The odious Kathy Griffin decided to pose for a photograph in which she held up a bloody mask designed in the likeness of President Trump. The backlash was pretty severe – loads of leftists and people on the left and the right denounced it. Today, CNN decided to terminate the contract they had with her. She won’t be hosting CNN’s New Year’s Eve show anymore.
This is new. Ordinarily, this kind of stunt would garner loads of praise for whoever performed it. Just a couple of months ago that piece of shit Steven Colbert said, on his shitty late night show, that President Trump was Vladimir Putin’s cock-holster (honestly, that’s just projection right there. He, and pretty much everyone else in Hollywood are all cock-holsters for the DNC, and they know it). People on the right complained about it, and leftists, including the mainstream media, predictably praised him for it. Oh, he’s so brave, you see, speaking truth to power and all that. Nothing bad happened to him, his ratings improved and things are just peachy-keen for him.
Meanwhile, Bill O’Reilly loses his long-running cable night show on Fox News Channel over some allegations of sexual harassment (including claims that he bought the silence of his supposed victims). Nothing has actually been proven and none of the parties involved have even settled the case, but oh no, advertisers fled the show anyway, so that gave the leftard sons of Murdoch all the reasons they needed to begin the great Conservative Purge. Fox News is no longer worth watching, save for Hannity and Tucker Carlson.
Oh, and speaking of Hannity. They decided that since their ouster of O’Reilly worked so well that the third time would be the proverbial charm (the first one being the ouster of Roger Ailes, who basically built the network, after allegations of sexual harassment – he died recently, and liberals all had collective orgasms over it, which is something they do every time a conseravtive dies). USAA made the big mistake of declaring that they were going to stop advertising on Hannity’s show. Their customers got mad and started complaining, and then they decided to pull their ads from Rachel Maddow’s stupid crapfest, but their customers were still leaving in droves, so they recently decided to reinstate their ads on Hannity’s show. So it almost worked, but not this time. They won’t stop, though.
Look at what they did to Milo Yiannopolis. Accused the man of being a freaking pedophile when he was, in fact, a victim! His career and influence was just too great for them, so they had to destroy him.
I’m not going to write up a long list of the people leftists have destroyed (Brendan Eich, Sarah Palin and her whole family, Carrie Prejean – just to name a few). That might be another post for another day.
I am just utterly delighted that for once, a liberal’s stupid hateful stunt has bitten them in the ass. Oh, her “career” will recover. She’s nearly sixty and looks absolutely horrible even with makeup, and looks like a swamp hag without it, but she hates Republicans and Christians, so Hollywood will keep her around. Just wait a few months. That being said, this is a rare victory for our side.
Another thing I just have to mention. I, unlike many of my fellow conservatives, don’t feel that she is guilty of treason or should be thrown in prison for this stupid stunt. I think it’s doubtful that she would have actually tried to behead the President. I do believe that she wouldn’t be too busted up if someone had been inspired to behead the President after seeing that image. But the Secret Service takes this stuff seriously, and I am glad they’re looking into it. I’m all for free speech. It’s their right to express their opinions even if it’s odious.
But liberals constantly point out that they support our right to hold the opinions we do and that we have the right to express them, but that there are consequences. Oh, but those consequences usually take the form of the total ruination of a given conservative’s life. Like, for example, Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes. They declined to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding and were fined heavily for it, and also got loads of death threats from disgruntled gay allies because of it. Yes, liberals think that it’s perfectly okay to send someone death threats because you said something they don’t like. Consequences, you see.
Well, now Kathy Griffin and her friends know what it’s like to be the Kleins, and they deserve it. Griffin will recover…the Kleins, in all likelihood, will not. But for today, I will enjoy the sweet, sweet schadenfreude.
I’m a gamer. I don’t think I am a particularly good gamer, but I’ve been playing games ever since I was a very small child. In fact, I kind of would rather play Elder Scrolls Online right now, but I have to have dinner soon, so yeah.
I have heard of the Far Cry series, but I’ve never played any of them, and now I never will. I saw this on Vox Day’s blog and was rather dismayed.
So, apparently, the villains in the fifth installment of the game will be white, straight, redneck males. And the branded sinner is probably some bleeding-heart liberal progressive who just wants to hold hands with everyone and sing stupid hippie songs.
Excuse me while I barf.
I’ve seen this shit before. A few years ago, Bioshock: Infinite was released, a game that depicted patriotic Americans as evil racist assholes. Conservative outlets like The Blaze defended the game because the story had a secondary villain — the Occupy Wall Street type organization called Vox Populi.
I actually own two copies of Bioshock: Infinite. I bought it for my Mac through Steam, but it took up too much disk space (and caused my laptop to overheat) so I bought a two-pack that also included The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Needless to say, I enjoyed Skyrim a hell of a lot more than Bioshock: Infinite. I’ve created three characters on my Xbox 360 version and one character on the HD remaster for the Playstation 4. I have yet to finish Bioshock: Infinite and to be honest, it’s not because of the politics as much as it’s due to the fact that I suck ass at first person shooters on consoles. Since Fallout 4 and Destiny have made me better at first person shooters, I might give it another shot, especially if the HD remaster for the PS4 goes down in price.
But this politicization of games really irritates me. Yes, I know all about GamerGate, and I am a supporter. I don’t really pay much attention to game-related journalism because it’s all hopelessly biased to the left. Screw that.
This kind of stuff has been in games for quite a while, now. I can give you several examples. First one would be two games I greatly enjoyed, and both were released about a decade ago. Ubisoft’s Beyond Good and Evil is an underrated gem that is essentially all about how horrible the Iraq War was, and how noble and wonderful journalists were. The message isn’t really that heavy handed, though, and the game is seriously enjoyable despite the politics. I originally played that one on Playstation 2 and now I have an HD remaster for the Xbox 360.
