‘Blockers’ – My Rejected IMDB Review

Another rejected review. Unlike my review of “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (refer to recent blog that contains my review of this documentary), I think I know the offending item that lead to the rejection of this review. I suspect it was the term “anal sex”. If correct, I am surprised: sex related stigma is virtually non-existent in society these days. The message is that people’s sexuality is to be applauded. Our sexuality should be a source of ‘Pride’ to us. The days of Mary Whitehouse patrolling society for any hint of sexual material are long behind us. This film is testament to that.

Review Title: Very meta. Very political. Very 2018.

We have seen the films focusing on boys trying to lose their virginity. This film shows the female equivalent. This film perfectly sums up where we are in 2018. Firstly, it’s very politically correct: all major race groups are represented; there are a couple of mixed race couples; there is a single mother (where the father isn’t even mentioned during the whole film); there are lesbian characters. Tick, tick, tick.

Secondly, this film reflects the growing phenomena in our society where parents seek to be friends with their children. Therefore, we see examples of children knowing all about their parents’ sex lives and the sexual role-playing performed by their parents. The message is that you need to be friends with your kids rather than be an old fashioned role model / disciplinarian. It’s very now.

Thirdly, there is a lot of political virtue-signally dropped liberally into this film in a very unsubtle way. As such, we receive important instruction about the role of women in our society and how they are discriminated against. I have never seen a comedy with such a large amount of political messaging thrown in. Not even Woody Allen came close to putting this much overt politics into a film.

Fourthly, teen comedies used to be focused on sex and alcohol. This one is focused on sex and drugs. Alcohol is barely even mentioned. But there are multiple references and scenes of drug taking amongst the teenagers. This is a fair point. If it’s going on, it needs to be reflected in films. However, I found I was quite uncomfortable about it at times.

Lastly, the teenage female leads of the film talk like world-weary 30 year olds throughout the film. They discuss lube and anal sex in a very crude manner that is nothing like how 18 year old girls would discuss these points. It reminded me of stand-up comedy material spoken by teenage girls. It was quite discordant.

Overall, I’m glad I saw this film. There were funny moments. However, I found the liberal agenda to be very overt. Is this the future of comedies? I hope not.


I’m racist. And so are you.

As we all know, Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) accuse everyone that doesn’t share their ill-considered opinions to be racists.

Want to leave the EU? That means you’re racist.

Climatesceptic? Only a racist would think that.

You voted for a centre-right government? Raaaaaacist!

‘Racist’ is the go-to insult for the average Leftist. It is often used in situations where, to a casual observer, there is no racial implication within the subject under discussion. But you don’t need to worry about that. The dedicated SJW will somehow find a racial slant to any subject. It doesn’t matter to them how tortuous the logic, they can build a path to racism. It’s like a game of ‘6 Degrees of Racism’.

For example, on Brexit, the SJW thinking goes as follows:

  1. People supporting Brexit want to limit numbers of Europeans entering Britain under the rules of free movement.
  2. Europeans are white but there are also people of other races that also want to immigrate into the UK
  3. Brexiteers’ desire to stop freedom of movement is a proxy for stopping brown people immigrating into the UK.
  4. Therefore, Brexit voters are racist.

Or, we could look at the racism logic behind Climatescepticism:

  1. Man is definitely responsible for climate change
  2. Climate change will lead to sea levels rising as the ice caps melt
  3. Rising sea levels will mostly harm island nations, most of which are populated by brown people.
  4. Therefore, if you don’t do everything possible to fight climate change, you are racist.

Voting for centre-right government:

  1. All centre right governments secretly want to send all brown people to gas chambers.
  2. Therefore, if you vote for Boris Johnson, you are racist.

It’s as easy as that. The beauty of this approach by SJWs is how much it simplifies debating. The SJW no longer needs to wait for evidence that their debating opponent is racist. Words are no longer important. The person can be accused of racism purely on the basis of the policies they support. It also make debates shorter and much easier to win. As soon as the SJW’s opponent expresses support for any policy that the SJW disagrees with, the SJW can hurl the ‘Racist’ bomb and the debate is over. The SJW has emerged victorious again! Simples!

I’ve written before that ‘racist’ is SJW’s favourite insult because, deep down, they are frightened that they might actually be racists themselves. Well, I’ve got news for them: they are! We all are!

