socialist utopia

I like to joke about wanting to leave the planet but really I just want to live in a global post capitalist socialist solarpunk utopia and be able to visit mars for my allotted vacation time. 

Date a girl who keeps trying to deconstruct the “secretly sinister, saccharine socialist utopia” depicted in Paw Patrol. It’s just a kids show, you tell her. She wonders why, if there’s no money, how they get people to work. She tells you that the Mayor is grossly incompetent and likely just a figurehead. She explains in great detail that all the townsfolk must have implants to make them crave labor at no cost. She hypothesizes that the same advanced technology behind the implants also brings their post-scarcity world, and assumes the main cast are all genetically enhanced “super dogs,” but that the utopia is on the brink of economic collapse considering one windmill breaking can take out the entire town’s power. Date a girl who will likely go mad if she has to watch one more episode on her babysitting job.

On islamofascism

I’ve posted a bunch of longass picture posts featuring Islamofascists, rebutted with the pictures, added many videos to them, and I havent done that in a while. I never really did a stand alone post about it based on commentary, I mostly just shared my 60-ish pictures and a bunch of videos.

So here’s the thing about muslim nazis

The relationship between white neonazis and these islamofascists is complicated. White neonazis hate islamofascism. They like the fascism, they dont like islam, and they dont like nonwhites, so to them, it’s a “2/3 enemy, would lynch”. They hate muslims and any other ideology that claims to be better or more important than their nazi ideology, plus, they dont like other races and muslims are almost unanimously not white. But islamofascists love Hitler and the Nazis for killing so many jews that they actually dont care that the relationship is one sided. They honestly believe that white neonazis will see the truth of allah, the prohet, islam, and the quran. They honsetly believe they can convert them, especially if they can become the majority in places where white neonazis live, which is obviously nations where you find white people. If it didnt happen in one generation, it would eventually happen over time. It helps them rationalize the relationship that the Mein Kampf translations into Arabic are a lot softer about the hatred of non-whites and emphasize the hatred of jews. Nazis also share a hatred for western liberal values with islamic fundamentalists such as islamofascists, so there is also that aspect.

There is another relationship involving islam that is this one sided. Social justice warriors are unanimously in support of groups that they view as oppressed, and they view muslims as being one of the most oppressed groups. To sjws, all oppressed people will join in solidarity with one another to destroy their oppressors and status quo, and muslims are oppressed people in their view, and so if a muslim does not join in solidarity with the left, they are passed of as “not a true muslim“ and either being “internally oppressed” or privileged/oppressive in some way. Their view of islam is that an oppressive person could not be muslim, but also that a muslim gets a universal free pass on wrongdoings, because who are you to judge the oppressed? If they are fighting against their oppressor, they are just, according to the left. “Punching up is not the same as punching down”, so to them, 9/11 was justified because of western occupations in the middle east. When lead in a rally by an islamist leader who advocates sharia and has personally been involved in terrorist attacks, such as Linda Sarsour in the women’s march, they do not get upset, because in the leftist view, you can not denounce the cause of someone who is “more oppressed” than you.

The primary enemy of islamism and nazism both is western civilization and “the jew” (which they dont distinguish between). The primary enemy of marxism is capitalism, and therefor conservatism, liberalism, western liberal civilization, and to some leftists but not all, this also includes jews. The primary enemy of feminism is any group or society which has the most aggregate power and wealth, or any group or society that has the most liberals/capitalists among them, and all of those necessarily point to western civilization, white people, western white “cishet” males, christians, and also jews (though antisemitism is not a primary or necessary part of feminist views). I wont get into the nuances of how marxian analyses like feminist theory perceive jews, but I’ll instead just summarize that social justice is very two faced when it comes to jews. So, the problem of antisemitism among muslims has room to be overlooked in their view, or even quietly accepted. They can just point at israel as an injustice against palestinians and rationalize it that way, that’s good enough for them, and anyone who criticizes muslims is distinguished as the REAL badguy. And again, you cant judge someone who’s less privileged than you, so as a leftist, you’re not allowed to criticize their hate. Bad things = prejudice + (the leftist analysis that you have) institutional privilege, so actually, hate is a bad things and muslims are oppressed, so muslims cant hate by definition because, for it to be hate they’d have to have institutional power. And that’s your brain on social justice - not even once.

