North Korea for morons

north korea

Something strange is happening in the left as of late. Following the death of the captured American student Otto Warmbier last week, it has now become convenient for leftists to defend the totalitarian regime of North Korea, thereby sinking the lowest they could possibly sink. Left wing outlets like Huff Post, Salon and Affinity Magazine went out dancing on Warmbier’s corpse, rationalising their behaviour by saying that Warmbier didn’t respect the law of the country he was visiting. For those who don’t know or have forgotten by now, Otto Warmbier visited North Korea and stole a propaganda poster from the hotel he was staying in.

Of course, they aren’t wrong when they say Warmbier disrespected the country’s laws, but isn’t it ironic that the same people who view Donald Trump as a totalitarian dictator who must be resisted at all costs don’t have the same view of Kim Jong-un, an actual totalitarian dictator. More importantly, it seems as if they missed the point. Warmbier was detained by North Korea, and subjected to torture in one of their labour camps, and he was apparently treated with such brutality that he entered a coma and died. What defence can you have for a regime that is culpable of such a thing?

And let’s be clear, North Korea is the worst country in the world, with its people living in abject poverty under one of the last functioning communist states in the world. Thanks to their government’s destructive communist economic policies, the North Korean economy is among the weakest of any nation on earth, to the point that the country can’t even feed its own people, half of whom live in extreme poverty and subsist on corn and kimchi. The average personal income for North Koreans sits between $1000 and $2000 per year, meanwhile in Pyongyang there are people with access to the kind of luxury items we have in the Western world.

North Korea closes itself off from the rest of the world and restricts Internet access for anyone except the ruling elites and some scientists, but that’s not the worst part. As most people know, North Korea has perhaps the most deplorable human rights record in the world. The government quashes any form of self-expression that isn’t favourable to the regime, and prohibits political opposition. Religious freedom doesn’t exist in North Korea, an officially atheist nation where public expression of one’s faith is discouraged.

According to Human Rights Watch, the country discriminates against certain individuals and their families by grouping them into three classes. There’s the “loyal”, which is self-explanatory. Then there’s “wavering”, which I would assume are people with fairly weak loyalty to the state, but they pose no threat to the state’s authority. Then there are the “hostile”, which would be the defectors. It is a known fact that North Korea employs collective punishment for offences against the state, basically meaning that if you disobey the government, your entire family and their descendants are condemned to eternal punishment.

I’ve heard leftists claim that North Korea’s atrocities are no worse than those committed by Nazi Germany, or that America is somehow worse. These people have obviously never heard of some of the horror stories to come out of North Korean prison camps. Many eyewitness accounts tell of such atrocities as guard dogs being trained to kill people because it’s not illegal if a dog kills somebody, and of pregnant women having to undergo forced abortions. In the camps, the guards see the prisoners as less than insects, and have often killed them just for stress relief. I could go on all day about their atrocities, but if you actually read about the camps, that will disprove the idea that anyone did worse than the North Koreans today.

Why is North Korea this way? Because of its totalitarian ideology. It requires that everyone in the country follow every aspect of the ideology, because as soon as anything is questioned, it puts the entire ideology into question, thus potentially undermining the authority of the state. That’s how all totalitarian governments work, so I find it baffling that the left has found it convenient to come to North Korea’s defence. By the way, North Korea is perhaps the only country in which I would support US military intervention, because in North Korea that sort of action would actually improve the situation, though I suppose because things can’t get any worse there.

I find it baffling that the supposedly liberal left is coming around to defend the most awful regime in the whole world. I should’t be surprised though. The left seems to turn a blind eye to the worst governments you can think of, from Saudi Arabia to Zimbabwe, and from China to Qatar (which is effectively a modern slave state). If it’s an actually totalitarian country, the left will never lift a finger, because their only concern is how we in West behave. They’re more than happy to turn a blind eye to an actual dictatorship overseas, especially if the nation in question happens to have far-left ideology at its core, and apparently they are willing to ignore the brutal reality of what North Korea is like as long as Trump talks tough on North Korea. Apparently mutual hatred of America can create strange bedfellows.

The appalling defence of Gawker and Nick Denton

nick denton

A new documentary has apparently surfaced on Netflix. Entitled Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, it’s subject matter is ostensibly about the Hulk Hogan lawsuit which brought down Gawker, but judging by its dreadfully pretentious trailer, you’ll find that this an attempt to defend Gawker by framing the lawsuit as an assault on the so-called free press. Yes, Netflix has a documentary defending Gawker – perhaps the scummiest name in mass media – and the most mainstream media outlets that talk about it are all in favour of its pro-Gawker message.

