Tag Archives: right wing

Muslim Apostates, Betrayed By All Sides

Western culture is generally keen on celebrating courage in the face of adversity; documentaries, films and books inspire audiences with narratives of the underdog overcoming seemingly unbeatable conditions.

Escaping controlling, demoralising environments is of great interest. Former Scientologists are, rightfully, given a large platform, as are former cult members in general. And it wouldn’t cross the mind of the average viewer to start defending Scientology or the FLDS after hearing stories of imprisonment, violence, threats and mind control.

Muslim apostates, however, aren’t shown that level of interest or kindness, at least by proponents of public policies on the left or right, who use them in conversation but ultimately ignore them when it comes to envisaging actual solutions to deal with radical Islam (or Islam in general, to the degree to which it contrasts with secular democracies).

Feminism and the unholy alliance 

As detailed at this engrossing conference, there is increasing frustration and disappointment with those identifying as feminists yet actively participating in the cover-up of female oppression in Muslim communities. Public speakers like Linda Sarsour, one of the organisers of the Women’s March, who decries the “slanderous talk” surrounding Islam and its restrictions, often unwanted, on women’s lives.

When taken out of that religious context, the treatment escapees describe is nothing short of disheartening. Chastisement and vilification for being alone with a man in a room, for allowing three inches of their forearms to show, for having any male friends at all. Threats of disowning, physical violence or even murder, at the sole mention of a potential transgression. Ostracism and threats from their entire community. One’s hymen treated as a precious family asset. That is unimaginable in societies which left that mentality behind hundreds of years ago.

Should a woman from a different background describe growing up in such ways, feminists would be outraged. In this case however, they turn a blind eye, referring to “their culture”, as if the word “they” did not include many forced participants.

Moreover, people like Linda Sarsour dare vilify public speakers who have overcome these difficulties to the extreme, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as traitors to the religion. “They’re not women; I wish I could take their vaginas away” (paraphrasing). Not only is it distasteful to refer in that way to a victim of FGM – it proves the utter disdain fundamentalists have towards apostates. One would think common sense would stop her from being so venomous, at least publicly, but that is not the case, since apostasy carries a death sentence in Islam.

The hypocritical right

Activists on right or far right often refer to the “barbaric rules and traditions” of Islam, especially to counter the non-issues spouted by western feminists nowadays. They get all descriptive and outraged about it, as if they truly cared outside of wanting to rid their countries of Muslims altogether, including those who are trapped into the religion.

“And they’re bringing that over here”, they cry next, not realising that apostates have a far better chance of breaking away in countries offering them minimal protection, at least, and the choice of being able to live as free individuals. De-conversion and apostasy are indeed much safer in the west.

“This is what they do to girls and women in the Middle East!” they indignantly shout. “Bomb them!” they shout next. You know,  including those abused women and innocent children they care so much about.

Many right-wingers, in the current climate, would give their approval to have all Muslims deported from western countries. Aside from the grotesque idea of uprooting innocent people based on the religion they were born into, which is not even feasible, they don’t spare a thought for those who have a real chance of getting out, a chance they wouldn’t have in a theocracy.

Although not used often enough, there are laws protecting women and apostates from religious violence; in recent years a law was passed against forced marriage, for instance, and the threat of honour killings is taken very seriously. Victims of rape are treated as such, as opposed to being blamed for their assault, which happens in some countries. Merely being in western countries when these traumatic events occur can and does save countless lives.

Also very popular with this camp are Trump’s famous immigration bans, regardless of some people having waited for years on end to emigrate  and having gone though all needed formalities. No thought is spared for the fact that among those wishing to leave will almost definitely be apostates seeking to escape the dangers of living in theocracies, which follow them day and night.

 “Islamophobia” – blasphemy laws again?

Imagine heaving a sigh of relief when finally arriving in a safe country, where you cannot be oppressed for your apostasy, as well as your criticism of your former religion, in this case Islam. Imagine how liberating that must feel.

And five or ten or twenty years later, that wonderful, liberal country starting to cave in to demands from your former persecutors, in efforts to suppress your right to criticise the authoritarian ideology that just might’ve got you killed.

If to the formerly neutral (people only exposed to Islam from a distance) it seems restrictive and uncanny for criticism to be criminalised, imagine how it feels to defectors of Islamic theocracies, to witness the ever-growing power of lobbyists, pushing for what can be construed as blasphemy laws.

Supporting or wanting to ban the veil 

Former Muslim women are very outspoken about that yet nobody in the public arena seems to hear them.

On the one hand, you have progressive leftists claiming women choose to wear it and that right should not be infringed upon by legislators. That, I actually agree with, should those women be absolutely free of constraint and choose to wear it of their own accord, as adults.

On the other hand, you have right-wingers saying any woman covering up (especially her face) is a threat to national security, and therefore simply banning it would solve the problem. Unfortunately it solves jack shit for the women who are forced to wear it – their relatives are so indoctrinated they will probably resort to banning them from going outside altogether.

A moderate approach would be to support those who truly want to wear it according to their own convictions. As adults.

But at the same time admit that there are many, many cases of girls and women being forced to cover up as a matter of family honour. And consider the problems they will face when any such legislation is passed.

Complicated; I know. As life often is.

 

The Far Right Purity Test – Funny As Fuck

I guess nothing spells “irony” like a metastasised hate group eating itself up from the inside, becoming the very thing it claimed to detest.

For a good couple of years, if not longer, the right has played the persecuted ideological minority card, by denouncing censorship attempts, all along displaying unity – from moderates to extremists, those leaning right have agreed on basic issues and supported each other, until the first could not be differentiated from the latter.

Nowadays however, in their – sometimes almost literal – crusade, activists have started cannibalising each other based on devotion to the cause, or perceived lack thereof, akin to the far left. It seems some activists are more zealous than others and are starting to demand that their fellow crusaders apply the principles they declaim in their own lives, lest they be considered hypocritical.

These three stories speak for themselves.

Lauren Southern is being called out for promoting a traditionalist lifestyle she doesn’t lead yet. She is also being called out by Richard Spencer for not being/ declaring herself racist enough.

The 22-year-old has come under attack for constantly promoting Judaeo-Christian family values (or the appearance thereof), without being married or having started a family herself. She recently put up this video as self-defence, explaining things of a personal nature, which no one should ever have to explain to the larger public. Unless, perhaps, they are making generalisations about how others should live and what their happiness should stem from. The irony is that she is such a fan of a paradigm which restricts women in many ways, and although she now knows what it’s like to be grilled on one’s personal choices, she continues her advocacy.

Puritanism is detestable not only because it forces human nature into a box, in a Procrustean manner, but also because it is utterly neurotic. Its wannabe enforcers are often carrying the load of repressed emotions and desires; through their activism they are often trying to rein themselves in, rather than other people.

With regards to the racial stuff, I sympathise with Miss Southern to a point. When one picks a side based on traditionalism and potentially religion, they don’t exactly expect to join the ranks of white supremacists. However, Spencer is right when questioning her so-called ignorance while joining an identitarian movement. There’s no way she joined and spent time with these people without knowing what they’re actually about.

Kim Davis, the “traditional marriage” advocate, was targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church for being “an adulterer”. Arguably, not everyone in the Christian right can be associated with Neo-Nazis; however, they share the homophobia and the purity requirement is very similar for all extremist ideologues.

Whilst Mrs Davis’ actions were no more significant than refusing to issue a marriage licence to a gay couple, organisations opposed to same sex marriage have hailed her as a hero for two years. In fact, she now engages in activism abroad, as if she had anything but bigotry to show for her position.

What is hilarious is that in 2015 she was targeted for picketing by the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, for advocating traditional marriage whilst being on her fourth one, which breaks the no-divorce fundamentalist rule. She was also criticised by the Mormon leader for that same reason. In conclusion, when one chooses to wank off about their righteousness and role in the so-called army of God, they should be prepared to be ripped to shreds by fellow believers. In case she didn’t know, there’s no love or fellowship of any kind in a cult.

Tara McCarthy, an ethno-nationalist (white supremacist), now decries the treatment of women in the far right by male counterparts.

This is particularly funny, not just because the far right has made a good case against modern feminism in order to lure in sympathisers, to gradually lead them down the path of ethnic and racial hatred. It’s funny because the women congregating with such men were well aware of their views on the female sex in general. And while they were more than happy to see other women targeted by these men in said manner, having it turned on themselves proves less than savoury.

It is apparent to anyone outside of far right circles that the movement has a strong misogynist component. Why these women though they were special is a good question.

There are now Red Pill Christians as well, congregating not as the loving meek and mild, but as supporters of what the Bible mostly transmits about women, which is in line with Red Pill-ers in general (women are inferior, weak, manipulative and should be put in their place).

Not an anti-Semite? Too bad, you Zionist shill.

It’s really funny how, although they purport to reject most people different from them, certain “identitarian patriots” are still classed as traitors simply because they don’t hate Jews as well (the word antisemitism is actually broader yet has come to be understood simply as hating Jewish people).

I don’t know what it is, but to be respected by the cream of that crowd, you simply have to hate them, down to the last one. I mean I do know – apparently, they “own everything on the planet” and are looking to “destroy the white race” by promoting white people “breeding with inferior races”. Never mind that the theory makes absolutely no sense, from start to finish, being littered with illogical claims and clutching at straws to demonise an entire group, Nazi-style.

To be fair to the accusers, many evangelical Christians and commentators catering to them, as well as politicians whose voter base they constitute, are actual Zionists, or at least propagandise as such. The recent response to Trump’s initiative of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, against international consensus, has proven that. There were sickening propaganda pieces from the likes of Molyneux or Paul Joseph Watson (sickening in terms of one-sided, ignoring the very complicated situation over there).

However, it should only take a brain larger than a chicken’s to realise disagreeing with Israeli policies should by no means involve blaming all Jewish people on this planet for them, let alone hating them.

Many of those accused of “shilling for Israel” in crusade mode are in fact raging xenophobes and racists. But presumably, they just don’t go far enough.

All in all, the right is no different than the left in terms of activism and extremism. Certainly not in terms of division or puritanism.

Nosferatu Eats The Daily Mail

In case the title reads a bit odd, the comparison between the mythical un-dead and avid consumers of this publication seems increasingly warranted. In this section of the food chain, Nosferatu gorges on Daily Mail articles, in his unsatisfied craving to in fact consume other humans – and it, in turn, gorges on the small remnants of his brain, without which it could not survive. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The far-right press, for some time, has had to at least nudge its audience in order to draw out racist, xenophobic or generally spiteful attitudes in relation to an event. That is no longer the case, apparently.

Its faithful disciples exhale contempt to the point of no longer seeing beyond their fixations, regardless of what the discussion centres on.

Gentrification has been intensely discussed in recent weeks, after the tragic fire which engulfed Grenfell Tower in London, as a result of the disparity between the very rich and poorer residents of the area. After an announcement was made that survivors would be housed in flats they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford, some people’s reactions were indeed very surprising and reminiscent of past centuries, rather than our current year.

It’s not often that the worst manifestations of snobbery are freely displayed in an open space, giving the values the west pretends to espouse. In this case, it occurred in the most unexpected of circumstances, namely the imperious need to rehouse victims of a fire as soon as possible.

“My service charge bill – and it’s a low one this year – is £15,500. I would feel really resentful if someone got the same thing for free. I feel sorry for those people but my husband and I work very hard to be able to afford this. And for someone to get it for free, I would move.”

One has to wonder what is, concretely, being done to this woman. How would her fine life be affected exactly? How would it benefit her if she left her home? The only conclusion is that A, the insult is so extraordinary her mind cannot cope with it, or/and B, she can only mingle with her own social stratum, even if no one would actually force her to mingle but merely to breathe the same air, from a comfortable distance.

And if one does give her the benefit of the doubt for feeling some injustice because of her hard work, by reading subsequent comments one sees without a doubt that some people do, in this day and age, simply refuse to mingle with those who are not as rich as them. These are people who benefited from higher education, who presumably traveled around and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. And yet, all these possibilities were not enough for them to fully develop as sentient human beings. Sifting through the comments was fairly disturbing yet sobering at the same time.

All these comments scream “those people are lower than us; we know them to a tee; they are a different breed and do not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as we do”.

  1. I’m sure the residents of these super-posh developments are just itching to take in a large, loud black mama JUST like Diane Abbott! Wait ’til they all start playing their music loudly and their kids make loads of noise! Watch the fallout!

2. I fear the entitlement attitude will only get worse due to constantly having those in the media and socialist left that everyone is equal. Housing such people in these luxury apartments will end in tears as they become more and more disconnected  from a community than bears no resemblance to their background  or social position, alienating both the private and social housing occupants.

Translation: they will alienate the rich just by existing in their proximity, as they are a different species. Apparently, there is no chance under the sun that people can coexist in the same building unobtrusively or get along very well in this situation.

3. It has nothing to do with not having as much money, that is so simplistic. It is to do with these people not sharing in the same culture background. Many can hardly speak English, many are Asylum seekers, refugees and worse still illegal immigrants, who come from third world countries who will be living next door to people who are paying for the privilege of living in such an area. Surely everyone when buying a home eventually choose a home by doing research on an area, types of neighbors, crime rates etc…And it appears it’s wrong that one should want to be able to choose when they’re spending money out of their own pocket.

Needless to say, these are pure assumptions. The only thing this person knows for sure is they were paying a lower rent and were not as well-off as the other residents of the area. Which by definition must mean all of the above, in their view.

4.To put it simply this Country is overloaded with immigrants to the point where the identity of white British people has and continues to be wiped out. Therefore its time all immigration was halted for the time being to allow the rightful owners, the white British people to recover their numbers.

Using an event of this type, corroborated with racial stereotyping, in order to rant about immigration.

5. To people who are criticising this woman including this radio person.  What would you say if all of these moved in next door to you for free?  Nothing at all, and you would welcome them?  Yeah right!
6.They are deserving to be rehoused permanently in suitably sized accommodation, but not necessarily in the same Borough ….. in any Borough where there is accommodation and where social housing rents are similar to Grenfell.  Otherwise, who’s going to take up the slack with the substantial increase in rent for Kensington Row?  The public purse of course and not just for a few months, but permanently.
Which is not even the case, but never mind. This obsession with preventing a group of people from – Heaven forbid – living in accommodation which is “too good for them” is truly disturbing, as if it were done on a national scale.

7. Where is the heart – to have true heart you need to be able to understand that not all people are the same or equal, this does not mean they are not entitled or should not receive compassion, empathy and a caring approach to help re-build their lives again, but by suggesting we are all the same, when “realistically and logically” we are not, demonstrates we have a long way to go before we resolve the real problems and issues in our country.

8. Because £15.5k per annum is the going rate for service charges.  A block I know in SW11 charges £18,500 p.a. – that’s for 24 hr concierge, private refuse collection, someone at Reception all day to take parcels in for the residents and ensure no stranger just walks into the building, gardener, maintenance,  and many other services. Are you suggesting that the Grenfell people should also get this service?  You cannot be serious …… for what reason?  It is divisive to promote a better standard of living for migrants who have not yet contributed to the Exchequer above your own population.

9. And after years of working for very wealthy people I learned this:  Wealthy people want to be amongst other wealthy people only. They do not want to be part of a mixed socio-economic try-out ,especially at such close quarters which I believe would be next door to their prestigious apartment block.  Why do you think such prestigious blocks are built in expensive areas such as W14 in the first place?  Shelagh Fogarty is being more than usually dim.  Let’s not mix up the personal tragedies suffered by people from Grenfell with their eligibility to live in Kensington Row.

