All posts by your2minutesofh8

A left wing start pack:

The following will be links to external sources about Left wing politics. It will consist of socialist, anarchist and anti-Fascist  theory and dialogue. The aim of this is to be a quick link to share and form as a nexus to distribute articles, opinion pieces and academia to  to newcomers, who share an interest in leftist philosophy & politics:

Introduction to anti-capitalism and anti-Fascism in the western world:

 Intro to leftist philosophy:





Anti state:


Intro to Marxism:




Today’s issues:


In no way  is this unlocking secrets to some Utopian blue print to a perfect society however, the above should be a launch pad into leftist thought & help anyone who is considering the journey through the rabbit hole. Best of luck comrades!

[Make sure to support the Youtube channels and writers who put in hard labour to produce this content]

Nationalism is snake oil.


Regressive nationalism will get you nowhere. Individualism has killed the individual, allowing liberal capitalism to absorb the self. The very economic and social woes you fear the most, will only be emboldened by this self inflicted isolation, the west has brought on itself. The abandonment of the internationalist mind, is the abandonment of all politics & social progress. ‘Sovereignty’ is just a synonym for being ruled by a few. We can not preach of mutual aid & cooperation if it does not encompass us all. There is no society but a global one.

The path of the nationalist abandons both empathy for your fellow man and hope for a better world. The path he takes is one that secures his own mutual destruction. He rather scurry as parasite to survive the harsh conditions, than build a world that can withstand any disaster. Their naivety interprets us as idealists, when in reality it is them who are blinded  by a false utopia. Their conservatism has deluded their senses, allowing the machinery of the state to harvest them while they whine about a life they never had.

Do not be charmed by the snake oil sales man that sells you fear, hate and points you at your brothers and sisters. His serpent tongue only spits a false narrative, to disguise the fact that he too wishes to be a master, rather than a comrade in arms. These foolish brutes only wish to divide and conquer, It is beyond their comprehension to unite & stand together.

Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

It is ALWAYS okay to Punch a Nazi.

Note: [The majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.]

In light of Richard Spencer (goon of the Alt right & self-proclaimed messiah of white power) being punched while on camera; a debate has began to form around whether or not it’s permissible to use violence against Far right members? Well, the answer is simple, yes, it is always okay to punch a Nazi.


Fascism and racism embodies violence; it secures itself ideologically & politically through threat of violent acts & violent beliefs. Parasites like Richard Spencer are not here to present discourse, they are calling people to take up arms for their cause. He buys into the reactionary, liberal left, knowing full well that they will give him the platform to shout his poisonous rallying cry. Scum like the “Alt-right” are nothing new. Fascists have been putting on suits & ties for decades in an attempt to normalise their tribalistic bullshit.

The National Front did the same thing throughout Europe in an attempt to legitimise themselves, as did those laughing stocks of Right wing Britain, Paul Golding & Tommy Robinson whose group of slobbering idiots ‘Britain First’ & the ‘EDL’ both attempted to enter the mainstream. Do you know what these groups have in common, despite their sickening ideologies? They were all dismantled by a violent visceral opposition of Antifa activists. These groups were met by huge counter demos that often broke out into conflicts & fights on the streets, resulting in property damage and injuries on both sides. Not only were these fringe groups physically wounded, but their morale was often broken too, by constantly having their demos dwarfed in size by the opposition that turned up to confront them. Not only this, but the state could not handle the pressure of such groups. It was costing local councils thousands and exhausting local police forces who could no longer guarantee people’s safety. It was this escalation of risk caused by violent direct action that suppressed these far-right groups & inevitably pushed them back into the fringe. Although the ideology still exists & once again the far-right is on the increase in Europe; it was violent protests, not liberal debate that destroyed the material threat from our streets & protected targeted communities from the far-right menace.

The liberal stance of trying to ‘understand fascists’ & give them a right to “free speech” is an historically flawed concept if one recalls the ironic slogan of German liberals before the Nazis took over: ‘We are so liberal that we even grant the freedom to destroy liberty’, and it was made very clear what Goebbels intentions were, when he stated: ‘We have come to the Reichstag in order to destroy it. If democracy is stupid enough to reward us for doing this, this is the problem of democracy.’

