All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
32:56
This Week in Stupid (01⧸02⧸2015)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 1st of February 2015.
I got the date right this week.
So starting as we mean to go on.
Nutella and Strawberry are not suitable names for children, French court rules.
Why does a French court have to rule that?
Why is that something they've had to come out on record and say?
The answer is, of course, that France is overrun with idiots, just like every other nation in the Western world.
A court in northern France has taken a tough stance towards parents who want to name their babies after chocolate spreads or fruits, overturning two families' decisions to call their daughters Nutella and Frays, which means strawberry.
Not just one family of idiots, two families.
The judge said that giving the child the name of the chocolate spread was against the girl's interests, as it might lead to mockery and unpleasant remarks.
I don't think she's going to be avoiding mockery and unpleasant remarks anyway, it's just a fact of life.
But this is my problem with the inquisitorial system.
It's authoritarian.
Some registry clerk decided, hey, I don't think they should be allowed those names.
The judge says, oh, I agree, this is going to go to some sort of hearing.
The parents didn't turn up to the hearing, and in the absence, the judge ruled that the girl would be named Ella.
Why the fuck is some judge naming your kid?
Don't get me wrong, Nutella and Strawberry are stupid names.
Fucking stupid names.
And the people who want to name their kids them are fucking morons.
But the judge does not have the right, or it shouldn't have the right, to name someone's child.
This is why the inquisitor's system is a problem.
It's authoritarian.
French parents can choose whatever name they want for the offspring, but a registrar will occasionally seek to ban a moniker that might be deemed against the child's interests.
For example, a family was told in 2009 they could not name their child after the French cartoon character Tythiouf, and last week a dog owner in eastern France was forced to change the name of his dogs because they allegedly made people think of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun.
Wow, that's some important shit that bureaucrats in France are doing.
I know I'm just speaking from my own personal opinion here, but this seems remarkably petty and surprisingly domineering by the state.
I don't really think that they should have the right in any way to decide what someone else's child should be called.
This actually, I spent a bit of time thinking about this, and I suppose I can get behind the idea of protecting children from being called ridiculous things by, I want to say well-meaning parents, but I can't imagine they're well-meaning when they do this.
But I really don't think that the judge should be deciding what the girl's name will be instead.
Why not just some sort of note go away and choose something else, you know, until they finally choose a name that the judge deems acceptable for whatever reason.
In other stupid news, Liberal Democrat Minister defends comments.
I can't even say this for straight fair, this is ridiculous.
Liberal Democrat Minister defends comments suggesting immigration causes pub closures.
The funniest bit about this is that it's a Liberal Democrat minister defending his comments.
A Liberal Democrat minister has accused political rivals of manufacturing a race row over comments where he suggested an influx of Somali immigrants were causing pubs to close.
A blanket protection for every single public house in the country, which is what the new clause envisages, would protect pubs that are for various reasons no longer enjoying the patronage of the community.
That's strange you might be thinking.
Why would the traditional English pub need protection?
And why would the local community no longer be patronising their local pubs?
The answer is of course immigration.
The minister says, in my constituency, lots of pubs have closed, but it is usually because of demographic change.
In some parts of my constituency, which had a white working class community 20 or 30 years ago, are now populated primarily by recently arrived Somalis and other people.
This is taking place in England's very own San Francisco, Bristol.
And Mr. Williams' comments were criticised on social media by retards saying that it is not the fault of Muslims and non-drinkers that pubs were closing.
Yes it is, you fucking idiots!
If people in the local area don't frequent pubs or drink alcohol, then of course it's their fault!
The pubs are closing.
It's not deliberate and malicious, but it doesn't mean it's not their fucking fault!
And they do go to say that the controversial beer tie, cheap supermarkets, alcohol and the smoking ban and lifestyle changes were all put forward as reasons for their decline.
And I'm sure they are all contributing factors.
But if you have a community populated by people who never drink alcohol or visit pubs, that is more likely to be a direct cause.
Isn't it you fucking idiots?
This has obviously forced the minister to defend himself by saying to suggest I am a racist because of pointing out a demographic shift change as a statement of the facts is absurd.
Yes it is.
The most absurd thing is that he had to say this.
It's not wrong that when a Muslim demographic populates an area, the pubs in that area are forced to close.
That's the free market at work.
