Why I think the Tories will win the 2019 GE

The Tories are going to win tonight. And here's why:

I can't look on social media for 2 minutes without someone bullying folk into voting with one hand, and/or bashing the Tories with the other. All this tells folk is that you'll only be happy if folk vote and vote the way you want them to, but more importantly it's not encouraging anyone to get involved with politics, nor is it winning any arguments. It's just making Tory opposition look inept. It paints the picture that those who oppose the the Tories are incapable of argument, evidenced by the underhand tactics employed to shame folk out of voting Tory as opposed to arguing the merits of their own position. This won't change anyone's mind.

I've been taking it easy on the political posts for good reason. This election I've found myself typing something in response to some political post - engaging in debate with the intent to strengthen our democracy - to then lose heart and delete it, realising all I'm doing is setting myself up for insults for not adhering to the mainstream narrative. I mean don't get me wrong I love a good spar as much as the next, but some of the rhetoric these days is fucking atrocious and it's a waste of time to get involved in a slagging match when you want to talk about the effectiveness of policy without getting called a "Fucking Tory." (Which I'm not).

Same with Tump and with Brexit. Remainers spent the election calling Leave voters racists instead of arguing the merits of the EU. American Democrats spent the election calling Trump sexist instead of presenting Clinton as someone people could actually trust. Similar thing with the independence referendum in Scotland in 2014. The YES side (of which I was a part) spent more time calling folk "yoons" than explaining how the currency would work. The the silent majorty - relegated to expressing their opinions exclusively at the ballot box as opposed to online or the pub - shut us the fuck down. Every time. The left have only themselves to blame for this hostile "right wing" takeover. The snobbish, smug attitude of voter bullies and pompous left wingers who assume the have a monopoly on compassion has ruined debate. When dissent is discouraged to the point where you can't make an argument without being insulted - or worse, being an opponent of 'compassionate politics' - then the only place one has left to express their opinion is anonymously; in a polling booth hidden from any judgmental eye.

So don't be surprised when the Tories win, who's voters have been watching this pantomime, watching their Candidates get dead rats sent to them, watching their businesses and property get vandalised, watching hysterical middle class students lying in front of their cars and trains while trying to get to work, and watching post after post on social media calling them everything under the sun, silently asking themselves what's the best way to piss off a bunch of elitists who assume that anyone who doesn't think like them are morally inferior. It's even tempted me to vote Tory for the first time in my life. It'd be worth seeing Bojo as PM just to watch the faces of smug, entitled bullies turn to shit on Friday.

Maybe if the Tories do win again, this time we might realise that the measure of success of politics in this country depends on bringing opponents over to your side using argument and debate, not screeching "Racist! Sexist! Tory Scum!" at them in some vain attempt to shame folk into thinking as you do.

That would bring far more value to politics than any candidate, party or government has in the lifespan of this archaic fucking parliament.

How to Genocide

I'm really worried about extremism. 

The kind that comes from painting ones political opponents as so extreme, that the extremes to oppose them seem totally justified.

Paint Jews as being demons who are a threat to your way of life, poison your culture and want to hoard all your wealth while watching you and your family starve, then becoming a Nazi - an ideology that resulted in the deaths of up to 20 million people - seems totally Justified.

Works both ways.

Paint your political opponents - middle of the road liberal as they can get - as an evil, nasty right wing extremist group then supporting a card carrying communist - an ideology that resulted in the deaths of 100 million people - in response, seems totally justified.

Look at the way Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders talks about the rich. Look at the way Donald Trump talks about Muslims. Look at the way Hitler spoke about the Jews, or Castro about Capitalists, or Bush and Obama about Terrorists. These powerful people have something in common. Their road to power was elevated on "us" vs "them". The "many" vs "the few".

This divisive, collectivist mentality breeds justification for all sorts of political violence. Fill that elusive '1%' category with whatever stereotype you want and you've got yourself a political carrot on a stick that people will follow into the most violent of battlefields. Like the war on 'Terror' or the 'Patriarchy'; modern identity politics is annihilating any minutia by creating phantoms and caricatures of their political opposition and assigning those parodies to whatever or whoever is politically convenient at the time.

It's the most effective method to hurt swathes people, as long as it's coupled with a healthy dose of propaganda and censorship.

How to commit genocide:

Step 1. Attribute problem demographic to singular group.
Step 2. Portray singular group as oppressors.
Step 3. Assign those who disagree with this narrative to said group.
Step 3. Justify support to punish said group.
Step 4. Social Justice achieved.

Identity politics is a fancy term for Collectivism; the biggest threat to individual free thought and liberty ever conceived. The minute you dismiss someone's argument or opinion, or attack them, on the basis of the group you've assigned them to based on arbitrary characteristics or ideas, you've just done the service of the hive mind and remained a loyal member of the herd. If we all were to maintain the freedom to have ideas in spite of what the hive mind or the collective might say, we all maintain a barrier to extremism.

Extremism cannot exist when individual thought and a free exchange of ideas is encouraged. If we look at each other beyond these collective nouns, perhaps we'll stop placing people on a scale of how acceptable it is to hate them and instead take them at face value as individuals. When you see someone as the person they are instead of the label you've assigned to them it becomes much more difficult to justify slaughtering or stealing from them.

[Theory] Why Iron Man is the Villain in Civil War

This doesn't really contain spoilers, just theories, and is written with the assumption you've seen all the Marvel Movies to this point. So, spoilers for those.

So we've just has a new trailer drop for Captain America: Civil War and it's utterly fantastic! Everybody is very excited (And nervous! Nobody likes it when Mummy and Daddy fight) and I for one cannot wait for the movie coming out. I'll be there on opening day!

The marketing for this movie has been pretty brilliant, in true Marvel fashion, and has encouraged fans to pick a side in this conflict between our most beloved characters. Are you #TeamCap or are you #TeamIronMan? Arguments are popping up all over the place and it's generating a lot of hype for the movie. This movie gives people legitimate reasons to back both sides, too. They've genuinely created a relatable scenario where friends have conflicts, have differing ideologies and opinions and that's now being reflected on social media between fans. I love it.

But I'm now going to explain why backing #TeamIronMan is a fucking stupid idea, and in essence is backing #TeamHydra.

Civil War boils down to the "Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals." A document that will require super humans to sign up for government agency, revealing their identities and signing up for a government controlled and monitored program. This was a reaction to all the disasters that superhero fighting has caused, and the collateral damage. Superheroes save the day, but they also put the day in jeopardy by their mere existence and the forces they meddle with has inspired action. Legislative action.

Tony thinks this is what's necessary to maintain order and control, He's seen what happens when unregulated 'weapons' get into the wrong hands.

Cap thinks this is a shite idea because he's seen what happens when you point a gun at someone and burn a number in their arm, and what it does to the people holding the gun. "This isn't freedom"

Now let's talk about Tony Stark. Tony is in constant self conflict, or became as much in his first movie. We were sold the genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist and what we actually got was a real man struggling with his principles, with a hefty dose of guilt. He was a warmonger. A weapons manufacturer, and in essence put the US in the same situation Superheroes and dicking with cosmic artifacts have put Earth. He escalated America, exposing it to further threats. He brought a gun to the knife fight and then everyone wanted guns. Some people got them, and it was partially his fault. He's not only had first hand experience of how escalation within war works, he's also been directly responsible for that escalation.