For those who don’t know or have forgotten, Gawker was the cancer of the Internet back before it closed down. Founded in 2003 by Nick Denton, Gawker was a blog that acquired a reputation for its deliberately sensationalist tactics and often sleazy headlines, which it employed strictly to grab headlines. Gawker also had several spin-off blogs that are still active to this day. You may already be familiar with some of them. There’s Kotaku, a corrupt gaming blog that injected social justice ideology in its reporting, while their own journalists were involved in the scandal that eventually lead to #GamerGate. They also had Jezebel, a feminist blog known for its writers’ vile and repulsive hatred towards men, particularly straight white men. Then there’s Gizmodo, an okay tech blog, the very same site through which it was revealed that Facebook was deliberately altering its trending list to block out conservative news sources. The others are i09, Lifehacker, Deadspin and Jalspine.

Gawker was also notorious for reporting rumours that they don’t often fact check, a fact confirmed by Nick Denton himself in an interview on NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams. In that regard, it had a reputation that was almost as bad as, if not worse than Britain’s News of the World did before it was shut down in 2011. Gawker was also known for outing gay men behind their backs, usually a vendetta against them. Billionaire philanthropist Peter Thiel was one such man, but they also tried to out actor James Franco, and also outed Condé Nast executive David Giethner in one of their articles. Why exactly did Gawker do this? No reason, other than they had no problem with publishing it.

This and many other rancid tales are how Gawker acquired reputation of sleaze. Former employees would publicly condemn the site, and a few years ago, even the most retarded left-wing rags such as Vice or Salon lined up to condemn Gawker. Of course, all that changed when Hulk Hogan decided to sue Gawker, and when Donald Trump called to tighten US libel laws.

In 2012, Gawker leaked a sex tape featuring WWE star Hulk Hogan (whose real name is Terry Bollea), and when a judge ordered Gawker to remove it following legal action taken by Bollea, they refused, because why wouldn’t they? In response, Bollea filed a $100 million lawsuit against Gawker, and in 2016, Gawker was found liable, and forced to declare bankruptcy. This was of course a major victory for the individual right to privacy. After all, aren’t we all tired of tabloids invading people’s private lives just the sake of easy money? Of course, Gawker’s defence rested on the shaky argument that case could “hurt freedom of speech”. Nobody could really explain how, but the left ate it up, and after Trump called on the expansion of libel laws, Nick Denton suddenly became a hero for the left.

I shouldn’t really be surprised. The left has a nasty habit of making saints out of reprehensible, truly evil people. They revere Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, a racist eugenicist who wanted to use abortion to control the black population. They revere Che Guevara, a psychopathic mass murderer who helped make Fidel Castro’s reign of terror in Cuba possible. They revere Hillary Clinton, and let’s just say the less said about her the better. But with Nick Denton I find this to be extremely baffling. Not only was Nick Denton an unscrupulous scumbag of the highest order, but he believes that he is thoroughly justified in engaging in the behaviour of such a person. This man justified outing closet homosexuals by claiming that people were happier “living in the truth”.

This is a man truly without morals, so when I see the trailer for Brian Knappenberger’s new documentary seemingly making him seem like the victim of a “war against the free press”, I can’t help but be outraged over this. It seems that people like him really do believe that Gawker was a victim in a war against the free press waged by “shadowy billionaires” who want absolute control over the media. This is a complete falsehood. Gawker does not represent the press. It is a corporation. The press is simply any form of media where you disseminate information. Your own blog is part of the press. By this definition some guy on YouTube can be considered a part of the press, but that’s not the point. What Gawker did was illegal. What worth does the “muh press freedom” argument have when the outlet you’re defending broke the law?

When anyone breaks the law, be they private individuals or corporations, they should expect to be punished. Gawker deserved everything it had coming to them, and yet because they don’t like the people opposing Gawker, the left acts as though we’re deciding what media outlets are permissible and what’s not. The irony is that they do this all the time, deeming anti-establishment news outlets and independent journalists and commentators as “fake news”. This glaring hypocrisy is perhaps the foulest aspect of the left’s pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. They try to defend Gawker by accusing its enemies of doing something that they themselves are already doing.

To me, this is perhaps the most obvious sign of something that should have been obvious a while ago. Netflix has been compromised by the corporate establishment, and now they offer up trash that serves the liberal elite, effectively becoming a HBO for your laptop. Don’t believe me? They were responsible for the Dear White People TV series, which basically amounted to racist SJW propaganda designed to fellate the progressive ego. They made Amy Schumer’s infamous “leather special”, which ended up getting so many negative reviews from viewers that they changed the ratings system just to placate Schumer and her fans. Netflix was supposed to be an alternative to the crap we had to deal with on mainstream TV, with all its leftist nonsense infected into entertainment. Now Netflix has become part of the mainstream, and inevitably became corrupted by the same establishment ideology that infests the rest of the mainstream media.

Around the horseshoe in 80 days

posobiec

Guest starring Jack Posobiec

Well, well, well, if it isn’t Jack Posobiec again. As if I already despised him for playing the race card in the wake of last month’s #FireOliver fiasco, it looks like the Rebel Media’s Washington D.C. correspondent had to ratchet up his obnoxiousness on Friday by interrupting a rendition of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, which he and fellow activist Laura Loomer attempted to shut down the play due to it having a scene in which a character resembling Donald Trump is murdered, which they believe to be “an act of political violence against the right”. After Loomer was escorted out, Posobiec himself likened the audience the Nazi’s, and yelled “Goebbels would be proud” until he himself was escorted out.

Does this sound familiar? Remember when social justice warriors would try to shut down speeches held by Milo Yiannopoulos? Remember how often far-leftists were labelling all of us who opposed them as “Nazis”, cast Breitbart’s owner Steven Bannon as the new Joseph Goebbels, and accused conservatives of normalising hate? Well now you have right-wing idiots acting exactly like the left. Good job Jack, you’re really helping us out by acting like the people we despise. If we ever needed more proof of the existence of horseshoe theory, we finally have it. Posobiec is so bad that most conservatives have distanced itself from him, and even the far-right Richard Spencer can’t stand him or Laura Loomer.

While we’re at it, there have always been some very shady characters in our ranks. In the eighties and the nineties you had the Moral Majority, a bunch of one-nation Christian moralists disguised as Reaganite conservatives. In the 2000’s you had people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, neo-con pundits who exploited the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to artificially generate loyalty to the fake conservatism of the Bush administration, and draw ratings and make money of off easily suckered partisan Republicans. Today you have InfoWars, Jack Posobiec, and other tabloid online personalities who use our real outrage to make a fast buck. Don’t believe me? Soon after the incident the Rebel Media promoted a campaign called “Free Laura”, a crowdfunding campaign to help fund Laura Loomer’s legal defence team. The problem is that the domain for the campaign website was apparently set up a few hours before Loomer and Posobiec interrupted the play. The domain also appears to have been registered by Ezra Levant, the founder of The Rebel Media.

If this screen shot is proof of anything, it’s that Posobiec, Loomer and Levant colluded in order to create a scene of fake outrage as a prelude to a campaign in which Loomer can make money off of partisan conservatives. What I’m saying is that Laura Loomer got herself arrested on purpose in order to justify scamming people. Doesn’t this sound anything like the time Anita Sarkeesian lied about harassment threats from Gamergaters in order to make money off fellow social justice warriors and pimp her own name on the mass media? And before people on the right complain, this is exactly the same principle. It’s the same kind of con job that we saw from the left.

Unlike in the left, however, Rebel Media’s followers don’t seem to tolerate this kind of crap. In any of their videos that has anything to do with the incident involving Laura Loomer, you will find many in the comments section telling them that this is immoral, that they are acting just like the left. It’s great that so many people are calling out people like Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer because it means we are not as unprincipled as the hard left. We despise people like them because they are scumbags, and their actions undermine the very cause they profess to be a part of.

It’s not as though they’re the only right-wingers acting like leftists. Paul Joseph Watson, a man who trades in sensationalism, blamed the Weis Market Massacre on social justice ideology, when there was flimsy evidence at best to suggest that he was motivated by ideology. Lauren Southern isn’t completely innocent either, and on that note, what the hell is she doing shacking up with Génération Identitaire? She may not be a con artist, but she certainly abandoned her journalistic integrity by effectively becoming an activist. Is this why she left the Rebel Media? If so, she didn’t really need to. After all, the Rebel Media is currently stuffed with activists posing as journalists, especially now that Tommy Robinson has been inducted into the family.

