The moral bankruptcy of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act

israel protest

Recently in America, a bipartisan group of senators and congressman signed a bill called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which, if signed into law, would make it a crime to support a boycott against Israel. More shockingly, the proposed punishment for violating this law includes a minimum fine of $250,000 and a maximum fine of $1 million, and you could be thrown in jail for a maximum of 20 years. The AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) acts as if it’s a necessary part of what they see as a fight against the “delegitimisation of Israel”, and indeed, this was a top priority for the lobbying organisation this year.

My own views on Israel notwithstanding, this is simply an extremely abhorrent piece of legislation that I’m shocked anyone supports. The people who support it seem to have no idea of the ramifications this bill might have, namely regarding free speech. They seem to have forgotten that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly forbids any laws abridging freedom of speech. Of course their politicians, so I almost except them to skirt the constitution, but not so brazenly as they will do if this law passes.

Note that this bill was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. You have prominent conservative senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio supporting it (thereby throwing Ted Cruz’s commitment to the constitution in question), along with left-wing senators such as Kirsten Gillibrand, Adam Schiff and Maria Cantwell. That should basically tell you that they’re all career politicians who want money wherever they can get it, and apparently the Israel Lobby is an indispensable source of income to them, so they have to appease them however they can.

Before you misconstrue me for some anti-Israel leftist, consider this. I actually oppose Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, because it’s an obvious attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel through hard-left moralising, and is one-sidedly in favour of the Palestinian side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I’m about as supportive of Israel as I can get, but as a matter of principle, I am diametrically opposed to any law that threatens freedom of speech in any country, especially the West. We are facing enough threats to freedom of speech from potential totalitarians in our own governments (and in opposition). The last thing we want is more.

What’s really sad is that this can go on because there is no real opposition. Bipartisanship notwithstanding, this is the kind of bill I would have expected from a die-hard Republican back in the late 2000’s. In fact, I bet it’s mainly the chickenhawk neo-cons who want this, but the so-called liberals aren’t doing anything, and that’s because the left has lost its mind. Instead of focusing on serious issues like this, they’re focusing on non-issues like the wage gap, Islamophobia and the so-called “Trump-Russia collusion”, none of which are even real things, let alone things that Americans care about. The “liberal left” has spent so much of its energies on fantasy issues that it lost track of the real ones, and now its left to the functionally retarded ACLU to try and stop this. Yes, the very same ACLU that came out in defence of Islamist SJW Linda Sarsour.

In my opinion, this is the true moral bankruptcy of the bill. It’s an opportunistic piece of authoritarian legislation being trotted out by a bunch of unscrupulous political sellouts who know that they can slip it past the radar while the mainstream left is busy drumming up that phoney Russian collusion scandal. It’s exactly like how the British Parliament managed to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill while the opposition was in chaos and the left was too busy trying to undo Brexit.

Advertisements

James Hodgkinson and the zeitgeist of faux heroism

So earlier today, a man from Illinois marched his way to the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia, where several Republican congressman were something called the Congressional Baseball Game. He opened fire and shot five Republicans, including the house majority whip Steve Scalise, who was shot in the hip, but thankfully is still alive. Eventually the gunman was identified as one James T. Hodgkinson, who was revealed to be a hardcore progressive who supported Bernie Sanders’ campaign, vindicating anyone who guessed that he had a political motive for trying to kill them. As a matter of fact, he was a member of a number of left-wing Facebook groups, including the far-left “Terminate the Republican Party”, a partisan Democrat group whose members will undoubtedly deny condoning violence against conservatives.

Of course, some of us on the right have learned to expect this sort of thing to happen at some point or another. The media has spent nearly two years casting Donald Trump as the cream of evil, the next Lord Voldemort if you will, and his Republican cabinet as a shadowy cabal of assorted villains. No doubt many leftists young and old have swallowed this narrative wholesale, and now see themselves as #TheResistance. The new Dumbledore’s Army, the last hope in the mythical battle of love versus hate. Such delusions inevitably give these leftists power fantasies of rising up against the government and hopefully killing Donald Trump, or at least as many Republican politicians as possible. So it’s no wonder why you have a number of Democrat supporters going violent, or at least calling for it, and yet it’s the Republicans who are supposed to be hateful.

Consider for instance Kathy Griffin’s recent stunt, in which she posted an edgy photo of herself holding the bloodied, decapitated head of an effigy of Donald Trump. People were naturally outraged, and when people found out that Trump’s youngest son Barron thought it was really him, not even CNN wanted anything to do with her, and she was promptly barred from appearing in their annual New Year’s Eve program. Some have said that Mr. Hodgkinson may have been inspired or at leased incensed by Kathy Griffin’s stunt, but because he’s now dead, there’s no way we can ever know for certain, and so it’s basically a coincidence. I only brought it up because she has become a prime example of the hatefulness of the left today. They are so fixated on Donald Trump, and how they’d like to kill him. It reminds me eerily of how the British left during the 1980’s treated Margaret Thatcher, and then someone tried to kill her in 1984.

We live in a time where many of us grew up with a black and white view of the world, as reinforced by pop cultural artefacts such as the Harry Potter films, along with the tribalism of contemporary politics as interpreted by the mainstream left-wing media. In such a culture, the leftie college student may consider himself a hero simply by joining the campus branch of Antifa. After all, through their pop culture-addled leftist lens, Donald Trump is the ultimate bad guy now, and anyone who opposes him is a friend in the “fight against evil” (evidently they’ve never known true evil). It used to be that said tribalism was confined to heated arguments and the odd filibuster. Now you have Democrats calling for bloodshed out in the open, and people honestly wonder where people like James Hodgkinson came from? They came from the anti-Trump frenzy that the neoliberal establishment has created.

When the US media spends nearly two years painting Donald Trump as the next Lord Voldemort, it’s only a matter of time before the lunatic left casts themselves as Dumbledore’s army, and forget that this isn’t Hogwarts. This fake sense of “heroism” is merely a guise for the left’s rampant narcissism, and 2017 has so far has been the year in which such narcissism is leading to terrible consequences. I know Hodgkinson was a man in his 60’s, but he clearly inculcated himself into the worldview of a child. Usually people abandon the notion that the people you disagree with politically are automatically the villains when they get older, but this is what far-left ideology does to people. It turns you into an adult toddler, at least in the mental sense.

So it should be no surprise that America now has progressive assassins potentially waiting in the wings. They’re delusional worldview has been validated by the establishment media and Hollywood celebrities who are telling them it’s okay to wish for the death of conservatives. After all, we’re the new Little Eichmanns aren’t we? Those willing accomplices in the transformation of the republic into a fascist dictatorship by the hands of a Cheetoh man in collusion with the Russians. That’s how they want people to see us, and in their minds, that justifies people wanting to kill Republican politicians.

I take two things away from this. Firstly that we need to a better job at raising the next generation, so that they don’t succumb to the fatal narcissism that the left prescribes as it loses its way. Secondly, assuming progressive ideology was Mr. Hodgkinson’s prime motive for the attempted attack, we must now come to the conclusion that progressivism has become a thing of pure malevolence – an ideology that requires its adherents to kill in order to preserve its existence. At least we know for sure that the progressive apple doesn’t fall very far from the Marxist tree.

The first betrayal of Donald Trump?

missile strike

When Donald Trump was running against Hillary Clinton, we were at least certain that he didn’t want to go to war with Russia, and that, along with Hillary’s atrocious track record, made Trump the lesser of two evils. After he was inaugurated, we were confident that the days of American foreign intervention were over, but we were wrong. After an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, Donald Trump decided to do the one thing we didn’t him to do – potentially start another fucking proxy war. On Thursday evening, Trump ordered a missile strike against an airfield in Syria from where the attack was supposedly conducted. All the more shocking is that President Trump, a man known for keeping his word, has decided to contradict his own stance on interventionism for the sake of appeasing the outraged. Never mind the fact that the “chemical weapons” narrative is flimsier than the Democrat National Committee’s excuses, and reeks of a false flag operation.

Now how did I come to that conclusion? Well, there’s a video that shows the “dead” victim of a sarin attack coming back to life (the same Twitter account has a few other interesting images for your consideration). I’ve read that reports of chemical weapons attacks from Syria tend to be unreliable, but then there’s the logical question. What does Bashar al-Assad, a man who has somehow managed to maintain power throughout the Syrian civil war thanks to foreign intervention, have to gain by gassing his own civilians?