"Your work with the Tesseract is what drew Loki to it, and his allies. It is the signal to all the realms that the earth is ready for a higher form of war." - Thor

Let's take this to the sequel, where he's now dealing with his imminent death, and in order to save himself and the world from the mess that he once again created. This has a massive impact on his social and personal life, and caused him to act irrationally. We're exposed to the way in which Tony is quick to act. Making Pepper CEO, and other completely independent decisions made by a man suffering from some next level stress. This exposes Tony's impulsiveness further. Even Shield were reluctant to take him on board based on his psych evaluation. He also shows his pride and his stubborn attitude. Even when faced with death he refuses to seek external help. He's not a great team player. He doesn't trust anyone.

"Soldiers trust each other.That's what makes it an army.Not a bunch of guys running around shooting guns." - Captain Amercia

Then we see him in the Avengers next. He's once again dabbling with these cosmic entities, tempted by the drive in him to fix what he's created, create a shield around the world. This causes conflict not only within him but within the rest of the team and nearly breaks them up before they get started. They manage to come together for common purpose, which involves the tipping point in Tony's mental health: His journey into space, fighting aliens and getting more first hand experience of the scale of how far things will escalate.

Then we've got Iron man 3. A more human movie for Tony Stark. Once again, acting impulsively, nearly getting him and pepper killed and exposing them and the world to more danger. We also see that his mental health has started to manifest symptoms inducing panic attacks and nightmares.

Age of Ultron. Scarlet Witch just flat out fucks with his head. Implanting suggestions that his friends, and everyone, is going to die because Tony failed to act. Exposing him to his own fears and insecurities because of the power he wields. This brings Tony to his most irrational decision yet. To further dabble with the cosmic entities poisoning him and creating a super weapon that holds the earth to ransom. Mass destruction and death. Entirely his fault.

We can start to see a pattern in Tony's rationale, and make an analysis of his motivations and fears.

This all justifies the Registration Act for Tony. It's a way of him seeking redemption and achieving his ultimate agenda of peace and an end to the escalation. But I've also just described the creation of a villain. A good villain doesn't know what he is. A good villain is the exact opposite of our hero and a great villain has a motivation, a justification and a rationale for their behaviour. Often one that seems entirely reasonable on the surface. I'm not a person that believes evil is born. I think evil is created from dire circumstance. Tony has been through some shit and is willing to do anything to make up for his shortcomings; "I'm game, whatever shape that takes" as we hear in the trailer when we see the reveal of The Raft: The superhero Auschwitz...

Tony's motivations are moral, but his actions are evil, even if he's oblivious. He's also not only trying to fulfil his agenda. He's also fulfilling Hydra's.

"Ultron can't tell the difference between saving the world and destroying it. Where do you think he gets that?" - Scarlet Witch

Without going into too much detail about Hydra, let's have a look at their motivations and agenda. For this we can look into Dr. Zola's speech in Captain America: Winter Soldier. After we're introduced to Hydra in Cap's first movie, we're exposed to more of their capabilities in the sequel and specifically during this scene. Zola says this:

"HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize was that if you tried to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war, S.H.I.E.L.D. was founded, and I was recruited. The new HYDRA grew, a beautiful parasite inside S.H.I.E.L.D. For 70 years, HYDRA has been secretly feeding crises, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed." 

"Accidents will happen. HYDRA created a world so chaotic that humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security. Once the purification process is complete, HYDRA's New World Order will arise. We won, Captain. Your death amounts to the same as your life, a zero sum!"

See what he said: "We won, Captain." He's right. This was possibly the biggest twist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Hydra have been manipulating things behind the scenes for the past half century. Hydra have become such a sophisticated spy network it infected and dismantled the most sophisticated spy network on the planet: Shield. They've managed to create the conditions they need. Everything since Hydra's creation has been engineered or taken advantage of by them so that their agenda can be fulfilled:

Humanity handing over it's own freedom. The Registration Act will be the catalyst for this ultimate goal.

This is where Cap comes in. This is why the Registration Act doesn't sit well with him, even if this suspicion is masked by his loyalty to his friend. He's been here before. He's seen totalitarian regimens and what they can do. He's seen the consequences of when people have their freedoms jeopardized and taken away from them. He's had first hand experience of his own fears, just like Stark. This is why they so poetically stand at opposite sides of the spectrum. They're both right, Tony just can't see past the end of his nose.

"There is the next mission and nothing else." - Tony Stark

None of this is just a coincidence. Most of the conflict, war, assassinations that have happened in the past 50 years have happened because of Hydra. It all leads to their overall agenda. They are the Illuminati. Weaving a tapestry of deceit to fulfill their ultimate goal: Peace. Or at least a version of it they prefer: Ultimate control. Totalitarianism.

Registration is a stepping stone toward this goal, and Cap has seen it. He saw Hitler do it and he saw Hydra do it and they're doing it again vicariously through Stark and other politically influential people throughout recent history.

Here's my prediction if the Registration Act is passed.

• Phase 1. Superhuman Registration Act Passed.
• Phase 2. Resistance rises up against the Act. Act struggles to police entire Superhuman populace.
• Phase 3. Concentration camps and prisons set up for violators of the Act.
• Phase 4. Regulations fail to address problem. More people die and more mass environmental damage at the hands of Superhuman infighting and resistance.
• Phase 5. Government doesn't learn lesson. Imposes more regulations. Starts imprisoning and executing human allies of Superhumans and all voices of opposition to the Act.
• Phase 6. Further resistance. Military totalitarian regimen necessary to maintain control. Superweapon created by Stark and funded by each UN member state to police entire populace. (Project insight reinstated).
• Phase 7. Resources are spread thin, UN merged into a single Super State to fund project Insight on Global scale.
• Phase 8. Mass poverty and mass death due to all resources diverted to the Capital to maintain government control. Many Superhumans killed. Super State left to be run by a handful of wealthy elites infested with Hydra spies.
• Phase 9. Earth's population reduced to a few million due to mass poverty, hunger and environmental damage. Most superhumans dead. Lottery system initiated to determine which state gets to eat. All other pastimes made illegal to ensure compliance.
• Phase 10. Hail Hydra.

We've seen this kind of pattern emerge in X-Men Days of Future Past: Registration, Concentration, Elimination. We've even seen these patterns from other movies and media with similar themes. X-Men, Hunger Games, Equilibrium and especially the comics, books and eras of history from where they're inspired deal with relatable themes of persecution and how dystopian totalitarianism is created. It's part of what makes them so good.

History repeats itself. This is why it's pointing south. Cap has seen this before. He's seen it in the form of the Nazis, Hydra in 1945, Hydra/Shield in the form of project insight and had it spelled out to him by Zola. He's recognizing it again in the form of Tony Stark. A man driven to the brink of madness through stress and guilt, who's seen too much of the horrors of the universe and the future to make rational, reasonable decisions. Without Fury and a unified team to be his counteractive voice of reason I fear he could take this all the way, making him the ultimate ally of Hydra and the true villain of Captain America; Civil War.

Why I Think The Left Went Insane

I've only been into politics for a short time. I've also not always voted. I've been a ballot spoiler and a non voter for many years, after all, who would want to be part of a system the elects the people we consistently complain about? I'm reminded of a George Carlin quote:

'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

Today it's a little different. I don't agree anymore. Despite my disdain for government I do vote and it started around the time of the Scottish Independence Referendum. Finally here was an opportunity to put my vote to good use. Unfortunately we never achieved our goal of independence but it brought me head strong into the somewhat complicated affair of politics. But since then there's been a dramatic change in my political views.

Operation: Independence.