The definition of racist is:

“prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

‘Prejudiced’ is the key word here. We are all prejudiced to people of other races to some extent. And by ‘all’ I mean that all races are similarly prejudiced. So let’s look at an example of racial prejudice to see how that works in practise.


You are asked to spend a week in a room with a group of other people. Toilet facilities will be available and food with be brought to you. However, you have a choice to make: you can choose to spend the week in a room with people of your own race or you can choose to inhabit a room occupied by people of another race. Which room do you choose?

Clearly, under the definition of racist, choosing to spend the week with your own race, indicates prejudicial behaviour to other races. Yet who would not choose the company of their own race? We all feel more comfortable with people that are similar to ourselves: people that share the same cultural background; people that have similar reference points; people that have had similar life experiences. For that reason:

  1. Whites would choose to share with whites over blacks
  2. Blacks would choose to share with blacks over Indians
  3. Indians would choose to share with Indians over Orientals
  4. Orientals would choose to share with Orientals over whites

This is natural human behaviour. However, SJWs would never admit to this. They would probably declare that they would prefer to go to the room of different race. They would be lying to themselves. SJWs do become quite mixed up when it comes to race. That’s when they say silly things like “Only whites can be racist”. They are projecting.

I read somewhere once the following quote:

“Home is where you don’t have to explain yourself”

You don’t have to explain yourself – as much – when your with your own race. You are in your comfort zone. You can relax. There is less suspicion amongst a homogeneous group of strangers of any race. You are slightly less suspicious of them and they are less suspicious of you if you are all the same race. A week with another race would, in many ways, be a rewarding experience. However, it would be more difficult than the equivalent week with your own race. There would be cultural barriers to surmount. There is no doubt that, while rewarding, a week in the company of another race would be more stressful.* (see footnote). Spending a week in a room with a bunch of strangers is stressful enough, but if you are all the same race, that is one less thing to be stressed about.

SJWs would counter the paragraph above by arguing that we need to breakdown cultural barriers and the only way we can do that is that embrace multiculturalism. Have the SJWs ever considered that people of all races like their cultures and want to protect those cultures? SJWs are all about smashing the current structures and re-making the world as they want it to be in their fevered imaginations. It is true that if there were less cultural differences in the world, there would be less wars. However, change has to be organic. Multiculturalism cannot be forced. As the example with rooms above seeks to point out, we all have a natural preference for our own race in extreme social situations and that is not going to change any time soon. SJWs would also point out that ethnic minorities face the issue of being outnumbered by other races every day of their lives. I would answer: yes, they do and that is why they tend to group together in their own communities. Which rather proves my point. We all prefer the company of our own race in order to feel comfortable. In order to feel at home. That applies to all of and so, yes, everyone is racist. Even you.

  • Footnote: Obviously, this example is not so extreme in the case where all races have lived in the UK for multiple generations because the cultural barriers are much lower if not non-existent.

But This Is [insert current year]!

Social justice activists love to reference the current year as a fundamental argument to justify why their latest social justice cause should be waved through without being challenged.

“We must do this because it’s [insert current year]”.

This argument plants a strong suggestion that this issue shouldn’t even need discussing because, like, it’s 2019! The advocate is implying that this NEW IDEA should have been fixed years ago. It’s only because we were busy with other stuff that this issue remains outstanding. Can we just agree that this NEW IDEA is really no different to all those other issues that our society has dealt with over the years so we should simply agree that the progress we made on that other stuff also applies to this issue and wave it through?

We see this argument used heavily during debates on transgenderism:

“Of course, people should be allowed to identify as whatever gender they feel most comfortable with. It’s 2019, after all”.


“I think it’s ridiculous that in 2019, we don’t allow pre-op transexuuals to use the toilets and changing rooms of their self-identified gender”


“Do I think that, in 2019, we should have a new set of personal pronouns for people to choose from and that those pronouns should be enshrined in law such that it would be an offence for someone not to refer to someone else by their preferred personal pronouns? Of course I do.”

I’m sorry, did we agree at some point in the past that everything would be fixed by [insert current year]? Did I miss a meeting? Are we behind schedule on this one? Who’s to blame for this horrendous oversight? Perhaps we need a knee-jerk (over)reaction in order to catch-up with where we should be in [insert current year].

This argument attempts to cut across the history and traditions of our society without any due process.

Our traditions have been built up over thousands of years. Our traditions are the sum of all of the agreements made by all of our ancestors since time immemorial. Our society is governed by rules and etiquette and patterns of behaviour that have evolved over centuries. As such, our society is a reflection of all of our ancestors. I think Isaac Newton’s (borrowed) quote about crediting his insights to those who came before him is very relevant here:

If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants.

The idea that we can ride roughshod over the rules that govern our society just because it’s [insert current year] is preposterous. Change has been slow and gradual over that time. Changing direction of a society is like changing the direction of an ocean liner. It takes a while. This is a good thing. We all need to take on board new ideas and the only way we can do that is if those ideas are discussed at length. The merits need to be debated and any relevant legislation can be defined ensuring that existing rights and protections are not jeopardised by the NEW IDEA. The NEW IDEA has to fit into the existing framework. If transgendered people have been oppressed for thousands of years – yet they are only now making a fuss about it 🤔🤔🤔 – then surely another few years whilst we consider how this feature of humanity can best be incorporated into the current structures is neither here nor there.

But social justice warriors do not think in terms of society. They do not think in terms of the impact on everyone not immediately benefitting from the NEW IDEA. There is no consideration by the progressives as to whether the changes represent a net benefit to society as a whole. Nor is there any consideration of what the unintended consequences could be if a NEW IDEA is rushed through without careful consideration. No, they do not think in terms of the bigger picture. They only think in terms of the rights of whatever new niche group they are advocating for and how quickly they can achieve it. For them, this group of people have the right to do such-and-such immediately and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.

Margaret Thatcher once said “There’s no such thing as society”. I know what she meant. This sentiment applies in [insert current year] more than ever.

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – My Review

On 28th May 2018 I watched the C4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. On 29th May 2018 I attempted to review the programme on IMDB.
Surprisingly, my review was declined by IMDB. I was informed that the review did not meet IMDB’s guidelines. This seems strange because I did not use any crude language. Nor did I include any contentious opinions. My review was simply a precis of the programme. I ensured that I made it clear that my review included spoilers. I cannot help but wonder that my review fell foul of Climate Change ideology?
I have just re-found a link to my rejected review that I have decided to post here so that it may be saved for posterity:

This documentary was a real eye-opener.

No one in the film denied that the planet has been warming up recently. However, the film showed that this is NOT due to man-made greenhouse gases.

Firstly, it explains that the amount of CO2 in atmosphere – 0.05% – is way too low to have anything but a negligible impact on global temps. This is accompanied by explanation that water vapour – which also acts like a greenhouse gas – is much more abundant in the atmosphere. Furthermore, man-made CO2 is much less than the total amount of CO2 in atmosphere.

Then it explains that while the Earth’s surface temps are rising, if greenhouse gases were to blame, the temps in the troposphere should be rising by even more. But this isn’t happening.

Then they present graphs of CO2 historical levels in atmosphere compared to historical Earth temps – the lines clearly showed correlation. But here’s the thing: CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after Earth temps rise! The temp rise causes CO2 to rise. Not the other way round!

Then they talk about the impact of solar activity on Earth’s climate. Then they showed graphs of number of historical sunspots vs historical Earth temps: these lines clearly showed a high level of correlation. The message here is that sunspots cause the temp to rise and, after a long lag, this causes the CO2 levels to rise because the additional CO2 is being released from the Oceans and the Oceans – being quite large – take quite a long time to warm and cool.

One reviewer on this thread has stated that no one in the film referred to decreasing vegetation on Earth. This is misleading: vegetation on Earth has been rising:


The last part of the film discussed the historical and political context that allowed for the theory of Man’s impact on Earth temps to take ascendancy: Basically, after fall of Communism, anti-capitalists needed a new way to take down Capitalism. They latched onto global warming. Another reason is governments launched research into global warming in the 1980s and whether or not it was man-made. Nigel Lawson launched such research in the UK when he was in the govt in the 1980s. Nigel stated in the film that the results came back negative – man was not responsible. However, other people with vested interests decided that was not the answer they wanted and have played the “Man’s fault” card ever since. The vested interests now treat any contrary argument as heresy.

Funniest bit was watching Piers Corbyn – Jeremy’s brother – talking about all the money he’s made betting on weather based on the sunspot activity he collates. He’s right and the bookies are wrong. An insightful view into how consensus can develop


Your contribution has been declined.Your submission conflicted with one or more of our policies as stated in our User Review Submission guide Please review these policies before submitting again. Thank you for understanding our position.

Brexit is not about the EU. It’s about class.

We have reached the point where Brexit isn’t even about the EU anymore. It’s turned into a good, old-fashioned class war.

The EU was the catalyst but the war we are seeing fought day-in, day-out on social media, is a war between the middle class and the working class. The upper echelons are venting their fury and anger at Britain’s working classes for daring to ignore all of the hints and direction provided to them by the elites prior to the 2016 EU Referendum.

The CDEs in our society voted for something the ABs don’t want. This was the first time the lower rungs of our society have unified on an issue in sufficient numbers to give the establishment a bloody nose.

As it is, the elites cannot stand the fact that the ‘lower orders’ defeated them. To the elites, being outvoted by ‘common’ people undermines the credibility of the result. Hence, the repeated tropes from the establishment that Leavers “didn’t know what they were voting for” or that the public were “Not qualified” to vote. Class also explains why ‘Loser’s consent’ does not apply to this result.

It is the first national decision ever made where the establishment is virtually united on one side – Remain – and the working classes are virtually united on the other side – Leave.

Our intellectual elites are failing, probably for the first time ever, to impose their will on the population. Since these people control all media – mainstream and social – we are seeing a sustained propaganda onslaught to wear down our will. This war of attrition by the elites and their numerous attack dogs preceded the referendum vote and they have barely let up since. In fact, their efforts have accelerated in recent months as ‘no deal’ becomes more likely. Leave voters are called ‘stupid’. We are told that Leave voters are ‘gullible’ for believing the ‘lies’ told them about the EU. Leave voters are ‘racist’. Apparently, for some reason, it’s racist to want to leave the EU even though the EU is white and the UK is white. We have to accept that the militant middle classes now use the ‘racist’ epithet against anyone that disagrees with them, irrespective of the relevance of the term. It’s very nasty out there on social media. The gloves are off. As Julie Burchill has written:

At a time when ‘diversity’ is all and pronouns are policeable, it must come as a relief to the professionally progressive that there was still a social group they could spit on: the white working class.

The elites have a different ideology from the working classes. The elites have embraced globalism. Globalism fits their agenda very nicely. Globalism results in societies divided by identity politics (which are easier to control); an explosion in citizens of anywhere (with no loyalty to the country they inhabit); and greater availability of workers (which can be paid less due to supply and demand).  None of this benefits the working classes in the UK. In fact, it is all largely detrimental to them. The working classes knew this and voted accordingly. They have been made to pay for such independent thinking ever since. We are now seeing what the middles classes really think of working class people: all the faux-sympathy and faux-empathy towards the poor and working class that has long been the default setting of the middle classes has been blown away to reveal something ugly in its place.

My view is that if the Leave / Remain vote had been more equally split across the class lines, we would not now be witnessing attempts by the middle classes to subvert Brexit on the same scale that we are. Remainers feel justified in their attempts to overturn Brexit because they don’t believe that a cause supported largely by the working classes has any credibility.

Brexit has revealed new divisions in our society – Globalisation – and re-opened old divisions that we were beginning to think had been left behind – class. How can the country move on with such critical open wounds? I’m not sure. But the one I’m sure about is that a clean Brexit needs to be delivered before there can be any chance of reconciliation.

Quotes of the week (to 25Aug 2019)

Quote #1 is from Tim Newman

Desert Sun Blog

Unprincipled Agent Problem

Aug 21, 2019

Atticus says: Tim’s blogs are always a good read. He discusses contemporary issues in a very engaging and pithy manner. Here, Tim is discussing how corporations are happy to jump on SJW bandwagons if that’s what it takes to pacify the progressive loons:

To the extent a shift has occurred, it is that much of the left no longer see corporations as a problem but as a power to be harnessed in order to bring about their desired political goals, bypassing the political process that has thwarted their ambitions for so long.

What these CEOs are doing is signalling to the American left that they are open to doing their bidding provided they get left alone financially: we’ll sign up to Pride Month and let our HR department fire anyone who posts wrongthink on social media, just don’t look too closely at our lobbying efforts regarding NAFTA and our tax exemptions.

Quote #2 is from Eric Kaufman


Is Woke Culture Totalitarian?

Aug 20, 2019

Atticus says: We are all familiar with the ‘progessive’ zealots in western societies that are intent on smashing us all around the head with ‘cultural marxism’. I’ve always thought of these people as fascists (the irony being that these people style themselves as ‘anti-fascists’ thereby proving that they know nothing of history or they would slink away quietly).

In his new book, Legutko makes the comparison with communists. It’s a good comparison and it makes me want to read his book:

In The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, [Ryszard] Legutko points to the eerie similarity between 20th-century communist and contemporary liberal societies, providing western readers with an important new vantage point on problems of our current moment.

Having experienced the communist regime first-hand, he is well-placed to spot the symptoms of ideological tyranny today. Anything which stood in the way of the forward march of socialism was labelled by communists as ‘reactionary’, ‘bourgeois’ or ‘idealist’. Like today’s progressives, he says, they believed that familial, ethnic, national and religious traditions were obstacles to the revolution – atavisms to be overcome and ultimately dismantled.

Numerous artists and intellectuals jumped aboard the express, eagerly suppressing their rational faculties. Alongside the party apparatchiks, these ‘lumpen intellectuals’ constituted the shock troops of the socialist movement. Average citizens stepped into line to avoid harassment and intimidation.

Arguments no longer revolved around truth, but were judged by their fidelity to the tenets of the secular religion. You were either with the movement or against it – those who tried to straddle the middle ground were denounced by socialists as ‘bourgeois’. The dishonest ‘slippery slope’ charge was repeatedly laid by communists to indict moderate opponents seeking some form of compromise between competing positions. Those on the opposite side of the debate were deemed ‘dangerous’ rather than incorrect.

History, the socialists believed, was moving inexorably in the direction of ‘progress’, and the role of the vanguard was to vanquish those standing in its way. Sound familiar? Anyone exposed to the power of the cultural Left in today’s liberal institutions, where ‘because it’s 2019’ is a killer argument, will recognise this.

The 3rd quote this week is taken from Takimag

The Week That Perished

Aug 18th, 2019

Atticus says: I try to read every Takimag article. They have some great writers. Every Sunday they release their own take on the week’s most shameful stories. It’s like the Pepys diary except that instead of documenting the Great Fire of London, it’s documenting the decline of western civilisation. This extract shows the EU in full SJW mode:

…the European Union appears ready to pass a law mandating that all consumer goods made by Jews in occupied Palestinian territories be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.” Items made by Muslims in the same area will receive the more benign-sounding label of “Palestine.”

The law follows on the heels of a similar law in France, which, as it so happens, is being overrun with Muslims.

According to Yohan Benizri, a lawyer with an extremely Jewish-sounding name who represents a winery that would be affected by the new law, Jews are hypocritically being singled out for scorn:

“Can you imagine a situation where plastic cups imported from China must be labeled ‘this country has a one-child policy,’ or gas from Russia must be labeled, ‘This is gas from a country that illegally occupies Crimea,’ or products from the United States require the labeling ‘the U.S. engages in capital punishment and is building an illegal border wall?’ Product labels will have become political billboards depending on the whims of EU politicians, and every EU importer will shoulder a liability for not complying with arbitrary labeling laws.”

He has a point.

Quote #4 from Brendan O’Neill


Aug 21 2019

Who’s Really Demonising Journalists?

Atticus says: I’m a big fan of Brendan. Here he discusses the recent altercation that involved Owen Jones and hordes of highly trained far-right thugs who made some light scratches on Owen’s tummy before rushing off to buy 1st print editions of The Sun:

Why is the accusation of ‘hate preacher’ always made in one direction only – that is, towards the right-leaning press? Who, we might ask, is responsible for the violent assault on a 60-year-old feminist at a trans-sceptical event in Speakers’ Corner two years ago? Was it the virulently anti-‘TERF’ sections of the press, which includes Mr Jones himself, which frequently dehumanises certain feminists as bigots and haters? If the Mail is responsible for the violent assault of a left journalist, why aren’t left journalists responsible for the violent assault of a so-called TERF?

Or who is responsible for the attack on Andy Ngo in Portland? The so-called antifa forces who assaulted him, very violently, notably used milkshakes. They were clearly inspired by the middle-class milkshaking phenomenon in the UK and possibly by pro-milkshaking journalists at newspapers like the Guardian, one of whom said milkshaking is a valiant effort to ‘reduce men of pomp to figures of ridicule’. If the Express bears responsibility for right-wing violence, does the Guardianbear responsibility for left-wing violence?

We might also ask whether supposedly liberal media outlets have helped to stir up Islamist violence. We’re often told that right-wing newspapers embolden far-right terrorists. By the same token, might it be argued that the leftish media’s incessant, overblown claims about rampant Islamophobia fuel the violent victim mentality of people who carry out such atrocities as the Charlie Hebdo massacre or the Manchester Arena bombing? After all, that bomber was apparently convinced that Britain is a disgustingly Islamophobic society – where might he have got that idea from?

Let’s criticise the hypocrites

My flabber continues to be gasted by the extent of blatant hypocrisy endorsed by Leftists. So much so, that I realise the time has come to document as many examples as I can recollect. I will continue to update this list with appropriate examples over the coming weeks:

  1. Materialism: Leftists are constantly complaining that Capitalist societies are obsessed with ‘stuff’. We buy too much stuff. We don’t need as much stuff. We should live simpler lives where we are not stripping the planet of its natural resources in order to feed our insatiable appetites for stuff. Yet, the same Leftists will not countenance any backsliding on standards of living caused by Brexit. No. When they are referring to the environment, then they preach that we must all live more simply. Yet, on the subject of Brexit they preach that living standards must continue to rise. We must be able to buy more stuff. There can be no shortages of stuff. Lots of stuff must always be available from lots of different countries so we can choose exactly what stuff we buy. Leftists are aghast at the thought that Britons should focus on buying British stuff. No, they argue, Britons have a human right to be able to buy as much stuff from as many different countries as they have always been able to buy. What makes this hypocrisy ever more rancid is that British Leftists are more than happy to install the well known Socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, as their Prime Minister. Socialism has reduced the choice and quality of stuff available to its citizens in every country in which it has been tried. These people are not consistent and that makes them hypocrites.
  2. New Prime Ministers: Leftists are in uproar that Boris Johnson has become PM. It’s undemocratic, they say. Only 130,000 people voted for him after several rounds of voting by 340 Conservative MPs. But they weren’t complaining when Gordon Brown became PM without any voting at all: neither by MPs nor by Labour Party members. They don’t complain when Ursula von der Leyen becomes the new President of the European Commission when she was the only candidate put forward and even then only managed to win 52% of the votes of the EU Parliament. She was not elected by the EU electorate and she cannot be removed by the EU electorate. Martin Selmayr was promoted to Secretary General of the EU Commission without due process. All fine for your average Leftist.
  3. Protect the Planet: People in 1st world countries use much more energy and natural resources than people in 3rd world countries. Yet Leftists are happy to allow unlimited numbers of economic migrants to arrive in 1st world countries and none see that this policy clashes with their desire that the West must be doing everything it can to be carbon-neutral by next Tuesday.
  4. Corbyn: There is a big group of people who argue that Brexit must be overturned because of the negative effect it will have on the economy have no qualms about supporting Corbyn’s ambitions to be PM despite the negative effect his Premiership will have on the economy. The most charitable thing I can say about such people is that they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
  5. BAME: Leftists are all about protecting ethnic minorities. Leftists are always on the lookout for racism and, consequently, they see it everywhere. However, if ethnic minorities decide to shun the Left’s kind offer of protection in favour the tough love and self-determination offered by the Right, then things turn kind of nasty: the Leftists call them ‘race traitors’ or ‘tokens’. This is because, as far as the Leftists are concerned, ethnics shouldn’t have their own minds, like white people. They should vote as a block, like good ethnics.
  6. Brexit Coup: Leftist Remainers do not want to leave the EU with ‘no deal’. They argue that there needs to be a second referendum. These people have convinced themselves that such a vote would not be anti-democratic to the people who voted ‘Leave’ in the original “Once in a generation” referendum. Au contraire, they feel that a second referendum would offer more democracy to the electorate. You see, because the more votes you have, the more democratic you are! But the government has refused to pander to their desire to have another attempt to obtain the referendum result they want. Yet the zeal of democracy burns so strongly within these people that they are planning to bring down the elected government in a carefully organised manoeuvre in order to install a caretaker government whose objective would be to stop the result of the 2016 referendum from being enacted. I’m not sure you could get any more democratic than that! It’s the very definition of ‘democracy’. Well, the 2019 definition at any rate.

I will add more examples to this list as and when they occur. It won’t take long!