Dehumanization and Social Media

by Chan Walrus | Aug 18, 2021 | Essays

There has long been a war between the social media giants of our times and conservative thoughts and values resulting in rampant censorship, abuse and a fascist assault on people’s liberties. Over time people have become increasingly frustrated with their conversations being shut down and their beliefs trampled on in places which purport to have no clear political bias. 

One well known digital encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, has long had a series of values that are spurious at best, as we can see with it’s treatment of Gab and Parler, which have both been misrepresented and maligned on the platform, and currently hold misinformation on protected pages. So now, I think it’s fitting to use Wikipedia as the tool with which to judge the social media platforms they actively support and allow to thrive, rather than the ones they malign. I think we all know which ones I am talking about.

Let’s start off with two terms:

Wikipedia (2021) refers to Government as: “The system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state.” 

A state can be classified as a polity, which in turn is classified as any group of people who have a collective identity who are organized by some form of institutionalised social relations, with a capacity to mobilise resources.  A polity can be a corporate board, and hence, a social media company in itself is a form of Government over it’s domain and controls the rules within it’s society.

Wikipedia (2021) refers to Dehumanization as: “the denial of full humanness in others and the cruelty and suffering that accompanies it. A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and treatment of other persons as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings. In this definition every act of thought that regards a person as “less than” human is dehumanization.” 

Dehumanization is common on modern social media platforms, it is a crime committed by the people on social media who deride and oppress others, and by the platforms themselves which not only support this behaviour but allow it to thrive through an incompetent and sometimes lazily automated system. 

Dehumanization is regarded as a Crime against Humanity. This crime against humanity on social media is not held in check, it is part of a controlling fascistic agenda, put in place to persecute people who are guilty of wrongthink. To label them as a dissenter. To deplatform them and force them into exile from their family and friends through indoctrination, through a clear agenda to subjugate people and to destroy those with different beliefs and ideologies.

Social media platforms as of the time I am writing this have too much power, and commit acts of atrocity against people who have done nothing to deserve it and condone misrepresenting and mistreatment of people on their platforms using a combination of twisted logic, “fact checking” which is provided by companies with a political agenda, and refusing to be responsive to issues on the platforms. 

People on social media also commit these acts of atrocity. I speak of course about the ‘noble’ SJW who is happy to use any number of blanket terms to condemn anyone with a slightly conservative mindset… Or more disturbingly, anyone who says anything that they can purposefully misconstrue for their sadistic attacks and purely narcissistic agenda. The use of blanket terms used to victimise people: Homophobe, Racist, Islamophobe, Nazi, Far-Right, etc, has become commonplace. People flock to those words to persecute someone, regardless of any form of proof that a person is guilty of any crime, looking to abuse and assault other human beings that may have done nothing wrong.

If you end up being called these words, there is nothing you can do to argue, no words you say, no proof you bring will be listened to, as the mob attacks mindlessly. It’s only desire is to reduce a human being to emotional rubble. This is all done in the name of the greater good, after all, you are no longer human. You are scum. If you think you are safe just because you believe in truth, justice and the same things the SJW purports to believe, you are wrong. At any time, anything you have ever said can be purposefully taken out of context, purposefully misconstrued and maliciously used against you.

So why would people who claim to be for equality and justice dehumanize anyone? Simple. They are trying to establish a moral and social dominance over you within the social hierarchy. They do not attempt to listen to you, or afford you any opportunity to have equal say or thought. They are not really interested in equality at all, they are merely interested in looking good socially. Not only this, but they are eager to witch hunt and character assassinate people in order to further their own sense of self importance, and care not a jot if they misrepresent someone. The word “sorry” is alien to them, as is confessing to making a mistake. Such is their narcissism, they cannot even see that they have made a mistake.

It is interesting how much the SJW relies upon and even calls for the established hierarchy of the platform for assistance, and uses arguments from authority citing politically biased news sources without respecting equality of response. It’s highly authoritarian and far-right in its approach.

There is a much contested quote “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” So certain social media platforms are contextually in accord with this quote. They came wrapped in the words of people claiming to want to bring people together and looking for truth, justice and all things wonderful. Instead they bring domination by fact checkers that write their own facts and distort the truth on a regular basis, by allowing and creating division in society, and pushing political power and agenda any way they see fit. 

It is easy to dehumanize anyone reading this, and believe me, I thank you for reading this. All I have to do is tell you you are a white supremacist, and that’s argument over. I don’t need to argue with you anymore because you are nothing more than an enemy of truth, justice and equality. You should feel ashamed, and I have the right to say whatever I like about you, to shame you and abuse you in whatever way I see fit.

This is how the radical right wing sociopaths that claim to be left wing think. No evidence presented, no capitulation, no apology is enough for the crime against humanity you never committed. But what do they do? They strip you of your right to be equally heard, they take from you your voice, your equality, your rights as a human being to stand up and say: “This isn’t who I am.” You are maligned, dragged through the dirt and stamped underfoot, and you may have done nothing to deserve it.

This behaviour is radical, dangerous, and it destroys lives, and pushes innocent human beings to suicide, and with suicide rates climbing in a world increasingly enraptured by the heady embrace of social media, we can only wonder when this madness is going to end.

When people are abused by the far-right SJW, they could be completely innocent of any and all actions they are accused of, yet friends, family and colleagues may turn against them as they might think that the SJW has some knowledge of that person they do not. Human beings who have done nothing wrong have been shunned out of society, and branded with hateful labels, surrounded by a cloud of hate, for things they never said, did, stood for, or thought.

Is it any wonder that people under such an oppressive doctrine of hate are easily radicalised and taught to hate?

We now live in a world where conservatives are terrified to post their real opinions and feelings on social media, not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they know they will fall victim to the terrifying hate crusade, led by sociopathic far right SJWs seeking to demonize them. The social media platforms are also happy to shut down people, with posts ‘disappearing’ and ban hammers being handed out regularly by the powers that be, whenever it is called for.

There is an oppressive atmosphere online created by a stifling of freedom and the suppression of anything that does not fit the narrative. This is endorsed, supported and nurtured by tyrannical groups of people who classify themselves as being the enemies of evil and by this disassociation with evil, they are, at least in their opinion, good. Evil is anyone or anything they deem to be evil, for whatever reason they wish. They can pluck these reasons, and present them with no evidence and still cause catastrophic damage that can ruin an innocent person’s life.

They play a very simple game which is often referred to as “association fallacy” it goes something like this. “You are this, therefore, you believe this.” This is incredibly ignorant and a very stupid form of argument. Even in social groups wherein a large number of people do share similar beliefs, it is never a good thing to assume that a person believes something, even if it is common within the group. It’s dangerous and can cause catastrophic harm. Try asking two filmmakers to agree on camera presets and remember they both fall under the blanket term of filmmaker. 

The SJW tends to appeal to emotional stimuli using a combination of trigger words to dehumanize their opponent. They use guilt by association to lower an opponent’s social status, and honour by association (with justice!) to raise their social status. This is the hierarchy game which they crave, and the main reason that it’s easier to associate them with the far right than the left which they claim so often to be, as they spare their opponent no equal footing, honour or quarter. 

Now we can look at absolutely any field or area in the whole of human history, and it is very hard, if not impossible to find two people who have exactly the same opinion about everything. We see arguments and debates in government, the sciences, and in all walks of life from acting performance techniques to anime, and there are disagreements and arguments about just about everything.

Guilt by association is a muddy water, and a reprehensible way to treat other people. They might even hold values you do not like or respect, but it doesn’t mean that your assumption another person feels or thinks a certain way is correct. It is also important to note that just because someone may have reprehensible views, that doesn’t make them wrong on certain topics, which means that if someone has something genuinely useful to say, despite not liking them, it can be good to listen.

Because I am a conservative, many people assume that this means I support the Conservative party of the United Kingdom, which I currently don’t. The truth of the matter is that I prefer them to the opposition who I see as being people who would systematically destroy this country and force it into a financial hell due to mismanagement of economics. I would vote for the conservatives as a tactical vote to help protect people from Labour. So why would I be against the Labour party, the party of opposition?

What some people see as “free transport” and “free school meals” will not be paid for by the government, but by the poorest in society due to the way the opposition currently wants to increase minimum wage, corporation tax and taxes on the rich, all of which have historically been bad for people on the lower rungs of society, like myself and my family and friends. With humans being replaced by machines in the workforce and having their work requirements expanded as their colleagues are let go, they will react in shock as they experience this, as every society has when it has experienced this. 

What I see from the Labour party is a concentrated effort to apply unrealistic financial pressure to the lower classes, so they develop a reliance on the government with “free transport” and “free school meals” and they see the government as a caring lifeline trying to fix a problem they blame on the economic policies of their conservative enemies.

It baffles me to the point of exasperation that no one can be bothered to do any form of research, and happily accept the words of the people who would financially and politically benefit most from Labour being in power. It is also quite amusing to note that in a world in which the Labour Party would be in power would be pandering to desirable hierarchy and opting out of self sufficiency which is more conservative in its approach. 

So what economic policies am I talking about? Increasing the minimum wage is a tax on the employers – so prices rise, workers are made redundant, replaced by machines where possible and have reduced benefits. Generally work requirements are increased as well so their performance at their job has to improve. Etc. This is also an issue with increasing corporation tax and taxing the rich who own companies. You will pay for those “free things.” More than you will for being self sufficient. Glittering trinkets, praised by shills, but worth a lot less than what you lose. 

I think wanting to protect people in society, especially the disabled and people on benefits and low wages who are struggling is a very human thing to do. I also think most people want people on benefits and low wages to have happier lives. I just think a lot of people do not understand economics and would rather attribute the majority success of the last conservative landslide election to idiocy and racism. Something that also baffles me especially considering the witch hunts of our last election. 

I find the majority of arguments against conservatives hold little water and usually result in the same things: Boris Johnson says silly things and looks like a haystack. Michael Gove looks like a cuttlefish. Theresa May is haunted by those fields of wheat. Jacob Rees-Mogg is a relic from the times of Queen Victoria. All of these are just personal insults because people do not like these people, and they just want to be nasty to them. I have seen a lot of humanity from all of these people, who have been cruelly maligned on social media, and often in the news.

So why is this important? This is a form of dehumanization. “Tory Scum! Tory Scum! Never Trust a Tory! Tory bastards! Every Tory a lying scumbag! Fuck the Tories. Look at this Tory in power, look at what a clown they are!” A collection of people, angry, frustrated with their lives, tearing at people out of sheer fury. Absolute hate. Consider for a moment that the majority of people in this country voted for the Conservatives in the last election. All these people are silent, having to listen to this abuse, ringing out. 

The one or two people who walk into the trap of responding and trying to bring facts to the table are dehumanized, stripped of any right to respond and are screamed and jeered off of social media by people who frankly in most cases have the intelligence and mental processing powers of a butternut. I realise the disservice I am doing to the butternut here, but I am merely being facetious. It was amusing to note that most people who are pro Labour and anti Tory seem to love the EU, but blame the Tories for issues caused by the EU’s laws. Reasoning with them is like arguing with a brick wall.

These people who dehumanize others claim to be victims of people in power. They accept people in power are dominant over them in the social hierarchy of society. Their answer is not to try and bring things up with others in a positive way but to tear people apart like a shoal of piranhas, sinking their teeth into an innocent victim. They wish for power over others, and it is incredibly desirable to them. So much so that they cannot be said to be true believers in equality.

It is interesting to note that whilst the true left believe in equality and respectfully allow their opponents a platform as equals, these far right SJW radicals oppress their enemies into silence through abuse, dehumanization and relentless mocking, and see deplatforming of individuals as something great. George Orwell said: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” If stamping on others, dominating, controlling their lives, social profiles and banking, subjugating them and forcing them out of your perfect society because of labels you put on them, then maybe, just maybe you’re not the good person you claim to be. Maybe you’re a predatory SJW.

One thing to note is that there’s also an opposite side to the spectrum. People may like things not normally associated with them, their styles, ideologies or beliefs. A personal example: I do not like rap, I generally detest it as a musical form. Most people would assume that this means that I do not like all rap, and utterly reject the genre. This is incorrect. I rather enjoy a song called Stan by Eminem, who I respect as a lyrical genius, despite the fact I don’t enjoy most of his music. I also really liked Tonight’s Hero by Futurecop, (the version with Lyrics.) But overall, I dislike the genre.

In general, it is not good to reduce anyone to a stereotype as it strips a person of their individuality and dignity. For me to say these things about SJWs may be hypocritical and indeed, my opinions on SJWs are that they tend to be horrible or at least incontrovertibly misguided people. It does not stop me trying my best to talk to them in as human a way as possible and to respond as well as I can to their insane allegations and abuse. I try to listen and respond and that is my own failing as a human being. What I have learned from years of talking to these people is that there is no reasoning with them. The things we try and do in the name of universal brotherhood and friendship… 

Labels, Cyberbullying and Bigotry

by Chan Walrus | Aug 18, 2021 | Essays

Mirriam Webster (2020) defines a Bigot as: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.)

I am a bigot. I am highly intolerant of bullies, narcissists, thugs, racists, murderers, paedophiles, and many other people who try to tear society apart. I think that most people are bigots, even if they would not normally associate themselves with the word. Yet this word has been used for a long time especially in political arguments in a mostly very hypocritical way. 

The problem is not that they use it, but more so with the way people use the word bigot. They are usually using it to refer to a bigot, or someone they assume is a bigot, in a negative way, and use it as a method to make people hate them via the words association with negative things such as bullying, racism and hate. This for obvious reasons can be an incredible problem.

The issue is simple. Most of the time the person using the word bigot is a bigot themselves because they personally hate the person they’re arguing against – or at least have some sincere intolerance to that person’s beliefs. So we enter into the whole problem of labels and how they are manipulated to hurt people.

Human beings are a species, regardless of how we look or our backgrounds. We are all similar beings with usually very similar characteristics. This is generally how I look at us. I try to avoid labels as they are incredibly harmful and a destructive force in our society. Despite this, I label myself as a moderate right conservative due to my beliefs that I fit these categories politically, which to the intolerant ‘lefties’ makes me scum. This is because they have different meanings for the labels of conservative and right wing. Their association being that the right is evil and conservatives are uncaring despite neither political stance meaning anything of the sort.

My interpretation of conservatism is keeping things traditional, which I see as being cultural. This means I also respect other cultures for their beliefs, traditions and ideals as long as they do not negatively impact anyone’s life. I believe in keeping the economy strong so that the poorer people in society can afford food, rather than increasing certain taxes which would inevitably lead to the ruining of lives and the benefit system here in the UK. (Minimum wage, sugar tax, VAT, Income tax, corporation tax, and taxes upon the rich.) I am also in favour of free enterprise, allowing private businesses to flourish, and not having everything owned by the government which I see as highly oppressive and incompetent or society which is incapable of functioning without a government as we see in situations like CHAZ 2020. 

My interpretation of why I classify myself as moderate right wing is that I find social hierarchies normal, and in many cases desirable in terms of the way society is structured. This is an opinion held by most people who are right wing, and most people who supposedly see themselves as left wing are actually moderate right wing, they just have an altogether different interpretation of what right wing is. I like the fact we have a government that provides, because I see little in what people do to provide for each other outside of that, with people choosing to talk rather than act in the majority of cases. Human beings as a species are inherently selfish, so it’s a humanitarian thing to have a government that helps support people who have trouble finding the support from family and friends or even from the society around them.

I think when it comes to warfare it’s a good idea to have an army in which there is one leading officer, rather than have an uncontrollable rabble, and I think that considering most people either build companies in which they are paid more as the boss, or work for companies which keep them fed at a lower salary than the boss, I think that this is not an undesirable solution to life in our civilised society.

I personally believe that these are good things and I think most people would say that they are good. If you are more in favour of this than an egalitarian society, where social hierarchy is opposed, in which everyone is completely equal and you have to support your society and vice versa, then you are not an evil person, but you are likely to be on the right wing. I do not know many people who are left wing, but I know a lot of people who are right wing, most of the time far right, that consistently say they are left wing. This is weird, toxic and I would probably say is delusional behaviour at times.

It has been written that the politics of the far right are oppressive, politically violent, and force assimilation into their ideologies. You may have noticed the far right wearing the mask of the ‘left wing’ on social media platforms trying to force political agendas on people, attacking people who don’t want to be involved in conflict, and trying to smear them, gaslight them, and emotionally blackmail them. These people consider themselves left wing because:

1: They fight for ‘equality.’

2: They fight for ‘justice.’

3: They fight against ‘tyranny.’

4: They hate a ‘reprehensible public figure’ who represents an enemy ideology.

5: They idealize a ‘public figure’, who represents the power of ‘good’.

6: They support a cause that they see as ‘disadvantaged.’

7: The media told them they are ‘left wing.’

But wait a minute! I think equality in some ways is good! I think justice should happen, I don’t like tyranny and I might also dislike reprehensible public figures, or like other public figures. I might also support causes which I see as disadvantaged. I don’t care for the media’s take. They change their opinions more often than I change my underwear – sometimes more often than that. They also rarely apologise when they are wrong… So what’s the problem?

It’s how people have been taught to see me and my ilk, so this is what they think:

Conservatives are all evil. They hate poor people. They hate people of other races. They only care about making money. They are homophobic and just all around bad apples. All Conservatives clearly support the Conservative party because they share the same name. 

The Right Wing means far right, alt right, white supremacist, ultra evil. Baby eaters and people who throw kittens into rivers in sacks. We all sold our souls to the devil and regularly go to Nazi parties. 

These labels are extremely disturbing considering that right wing, alt right and far right have very different meanings. I have found that the majority of people who tend to refer to themselves as left wing are actually far right radicals, looking to establish themselves above others in a social hierarchy of their own making. They wish for moral superiority, to be regarded in high esteem by their peers, and to lower the public standing of their opponents, knocking them down the social ladder. They do not treat their opponents with equal respect, and generally seek to demonize them. They use the guise of ‘being the good guys’ because it allows them to sleep at night, and makes them untouchable through a shield of pseudo morality.

On one hand the radicals preach about yearning for equality, but they begin by segregating people into groups. Rather than looking at our species as a whole, it’s easier to classify people by race, religion, gender or other characteristics. Identity politics is incredibly destructive. Of course then they are in the ideal position to be superior to these oppressed peoples. Another example of how they find the hierarchies within society to be valuable, using them to tactically manoeuvre. How kind it is of them, from their great and lofty heights to preach that everyone should be nice to whichever group they currently ‘support’. Let me be clear on this: The support they show for others changes at the drop of a hat, and changes with the tide.

With this in mind, it is easy to see how someone can become delusional to the point where they will happily attack a perceived enemy because they have come to see themselves as being the good guys in a war against hate. The problem is that most of the time they attack the perceived enemy with little to no justification, based around their own delusional opinion of who that person is.

In most cases, the perceived enemy has done no wrong, but the radicals are happy to attack regardless. They do so using a variety of sinistar methods, and in a vicious and public way. It’s one of the reasons many Conservatives tend to keep their mouths shut on social media, because of the fear these ‘far right radicals’ have pushed on them.

The radicals, after all, are the forces of their self defined ‘good’, so therefore anyone who they perceive as an enemy, or a threat to their ideology is personally marked as ‘evil’. This means any action, no matter how hostile, cruel or sadistic utilised against what they perceive as an evil enemy is justified, and not only that, expected. They use this standing point and mark out their moral high ground, and accuse anyone who does not follow their delusional doctrine of being ‘insert label here’, and proceed to punish them, even if they are innocent. The Salem witch trials never ended, they just changed form.

A campaign of brutal attacks on social media by narcissistic SJWs against a perceived enemy can be a horrifying thing to watch. A huge gang of thugs picking on a lone person, none of them listening to anything that person is saying, taunting, jeering, and tearing a person apart using blanket statements, abuse and just generally being sadistically cruel to them. There are two goals, break the person emotionally, or make their chosen victim capitulate to the new ideology. How authoritarian and far right can you get? This is not the actions of an inclusive egalitarian group, but an oppressive assault on someone. I do not use the word lightly, as assaults can be physical and psychological and both can have catastrophic results.

Few things sadden me more than people posting videos on social media of people being swarmed on the streets by gangs of angry howling thugs and being forced to kneel and beg for forgiveness for a crime they most likely never committed. During the BLM protests, seeing video of people crying and begging for forgiveness for slavery as people shoved, punched, kicked and spat on them opened my eyes to the evil behind these actions. What happened to equality, respect, and goodness? Swept away by domination and hatred. No kindness, honour or dignity afforded for the ‘scum’ who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. A gross display of man’s inhumanity to man. These people might have done nothing wrong, they even may have supported this ideology. But it doesn’t matter to the mob. 

This is not the way to do things. It only harms the cause, if the cause is truly justice. People forced to do anything against their will or being threatened into it does not make them happy followers of the new ideology. It makes them resentful. Resentful people who speak out against the actions of these SJWs or their ideologies are muted, barred and sometimes removed from social media as anything they say can be flagged up as hate speech. This only reinforces the belief in the SJWs mind that they are on the side of good and the other person is evil. It also builds the resentment in their victims. It’s also easy for a team of SJW friends to flag a person’s posts or account for hate speech, and the automated platform to just deplatform that person due to the number of reports going in.

So where does this lead people? Underground. With nowhere else to go, people find small groups of similar people. These groups are usually directly opposed to the ideologies that the victims were forced to capitulate to. With no one to argue against ideas within these new groups and constant support from other social exiles, we end up with a dangerous situation in which human beings become radicalised themselves. It is only then that things get worse and worse to the point where finally they take action against others. Often causing them emotional or physical harm. In a world in which freedom of speech isn’t stifled by oppressive social media politics, this doesn’t happen in the same way, as people generally keep each other in check, whilst being able to be around their friends and families in a safe environment.

Taking a look from outside, it is not dissimilar to the social media platforms taking on the role of Nazi Germany. We have seen a lot of taking over of platforms such as Instagram and WhatsApp, which is a matter of antitrust, but also in the deplatforming of free speech platforms such as Parler and Gab. These platforms were labelled as alt-right and accused of everything from being the reasons people committed murders to the capitol hill riots. (Something a different platform that didn’t fit the free speech narrative was actually more guilty of, and remained up and functioning as a platform… How disturbing.)

One group of social media platforms and tech entities is controlling the market with one singular agenda. Taking over and destroying their opponents, to expand the lebensraum of account space for social refugees and keep them in the right political mindset, under their control. The SJWs are their Gestapo, attacking and eliminating thought criminals, or forcing them to convert and pledge allegiance to the leadership. If you think people are your friends, just say a few things that would put you outside of your comfort zone, like: “I’m right wing.” or “I voted Conservative.” Watch how your friends treat you. It’s like being swarmed by an army of fire ants. I do not honestly recommend this path, you will most likely not like the results. 

The takeover and domination of tech entities and social media with one political agenda is a little disturbing if you ask me. But surely people who are for social justice, equality and all the other good stuff wouldn’t be like that would they? Indoctrination of people is easy. Identity politics makes it a very simple process. It’s easy to see a person who is suffering, to feel sympathy and guilt and want to help. It’s human. Identity politics gives a plethora of reasons people can be oppressed, and anyone, for any reason can be an oppressor. 

The problem is the media have trained people like attack dogs to go for their interpretation of who the bad guys are. They can decide at any time who is a hero and who is a villain. You are some kind of phobe or ist somewhere, and they will find it, even if it isn’t true. There will be no sympathy or mercy for the bad guys, and it’s easy to be a bad guy. You just have to say anything that can be misconstrued, and it’s easy to be misconstrued on the internet.

It’s also easy for malevolent people to turn anyone into an enemy by simple manipulation of their statements, or by finding another way to make people into enemies. “White silence is violence.” Means anyone who doesn’t speak up and speak out is an enemy. It forces people to bow down and surrender themselves, even if they already agree in principle. This causes resentment, which in turn leads to small groups forming outside of the radar of social media, and, unchecked, can grow malignant and radical. A problem caused by actions taken… in the name of justice of course.

It is easy to do using the process of labelling anything that one sees as unclean or evil with any of a huge list of terms which will ultimately raise an army of people against a person with very little effort.

Here are some examples: If someone says…

“Blue Lives Matterl or “All Lives Matter”, they are racist.

“I don’t agree with Pride”, they are homophobic, transphobic, etc.

“Radical Islam can be dangerous”, they are Islamophobic.

“The Guardian sucks”, they are a Daily Mail Reader (shudder)

These are a few examples, so I should go into detail.

Blue Lives Matter was a movement started following the revenge killing of two police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. It seeks to consider the murder of police officers due to their status as police officers a hate crime, which it clearly is. It is seen as a movement that is ‘anti-black’ by people who call the movement racist, despite the fact that this is ludicrous. For example, it was people who supported Blue Lives Matter who recognised the death of David Dorn, something the Black Lives Matter movement failed to do as he didn’t fit their political narrative, sparking a huge amount of anger in the process. David Dorn was a retired African-American police officer who died interrupting a burglary during the BLM riots, and is someone I see as a hero.

All Lives Matter has been criticised as it lacks a specific focus on the inferior ‘Black Lives’ that the superior ‘white’ man (the SJW) feels the need to protect. I find it very odd that a statement so inclusive and pro-equality could be seen as racist. It is my interpretation that we are all brothers and sisters of the human race, so why single anyone out?

It is interesting to note that people who speak out against All Lives Matter do not seem to classify ‘Black Lives’ as part of the all encompassing All. They try to separate ‘Black’ from the rest of the human race, which is in my eyes an incredibly racist sentiment. It’s dehumanising and a revolting thing to do. At Dallas 2016, members of ALM and BLM embraced as they met. They talked about breaking down walls and how they were brothers and sisters.

Pride is an interesting one. Quite a few of my gay friends absolutely hate it for several reasons and I have had to defend them on social media against the most disgusting accusations. Pride is corporate, and has been for a long time. It’s gone from helping people to being a giant corporate cash cow, where people are taken out and celebrated, so everyone can buy a load of rainbow merchandise, then thrown back into the closet for another year. It’s exploitative of the LGBTQ community and allies and whilst it is absolutely a good thing to celebrate, I think the community should be celebrated all year round instead of the Pride event just being used to exploit people for cash then shunting them away from society for the rest of the year. 

Radical Islam can be dangerous. It is a hard thing for me to say as a Sufi, but it is true. As a doctrine, I have seen the words of the Quran being used as much for evil as for good, in many cases being twisted for sinister purposes. The great Imam of Peace, Mohammad Tawhidi has done much to fight against radical Islam. As I accept the law and rules of the country I reside in, I expect my fellow Muslims to do so. There have been some people saying that Islamophobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about it.

Whilst many would say that a lot of people, myself included, that many Muslims here in the UK are accepting of the culture here, and I would agree, looking to the east, I do not find a strong tolerance there for LGBTQ community. Strangely enough Muslims are among the many groups SJWs will surge to protect as well as the LBGTQ. Pick a side guys. I personally, as an ally, think our LGBTQ Community should be protected by radical Islam by recognising that it is dangerous, and taking steps to ensure that it is not unleashed on the LGBTQ community. 

The Guardian does suck. It was founded on the back of exploitation within the slave trade by a cotton merchant called John Edward Taylor, who it is well worth researching. The Guardian is a political soapbox and has a highly political agenda, utilising a very one sided view of the world, and is every bit as bad as the Daily Mail. If you read either, there’s a good chance you are indoctrinated to hate the other. Both papers are worth avoiding. 

The problem with labels is that they are a part of structure and establishment and ultimately are a device used to divide and reduce someone’s status to a level lower than them, something which the left, which favour equality would not attempt to do. The far right authoritarians do not have a problem playing identity politics as it allows them to create their own twisted social hierarchies.

If you are a “Label” then I am morally superior to you.

If you are a “Label” you should be ashamed.

If you are a “Label” you are a terrible person.

If you are a “Label” you should kill yourself.

If you are a “Label” you are scum.

If you are a “Label” you are worthless.

You are any label that an SJW may wish. Right Winger, Trump Supporter, Nazi, White Supremecist, the list goes on. Try replacing these words with Limey, Spic, Honkey, Nigger. These are bad words, and if you are reading this correctly, you should be noticing the problems inherent within this kind of rationale, along with the similarities in the jingoistic and fanatical hatred held by the people who use these labels as weapons. 

When a conversation starts online, there is no hierarchy. There are just two or more people talking about things, possibly supporting ideas, or possibly arguing, but there is no level of control or domination. This is the conversation in its most equal stage.

In a conversation between people who truly value equality and respect, it is always interesting to note that there is no attempt to morally blackmail, dominate, or demonise anyone. The people involved in the conversation or debate listen to each other, accept the things the other person has to say, and put forwards their own evidence, thoughts and opinions which are respected and listened to.

In a conversation with the average far right radicalised SJW, it becomes a battle to the death of insults, shaming, demonization, emotional blackmail, hate, and anything the SJW can use to dominate an opponent. They call in friends, they bring their little armies of fascist trolls. Mostly they are all misinformed, and mostly they are incorrect, and the majority of them have little to no understanding of anything other than the ideology of dominating an opponent. This is an establishment of hierarchy, a hierarchy that is desirable to the SJW and it is something they do every day. It is a far right act, and it is not acceptable. 

Wikipedia (2021) has a protected page status meaning it cannot be edited by trolls, definines the Far Right thusly: “Far right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and even genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.” 

What we see from the SJWs in almost every circumstances is bringing oppression, political violence in the way they utilise labels and bring allies to humiliate and emotionally assault others, forced violence in videos where people are attacked, (punch a Nazi is a fun thing when you define what a Nazi is based on little to no evidence!) forced assimilation of people oppressed into capitulation to follow the new ideologis.

Ethnic cleansing, well ethnic is another term for different racial or cultural groups, so cleanse the conservatives, and cleanse the opposition as their cultures are different (and clearly evil, defined, of course by us!) The media has recently talked about re-education camps for conservatives. Please, just execute us already. Genocide hasn’t happened, but there is currently a social purge of conservatives online, we have seen this in the deplatforming of undesirables who speak out against corruption like Mike Lindell, a violation of his right to free speech, enacted not by a corporation but by a political narrative. This is because conservatives and people of the right wing are inferior in the opinion of the deluded SJW. So much for equality, right?

This of course is because, as Wikipedia says, of the enemy’s perceived threat to the SJW’s delusional ideology. The SJW sets the rules for the battle so they can engage with any opponent at any time. What we see is blitzkrieg after blitzkrieg on social media, as they move to take anyone down, striking in groups to subjugate anyone they wish. The only thing they have equal is their responsibility to the lives they purposefully ruin, and they take no responsibility for their actions.

They use a combination of labels, blanket statements and fear to dominate opponents. A label like ‘Trump supporter’ was one that was used on me recently. This was following a statement I made which said that maybe America would look back and miss “Orange Man”. I have a lot of respect for Donald Trump, and I think if you cannot name one good thing about the man, you do not know enough about what he has actually done to have an opinion that he is the abominable monster he is portrayed as by the mass media.

For context, I want to express that I was on the side of the Libertarians at this point and supporting their campaigns in Tennessee. Donald Trump is a Republican and Biden a Democrat. The Libertarian leadership I supported was Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen who had nothing to do with Trump. Many of my statements on Social Media had been in support of the Libertarians. 

The label of ‘Trump supporter’ garnered some support against me, which I quickly quashed by contacting the person who liked the attacker’s statement, asking why they believed it and providing evidence this person was wrong and I was being maliciously attacked.

I find it quite disturbing when far right radicals take to social media and put out blanket statements attacking ideologies as well. A while back, someone posted a disgusting comment linking an article based upon a racist attack and said that behaviour was typical of people who were ‘Tories’ ie, supporters of the conservative party in the UK. 

I engaged them in a debate that was frankly rather awful and was demonized and referred to by many different unpleasantries. I provided a large plethora of information expressing why my political views were correct and how the conservative party was helping to support low income families, only to be ignored, gaslit and abused. It was a great experience as it revealed a far right sociopath among my friendship circle. 

Let us go back to the statement: “White Silence is violence.” I have seen this uttered by many people on social media all of whom have condemned Donald Trump as being a ‘Racist.’ Donald Trump has disavowed and condemned racism and racist groups over 35 times to my knowledge. This tends to come from the First Presidential debate streamed live on 30th of September 2020, where he was asked, yet again, as he is always asked to condemn White Supremacists and similar groups. The full debate can be watched online, yet this particular moment was quote mined and purposefully misinterpreted by the media who focused on it and used it to condemn him as a white supremacist. It didn’t matter that he had previously disavowed such groups, but despite the fact that he says “Sure.” when asked if he’d condemn it, this was cut from the media broadcasts that they quote mined to him arguing against his opponent flustered, making him look bad.

Even though Trump had done a lot for african-americans, had extremely good approval ratings, had a fantastic track record and was growing african-american support of the Republican party, many people shared these quote mined clips and continue to see Trump as a racist. They cannot be bothered to go and watch debates and are happy to sit there and propagate what I see is a grossly unjust assassination of character. The issue here is that people do not want to listen to a ‘racist’ and don’t want to have their opinion changed. Trump is clearly not a racist, as anyone who actually knows anything about him would know.

This reflects also back to me, as I was accused of being a Trump supporter. That meant that I, through association, could be referred to as ‘racist’ which has been the case on several occasions. This has allowed several SJWs to attack me despite the fact I never voted for Trump, as a British citizen, that would be hard. But not only this, I had been very much in the idea of supporting the Libertarians and was involved in working with them remotely in Tennessee, so actually Trump was my enemy, as was Joe Biden. 

Identity politics is a dangerous arena. As soon as you have a label, you can be attacked. It is important to note that just because a million people share the same label, each one of them is an individual, and I am in accord with Martin Luther King Jr, that people should be judged by the content of their character. He was a great man, and is someone well worth listening to. No matter what our labels, we are all human, until we behave like a reprehensible moron and start attacking others for our own vile pleasure.