Category Archives: Politics

Ex-Red Pill Members Describe Cult-Like Indoctrination

However organic and benign a group might appear to begin with, it seems most, when co-opting a large number of members, end up in roughly the same manner.

The Red Pill, based on the Men’s Rights Movement, appeared to counter toxic feminism, which has been an intensely discussed topic over the last few years (many times, deservedly). At first it seemed to base its line of thought on the fact that men are not what modern feminists claim (dangerous, led by instincts only, angry, prone to raping, abusive, manipulative, sociopathic, set on dominating women etc). And of course, any sensible individual can agree this is not what half of the human species stands out through, and that extremes should never be used for generalisations.

However, things quickly escalated.

This Reddit page details the effects of belonging to such a group on men who initially thought they were joining the “cool and strong crowd”, becoming empowered by its attitude.

To start with, the group attracts men in a vulnerable state of mind, freshly out of a failed relationship or marriage, or frustrated over not managing to secure a female partner. These guys already carry a substantial amount of anger and use the group for venting (much like disappointed women end up on forums about narcissists and psychopaths).

From there on they are led to believe women are naturally infantile, that “no” should not be taken as a “no”, and later on, that women actually get something out of being raped, on a subconscious level.

After enough brainwashing, some guys have ended up divorcing or abandoning their male friends who apparently shared the views of “beta cucks”.

You only need a short dialogue with a proponent of this line of thought to understand the venom; anger oozes out of their words; they are no different that Antifa or other leftist extremists, but merely at the other end of the spectrum. Politically, since they hate the left and afferent “beta” culture, they tend to be right wing or libertarian; many are angry enough to embrace the far right.

ICE Detains 10 Year Old Disabled Girl Straight From Hospital – And Some People Still Refuse The Nazi Comparison

Just reading about this, minutes ago, there is no way this action can be justified or interpreted in a somewhat lighter way.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/30/freerosa-supporters-demand-release-10-year-old-detained-trumps-ice

Americans Demand Release of 10-Year-Old Girl Being Held in US Detention Center

A ten-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, who is undocumented, was treated as a priority for detention and subsequent deportation by the US immigration squad. Right off her hospital bed. They have to get them all in the end, don’t they?

Not only do they target schools; it seems they now target hospitals as well. Who knows how many lives the knowledge of that will cost, when people fear they cannot safely go to a doctor in case of an emergency, because even there they are hunted down.

They talk so much about socialism, these folks in the ardent Trump camp.

Not realising socialism is the handing over of human rights and human decency to bureaucrats, which is exactly what they are doing right now in the US, breaking moral codes of any sort in order to comply with the ruler’s directives and fill up targets and statistics.

In cases such as these, we can safely put a “national” in front of the “socialism”.

When entire categories become undesirable and a target for persecution, down to disabled children freshly out of emergency surgery.

It’s not border protection; it’s simply barbarism, to treat a sick disabled child in such ways. Those rejoicing such cases should become aware that as soon as they are done with the outside “undesirables”, this lot, so well trained to be less than human, will be turned against their own people. It’s unavoidable.

Someone was in charge of this decision, to keep pursuing this girl for detention. And this person will soon say “I was just obeying orders”. It’s what they typically say, isn’t it?

On the ACLU website there is yet another chilling story: in 2009, ICE in Boston began a program of outreach, for Indonesians who had fled because of religious persecution. Here’s what happens today with the data ICE gathered:

In 2009, the Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office initiated a program called “Operation Indonesian Surrender,” which it characterized as “a humanitarian effort” meant to “bring folks out of the shadows” and send the message to Indonesian Christian community members that “we will work with you.” Eight years later, ICE is trying to deport all the participants.

It seems the great beam of freedom and hope the US was seen as for many years, through syrupy Hollywood productions, has no moral qualms when it comes to luring people to surrender their information in all honesty, in an outreach program, to then target them for deportation. And fair enough, said data collection may have been done in earnest at the time – yet someone somewhere had no qualms about releasing all those names to the current sharks hunting innocent people up and down every block. Those who gathered this data handed it in, regardless of the moral implications.

They were just obeying orders.

The same with the DACA program, which had the now adult children of illegal immigrants, brought into the US as minors (unable to decide for themselves), register in order to be able to work legally and set foot on a path to citizenship. Because they gave their data to the system, they now face deportation if a decision towards that is reached. These vultures know exactly where to find them now, because they trusted the government with their information.

Who knows how else this alert of someone being undocumented reaches them? Who knows who reports and what? Neighbours, teachers, doctors perhaps? Just like in the days of the third Reich.

Except they have moved beyond receiving reports and now conduct document searches in the street and raids at workplaces. Raids in schools. Searches outside emergency rooms.

The tyranny Alex Jones warned about years ago and is now fully supporting, like a drooling dog at the feet of a drooling monster.

How sick, for lack of a better word.

