Dynamic or: please kill yourself and save the rest of us from your shallowness

Dynamic is the worst fucking word in the English language because it’s being completely butchered by fuck-heads who try to sound smart – reality check you’re a fucking retard (don’t be offended, I meant to say you’re fucking stupid, that your brain doesn’t function properly i.e. you are retarded).

There is nothing worse than reading news reports, government policy papers, and academic studies that feel the need to ram down your throat how fucking dynamic something is.

Really, it’s just a word to make you (a) seem smart, when really what you’re saying is really elementary, or (b) you actually have no idea what you are saying and want to fake it, or, finally (c) you purposefully want to obfuscate from the reality of how shit you are as a person.

So what is the definition of dynamic so that we can set the record straight.

These seem like pretty standard definitions. But they have left some key aspects out, namely, that the word is meaningless because it can be applied to basically anything, for example: “Omg, such a dynamic haircut!”; “Boris Johnson is the most dynamic politician in Britain at the moment”; “I’m going dynamically pound your face into the earth with this hammer if you don’t stop saying the fucking word dynamic.”

Here is how a normal person would say those sentences: “cool haircut! But you still look like a cuck”; “Boris Johnson should be retroactively aborted”; “If you say that word again I’ll force you to watch while I fuck your wife (and she’ll enjoy it)”.

Dynamic is an abomination of a word. Stop using it. Or if you do say it make it a part of your final words to the world like, “please swing that dynamic axe so dynamically into my neck that my head rolls dynamically off the platform into the dynamic crowd who will then dynamically foist it around on a stake passing it to one another as they piss and shit all over it.

So the next time you’re considering to dynamically drop a ‘dynamic’ into a sentence just remember, every time you do, humanity loses a little bit more faith in you. And if you do decide to go ahead and do it, how about you fuck off and dynamically fist your asshole – hmm yummy.

 Dynamic. A shit word, for shit people.

Journey to the Centre of Life

When I started university, I picked up Karl Marx and read everything. You name it, I read it – except Capital II, I never got around to that one. I soon styled myself as a solidly left-wing kind of person. I hated the current government, I did not respect my boss at all, I voted for standard left-wing politicians. I demonstrated in the streets, the US was evil, and Lenin was just misunderstood. I didn’t go so far as to sign up for the communist party and I would not consider myself a radical, but I certainly had some sympathies.

What attracted me to this day to thinkers like Karl Marx was the answer he provides to the question of why injustice exists in the world. In an increasingly agnostic world, we can’t just use God to explain the way things are – which is a rather horrible place. Everywhere one looks there just seems to be endless suffering and injustice. Marx gives you the answer to this question – capitalism.

So, I progressed through university, reading everything I could get my hands on including a lot of books from all across the political spectrum, but I remained fairly left-wing. I saw injustices in the world and thought this was inherent to a corrupt system of exploitation and I dreamt of a world where things were just easier for myself and everyone around me.

It broke my heart once to see a group of men sleeping in the street, not because they had no job, but because they had to start work at 4.30 in the morning and this was the only way the could be on time because they had no car and public transport doesn’t run at that time. This to me was unjust, and an example of exploitative system. Now I see this as just a bunch of guys trying their best to do what they think is right.

Something that really stuck in my mind though was that things on the left just never seemed to add up. If a socialist system was superior, why were we not at least edging towards it? Surely, even the average person would be able to understand that socialism is far more attractive than exploitative capitalism? Most important of all was the question – why is the other side winning?

To answer these questions, I committed myself to read a lot more of thinkers on the right, but without my left-wing lens. In other words, I wasn’t going to read these texts any less critically, but I was going to approach them differently from what I had previously. Before they were the thinkers that justified capitalist enslavement of mankind through a corrupt political system, now I wanted to assess them for what they had originally intended their texts to be.

My first port of call was Rousseau and his Du Contrat Sociale – and boy was it an eye opener.

Rousseau’s famous line:“man is born free, yet everywhere I see him in chains”resonates with me to this day. Rousseau’s answer for the existence of justice said to me that more fundamentally that exploitation, we are held back by convention.

Then I moved onto the other heavyweights: Hobbes, Locke, Mill and Burke. The collective achievement of these writers showed me the enormous progress western philosophy has taken to lift off the shackles of superstition, deference, and servitude.

I threw in other important writers, especially those who I would describe as confused socialists, Orwell and Camus. It was important for me to understand their relationship with socialism and why they turned their backs on international communism. For me, the story of Camus particularly is the most poignant

when your ideology justifies violence against others it is broken.

I recognise now that left-wing ideology fundamentally does not work. That is not to say right-wing ideology is any better. So, I sit now in the centre. That all changed when I read Schmidt, and now I don’t sit anywhere, I’ve just left the party altogether. Basically, I’m floundering on the floor in crushing cynicism.

So, what are the lessons I have learned so far?

  1. Marx was wrong: capitalism is not coming to roaring conclusion. It’s just not going to happen.
  2. Always be sceptical: no one has the right answer, they have only an answer.
  3. I am free: my life and destiny are entirely my responsibility.
  4. Power should remain within the individual: Governments cannot be trusted – delegating power will invariably lead to worse outcomes for people.
  5. Suffering is a part of the human condition: it is what we do with it that counts.

And what I recommend for people? Two words: Marcus Aurelius.

Loosen Your Butthole This Christmas

**Strap yourself in cause this one could be… visceral**

Here is what makes me a rage this Christmas – Consumer rape. That’s the phrase I’m going with, I’m still working on a better phrase. Anyone got any suggestions? You just let me know. Consumer rape is the process of fucking every last cent of disposable income from you during the holiday season everywhere you turn.

This is nothing new, but fuck me, now that I have some proper disposable income its quite apparent how much companies are fucking you for cash. Before, you noticed it, but you were so fucking poor as a student that you couldn’t buy anything. Fuck, you get a job, you get some income, but no one told me about the rampant consumer rape – the middle class fucking sucks.

I’m sitting in an airport right now writing this and the hipster burger place opposite me is trying to charge €26 for a goddamn burger, and the sushi behind wants €18 for six pieces. That’s some expensive fucking rice. But I’m fucking hungry, I’m nursing a hangover (not my worst, but still) so I go ahead and proceed to try order. And this is where shit takes a quick turnabout.

To my great surprise companies will now offer, free of charge for your kind patronage, to shove their clenched fist up your ass. It’s a part of a new ‘visceral experience’ they are trialling. It seems to be catching on the because the queues are rather long. Studies show that consumers are reacting positively to the new service,

researchers claim that consumers prefer to have their asshole ripped when they are being price gouged.

But it doesn’t stop there. For the sentimental types, some businesses will offer to spit on their fist before insertion just to ease it on up there. Want a more ‘intimate’ experience? For an extra 50c, the service=worker will whisper “you’re special” in your ear as they reach up to grip your colon.

But honestly, I don’t even blame these companies. They are doing exactly what any other profit-driven company would do and exploit the context and situation to their advantage. Which begs the question: are these businesses just giving us what we want?

And don’t worry, these businesses are environmentally friendly. With each purchase these guys plant trees and donate to causes cleaning waterways. So don’t you worry, you love the environment, and we love selling to you shit on that basis. Now we have environmentally friendly consumer rape!

After this arduous and traumatising ordeal here I am sitting in a fucking airport having just been raped wondering where my dignity has gone and with a wrenching feeling in my stomach. Oh wait, fuck that’s right, I’m still hungry… Better pucker my asshole for another round, think I’ll need some special K to forget this experience.


A Letter to Google

Dear Google,

When you get the time could you get around to finishing the Matrix. It seems to me that it’d be a hit with the people today. I mean, everyone just seems to want to always be elsewhere but here. I can tell, because they can’t put their fucking phones away for more than 3 minutes. Since they want to spend so much time in the digital world – let’s just give it to them.

Whether when it’s eating some food, going to a concert, or at home with their cat, people just cannot seem to be able to get themselves away from the digital world of make believe. So, the sooner you guys get the Matrix up and running the better, cause then the real world will just be left to those us who are content to just eat a meal, go to a concert, and sit at home with our cats, without having to tell everyone about it. For the record dickheads, your photos are fucking shit even with Instagram filters, and your mindless Facebook updates are as shallow as the Aral Sea.


I’ve already figured out the business model for you Google, so the whole thing will be very lucrative for you. You know, since the General Data Protection Regulation came into force, companies like you have not been having a good time. But the Matrix solves all this. You can just get their explicit consent as they enter the Matrix, and use these little consumption machines as test subject for as much advertising as you want. Ads all day, every day.

You guys will be the CNN of advertising, 24/7, vacuous, but targeted.

And as we all know, all corporations have a bad side, and the Matrix covers this too – while people are in the Matrix you can harvest their organs without them knowing. In fact, you could even team up with the pharmaceutical industry and use them as test subjects for new medicines and cosmetics. Then we won’t have to use animals anymore. That’ll keep Greenpeace happy. Boom! Killing two birds with one stone (except we won’t have to kill birds anymore)

But hey, I don’t want you to take this the wrong way. I actually love you Google, cause you are intuitive to use, and when used correctly you’re a powerful tool. And perhaps I’m roping you in with other companies unfairly. But you are the only one I could trust to create the Matrix. Please Google, you’re my only hope.

My real bone to pick is with the degenerates who can’t put their fucking phones away. I just want to be able to see my favourite bands without a ocean of cameras taking photos and videos. So please, Google, invest all your money in creating the Matrix. Do this for me, and I’ll consider paying for your Youtube premium service (seriously who is paying for that, lol)

In closing, Google, I just want to say, you’re great, and please just give these people what they want. A place where they can be everywhere but here, and they can share things as much as they want with one another. In the Matrix they won’t even need phones, they could just plug into the hive mind together.


The Last Straw

Do you really need that straw? Save the turtles. Fuck the turtles, save yourself.

If you need a straw to drink you’re a child, because only children need straws. What are straws for? Apart from using them as makeshift snorkels in the bath (fuck you, we’ve all done that), straws are for drinking. But we have already invented a thing to drink – it’s called a cup you idiot.

Why has humanity engineered a device to drink out of a device that has already been engineered to be drunk from. By this logic we’ll need chairs, for our chairs, and beds for our beds. Ridiculous. So, save the planet, sure, but also save your own sanctity and sanity.

Only children need straws, and this is because their small little brains can’t get their mind around the concept of drinking from a cup. With straws we are only encouraging children to remain children = forever. We do that enough in other areas of life, and in my opinion, we don’t need to extend to the drinking sphere. The biggest insult is when one drinks alcohol from a straw. Don’t give me some tripe that straws are more efficient to drink alcohol. Wrong! Just drink more alcohol. Why have one cocktail, when you can have two?

With that said, the only benefit for the existence of straws is the strawpedo. When positioned correctly the strawpedo allows one to skull an entire vessel in 3 seconds. Straws are also known for getting you drunk faster. This is the only acceptable use of straws. All other uses of straws are redundant, a waste of time, or behaviour suitable only for children.


It’s time to end the tyranny of the straw. Let’s save some turtles, those fuckers are so cute. But let’s also save the people from the crippling infantilism that drinking from a straw brings. For fucks sake, just use the things we have also designed to drink from.


Fascist Prudes

For Rachel Smalley justice was served when a man who streaked across Eden Park was beaten by the security guards once he was taken from the field. In her book – this is justice. She might as well sign up to her local fascist party office where the rule of law is just an inconvenient thing that needn’t be observed.

Ms Smalley’s greatest gripe is with people who get naked in front of 20,000 people or so and run across the field. She compares this to someone just stripping naked in a mall. She thinks it is indecent exposure. Apparently Rachel was born in Victorian England, frozen in ice, melted and given accent training so she could fit into contemporary New Zealand culture. Honestly what is wrong with getting naked? We live in a society that sexualises women on a daily basis all across our media in order to sell products and yet you are going to tell me that the sight of a naked human body repulses you. Honestly grow up. It is this kind of thinking inherited from our prudish ancestors in England that has led to the bizarre paradox of flashing near naked men and women everywhere to sell products, defending it on the basis of freedom of expression, but a man stripping his clothes and running across a field is somehow grotesquely worse to the point where he deserves to be beaten. Really? But Rachel’s greatest concern is for the children though.

 I think my intolerance towards this is growing now that I’m a parent, and rugby – like most sport – is a family game. There would have been a lot of kids in the stands at Eden Park at the weekend. A lot of families.

And they’re innocently watching the rugby as some idiot strips off, gets his ‘todger’ out, and tries to flash as many people as he can.

Oh the fragile innocent children! They might shatter into a thousand pieces if they see a grown man’s penis. Please, spare me. If anything we should be encouraging children to be naked in the appropriate settings more often. Maybe then kids won’t grow up so insecure about their bodies. Indeed, if it weren’t for the need to be able distinguish which team is which I would advocate athletes play naked just as the Greeks did 2500 years ago.

But while Rachel is signing up for the fascist party she might want to stop in next door and also sign up to the fun-police. The fun–police are a serious problem in New Zealand. This clandestine group has perpetuated society for the last 20 years or so, cracking down on anything fun outside of the strict notions of what is acceptable by white middle class people. My prime example is what happened to rugby sevens in Wellington which at one point was the biggest party is New Zealand and after this year is likely to never return. Well done cracking down on fun there. This is another micro example of this mentality. Rachel Smalley is repulsed by the human body and by other people enjoying it so we better stop it. Get off your high horse and just accept that some people like to have fun at sports matches. A few less rules and people might actually turn up to the games.

The most egregious part of Rachel’s opinion is that the man deserved to be beaten behind closed doors out of sight from the public. Since when did we hand over the reins of justice to private security contractors? If the man is to be held to account for his actions, which as you may have noted above I think he shouldn’t, then he should held account according to the law. In Rachel’s world “It is he who has surely committed the far greater crime.” So assault is a lesser crime than being naked in public. Next time the news reports on an assault (we won’t have to wait long they love these kinds of stories) at least they will be able to say, “Well at least he wasn’t naked.” Heaven forbid an assault ever takes place when the perpetrator wasn’t wearing any clothes we might have to bring back to the death penalty for that.

Rachel Smalley you are an 18th century fascist prude.



NZ Herald Subliminal Propaganda

The latest NZ Herald article about the upcoming TPP signing is a perfect example of the subliminal messaging used to undermine dissent in New Zealand. The article’s headline is about police door knocking on ‘known activists’, which for any sane person should have alarm bells ringing. The article proceeds to undermine those alarm bells by beginning with an example of police door knocking in Dunedin, at the house of a transgender activist Scout Barbara-Evans.

Here is where they should have ended. Yet, the reporter, or likely, the editor, chose instead to give us irrelevant facts in order to discredit this person via subtle means. What I refer to is the irrelevant fact that they go by the pronoun ‘they’. Sounds bizarre, because it is. But that has no bearing on the story whatsoever. The story is about the TPP, not about transgender pronouns.

Sadly, people don’t really care about the trials and tribulations of the transgender community. Society should probably focus on this issue more. However, for the case at hand it is irrelevant. What’s more, the Herald knows that the average person who reads the paper is, like most New Zealanders, pretty socially liberal, but does not care for unconventional topics as how a transgender should be addressed. This characterises Scout as unconventional, and therefore, less likely to be listened to.

In this way, the Herald undermines the comments of Scout. By attaching ludicrous information to focus our attention on the fact Scout is a little unconventional, the average reader will then likely dismiss Scout’s comments that the situation is akin to the 1981 Springbok tour, perhaps still, New Zealand’s most divisive issue to date.

Of the 735 words that constitutes the article only 94 are actually spent on this person Scout, who goes by the pronoun ‘they’. Thus, they figure very little in the article – the article mostly focuses on Jane Kelsey. However, a photo of Scout accompanies the piece giving the impression she features significantly.

It is ironic that the fears of Dr Kelsey, mentioned in the piece, are subliminally realised in articles such as these. Kelsey fears that the government aims to shift the narrative from one about “ethics [and] justice, [and] democracy and sovereignty to a law and order issue”. The NZ Herald is doing the dirty work of the government by characterising those involved in these protests as ones who come from the edge of society, while the police prepare to get the preemptive jump on the dissenters.

The article mentions at the end that Scout is not even involved with the group participating in TPP protests. This renders Scout’s inclusion almost completely pointless except for the fact that we can then blame the police for harassing people not involved in the upcoming protest. Placing this tidbit at the end is significant because most readers do not read an entire article. Moreover, the information is completely out of context except for a stylistic flourish to create a sense of closure to the piece.

But it’s a 750 word article, it doesn’t need ring composition. If the NZ Herald reported properly, they should have placed this information at the beginning when Scout is introduced in order to give an accurate portrayal of events. The beginning more accurately should read something like:

New Zealand Police have been knocking on the doors of ‘known activists’ around the country ahead of upcoming protests over the TPP, which is to be signed in Auckland on February 6. One such person to experience this was Scout, a transgender activist from Dunedin, who is not involved in the planned protests. Scout characterised the police actions akin to the 1981 Springbok tour protests which divided the country.

If the NZ Herald genuinely wished to accurately report the news in a meaningful way then their articles would more accurately reflect reality without the addition of spurious adjuncts.

Hours after reading this article the average reader of the NZ Herald is not going to remember the comments of Jane Kelsey, who warned that the government is trying to change the narrative. Instead they will remember the transgender Scout, who goes by the pronoun ‘they’ and is not even involved in the protest.

The narrative over the TPP is changing, and the NZ Herald are the one doing so.

link to the article: