The final betrayal of the left


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.

Regression, depravity, and a crisis of identity

safe space liberals

Illustration by A.F. Branco

Ever wondered why I and many others use the term “regressive left”? The answer is astonishingly simple – the ideas of the mainstream left as prescribed by college students have manifested in the form of trigger warnings, safe spaces and no-platforming, and those things becoming so common amongst young liberals that it’s as though they have regressed back to an almost child-like mindset. People have pointed the finger at a number of things, including social media, the proliferation of smartphones, reality TV, and liberal guilt, but the message remains clear – society has gotten dumber, and I personally blame our leftist culture of overly permissive attitude towards nearly everything.

Indeed, this mentality has led to a disturbing trend in the liberal left, where you have people literally regressing to the mindset of children. Remember Paul Wolscht? If not, I’m not surprised, that’s because several months ago he became Stephonknee Wolscht, a 52-year-old man who dresses up and identifies a 6-year-old girl? He left his wife and children behind in order to pursue the fantasy of living as an overgrown child. I don’t doubt that he might have had issues, but I think he should have seen a therapist instead of just abandoning his family. In the old days, that man would be universally condemned for abandoning his family, but when he was interviewed on Daily Xtra, the left-wing media celebrated it, and I think I have some idea of who else might be celebrating.

Remember Todd Nickerson? He’s a Salon writer who openly admits to being a pedophile, but expects to be treated nicely just because he didn’t molest anyone (even though, given the circumstance, I think that he would). In his article, entitled “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster”, he writes about how he was babysitting a 5-year-old girl, and fantasised about her, and yet he expects not to be judged harshly. Here in Britain, that’s the sort of thing that would spell the end of your career and turn you into a pariah, but across the Atlantic, the American left didn’t bat an eye, probably because nobody who identifies as left-leaning wants to seem “intolerant”. I’m surprised he isn’t a NAMBLA activist, but I’m also surprised that he didn’t get fired from Salon, but then again, they’re willing to tolerate anything, even racism, as long as the racists and perverts can make themselves sound like a marginalised and oppressed group.

Of course, even Todd Nickerson isn’t the most glaring sign that we may yet be reaching the murky nadir of Western civilisation, which leads me to the impetus for this rant. It has recently been reported that a 21-year-old Floridian woman named Jess has been living as an “adult baby”, with her boyfriend as the daddy, and they both insist that their ageplay isn’t sexual (yeah, sure, whatever you say weirdos). In a video posted by Barcroft TV, she claims that this is a way of coping with sexual abuse, but admits that she would have done it anyway. Whatever the reason, this is clearly a case of liberal regression going way too far, and illustrating without fail why I call the increasingly permissive left the regressive left – because they’re openly okay with grown men and women acting like children.

I can’t be entirely surprised though. If anything, I think these people and others like them are indications of an even bigger problem. The age of social media has brought about a culture of validation wherein people are seeking acceptance from as many places as possible. Thanks in part to the proliferation of social media and smartphones, more and more people are effectively tuning out with the real world, and what happens is you have people who are so unsure of themselves that, desperate for an identity of their own, they take on all sorts of identity labels, whether it be dogs, cats, elves, dragons, vampires, toddlers, or even babies.

I may be a libertarian, and thus, I shouldn’t care what people do as long as they’re not hurting anyone, but that doesn’t mean we can’t express criticism, and even I’m concerned when the depravities of a few psychos are passed around as normal. After all, I would argue that Paul Wolscht was hurting his family by abandoning the people who loved him just to pursue a fantasy life (added to the creepiness is the fact that, while dressed as a little girl, he’s going around kissing male bikers, whilst convinced he is a six-year-old. Make of that what you will). I’m not the only person out there with these concerns, there are many people out there who are legitimately concerned about how far things like this will go, and it’s not just about the idea of “baby play” becoming normal.

I’m starting to think that it’s hardly a coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the rise of safe space culture and campus censorship. I think what we are seeing is the infantilization of society as a whole. Just as nursing homes lead to the infantilizing of the elderly, I feel that political correctness is allowing what we’re seeing to fester, and infantilizing the rest of society. If the adults are acting like children, who will take care of the children? Things like this make me worry about the state of things to come, though I can always take consolation in the fact that people are getting tired of it. One can only hope that the people’s frustrations will manifest into something positive.

