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.

Reasons not to vote Labour #2 – The Labour manifesto

labour manifesto 2017

In the last part of this series, which I released yesterday, I talked about the utter toxicity of Jeremy Corbyn and his cabinet of fools. Today, I plan to talk about his manifesto, which was leaked a week before it was supposed to be launched. I had planned to talk about all the other party’s manifestos ahead of the election, but due to how little time I have left, that might not be possible. A few weeks ago I talked about the Liberal Democrats, and how their manifesto literally contradicts their party’s name. But at least Labour’s manifesto is upfront about its quest for a socialist Britain.

The most glaringly obvious pledge is that Labour wants to renationalise the rail and energy industries. For those who don’t know, nationalisation basically means the government is bringing an industry under its control, meaning that these industries will be part of the public sector, and therefore funded by the taxpayer. Labour are also promising to cap railway fares and deliver free Wi-Fi. For the newly nationalised energy industry, they want to control the grid and energy distribution, and create at least one state-owned energy company for every region of the UK, and cap average household dual fuel bills to £1,000 a year.

While some might ask why this is a bad thing, remember that there was a time when everything was nationalised (I mentioned this when I wrote about the one-nation Tories), including rail and energy. Given how far-left Jeremy Corbyn and his allies are, what’s stopping Labour from eventually nationalising more of Britain’s industries, taking us back to the time when Britain was the sick man of Europe, even as Europe is now the sick man of the world. But that’s not all.

Labour also wants to lower the voting age to 16, which will likely have the effect of introducing more indoctrinated, barely matured voters who will likely vote Labour because they pander directly to their interests. This is the only reason I could think of for wanting younger voters, who will generally be more ill-informed than older voters. And before I get accused of generalising, I’ve actually tried talking to 16-year-olds about politics, and when you’re 16, you know nothing about politics. Speaking of young people, Labour also want to abolish tuition fees and reintroduce any maintenance grants that were scrapped under the Tories. Again, this is a naked attempt to pander to young people, but it’s a dreadful idea not just because it means more government spending. When university is free, you get the wrong sort of students flooding into campuses, whether its drunken chavs who just want to go into university “for the sesh”, or people who just want to blow their money doing a worthless gender studies course, which I wager is precisely what Labour is hoping for, as more gender studies students means more Marxists who will become lifelong Labour voters.

Labour wants to scrap the bedroom tax, which is all well and good because nobody liked it. That said, this pledge is bundled in with plans to build 100,000 council homes. Ever seen what a council flat looks like? If you haven’t, you’re lucky. There was once a time in which high-rise council flats were envisioned as the future of British housing, but in reality, they’re the kind of homes that the poorest among us live in if they live anywhere at all. That Labour probably wants more of these is simply a show of how retrograde the party is.

Labour wants to create a Ministry of Labour, supposedly to deliver an investment in worker’s rights, but it’s really a front to hand power back to the unions. For a bit of context, under James Callaghan (who, I’ll admit, came to power after the Ministry of Labour was dissolved in 1970), the unions practically ran everything, and they figured out that they could get whatever they wanted by calling random strikes in order to make more money. The resulting disruption led to the Winter of Discontent in 1978. When Margaret Thatcher came along, she broke the power of the unions by stripping away the power of union leaders. Eventually the power of unions had fallen to nothing, but now Corbyn wants to bring back the unions’ stranglehold over the country and its workers. On defence, Labour’s manifesto says that the party wants to renew the Trident nuclear defence program, but Corbyn himself, as a unilateralist, has repeatedly dodged the question of whether or not to retaliate in a nuclear strike on several occasions.

What Labour manifesto would be complete without raising taxes. They want to raise corporate tax up from 17% to 26%, which will have the knock-on effect of making prices higher for consumers. They want to raise income tax for everyone earning £80k or more, and grant extra powers to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (the UK’s tax collection department) to chase down individuals and corporations who try to avoid paying taxes, which I’m sure they will after Labour raises the corporation tax. If you want businesses to pull out of the UK, this is how you do it. If you want to stop people from avoiding tax, why not lower the corporate tax (lower taxes for everyone while we’re at it), and adopt a flat tax so everyone pays the same rate? Of course Corbyn won’t, because that’s not the Marxist way isn’t it?

All of Labour’s plans can be summed up as wild and unrealistic, and they are set to cost the British public £93 billion (roughly £4,000 from each British household). The problem is that way Labour wants to raise money for its spending spree will only raise £63 billion, leaving a £30 billion deficit. In summation, Labour’s plan for Britain is to borrow, borrow and borrow some more until we crash land onto mountains of debt yet again.

I left out Corbyn’s position on Brexit because that’s the subject of Part 3 of this series, so stay tuned for the next part, “A Toothless Brexit, if We Even Have One”.

Reasons not to vote Labour #1 – The dear leader

comrade corbyn

With a week to go until the general election, I worry that many young people are about to do something insane – vote Jeremy Corbyn into power. It’s not delusional just because they’re voting for a Marxist, but because they honestly believe that he will win, and that he is the only alternative to the Tories still being in power. With that in mind, I’ve taken it upon myself to write a series of posts presenting my case for why Labour isn’t worth your vote, and what better way to start than by talking about its leader, Comrade Corbyn.

When I was a leftist I used to like Jeremy Corbyn because I saw him as a genuine threat to the political establishment, who had principles. Unfortunately I had no idea about economic policy at the time. Of course, now I actually do know about economic policy, and that’s why I think his economic policy is crap (and I’ll get to that when I talk about the Labour manifesto in the next post). Now that I think about it, most of his support seems to come from young people (especially students), and middle class champagne socialists. I’m not even sure he even represents the actual interests of the working class, and it doesn’t help that he doesn’t have a firm stance on Brexit, which is the winning issue at the moment.

I’ve heard the argument that Jeremy is more moral than most politicians. I don’t think so. When I think of a politician who’s more moral than the rest of the bunch, I think of Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley who did battle with zealous feminists in parliament and got into Parliament’s “women and equalities committee”. In my eyes, Jeremy Corbyn is a well-meaning moron at best, and a moral coward at worst. This is the man who supported the IRA during the 1980’s, and tries desperately to spin this as a positive, rather than owning up to his mistakes. He’s also a complete coward on defence, always dodging the question of whether or not he approves the use of nuclear weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn is the kind of politician who just five years ago would have been dismissed as a loony, but he’s a loony with an army of loonies prepared to follow him to the end. Like many Marxist leaders, Corbyn enjoys a cult of personality which he denies even exists. His supporters are so unwilling to see how much of a crappy candidate Corbyn turned out to be that they blame anything but him for his failings, and turn to the age-old leftist tactic of blaming the mass media, as if ordrinary working class people are incapable of thinking for themselves. This cult of personality, I think, is a mask for how crappy Corbyn is as a candidate. I’m pretty sure most Labour supporters are in the position of “I like Labour’s policies but Corbyn is a bad leader”. I can at least sympathise with that position. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with the majority of Labour policy, but I can sympathise with people who feel that they’re party is getting screwed by its own leader. I feel the same way about UKIP.

It’s not just Corbyn that’s the problem though. His Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, is a full-blown Marxist. He’s the kind of Marxist who saw the financial crisis as an opportunity to advance his agenda, and he’s surprisingly open about his communist leanings, as shown in a May Day rally where he had communist flags behind him, and denies that he was aware of that. And then there’s Diane Abbot, the Shadow Home Secretary who’s so incompetent she can’t even answer a question on how much Labour plans to spend on hiring extra police officers, and blames her embarrassment on the media. Like Jeremy Corbyn, she too was a supporter of the IRA in the 1980’s, and when asked about it on Andrew Marr’s show, she attempted to downplay it by comparing her change of views to a change of hairstyle. I should also mention that Diane Abbott is the biggest race pimp in Britain. A few years ago she once tweeted that white people “love playing divide and rule”, and as recently resurfaced remarks show, she believes that Britain is one of the most racist nations in the world. Of course, she’s going by the Marxist definition of racism, which explains perfectly why she doesn’t see herself as racist.

In summation, Corbyn and his cabinet are a sinking ship. Even though the Tories have been hampered by Theresa May’s manifesto, Corbyn will probably run Labour into the ground because of his inability to give a decisive position on Brexit (which I’ll discuss in a later post). Regardless of whether he’s well-meaning or not, you’ve got to accept that Corbyn has surrounded himself with people who are either complete morons, or people who might undermine him and/or his party. It makes me wonder why he even hired such people, until I did some reading and found out that Jeremy and Diane were once doing each other. A billion-piece jigsaw puzzle instantly came together.

So there’s my first reason why Labour is the wrong choice. Vote Labour, and you get Comrade Corbyn and his loony cabinet, and then Labour will drag the whole country down with them. In the next part, I will be discussing Labour’s manifesto, which, to sum it up in a sentence, is essentially a throwback to the longest suicide note in history.

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.

#BlackLivesMatter: Enough is enough

On Thursday night, five policemen in Dallas were shot and killed by a man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an army reserve veteran who was reportedly angered by the shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, which happened earlier last week. Micah also stated explicitly that he wanted to kill white people, especially police officers. According to Dallas police chief David O. Brown, he had been planning the shooting before the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and had an interest in black nationalist groups (he was a member of the New Black Panther Party for at least six months), using the Black Lives Matter protest at Dallas as an opportunity to attack.

Call it a hunch, but I think that a lot of Micah’s racist anti-cop sentiment was nourished by the Black Lives Matter movement. For those who are unaware, Black Lives Matter (sometimes stylised as #BlackLivesMatter) is a far-left activist movement that emerged in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Though initially confined to Twitter and still lacking in organisation, they became famous in 2014 for its demonstrations following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Their ideology is inspired by the black power movement, black feminism, pan-Africanism, and they claim to be inspired by LGBT social movements and Occupy Wall Street.

They claim to be a movement opposing racially motivated violence against African-Americans, but as has been demonstrated over the past year, they have been behaving like the left-wing equivalent of white nationalists. Online, BLM supporters have been posting racist abuse towards white people, and have been openly calling for the killing of cops. In fact, after Micah Johnson was shot, BLM supporters took to Twitter to effectively treat him like a martyr.

blm

These tweets speak for themselves.

The problem here is that Black Lives Matter has been lying to the American public for the past few years. They claim that black people are systematically and savagely targeted by the state, and yet to this day I have found no evidence in support of their claims. They’d also have you believe that white American police officers are out to kill young black people, but statistics show that black men are more likely to be killed by other black men than white police officers. If you look for the statistics, you can easily draw the conclusion that there is no epidemic of cops killing innocent black people in American, but Black Lives Matter want you to believe this so that they can paint the police as racists, and thus generate hated towards them.

Ever noticed how Black Lives Matter never talks about the murders of innocent black people by other black people? As I mentioned earlier, this happens far more often, but the BLM movement can’t use those incidents in order to guilt trip white people into supporting the movement by making them think they’re racist if they don’t. BLM supporters like to think that the movement is opposing racism, but by focusing solely on black lives, aren’t they implying that only black lives matter? In fact, the best way to annoy people in the BLM movement is to say “#AllLivesMatter” instead of just “#BlackLivesMatter”. If you do that, BLM supporters and progressives will somehow claim you’re a racist, presumably in the absence of a logical counterargument.

Hang on a minute, did I miss a boardroom meeting or something? I thought the whole point of the civil rights movement was that black people were tired of being discriminated based on their skin colour. Didn’t Martin Luther King Jr. himself say that he wanted his children to live in a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin? It seems to me that Black Lives Matter, and indeed their progressive allies in the mainstream media, are encouraging people to judge each other based on the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character.

I personally doubt that a majority of people actually believe the lies that the BLM movement is peddling, but the mainstream media has been putting them on a pedestal for the past few years. The mainstream media has a history of propping up ideas that aren’t popular with the masses. They spew the wage gap myth several times, and I don’t believe for a minute that most people actually believe it. They spend their energies promoting feminist ideology, even though only a small minority of people actually agree with feminism. Sure enough, they’re parroting the Black Lives Matter narrative, even though only 43% of Americans actually support the movement.

The scepticism of the public is justified. After all, what kind of right-minded person supports a movement that is actively calling for the murder of police officers? Of course, what most people don’t know is that the co-founder of the movement, Alicia Garza, was inspired by Assata Shakur (a.k.a. Joanne Deborah Chesimard), a convicted cop killer who is still on the FBI’s most wanted list. Assata Shakur eventually escaped prison with the help of her allies in the Weather Underground, a notorious far-left terror group that was active during the 1970’s. You now have a movement that is operating very much like the Black Panthers used to, and in doing so, they are harming the very cause that the media would like you to believe that they represent.

I believe that Black Lives Matter is actively fuelling racial tension between young black people and the police, and there’s enough evidence out there to convince me that it’s not a far-fetched scenario, but I personally feel that we wouldn’t be at this point were it not for the media propping up the movement by making it out to be something that it’s not. The mainstream media has been fostering a toxic atmosphere of liberal guilt that has allowed for race-based extremism and anti-cop sentiment to fester in America. By convincing otherwise right-minded people that we live in a society of systemic oppression, the BLM movement and their progressive allies have generated such an extreme hatred for the American police force that, frankly, it was only a matter of time before somebody put that sentiment into action.

You have these crazy left-wing ideologues who are putting so much emphasis on race, that they almost demand race to be part of the conversation, and yet if conservatives do that, then they’re the racists. It’s the BLM movement and their allies that have corrupted the dialogue on race so badly, that I think it will take a long time for America to recover. One thing I am sure of is that race as an issue won’t go away unless we stop talking about it, and I guarantee that this won’t happen as long as Black Lives Matter continues to operate, because they want us to focus on race. America’s neurotic obsession with something as meaningless as race is how the BLM movement thrives, and it’s this intensified frenzy about race that has allowed BLM to make the leap from activism to terrorism.

My first solution is that Black Lives Matter should now be classified as an extremist hate group, because they actively call for the murder of police officers. My second solution, as I mentioned earlier, is to simply stop viewing people in terms of race. Not only is it stupid and terribly retrograde to judge based on race anyway, but by ignoring race entirely, we can weaken the intellectual positions of both white nationalists like Stormfront, and black supremacists like those in Black Lives Matter. I’ll end this article by leaving you with this video, which, if more than anything else, makes the best case for what I’m talking about.

Rethinking the ideological battle lines

left-right spectrum

The old left-right spectrum, which nowadays is woefully inaccurate.

In the old days, it was assumed that ideology ran on a linear spectrum of left and right, with moderates in the centre. In the public consciousness politics generally came down to “conservatives” versus “liberals”, with conservatives on the right end of the spectrum and liberals on the left. From my observations, this was particularly pronounced in the culture war of the 2000’s. If you supported the government, supported religion (particularly Christianity) and favoured interventionist foreign policy, you were a conservative, while if you opposed war, favoured the separation of church and state, and distrusted the government, you were a liberal. Ah, those were simpler times.

However, now this would prove to be inaccurate, as the new culture war of the current decade has unravelled. Now it’s the “liberals” who are supporting bigger government and pushing for ever greater levels of political correctness, while the “conservatives” sound more like classical liberals. In the establishment at large, both sides in the traditional spectrum seem to want the same thing – bigger government on behalf of large corporations. Today’s leftists across the world have alienated themselves further and further from the common man, proving the inevitable backlash from the extreme right, which often proves just as bad as the social justice warriors, both of which quickly prove the validity of horseshoe theory (which I fervently subscribe too).