Then there’s Dreamfall: The Longest Journey, another game that I absolutely loved. It’s actually the second in a series (the first one being The Longest Journey, released in 1999). It’s basically the same thing — Iraq War is bad, imperialism is bad, excessive escapism is bad. It’s still pretty good, though.
The long-awaited sequel to Dreamfall called Dreamfall: Chapters was released in 2014 (and only recently landed on consoles). More politics this time around, and it’s more heavy-handed. Main character Zoe returns to Earth (or Stark, as it’s called in the game) and lands smack-dab in the middle of a political campaign. Her candidate of choice is a moderate woman, and there’s a communist candidate (who is portrayed as extremist but well-meaning) and the racist Golden Dawn Aryan-nation white dude running as a Nazi in all but name. I haven’t gotten very far on this one because nowadays I’m not that into plain, linear adventure games anymore. I like open world RPGs with characters I can customize.
Some of my other favorite games, like Dragon’s Age: Inquisition also had some political stuff in it, but it’s mostly cultural. This game, like the Elder Scrolls series, includes a crapload of in-game literature you can read, and one of them essentially promoted recreational sex. That bothered me a little, but not so much that I didn’t buy some DLC. You can also have your character, the Inquisitor, enter in some gay relationships, but I didn’t have a problem with that. It’s something you choose anyway.
Elder Scrolls Online also pays lip service to the gay marriage thing by including some non-playable characters that happen to be in same-sex marriages or relationships. You only encounter them when doing certain quests. It’s not that big a deal, but it’s there, and I have to praise the developers of both games for the way they included this. It’s not the whiny, heavy-handed “gays, good; Christians bad” sort of thing you find in movies and books.
I also have to mention that a few years ago, some random douchebag created a game in which you kill zombified Tea Partiers.
Oh, and I almost forgot about Assassin’s Creed. I used to have a copy of the first game for the Xbox 360. I left it at my parents’ house. It’s a stealth game, and you play as a Muslim assassin. Your targets are the Knights Templar. Yeah, I can’t believe I played that game. Some of the gameplay mechanics really wowed people upon its release (providing inspiration for Tomb Raider: Underworld, a game I enjoyed far more). I got pretty far, and then my save game data inexplicably disappeared. I pretty much suck at stealth games, so I just gave up on it. I played through the tutorial of the second game, Assassin’s Creed 2 but since it was my brother’s copy, I just decided to leave the whole series alone.
The idea of killing Christians really bothered me. Call me biased, I don’t care. I think, over the course of the game series, your targets for assassination were the kind of people liberals hated, up to and including the American revolutionaries. I’m glad the stupid movie flopped.
Liberals are already excited for Far Cry 5 because they can pretend to kill conservatives in a video game. Make a game with Muslim terrorists as the antagonists and everyone will jump down your throat, call for boycotts and send you death threats. But simulate the killing of white Christian Americans? Oh yeah, fun and games for everyone!
The left is just so utterly hypocritical about EVERYTHING. As I said, I won’t play this game or anything else in the series, and I’m personally boycotting Ubisoft as well. Screw them. They don’t need my money.
I was moseying around on the Internet and came across this op-ed at the New York Times (yes, ew). It is entitled “Why You Should Read Books You Hate” and is written by Pamela Paul. (Here is an archive.is link for those who don’t want to give NYT the hits, or in case they put it behind a paywall.)
The point of the article, so that you don’t have to bother, is to know thy enemy.
“Still, I persisted. A hundred pages later, I was more of a French socialist than I’d ever been before or since. I finished every wretched page of “The Fountainhead” in alternating states of fury and despair, and when it was finally over, I tried to leave the vague echo of Dominique, stomping around in her evening gowns, behind. What stuck was the abiding knowledge that I was not, nor would I ever be, a libertarian.”
This is in reference to Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. I rolled my eyes at this paragraph. Anyone declaring that they’d never be a libertarian is an idiot at best, and a tyrannical statist at worst. You are not required to like anything by Ayn Rand or agree with anything she’s written in order to be a libertarian.
I’d be a raging hypocrite if I didn’t admit that I essentially do the same thing. The author, however, is not quite willing to admit that she’s not interested in opening her mind as much as she’s interested in literally hate reading something. Or, as I said earlier, knowing the enemy.
I do the same thing. I’ve read a couple of essays in Lena Dunham’s book Not That Kind of Girl – particularly the one where she details her alleged rape at the hands of a purple cowboy boot wearing Republican. I read Erika Johansen’s Queen of the Tearling, knowing that it’s a bunch of whiny leftist nonsense (and I was not wrong. That book is total ass). In fact, I am currently reading the sequel, Invasion of the Tearling and if I can survive that, I am going to read the last installment of the series, The Fate of the Tearling. Should be fun. /sarc
I’ve hate read a few other books, but I won’t get into it here. Here is another key difference between me and this woman. I’ve read books that have a lot of stuff I disagree with, and yet I enjoyed them. I liked Malinda Lo’s Adaptation duology, despite having serious problems with some aspects of the story (such as the whole notion that if everyone communicated telepathically, there’d be no bigotry or hatred). Oh, and to weave a quick update on the whole Laurie Forest saga – I am halfway through her book, The Black Witch, and some of the messaging is really heavy-handed but I like it anyway. Her writing is gorgeous. I am jealous.
I am going through my Read list on GoodReads and I’m seeing books I don’t remember reading. Wow.
Anyway, back to the op-ed. I did agree with this paragraph:
“As debaters know, sometimes you figure out your position only in opposition. All it takes is for me to read a book by Howard Zinn or Paul Johnson, each gleefully hate-worthy in its own polarizing way, to locate my own interpretation of history. This is what’s so invigorating about hate-reading. To actively grapple with your assumptions and defend your conclusions gives you a sense of purpose. You come to know where you stand, even if that means standing apart.”
Well, at least she acknowledges that Howard Zinn is full of shit. I don’t have the stomach to read his crap…not yet. I’ve honed my opinions after reading stuff I disagree with. I’ve also gained additional insight from my hate readings.
And then there’s reading stuff simply because you know it’s gonna be bad. Like Meghan McCain’s book Dirty Sexy Politics. Oh my goodness, that book is just bad. She’s a terrible writer, and her publisher either didn’t bother with an editor or got a really crappy one.
I wonder if she’s at all aware that libertarians and conservatives can essentially do the same thing. I bet she expects books like The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas to totally change our minds and educate us! By the way, I’m gonna hate read that one too. I bet she would heavily criticize us for reading lefty books without changing our positions on certain issues, but that it’s totally okay to read Ayn Rand and go, “like, I’m never going to be a libertarian because they’re all patriarchal assholes!”
I would love to know if she thinks it’s okay for conservatives and libertarians to hate read lefty stuff and remain conservatives or libertarians. I wonder if she would react badly to someone like me reading The Handmaid’s Tale and being that much more determined to defend Christianity while simultaneously calling out Islam for the patriarchal death cult that it is? I bet she would, and that’s the issue I have with this op-ed and liberals in general.
Furthermore, would I or any other conservative or libertarian get credit for being open-minded enough to read a book we know will be offensive or disagreeable? Probably not.
Another day, another ZOMG SHE’S RACIST U GUISE campaign.
Yes, the vicious social justice warrior feminazi hags are on the march for yet another scalp. They nearly destroyed Keira Drake’s literary career before it began, of which resulted in the year-long delay of her debut novel’s release (presumably, as I stated earlier, to make the bad guys into straight white Christian males).
They tried to wreck Veronica Roth’s career by throwing around allegations that her latest novel, Carve the Mark was racist (I’ve read the book and I can tell you that it is definitely NOT racist). That clearly didn’t work, so now they’re going after someone else.
Laurie Forest is the target du jour for the moment. Her debut YA fantasy novel, The Black Witch, is due to be released on May 2, 2017. Her publisher is Harlequin TEEN, the same publishing house that will – eventually – release Keira Drake’s The Continent. They caved in to the demands of the feminazi SJW mob earlier this year. Will they do the same?
Laurie Forest’s novel has been getting more positive buzz. She got a favorable blurb from Tamora Pierce, a well-established fantasy author. Entertainment Weekly published an excerpt of the novel. We’ve got a month and a half to go, and the publisher hasn’t made any noise about pulling the book from release. GoodReads is even running a contest, and the prize is an ARC. It’s still up for grabs at NetGalley too. I’ve requested it at NetGalley, I’ve entered the contest and I’ve even got my eye on a copy over at eBay. This time, I’m going to get my hands on a copy, and I will read it for myself.
This is just so ridiculous. It really is, and the longer it goes on, the angrier I get.
I’m a “person of color” and God, I fucking HATE that phrase. How the hell is it any different than “colored people”? You dipshits would lose your damn minds if someone called a black person “colored” but calling them a “person of color” is okay simply because “someone” chose it? The fuck?
I didn’t choose it. I am a person. Not colored. Just a person. My point is this: I bet a great deal of these feminazi hagbitches are white. If I am correct, I have one very important thing to say to them:
Stop this white knight bullshit. I don’t need you as an “ally.” I don’t need you lily white bitches to “protect” me from racism. I can look at an old-timey person in blackface and not be traumatized by it. I can look at a racist caricature of a black person and not be traumatized by it. My mother, who is totally black, collects racist caricature figurines! I am not that bothered by those old-fashioned depiction of black people. The depictions can be sometimes sad, and alternately amusing. I am only 35 anyway. It might mean something different to my grandfather, who grew up in the segregated South. He faced real racism. What you bitches “face” today is not the same thing. At all.
I can read a book about racist people and not be traumatized by it. I can read a book and not become a racist, hateful person. I don’t need you to protect me from anything.
Oh, and note: a great deal of black people, and other Minorities are just like me. They don’t need to be “protected” either.
I am sick and tired of this stupid, bullshit anti-racism crusade these bitches are on.
So what if a character in a given book is racist? That does not mean the author is racist. The villain in my book is a rapist and a pervert who says racist things (and yet insists that he is not racist because he is sexually obsessed with a black girl). That does not mean I’m a racist rapist and that does not mean I support or endorse racists, rapists or any combination thereof. JESUS.
Seriously, Jesus needs to come back and get my ass. I hate this planet and I don’t want to live on it anymore. I know I am not always good to Him and I’m usually a wretched asshole, but honestly, I don’t know how much more of this I can take. I hate the idea that these cunts have any influence on my life whatsoever, and yet they do, BECAUSE THEY VOTE.
That makes me pretty fucking angry. The fact that their existence has any affect on my life, however minute and small, is a great and heinous injustice. They vote. Somewhere, some bureaucratic fuck hired by a wretched politician they voted for is making some kind of decision that affects my life as I type this post.
Thing is, these bitches are drunk and high on their own self-righteousness. All of our schools – public and private; I’ve attended both – bombard us with the Civil Rights era. They all want to be part of their own Civil Rights Movement, and since the real one ended about twenty years before I was born, they gotta stretch and find more random shit to be angry about. Don’t get me wrong – our schools should teach us about the Civil Rights era, because it’s an important part of our history. Unfortunately, when they do teach it, a lot of it is simplified and turned into some demented fairy tale, complete with LIES. Lies, such as “Nixon and the Republicans were racist!” No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without the unanimous support of the Republican Party. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
The Civil Rights era is dumbed down thusly: White people, evil; black people, perpetual victims and slaves. The black experience was more complex than that. Yes, terrible things were done to black people. I recently spent an entire evening looking up the lynching of Jesse Washington. I didn’t learn about that in high school. It was a horrific example of a black person being not just hung in public, but burned alive and mutilated, all for the enjoyment of the residents of Waco, Texas. This was after he allegedly “confessed” to murdering a white woman. Oh, but it gets worse. A photographer was there. He took pictures and those photos were printed on postcards and sold.
