to worry about, because apparently the porn filter was hardly blocking anything.
	Of course, by February 2014, it was blocking one fifth of all websites, a large number of which are completely innocuous.
	For example, the founder of SheWrights.com blog Maureen Shaw says, if people who would normally be interested in accessing our content, which focuses on reproductive healthcare, violence against women and LGBT rights, are not able to view the site, then it directly impacts our bottom line.
	Also, it probably doesn't help the people who need that information.
	I know it might not sound like it, but I am actually genuinely concerned about people who can't access information they might actually need.
	And the thing is, studies show that it's not that porn is even bad for you.
	There has been a tremendous amount of hyperbole about porn use, with many authors and doomsayers claiming that viewing porn triggers dangerous neurochemical changes in the brain, but groundbreaking new research says that it just ain't so.
	And with people who are the problem users of porn are actually people with high libidos, not people whose brains have been warped by sex and porn.
	Popular anti-porn advocates such as Your Brain on Porn and Fight the New Drug argue that porn is a public health issue, not a free speech issue.
	These advocates often assert that if people in society only knew the damage that porn was causing to our brains, that we would regulate it in ourselves and the access that is allowed.
	I hope you're paying attention for Macintosh and Anita Sarkeesian.
	But that didn't stop the UK government simply banning a long list of sex acts from UK porn.
	Any pornography produced in the UK was censored through the amendments to a 2003 Communications Act and the measures appear to take aim at female pleasure.
	The Audio Visual Media Services Regulations 2014 requires that video on demand online porn now adhere to the same guidelines laid out for DVD sex shop style porn by the British Board of Film Censors.
	Those marvellous people who have been outlawing things that haven't done any damage that anyone can seem to account for anywhere ever.
	Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board's ruling on content that is not acceptable effectively bans the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers.
	The side effect of this is not just people not being able to make the porn that they want, but it's also an economic effect that you can't produce this porn in this country, so people outside of the country will have to produce it and it will be imported.
	Obviously leading to the question, why still allow it to be imported if it's not allowed to be made here?
	It's just pointless and authoritarian and puritanical.
	The list of acts that are banned is as follows.
	Spanking, caning, aggressive whipping, penetration by any object associated with violence, physical or verbal abuse, regardless if consensual, Eurologina known as water sports, role-playing as non-adults, physical restraint, humiliation, female ejaculation, strangulation, face-sitting and fisting.
	Where the fuck have these Puritans come from?
	Who are the people who have banned these things?
	Why have they decided that these things are bad?
	What is going on?
	The final three listed fall under the acts that the BBFC views as potentially life endangering.
	Potentially life endangering.
	Potentially life endangering fisting.
	Well, I tell you what, BBFC, you guys have had some far wilder sex sessions than I have.
	I have never seen fisting that is potentially life endangering.
	And I have to ask to who?
	Is it to the person doing the fisting or is it to the person receiving the fisting?
	Oh, I imagine they won't answer because that's probably an uncomfortable question that makes them look away and get all embarrassed and start blushing.
	The measures won't stop people from watching whatever genre of porn they desire as the video can still be shot abroad and they appear to make no distinction between consensual and non-consensual practices between adults.
	Why?
	Who the fuck is allowing this to happen?
	What kind of fucking morons are allowing this?
	There appears to be no rational explanations for most of the R18 rules.
	Jerry Barnett of the anti-censorship group Sex and Censorship told Weiss.
	They are simply a set of moral judgments designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the British people from watching pornography.
	If there's one thing I'm not letting the Conservative government take from me, it's my fucking pornography.
	You fucking dingbats.
	This is the sort of thing that will actually get people motivated against you.
	And finally we come to Sweden.
	The feminist initiative's strong showing in Swedish elections puts pressure on mainstream parties.
	Though the feminist party fell short of the 4% threshold required to win seats in the parliament, its continued growth sends a clear message that gender equality is an important issue for Swedes.
	And there we have Swedish women protesting as if they live in Saudi Arabia.
	Actually, no, what am I talking about?
	There is no way Swedish women would protest like this in Saudi Arabia.
	Despite the support of Farrell Williams and ABBA's Benny Anderson, the feminist initiative only received 3.1% of the votes, not enough to secure one of the 349 parliamentary seats up for grabs.
	However, you have to be a deeply feminist country to even support a feminist party, let alone one that only fails by 0.9%.
	In fact, Sweden is so fucking feminist that the feminist party has faced criticisms from many on the left for its lack of class perspectives in the gender struggle.
	You're not intersectional enough, feminist initiative.
	It was only formed in 2005, and its continued growth proves that there is much more to be done to level gender differences.
	The centre-left alliance is beginning to come on board, although for rather more pragmatic reasons than those motivated the radical feminists of the Group 8.
	Some left-wing commentators are now certain that mending divisions between genders, classes, and individuals over the next four years holds the key to halting the rise of the far right.
	Maybe if you weren't so far left, the far right wouldn't be on the rise so much.
	This, combined with the EU rolling back its totalitarian bent, but fuck, these things are probably inevitable at this point.
	So, what is Sweden in 2014 actually like?
	Well, they will pursue a feminist foreign policy to counter macho-Russian aggression, even if no one knows what that really means.
	Margot Wollstrom, the newly minted foreign minister, said that under her leadership, Sweden will become the only country in the world to conduct a feminist foreign policy, possibly because every other country thinks that is the sort of thing an imbecile would do.
	And that's a perspective that flows from the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, a landmark measure that recognised both the disproportionate impact war has on women and the role women must play in ensuring peace and security, an example of which we saw in the Islamic State earlier.
	But I mean, women are the primary victims of war, aren't they?
	Hillary Clinton.
	Questions about what this means in practice and Wallerstrom's foreign policy moves come at a time of unusual instability in Sweden.
	The country is heading for a snap election in March, after the Swedish Democrats, an ascendant right-wing populist group, blocked the government's budget on Wednesday.
	It will be Sweden's first snap election since 1958, while the Russian military is challenging its Swedish counterpart in ways that haven't been seen since the Cold War.
	I bet the Swedes are resting safely in their beds thinking, you know what, this feminist foreign policy is definitely going to counter that macho-Russian aggression.
	I can't even imagine how hard Vladimir Putin is laughing right now.
	This isn't going to change until March when the fresh elections are held.
	In the interim, Wallerstrom will remain at the foreign ministry with her feminist vision for Sweden's ventures abroad intact.
	By empowering women, the argument goes, there are better chances of snuffing out wars before they start and of ending them in more equitable ways.
	However, it's less clear what such a feminist foreign policy has to say about the old school power politics that Putin has helped resuscitate in the past year.
	As I understand it, Sweden is a fucking joke in Russia, just like it's a joke everywhere else.
	How this is going to somehow snuff out wars before they start is just beyond me.
	I just have no idea what this is going to entail and apparently no one else does either.
	Presumably they're just going to nag the Russians to death with hashtag campaigns until they give up and go home.
	During a recent debate in the Swedish parliament, Wallstrom says that her feminist approach is based on the American politics scientist Joseph Nye's concept of smart power.
	The tools of foreign policy can, in varying degrees, be hard as well as soft.
	I don't think anything about Sweden's hard, to be honest.
	The situation at hand determines this, Wollstrom says.
	Half the population has so far been almost systematically excluded and forgotten.
	Namely women will now be included.
	That is a non-sequitur.
	That simply doesn't follow what you were previously saying.
	Are you suggesting that when war with Russia comes, you're going to be sending women to the front as well?
	Because I'm sure there are going to be millions of dead Swedish women that will really thank you for that.
	When asked how she believes a feminist foreign policy will help end Russian aggression, Wollestrom had nothing but non-sequiturs to give.
	She suggested it would be useful to review women's participation in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and to look at what it does to address the problems women face, a statement exactly as vague as it sounds and just as fucking pointless.
	But while the feminists are off fighting Sweden's wars, Swedish schools are banning Swedish flags for being racist.
	The Swedish flag has now been banned at a primary school in Sweden.
	The reason is that the flag may be offensive to certain groups and breaking the law offensive against ethnic groups.
	The sensational ban is introduced at Stodham School in Halmstad, and the use of the flag is only allowed on the National Day when foreign students are invited.
	Fucking hell, that is just cringeworthily bad, isn't it?
	Just flagellate yourselves.
	We're sorry, we're Swedish, we're so fucking sorry.
	In an internal letter to school students and their parents, who were sent out just before Christmas, the school principal writes that no other use of the Swedish flag is allowed.
