How Twitter SJWs Turned Me into a Fake News Hate Meme

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

A thing I like to do when I’m bored on Twitter is tweet random pop-cultural references.

Sometimes it will be a line from a movie:

Sometimes it will be a line from one of my favourite albums. Say:

Just someone to keep my house clean, fix my meals and go away.


I’m glad that you’re older than me. It makes me feel important and free.

Usually, when people get the reference, they’ll tweet me the answer. It’s a symbiotic pleasure: they get the satisfaction of having won my impromptu pop quiz; I get the joy of knowing that I’m not alone – that there are other people out there who share at least some of my cultural heritage, who may even once have skinned up on the same gatefold album sleeve as they listened to Country Girl or Almost Cut My Hair

But it doesn’t work with everything, as I discovered last night when I tweeted the line:

Pictures of dogs having sex.

…and suddenly found myself in the midst of a confected hate storm, orchestrated by some of the vilest SJW types on Twitter.

It’s the punchline to a hilarious sketch on a British-made comedy show I hadn’t seen before called Bad Robots. Though I thought it was new when I watched it on Comedy Central last night, I’ve subsequently realised I’m way behind the times and that actually the first series came out in the UK on E4 in 2014.

Anyway, it’s worth catching, even belatedly, because it’s very, very funny.

It’s a hidden camera show in which unwitting members of the public are embarrassed by carefully staged practical jokes. In this case, the devices used to fool them are bits of electronic equipment, which they are led to believe are voice activated.

So, in one sketch, what claims to be a machine that can recharge your phone in one minute is positioned on a pier at a tourist resort. Once the unsuspecting members of the public have put their phones in the charging box, the box locks and a voice informs them that they must back up all their data because the process will erase everything on their phone. As they wrestle frantically to retrieve their phone, the computer warns them that there has been a malfunction and smoke appears from the box holding their phones.

In another, a couple of innocents enter what they are led to believe is an automatic sun tanning booth. They tell the machine they want the lightest tan, but the machine informs them that they have requested the blackest tone — “dark ebony” — and as they strive unsuccessfully to escape from the dark spray spurting on their bodies, the computer’s voice helpfully advises them that the tan will last four months.

Well, I laughed, anyway. A lot.

But for me, the funniest one of all was the one in which a respectable looking old-ish man goes shopping with his wife in a garden store. A giant machine in the middle of the store asks him to say aloud which department he is looking for. “Water features.” he says into the machine. The machine asks him to repeat himself. “WATER FEATURES,” he says. The computerised voice has apparently misheard him. It announces: “You requested: PICTURES OF DOGS HAVING SEX. PICTURES OF DOGS HAVING SEX. YOU WANTED TO SEE PICTURES OF DOGS HAVING SEX!!!” Naturally, the mortified customer blushes furiously as everyone else in the shop looks to see who it is who has asked a machine to show him “Pictures of dogs having sex.”

It was so funny I just had to tweet it, right there and then.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Britain’s Virtue-Signalling Wankerati Welcome Syria’s Refugee Men-Children

Using your skill and judgement, see if you can guess which aspect of this scandal is most troubling the British celebrity chattering classes, aka the Wankerati.

Is it:

a) Potentially dangerous illegal migrants are burning their passports and lying about their age in order to take advantage of the gullibility, inefficiency and political correctness of Britain’s immigration officers and gain citizenship to which they are in no way entitled, at the expense of more deserving candidates and without the consent of the British people, who are going to be stuck forever with these cheating scumbags;

b) The French. It’s the bloody French’s fault. They’ve been desperate to get rid of the violent, sexually predatory, criminal mob of migrants making life hell for everyone in the Calais Jungle and this “Zut alors! But we thought all Syrian children had crow’s feet, walking sticks and white beards!” buck-passing is their devious French way of getting rid of a few of them, knowing the English will be too polite to complain:

c) Britain’s hard-pressed social services are being overwhelmed. As Harriet Sergeant reports in this must-read article in the Daily Mail, workers in residential care homes are now wearily used to having to house refugees in their 20s and 30s masquerading as children. Naturally, this has a disastrous effect on both the local schools forced to take these patently unsuitable adults into their classrooms, and also on the care homes where these dodgy young men corrupt the real children with drugs, alcohol, and sex.