 

Waco Should Have Sealed The Gun Debate A Long Time Ago

It’s always shocking to see that hours after a tragedy, such as Sandy Hook or the recent Las Vegas shooting, conspiracy theories pop up, focused on political goals rather than respecting the victims long enough for their final number to be established, at least.

What is known about the Las Vegas  shooting at the moment is that one crazy man, opened fire on a crowd at a country music concert. A week before that, he had transferred a large sum abroad for his partner, which shows that this was likely premeditated well in advance.

And many things can be said regarding the deep divide the US is facing right now, spurred on by politicians, who seem to want to radicalise people by the hour. After all, politicians don’t usually suffer when regular people kill each other in the name of their ideologies.

However, this event is being exploited from a different angle as well.

This was a false flag, done so the deep state can take our guns, shouted Alex Jones and the like.

Human life, to some, is worth just as much as a few points scored towards pushing political propaganda.

It’s true that when a person with murderous intent is set on committing a heinous act, there are ways to go about it. They can, as has happened so many times recently, drive a lorry into a crowd.

Yet regardless of a person’s motive and the inability to completely prevent such an act, steps can be taken to limit access to powerful lethal weapons, such as firearms, which would at least prevent a lunatic from comfortably shooting from a balcony with no less than ten of them.

Paradoxically, as the US engages in a major effort to protect its borders from terrorists and religious fanatics, inside of those same borders, people with mental issues can buy guns and use them to commit mass murder. Such was the case of Elliot Rodger, who had already seen several psychiatrists for his issues, and was in the system as having psychological problems, yet had no problem purchasing firearms on the same day he used them to shoot randomly at innocent people.

Political propaganda often works with abstractions – much like religion does.

By worshiping the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, for instance – though it has no practical applicability nowadays. It had one then, when everyone, the government included, had access to the same type of weapons. But that was centuries ago.

It makes no sense to say that in this day and age, guns can protect people against the violence of a tyrannical government, which has an arsenal at its disposal, with the ability to blow up someone’s home by pushing a button, with no warning whatsoever.

More than two decades ago, in 1993, when technology hadn’t even advanced to this level, the futility of piling up guns as a means of resistance was proved by the siege at the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas, where dozens of people were trapped and massacred by government forces. The guns they had amassed were unable to protect them against a tank and chemical weapons which eventually set the whole place on fire. Moreover, their act of buying and amassing guns was what turned them into a target in the first place. However one feels about what they were doing there, as a bona fide religious cult, one can agree they did not deserve to die like that, and that the government can and does act with no scruples, killing people of all ages, including babies, in horrible ways. After detailing what went on in a documentary, to prove the tyranny the US government is capable of, Alex Jones keeps arguing to this day that guns are an effective way of resisting it.

Fast forward to 2015, in Waco, there was a mass shooting between two biker gangs, outside a restaurant. Nine dead, 18 wounded and 117 arrested. The place was littered with guns, as many of the participants had come armed. Guns on the pavement, guns on the floor, guns in the toilets. It was an incident waiting to happen. The police took note of the danger of this gathering yet allowed them get on with their business initially. Because of  this gun culture. Now where else in the western world would this be allowed to escalate, with no intervention? Two large gangs, armed to the teeth, gathering to settle a dispute, as the police stood nearby.

On October 1st alone, besides the mass shooting in Las Vegas, 37 other people were killed by guns across the US, each one in a separate incident.

While so many are polarised by taking one political side or another, this keeps happening. Every single day. It doesn’t take a genius or a US citizen to see there is something wrong with refusing to accept that fact.

And that remains a fact, not propaganda, regardless of what political party holds the reins of power.

This post was corrected by removing the part about the Las Vegas shooter’s  presumed links to Antifa – it turns out this too came from Alex Jones.

Confessions Of A Former Homophobe

Religious tolerance is on everyone’s lips nowadays, yet increasingly difficult to sustain, depending on the circumstances. Tolerance is far more easily attained when equality is present – when a religious group cannot push back the rights of others, justifying it as a crusade and needing no other reason than that.

For me personally, as an agnostic (regarding the possibility of a universal order, yet not regarding the artificiality of existing dogmas), this is not directed at one in particular, but rather at the concept of having a state religion, whether officially consecrated in laws or not.

This comes in the context of my country of origin, Romania, being in the process of “defending the traditional family” by modifying the Constitution to have it state that marriage is “between a man and a woman”, by this making sure that any attempt of legalising gay marriage will not be successful in the near future. As things are now, 70 to 80% of voters agree to this measure, partly driven by the feeling that there is an international conspiracy to subvert Christian nations. This is disseminated through part of the media and on a large scale, in churches.

And I can say, not without a fair amount of shame, that a few years ago I used to think like them, when this delusion added to the Christian base of my education. In order to see religion realistically, one must step outside of it and look at it from a distance, just like one has to when wanting to see the whole mountain and cannot do so while sitting under a tree at the foot of it.