Sjws see that muslim populations have been successful in replacing centrist and right wing voting populations, liberal people, westernized groups, white people, etc, and that’s an effective way for leftists to attain political power. So they’re in favor of all the policies that will cause muslims to flood into Europe, which btw, includes destabilizing their nations - look no further than Obama and Hillary for that kind of military, strategy, & weapons related behavior from leftist politicians (behavior which the leftist masses ignore, because it’s their party that they wont criticize, and if they only hear the info about their candidates being warlords from people outside their party, they think it must be fake info or that there is some other reason for the massive armaments and actual wars, so leftists just dont think about it, they’re too busy slandering everyone else).

One of the amazing things about islamofascism is that these outright nazis actually take full advantage of leftist stupidity. The Muslim Student Association apparently started an unironic Hitler Youth Week in a university, according to this Palestinian girl (right before she proclaimed jews deserve death to a jewish man’s face):

There were no anti nazi rallies, of course. These islamist nazis even join leftist parties like Labour:

Immigrant muslims largely vote leftist because leftists have chosen to unconditionally serve muslims, specially, to the point of allowing them to commit atrocity that sjws would normally froth at the mouth over and riot against. So they support encouraging muslims to immigrate and outpopulate everyone in Europe, because leftists politically benefit. Plus, muslim immigrants mostly dont integrate, they have very tightly knit ingroup based communities like jews do, but muslims actually go so far as to replace local western systems with sharia. So not only does the left get rid of whites, liberals, conservatives, and gain a huge voting block, they get to replace the western societal structures by painting the map with islam. It’s not bringing about the communist/socialist/feminist magic fairlyland utopia they want, but it’s “diversity” and the next best thing, the destruction of the status quo for an “oppressed class”. It’s especially great for them if they realize their fantasy of converting all muslims to a legitimately leftist worldview. They genuinely think they can convert islam in exactly the same way islamofascists think they can convert white neonazis. ISIS is already like how they wish antifa could be, antifa cant organize a takeover or rebellion like ISIS, so antifa wants to be like them and they want radical groups to be allies with leftists like themself, so really, antifa just want ISIS to be a little less fa and little more com. People like Malala give them hope that islam is compatible with leftist ideology:

The left will backtrace on their support of outright nazis, but it wasnt the left who blasted Zakia Belkhiri. They praised her for her ‘courageous stand against islamophobia‘ for taking a selfie in front of anti-islam protestors. When she was found out to be a legit neonazi, the left was silent about it while liberals and conservatives were outraged.

Muslims and nazis rarely have direct hostilities that play out, so that keeps their one sided relationship stable. Although the white neonazis in muslim populated areas are certainly getting very stirred up, they’re not actually a very large group, other less radical ethnic nationalist groups seem to have almost completely replaced them, and even those arent particularly huge groups. And at least in the west, hostilities specifically between leftists and islamists are rare, but when they happen, leftists are 100% more likely to thank them and apologize to them than to actually go after islamist extremism for being violent. And so that one sided relationship is, if anything, reciprocal. Islamofascism is not even on the leftist radar whatsoever, it’s not a though in their head or an idea they’ve been exposed to in anyway, so that’s not a problem for them to rationalize nor to actually stand against, so that’s not a mental obstacle for them when it comes to rationalizing mass immigration. And I dont suspect their response to islamofascism is anything that would in any way be productive, it would probably make things way worse, so from now on, I’d rather point it out to everyone else besides leftist radicals & progressives.

This isn’t about abuse per se but I know how tumblr loves its discourse.