Yes, you guessed correctly: it’s none of the above.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Clint Eastwood Just Reminded Us Why He Is The World’s Coolest Star

Now rack your brains and try to think of anyone of Clint’s celebrity eminence who’d admit to such views on the record. Charlton Heston, possibly, except he’s no longer with us. Michael Caine is the only living movie star I can think of – but he’s English so his views on the US presidential election wouldn’t carry quite so much weight.

How depressing is it that the entire universe of celebrity is so politically one-sided?

None more depressing, I’d say. If you believe, as Andrew Breitbart did, that “politics is downstream from culture” then it clearly matters very much what our movie and TV stars, pop idols, comics and so on think.

Why do you think Hillary had so many of them surrounding her at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia recently?

Because, duh, there’s a significant chunk of the voting populace which doesn’t give a damn whether or not their potential next president is a lying, cheating, email-hiding, Benghazi-tainted, crony-capitalist, continuation-Obama witch. All that matters to them is knowing they’re on the same team as Katy Perry, Sigourney Weaver, Elizabeth Banks, Meryl Streep and the incredible  chick who played Hit Girl in Kick-Ass.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why It’s Great That the Dalai Lama Is Channelling Donald Trump

It’s even better, almost, than the Queen emerging as a closet Brexit fan.

If Donald Trump had said something like that (as of course he does all the time) half the world would have dismissed him as a malevolent, heartless, rabble-rousing troll.

But it’s much harder to do that with the Dalai Lama. The thing he’s famous for more than anything is really, really caring about stuff – the world’s poor and oppressed especially.

If you were to ask Benedict Cumberbatch or Juliet Stevenson or Kate Moss’s nearly-father-in-law Richard Curtis  or any of the other numerous members of the Wankerati who want to welcome more refugees into Europe what they thought of the Dalai Lama I can guarantee they’d have nothing but kind words to say.

In fact, it’s quite hard to find anyone who doesn’t like him:

The Dalai Lama, however, was recently named the most popular world leader, with over three-quarters of adults (78%) on average having a good opinion of him.

So when an all round caring nice guy [I went to his 80th birthday party at Glastonbury last year. Can confirm: he’s great. We sang Happy Birthday to him. Patti Smith gave him a cake. And he blessed us all] like the Dalai Lama says that Europe has a refugee problem it’s probably a sign that he has thought through the issue carefully and that he’s right, rather than a sign that he’s a secret Nazi.

Sure, as he makes clear, he cares about refugees:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Finally, The Wankerati Tell Us Which Way to Vote in the EU Referendum…

On the one hand, there are the Brexiteers, who point out that the EU economy is shrinking, that its regulatory burden is holding back our business; that outside the EU we’d be richer and freer; that we’d regain control of our borders and be in a better position to protect ourselves against the wave of potential terrorists that Angela Merkel is determined to make EU citizens in order to punish us all for what Germany did in World War II; that we’d no longer be controlled by democratically unaccountable, faceless, supremely untalented apparatchiks who, in their own countries wouldn’t be deemed fit to take the orders at Domino’s Pizza, but who thanks to the EU, in the case of Baroness “Who?” Ashton got to swan around on £400,000 a year like she was some major international powerbroker; that it’s a nonsense to argue that Britain needs to belong to a crippled, spavined, sclerotic, inefficient, wasteful, monumentally corrupt socialistic superstate when, actually it used to do perfectly well for itself for two hundred odd years when it ran half the world. For more details on this see, for example, the very excellent Brexit The Movie.

But I’ve been listening to the arguments advanced by the Remain camp with Prime Minister David Cameron very much setting the dignified, civilised, intelligent, measured, thoughtful tone – and they’re very compelling too. Here are some of the best: Boris Johnson’s wife may have had an affair – or if it wasn’t her, it was possibly someone a bit like her – or maybe not; Boris Johnson used the word “Hitler” in a newspaper article and if you use the word “Hitler” you lose automatically; Boris Johnson smells of poo-poo and wee-wee and actually loves the EU and only says the opposite because it’s opposite month and also because he just wants the job of Prime Minister, so there; David Cameron has agreed to pose looking self-conscious and awkward for a Remain campaign publicity shot while walking across the zebra crossing at Abbey Road which is amazing because it’s just what popular beat combo the Beatles did on one of their most famous album covers and the Beatles wrote Strawberry Fields and Eleanor Rigby so Remain must be a good thing.