For those who may not be aware, horseshoe theory is a theory of ideology in political science which argues that left and right are like the ends of a horseshoe, in that the further along the left or right you go, the more closely similar they are. In the end, those in the far-left and the far-right both arrive at the same point, saying much of the same things but employing different rhetoric as they do it. In other words, when taken to their extremes, both the left and the right are exactly the same.

horseshoe theory

Given how much Stormfront sounds like right-wing SJW’s, this makes much more sense.

For a more nuanced take on the left-right spectrum, the horseshoe model is ideal. However, I would like to suggest another model. Allow me to introduce you to the political compass, which has been around since 2001. It was coined by the British-based Political Compass Organisation with the intention of helping people to better understand where they stand politically, and the kind of company they might keep. Simply put, it’s a multi-axis grid that is split by two axes. The left-right axis represents the traditional left-right spectrum, which is a measure of economic policy rather than social policy. In this sense, those on the left wing of the spectrum favour greater government regulation of the economy, which they feel should be run by a collective body. By contrast, those on the right wing of the spectrum feel that the economy should be left in the hands of competing individuals, organisations and market forces. At the very far end of the left wing is where you’ll run into communism, a system where the state has total control of the economy. At the very far end of the right wing is where you’ll find laissez-faire capitalism, which is essentially capitalism without any regulation from the state whatsoever.

Social policy is measured by the up-down axis, which, in my opinion, reflects the current culture war we are witnessing – the conflict between libertarianism and authoritarianism, or as I might put it, individualism and collectivism. Those on the upper half of the spectrum are authoritarians, as they believe that rules and traditions should be obeyed. Authoritarians believe that the state should have more power, and that the state has a right to intervene in people’s lives. I have reason to suspect that some of them believe that this power can be used for good, but an authoritarian always believes that he or she will be wielding that power. At the very top end of the authoritarian side is fascism, a system led by a dictator with absolute power, and I must stress that you will find fascists on both the left and the right of the spectrum (as I explained with horseshoe theory). Those on the lower half of the spectrum are libertarians, as they believe in the sanctity of personal freedom and individual rights. Libertarians believe the power of the state should be reduced, and that government should have little involvement in our lives. At the very bottom end of the libertarian side is anarchism, a system wherein the state is completely abolished. Now that that’s out of the way, I can go on to explain the four quadrants in more depth.

On the top left you have the authoritarian left. A left-wing authoritarian typically believes in a planned economy controlled by the state (sometimes called a command economy), and that states should control businesses and industries. This is where you’ll find the communists, Marxists, socialists, progressives, neofeminists, proponents of Keynesian economics, and of course the social justice warriors. Famous examples would include Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Bernie Sanders, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. I would personally count Anita Sarkeesian here as well because of how her brand of feminism, in terms of narrative, is very much akin to Marxism, same goes with the #BlackLivesMatter movement. A debatable example of a left-wing authoritarian would be Adolf Hitler, who, despite the popular misconception that he was far-right, was essentially a socialist who believed in a command economy. Speaking of Germany, I believe that the anti-fascist movement in Germany is becoming a left-wing authoritarian movement, as they have placed racist anti-white posters on public property, and have been known to threaten anyone who disagrees with them, ironically becoming the very thing they have set out to fight against (I’ll talk more about that in a future post).