All aspects of healthcare should be free, because healthcare is necessary to not-dying, and not-dying is a basic human right. In an ideal world, parents wouldn’t need to worry about whether or not they can afford to treat their children. Sadly, we don’t live in a socialist utopia, but that doesn’t change the fact that parents must ensure that their children’s basic needs are met.

Star Trek: DS9 Notes - S7, Vol. 7

I didn’t even love Deep Space Nine at the start. That may be one of my favorite things about this now, here at the end. I got attached gradually, more and more, a love that built over time until I’d grown so fond of it, so close, that at times it would almost seem we were completing each other’s frickin sentences.

Oh my show, my sweet space show, so strong and sure in its storytelling. It has been a steady hug when I needed it most, during times when the world and my own days were both filled with distress and despair. The people on this station experienced great traumas too, but it was boundlessly comforting to watch them navigate each tricky pass with such care and wisdom and heart. Their hope gave me hope, too.

I actually really like watching shows that have already concluded. I like the feeling of having seen the whole thing, and now having this complete world to play in. A show that’s no longer on the air is like a novel — you can look at it as one thing, hold it in your hands and see what the shapes of all the narratives truly were. It’s once I’ve finished a series that the most imaginative parts of my fan-mind finally let loose, spilling light into unexplored corners, drawing plans for how to shore up weak spots, bring a few pieces a bit tighter together, add a haunted attic, etc.

So this is the sort of space I was just tipping over into when Deep Space Nine gave me an ending. A capital letter Ending, achingly realistic. The series ended because the characters’ time together ended. The course of people’s lives change, they take new opportunities, they move away — and so ends the run of months, years if you’re lucky, when you were all together.

The finale is sad, oh it is so sad, and god I love it, I do. I love it for being so sad, and for being so natural, so recognizable, that now this is just my ending. No matter what else my thoughts will go back to fill in, all roads lead to the sea. To goodbye.

Which is probably what has landed me in just a very a tender sort story hangover with this one, walking around sheltering this warm, full, broken heart. 

So I do hope you sweethearts will stick around as I feel I’m going to be in quite the state for a while!!

Tarra Treks: The Final Set of Watch-Notes

7x24 ‘The Dogs of War: Part 8’
- O’Brien: “Running a little late.”
  Sisko: “This is no way to start a relationship.”
  me: “do it”
  Julian, slipping into frame: “Hi Ezri.”
  haaaahahaha, they did it
- Miles just keeping a steady eye on Julian awkwardly circling Ezri, oh Chief
- Worf: “He is an overgrown child.”


Keep reading

William Morris (1834-96) regarded beauty as a basic human birthright. In this fascinating book, which accompanies a major exhibition, Morriss biographer Fiona MacCarthy looks at how his highly original and generous vision of a new form of society in which art could flourish has reverberated through the decades. In 1860 Morris moved into the now famous Red House at Bexleyheath in Kent. Here his ideas found practical expression in its decoration, undertaken with the help of his artistcraftsman friends Edward Burne-Jones, Ford Madox Brown and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who envisaged the project as the first stage in a campaign against the debased artistic standards of the mid-Victorian age. From these beginnings, MacCarthy charts the development of a revolution: the setting-up of Morriss shop (later Morris & Co.), his embracing of radical ideas of sexual freedom and libertarianism, and the publication of his visionary novel News from Nowhere (1890), in which he advanced his hopes for a dismantling of the stultifying structures of society and their replacement by a more equable and fluid way of life. Later chapters explore how Morriss ideas came to influence the Arts and Crafts movement in Britain, Europe and the USA, the Garden City movement, and numerous artists and craftspeople who sought to negotiate a viable place within the modern world in the troubled years that followed the First World War. Finally, MacCarthy explains the continuing relevance of Morriss ideals, as expressed in the planning and execution of the Festival of Britain in 1951, a regenerative project of the post-war Labour government that inspired a number of young designers such as Terence Conran with a direct sense of mission to bring the highest design standards within the reach of everyone.