“Eligibility to live…”  Perhaps this person would admit they were not “eligible” to live in a death trap, but for Heaven’s sake, not “eligible” to move ranks that much! These people seem so sure of themselves, when nothing is guaranteed in life, not even the continuation of life itself, not even for one day. They must not spend an awful lot of time contemplating how short life is and what really matters at the end of the day.

10.This has nothing to do with people shouting racist or snobbery, but can we truly alter the demographics of a whole country, small community culture beyond all recognition where people who have worked to be able to choose where they want to live, the type of community they want to live in, the type of people they feel they relate, share the same values, outlook and commonality with. I find many people overlook the fact that many communities are being changed so much, than when the media film or interview people the community could easily be a third world shanty town. This is fact, NOT a ridicule of the people, we all revert to who and where we come from, and you cannot change an Asylum seeker’s or illegal immigrants background, the way they live by installing them in a luxury flat in Kensington.

The issue to this individual doesn’t seem to be the one at hand, which is a crisis, but somehow, as a goal in and of itself, to transform those people, making them suitable for a posh area. You just can’t make some of this stuff up.

11. Totally agree with the lady on the phone. I don’t even understand why the poor are living in the most expensive districts of the country. The past generations must have sold the right to live there for £££’s. Just being born in an area doesn’t automatically entitle you with the right to live there.

Paraphrasing someone who replied, partly to serve the rich, who might be forced to wipe their own behinds in every way, were it not for the poor who provide them with needed services. Of course, one might argue the poor can always commute. They don’t have to live, what an outrageous notion, right under those snooty noses. They spoil the view.

Although to think of it, the acrid comments were still more polite than those of these thoughtful readers, renowned for their intellectual capacity, since they read The Sun.

Another suggestion might be to build a new block of flats where the ruins once stood and then decant them all back although I wouldn’t like to see the state of some of the luxury flats then.

What’s wrong with trailer parks, certainly an upgrade to a bombed out piece of rubble in the desert.

These people have basically won the lottery, they’ll never have to work again and all the rules no longer seem to apply to them.

Out of pity for the laptop I might vomit on I will stop pasting quotes, undecided which ones were more despicable – the pure venom written by intellectually challenged individuals or the cynicism and snobbery of the well-to-do.

You might wonder what is wrong with these people. Is there something in their water?

 

YouTube Demonetisation: Right Wing Snowflake Hypocrisy

In light of the new hysteria regarding the earnings of “professional YouTubers” with a right-leaning discourse, some things just need to be said, and pardon the occasional lack of politeness, as this is largely coming from the – still unflinching – Trump bandwagon.

Though I should probably start with the facts versus feelings trope, used by them when convenient but cast aside when it comes to the legal framework they agreed to when starting their careers, I will do so with a parallel which really gets on my nerves.

This is presented as an injustice striking content creators deemed undesirable by the YouTube platform, based only on their political opinions. The retraction of an opportunity they once took when the selection criteria for monetisation were more loose, thus allowing them to express their views freely – and a lucrative one, for a number of years.

I hate to sound pretentious when mentioning karma, but I do wonder how loud their protesting voices were when innocent workers and students were threatened with swift exclusion from the US after Trump’s attempted immigration ban. Didn’t their livelihoods, threatened at the unexpected, mere stroke of a pen, matter at all?

If governments are allowed to turn people’s lives upside-down by excluding them unfairly, overnight, is it immoral for a private company in a capitalist country to do the same?

Obviously, I’m not fully comparing the endangering of a hobby-turned-job, of people who are fully able to get a real one, to the complete upturning of immigrants’ lives. I’m only pointing out the queasiness of their lamentation for what qualifies as a uniquely first world problem, and a shallow one at that. Especially when that lamentation comes after their support, vocal or tacit, of said draconian policies.

Or how about the hard working, tax paying illegal immigrants, suddenly hunted down in the hundreds and thousands, to the point of being afraid to leave their homes, after being accepted by previous administrations with check-ins and the likes?

The Trump administration “restructured”. So did YouTube. So they want support, compassion, righteous indignation. Where was theirs, for the masses of people whose livelihoods were swiftly taken from them, or the ones living in constant fear? The message of most Trump supporting YouTube careerists was not even suck it up or life is tough; it was absent, tacitly complicit, if not giddy, considering the constant, though abstract, lauding of ‘tightening the borders’, as a concept, with no regard towards individuals . While the mainstream media, as corrupt as it is, did cover the real struggles of real individuals (human beings, not statistics) during these changes, they were silent.

The human suffering brought on by these policies is impossible to ignore. As repelled as one can be by the term ‘privilege’ when exaggeratedly used by progressives, this approach, honestly, reeks of it.

Content creators posting certain views on YouTube, upon creating an account, were aware YouTube was owned by Google, a company with declared liberal values. Hence they knowingly have been taking advantage of permissive rules in what they knew was an ideologically adverse environment. They took the opportunity.

So did, far more daringly, those who moved to a country where they knew they were not fully wanted. The conundrum and scale of the loss cannot be compared by any standards.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

How does it feel to be suddenly unwanted, cast aside, after making an honest existence on the same terms for years?

Of course, YouTubers still have options; plenty of them. The people shoved from a country they’d made their home do not.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

“Deus Vult”: Peddling “Jesus” To Support Israeli Expansionism

Here is a link, one among many Rebel Media “productions” which glorify the state of Israel and its (lawless) expansion of murder and displacement of Palestinians. You might think it’s in jest, judging by the tone. But it’s not, as proven by the cesspool-emptier-load of material produced by Rebel Media in support of Israel and towards demonising Muslims as a whole (yes, all 1.6 billion of them). It somehow seems their rhetoric for a good year or two, capitalising on the immigration problem in Europe, has been leading up to this.

Even if marginally interested in the situation, as often is the case in the west, one has to admit this is stomach-churning.

And Rebel Media, of course, is not alone in this.

The simultaneous rise of Donald Trump, as well as other political figures embracing far-right rhetoric, and the rise of support for Israel as a state is almost too odd to be a coincidence (and please don’t mistake me for agreeing with those who scapegoat Jews for all the world’s evils, out of the same drive as those who scapegoat Muslims).

Support for Israel’s expansionism seems to come from the Christian right; those supposedly rational and kind underdogs, so demonised and ridiculed by the far left for years, if not decades.

Of course, how people can be warmongers at the same time as devout Christians is rather puzzling, if they take themselves seriously. The support for massive deportations in the US falls in the same incompatibility, but that’s a different issue altogether.

I don’t know what part of ENOUGH OF MASS MURDER these people don’t get, after all that has happened in recent decades.

 

 

 

 

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.

Support For Overnight Deportation: The Ugly Side Of Conservatism

Although the laws affecting undocumented immigrants in the US today were certainly not put in place by Donald Trump, there seems to be a rising tide of calls for anyone with a shoddy immigration status to be thrown out as a matter of principle, conflating them with those who pose a proven security risk. One does not need to be American in order to have an opinion on how this mass exultation sounds; many gleefully envisage an indiscriminate purge, regardless of personal circumstances.

Civilisation quickly degenerates when people are desensitised to needless brutality – whether it is that of Sharia law, ignored by the left, or that of harmless individuals being snatched from their homes and thrown over the fence overnight (leaving them and their families in shock), ignored – and increasingly applauded- by the right.

While admitting it’s at the discretion of an institution to reach a decision, one can simultaneously admit such an act can be downright grotesque.

With the risk of using leftist rhetoric, one cannot say that the public reaction of indifference or delight is not a clear case of dehumanising the other.

By now, contradicting leftists on everything has become so much of a habit even intellectuals can react in Pavlovian fashion to their every stance, even when their approach, for once, can be given credit as humane and rational.

It’s disheartening to see how skeptical or conservative commentators – who are overall more profound nowadays than those on the left – suddenly lose that analytical quality, invoking bureaucracy as a moral absolute, to downplay the impact of cruel actions. Their habit of craftily bringing nuances to light, of analysing every case in-depth, switches to “oh well, it’s the law”, disregarding the human factor altogether.

The fact that some people living in the West in our current year do not have a visceral reaction to this is not a good omen.

Lines are being blurred here; the many shades of grey are being overlooked.

The recently deported Mexican woman who’d been told for years she would most likely be allowed to stay has become a target of ridicule and incrimination as a pawn in a political match. One has to wonder whether a person with a poor grasp of English would understand all the implications of using false information in order to obtain employment. Leaving aside this ill-advised move, she is no murderer, rapist, thug or drug dealer. Her situation is that of many who sought to escape poverty. A person intending to have an actual life of crime would have demonstrated that in two decades. The amount of bile thrown at this woman, who became the target years of frustration were projected on (frustration she did not personally cause) is quite something.

Moreover, crime includes a bureaucratic and a moral component; however the presence of one does not imply that of the other.

Labelling someone a criminal for immigrating out of desperation, without using violence (as it was used for instance in Calais) is a stretch, though the term technically applies.

 

One cannot help but notice how easy it is to refer to the law as immutable when on one end of the political spectrum, while ignoring and breaking other laws put in place by an administration of a different persuasion.

Right-wingers have been unfairly demonised as fascists for years; laws have been put in place to limit their freedom of speech and religion. It’s easy to denounce these laws as unjust, which implies that they are not mandated by some heavenly moral authority and can indeed inflict needless damage. People convicted over Facebook and Twitter posts (victimless “crimes”) are technically criminals as well.

Hence, when discussing other people’s suffering as a result of bureaucratic conundrums, ignoring their general situation, right-wingers are not being objective, as they claim, but subjective. They are choosing which laws to hold as moral absolutes and which laws to disregard altogether.

That is not to say that I believe in borderless utopias – however, some clemency is possible and humane on a case by case basis, instead of petty head-hunting and swift expulsions of people who have already built their lives in a country for decades.

Right-wingers often claim to use their brains as opposed to leftists, who tend to use their feelings in any situation.

Perhaps these should not be mutually exclusive, as the future looks bleak if an uncompromising choice has to be made.

 

Forget politics. We are all human and should try to remain an such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingloriously Apolitical

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. (Wikipedia)

Why ingloriously? Well, when one refuses to jump on the bandwagon of a political group but still voices opinions on social issues, they are likely to be sworn at from all directions, whereas normally they would only be targeted by the opposition. For some reason, people feel the need to stick a label on themselves, to get a sense of belonging and backing. And why not, to absolve themselves of any personal responsibility for the world view they are supporting.

So, you’re against demonising economical migrants? You must be a socialist! Commie bastard! You and yours are what’s wrong with this world! Air heads with no sense of practicality! 

So, you don’t think graphic sex-ed should be introduced into primary schools? You must be with the far right! Neo-Nazi bastard! You’d probably love to live in the times when minorities were oppressed!

Public figures I have a lot of respect for have long argued that belonging to groups muddies one’s awareness of the world and imposes conformity on many levels, until an individual is unable to think outside of the party line.

People find themselves rallying for causes they have marginal interest in or little understanding of, at the initiative of party or group leaders, whose sole purpose might even be to lead all members in a different direction or get them to waste their energy in futile ways, having no real impact on their society.

Also, they tend to read publications associated with their political choice, taking the bait on the constant agitation caused by the mainstream media, which leaves people little breathing space between one fit of indignation and another.

In the UK, one way of defining one’s stand is by reading the Daily Mail or the Guardian, aka fascism versus social justice warriors. And fascism this time is no exaggeration. Here is a link to a short test containing ten highly appreciated comments from the Daily Mail and declared far right website Stormfront; see if you can tell where each was taken from. I got half right the first time; less than half the second. We’re talking about the same crowd here.

Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy reading clever discourse on either side on issues I am interested in; I cannot, however, comprehend how someone can censor themselves to completely acquiesce to a ”collective view”. Humour is a good way to deal with the absurdity of extreme attitudes; however, people seem to take politics very seriously nowadays and become Facebook warriors on behalf of groups which don’t represent their interests and couldn’t care less about them.

We’re starting to see the rise of radicalised majorities in so many countries; radicalisation is no longer associated with fringe groups. I am convinced social media and the participation people imagine they have in the public arena are partially to blame for that. Suddenly it’s acceptable to push for the dominance of one ideology or social category to the detriment of all others. Everyone is a fucking warrior nowadays, ”standing up for what they believe in” to the point of swearing at random strangers on the internet.

If you don’t watch TV and don’t take an interest in the local political scene you’re regarded as strange. Some even burst with righteous indignation that you have a duty to get involved, to be socially active. They fail to understand that one’s main duty is to remain sane by not soaking up the poison of hysteria on a daily basis, often over inconsequential matters, to be forgotten the next day.

Running around like a headless chicken trying to spread ideologies you sometimes don’t even understand does not make you sane, a good citizen, a good human being etc. 

Between signing ten petitions and debating twenty people on forums, all while trying to also survive, one has very little time to reflect on the fact that they are letting an abstract concept made up by others define them.

Labelling oneself as left wing nowadays tends to include supporting the following ideas:

  1. Every demand made by a minority is a civil right.
  2. Minorities are oppressed by default, even when they fail to realise it.
  3. When the member or advocate of a minority is criticised, it’s always on the basis of hatred towards their innate characteristics.
  4. Tolerance and intolerance go hand in hand. Provided you’re on the right side.
  5. One must fight for peace and love with all the aggressiveness they’re capable of.
  6. My ancestors were oppressed by your ancestors or vice-versa; we have unfinished business.
  7. Equality means minority privilege.
  8. Gender is  a social construct with no basis in human biology.
  9. Every social program or art form must be ”inclusive” of categories it has nothing to do with.
  10. Causing offence is a crime.

On the other side of the debate we find these brilliant ideas:

  1. All foreigners are intruders and seek to rob your country, even in discrete ways. They are generally not to be trusted.
  2. Whatever is written in the Daily Mail is true. The Daily Mail isn’t just mindless agitation and manipulation.
  3. Mobs calling for mass deportations and pitch fork community actions are legitimate.
  4. Anyone who rejects right wing attitudes is a Marxist.
  5. Hatred of the poor can be efficiently masked by claiming to stand for a meritocracy.
  6. Immigrants will breed Europeans out of existence. At the same time though, how dare native women breed so much without being able to secure a career first. Shame on them. Screw the next generation; who even cares about that.
  7. The poor should be sterilised. Yes, many right wing individuals include that in their discourse, even if toned down.
  8. Everything is outrageous. Being a quintessential finger-pointing dick is OK if one promotes moral values. Morality and kindness needn’t be related.
  9. Far right groups sporting uniforms and berets are Europe’s hope for tomorrow (as opposed to clowns).
  10. Whatever happens in the world, if you dig deep enough, the Jews are behind it (that doesn’t apply to American right wingers, as they generally support Israel).

 

Meanwhile, both orthodoxies tend agree on a few issues:

  1. People must label themselves and others, playing a part in the farcical game of political debates.
  2. There is no middle ground on important issues (such as immigration).
  3. Political doctrines actually mean something, as opposed to being tools of manipulation and control.
  4. There actually is such a thing as genuine cohesion within ideological groups, although history teaches us that even hardcore groups split into factions eventually.
  5. Debating people on social media regarding political issues – or any issues at all – is not a complete waste of time (although it clearly is).
  6. It’s justified for people to hate each other based on labels and beliefs. It’s worth arguing with friends, neighbours and even family over them.
  7. The average individual has a say in the way their country is run and can influence the decisions of the ruling class by campaigning or other actions (even though it is clear enough that they only have power over their own mind and their will is disregarded unless it serves someone else’s purpose).
  8. It’s worth investing emotionally in a party or politician. Someday the right party with the right leader will come along (of course that never, ever happens).

I see people being bullied by peer pressure into taking on a political label and ”getting involved”, at times being shamed for not joining a crowd, as if their life were incomplete without it. If only they could stop for a minute, take some distance and see the whole spectacle for what it really is.