USAToday published an opinion on 7/5/2019 by Gary Varvel, entitled “The real reason why the left was against Donald Trump’s July 4 speech“.

As you can imagine, this is a right-wing reaction to the agitation in the media regarding Trump’s decision to break a long-standing tradition by inserting himself into the ceremonies with a presidential speech, accompanied with a show of military might. The op-ed open with these two sentences, leaving no room for doubt.

Now we know why the Democrats were so upset about President Trump speaking on the Fourth of July. It was not because it was political or partisan. It was patriotic and that is what annoys the left the most.

I guess I don’t find this sentiment surprising. Mostly because I’ve already heard it (a million times) but I always figured it for rhetoric, something people don’t really believe in but they say it anyway as an insult or a joke. But lately I’ve become more convinced that people often do believe this shit. So let me just point something out here…

A lot of Americans are interested in making their beloved country even greater than it already is. That being said, it should be noted that this often requires we acknowledge faults or inefficiencies so that we know what to change. The problem arises when other people don’t want to change; and maybe they have good reason for that but it’s no excuse for casting these acknowledgements as insults or attacks on America. Anyone who has ever been coached in order to improve their personal performance knows that acknowledging “what you’re doing wrong” is a crucial part of that coaching. Imagine if every time a coach points out a fault, the athlete cries out “You HATE me!”. Sounds silly doesn’t it? And no, the coach doesn’t hate you or he wouldn’t be investing his time to help you.

Now imagine a small group of fans in the bleachers standing up and chanting the athletes name and screaming at the coach to leave him alone because he’s “already perfect”. Sadly, this is what some people call patriotism… an overt praise for something for which all faults are dismissed. As you can imagine, anyone who might be annoyed with the efforts to subvert improvement would be accused of hating patriotism. And that is exactly what Gary Varvel is doing.

At least it’s not as bad as it is in places like North Korea where patriotism is actually mandated. I wonder if Gary feels the same way about the North Koreans who defect, which isn’t very patriotic. At least here we have the option to challenge the status-quo… we just have to put up with the insults from loose rattle-heads like Gary Varvel and their stupid accusations of anti-patriotism.

So Gary… I have a suggestion for making America greater than ever… Let’s stop calling every effort to make America better an attack on patriotism because in reality, nothing can be further from the truth.

Antifa is a subject that often comes up in discussions with my right-leaning friends. To me it often seems like a “go-to” when they need something they think is associated with the left and is easy to demonize. Despite our political differences, my friends and I do consider each other decent people; it’s just that we’re sucked up into conflicting narratives and this of course explains the argument. They are appealing to my sense of decency to see the glaring dangers of the left. It’s usually pretty easy for me to brush off the argument because Antifa isn’t a critical component of any of the political movements I support but sometimes I still hear the arguments in my head the next day. Sort of that low-level nag that compels me to write opinions like this.

So my first question is… How “left” is Antifa, really? My considerable assessment, according to how I define the “left” as being socially inclusive, is that they are indeed much further left than the white supremacists that exclude all other races. But that’s a relation between two sides of a demonstration I don’t participate in. As for myself, I’m too inclusive to even stand in defiance of the most insipid expressions of bigotry and hatred, which technically puts Antifa to my right.

My second question is just how dangerous are they? My honest assessment is that I really don’t know. They obviously have an inclination to violence but their ire seems limited to fascism, not every religion, race and nationality that isn’t theirs, so we can safely say that whatever danger Antifa presents it isn’t nearly as wide-spread as the danger posed by white supremacists. So far it seems you would have to commit a wanton act of bigotry to draw any fire from Antifa, in which case you’re kinda getting what you deserve. We can’t say that about white supremacists who have a history of attacking innocent people not for what they do but for who they are. I think that’s a significant difference.

It may also be worth noting that many people who show up to protest fascism have no intention of inciting violence and in the absence of any such directive, those who do incite violence, do so on their own individual will, not the will of an organization. That being said, I hesitate to keep score but when it comes to loose cannons, there’s a bigger pattern that makes it difficult to suggest the left, even with Antifa, is even close to being as violent as the right. According to a 2016 Anti-Defamation League report, domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists (also right-wing), and remaining 2% were killed by left-wing extremists, none of which had anything to do with Antifa.