noah fence but why do y'all seem to think scandinavians can’t be racist or that somehow racial slurs aren’t bad in scandinavia? like. i know the super repetitive rhetoric surrounding democratic socialism and ur mans bernie have u convinced that scandinavian countries are these perfect socialist utopias where no one is unhappy ever but uh that’s Fake as Shit. sure in many cases they have more progressive politics than the US, but scandinavian societies (plural, because they’re not even remotely all the same) are still plagued by things like racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and all that bullshit. the manifestations of racism we see in the US aren’t somehow un-racist coming from a scandinavian

codaking replied to your post “cosmictuesdays replied to your post: I just read your final recap and…”

I always love opinions on federation versus dominion society and ideals

With this and @picturesinhismind’s request to hear about the Federation’s parallels with the Cardassian Union, it seems I should just share my thoughts on what The United Federation of Planets IS in the Space Future!

This is a really big question.

We’re talking about a group of people who have, quote, “decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement,” but who ALSO tacitly allow factions like Section 31 to go about their shady dealings.

I mean there’s no doubt that the Federation is Good, this is a net good sort of situation for sure. They fight against oppression in all its forms (here’s not looking at you, Cardassia and the Dominion). They embrace science and art and cool ships. They send their people out into space to make discoveries and connections, and get all excited when they meet new people who want to team up for knowledge.

There are some things they do not handle all that well. Section 31 we’ve mentioned, and what went down with the Maquis was not great. There are several episodes in Deep Space Nine expressly concerned with Starfleet officers having a very complicated time with something they’re learning about their people. Oh no, they wonder, could the Federation be in the wrong?

Of course they could be. They’re mostly Humans, after all. Humans make mistakes. To err is us. And creating an inclusive socialist utopia out in the stars doesn’t mean we’re gonna stop fucking things up sometimes. But the Federation isn’t about perfection, it’s about striving. The Federation always looks forward, always dreams of making it better, always hopes.

But most of all, if you ask me about the Federation in Star Trek, my mind usually goes to one specific conversation between a Ferengi and a Cardassian:

Quark: “And the worst part of it is, my only hope for salvation, is the Federation.”
Garak: “I know precisely how you feel.”
Quark: “I want you to try something for me. Take a sip of this.”
Garak: “What is it.”
Quark: “A Human drink. It’s called root beer.”
Garak: “Naw I don’t know.”
Quark: “Come onn. Aren’t you just a little bit curious?”
Garak: [sighs, drinks]
Quark: “What do you think?”
Garak: “It’s vile!”
Quark, quietly resigned: “I know. It’s so bubbly and cloying. And happy.”
Garak, pleased: “Just like the Federation.”
Quark: “But do you know what’s really frightening? If you drink enough of it, you begin to like it.
Garak: “It’s insidious. :)”
Quark: “Just like the Federation.”
Garak, a real question: “…Do you think they’ll be able to save us?”
Quark, weary: “I hope so.”

Solarpunk - a tale of two worlds

I’ve been following this tag pretty much through its inception, I’ve seen here and there people throwing ideas and chipping on how the solarpunk world should be. I’m not trying to put anything new, but rather to give a nice summation of the two most popular ideas I’ve seen. The two worlds as I’ve seen them can be described as The Jeffersonian Yeoman and a Socialist Utopia (please do not make a negative association). 

The less popular one is The Jeffersonian Yeoman. As a world I’ve seen it described and it appears to be more of Libertarian/Wild West type, than it’s Socialist counterpart. In it people live lives independent of the community - they generate their own electricity (via green means), they produce their own food (aquaponics), they supply their own water, The world of the Jeffersonian Yeoman - as I’ve said it before - is a Libertarian Utopia. There is very little government, almost no taxes and almost no social welfare and negligible government regulation. However this is Solarpunk and thus it is optimistic. While the individual tends to be much more important than the community, The Jeffersonian Yeoman is raised better than the modern person. He is moral, he follows the law, he helps those down on their luck, because he feels a personal responsibility to help those less fortunate.

 The second and more popular version is the Socialist Utopia. In it, as the name implies, the government and community take much more active roles. In it you can usually see things like Universal Income, communal housing and eating centers. Charity and care for the downtrodden is still done by people, but a much more heavy emphasis is put on social programs and the welfare state. Communal projects also tend to be much more common - where the community as a whole would do something - where is the Jeffersonian would be less likely to engage in such activities.

I like both of them in their own unique way and hope to see them explore, Solarpunk is such a nice idea.

knightenchanterenjolras replied to your post : knightenchanterenjolras replied to your post: One…

That’s what I figured. And if you would, that would be interesting O:

Okay, here we go. Be prepared, cause this is gonna be a long ride.

Mormons and Socialism Crash Course

In Church History

In the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the full proper name of the Mormon church), the prophet Joseph Smith received revelation regarding “The Law of Consecration”(1) which eventually led to the creation of the United Order.

In the United Order, members would give all of their property over to the church, which would in turn grant members “stewardships,” or a parcel of land and such to look after and make use of. Anything produced on that land above what the people needed would be granted back to the Order to be given to people who needed it.

The earliest United Order communities failed in part because all Mormon communities were fairly transitory in that time period, seeing as how people kept killing us and chasing us out of places and such. After the governor of Missouri signed the Mormon Extermination Order in 1838 we kind of peaced out from society in general and moved out to the desert where there weren’t any other white settlers to try to murder us. That’s what eventually became Utah.

Several more attempts at creating United Order communities were made in the early days of Utah settlements. Each community operated slightly differently, but what they had in common was not exactly an abolishment of private property, but a kind of voluntary equalizing of private property with the goal of eradicating poverty.

Joseph Smith said of the United Order that it was “an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I [Jesus Christ] come” (Doctrine & Covenants 104:1). The Order is believed to have failed, and this is important, not because the Law of Consecration was flawed, but because people were flawed.

It’s a generally accepted belief among Mormons that the Law of Moses from the Old Testament was given to the people because they had failed to live by a higher law. Similarly, early Mormons failed to live by the higher law of the United Order and so were allowed by God to live by a lower law (capitalism) until we’re prepared to live by the higher law. That means we still believe that socialism is better and more righteous than capitalism even if people are too selfish to live that way right now.

You hear modern Mormons talk a lot about the idea of self sufficiency, and a lot of the discourse about it today sounds very individualistic, but I also think it’s important to note that in the early days of the church the emphasis was on communal self sufficiency. Early Mormon communities didn’t want to have to rely on non-Mormons or the U.S. government that hated them. The idea of communal self-sufficiency is illustrated well by the Utah state symbol of the beehive. Bees live and work together in order to support the whole hive, not just themselves.

Also, although we no longer live by the United Order, the Mormon church still operates a very extensive welfare and disaster relief program. Which is part of why I roll my eyes at any church member who’s anti-welfare.

In Scripture

Speaking of rolling my eyes at any church member who’s anti-welfare, King Benjamin, one of the most righteous kings from The Book of Mormon, says in no uncertain terms that anyone who refuses to help the poor because they think they deserve their poverty will go to hell. (Insofar as Mormons believe in a hell, but that’s another issue). He says:

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just–

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

(Mosiah 4: 17-18)

This is one of the most obvious passages, but on a macro level The Book of Mormon is also very clearly anti-capitalism. 

Throughout The Book of Mormon there appears something referred to as the Pride Cycle. The Nephite civilization starts out as humble and righteous, God sends them prosperity, they become proud and wicked, God punishes them and takes away their prosperity, they become humble and righteous again, etc.

The important thing here is that the pride and wickedness always starts with class distinctions. When some people start getting better educations, wearing better clothes, etc, then others, that’s when they are seen as wicked and God punishes them. When rich people star believing they deserve their riches and refuse to help the poor, that’s when they are seen as wicked and God punishes them.

