What grinds my gears

Fox News is pretty much the only large conservative pro Republican Party news network in the United States (while pretty much all the other major news networks have always been at a very minimum left-leaning and, nowadays, so far to the left that they have broken the left wall of the political spectrum). And not like slightly conservative-leaning and slightly pro-Republican. American conservatism to its absolute extreme, at full blast. For decades Fox News used to be the laughing stock of other countries, with all their silly antics, baseless asinine claims, and conspiracy theories (quite naturally every single conspiracy theory of American conservatives, the reasonable ones and the most ridiculous ones, Fox News parroted at full blast). Essentially, Fox News was the conservative counterpart of the modern CNN and MSNBC, being a full-on 24/7 anti-Democrat propaganda channel. What CNN, MSNBC and the other major far-left pundits are doing today, Fox News was doing for at least a couple of

Not in the sense that they shouldn't exist (it's up to each individual's personal opinions and convictions whether they should or not), but the motivations for having pushed them into legislation. Take the United States, for example. Currently it's estimated that from long-term heterosexual couples over 60% are married. This is significantly lower than it was in the past (I believe you only need to go back in time by 20 to 30 years and the proportion was over 80%), but it's still quite high. For several decades the leftist activists really pushed for the same "right" to be bestowed on homosexuals, ie. that same-sex marriage would be legalized. Clearly same-sex couples were eager to get all the same legal benefits from marriage as heterosexual couples. Thus, when same-sex marriage was finally legalized, there was a rush of same-sex couples getting married, to finally get the benefits of this legal contract... Or was there? Can you guess how many long-term s

4chan is a forum where everybody posts completely anonymously, and no post can be linked to anybody in particular. Some of these groups of people posting there are notorious for organizing all kinds of activism and trolling campaigns (some of them surprisingly effective, like "Project Chanology", which was an absolutely massive and quite successful protest against the Church of Scientology and their crimes and abuses.) Some years ago these activists came up with a funny way to troll the western mainstream media and far-leftist activists: They started spreading the notion that the "OK" hand gesture (which has existed for decades, if not centuries) is a "white supremacist" and "neo-nazi" hand gesture (because the hand gesture kind of contains the forms of the letters W and P, which according to them means "white power"). This was purely an invention of these activists at 4chan. As far as I know, no actual white supremacist neo-nazi had ev

A viral video which got millions of views was published a bit ago of some black man expressing extremely racist rhetoric at a 2-3 year old white toddler who was traveling with his family in a New York subway. The man called the toddler racial epithets, as well as stating how he is superior because he's black. And he was clearly not just some random drug-addict junkie because he was well dressed and spoke using quite high-level academic terminology (that looked like directly from the depths of some university). Unsurprisingly, nobody intervened, nobody even knows who the man is, the mainstream media has been completely silent about the event, and there has not been any sort of outrage. Just imagine if the races had been reversed, with a white man spouting racial epithets at a small black toddler and saying how he is superior because he's white. The man would have probably been lynched by now, and the mainstream media would talk about nothing else, and probably Democrat politicia

Political persecution of people has existed since as long as there has been any sort of government and politics in human societies. It is, quite naturally, extremely common (so common as to be pretty much expected) in dictatorships, military juntas, and other types of totalitarian regimes. Sadly, it's also quite common in modern free democratic constitutional countries, even though in theory that shouldn't happen. While the means by which people are politically persecuted may be slightly different in them, the fact is that it's extremely common. Dissenters, wrongthinkers, "troublemakers" and other personae non gratae are commonly politically persecuted even in the least corrupt free democratic countries in the world. Yes, it does happen in pretty much all countries, even the most peaceful and least corrupt ones. Take Finland, for example, which is regularly ranked among the freest and least corrupt countries in the world. While perhaps not extraordinarily common

In the United States, at some point in time, it became a somewhat common phenomenon for some people to declare themselves as "sovereign citizens". I don't think even they themselves can give a clear definition of the term (most probably if you ask three "sovereign citizens" to give a definition you'll get seven different answers), but very broadly they think that they are citizens that are independent of the current government and its laws, as if each such "citizen" formed its own independent country or sovereignty that's separate from and independent from the United States government. They widely believe that this status of theirs is based on and supported by the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the founding documents they wrote. They think that since they aren't citizens of the current United States, instead being their own "independent countries" of sorts, the laws, law enforcement and courts have no jurisdiction over the

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" was one of the mottos of the secret police of the Stalinist Soviet Union (notoriously coined by its secret police chief). This is in general used to describe the mentality and behavior of tyrants and oppressive authorities who will always find some kind of excuse for punishing someone using outwardly legal reasons. After all, law books are really vast, with literally thousands and thousands of laws, codes and ordinances, which are so extensive and numerous that it's almost impossible for the average citizen to never break any of them in the slightest. You have probably technically broken at least some laws or codes, no matter how small, during the past week alone, probably without even knowing. In totalitarian regimes this principle has been and is often used for political persecution of dissenters and other undesirable people (while still maintaining a facade of legality). At a slightly smaller level, even in free democr

For the longest time, equality was the golden goal of a modern constitutional civilization: Everybody should be treated equally regardless of innate immutable characteristics like sex, race and so on. Laws and law enforcement must be the same for everybody, and there absolutely must not exist any kind of discrimination or preferential treatment for example in governmental services, schooling, enrollment, hiring, promotions and so on and so forth. Equal rights for everybody was the golden standard. No longer. While the idea has been promoted for much longer, it has been during the past ten or so years that the totalitarian far leftist ideology has pushed with extreme force the notion into western society that equality is a bad thing, and that people must not be treated equally, and that some people should receive special treatment and others should be discriminated against based on innate immutable characteristics. For quite a while these ideas were mostly confined to the most radicaliz

I have made several previous blog posts about how the United States police officers are complete cowards, who put "officer safety" well above the safety of innocent bystanders, even schoolchildren who are being killed by an active school shooter . While probably nothing will ever surpass the absolutely astonishing and disgraceful level of absolute cowardice that was that event, there are myriads and myriads of more minor examples that nevertheless show how cowards they are. A couple of previous examples here and here . The examples, big and small, are in fact so numerous that I might make this into a series. In this particular instance a police officer was called because, allegedly, some old man was hitting or threatening to hit people with a golf club. As far as I know that wasn't actually the case and the report was false (I'm not going to speculate on the possible motivations of the caller) but anyway, when the police officer arrives, she's too scared of the e

Wizards of the Coast is the company that produces and sells, among others, the collective card game Magic the Gathering and the Dungeons&Dragons series. In later years Wizards of the Coast has been invaded by racists, making is an egregiously racist company. For example, they seem to think that "Stone-Throwing Devils", a card depicting violent demons throwing stones, represents black people , and thus they proceeded to ban it. Why would anybody but a racist see a picture of demons throwing stones and make the association with black people? In Dungeons&Dragons there existed a fictitious species of ape creatures who were inherently violent and evil to the core, with no redeeming qualities. So what do you know, apparently Wizards of the Coast, the racists that they are, made the connection between "apes, evil, violent" and "black people" and thus banned these creatures from all of their future products . Only racists would make that association. In th

The so-called "First-Amendment auditing" is an informal hobby practiced by some people mostly in the United States (to a lesser extent in some other countries, like the UK), where people will go with cameras to some public place or federal building in order to see if the police, federal employees and security guards will respect their constitutional right to film in public. (In the United States the First Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted by courts very "maximally" when it comes to, for example, journalism and public photography in that, essentially, when you are on public property you can watch and film whatever you can see, regardless of what or where it is. As the auditors often put it "your eyes cannot be trespassed", meaning that even if you are filming private property, as long as you yourself are located at public property, that's completely legal and constitutional. The courts have also decreed that publicly accessible areas of Feder

During the last ten or so years it has become a very common practice (well, the practice has existed for as long as humanity, but it has exploded in frequency over the last decade or so), especially by the far left, that if they want to attack and discredit someone for whatever reason (even if that someone is on their side), they will dig up that person's online activity history, trying to find whatever dirt they can find in order to attack him. If they find anything (that they claim to be) objectionable that the person has said online, they will flaunt it around and use as a weapon against that person. Most crucially, they don't care if the person acknowledges his past mistake, apologizes for it, and reassures that he was wrong back then and that he now knows better and doesn't hold those opinions anymore. To the mob if you have committed a sin in the past, no matter how long ago, you are guilty even today, and there is no redemption. It doesn't matter how long ago it

In the last few years in Britain there have been appearing more and more articles and opinion pieces about the English countryside being populated mostly by white people, and how that, apparently, is some kind of problem. What I love about most of these articles is that most often they don't even pretend to come up with some kind of excuse for why it's a bad thing (like for example that they "stole" the land from someone else, or the like). It's presented as a bad thing just because it is, all in itself. The country side is overwhelmingly majority-white, and that's it. That's the problem, and something has to be done about it. The authors of these articles don't even try to present any other excuse or rationalization. But this is exactly what one of the core ideologies of the far left is: White people are bad just by existing, especially if they form a majority. That alone, all in itself, is the bad thing. No other reason needed. You don't even nee

Continuing on my previous post on how police officers in the United States are cowards of the worst kind , I recently stumbled across a particularly egregious example of how they go completely berserk when someone who is driving a car does not immediately stop when signaled to do so. As mentioned in that post, for some reason if someone does not immediately stop when signaled, the police officers will often go completely berserk and bonkers, and treat the driver as if he or she were some kind of extremely dangerous armed criminal who has just committed a mass shooting. And, what's most egregious, they keep treating the driver like that even well after it has become completely and absolutely clear that the driver poses absolutely no danger and it was all just an innocent misunderstanding. There have been even cases where the police goes on a murderous rampage against the driver, flipping the car over, with the driver being extraordinarily lucky to have got out of it alive. I recen