Then there’s the story of Emmett Till. Recently, a white artist painted a portrait of Emmett’s corpse. It was a terrible painting – technically, I mean. The racial grievance mob insisted that the woman had no right to paint Emmett Till simply because she was white.
I know racism exists. I know that things were really bad for black people in the past, and I know that we’re all lucky to have survived. That teenage farmhand could very easily been one of my ancestors. It’s harrowing and scary.
They never talk about the good things, about how not all blacks were slaves, and that some even had their own businesses! There’s so much about the black experience that none of us ever really learn about, all so that black people are presented as these eternal victims. This then feeds into the vengeful hatred that blacks have for cops and whitey.
One YA fantasy novel, or even a zillion fantasy novels with “questionable” passages cannot possibly compare to what black people actually went through. It’s nowhere near the same. We will survive a racist book. That’s even assuming the book is racist, which, in all likelihood, is probably not. After all, SJWs always lie, as Vox Day says.
Oh, and becuase I just gotta make this even longer, I see the three rules of SJWs Always Lie in play here.
SJWs always lie
SJWs always double down
SJWs always project
They lied about Veronica Roth’s book. I cannot confirm if they lied about Keira Drake’s book. After all, I have not read it. I have not read Laurie Forest’s book either. That being said, these people lie about pretty much everything else. Or, on the other hand, they take their opinion and present it as fact, which is a form of lying. They believe that because Laurie Forest’s characters said something that could be construed as racist, that the book is racist propaganda, that the author is racist and that the author wants everyone else to be racist too.
They doubled down once they were victorious in getting Keira Drake’s book postponed. Same with the wreckage of Milo Yiannopolis’s book deal with Simon & Schuster. Now they’re doing the same thing to Laurie Forest. They tried doing this to Veronica Roth, but she’s too successful and established, and their allegations of racism were easily debunked. These two novels, The Continent and The Black Witch have not been released yet. It’s easier to make up a bunch of lies because only a handful of people have access to ARCs.
They are, in all likelihood, secretly racist themselves and feel guilty for reading something that might remind them of their secret racist tendencies. Or, they’re racist against white people, which is still fucking racism. They cannot endure anything that might trigger their latent racism because then their libtard buddies won’t want to be friends with them, so they go on these ridiculous crusades against random people.
This is long enough now. Also, I have scored a copy of The Black Witch off of eBay. It’s an ARC, and I paid about $23 for it. Well worth the price because if these hags succeed, my preorder will be canceled. I will begin reading it and will post a review once I’m done.
I just read through the lyrics for the song “Samaritan” by ionnalee, and it’s anti-Christian, with a hefty bit of whining about her fans being “impatient” for new material from her. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, my post “Beyonce is not a goddess” explains it all. This line pissed me off:
“I don’t believe in a god, let’s leave religion out of all this”
Really? Because first of all, you shamelessly used imagery from MY religion in your work. YOU brought up religion, not us. You don’t get to steal from my religion without me or anyone else having something to say about it.
Also…what a serious, hardcore first world problem. So a handful of fans are impatient? So the fuck what? Shouldn’t you be focusing on, oh I don’t know…your music? Your career? Your social life?
She doesn’t mention the Christian god, but it’s obvious as to who she is talking about. Liberals think they can simply say “god” and “religion” so as to later claim that they’re not trashing Christianity, they’re trashing all of religion.
Yet, as I said, the teaser video contains Christian imagery. The lyrics contain Christian imagery. Therefore, she’s talking about Christianity.
I have no problem with atheists, but I do have a problem with people who hate Christianity and try to turn it into something it’s not, which she has clearly done.
I haven’t watched the video for the song, nor have I listened to the song itself (it’s on Spotify, if you’re curious) and I have no desire to do either. I’m done.
And for that matter, neither is Jonna Lee, aka ionnalee. I don’t really listen to mainstream music, opting for obscure musicians from around the world. One of my favorites is a Swedish audio/visual project called iamamiwhoami, led by Jonna Lee (who had a solo career before starting iamamiwhoami). This group made their debut in late 2009 with a series of cryptic videos posted on YouTube, and branched out into doing whole albums and accompanying films. It’s really very interesting, if you like electronic music. Their YouTube channel is here and you can peruse this fan-made Wikia page if you want to know more.
Jonna Lee is starting a new solo project, called ionnalee, with costumes by COMME des GARÇONS (it’s supposed to be a collaboration between the two, but whatever). A “trailer” for this new project debuted earlier today, along with this snippet:
Buffeted by imposing, almost marching-band beats but sweetened by Lee’s upfront vocals, SAMARITAN tackles culture’s fascination with idolising and worshipping female artists.
“There’s an underlying strive for female artists to live up to a real unhealthy ideal and I think it’s my responsibility to do what I can to change that.”
Now here is the trailer:
If you don’t want to watch it, let me summarize it for you. Pretty little popstar is all dressed in white, then the pretty little popstar does something Bad (gets too sexual, or Questions Authority) and the masses betray the pretty little popstar, opting to burn her at the stake for her heresy.
But, like St. Lucy, she does not burn. Instead, she dances, or something. So what does this mean? Well, it looks like the usual Religion is So Bad, It’s Killing Everything Good or some such nonsense, despite what the quote above says.
I wanted to talk about the fact that a great deal of people in the West worship these popstars. It’s not just women, by the way. Justin Bieber fans are totally crazy. Back in the ’00s, the Nick Carter and Justin Timberlake fangirls were just as crazy. These days, the vast majority of popstars – and actors – are idols worshipped by the masses. Despite the almost certain anti-Christian message, I think Jonna Lee has a point about the idolization of singers and the unrealistic expectations put on them and other public figures.