This is most clearly illustrated after Jesus Christ himself appears unto the people in The Book of Mormon after his resurrection. After his visit, everyone in the land becomes converted and they basically live in a righteous utopia for several generations. This is what is said of the people at that time:

3 And they had all things in common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

(4 Nephi 4:3)

“Had all things in common” basically means that they owned everything together. “There were not rich and poor” is pretty self explanatory. There were no classes. There was no private property. Total economic equality in the righteous utopia after the coming of Christ.

And then 201 years later, this happens:

24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

25 And from that time forth they did have their good and their substances no more common among them.

26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain and began to deny the true church of Christ.

(4 Nephi 4:24-26)

People began to be proud and wear fancy clothes, they were “divided into classes,” and their stuff was “no more common among them.” Private property returns and that’s the beginning of the end for the Nephites, who become so wicked after this that God wipes them out altogether. 

In The Pearl of Great Price, too, there is mention of the city of Zion, a city so righteous that the Lord took the whole city and and its people up into heaven with him. Zion is also used as a metaphor for God’s people more generally, and the early church settlements in Utah were often referred to as Zion and new members who moved there were seen as “gathering unto Zion.”

And here is how The Pearl of Great Price describes Zion:

18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

(Moses 7:18)

Once again: “There was no poor among them.”

And one of the things often mentioned in scriptural discussions of the future Second Coming of Christ is the return of Zion.

This would take a long time to go into in detail, bu essentially, Mormons believe that after the Second Coming of Christ we’ll all live in a socialist utopia ruled by Christ himself. 

And all of that is only touching on scripture that is unique to Mormons. The New Testament in the Bible is full to the brim of anti-capitalism: Jesus turning over the tables of the money-changers, Jesus saying that rich people can’t go to heaven, Jesus saying to pay your taxes and who cares, etc. etc.


There you have it, a quick overview of my religious reasons for being a socialist and why Mormon conservatives make no sense to me. If you want any further clarification, or if there’s anything in the scriptural language that’s hard for you to understand as a non-native English speaker, feel free to send me a message.


(1) The full text of the revelation is found in Doctrine and Covenants 42: 30-39

30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is are residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed— 

36 That my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people. 

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me— 

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me. 

39 For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.


Vince Gilligan Is Making A HBO Show About Cult Leader Jim Jones And The Jonestown Massacre

Vince Gilligan, creator of Breaking Badand Better Call Saul, is working with HBO on a series about infamous cult leader Jim Jones and his group, the Peoples Temple, called Raven.

Jim Jones was a fascinating figure and the moral complexity of the story — particularly how the cult’s initial intention was to create a socialist utopia which celebrated racial equality and eschewed the aggression of racial-intolerant America — makes it perfect fodder for Vince Gilligan’s type of television.

argentum-zeena  asked:

Though some of it is just edgy teens, I'm starting to seriously wonder if this recent "social justice" movement could be considered a sort of social media centered cult at this point. Researching the characteristics of cults and the different types out there brings up some eerily familiar behaviors.

It is VERY much like a cult mentality.  I’ve made that connection before as well.  Especially when you have people that are placing themselves at the forefront of it (like Sarkeesian, for example), you have these people that are essentially modern-day false prophets manipulating others through misinformation, and the promise of a brighter tomorrow.  They’re also creating an environment in which no one is allowed to question their actions, credibility, or authority without being targeted and ostracized.  It’s really a disaster waiting to happen.

Jim Jones managed to get 909 people to follow him to a completely different continent, away from their friends and family.  These were mostly marginalized people.  He cut his flock off from any outside communication.  He did this immediately after his teachings at the People’s Temple came under public scrutiny, and he did it all under the guise of liberating them from oppression, and creating a perfect, socialist utopia.  What it ended up becoming was a place of fear, slavery (even when your aim is equality, someone has to do the backbreaking labor to provide for the population), and eventually mass murder (contrary to popular belief, a great deal of testimony has come to light suggesting that the majority of the people at Jonestown were either forced to drink the poisoned Kool-aid at gunpoint, or injected with poison directly.  Small children in particular had no choice in the matter, especially when many of them were wards of the state of California that were turned over to Jim Jones).

Think about how “feminists” and SJWs will try to disallow their own friends and followers from communicating with or following people they deem “problematic”.  They endorse preemptively blocking people based on their say-so (”Here’s a list of shitty people to block, and my unsubstantiated reasons for doing so”).  They’ll leave messages saying “You know you reblogged from a bad person, right?”.  They’ll also lie that certain blogs are monetized in order to keep others from reading anything but what they want those people to read (I’ve personally been on the receiving end of all of these).  The second you begin to doubt them, or raise questions about their actions, you become a pariah, and a lightning rod for harassment.  Your status or affiliation doesn’t matter–all it takes is a single misstep for them to turn against you.

They want control over others.  They want others to see them as bastions of morality.  They want blind obedience.

If that’s not a damn good description of a cult, then I don’t know what is.

Swedish centre-right in 2018: We believe it is unfair that all of our daughters are given to be child brides of Muslim immigrants. Thus, we propose that only half of Swedish girls would be selected for the genetic enrichment/racism erasure programmes”


Tumblr in 2018: You think Europe is so great and free of racism? Look at these actual NAZIS in Sweden!

Gun-nut America

The always incredible Bill Whittle put out a fantastic video today, and I thought I would condense it into a nice little photo-set for Tumblr. 

Every time there is a mass shooting or some type of high profile murder with a gun, liberals are so quick to point to the “disgusting” gun culture of America. Are guns to blame for the violence? Well, lets have a look.

We all know that the US has the highest gun-owership per capita by a mile, with around 90 guns per 100 people.

So we should rank right up there with the highest murder rates, correct? If more guns leads to more violence, like liberals claim. 

Well actually, gun-nut America doesn’t even crack the top 110. Socialist utopias of gun control like Honduras lead the pack in terms of murder.

Now this ranking of 111 is much higher than it should be. We have Democratic controlled, gun-control infested major cities full of crime and murder to thank for this high ranking of 111.

If gun-control-haven Detroit were it’s own country, it would rank 2nd in most murders per capita. 

So we see that cities with high gun control don’t do so well with murder rates, so lets look at the city with THE MOST GUNS per capita. 

Plano, Texas, where just about every single household is loaded with handguns, AR-15s, shotguns, hunting knives, so on. The murder rate is a low 0.4. 

If the gun-nut capital of the gun-nut country was it’s own country, it would rank…. last. Or, the country with the LEAST murders per capita. 

So maybe the progressive liberal idea of ‘more guns = more violence’ is wrong. I know it’s wrong, the facts speak for themselves. Maybe it’s not the guns, but rather the people holding the guns. Maybe the rest of the country should be more like Plano, Texas. 

The contradictory nature of the Socialist utopias is one explanation for the violence involved in the attempt to impose them: it takes infinite force to make people do what is impossible.
—  Roger Scruton (  1944- ) British Conservative  philosopher 

Chips n gravy n bitter class hatred, crap shagging in bus shelters, accidentally falling out of a window in order to impress a girl and then getting her arrested, watching cockroaches climb up the wall, being such a nice person since you started taking them drugs, more crap shagging in bus shelters, the north will rise again, dancing off your tits on E, shagging a lampost, weird ugly NHS prescription glasses, dramatically pointing at things, and Sheffield, seriously, so much Sheffield, more than you or I or anyone remotely reasonable could possibly take.

Yes, it’s Pulp week!

This is Jarvis Cocker, and he wants you to know that he’s not Jesus Christ but he has the same initials. Random people I know as well as friends of friends keep seeing him on the London tube and sending me mocking pictures reminding me that despite my depressing ability to end up in the vicinity of famous people I admire and then humiliating myself publicly to a level to which even Jedward could probably not aspire*, I have never had the opportunity to do this to/in front of/around Jarvis Cocker. AND I NEVER WANT TO. And the latter aspect of it would probably matter, to a more stable individual, but the universe seeks to deprive me of dribbling on Jarvis Cocker’s (amazing) shoes, and I’m irrationally annoyed about it.

Anyway, that’s Jarvis Cocker, the poet laureate of shit shagging and terrifying proletariat invective disguised as toop choons. He is the frontman, lyricist, and chief driving creative force behind Pulp, and as such the lynchpin of most of what we’re talking about this week. He is also known within Britain for possibly unwisely deciding to do an impromptu stage invasion during Michael Jackson’s utterly bonkers messianic performance of “Earth Song” during the 1996 Brit Awards. This led to hilarious scenes that were almost beyond satire – although this didn’t stop many people trying – of him being dragged offstage after wiggling his bum at Michael Jackson, the camera, and the bemused audience, and then to trained solicitor and anarchic madman Bob Mortimer of Vic and Bob fame acting as his representative during police questioning. (Told you it was bonkers.) BUT NO MORE will you know him solely for what he has insisted always was a spur of the moment decision that involved him actually mooning no one, ever, despite many reports to the contrary. JARVIS COCKER’S BARE BUM WAS ALL IN YOUR HEADS, YOU PERVERTS.

It will feature cameos from my Miserable Northern Childhood**, the Situationist International, photos of my hometown looking like a pile of dogshit, photos of my hometown looking like the glorious socialist utopia it rightfully is, Archigram, Rimbaud, New Labour, Old Labour, New Old Labour, Who Even Knows Anymore Labour, me harping on about shite almost no one cares about, me harping on about shite literally no one cares about, and Britpop, unfortunately. I wanted to do this in the first ‘real’ week of the new year because what better way to start another trudge towards the grave with a band that’s right there with you, YOUR DEEP-SEATED SUSPICIONS ARE RIGHT, YOU DID WASTE THE LAST YEAR OF YOUR LIFE, YOU WAZZOCK. Also I’m good friends with Emma Jean, who finished the year by writing (excellently) about Marina & the Diamonds and who is a tough act to follow, and the symmetry of this pleases me, both in terms of friendship and subversive pop music bookending. STOP DANCING, HUMAN. NO WAIT KEEP DANCING BUT SOB, SOB IN TIME TO THE BEAT. YOUR LIFE IS MEANINGLESS AND YOU DROPPED YOUR KEBAB IN THE GUTTER AND NO ONE LOVES YOU AT ALL.

Up first, the song you’re all here for: Common People!

*I once met Courtney Love and essentially had what amounted to a protracted three year nervous breakdown condensed into thirty minutes. Never again.***

**Which may turn out to be much less miserable than advertised, but invariably much more Northern than you could possibly imagine.

***Yes, in case you were wondering if I was being flippant here, I’ve had several actual for-real nervous breakdowns, and I’m still not sure if any of them were as melodramatically inherently stupid as PHYSICALLY FORGETTING HOW TO SPEAK when Courtney Love asked me what my name was. Neverrrrrrrrrrr again.****

****I desperately wrote most of this week’s entries crying in my pants at 4am to Totally Wired by unexplainable British band The Fall***** cos it makes me write fast, despite assuring Hendrik that I would absolutely be a sensible person and do lots of work in advance. I think you can probably tell. And if you couldn’t, SHIT. I totally just gave the game away, didn’t I. (“Have you been up all night crying in your pants while writing about Pulp?” asked my best friend, IN THOSE EXACT WORDS WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ THIS yesterday morning when I rang her, #truelove)

*****Although my favourite ever One Week, One Band had a pretty good go at explaining them (‘them’ feels like a dishonest word to use when it’s basically just his infernal majesty Mark E. Smith and whichever unsuspecting mark he’s conned into carrying the amp this month). Anyway, I’m going to stop doing footnotes, they’re even fucking me off now.