So, I’m not really seeing Antifa as the glaring left-wing danger that my friends would have me believe, but of course that encourages them to break out the conspiracy theories. Recently, in one such discussion it was suggested that Antifa is organized by communists, funded by demon-barrons like George Soros AND is functionally a modern equivalent to the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany. Now, I wouldn’t be so dismissive about Antifa if I thought any of that was true but I can’t seem to find any evidence that Antifa is funded by Soros or guided by communists and when I ask them for any such evidence they never have a response other than to insist it’s out there.

Brownshirts? Really? Brownshirts were regimented and directed by chain of command stemming from Hitler himself – they operated as a functional component of his political movement. Antifa, by contrast, is more of a socio-cultural trend made up of autonomous subcultures like skinheads. They don’t pledge to ANY political movement, probably because they are entirely reactionary… their only agenda is to troll fascists. At one point, one of my friends tried a logical question… “How do they know when and where to meet if they aren’t organized?” So I rhetorically asked him if he’s ever heard of social media.

I wasn’t always this secure in my dismissive opinion about Antifa and I was perhaps more sensitive to what my friends were suggesting when I was having this conversation a year ago. I was worried that Antifa would give the left a bad name. But after the 2018 mid-term elections I’ve noticed how mobilized the more constructive arms of the left have become in response to Trump and the rise of American fascism. I’ve noticed that there is no prevailing association between Antifa and the left-wing political machine outside of sharing an opinion about fascism. Indeed, it’s become quite clear that the ONLY people who associate Antifa with left-wing politics are those firmly planted in the conspiracy delusions of the alt-right and those people were never going to see left-wing politics in any other light anyway, so no loss there.

The world war that fascism started and ultimately lost is still in living memory which may explain why fascism is still considered by Americans across the spectrum as a bad thing, so you really don’t have to be involved in left-wing politics to be anti-fascist. The question is whether or not you think violence and intimidation is an appropriate way to express your opposition to fascism.

Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary… at least not yet. The rise of fascism that we see today has yet to reach the point of shutting down democracy and killing racial minorities like it did in Europe in 80 years ago. And in the U.S. where Donald Trump has become a correlation to fascism, his lack of popularity outside of his dedicated 30% is an indication that fascism, at least under Trump, is inhibited by a much larger body of Americans looking for something more sensible.

Of course, one could point out that the Nazis were also opposed by a majority at first, so we should be vigilant nevertheless and perhaps that’s the one value that Antifa DOES give us… the reminder that if fascism does continue to rise, not all Americans are going to take it sitting down and it won’t always be kids in black hoodies either… the alt-right should understand that. If fascism rises to any significant level, so too will the resistance, even if it means full-scale war as it did in the 40’s, God forbid.



Have a look at this ugly but viral meme…















We’ve probably all seen this before… I know I have – enough to where I feel compelled to explain a few things for the sake of preserving our language and our national sanity…

First of all, let me just say that no one should be educating themselves with memes… This one in particular is a sock puppet denial of a traditional perspective. Which isn’t so much a problem in itself until you start using it to bash people who identify with the left because those people are using the traditional perspective not this viral nonsense.

The fact is, your teacher had it right (at least in the traditional sense) but they probably failed to explain it, so I’ll do that now. The big thing to note is that it’s not a question of how much government… It’s a question of how much representation. The sentiment on the left is that everyone should be represented, where on the right there is always a push to exclude people from representation. In fact, it’s the harsh exclusion of non-Aryan people that puts the Nazis on the hard right.

If you’re not so sure about this, here’s a fail-safe litmus test you can do with respect to a person’s attitude toward diversity. See how they feel about Jews, Muslims, blacks, Mexicans, atheists, homosexuals, immigrants or transgenders, for instance. If a person’s politics feature any kind of resentment or repression toward any of these unfamiliar demographics, it’s almost a guarantee that they identify with the right. Go ahead and try it. It’s pretty easy and of course the amount of government has nothing to do with that. In fact it can be argued that Republicans have created more government than Democrats as indicated by the massive debts the government incurs under Republican management. And when it’s the people who identify with the right that are trying to pass laws to exclude gay people from marriage or empower law enforcement to coral immigrants, it’s hard to imagine them as advocates of little government and big freedom.

So, I suppose I need to address the fact that the Nazis were socialists. Fine, but lets also remember that during the end of the Weimar Republic when the Nazis were rising to power though a democratic process, every opposition party in Germany was also socialist, if not communist. Bear in mind, this was the 1930’s when socialism was extremely popular among the working classes. Even in the U.S. it was difficult for any political faction to gain any traction without some homage to socialism. So it’s dishonest (or ignorant) to cite socialism as a difference when it was much more of a constant. The more significant difference was indeed the militant repression of non-Aryan people and again, that’s what puts the Nazis clearly on the right.

Another point to make about this idiot meme is that the top part erroneously implies that the left is more “liberal” while the right is more “conservative”. The terms, “liberal” and “conservative” refer specifically to the attitudes regarding change, not ideology. Whether or not one side is more liberal or conservative than the other depends on context, which is why the alignment is different in so many other countries. Some political analysts are pointing out that in today’s context, at least in America, the Democrats are actually more conservative than what we are currently calling the alt-right. No where is this more obvious than the alt-right’s attack on Democrats for supposedly defending the “deep state”. In this context, the alt-right is the liberal, even radical side. We can also look back on history and find the first Republicans referred to themselves as “Radical Republicans”.






As an anti-Zionist, I often find myself confronted with extremely popular but unfounded claims such as the idea that Arab nations are always attacking Israel and loosing. Here’s a particular quote from an online discussion… “The Arabs were defeated every time and still provoke war..” This is part of the culture war, where an entire race of people are portrayed as being weak and stupid. So I decided to look into the history of conflicts between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

First of all, “Arab” is a reference to a race. “Israel” is a reference to a country. The U.S. fought the Filipinos, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese and the Vietnamese but if I were to use the same semantics (and tone) I would just be saying it was the same dumb-ass Asians that keep coming at us.

If the statement is in reference to the Arab League of Nations, they’ve been chill since 1974. All the attacks since then were from stateless entities like Hamas and Hezbollah… the only two Arab nations to attack Israel since 1974 was Syria (once) and Lebanon (twice). In none of these cases will you find a situation where Israel didn’t have a ridiculous advantage in terms of weapons and funding.

The wars with the Arab nations that stretch from 1947 to 1974 are often described as the Arab-Israeli Wars and they don’t all fit into this popular myth…

The First Arab-Israeli War, 1947-49, did not start with an attack on the State of Israel because the State of Israel wasn’t recognized by ANYONE as a sovereign nation yet. “Israel” was literally a stateless terrorist organization that did the same thing ISIS was trying to do by declaring a “rightful” domain. In fact the U.S. and Britain imposed restrictions on arms coming into Palestine (which is what the place was called then) BECAUSE they were… terrorists. So… the terrorists snagged a deal with Czechoslovakia  for smuggled shipments of weapons that were intended for the Nazis (including brand new Messerschmitts) then they declared their independence and yeah, they basically kicked ass. (I guess that’s terrorism done right).

The Second Arab-Israeli War in 1956 did not start with an attack on Israel either. This time Israel attacked the Arabs… specifically, Egypt and Israel was joined by the British and the French. So not only was Israel the aggressor but they had two super-powers on their side while Egypt was alone defending it’s borders. What was happening here is that Nasser had just nationalized the Suez Canal. So the British and French basically tried to do what the U.S. did in Iraq and change the regime. But then the UN stepped in to say the invasion was a violation of international law, which of course they did during our invasion of Iraq but the difference is the British, French and Israelis complied. Bush went ahead anyway, which is what G.W.Bush is officially registered as a war criminal.

The Third Arab-Israeli War, 1967… Incredibly, this is yet another one where Israel attacked first. They launched air strikes on Egyptian airbases. Israel justified their attacks by saying that Egypt closed the Straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which they did, but that’s not the same thing as attacking their country. The surprise air strikes just about destroyed the entire Egyptian airforce, then Israeli ground forces invaded the Sinai and took Gaza. That’s when Nassar induced Syria and Jordan to attack Israel. Israel won mostly because none of the Arab nations had a plan because they weren’t expecting a fight. Israel DID have a plan because they WERE expecting to fight because THEY were planning on taking the Sinai! They also took the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan. The UN, (probably regretting by now that they recognized the State of Israel in the first place) said you have to give those territories back and Israel basically told the UN to **** off.

The Fourth Arab-Israeli War, 1973 (Yom Kippur War) technically, this war did not start with an attack on Israel either because the territories the Arabs attacked technically belonged to them, not Israel. Egypt moved forces into the Sinai, which according to the UN still rightfully belonged to Egypt and Syria moved into the Golan Heights which according to the UN still rightfully belonged to Syria. So these countries were simply trying to get their territory back. There were no plans to attack the recognized State of Israel.