Atticus Fox

Wokeness as Religion

Wokeness is the new sensation that’s sweeping the nation. Its adherents are young and earnest. They have captured the moral high ground from where they sermonise the rest of us (or throw stones at us). Wokeness has many parallels with religion in these Godless times. It’s probably not a coincidence that the weakening hold of Christianity in Western countries mirrors the progession of Wokeness as the new moral code. It’s also probably not a coincidence that Wokeness appears to particularly appeal to those who have shunned Christianity, i.e. Leftists. Christians are quite happy with their existing moral code, hence why Leftists refer disparagingly to the ‘Christian Right’ as they recognise that a group already in possession of a strong framework of morality and tradition is most resistant to the adoption of Wokeness as the new religion. Wokeness is the new religion of the social activists. Layla F. Saad, author of ‘Me And White Supremacy’ writes in the forward to her book that “I strongly believe that anti-racism practice and social justice work are also spiritual work.”.

Below, I have documented the aspects of Wokeness that have strong religious parallels:

1. The Woke love to spread the idealogy of their new belief system to anyone and everyone. However, they shun cold-calling door-to-door (as per Jehovah’s Witnesses) or preaching on street corners (old-school Christians) in favour of sharing crap memes on social media. Boy, they sure love to spread the word. There used to be a joke that asked how you could determine if someone was a vegan. The punchline was: don’t worry, they’ll tell you. Same principle with The Woke.

2. People who query Christian dogma used to be called ‘heretics’. The Woke prefer the terms ‘bigots’; ‘racists’; ‘fascists’; ”transphobes’ etc etc for those that do not accept their dogma. The principle is exactly the same.

3. Catholicism was the default position in medieval society. There was no opt-out. The Catholic church was always on the look-out for insurgent belief systems that they would immediately beat down. At the height of Catholic paranoia about the growth of Protestantism, various persecutions came about, such as ‘The Inquisition’. Such persecutions usually resulted in death. The Woke also feel that their ideology is the one true ideology. These days the persecution meted out to those that criticise the ideology is called ‘Cancel Culture’ whereby The Woke try to destroy your reputation and career. Oh, and if they can find out where you live, they will protest your house and intimidate your family members. Violence by woke devotees is entirely justified against those that do not yield to the new religion in the same way that death by stoning and honour killings are also permissible in certain religions.

4. There are aspects of Christian theology that are hard to swallow. For example, the Virgin birth bit; or that Jesus was resurrected 3 days after burial; or that the communion wafer and wine are the actual body and blood of Christ. However, that is what the church authorities decided was the truth so that is what you need to believe to be a Christian. For ‘The Woke’, similar far-fetched tenets exist to test the faith. For example, they are told that they must believe that a man with a beard who was raised as a boy / man and has male genitalia who then decides he is a woman, IS a woman in every way and no further discussion is required; and that ‘Institutional Racism’ exists.

Also, we must believe that all races are equal despite all evidence to the contrary. And altogether now – ‘Gender is a social construct’.

5. Each religion must surplant the religion that went before it. That is what The Woke are trying to do. Firstly, by advocating that they have the superior moral code, secondly by painting Christians as bigots etc. Judeo-Christian traditions such as family, and culture need to shown up as out-dated or ‘oppressive’ to make room for new traditions. For example, after the Reformation all signs of Catholicism were destroyed – abbeys, convents, icons etc. Christian history will also need to be attacked. This is why statues are being destroyed: they are the new icons in the sights of the iconoclasts. I predict it won’t be long before The Woke start destroying the churches built by their ancestors. In doing so, they will show how ‘progressive’ they are.

6. There is even the idea of ‘original sin’ as represented by ‘privilege’. In Christianity, all people are guilty of ‘Original sin’. In Wokeness, just white people – the ‘privileged’ – are required to abase themselves as a form of penitance which can lead to absolution. This abasement currently takes the form of kneeling before black people; kissing the feet of black people; or using social media to call for white people to become extinct and whiteness to be abolished. Cis-gendered people are also under attack as are straight people who must abase themselves at the feet of the non-binary, genderqueer folk. In essence, minorities are the ‘oppressed’ and majorities are ‘privileged’. White, straight men are a lost cause.

7. The ‘God’ figure in Wokeness is represented by ‘woke’ whites who are the ‘Saviours’ of minorities. The satan figure is represented by ‘non-woke’ whites, aka ‘bigots’.

8. The Woke cling to echo chambers and safe spaces so they do not have to hear heresies. ‘Safe spaces’ are the churches of the new religion. Since the devil cannot be admitted into the church, anyone with non-woke opinions cannot be admitted into spaces occupied by ‘Woke’ devotees.

9. The priests and bishops of the new religion are comprised of white middle class people. Their congregations are the minorities they are trying to ‘save’. Wokeness will save BAMEs and LBGTQs and the disabled and Muslims and women (but only women that truly believe in the cause).

10. Wokeness creates martyrs to the cause in the same way as Christianity. Early woke martyrs are Michael Brown and George Floyd. But not Daniel Shaver.

11. Christianity has its holy trinity in the form of ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost’. The Woke have created their own Holy Trinity that they chant repeatedly to show they are followers of the one true religion: ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’. However, the inclusion part comes with certain caveats: white men need not apply!

Ever since The Enlightenment, we have sought to place Reason before Spirituality. In doing so, we hollowed out religion. Now Spirituality is re-asserting itself over Reason but Christianity is too compromised to be saved, so a new religion is required.

Wokeness is the new religion for those that have lost their religion. It is the religion for those that prioritise feelings over reason. That is why we shouldn’t be surprised that women are in the vanguard of this new movement.

Wokeness is the new religion better suited to the multicultural era: Christianity was too associated with white people. Wokeness puts all minorities at its centre. Minorities have flocked to Wokeness as it gives them unimaginable attention and power.

However, Wokeness does not share the same Universality as Christianity. In Christianity, all of God’s children are loved equally. Wokeness picks and chooses: if you are white, you are racist. White people can seek absolution by trying to become anti-racist ‘allies’ but they will never be fully trusted. Men are part of the patriarchy so will never be fully trusted, even if they do wear ‘This is what a feminist look like’ T-shirts.