My disinterest in politics up until the point of the Scottish IndyRef was palpable. Due to Scotland's unique situation within the UK it's no surprise. It's a miscarriage of Democracy. From my perspective politics was a bunch elitist relics who don't represent or understand me making decisions about my life. What's worse, is those representatives by in large have very different political views from the majority of Scotland. Scotland, for as long as I've been into politics and even before, has been a Left wing majority. We've generally been consistent with our Leftist, socialist and grassroots Labour views. Which is what separates us from a heavily Conservative England. We were in a situation where even if the entirety of Scotland voted Left, we'd still have a Conservative majority. Scotland has voted anti conservative for many, many years and we've still ended up with a government we didn't want. Upon learning this, I made independence my top priority, but I did so within an Echo Chamber of confirmation bias. I did so in a Leftist country.

Despite having my concerns about the SNP I took to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon who convinced me that Scotland could make it as an independent nation, but still couldn't agree with them on policy. So I joined the Green party. Being a humanitarian and somewhat of an environmentalist this seemed like an appropriate party for me to back and they supported independence. Win win.
On the run up to the independence referendum I made dozens of new Leftist friends who supported my arguments vehemently. I was championing the removal of trident, anti austerity, peace, freedom and most importantly: Democracy. Real democracy. Real fairness. Not having our taxes get sent down to England and only a portion of it coming back. Not having to accept conservative politicians we didn't want or ask for, and not paying for relics of the cold war that we had to keep in our back yard. The Facebook friends requests came in fast and furious and it was a brilliant time.

Then we lost. Our common goal was taken down and it was then the bigotry and intolerance of the Left started rearing it's ugly head.

The initial signs of regression.

Once we had all calmed down, and we recovered from our disheartening loss. I found myself starting to disagree with may of my new found peers. The conversation evolved and the discrepancy between our views started to reveal themselves. I started to talk about everything, from Feminism to Socialism, Abortion, the Death Penalty and so much more, most importantly: Free Speech. The more I talked the more Leftist friends seemed to reject or ignore me, even actively block me. The beginnings of the regressive Left started to reveal themselves to me. For months I was consumed in an environment that considered anything that came from the Right (or more specifically, not the mainstream Left) was wrong, and the intolerance displayed towards those with opposing views was very concerning indeed. Here I was from a political climate that was supposed to be promoting freedom and tolerance and it started showing the signs of being more bigoted than even the most hardcore, far Right groups the Left often condemns.

Then I started to notice something: many on the Left, at least in the circles I had created during the indyref, were utterly intolerant of dissent. I stared realising very quickly that this isn't what I signed up for. I started noticing that the Government was becoming a scapegoat for Leftist problems. I started noticing that people were willing to completely dismantle core freedoms in order for some "greater good" that benefited only certain, victimised classes. And then came the vitriol. I started to feel like an outcast in my own country and among my own circle of new peers. I started to feel like the only one in the country that disagreed with certain very concerning policies and ideas. Ideas such as curtailing free speech in order to protect people's feelings, arresting people for making jokes or singing the wrong song, and all sense of morality or compassion for human beings going out the window as soon as it concerned someone who'd killed a lion or abused a child. All of these freedom killing ideas stemmed from deep rooted Leftist ideologies, and even good causes both sides of the spectrum respected were used as weapons against our freedoms. Suddenly the veneer of tolerance was washed away and I noticed that the Left wasn't the saving grace of politics after all. The echo chamber went silent along with the blocks and unfollows I received and it paved the way for new opinions.

This was rather telling. That in order to learn to accept views that didn't align with the Left I had to literally rip myself free from the echo chamber. I had to subject myself to the vitriol that seems to be a common Leftist tactic: "You don't agree with me, so there must be something wrong with you." Critical of Islam? Racist. Critical of Feminism? Sexist. Critical of Scottish Government? Tory. They seem to fight through character assassination as opposed to well reasoned, logical arguments.

My political puzzle.

To my astonishment I found that I wasn't alone, and these allies came from an unusual place. "The enemy" according to the Left: The Right. I had a sudden realisation that I wasn't as objective as I could have been. I was looking at the Right through the lens of the Left, and it was an awful place. Pro Life, Pro Gun. Pro Death Penalty. But as a member of the Left who was comfortable with dissent, I started listening despite having certain polarising political views. I had after all supported a party through the Independence referendum despite not agreeing with them on every issue. So I started reading Right wing articles, watching interviews with Republicans and Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists and once the lenses started coming off I started to find myself agreeing on certain principles. All of these principles had something in common: Personal Freedom.

Then I read this article. It was a real eye opener and it filled a missing puzzle piece in my mind as to why I couldn't find comfortable footing on either side of the political spectrum. The article included lots of people with polarising political views and placed them into one common category that I could relate to: Cultural Libertarianism. People from the Left and the Right and all of their compartments were brought together for one purpose. Libertarianism. Or at least one version of it. People like Katie Hopkins, Brendan O'Neil and some of my favourite YouTube commentators like Sargon Of Akkad, people from all walks of politics sharing one common goal: Freedom of Speech.

This form of Libertarianism opened my eyes to the avenues to which I could gain political consistency. I had been hovering over the political spectrum, never really landing, hopping from one issue to the next with never really finding firm ground. And I landed. I discovered the Scottish Libertarian Party. A whole party, with people from all walks of politics, coming together to preserve Personal Freedom. I started reading their core principles and found myself nodding in agreement as I read. It was quite enlightening, reading the words from an official political party that I was spouting on Facebook just months beforehand. They believed in personal freedom, true personal freedom. They believed in freedom of speech, freedom of religion and individual freedom. They were pro independence, anti Trident. And soon I found them ticking far more boxes than the Green Party, who embarrassingly made headlines due to their "No More Page 3" T-Shirt stunt which I vehemently stood against, and the SNP for their authoritarian anti singing, anti smoking laws and "big government" approach. This party cared about true freedom. So I joined.

This was met by the expected criticism from the circles that still had me visible on Facebook and the groups I was still a part of since the IndyRef, but I didn't really care. I wasn't interested in the popular or mainstream ideas. Ideas that I fundamentally disagreed with but put up with, and once I took off the lenses of the Left it put things into focused perspective: I had been a bigot. Intolerant of opposing ideas. Once I listened, some of those ideas weren't so bad after all. They made sense, and I found myself learning more and more as each argument passed. As expected. I was branded a Tory, people called me an anarchist, a racist. "TURNCOAT!" they cried! And that's great! I'd much rather they engage than block me. By engaging one exposes his own bias,as I did when I engaged those "enemies" from the Right. I started to see the holes in folkloric arguments that were buried deep in the foundations of Leftist ideals and I started to pick at those holes. This could not be tolerated.

But it's not all bad. I still find myself having these arguments, but there's a loyal circle of friends that are able to see past these polarising ideas and find some common ground, and that's what politics should be about. Discussion, changing ideas, reinforcing others and most importantly: Vote! Many of those who kept following, kept debating have proved invaluable to my journey in politics. Many of them have become close friends and many existing close friends have remained so. Vitally these arguments convinced me that a vote isn't a waste, regardless of what party you throw it at. It's better than a spoiled ballot or not voting at all. Even if you're not voting for a government that will ever get elected, you're subscribing to an ideology and communicating your views. A spoiled ballot simply says "no I don't agree" by subscribing to a party you do agree with gives politicians something to work with.

Square peg in a square hole.

I don't think all of the Left is insane, but before I looked at the problem through a Libertarian lens, I sensed a civil war between the Left. The far Left was and still is gaining more ground, they're successfully shutting down the discussion through character assassination and using methods meant to protect people as a weapon against them. We've seen the rise of safe spaces, rape allegations ruining lives due to authoritarian sexual consent laws. We've seen people banned from the country for making the wrong jokes and having the wrong ideas. We've seen a surge in campus censorship and no platforming. We've seen feminists gaining platforms at the UN to police speech on the Internet. We've seen those who don't endorse gay marriage chastised and punished for their ideas. The list goes on and on, and I've only been into politics for a short time. This has been pushing many Liberal and other Leftists away but there remains a significant minority that uphold their Liberal principles, that unfortunately comes with the burden of dissent and opposition to some freedom killing ideas the far Left are proposing.

The Right is no spring chicken, but from my experience of politics thus far, the true authoritarians don't reside there. They're on the Left, hijacking long protected, seemingly positive ideals and using them for a personal, authoritarian purpose. Like how Feminism is now used to push an authoritarian agenda, censoring porn mags, removing page 3, calling to censor the Internet and trying to get innocent men charged of rape through draconian, bedroom invading laws. Gay Marriage has been used to bully, coerce and provoke people of faith and in some cases attempted to get people fired from their job, jailed or fined. #BlackLivesMatter used as a scapegoat to riot. The personal has become the political and Identity Politics and Political Correctness are the topics of the day.

So I found a place where I could be consistent with my ideals and share these with others without being castigated or branded. And with it the square peg in a round hole feeling dissipated; a symptom of being surrounded in deep rooted ideals that were difficult for some people to see criticised. Of course I'm still left with a small feeling of dissatisfaction. No party will ever be perfect, but that's partially what motivated me to rip of the Leftist bandage and join a different party. I wanted to be the change I wanted to see, and the SLP are the ones that tick the most boxes. Before that it was the Green party, a party with no hope of ever becoming a government, but stood for an ideology that I believed in at the time. When you vote for a small party that perhaps doesn't stand a chance of making it to government, your vote still provides valuable insight to the ideologies you agree with and why you didn't vote for another party.

This article was never meant to be a love letter to the SLP, and it's not. I wish not to preach to anyone about joining the SLP, leaving the Left or the Right or joining another party. I merely hope that my little story might help people to consider wearing different lenses for a moment, practice the tolerance that the Left often preaches and be open minded to radical changes to fundamental ideas. As I did. For me this process ended up changing my mind on a few ideas, it may not do the same for anyone else, but at the very least I hope it encourages people to practice friendly and open minded politics and be respectful of the rights that allow us to do so. Your best and most valuable peers are the ones you can respectfully disagree with, but character assassinations, no platforming and censorship is not playing fair and is indicative of deeply troubling authoritarian ideals. These ideals must be ridiculed, lambasted and criticised regardless of whatever seemingly important or progressive agenda they claim to be in aid of.

The most interesting part of this, is that this newfound Libertarianism was a mirror of the Independence Referendum. The fact that our differences in opinions didn't reveal themselves until our common goal was removed exemplifies the ability we have to look past those differences and tolerate each other. If only for a temporary common goal. There's an attitude that the Independence Referendum divided us, that it caused a rift in political Scottish attitudes, and I don't agree. It brought us together and even resulted in the most unlikely of alliances: The Tories and Labour, both of whom fought to stay in the United Kingdom. Most importantly, it helped Scotland gain political significance, and we achieved that through tolerance of ideas. But tolerance of ideas isn't silencing criticism of those ideas and isn't discrediting or attempting to demean one's argument through character assassination.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression are some of the most important, inherent rights we have and what gives life to politics for everyone. Not just those who have the "correct" subjective opinions. Nobody should get to decide what's "correct" for anyone other than themselves, and they should be confident enough within those ideals to allow their opponents opportunities to argue them.

I. Am a Libertarian.

What are you?

Michael Caine is Right About #OscarSoWhite

The Oscars may be bullshit, but they're not racist.

I'm sure most of you have heard about the #OscarSoWhite "controversy". In a nutshell the Oscars have been politicised and subsequently accused of being "whitewashed" (racist term, the irony never ceases to amaze me) as there have been no black artists nominated this time around. Naturally this has caused a knee jerk reaction with "diversity" as the agenda with people like Jada Pinkett Smith and Spike Lee speaking out against the Oscars.

Spike Lee & Jada Pinkett Smith are skipping the Oscars because of #OscarSoWhite controversy https://t.co/sLQjv1z89m pic.twitter.com/KEcqqPYuj7

— People Magazine (@people) January 18, 2016

Huh, black people boycotting the Oscars. That'll increase diversity...

This is silly. It really is. Now we have people complaining about lack of diversity in a merit based award system? Is that merit based award system riddled with subjectivity and bias? Of course, before Lord of the Rings the academy would barely even consider Sci Fi and Fantasy movies for nomination. Hell, if you make a horror movie you can forget about a nomination. We get it. The Oscars is subjective, elitist bullshit. But that doesn't mean it's racist, it simply means that the academy - who are made up of majority whites - maybe aren't into movies like Straight out of Compton. They'll lap up a fucking period drama full of rich white folks in a heartbeat, though. Could that maybe be because the academy is made up of mostly rich white folks? If the academy consisted of people from my generation it would be Star Wars or Avengers going home with all the Oscars. This is down to subjective preference at the end of the day.

Perhaps we could tackle this "issue" by including more black representation within the academy itself rather than expecting people to vote for movies and actors that they might not personally like. However, we'd then just have black film snobs instead of white film snobs voting for movies they like. That doesn't solve the real problem with the Oscars and the elitist attitude of Hollywood in general. I think a better solution would to simply increase the diversity in movies available, and I don't mean "blackwashing" already existing franchises or gender swapping established characters. I mean creating original content that appeals to other demographics. However, even then you're still reliant on the subjective opinions of the Academy and the demographic is consists of, whether that be blacks, whites, Asians, women, Drow, whatever. The system is flawed. this much is true.

Regardless, it's not racist. You cannot and should not simply award someone a prize based on the colour of their skin.

This opinion has been mimicked by Michael Caine and the hysterical Social Justice rags have immediately revealed their own prejudices in protest: "Old white actors don’t get the Oscars’ diversity problem. That’s why it’s a problem." ...dear god. Fighting apparent racism with racism and ageism? The hypocrisy is palpable. Aren't racism, ageism, sexism, ableism (and whatever other "ism" that's been invented these days to stage an ourcry) things that they're meant to be championing against? I don't particularly care I just wish they were consistent with their outrage. Caine hasn't misunderstood anything, and this misplaced character assassination doesn't fool me. Whether you're calling for diversity in either the awards themselves or the nominations, both of these things (as the author pointed out) gives an actor a boost to his or her career. Asking to be considered for nomination purely based on skin colour is still special treatment. Any boost to an actors career, via a nomination for a prestigious award or the award itself, should be earned.

Here's what Caine said:

"You can’t vote for an actor because he’s black. You can’t just say, 'I’m going to vote for him. He’s not very good, but he’s black. I’ll vote for him.’ You have to give a good performance,"

Spot on, Sir.

Problems with how elitist the Oscars are aside, an Oscar is an award. An award for achievement. In other words: A meritocracy. Where are all the calls for NBA to be more inclusive of 5'2" white guys? Is someone going complain that the starting line of the 100m sprint in the Olympics isn't diverse enough? This is daft. Surely in order to be awarded you need to have achieved something? Being black is not an achievement, like how being white is not a privilege. These concepts are fucking racist.

Oh, the humanity! #OscarsSoWhite pic.twitter.com/RiTJcVSDRF

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) January 22, 2016

To put this another way: The academy doesn't give a flying fuck about your opinion. They care about their own opinion. I know, it's elitist. But for fuck sake, we're talking about the plight of millionaire actors not getting a little gold statue to place at the crown of their mountain of wealth based on the opinions of self elevated movie toffs. Let's not ignore how trivial this is. How insecure must someone be, that in order to substantiate what they do they must be be recognised and be awarded prizes by the "rich, white elite" that they're apparently so critical of? Isn't the love and passion for what they do substantial enough? That and the fame and fortune, of course. Does the lack of a single token of recognition invalidate all the wealth and success an actor has achieved up until that point? If so we better not tell DiCaprio, if he doesn't win this one he might burn all that hollow, meaningless, Oscarless money and the Economy might never recover.

Yes, even a nomination has a positive impact on an actors's career, but if you want a boost to your career via this method: Act better. Earn it. Or more accurately: Act in accordance with the subjective opinions of a few thousand film snobs.

Welcome to fucking Hollywood.

In The Grim Darkness Of The Far Future, There Are Only SJWs That Want To Politicise Your Every Waking Enjoyment

Fuck. Sake. Just take a look at this.

So I've been an avid critic of Social Justice Warriors for quite some time, and now they've attacked my favourite hobby. I know SJWs have a habit of systematically criticising everything that mostly heterosexual males enjoy and chalking it up to some form of hate crime, but when you hit Warhammer, from a completely unfounded position, this fanboy gets pissed off.

Here's my rebuke of this white knighting drivel.

"AUTHOR’S NOTE: For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise stated, we are assuming that every model’s gender lines up with their sexual characteristics. Obviously, it’s possible that your entire Space Marines Chapter identifies as women, but since we can’t ask the models how they identify, we have to base it on what the model looks like, and how the background is written. We’re mostly concerned with official representation anyway, as entering the hornet’s nest of conversions, headcannons, and proxies would drive the author to madness."

That's the fucking trigger warning out the way. But it includes a rather telling problem that I'll address later on. Also replace "drive the author to madness" with "render the author's argument redundant". But that's fine. I'll play his game.

"They have six different armies: Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Dark Angels, and Blood Angels, and of the many people I’ve played with, only a handful don’t play one of them (myself included). They’re also the vanguard of the company and the setting as a whole, with so much more representation in novels, audio dramas and video games than any other faction, it’s frankly a little nuts. They are, in more ways than one, the face of not just Warhammer 40k but of Games Workshop as a whole."

True. 

"And they can only be men."

Also true. 

"I mean, they can’t only be men theoretically, and that’s where it gets irritating. See, according to the background (usually called fluff by those who play 40k), only men can be turned into Space Marines, because … you know what, the reasons are just too stupid to go into, and this immediately presents the first major hurdle when discussing the sexual politics ofWarhammer 40,000: trying to actually discuss it."

Well I'm going to talk about these "stupid reasons" anyway, because despite the fact that he thinks they're stupid, there's creative purposes for the setting to be set up the way that it is. (He also doesn't get to set the conditions of a debate we can chuck the "Thermian Argument" bollocks out the window for now, we'll get to that later.)

Space Marines are based on ancient traditions of warfare and survival. The best humanity has to offer is chosen for trial and become a Space Marine. This is based on ancient cultures, (Roman, Spartan etc.) where only the best warriors were chosen for battle. Why men? Because the best warriors are men. This isn't a controversy, even today. We compete in separate sporting categories, we send the most physically capable in the military to fight on the front lines which happen to be mostly men because they meet a certain physical standard. It's not unreasonable to assume that the reason there are no female Space Marines is because they don't meet the extraordinary psychical strength and endurance required. Especially when you consider that being transformed into a Space Marine is a process most men don't even survive. Only a few men get to become Space Marines and they are chosen from some of the most primal, brutal places in the Universe. This setting is about war. Endless war against terrifying adversaries. You can expect to find men featured heavily within these settings: Starcraft. Star Wars. Command and Conquer. Even Gladiator, Spartacus and Lord of the Rings. Men fight wars. If the catchphrase for this game was "In the Grim Darkness of the 41st Millennium there is only nursing." maybe he'd have a case.

We also have to consider the gene seed. These are implants made up of cloned genetic material that, when implanted, causes a mutation that transforms the candidate to physically resemble the progenitor. Who were the progenitors? Men. And not just any men. Genetically superior super soldiers that are a product for one purpose: War. If the Space Marines are superhuman, these guys are essentially Gods. A gene seed is a cloned genetic code of the progenitor (also called a Primarch, all of whom are male) that gives each chapter it's unique characteristics. These include the ability to salivate toxins, survive extreme conditions and mutate their bodies to be capable of wearing their Power Armour, among other, chapter specific things. Space Marines become copies of the Primarch based on the Primarch's genetic code which, unfortunately due to the Primarch's toxic maleness, contains a Y chromosome. Now I could argue that this process is also a sort of a sex change, that should a woman be fortunate enough to survive the trials and become a neophyte (a Space Marine rookie), the process of mutation, surgery and implants removes their female characteristics and causes them to resemble the Primarch, who is a man. But I won't. I think "They're clones of male progenitors." will suffice.

Not only that, but most Space Marine chapters are sterile. That's right. They're completely incapable of reproducing and there's even debate on whether some chapters have genitals at all. Sounds a bit like a feminist utopia, right? Where men are chemically castrated and mutated purely for the purposes of sacrificing themselves to protect humanity?

But seriously. Let's be real here. Nowhere does this universe paint itself as a paradise for these men. It's an awful place. You can't even die peacefully without serving the Imperium as some kind of Servo Skull and if you want to escape the Imperium's rule you meet execution or death by Xenos. This is a universe populated by horrendous nightmare fuel such as Daemons manifested from the worst aspects of humanity, sex crazed space pirates that want to tranquilise and torture you to death for banter and gene splicing aliens that can infest planets and destroy your entire way of life in mere hours. I think a little sexism is the least of their problems! In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is only war! And for war you need warriors. Decent warriors. In fact you need an army full of Captain Americas. And the best candidates for this purpose are men, the best candidates for breeding conscripts for the Astra Militarum are women. It's based on humanity's primal survival structure, as humanity's survival happens to depend on it at that current point in time. They're not as concerned about manspreading as they are about being eaten by Tyranids. Like how the Romans were less concerned about equality than they were about the Goths. The setting derives it's poetic licence from those brutal, ancient human civilizations and cultures. Let's shine a little perspective. This is not a utopia of gender equality and identity politics, it's a horrible, fascist dictatorship where the sole motivation for the governing body is the survival of humanity.

At the end of the day, this is art. It doesn't have to be representative of the modern, moral world. Just because some fiction contains something uncomfortable or disagreeable, or invokes negative emotions, doesn't mean it's bad. It certainly doesn't indicate a problem. The problem he found was one he was looking for. The setting of the 40k universe is a nasty, fascist, totalitarian struggle for survival in an extremely hostile environment. It makes sense within this context that only men can be Space Marines.

However. Apparently none of this matters...

"See, the lack of any real female representation in the game is a well known issue,"

No it's not.

"but whenever someone tries to bring up that maybe the largest and most pervasive army in the setting should maybe stop being a No Girls Allowed club, everyone will immediately inform them that Space Marines can’t be girls. Trust me, I know. This has happened to me. Repeatedly."

If only you were willing to discuss the reasons... 

"This is what Dan Olsen called the Thermian Argument. If you want to go more in-depth, you should watch his three videos on the subject, but the basic idea is that this is a method of arguing around criticism by simply using the in-universe explanation for why something is the way it is to shut down the discussion."

