What grinds my gears

Representative Jackie Speier, who was shot at by cultists at Jonestown in 1978, recently compared Donald Trump to Jim Jones in an interview. Quite naturally the YouTube video comments are stock full of people agreeing with it, and many of them saying things like "I have been saying this for four years" (which I don't believe for a second, because it's literally the first time I have ever heard anybody make that comparison, and believe me, I have followed way too much of the American leftist narratives and talking points.) They also compare American Republicans to the Jonestown cultists. Both Representative Speier and the army of brainwashed drones parroting the same three things over and over in the YouTube comment sections are completely insane. Jim Jones was a hard-core hard-line far-leftist Marxist Socialist who absolutely hated and loathed capitalism and the American government. He made this amply clear in his sermons, and it was one of his main talking points, an

Recently I wrote in a blog post a concise summary of what I understand the fundamental right to free speech to be . It can be summarized by four rules. The third one (which I go more in detail here ) stated that you should not be forced to say what you don't want to say. In other words, that compelled speech is fundamentally against the concept of free speech. This particular aspect of free speech might seem mostly theoretical. Sure, in a free society where free speech is a fundamental right nobody should be forced to say anything they don't want to say, but surely that doesn't happen in practice, especially from the part of the government? The rule is important, of course, but surely it's one of the aspects of free speech that doesn't really get infringed, especially not by the government, and thus it's mostly theoretical? What government would force someone to say something he or she doesn't want to say? Except it's not just theoretical. It does happe

The International Olympic Committee recently published "transgender guidelines" for all of its national members essentially saying that any man should be allowed to compete in women's sports, pretty much no questions asked. No demands whatsoever. No surgeries, no hormones, nothing. The man merely has to state that he is a "woman", and that's enough, he should be allowed to participate in women's sports. What's most baffling, and telling, is that these guidelines suggest that there's no evidence that men have an advantage in sports compared to women. You know, disregarding the hundreds of years of quite clear evidence, including thousands and thousands of competition results, world records, averages and so on, that indicate otherwise. As some people have aptly put, this current insane movement is pretty much ending women's sports, and we are quickly becoming a world where there are only two categories of sports: Men's sports, and mixed spo

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm delving deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 4, which said: These rights should be universal (ie. they apply to everybody equally regardless of anything) and inalienable, ie. irrevocable (these rights cannot be taken away from anybody, no matter the circumstances and no matter what they may or may not have done, or who they are). This is actually one of the most important aspects of the principle of the fundamental right to free speech, and it's something that I have seen even some fervent advocates of free speech forget. Every single person must have the same right to free speech (all the rules I have delineated should apply) as everybody else, no matter what. It does not matter who tha

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 3, which said: You should not be forced to say anything you don't want to say (ie. compelled speech). You should not be forced to listen to any opinions you don't want to listen to. This second part only applies as long as it does not infringe on any of the other rules. This principle could be summarized as "freedom of speech also includes freedom from speech". The very word "freedom" means having the right to make your own choices freely, without compulsion, coercion and intimidation (eg. with the threat of punishment). Thus "freedom of speech" does not only mean that you can freely express your opini

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be , in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 2, which said: You should be able to listen to any opinions you want, by anybody you want, without impediment or restrictions, and without punishment or negative consequences. (Again, nobody has to provide you with the means of doing this, but likewise nobody should try to actively stop you from doing it by deliberately putting obstacles or impediments in your way, or trying to stop the opinions from being heard.) Many people forget (or might even be unaware) that the concept of freedom of speech does not encompass only the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum, but also the fundamental right to listen to any opinio

In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech , the right to free speech , to be, in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm going to delve deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 1, which said: You should have the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum to anybody who is willing to listen, without impediment or restrictions, and without punishment or negative consequences. (Nobody has to provide the means for you to do this, but neither should anybody try to actively stop you from doing it by deliberately putting obstacles or impediments in your way, or trying to stop the opinions from being heard.) Public forums vs. private property People who want to restrict free speech (especially the far left) often present all kinds of objections to the concept, or its definition. I have tried to proactiv