For moderate conservatives, even those who like these guys, I must ask one simple question. Is this really the future you want for the right? Do you want the right to become just another variation of the left? If you want conservatism to win the battle of ideas, you will not do it by acting like the left, and if you’re going start quoting Rules for Radicals to try and disprove me, the very fact that you have to quote Saul Alinsky to justify yourself proves that you’re operating from the left’s playbook. If you want people to think that you are a good alternative to the left, you must distance yourself from the loony con artists within your ranks, as thankfully many have. If not, then the culture war will merely manifest in another pendulum swing from the crazy left to the crazy right, and we will have accomplished nothing because nothing will change. We’d simply be repeating the 2000’s when the neo-cons were in charge.

Leftists’ trust in government sounds exactly like blind faith in God

big govt

Cartoon by Bob Gorrell

One thing I’ve noticed about people on the left, whether it be the moderate left or the far-left, is that one of their defining attributes is their faith in the state to look after everyone, particularly the poor and the downtrodden. How terribly naive. Big government has been responsible for keeping the poor where they are, giving generous welfare handouts to keep them satisfied and discouraging social mobility in the process. It leeches from ordinary hard-working citizens with high taxes, but hey, the government takes care of us, right?

I find it bizarre and sometimes disturbing that the left, which once championed individual freedom, is the side of the political spectrum that favours a society in which people are dependant on the state. I would have thought that a truly progressive society would see people less dependant on the state, but apparently not. More to the point, it’s disturbingly odd how leftists can maintain their faith in big government despite its repeated failures. Recent history offers many examples of the failures of big government, from the “War on Poverty” to the Great Recession, and yet whenever big government fails, the left blames capitalism and calls for more government controls. Instead of punishing the failures of big government, somehow the left wants to reward this failure.

The problem is that big government has become the left’s new god. Even when leftists disagree on minor details, one of the few doctrines they are united on is that it’s the government’s job to look after people. Leftists have adopted the same kind of blind faith in big government as fundamentalist Christians do in God, and both expect the same level of obeisance from others. For example, leftists seem to believe that government is responsible for deciding what it is morally right or wrong. That sounds a lot like the classic fundie Christian claim that God is responsible for morality. To believe such a thing requires you to have no faith in individuals to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

In this regard, I think it comes from a generally negative view of human nature. Dennis Prager once said that leftists believe that human nature is fundamentally good, so they believe society is the problem. I think he was wrong on this one, because what I’ve seen from leftists hints that they have a generally poor view of human nature. They seem to have come to the conclusion that mankind is incapable of making “morally correct” choice, and need the state to force them into the right direction. The best opportunity to get a glimpse into their worldview happens during an election or referendum whenever the result doesn’t go their way. They quickly turn their rage towards the “ignorant masses” who voted the right into power, and often denouncing democracy altogether.

Leftists also have such great faith in government that they think it ought to be in charge of everything, from education to banks, from parenting to agriculture, from businesses to healthcare, from cradle to grave. They see the government as the great provider, master of the weather, the divine all-father and all such nonsense. The problem is that the government cannot be trusted to look after us, or to serve our interests, especially when it gets too big. Ever notice that whenever you have to deal with a state-owned service, such as the NHS or the DVLA, you’re usually forced to wait an ungodly amount of time before you’re dealt with, and you have to put up with generally shoddy service. This is because a state-owned corporation doesn’t have to satisfy its customers in order to turn a profit, because such entities get their revenue from your taxes. No matter how badly they perform, you always have to foot the bill for their mere existence. In contrast, private firms, who don’t rely on the taxpayer, have to satisfy their customers, or else they’ll go out of business.

Because leftists want the government to have control over your lives, they despise anything that helps you to be less reliant on the state. Take the traditional, two-parent family model for instance. With two competent and loving parents, children have a better chance at doing well during their education, and growing up into well-adjusted adults who are gainfully employed and go on to get married themselves, and are less likely to live on benefits. Leftists despise this notion of a stable family. They want more people on welfare so they can say that they are the champions of the poor, even though they are the ones whose policies trap them in a vicious circle.

It has been proven by countless academic reports and studies that children who grow up in broken families are more likely to do poorly in education, and less likely to be employed and more likely to live on welfare as a result. They also end up being more likely to become criminals, go to jail, and if they get married, more likely to repeat the cycle of bad parenting as a result. This is a widely known fact, and yet the left denies this, claiming that such facts are offensive to single mothers.