In order to see the poison, the distortion and brainwashing one is subjected to when growing up in a religious country.

In this political context, of the need for a culture shift in order for everyone to have equal rights, a false need for preservation is foisted in people by propaganda, which makes them think a so-called soulless western world seeks to upturn their values and impose a Neo-Marxist tyranny upon them. Nothing could be more false.

They are arguing for a fossilised ideal, which was never a reality and can never be – the so-called sacredness of the traditional family, which is, as we speak, laden with a large number of divorces, child abandonment, infidelity and insecurity, on every level.

Moreover, their views on gay people are even more divorced from reality. Their main argument resides in the Bible, in a country which is not a theocracy, yet has managed to maintain a level of religiosity and ignorance enviable by Middle-Eastern theocracies.

For a member of Parliament to cite the Bible as a reason for discriminating against part of the population they are representing seems unreal in 2017, yet that is the reality.

And this reality is quite grim. Because gay people cannot wait for a few generations to enlighten themselves. They need these rights now. In this day and age, they are living as couples in secrecy, because of the risk of facing a backlash if found out. In the current year, in Europe, this is totally out of place. And yet, when this is debated by politicians, Biblical views are cited as relevant.

It’s quite baffling, really, the influence these archaic, unfounded views continue to have.

That other people’s sky goblins have to be shown reverence, or at least a modicum of respect, by those who do not believe in them.

That anyone should think an infringement on their presumed right to discriminate is an infringement on their “freedom of religion”.

Religious brainwashing is not limited to the countries where violence against infidels is encouraged. Christians lead their own “holy wars”. And some of them explicitly target people who are born with a different sexual orientation, and who have done so throughout history.

 

Enough Pandering To Actual White Supremacists

In every clash of ideologies there is a large palette of nuances of grey, usually overlooked by both sides when posturing on their key issues. Hence the idea of analysing all possible aspects in a neutral manner.

However, there is at least one exception – when the clash involves any ideology based on racial supremacy, which seeks to reduce humanity to no more than packs of mammals fighting over territory, a phase humanity is said to have transcended a long time ago (but apparently hasn’t completely).

There is no redeeming aspect or nuance in being a race supremacist. It is the absolute lowest denominator in any society. The drive towards tribalism can be understood in certain contexts, but not this one.

After the events in Charlottesville, US, when, at a white nationalist rally where violence erupted between marchers and protesters, a woman was actually killed by a disturbed right wing extremist who purposefully ran into people with his car, the reactions were, paradoxically, mixed.

As praised as the first amendment in the US constitution is, giving the right to free speech to anyone on any matter, one must rationally admit that a march based on racial supremacy is, in and of itself, incitement to violence.

Analyse and dissect it all you want – that it what is boils down to. And when such elements freely congregate and propagandise, nothing good comes of it. Because it simply can’t. It is the most base, irrational, anger-fueled drive a person can have, and should not be alimented by any means. It borders on (and sometimes even is) murderous rage, blended with the sickest type of utilitarianism.

There is no silver lining. As much as “free speech advocates” (whose devotion is questionable when joining ranks with the right) like to throw stones at the radical left, which overall has damaged its image through acts of violence of its own, this is not debatable. No one is blowing this out of proportion. These are actual racists. Not someone making an inadvertently offensive comment or a potentially offensive joke, to be picked on for no reason. Actual torch-wielding racists, looking for concrete results and political backing.

And still, commentators claiming to be moderate wrack their brains to defend Trump’s half-hearted condemnation “of both sides”. Because they support Trump. Normally, outside of these circumstances of belonging to a clique and having to defend it at all cost, I think those same people would be very quick to disavow any such gathering.

In the Trump-supporting-yet-supposedly-not-alt-right alternative media, especially online, things carry on as usual, with issues such as the demands of irrational feminists and “regressive leftists” being treated as a priority, when it is clear that at least in the US the radical right has become a major problem, emboldened by the establishment’s tacit approval.

The idea that Trump’s election would cause such consequences was treated as ridiculous last year, with believable rhetoric – and yet it’s all happening. It seems the “ridiculous” “hysterical” left actually had a point.

 

 

 

The Trump Cult, Radicalising Instead Of Dissipating

Halfway through 2017, one could say the hopes of many who wanted to see the ‘system’ upturned through Trump’s election have been laid to rest in droves, akin to victims of the bubonic plague in the 1300s, so rampant it didn’t allow time for proper burial or mourning.

Arguably, Trump himself seems rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things (a figurehead behind the name of whom the same agenda can unfold, since no swamp was drained and no foreign interventions were stopped or diminished).

It seems that by engaging in numerous raids in foreign countries, his administration is not trying to stop terrorism but breed new waves of people seeking revenge for this untold wave of death and destruction, reported by western media outlets through numbers and statistics, as opposed to real human beings, their homes, their streets and towns. By doing so, these callous terrorist attacks in the west are almost guaranteed to keep happening, and it is not well-protected decision makers in fancy offices who suffer, but innocent people murdered or maimed in these attacks while going about their daily lives.

