The final betrayal of the left

cia

If you ever had any doubt that the CIA was up to no good, look at the Vault 7 leaks and you’ll find the proof. They paint a picture of the CIA so frightening that it it makes the Snooper’s Charter look like a misdemeanour in terms of a breach of privacy. They revealed that the CIA is capable of hacking people’s cars and using smart TV’s to spy on people, tapping people’s phones, and has an arsenal of malware that it can use against whoever it pleases, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This is the kind of nightmarish scenario that we used to think only sci-fi writers and conspiracy theorists could think of, but Vault 7 may as well have vindicated all of them. Hell, InfoWars would have you believe that the revelations confirm everything they’ve been saying about the CIA, but at least this time they’re not totally crazy. To be fair, the CIA is the same organisation that has overseen the overthrow of democratically elected foreign leaders, experimented on mind control, and has been illegally spying on US citizens, and guess who’s defending them? The left-wing mainstream media. Since Vault 7 emerged, I’ve seen outlets like The Guardian, CNN, and the Washington Post come to the CIA’s defence, with The Guardian in particular spinning the news in a way that’s sympathetic to the CIA.

Yes, you heard right. Leftists are coming to the defence of the organisation that lied about Iraq, and I assume the only reason they’re defending the CIA is because Trump opposes it. The mere fact that a single leftist outlet is defending a government organisation as abominable as the CIA is shocking to me. I remember a time when the left used to wax lyrical about the evils of the CIA, and rally behind Julian Assange when he exposed the evils of the Bush administration. They loved him when WikiLeaks released documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars, but as soon as they started exposing corruption in the Democrat party and the CIA, Julian Assange suddenly becomes their scapegoat.

At this point it’s pretty clear what’s going on. By defending the CIA, the mainstream left has shown its true colours as the ideology for the elites. There is no way on earth that they represent the people, and certainly not ordinary Americans. They didn’t ask for organisations like the CIA to exist. They didn’t ask for an international spying ring, and they sure as hell didn’t ask for the government to be spying on them. This is what those of us in the know call the deep state, a government within a government, and the fact that the leftists of The Guardian are defending it shows unequivocally that the mainstream left has no real values. Just empty words. All they care about is power and influence. Nothing more.

I’d say that through this, they have cemented their complete betrayal of the people they claim to represent, which, to be fair, should have been obvious since the migrant crisis started. This time, however, I’m honestly stunned at how far they’ve sunk. I can see their motives for wanting open borders (wanting a reliable voting block), defending Hillary Clinton (partisan loyalty and identity politics), and gun control (they want to disarm the public), but I’m struggling to explain how the left can come to the conclusion that the CIA is a good thing. I suppose next they’ll say that America can’t function without the CIA, even though it was only a fairly recent invention. In fact, I think the Founding Fathers would have been tremendously appalled by the mere concept of the CIA, and horrified by its potential for abuse of state power.

I know the title of this rant is rather hyperbolic, but I think it’s warranted at this point. After this, there’s no going back. The left is doomed, and only drastic reform can allow it to regain the trust of the public, which I think is unlikely at this point. But then again, this is what they get for selling out to the globalists. They can’t defend liberal values anymore because real liberal values go against what globalists want, so instead they’ve allowed themselves to be co-opted by cultural Marxists, who took advantage of the weakness of the more naive liberals, and the end result is the twisted, distorted, sell-out left that you see all around you.

If they honestly think that they can win people over are deluded. The only people who listen to them are people who already believe them, and it’s probably not that hard to change most of their minds on this. In fact, I think we’ll see people on the left defecting to the right in disgust, just as I did in the wake of the Orlando massacre, disgusted by the left’s appalling unwillingness to address Islamic terrorism when it happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were to happen, in fact I encourage it, given that the left’s facade of righteousness has continued to crumble to the point of collapse. When you have people in the leftist media defending the CIA, the very thing they were up against in the 1990’s and the 2000’s, you know that the left is doomed, and it’s only a matter of time before the vast majority of the population in the Western world figures that out, and responds accordingly through the ballot box.

