Oh, happy days, while I've been bored and dwelling on my human failings, many things of varying stupidity have been happening, like what I'm rambling about today; smear campaigning of innocent people and the government spying on people again. These are all older stories, so while I do try to keep myself in the loop on these matters, I'm still lazy as shit. So with cynicism levels over nine thousand, it's time to gaze upwards once more, not looking for TRAPPIST-1, but for the meteor, which is still too far away for us to see.
Let's open with something that's been talked about to death on YouTube, something that would be a great example of how slimy the media is, if there wasn't an even better example that happened less than a week later. Three writers at The Wall Street Journal made a very interesting choice to go after the Youtube giant Pewdiepie, because according to the multitude of media hit pieces, he made anti-Semitic jokes. Pewdiepie is a Youtuber I used to watch from time to time, while I'm not a huge fan of his stuff, I could still watch his videos and be entertained, and I knew little about the media's beef with him until this whole shit show started. Like I said in The Buzzword Game, when calling people names started to lose its power, the media and the progressives opted to change not their tactics, but their ammunition, so now it's not enough to be called a sexist of a racist, you're now a Nazi, you're a white supremacist, you know, like Pewdiepie. Let's go back in time a bit, to March 2016, when a so called comedian Sarah Silverman did a joke interview on Conan O'Brien, dressed as Adolf Hitler, now keep that in mind when the Wall Street Journal brands Pewdiepie a Nazi, it's because he made a few jokes, dressed up as a Nazi, and used Hitler's image a few times in his videos. I get a strange feeling here; Sarah Silverman isn't a Nazi, but Pewdiepie is? Is it possible that the reason this is the case is because Sarah Silverman is on the same side as the people calling Pewdiepie a Nazi, while Pewdiepie is not on their side, that would strike me as very inconsistent, because if both people dressed up as Nazis for a joke, and one of them is now a Nazi, aren't they both Nazis? The inconsistency of the media is something we'll get back to later. Frankly, it strikes me as the media not wanting to apply their bullshit standards to someone they like, while giving hell to someone they don't like, not on some moral standing, but because they don't like him and they want him destroyed; Pewdiepie said in his response video to all this shit that the media doesn't like people like him because they're scared of them, and I completely agree, the old media has been dying a slow death for years, and it's very clear from incidents like Trump and Brexit that their desperate tactics are hopeless. They have been run by 'liberal minded' people for years, and these 'liberal minded' people are intolerant; mostly of people who think differently to them, but, what is obvious now, people who expose their incompetence and intolerance, people who's audience grows while theirs shrinks. Enter Pewdiepie, the biggest Youtuber ever, an excellent target for the dying media, as his numbers alone make him nearly untouchable, and he's someone who clearly will not bow to them and their bullshit, and as we have seen with every single anti-feminist female celebrity, people who can't be controlled are to be destroyed. Pewdiepie knows this game, clearly, he knows the media hates him, because his audience dwarfs theirs, and he doesn't agree with them, which is an enormous threat to their ideological hegemony, and they can't make him bow, so they go after his wallet; cherry picking a few out of context jokes, and sending them off to Google and Disney, who subsequently cut their ties with him. Sarah Silverman's Conan stunt proves they have no leg to stand on when it comes to Nazi jokes, making it very obvious that this is opportunism, this is them wanting to take down someone they don't like and finding any reason to do it, and just like Trump, it's not going to work, Pewdiepie's response video is sitting at nearly eighteen million views, that's a lot of people who probably already knew how dishonest and opportunistic the media are, but now know beyond doubt. Pewdiepie will continue to grow, while they will continue to die, and desperate attacks on their opposition will only make them die faster.
But after they cost Pewdiepie a lot of money and labelled him a Nazi, they figured they'd try it again, this time to someone I kind of like, the most fabulous faggot that ever lived, Milo Yiannopoulos. I've rambled about Milo several times now, first about his banning from Twitter, then people losing their minds about his book deal, and then people rioting and attacking people with flag poles because he was speaking. If there is a line of decency in the media, that line will be entirely subjective, but in my opinion, the media crossed that line ages ago, and rather than changing course, they just went even further into the shit. Milo has, it seems, led a very troubled life; it's not very difficult to believe that someone so flamboyant could be compensating for something, trying to cope with something, and it would appear that that is what led to him talking on the Drunken Peasants Podcast about sexual relationships between older men and younger men. First up, to get it out of the way, I believe that there is no definitive line at which a sexually mature person becomes able to consent, I have always believed this, I think it depends less on the person's age and more on how responsible and developed that person is, which of course varies from person to person, because some people are stupid. That being said, while I think the line is a very blurry one, I do not believe that it extends down to young adolescents, which is where I believe Milo is absolutely dead wrong; people that young are very certainly not responsible or smart enough to make decisions like that, even if they're egomaniacs like Milo. Milo, however, seems to have had that decision made for him, and, being charitable, his belief on the matter is probably informed by his life experience, which has led to him having a warped stance on the matter, that doesn't change the fact that he's wrong, and that what he's saying is completely insane, it would just appear that this is his personal reasoning for believing it. But then the media goes after him with the label of paedophilia, going for an intensely uncharitable position that Milo is someone who supports paedophilia, despite being a victim of paedophilia himself. The problem clip of him on The Drunken Peasants has, however, been spun into Milo's defense of paedophilia and kiddy diddling. Frankly, I think they're both wrong, Milo may be a victim, but that doesn't give him a free pass, he's said some really stupid shit. The media meanwhile has absolutely no leg to stand on morally, because while Milo is normalising relations between men and boys in the gay community, they've been trying to normalise paedophilia for years, take for example a few Salon articles that have since recently disappeared regarding Paedophiles not being monsters. I reckon this is, again, the media going after someone they don't like simply because they don't like him, and he says and thinks things they don't like, just like Pewdiepie losing money in a Disney deal, Milo has lost his book deal, which pisses me off because I was looking forward to reading it, and he has since quit Breitbart. This is more proof of how slimy the media is, Milo, like Pewdiepie, like Donald Trump, is a threat to them, and their reach is withering while Pewdiepie and Milo and Trump continue to reach more and more people, and the media has nothing left to fight over at this point, they've already given platforms to paedophiles and regularly give platform to obvious racists and sexists, truth is it doesn't matter to them if Milo does or doesn't condone paedophilia, they'll just play their burned out morality card and try to crush him for their own gain, not because Milo is evil or dangerous, but because he's dangerous to them, sadly it won't work, because Milo is about as egotistical as it gets, and there will always be people who flock to his defense, even when he's wrong.
This last section was originally going to be on Tony Blair's Brexit speech, but it started getting really long, not surprising when it's a half an hour long speech and it's literally nonstop bullshit. But then, while I was trying to compensate for my rambling, in swoops yet another story of government hacking and surveillance, one which left me very conflicted, whether to be happy or horrified that I was right. WikiLeaks dropped another bombshell recently, and I ditched my Blair rant in favour of talking, once again, about government surveillance, this time it's Vault 7. Vault 7 is a leak from the WikiLeaks chaps that catalogues a host of CIA and MI5 shenanigans; like for instance malware that can infect Smartphones and Smart TVs and gather data from their cameras and microphones, which is exactly what I said in Bring on the Meteor before when rambling about the Investigatory Powers bill, they can spy on you using phone cameras. Apparently they've also been finding weaknesses in security in Apple and Android phones, and rather than reporting them so they can be fixed, they've been hording them to use them as exploits. It's hilarious to me that this came so soon after Donald Trump claimed the Obama government were listening in on him during the presidential race, something that apparently has no evidence, but now we know the CIA can literally hack any phone in the world, so it may not be wiretapping, but is it stretch that they actually were listening in on him. You know where I'm going with this, the same place I took the Investigatory Powers bill; this is government snooping, now on an international scale, this is intelligence agencies in America and Britain having backdoors into people's phone cameras and messaging apps, literally being able to see and hear you whenever they want, and leaving security holes in operating systems for them to take advantage of, which also leaves them open for any tech savvy fella who wants to hack your phone. Similar to the Investigatory Powers bill, I feel that I will get a lot of people saying surveillance is a good thing because it catches bad people; yet they all said they'd never allow the government to put cameras in their homes, well just like I said, they didn't need to, all they needed was for you to have a smartphone, and for them to have some malware to infect that smartphone, or computer, or TV. They don't need cameras in people homes anymore, because people willingly have cameras on them most of the time now. Being honest, is it all that surprising that the government agencies are spying on the citizenry, the Snowden leaks proved no, and thus, while disturbing, these revelations aren't all that surprising, but once again a familiar phrase needs to be challenged, 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear,' it's a phrase that disgusts me more the more I hear it, like the people who say shit like that would be cool with intelligence agencies and police putting cameras and microphones in their homes, because they wouldn't, but since it's just internet history in the case of the Investigatory Powers act, and gathering data from people's phones with vault 7, it's fine. Similar to my ramble about Prohibition and Porn I did a while back, when does this slope stop, at what point of surveillance do people draw the line, and how far are they prepared to go with the knowledge that it's happening.
So what's new, nothing really; the media continues its war against anyone who opposes them, and the government continues its war against the citizenry. The problem is all the Sargons and Amazing Atheists of Youtube are dwarfed by Pewds, while all the anti SJW feminist bullshit Youtuders pose a serious threat to the hegemony of the mainstream, Pewdiepie has enough fans to hear his message that he alone is just as big a threat as all of them, if not a bigger one, and as usual, how ironic that their efforts to destroy him have led to even more people knowing the truth. The same applies to Milo, him being wrong on this issue doesn't justify the co-ordinated effort to take him down, and it will, in the end, completely backfire. And as for surveillance, I've made my position clear in the past, it's bad, it's dangerous, and it can and inevitably will be abused at the expense of innocent people, yet like the topic I'm quickly wrapping up this corpse of a piece to talk about, our society is too decadent to care at this point, which is every bit as dangerous as the surveillance itself. I like to think that every human being can think for themselves, but I'm always told by my caring grandmother to watch what I say, and I don't want to do that, and I don't think anybody should, people thinking for themselves leads to a diversity of ideas, which is the only diversity the SJW's and the corporations and the governments don't like, the UK government doesn't want people talking about how they watch what you do online, and the CIA doesn't want people talking about how they watch what you're whatsapping and spy on you through your phone camera. But these are things that need to be talked about, and that fear of repercussions is exactly what they want, they don't want opposition, and I believe it is the right of everyone to provide that very opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment