Liberal men: misogynist, violent little brats

My most recent post delved into the issue of the woman-hating nature of the liberal male as it relates to reproduction, and partially to the vitriol non-liberal women are treated to by these creatures, in the form of intimidating, vituperative verbal barrages when the non-liberal female should express unsanctioned political beliefs; a phenomenon that any outspoken, socially conservative, anti-globalist, XX-chromosomed person surely has first-hand experience of.

Well, it appears the methods of the virulently misogynist left are in the process of evolving from “just” aggressive verbal abuse to non-compliant women (which is appalling enough) into outright physical violence. Just last night, a female Trump-supporter was attacked with pepper spray by a left-wing “protester” (violent Stalinist thug) who had helped force the University of California in Berkeley to cancel a speech by libertarian personality, Milo Yiannopoulos (who I am not a fan of, but that’s not the point), while she was being interviewed by a reporter. Let’s boil the story down to its bare bones: a woman was physically assaulted by a man for having a certain set of political views.

This has, understandably, shocked all decent, moral people who have heard about it, but the more I think about it, the more I think that, actually, it is not that shocking at all. We already live in a society where it is commonplace for men to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with women and scream in their face (which is socially acceptable, so long as he subscribes to the correct ideology); we live in a society that teaches boys when they are growing up that women are just the targets of sexual conquests. And to add the rotten cherry to the whole stinking, mouldy, maggot-infested cake of modern pseudo-parenting, we live in an era saturated by pornography, which is increasingly violent and misogynistic in nature; which causes men’s brains to degenerate; and which is only ever a few clicks away for children whose parents spend 34 minutes per day with them, and who have smartphones before they’ve even started school, because apathetic parents find such devices useful in distracting their naturally energetic small children, so they can get on and do the really important things, like watch Emmerdale and message their friends on Facebook.

Additionally, increasingly, being conservative (or even just non-liberal) relegates one to the status of subhuman; a grotesque monster, to be detested, jeered at, and yes, persecuted; violently, if necessary. After all, conservatives – male or female – deserve it, because they’re, like, evil. Thusly, anyone who has ever observed a romantic relationship involving a leftist male will affirm that, in the vast majority of cases, an unhealthy, domineering, psychologically abusive dynamic exists, with the man being the dominant party. Several years ago, I knew a young lady who was in a romantic relationship with a man. The girl was a liberal, but she was a very nice person who I liked, but who clearly lack self-esteem and confidence; a lamb to the slaughter, as liberal, libertine men prey on damaged females, because women with proper self-esteem do not tolerate being treated poorly. This girl’s boyfriend treated her very badly, before she eventually dumped him: he would casually belittle her in front of other people, intentionally making hurtful, derogatory statements; and he would also flirt with other people in front of her. This sort of example is far from uncommon, and the truly amusing thing is that this cretin assuaged what tiny little crumb of a conscience he had by being a left-wing extremist, virtue-signalling about feminism (yes, really), multiculturalism, green politics, and so on. Leftist men know that society gives them a free reign to treat people as hideously as they like, so long as they stay within the confines of the law (which is becoming softer and softer over the generations) and espouse the correct political beliefs.

So, when you consider the confluence of the factors in the preceding paragraphs, men being violent towards women on political grounds is not really that surprising at all. In fact, it’s inevitable. You simply cannot raise generations of badly-parented, empathy-impaired, porn-addicted boys who think women are simply walking sex objects and expect them to blossom into civilised young gentleman; you cannot expect men who have been raised in a culture that devalues women and conservatives to behave civilly towards, err, conservative women. I do not believe humans start off as totally blank slates – I believe we are born with genetic predilections – but it is clear that our early years are absolutely crucial in forming the type of person we become, and can override a lot of the genetic programming we are blessed / cursed with. There are people out there who were born with perfectly healthy brains, who have been turned into psychopaths. Likewise, there are people who were born with brains neurologically similar to those of psychopaths, but who have developed – through good, nurturing, loving parenting – empathy and the ability to consider other people’s needs. So while genetics play a role, we cannot just blame traits that we do not like in people on their DNA, and doing so is not helpful. We have to look at their formative years, and we have to reassess the way we ‘do’ parenting.

Most men know, instinctively, that we do not physically hurt women. It’s an unspoken covenant that is unbreakable if one wishes to be able to participate properly in society – wife-beaters and rapists are never forgiven. Even most men who are otherwise very licentious and very inconsiderate of women fully understand that male-on-female violence is a line that cannot be crossed, without severe, life-ruining consequences. So something has to have gone very, very wrong for a man to even think of attacking a woman; there is a fundamental, key component of humanity and masculinity that is missing in men who raise a finger against a woman. It is appalling, hideous, unforgivable, but given the way society is structured, its manifold and manifest deficiencies, and its lazy, apathetic, amoral, borderline-psychotic method of raising children, combined with the fact that our culture is an incubator of genuine hatred towards anyone with remotely conservative views, it can’t be too much of a surprise. I am not excusing men who are violent towards women: I genuinely hate them, and while my Christian duty compels me to forgive those who genuinely repent, I admit that I am not perfect, and I can’t. I’m offering an analysis on what makes these men the way they are, so that we can avoid the mistakes of our parents and grandparents, and raise the next generation of male children to be emotionally healthy, empathetic people, which greatly reduces the risk of misogynistic violence.

Such politically motivated male-on-female violence is still far from being widely accepted, but the signs are there that it is on the way to being accepted. Think I am being hyperbolic? 60 years ago, the crude, base way in which many men today talk about (and to) women was wholly socially unacceptable. In 2017, this language is considered normal. Our culture and our society is degenerating rapidly, on a daily basis, and so we – people who stand for traditional morality, civility, and decency – have to be prepared to adjust to whatever the new ‘normal’ is in the future. So what are we going to do about this problem? Because our wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and friends are living in a society that is increasingly dangerous for them. One of the foundational principles of masculinity is that men defend women and children. We are living in dark times, infused with all sorts of dangerous people, and they need us more than ever.

P.S. If you would like to send the young lady who was pepper sprayed at UC Berkeley a message of solidarity, you can reach her on Twitter:




Liberal men: misogynist little brats

In the wake of the inauguration of President Donald Trump (don’t those three words sound good?), a series of highly publicised “Women’s Marches” (Soros-funded collective expressions of confused rage at nothing in particular) erupted across the Western world. Though mainly undertaken by radical feminist females who had been wound up by the media into thinking Trump was going to have them forcibly impregnated, or something, these marches were participated in by a fair amount of men – who self-identify as feminists – as well. So what motivated these men, these male feminists?

Though they claim to be very pro-female, and solely interested in defending and advancing women’s rights, my opinion is that this is a cynical ruse; a stratagem designed to win acceptance from the feminist movement, in order to advance their own aims, which are certainly anything but female-friendly. The focal point of the marches were centred around crude slogans such as “keep your tiny hands off my p***y” and “my uterus is not government property” (an absurd statement, given these people demand state-funded contraception); that is, the main thrust of the ‘arguments’ (and I am very generous in using that term) offered by the protesters was to further and retain access to birth control and abortion, given that President Trump and – especially – Vice-President Pence had just entered the White House.

This begs the question: why did a substantial number of left-wing men join in on these marches? Is it because they love and feel a deep respect for women? I do not think so, judging by the sheer, vile hatred that is dished out by liberal men to non-liberal women. A very close female friend of mine – a young girl, just out of university age, and not really interested in politics – told me that she made the fatal mistake of telling a liberal male in her workplace which way she voted in Britain’s EU referendum: Leave. She was set upon in a verbally aggressive way, and condemned for being racist, xenophobic, homophobic, claustrophobic, and LGBTQWERTYphobic; and this verbal assault understandably left her feeling very intimidated and upset. Such instances of genuinely misogynistic treatment towards non-liberal women from tolerant, enlightened men are very common (think of the names female politicians who are unpopular with liberals, like Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May, are called; or even media commentators, like Katie Hopkins; or how about Melania Trump, who gangs of liberal men threatened to rape on Twitter). Another female friend of mine was the recipient of an aggressive, abusive rant on a social media platform the other day, delivered by a left-wing man, simply because she expressed pro-life and anti-casual sex opinions; this left-wing man didn’t react nearly so strongly to another male who also expressed pro-life opinions, because they never do: liberal men are stinking cowards and bullies; and like all bullies, they pick on those they perceive as weaker than themselves. Liberal men are full of misogynistic rage, which they take out on women who dare to reject the liberal principles that the liberal man has demanded they believe in. Sounds like patriarchy, to me!

So, it is clear liberal feminist men are not motivated by an intrinsic love of womankind, given how appallingly ladies who think for themselves are treated. So what does motivate male feminists to scream and shout from the rooftops about how contraception and abortion (I thought men weren’t allowed an opinion on abortion, anyway? Must be only pro-life men that aren’t) are some sort of inherent, God-given right of women?

Put simply: selfishness. If we consider what contraception and abortion do, we come to the obvious conclusion that they establish and maintain the illusion of ‘safe’, sterile sex that doesn’t result in giving birth to a human child. Contraception disassociates sex from fertility by drastically (but definitely not completely) reducing the risk of a woman becoming pregnant; abortion – sold to women as a minor, non-invasive procedure with no lasting negative effects – is there as a fail-safe last resort, when the contraception doesn’t work. Without contraception and abortion, the illusion / delusion crumbles: the creative potential of a heterosexual union is made starkly apparent to both sexes, but particularly women, who see that casual sex is so risky that it is not worth partaking in – if you think about it, why on Earth would any woman risk not just pregnancy, but also being left high and dry to care for a baby on her own, just for five minutes of “fun” with someone they barely know and cannot trust? To do so would be insanely dangerous, and if the medications – contraception and abortion – for “accidental” pregnancy did not exist, no woman would be so reckless.

So the liberal man fights tooth-and-nail for those birth-prevention measures, because without them, he can no longer use women he barely or, indeed, doesn’t know, for fleeting physical pleasure; to have sex with a woman, he’s going to have to be a gentleman over a sustained period of time: he’s going to have to get to know a lady, and he’s going to have to demonstrate to her over a period of time that he’s a trustworthy, dependable, loyal partner; and then, he’s going to have to drag himself out of adolescence, and commit to looking after her and their future offspring for the rest of his life (and that all sounds like a lot of hard work and effort – things leftists are not overly fond of).

Actually, when it comes to courtship and marriage, women were given all of the power by nature / God: even in other species, it’s the males who have to prove to the female that they’re worth of being their partner, and in a human society devoid of contraception and abortion, and which has rigorously enforced standards of sexual ethics that stretch beyond mere “consent“, it’s exactly the same: if men are not willing or able to provide the loving security and stability the woman requires, then it’s simple: no sex, no marriage. I go into much more detail on this in a previous post, but basically, the introduction of contraception (and abortion) completely trivialises sex, and removes the female’s natural power over the situation. Like most things third-wave feminism advocates, it doesn’t liberate women – it enslaves them; it relegates them to the status of mere sex toys, who can be plied with alcohol, used for sex, and then coldly disposed of. Men who advocate contraception and abortion very well know this, and it is why they do so.

What man, who has genuine respect for women (which only comes from sound moral teaching and loving platonic relationships with females in early life), could possibly fight, in good conscience for abortion? Leaving aside the fact that it – along with contraception, as explained in the paragraph above clips the wings of female autonomy, and leaving aside the more obvious impact – the dead human child, let’s explore the lesser-known effects of abortion: the deleterious effects on the mother. A woman’s first pregnancy permanently changes her breasts: during that pregnancy, she is at higher risk of breast cancer, but once the pregnancy reaches its natural conclusion – childbirth – the cells in that area stabilise forever, reducing the risk; but if her first pregnancy is interrupted, her breasts are permanently stuck in the volatile period before birth, permanently increasing her breast cancer risk. Also, abortion raises the risk of future miscarriages by 60%, meaning that many women who have had abortions, who want to start a family later on in life, find it difficult to do so. And that’s not all: the risk of women who have an abortion attempting suicide is increased sixfold, because abortion is an invasive, traumatising procedure: women who have miscarriages are devastated, often barely able to function, for months on end; some never recover. Why would it be different for vulnerable women who opted for abortion, just because society lied to them, selling them the fake idea that abortion is a quick and easy solution to all problems?

How abortion effects women. But you don’t care, do you, liberal male? All you care about is your own short-lived “fun”.

Given not only the profound damage dealt by abortion, but the stripping of natural feminine power by contraception and the casualisation of sex, it is clear that if a man genuinely cares for women, he cannot possibly be pro-abortion and pro-casual sex; he can only be an advocate of those things if he is either a) ignorant; or b) misogynistic and selfish. Given the acidic, venomous – and usually female-specific – hatred directed towards women of various unapproved ideological persuasions, we can safely rule out option A, in the case of liberal men. Since the Sexual Revolution in the late 1950s and early 1960s, men have had carte blanche to use women for aimless sexual ‘thrills’, which at best “just” exploit the women involved, but at worst, cause them long-term psychological – and even medical – problems. Men who support this cannot legitimately be called pro-female, and I am staggered as to how female feminists cannot see that they are aligned with a bunch of woman-hating misogynists.

Personally, given various relationships of different types and degrees, both present and past, I quite like women, and think they should be treated with dignity and respect, not as cheap sex toys for unscrupulous men. Male feminists: you may have fooled your female feminist allies into believing you are pro-female activists, fighting for a safer and more accepting world for women; but we social conservatives – male and female alike – can see straight through you. We know what woman-hating, spoilt, selfish little boys you really are.

For more writing on a similar matter, please see my previous post, “Why contraception is misogynistic (and gay)”.

Kool-Aid Christianity and the Marxification and Infantilisation of Christ

Far from representing the lunatic fringe, liberal “Christians” who advocate completely un-Christian policy now constitute the vast majority of believers in the UK.

One of the few highlights of my disastrous recent stint at university was meeting the people who comprise the university’s Christian Union: on the face of it, largely an affable, easy-going, good-natured bunch of people who were pleasant to socialise with. Interacting with those pleasant people was a refreshing change from dealing with the other students I dealt with, who were vulgar, destructive, hedonistic, had no respect for property, and seemingly no understanding of the concept of human dignity. I first encountered the Christian Union after a thoroughly demoralising first weekend at university, and doing so injected me with a new hope that maybe staying on at university was a viable proposition (ultimately, it did not prove to be, but through no fault of the Christian Union).

Recent events on Facebook – the great medium of our time – have completely obliterated the positive feelings I harboured towards my former “Christian” ‘friends’ at university. On November 8th, I posted a short status just before television coverage of the American election results night began, stating that I hoped Donald Trump would win, because I do not want the planet to be engulfed in an annihilatory nuclear war – a perfectly reasonable sentiment, you might think. Well, apparently not, as several of the aforementioned “Christians” (whom I shall now refer to as Kool-Aid Christians, due to their willingness to cave in to peer pressure and accept philosophical principles and values that directly contravene traditional Christian values) promptly decided to defriend me on Facebook. In the days and weeks after the election, I posted further statuses outlining the reasons why I was pleased Donald Trump won the election, focusing on globalisation and the erosion of Christian values in the West. It seemed that each status I posted triggered (I’m not sure if the pun is intended or not…) another wave of defriending from the Kool-Aid Christians; and now, I have now reached the point where there are none of them left on my friends list – every single last one has seen fit to expunge me from their lives because of my ‘offensive’ (i.e. Christian) views on social issues.