Emma Watson simply doesn’t get it

emma watson

I normally don’t like to write too many articles on celebrities (with my previous post being an exception), but given that this is about Emma Watson, the self-appointed Khaleesi of feminism, I simply couldn’t resist this time. Apparently the feminist film star drew the ire of sex-negative feminists when a photo of her in Vanity Fair showed her with her breasts barely covered by a white crocheted capelet. It shouldn’t really be a big deal, but as soon as it got out, she was branded as a hypocrite by other feminists, and her many critics. The reason I’m writing about it is because of her response to all this:

“It just always reveals to me how many misconceptions and what a misunderstanding there is about what feminism is. Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing.I’m confused. Most people are confused. No, I’m just always just quietly stunned.”

At that point I couldn’t help but laugh, because Emma obviously doesn’t realise what feminism truly is. Maybe in the past, feminism was about liberation, but today, feminism has barely anything to do with freedom. Certainly not for men, and apparently not for women if they’re the wrong kind of feminist. She has no idea what’s become of feminism. The movement had already accomplished its historical goal of ensuring that men and women are equal under the law, but without any legitimate causes to fight for in the West, the movement has become a hotbed of infighting wherein feminists consistently shout out those who aren’t ideologically pure enough. How it got this way has been explained many times, but I generally think that there are three simplified ways of explaining it:

  1. The misandrists were allowed to take control of movement and represent it in the public.
  2. The movement got tainted by Marxist ideological principles, which is way feminists see women as a class.
  3. Having been subsumed into progressivism and cultural Marxism, the movement in its current form (third-wave feminism) is now unwilling to deal with legitimate women’s rights issues in countries where feminism would actually do some good (e.g. India, China, Saudia Arabia, Mauritania, etc.), and are thus condemned to vapid first-world issues, as well as the by now thoroughly debunked myth of the gender wage gap.

Another thing she doesn’t realise is that feminism has become a culturally authoritarian ideology, in this case the left-wing equivalent of the Catholic church, and like all authoritarian ideologies, they don’t care about human nature (and they think they can change the way humans think), and they are only happy when everyone thinks the same way they do. So we shouldn’t be surprised when feminists lash at Emma Watson for showing a bit of her breasts in a Vanity Fair photo – this is them acting as if she has committed heresy against their ideological puritanism.

Ultimately that’s the only reason for this pointless fracas. Feminists and progressives in general have become the new puritans, and that’s fundamentally why people like me actively oppose them. In fact, they’re so similar to the old Christian puritans that sometimes criticising feminism can be just as socially awkward as criticising a Christian used to be. Instead of the New Christian Right of the 1980’s, we now have third-wave feminism, and these feminists are the new pearl clutching class.

However, I think the nonsense is also Emma Watson’s fault, but not because she volunteered to pose in the photo. After the Harry Potter film series finished (ending perhaps her only real claim to fame if we’re totally honest), she’s spent the past few years building up an image as the face of feminism in Hollywood, unaware of the reasons why feminists are so unpopular. Through her He for She campaign, she presented herself as the “righteous” feminist who only wants to spread the word of feminism, while condemning other celebrities for expressing their feminism in ways she doesn’t like. She’s basically the feminist equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart, and this is the moment where she’s exposed as a hypocrite.

hypocrisy

This is what a feminist looks like.

In a way, it’s great to see self-righteous hypocrites like her get taken down a peg in a way they so evidently deserve. This is a woman who talks about how women need feminism because they’re oppressed, speaking from an awesomely lofty position of wealth, privilege and celebrity status, and yet she has the nerve to accuse critics like myself of not understanding feminism. She has no idea why we don’t want anything to do with feminism, and at some point, we’re going to get tired of telling her. She’s a champagne feminist at heart, and I say this because she talks about how we “need” feminism (and her army of professional ass-kissers in the left-wing media parrot this), but let’s be honest. Emma Watson isn’t oppressed. Any woman who made it in Hollywood can never be considered oppressed, unless you see women as a collective class.

Overall, I think Emma Watson constantly talks out of her ass like most Hollywood celebrities do, but to her credit, I believe her when she says she’s confused, because she has absolutely no idea of the beast that feminism really is. If she did, then trust me, she wouldn’t be calling herself a feminist.

President Oprah?

oprah winfrey

Oh God no.

By now leftists are still trying to figure out ways of defeating the Donald (they can’t, but it’s both entertaining and frustrating to watch them try), but one fundamental problem is that there is no Democrat that has anything close to the kind of charisma that can allow him or her to match up to Donald Trump. However, there’s a chance that the Democrats’ prayers may yet be answered, as the shrill reality TV host Oprah Winfrey has hinted that she may yet run against President Trump, presumably as a Democrat.

I can guarantee that there will be clueless leftist salivating over this very possibility (indeed, somewhat at Salon did write about this), but am I the only one who thinks an Oprah presidency is a retarded idea? After all, I’m sure many leftists seemed to object to the very idea of a TV star running for President, and now they’re going to throw their support for another TV star, let alone the kind of personality who, believe it or not, is even more of a lowest-common-denominator candidate than they perceive Trump to be (her show was literally vapid daytime TV, there’s nothing worse than that). Still, at least the left has finally accepted that you don’t need political experience to run for office, if only because reality hit them hard.

All that aside, I sincerely doubt that Oprah Winfrey would be a viable candidate, even if the DNC decided to run her against Donald Trump. The way I see it is that Oprah will make the same mistake Hillary did, by running on her gender. The Winfrey campaign would be focused almost entirely on identity politics, and why not? As a black woman, Winfrey would automatically gain favour amongst race-baiting progressives, but that’s about it. If she did run, she would probably be the favourite candidate of a media class that doesn’t want to get out of the 1990’s, when cable news and wedge-issue politics were actually effective.

Also, if they did run Oprah, I think it would be a sign that the Democrats have officially given up, that they are utterly incapable of thinking outside the box. Not that I’d have a problem. I want the Democratic Party to sink like the Titanic, that being the only adequate punishment for its years of corruption. However, it’s bad for anyone who wants the Republican Party to have any meaningful election. The way Trump’s going, he might stay in power until 2024. Hell, we may be in for a full repeat of the 12-year reign the Republicans enjoyed starting in 1980.

I can’t help but think that Oprah would be the candidate for the few Obama worshippers left in America, the people who want to forget all of Obama’s failings as a president, and the fact that nothing really improved for the working class under Obama. Winfrey, to put it bluntly, would be another candidate for the rich and powerful, another corporatist Democrat. That, I think, is why she will be doomed to failure.

Winfrey may have the establishment media, celebrity culture, and name recognition on her side, but it won’t make a difference. The establishment media is dying, as evidenced by its naked attempts to attack the alternative media (let’s face it, the PewDiePie ruckus was conjured up by the Wall Street Journal just to try and sink his career), and celebrity culture is becoming increasingly irrelevant (as evidenced by the Oscars’ low ratings). Name recognition can also be a double-edged sword. Hillary Clinton had plenty of name recognition too, because of the many skeletons lurking in her closet.

That’s not the only thing that might sink Winfrey’s chances. If Trump can do a good enough job during his first term, and it looks as if he is, he’ll likely be handed a second term on a silver platter. It wouldn’t be the first time. In 1984, Ronald Reagan won all but 15 electoral votes against a weak Democratic candidate. Given the historical precedent, I think that no Democrat candidate, let alone Oprah Winfrey, stands even a remote chance of winning, and yet there are people there who think that Oprah would make a better President than Donald Trump.

Still, I can partially understand the fantasy behind a Winfrey presidency. The contemporary left is beaten, broken and battered, presently shackled to an unashamedly corporate party that pretends to represent left-wing values, only to run an extremely corrupt candidate for President, and select yet another corporatist as its chair. If only they had a candidate with the kind of celebrity status that Trump has, maybe then they would have had a fighting chance. The truth is that the Democrats are finished unless they are willing to change. If they actually run Oprah against Trump, then that will just prove to everyone that the Democrats are the same old party that they’ve been for years, and they’ll continue to lose until they either reform or collapse. Yes, the Democrats are in an existential crisis, but Oprah is certainly not the answer.

Believing the lecturer (a rant)

listen and believe

So I had an interesting conversation with some of my classmates, wherein I talked about the contents of a previous lecture, in which the lecturer, attempting to explain the 50’s mystique, read from an article entitled “Only a Mad Woman would call the 50s a golden age”, which sort of implied that the nostalgic, rose-tinted view of the 50’s is a recent phenomenon attributable to the TV show Mad Men. That didn’t sound right at all. I know that’s bullshit, because I used to watch the 70’s sitcom Happy Days, a show that uncritically exonerates the 50’s is this golden decade in which nothing went wrong.

When I actually researched the article, I found out that this was lifted from The Daily Mail (I checked word for word, and it was the correct one), a tabloid newspaper with about as much credibility as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The article itself was written by Liz Hodgkinson, a noted feminist who writes for the Femail column (the UK equivalent of Jezebel that’s somehow part of a fervently right-wing paper).

In the same lecture, we were treated to the first episode of a 2002 BBC documentary entitled “Century of the Self”, which was made by Adam Curtis, a glorified conspiracy theorist who apparently has a reputation for manipulative film-making tactics designed to hand-hold you towards his conclusion. The central assertion is that modern consumer culture is essentially the product of Edward Bernays and the ideas of the Freud family. Even if it was largely factual, it was exquisite propaganda, and had the tendency to imply rather bold claims that could easily be debunked. For instance, one part of the film implied that Edward Bernays was responsible for getting women to smoke, which Curtis would be successful in having you believe if you’re a moron. A quick google search will yield several photos and/or illustrations that show women smoking (I found an image dating back to 1906).

Anyways, after I explained this (in greater detail, I just condensed it in this post so I could get to the point), one of my classmates apparently told me that I should just listen to whatever the lecturer has to say, with weak arguments such as “how many degrees do I have” or “how long have I been in art”. None of those questions were even fucking relevant. My argument is that you should take what a lecturer says with at least some scepticism. You should be critically analysing what you’ve been taught, but apparently he disagrees. He thought I should basically sponge up what the lecturer says without thinking about it. Effectively, he argued that I should accept academic dogma uncritically. Gee, where have I heard this before?

anita sarkeesian

There is a very good reason I don’t just sit there and accept what the lecturer has to say unless I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s factual. As I’ve written about several times on this site, you have crazy left-wing ideologues who constantly lie about sexism, racism, so-called Islamophobia, and they run rampant on the mainstream media. Such ideologues are also found in academia, in the form of far-left academics who preach Marxism and social justice as if it were gospel. As we have seen over the past few years, we know that Marxist lecturers have been using their position to indoctrinate young people into the cult of social justice, and if that’s true, how can I not be sceptical of what they’re saying?

Besides, people forget that this “listen and believe” attitude isn’t just limited to leftists. The conservative Christians also pulled this crap too when Bush Jr. was President, or did everyone forget? In fact, you get this mentality from any brand of authoritarian ideology. Given that you get at least some Marxism in every university, I have to be sceptical of what I’m taught. Failing to be sceptical would be a dereliction of every value I hold dear.

The other reason I can’t accept such a proposition is because if you apply that logic, it can become dangerous. If you just sponge up everything a lecturer says uncritically, then you can get tricked into believing outright falsehoods such as white privilege, the patriarchy, and so on. Besides, if you’re willing to just listen and believe in the case of lecturers, then why not apply this logic to priests, imams, newsmen and politicians? If you won’t, then you’re not being consistent in your values. If you do, then your naivety will be a con artist’s best friend. After all, a good old confidence trick can only work if you trust the con artist.

I’m not trying to say that all university lecturers are con artists. I’m sure most of them have standards, and I’m certainly not suspecting art teachers, but I’m saying that students should be sceptical of their lecturers, just as they should be sceptical of the media, the politicians, and organised religion. In that sense I’m applying my sceptical principles universally, and believe that everyone else should. Is that really such a bad thing?

It’s time to wake up – the far-left are not your friends

Sorry I didn’t post much over these few weeks, but I’ve been quite bored with the topics of choice lately. All the anti-Trump hysteria gets repetitive after a while, and I thought I’d get overworked if I focused on that, so I thought, let’s talk about something other than Trump, because I’m getting sick of hearing from the far-left agitators in the media, especially when they all say the same things, stoking a new wave of tension as they do it. Of course, it wasn’t exactly long before the left-wing radicals decided to come out of the woodwork, and they’ve decided that their “allies” in the more liberal left are no longer useful to them.

communism

The message couldn’t be clearer.

I am of course referring to the now infamous riot that occurred in the University of California’s Berkeley campus this week, in which masked, Antifa-affiliated communists broke windows, hurled smoke bombs, and started bonfire all because Milo Yiannopoulos came to the campus, to air opinions that the far-left don’t approve of. We know they are communists because of their general rhetoric, but also because this is the same group of people behind the riots on January 20th. The best possible sign of their communist leanings is their disdain for anyone to the right of them, and as the image above shows, this includes liberals.

It seems as if the social justice leftists, rather than accepting defeat, and helping to unify the country (which is unlikely because it means them accepting responsibility for the division they’ve caused), they’ve decided to make their enemy list bigger. It used to be that all Republicans were Nazis, then all conservatives, then all Trump supporters, and now it’s crystal clear to everyone that they hate liberals too, and what clearer way for them to say it than “liberals get the bullet too”. I’m not entirely surprised, not just because they’re communists, but also because the mainstream left in the West (and I’m not saying Antifa are part of that) has become so extreme that they disown anyone who’s just a hair to the right of them, who they label as “Nazis” (thereby watering down yet another word to the point of removing all meaning), which in their minds, excuses violence against them.

If you’re a progressive or a left-leaning liberal reading this, it’s time for you to wake up and smell your so-called allies in the social justice camp. They aren’t your friends, and they never were. In fact, I’m convinced that they’ve been waiting for a time like this for many years. In the past, it seemed as if the social justice leftists weren’t crazy, or at least it seemed that way to the moderate progressives and liberals, but that’s because the far-left have been using the terms “liberal” and “progressive” as a kind of trojan horse. They’ve infiltrated you guys, subverting the liberal left from within, and as a consequence, the mainstream left is now full of far-left ideologues who are solely interested in advancing their agenda, controlling the narrative, and suppressing those who disagree with them.

I don’t think even the moderate left-wingers even realised until now the kind of people the social justice leftists are, or what kind of world they would create. If they had their way, and we wind up having a communist regime, the liberals would be purged, along with any social justice leftists who aren’t members of the communist party.

If there is one silver lining, however, it’s that I think now we are going to start seeing more and more liberals and progressives rejecting the far-left elements that have been infiltrating them. Ever since the victory of Donald Trump, the far-left, unable to debate with the public, have resorted to violence and intimidation tactics, but such internecine flailing will come at their expense. The social justice left have been exposed for what they really are, and I don’t think we have to do anything, as the leftists will basically make themselves look bad every time Donald Trump does anything nowadays. Hopefully more people will begin to realise that they were being had by radical leftist ideologues, who are now springing into action to try and subvert America and Europe not through covert tactics as they usually would (because they have failed), but through coercion and violence, and I hope we will see the end of this repugnant nonsense once and for all.

I hope this wasn’t too much of a rant, but I wanted to get this out there, because I genuinely believe that people in the mainstream left have no idea that they are being used by those in the radical left as useful idiots to further their own agenda, and if the radicals had their way, the ordinary liberals would be shot. Now there are commies who outright state this. Is this isn’t proof enough that progressives and liberals were being duped, then I don’t know what is. I can only hope that more of the left-wingers who value individualism and democracy come to realise that they are being conned, and shun the far-left back into the scrap heap of history.

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

women's march

On Saturday the presidential inauguration was followed by the Women’s March protests, and since then I have yet to hear the end of it. The women were protesting the inauguration of Donald Trump, so the media reported on it as if it were some sort of righteous feat of activism, pretending that they were standing up for women’s rights, but really it was just a bunch of over-privileged nutjobs whining that the candidate they didn’t like won and was inaugurated without a hitch. It was a waste of everyone’s time, and in such a way that it was literally no different to when a bunch of Tea Party protestors agitated vainly against the re-election of Barack Obama.

It’s easy to guess why the women were marching in droves. They still believe that Donald Trump is a brazen misogynist who views women is little more than pieces of meat, and they probably believe the accusations of sexual assault levied against him. Of course, it’s all a lie. There’s no proof that Donald Trump is a sexist, nothing but hearsay, conjecture and ad hominem slurs. The idea that Trump hates women comes from the cultural Marxist view of women as a class. For the progressives (who themselves have adopted the ideology of cultural Marxism), insulting one woman means insulting all women. After Donald Trump insulted Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News presenter who will now work for NBC), many progressives invented the narrative that Donald Trump is a sexist, a misogynist, and by extension, and enemy of women’s rights.

Of course, it’s all a big lie, but that in itself is the problem at heart. The more outrageous the lie, the more easily people who aren’t informed will believe it, and if a lie is repeated often enough, many will perceive it as the inescapable truth. This is how we got to the point where millions of women believe that Donald Trump is a chauvinistic caveman who just grabs vaginas all the time. In other words, the Women’s March is based on a lie, a lie that has been perpetuated by the establishment because they see the populist Donald Trump as a threat to their interests. Unsurprisingly, the feminists, who see Donald Trump as the patriarchy made flesh, are more than willing to help them spread this nonsense, which is part of how you see a lot of young people believing what is provably a lie.

The opposition to Trump has become incredibly childish, having taken a lie as the truth, to the point that they have become emotionally invested in the narrative they have created for themselves, all without a shred of evidence. After all, if he truly were a misogynist, why would he hire Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager, and later his counselor? If he were truly a misogynist, he would never have become friends with Hillary Clinton before running against her, and nor would he think of his wife Melania very highly.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. Modern feminism is a religion built on lies. They believe that women are eternally held back by “the patriarchy”, and must be given special treatment in order to advance in life. They also believe that women are purposefully paid less than men, despite this being illegal under the law. They also believe that all men are potential rapists who reduce women to objects simply by looking at them, never mind that it’s the feminists, with their ghastly rhetoric, that are the ones who reduce women to little more than their bodies, or even their vaginas.

Before people start confusing my words, I’m not against the idea of marching. I believe that people must have the right to protest, but I don’t think every protest is just. In fact, I think the Women’s March was little more than feminists protesting the democratically elected President of the United States based on accusations of misogyny, and the false notion that Donald Trump poses a threat to women’s rights. Oh, and it turns out that many of the organisations involved in the Women’s March are tied with George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who was revealed to have given money to Black Lives Matter, and backed Hillary Clinton during the election. Why am I not surprised?

Will these lefty loonies just give it up already? Trump has won, and he has taken the oath of office. There’s nothing you can do, other than call him out when he actually does something wrong. All the feminists were doing was making the cause of women’s rights look like a joke in the eyes of people who had already had enough of the feminists and their nonsense, which in the end will only hurt their movement in the long run. Good going. At least rate, even the moderate, and often more naive liberals who support you will eventually come to the conclusion that you’re delusional, and all the support you’ll have left are the far-left gender ideologues who will harm your movement further as it completes its transformation into a toxic echo chamber.

If nothing else, what the were doing is an example of the kind of hyperbole that we are seeing. Yes, Trump is a questionable choice of President, he has made questionable business decisions, and I reserve some skepticism of some of his policy positions, but he is not a monster. He hasn’t thrown people off of buildings, he hasn’t rigged elections, he isn’t a rampant sexual predator, and he absolutely isn’t Hitler. This kind of hyperbole does nothing other than turn people against each other, and now against the head of state, and in the end they’ll be crying wolf so often that when it is time to question Trump on policy, nobody will care, and it will be the left’s fault, because they were too busy creating the same kind of division that they will then accuse Trump of creating.

Why I was right about Obama

obama

Four years ago, on the inauguration of former president Barack Obama’s second term, I wrote a post wherein I argued that his second term would be no different to the previous term. After all, America under Obama’s first term was still divided, thanks to the race-baiters in the media, and the economy barely improved at all. Meanwhile, America was still conducting silent wars in the Middle East under Obama’s watch, all while the corporatist establishment still made a killing. Obama spoke of “change”, and brought nothing under his first term.

With that in mind, I saw no reason why the second term would be any different, and apparently I was right. Months after Obama’s second term began, it was revealed that the NSA was secretly spying on everyone, and Obama approved of it. It was a massive scandal on par with the diplomatic cables scandal in 2010, went WikiLeaks revealed that the US government was spying on its own allies. Yet the Obama fanboys remained silent. How was that any different to George W. Bush pushing for the Patriot Act just because Obama has a D after his name? It isn’t, and yet the Obama worshippers in the mainstream media pretend that he’s somehow justified in doing all this.

I also predicted that America’s involvement in Afghanistan wouldn’t end until around 2014. I was right, though some US troops are still in Afghanistan in the war currently being fought against ISIS. Meanwhile, it’s also become apparent that the Obama administration’s ineptitude in the Middle East has created the ideal conditions for ISIS to flourish. His failures are compounded by his apparent refusal to say “radical Islam” (refusing to acknowledge it as a possible motivation for the Orlando massacre), demonstrating to ordinary Americans that he has no interest in combatting the single biggest existential threat to Western civilisation.

The US economy still didn’t improve, save for the urban and coastal areas, many of which vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat party. The Rust Belt and the flyover states didn’t get any help under Obama, and that’s one of the reasons why Donald Trump won in most of the states. All the while, Obama was trying to get America on board with the TPP, a trade agreement that would give multi-national corporations the power to sue a sovereign nation, or even private individuals. In terms of economics, Obama has been nothing other than a friend for the rich and powerful, and yet his adoring fans still give him a free pass.

However, I think there is one difference I should have taken into account. Given that Obama can’t ever seek re-election after the second term, he didn’t have to appease the voters anymore, so he set about a torridly partisan agenda that appeased the progressive overclass, but agitated Republicans and people who aren’t necessarily partisan either way. Thus, we saw Obama’s true colours. He was a sellout globalist who doesn’t give a crap about anyone who doesn’t think like him. In fact, his presidency was little more than a left-wing rehash of George W. Bush, an authoritarian expression of the deep state, which I would argue had expanded under Obama.

However, I was wrong in one way. When Obama promised change, he did affect some kind of change, but not in the way I expected. Under his watch, American society shifted further left, slowly being seduced by progressive platitudes as it desperately tries proving to the world that it can be more like Europe. Meanwhile, race relations have gotten worse, thanks to social justice warriors and organisations like Black Lives Matter (a black supremacist hate group founded on the lie that police deliberately target black youths because of their race), which is astounding because many people thought Obama would be the one to help fix race relations. How delusional they were.

All in all, I was mostly right in the sense that Obama’s second term was essentially the same old routine, except Obama could do almost anything he wanted to. Of course, the one thing I could guarantee remained the same was the sickening cult of personality that surrounded him, which just reeks of state worship. I always thought it was disturbing that people give any reverence to politicians, people who you know are going to lie. Evidently people expected Obama to be different, as if he’s above everyone else just because he was the first black president. Anyone who thought that has been thoroughly taken for a ride. The cult of personality around Obama was so widely accepted it’d make Kim Jong Un blush, as even people in Britain don’t question his actions.

Honestly, I’m glad that US presidents can’t have more than two terms, because it means that the most overrated president behind FDR doesn’t get the chance to screw up America even worse than he already had. With the way Obama’s been acting, along with the collusion within the Democrat party, a Republican presidency was inevitable. I just hope that Donald Trump does a halfway decent job, which would be miles better compared to Obama. I’m fairly optimistic too, considering Trump has already withdrawn from the TPP, which he said he’d do within the first few days of taking office. At this point, America after Obama is starting to look better. Maybe now more people will see beyond the cult of personality around Obama, and realise what a failure he truly was.