I’m not going to go into a huge amount of detail describing its owners and what happened to cause The Great Trolling of 2013, but I absolutely urge you to check out the video that aired as the season finale of Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares, season 6. After almost 100 episodes of the successful show, Ramsay finally gave up and walked out on two people he rightly claims are incapable of help. It really is something to behold.

Video: Amy’s Baking Company on Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares Full Episode

It is fair to say, discussion of their business and behaviour has exploded across social media. Before the airing their Facebook page had a mere 483 likes. Now, it has over 88-thousand. That’s 18,000% growth on Facebook in one week. Good for business in this case? Umm, no.

Before and after the airing, reviews came thick and fast from disgruntled diners.
Here is but one of hundreds across many restaurant review sites:

Are negative reviews fair?

Deserved or not, is it fair for a small business to be subjected to the negative opinions of diners? The Washington Post‘s Caitlin Dewey points out that many (small business owners, of course) think this is not right, especially when the business owners disagree with the review (well, of course they would, wouldn’t they.)

But while the Internet has rejoiced in the Bouzaglos’ raving — their Facebook pagehas nabbed more than 85,000 likes — even their angriest rants may hide a shadow of truth. Yelp reviews can destroy a business’s reputation, whether it deserves it or not, some owners say. In fact, more than 700 businesses and consumers have filed complaints about the popular online consumer review service with the Federal Trade Commission — and earned Yelp a few mixed reviews of its own.

In the Washington area alone, more than a dozen businesses have filed complaints, according to data obtained from the FTC by the government transparency site MuckRock. One frequent criticism involves the site’s use of an automatic filter to hide potentially suspicious reviews. Hidden reviews do not count toward a business’s rating, and users have to take an extra step to see them, even if they’re positive. Some owners have accused Yelp of filtering out good reviews unless a business advertises with the site.

Other Washington businesses complained that they could not remove unfair or false reviews from their pages. And a restaurant in Fairfax County claimed that two vengeful reviewers threatened to destroy the business with their bad ratings even though they had never even eaten at the restaurant.

“I repeatedly explained that these comments against us [do] not match with our restaurant or description, but they [Yelp] don’t care,” the complaint reads. “This is an un-American act against hard working citizens … I need your help.”

In late 2012, one Fairfax contractor went so far as to sue a Yelp reviewer for defamation.

Source: Read the whole article here.

Perception among businesses is that review sites like Yelp are not good for the business because they invite criticism. They believe that Yelp exists to be good for the consumer only.

Gordon Ramsay gets it, however. He says to Samy Bouzaglos in the Kitchen Nightmares episode, “If they didn’t like it, what are you going to do about it? The kitchen needs to know!” He knows that receiving negativity is ultimately about improvement. Therefore, receiving criticism should be seen as good for business, good for brands, good for people.

I sincerely hope sites like Yelp don’t become controlled by legislation. If that happens, then disgruntled patrons have no choice but to go back to the old style of trolling and expressing displeasure: the ol’ graffiti on the window trick.

Here are my answers to a few questions being debated about Yelp and other restaurant review sites in the wake of this business meltdown:

1. Should a business have the right to complain if they’ve received bad reviews on Yelp?  My opinion: Yes, of course. You can complain about whatever you like.
2. Should the restaurant have the ability to respond to reviews? My opinion: Yes.
3. Should those reviews be removed? My opinion: No. Not even if they’re vitriolic. There are plenty of counter measures that could be put in place to make commenters more accountable for what they write, such as a implementing a trust/reputation system for commenters, but I will let you discuss such ideas in the comments.
4. Should reviewers be forced to use their true ID before they leave a review? I tend towards “No”, but for reviews that build a permanent profile of a business, I’m in two minds: I consider forcing users to use their true ID a breach of privacy and potential safety; when you force someone to use their true ID you’re basically forcing them to downplay their true feelings in case someone retaliated against them. Then again, that’s precisely what we’re forcing small businesses and their owners to do by being on Yelp, so I guess it’s only fair to level the playing field there.
5. Should an individual be able to be sued for defamation if their review is completely false? Yes. But remember, opinion is subjective. So this would have to be on a case by case basis and I imagine it’d be quite hard to prove intentional defamation in many cases.

Should people keep criticism to themselves?

In my observation, there seems to be an alarmingly large population of people who agree with the statement “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”. This is not, by any measure, limited to restaurant reviews. Do you find this to be the case too, or is it just me?

If I don’t like a song or video on YouTube for example, god help me if I attempt to post a negative comment about it. I’m almost guaranteed to receive a venomous reply from someone proclaiming that you “shut the **** up and get the **** off this page” for merely saying I don’t like something.

Same goes if you dare to criticise a celebrity, a TV show, a sports team, fashion, event, or especially, the most taboo of all — criticism on regular people who invite comment on social media. “Haterz gon hate”, be prepared for the fanbois and groupies to attack you back like rabid dogs.

It is a huge taboo to be anything but positive on social networks, to the point where it is doing the individual, the business and the world a disservice to have to completely censor yourself “out of politeness” if you disagree with something so that they only ever receive support. How many of you have censored your own fingers from leaving a criticising comment on a post by one of your Facebook friends?

My stance is this: if you’re out there on social media inviting responses from people on any topic, whether it be your music, your food, your beliefs or even how you look or how beautiful (ugly) your baby is, then negativity, criticism and disagreement of absolutely any degree is just as valid as positivity and support of any degree. Politeness? Come on, people. The world is not all rosy and everyone doesn’t think like you do. You should not expect this.

I’m not a hypocrite, either. Think what I’m writing is shit? Disagree with what I’m saying? Great! I’ve decided to put it out there for dissection and discussion, so it’s fair game. People learn from accepting conflicting opinions. Without it, you cannot ever grow.

The true saying we should all be living by is not “If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all“. Whoever coined that saying fails to see the larger benefit in accepting criticism. Try to teach the art of being diplomatic and reasonable when you dislike something. But please, do not teach your kids to shut up when they dislike something.

The “Compliment Sandwich” technique can work with sometimes quite hilarious results, as demonstrated below. But it risks just beating around the bush. Why sugar coat what you actually need to say, just because you’re afraid you might hurt someone’s feelings? Again, if someone invites your comment by posting it up for public review, it’s fair game.

A compliment sandwich. Source: http://www.mintleafstudio.com.au/blog/post/item/2011/10/06/how-to-critique-a-website-design-and-accept-criticism

The true saying we should be raising our children and running our businesses with is in fact “If you can’t take criticism, don’t invite feedback”. No one needs to learn this lesson more than the operators of Amy’s Baking Company, but I think this is a lesson a great many of people cannot apply to their own work or themselves.

As for Amy and Samy Bouzaglos… if they ever raise anything more than their three cats, God help us.

Related articles

• How Can I Learn To Take Criticism? (Lifehacker.com)
• Fired Amy’s Baking Company Employee Reportedly Gives Reddit AMA, Calls Owner ‘Demonic’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Kitchen Nightmares Most Hated Couple: Owner Is Convicted Felon! (radaronline.com)
• Yelp is Broken and Social Flashmobs Apparently Rule (directmarketingobservations.com)
• Gordon Ramsay quits filming ‘Kitchen Nightmares’ episode (nydailynews.com)
• Lessons From Amy’s Baking Company: Six Things You Should Never Do On Social Media (forbes.com)
• Why Every Insurance Agent Should be on Yelp (insurancefiles.com)

Why are journalists no longer professionals?

I trace the disastrous collapse in journalists’ ethics to the moment the government became involved in funding tertiary level education. In the past universities were privately run, elitist institutes and financially independent of the government. Once the government started offering cheap loans to students the number and size of universities increased to unrealistic proportions. With this came several changes. First they had to get rid of elitism because the purpose of higher education was no longer to create an elite class of exceptional people with exceptional responsibilities and duties in society, it was merely to make money and churn out as many graduates, not people, as possible. Since most people do not have an elite level IQ they had to dumb down the university curriculum and lower their passing standards so anyone with only half a brain can graduate now and act like a pretentious elitist snob, also known as a hipster, simply because they have an almost worthless piece of paper on their wall. Secondly, the universities are now effectively employed by the government, who are paying their income so they had to change the course material to be pro-totalitarianism so as not to upset their new customer, thus the universities have become a de facto branch of government. Finally, because foreign students are worth so much money to universities they had to axe all nationalist course materials and promote a globalist, communist and anti-white curriculum so as not to upset their new non-white customers from the third world. In short: universities are now communist indoctrination centres that churn out idiots, statists and self-hating whites.

This would all be fine, except university graduates go on to work as lawyers, psychologists, teachers and journalists and that is when they start to cause massive damage to the fabric of society spreading communist propaganda, ideology, anti-white racism and the belief that the government should be all-powerful and worshiped. If what you just read is making you furious, then the odds are you are a university graduate and you should ask yourself how come after spending so many years in a university learning to broaden your mind, you still are not mature enough to handle a difference of opinion without getting excessively worked up about it?

Journalists are the most dangerous people to have compromised with communist indoctrination, because the mass media have incredible powers to influence and shape the minds of other people. Now these journalists are for the most part decent people, they are not sociopaths and they sincerely believe in the messages that they put out to the general public. But they are dangerous because they do nothing but encourage people to think and behaved in childish and irrational ways. Now I shall move on towards giving you an example.

If there is one theme that is constant in communist propaganda, it is pinning the blame on everyone else. Communism is after all a philosophy based around fostering childish jealousy and resentment in a population, generally the poor, the ethnic minorities, the sexual minorities and the women and then encouraging them to whinge and moan about their problems until they feel like entitled victims bold enough to take what they lust for by force or voting for others to take it for them by using force. Politicians and their unwittingly brain washed friends in the media can then exploit the victim complex they have created to rile people up over false moral crises. Simply because there is nothing an immature person likes to do more often than to get on a soap box and proclaim their moral superiority over other people because they feel self-righteous. Sentimental moral outrage is one of the most exciting drugs depressed people take these days, to self-medicate their self-loathing, it makes them feel smug and superior to everyone else. Think about this the next time someone tells you off for not being vegetarian, atheist, homophiliac, global warming alarmist, multicultural, socialist, feminist or whatever they think makes them morally superior to you at the time.

This week in The Age, the flagship newspaper of cultural Marxism (or communism) in Victoria, Australia, we could see yet another calculated attempt to stoke misdirected rage and resentment. A Mr. Tim Colebatch published a piece about how “Millionaires snub taxmen“. For those of you who are already libertarians, this is going to tell you nothing new, but for those who do not understand libertarian philosophy consider this analysis of this article to be an exercise in learning how to see the world through libertarian eyes as opposed to the distortions of communism that are constantly fed to us in mainstream media outlets like The Age.

The first line of Colebatch’s article opens up with a loaded statement about how the rich are exempting themselves from paying taxes. However, when one examines this line, “If you earn enough money, paying tax can be optional,” one can see the bias of statism. Statism is the belief that the government is entitled to exempt itself from all the of the rules it expects you to live by. One of these rules is that you can not forcibly take from other people because that’s stealing, yet the government engage in taxation which is exactly the same thing as theft or the protection money the Mafia expect from people and businesses living in “their” district. And yes, the Mafia also claim to be offering people a welfare service in exchange for their protection money. So when people argue that taxes are taken to be spent on services like education, health care and retirement funds, point out to them that wouldn’t it be better if you kept your own money and spent it on education, health insurance and investments for your own future? It would be better because you would not have hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats eating a slice of your money before it is spent on the services you purchase directly. Remove taxes and you remove the completely unnecessary and overly expensive government middle man who produces nothing himself. Schools would be cheaper, health insurance would be cheaper and retirement would be a lot easier if you could have bought your house in your 20s with your greatly increased tax-free income. Also think how much easier life would be if you did not have to worry about tax returns. The fact that taxes are not optional is the real issue and the mainstream media do not want you to think about that because they have their own agenda: big government, also known as communism. It is quite childish to complain that some people are simply smart enough and/or have enough self-respect to not pay someone for services they do not need or use.

Governments have rewritten the law to exclude themselves from it. This is not a case of granting extra powers, this is a perversion of justice. The government should be equally subject to the law as any individual is.

The central point of Colebatch’s article is the assertion 70 millionaires earned a total of $194 million between them, paid $33 million to lawyers and accountants and ended up reducing their total income to less than $20,000 so they were exempt from paying tax. The reader is encouraged to feel outraged that these people have avoided paying to tax and not the far more important question of, “if they do not need to pay tax, then why do I?” Which is a very good question considering that of those 70 millionaires, only 30 of them paid that $33 million in accountants and lawyers suggesting 40 of did not even need to try hard to get those tax exemptions. Avoiding paying tax must be so easy to do it makes everyone paying them a sucker for doing so. However, these millionaires did not actually avoid paying tax. They merely avoided paying income tax, these millionaires still paid plenty of GST, petrol taxes, stamp duty taxes etc… because it is impossible to avoid paying tax. Hence it really is not a big deal what they actually do not pay income tax because so long as they spend their money they are still contributing more to tax revenue than anyone else with a sub $100K salary could even imagine. The rich are not getting away without paying taxes, they are merely reducing the amount they are paying by a few percentage points overall in the big picture. They are also paying lawyers and accounts who in turn pay taxes so the government is still getting its cut of revenue, so do not worry about that. The focus should not be on who is paying taxes or how much, but why are we paying them at all if the government can not deliver any quality services with the hundreds of billions of dollars they collect from us.

However, one thing that constantly bothers me is if taxes on cigarettes and on alcohol are put in place to discourage people from smoking and drinking, then what do taxes in earning money do? They do in fact discourage people from earning more money because they get diminishing returns thanks to progressive taxation systems. I know plenty of single mothers and under-employed who deliberately reduce the number of hours they work so they can keep getting government benefits. Why not simply cancel the benefits and remove their taxes at the same time? Sure, that is going to put a lot of bureaucrats out of a job, but then they can go and produce something useful like goods or services instead of stealing other people’s money only to waste it on the very poor quality government services they mismanage.

Another question Colebatch failed to raise is why such massive holes in the taxation laws exist allowing hundreds of a millions of dollars to be exempted so easily. The answer is because these millionaires are either politicians themselves, or friends and relatives of politicians. Politicians know about the loop holes in their own laws because they fully expect to exploit these loop holes themselves or for their friends and families to. This is the problem with giving power over to anyone: power corrupts. The corruption is simply in the core of the human condition to believe oneself to be a good and responsible person and therefore the law does not apply to them. This was nicely summed up by Plato, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” What was implied with Plato’s statement was that good people would find laws unnecessary and insulting to their dignity. So the fact is, anyone who has self-respect is going to assume they are a good person and exempt themselves from their own rules. Think how many people set themselves rules for their diets and relationships and then break them because they are insulted by the very notion of rules constraining them as though they were bad people. This is the libertarian position that no one can be trusted to have such power to organise or manage other people’s lives because it is in human nature to not obey the very rules we set for others.

Of course, if you obey the same rules you set for your children, then my argument is invalid. Remember to be in bed by 7pm though or you will not get any dessert.

This is the crux of rule making: rules are made only for people who are not responsible enough to run their own lives. The government, whether Labor or Liberal or Green or National all believe we the people are not mature, smart or educated enough to run our own lives and spend our own money the way we wish to and so the government pass these laws telling us how much we are allowed to earn, where we are allowed to go to school, what we are allowed to learn about, what books, websites and movies we are allowed to read and watch, what we are allowed to buy, what food we are allowed to eat and and what kinds of houses we are allowed to live in. It is hard to understand why a person who objects to sharia law would feel uncomfortable in our nanny state as it continues to assert its privilege to dictate who we are allowed to even marry. Unfortunately, those in power obviously do not feel threatened by sharia law and I have to wonder if it is not because they want to impose their own version of sharia law via the nanny state. No one would tolerate a busy-body neighbour telling them how to organise every aspect of their life, so why do people tolerate a busy-body government telling them how to organise their lives?

So there you have it, I have offered you my opinion on this situation and explained it in detail with justifications for my point of view. You will never read an article like the one you just read in a mainstream newspaper because the communists with all of the journalism degrees have an agenda they want you to adopt. See, communism is a cult, they want everyone to think, feel, act and live the same way they do and they are terrified of change and individuality. So they only tell you ideas that they agree with or feel comfortable with you knowing, because they think you are all children and need to be told by them, the “adults” what to think and believe. By not sharing with you alternative points of view they are narrowing the discourse and reducing your ability to think and decide for yourself. It is more important what they do not tell you than what they do tell you, because these days with all the gossip passing off as news they are effectively telling you nothing at all.

I do not care what you believe, as long as you read this article I am satisfied. If after reading this article you can no longer stomach the pointless mindless dribble that passes for news these days then I will be happy. If you share it with your friends then I will be elated, as it will help me earn more money to contribute to my taxes. Think of it as community service, but at least I am honest about my agenda and I am only being greedy, I think you should be more worried about people who do not have such a simple agenda as I do, these people actually do it because they think they care and want to rescue you from yourself. Examine them more closely: they are just as greedy and self-interested as anyone else you will meet, but what makes them dangerous is that they believe that they are actually selfless.

Over the years being vegetarian was just another aspect of my personality, or rather so I thought.  As a child I had been raised in the Catholic faith and was quite religious, however, by the time I was sixteen the idea of the existence of a god was increasingly becoming incredible to me.  I lost all faith in my god, but what I didn’t realise at the time was that I removing god from my religion and not removing the religion from my faith.  That probably sounds a little strange to some people, let me clarify: I believe people need a faith in something immortal and eternal in my point of view.  Religion can be a form of faith, but for me nowadays I’ve come to put my faith in beauty.  But in between Catholicism and beauty, my faith was something quite sinister and malicious.   My faith was in the inherit corruption and evilness of humanity.

There is a scene in the Matrix where Agent Smith is demoralising the hero Neo with the following line:

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You’re a plague and we are the cure.

This line is filled with biological misconceptions and distortions, however, I could only see the biological misconceptions at the time and not the rather obvious realisation that Catholic guilt could find a home to live and thrive without god.  See, in Catholicism one is born into sin, original sin.  Original sin comes from the belief that Adam and Eve outraged god so much than when he drove them out of the Garden of Eden he cursed all of their offspring to carry the suffering of this sin.  Symbolically, I can totally enjoy this fable as it has a strong moral to the story, however, the Catholic Church decided to take it literally and preached that everyone is born sinful into the world.  This is an anti-humanist position.  It means that human beings are basically bad and evil creatures.  This is the origin of what so many people in Australia call the “Catholic Guilt Complex”.  However, as I’ve pointed out before, communism also seems to have a very similar version of this myth and in my opinion we should regard communism as a religion.  When I was sixteen and losing my faith in Catholicism, I was moving towards this other faith.  The religion of communism.

Communism shares with Catholicism a belief that human beings are completely corrupt and evil.  That the only way we can be salvaged is by completely surrending ourselves to the collective whereby we cease to be individuals and become part of a single cohesive mass.  Communism sounds scary, because it is scary.  No one with self-respect willing becomes a communist because it means giving up your identity and individuality to become a completely standardised and replaceable cell in the body of the state.  However, communism is alive and well in the world today, thanks to an army of enthusiastic volunteers working very hard to spread communist ideas and propaganda.  I know this, because when I was eighteen, I joined the communist party as a volunteer while still in high school and dedicated my weekends to spreading their anti-human message.  So what is this highly effective communist propaganda?  How can one recognise it?

Communist propaganda spreads through demoralising people.  It does this by making people think that they’re ugly, disgusting and horrible creatures.  Basically it works through guilt trips and threats of damnation and disaster.  Ironically, communists become ugly and create disasters wherever they go and this seems to only confirm the propaganda that we human beings are disgusting loathsome beings that perhaps it would be better if we ceased to exist.  So what are some examples of communist propaganda?  Well all you need to do is look at hippies.  Hippies are the most primitive form of communists.

Hippies push vegetarianism using guilt trips such as global warming, climate change, deforestation and spiritual enlightenment.  Yes, it is more spiritually enlightened to admire the sheep over the lion apparently, even though the lion is strong and independent while the sheep is a mindless weakling!  Hippies and environmentalists spread fear, guilt and anxiety about the climate and demand that people be vegetarian.  Not because of health reasons, although there are some plausible arguments for those, but for the purposes of making people doubt and question themselves and their self-worth.  You’re just a disgusting predator eating and enslaving all other life.  There’s no point arguing with such a person by pointing out that one can love and respect animals and still kill and eat them.  The point is about degrading you down to their level by making you question and doubt yourself as a good person.

Vegetarianism is only one level of this conspiracy to make you question your beauty and value.  They’ll tell you you’re greedy if you earn too much money or if you own properly.  Instead you should be lazy and down nothing like they do.  If you’re miserable they’ll tell you not to work hard to improve your situation, instead they’ll offer you drugs and sex and tell you to just forget about it and run away from your hurt and responsibilities.  They want you to abandon your best interests.  Don’t bother bashing and bathing regularly, disrespect your body and feel like the dirt on your skin and clothes: common and worthless.

They’ll tell you that all relationships with people are about power, about dominating another and forcing them into submission.  This is the lie that feminism is based on: that men dominate and women submit.  They’re wrong, when a man and woman love each other, they co-operate.  However, co-operation is a sexual fantasy they don’t understand.  They don’t understand love or co-operation.  Hippies will talk a lot about love but what they really mean is lust.  Lust is the desire to take from others, the opposite of real love which is to give.  Hippies wear ragged and dirty clothes because they do not recognise the beauty nor artwork in fashion.  Instead, they choose to live naturally like the beasts: cold, starving, lustful, lonely and afraid.  The hippies are closer to nature, and further from civilisation than anyone else.

I used to want to be a hippy.  Now I want to be myself, to take care of myself, understanding and develop myself to my full potential and feed all of my lusts for myself.  I want to be free, I want to be me, I want to be a civilised man and live with all the best fruits of civilisation.  I want to make myself, my friends, my things and my family beautiful through word and deeds.  I want these things because I do not feel guilty and worthless anymore, I feel beautiful and important.

Why do communists want to make you feel so guilty?  Because communists want to enslave people.  It’s impossible to enslave a person with pride, so before they can enslave you by bring about the revolution they need to take away your pride with the opposing emotion: guilt.  Whenever someone makes one feel guilty one feels compelled to give to that person.  Sometimes guilt is justified, in these cases it is perfectly healthy to feel guilt and to give to the person you have wronged.  However, what communists do is attempt to make you feel guilty for being yourself.  Effectively feeling guilty for being alive.  You should never feel guilty for being who you are, only for the bad things that you have done, because guilt is essentially hatred of oneself.  But once someone has succeed in making you feel guilty for being who you are, then they can demand you give them things for nothing.  Give them your money, your time and even your life.  Guilt is the fuel that drives every wave of religious hysteria and it is what drives communists.  Proud people look after and protect themselves, their families and their friends.  Guilty people protect only their image.  Communist propaganda can easily be identified by anything that makes you feel disgusting and dirty for who you are.  Once you can see it, you will notice it everywhere.

So, I do not let guilt decide my diet anymore.  Nor do I let it decide what clothes I want to wear.  What hobbies I like to do.  What kind of income I would like to earn.  What career I would like.  What kind of house I would like to live in.  Because I have no guilt to atone for.  The world is not dying, it isn’t wrong to desire to be wealthy or successful and the problems of the world can best be solved through hard work and civilisation than through the pipe-dreams of people who are fearful and jealous of everyone and everything they percieve as more beautiful and stronger than they are.  Of course, hippies are my own personal demon in this regard, other people will have other guilt ridden collectives: feminists telling you how to run your relationships, families and careers, socialists telling you how to spend your money, anti-white extremists telling you what to think and say, statists telling you who you should denigrate and destroy, princes and princesses telling you what to wear and who to date and of course communists at the centre of all of these groups telling you you’re a disease and you owe them.  But you owe them… nothing.

Live free of guilt and seek your true self.  Don’t help the communists by buying into their guilt and jealousy.

Related articles

• Vegetarianism in Buddhism (buddhajourney.wordpress.com)
• Veggie Curious? Try the Moosewood Cookbook! (pittsburghmommyblog.com)
• Why Did I Decided To Try Being Vegan? (expertscolumn.com)
• V is for Vegetarians (blackfrogpublishing.wordpress.com)
• Elementary School Cafeteria Goes 100% Vegetarian (newser.com)
• 1st! Queens Public School Goes Full Vegetarian (animalnewyork.com)
• Renovating Your Mind Says, “Go Meatless Once Weekly And Turn Yourself Into A Casual Vegetarian” (renovatingyourmind.com)
• Yumi Media Comments on an Article about the Environmental Benefits of Vegetarianism (prweb.com)
• Quorn, Leader in Easy Vegetarian Meals, Explores the Financial Benefits of a Plant-Based, Mediterranean Diet (prweb.com)

The answer is in the central tenet of Islam: submission.  Submission means obedience and that means the sacrifice of the individual into a collective.  This is something that you probably already know, but interestingly no mainstream media outlet that I’m aware of has explained that this fundamental aspect of Islam makes it not simply completely incompatible with Western people’s thinking and values but impossible for there to be such a thing as a good muslim.  When I am using the adjective ‘good’ here, I mean in the moralistic sense of just, fair and righteous.  In the Western tradition before a person can even be considered a moral agent he must first establish himself as an independently autonomous individual.  Thus a soldier is not a moral agent as the soldier is obedient to his commanding officer and thus if given an immoral order it is his commanding officer who is guilty and not the soldiers under his command.

Put simply: if you cannot act freely in a situation, you are not a moral agent. Thus only free (and potentially disobedient) people can be moral agents. Therefore, in an ideology centred around total submission of the individual to the will of Allah we see no desire, no interest and no capacity for free will.  Without free will there can be no moral agency, without moral agency there can be no good and bad people, only obedient muslims and disobedient muslims.  What we call good muslims are merely disobedient muslims, but if submission is at the core of Islam then these muslims are muslims in name only.  Therefore, there can be no such thing as a good muslim by definition.

Islam, we are told, is a complete instruction set for life.  It tells adherents how you should bathe, eat, pray, sleep, fuck, think and act.  We have a names for this kind of thing in the English language: totalitarianism, socialism, collectivism, statism, communism, oppression etc… And we have names for people who believe that they have an entitlement to tell other people how they should live their lives: tyrants, busy-bodies, dictators, statists, control-freaks, arseholes etc…  These words all have negative connotations, and for good reason, because all these things are against the central tenet of Western, of white European, thinking: liberty. That men are free to think and act as they please so long as it does not infringe upon another man’s freedom to think and act as he pleases.

Islam stands in opposition to everything the West stands for.  It is toxic to liberty and toxic to the health and well-being of our societies.  Islam is a disease that needs to be eradicated from all Western countries and a necessary step for eliminating Islam is the mass deportation of muslims already in our borders.  We cannot be a free society with them here as to meet their demands for acceptance requires the negation of our most sacred values and traditions: freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.  Both have been compromised as the number of muslims has increased in our countries.  Islam will destroy everything our ancestors created because it is against everything they believed in regarding life, liberty and the individual pursuit of happiness.  We need to protect ourselves and our children by taking a very personal view of this situation and say, “this is my country, these are my values and I’m not going to have some invaders from an Islamic ghetto-state come in and take it away from me and my children.”

But why on Earth do our leaders keep inviting these people who by definition are amoral by our cultural standards?  The reason lies in the interests of those who desire power: they want obedience from the population.  Western leaders have always had the frustration of a culture of people who will not tolerate being dictated to.  A free people willed with dignity and self-respect.  However, those who desire power fear other people becoming strong enough to resist their influence and so they attack people’s dignity and self-respect.  They tell obvious lies such that Islam is somehow equivalent to our culture and traditions, considering the cultural shanty town that is Islam compared the glory and greatness of Western tradition in art and culture this is a humiliating lie they force on us in public schools by denying white people access to their history and a personal connection with their culture and heritage.  Instead of allowing white people to take pride in their ancestors, they tell them everything our ancestors did was evil and cruel (in fact, nearly all of these crimes were committed by governments headed by tyrants and never white people en masse) and then they suggest that the culturally retarded muslims are somehow equal to us in prestige?  This is humiliation and degradation of our people, our customs, our ancestors and our way of life.  But they want us degraded, they know having muslims here will cause this conflict and so they invite them here, without ever having a public debate on immigration or an election on the subject.  Islamic immigration is being forced upon us against our will and with full knowledge it will destabilise and disrupt our way of life.   They are doing this to advance their political goals to increase their power.  A cultural diverse community is a conflicted, divided and fearful community.  What politicians do in this situation is not solve the problem (stop immigration and segregate/deport the minorities) but demand more money, police powers and erosion of basic human rights to protect you from the very problem they created and are continuing to exacerbate.  This is the classic bargaining of liberty for security.

One needs to keep in mind that ultimately, all dictators are the same: jealous narcissistic control freaks who all dream of being a king of their own Saudi Arabia, the common people can struggle under oppressive religious indoctrination, but the royal family will breed and suck the blood out of the people at their leisure.  This is the dream of all tyrants and sociopaths, and they all use the same technique: scare you to an inch of your life and promise you security if you give into their demand for more power over you.

On hearing the news about the Boston bombing, my immediate thoughts were: Islamists did this. As usual, when one expresses this opinion around university graduates one is sharply reprimanded for jumping to conclusions.  I wasn’t jumping to conclusions, I was speculating based on past behaviour, that’s none of their business on what I choose to speculate and they have no grounds to say that I’m wrong because I wasn’t asserting it as fact.  This is the biggest part of the problem in my view: government control of education.  Public schools and universities are constantly brainwashing children to accept diversity and multiculturalism and to trust and worship the government as though the government has special rights to break the laws it expects the people to follow obediently.  The schools and universities do this because the government funds them and you don’t disagree with your employer.  Unless government control over education is removed we will never be able to have a free press or free speech again because university graduates are pro-statist, anti-western, anti-white ideologues who go on to infect the rest of society as journalists, artists, politicians, government bureaucrats, teachers, lawyers and other professionals who spread socialism and statist propaganda and repress any speech that is pro-liberty, pro-white or pro-western.

The only way to preserve liberty and dignity in your children is to home school them.  Even if you can’t take them out of public school, at least make sure you teach them about their heritage, their culture, their history and above all else, teach them self-respect.  Take them aside and teach them what public schools and the media never will: to reject and revile Islam for what it is; toxic ideological scum that is corroding our civilisation and way of life.

White Coat Ceremony 3 (Photo credit: pennstatenews)

White Coat Ceremony 2 (Photo credit: pennstatenews)

We already know that dressing appropriately for work is usually part of the condition of many of the jobs out there. Dressing inappropriately could result in not getting that job, getting fired for it, or even just giving the wrong impression.

Uniformed jobs have it the easiest, let’s face it that removal of choice makes it a hell of a lot easier to get out of the house in the morning. Men too have it easy. In office jobs men tend to wear suits, or in more ‘modern’ or relaxed environments, casual shirts can suffice. Oh no! someone came in for a short notice meeting? It’s ok I can stick a suit jacket over these tailored jeans and shirt and (given the work environment rules) hey presto, I’m business presentable again! Let’s face it if you work in an only suit and tie environment, this is not really a problem for you either as your lack of choice lets you blend with the rest of the suits, and let your performance stand out.

Women on the other hand seem to have more pitfalls in this area, in jobs where we are not required to wear uniforms. Sure, we have more choice overall, skirts gave way to trousers and now we have a plethora of attire to choose from for whatever work environment we are in. I personally like the choice of heels vs flats, jeans vs skirt but realise that there will be occasions I need to be suited and booted like the rest and as long as I can plan which days these are, tend not to have issues with wearing the ‘wrong thing’ for the day. However, I work in digital, which is a pretty relaxed environment for clothing and a lot of my clients don’t have it so lucky as while I can go to meetings slightly more smart casual or relaxed business style, while they are suited up. That is, if you consider dressing down as lucky, and not the reverse of course.

The point here is really not so much about personal taste, but how often do you feel better or worse depending on how you are dressed? We’ve all got it wrong at some point or another and felt horribly over or under dressed for the rest of the day or evening event. Now while I like the saying you can never be too overdressed or overeducated, there are occasions you should blend in!

This feeds directly into an interesting study that was done at the Kellogg Schoold of Management at the Northwestern Iniversity in America where they produced a paper called “Enclothed Cognition” which discussed the term “embodied cognition” essentially referring to how we feel bodily sensations can affect how we think and feel.  They studied subjects who wore similar white coats with half the group told they were wearing medical white coats, the rest artist’s white coats. The group who perceived they were wearing the medical coats performed better on the ‘stroop’ test than the artist coats, even though they were only different in perception.

Now this research paper does not directly move to discuss professional dress in other arenas, but the results are markedly interesting and should be tested in other industries. It is interesting that often how we are instructed to dress for work is to present a unified, business perception to those outside the organisation, but perhaps this is the wrong motivation. Similarly, dressing down is a sign of a relaxed ‘fun’ and often modern place to work, but again, is this meaning we are too relaxed and therefore paying less attention?

This is not to say that you are suddenly crap at your job on your dress down Fridays, but it does mean we should as organisations be paying more attention to the psychology behind our workplace dress codes. As individuals also, it is something we should pay more attention to than we most likely do. I am guilty of this. Sure, women need to be more careful than men in terms of dressing too provocatively to be giving the wrong impression, not just of being slutty, but possibly of being incompetent or an airhead, when in actual fact you might just have beauty AND brains (go you). It has been said that women get taken more seriously in business when they dress more masculine, however I’m curious how many women feel they had the advantage in a job interview because they are pretty, or dressed to show it off?

We don’t have the answers, but we should ask the questions until we get the research to hand. In the meantime, even though it’s the last thing we really want to think about first thing in the morning, we should probably think a bit more about what we are wearing each day, not just for the outside world, but if you feel good, you will most likely do a better job.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/new-study-what-you-wear-could-affect-how-well-you-work/2011/04/01/gIQAssHomR_blog.html

https://www.citibank.com/womenandco/article/how-your-work-wardrobe-could-impact-your-performance.jsp

http://woman.thenest.com/wear-affect-communication-job-7984.html

http://work.chron.com/wear-affect-communication-job-15923.html

http://careers.yourmoney.ca/2012/05/what-you-wear-could-affect-how-well-you-work.html

Related articles

• What to wear to work in the PR and marketing industry (prdaily.com)
• Dress to Impress (fsu.uloop.com)
• Ideas for What to Wear When You Have “Nothing to Wear”. (kate152william.wordpress.com)