This phenomenon tells me two important things about modern Christians. Firstly, it tells me that they are intellectual and moral cowards, adopting even the most abominable principles of cultural Marxist social doctrine, no matter how antithetical to Christian values it be, purely because they are too frightened to stand up for authentic Christianity, as doing so tends to make one rather unpopular with one’s trendy liberal atheist friends. These yellow-bellies would rather propagate anti-Christian doctrine than speak profound, age-old Christian truths. They would rather spread Satan’s message because doing so is easy and wins them patronising congratulations from their friends; spreading authentic Christianity essentially ensures that one becomes a pariah – Christ himself said that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). Being a genuine Christian in this Marxist, Satanic, relativistic age is not easy, and unfortunately, many people will always choose to do what is comfortable and easy, rather than what is right, including those who profess to be Christians. Today, there is nothing easier to be than a cultural Marxist: the entire establishment and its media mouthpieces are on your side; you are congratulated and praised from virtually all quarters; and anyone who express a conservative opinion on social issues is shouted down and effectively barred from the public debate. You face no opposition. Genuine Christians, on the other hand…

In other words: Christians for abortion, Christians for gay marriage, Christians for state-enforced atheism. But that’s okay, because what really matters is not being virtuous, but being popular. Supporting the continuation of the industrial-scale slaughter of unborn babies is perfectly fine, just don’t support the eccentric rich man who occasionally says ridiculous things.

The next thing my treatment at the hands of the Kool-Aid Christians tells me is that – in every single way apart from belief in a deity – they are exactly the same as a typical cookie-cutter, atheist liberal clone. Not only are their views identical, but their behaviour is as well. My experience of atheist liberals is that they are superficially very nice, right up until the point you disagree with them on anything social or political, at which point the monster inside reveals itself with a great whirlwind of outrage, and they seek to suppress and silence you, using whatever means necessary – intimidation, bullying, emotional blackmail, or just plain old Stalinist purging. This is exactly my experience with the Kool-Aid Christians: in the few weeks I interacted with them in the flesh, no controversial political subjects were really broached in any significant depth, and so I experienced them as they are when they think you agree with them: cordial and mild-mannered.

But when I started posting my opinions on Facebook (I hadn’t done so previously; I am not a prolific poster), my eyes were opened to the true, intolerant, very un-Christ-like nature of the people I had previously considered, if not overt allies sociopolitically, then at least people who would accept that my traditionalist, conservative beliefs come from an honest and humanitarian place, unlike the atheist liberals, who immediately denounce anything they don’t like as evil, motivated by supremacist hatred. That the Kool-Aid Christians behave in exactly the same manner was made very evident to me, when I witnessed a debate on immigration on Facebook, between a bunch of middle-class, Kool-Aid Christian males and a working-class young woman. The exchange can be summarised thusly: the the ‘Christians’ were posting the usual liberal, open-borders nonsense, and the young lady raised very reasonable, common-sense objections to this, such as the impact on culture, infrastructure, and the threat posed to safety by uncontrolled, mass immigration; and she was pounced upon by the compassionate Kool-Aids and accused of being racist and xenophobic, which are ill-defined, erroneously applied terms that appear – in the minds of liberals – to be synonyms for “evil”. I intervened to support this besieged person, and was myself called names and promptly blocked. I was forced to reassess my perceptions of the Kool-Aid Christians, because their behaviour in the face of mere disagreement had proven to be indistinguishable from the behaviour of an atheist liberal when faced with the same proposition: condescension, snarling aggression, and the petulant expulsion from their lives of anyone holding a controversial opposing opinion.

So what actually sets the Kool-Aid Christians apart from the atheist liberal mainstream, other than a belief in Jesus Christ? Their social and political views don’t, and neither does their behaviour, when it really counts. And let’s be clear here: the Kool-Aids have even remade Christ in their image. They have redefined him to be some marijuana-smoking Marxist with no moral standards, passing no negative judgement on any behaviour patterns, no matter how decadent, destructive, and/or dangerous. Thus, apparently, Christians today are not allowed to expect people to adhere to higher standards of behaviour, and we are not allowed to condemn things such as sexual licentiousness and perversion, because didn’t Jesus Christ himself say “judge not, that you may not be judged” – ? Yes, he did, but what the dishonest liberals – atheists and “Christians” – do ALL THE TIME is extract that single line from a wider passage, in order to support all manner of moral degeneracy. Let’s look at the line in its full, proper context:

Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Clearly, this is a warning against hypocrisy; Christ is telling believers not to judge people for undesirable behaviour they themselves may be guilty of. “Judge not, that you may not be judged” is not an instruction to Christians to turn a blind eye to unrighteous, harmful behaviour; it is a command to make sure that one lives up to one’s own moral standards before using those standards to judge; a rule that unless Christians themselves are personally striving to repent of their own sins, they are not to condemn the sinful actions of others. And this is perfectly logical and perfectly true: if I am an adulterer, I have no place in condemning other adulterers, because I’m a hypocrite; if I am not an adulterer, I have every right to reprimand an adulterer for their selfish, damaging behaviour, as I, myself, am free from the guilt of that sin. So unless Christian “homophobes” who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle are secretly engaged in romantic relationships with members of the same sex, which seems incredibly unlikely, then yes, they’ve every right to disapprove.

Jesus Christ, according to 21-st century Kool-Aid Christians.

Fallaciously misusing Biblical quotes in order to promote materialistic, atheist hedonism is a staple of Kool-Aid Christianity, but it is to be expected, when Kool-Aids do not follow Jesus Christ, preferring instead to follow their bastardised, infantilised, cultural Marxist distortion of Christ, who has no basis in scripture, and indeed, directly contravenes age-old Christian social principles. Their perversion of Christ infects their thinking on social issues; instead of supporting wholesome family values centred on the qualities of discipline, consideration, loyalty, and selflessness, which are conducive to stability and human happiness, they promote a dangerous, self-centred existence, based on giving in to impulses – “so long as it’s consensual” – and live-and-let-live indifference in the face of destructive behaviour patterns, no matter how damaging their actions prove to be to themselves and others, because one of the guiding principles of liberalism – that Kool-Aid Christians have wholly and enthusiastically bought into – is the frankly baffling idea that the kindest thing to do is always to allow people to do what they want to do.

And Kool-Aid Christians have accepted this laissez-faire principle with such avidity because just like liberalism itself is an infantilised perversion of civilised culture, their Pseudo-Christ is a juvenilised perversion of the real Jesus Christ. Their idea of Christ is of an amoral, timid liberal, who never got angry about anything and never condemned anything, which could not be more wrong. He came to uphold the laws of Moses, not abolish them, and he was known on occasions, in righteous indignation, to use physical force. Jesus Christ is no lily-livered, shilly-shallying liberal coward; he is extremely principled, never afraid to do what’s right, no matter how unpopular it may be. “But Jesus loves everyone!”, they wheel out any time there’s social degeneracy to be defended. Yes, he does, but there’s an important distinction to be made here between the sin and the sinner, that liberal Christians never seem to make. For example, proper Christians despise homosexuality as a phenomenon, correctly seeing it as a dysfunctional disorder that leads only to stagnation and death (this is borne out by a number of politically inconvenient statistics showing that homosexuals abuse substances at a higher rate than heterosexuals; that homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse; and that they attempt suicide more often than heterosexuals), but we do not hate homosexuals as people – we just do not think that perpetuating the delusion that homosexuality is a perfectly legitimate, “equal but different” lifestyle choice is the kindest way to help homosexual people. We believe that guiding them towards an alternative, heterosexual lifestyle is kindest in the long run, even though it is not an easy path.

Jesus Christ cleansing the Temple of the money changers (usurers) with a whip, for “turning my father’s house into a den of thieves”. Righteous indignation at its finest!

Liberals, whether atheists or Kool-Aids, do not understand the concept of tough love, because ideologically, they are just children. They are unable to fully comprehend that loving someone doesn’t mean you just allow them – indeed, encourage them – to surrender to their impulses, even though those impulses have great potential to harm. Liberals think that just allowing everyone to do whatever they want, and giving them whatever they demand, is the key to everlasting happiness, but that isn’t the case. Children want to eat ice cream and doughnuts all day, and then stay up playing computer games all night; parents do not let them do that, because the children will soon become malnourished and sleep deprived. In other words, the parents accept that, while the children might want to live life a certain way, it isn’t good for them, and so they don’t let them. While adults cannot impose their will on other adults directly, in the way parents can on children, this doesn’t mean that we have to indulge dangerous delusions. We, as Christians, must always be clear-headed and able to disentangle ourselves from emotion-based politics, and formulate consistent, logical, humane policies that protect and uphold our most sacred principle, which is the sanctity and value of life. We should not be hoodwinked into supporting socially destructive, damaging ideas and lifestyles, just because they are cloaked in the language of compassion – this is exactly what secular liberals do.

Let’s use the liberal position on immigration – open borders and amnesties for all – as an example to further illustrate my point about liberals. According to liberals, opening the borders is the morally correct thing to do, and anyone who objects is some sort of racist troglodyte who doesn’t want to share things with immigrants, or some such childish nonsense. But let’s employ logic here: an open-door policy to refugees is disastrous, for the migrants themselves, and for the host country. The migrants invariably fall in with people traffickers and human smugglers, who are some of the most psychopathic, exploitative, abusive people on the planet, who sexually assault women and children on a large scale. The migrants endure long and hazardous journeys, many dying en route, whether in the Central American deserts or in the Mediterranean Sea; and it cannot be denied that there is a serious risk posed to civilians in the migrants’ destination countries. Not just from terrorism, but from people coming into the West from backwards cultures with very different views on all sorts of things, who – in the case of Islamic migrants – don’t seem to see a problem with sexually assaulting Western women, whom they see as whores and infidels, not even fully human. Am I, as someone who sees no reason whatsoever for importing Islam into the West and weaving it into our social fabric, wrong for wishing to protect my own people from foreigners? If so, then I don’t want to be right, because what the left – including the Kool-Aid Christians – deems right on this issue is hideously repulsive: putting vulnerable women and children who were born in our countries at risk simply to make ourselves feel good by facilitating the influx of millions of people from alien cultures. There are many horrible things going on all over the world, but we in the West will not prevent them by destroying our own countries in the process.

The most efficient and effective ways to help people in these war-torn countries is to stop the morally repugnant, interventionist Western policy of regime change (ironically, this is an idea the “racists” like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage support – it’s the liberal politicians who support endless foreign wars which result in the deaths of millions of brown-skinned people), as well as properly utilising the military by deploying it not to topple foreign governments, but to secure our borders and defend our territory, so that no one comes in without going through the proper, legal channels and being rigorously vetted. Any boats containing illegal immigrants should be evacuated, then sunk, and the passengers sent back to the shores of Africa, with the traffickers themselves getting decades-long prison sentences. This smothers the despicable people smuggling industry by making it fraught with danger and unprofitable for the traffickers; and then, while the war continues, we should take in limited, sensible amounts of refugees in the form of women and children only, to be immediately repatriated as soon as their countries are safe for them to inhabit again. Furthermore, we must exert heavy diplomatic pressure on perfectly safe countries in the Middle East to take their fair share of refugees; a country like Saudi Arabia, for instance, which is Islamic and Arabic-speaking, as well as very wealthy, and largely responsible for the chaos in Syria, could easily house the bulk of the refugees fleeing Syria, but it refuses to do so, and instead encourages them to risk their lives travelling to the land of milk and honey – Europe.

Doing these things would strike a very good balance between fulfilling our duty in assisting foreigners who genuinely need it, and defending our own people, which should be the highest priority of any government. But of course, these are nuanced policies, which require some detailed, complex thought, which is a defining characteristic of proper adulthood. Sure, it might make a Kool-Aid Christian feel warm and fuzzy to open up the floodgates and allow potentially tens of millions of people from the Third World unrestricted access to the West, but that’s neither here nor there, because what Christians should be focusing on is doing what’s right, not what’s easy, not what’s popular, and not what makes one feel good. Advocating for uncontrolled immigration will certainly gain us the respect of our liberal friends, but it isn’t the right thing to do, because of the enormous social cost for both the host countries and the migrants. Therefore, Kool-Aid Christians should stop clinging to the idea, because it helps no one – except themselves and their egos, which enjoy being stroked by the leftists, who tell anyone who subscribes to liberal politics how wonderful they are. But the purpose of Christianity isn’t to be popular – it’s to struggle against man’s imperfections in the search of salvation, and to defend truth, justice, and dignity, in the name of Christ. In the current social climate, this is harder to do than ever, but it’s also more important than ever.

The explosion of solipsistic instant self-gratification – whether it be by sexual debauchery, substance abuse, or simply by sufficiently conforming to the liberal consensus so that the atheist liberal majority massage your ego by congratulating and praising you – that our society has endured since the engineered collapse of the moral authority of the Christian Churches and the secularisation of society post-1945 is one of the great curses of our age. It’s bad enough that atheists tend to hold laissez-faire, liberal sociopolitical views and engage in destructive, debased behaviour, but Christians should not be succumbing to this as well; we should be living examples of a viable, wholesome alternative; we should be making our voices heard, advertising our social principles clearly, eloquently, and decisively, because they are a core part of our faith – belief in God is pointless if one doesn’t also subscribe to Christian moral principles and hold them sacred.

2016 was the year of political revolution, with Brexit and Donald Trump. Let’s make 2017 the year of religious revolution, with a return to traditional Christian morality.


The Trump Effect, Vol. II: A Call for Unity

The unexpected election of Donald Trump into the highest office in American politics last week caused quite a stir amongst conspiracy theorists. By all metrics, Hillary Clinton was the clear New World Order candidate: she comes from a dynastic, deeply establishment family; she is a seasoned hawk; she is a committed progressive; she advocated mandatory vaccination; and she was committed to disarming the American population. Absolutely nothing Clinton stood could be interpreted as anti-establishment.

If you compare this to the campaign rhetoric of her victorious opponent, the enigmatic Donald Trump, much of which was highly controversial, directly challenging leftist establishment orthodoxy and proposing real, viable, workable solutions, then it seems pretty obvious whom it would benefit the establishment more to have residing in the White House. That having someone entirely in-line with what the NWO strives to achieve installed as the Chief Executive is expedient, self-evidently makes logical sense – a willing, devoted slave is far more desirable than one who has to be cajoled, bribed, or threatened into obedience, because his/her loyalty is far less conditional, and thus much easier to maintain.

Over the last week, I’ve been following very keenly the reactions of conspiracy theorists; there is much that I, as a fellow conspiracy theorist, find to disagree with. I find the alt-right position that Trump is embarking on a one-man crusade to liberate America from the hidden cabal, against seemingly insurmountable adversity and all the odds, completely unrealistic. Even if Trump were willing to do all of this, he is unable – he has not been appointed the supreme dictator of the USA; he has to work within the democratic political framework of that nation-state, with its emphasis on the separation of powers (and that is without mentioning the power of lobbyists and advisers, or the clout of the financial sector). I think that expecting Trump to be the glorious saviour of mankind that many people seem to be hoping for is extremely optimistic, and likely to lead to serious disappointment.

However, I also strongly disagree with the opposite opinion: that Trump winning is completely meaningless, that it is as desirable to the establishment as Clinton winning, that there is no ‘lesser of two evils’. I think that this viewpoint (which, judging from my experiences browsing various conspiracy forums, appears to be held mainly by left-wingers, as well as anarchists who believe evil begins and ends with the state) is not only despairingly pessimistic, but quite illogical – it relies upon the supposition that anyone who has even the tiniest amount of power or influence is with the Illuminati programme; something I just cannot agree with, because I do not believe the interwoven global networks of political and social control, and the various disputes and disagreements within, are all choreographed like some awful dance group on Britain’s Got Talent. One simple piece of logic that I like to remember is that if our hidden overlords were omnipotent and omniscient, they wouldn’t need to be hidden, would they? It’s easy to despair as a conspiracy theorist and think “we’re all doomed, they control 100% of everything”, but this is NOT true – we can still fight; and ‘they’ are not infallible gods – their schemes are not flawless, and their reach is not yet universal.

I said in the previous volume of my analysis of Trump’s victory that I believe Trump represents the fabled ‘lesser of two evils’ – a position I still wholeheartedly take. A Donald Trump presidency clearly represents different things than a Hillary Clinton presidency. Party political niceties dictate that Donald Trump cannot push anywhere near as aggressively to further the destructive liberal social policies that characterise our era; not only would the Republican Party savage him, but more crucially, it would completely shatter the already-fragile illusion of democracy, which is something the elite need to do, for the time being at least. What would it look like if a Republican president legalised partial-birth abortion, for instance, or repealed the Second Amendment? It would be obvious to even a blind fool that both political parties sing from exactly the same hymn sheet, and that would spell the end for the two-party system – something that at this point is not in the script.

I will go into this in depth in my final post on the election (due to be published within the next week), but it is important for other conspiracy theorists to understand also that, like myself, many conspiracy theorists are also social conservatives and Christians – we are a minority, for sure, but a significant one. Other issues may be more important to you, and that is fine – we are all entitled to our own opinion on which issues are the most urgent. But to us, the most important issues are the social issues: we are most deeply concerned with the proliferation of abortion, the aggressive LGBT persecution of religious people, with the destruction of the family unit, with the deregulation of sex, and with the malignant tumour that is pornography. Most of us believe that even if Trump does not substantially ameliorate these social evils, that he will not make them worse – or at least, he will not make them worse to the extent that Hillary Clinton would have. If you are concerned chiefly with economics, or with foreign policy, or the political structure, that is fine; but these are secondary interests for us, and as far as we religious conservatives can see, we have just won ourselves a temporary reprieve from the vicious, coordinated assault on our beloved traditional culture.

For me, the important thing to remember is that whatever we as conspiracy theorists say, we are outsiders, we are not party to any plans that may exist for Trump’s presidency, and so it is all speculation. We conspiracy theorists, of all stripes, are very opinionated people. Though we are (usually) more civilised and polite in our modes of expression than our mainstream friends, a resolute, determined fire burns within us all: we wouldn’t be conspiracy theorists if we couldn’t stand our ground in the face of verbal hammerings! I think that sometimes – myself included – we can become almost single-minded, even to the point of self-important arrogance. Genuine conviction in one’s beliefs is always a positive thing, but I do not think it is at all helpful to (as one conspiracy theorist I debated online repeatedly did) deride people, either tacitly calling them stupid, or explicitly calling them “sheep” (a term I loathe), simply for not subscribing to our individual positions. All this furious screaming at Trump voters and supporters to “wake up, you stupid sheep, Trump is just as bad!” is only likely to alienate them; in fact, it is simply a variation of the angry, demented howling of the wounded mainstream left that we’re all quite sick of. You might be convinced of the veracity of your opinions, but that never confers the right to silence others who hold theirs.

So please, conspiracy theorists – let’s discuss our differences of opinion on Donald Trump. Let’s openly and honestly disagree with each other – but let’s not get angry or contemptuous with each other. Some of us do not believe that Trump and Clinton are indistinguishable, and it is not because we are half-asleep sheep; it is because we have used our God-given intellects to examine the situation, with our personal values and beliefs in mind, and we have arrived at a different conclusion than those who believe Trump is either a saviour or, effectively, a Clinton clone; a conclusion that is no less valid than anyone else’s.

Why contraception is misogynistic (and gay)

One of the biggest falsehoods of the dominant cultural narrative of our time is the idea that traditional, time-tested sexual morality is intrinsically and irredeemably misogynistic, and that the liberal remedy of meaningless promiscuous sex – given a dangerous, false sense of sterility by carcinogenic condoms or hormonal contraceptives – constitutes a wonderful, liberating solution for women (try telling that to young girls who are essentially bullied into sexual acts they do not feel comfortable with, all to please males – how empowering!).

Well, I feel beholden to ask the question: on what planet is radically altering, and in effect neutralising, someone’s God-given reproductive faculties liberating? One of the defining characteristics of being female is the possession of a womb and thus the ability to carry and give birth to children; yet the purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy from occurring. The explicit purpose of contraception is to obstruct female reproductive processes, thus relegating women to the status of sex toys. How is that not appallingly misogynistic in nature? Why do feminists, whose raison d’etre is supposedly to raise awareness of female-specific issues, focus on completely ridiculous non-issues like manspreading, instead of on this very real and very important violation of female dignity?

In my experience, the most passionate advocates for contraception and ‘sexual liberation’ are a certain type of man – very promiscuous, commitment-phobic, unwilling or unable to hold down a romantic relationship for very long, and most significantly, self-declared male feminists who claim to care deeply for “women’s rights”, because they just love and care about women so, so much. They are rotten hypocrites, who absolve themselves of any guilt they may feel about how sub-optimally they treat the women in their own lives by preaching from the progressive pulpit to all and sundry. I once knew a leftie (who was even called Oliver…) who fits exactly this archetype: spent whole evenings flirting with girls who were not single in front of his own girlfriend, but assuaged whatever walnut-sized conscience he had by spouting the usual, often-recycled, empty feminist platitudes about “choice” and “consent” to anyone who would listen.

The reason these men approve of the idea of female promiscuity and contraception is not because they have great respect for women, as they claim. You see, loving and respecting something means to accept and embrace it; not to attack its fundamental characteristics. These men love an imaginary version of women, who are exactly the same as men, except physically; these men reject the very essence of what separates a female from a male – her ability to conceive and carry new human beings. You cannot have any meaningful, real respect for femininity if you are so petrified of one of its core defining features that you try and change it. It’s rather like how middle-class leftists profess to love the working classes, but actually love a romanticised image of the working classes, who are essentially just poorer versions of middle-class leftists, holding the exact same views on everything. But the reality is that the working classes generally hold an entirely apathetic view towards, for instance, the rampant LGBT agendas the middle classes are so obsessed with, and that they actually take a downright antipathetic view of multiculturalism and mass immigration – which the middle classes cannot accept, just like the male liberals cannot accept female fertility, so they seek to suppress and neutralise it instead.

Promiscuous, contraceptionist men are petrified of female biology, of the creative potential of the female body, and so contraception is a mechanism they seek to use to control and suppress these things. When a man has sex with a woman, from the moment of climax, all control of the situation is taken away from him. He has surrendered his genetic material to his partner, and the internal processes of her body will dictate whether she conceives or not – the man has no natural influence over whether the woman will bear his offspring or not after the point of ejaculation.

Removing this (as contraception attempts to do), and giving men the option to have unprotected sex without the implicit possibility of pregnancy (not that contraception is 100% effective, but it is marketed as being so), puts women into a very dangerous, difficult situation. Men can walk away from a sexual encounter and not think about it ever again; women who have sex always bear the risk of becoming pregnant, and the impact of pregnancy reverberates for life – the woman either carries the child to birth, or has an abortion, which very often psychologically scars the mother for life. It is, therefore, absolutely crucial for the well-being of women for communities and society at large to strictly regulate sexuality by enforcing strict codes of sexual conduct which everyone is expected to adhere to; something natural, sane societies have always done, but which, I am afraid to say, the insane dystopia we all currently endure does not.

Healthy social attitudes towards sex, which are properly enforced, provide invaluable protection for women. The context of a properly functional society built upon the foundation of a proper moral code that goes beyond mere “consent” helps to ensure that women who become pregnant are provided with the protection, support, and stability they are going to need, by effectively barring men who are not prepared to commit for life to their partner from having access to sex, which is one of mankind’s most powerful motivators. This ensures that women are not left high and dry, unsupported, holding the baby, which is never anywhere close to ideal for the mother or for the baby.

Contraception removes all of these essential safeguards. It has given rise to the extremely destructive idea that the force which literally creates life can be sanitised and transformed into a frivolous pastime; it cannot. What it does is encourage promiscuous sex, putting women (and any resultant children, who will almost certainly be aborted or grow up in a broken home) in dangerous, difficult situations that can be entirely avoided with a little bit of self-discipline – it’s a radical thought, I know, but if you don’t want to have children, then you could practise abstinence.

Men who apologise for contracepted sex are, in actuality, undisciplined, desperate, frightened little boys, waging a war on nature, trying to assert male control over the female body (which is ironic, considering that when it comes to abortion, the same men disingenuously insist they have “no right” to be anything but pro-choice, because it’s not their body). Men have no natural right whatsoever to exercise any control over the female reproductive processes, but liberal men endorse contraception because it provides an artificial safety net, enabling women to debase themselves and engage in casual sex, and also because it is a way of allowing them to indulge in such sex whilst also evading the consequences that would be a lot more likely to occur without contraception; essentially, contraception is a tool to enable men to treat women as living, breathing masturbation machines.

Well, you know, I am a man, and I have a higher opinion of women than that: my best friends throughout life have been female, and I think they – and all women – deserve an awful lot better than using contraception, which puts them at significantly increased risk of all sorts of medical issues, including strokes, heart diseases, blood clotsbrain cancerclogged arteries, and even clinical depression. A man who genuinely loves women acknowledges, accepts, respects, and embraces the life-creating capabilities of their bodies; he does not try and mould them into more convenient sex objects for his own gratification, by encouraging them to sterilise themselves with poisonous chemical cocktails.

I have to add as an afterthought that one cannot help but notice that, as well as being misogynistic, there is more than a hint of the homosexual about men who advocate the use of contraception. It is well-known that gay men find the female form not just unattractive, but repulsive as well; even this extremist feminist website admits that fact (tedious disclaimer: not all gay men… just 99%). Gay men just cannot fathom why straight men are attracted to females; they find the external reproductive organs disgusting.

Well, heterosexual men who engage in promiscuous, contracepted sex with women may not be homosexual in the sense of being attracted to other men, and they may be aroused by the female form, but they are absolutely petrified of the internal female reproductive organs; they are scared stiff of what the womb leads to – babies, commitment, sacrifice, selflessness… in other words, proper adulthood.

One of the most notable traits of homosexual relationships is that they are completely and unchangeably sterile; there is no potential for procreation. This is what contraception does to opposite-sex relations – it almost totally removes the creative potential of heterosexual intercourse, rendering it at best completely pointless, but at worst – and more typically – very damaging, leaving a trail of destruction in the form of dead babies and broken hearts in its wake.

I will allow Henry Makow to better encapsulate exactly what I mean:

“Forget about what you normally think of gay or straight (same-sex , opposite sex attraction etc.) Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and dedicated to rearing children; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake.

Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is a form of arrested development caused by an inability to form a heterosexual bond. As a result, homosexuals compensate using sex as a surrogate for love.”

Does what Henry is saying there about homosexuality not apply perfectly to contracepted, promiscuous heterosexual sex, too? Sex within the context of a loving, committed marriage, with the consequences fully explored, understood, and embraced, is great; sterile, meaningless sex between people who barely know each other – sex for sex’s sake – serves no purpose, and has the capacity only to harm. The comparisons are absolutely clear, and it can be in no doubt that contracepted heterosexual sex shares more in common with homosexual sex than it does with natural sex within an appropriate, loving context.

Seriously, men, please – if you genuinely care about women, please don’t endorse contraception or casual sex, because it is degrading and damaging for women. Let’s create a culture that cherishes female fertility and treats it with the delicacy it requires and deserves, rather than treating it like something terrible to be afraid of.


The Trump Effect, Vol. I: Left Behind


This entry will be the first in a three-part analysis of the recent elections in the United States of America, from which the enigmatic Donald Trump emerged victorious. In the latter two pieces which will be published in the coming days,  I will explore what Trump’s election means from the perspectives of a conspiracy theorist and of a conservative. But first, I want to first explore why Clinton specifically lost; and more broadly, how the left have lost yet another election.

Firstly, I’ve got to begin by extending my congratulations to the next POTUS, Mr. Trump, a man who – despite his imperfections – I believe to be by far the superior candidate (or, if you want to phrase it pessimistically, the lesser of two evils, which even the most anti-Trump conspiracy theorist would have to concede that he is). Even if you believe Trump to be a complete puppet, I urge you to enjoy the aftermath of the election, if for no other reason than to enjoy the hysterical circus that the left has devolved into. No matter who has been elected, whether it be David Cameron or Donald Trump, it is always most entertaining when the candidate the left have been programmed into supporting falls flat on their face.

Now onto the serious stuff. It’s becoming such a regular occurrence that watching the left trying to fathom how they’ve lost another vote is in danger of becoming like Groundhog Day. My own personal customary ritual on these wonderful public holidays (they aren’t officially, but should be) is to go and browse on a few select left-wing internet forums I know of, and see what kind of conclusions they are coming to. Browsing my favourite Marxist forum, I was unsurprised by what they had deduced. Had they realised that Clinton is hated by tens of millions of Americans? Are they finally cognisant of the reality that working-class White America – the majority of the electorate – just aren’t really that interested in the trendy liberal pet causes and identity politics that Clinton had based her campaign on? Has the penny dropped that the Democrats were shockingly inept at addressing the concerns of these people? Has it got through their skulls that bullying, name-calling, and intimidation are not the most effective ways of winning people over to your cause?

No, no, and thrice no.

The reason Clinton flopped so pathetically, according to these great sages, has nothing to do with her or her policies. Clinton holds the ‘right’ views: those progressive, socially liberal views that were implanted into every liberal by the media and academia, and which these edgy young rebels uncritically downloaded into their circuits, to be parroted ad nauseum. No one could possibly rationally or logically analyse and then reject the positions the left have decreed to be indisputably morally correct; unless they are either completely stupid and brainwashed, or irrationally prejudiced against some precious minority group in some way. Our wise liberal friends have unanimously concluded that Trump didn’t vanquish Clinton because his policies and stated aims were more appealing to the average American than the alternative candidate, but because he played up to base prejudices and fears of the white, working-class masses, who are too stupid, ignorantand racist to be able to resist his seductive charms.

This contemptuous, elitist attitude was, of course, of no surprise to me. It’s the usual sanctuary for the wounded left-wing animal; their refuge for when things don’t go their way. We Brexiteers here in Britain were forced to endure similar patronising sneering from the Guardian-reading snobs. We only voted to leave the European Union because we’re idiotic bigots incapable of rational thought, too stupid to see the wonderful, all-encompassing benefits of left-wing social extremism, and thus were easy prey to self-serving liars and xenophobes like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. This is the exact same pompous attitude held by the tolerant, caring liberals towards Trump’s voters; they only voted for Trump because they hate women (I suppose Trump’s legions of female supporters are also misogynistic) and Mexicans (even though almost a third of Latino voters voted Republican), and were won over by his slick, snake oil salesman chicanery – the stupid, gullible, malleable fools.

These aspiring leftist sophocrats derive a (very) false sense of superiority from this ideologically supremacist mindset; which quite literally dehumanises anyone who isn’t a left-wing extremist. We’re idiots. We don’t have the capacity for having real thoughts, opinions, and feelings of our own; we’re just robots, capable only of reacting to stimuli. This leads them to sanctimoniously bestow upon themselves the right to treat us however awfully as they wish to: they call us names, they threaten us, they ostracise us, and they try and censor us – all because we don’t subscribe to what they have deemed to be the ‘correct’ assortment of political views.

Shockingly, treating ordinary people with the same disgust one would treat a rapist or paedophile with doesn’t ever seem to convince them to agree with you – all it does is alienate them (but please, carry on doing it, leftists – all you’re doing is pushing the masses over to our conservative side). Dehumanising those people who form the majority of the electorate you need to win over to your side in that way will certainly not win you an election. The left, in Britain and in America, has now lost three major votes in quick succession: the UK election in 2015, the UK EU membership referendum in June 2016, and now the US election in November 2016. The left failed so miserably in these votes for the same two reasons: 1) thuggish and dishonest campaign tactics; and 2) a fundamental detachment from the major concerns of ordinary, working-class people.

For all the intellectual struggles of the left over the previous few days, doing well in elections isn’t rocket science – to succeed, you properly and convincingly address key issues that concern the core of the electorate (which in America, is still white people with low incomes). Most people are interested in things such as law and order, immigration, security, defence, quality of life, the economy, and so on. In this current climate, many millions of Americans feel disaffected and marginalised by the political establishment that has destroyed their communities, devastated their prospects of succeeding economically, and enforced insane levels of immigration upon local communities; a phenomenon which, – like it or not, leftists – many people find invasive, threatening, and demoralising (and no amount of calling them racists is going to change that, so go back to the drawing board if you ever want to see the insides of the halls of power again).

Well, knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor – Trump tackled these issues in a decisive way during his campaign (whether he is sincere or will follow through on his promises or not is irrelevant in the context of discussing how he won), and thus, he won. Trump spoke about real-world issues that concerned ordinary voters, and he promised emphatic solutions to these problems: the much-derided Mexican wall is a common-sense solution to the HUGE problem of illegal Mexican immigration – 6 million Mexicans live in the USA illegally. Whether YOU, leftist, have a problem with illegal Mexican immigrants or not is immaterial; the electorate DO. Trump has pledged to provide sensible solutions to various issues of national import. Deporting foreign criminals, disallowing terrorists from entering the country, and stemming the flow of cheap Chinese goods into America causing an enormous amount of job losses all sound like good, common-sense policies to me. UKIP has had a lot of success in the past few years here in Britain, for the same reason as Trump – they reach out to the common people and proffer sensible solutions to the serious dilemmas which trouble them.

It’s ironic given that this is the accusation levelled at Trump, but Clinton’s campaign was based on division and identity politics. She hates non-liberal white people, she hates white men, she hates Christians, she hates conservatives, and she hates women who aren’t radical feminists. She made absolutely no effort whatsoever to convince these people – the majority of the electorate – that she had the solutions to the problems affecting them, the problems they cared about. Instead, she – and her armies of privileged, well-heeled metropolitan leftists – uttered empty slogans about “progress”, obsessively focusing on bludgeoning people into accepting ever more ‘progressive’ extremes such as gender-neutral toilets (how out of touch do you have to be to think things of that nature are the chief concerns of ordinary people?).

Here’s the bottom line, leftists: Trump won because he actually addressed the concerns of every day Americans, and because his party didn’t condescend to the largest demographic group – working-class whites. You lost because you’re out-of-touch bullies. It is that simple, and it is exactly why the Remain campaign lost the Brexit referendum. If you ignore and alienate people, they tend not to like you very much. The left will never win another vote in the West until it re-establishes contact with reality, and abandons its thuggish, bullying tactics; and I, for one, will not be shedding any tears at the funeral of the Red beast.

Stay tuned!



The Ulster Question

God’s own province

Preface: I thought that I should add a brief glossary at the start, for people who may be reading from different parts of the world and may not be familiar with Irish political terminology, to ensure there is no misunderstanding, as many terms – such as Ulster and Northern Ireland – are commonly used interchangeably and often incorrectly.

Gaelic: indigenous Irish people; typically Catholic.

Nationalists: people who believe in an all-Ireland republic, free from British control; typically Gaelic and Catholic.

Northern Ireland: a six-county statelet in the northeast of Ireland, belonging to the UK.

The Plantation: the colonisation of Ulster by British settlers, beginning in 1606.

Ulster: a nine-county province in the north of Ireland, with six counties in the UK (Northern Ireland), and the remaining three in the Republic of Ireland.

Unionists: descendants of British settlers in Ulster who believe Northern Ireland should remain in the UK; typically Protestant. Sometimes called loyalists, though that term has paramilitary connotations.

Since the independence of the Irish Free State in the south, and particularly in the context of the Troubles in the north, there has been a trend to – erroneously – conflate Irishness with Gaelicness and Catholicism. It is an understandable mistake to make (indeed, it’s one I used to make myself, when exploring the various aspects of my Irish identity), because the vast majority of the population of the island of Ireland is, indeed, Gaelic and Roman Catholic (at least nominally), and many of the most stereotypical, quintessential aspects of Irish culture are of Gaelic origin; but it is still a mistake. Gaelic and Irish, though closely intertwined terms, are not synonymous. Other flavours of Irishness exist, even though politics leads to them being mislabeled as other than Irish.

We cannot really discuss unionism in Ireland without the speaker clarifying his stance, so I shall provide a bit of personal context. I am an English-born Irishman whose paternal family hails from Munster, and whose maternal family’s roots lay in Ulster. Genetically, I am overwhelmingly Gaelic; however, my mother’s family has a history of mixed-denominational marriages, and so I have a significant amount of relatively recent Protestant, unionist ancestry. I used to identify solely as Gaelic, to the exclusion of my unionist heritage. I, like many Gaelic Irishmen, used to reject Irish / Ulster unionism in all of its forms, viewing it as an un-Irish, anti-Irish expression of foreign triumphalism; a hangover from British colonialism in Ireland. I considered the unionist Ulstermen as foreigners who should accept a united, all-Ireland republic and forsake their culture, or else leave for Britain.

As I’ve matured, I’ve learned to see things from a more balanced, realistic perspective. Please don’t mistake me: I still condemn historical British actions in Ireland in the strongest possible terms, and I still believe wholeheartedly that a unified Ireland is both just and desirable; but we, as nationalists, have to be realistic here. In Ulster dwell 900,000 unionists who strongly identify as British. Rightly or wrongly, these people fear being subsumed in an Irish republic, as they feel that this would lead consequently to the loss of their British unionist identity and their Protestant faith in a numerically Roman Catholic-dominated all-Irish state. These people have been in Ulster for 400 years – they are not going to just go back to Britain, and nor should they be expected to. As someone born and raised in England, I can state that, ironically, Northern Irish unionists come across to the English as very Irish in their speech and mannerisms; I have seen an Englishman innocently refer to a staunch unionist from Belfast as Irish, completely unaware of the offence he’d inadvertently caused. English people generally see no distinction between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and view the political conflict in Northern Ireland as two groups of Paddies fighting each other over religion. The Plantation was centuries ago, and the descendants of the settlers are inextricably interwoven into the fabric of Irish history. Like it or not, since their arrival, the Ulster unionists have left an indelible mark on Ireland; and Ireland has also left an indelible mark on them.

So clearly any radical solution to the ‘Ulster Question’ proposed by either side that involves any form of mass population expulsion or “like it or lump it” intransigence is not going to work, nor is it morally right. The nationalist people in Northern Ireland for years were told to “like it or lump it” despite massive systematic bias and discrimination in housing, jobs, and liberties, with the Royal Ulster Constabulary free to get away with all sorts of hideous abuses against innocent nationalist people, and this is not fair; but two rights don’t make a wrong, and it would not be fair to impose these conditions on the unionist people in a form of collective revenge. If Gaelic nationalists are entitled to keep their cultural identity intact, then so are the unionist people.

I am no huge proponent of democracy, but I think direct democracy is the only fair way in which the issue can be resolved. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland should be changed with the consent of the people by plebiscite, not by politicians. I think where territory is concerned, this is the only way to deal with border disputes in any country: the will of the majority has to be adhered to.

I would like to see a united, independent Ireland, but I do not think it is feasible without the consent of the unionist people. For this to happen, there has to be some readjustment and compromise on both sides. The nationalist people will have to accept that the unionists are devoted to their culture, whatever we may think of it (and I am no fan of the royal family or the Orange Order, believe me!), and that it is their right to wish to secure its place in the world going forward. It is not reasonable for us to expect the unionists to just abandon their culture and embrace all things Gaelic. There has to be some political framework within an all-Ireland republic that the unionist people – who would constitute about 15% of the population in such a republic – can accept. What this is, I do not know, but I think some form of federalism is probably the way forward – perhaps a regional parliament for Ulster, based in Belfast; this would help the unionists to feel as though they have a stake in the government, and a vehicle to preserve their culture with.

On the unionist side, a more honest reappraisal of their very nature is required, for their own sense of collective cultural well-being. There is an unfortunate trend dominant in contemporary Ulster unionism that seeks to distance itself from all things Irish; to treat Ireland as a foreign country, and Irishness as a foreign phenomenon. It is easy to understand how this came to be: in the Troubles, when the enemy were nationalists waving the Irish tricolour, using Irish language slogans, and fighting in Ireland’s name, it would have been very easy to come to see ‘Ireland’ as the enemy. The Troubles was marked by widespread violence on both sides, and this, of course, was traumatic for both communities; and the natural reaction to conflict is to try and dissociate our group from the ‘enemy’.

This is a relatively new phenomenon (post-1950s), and a very regrettable one, because it is completely untrue to say that Northern Ireland’s Protestant, unionist community are not Irish. For a start, look at the name of “our wee country” – it is not Northern Britain, but Northern Ireland! The emblems of many high-profile Northern Irish institutions contain shamrocks (seamróg), harps, and Celtic crosses – imagery associated in the minds of billions of people worldwide with Ireland. Furthermore, the Northern Irish accent has a lot more in common with the accents found in the Republic than it does with English or even Scottish accents; and virtually every single place-name in Northern Ireland is an Anglicisation of an older Gaelic name (Belfast is Béal Feirste, Derry is Doire, Armagh is Ard Mhacha, and so on). It’s a perfectly valid opinion, to believe that Northern Ireland should stay in the UK and not amalgamate with the Republic – but to deny that Northern Ireland is part of Ireland is absolutely absurd. Unfortunately, many of the more blinkered unionists do just that. 


The logos for the Northern Ireland Football Association, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Royal Irish Regiment. All based in Northern Ireland, all institutions treasured by the unionist community, all using quintessentially Irish imagery. And they say Northern Ireland is not Irish?

The problem that has led to this unfortunate case of collective cognitive dissonance is the idea that Irish = Gaelic and Catholic, when in actual fact, Gaelicness and Catholicism are only part (albeit an enormous part) of the rich tapestry of Irishness, not its entirety. The Gaels are the indigenous people of Ireland, and are also the vast majority, so it is not surprising that this misconception has arisen, particularly against the backdrop of ethnic conflict that has characterised the last half-century of Northern Ireland’s history. But being Gaelic and Catholic is not the only way to experience Irishness. Ireland has a long history of British settlers integrating into the Irish social fabric – some Norman colonists loved Ireland so much that they were said to be “more Irish than the Irish themselves”. Many of Ireland’s most celebrated figures were Protestants of British descent – Oscar Wilde, W.B. Yeats, and C.S. Lewis, to name but a few (and, err, Graham Norton is one as well, but we don’t go around shouting about that…). Hell, even Guinness, Bushmills, and Dracula himself were the babies of Irish Protestants! We would never describe any of these people or things as not being Irish (indeed, Guinness and Bushmills market themselves on being Irish; Dracula not so much), because they patently are.

Irishness does not just mean Gaelic and Catholic; Protestants and unionists have exactly the same right to call themselves Irish as those communities do, and once upon a time, they would proudly exercise this right. This identity crisis is a very modern issue. The forefather of Ulster unionism, Edward Carson, was in absolutely no doubt about his national identity, saying on separate occasions:

“I am very proud as an Irishman to be a member of the British Empire.”

“I was born and bred an Irishman and I’ll always be one. The happiest days of my life were in Trinity College, Dublin and at the Irish Bar.”

“We’re both [Tom Kettle] Irishmen, and that is what matters.”

(A selection of quotes about Carson’s Irishness, from Carson himself and from others, can be found here:

Mr. Carson was a staunch unionist: he was absolutely against Ireland – then a part of the United Kingdom – being granted Home Rule; indeed, he was so strongly opposed to this that he was prepared to violently resist any attempt by Britain to install a devolved government in Ireland. And yet, Carson knew that he was an Irishman, and he embraced it; he would have laughed at anyone who suggested that his unionist beliefs somehow nullified his Irishness. Fellow unionist, Brian Faulkner, stated in 1949 about the Republic of Ireland that “they [the south] have no right to the title Ireland, a name of which we [northern unionists] are just as proud as they“. Even unionist firebrand who spent decades of his life campaigning against the Republic of Ireland, the late Ian Paisley, remarked that “I am proud to be an Ulsterman but I am also proud of my Irish roots.”

These men were not labouring under the delusion that unfortunately many modern unionists do, that somehow the designation ‘Irish’ does not apply to them, because they are ‘British’. By denying his Irishness, an Ulster unionist does not only fly in the face of established facts and common sense, but he also denies himself access to his own heritage and his full identity. He may be proud of being British, and he may wish for Northern Ireland to remain in the UK, and both of these things are absolutely valid sentiments – but they should not preclude him from fully acknowledging and embracing his Irishness. It is possible to be both British and Irish, you know? You can feel Irish and British, and yet be opposed to Irish reunification and total independence. Millions of people in Scotland feel Scottish and British, but oppose Scottish independence. There are cultural differences between both communities in Northern Ireland, but the ethnic differences are tiny. The main schism between the two communities is divergent beliefs as to which country – UK or the Republic – should govern what is now Northern Ireland, and sadly this manifests in one community throwing out the Irish baby with the bathwater and shutting themselves off from their Irish heritage. In reality, one can be Irish as well as British: these two identities are not mutually exclusive, and acknowledging one’s Irishness does not diminish one’s Britishness. I am not asking for unionists to hand in their British passports, rip down the Union Jacks from the walls of their homes, and to start singing rebel songs.

It is only the conflict of the last five or six decades that has muddied these Irish waters, polarised opinion, and sundered people from what is rightfully theirs as well.Thankfully, from observing the situation in Northern Ireland, I can see green (no pun intended!) shoots of recovery, with small but increasing numbers of unionists taking an interest in their Irish heritage; schoolchildren from the unionist enclave Shankill in West Belfast play the quintessentially Irish sport of hurling now, and there are even Irish-language classes in the unionist epicentre, East Belfast. Both of these things would have been absolutely unthinkable even 10 years ago, so progress is clearly being made in encouraging Ulster unionists to think of Irishness not as something foreign and threatening, but as something that belongs to them as well as to the nationalists.

Now, I’m not some liberal luvvie who thinks the past 60 years of conflict is just going to melt away in a frenzy of flower-waving, tree-hugging, hands across the barricades. Ethnic conflicts leave painful scars that endure for many years afterwards, and sometimes, like in many areas of life, there is no perfect solution. Lots of families on both sides of the divide have been devastated by paramilitary violence, and who am I – sat here, safe and sound in Old England – to tell them that they should forget that? But, for Irish nationalists, I do think it is important to remember what the Irish tricolour represents: green for the Gaelic Catholic majority; orange for the British-descended, Protestant minority; and white, symbolising peace between the two communities. This sentiment is perfectly encapsulated in the words of Ma from the legendary Northern Irish satirical comedy, Give My Head Peace – “we are all Irishmen together: Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter. We wish to embrace our fellow Irishmen of the unionist tradition.

There can be no 32-county Irish republic until we nationalists do exactly that.