White people love Wokeness because they can indulge their ‘white saviour’ complexes.
The young and the middle class are the most likely to fall under the spell of this new religion: the young because they are always looking for ways to rebel against the belief systems endorsed by their parents and the middle classes because they are always looking for ways to differentiate themselves from the working classes. The middle classes will always be drawn to ideologies that are repellent to the working classes. In this way the middle classes can point to the sophistication of their thinking.
Soon the new religion will have its own special dates: perhaps associated with the deaths of martyrs to the cause.
The new religion is Wokeness.

Update 15th March, 2021:

Here is another article on the subject:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/meghan-harry-and-the-rise-of-a-new-religion

Update 1st Feb, 2023 on how religions take shape (from 21st Century Wire):

‘Faiths rise from humble gatherings between a number of people with a shared set of beliefs. With a further aim to expand and bring others into the fold. Their collective grows, and the message expands. A process of refining the narrative to make the barrier to entry streamlined and more appealing. The message has to be simple for all to grasp, yet holding enough complexities that there is a compulsion to engross oneself in the details. Those details are ever moulded and reforged by those with the inner knowledge, under their careful instruction and tutelage you too can be instrumental to bringing about the conclusion. Moving through the stages of becoming an initiate, before a disciple and continuing the recruitment cycle ad-infinitum.‘

https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/02/01/covidianity-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion/

10 Questions for Climate Alarmists

Full disclosure from the outset: I am a sceptic on the question as to whether climate change is a man-made phenomenon. I haven’t always been a sceptic. Until a couple of years ago I was largely a believer. I wasn’t a full on alarmist. I recognised that the earth had always undergone climate change. However, I believed the message I was told that this time it was largely man’s fault. It’s hard not to be a believer. We are hammered with climate alarmism at every turn: extreme weather; more floods; more fires; less ice; less polar bears; melting icebergs; rising sea levels; record temperatures, bleached coral reefs etc etc. We are constantly told that time is running out to save the planet.

However, all that changed rapidly for me a couple of years ago. The catalyst was an article that recommended watching ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Link here. I watched this documentary soon after. It was full of credible arguments by credible people explaining that global warming had nothing to do with humans. Overnight I became a climate change sceptic. Simultaneously, I felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I realised that I had been carrying a low-level anxiety about climate change around with me without being conscious of it. All of a sudden, I had one less (big) thing to worry about. I felt a huge sense of relief. This euphoria stayed with me for a couple of weeks, during which, I was in a really good mood. I really do recommend being a sceptic: not only will you be in possession of a much wider range of information but you will stop feeling the sky is about to fall in on you.

Now, in order to make the world a happier place, I want to create more sceptics.

I have recently started following the climate change science more closely. I know about Michael Mann’s hockey Stick. More recently I have read the criticisms of the Mann’s hockey stick that were levelled at Mann by Steve McIntrye and Ross McKitrick. These criticisms focused on the assumptions and the modelling and the statistical analysis that were used by Mann.

I don’t deny that the climate on earth changes. I just dispute that mankind’s activities are responsible for those changes. Here are 10 questions that should be asked of any Climate Alarmist. If they can’t answer these questions, they really don’t know what they are talking about:

1) How do you explain the previous periods of global warming and cooling?

The cool periods are known as ‘ice ages’. We all know about ice ages. We think of them as occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago whereas, in reality, the last one finished 12000 years ago yet there was a short cold a snap, known as the ‘Little Ice Age’, that followed the Medieval Warm Period and ended in about 1850. Plus which, there were genuine fears as recently as the 1970s that earth was heading for another ice age as temperatures had been cooling for the previous 30 years. Earth’s warm periods are less well known: there was a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ which lasted from about 1000AD to about 1300AD. There was also a warm period during the 1930s/40s (the cooling from which lead to fears of a new ice age in the 1970s). These are just 2 of many present in the temperature record. However, there is much information about the warm periods in this link:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

2) Are you aware that the temperature of the Earth reached its 20th century peak in 1998 and that, since then, there has been a slight cooling?

You almost certainly will not be aware because it is not something the mainstream media (MSM) promotes. The MSM always promotes climate alarmism because the MSM always pushes bad news over good news.

https://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-halt-in-warming/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

3) Why have the warmer 21st century temperatures we were warned were coming not arrived?

The computer models created by Climate Change scientists in the 1990s predicted accelerating temperatures after 2000. Yet that hasn’t happened. In fact we’ve seen cooler weather. That tells me the models are wrong which means the assumptions underpinning the models are wrong.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-who-are-the-deniers-now/

4) Have you read any criticisms of Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’?

The ‘Hockey Stick’ is the single most famous piece of Global Warming propaganda in the public domain. It shows a graph of ever-warmer future temperatures. Yet the Hockey Stick model was produced using bad science and bad mathematics. The ‘Hockey Stick’ model used a distortion of timescales and also removed the Medieval Warm Period in order to achieve its effect.

Below I have included a link to a piece by Ross McKitrock that summarises the criticisms of the Hockey Stick. In summary of that summary, Ross points out flaws in Mann’s statistical analysis and multiple instances of Mann’s obtuseness when questioned about his approach. Some extracts are here…

A very brief summary of the problems of the hockey stick would go like this. Mann’s algorithm, applied to a large proxy data set, extracted the shape associated with one small and controversial subset of the tree rings records, namely the bristlecone pine cores from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. The trees are extremely long-lived, but grow in highly contorted shapes as bark dies back to a single twisted strip. The scientists who published the data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region, and is probably biased by other factors.

Mann’s method exaggerated the significance of the bristlecones so as to make their chronology out to be the dominant global climatic pattern rather than a minor (and likely inaccurate) regional one; Mann then understated the uncertainties of the final climate reconstruction, leading to the claim that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium, a claim that was not, in reality, supportable in the data. Furthermore, Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies, most of which were only resolved by the interventions of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine, both of whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after publication of his original Nature paper.

Mann had re-done his hockey stick graph at some point during its preparation with the dubious bristlecone records excluded and saw that the result lost the hockey stick shape altogether, collapsing into a heap of trendless noise. However he never pointed this out to readers.

And…

Mann’s PC [principal components] step was programmed incorrectly and created two weird effects in how it handled data. First, if the underlying data set was mostly random noise, but there was one hockey stick-shaped series in the group, the flawed PC step would isolate it out, generate a hockey stick composite and call it the dominant pattern, even if it was just a minor background fluctuation. Second, if the underlying data consisted of a particular type of randomness called “red noise”—basically randomness operating on a slow, cyclical scale—then the PC step would rearrange the red noise into a hockey stick-shaped composite. Either way, the resulting composites would have a hockey stick shape for the LS [least squares] setup to glom onto and produce the famous final result.

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf

5) Are you aware that Climate Change scientists such as Mann, Bradley & Hughes refused to release their computer models for independent scrutiny?

As such, no one is allowed to know what assumptions they have made and whether those assumptions are valid:

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the Climatic Research Unit up to December 2009, the university refused 77, accepted six in part, had 11 outstanding, and had only 10 were released in full. One was withdrawn.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientists-freedom-information-act

This is not how scientists should be behaving. The scientific method requires scientists to document their findings and make all their data available. Other scientists are then invited to analyse the approach for possible flaws in either the approach or the conclusions drawn. The scientific method requires that findings should be repeatable. This is how the body of scientific knowledge is built: through a continuous process of criticism, refinement and validation. For Mann and his colleagues to keep their data and assumptions secret is a red flag.

Some information was released following a campaign and Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrock criticised what they discovered upon their reviews of the work.

I did intend to include a number of those criticisms in this post. However, they become pretty technical pretty quickly.

As such, I have summarised McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms in a separate blog piece, found here

For the best context it is best if you read the document in its entirety.

Here is a link to that document:

https:r//climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf

6) Are you aware that inferred temp data from tree rings does not match real world temp records since reliable temp recording has been in place?

Climate Change scientists use proxy data in place of temperature data for periods where there are no temperature records, I.e most of history. However, they seem to pick and choose which proxies they use in order to give them the temperature record they want. The reliability of the proxies is questionable. For example, tree ring analysis has been used as the primary temperature proxy. Yet, during the last 60 years where real temp data has been available, the inferred temp from the tree rings does not match the observed temps: the tree data indicated temperatures cooler than the actual temperature records. This tells us that temp inferences from tree rings is very unreliable. Yet, the IPCC report of 2001 did not point this out. The IPCC report showed a composite temperature graph comprised of models submitted by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998-9), Jones’ modelling and Briffa modelling of tree records (2000). The Composite graph suggested that ALL models showed recent temperature increases. The decline in the Briffa series was removed and replaced with actual temperature records so that all models appeared in agreement. There was no footnote in the IPCC report that highlighted this manoeuvre.

Mann’s ‘Nature Trick’ represented in cartoon form

More details here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/how-the-trick-was-pulled-off/

7) Are you aware that current levels of CO2 are not high in the context of the Earth’s entire history?

We know from our fossil record that CO₂ levels throughout Earth’s history have averaged more than six times our modern concentrations. We also know that nuclear submarines submerged beneath the ocean for weeks at a time, average 5000 ppm CO₂, with no health problem ever reported.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/06/climate-alarmists-winning-the-war-of-words-despite-evidence-that-nothing-unusual-is-happening/

8) Are you aware there is no link between CO2 levels having an affect on global temperatures?

Antarctica has had the longest continuous accumulation of ice. It has provided data going back 800,000 years, while data from Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere gives CO₂ data going back into the last interglacial period 128,000 years ago. Temperature and CO₂ levels have varied during this long period, and importantly, temperature changes preceded changes in CO₂. In other words, carbon dioxide has NOT driven temperatures for the last 800,000 years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/06/climate-alarmists-winning-the-war-of-words-despite-evidence-that-nothing-unusual-is-happening/

9) Are you aware that the much quoted ‘97% of Climate Change Scientists agree that Climate Change is real and that man’s impact is to blame’ is not true?

In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

https://youtu.be/SSrjAXK5pGw

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

10) Have you heard of ClimateGate?

No? That’s a shame.

ClimateGate revealed lots of information about the skulduggery perpetuated by a group of leading climate scientists:

Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-warming agenda…The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him [Dr. Phil Jones] and his colleagues to block FoI requests from climate sceptics who wanted access to emails, documents and data.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/03/climate-scientists-freedom-information-act

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

These 10 questions should be enough to make people question their understanding of climate change. If people want to read more, I recommend these links…

Links:

Since watching the documentary, I have investigated further. I have read a great many articles about climate change written by climate realists.

Here are links to the climate realism websites that I have been reading:

This is Steve McIntyre’s website: https://climateaudit.org/

This is Ross McKitrick’s website: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html

This is Antony Watts’ website: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is Tom Nelson’s website: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

Other websites:

https://www.technocracy.news/extensive-anthology-refutes-man-made-global-warming/

https://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

https://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/

https://www.climatedepot.com/

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/author/co2islife/

A Robust Defence of Western Culture

Immigration is the battleground for Western Culture. Leftists say there’s no such thing as white culture. Therefore, there’s nothing to protect from mass immigration. They feel we need to import culture.

I can’t decide whether such Leftists are ignorant or lying to further their own warped ideology. A lot of both, probably.

However, to counter such bone-headedness, I have created a list of cultural achievements of the West. My definition of ‘The West’ is Europe and places of European descent such as North America, Australia and New Zealand.

Fashion – there is no doubt that Western Couture, both High and Low, is the dominant fashion style in the World. The world has adopted Western modes of dress.

Fine dining – Michelin restaurants, cook books, cooking programmes. The West has taken cooking to the next level.

Science – The West has been more successful at understanding the world around them than any other civilisation in the history of the world. We identified the elements in the periodic table. We took man’s understanding of physics, chemistry, maths and biology to new levels. Europeans have dominated the scientific Nobel prizes.

Exploration – The inquisitiveness of the West lead us to navigate the globe. As such, we colonised the New World and Australia and New Zealand. We charted the Arctic and the Antarctic. We mapped the world. Oh, and we put men on the moon. Then we explored the solar system.

Inventions – We invented airplanes. And cars. And computers. And steam engines. We harnessed electricity. And nuclear power. We put man on the moon. Some more: touch screen devices, the internet, telescopes, the internal combustion engine, the light-bulb. There are quite a few. Pretty much every device that constitutes the modern world was invented by the West. Telephones, radar, radio, television…there are just so many.

Christianity – we have our own religion in the West that has underpinned our success for almost 2,000 years. Christianity provided us with a moral framework that we stuck to fairly rigidly. This framework gave us a unity of purpose and behaviour that kept us on track and nurtured social cohesion. The decline of Christianity has led to the splintering of our moral code and the destruction of social cohesion.

Art – The West, starting with the Greeks, took art to new highs in many mediums – sculpture, painting, metal-work etc

Architecture – Again, it started with the Greeks, with Classical Architecture, and has progressed to Romanesque, Gothic, Early English, Decorated, Perpendicular, Renaissance, Baroque, Modernism, Post-Modernism. The West leads the way with architecture.

Separation of Church and State – The West led the way in separating government from the church. This is critical to creating a government and a legal system that isn’t hide-bound by religious dogma. It allows, in theory, government to make practical decisions.

Law – Because of the separation of church and state, the West has been able to develop robust, equitable legal systems. For example, we developed jury trials where a man’s guilt is determined by 12 of his peers rather than by a politician or a religious leader. Other non-Western countries, such as Japan and India, have subsequently adopted jury trials.

Democracy – The word itself is Greek in origin. European Democracy is a thing of rare beauty in the history of mankind.

Gardening – Think of the formal gardens of French, Italian and English stately homes. Think of the progress in horticulture made in the West. My non-Western neighbour doesn’t give a shit about gardening : his entire garden is laid to lawn – no flowerbeds, no shrubs, no trees – and he pays someone to mow his lawn. Westerners have made gardening their own.

Liberalism – Does this exist anywhere else?

That is Western Culture. And if some snivelling Social Justice Warrior tells you that whites appropriated everything from other cultures, tell them that just proves our superiority: we can make better use of things other cultures don’t know what to do with.

The Left and Islam: A Civil Ceremony Made in Pragmatism

The Left and Islam have formed an informal coalition. The deal is that Muslims will vote ‘Labour’ while the Labour Party has agreed to introduce blasphemy protections for Islam that are not afforded to any other religion:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/labour-formally-adopts-definition-islamophobia

In some ways this alliance makes perfect sense: the nativity of Leftists fits perfectly with the machiavellianism of Islam: Muslims know that Labour is prepared to provide the UK’s Islamic community with whole-hearted support as Labour unquestioningly supports all minority groups.

William Kilpatrick explained the Left’s attitude to Islam as:

‘It looks upon Muslims as a victim class which has been held back by capitalism, colonialism, racism, and, of course, “Islamophobia.” Left-liberals may even believe that Islam is a religion of peace which has gotten a bad press. A poll of Democrat voters taken a few years ago revealed that they believed Islam to be no more violent than Christianity. Leftists do, however, understand that Islam is no friend of Christianity. So they believe that they can work together with Islamic groups to achieve mutual goals.’

And the muslim’s view of Leftists:

‘For their part, radical Muslims tend to see leftists as useful idiots. They are willing to play the oppressed victim role that leftists have assigned to them if it will further their own interests.’

However, there will always be natural fault lines in any alliance between a group of progressives and a group of fundamental conservatives. Hence, the alliance looks ever more unstable as Labour has lurched to the far Left over the last 10 years. The Uber-progressive policies endorsed by Labour seem increasingly at odds with the doctrines of Islam.

First, let’s look at the areas of similarity:

Totalitarian – The default tendancy of the Left is very authoritarian in nature. The Left likes Big Government because Big Governments tell everyone how to behave. The Left only pays pays lip service to democracy. The Left have shown time and time again that they would accept a Totalitarian regime so long as it was a Leftist regime. This has many parallels with Islam – muslims like Totalitarian regimes, so long as they are Islamic regimes. Religions are totalitarian in nature.

Against womens rights – This seems bizarre when one thinks of all the Leftist Feminists out there. However, for the Left, ideology always trumps principle. Hence, the Left do not care about women’s sport being destroyed by trans-women with their size, strength and hormone advantages. Nor does the Left care about the treatment of Muslim women by muslim men. Leftists certainly don’t care about the treatment of white, under-age girls by Muslims. The only women’s rights Leftists give a damn about are white middle class women: The Left screams blue-murder if a white man touches a women without her explicit consent. Yet they give a free pass to muslims to subjugate all women: muslim women via FGM, and sharia law and western women via gang rape.

Open borders – Muslims know that Labour are in favour of unlimited immigration which gives them more chance to fill the UK with as many Muslims as want to come here. The Left need lots more voters. As such, they are delighted to welcome unlimited numbers of muslims to the UK. Muslims want to come to the UK. Win-win.

Public money – Labour love to spend tax-payer money and so do muslims. Muslims know that Labour will always support greater expansion of the welfare state which guarantees homes for all those new Muslim arrivals and means that in future ever fewer UK Muslims will need to work:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4411913/just-one-in-five-muslims-are-in-work-as-report-finds-they-are-held-back-by-racism/

Overthrow of society – the Left are desperate for total equality right now. They dream of the socialist utopia they will build. Of course, they will have to dismantle all institutions that support inequality. Everything must be rebuilt from scratch to ensure it does not perpetuate white patriarchy. Muslims would love to help The Left with destroying western civilisation. Muslims may have a slightly different view of what replaces it but all that can be ironed out when the time comes…

Hating the UK – Both hate the British. The modern Left spends most its time calling everyone that disagrees with them ‘Racist’. The rest of the time is spent criticising British history and defacing statues. Islam shows its dislike by raping our girls and murdering some of us from time to time.

Anti-Semitism – Leftists are not keen on Jews. They pretend that their animus is solely anti-Zion but the counterfuge is so wafer thin that we can all see through it. It has become so obvious that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had to take a look. It just so happens that Muslims are not terribly keen on Jews either. What are great opportunity for some candid conversations between the two groups!

It can be seen that there are many similarities between the Left and Islam. This is why they have become allies. Also, it suits them both: Islam needs a political force that will provide unquestioning support while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the many negative aspects of their culture – treatment of women, jihadism, Hyper-sensitivity to criticism, Power displays, religious fundamentalism etc and the Left need the increasing numbers of votes that Islam delivers them.

However, there are also many sources of tension: the Left is obsessed with the destruction of the family, with sexual permissiveness, with LGBT agenda, with women’s rights (white, middle class women only), with trans rights and with secularism. These issues could cause tensions between the two groups in the future. We have already seen evidence of this at Anderson Park School in Birmingham:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/protests-over-lgbt-equality-restart-16904018

However, until they can win power, they will continue to overlook these differences. Leftists see Muslims as a permanent ally. I suspect that Muslims’ view of Leftists is based much more on short term expediency. Once Labour has created the islamophobia legislation, Muslims will have much more leeway to express themselves.

Your Labels Are Wrong. Here Are Your New, Ideologically Correct Labels…

Social Justice Warriors, specifically, and The Left, generally, no longer want us to refer to places as terms of reference. You should not describe yourself as an Englishman. This label is not inclusive because only people born in England have the right to use that term. As such, the term is racist because Englishmen are, historically, white. The term is also racist because it is a nationalist term and nationalism is racist. We are also told the term is a white supremacist term because, the act of referring to yourself by your nationality is to suggest that your nationality is superior to other nationalities which, if you’re white, is oppressive to brown people. It’s all very ‘problematic’.

The Left don’t like nationalism. Unless, it’s Scottish nationalism which is ok because the Scots have been oppressed by the English for centuries. Brown people can also be nationalistic because they have almost certainly been oppressed by white people for centuries. Basically, anyone is allowed to be a nationalist except for anyone from a white country that ever won a war.

The Left would prefer us to define ourselves by our gender and race and sexuality and religion. However, only brown people can reference their religion. It can become a bit complicated. Here are some examples that should clarify things:

1. ‘I am a non-binary, Asian woman’ = This is good. This Asian woman is acknowledging that we are all on the spectrum of sexuality

2. ‘I am a differently-abled, muslim Iranian man’ = As an oppressed man from an oppressed country, this man is correct to define himself in this way.

3. ‘I am a transgender, black woman’ = We feel you pain, sister. Have you considered entering the Olympics?

4. ‘I am a heterosexual, white, Christian woman’

The 4th one is clearly not correct – Christianity and whiteness are both oppresive identities. Hearing both of these terms in the same sentence will be very threatening to many different groups. Also, heterosexuality oppresses sexual minority groups. This would have read better as:

‘I am a woman’ = This is good. Even better would be…

‘I am a cis-woman’.

My point is that our cultural overlords are simply replacing the old labels with new labels. The old labels related to places (and sometimes to class). The new labels relate to identity groups. All in the name of inclusivity. However, the new labels are much more divisive then the old labels. Before, we could all state we were English. Now there are hundreds of identity groups, all agitating against other. Where once there was social cohesion, now there is none. Now there are just endless identity groups, each group worrying that other identity groups receive more sympathy or advantages (either financial or social) or publicity than they are. Social trust has been replaced with social tension.

A cynic would suggest that dividing us into identity groups makes us much easier to control because it limits our ability to unite behind a common goal. Divide and conquer, anyone?

Toxic Femininity

Bill Burr said in his ‘Paper Tiger’ stand-up recently…

“The world is fucked up and I think white women started it”

He’s right. However, to be more specific, the problem is Leftist white women. And to be very specific, it’s middle class, Leftist, white women. Whenever I refer to ‘women’ in this piece, please realise I am referring to middle class, Leftist, white women. There are huge numbers of normal women out there who like men and don’t feel the need to jump on the man-hating bandwagon that the Leftists are driving up the pavement. I think many women are feeling split loyalties: they have grown up with the idea of ‘feminism’ as a noble cause but are horrified by what it has become.

Women have been pummelling men over the last few years about ‘toxic masculinity’. Women are making men feel bad about themselves so that they can take advantage of yet more benefits they can add to those numerous benefits over men that they currently enjoy.

It is clear to me that women are at the forefront of everything that is bad in Western societies these days:

1) Climate Alarmism – It’s mostly women. From Greta downwards. Any time a camera crew attends a climate demonstration, all the vox pops are with women. It’s women who are the most zealous that something has to change right now or we will all die. However, it is clear that they know nothing of the subject. They have leveraged scare stories on the news to spin themselves into a vortex of anxiety.

2) 4th wave feminism – Look at them! Observe their objectives. Modern feminism is nothing to be lauded. Sensible thinking people can see that women have all the same rights as men. Feminism won! But winning is not good enough now. 4th wave feminists want to grind men into the dirt. Feminism has descended into petty vindictiveness. Feminism is now a proxy for socialism. Joanna Williams writes:

‘Modern day feminism is a totalitarian ideology, through which its proponents aim to achieve power. It aims to control and regulate behaviour – down to trivial details of what you can say, do, and even think – in pursuit of the eternal goal of ‘equality,’ which will never be reached. It persuades women that they are oppressed’.

3) Free speech blockers – Again, it seems that white, middle class, Leftist woman are the main protagonists of this sort of behaviour. It’s women at universities blocking events and people they don’t agree with. It’s women that want to block debates on contentious issues like transgenderism and Islam. It’s women claiming they feel unsafe and require safe spaces.

4) Anti-vaxxers – Virtually always women. That’s what happens when you confuse ‘social science’ for real science. Most women do not have science background. As such, they allow themselves to be led by their ‘feelings’. Logic does not feature heavily in their thought processes. So they base decisions on what they consider fair or equitable based on their lived experience. This approach is not going to lead to good decisions.

https://www.livescience.com/anti-vaxxers-try-to-change-name.html

5) Identity politics: women are at the forefront of this movement. Women are the ones signing up to protect transgender rights. Same for protections against Islamophobia. Women have a natural tendency to stop bullying so if any group say they are being bullied, women leap to their defence without considering: a) is the accusation of bullying justified? b) what are the impacts elsewhere if we ban all criticism of the behaviours of certain groups?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/12/labour-leadership-row-over-support-for-trans-rights-charter

6) Open borders: Significant numbers of advocates for increased immigration are women.

Christopher DeGroot has written a couple of articles that point out less discussed aspects of female behaviour:

The University of Narcissism, October, 2019

I do not think we can understand the steep decline of academia without considering the rise and role of women, who are very influential in university administrations, especially when it comes to identity politics. It is certainly not difficult to imagine an all-male or male-dominated context being insensitive, harsh, or cruel. Yet it is surely impossible that the tyranny of precious feelings that we now see in academia would occur in any all-male or male-dominated context. In these endless stories about hurt feelings on college campuses, women students, women professors, and women administrators are massively overrepresented, like the neurotic student who, failing to separate her personal “issues” from academic performance, believed that she got a D because she’s a lesbian. (Of course, other groups—blacks, Jews, gays, trans persons—are also overrepresented in such stories, but of all these groups, women are by far the most numerous, and hence the most influential.)
Such a failure, however, is quite in keeping with what we know about the nature of sex differences. On average, women are more sympathetic to others’ feelings than men. They are also higher in neuroticism. So they tend to be more upset by “insensitive speech” than men, and being more egalitarian, more conformist, and less open to ideas than men, more likely to want to censor it, and to punish those who don’t conform to progressive groupthink, whereby anything you don’t like is evidence of your perpetual victimization.
Again, I am speaking in terms of averages, of statistical group differences—and in our huge country, there are, let me stress, many tolerant, open-minded, nonconforming women. Nevertheless, as in journalism and in publishing, the collective influence of women in academia seems to be rather baleful, and I do not see, based on the evidence so far, that a thriving academia is compatible with having a large number of women in it.
Christopher DeGroot, Takimag

Second article: The Return of Patriarchy, November, 2017

The Return of Patriarchy

Women, moreover, largely lack a sense of justice, where the word denotes conscious, abstract duty; they are mostly feeling and caprice, irrational and maternal. Hence, although they are more sympathetic than men, they are frequently effortless vampires, without scruple or conscience. And so, in the hypocritical Nathaniel Hawthorne fiction that is America, we constantly have women “coming forward,” decades after the fact to opportunistically allege “harassment” about what in most cases were de facto bartering arrangements with powerful men. Such shameless lying is far less common among men. For women, it is just another weapon in the general arsenal of deceit, along with the fake cry, the shit test, “the talk” that doesn’t reveal the actual issue, and so on.
It is often remarked that men are more assertive and straightforward than women. The reason we are is obvious: We are bigger and stronger, and so can afford to be. Hence the old male practice of quickly clearing the air—confronting one another, often with violence—and then moving on. Two men slug it out, and afterwards have a beer. That is real respect, something earned. This is an advantage—and burden—that women, with their smaller and weaker bodies, do not have. Hence their characteristic passive-aggressiveness, pettiness, disingenuousness, dissimulation, resentment, vindictiveness, backstabbing, group shaming, and willingness to ruin people’s lives—especially men’s—in order to exercise the deep spirit of revenge that is so central to them. It is indeed the way of women, when things do not go as they wish, to exploit the public’s instinctive paternalism. In such situations, our natural and noble desire to protect women from bad men passes unperceived into the strongest element of human nature: sheer evil and the desire to make others suffer, which, being conveyed under the guise of righteousness, is of such subtlety that few people can perceive the error and hypocrisy. So it happens that men all across the country have had their lives ruined by female manipulation and paternal herd virtue, a phenomenon that has been well documented by Laura Kipnis, KC Johnson, Stuart Taylor Jr., and others.
Reviewing Joanna Williams’ important new book, Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating From the Gender Wars, Ed Dutton relates “how feminists abuse statistics” concerning the representation of women in academia and the workforce. Feminists also take care to propagate the myth of the wage gap. For feminism is defined by victimhood, and as such, it will not concede progress or acknowledge real justice. The problem, for feminists, is that equal opportunity leads inexorably to the massive demonstration of women’s inferiority to men. IQ tests continually show that, compared with men, women do not think very well (i.e., with supreme intelligence), and therefore most are incapable of understanding complex contexts and keeping up with the ablest men. Accordingly, even in 2017, men dominate science, technology, Congress, and indeed everything wherein exceptional ability is required. There are still no great women philosophers, scientists, or artists on the level of Aristotle, Newton, and Bach. It is not even close and never will be.
Whether they incoherently demand “equality” or not, women shall remain fundamentally manipulative. Scholars have documented what we all notice as teenagers: that women establish value and so obtain power by shaming men and women alike. Such wicked strategy is inherent in female psychology. Most people, of course, believe women are less aggressive than men. That appearance is deceiving, however, because women’s aggression is usually carefully concealed, a crafty affair. Unfortunately for them, most men do not have the discernment to notice their pretty puppet master’s strings. Women, to be sure, want to be valued no less than men do. Beauty is to women as ambition is to men. The two goals, indeed, are complementary, both aiming indirectly at coupling and the propagation of children. And what women—who, in their own way, are as driven as men are by the will to be valued, whether as regards beauty or their role in the workplace—lack in physical strength and mental ability, they more than compensate for with subterranean guile. Because she is weaker than man, woman obtains her ends as a dissimulator—a fox to his lion. Thus feminists, like so many catty schoolgirls, will continue griping about “gender inequality,” appealing to men’s natural but usually myopic paternalism and to the deep resentment of their own sex as they endeavour to actualize their gender dystopia.
Christopher DeGroot, Takimag

Women Behaving Manly

Every single advance in liberal values since WW2 has been championed by feminists as a vital step in the battle for the emancipation of women:

– The contraceptive pill (allowing women to be in control of their fertility)

– Easier divorces (providing women with more power to leave abusive husbands).

– Reduced stigma of single parenthood (thereby, reducing the fear of ostracism that mothers might face if they were to divorce their husbands. Also, reducing the stigma that never-married mothers might face for any lack of sexual discipline).

– Liberalisation of sexual attitudes (thereby, allowing women to pursue a sexual life with the same vigour as men).

– Easier access to abortion (meaning women are not left holding the evidence of their poor sexual choices).

– Online dating (meaning that women can take control of their dating rather than be passive participants).

Every single one of these victories has enabled men to have ever more sex with greater numbers of women.

People will reply that women are also having a lot more sex. True. But more sex with more partners is an outcome that favours men more than women, because:

– Women carry the risk of pregnancy (and abortion).

– Women are at greater risk of physical and sexual assault from men they don’t know very well.

– Taking into account women’s shorter fertility window, women need men that will commit to relationships. Yet, giving men access to unlimited amounts of casual sex, reduces men’s need to commit.

– Women are less suited, psychologically, to casual sex (because women like to form deeper, more meaningful relationships and so are unprepared when men cast them aside after sex). Women are geared towards feeling that their sexual favours are sacred gifts that can be used to hypnotise men into falling in love. They really don’t know men!

– A woman’s sexual allure no longer has the value it once did. Women could once use their sexual allure to benefit themselves in some way: to entrance a potential mate / husband or to obtain something else they wanted – E.g. jewellery, influence, the head of Holofernes etc. Once upon a time, a man stood very little chance of having sex with a woman that he desired. Women were aware of the value of their chastity and took advantage of that power. This caused men to go to great lengths in the pursuit of sex: men would adopt any behaviour that might give them an advantage in the pursuit of female attention: men would be polite; men would dress to impress; men would work hard to earn money to show that they could ensure a woman’s comfort; men would be prepared to marry early in order to secure the best women. These days, women no longer protect the value of their sexual allure: they offer sex so readily that sex with a woman is commonplace and, consequently, of no value. Therefore, men need not make any effort with those traditional behaviours. Women lose out by no longer being surrounded by men that are prepared to make a huge effort to please them.

More sex has undoubtedly benefitted men more than it has women. Women are working against their own best interests.

Why are women behaving like men?

It seems like women are behaving like men, not so much because they want to, but because they can. Also, there is huge pressure put on women by the media to behave like men. It’s part of the efforts by Leftists to remove any differences between the genders. We’re all the same, they tell us. Any differences are due to social conditioning. The blank slate. Tabula rasa.

Liberal women seem to feel that female emancipation is not about giving women choices. Instead, the message they promote is that women must shun their former roles and try to beat men at their own game.
Many women, especially leftist women just don’t know how they are supposed to behave these days. Feminists tell women that they mustn’t behave like their mothers because their mothers were bad feminists. Their mothers supported the Patriarchy by foregoing their careers to raise their children and by being a housewife and wearing pretty dresses etc. So, instead young women try to behave like men and, why not? They are told that men have all the power and that gender is just a social construct so why not behave like men. Perhaps that is the secret to having all the power? So women try to ape male behaviour, i.e. being aggressive and having casual sex. But it’s a very misguided and confused version of how men behave because they’re just pretending and in reality they’re a bit lost because they are no longer allowed to act like women. And let’s not forget that huge numbers of young women were raised by their mothers without the constant presence of a father in their lives. As such, they only have a vague and distorted idea of what men are like. So they’re pretending to be something they don’t understand. Hence, why large numbers of young woman behave so bizarrely.

Consequently, women are deciding not to have children in record numbers. Or when they tire of the ‘cock-carousel’, they realise that the only men left to choose from are infantilised men that can’t commit because they have grown accustomed to easy sex.

I foresee a future where huge numbers of middle aged women will heavily regret the life choices they made in their youths.

Western Society is Being Balkanised

What we are seeing in Western society is a systematic attempt to balkanise Western culture.

Balkanise: divide (a region or body) into smaller mutually hostile states or groups.

The traditions and cultural mores of any society provide social cohesion and a unity of purpose for the peoples of that society. However, the rules that have governed human interactions for thousands of years are being destroyed by ‘progressives’.

What will remain will be a quivering, pulsating wreck of a culture that has been torn apart by its contradictions and loss of direction.

Balkanisation has already happened in the Art world. We have only have to look at modern art to realise what happens when the rules are thrown out. Subjectivity replaces objectivity.

There used to be a gradual progression to art. New forms and styles came in rarely. Part of the reason for this is that those elites that controlled the dissemination of art pushed back against changes to what was considered ‘art’. A famous example of this relates to the introduction of impressionism:

Impressionism coalesced in the 1860s when a group of painters including Claude Monet, and Renoir and others started pursuing a new form of painting. However, the art produced by these painters was not accepted by the organisation that had overseen the art world standards since 1667, the Academie des Beaux-Arts. This conflict between what these painters wanted to create and what was deemed permissible by the governing body of art led to a famous insurrection. The group held their own exhibition in 1874 that was an alternative to the ‘Salon de Paris’ exhibition held by the Academie. The exhibition they staged comprised works that had been submitted to the Salon but rejected by the Academie. Soon enough the group organised themselves as ‘Impressionists’. This label originated from an insult hurled by the press at one of Monet’s paintings, Impression, Sunrise.

And so a new art movement came of age.

There have been many art movements throughout human history: Prehistoric art; Ancient art; Medieval art; Renaissance art; Baroque art; Neoclassicism; Romanticism; Realism; Impressionism; Art Nouveau; Post Impressionism; Fauvism; Expressionism; Cubism; Surrealism; Abstract Expressionism; Pop Art; Contemporary Art.