I have written about this very subject several times in this blog, but I think it deserves a clear well-written summary. One that I (or anybody else) can easily refer to, when needed. (Note: "Listen" and "hear" in this context refers to all forms of receiving information, not solely to the physical sense of hearing sounds.) The concept of the fundamental right to free speech can be divided into its legal definition and the philosophical principle that one can believe in and uphold. The legal definition ought to bind and restrict the actions of the government. The philosophical principle is a higher ideal and ethical belief that one can support, believe in, defend, and advocate for (especially when it comes to defending other people's rights). In either case, the right to free speech , ie. freedom of speech , can be defined as consisting of four basic rules: You should have the fundamental right to express your opinions in a public forum to anybody who is will

When leftists, such as leftist university students, are asked about whether socialism would be a good idea or not, one topic that often comes up is that they think that "wealth redistribution" is a good thing and would make things more equal. Indeed, this concept of "wealth redistribution" is one of their main talking points. However, they don't seem to know what they are talking about. They talk about it like "wealth" were some kind of thing, like a natural resource, that just exists on its own, like it emanated from the ground on its own, and which some people are simply hogging for themselves, stopping others from getting their share of it. As if "wealth" were like a water spring in a desert, which just emanates crucial life-saving water, and which some bandits have appropriated and taken for their own, and extorting exorbitant prices for from the locals, rather than distributing it fairly and equally with everybody. They indeed seem to th

There are many people, some of them of high status and influence (such as some politicians in the government of some countries) who are advocating for the Covid-19 vaccine to be made mandatory. This would raise a lot of ethical, constitutional and human rights issues and questions. However, let's approach this question from a more practical perspective. The thing is, we have an example of a good that mandatory vaccination can have. You see, smallpox was completely eradicated from existence via a worldwide aggressive vaccination campaign between the 1950's and 1970's. Smallpox killed millions of people every single year (it's estimated that during its last 100 years of existence it had killed about 500 million people). Thus its complete eradication from the face of Earth has saved millions of lives every single year. In some places people were essentially forcefully vaccinated against their will. While perhaps ethically and morally questionable, this action has undeniabl

Some time in 2020 in one of the myriads of riots by the far left, a guy with a rifle was attacked by three people (who, by the way, were all convicted criminals, including a child rapist) and he shot them in self defense, killing two of them and wounding one. Because the riot was, once again, far-leftist extremist terrorists burning buildings down because of some perceived injustice against a black person, the entirety of the far left, very much including the leftist mainstream media and most leftist politicians, decided to make this guy their scapegoat of the week and launched a year-long vicious attack against him full of slander, lies and distortions. This vicious smearing campaign was so effective that it pressured the state prosecution to file charges, even though there was essentially no case against him. It couldn't have been a clearer case of self defense as a last resort. The prosecution was laughably weak, because they just didn't have a case. (Ironically, the prosecu

On the 9th of November of 2021, the 83th anniversary of Kristallnacht (which was a violent riot against Jews organized in Germany by the Nazi Party's SA paramilitary forces on the 9th of November of 1938), the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely was giving a speech in the London School of Economics. When she exited the building after the speech she was violently attacked and harassed by a mob of rioters who chased her, causing her to have to get to her car as fast as possible and flee the scene. This was not just some random unrelated riot in which she just happened to be caught in the middle of. No, the rioters were there precisely because of her speech, and were targeting precisely her and nobody else. Was this a group of skinhead neo-Nazi right-wing extremists targeting her because she's a Jew? Nope. This was a group of left-wing extremists targeting her because she's a Jew. Which, in my books, makes them neo-Nazis all the same. There's little difference. Modern lef

I was recently watching a YouTube video by Ben Shaphiro, where he (is tormented by his staff to) watch insanely "woke" TikTok videos . One of the videos was a woman making a pro-choice argument. I would like to object to that argument more than Ben did. The argument in the video was this: "If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?" "It doesn't matter, Brandon, it has never mattered. At no point ever has it mattered whether it's just a clump of cells or a fully-fledged person already accepted to Harvard University. It has never ever matter when did life begin. The point is that a person cannot use another person's body without their permission. By forcing women to share their bodies with fetuses to keep them alive you are actually suggesting that fetuses should have more rights than any other person in the world, and that people with uteruses should have less rights. If you want a fetus to have the same rights as other people, I h

It seems that every time I think I have figured out the mentality of the current "woke" far-leftist social justice ideology, and that nothing they do surprises me anymore, time and again they prove me wrong, by becoming even crazier than they were before, reaching new heights. It seems that there's no upper limit to how much of a clownworld they are capable of creating. This time the absolute pinnacle of utter jaw-dropping stupidity and craziness doesn't come from some university "feminist" social justice academic writing yet another braindead article about yet another silly idea. Nor does it come from some twitter feed of some anonymous social justice twitter mob. Nor does it come from some small "feminist" online publication. It comes from none other than Microsoft, one of the largest and riches megacorporations in the world. In what must be the absolute pinnacle of stupidity and mental insanity, in their recent "Microsoft Ignite" onlin

Recently I read some newspaper article about how according to some politician "the raise of populism is a threat to democracy". I just had to stare at the absolute beauty of that contradictory oxymoron. "Populism" is a political tactic or principle of, essentially, giving the people what they want, doing what the people want, placating to the people, to the common person. This is, in fact, where the very term comes from: From "population", referring to favoring the population, the people, putting the people above everything else, doing the will of the people. In fact, one of the dictionary definitions of "populism" is: "grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism." Another is: "representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc." So, what these people are saying is, essentially, that "doing what the people want is a threat to democracy". I just can't help but

One of the terms that far-leftist social justice activist ideologues love to throw at the people they hate, such as white people, is that they are "uncomfortable" discussing whatever the leftists are accusing them of. One of the most common accusations is that white people have "white privilege" and that they are "uncomfortable" discussing the subject. Another common one is that they are "racists", and likewise "uncomfortable" discussing their racism. However, if we turn our far-leftist-language-to-English dictionary to the term "uncomfortable (discussing some topic)", what they actually mean is that those people disagree with and deny the accusations thrown at them. In other words, "being uncomfortable discussing racism" actually means "they disagree and deny that they are racists". It doesn't have anything to do with being comfortable or uncomfortable discussing the subject. Most of them are complet

Recently a "woke" far-leftist university professor had an interview in some online show (called "The Root"), where she completely openly expresses her racial prejudice and hatred of white people (all white people). You can see an excerpt of the video in this Michael Knowles video (where he comments on that clip). I'm going to transcribe what the university professor is saying in that clip, with my comments: "I think that white people are committed to be villains in the aggregate, right?" This is 100% racist rhetoric. She's bunching all white people, every single one of them, the hundreds of millions of white people from all around the world, from different countries, cultures, backgrounds and beliefs into the same category, and assigning blame to all of them. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are from, what your cultural background is, what your principles and politics are, or what you believe, if you are "white" (by some defi

I have written many times about the blatant and extreme political bias at Wikipedia, its editors, and its management. Any currently influential or prominent person, organization, movement or social phenomenon that the political far left and the mainstream media hates with a passion will be copiously vilified at length at Wikipedia, usually with very lengthy articles that are little more than extensive lists of mostly irrelevant minutia, much of this minutia having extremely poor standards of source reliability, often eg. citing just the personal opinion of some random academic, or simply repeating unproven allegations (often without even pointing out that the allegation is unproven). Pretty much without fail, if anything even remotely positive about that person or thing is mentioned, it will be sandwiched between negative traits and allegations. Refutations of the negative allegations will most often be absent, and even when they are sometimes mentioned, they are, quite naturally, nev