By offering Fascists platforms, you legitimise their point; by knocking their teeth out, you force their subjects to be taboo from society. If you attempt rational debate, you allow these cretins to swindle & manipulate their rhetoric & policy. We can see contemporary examples of this in the far-right parties of England, Hungary & France who have been able to do this very thing. Parties like UKIP, Jobbik & Le Pen have gained traction over the years, and increased in popularity amongst the right wing, to the point where they have been able to push policy & frame debates within their own political territories. This has resulted in a spike in hate crimes within the UK & has spread an anti-immigrant sentiment across European borders resulting in death and violence against marginalised communities as well as the abandonment of humanitarian help.

This moralist stance that we must rely solely on pacifism to prove our points is juvenile & ahistorical. Such pure notions do not deserve to be recognised as legitimate opposition or tactics to deal with Fascism. Anti-fascism can be both defensive & proactive. If Richard Spencer wore all black & spoke Arabic, the liberal press would not be debating whether or not it is okay to use violence against him, it would be cheering his defeat. You cannot live complacent in violent societies while simultaneously condemning violence against a system (or body) that perpetuates it. These are pundits who have praised Obama despite the mass civilian casualties which are a result of his drone program. These same people who call foul & give liberal sob stories over Spencer being punched, cheered when Saddam Hussein was hung. Unlike the contradictory take on violence liberals give, Anarchist and Anti-fascist militants do not use violence to reinforce themselves as a dominant ideology, but rather as theatre that co-exists with its theory. Anarchists & socialists are fully aware that punching Nazis one by one does not tackle the root issue of far-right ideologies. It fully recognises that it must rely on political organisation and propaganda as well as its physical resistance. The violent political dissidents of the militant left is as much of a performance as it is practical. A reminder to both the status quo, and the encroaching threats to people’s liberty, that people in large groups still hold real power over the systems & contracts that bind us to obedience.

This is not to say that we should enjoy violence; far from it. “militant anti-fascist violence is an unpleasant method to achieve a greater political goal. It is not fetishized the way that fascism fetishizes violence, and it would be much more preferable to rely on passive resistance; but we cannot guarantee that what Trotsky referred to as ‘flabby pacifism’ will effectively inhibit fascist encroachment. Fascism views passivity as weakness, not as a political strategy; it will crush peaceful protests and the will to resist, and their violence must be met head on.” (Militant Anti-Fascism: 100 Years Of Resistance by M.Tesa). Rather we should see it for what it really is a violent movement in a more violent world.





Chelsea Manning soon to be free.

not bad.jpg

Those who all of a sudden cheer Obama’s clemency today, are the same people who applauded when Chelsea was put in prison. It was the right decision & I’m glad he did it none the less but, freeing Manning, does not absolve Obama of anything.

Chelsea isn’t free yet & Obama has simply commuted a majority of her sentence, she may still have time to do. The Obama Administration leaned excessively on Chelsea, for exposing war crimes during an illegal war America orchestrated (All the while giving light sentences to Government agents who leaked Us Intel e.g General Cartwright who took the fall for Hilary Clinton’s fuck up & CIA operative John Kiriakou who got a mere 30 months down to 2 years). Chelsea’s 35 years was always an over zealous attempt to crush the dissidents of Hacktivism and protests happening in America & to cover up the illegal actions taken in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Don’t Thank Obama, Thank Chelsea Manning.

A response to the Ankara shooter:

19 Dec 2016 Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov is assassinated  

The consequences of war are never contained within the borders of said conflict. The attacker shouted “We die in Aleppo, you die here” this is not a terrorist, this is desperate man driven to insanity and unstable violent behaviour. A bloody reminder that actions have consequences rather than an intent to spread terror.

Moralists will reject the attack in Ankara calling it radicalisation. This is all to often spouted from pedestals of privilege. Deep down underneath the dominant ideology and the social constructs we have created, we are all Radicals. I hold no quarrel, nor shed tears for dead politicians what worries me is the consequences that were unforeseen to the shooter. Russia and “tough guy Putin” will retaliate hard & it will not be the shooter who receives these repercussions in which ideally he should. If you are to commit acts of violence and propaganda by the deed against violent states & their agents ensure you create an environment that you alone are to blame.

Post Truth: The Death of Rationality & The Rejection Of Dialectics.

The Post Truth Movement can be broken down into three rational outcomes:

1) People are selectively bias in which content they believe is ‘True’ meaning their is an ideological divide (or most likely divisions), that will eventually lead to a material conclusion. Historical analysis would suggest that this would most likely take form in conflict.