When did being right-wing become such a bad thing?

left vs. right

There once was a time were one person could say they’re right-wing, and another could say they’re left-wing, and the two could engage in a proper and balanced debate. However, we now live in a time where mainstream culture is so heavily entrenched in left-wing ideology that political discourse has come down to “left wing is good, right wing is bad”. People have grown up with the idea that all right-wingers are reactionary bigots and wacky evangelists, completely glossing over the kind of bigotry and oppression that far left ideologies have proven themselves capable of.

When I was a teenager, I was practically entrenched in the left wing, probably because I thought the left was morally superior compared to the right, and I didn’t know much better. I essentially bought into the nonsensical narrative that was so common back in the day and still is now, and I didn’t bother to research the other side. I didn’t even think they had any arguments that made any modicum of sense, but then again, I was just a stupid teenager back then. I didn’t even think that there is a left-wing bias pervading society and culture. In fact I always ignored the conservatives’ warnings of a liberal media bias, thinking it was all quack, but I was wrong. Not only is the liberal media not a myth, but it’s been going on for quite some time apparently.

Today, being right-wing has apparently become a social stigma, a stick used to beat people with which we disagree with. Right-wing thinkers are either left to obscurity or dismissed as crazies and trolls (some of them probably are, but I digress), while left-wing commentators like Owen Jones, Jessica Valenti and Michael Moore are propped up as intellectuals by mainstream outlets like The Guardian, no matter how insane or ill-constructed their arguments are. In today’s political discourse, facts no longer seem to matter. All that matters is whether you’re left-wing or right-wing, and if you’re right-wing, you apparently get lumped in with neo-cons, internet trolls, religious fundamentalists, neo-nazis, fascists, and all sorts of other awful people, and that’s if you’re not dismissed as ignorant.

I’m not even completely right-wing (though I am sort of a modestly right-wing libertarian), but I find this attitude very childish, and that’s part of the reason why I ultimately abandoned the left, and also because of the way social justice warriors (the narcissistic progeny of Marxist social justice courses) have militantly censored discussion and silenced debate in the name of their far-left ideology (meanwhile they aren’t considered extremists by the mainstream). All the more vexing is the fact that I have found a number of right-wing and mostly libertarian arguments to be quite reasonable, meanwhile the left-wingers now sound like gibbering loons with arguments that don’t quite stand up to scrutiny.

It’s not as though the right isn’t as capable of being as extreme as the far left. I know that because I used to do extensive research on Fox News back in 2010/11. However, Fox News and all the other right wing outlets seem rather tame and definitely comical compared to their left-wing equivalents, particularly the far-left online news outlet The Young Turks (owned and presented by Cenk Uygur), who in many ways mirror the kind of grotesque circus that I’ve chided Fox News for, but if anyone on Fox News says something stupid, the mainstream media won’t let you hear the end of how stupid it is, but when Cenk Uygur does it (and he will), nobody in the media seems to bat an eye. Let me see if I got this right – Bill O’Reilly screws up and all the news outlets and comedians dogpile on him, but Cenk Uygur screws up and gets no scrutiny from the mainstream media, all because one is right-wing and the other is left-wing.

The problem as I see it is that ever since the left gained dominance in the political and cultural arena, the whole political discourse became about the “enlightened liberal” versus the “ignorant conservative”, and if all else fails, “love vs. hate”. The problem is that it gives people an excuse not to think critically about ideas and issues that need to be examined with more care and nuance, and the end result is a hopelessly distorted political climate where you can silence your critics with words like “racist” or “sexist”, therefore suggesting your opponent is hateful when in fact he or she may not be.