Leftists also despise school choice, because they believe that public schools are the best way to educate your children. This is a system in which children are forced by law to attend an institution in which attempts to program their education according to national curriculum, and in a manner which ignores the individual needs of children, and expects that all children who pass through it come out the same. Public schools aren’t so much schools as they are factories designed to produce human livestock with, ideally, enough qualifications to merit employment in low-level jobs. It is a system that is designed to crush your children’s hopes and dreams, and yet leftists always rush to its defence whenever anyone dares to suggest reform or alternatives. Take grammar schools for example. The only reason leftists are so dismissive of grammar schools is that they don’t like competition.

But why do they turn to the defence of state-owned institutions in spite of their record of failure? It’s because of their cult-like faith in government, which traps them in rose-tinted lens. For their policies to make any sense requires the view that humans are predisposed to altruism, and that the government is beyond corruption. Real life doesn’t pan out that way. Humans are inherently motivated by self-interest, and power is always a corrupting influence. This is why you cannot trust government to look after you, and the people who do trust in government come across as a new kind of priestly caste, with government as the one true God.

Because we cannot trust government to look after us, we must keep it small enough that it performs its basic functions, and not allow it to grow so big that it has control of our very lives. The smaller the government, the more freedom we have in society, and the less corrupt it can get, and the more money you save under it. The bigger the government, the more money you lose under it, the more freedom is stripped away, and the more corrupt it becomes. The believers in big government can ignore reality all they want, but it’s only a matter of time before their beloved state becomes so big and authoritarian that it eventually turns on them, and they will find that their faith has been misplaced.

Globalists and identitarians: Why I oppose them both

identity europa

It has often been said by some on the right that the current political spectrum is not left vs. right, but rather globalism vs. nationalism. The definition of globalism is fairly self-explanatory. It’s the idea that we should live in a world with no national borders (thus no sovereign states), governed by one or more international bodies who all adhere to a set of ideas that are in some ways rooted in cultural Marxist thought. Nationalists, meanwhile, believe in the value of a sovereign state with the rest to self-determination.

However, nationalists aren’t the subject of this post. In recent months, a group called Génération Identitaire has been making waves since last month, after they attempted to block a boat that allegedly was carrying African migrants. Since then, members of the group have attempted to rationalise their actions claiming that they are merely adopting the tactics that were already successful when used by left-wing activists. Even Lauren Southern, a formerly respectable journalist turned alt-right activist, went down this rabbit hole last week, in a video wherein she defends her embrace of far-right identity politics.

This isn’t the only reason I think identitarians are no different to SJW’s however. Identitarians generally want to preserve some semblance of their native cultural identity (in this case European identity), but how might they go about achieving that? The problem with a society that tried to preserve a notion of “cultural identity” is that in order for it to be even possible, an identitarian society must inevitably become an authoritarian society in order to ensure the cohesiveness of said “European identity”. I’m sure they have no qualms with that, considering that the far-right identitarians reject democracy altogether.

My main problem with the identitarians is that to achieve their long-term goals would require a totalitarian system to be implemented. I agree with the identitarians only on the point that mass immigration needs to be curtailed because it is becoming unsustainable, but I think this issue can be solved democratically, especially once the SJW’s stop being a nuisance. The problem is that whenever people try to take ownership of a culture, as I believe the identitarians secretly want to do, they end up nearly destroying it. For a few historical examples, the Nazis burned books that went against their ideology, Francisco Franco banned the Basque language and tried to destroy the Basque and Catalan cultures, and Mao Tse Tung tried to destroy every article of pre-Communist Chinese culture he and his student minions could get his hands on.

Every self-appointed defender of their culture who’s tried to take control of it has ended up nearly destroying it, and given the chance, I believe that the identitarians in the alt-right would do the same. In practice and in principle, I think that the identitarians are no different to the social justice warriors on the far-left. After all, the social justice warriors are so focused on protecting BAME culture from the clutches of white people, but in doing so they would isolate different cultures by ethnicity, and stunt their development.

Don’t get me wrong, I oppose globalism all the same, but not for entirely the same reasons as the identitarians might. My main reason for opposing globalism is because it is the ultimate enemy of liberty. Robbing nations of their sovereign identity notwithstanding, the creation of a globalist system would require an extremely authoritarian system with an impossibly large, centralised government. Liberty can’t exist in such a system, and in such a system where all the power and the money are concentrated into the hands of a global elite, personal choice and freedom of opportunity would be crushed. I also oppose globalism because I know that the problems society faces now, along with the complete degradation of modern culture, are the result of decades-long shift towards globalism.

It is the globalists that have caused the economic sickness that we in the West live with today, not that I expect identitarians to be concerned with economics, and that’s another problem I have with these alt-right identitarian types. Social (or indeed racial) issues come first, economics comes second. Ask a neo-Nazi what economic policy he might want to implement and I doubt he’ll give you a coherent answer, unless they’re directly quoting from the Hitler playbook. But their views one economics might be oddly similar with that of the socialists – they both despise capitalism. It is said that it was easy to convert a nazi into a communist and vice versa, because both hated Western liberal values, and both hated capitalism. Adolf Hitler, a socialist who ran a command economy, viewed the Great Depression as a sign of capitalism’s supposed failures, and of the need for state intervention. I have no reason to assume that the identitarians give a damn about free market economics, and for me that’s a big problem because I firmly believe in free market capitalism. If the identitarians and the alt-right wanted to dismantle that system, even if to oppose globalism, I would oppose them.

So there you have it. I oppose globalists because they’re the rotten, corrupt establishment we have today, and I oppose identitarians because their ideology is frankly a retarded brand of collectivism all the same. They’re the sort of people that we conservatives rightly distance ourselves from (not least because the left-wing media uncharitably lumps the far-right extremists in with the rest of us whenever they get the opportunity), and why not? They don’t want anything to do with us more moderately right-wing conservatives. To them, I may as well be the equivalent of a left-wing pinko because I want the government out of my bedroom and my wallet.

What bothers me more is supposedly more moderate conservatives like Lauren Southern going to bed with these extremist identitarians and abandoning all sense of principle in the process. They honestly believe that these people are their friends because they have the same enemy, but the reason I don’t see it that way is because once in power the identitarians would turn on the very concept of rights, and they’d shit on the US Constitution if they felt like it. They would be just as authoritarian as the social justice warriors we all criticise, and that alone should be reason enough to stay away from these people.

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.

An unhealthy culture

marco battaglini

Artwork by Marco Battaglini

I came across an interesting comment on the Facebook page Traditionalist Western Art (I don’t agree with their overall philosophy, I follow it for the artworks), which was made in response to a shared article entitled “The Individualism of the Herd”. The title of the article reads like an oxymoron, and the article itself aims to convince you that the past has been abandoned, and that previously condemned transgressions of social norms are the new orthodoxy. It’s one of those articles that preaches to an audience that may already agree with the author. The comment I found on Facebook asked what exactly the author stood for, but it’s this quote that had me thinking:

“Culture and the individual should by no means be at odds: A healthy culture generates a healthy individual, who supports a healthy culture. You cannot have a healthy culture without healthy individuals. An individual, however, may thrive despite an unhealthy culture; though the unhealthy culture does all it can to thwart this.”

This had me thinking. What constitutes a healthy culture? What constitutes an unhealthy culture? Then I considered the kind of society we inhabit today, and I consider it to be the most obvious example of a very unhealthy culture. Why? Well I think it’s obvious to all that the culture we inhabit has gone to the doghouse. Everybody knows it deep down, but they’re afraid to say it because when they speak out about the state of our current culture, they’re quickly dismissed as reactionary old fogeys. But to explain how, let’s look at the signs.

The first sign I can see is the enshrinement of narcissism. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have already facilitated an environment in which we broadcast ourselves to the world, but on those sites many of us cultivate a fabrication of ourselves. We broadcast the views, thoughts, and aspects of our lives that we believe everyone will approve. It’s a quest for recognition and validation that arguably stems from the daycare craze, when the mainstream media pushed the narrative that kids are fine if you deposit them in daycare, where they are deprived of the parental attention they so desperately need in order to develop into functioning adults.