The people there don't want to use these pubs, the pubs aren't sustained, the economy isn't supporting them, they end up closing.
It's normal, it's natural, it's what anyone would expect to happen.
But don't fucking say it's not because of the Muslims in the area.
It's not that they've stopped going to these pubs because of cheap supermarket alcohol or the fucking smoking ban.
You morons, this is the sort of liberal idiocy that I hate.
And I consider myself to be a fucking liberal.
Which is probably why this next story annoyed me.
Lone Peak sparks controversy after asking girls to wear coat over dress at dance.
Well, she must have really been dressed like a fucking harlot.
A Lone Peak high school student was told her dress must be covered up because it was too inappropriate for the preference dance at the high school last Saturday.
Gabie Finlandson says she was embarrassed when a representative of the school approached her as she entered the dance and told her she needed to wear a shawl or a coat to cover her shoulders.
Well, I mean she must have been dressed incredibly slutty for that to have been the problem.
This is the only picture I could find, but really, fucking really.
Cover yourself you slag.
Look at you.
Look at all that ankle on show.
Fucking, that's a very nice prom dress.
I can see why a young lady would wear it.
It looks very respectable and I bet she felt very nice wearing it until the authorities decided, oh no, there's too much shoulder on display there.
Men surely can't control themselves.
She says the dress which was purchased in Paris resembled in her mind the classic graceful style of her idol, actress Audrey Hepburn.
I'd just like to remind the school that we live in a world where Justin Bieber twerks on Beetlejuice.
So young ladies trying to aspire to be like Audrey Hepburn is probably a good thing and should be encouraged.
But what do I know?
I'm some kind of throwback.
I mean these days men are sponging off their women and women are not happy about it.
This is probably what the MRAs have been fighting for.
Yes it is always sad when a marriage ends.
It's even sadder when children are involved.
Yet what makes it worse a million times worse is when a couple ends up fighting through the divorce courts over money.
Yes, this so rarely happens.
We all know the only people who benefit are the lawyers.
Yet this does not stop thousands of couples throwing themselves on the litigation pyre every day of the week only to feel the burn for the years afterwards.
It doesn't.
It really doesn't.
It's terrible isn't it?
It's just terrible.
Especially now that the genders are reversing.
And this time it is a house husband who is supported by his millionaire wife who is demanding more money.
Don't tell me, let me guess.
Is it about time that we did away with these archaic laws now?
Rupert Nightingale 42 is challenging an unfair divorce settlement that requires him to get a full-time job.
Poor thing.
Oh, the empathy.
I imagine you were exactly the same when it was a millionaire guy and his housewife wife.
I'm sure this is in no way a double standard.
So we do have an article here by the very same woman where she covers how Gaza's wife Cheryl divorced him and took £700,000 in cash plus £120,000 a year in maintenance, two cars and the marital home and his lockside cottage in Scotland, leaving the man homeless without a shred of shaming language to be seen.
Well, I guess the only excuse I can find is that this article is 10 years old, so I'm sure she's changed her opinion by now.
But getting back to her original article, now he feels the original settlement, providing him with a £300,000 lump sum plus a £50,000 sum a year, did not reflect the standard of living he'd enjoyed during the marriage.
Jan, there's nothing wrong with that.
That is in fact how the law works.
But go on, Jan, let's hear it.
Rupert, can I say something?
The marriage is over and some of the advantages that came with it have gone.
That's perfect, Jan.
That's perfect.
It's nice to see that you were in favour of people losing the perks of being married to a multi-millionaire when the marriage ends.
Glad to hear it.
It's always a mystery to me why ex-wives and husbands feel entitled to be provided with the grand lifestyle they once enjoyed and live high on the hog forevermore.
All of it funded by their former spouse.
Why?
Totally agree with you, Jan.
Totally agree with you.
Yet Rupert feels that it's unfair that the maintenance was calculated on his getting a proper job.
Perish the thought.
And sidelining his artistic photographic endeavours.
She even argues against Rupert doing this.
She says, don't do it, Rupert.
Don't try to get your maintenance increased to £85,000 a year from your high-flying former wife.
Why?
You weren't complaining that Cheryl, Gaza's ex-wife, was getting £120,000 a year.
Why are you complaining that he is trying to get more than £50,000?
Why do you care?