It is apparent that to the system overall, human beings, regardless of their location, are irrelevant. The engineering of wars and culture clashes in order to grab resources for monetary gains seems to be all that matters.

Meanwhile, people are distracted by media frenzies around what Trump does and the ever-changing structure of his staff. On a bureaucratic note, the ridiculousness of the events unfolding around the White House was depicted recently in the New York Magazine, in the most appropriate terms:

We were entering, it seemed to me, the Caligula phase of the collapse of the American republic. Pretty soon Trump would be announcing that the new FBI director would be a horse.

Remarkably, it is still too early to confine Kek to a side show oddity (perhaps a ragged piece of taxidermy). For some people, all that has happened since January is still not enough for them to see that this  – too – was a farce and that the ‘deep state’ was still very much in control.

For some reason, some keep feeding into this illusion of a revolutionary president with no background in politics, as if if politics itself, as a concept, and not cronyism, were the real problem.

When the image of a widely acclaimed personality or group crumbles and most followers become disenchanted, there is always that bunch of fanatics resembling the tail of a dead animal wriggling in the grass, independently of the carcass, as if it had a life of its own.

It seems the uncanny remarks made by Alex Jones on inauguration night, regarding the new president and a very friendly Holy Ghost, were not out of place in Trump’s America.

As RightWingWatch so often expand upon, voices in the US Christian community, regardless of denomination, expose their ‘flocks’ to rationalisations such as “God is behind Trump’s tweets”,”Donald Trump was sent by God to subdue nations that are threatening God’s purposes” or “God will punish those who oppose Trump.”

As proven by cults time and time again, fanatics will sink with the ship in delirium and consider it a privilege. The higher the water level, the more ecstatic they become, thinking the abnormality of the situation must be mystical. But alas, the UFO never shows up in the end. Neither does Armageddon, or anything of that otherworldly or colossal nature.

It’s far easier to claim the influence of a deity than admit the success of a sleazy marketing campaign on one’s own mind, so bold in its claims it has literally managed to sell polished manure for the price of pure gold.

By no means is the comparison to a fully fledged cult an outlandish one. There have been articles in GQ, The American Interest, The Independent, The Huffington Post, to count but a few, on this subject.

It was worth the wait to see how far people could march on in this charade and what particular demographics would persevere the longest.

The religious right, it appears, is gaining ground at the moment and thus has a vested interest in standing behind Trump, seemingly oblivious to the devastation caused abroad by his policies (the system’s unchanged policies, more accurately) as if to say war weren’t profoundly un-Christian. Private religious schools are gaining more funds, religion-inspired curricula are considered and overall, this long pushed under faction of society is manifesting itself in its full glory, managing to alienate those formerly supporting it as the underdog.

Another die-hard ideological group seems to consist, confirming the left’s warnings (seen as hysterical at the time) of those who support imperialist agendas, with their bigoted and racially supremacist undertones, failing yet again to see how committing mass murder with impunity abroad attracts consequences on ordinary people in the west, through terrorist attacks. Each attack hypes them up more and more, driving them to call for even more death and destruction, the irony being lost on them completely. Those who envisage an imminent, bloody clash between civilisations fail to see how it’s being engineered and how their minds are played on a daily basis.

As unfortunate as some ways of manifesting dissent were for the left, it seems clearer every day that there was no hysteria involved around Trump’s election, but objective observation. It would bring out – and is continuing to do so –  the worst tendencies people experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Most Christians Side With The Right Wing Again, As History Repeats Itself?

In the US at least, right-wing voices are intermingled with that of conservative Christians, all seeming to reach for the same goals, in the grand scheme of things. Of course Christians are greatly diverse, ranging from denominations and their hierarchies to individual believers.

This concern is mostly rooted in the declared support by the current administration of Christian causes, such as promoting religion (and creationism) in schools, stricter abortion laws or a halt in the progressive social engineering (the gender theory etc). While championing for these causes, Christians are being lured into supporting other policies which objectively conflict with their belief system – based on warmongering, xenophobia and corporatism. In terms of warmongering and xenophobia, this phenomenon is oddly reminiscent of the rise of the right in Europe during the 1930s and 40s, in the 20th Century. Though some claim this comparison is a crass exaggeration, there are parallels to be made.

Over the next few years it will be interesting to observe how they will react to the political shift towards isolationism and the ethnic purges envisioned by those favoured to reach power in Europe, as well as those already in power in the US.

Some reactions are positive (in terms of solidarity with the genuine underdog), such as participating in the creation of sanctuaries for immigrants who risk deportation. Indeed, many churches have joined this initiative, together with a number of synagogues and mosques.

The strong message from certain voices is not so encouraging, as many try to get people of faith to engage politically, putting all their support towards the new rise of conservatism, in a manner so uncritical one could compare it to the creation of a cult of personality.

“God will curse Trump’s opponents and their children and grandchildren”

Perhaps no type of rhetoric is more cringey and deserving of a spewing bucket than that of snake-oil-peddling Inforwars&Co, Alex Jones once claiming Trump had been touched by the Holy Ghost, on the night of his inauguration.

Christianity is, nowadays, in the positive sense, associated with humanitarianism, which stands in contrast with most reform ideas conservatives argue for.

Please pardon the minimal research and of-the-cuff nature of this post; the only certainty is that the following years will be very interesting and the true nature of many will be revealed, as individuals and collectives.

 

 

 

Trump: The Grotesque Lie Sold To Apolitical Anti-PC People

This post is directed at whomever might recognise they’ve been, even for a short while, pulled into a pretty grim farce, while having a different perspective in mind to start with.

It was easy for decent people who pay little attention to politics to end up cheering for change, while sick and tired of being labelled as bigots for posting jokes on social media, Islamic extremism being ignored and their culture turning into a nihilistic, degrading mess by feminists and a new generation of Marxists.

In terms of public debate, opponents of “progressiveness” were more rational, more articulate, more humorous, more sensible. They seemed to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to the left’s constant regurgitation of cliches and demands for censorship. But were they right in the end, or were they basing their rhetoric on cherry-picked information, ignoring the elephant in the room?

Being optimistic about the future is a survival issue. I get it. Fighting the left and its thought-crime-based system is also a survival issue. But how long can someone ignore or downplay what is happening, while focusing on social media wars?

Torture and civilian massacres abroad, proposed as “security measures”

When watching well-crafted pro-Trump material on social media, you will notice 95% of it revolves around what is being said about Trump, as opposed to what Trump actually says. The man himself is rarely featured for more than a few seconds at a time, and that makes perfect sense: they have to avoid including “gems” such as those linked to above.

Trump’s views on dealing with suspects of terrorism is so inhuman it horrified even many republicans. “Torture works very well.” “You have to take out their families.”

Arguably, civilians are killed abroad on a regular basis. What lacks is the actual consent of the population, who has been for years told military operations attempt to avoid or reduce “casualties” as much as possible. What lacks is the complete perversion of public sentiment, the surrender to the darkest cynicism, in order to truly dehumanise others in the eyes of an entire nation, said nation dehumanising itself in the process. There is no lower level to stoop to, individually and collectively, than indifference towards (or joy at the thought of) massacres and torture.

Why are these issues never approached by Trump’s so called moderate, apolitical supporters? This is not a partisan issue; it’s a human issue. Is this the way to “make the west great again”? Are torture and massacres western values to “rescue” perhaps? Are they perhaps worth overlooking, while cheering on the rest of the agenda?

Trump, an advocate for free speech…?

A large wave of support for this person came from those who felt the left was encroaching upon their freedom of speech, given the censorship on social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Trump was suddenly seen as the underdog, the rational voice the left is trying to stomp on. In this sense it was easy for commentators to rout for him in droves, to collide with him for being censored. It was presumed on a mass scale that anything negative said about him was a lie, motivated by partisanship.

To clarify his approach to the press, you need to look no further than the development of his Aberdeen Golf Course a few years ago. He has used proven lies and bullying in order to cover up his abject treatment of local residents, whose homes he wanted removed as he deemed them unsightly for rich golfers to look at from his posh hotel. These were farmers and fishermen who had lived in the area for generations. Decent, honest working people. Aside from disregarding all those who tried to stop him from destroying a protected area of nature conservation, he made life very difficult for residents, on occasion cutting their access to utilities and refusing to repair the damage. He described them as pigs and urged authorities to remove them from the landscape his guests would want to gaze upon.

When an independent journalist documented this case as it unfolded, in all its ugliness, Trump’s representatives had him arrested for merely speaking to the people he was bullying. “I want real journalists”, he claimed while being handed an honorary degree from an Aberdeen university, despite protests from former faculty.

He uses force and intimidation to suppress any dissenting voice to his plans. He encourages violence at his rallies when dissenters show up, even if they are peaceful.

Anyone thinking he is an advocate for freedom of speech does not have enough information or has not thought this through. But as seen in that documentary, the man is an authoritarian and lies through his teeth; the truth is inconsequential to him. Other people’s rights, as a matter of fact, are inconsequential to him and he is willing to tarnish those who stand in his way.

Scapegoating entire ethnic minorities

As opponents of the radical left, we are probably too desensitised to this issue after years of progressives claiming a default victim status based on race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.

So desensitised we might fail to grasp the implications of a president declaring anyone of a certain ethnic background as a potential threat, regardless of the individual in question. This became apparent when Trump’s immigration ban was enforced and there were reports of children and elderly people being detained at airports; some were put in handcuffs for hours on end.

Is guilty until proven innocent and the label of potential terror threat stuck to the forehead of just anybody from a minority group ever a good way to go?

This is no exaggeration; from one day to the next these people are made to feel unsafe and unwanted, prone to being targeted with false accusations, questioned on their private lives and basically treated like scum. The left is not hysterical on this one.

Why wouldn’t the average racist in the street target them with verbal abuse or even violence, when the president himself is declaring before the entire nation that every one of them should be regarded with suspicion? It’s an endorsement; a free pass to do so, at least when it comes to harassment.

It needs to be pointed out that while rightfully claiming certain regimes are oppressive and promote extremism, one has to accept there are many in those countries fleeing persecution: dissidents, apostates, gays and women who wouldn’t submit to the life imposed upon them. Blocking all immigration from those countries means blocking them as well from escaping to freedom (arguably, the US is not the only place they could go to but has been an option so far). Conflating extremists with the people fleeing from them is not a rational approach.

And I must point out the hypocrisy of those who are campaigning against Islam in general, constantly deploring its victims in the Middle East or in western Muslim communities, and simultaneously arguing those victims should be banned from entering a safe western country. I’m not talking about masses of un-vetted people but individuals targeted for dissenting.

Where would all the apostates who took refuge in the west be if all gates had been closed to them, as Trump supporters argue always should have been the case? Six feet under or having their bodies on display hanging from cranes. Vetting is one thing – indiscriminate banning is another.

Nuclear weapons not ruled out

So much for “Clinton was the only/ the major warmonger”. Trump is just as unhinged.

Tarring all undocumented immigrants with the same brush

It is safe to say that the grey areas on this issue are wearing thinner by the day, conflating hard-working economic migrants with rapists, murderers, paedos and drug dealers, as if they all deserved the same treatment.

Needless to say this experiment of mass deportation of undocumented workers has been tried before. One example is the state of Georgia, where in 2012 massive raids saw farm workers removed from the US, leaving farm produce to rot in the fields as locals were not interested in doing this type of work.

Meanwhile, when faced with this threat to members of their communities, entire cities and numerous places of worship are taking a stand, providing shelter and assistance to those who are simply there for a better life and not for a life of crime. These places are referred to as sanctuaries and are a method of peaceful resistance.

Again, this is not a partisan issue, it is a human issue and anyone should be able to see that.

I must say the way the right-leaning alternative media is scorning these sanctuaries is vomit-inducing. They are not meant to protect dangerous criminals but ordinary workers who risk separation from their families. Different faiths are coming together and opening their doors to those who need immediate protection. What would anyone even expect people of faith to do, if they take themselves seriously? How do Trump-supporting Christians feel about this, I wonder? Is the cognitive dissonance headache-inducing yet?

There is so much more to say and there will be as this has barely started.

The main point is sceptics have been sold a false image, a false promise, and it is coming at great cost to others. The left and right have no claims of superiority over each other.

We have been intoxicated by propaganda pushers with images of hysterical SJWs and pussy hats, to the point of equating them with “Trump’s opposition”. No reasonable opposing arguments, presented in a reasonable way, were analysed. It was black or white, right or left, authoritarianism or freedom.

The reality is anything but.

The Political Football Culture: Scouring For Humanity

Far from claiming any of us, simple absorbers of media (however opinionated), can make an actual difference through how we position ourselves on the political spectrum or outside of it, this post deals with issues of conscience in an increasingly polarised world.

While it’s a known fact neither the left nor the right promote unity, political fury in the west is perhaps stronger now than it has been for many years. Are we, as human beings, in danger of being degraded by the baseness of the political spectacle? At which point does the media’s intoxication affect us intrinsically?

Headlines are being made out of social media posts and small comments, as those in office debate each other in the style of pimps outside a brothel; the left and right have become experts at turning bits of flotsam into the pillars of their positions, scooping up the dregs from each barrel to further inebriate their audiences.

Even the neutral can gradually be pulled in one direction, on a cause-by-cause basis, by the so-called alternative media, slowly climbing onto a bandwagon.

The total abandonment to a wave of energy generated by propaganda now resembles football stadium dynamics. While on a football stadium this temporary abandonment can be cathartic and harmless, in real life it can cause people to truly dehumanise others, in manners formerly deemed left behind in history books.

Counterculture or counterfeit?

Since our teenage years, attempts are made to co-opt us into a solid set of beliefs and principles, often feeling the need to make a choice between conforming to the moment’s education and “rebelling”. The other day I heard from various sources that conservatism would be the new counterculture; right-leaning people see it as an optimistic perspective after being pummeled by the left for so long. The realisation came that this cut and dry left/right duality is portrayed as an unavoidable cycle to maintain in the future, as if no alternative were possible.

How authentic is any culture formed as a diametral response to another, each grabbing hold of society until reaching an extreme; why want to replace it with its polar opposite instead of reaching a unifying compromise? Are leftists and right-wingers really different species expected to keep fighting for domination in perpetuity? Is the right expected to behave any differently than the left does now when climbing its way to power again?

Perhaps this is what we are meant to believe in order to remain at each other’s throats.

Blurring the lines between facts and rhetoric

Media outlets, including alternative ones, have mastered the art of invalidating a point of view just because it is strongly held by the ideological opposition, regardless of whether or not it might make sense at least partially. Nit-picking on marginal issues, diversion and placing an event within a one-sided context can be made to look like factual reporting. Factual reporting presents both sides of an issue. When the versions you hear from opposing outlets portray events in such an antithetic way you’d think they came from different planets, prepare to wonder whether subtle or gross manipulation is involved, potentially on both sides, no matter how much you tend to agree with one.

Today more than ever, one is nudged to censor their critical thinking as an issue of loyalty, when often agreeing with the stances of a peer group. When suddenly disagreeing, mobbing may occur. Proof of this loyalty can be requested at any time since discussions occur between larger groups and more publicly than ever before. The pressure to pick a side can be substantial.

Trusting inflammatory outlets which change their tune for their own agendas

Choosing a trustworthy news source is not easy, as so many are skilled in gripping people’s interest, often done today by claiming to have inside information on issues most of us cannot obtain information on directly.

It wasn’t long ago (a few years, roughly) that InfoWars and the likes were spreading theories regarding false flag terrorist attacks, impending martial law and the use of artificially generated fear in order for states to draconically control the masses. Apparently, terrorism was a manufactured excuse to create “police states”. There was a FEMA camp hysteria and descriptions of vans coming for millions of people in the middle of the night and “disappearing” them, never to be heard from again. Police brutality was constantly deplored, as well as increasing police presence and militarisation.

Fast forward to present day and this tune is being blared in reverse, with the same amount of gravity and confidence. Now, according to the same people, terrorism is actually caused by religious fanatics and no longer a ploy to “take people’s freedoms away”. In fact, they constantly promote a president who wants fewer restrictions on how the police can act, who wants more security forces on the streets supervising and raiding. And what takes the cake, who wants a massive “deportation force” to… snatch millions of people from their homes, day or night, intern them and have them “disappeared”. The system they made people dread for years is taking shape now and they are cheering it on, as it will affect only one part of the population and not the one embracing their rhetoric.

All throughout, they have been claiming to operate based on the same principles. Is there any intellectual honesty in this? Has there ever been? In the mean time, fortunately, nobody in the west has died for lack of a water filter.

How does the outlet with the largest amount of paranoia regarding the political system suddenly read like state-sponsored propaganda, with 8 out of 10 daily articles fiercely supporting anything Donald Trump does or says, down to writing one article per critical tweet? At what point does this become nauseating and transparent?

“Fighting the good fight”

Although discussing politics has always been uneasy to an extent (hence the “no politics or religion at the dinner table” suggestion), there used to be some decency, some restraint in this before social media provided immediate access to verbal matches with “detractors”. Nowadays, comment sections on any subject become septic tanks of bile, some of it undoubtedly a release of personal tension.

One can easily end up berating a stranger, to then berate the stranger’s mother, ancestors and dog, in only one paragraph, the benefits of which elude rational thinking. How much of this is even real; how much of it is social engineering and paid agitation?

People prone to politically motivated savagery need no more than a few slogans barked or sung with the right intonation in order to start chanting along and raise their fists in the air, as if contaminated by a tribal virus. Some then take to the streets, smash up streets and beat up random strangers. For others, it takes more subtlety. It takes refined language, astute humour, intricate rationalisation. Which is fine and dandy until a barrier is crossed and whatever category has angered them, at least at that moment, ceases to be human.

Entertainment is more politically charged by the day

Even this form of escapism, which has always been manipulative yet in an insidious manner, is now blatant in its pushing of social messages, being not artful but artificial.

Besides the standards imposed by progressives (quotas, trigger warnings, forbidden humour etc), we find ourselves being told what to think and how to vote by wealthy singers and actors (which is infantilising), and even shamed in this sense. Art for the sake of it has become rather rare. Somehow it all pulls people back into the mindset of having the obligation to stand and propagandise for one cause or another.

Factions denouncing propaganda while engaging in it

Propaganda, as most people know by now, seeks to attract individuals into groupthink, and one technique used is finding a symbol for a cause (a person or event) to imprint into collective memory as representative of a broader issue. Which is not wrong in and of itself as long as it doesn’t push for the blurring of other aspects related to the same matter.

What I find rather disgusting, when the media approaches an event, let’s say regarding victimisation or wrongdoing, is that it’s usually highlighted by one side and minimised by the other, regardless of what the reality is, as both are in defence of groups, not individuals. The actual story is lost in an endless spin; people caught up in a certain situation become pawns in political debates. When exposure actually damages the person presumably helped and the media perseveres, it’s a case of exploitation; when they milk it dry, the person is left to deal with the consequences (often involving harassment) of being the poster hero or victim of the day .

More queasily, each side accuses the other of jubilation when having a victim to push forward; in other words, one side has every right to feel outrage and sympathy, but the other doesn’t. Ordinary people become lost in narratives, to often face undeserved public scorn, based on the side supporting them, in a dog-eat-dog fashion, as armies of ideologues feel the need to tear them down in order to reinforce their views. The truth could be anywhere and is no longer relevant as long as enough points are bing scored.

 

Regardless of how the media makes it look, there is always the option of remaining moderate and approaching any coverage with cautiousness, refusing to label oneself and be spurred on by propaganda, even when a peer group reinforces it enthusiastically. It’s important to remember that no movement is safe from being corrupted and taken over for an entirely different agenda.

And no matter how trustworthy, charismatic and convincing our sources are, they too are fallible and could be surfing a wave to an unknown destination.

There comes a point, when soaking up biased coverage to reinforce a point of view, one needs to take a step back and think deeper. No matter how much it might seem appropriate to reach generalising conclusions regarding groups of people, their accuracy should always be questioned, as that attitude is likely meant to serve someone else’s purpose.

When It’s Time To Jump Off A Political Bandwagon

There is a classic anecdote intended to halt someone from taking a likely wrong path. The shorter version is “if you knew there was just a tiny bit of dog excrement in your food, would you still eat it?”

This can apply perfectly to embracing an ideology, political doctrine, religion or getting behind anything enjoying massive popular support.

It’s rather difficult, when the stakes are purported to be very high internationally, not to be mentally drawn, to some extent,  into a political struggle from overseas (unless you isolate yourself from any type of media). And realistically, many people who see themselves as apolitical (independent thinkers) have seen the pros of the US administration change in terms of loosening the grip of cultural Marxism, potentially with international ripples.

The left’s arguments and demonstrations have often been inept; incoherent; it was difficult to take them seriously when becoming hysterical about “pussy remarks” and parading as giant vulvae (with their heads as the urethrae I suppose).

As enthusiasm rose, the right-leaning alternative media started producing more and more pro-Trump material, which after the election has become 99,99% uncritical on very popular channels. By now it basically sounds like political propaganda, although most likely it is produced in earnest, as part of an ideological fight against the radical left.

Is uncritical enthusiasm ever a good omen? Probably not.

Among Hollywood’s snobbery, frequent violence from the left and theatrical demonstrations against “sexism”, one issue was overlooked by supportive channels: the reality of what is in store for that country’s roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of whom have been there for years and have built their lives and families there. Whilst routing for an end to the PC culture, it was easy for any outsider to believe deportation would be focused on violent criminals, such as murderers, rapists or drug dealers – reality proves very different.

The cold fact is that a “deportation force” will be organised to hunt all these people down; I needn’t say what that is reminiscent of, to avoid sounding like a leftist. They will target everyone, in their homes, in the street, at their workplace. They will show up at the door, handcuff people in front of their kids, drive them away and all contact will be cut, just like that. No consideration to that person’s present eligibility to stay will be given.

And spokespersons for said administration refer to this as a fair and humane method, even though the reality of it is brutal and often makes no sense in terms of what the state would gain.

Someone can even prove to have built a business, employed others, supported a large family for years , paid taxes and still be thrown out with nothing but the clothes on their back and no right to any of their possessions, or even a chance to see their family before being flown back to a country they had left decades before, prone to homelessness and despair. That is worse treatment than serial killers get. And when the breadwinner of the family is thrown out, with no consideration for those left behind, that family likely ends up on welfare. What sense does this even make? Who benefits from this?

These people are part of their society, of their communities. And they will just disappear, one by one, overnight. Seriously, what does this sound like?

Nobody seems immune to the snare of a promised political change and as time goes by, polarisation becomes more evident, even if the starting point was a neutral one. This change has generated a massive wave of hope, as a middle-finger shown to the leftist establishment. Yet it will come with needless destruction of lives, on a mass scale.

And while this is happening, the right-leaning alternative media will most likely look the other way and sneer at SJW meltdowns over inconsequential matters. And will most likely keep arguing that the Trump administration is the way to the future, an example to follow.

Eerily enough, mass deportation has seldom been discussed during the campaign and is seldom discussed now. The focus for many alternative channels with a large following seems to be defending Trump’s image at all cost, down to minutiae such as what is tweeted about him. Strengthening the border is often described as blocking new immigration, not throwing out all those who already live there and have for years, decades even. That wouldn’t be too palatable for the average reader or listener, who can instead easily be led to think, through this communal omission, that nothing unreasonable is involved.

If there’s nothing concrete anyone outside the US can do about it, perhaps no longer applauding it would be a good option. Perhaps being honest about it would be a start.

There is some lucidity fortunately and I can only hope it spreads.