The Unhealthy Ideal
We’ve heard this before. Actresses and female singers are too thin, Photoshopped to within an inch of their lives and are expected to look their best at all times. When they aren’t, they’re mocked. To be honest, the same applies to men, but not as much. I’ve seen pictures of a portly Jack Nicholson and the late Ted “Vast Teddy” Kennedy. I recently saw pictures of French actor Gerard Depardieu – man, he’s huge. People mocked Val Kilmer’s weight gain too.
Women aren’t the only ones expected to look “perfect” – men get shit on too. But feminists only ever complain about what it does to women. It is true that society expects the absolute best of our public figures, and that it often drives these people crazy trying to live up to that ideal.
On the other hand, glorifying obesity is not the answer. Not at all, and I’m getting sick and tired of this “body positivity” campaign because it amounts to nothing more than the glorification and acceptance of obesity, which is very unhealthy and, well, gross.
We need to find a healthy medium, and singers like Jonna Lee are rarely brave enough to say, “well, we shouldn’t kill ourselves trying to look like tall supermodels, but being healthy is the most important thing, and obesity is not healthy.”
But the ideal she is speaking of might not have to do with weight at all. It might have to do with the singer’s image as it pertains to morality and stuff. I am a few months younger than Britney Spears, so I kind of grew up with her. I wasn’t a fan – instead, I was a “hater” – I couldn’t stand the girl because she had a terrible singing voice, was a skank and was absolutely everywhere. If she hadn’t been so overexposed, I might not have felt as strongly as I did.
I bring her up because her image was very controversial, especially in 1999 and 2000, right around when her debut single “Baby One More Time” got big. She acted like a good Southern girl in interviews, and yet did that supposedly sexy video for “Baby One More Time” (I didn’t see the sex appeal; her schoolgirl outfit looked like a reject from Clueless, complete with the dated thigh-high stockings). Reporters actually asked her if she had lost her virginity. They asked her if she gave it up to Justin Timberlake (who, at the time, was a member of the other big boy band of the era, ‘NSYNC). Then there was the endless speculation as to whether or not she got breast implants.
Britney Spears slowly got more sexualized with each album release, culminating in the infamous kiss she did at the 2003 VMAs. Her fans would whine and cry about how us “haters” were so judgmental, calling her a skank and whatnot. By the way, she had one particularly heinous fan that I’ll get into later on.
People either saw her as the ultimate sex symbol or the nastiest skank to have ever lived. At the time, it seemed as if there was no middle ground. Then the meltdown happened and her career started to fade away, and now she’s lipsyncing a big Las Vegas extravaganza. Yes, she’s not even forty years old and she’s already doing a Vegas residency, and to top it all off, she’s not actually singing at those concerts.
But she seems to be doing okay, given all that’s happened, and I feel a little bad for her, because those years she spent at the top of the music industry could not have been easy. First, everyone’s all “omg ur so hot britney” and then, as soon as she gains a little weight, “omg britney ur so fat, lol” – it must have been crazy, and that’s putting it mildly.
So there is that, although I do not think that these days, female singers are exorciated in the media for being too sexy. Even back in 2000 it wasn’t like that for most singers, except for Britney. Christina Aguilera would often try way too hard to generate the kind of controversy Britney generated, but instead came across as a demented skank, which is too bad because she’s got an amazing voice.
If you’ve read anything else I’ve written, you know that I’m personally pretty conservative. I don’t sleep around, I don’t do one night stands, and I don’t wear skimpy clothes. I barely talk about anything with anyone, and I certainly wouldn’t discuss anything sexual with total strangers.
Feminists are still under the impression that they’ll be persecuted for wearing a short skirt in public. They constantly whine about how they aren’t allowed to be sexual. I don’t know what world they’re living in, because most Christians don’t care if Katy Perry goes topless in a music video. They don’t care if Rihanna gives virtual blow jobs at her concerts. They don’t care if Miley Cyrus makes out with girls in her videos. They just don’t give a damn anymore. There’s no Moral Majority hanging around with pitchforks and torches, ready to freak out over Madonna’s (dusty and wrinkled) nipple.
But feminists are predictable, and of course, I bet that this is the message ionnalee will impart on her audience – that we prudish Christians are making life hard for female singers, expecting them to not be sluts or something. Cue eyeroll.
These People Are Not Gods
However, she does make mention of how people worship these female singers, and if you are at all familiar with iamamiwhoami’s work, you won’t be surprised at this. Jonna Lee has what I consider a slightly contentious relationship with her fans. The audiovisual film KIN and BLUE were all about the expectations people have for musicians and the incredible and inspiring feedback the musician gets from their fans, respectively. The audiovisual film BOUNTY seems to have used the mandragora myth to depict how the music industry uses female musicians, so she isn’t really saying anything new with this.
I can understand her frustration with the kind of fans that post on their YouTube channel or in the comments section for individual videos, insisting that they release more content. I don’t think the iamamiwhoami fans are that demanding, though. On the other hand, some of these fans are a little overzealous. Dare to criticize any part of the project, and they freak out. Well, in the case of iamamiwhoami, not very many people lose their shit over disagreements, but there’s other fandoms that are just one french fry short of a happy meal. Seriously.
Back when I was a Britney Spears “hater” there was this one girl, also named Britney, that posted at a message board I also posted at. The board was dedicated to talking shit about popstars we hated. I can’t even remember the name of the board. This girl made the huge mistake of posting on a Britney fan board, telling the fans that Britney can’t sing and whatnot. They, understandably, took issue with that. I mean, come on. I’m not interested in reading whole threads about how much someone hates my favorite musician, but from what I remember she wasn’t even that bad about it. I don’t know, the situation just escalated.