Once that’s out of the way, you’ll probably come to conclusion that Assad has no interest in gassing his own citizens, as that would destroy nearly every alliance he has, leaving him a sitting duck in front of the rebels. That in mind, I think that either the attack was a hoax, or it wasn’t carried out by Syria. The Pentagon is already looking into the possibility of Russian involvement, but why would Russia frame one of its allies? In fact, what am I to make of this Daily Mail article dating back four years ago, suggesting a US backed plan to frame Assad for a chemical weapon attack, that was suspiciously deleted after the missile strikes?

While were here, I think it’s time to clear up my opinions of Assad, since I never did in this site. All I used to hear when I was a teenager is that Assad is a barbarous fiend who needs to be dealt with, but while he is a truly detestable individual, I oppose any effort by the West to remove Assad from power. The reason I oppose this is because this regime change philosophy has been done before in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and the end result is that those countries have been adversely affected by our attempts at “liberating” them from tyranny, because as bad as the previous dictators were, they were keeping the Islamists at bay. After they were gotten rid of, the Islamists were there to the fill the power vacuum left behind by their more secular predecessors, and they did exactly that, and now we have ISIS to deal with.

Simply put it, if Assad is killed, then it will create a situation where either ISIS can takeover, or the capital could be taken over by the Free Syrian Army, who are themselves Islamists. Either way, now is the wrong time to get rid of Assad, and I wish people would study the situation more before giving into moral panic next time we bring up Assad at the dinner table.

Going back to the main point, I also believe that that Trump was being misled, either by people within his own administration, or by his daughter. Think about it for a moment. Two days before the missiles were launched, Trump’s daughter Ivanka posted this tweet:

“Heartbroken and outraged by the images coming out of Syria following the atrocious chemical attack yesterday.”

I think you can guess who this is going to work out. Daughter cries about something she saw on TV, and then Daddy makes her feel better by taking care of it. Cute. Also consider the fact that her husband, Jared Kushner, is a senior advisor to Donald Trump (take a good guess as to how he got there), and apparently competes with Steven Bannon for influence within the administration. Call it a hunch, but I think Trump was being misled or pressured into striking the Syrian airfield by people who have their own agendas, and given the track records of people like John McCain, who praised the strikes, this isn’t a total leap of faith. It’s ultimately pointless for him to try and prove it anyway, because even the neo-cons know that the Russia narrative is a scam. We know Trump is not under the thumb of Vladimir Putin, and we know that Russia didn’t hack the elections, so why should he have to prove anything to them?

Either way, will it ignite a potential war with Syria? I don’t particularly think so. I think this is basically Trump throwing the neo-cons a bone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s not in bed with Russia, and that he’s not a complete isolationist. In fact, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this may only be a single punitive act. If that’s true, I might be thankful, but I don’t think he should have done it in the first place, because I know the reasons for doing so are based on outright lies. In fact, this is the same kind of manipulation that led the US to a pointless war in Iraq.

I can only hope that Trump has no plans to go to war in Syria, because if he does, we will have to come to the realisation that the supposed anti-establishment candidate, who we thought would signal the end of regime change, will have decided to engage in yet more regime change, and therefore becoming another establishment President.

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.

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.

What now?

donald trumpAfter weeks of hibernating, I’ve decided to come back to my post, and in this tumultuous of all days, it looks like I’m having to talk about the election, or rather, President Trump (I still can’t believe I’m writing this, but here we are). As you can expect, the left-wing media and the social justice warriors are all in full panic mode, and why wouldn’t they be? The masses have disobeyed them at every turn, because they’ve decided that they’d rather have Trump, with his moderate nationalism, than the most corrupt politician we’ve seen in years.

