Tag Archives: Lifestyle

New Media, New Lies

The YouTube community is at the forefront of contemporary Fascistic propaganda and has become a grand manipulator within the political play ground for a generation who have been decimated by the late stages of capitalism. Buried under fail compilations, pop culture trends and make up tutorials, is a propaganda machine that echoes western chauvinism, white supremacy and cultural and racial myths. Born out of the image board scenes and the so called new atheist movement, right wing pundits and reactionary forces have become a populist force within the platform.

Posing as “New media”, a self-aggrandising title for those not only tied to the old economic model, but mirror the libertarian mind set of the  1990’s too, many of these charlatans have been able to profit from misinformation, xenophobic views and outright racism, with very little consequence from the outside powers, while simultaneously portraying themselves as an alternative. The copy and paste motif of these right wing pundits follows a specific trend of  anti- feminist, anti-migrant & anti-Left commentary, normally under the umbrella of what they have titled “PC culture”, a ominous force concocted by the paranoid, that seeks to silent (white) men.

No doubt among militant circles, there is a real need for legitimate criticism ranging from optics to praxis within groups of marginalised people and progressive movements. Yet, one can not help but smell a familiar stench within the Youtube scene.  In the more potent circles of the right and recently regurgitated by Canadian, Psychologist and human dumpster fire, Jordan ‘lobster fucker’ Peterson in a Channel 4 interview (read straight from his book), the age old “CULTURAL MARXISM” myth reared its ugly head. Based off of a moral panic rooted in Nazi propaganda of 20th century with roots as far back to the 1860s,  the then named ‘Cultural Bolshevism’ was used by Nazi critics to shut down progressive media, art and literature. Today, instead of communist Jews infiltrating your glorious European nations, it is Radical feminists, Neo-Marxists and College safe spaces (or in other words “Pc culture”) that threaten our homelands. Despite very little evidence, this bogeyman is a threat to every spook western civilisation holds dear and anyone defending it is an enemy to your liberty ( or so they say).
This edgy commentary and often anti moralistic stance, has an obvious appeal to those alienated under liberalism and bust cycles of capitalism, one can sympathise with the struggle but can not condone the reactionary position taken, especially by those who seek to defend these snake oil salesmen, peddling soft core, racism to teens, for clicks.

Entrenched in the dogmatic defence of these commentators, is the neo-liberal individualistic belief that these are ‘independents’ and that this new media, is here to liberate us from our current shackles. An example of such blind faith is reflected within the American Fascists of the Alt right and the ‘Red pill’ meme, taken from 1999 film the Matrix. In this now infamous scene, protagonist Neo is offered a blue or red pill, upon choosing the red pill, Neo is able to awaken to the real world and abandon the old oppressive system of his life. This idea of Progress, rebirth and revelation is intrinsic to the western paradigm, the presumption that we are moving forward to our own awakening is embedded in our mutation of christian hopes, the idealism of progress works in favour of the political naivety of liberal Utopians & capitalists, who have bought into a revisionist idealism that they can save the world. However, There are no independents within the spectacle, and in reality the ‘Red pill’ is merely a plot device to allow the fiction to move forward, not a manifested destiny that awaits us and not real progress. It is therefore ideologically foolish to think individuals are devoid of the spectacle and even more so to think those in bed with tyrants of capital, have any interest in releasing us from it. The Californian ideology that Companies like Youtube and its parent Google, are based on, are the very definition of the status quo and very much part of the Capitalist realist project. This is reflected in the content produced as we see  Liberty, freedom and property rights as a consistent focus within this medium, despite these liberal phantoms rarely being applied universally within their own discourse. The liberal lie of meritocracy is potent within this content a childish beleif of a level playing field while unironically receiving a pay check from a corporate monopoly.

The tech giants of today that platform this culture of hate work hand in hand with exiting powers, from law enforcement to corporate structures. They have vested interest in bourgeoisie society and were built upon the neoliberal demon that plagues western society to this day. It is evidential that such agitators despite what they, or their cheerleaders may claim, are not as new or revolutionary as they say. Rather either due to their own historical revisionism or more likely lack of any real research or commitment to their stances, they are simply part of the same mechanism that has  kept Liberal society churning for the last 200 years.

The failings of Liberal press have an obvious role in creating this false god of new media. the inherent bias and inescapable lack of objectivity attached to much of western media produced, is well documented and culturally accepted among the masses. Despite the work of Ultra Nationalists & Anglo supremacists, the term ‘Fake news’ is not the modern phenomenon it’s narrated to be, but rather a systemic issue of our Media today. The struggle to find empiricism in media content is very much attached the to the current order, and should not be solely scapegoated to online trolls, tipping their fedoras for foreign states. The damage control within our currently perceived, political turmoil is to ignore the root of our crisis, that under the cultural domination of capitalism, journalists are castrated. It is therefore that our content must rely on bias or tainted speculation due to the very nature, that we are given no alternatives. There is only an apparition that presents itself, one that brands all alternatives Taboo or political naivety. Our media can only write spectacle because the very nature of Politics under capitalist Realism. The Realist Project is an insidious force that has appropriated everything. Journalists are not precogs & therefore cant see beyond the Phantasm Capitalism has produced. A System of symbolism to drive commodification is the very definition of fake, our news & media reflect that.

Those within the Youtube demographic are by far, the most socially conscious of main stream medias failings and have predominantly resisted traditional conservative narratives of church, state and god. Yet, despite the smug satisfaction of dispelling the myths of old, we have forgotten that such stories are a mere symptom of our cancer, that without escaping the shackles of the dominant bourgeois narrative, we are restrained in producing only imitations of what we already know.  History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce said Marx or in our case changing platform, is not the same as creating new content. The hope that alternative media will solve the problems of existing media, or in other words trying alternative forms of capitalism to solve existing capitalism, is utterly naive. Despite the radical personalities of Youtube’s content creators, these pundits & faux intellectuals  are the tamest among us, their middle class revolution a mere byproduct of the Liberalism they claim to reject. Their impotence and inability to free themselves, is the frustration vented in their media & their aspiration to challenge existing power is nothing but the libertarian pipe dream of their Californian predecessors.

Advertisements

If Over population is a problem start by culling people like Emmanuel Macron

Macrons “overpopulation because of the poors” narrative is a farce. Overpopulation has long been cited as the principle problem holding back the global South, always as a tool to blame the poor. Take India for example, a nation with a huge poverty issue & culture where “6-7” kids is a social norm. There have been plenty of condom advertisements & even forced sterilisation & even if the goal was achieved and the poorest 20% did stop being born, They only eat 6% of the food, live in 4% of the housing, use 3% of the electricity. The scarcities of these basics are down to distribution not population. Liberals try to sound magnanimous & hide their racism by claiming that those in poverty “Don’t know any better, (the stupid poor)” this couldn’t be any further from the truth. At 3rd world levels of income within global capitalism, having many kids is the “optimal” thing to do, since you become a net producer at age 12 (in most developing nations). The issue is not over population but a neoliberal ideology that simultaneously blames & forces the third world to reproduce to compete in the free market.

Nationalism is snake oil.

workers-unite-hammer-keyboard-2.png

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.

spencer3

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.

destory-fac

 

 

 

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

 

boar

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.