I’m not at all convinced that being right-wing is necessarily bad. I’m not a conservative, but I can name a handful of intelligent right-wing thinkers, commentators and politicians who have made reasonable arguments, including Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, Gavin McInnes, Douglas Murray, Steven Crowder, Dinesh D’Souza, Ron Paul, Allum Bokhari, just to name a few. It’s also a mistake to believe that all right-wing ideologies are authoritarian. The right wing encompasses philosophies that generally favour reduced economic regulation, and support capitalism. The more libertarian philosophies in the right wing include conservative libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and objectivism, just to name a select few. The right wing is just as intellectually diverse as the left (or so I think), and yet the leftists would have you believe that the right-wing is full of insane idiots who probably aren’t fans of human rights.

My point is simple. I feel that the dialogue between left and right has been hopelessly distorted, with the left dominant in society and indoctrinating the young generation with vapid, meaningless nonsense that breeds more narcissists than critical thinkers. What I gather from the right-wing perspective is that you the individual are responsible for your own station in life (that’s not true with all of them, but a number of rightists think this way), whereas the left teaches you that “the system” causes all of your problems, and effectively that you have no agency. Of course the dominant left-leaning culture wants to dismiss right-wingers as idiots, because they don’t buy into the narrative that the system is the cause of all your suffering, and I don’t think a lot of people buy that anymore. There is a wealth of information out there that disproves a lot of the left-wing nonsense we’ve been conditioned to believe as teenagers, and I suggest that you go out and find it, along with looking into the names I mentioned in the previous paragraph, because, more than anything else, I want people to question what they have been taught by the media. If they did, I think they’ll find that they have been fed lies, and a narrative that doesn’t hold up very well to scrutiny.

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.


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.

Why the left have lost it

owen jones walks out

In the wake of Sunday’s massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the whole world sent their thoughts and prayers to the victims. Once again, a deranged radical Islamic terrorist sought out to cause chaos and intimidate us into submission, as had previously happened in Paris and Brussels respectively, and in similar fashion, various cities around the world have lit up in rainbow colours to show their solidarity for the victims what has come to be known as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Of course, there was no shortage of shady characters who sought to politicise the tragedy for their own agendas.

A Sky News conversation involving The Guardian’s Owen Jones quickly comes to mind. On a recent broadcast of Sky News Press Preview, the journalist clashed with the show’s host Mark Longhurst and guest Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Owen threw a hissy fit because they treated the Orlando attack as an act of terror (which it clearly was). Owen attempted to use his TV appearance to politicise the Orlando attack and frame it as an exclusively gay issue (though personally I think he was trying to make the Orlando attack about him), and Mark and Julia saw right through it. Whenever they pointed about the religious motivations behind the attack, he accused them of denying homophobia, which is an assumption he makes purely based on emotion, completely obfuscating the facts. In the end he found himself unable to provide a reasonable counterargument, and was unable to intimidate the two into submission, and so with no other options, walked out off the set in disgrace. On his subsequent article in The Guardian, he attempts to gloss over his lousy performance in a diatribe that’s filled with blatant lies. The problem here is that as a leftist, he simply can’t accept the fact that radical Muslims target homosexuals because it threatens the left-wing narrative of tolerance. He also won’t accept the possibility that the gunman was mentally disturbed, because it threatens his own personal narrative. In fact, using the word “lunatic” to describe the gunman evidently triggers him.

After it was revealed that the gunman, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was an Islamic extremist who pledged allegiance to ISIS and was also a registered Democrat, the mainstream media scrambled to look for something else to blame, fearing that addressing radical Islam would make them sound racist (even though Islam is a religion, not a race). To my dismay, this meant that video games were once again the target of opportunistic virtue signallers and self-appointed moral crusaders. In fact, the gaming press seemed to completely turn on the games industry, with news outlets such as The Verge and Polygon condemning shooter games for glorifying gun violence and so-called ” gun culture”. Of course, there’s no evidence that Omar Mateen was influenced by violent video games, but that apparently doesn’t concern the likes of Jonathan McIntosh, Bob Chipman (better known as “MovieBob”) and Jonathan Blow (the has-been creator of Braid), all of whom wish to use the Orlando attack to advance their agenda of injecting the gaming industry with social justice. It probably didn’t occur to them that as video games became more popular the rate of violent crime in America has actually decreased.

Video games weren’t the only thing put on the chopping block to avoid addressing radical Islam. Within hours after Omar Mateen’s death, Twitter was flooded with hashtags pressing for gun control (#GunControlNow springs to mind instantly). Indeed, Democrats in the US senate quickly moved to use the tragedy to push for greater gun control, and nearly every progressive has jumped on the bandwagon, pinning the blame squarely on the National Rifle Association. Let’s clear things up. In Florida, it’s actually illegal to openly carry a gun, but it allows you to carry many concealed weapons, which I guess is where the debate is coming from at least in that state. However, Omar Mateen was known to have carried a semi-automatic rifle, ownership of which is illegal under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Contrary to what you might have been told, it’s not legal for an American to own an assault weapon, but that doesn’t completely stop people like Omar Mateen from acquiring one. Gun control doesn’t work because criminals don’t obey laws. If anything, increased gun restrictions will do nothing other than disarm law-abiding citizens, making the country less safe. France has some of the harshest gun control laws in all of Europe, and that didn’t stop the massacre in Paris, nor did it stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre several months earlier. Violating America’s second amendment rights, as many suspect Hillary will do, is about as effective at stopping mass shooters as a Jägerbomb is good for treating alcoholism. Once again, all of this is because the leftists in the mainstream media are so scared of inadvertently giving Donald Trump any sort of credibility that they’d rather disarm the country than admit that Islamic extremism is still a major problem that needs to be dealt with now more than ever.

I wish there was a better time for me to talk about this as opposed to while the world is still reeling from a horrific tragedy, but I really feel that the way the leftist media has tried to use the tragedy to advance their own agenda is just disgusting. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he’s willing to address the problem of radical Islam directly, which is more than could be said of America’s current President and his preferred successor. I think that justice could only be served if we openly addressed the extreme ideas that influenced Omar Mateen to commit this atrocity upon humanity in the first place. The left’s ineptitude in this regard is why conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos are gaining in popularity. It’s gotten to a point where even the LGBT community is willing to support Trump now, and that’s because the left has thrown them under the bus by refusing to address Islamic extremism, and instead trying to blame conservative Christians, despite the growing amount of Christians who are okay with gays. Also, isn’t it a little suspicious that the media criticises Trump for “point scoring”, while they’re perfectly fine with Obama and Hillary doing the same? I swear that this kind of nonsense from the left makes me want to turn to the right, because I can’t support the side that’s so engage in such a flagrant obfuscation of facts in order to advance their collectivist agenda.

The worst part about it is that while we sit here watching the left cannibalise itself over what they should call the Orlando shooting, ISIS is still running roughshod over the Middle East, and if they are directly responsible for the recent killings, then they’re taking advantage of the weakness of Western leaders. I say that we cannot sit in silence for much longer. We know what inspired Omar Mateen to go out and kill innocent people, and we need to be strong in the face of despair. By caving into leftist nihilism and political correctness, we are showing our enemy that we are weak, and will be intimidated by terror, and as long as that’s happening, the terrorists have already won.

Why Michael Moore is full of shit

michael moore

I remember when I used to like Michael Moore, back when I was a dumb left-wing teenager who didn’t know anything about politics, but somehow felt that I was right. By now I’ve matured considerably, and I now know much more about politics than I used to, and I’ve come to realise that Michael Moore is essentially a left-wing bullshit artist, preaching socialism from his mansion in California. Furthermore, I have come to generally hate progressive ideology in general, thanks to all the social justice warriors and left-wing propagandists in major online outlets. So when I hear that Michael Moore has basically compared Brexits voters to Donald Trump, and referring to Britain as “a toxic place”, not only did that frustrate me to no end, but it also showed just how out of touch he is with ordinary people.

