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.

Advertisements

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.

Reasons not to vote Labour #3 – A toothless Brexit, if we even have one

jeremy corbyn eu

In this third part of my series on why you shouldn’t vote for the Labour Party this Thursday, I will talk about Labour’s position on the most important issue of the election – Brexit. The Labour manifesto states that the party “accepts the result of the referendum” and wants to maintain a close relationship with Europe. One thing that Corbyn has made crystal clear on numerous occasions is that he has ruled out a “no deal” option at the end of Article 50 negotiations. What that basically means is that, for him, even if the EU gave him the worst deal you can possibly imagine, he would rather take that than end the negotiations with no deal.

He also wants to “retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union”, blissfully unaware that to be in the single market means us complying with the EU’s laws, and still being under the jurisdiction of the EU courts. He also wants to scrap the Great Repeal Bill, which would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and hand lawmaking powers back to MP’s, and replace it with an EU Rights and Protections Bill. Of course he doesn’t seem to care that the fact that we couldn’t make our own laws one of the biggest reasons we voted to leave the EU in the first place.

I mentioned before that Corbyn was a moral coward because of his refusal to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons, but his stance on the EU confirms such cowardice. Think about it for a moment – you have a Labour leader who, in contrast to the bloody difficult woman we have as Prime Minister, is soft on the EU. He would mostly cave to the EU leaders’ demands if he thought it was convenient for him. If the EU demanded that we take in more immigrants to fit Merkel’s migrant quotas, I am throughly convinced that Corbyn would do exactly that. As for that £100 billion divorce bill, Mr. Corbyn would probably pay up, as if he hadn’t already gutted the taxpayer’s purse enough already.

He and his supporters have claimed that Theresa May’s approach to the Brexit negations is “reckless”, and they say this primarily because she is pursuing the hard Brexit route, which is what the people actually want. The truth is we don’t have to give the EU anything. In fact, it is the EU that has to appease us, or else they will face the consequences of alienating Britain. As long as Theresa May remains as Prime Minister, we have the upper hand, and she knows it. It also helps that Theresa May is confident in her role as Prime Minister, backed by undivided party loyalty. Corbyn, meanwhile, is not. He acts on his feelings rather than logic, most of his party hates him and would happily see him go, and he’s so gullible that the EU could easily take advantage of him. I would not be surprised if the EU leaders would celebrate a Labour victory.

And that’s just if we even have Brexit at all. I’ve been hearing talk of how a progressive coalition with Labour and other left-wing parties might actually happen. This would require a hung parliament to happen, in which case Labour may have to form a coalition with any left-wing party that’s willing. If in the unlikely event that such a progressive alliance would succeed, then they will try and stop the Brexit process however they can, and if they succeed, then that’s it. Our last hope for sovereignty would be all but dashed.

So, as I’ve said many times before, if you want Brexit to happen, then you cannot allow Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. He would bring utter ruination to the dream of taking back our national sovereignty, and our right to self-determination, but he’d also do far worse. He’d unwittingly kill off any faith the people have in trying to better their situation through democratic, peaceful means, and that’s when the more far-right nationalists would come in, and usher in something far worse. In the fourth and final part of this series, I aim to debunk the idea that Labour want to change things for the better, using what happened the last time we tried nationalisation as an example.

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.

Let’s face facts – the “Liberal Democrats” aren’t liberal

liberal democrats

Tell me if you’ve heard this argument before. The Liberal Democrats are supposedly the only liberal party in an election with a far-left Marxist Labour leader running against a nanny state Tory party. By that logic, any real liberal should vote for the Liberal Democrats, right? Wrong! The “Liberal” Democrats are liberals in name only. They haven’t been truly liberal in a long time, certainly not under its leftist leader Tim Farron.

Their latest manifesto essentially confirms this, with the Liberal Democrats reaffirming their opposition to Brexit (never mind the fact that only 22% of the country wants Britain to stay in the EU, and that could be shrinking). In case Tim Farron hasn’t heard, opposing the popular vote makes you illiberal. It is anathema to liberty and liberalism. If that’s not enough, they want to ban the sale of diesel cars by 2025 if elected. If Tim Farron wants his party to fail, then congratulations, because now his party can only appeal to bourgeois middle-class leftists in London or Cardiff.

More importantly, the manifesto tells me that todays Liberal Democrats are more like social democrats, reading like the kind of manifesto Labour would release if it weren’t so far to the left. On economic policy they want to raise the corporate tax to 20% (it’s already at 19%, which is bad enough), and add 1p on income tax, which they say is how they’ll raise £6 billion for the NHS. On the whole, they’ve pretty much adopted Labour’s love of spending money. They plan to spend £7 billion on education, reverse universal credit at a cost of £3.6 billion, and £2 billion on flood defences. I’ll admit that this isn’t as bad as Labour’s spending plans (the flood defence pledge sounds like a good idea), but again, in order to spend that much, they have to raise taxes, which they’re pretty much open about.

They also want a second referendum on a “final Brexit deal”, which is completely ludicrous as we already voted on whether or not to leave the EU, and parliament already gave Theresa May approval to trigger Article 50. I assume once the British public inevitably votes for hard Brexit, the Lib Dems would probably ask for a third referendum until they get what they want. They also want to remain in the single market, which nobody wants anymore, and seeing as they favour freedom of movement as the EU would define it, I have reason to suspect that they’ll probably force the country to take in more migrants sent over from places like Germany or France, not that we’ll get to vote on whether or not to take in more immigrants.

The idea that the Lib Dems are liberal is complete nonsense. Only about 10% of their manifesto is liberal policy, with the rest being a bunch of idealistic socialist claptrap that’s at least moderate compared to the far-left Labour manifesto. It’s ludicrous to assume that the Lib Dems are liberal just because they want to decriminalise weed and scrap the Snooper’s Charter, both of those policies I completely agree with by the way. The sad truth is that there is no liberal party in mainstream politics. There is the Libertarian Party, but they’re only running a few candidates, and there’s a slim chance that any of them will gain a seat.

Ever since the rise of socialism, liberalism hasn’t been popular in British politics in a long time, to the point that even the supposed “liberal” party has forgotten about what it truly means to be liberal. I would argue that liberalism itself has become ineffectual in the days when the political centre is collapsing in on itself, but that’s another topic for another time. It would help if Tim Farron wasn’t such a complete moron who can’t even defend his views on abortion, or homosexuality. Let’s face facts. Liberal or not, the Liberal Democrats are a train wreck of a party, and they’re the liberal party, then liberalism is fucked.

The smug leftist

john oliver

That face when a hypocrite self-righteously scolds the entire country for not being as progressive as he is.

Over the past decade we in the West have had to live with a chattering, self-righteous left-wing elite that has somehow attached itself to mainstream culture, and in America, they are best represented by late night “comedians” such as Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, and of course, John Oliver. You may remember that I recently wrote a post in which I defended him from the more dimwitted members of the right (e.g. Jack Posobiec) who were acting like SJW’s in calling for him to be fired. Let the following be known – I still hate him!

I only defended him because my principles demanded it. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and a devious propagandist. At this point, his entire raison d’être is to try and be more anti-Trump than his peers. Indeed, he has been one of the most ardent critics of the Trump administration, and in his criticism he has come to exemplify the smug liberal problem (Samantha Bee may deny it, but they really are the problem). Of course, like all the smug liberal elites, he doesn’t even practice what he preaches, and it turns out that John Oliver and his wife had purchased a $9.5 million Manhattan penthouse, using a tax loophole used by Donald Trump himself a few decades ago. And to add insult to injury, he did this months before his episode on the wealth gap.

The loophole I’m talking about is the 421-a tax exemption, which was designed in 1971 in order to encourage new development in vacant or underutilised property locations. Apparently Donald Trump wanted to use it in 1980 in order to turn the Bonwit Teller building into the famous Trump Tower. When the then-mayor Ed Koch wouldn’t allow him to, he sued the city, and won a $50 million tax exemption, and thereby established that all new developments could be written off under that provision. Years later, John Oliver, who condemns the wealthy elites on a regular basis, not only used that same rule to buy an expensive penthouse, but to do so he also hired Proskauer Rose LLP, a law firm that specialises in helping the wealthy find tax breaks.

I knew John Oliver was a liar, but this surprised even me. There you have definitive proof that John Oliver is a snake with no guiding principles, and that is because he is a neoliberal corporatist. He has to feign his left-wing stance in order to keep his career afloat. It should be fairly obvious that he and his ilk are rich enough that they would stand to gain from Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts. He’s not even the only one to directly contradict himself. Take Samantha Bee, a woman generally known for barking on about how white people have “ruined America”, but her husband opposed a move to relocate their children’s school to an area that would make it more accessible to black schoolchildren (and claims that his opposition isn’t racist).

Of course, do we really expect the likes of John Oliver and Samantha Bee to have any principles? They’re the smug leftists, the bourgeoisie if you will. All that stops them from being true aristocrats is the fact that they probably weren’t born with blue blood. In the end, they only care about their self-centred, frivolous wants, even as they have the gall to criticise other rich people for the same kind of behaviour. Come to think about it, that whole progressive shtick is probably a scam too. I wonder how many wealthy socialites they know? If they’re celebrities they’ve surely attended a number of high-class parties that only the rich and famous will ever be invited to. As for that crap about caring for the poor, I wouldn’t be surprised if they cracked jokes about poor people with chortling laughter.

They’re all the same, and I guarantee that this anti-Trump crap is just for ratings. When John Oliver did his first anti-Trump rant, he got far more online traffic than anything else he had done prior to that. What that tells me is that he’s all too aware of what drive traffic to him, and he’s capitalising on that in order to further his career. They’re all liars, and the people who still watch them and take him with a little more than a grain of salt are either idiots who have never ventured outside cable TV, or their leftists themselves who buy the propaganda. Either way they’re a diminishing audience. TV as a medium is dying anyway, and in its death throes you still have the vestigial kings and queens of late night “comedy” attempting to preserve their hold on the public consciousness, and failing because on the Internet, the people can reveal how the really feel about the smug leftists who constantly talk down to them.

The final betrayal of the left

cia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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