On the top right you have the authoritarian right. A right-wing authoritarian typically believes in the legitimacy of the state, but is in favour of the free market. You’ll typically find them placing emphasis on social and religious norms, whereas many left-wing dictatorships attempted to excise religion altogether (such as in the Cultural Revolution of communist China). They are usually sceptical of social change, and believe in maintaining the status quo, which is why they are so reviled in the mainstream media. This is where you’ll find the neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, traditional conservatives, paleo-conservatives, oligarchists, religious fundamentalists of all persuasions (but especially Christianity and Islam), monarchists, reactionaries, neo-Nazis, nationalists, and the alt-right. Famous example would include Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew, Richard Nixon, David Cameron, Hillary Clinton, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (and his father), and Donald Trump. Pretty much all the Republican nominees except Rand Paul fit into this category, and this is especially true of Ted Cruz, a hardline conservative who fits in perfectly with the GOP. You’ll also find corporatism thrives here, because for the neo-cons, the “free market” allows them to subsidise the military-industrial complex and grant corporate welfare to the multi-national entities. The extreme racists of Stormfront, televangelists, Islamic terrorists, as well as the neo-con sock puppets at Fox News, could be found here as well.

On the bottom left you have the libertarian left. A left-wing libertarian believes in individual rights, but is still concerned with society at large. They promote personal freedom with emphasis on also promoting equality, and they typically advocate for reducing the power of large corporations and protecting worker’s rights. This is where you’ll find the social liberals, libertarian socialists, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and choice feminists. Famous examples include Emma Goldman, Christina Hoff Sommers, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Bill Maher, Jill Stein (from the US Green Party), Thomas Paine, and Carl Benjamin (the YouTuber better known as Sargon of Akkad). Some of the more moderate socialists and progressives may be found here as well.

Finally, on the bottom right, you have the libertarian right. A right-wing libertarian is the definition of “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, as they advocate capitalist economics and have a generally liberal stance on social issues (for example, they ardently defend the right to free speech). They stress the importance of individual rights, and do not trust a large government to protect them at all. They also believe that state regulation hinders the ability of a free market to grow. This is where you’ll find the mainstream libertarians, free market capitalists, classical liberals, objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, and a new phenomenon described as “cultural libertarians”. Famous examples include Rand Paul (and his father Ron Paul), Gary Johnson, Austin Peterson, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and debatably Milo Yiannopoulos. You may find some disaffected Republicans, such as those in the Tea Party movement, in this quadrant.

This is a vastly superior model that addresses the inadequacies of the old-fashioned left-right narrative and I feel it reflects the real culture war between individualism and collectivism. But, of course, the mainstream media doesn’t like nuance, so they just use the old system so they can get people to choose a side and fight each other to the bitter end. They’re duping people into accepting a grossly oversimplified ideological narrative, and the result is senseless, especially when you consider that anyone can use the political compass. I took the test on the Political Compass site myself (and if you want to, you can too if you click here), and here is the result.

political_compass

As you can see, I qualify as a right-wing libertarian, but I’m so close to the left that I tend to consider myself a centrist. You could call me a moderate libertarian if you want, because I tend to focus on issues rather than ideology. In days gone by I would have been a left-wing libertarian, and I was certainly this as a teenager (by which point I leaned pretty far to the left). However, over the years I’ve been growing very tired of the insanity exhibited by the political left, and ultimately jumped ship to the other side, mainly because it turned out their arguments were more rational. As a right-wing libertarian, I invariably fall under the same category as the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, who is more of a moderate than the two mainstream candidates (one of them a neo-liberal and the other a neo-conservative).

Of course, I fall under this category chiefly because I believe in individual rights and the responsibility and agency of the individual. I don’t care about race, gender and sexual orientation as the left does. In fact, I reject identity politics as a whole. I also believe that socialism is a very bad idea, and it only serves to take responsibility away from individuals. Therefore, in my opinion, socialism goes against the core values of libertarianism. That’s why I prefer capitalism, because it creates the conditions in which we have the advanced society that we have at all.

I know that this been a very drawn out post, but I think I’ve illustrated my point quite well. The culture war we know is now very different to what it was a generation ago, and the battle lines have been redrawn. Yet the mainstream media and the political establishment would much rather remove complexity from political debate, because it’s much easier to control a population that does not understand the big picture than it is for them to present a reasoned argument to the public. For those who argue that ideology does not matter, I say that it in fact does matter, but only if you can understand your ideological position can you wield it effectively in the world of politics.