Each movement had its own style and its own superstars that founded the movements for which they were the leading ambassadors. (Think Picasso for Cubism; Magritte for Surrealism; Warhol for Pop Art etc). Art started to become all about the artist. Each movement lasted less time than the movements that had preceded it. Art was speeding up. Art was shifting and splintering into new forms of expression all the time. The rules that dictated what was or wasn’t art were worn away. At some point art as something that could be appreciated objectively became something that could only be appreciated subjectively. Art required an explanation. Art could no longer be understood as reflecting universally recognised themes or symbolism or talent. And so we are now in the latest and, possibly, final art movement: Contemporary Art. Contemporary Art is the catch-all label that we use to describe any art that is produced these days. There are no art ‘movements’. There are no ‘movements’ because there are no rules. It is called ‘art’ yet we, the non-artworld punters don’t know why it’s art. We don’t get to decide what is or isn’t art. The liberal elites that curate Contemporary Art galleries decide what is art. Art is subjective, not objective. Liberal elites have assumed the power to help us navigate the subjective pathways that they, and only they, control. We, the punters, must accept what we are told by our cultural overlords. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret. The Liberal Elites are in Control.

As it was with Art, so it will be with Society.

Society is experiencing the same balkanisation that happened in the art world. For the last two thousand years, we were all bound by the same rules of biblical morality: The 10 Commandments; personal responsibility; the importance of family; care for your fellow man; modesty; putting the needs of others before your own etc. People who transgressed these rules could expect to be ostracised in some way. The opprobrium of your fellow man ensured that everyone attempted to keep within the rules. The rules were objective: they applied to everyone and everyone understood what they were. The Catholic Church was the gatekeeper for morality. As such, the Catholic Church was the equivalent of the Academie des Beaux Arts: the ultimate arbiter of the conventions we should all abide by. However, biblical morality started to lose its power. Human morality started changing. New moralities emerged. The power of stigma weakened. Divorce became an empowering lifestyle choice. Homosexuality was accepted, then celebrated. The Pill freed women to have consequence-free sex. Therefore, a new morality was required to accommodate casual sex. Old morality was about putting others first. New morality became all about putting yourself first. Thus, the family unit reduced in importance. Religion declined. dramatically.
The rules that dictated morality were worn away. People started to create bespoke versions of morality based on their own lived experience. We were told we had the right to live our lives however we wanted. Ego-driven debauchery followed. Immigration introduced new cultures. Our cultural overlords used this as an opportunity to further undermine Western traditions: our traditions offend newcomers so we must suppress our Judeo-Christian heritage. Gradually, we are made to feel that all Western traditions are exclusionary or offensive or racist.

Since 2014, things have sped up. Identity politics has taken hold. This is a significant step towards the balkanisation of society. We are not Englishmen or Americans or Christians. Now we must define ourselves by our gender and our race and our sexuality. Therefore, there are now many groups within each country where, previously, just a single group existed. Each group agitates for its own needs.

Morality, like art, is now subjective. Objective morality, applicable to all, has been superceded.

To defend the traditional morality of society marks you out as a bigot.

We have torn down the rules to such an extent that even science no longer holds dominion over us. Science itself is now subject to lived experience.

As Valerie Torico says:

Some gender justice and racial justice advocates are working to change modern theories of knowledge. They want to elevate lived experience, anecdote, intuition, narrative, and traditional wisdom so that testimony is equal—or even preferable—to aggregated data and research. Science (with its limitations and potential abuses) is seen as a white male way of knowing, whereas lived experience is equally available to all, including those with limited access to education and other means of empowerment. Truth is defined by whether something feels real to those affected.

People have been given the power to decide what gender they are. We can also decide what race we are. There is no aspect of our culture that isn’t up for grabs: academics can advocate that spelling is racist.

And that time is racist.

And liberal politicians decide that theft is no longer a crime.

And that the line between murder and abortion becomes very vague.

Liberal elites have come to power to help us navigate the subjective pathways that they, and only they, control. They decide the subjects authors can write about. They decide which Halloween costumes can be worn. They decide who is racist and who isn’t.

The new gatekeepers of our behavioural mores are the liberal elites in the media and universities and liberal politicians. However, the same rules no longer apply to everyone. Different identity groups have different rules depending on where they exist on the Intersectional hierarchy. The rules are not intuitive. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret. The Liberal Elites are in control.

For the State. Against the Country

Western Leftists hate their countries. I assume there are no dissenters on that point, yeah? That’s a given. To a Leftist all Western countries are riddled with racism and systemic inequality towards minorities. Not to mention that all Western countries are just a day away from a fascist junta declaring martial law. As a result, Leftists loathe their countries. They are the opposite of patriots. Leftists loathe patriots. A Leftist would never die for his / her / their own country. No way. They might be prepared to die a martyr’s death over climate change but certainly not for their country. They never want to leave their countries, mind you. They hate the bourgeois reactionaries they have to live amongst. But they never leave. They have trouble figuring out a country that will meet all of their demands – economic; ecological; educational; medical; political; linguistic; etc etc. So here they stay. Bitching and moaning all the while.

Yet Leftists always vote for Big Government. They want the biggest government they can possibly have. Leftists have this innate belief that all of the many faults of the country in which they live can be fixed if they just had a Big Enough Government. A government that was prepared to spend huge amounts of money. If enough money was spent, the government would be able to change the nature of the inhabitants. Racism, inequality, bigotry, bourgeois attitudes, the climate and social conservativism could all be ‘fixed’. It all comes back to the blank slate philosophy with Leftists. Nature vs nurture. A Leftist will always adopt the ideology that human behaviours are entirely the result of how they were educated, i.e. nurture. Therefore, they believe that humans can be ‘re-educated’ to embrace different behaviours. And since the government provides education, we need a huge state in order to provide the massive amounts of re-education that are required.True, Hitler didn’t manage to iron out all the problems in Germany but then Hitler didn’t see it through to the end.

Of course, Leftists would still moan. And not just because Leftists love to moan but because there would still be that troubling colonial past to be ashamed of. However, a good Leftist would soon be able to change the history books.So, if I were to summarise, it would be as follows: Leftists love governments but hate countries. It’s just an observation. Do with it what you will.