What happened next absolutely enraged me, and still does to this very day. One of the Britney fanboys started stalking the girl. Found out that she had been raped, found her pictures, discovered her real name and started making crude parodies of Britney album covers, mocking the fact that this girl had been raped. They gave her a stage name, referring to something she wore in one of her pictures. I won’t even bother listing the stage name. I don’t want to subject this girl to further harassment, because it is still ongoing.
It’s been over a decade and this person is still stalking her, all because she dared to criticize Britney Spears on their turf. Normal people would just report the so-called “hater” to the board admins and get their account banned and MOVE ON, but no, not these people. Talk about worshipping a popsinger. This is beyond worship, this is flat-out fanaticism. After all, the word “fan” is short for “fanatic” and some of these fanboys and fangirls meet the definition for fanatic.
But Britney is far from the only singer to have demented, insane fans. Lady GaGa has crazy fans too, some of which seem to worship her entirely unironically. A few years ago, right around the release of Born This Way, she did some sort of collaboration with Office Depot in support of her charity, the Born This Way Foundation. It was, ostensibly, to fight bullying. That’s when the worship reached a fever pitch. People were saying that GaGa’s music saved their lives, and that she was their savior. They said she was just as much of a hero as a fireman or a veteran, all because she ripped off Madonna’s “Express Yourself” to make her own hackneyed gay rights anthem.
Lady GaGa fans and Madonna fans regularly fight one another over which one is better, and over which one is the biggest rip off artist.
Beyonce fans are the craziest at the moment. They call themselves the Beyhive, and they attack anyone that dares to criticize their idol. They attacked Kid Rock, they attacked Rachel Roy and Racheal Ray after mistaking the latter for the former, they attacked Kim Kardashian and they attacked some random reporter. Just do a search on your favorite search engine for Beyonce fans attacking people.
Some of these fandoms have names too, like the aforementioned Beyhive for Beyonce fans, Little Monsters for Lady GaGa, Beliebers for Justin Bieber, Barbies for Nicki Minaj, etc. I think Deadheads for the Grateful Dead were the originals, and they weren’t a pack of nutjobs ruining people’s lifes for daring to criticize their idol.
That’s the problem right there. What do you care if someone doesn’t like your favorite musician? So the fuck what? If iamamiwhoami’s music isn’t to your taste, that’s fine! It’s no skin off my back. Maybe it’s because I’m a grown woman. After all, when I was in junior high, I lost it whenever someone criticized Sailor Moon, my favorite anime. Now? I don’t really care if someone thinks Sailor Moon sucks. My cousin laughed at Sailor Moon when he saw it for the first time, and I realized that yeah, it can be kind of goofy at times, but it doesn’t diminish my enjoyment of it.
I am not buying the notion that these are all a bunch of kids. Some of them might very well be kids, but most of them are probably college age and older. Either way, these people need to grow the hell up. These singers don’t even know you’re alive. They don’t know you, and you don’t know them. They don’t need to you defend them. They will survive if someone criticizes them, trust me.
Vote Hillary Because Katy Perry Says So!
Popstars getting political pisses me off so much. I’ve already touched on this here, so I won’t say much more about this.
I think Democrats worship their politicians. I really do. Witness the past couple of months, or rather, the aftermath of the 2016 election. Of course, the primary reason for the Democrat devastation is that they thought they were gonna make history again, but Destiny was thwarted. Hillary would not be the First Female President.
Look at it this way – to liberals their Democratic candidate is God. The Republican candidate is always Satan. It’s as if Satan actually won, and that the Bible is a book full of lies. Wouldn’t you be devastated? I would be. Of course, that does not excuse their ridiculous “protests” (more like mob violence) and the demented things they’ve said. But their god has failed them. Of course they’re upset, and they have only themselves to blame.
Why they even respect the Democrats is beyond me. They’re all just as rich as the nebulous Wall Street Billionaires they’re bitching about all the time. Their lifestyles are just as decadent, and in some cases probably more so. Some of them, like the odious Harry Reid, are at least borderline racist, if not outright racist. And some of them are hopelessly stupid (like that guy who thought that too many troops on Guam would make the whole island tip over).
But, as Ann Coulter says, abortion is their sacrament, and they love them some free shit, so a Democrat can be a decadent rich piece of shit and still get craploads of votes.
So what will be the message of Samaritan?
That’s the name of the first single from ionnalee, by the way. It’ll probably be some bullshit feminist subversion of the story of St. Lucy, Christians will be demonized and I will be bitterly disappointed becuase I really liked this group, even though I know they’re extreme leftists.
This is long enough, so I will say this in closing: I am grateful that both she and I have the right to express ourselves. I wish she’d be more concerned about what’s happening in her own home country, with girls and women like her being terrified to leave their homes for fear of being raped by migrants. But I am glad that no Christian will want to throw acid in her face for criticizing Christianity. Nothing bad will happen to her, and nothing bad will happen to me (I hope) and to be honest, that’s what free speech is all about. Give and take. Speak and someone responds.
It’s like, 5:40 in the morning and I cannot sleep. I have to wake up at 6:30 am to get ready for work and some strange things have been happening, like my TV turning on randomly to a different input than the one I left it in (and to top it all off, it tuned in to the Fox News Channel during a report on Kim Jong Un assassinating his own uncle).
So I can’t sleep, and when I can’t sleep, I usually grab my iPhone and start wandering the Web. So I found this. It’s kind of old – published in February of 2013, and it’s about that stupid Austrian actor again. Sigh. I will put the rest of this behind a cut if you don’t care.
Milo Yiannopolous’s book Dangerous, originally slated for a March 2017 release, has now been canceled. His publisher was Simon & Schuster, on the Threshold Editions imprint. Cucks. Total cucks, but that is no surprise. At all.
I also want to note that the release of the book had been pushed to a June 2017 release before its cancellation. I think that may have been due to Milo wanting to add something about the Berkeley riots. I had thought it strange and annoying, as I had preordered it and was seriously looking forward to reading it.
I have nothing more right now, as I’m angry. I shouldn’t be, I guess, but I am. The media has been accusing him of being things he is not, and this latest charge is just as untrue as the rest. So all I have is this:
So recently, Christina Applegate posted a series of tweets complaining about how many Trump supporters and others on the Right hate it when celebrities make political statements. She said – quite rightly, although I am reluctant to give this stupid woman any credit at all – that they were entitled to an opinion and had the right to express it.
Which, as I said, is true. I don’t entirely feel comfortable slinging around the “shut up and sing” slogan because I so passionately believe in the First Amendment. I also believe that these celebrity idiots are no better than we are. If we have the right to say something, then so do they.
But I also understand why many of us on the Right tell them to “shut up and sing” – their opinions are usually nothing more than ill-informed insults and/or grandiose, narcissistic grandstanding (like Kerry Washington’s “like, I’m not just an actress – I’m an activist and it’s totally my duty to tell you who to vote for and demonize whitey!” statements on the red carpet).
What many celebrities spew is no different than the insane screeds you might read at Democratic Underground or the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, or whichever idiot leftist site you might be thinking of right now. Seriously, take a good look at any thread at DU and then compare it to the stupid bullshit washed up idiots like Shia LeDouche (heh) say on a regular basis. It’s basically the same.
Even so-called intellectual Viennese actors spew idiotic, childish, and dare I say, infantile bullshit. Normally, whenever I read the stupidity at DU or in the comment sections of most political blogs, I roll my eyes and move on.
But not when an actor starts spewing their bullshit. Why? Just a few days ago I was pondering this, and I figured out why.
Actors, musicians, authors, etc enjoy one thing that the average cretin at DU does not – a big, huge, influential platform. Lady GaGa’s upcoming Super Bowl performance will generate a shitload of publicity. She has already announced that it will indeed be “political” because she believes in tolerance, compassion, etc (and will basically accuse anyone who is remotely concerned about illegal immigration of racism and hatred – essentially acting like a raging hypocrite) and wants those values to be reflected in her performance. It’ll be all over the place, just like Beyonce’s idiotic performance last year (which, contrary to what my grandparents think, WAS a tribute to the Black Panthers).
I can put up with the deranged rantings of a DUer. They have little to no influence on, well, anything. But when an actress or musician goes, “punch Nazis, lol” then someone on this planet will surely do exactly as they command. And since anyone that disagrees with a liberal is now essentially a Nazi, that means each and every one of us on the Right is in danger of being assaulted by some deranged, idiotic, celebrity worshiping moron.
This, more than anything, is why I hate it when celebrities say anything about politics. I have to hear or see their bullshit all over the place. It’ll be on the local news, it’ll be all over my Facebook, Twitter and Gab feeds. It’ll be breathlessly reported on at all of the websites I frequent. It’ll be on the entertainment news shows (not that I watch those) and reported on in magazines.
And nobody, NOBODY (save the right-wingers on social media networks and on the websites I visit) will challenge their shit. Nobody will fact check them. Nobody will point out how utterly asinine and insane they are. No, the mainstream media will worship at the altar of these stupid morons, praising them and enthusiasically agreeing with them.
This, of course, will be brought up in 2018, just in time for the midterms. And then in 2020, perfectly timed for the Presidential election.
That’s why I was so gobsmacked and shocked at Trump’s victory. The celebrities and the asshats in the MSM went all-out to demonize Trump and his supporters whilst building up and deifiying Hillary Clinton (because, after all, she was going to be the First Female President – history will be made again you guys!!!). One stupid ad after the other…one stupid “FUCK TRUMP” statement at various award shows and in magazines after the other. All of this stupid bullshit and for once, it amounted to absolutely nothing. It was wonderful. It felt like a new day…hell, like a new age.
But I’m not used to all this winning. I’m used to losing, to be honest. I’m used to the rug being pulled out from under me. It’s been that way for the past eight years. The Bush years were no picnic either. Celebrities bitched about Bush too. Back then, they sounded like the average DU poster – nothing but idiotic, childish insults and gross hyperbole. Now it’s the same damn thing. Bush was reelected, at least, but at that time, the Iraq war had only been raging for a year and some months.
I know not all celebs are like that, but precious few are reasonable about their political views. I am totally okay with you being liberal. After all, most of my family are liberals, and I’m still close to them. What makes me angry are the baseless insults that get amplified by a hypocritical press who act like it’s a good thing that an entire group of people is smeared and slandered.
Why can’t these people express their opinion without being assholes about it? Here, I can help you. If only a liberal could say, “well, I understand that people are concerned about terrorists sneaking in amongst the refugees, but I would feel terrible if we turned away someone who genuinely needed asylum. Surely there is a middle ground that we could reach.”
See! It’s not that hard! If I can do it, so can you! I can see the issue from both sides. Both sane, rational sides. But the left is all, “ZOMG U RACIST! U HATE BROWN PPL!!! FUCK OFF AND DIE, NAZI BITCH!!!”
The frightening thing is that it works. At least, that’s how I feel anyway. Trump’s victory shows that it is possible to break away from the insidious influence of morons like Christina Applegate, Lady GaGa, Madonna, Ashley Judd and others.
Yep. Another book has been declared “problematic” because the villains in the story are non-white. This time, Veronica Roth’s latest, Carve the Mark has been deemed problematic by Justina Ireland, an author and blogger I have not heard of (not an insult; nobody’s heard of me, so it’s all good).
Why? Because the antagonistic rulers of the planet the two main characters live on happens to be brown-skinned people with a culture that seems to be inspired by Islam. This is according to Ms. Ireland. I have a copy of the book and so far I have read the first chapter, so I can only go by what she’s saying.
Ms. Ireland also mentions The Continent, the book by Keira Drake that was torpedoed before its release no thanks to a bunch of SJW book bloggers who insisted that it was raaaaaaaacist because one non-white race was described as “savage” – I wrote about that here.
Her blog post is entitled “The Continent, Carve the Mark and the Trope of the Dark-Skinned Aggressor” and it’s pretty much what you expect. Lots of whining about racism and blah blah blah. The post was also published in December of 2016, before the release of either book (The Continent was slated for a January 3 release, but was postponed after much SJW whining; it will now be published next year, after the bad guys are turned into Catholic white men, presumably).
Ms. Ireland gave a listing of all the awful characteristics assigned to the bad guys – kinky, curly hair, tribal-ish body markings, war-like, aggressive behavior, etc. Uh, this is all based on reality, people. Or, more accurately, history. Yes, Native American tribes and African tribes were really like this, and many centuries before the Europeans discovered either of them, the European tribes were like that too. SO? That’s how they were, and both authors were obviously drawing their inspiration from history.
As for Ms. Roth, she shows her ballsiness once again by daring to include Islamic characteristics in the culture of the Shotet, the antagonist tribe. Not many mainstream authors would dare offer any sort of criticism of Islam.
I have yet to read the book in its entirety, so we shall see. I’m fine with a rival or antagonistic tribe being non-white. It doesn’t bother me. That does not mean I consider non-whites to be illiterate savages or anything. Quite the contrary — I am non-white. I can claim two different Native American tribes as part of my ancestry (one of which is Cherokee. I cannot remember the other one, and yes, I am ashamed of that). But I’m not going to deny reality or history to appease anybody. Those tribes, in many ways…well, let’s say they were different. Some of their customs were just concerning to me, like the human sacrifices of the Mayans (if you were to see a picture of me, you’d recognize me as looking very Mayan, because I can claim them too, I guess. I seriously look like Lord Pacal, I really do). Maybe I’m biased because I’m a (bad) Christian.
What would bother me would be that all the non-white characters are uniformly evil, violent and stupid. Then that would be flat-out racist. You can tell if an author is blatantly racist by how they treat their non-white characters. It’s especially apparent if the characters are ridiculous, one-dimensional stereotypes. I wish I had some examples to give, but I have none.
I really hate double standards. I really, really do. If it weren’t for double standards, the left wouldn’t have any standards at all. They routinely engage in these double standards, and the culture tropes in stories are no different.
Pick a mainstream novel. Any novel. I guarantee you that ninety percent of the titles you choose will feature antagonistic characters that are white, straight Christian people that are uniformly evil and irredeemable. I’ll bet you a million dollars that those characters are flat and one-dimensional. I’ll bet you that they’re nothing more than ridiculous stereotypes. I actually have an example for you.
Jenny Pox by J.L. Bryan. It’s the first in a series, and I have not read any other books in the series because frankly, I don’t want to. But I had heard about how anti-Christian this one was, and wanted to see for myself. The critics were right.
Briefly…the story revolves around Jenny, who has a very deadly ability – her touch is lethal. She lives in the Deep South and has to wear gloves all the time so that she does not kill people. She eventually earns the ire of the Popular Girl who is this big Christian conservative. The Popular Girl goes on a radio show that’s obviously hosted by a Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh composite character that is fat and disgusting. The Radio Host and the Popular Girl are cardboard cutouts. They are not real people – they exist only to portray conservatives in a negative light. There is a random scene in which the Popular Girl sucks some guy’s dick – it serves no purpose other than to give some dudes wank material, and to portray Christians as hypocrites (because any Christian that has an orgasm ever is a raging hypocrite, amirite?). It’s graphic, yet totally unnecessary.
It’s been a while since I read that book, so there’s probably stuff I missed. There is also a scene in which Jenny and her friend go to some sort of Christian haunted house, and they ruthlessly mock it. I am not sure what they’re called, but Christian haunted houses don’t have the usual jump scares, like coffins, cobwebs, ghosts, etc. Instead, they have scenes of traumatic, sad stuff like the scene of a car crash caused by drunk driving, the carnage of an abortion, etc. Liberals, for some reason, absolutely hate these haunted houses.
It’s okay for Christians to be uniformly portrayed as horrible people, but doing the same to one of the left’s pet victim classes…oh, that’s bad. And more often than not, their claims of racism in such books are completely exaggerated.
I shouldn’t be surprised. These are the same people that insists upon the non-existence of Islamic terrorism. When they do acknowledge the horrible aspects of Islam, they insist we respect it in the name of “diversity” and “understanding different cultures.”
Oh, and I almost forgot. I only learned of this via r/YALit, in a thread about some book blogger burning an ARC of Carve the Mark, screenshots of which were posted to the blogger’s Snapchat. And the kicker? The Redditors at r/YALit are defending the book blogger, stating that there’s nothing wrong with burning a book. Oh no, it’s not THAT bad.
Really? Because if I were to burn a copy of, say, Simon and the Homo-Sapien Agenda you people would feel very differently. Then you’d shriek about how book burning is horrible and all.
I agree that one person burning one copy of a given book is not censorship. After all, it isn’t keeping me from reading it. However, it still strikes me as hypocritical coming from a bunch of leftists. As I said, they’re the ones usually shrieking about book burnings and censorship and whatnot.
By the way, I am not much of a book burner. I have no desire to burn any book because it’s counterproductive and it’s just…ugh, it’s just wrong. It doesn’t conjure up a positive image, unless one happens to be in Siberia or something, and has no firewood to start a fire. I’m just, once again, pointing out their hypocrisy.
So this post is already really, really long-winded. I’m going to go read Carve the Mark and once I finish it, I will post my assessment of it at my book review blog.