	I don't know, what about to wipe the asses of immigrants?
	What about then?
	I mean, I'm sure that'd be okay, wouldn't it?
	Fucking hell.
	Because, you see, the Swedish flag can be perceived as racist.
	The reason for the ban is a masquerade which was held at the school recently, where one of the students chose to paint his face blue and yellow.
	He also brought a toy gun to the masquerade.
	Fucking hell, Sweden!
	Jesus, didn't you- didn't you have an armed response unit ready?
	I mean, the worst probably did happen, didn't it?
	Except nothing fucking happened, you morons!
	School management reacted very strongly and now prohibits both the Swedish flag and toy weapons.
	Bravo!
	Just fucking hell!
	That is- Jesus Christ, Sweden!
	Jesus fucking Christ!
	You're a fucking disgrace!
	This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.
	Eckerlund also believes that by using the Swedish flag, one may be guilty of violating the racism law.
	This is Schrödinger's racist, isn't it?
	Are they or are they not guilty of violating the law?
	I'm pretty sure the answer is they're not guilty because a country's flag isn't fucking racist!
	Good God, the fuck is happening in Sweden?
	I mean why the fuck do the Swedes seem to hate their own country so much?
	I think the answer is probably that the Swedes just hate themselves so much, because Swedes do not deserve a better life than refugees.
	Of course they don't.
	Why would they?
	They're Swedish.
	Swedish people apparently don't deserve anything.
	They're a bunch of fucking monsters.
	And that is according to Swedish people.
	Neither I nor anyone else who grew up in this blissful place has done a single thing which implies that we have more of a right to a good life.
	I think that help making your country a blissful place would be all you need to entitle you to the lives that you fucking have.
	If you, as a country, collectively operate by means and laws that mean you create a good place, don't you feel that you're entitled to that life?
	If people in say the Islamic state create a country that is a war-torn hellhole of genocides and rape and slavery, I think that entitles them to what they have fucking created.
	You make your bed and you lie in it and you're lying in your bed saying this bed's remarkably comfortable.
	We don't deserve this.
	Fucking hell.
	It was pure luck that we were born in Sweden.
	We drew a winning ticket in the life's raffle.
	It's because the people in Sweden make it a good country.
	It's not good because God fucking ordained it, you moron.
	You absolute mentalist.
	Now we need immigration from third world to grow even more, she argues.
	Because if there is one way to make sure that your country remains a blissfully lovely place, it's mass immigration.
	The absolute crazy person who wrote this is already a strong voice for the weak and vulnerable.
	In March 2012, she stirred up a storm by stating that it is not surprising that immigrants are like to rape Swedish girls and women.
	She noted that immigrants only rape because they are emotionally crippled, and it is therefore both inhumane and racist to demand that rapists be deported to their home countries.
	Fucking come on!
	This is a joke, surely.
	I think it's not surprising that immigrants are more likely to rape Swedish girls and women, because Swedish girls and women will tell everyone that it's fine that they've been raped by immigrants.
	And they're not even going to allow you to criticize the concept of immigration.
	Sweden passes law to criminalize any criticism of immigration.
	If there's one thing that's going to promote ideological orthodoxy for the rape of Swedish women, it's criminalizing people who speak out against it.
	Fucking hell Sweden!
	Fucking!
	A new law that will come into effect in Sweden after Christmas 2014 that will allow people to be prosecuted for criticizing immigration or a politician's unwillingness to tackle the issue!
	Fuck.
	Fuck free speech.
	Fuck women going unmolested.
	Fuck holding the people who commit crimes to account.
	Sweden, just bend over and grease yourself up.
	This is being pushed by some maniac called Andrew Norlan.
	And he says, I do not think it takes very many prosecutions before a signal is transmitted in the community that the internet is not a lawless country and the sheriff is back in town.
	He said during a one-sided, quote-unquote, debate on the issue in the Swedish parliament.
	The totalitarian left has taken over Sweden.
	They are criminalizing free speech.
	They are allowing rapists to go unpunished.
	And now they are criminalising the very act of being Swedish.
	Fucking hell.
	This new law is meant to stop Swedish people from complaining about their country being turned into a third world nation.
	Yeah, fuck yourselves.
	It's happening.
	Get used to it.
	Hell, they're even against the idea of men peeing standing up.
	From Sweden to Taiwan, there are growing calls to stop men from urinating while standing up.
	By fucking who?
	Why is anyone listening to these growing calls?
	Just Jesus Christ!
	Vigo Hansen, a councillor from the left party in Somland, a socialist feminist outfit, tabled a motion to ban urinals.
	That's right, he wants to force Swedish men onto their haunches whenever they visit the lavatory.
	Why would you care, Vigo, you balless son of a bitch?
	Fucking hell, where is your pride, you just pathetic piece of shit?
	Oh no, no, no, no.
	Swedish men, they've been far too, far too aggressive for far too long.
	We need to stop men from peeing standing up.
	That's gonna solve problems.
	It's going to make them far more effeminate in future.
	That'll be wonderful.
	Is it any wonder then that Swedish men are beginning to hate themselves?
	And I mean absolutely fucking loathe themselves.
	Loathe the very concept of masculinity and all it stands for.
	I'm going to read this next piece verbatim.
	I'm not going to interrupt myself.
	I'm not going to comment on it at all.
	I'm going to let you hear the thing from start to finish.
	It's been run through Google Translate, but I'm sure that it's not really going to mangle the message.
	It is not enough that we make ourselves aware of our privileges.
	It is not enough to take away from them and it is not even enough to become angry and frustrated over them.
	Privileges are not only structural abstract power mechanisms that exist outside of us as individuals, they are ours.
	They have branded our bodies, they are part of who we are.
	This is written by Alexander Peterson.
	I read and realise that they are right.
	A patriarchal society reproduces and prantar into female roles on women's bodies.
	Dominance, oppression, and resistance is not something that exists only in history books and the feminist manifestos.
	It is something that is channeled into each individual, something that they brand everybody.
	The female blogger is right when she claims to be both Malala Yusafsi, Miss Vassalo, and Horan and Virgin, all that she is.
	I realise that the same dynamic applies to me, that a patriarchal society in the same way is scorching my body with male roles.
	But I also know that I'm neither whore, virgin, or victims of rape.
	I am neither Simone de Beauvoir or Valerie Solanas.
	I am not the resistance.
	I am the oppressor.
	I am governments, I am dictatorships and armies.
	I am the Catholic Church.
	I am Vladimir Putin and George Bush.
	I am violence and rapist.
	All patterns of thought and behaviour that I've learned and all the privileges that condition my life and my freedom are the fruits of the oppression that people like me have practiced before I existed.
	I am the ruler when I take a job as a person of Slavic surname was better qualified for.
	I am a rapist when a lonely woman crossing the street in order not to meet me on the same sidewalk at night.
	My existence as white heterosexual non-disabled man has been given to me by other white heterosexual men by their oppression of the rest of humanity.
	Maybe waft injustice and oppression breathe.
	Although I do not have bad intentions, it is me and nobody else that makes the lonely woman cross the street at night.
	Why?
	To my body is the oppressor's body, and to it continues to oppress.
	Patriarchy is my guilt and masculinity is my shame.
	I do not know male guilt because I am trying to convince my surroundings that not all men do this or that, or that I'm not like those, but precisely because I realise I'm there.
	I am a living, growing part of a small, small group of people who continue to exploit and oppress all other groups of people.
	For it, I feel ashamed.
	I can remember blogs by women who stubbornly claimed that men cannot be feminists, who argued that the only way for a man to be a feminist is to stop being a man, abandoning her husband's role, and to refuse to identify himself as a man.
	I realise that they are right.
	I realise that every woman who has been excluded, ignored, or feared me because of my gender has been right.
	I remember the blog wrote that the world is changing with your example, not your opinions.
	Although I reject the word patriarchy, I remain part of the problem as long as my body is the oppressor's body.
	I have to change.
	The best way for me to help the oppressed is to become someone other than who I am.
	I am convinced that this is, the white heterosexual, man's most important feminist awakening.
	The queer road is the only feminist road that we in good conscience can proceed on.
	The transformation of the white heterosexual male body carries on feminism and triumphs.
	I realise that I have to become someone else, because I refuse to live with the guilt and shame.
	I fumble for action.
	I'm looking for strategies to transform the oppressor's body.
	I paint my nails red, purple lips and eyes black.
	I wear a dress or colourful leggings with a big shirt.
	I ask my girlfriend to penetrate me.