Especially when you know he is actually entitled to it.
Indeed, it's not that you're not entitled to it.
Indeed, the strict letter of the law might argue that you are.
In fact, he is.
For fuck's sake, Jan, why would you argue that he shouldn't do it?
However, you are young enough and smart enough to find more lucrative employment, buy a new house with your payoff and get your life back on track independently.
Why should he?
He has a multi-millionaire ex-wife that he can just drain for money, legally.
Why should he do any of these things?
Holy shit, are we now finally seeing the problem with alimony?
But it's about the shame of the thing.
Surely this is far preferable to staying trapped in the comforting amber of a past you can no longer afford.
You may get the money, but you will live in the shadow of the life an increasingly aggrieved wife from whom you are divorced.
Jan, who gives a fuck?
I'd want that extra 35 grand a year, thank you very much.
Part of the argument in this case is that his gender is being held against him.
I'm gonna guess, Jan, that that is why he got less than half of what Cheryl got 10 years later.
With more women assuming the role of breadwinner and more men staying at home to look after the children, cases like these are going to crop up more and more.
If women have the right to maintenance from their ex-husbands, then men have the same right too.
Which is why you think the right needs to go, isn't it, Jan?
All of which makes me think, isn't it time the archaic divorce laws were changed?
What coincidental timing.
They are based on historic presumption that a woman and or mother could not support herself once the marriage had ended.
Why, that is true.
I mean, she does say that today both men and women are able to earn their own living.
They have always been able to earn their own living, Jan.
The problem is that women were basically contractually saying, listen, I'm going to give up X amount of years of my life working, earning experience and promotions in order to raise the children.
So you are going to give me money in exchange for that if our marriage fails, because this is what I am sacrificing for you and our family.
It doesn't change when it's a man doing it, Jan.
He has still given up X amount of years of his life and career to raise the children for her to go out and promote her career.
And now the marriage is over, it's the same fucking thing.
Just because men and women are capable of earning money doesn't mean this law needs to be changed.
Oh, but it's hurting women now.
Oh, but women have to pay out now.
Isn't that unfair?
No, Jan.
That is exactly how the law should work.
Get fucking used to it.
And be careful what you wish for.
You might just get it.
Which leads us nicely on to the white knights in government.
Half female prisoner numbers, says Minister Simon Hughes.
Why, Simon?
Because they're female.
Wouldn't that be discrimination?
Simon thinks that female offenders are a special case and should be treated differently to men because many had been victims themselves.
I'll get the obvious out of the way Simon.
That's not equality.
That's not men and women being equal.
So from the start, you are directly arguing for inequality Simon Hughes.
But rather than just making assertions, Simon, why don't we look at some fucking evidence?
How about the British journalist Psychiatry's study, Cycle of Child Sexual Abuse, Links between Being a Victim and Becoming a Perpetrator?
Where they say there is widespread belief in a cycle of child sexual abuse, but little empirical evidence for this belief.
The conclusion of this study is that the data supports the notion of a victim to victimizer cycle in a minority of male perpetrators, but not among the female victims.
Sexual abuse by a female in childhood may be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males, but not in women, Simon.
You fucking idiot.
You giant fucking white knight.
You have no reason to say this.
What you are saying is nonsense, provably nonsense, and yet you're saying it anyway.
Why, Simon, why are you against equality?
When asked why female offenders should be treated differently to men, Mr. Hughes said, women are a special case for a very good evidenced reasons.
Provide it, Simon.
Provide it, waiting for your evidence.
I've provided my evidence, which is a study from the British journalist Psychiatry.
What's your evidence?
I think your evidence is traditionalism, isn't it, Simon?
Firstly, many more women go to prison have themselves been victims.
And secondly, many more women have caring responsibilities than men do.
More than men do, I presume you mean.
Well, frankly, Simon, I think you need to speak to Jan Moir about that because the tide is turning.
You sound like an outdated dinosaur who has not caught up to reality as it is in the 21st century.
So something else really funny happened.
Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles.
Why?
Because, obviously, they were gender ideologues and they were writing propaganda.
Online encyclopedia's highest court votes on more than 10 editors deemed to be breaking the site's rules amid Gamergate controversy.
I tell you what, people say, oh Gamergate hasn't achieved anything, but it really has.
I mean, this is just one more thing that Gamergate has achieved.
Getting gender ideologues banned from writing false and biased articles on Wikipedia is a damn good thing for Gamergate to have achieved.
Wikipedia's arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has voted to ban a number of editors from making corrections to articles about feminism in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the Gamergate controversy.
The editors who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, I just want to say even a neutral Gamergate slant would have been just fine.
The article was decidedly anti-Gamergate.
Was sanctioned by Arbcom in its preliminary decision.
While that may change as it's finalised, the body known as Wikipedia's Supreme Court rarely reverses its decisions.
Sanction bars the editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also any other article about gender or sexuality broadly construed.
This is a great win.
This is forcing Wikipedia to ban people who they think have an excessive bias from editing articles which they're biased towards.
And there's no reason to think they aren't being fair here, because editors have been pushing the Wikipedia article to be fairer to Gamergate have also been sanctioned by the committee.
This seems to have been a blanket, look, you guys are just going too hard at this.
You're all out.
You're all out of it.
We need to sit down and review the issue.
Mark Bernstein, a writer and former Wikipedia editor, said that this takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance.
Not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page, and Zoe Quinn's, Brianna Wu's, Anita Keezens, etc., feminists are to be purged on block from the encyclopedia.
This is a remarkably accurate piece of reporting from The Guardian, when they say, the conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate, a grassroots campaign broadly targeted alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the video game industry.
That's pretty damn accurate.
That's actually not a misrepresentation of what's going on.
Jimmy Wales was drawn into this debate and refused to even talk to me about this.
I offered to have him on my podcast and he chickened out, frankly.
But his advice for Gamergate supporters who wanted to change the Wikipedia article was to be constructive and present a vision for the article which they wanted to read rather than engage in a war with feminist editors who were trying to maintain their vision.
Well, I kind of agree with that, Jimmy.
I mean, I agree that eternal edit wars are in no one's favour.
But can't we establish what the empirical facts are here?
I mean, I'm happy to concede that Brianna Wu had nasty tweets sent to her.
But what's that got to do with Gamergate?
I'm happy for this to be listed on the Gamergate article that there are some women who are trying to hijack Gamergate for their own professional victimhood, which appears to have empirically happened.
No matter what your subjective opinion on this is, that is without a doubt what Brianna Wu has done.
But okay, Jimmy, let's have a quick look at the Gamergate article and see how it's looking.
Gamergate is a controversy related to sexism in video game culture.
That's not true, is it?
Nothing to do with sexism and it's everything to do with journalists sleeping with developers.
You know, breaking the cardinal rule of journalistic impartiality?
It garnered significant public attention after August 2014 when sexist and misogynistic attacks again, that's not happened, Dumi.
That's not fucking happened, and you know it.
We're targeting a number of women within the video game industry, or it could be that it's a number of journalists, some of which have lost their job, Greg Tito.
These attacks were primarily performed under the Twitter hashtag Gamergate and at times coordinated on the online forums of Reddit, Fortan and Natan.
That is a fucking lie!
That has never, ever happened and there is no proof of it happening.
Show me where these attacks using the hashtag Gamergate are.
Note, you'll see that there is not one fucking citation there.
Because these people are pathological liars.
I don't know what it is about radical feminism and pathological liars.
But for some reason, they just can't stop themselves.
Radical feminism just attracts pathological liars.
Fighting the Wikipedia Boys Club.
Radical groups like Art Plus Feminism, Art Plus, great, wonderful.
If there's one thing that art needs, it's social justice, are calling on girls to reclaim the Wikiverse for themselves.
And here's why editing your gender is the new activism.
I think you'll find it's called the new propaganda and it's because it's sexist.
But okay, no, let's see why they do this.
So a year ago, 600 feminists took part in an edit-a-thon, where they got together and injected feminist ideology into Wikipedia entries and created new Wikipedia entries for female artists because they are gender bigots.
In a year that has seen a series of all-woman edit-a-thons put finger to keypad, whether we are any closer to infiltrating the Wikipedia Boys Club still hangs in the balance.
Wikipedia Boys Club.
Instagram photo edits notwithstanding, should editing history be high on the feminist agenda in 2015?
Holy fucking shit.
It's like a press release from the Ministry of Truth.
Wikipedia apparently has a troubled record on gender bias and that's an open secret.
A 2011 survey from the Wikimedia Foundation demonstrated that less than 10% of the site's contributors identify as female.
Well, they're volunteers.
It's not like Wikipedia is conscripting them.
It's not like Wikipedia is preventing anyone from volunteering.
But more troubling still, another paper in the same year found evidence of an editing culture actively resistant to female participation, with women more likely to experience adversity in the peer review process.
Maybe it's because the women who are trying to edit Wikipedia are a bunch of biased feminists and they're doing it to promote their quote-unquote feminist agenda for 2015.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
You don't seem to understand why people don't want you lying on their website.
It's not because you're fucking women, it's because you're liars.
But this is contrary to participation on other social media sites where the gender balance is pretty much equal or even skewed feminine.
Wikipedia is not a social media site, you fucking morons.
The sustained internal conflict around the edits of Wikipedia's Gamergate pages has thrown up the exact issues that feminist wiki projects like this are meant to counter.
You are the ones who have set the agenda and your agenda is bullshit.
That's what people are fighting against.
You are the evil empire, you fucking idiots.
For art and feminism, the latest direction is to topic ban certain editors and fully ban others is representative of a wider conflict.
It is, that's true.
Would you stop fighting for lies?
But this next bit says everything you need to know about feminism and feminists and their fucking mindset.
It's a complicated situation that pits two competing visions of collaboration against each other.
The principles on which Wikipedia was founded assumes that everyone is acting in good faith and seems unprepared for the men's rights activism spawned from Reddit, 4chan and 8chan.
You fucking idiots!
You are arranging edit-a-thons for feminist versions of Wikipedia articles and you are complaining that other people might not be acting in good faith.
The fucking hypocrisy is unbearable, I swear to God.
And anyone opposing feminism or feminist activism is a men's rights activist all of a sudden.
The only way that would be true is if you are female supremacists.
If the only thing you care about is female supremacy, then yes, it would look like anyone opposing that is a men's rights activist.
The eternal feminist boogeyman.
I am not either one.
I'm neither a feminist nor an MRA, which is why I can tell that feminism is about female supremacy.
Because if it wasn't, they would be best fucking friends with the MRAs.
You would be buddy buddy.
Everything would be like, oh yeah, are you fighting for gender equality?
Yeah, I'm fighting for gender equality.
Great, let's fight for gender equality together.
But you don't.
You hate the MRAs because you are not fighting for equality.
And since we have arrived at the Orwellian rewriting of history, the BBC branded mad by critics after refusing to call Paris killers terrorists, peers and MPs launch chorus of criticism over outrageous decision not to use the term.
This is referring to the Charlie Hebdo massacre by two Islamicist terrorists.
There's no other way to describe them, really.
Unless of course you work for the BBC.
Tarek Kafala, head of BBC Arabic, said the term terrorist was too loaded and value-laden to describe the fanatics who murdered 12 people at the French satirical magazine.
How is it too loaded and value-laden?
It seems to be an apt description of their motives and intent.
And of course the BBC has backed his comments.
He said that we tried to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or as an act being terrorist.
Why?
Instead, TV, radio and online reports describe the murderers who carried out the attacks as militants or gunmen.
Tarek, I want you to think about something for a second.
Do militants or gunmen, the words, adequately describe soldiers?
They do, don't they?
They adequately describe the soldiers of a nation that are fighting to defend that nation.
For example, it would adequately describe the people who died fighting the Nazis.
The term terrorist would not adequately describe the people who died fighting the Nazis.
So this is why we use the word terrorist when it appears to be a terrorist attack.
It is a thing called nuance that allows people to glean extra information from the words you have written without writing an excessive number of extra words.
A BBC spokesperson goes on to unironically say there is no BBC ban on the word terrorist as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attacks in Paris, even though you didn't use the word terrorist except when quoting someone.
Although we prefer a more precise description if possible.
A more precise description.
Militant or gunman is more precise than terrorist.
Are you fucking stupid?
In their defense, they do say, we have learned from our experience of covering events such as Northern Ireland and as Israel, Spain, Russia, Southern Africa or many of the other places where violence divides communities and where we seek to be seen as objective by all sides, that label applies to groups can sometimes hinder rather than help.
I agree, there are cases in which this can happen.
But for example, when Margaret Thatcher's hotel was bombed, that was a terrorist attack done by the IRA.
If in response to this Britain had gone and bombed somewhere in Ireland, that would also have been a terrorist attack.
Which is presumably why the British didn't go and bomb somewhere in Ireland as retribution for it.
But you know what, fuck it.
Even the Taliban are not a terrorist group anymore.
A White House deputy press secretary says.
White House debuted press secretary Eric Schultz argued during Wednesday's briefing that the United States can negotiate prisoner slots with Taliban members because the Taliban is not considered a terrorist group.
Aren't they?
Has this happened in like the last six months because in June 2014 the White House is on record of saying yes in fact the Taliban is a terrorist organization.
This seems to be a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.
See this rewriting of history is down to linguistic tricks.
Mr Schultz explained, I would like to point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency.
The Islamic State is a terrorist group.
There is so much difference between those.
So we don't make concessions to terrorist groups.
I mean the US is offering $10 million for information leading to the capture of the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, and the National Counterterrorism Center also lists the Taliban presence in Afghanistan on its global map of terrorist groups.
But you know what?
They're not terrorists when we need to say negotiate for a hostage release.
That would be really inconvenient.
And for our last story, Office puts chips under its staff's skin.
The chip allows employees to open doors and use the photocopier without a traditional passcard.
That's all the reason I need to be chipped.
Felicio Del Costa can open the door and operate the photocopier because he has a tiny RFID chip in his hand, which is about the size of a grain of rice.
Soon others among the 700 people expected to occupy the complex will be offered the chance to be chipped.
Oh, it's like a fucking prize.
Just that they do this to dogs, you know.
Along with the access to doors and photocopiers, they're promised further services in the long run, including the ability to pay in the cafe with a touch of a hand.
Because it is just so inconvenient paying with my card.
It's just I have to get it out of my wallet, I have to put in my PIN number, I have to put it back in my wallet.
I mean, I would much rather just wave my hand across and make sure that anyone coming near me can get my details without me knowing about it.
I'm not even interested in talking about like the Alex Jones New World Order kind of shit about this.
My concerns are like this.
Hans Zolobad, whose electronic business card is his own chip, can be accessed with a swipe of a smartphone.
Are we seriously saying that you couldn't just be sat there on a train reading a paper and someone walks by and swipes your chip with their smartphone to get your details?
You know, fraud is going to be so much easier when people can just scan my fucking hand to get my bank details.
But his rationale for this is, we already interact with technology all the time.
Today it's a bit messy.
We need pin codes and passwords.
Wouldn't it be easy to just touch it with your hand?
That's really intuitive.
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
Because it's just slightly inconvenient to have security and passwords.
We should all just be chipped so we can be kept track of and, you know, have our details just on our bodies at all times.
Just because.
It's just slightly inconvenient not to do this.
We may as well.
I mean, this is without getting into the idea of the Orwellian police state we are marching headfirst into and the problems being chipped might incur with that.
And I wish I was fucking joking.
Hans says that he and the Swedish biohacking group have another objective.
Preparing us all for the day when others want to chip us.
We will want to be able to understand this technology before big corporates and governments come to us and say that everyone should get chipped.
The tax authority chip, the Google chip, the Facebook chip.
Then, he says, we'll be able to question the way the technology is implemented from a position of much greater knowledge.
Fucking brilliant!
That is just perfect.
But do you think that this is delegitimizing Alex Jones' crazy New World Order conspiracy?
Or do you think it's fucking legitimizing it?
Seriously, when the big government comes along to implant me with a chip, I will simply say no.
And then I'll probably end up being a political prisoner who gets shot against the fucking wolf rebelling.
So there we have it.
The idiots are running the world.
They are going to rewrite history and they're going to get you chipped like a fucking animal.
It's all rather depressing when you think about it, isn't it?
I need something cheery to end on.
How about feminist music?
Feminist music that is apparently called Sing Screaming.
Enjoy.
From Belgium, it's called Sirens and it is described as an irreverent feminist manifesto for the 21st century.
To that end, it starts with a scream, or it's actually the cast Sing Screaming.
Whether you are an irreverent feminist or not, it does seem to capture some of the spirits of the age, the end of human beings, the awesome statement, perhaps.
▲
Export Selection