So you see, it’s been a tricky one. Which is why, for some time now, I have been looking for guidance one way or another from the sort of people whose gravitas, clear-sightedness and deep knowledge I can rely on.

The blond lefty actor who played one of the wacky DJs in Richard Curtis’s collectably lame The Boat The Rocked, say. Where does he stand on the EU referendum?

Or the anti-fracking mad catwoman who virtually invented punk by realising that instead of using giant safety pins for just nappies (that’s diapers, you American readers) they could also be inserted through leather jackets or even parts of your anatomy.

Or the guy who played Alan Turing in that somewhat trite movie which turned the Bletchley codebreaking story into one about gay martyrdom – and who loves to sound off on all sorts of Social Justice issues, as you would, when you’re from the rough side of the tracks having only been educated at Harrow, not Eton.

Or that woman poet laureate that no one much rates?

Or the spy author who hasn’t written a good book since the Cold War days – unless, of course, you think the greatest threat to global security right now are sinister Big Business interests working with the American secret service, in cahoots with the wicked Israelis, and posho Englishmen in pin-stripes with posho accents because they’re really posh, in which case of course, you’ll love everything he writes because it’s the same every time?

Or that good-looking actor who shags everyone?

Or the Social Justice campaigner – another Old Harrovian – who actually wrote The Boat That Rocked?

Or the priapic comedian who used to do funny stuff till he realised his main mission in life was to destroy the freedom of the British press?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

God, I hate Katie Hopkins…

April 23, 2015

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – FEBRUARY 9: Katie Hopkins seen leaving the ITV Studios after an appearance on ‘Loose Women’ on February 9, 2015 in London, England. (Photo by Neil Mockford/Alex Huckle/GC Images)

God, I hate Katie Hopkins. But not for the reasons everyone else does. I hate her in the sense that I can’t help worshipping her and the ground she treads on because she does what I’d like to do but does it so much better: she annoys all the people who most deserve to be annoyed, she remains articulate and collected in the face of all the brickbats that are thrown at her, and above all, she seems to make a damn good living out of it.

The last bit isn’t as obvious as you’d think. I was talking to an agent the other day about the best way to make the most of a career as an outspoken media commenter and his argument was that you shouldn’t stray too far from the middle ground for that way you alienate half your potential audience.

This is especially true if you’re on the right. Outrageous pinkos – look at Owen Jones, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Polly Toynbee, et al – tend to get a much freer pass from our left-leaning media culture. But their equivalents at the conservative end of the spectrum are much harder to find. In fact I’d say that there’s only one and that’s Hopkins.

Over the weekend, you may have noticed, Katie Hopkins was trending on Twitter yet again – this time because of a piece she’d written in The Sun in which she’d upset the Offenderati by using the word “cockroaches” in the context of the boatloads of hapless, parched, pitiable migrants now fleeing Libya. At this point you’re obliged tactically to distance yourself from Hopkins by noting how distasteful you too find her appalling choice of words. But I’m not going to, for several reasons, the first being that that it was so devastatingly effective.

One reason why so many torpedoed mariners were eaten by sharks in the Second World War is that sharks are drawn to explosions. This is what Hopkins achieved with her “cockroaches.” It was her very own USS Indianapolis: in came a veritable Guardianista Who’s Who of finny horrors: Diane Abbott; Owen Jones (natch); Piers Morgan; Russell Brand – all turning the waters of Twitter red in a roiling frenzy of noisome, bleeding-heart self-righteousness.

And in the wake of all the celebrity offendotrons – the Wankerati, as I call them – came shoal after shoal of opportunistic bottom feeders: the ones trying to get her sacked from The Sun; the ones demanding that Hopkins be prosecuted (no really: a whopping 2200 of them have already signed the inevitable petition) for “incitement to genocide”; the ones tweeting photos of her children and declaring how unlucky they were to have such a frightful mother.

Now the textbook lefty response to this kind of monstering is to play the victim card, as so-called “anti-poverty campaigner” and professional lesbian single mother “Ms Jack Monroe” has just done. She could, of course, have just quietly stopped using Twitter. Except, being a Social Justice Warrior, she couldn’t. No, she had to weaponise her exit with a heart-rending blog about how she felt Twitter was no longer felt a “safe space” : “Today I left my house at 4pm. Head down. Eyes flicking at every stranger walking towards me on the street. Sunglasses on the Tube. The man arrested roams free after 15 hours in Policy custody, updating his blog with sneering comments…”

The not-so-subtle implication of this – and we’ve seen similar tactics from Stella Creasy MP and a feminist campaigner called Caroline Criado Perez – is that free speech has gone too far and it’s time we had a clampdown. This is the guerilla version of the conventional war which has been waged on free speech by the left-liberal establishment (from Keir Starmer, CPS and an emasculated police force to Hacked Off and their amen corner at the BBC and the Guardian) via the Leveson Inquiry and the vexatious arrests of all those Sun journalists. It’s cynical, it’s dirty, it’s illiberal and it’s much, much more dangerous and ugly than anything Katie Hopkins has ever written.

But the reason so few people appreciate this is – ooh look! Katie Hopkins wrote a nasty word, so we needn’t talk about it. That, I’m afraid, is the level to which so many vitally important debates have been reduced these days by the liberal-left’s Alinskyite tactics.

In the case of Hopkins’s Sun piece, no left-wing commentator, so far as I’m aware, felt under any obligation to respond with any manner of reasoned counterargument. They might have pointed out that because the West created the Libyan crisis it has a moral obligation to fix its consequences; or they could have gone the whole hog and argued that we have a duty to house all refugees, come what may.

They didn’t though because – a bit like with all those rapists out there who just can’t help raping women because they’re provocatively dressed and therefore have it coming to them – their intellectual processes were short-circuited by Hopkins’s outrageously unforgivable deployment of a single term: “cockroaches.”

A piece in the Independent claimed that this was the kind of dehumanising words the Nazis used, so apparently rendering Hopkins’s entire commentary beyond the pale. Lots of people in the comments section and on social media agreed with this analysis. I hope this tendency frightens you as much as it frightens me.

Why? Because it’s a dirty rhetorical cheat, not an argument. No, worse than that it’s a vicious lie. By focusing on just one intemperate word (designed, as so much of the best polemical writing does, to provoke a response) and freighting it with far more significance than any remotely objective interpretation could possibly bear, it calculatingly misrepresents the opinions of a heroically brave, often admirably sensible woman who dares, as so few do, to voice what the silent majority are really thinking.

Related posts:

  1. Television: Weekly shockers
  2. I hate Lush. I love Aldi. How about you?
  3. Twitter: ‘Tweet’ went the birdy, and we did
  4. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election

2 thoughts on “God, I hate Katie Hopkins…”

  1. Sholto says:24th April 2015 at 8:09 amThe Left get to write the narrative because basically they have taken over the public sector. Not, as the Right grumble, because of a cunning Gramscian plot to take over the institutions, but because they have had no choice.
    When I was at Uni (Dept of Maths & Computer Science) there were no lefties in sight, ditto Engineering, Accountancy, Physics, anything requiring accuracy and logic. No, they were bunched up in the softer sciences, in fact the softer the science the lefter its participants.
    Obviously one does not emerge from the academic meringue of a Sociology or Gender Studies course to be confronted with a vista of open doors into the private sector. Whereas here in Australia, and I imagine elsewhere, the public sector often insists on a degree but they normally don’t care what degree. Hence you are best advised to never stand between a leftie and the taxpayer’s teat.
    So we have reverse Darwinism at work – those with the most intellectually and academically questionable degrees end up in the environment where they have most influence over the rest of us.
    Those of us unfortunate enough to live in the real world always face an uphill fight to be heard over the overwhelming superiority of media volume and bureaucratic diktat at the disposal of the other side.
    The West is stuffed.
  2. Richard Treadgold says:25th April 2015 at 3:32 amSuch perception. Such common sense. Such enjoyable simplification. Such is Delingpole.

Why Losing Clarkson Is the BBC’s Biggest Mistake Since Keeping Jimmy Savile – James Delingpole

March 28, 2015

This isn’t so much a piece about Jeremy Clarkson as about all the other celebrities the BBC employs who aren’t Jeremy Clarkson. I call them the “Wankerati.”
Here are some examples:

Ian Hislop; Dara O’Briaiaiaan; Brian “PermaSmile Astro Boy” Cox; Bill Oddie; Russell Howard; Simon Singh; Noel Fielding; Marcus Brigstocke; Jeremy Hardy; everyone else on the News Quiz; the unfunny has-beens from the Now Show whose names I can’t be bothered to look up; Chris Packham; Rick Edwards; Graham Linehan; Lenny Henry; Emily Maitlis; Ian Katz; David Mitchell; Russell Howard; Bill Bailey; Jo Brand; Monty Don; Simon Schama; Russell Howard….

As you can see, the list is by no means complete because it needs to include more or less everyone at the BBC who isn’t Jeremy Clarkson. Some of you may be concerned at the fact that Russell Howard doesn’t appear nearly often enough for one so lame and annoying. Others may be perturbed by the presence of presenters they admire – such as, maybe, Ian Hislop who, I’d quite agree, is really, really good at fronting programmes on Victorian hymns, World War I or railway timetables.

But this isn’t about talent – or lack of – it’s about personal politics. Everyone on that list ranges in outlook from the nauseatingly bien-pensant to the rabidly left-wing, to the point where you could fairly confidently predict their position on any number of topics from Nigel Farage, Israel/Palestine and global warming all the way through to mildly racist jokes, foxhunting, bankers, positive discrimination and the European Union. Oh, and Jeremy Clarkson, of course. Few, if any of the people on that list would be able to find much good to say about Jeremy Clarkson. Which, of course, is one of the reasons why the BBC’s sacking of Clarkson is going to turn out to be such a massive mistake. He was the one major talent in the entire organisation who wasn’t like all the others…

And till Clarkson’s nemesis BBC Controller of TV Danny Cohen came along, the BBC appears instinctively to have understood his value. Not his commercial value (the BBC likes to think it’s above such vulgarities) but rather his propaganda value. Top Gear was the BBC’s equivalent of a Potemkin Village or – a bit of Clarksonesque bad taste here, why not? – those films the Nazis used to make of jolly, well-fed Jews playing in orchestras and sitting in cafes near their delightful new living quarters in the Warsaw Ghetto. Any time unhelpful people started banging on about the BBC’s entrenched left-wing bias and maddening political correctness, all the Beeb had to do was point at the self-evidently notleft-wing and not PC Top Gear as proof of the contrary.

Till the BBC sacked Clarkson, my view was that they were going to get away this game for many years hence. But now I am not so sure.

Over a million people signed that petition urging the BBC to reinstate Clarkson. A fair proportion of them, I suspect, will belong to precisely that demographic the BBC finds most embarrassing: white, obviously; probably Thatcherite in outlook, but quite fond of Nigel Farage; highly sceptical of “global warming”; petrolheads, again obviously; not averse to telling the odd racist joke when they’re with their mates, not so much because they have anything against “coloured” people (as they probably call them, not knowing the correct term) but more as a reaction against political correctness; might not have gone to “uni” because they could tell it was a complete waste of time. People who – at least in the BBC’s Weltanschauung – are pretty much beyond the pale.

Unfortunately for the BBC, however, these disgusting, frightful people, very few of whom live anywhere civilised like North London or have ever knowingly eaten cavolo nero, represent a much larger percentage of the population than any of the worthy groups it would prefer to cater to (the “Asian” community; gay people; disabled people; Roma; environmentalists; activists; etc). While Top Gear was on – the modern equivalent of “bread and circuses” – this mob were kept at bay. But with Top Gear gone, they may incline to feel that they have been cheated – like a serially abused child whose one and only toy has finally snatched away from him by his prissy, unloving, perma-stubbled, tofu-eating stepfather.

In short, for many years the BBC has been living a lie. It has pretended – as its Charter requires of it – that it’s for everyone when really it has continually and ruthlessly shut out any presenters, programmes or opinions which don’t fit into its narrow, metropolitan, left-liberal narrative. And what the Clarkson sacking has done is brought this issue to a head. Also – a bit like Gamergate did for gamers – it has woken large numbers of people who hadn’t hitherto thought of themselves as particularly political into an appreciation of how badly they’ve been conned and abused by a narrow, self-selecting and very political elite who despise them.

Read the brilliant pay-off at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Jeremy Clarkson’s critics should be taken out and shot
  2. Clarkson, the Baronet’s granddaughter and a pile of poo
  3. How my spivvy, unsuitable new motor brought out my inner Clarkson
  4. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’