	I'm trying to make me feel comfortable in sexual situations with other men.
	I'm looking for homoerotic Friday.
	I train myself one day to be able to sleep with them.
	It's not about wanting to be gay or to become a woman.
	I do not wish that I were a woman.
	I retain stubble.
	I just want to be less heterosexual.
	I just want to stop being a man.
	I find myself slowly changing, although I do not really know into what.
	Debt is my driving force and shame is my awakening.
	Sure, I have known for long that my personal freedom would increase if I primarily would be an individual and not a man, that I would benefit from it.
	For years I have known at the time I have called myself a feminist and preached equality, but without changing anything.
	Just guilt and shame managed to instill in me a strong enough transformative force.
	Just as shame touched me in my bones and mobilized the will or compulsion to deconstruction and change.
	It is not enough to make us aware of our privileges.
	It's not enough to take away from them and it's not even enough to become angry and frustrated over them.
	Privileges are not only structural, abstract power mechanisms that exist outside of us as individuals, they are ours.
	They have branded our bodies and they are part of who we are.
	We need to be ashamed of them.
	I am ashamed that this is my obligation.
	I am ashamed that this is the only thing that forces me to change.
	The male shame feminism is not constructive.
	It is not about creating, strengthening and empowering.
	It is destructive.
	It is disarming and minor explanatory.
	It is about fighting the injustice that inhabits the body.
	It is about recognizing the debt and then tear away, tearing apart and burn all the embarrassed and then be able to recreate and rebuild.
	It is destructive and broken picking, and it is addressed only to the oppressors' bodies.
	It is just for men.
	End note.
	All of the above reasoning would have been totally unnecessary and superfluous if we men had just stopped raping and oppress other people.
	It has obviously been feminism, the real triumph.
	The problem is that we do not stop.
	The problem is, as long as I continue to be the cis man I am today, how much I condemn sexism and preach equality, I am part of the patriarchal society engine and part of what feminism is fighting.
	I do not want to wait for my kind of people to stop raping and oppressing others.
	Right, I'd rather become a different kind of man.
	This is probably the most depressing thing I have ever read.
	This poor man is the product of Swedish society.
	This is what it is doing.
	There is no reason that this man should feel so ashamed of being what he is.
	He has done nothing wrong.
	And yet he has been browbeaten to the point that the very things that he was born as are shameful.
	This is injustice.
	We wouldn't do it to women.
	We wouldn't do it to black people.
	We wouldn't do it to cripples.
	We wouldn't do it to the mentally infirm.
	This is monstrous.
	It is fucking evil.
	And Sweden is trying to export this kind of bullshit to the Ukraine.
	Where they have a project goal to increase economic efficiency and transparency of budget by ensuring the real needs and priorities of men and women are addressed through the budget.
	The project will deal with all oblasts of Ukraine as well as Kiev City and will guide a step-by-step process towards gender-responsive budgeting, starting from a gender analysis of selected budget programs and approbation of results and recommendations.
	And finally, introduction of gender equality aspect in budget documents and processes.
	Ukraine, this is not what you need.
	This is the rot setting into your country.
	The Swedish government is financing this for a reason.
	They are fucking mental.
	If you allow them to inject this into your financial systems, I have no doubt that it will be incredibly difficult to remove.
	The Swedes are coming for the United States as well, as the Swedish PM has had a successful talk with Clinton.
	And they enjoyed a positive meeting with Hillary Clinton, discussing topics including the Ukraine crisis and feminism.
	What a fucking surprise.
	And he had this meeting with Ban Ki-moon and Hillary Clinton, stating that Sweden will act feminist outside of its borders.
	Obviously, they're promoting the he for she campaign as well.
	Because if there's one thing that Swedish men clearly think they should be doing, it's serving women.
	And even Britain is not immune to Swedish proselytes coming over and telling everyone that every country needs a feminist party just like Sweden.
	Where they say that the fact that Sweden is better when it comes to gender politics is not to say that equality has actually been achieved.
	Because let's face this, if equality, according to them, is ever achieved, then the need for them will evaporate in an instant.
	They will never achieve what they want.
	They are looking only for control and conformity.
	Sweden, you win this year in Stupid.
	You are fucking disgusting.
	Absolutely fucking disgraceful.
	It is no wonder that you have far-right parties on the rise in your country.
	It is no fucking wonder.

▲