James Hodgkinson and the zeitgeist of faux heroism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The first betrayal of Donald Trump?

missile strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitting an all-time low

In America, the Republican party is in serious trouble. Many Republican figures have degraded into lunacy as they struggle in vain to maintain their stranglehold on the American conciousness, but perhaps nothing shows the true character of the Republican party in better ways than their willingness to defend the Duggars, a family who covered up the perverted antics of their eldest son. Most damningly, we have Mike Huckabee, who I remember for being a complete and total moron who wants to destroy the constitution, leaping to the defence of Josh Duggar, in spite of the fact that he confessed to having molested several underaged girls. So, let me see if gotten this correctly. We have Republican politicians and fundamental Christians, some of which include members of the extremely misogynistic Quiverfull movement, and somehow the Republican party, let alone Mike Huckabee, is okay with this? While we’re there, how are we okay with Mike Huckabee running for president while he’s defending a child molester?

mike huckabee

“Good people make mistakes” shouldn’t even apply here.

For those not familiar with what’s going on here, I’ll briefly clear this up. The Duggars are a large, close-knit partriachral family of fundamentalist Christians who were well-known for being the stars of a reality TV show called 19 Kids and Counting. Last week, it was revealed that the eldest son of the family, Josh Duggar, had been accused of being a sexual predator, but the family had covered it up until recently. The ensuing scandal caused their show to be pulled from the air, and advertisers to cut their sponsorship (and with good cause). I should also add that the Duggars are adherents of the Christian patriarchy movement, which advocates that the men are the highest authority and main providers after God (or Christ), and that women are treated like subservient homemakers and breeders. Apart from sounding eerily like Taliban philosophy, it just sounds like an appalling aberrance from all that is good and natural, and it gets even worse. Christian patriarchs don’t believe in public schooling, probably because what children learn in public schools would negate the influence of their foul propaganda, thus rendering their outdated belief system arbitrary. If that’s not enough, they also believe that having a large family is some kind of Biblical mandate. People like them are the reason America’s population is so huge, and yet when one of them if outed as a child molester, the Republicans defend him? For me, the Republicans have sunk an all-time low by choosing to defend a confessed child molester, and they are potentially undermining their credibility (assuming they had any left) in the eyes of the American public. However, the most significant aspect of this whole scandal is that it reveals just how obsessed with sex the Republicans and their allies are. They’re the same people calling for anti-abortion laws, demonize LGBTQIA people, and put both above all other legislative priorities, even above counter-terrorism. They’re so obsessed with sex that they treat women like walking wombs. If they had their way, women would be treated as literal sex objects, and predators like Josh Duggar would walk freely among the streets. Is this the world Christians want? If not, why aren’t they doing anything about it? After all, their religion is being abused to justify these horrible shenanigans. More importantly, the Duggars, the Quiverfull movement, and the Republicans who defend them are all a collective disgrace to the philosophy they stand for. If the Republicans and the church hope to survive, then the best course of action would be to distance themselves from them as far as possible, otherwise they will be forever associated with the scandal, and their image, credibility and values will be forever tarnished.

The hidden dark side of the religious right

Whenever sexual education comes up as a topic at all, conservative Christians are always on the offensive. They try and make the case that teaching sexual education to younger ages might be a gateway to paedophilia and underage sex, when in actuality, it might have the opposite effect. Whenever the Catholic church was accused of covering up allegations of paedophilia targeted at their priests, however, conservative Christians remained silent.

Doesn’t that sound odd to you at all? Call me crazy, but I think that there’s something extremely odd about the way conservative Christians act when it comes to sex.

For example, when a Chicago school district implemented a mandatory sex education program at each grade level, the conservative Christian media outlets panicked, and began spreading the myth that the district was practising paedophilia. In actuality, this program was implemented in order to help children learn the difference between a “good touch” and a “bad touch”, and hopefully identify and report actual perverts. Let me ask a question: why on Earth would right-wing Christians have a problem with it?

At this point, it should be obvious. The conservative Christians must obviously be raging perverts. But what if this is something bigger. What if the Christian church is basically a cabal of paedophiles who actively preserve the status quo in order to ensure that they can still indulge their sick pleasures?

It sounds crazy, but at the same time, it makes perfect sense. Why else would conservative Christians want to fight a program designed to help children identify potential paedophiles? The only reason they would try and actively fight it is if it means they get caught, and singled out as perverts, which would obviously bring them unimaginable shame.

The tabloids also have a role in all this. Many tabloids take up a conservative (or at least populist) attitude towards a number of issue, but they seem to be obsessed with paedophiles. Whenever the tabloids focus on the paedophiles, they do two things:

  1. They report child abuse cases in suspiciously graphic detail.
  2. They implicitly make child abuse cases worse.

See, the tabloids create such a hysteria over child abuse that not only does it cause existing predators to further intimidate their victims (due to them becoming more fearful of being caught), but it may also arouse disturbing sexual thoughts in people who may otherwise not have thought of it. This, of course, causes more child abuses cases, which means more stories for the tabloids, which gives the tabloids more money.

Another thing that always sounded odd to me was the fact that conservatives and the tabloids seemed to be fixated on child pornography. In fact, David Cameron’s porn filter plan was based on the Daily Mail’s constant panicking over porn, and it’s alleged effect on our children.

Here’s another twist. The Daily Mail seems to be very defensive of Christianity, and their editors are ardent supporters of the Conservative party. Therefore, isn’t it possible that the Daily Mail editors are basically sick perverts with twisted imaginations? I think they are. After all, why else would they aggressively demand that porn basically be wiped out, while simultaneously fixating on anything to do with sex?

What’s happening here is that the tabloids are causing more division over sex, and planting sick thoughts into their readers in order to generate more stories to make more money.

What does this have to do with religion? Well, only the fact that the church doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. If the conservative Christian church isn’t doing anything about this then either they have no idea of the whole thing, or they know exactly what’s going on, but keep quiet in order to preserve the status quo

I don’t claim to know if there can be any real explanation for this odd behaviour, but one thing is clear: something is very wrong. There are people out there with sick thoughts and sick intentions, and the right-wing politicians in Britain and America seem to be on their side.