I should reiterate that I’m not a Trump supporter, but I can see how we got to this point (and tried to explain it myself in real life, but I didn’t want tensions to inflame too much), and remain sympathetic to the average American who voted Trump, so before I continue, I think I should briefly clear up why most of America voted Trump, since you’re most likely in a state of utter disbelief. The whole reason America voted Trump is because the average working class has been disenfranchised by the political establishment, and tarred and feathered as scum of the earth by the media and cultural establishment.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, represented all that Americans hated about the political establishment – the crony capitalism, the hawkish foreign policy, the ignoring and shaming of the working class. They’re fed up with the nonsense they’ve had to put up with from the cultural and political overclass, fed up with the grandstanding from left-wing celebrities like John Oliver and Amy Schumer, and fed up with the lack of political will for reform in America, and so it’s no wonder that, in their desire for change (on which Obama did not deliver for the most part), they have chosen to elect Trump. After all, he has positioned himself as the only candidate willing to hear the voices of the working class, and it worked. Trump’s victory is the inevitable result of the establishment’s devaluing and demonising of the working class, just as Brexit was in the UK. If you ask me, the Democrats had it coming.

Personally, I feel that the most disappointing aspect of the election is Gary Johnson’s dismal failure of a campaign. I knew he wasn’t going to win, but I thought that the Libertarian Party would have more of a future if he had at least gotten 5% of the popular vote, and he failed to do that. He got 3% of the vote, meaning that a serious challenge to the two-party system is still a pipe dream, at least for now. I think it wouldn’t have been so bad if Gary Johnson didn’t screw up so much. But then, Gary was never going to be an effective challenge to someone as charismatic as Trump evidently was.

What can we expect next? Who knows, but one thing is clear. Whether you were pro-Trump or anti-Trump, whether you think he is a good businessman or an incompetent, brazen bigot, the election of Donald Trump represents a clear rejection of the political and cultural establishment, and whatever the outcome could have been, the Trump campaign has exposed the elites for the hollow, empty shells of people that they are. They have failed to make a positive case for Hillary, or their ideology, and have instead tried to tarnish the character of both Trump and the ordinary people who may have supported him. This is exactly like what the Remain camp was doing in Brexit, instead of trying to persuade Americans of a positive future in the EU (which they couldn’t), they instead smeared all Leave voters as “racist” or “xenophobic”, or whatever word they felt like.

Either way, Trump’s victory will live on as a major defeat for the progressive (sorry, regressive) left. They’ve taken it extremely personally, and now I see young people and leftists proclaiming that America is officially “stupider than the UK”.

disdain for plebs

This was found in the fine art department in my campus.

First of all, the text is woefully inaccurate. Only 48% of Americans voted for Trump, but less than that voted for Clinton. Second of all, the disdain coming from whoever made this is surely self-evident, as if suddenly Americans are morons just for voting Trump into power, and I think that’s disgusting. If you don’t like Trump, that’s fine. If you think he would make a bad president, that’s also fine, but it’s not okay to just bash ordinary people for their differences, and you certainly shouldn’t just trash the land that I love just because of it. Most of the people who voted Trump also voted for Obama, and they voted Republican because they feel that Obama’s administration screwed them over. I don’t think that’s stupid at all. I don’t give a damn who people vote for as long as you don’t bully, mistreat or alienate people just because they voted differently to how you would.

If this is the culture that is being challenged by Trump’s candidacy, then I think we are on the way towards seeing the defeat of the left, and the signs are everywhere. The liberal media is panicking like crazy, their policies are failing, their propaganda is being unanimously rejected, and their attempts to silence dissenting opinions are failing. As for Trump himself, I think I ought to congratulate him (I know I don’t agree with him entirely, but I think it’s the last honourable thing I can do). After all, Trump’s campaign from the word go has been met by all manner of opposition. He’s withstood all the slings and arrows from the controlled media, the current government, popular culture, and his political opponents. Nearly everyone tried to stop him, and yet hear he is. If anything about him impresses me at all, it’s that he had the balls to keep going despite all of that, and against the most powerful insider in American politics no less.

I must say that this election cycle has been ceaselessly interesting, but now that Trump’s elected, and once he’s sworn in, he has to not fuck up. He made a lot of promises throughout the campaign, some of them I dare say are bigger than any other politician’s promises to date. Winning the election is only half the battle for Trump. If he fails to deliver on his promises after all this, he will go down in history as the biggest loser in history. I say this not as someone who didn’t support Trump, but as someone who is watching America, and wondering what will become of it. If as he says he is interested in peaceful relations with Russia, then naturally I will look forward to that, but if he screws up, then we can enter the 2020’s with grim expectations.