In a recent interview with professional Marxist Owen Jones for The Guardian, Michael Moore shows his ignorance by comparing Brexit to the idea of Britain “being in the Premier League” and “wanting to stay in the minors”. What the hell is he talking about? I’ve already written a lengthy disquition on what Brexit is about. If Michael Moore or anyone else wants to know about Brexit, I strongly suggest reading it. Anyway, he tries to argue that we in Britain are copying the rhetoric of Donald Trump, under the delusion that we’re only concerned with immigration. Immigration is a big issue with a number of Brexit voters, but we aren’t all racists slobs. Conversely, not all Donald Trump supporters are racists, but Michael Moore and Owen Jones are so out of touch with reality that they think it’s all “make Britain great again”, as if the sole tactic of the leftists in the Remain camp is to infantilise the opposition. The idea that we’re trying to mimic Trump is not only wrong, but it shows a flagrant lack of understanding on the part of socialists.

Moore is such a pessimist when it comes to the prospect of any Republican becoming president of the US that he believes the worst case scenario, especially when it comes to Trump. I know that Trump isn’t exactly the best candidate, but I highly doubt that he’s a fascist. If anything, I don’t think Michael Moore has looked into Trump that much. He then goes on to claim that fascism is the combination of state power, the power of markets and capital, racism and fear of the outsider. If he knew anything about fascism, he would know that capitalism cannot survive under fascism. Let’s not forget that, historically, fascist states such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy instituted planned economies, a key trait of communism and socialism (which Michael Moore seems to love so much).

Moore also claims that Trump has a “fear of women”, and that it will bring him down. I’ve kept up with the news on Trump, and can’t find any evidence of him being a misogynist. Also, Trump has been accused of much worse, and that hasn’t stopped his campaign at all. In fact, Trump’s campaign has been grown to the point where he is the Republican nominee whether socialists like Moore like it or not. Having “pissed off the majority gender” (another claim Moore can’t prove) doesn’t change anything. Owen and Moore later claim that Trump’s candidacy is a “last hoorah” for Reaganomics, as if we still live in a world government by Reaganomics. What Moore won’t tell you is that Reaganomics is characterised by a reduction of taxes and unrestricted free market activity. He also won’t mention that the Bush and Obama administrations saw an expansion of government control, and an increase in corporate collusion with the state. We don’t live in the era of Reaganomics, but rather an era of corporatism.

Michael Moore honestly feels that the working class is suspicious of liberals (translation: left-wing progressive), and at least he’s telling the truth in this one instance. He’s right in saying that the left has failed the working class, but it’s not just that. By Moore’s own admission, Obama was an ineffectual disappointment, but the main reason that Americans are turning on the progressive left is because the left doesn’t trust ordinary people to vote for them. In fact, many establishment leftists treat ordinary working class Americans like uneducated slobs in need of their political enlightenment, all while the leftists have become so out of touch with reality that they’re primary focus is trying to change society to fit their warped view of reality. Above all else, that’s why so many Americans hate leftists now, and the social justice warriors only make it worse. Then again, Moore is the same man who comforts himself with the idea that Donald Trump “sounds like the last dying dinosaur”.

Changing the topic to Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore then goes on to assert that the phenomenon that was Sanders’ campaign happened because the younger generation of voters haven’t been fed the Cold War narrative that “socialism is evil”. Never mind the fact that Bernie Sanders is now a failed presidential candidate. There is zero chance of Bernie Sanders getting nominated, and yet Moore still holds out hope for the deranged socialist, going so far to claim that he’s “pushed Hillary to the left” (giving no explanation as to how). Even if Moore isn’t advocating for Bernie Sanders, he still buys into the typical regressive left argument that a woman or a person of colour should run the show, without giving any reason why, and ignoring the fact that America already has a black president and women in Congress, as well as female CEO’s in some of America’s biggest companies. That in itself makes Michael Moore sound like a wailing dinosaur trapped in a retrograde ideology that calls for the obfuscation of facts. Oh, and if Mr. Moore is reading this, a generation of college students who flirt with socialism without knowing a thing about it doesn’t make a sufficient revolution. What it does make is a new wave of special snowflakes who seek to overthrow the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” from within their cozy little safe spaces where their misinformed ideas can’t be challenged.

Finally, Moore and Owen go on to pontificate about (and presumably intellectually masturbate to) Owen Jones’ idol Jeremy Corbyn, the hypocrite who complains about the EU demolishing worker’s rights while campaigning for Vote Remain. Moore honestly believes Corbyn’s leadership to be an atonement for the sins of the Labour Party under Tony Blair. In reality, Jeremy Corbyn has been trying and failing to lead a hopelessly divided party that regularly undermines him on several issues. In fact, it is speculated that after the EU referendum, Corbyn’s leadership could be challenged, so we may no longer have a socialist running the Labour Party. He also holds Tony Blair more responsible for the Iraq War, a war started by George W. Bush. He goes on to claim that the war happened because Bush had the cover of “liberals” like Tony Blair (even though Blairite policies, which call for expanding government powers and greater European integration, are anything but liberal). At that point, I was pretty much done with this nonsense. The stupidity level on this interview was simply mind-boggling.

If you thought Michael Moore was full of shit before, that’s nothing compared to the level of self-righteous sewage that he spews today. Then again, what more can I expect from a typical Hollywood leftist who’s so full of himself that it’s actually fitting that he agreed to be interviewed by a man who is equally self-righteous and full of himself. In a way, Michael Moore has succeeded in representing what progressives have become, and why we call them the regressive left, because people like Michael Moore are so trapped in their delusions that it’s all they know, and that’s precisely the reason why conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos and Steven Crowder are becoming more popular than ever, while Michael Moore continues to become little more than a relic of the Bush administration.

How Western culture is strangling itself


History can be an ugly and often embarrassing subject, especially when you come across things that your history teacher never taught you. From slavery to religious persecution, from greed to bloodlust, and from colonialism to genocide, the West has had a very colourful history that I’m sure many of us would like to forget, but as the old saying goes: “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Unfortunately, we live in a time where, in the West, historical discussion has been turned into people blaming their ancestors for the worst of atrocities instead of learning from the mistakes they made, and that, I worry, has led to a state where the West lacks confidence in its own values.

Over the course of the 21st century, liberal guilt (sometimes called “white guilt”) has plagued Western culture like cancer, no doubt due to years of indoctrination coming from the media and various left-wing demagogues, and it’s certainly wreaking havoc with the way we deal with history, especially in the context of racial issues. In America, years of white guilt lead many young liberals (particularly agitated students) wag their fingers at white Americans for their alleged “privilege”, and America’s snowflake students have been censoring artworks made by white artists. In one American campus, a student activist group started a fiery protest simply because a truck bearing the Confederate flag drove by, and they felt threatened.

The UK also seems to have no confidence in its values whatsoever, just as well that they’re seen as the domain of what British society has deemed the scummiest group of all. The spread of the Rhodes Must Fall movement to Oxford University should come as a testament to how people now use their feelings to judge history. Don’t get me wrong, Cecil Rhodes was a detestable man of no real worth, but the whole movement has gotten out of hand, and it demonstrates how the West’s attitude towards its history and culture has rendered it vulnerable to the kind of cultural war now playing out in its campuses.

The European Union is perhaps the worst example of institutionalized historical revisionism in our time. Their policy is to assume that Europe itself began after the Second World War, as if nothing else ever happened (and it this point, I’m reminded of that one scene from Family Guy where the German tour guide flips out and screams “nothing bad happened!”). The EU’s educational establishment is convinced that European history before 1946 is hostile territory. Despite all of Europe’s great accomplishments, the European Union seems to focus on Europe’s ugly history, particularly the genocides and xenophobia. Of course, that means nothing when you consider that the EU usurps the currencies and cultures of its member states under the guise of holding the union together.

Of course, this points to what I would consider an easy conclusion – the West seems to loathe itself, and this atmosphere of cultural self-flagellation is ripe for a new culture of illiberalism, revisionism, safe spaces and false pretences of “social justice”. This renders today’s society inept to deal with its issues in a frank and mature way, and it serves as an easy distraction from what’s going on around the world. The political game is being dominated by lunatics, ISIS is still at large, and authoritarian leftists have hijacked the popular language of their ideology, using it to advocate censorship, but as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat those same mistakes, and that’s exactly what today’s political atmosphere is thriving on.