I also believe that many of the mass shooters of modern history were deeply depressed narcissists. For example, the recent Weis Market Massacre, the perpetrator of which, one Randy Stair, left behind a disturbing series of videos hinting that he was going to go on a killing spree. The way I see it, Stair was basically a disturbed individual convinced of his lack of self-worth, who desperately wanted to make his mark on the world. His explanation also convinces me of his narcissistic tendencies. After all, how self-centered must you be for you to see yourself as the “last soul alive”? And he’s not alone. What people like Randy Stair, Elliot Rodger, Seung-hui Cho and the Columbine killers had in common was not just their profound hatred of the world around them, but that their rage was fuelled by their rampant narcissism, which leads them to blame society for their own failings. Of course, every time this happens the left uses this to push for tighter gun control regulations, but guns aren’t the problem. For the gun control argument to make sense, there would have to be record of the kind of mass shooting problem we have today existing prior to the 1950’s, or even as far back as the revolutionary era. The problem is that these killers were raised in a culture that coddles them into thinking that they are the centre of the universe, all because some thirty or forty-odd years ago, parents decided that the effective method of parenting was “too harsh”, and flocked to television’s pop parenting experts for guidance. These are the generation of parents who helped to create this phenomenon. Gun control advocacy is merely a convenient way for progressives and liberals alike to avoid the difficult questions of the culture they helped to create.

The next sign I can think of is a general antipathy towards the value of hard work (which I will likely touch upon in a later post). We used to teach our kids that if we work hard we can achieve anything. Whether or not that was entirely true, we taught them that because we wanted them to work hard and earn a good living. But apparently that’s a lie now. Why even bother working when the government can look after you? That appears to be the prevailing attitude now, at least in the West. Thanks to generous welfare handouts, we’re in a situation where you practically make more money on welfare than you would make if you actually got a job. It’s the same in Britain. Indeed, in my country, the Conservatives are usually condemned by the mainstream chattering class because they have the temerity to make welfare cuts. I agree that austerity cuts are the wrong way to reduce spending, but it seems like in my country there is a zeitgeist in mainstream culture that is in favour of increased spending, and preserving and/or expanding the welfare state. This is one of the biggest reasons that a Marxist could likely become Prime Minister in the next election. Young people in particular grew attached to Jeremy Corbyn (and Bernie Sanders in America) because he is offering them free stuff. This antipathy for hard work and sensible economics, and the exaltation of mindless indulgence, can best be summed up as “most people just want the easy way out”.

Speaking of indulgence, I feel that personal responsibility is something that is looked down upon these days. Instead of allowing people to make their own choices and take responsibility for them, we try to make a society wherein you can’t choose at all. I saw this all the time when it comes to so-called junk food, alcohol and smoking. Instead of encouraging the state to ban or restrict our ability to consume things that are bad for them, why don’t we simply let people make unhealthy choices and face the consequences themselves. If people want to screw up their own bodies it’s not the state’s business, or at least it wouldn’t be were it not for the existence of state-run healthcare. More to the point, marriage, the ultimate contract of responsible adults, is now frowned upon. Marriage is regularly vilified in Hollywood films and TV shows, and has been for a long time. We’re told that marriage is a prison where we “lose our personal freedom” (translation: we have to be responsible adults, therefore marriage sucks), when in reality, there is proof that married couples are actually happier than people who are single. If marriage is such a bad deal, what’s supposed to be the alternative? The reigning culture instead not only recommends promiscuous casual sex, a message expounded by today’s pop musicians (e.g. Katy Perry and Ariana Grande), but also somehow manages to make sex itself meaningless. Small wonder that when young people follow the message of pop starlets, they end up being more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression. As imperfect and difficult as marriage can be for a lot of people, I believe that the alternative that popular culture is suggesting is far worse in the long run, and the embrace of the alternative can only lead to ruin.

The final sign that comes to my mind is the demand for conformity. It would make sense that in a healthy culture, people would embrace said culture voluntarily, and would defend it if the time came. An unhealthy culture has no real value, and so people won’t really care for it, and can’t think of an argument in its defence. Hence, an unhealthy culture requires conformity in order to survive. Consider the rise of the social justice warriors which began a few years ago, and the people who try to get conservatives fired from their jobs. Consider the recent push for increased censorship by Western governments, with Germany wanting to censor social media, Britain’s Prime Minister wanting to regulate the Internet, and American pundits attempting and failing to use the “fake news” narrative to try and get alternative media outlets shut down. This would probably be what the poster meant when he suggested that the unhealthy culture does all it can to thwart the development of the individual.

So with that in mind, it is no wonder why I consider today’s culture to be extremely unhealthy. It has abandoned the very principles upon which it was founded, and we are already witnessing the deterioration of society as a whole. It may yet be possible that we will enter a point where the culture itself is a hinderance to the individual. The culture and the individual would be at odds with one another because the culture would be hostile to the individual. When the culture is hostile to individual expression, there can be no liberty, and if we get to that point, the path towards self-destruction is sealed.