So. Some muppet has come up with a way of shutting down discussion in favour of one argument by labelling any context based rebuttal as "shutting down the discussion"? This is indicative of the mental gymnastics you have to do in order to find the logic in any SJWs argument. It doesn't matter if a well established, decades long series of lore and prose gives birth, structure and creative license to these games and the reasons for many of their concepts and themes. "It's clearly sexism and if you don't agree you're just shutting down the discussion." Fuck off.

Not only that. His argument is a "Thermian Argument" if the basis for gendering all the Space Marines as male comes from "what the model looks like and how the background is written." He, himself has come up with a justification of gendering these Marines based on the in-universe explanation.

Astonishing.

All right then, let's just take the "Thermian Argument" out of it then, shall we?

"There is no logical reason why Space Marines can’t be female. Period."

They probably won't sell. Good enough reason? (This is the part where they usually complain about capitalism from the comfort of their Macbook Pro) Space Marines are by far the largest draw of not just 40k but Warhammer products in general. I know. I've been working professionally in the industry for many years. Why don't they change Ultramarines (the Space Marines most iconic chapter) colour to pink, or green? Because they're blue. They've been blue for years, they've been men for years and they're basic concept has gone almost unaltered for the duration of their lives. Why? Because it's an Intellectual Property protected by law, the market and is within the best interests of shareholders to be profitable, not politically correct. And of course there's the narrative concepts we've already discussed, which apparently aren't good enough. He's clearly right, GW don't care about money or selling miniatures they just hate women and I'm just trying to "shut down discussion"... what a load o' pish.
Or here's another reason. Maybe people don't fucking want female Space Marines. Money talks, and Marines sell better than any other army just the way they are. Then you include video games, movies, novels, board games, card games consumed by fans in droves, it's not unreasonable to assume that people love Space Marines just the way they are. Women are featured in every, single other army to some degree or another (provided they're not genderless robots or aliens). Is it too much to ask that a male orientated hobby in a male orientated environment, catered to a majority male demographic wont have one element of it that's completely male? I don't want to see female Space Marines, besides the whole army they get to themselves, and not because I'm some kind of woman hating misogynist (which is how I'll be branded, no doubt) but because Space Marines are a testosterone fuelled, super human engineered badasses that represent the most physically aggressive and dangerous of the human race. This isn't a description of women. A feminine element introduced to the Marines may diminish many of the reasons that people play Space Marines and potentially detracts from their appeal. People play Space Marines because they want a bunch of violence hungry frat boys on steroids. If you want something different, you're completely and totally catered for already.

"To get the fairly obvious out of the way, Space Marines are, as established above, entirely male. Adepta Sororitas, AKA the Sisters of Battle, are entirely female. (Don’t worryl we’ll address the Sisters in a bit. I’m getting to them.) Orks are supposedly genderless, being overgrown fungus (really), but are coded male from top to bottom, and are referred to by male pronouns, so they’re pretty much entirely male, as well. Necrons and Adeptus Mechanicus, being robots and humans who have been irrevocably altered with robotic parts, are functionally genderless. Tyranids are basically bugs, so again, genderless. Daemons are … well, demons, so their gender is basically nil, so we’ve got another genderless faction there."

"Coded male from top to bottom"? That's awfully transphobic. He better be careful or his target audience might stage a Twitter lynching.

But let's look at the armies where females aren't only represented but given positions of power:

"That leaves with the Eldar (space elves), Dark Eldar (mean space elves), Tau (alien communists), Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum (WORLD WAR 2 IN SPAAAAAACE) and Inquisition (you know the joke) as vanguards of gender equality, easily less than half of the factions in the game. For the most part, even these factions fall far short of being anything other than a boys’ club."

Wrong. Women are included fairly heavily in the Eldar army, tend to be powerful psykers (space wizards) and are often represented as Far Seers. Which are powerful Generals with amazing psychic powers. There's also units of agile, deadly female warriors known as Howling Banshees that will rake any generic Space Marine unit to bits with ease. I can also use his own argument against him. The Eldar faction are based on a feminine aesthetic. They look feminine and "since we can't ask the models how they identify, we have to go based on how they look and how the background is written." Based on this logic there's nothing stopping me from arguing that every Eldar Guardian, Swooping Hawk and Fire Prism pilot is female. Wraithguard, Wraith Lords and Wraith Knights are ghosts in suits that have a sleek, feminine aesthetic, could easily (based on James' justification) all be female.

I demand more male representation in Eldar. 

"To give credit where it’s due, some of these armies do pretty well. The Tau not only reference many of their warriors as being female with identical armor to the male versions of the same units, but also have an explicitly female character whose armor is completely nonsexualized. Similarly, the Dark Eldar have a high number of female models in their basic units, and while the predominantly female Wych Cult units dress …unfortunately, it’s not like their male counterparts in the Wych Cult units dress any better."

Tau is basically a Marxist utopia, so it's right up his street. Most of the models are in suits, vehicles or wear helmets and again, based on your own justification, the tabletop minis could be either gender.

Dark Eldar's female representation goes above and beyond the witch elves, yet he only focuses on the scantily clad ones, which for morally ambiguous, sadist, sex pirates isn't exactly unreasonable attire...oh shit I did that Thermian thingy again. (Wow what a brilliant way to invalidate criticism! If only the SJWs used their power for good...)

And one army I would have thought the Feminazis would have been all over: Astra Militarium. These guys are basically Communists. Mostly conscripted. Women are on the front lines, they gain significant battle roles. They're basically the Soviet union only far more authoritarian, right down to putting a bullet in the skull of a rifleman to inspire morale among the ranks. They also have much lower standards. You don't have to be a super soldier to fire a Lasgun, so they indoctrinate you regardless of your ability, hand you a gun and drop you an half a billion of your mates on a hostile planet to kill a Hive Tyrant, of which they're probably going to nuke from orbit anyway. The SJWs would love it. They'll quite happily bomb the shit out of a planet full of their own just to alleviate some other pressing matter. Nuke 'em!

"They’re probably my favorite faction that I don’t actively play, and I’ve always found them endlessly compelling."

I'm shocked.

"Since they’re often deployed in the billions, you might find it reasonable to assume that they pull troops from both genders, and while you’d be right (female troopers are definitely in the background, and there’s even a lesbian couple in one of the Ciaphas Cain novels), there’s not a single female guardmodel in any of their dozens of units. Okay, there’s one: a sniper in Colonel Schaeffer’s Last Chancers … in an army that will typically field an amount of infantry that borders on the absurd (I’ve seen armies push 100 models in medium sized games)."

"What bugs me about that is how easy it would be to implement. A handful of additional torsos and heads, maybe some alternate poses, and bam, you’ve got yourself a mixed gender squad."

I'm actually partially with James on this one. There's no real thematic or "Thermian" reason for the women to be excluded from the base troops as an option similar to the Dark Eldar. However, there's a fiscal one: Astra Militarum rely heavily on many, cheap units and the base boxed kit for them is one of the cheapest around to compensate for this. As a result the sprue for them is rather bare and extremely basic. Adding more options means more cost. It's also one of the best selling boxes similar to Space Marine Tactical Marines and Space Marine Devastators, both of which are on the GW Bestseller 1 list in multiples. When you can have armies that "push 100 models in medium sized games" this isn't a surprise. New moulds cost thousands, and add to that the additional cost of chucking out a perfectly good mould of one of your bestselling kits simply to add a couple of new heads and torsos? Impractical to say the least. Pitch that to the shareholders.

And now we get to the one army that blows this guy's argument right out of the water, ironically, because apparently they're his favourite: Adepta Sororitas: that'll be the female "Space Marines" there's apparently a severe lack of. Getting a whole army to themselves. That's right folks, the goomba that's complaining about lack of female representation in Space Marines features the one army that debunks his claim and ironically also happens to be his favourite army...They're literally Female Space Marines. All of them. Let's see what he has to say:

"The problem is, they are prohibitively expensive and incredibly difficult to collect. The model line hasn’t been updated since 2004, which means that instead of buying a single box of 5-10 plastic models for a unit, you have to buy between 2 and 9 blister packs of 1-3 metal models. No other army is still metal, which incidentally makes carrying them around a workout."

So his problem is, in a nutshell, that his specific army that he personally loves isn't being catered to in a way that he personally prefers. After admitting that they're too expensive to collect and play he's then complaining about lack of support.

He's complaining about lack of support for an army barely anyone buys. Back in the day the Sisters of Battle army wasn't exactly popular, when priced on par and shared a similar business model to the rest of the range. Yet they still managed to hold on for this long. Hell an entire games system was shit canned and replaced because it didn't sell. We could argue that the only reasons why GW are clinging on to this long dead faction is because feminists and manginas will kick up a storm if they were dropped. But I wouldn't go that far, simply because there is demand for Sisters now, we've heard rumours of plastic kits for years and a new re-release but they've been consistently delayed due to manufacturing and printing issues, apparently. The girls will get their treatment for sure, and it's in the pipeline so it's not as if they've abandoned them, nor are they deliberately excluding them or denying support because "Muhsogyny!" Don't worry, James. We all want a new SoB codex too but you don't see us riding on some ideological bandwagon to guilt them into releasing it. Have patience like the rest of us.

Let's not forget how fashionable it already is to criticise GW over money, but this boils down to marketing. GW is a boy's hobby. It is a "Boy's Club". The majority of people who play Warhammer are men. That doesn't mean women and girls can't enjoy Warhammer and in fact I know many that do, but they're the exception not the rule and tend to like Warhammer in spite of all these apparent "issues". Which to any rational reasonable person, aren't issues at all. Women who play want to be part of this "Boys Club" despite being a minority, many like the game just the way it is. The fact is many of these armies are devoted to certain playstyles and their aesthetic is part of this. If you want an army of muscle bound frat boy super humans wearing cover? Play Marines. If you want agile, hard hitting glass cannon army that focuses on hit a run tactics? Play Harlequins. Something doesn't have to be female to cater to a woman's preferred playstyle or aesthetic. Just like how something doesn't have to be masculine or male to appeal to a man's preferred playstyle or aesthetic. I'd love a new sister's army and was considering doing conversions until the new book came out.

"What I cannot forgive, much less understand, is why GW allows one of their best and most unique armies to languish without any support."

"Best" and "most unique" are subjective and people will only moan about that armies they personally collect. The voice for Sisters of Battle is small because they player base is small, compared to the likes of the Ultramarines. What really pisses me off is when they chalk this lack of support up to some kind of ideological or political reason that's completely unfounded. If the Sister's of Battle were the best selling army that brought most people to the hobby, they'd be the poster children of 40k. That's how capitalism works. It's not GW making these decisions based on some kind of hidden agenda. It's the market, telling GW exactly what they should sell based on what the consumer is buying. And "GW players are sexist" isn't going to fly.

Is he suggesting that all it would take for the hobby to gain a surge of new female players is by simply giving support to Space Marines with tits? Or the reason that women feel excluded in the first place is due to the nightmarish onslaught of oppression brought on by an entirely male range of 28mm plastic figures? Rather insulting don't you think? As if women are so mindlessly fickle.

So. Despite the fact that this hobby caters to and is aimed towards a male demographic, on a disproportionate scale, he's still wrong about female representation. In the miniatures and within the hobby community itself.  However, whether you like it or not, Warhammer is boy's club. And this is not an issue. GW don't hate women, women aren't deliberately excluded or discouraged from the hobby, their shit just sells better to boys. Women still like GW products and games. Despite these "issues" there's something for everybody in the hobby.

He seems to be attributing this "issue" to some kind of conspiracy theory. Some deep rooted, institutional sexism with in GW's corporate body. As if GW are having a meeting saying "You know what. Sisters of Battle would make us shit loads of money but fuck it, they're women and we hate them so let's not make that money and talk about how shit women are instead." Women are represented and women still love the hobby. And considering the subject matter and the target market that's something to be celebrated. Many of the women I know that play aren't even fussed for Sisters. (Who are basically Space Marines with breasts and the serial numbers filed off.) I know plenty that love Adeptus Mechanicus and Nids. Armies with plenty painting potential as one thing I know from my professional experience in the industry is that girls generally don't game as much as they paint. So more often than not I tend to find them buying models that are fun to paint, like exotic bugs that can look however you want and massive machines with huge panels for freehand. Pitching this hobby to women is easy and I don't think they care that women aren't more represented because the range is so inclusive of many play styles, aesthetics and themes. That and it already includes women. Lots of women. As discussed before. Let's go through each 40k race and see if it includes women or men:

Space Marines: All Men.
Chaos Space Marines: Both.
Daemons: Genderless.
Dark Eldar: Both.
Craftworld Eldar: Both.
Necrons: Genderless.
Orks: Genderless.
Tau: Both.
Nids: Genderless.
Astra Militarum: Both.
Inquisition: Both.
Adepta Soroitas: Both.
Imperial Knights: Genderless.
Astra Militarum: Genderless.

So from what I can gather: There's one, single race that consists of only men, and this is a problem? Forget that fact that there's narrative reasons (whether he finds them stupid or not is irrelevant) and actual fiscal reasons for maintaining this particular Intellectual Property as it is, not to mention legal reasons and reasons that shareholders would need convincing of. He's not happy? Well. Good. Because I don't give a special snowfuck about his feelings, or the feelings of the women he's apparently appointed himself the representative of. GW certainly doesn't care. They care about what sells and what doesn't sell. And the Sisters are coming. What we, the true gamers, care about? Blowing shit up. Letting the real world go for a bit, indulge in some fantasy, immersion. But no. We have gibbering manginas whinging and politicising everything from the movies we like to the games we play, to the porn we watch, the papers we read and the people we fuck.

This boils down to boys having some toys and feminists in their desperate search for discrimination are moaning that they can't play too because [Insert something problematic here]. Well it's bullshit. If you don't feel represented, it's because of your own invented insecurities or conspiracy theories. Despite being a boy's club this hobby has something for everyone. So enough. I'm sick to the back fucking teeth of SJWs moaning about lack of representation in everything. You want more representation? Make your own fucking game, movie, TV show or whatever and be the change you want to see rather than hijacking and criticising long established, successful franchises for the sake of being more politically correct. We indulge in these hobbies and this kind of media to escape the world, to become part of some fantasy. It's hardly immersive when you're reading a book or playing a game and come across the Affrimitatum Actiona or the Instutition Diversitus, bleating about identity politics and #nidslivesmatter or #everydayheresy. It's just fantasy! The setting is an awful, morally deprived place full of awful ideologies and regimens and that's not a secret! Nor is it a problem. Just because something isn't represented, like women or black people, doesn't indicate sexism or racism. GW isn't sexist or racist. They only care about one colour: Gr££n. And we've bought into an expansive universe, with all the prejudices, uncomfortable themes and negative connotations that comes with a setting as fleshed about as this one is. And we love it.

What really boils my piss about this crap, though. Is this is the one refuge many people (mostly men and boys) have from the pressures they face day to day. From women, from work, politics, from bullies, society in general. This "boy's club" is and always will be one of the most inclusive, diverse and welcoming communities in the world and gets enough criticism as it is: It's "sad" or "antisocial" (ironic) or "satanic", "encourages violence" and all the rest of the bollocks we hear from the other pearl clutching, wannabe Jack Thompsons of the world. People from all walks of life had to carve their way into accepted society out of the obscure, mysterious and misunderstood world of tabletop gaming. We had to prove to the world that we aren't weirdos or freaks or geeks or nerds. We're people. People who get stressed and want to let off some steam just like everyone else, and now we can't do that without hysterical leftist scrutiny and intolerance.

Just because "The Big Bang Theory" (or as I like to call it, "Black Face for Geeks") partially made "Geek culture" socially acceptable doesn't mean you get to infiltrate it with your political and ideological bullshit like you do almost everything else.

So a message for James and his Feminazi pals: Stop fucking politicising everything. And for fuck sake stop riding fashionable ideologies and misrepresenting them for some personal agenda. I get it. You want a new Codex.

Warhammer may be a Boy's Club, but as long as nobody is threatening it; criticising the sole refuge many people have to escape from the pressures of society and politics and making them feel guilty for indulging in it, anyone is welcome. As indicated by the vast array of different armies and playstyles already available that are consumed by a diverse array of fans across the hobby, including women. If you do intend to deamean this hobby or this community because it doesn't align with your personal feelings then you can fuck off, there's swathes of the world already catered for you. And if there isn't? Make your own. Leave ours alone. We'll make it exactly how we want, thanks. Go and read "Faith" comics and watch "Orange is the new Black" where you can grool over the sociopolitical themes and and leave us the fuck alone to play with our toy soldiers in peace.

My Vaping Letter to Parliament and the EU... and Every Other Representative I Have

I know. You get it. I vape.

But I had to do something about this nonsense regulation that's coming out very soon. It's a directive that the bureaucrats at the EU have imposed upon us that means we have to do something about vaping. "They're concerned about our health." but apparently not as concerned about the fact that stifling this market will diminish it's effectiveness and either send people back to cigarettes, or not convince them to switch from cigarettes resulting in a near guaranteed early death. Yay.

Yeah. I disagree with this. So I did what I could, by which I mean write a letter to every single representative I have. In Holyrood, Westminster and Brussels. If you want to preserve vaping, keep your drippers, large tanks, and continue buying custom flavours (or at least preserving as many of these commodities as possible within the confines of the Directive) I'd suggest doing the same. 

You can do so here.

Here's mine:

Dear representative, 

I am writing to you to express my concern about regulations regarding Vaping Nictone a.k.a E-Ciggarettes. 

Allow me to offer some context. I have been vaping for 3 months now and it is the longest I have gone without a cigarette in 14 years. Vaping helped me give up smoking. Not only that, but I have become part of a much larger community of fellow vapers with their own stories on how they quit smoking and how vaping changed their lives. 

The vaping community is huge, and contains people of many walks of life. There are conventions promoting the latest innovations and products and flavours. 

There are successful businesses and retailers opening up selling the latest products, offering the latest advice and mixing and selling their own unique flavours of e-liquid. 

There are people who have embraced vaping as a hobby, making their own coils for their atomizers and inventing new ideas on how to achieve personal vaping preferences and as a way to be creative. 

https://www.instagram.com/cleanbuilds/https://instagram.com/twistedmesses/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBpwZoxG3d0 

As you can see the industry had moved far beyond the types of e-ciggarettes we used to see on the high street a few years ago ("Cigalikes"), and has literally grown a life of it's own gaining support and endorsement from all over the world. 

Vaping cannot be classed as smoking. E-ciggarettes are not cigarettes. They're 95% less harmful than smoking. They are merely guilty by association due to how similar they are to smoking, but this is partially how they achieve their success. 

The success of this market can be also be attributed to the fact that it's largely unregualted and was free from intervention in order to gain enough momentum to rival Tobacco. 

Vaping works as a cessation method, it's far safer, it doesn't harm people passively (Article 9. Page 64.) enables you to control the level of nictone you're taking (thanks to being able to mix your own e-liquid or order it at your preferred level and quantity), doesn't contain harmful chemicals (except nicotine, which on it's own equates to the same toxicity as caffeine) and is an overall more satisfying and enjoyable experience than smoking due to the flavours available, the fact you can legally vape indoors (so far, and I hope it stays that way) and the added benefit of knowing it's not guaranteed to end your life prematurely.
Vaping is directly saving lives, driving people away from tobacco because of it's convenience, the community, the hobby, the enjoyment and the overall benefits to vaping over smoking. Regulations only serve to stifle this market and drive people back to cigarettes, cause businesses to close, force manufacturers in China to look elsewhere and create a negative public perception of a product that is encouraging thousands of people to better themselves. 

The TPD published by the EU in 2014 and due to come into effect in 2016 will place drastically unprecedented regulations on a product that (judging by the content of the regulation) will have an impact on people's freedom to use, buy and evolve these products. Regulations such as these will have an impact on people's ability to choose for themselves and seem unfairly biased against devices such as refillable tanks and in favor of outdated "Cigalike" products you see on Petrol Station counters and Bargain supermarkets which are now considered ineffective and obsolete within the vaping industry. However, this hasn't stopped Tobacco companies from endorsing "Cigalikes". These products invariably don't work and result in people going back to using cigarettes. It's also worth noting that these regulations don't impact these inferior devices, as these "Cigalikes" already meet the requirements of the directive. The regulations seem targeted towards refillable and rebuild-able atomizers which are more successful in encouraging people to continue vaping or upgrade to more successful cessation devices instead of going back to cigarettes.
The fact that the industry has gone unregulated thus far has enabled it to evolve and innovate the product to the point where it achieves success in being a smoking cessation device. The vaping industry doesn't need regulation. It deserves endorsement, encouragement and the freedom to continue to be successful. 

The Tobacco Products Directive, although giving member states the ability to enforce their own regulations to meet the directive, will harm the industry and it's utterly fallacious to justify this directive on the basis that the EU is concerned about health, as these regulations will only serve to drive more people back to smoking and the health risks and deaths associated with them. 

I would encourage any governing body and the members within them to educate themselves on the impact of meddling with this industry.
More sources for consideration: 

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2015/05/eu-tpd-e-cigs.htmlhttp://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/vaping-bans-irrational-and-illiberal/17051#.VlLktXbhCCo 

Please feel free to contact me regarding more information on this. It is important to me and many other ex-smokers that these regulations are as mild as possible while meeting the directive. Wales' approach to vaping is considerably worrying, and I wouldn't not want to see this represented in any other part of the U.K. 

Please approach this issue with caution, understanding and an open mind or risk driving many more people to their deaths. 

Yours Faithfully

So my informal opinion is this is fucking bullshit. Although it's not it's not a dictated requirement to impose what the EU say to the letter, it's only a Directive, it's still the EU taking the higher moral authority, and diminishing the autonomy of individuals right to make up their minds about vaping. This is all based on the fact that "we don't know the long term effects." which is true, but there's a mountain of evidence that I've included in my letter that compares the relative safety of smoking to vaping. People seem to forget that the vast majority of vapers are ex smokers, and are making conscious, personal decisions to better themselves. Whether that be to help them quit or simply find a safer alternative. No government has the right to take this paternal position.

Also, this isn't the government's fucking job. If we want to inhale nicotine in a more favourable way than tobacco that's our fucking decision. If we want to vape to help us to quit smoking that's our fucking decision. If businesses want to allow vaping indoors it's their fucking decision. If people what to buy eliquids in certain flavours and nicotine quantities it's their fucking decision. Are we noticing a theme here?

Fuck off. Leave us in peace. Wales? Fuck you.