2) Everyone excepts the epistemological limits and arrives to the conclusion that there never was a ‘Truth’ they could perceive. If this is the case, we would have a moral obligation to only choose the most ethical option when presented with Crisis and surrender blindly to utilitarianism, if the goal of human societies are to maximise liberty for all people. This will inevitably lead to an authoritarian ruling on what can be perceived as True, stripping us of our agency in accessing knowledge.

3) There is an agenda behind it that seeks supremacy from its actions. I.e autonomy is stripped and people are being willingly manipulated by forces who push the movement.

Why remembrance day suck’s

Remembrance Day also known as “Poppy day” (due to its origins with Lieutenant Colonel John McCraeis, and his iconic poem ‘In Flanders Fields’), is a memorial held by member states of the Commonwealth to commemorate the end of the first world war in 1918. In 1919, we (England), practised our first 2 minutes’ silence on the 11th hour of November 11, not at the request of soldiers or their families however, but by the Monarch King George V who made the declaration for England to join the conflict to back France and to uphold a fuck ton of old alliances made by the ruling powers of Europe. Twenty-one years after the first world war, WW2 started and to this day there are 67 countries in armed conflict. It is safe to say that despite the work of the British Legion and their commitment to remembering, that most of us quickly forget.
The reason to remember is not to mourn but to remind ourselves that such conflict in reality only produces horror. There is no heroism in war nor glory (this is not to say that men do not have courage). Such thinking is not just observational analysis made in hindsight, but rather an evolution of anti-war thought that was practised by men like Bertrand Russell during the 20th century and clearly proceeded him. Born in England on May 18, 1872, Russell was a prominent anti-war activist during this period as well as an accomplished mathematician who was renowned for his work in logic. It was during WW1 that Russell began to combat the dominant narrative within British society with his anti-war stance. In 1914, Bertrand attempted to collect signatures from fellow professors and academics for a statement urging England to remain neutral despite its allegiances to the rest of Europe, and stop the imminent start of war. Despite his efforts, the British were swept into the war and it appeared 90% of the population favoured the barbarism of fighting and killing. This shocked Russell and forced him to reassess his views on human nature. In a letter to the London Nation on August 15 he criticised the pride of patriotism which promoted mass murder. A patriotism that unfortunately was not defeated and can be seen crystal clear in societies today. Yet, despite his relevance to British Society and the first world war, men and women like Russell are only known by scholars and academics, and are all too often erased from the main narratives of Society. He does not get the satisfaction of your thoughts during two minutes silence.
The issue that appears before us with the conservative traditionalism of Remembrance Day, is that we have clearly warped the intent of it, turning it back into the patriotism that caused these conflicts we now worship. With the compulsion of vain silence that have become mandatory in the public’s eye.

Vegetarianism is not a Leftist cause it’s a dietary choice.



I should start off by saying that I have no radical malice towards those within the vegan and vegetarian community. I should also state that I am not “Pro -meat”, in fact, I’d argue we all should eat less of it. It should go without saying that we should have some level of animal rights and should all condemn acts of cruelty & unnecessary harm to animals. This is simply a criticism of using this lifestyle for political motive or to argue superior morality.

The main thinking of the Vegetarian movement is rooted in Speciesism, a term popularised by the philosopher Peter Singer. The basis of these philosophical ideas lies within animal rights movement. The argument put forward is that there is no moral justification for human superiority over any other species, and it opposes the rearing of animals for meat, labelling it as unethical. In his book Animal Liberation (1975), Peter Singer describes it as “a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” It claims that all animals deserve the same moral rights as our own.

This concept removes us from the food chain and ignores the anthropological connection between other primate species. The term “unnatural” is thrown around a lot when talking about eating meat. This trend within the Vegetarian community has zero basis and is more an emotive response than based in any logic. Of course, thanks to evolution and the miracle of human biology, we can eat and survive off a meat free diet; but that does not make us natural Vegetarians, far from it. In a 2003 article in ‘The new Scientist’, researchers discovered that “Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago…” It is also proven that through our evolution a meat diet helped shape our species evolution to where it is today. Eating meat and cooking food made us human, the studies suggest, enabling the brains of our pre-human ancestors to grow dramatically over a period of a few million years. In the article ‘Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil’ by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor (October 3, 2012), it explains that it would have been biologically implausible for humans to evolve such a large brain on a raw, vegan diet, and that meat-eating was an essential element of human evolution at least 1 million years before the dawn of humankind. To claim eating meat is unnatural seems more anti-science than anti-meat, especially when you look to our common evolutionary ancestors such as chimps, who still have meat in their diets too. Biology and evolution cannot be categorised as unnatural on the basis of moral purity; it is neither progressive or helpful to any cause.

Purely moralist arguments such as this are noble, but all too often equally irrational. Morals and lines of ethics are not always universal. Singer’s writings are clearly influenced by European minds and would be impossible to translate to the Native American tribes, who once practised animal sacrifices. The Yanomami tribe in south Brazil hunt tapir for meat and yet they are far better environmentalists than most vegetarian’s in the western world. It seems odd to claim moral superiority over these people because you avoid dairy products, especially when you most likely contribute to the destruction of the Yanomami’s homes. How many vegetarians/Vegans drive cars that pollute our air or pay their taxes that contribute to landfills and the destruction of rain-forests, yet simultaneously claim that due to the lack of meat in their diet that they are now environmentalists? For many around the world there is not the option of vegetarianism. A market of choice is a first world privilege, and this ideal is smug rather than morally conscious. Rarely does it seem that vegetarians have issue with the ethics of meat itself. One surely cannot argue with its process in human evolution, or its inherent need to some communities. The most common argument (and most legitimate) is ‘Cruelty’. To this I argue with the linguistics of this statement. ‘Cruelty’ is a human conception, one need only watch the work of David Attenbourgh, to see that Nature and the Animal Kingdom can appear barbaric. Yet, we must remember that such concepts are alien to the chicken & the cow. Not because they the lack consciousness per se but, because animals eat each other within an ecosystem and the human ideas of morality and ethics do not apply to other species. The mouse does not hold the cat accountable. From here the argument can only go to the ethics of caging and rearing animals, but at this point the argument is no longer about eating meat but how animal husbandry is formatted. Such things as intensive farming, chemical growth and hormone manipulation in which Vegans/Vegetarians point out as inhumane, have very little to do with eating meat, and are to do with modes of production. Farming and agricultural surplus are a result of capitalism and the industry of farming.

The justification for Call out culture:

Call out culture is the act used by radicals, progressives and activist to call out instances or recurring patterns of oppressive Language. The act is a verbal outcry against abusive words and behaviour, within a public forum.  the concept is to call out the people or individual using  sexist, racist, ableist langue and engage in discourse with them about the moral implications of their words. This tactic is utilised by the hard left and is used to target and shame those whose dialect reinforce oppression. Whether Racial slang or out right bigoted words, The left uses this tactic to hold people accountable for the words they say.

Critics have painted call out culture as a caricature. The Right wing have labelled it as censorship and an attempt  of silencing them, while the centre have depicted it as the abusive left with their purist ideology. This description is a farce and a knee jerk reaction to change within the status quo. The practice of this culture is not in silencing or banning words, but in acknowledging the fact, that oppressive speech not only has an impact on  the individuals its targeted at physiologically, but can materialise into bias within society itself.  Unlike the Centre, the Left does not feel like it has to pander to the hateful, rather it would prefer to educate and challenge it instead.

The purpose of the act of call out culture is to diminish bias and hate speech within everyday speech, and to liberate those who are shunted by careless acts of verbal abuse. It is an attempt to stop such language and the ideology that comes with it from taking material forms within communities, while  stopping hate speech from becoming normalised within our spoken languages. The point is to ensure sexism, racism etc are challenged consistently to show that such things are not tolerated within truly equal societies. This is not about smugness and how pure your beliefs are. It is about accepting we are human and fallible to historical and cultural materialism as well as our environment.

We should be able to better ourselves through each other and while the individualist denies this prospect, Leftists see it as communal defiance against unethical behaviour and language. It is a tool to dismantle dominant trends and bourgeois ideologies that inflict harm onto others.

Radicalise Before they Criminalise you

What I have learnt from taking a hard line stance against the status quo, is the visceral outrage of swaying further outside the ideological/political spectrum than most are used to. There is a real hate you can feel when you step outside the lines of conservatism and/or liberalism. They really do despise you for it – a testament to the cold war propaganda I guess? It seems much more in the norm for people to accept racism today than they would Stalinism. One of these holds political worth and contains economic theory, the other is based on fear and white supremacy. They cannot share a parallel just because both resulted in people dying. It is like claiming brain surgery is the same as a shot gun wound to the head just because they can both result in the loss of life. There is a clear fallacy here, where liberals give platform to hate, but eagerly reject leftist ideologies and political theories due to the threat of communist values (here in the West).
For those who are not in the know or yet to experience such disdain, this is currently being mirrored in British politics with its Labour party, in which (as I rightly predicted), current Leader Jeremy Corbyn is consistently under fire by the establishment and its loyalists as he dares to utter socialist views while on a political platform. Now there is plenty to say about Labour and its leader, and I feel it has been covered by everyone. For me what is more interesting than the speculation of party politics, is what people around the debate are saying. I believe they give a more accurate portrayal of what is ideologically being depicted. After all, politicians (although they have their own agenda) are simply vessels for us to channel our bad behaviour. I believe it is in our pundits, both left/right of the spectrum, who inject debate into the public; possibly because most politics is outdated and boring for most and that the state itself is over convoluted with bureaucracy. It is therefore to our journalists and commentators that we look at to add context; and although tainted by personal bias, they are often channelled through state approved platforms before spouting their opinions. This means that their views are conjoined to the dominant ideology the state perpetuates.
The key argument that has arisen from Corbyn’s continuous fallout, has begun to encroach onto my ideological territory. Not only has the Left flocked to him as an establishment figure but, the unions seem to back him too. He has now started to gain a following and although, I am not Labour fan, even I cannot help but agree with a lot of his polices and some of his speeches. However, what has become very noticeable and almost unavoidable within the British press, is his relationship with the Left. His rivals argue he lacks centre ground and he alienates his more conservative voters which in reality translates to him pissing off New Labour and the Thatcherites (which is fine by me). Others have compared his following as Nazism, calling him and his supporters fascists. Critics have claimed his backers have a mob like mentality which could easily be argued to be collectivised retaliation. Most of this stems from how vocal Corbyn supporters are on social media.
The issue I have found is that it is so often reactionary rather than organised. Despite this the knee jerk reaction of his fan base seems justified. Critics of Israeli occupation have been slandered as anti- Semites, Identity politics has been used against Corbyn, who himself has been ridiculed by state TV (BBC). It has been clear from the start that they would try to villainize any form of socio-economic change through a political platform. Any attack on the mechanics of liberalism is instantly dismissed, eradicated from the debate and you are coined a Radical. This is something I have noticed often when conversing with centrists, although conservatives also play this card a lot too. By aligning far right into the same category as far left (despite being polar opposites), they are able to apply the exact same moral judgement, i.e killing a man because he is Black is the same as killing a man because he is a capitalist and if it is as bad, how is it any different from when Liberals killed feudalists? Hypocrisy seems so innate in liberalism. It so often seems that the concept of the ‘rational actor’ is only applicable when it supports liberalism otherwise it is labelled an being an extremist. Liberalism did not arrive as the dominant political thought through ‘pure’ means so why is it so insistent on other leftist ideologies working this miracle? Liberals reject violence in theory, but constantly accept violence in practice, while Ultra-lefts accept violence in theory but so often reject violence in practice. One can argue that both far right and left are capable of committing the same type of authoritarianism, but, by definition one cannot argue that they are attempting to reach the same goals, and therefore cannot ever be the same.
One could argue that in today’s political climate this is a knee jerk reaction to what is perceived as justified radicalisation but, there seems to be a clear fallacy and lack of critical thinking when debating leftist ideology. It seems anything outside the dominant spectrum of Liberalism is seen as an extremist view; not only has this completely stifled the modern left, due to fear of prosecution, whether that be through state or peers, but has also begun to overshadow the real issues that plague the left. Issues such as identity politics or the problematic occurrence of Anglo-European dominance in its philosophy are rarely addressed due to the ideological barricades entrenched by the centre. With the concept of ‘Polite Politics’ creeping in to the UK in the wake of an MP’s murder by a right wing nationalist, we are now being told to be tolerant of our government’s failures. One cannot help but suspect that this is little more than a crude attempt to suppress any real dissidents within them public. I shall leave you with the words of Karl Popper: