​The 2016 election – ecstatic and wild. This particular election for America’s presidency might be the most stupendous of the West’s political elections. I believe we have seen two vast opposites attempt to strike each other down with successes, persuasion and satire. Donald Trump is an unusual character, but full of frankness and splendid bluntness. Hilary Clinton is, of course, a well-experienced character, but with a reckless history. 

​I was not surprised when I awoke on the Wednesday morning to find the title “Trump Declares Victory” displayed on the rather partisan BBC news network. Donald Trump can much effectively tackle collective psychology with his staunch views and policies, whilst too understanding the anger of people who get ludicrous accusations such as ‘racist’ thrown at them. Friends, who I’d understand as liberal, have shown a support for Trump to merely prevent the rise of radical leftist self-righteousness.
 
Nonetheless, we mustn’t let personal feelings and self-identified labels bombard sound judgement. We have seen a bout between the political sides; a brawl between radical righties (who want to vote Trump so Hilary can lose) and radical lefties (who want to vote Hilary so Trump can lose). As I have personally remarked on the UK election, the collective general public seem to disregard that other parties are on their ballot. What about Gary Johnson, whom was the only candidate of the four that I endorsed as a responsible character? Although I do not firmly advocate the economic principles of libertarianism – as I presently find the rudimentary ‘liberal socialist’ idea logically appealing – Gary Johnson’s pursuit for presidency carried more weight of reliability in comparison to Trump and Clinton, at least regarding his political history and character.
 
The left were hopeful that the result would go their way and if it didn’t, they’d be prepared to throw a collective tantrum against the opposing result. Donald Trump won, and the tantrum proceeded. Trump may not have been the best candidate (clearly), but there is at least one good thing about this election: Hilary Clinton didn’t win. The one thing I admired about the Donald during this race was his adherence to abandon authoritarian political correctness which has been enforced by the radical left and the end result succeeded the demolition of the leftists expectations that if you call enough people racist, “then we might win”. Did democracy stab you in the back, my dear leftists? Nope. You stabbed yourselves in the back with your own knife of identity politics, partisanship and political correctness.

Don’t protest just because you are a certain age, your friends do it or you just like the idea of being a rebel. Pick up some books, study politics, and protest by the means of writing and peaceful rallies or marches; not smashing windows, vandalising cars of your fellow residents, or assaulting those who disagree with you. Are these protestors worthy of support if they adhere to such insane activities? The left, who often succumb to the idea of pacifism, emphasise peace and anti-war, yet riot and assault people in the streets! They are not fighting for any noble cause when the motivation is to just shut down the winner of an election governed by principles of a democracy. The sore losers of the election were calling for the assassination of Trump; and now fabricated racism allegations have sufficed, thus making themselves just as morally evil as the racists – many of which are actually imaginary – they like to accuse. Calling for assassination, annihilation of someone or a certain ‘identity’ of people is disgusting and deserves contempt, but the hypocritical leftists seem to want a free pass on their vindictive actions.

As aforesaid, I did not adore Donald Trump’s awful attempt of professionalism as a candidate or his policies, and I of course did not support the corruption of Clinton’s campaign. So, I will close by addressing to the radical leftists: they brought this on themselves! Trump’s win is a counteraction on the left’s forcefulness to defame the principles of liberalism. They annoyingly and subjectively hurled the ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ blabber at as many people as imaginable, thus the worse it became and their biased preference of a woman becoming president, simply because she was a woman, failed. 

I first noticed the divide as I upheld my obligation to criticise religion. I thought the majority of freethinkers, atheists, humanists, liberals, or whomever, would support open criticism of antique doctrines but I was truly mistaken. It was worse having to allow the regressives –those that say “I am an atheist but…” – propose that I, or ‘you atheists’ should not hurt feelings and offend deeply held beliefs. Please note, these regressives – a term that was not yet popularised when I first supported this “new atheist” movement – did not even understand the rudiments of religion. They’d cry bold allegations such as “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism” shortly after religiously-motivated terror attacks. These illiberal liberals would then run and duck whenever invited on a discussion of religion or an elaboration of their claims. I knew, at the time when I began my pursuit for writing, that I did not ally with religion-defenders (my term for them at the time), whom have now formed part of the regressive left.
 
It somewhat seems our millennial generation attend further and higher education, becoming indebted with drastic tuition fees, to then leave university still very stupid; as a minimum, stupid on the matter of political and social history. Why are they closing their minds on campus? They run to a safe space and demand their views not be criticised at discussions, protests and events, but are happy to indulge their collective narcissism. Safe spaces are to segregate. Promoting multiculturalism and diversity – a component of regressive social justice warrior annoyance – and then hiding to a safe space and demanding trigger warnings is hypocrisy and pro-segregation. When they hear the word ‘diversity’, they immediately think of minority race, religion and class but subsequently disregard the importance of diverse ideas. If these leftists want to decrease discrimination, then what’s with the constant favouritism of a race or religion?
 
University and college campuses entail a stream of self-righteous leftists, or generation snowflake, as they are sometimes cleverly labelled. The bandwagon of social justice is a wagon they love to hop onto to gain fame and likability among the popular opinion or among their circle of friends. Should one be trustworthy of the words that exit a regressives mouth? Are they just joining the fight to feel good about themselves; so they can then say “I have fought for something”?  The student left adore terminology consisting of what evolved into cliché buzzwords. Bigotry, fascist, xenophobic, Islamophobic are words that show up in the social justice sphere. On one occasion, I have even encountered the ludicrous term ‘religious-phobic’, which is likely an SJW response to ‘annoying’ and ‘loud’ atheists. The regressive left adore these listed terms as a result of an insignificant vocabulary, due to their uninformed and low intellectual capacity.
 
Within this liberal crisis, generation snowflake – consisting of young easily-offended millenials (I am trying my best not to overly criticise my generation) – tend to include themselves in social activism when it is convenient to them. They don’t have a legitimate framework of their advocacies, apart from benefitting their own reputation and a desire to feel good about themselves. You can almost hear the hypocritical leftists say “let’s take a break from killing zombies on the PlayStation and vaguely involve ourselves in political protest.” It makes any true liberal ask this question: do they really care? Additionally, when it relates to science, it seems like the social justice warriors don’t care. Political correctness and the avoidance of hurt feelings are more important than the revolutions of science which can be so vital for the future of our ape sub-species. As I have aforementioned, enlightenment thinkers fought hard for our liberal principles which are now taken for granted, just as much as age-old scientists fought extremely hard for the importance of scientific discovery. Currently, the modern left would rather embrace anti-intellectualism and anti-science, as it might ‘offend’ the religious. Particularly discussing the matters of the origins of life, the big bang and evolutionary fact, this insolence is foreseen. Assuming the teaching of creationism to be taught alongside science is ludicrous, and is only expected of conservative Christians, not liberals. However, social justice warriors tend to consciously disguise themselves as liberals since they think that term is relative to their authoritarian and relapsing babble.
 
The liberal crisis forces one to inquire if the left are unknowingly disassembling from the true liberal domain whilst accusing the true liberals of neoconservativism or a form or right-wing allegiance – something of sheer nonsense! Or is this what we expect of the far-left all along? The left have divided with a degree of tension and civil war. Do the regressive left deserve to be labelled liberals as they most commonly are? They feel obliged to stroll around wearing the label of liberty since they seem to only desire liberty for their own measures – a lack of fairness, instead authoritarian partisanship. True liberals are combatting social justice warriors more so than liberals are combatting conservatives. Right-wingers are giggling and dominating the votes as a result of social justice warriors attacking liberal free speech; they are dancing whilst the left are consumed by the popular fashion of social justice and collective narcissism; they embrace a desire to take away freedoms and to replace them with partiality. Do you call that justice? Do you call that fair?
 
References

• Collective Narcissism
• The Attacks on Paris and its Genuine Motives 
• Are these students for real with these "trigger warnings"?
• UK universities issue ‘trigger warnings’ to warn students of potentially ‘upsetting’ materia

​Of all the people who’d deny science, you’d at least think it was those on the religious or far-right political side of our societies. But, no! It is scary to comprehend the sentiment of anti-science as strife among a small distressing fraction of the liberal and student sphere of the early 21st century. The anti-science motivations are a perfect example for why a certain portion of the left are labelled ‘regressive’; because that is what it is — regression into the post science revolution era.

A mere divergence of discussion into evolutionary biology, abiogenesis or the big bang theory can sprout either hostility or denial from the regressive left — an unfortunate group to converse with — because it ‘offends’ other people’s opinions. Yet, these opinions have been continuously disproved by fact. But no, the regressives cry, “we should be respectful of other people’s opinions”. If a theory becomes a colloquial fact, it thus disproves that opinion and should no longer be labelled as an ‘opinion’, but denial. Additionally, it seems liberal toleration is rupturing; to the point where we can see toleration of intolerance.
​
A portion of the generation of the late 21st century, has truly transgressed in how and what is considered logical thinking. Regressive is definitely the perfect word for the anti-science lobby, notwithstanding the idiotic social justice lobby. Racism has been imported into modern scientific thinking among some spectators (those who view and read about the work of brilliant scientists). A fantasy of ‘decolonisation’ is of more concern than the global benefits of scientific discovery; something that proceeds to be unappreciated among self-proclaimed liberals. Instead, students at the University of Cape Town in South Africa favour black magic over science because it is Western, therefore racist and colonial. Can anything become even more absurd? These self-proclaimed liberals do not seem to have an accurate grasp of history. Full of hatred towards the conservative lobby, these besmirching leftists do not realise how closer they are getting to the authoritarian right every time they oppose free speech, oppose the share of ideas and oppose science. Hence, regressive, is the adjective applied. If they must truly ‘decolonise’ from science, then it is advised to remove the smartphones from their pockets; rid themselves of MacBook’s; drink from an unfiltered water source; withdraw from any hospital treatment. Need I continue?

Aforementioned, the regressive left avoid the important discussion of scientific discoveries for the fear of it ‘offending’ those who choose to deny the importance of science. Respecting an absurd view — religion, pseudoscience, black magic, silly interpretation of fact — is more important than criticising such a view according to the sanctimonious left. How can ‘cultures’ mix with other cultures that are at an intellectual conflict? By keeping our mouths padlocked to avoid hurting feelings; to avoid provoking violence? And these leftists, who defame the core principles of liberalism, assume said violence is justifiable as a result of expressing facts that seem ‘provocative’?

What is so wrong with the pursuit of intellectualism? Do we have to fear science so much irrespective of it providing us with great explorations into not only what we understand, but how we understand it? We shall not regress into a society of obscurantism that existed prior to the enlightenment, and that which continues to prevail in theocratic states across the globe.

​Originally Published on Medium

References
Scientific Revolutions
Evolution
Abiogenesis
Science Must Fall: it’s time to decolonise science
Obscurantism

​We must be clear: ISIS is a movement of walking horror. The sacking of the group has become unquestionable and foreseeable. But, as expected, the takeover of an ISIS stronghold raises major concerns on the matter of civilian casualties. I believe, airstrikes should be strongly and morally thought-out to avoid innocent casualties.

However, the bugging part of the equation is the negative backlash from pacifists on social media, where it seems the sacking of a brutal regime by force isn’t a good solution. I understand, that innocent lives are in danger of warfare such as the recent battle of Mosul where Iraqi and its allies are attempting to takedown ISIS prominence in the city, but aren’t we leaving those same innocent lives in further danger under ISIS’s vicious rule?
 
Indeed, my concern is a moral one. Yet, an opinion that is not of the most popular among the left. The contradiction and hypocrisy is wild among the modern left – they seem to be pro-equality, pro-freedom, pro-liberalism, but criticise the sacking of a regime that uphold the total opposite of what they believe. Relative to the question of ISIS’s formation, previous foreign policy and the Iraq invasion did not wholly create ISIS as many guilt-ridden leftists declare. Religion is the formational root of groups such as ISIS. Interventionist policies simply provided the water for it to grow faster.
 
This article was a quickie, but I just needed to inquire with a question for the pacifists: wouldn’t you rather take down an anti-freedom, truly oppressive, authoritarian and brutal regime, rather than allow it to thrive, to then spread its vastness of anti-freedom?
 
References
If the Mosul offensive is a success, what could this mean for Isis?
2003 invasion of Iraq

In June 2016, attempting to intake both sides of the EU referendum in Britain, I was overwhelmed by the faulty promises of the Brexit supporters and astonished by the hypocritical accusations of the Remain voters. Promising to save millions of British pounds once Britain departed from the European Union was a strongly persuasive declaration, to thus be disregarded by Brexiteers immediately the vote was won. My case here is not to discuss my opinion on the referendum’s question, but instead to mention the accusations from the liberal remain voters during the campaign as one example of hypocrisy seen on the left; where again, social justice warrior-ship and regressive leftism was strong.

If there is any form in which a cruel economy degrades the future of a generation by oppressing youth and graduates, it is to enforce the criminality of the zero-hour contract. Under the zero-hour contract, you’d be more obliged to label your employment status as partially-employed with its rate of unreliable work ethics, insecure income and a lack of security to support yourself or your family.
​
The Great Recession’s reverberation has demonstrated the difficulty for employers to protect the reassurance of employees and the government has found strife in ensuring the rights of the countries’ workers. Thus, it seems possible that the recession from 2008-2012 evolved into much uncertainty and paranoia, emerging into policies such as the zero-hour contract.

Read full article on Quora

More Reading

• ​Recommended Books for the Curious - 1st Edition ​
  
• ​Walking on Eggshells: We Live in A Society That is Too Soft
• The Authors of Religion: Subjective Intentions ​
• Defining the Overconfident Religion-Defender

​Do you have any thoughts or feedback to share? Use the comment section below, so I can respond to you! Also, feel free to share this post to your friends.