I’ve always been strongly opposed to foreign so-called ‘wars’ which served no purpose for the average ‘man on the street’, especially here in the UK. Most wars, even if they are not given that specific label these days, usually make life worse by helping to attract yet more hatred and terrorism towards the innocent men, women and children of western societies, some of which I found understandable to some degree at least. Not justifiable, but understandable. There is a very big difference.
I have always been a firm believer that there are two sides to every issue. There is never only one bad party in a failed relationship, there is always another version of things to consider and I always wanted to hear both sides of any issue or dispute, particularly before making any judgements or taking a firm position of my own.
That’s not to say that there is never a right and wrong party in a dispute, just that it usually isn’t quite that binary. When it comes to international terrorism, a hugely complex subject, whilst it is abhorrent and clearly wrong in every sense of the word, that does not necessarily mean it is 100% one-sided. But both sides often see it that way, and I always believed that there would be no solution until some moves were made to understand each other’s position or at least try to. It’s cheap to think, and it can’t hurt can it?
Ok I know it sounds trite and somewhat naive, and I did form this pattern when I was pretty young and admittedly slightly left of centre, but it still seems reasonable to me even now in my ‘middle ages’!
I suspect that most conservative readers will be starting to squint at the page right about now, but please bear with me, and remember that conservatives are currently the main purveyors of rationality and fact-based arguments, so don’t lose that important attribute now. Oh and you should temper any suspicions you may have that I am “anti-western” or any other such nonsense!
If we agree that the definition of terrorism is something akin to ‘the threat or use of violence in order to bring about social, political or ideological change’, then I trust everyone agrees that some western nations have conducted a few bits of terrorism of their own, more than a few in fact.
One bullet fired in order to change the political leadership of any foreign nation is, by definition, terrorism. Don’t shoot the messenger, I didn’t write the definition. I just stick to it ruthlessly even when it applies to my own government or, more painfully, close friends of mine with military backgrounds and vivid memories causing significant mental turmoil to this day, increasingly so as they age.
For me, anyone who thinks something can’t be terrorism because ‘we did it’ is no less hypocritical than a rabid leftist who claims their racist policies or views can’t be racism because they are democrats or liberals or Marxists or whatever else they label their unfailing ‘goodness’ with.
As a keen student of American and British politics, (I refuse to call my studies ‘political science’ despite others doing so, it is not science and it never will be!), I always wondered why terrorists seemed to target just a few countries, the UK and US mainly. Meanwhile the many other so-called ‘free and democratic’ countries of the world attracted no such violence nor hatred from the same people, despite those countries having pretty much identical values to ours. It seemed to render quite laughable the claim that “they are attacking us for our values”, as is so often heard from our rulers after each bombing or street killing that takes place. Nice try, no cigar.
Things don’t happen without a reason, and it was those reasons I was seeking when I researched the historical foreign policy of western countries, mainly the UK, USA, and Israel, but some other honourable mentions too, France for instance.
For more than a few years I studied and considered the views of many people from across the political spectrum. I should note that my ‘higher education’ Politics teachers did everything they could, even all those years ago, to push us to the left hand side and steer us away from considering the views of outspoken right-wing commentators.
Nevertheless, I made a particular effort (as it did require effort sometimes) to consider the views expressed by the relatively radical people at either end of the spectrum. Some of the memorable names would be Mike Ruppert, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky and even the over-fed, multi-millionaire, anti-capitalist ‘Pinko Commie’ (but good filmmaker): Michael Moore. Of those who leaned the other way, the two most renowned would be Tommy Robinson and David Duke (the consummate ‘unmentionable’ of our time). In fact both of those last two are ‘unmentionables’ in polite society and effectively banished from the discourse both in the UK and US (respectively) today.
I deem it noteworthy that while the last two are outright pariahs now, the aforementioned radical left-wing voices are not only still acceptable today, but highly fashionable and commonly revered. And whilst I am sure a leftist would say ‘that’s because the right-wingers’ views are not acceptable to most people now’ (not that they appear to actually know any of their views), I would argue more that it’s a lesson in just who has taken the reigns of the social discourse, Big Tech, governments and education systems throughout the western world over recent decades.
I didn’t study these people’s material out of some search for someone to ‘follow’ or align behind. Far from it, I am not a fan of such simplistic and intellectually-lazy tendencies. I merely sought information with which to form my own views, informed ones rather than simple tribal/ideological ones. And it was evident to me that often the best sources of information are those who are pushed to the sidelines, those who have little else left but to speak the absolute truth as they see it without fear for their careers or wealth, having already lost those things to cancel culture.
This process also taught me the importance of overcoming or at least limiting my ‘confirmation bias’, a dangerous thing especially when studying radical thinkers who present arguments in a powerful way.
These people all gave their markedly different perspectives and opinions, all of which I tried hard to ignore, in true ‘Columbo’ style: “Just the facts ma’am“!
Ruppert was a good example of this, a man who’s conclusions and general outlook I often disagreed with, but who presented evidence so succinctly that it was impossible not to listen to what he had to say. The best demonstration of this was his excellent talk entitled “Truth & Lies of 911“, particularly the timeline surrounding the events of 911 (go to 1:36:30 in the linked video). That presentation is something all open-minded people should challenge themselves to watch despite its age and low video quality compared to today’s standards.
One thing I found more than a little interesting was how these radical thinkers, both left and right, often seemed to converge on certain topics. For example they all laid out their somewhat unpopular non-mainstream views on why terrorism was on the rise, especially after 911. As Chomsky once put it, a little too absolutely for me, but to claim there is no truth in it would be even more absolute, and demonstrably false:
As you can probably tell, I was never a believer in the “Might is Right” idea. I never agreed with the west acting as the world’s ‘policeman’, and I was always rooting for the ‘little guy’, whether on the global stage or in a random sports event like a boxing match. It was just my innate character I suppose and that might seem a bit ‘leftie’ by modern standards, but as I’ll explain below, modern standards are not to be trusted. Right and wrong was always a strong guiding principle for conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. Who ended slavery again? ;-)
I am, and have always been, strongly pro-western. But I wasn’t so blinded by patriotism that I couldn’t see our own mistakes, like electing the occasional dishonest warmongering globalist demagogue:
I have always detested bullies with an almost psychotic passion from as far back as my early school days. I remain the same today, in fact not much has changed about me at all, except my environment of course, which is unrecognisable from the one I grew up in.
Over the past 5-10 years I have watched our already liberal society shift violently towards the radical left. It is accelerating in that increasingly extreme direction seemingly every week now.
Coming from a traditionally liberal background with a naturally liberal type of personality coupled with a (perhaps) unhealthy disrespect for un-earned authority, I always felt more at home on the left rather than the right. For most of my life I deemed myself a proud liberal, perhaps yes even a “leftie” on occasion, back when being on the left did not require taking leave of one’s senses, or becoming rabidly vicious toward, and pathologically intolerant of, anyone with an alternative viewpoint.
But this ‘new left’ is no place for me to be hanging around, not without giving up my true liberal values of fairness and tolerance, and I ain’t doing that in a hurry even if the price I pay for my refusal is to now be labelled a far-right nazi misogynist sexist racist transphobe. Sticks and stones… I know what I am, and what I am not, thank you very much.
I grew up disliking much about political Conservatism, something that was of course greatly amplified by my state education which was, at best, left-leaning, and at worst, forthrightly Communist. It took many years for me to realise this however, and I now believe the single most effective ‘cure’ for the modern-day mental illness of radical left-wing thinking, is growing up, having children, a job, a house to run, and all the usual trappings of adulthood where issues like taxation, personal freedom/security etc come to the fore and the true value of these become crystalised by day to day life in a way they never can when you’re living under someone else’s roof (i.e. Mommy’s) and not paying your own way in the world, so you have no “skin in the game”, so to speak.
In the rare event that these things don’t cure the problem, I think you can safely call that a reliable diagnosis of incurable psychosis, ‘seek help immediately’.
Sidenote: I tried to capture this exact point in a video a couple of years ago. You can watch below, unless Nanny Google deletes it again, in which case here’s a link to the Bitchute copy.
I now find myself somewhat lost in the re-modeled ‘modern’ spectrum of socio-political ideology. I have a deep-seated conflict which is uncomfortable and stressful. I don’t ‘want’ to be deemed right wing as I’ve never been more than an inch right of centre on most issues, with the exception of abortion which I have always deemed, well… “murder”, of course. (Remember my ruthless obedience to definitions?! It always amazed me how leftists could scream “meat is murder”, but with the very same tongue they could also scream: “Abortion is my human right” – Duh?!)
But my long-term mostly centre-left position on the spectrum has now been re-defined as ‘right wing’ by the new mainstream and fiercely dogmatic left, and as such I can’t deny that I am, by today’s ridiculous standards, guilty as charged. Roll me up and smoke me Karl!
The label of ‘far right’ (or any other) can be tagged on my ear if someone chooses to do so without my consent or any discussion to properly investigate whether the label is fitting or not. But I know it isn’t a true reflection of me, and it feels just like a tag on a farm animal, oblivious to its meaning or significance, but blissfully aware of the annoyance of it hanging there as a reminder that I have been branded by forces more powerful than me, against my will, and with nary an ounce of compassion nor consideration for the wronged creature beneath.
Brands, labels, tar-brushes, name-tags, stereotypes, pigeon-holes… don’t these people remember where the left came from, it’s traditional underpinnings and philosophies, and how it railed against this exact same unfair treatment of minorities in the past?
Hmm, I suppose I am giving credit where it isn’t due, after all they would need to have the capacity and desire to think about their own actions, introspectively and with humility, to even begin to consider the point I am making. That’s a ‘no’ then.
What I find most disturbing is the fact that, when I carefully assess my present-day views and beliefs, they are almost identical to the views I held in my younger years, my emotionally-charged idealistic years. I really haven’t changed very much at all.
I have mellowed a bit of course, but most of my core beliefs haven’t budged an inch and not for want of trying as I have challenged and re-assessed them time and time again. However, so much has changed around me that I have quite literally been ‘re-categorised’ from once being a left-leaning idealist, to being what I am often called now for holding the very same views I always have, namely “A Far-Right ______ _______ _____ ______ (you can fill in the blanks, it’s multiple-choice anyway).
I have had a good few years to come to terms with all of this of course. I am no longer shocked by much that I hear from leftists, certainly not by any insults that come my way for expressing an alternative view to theirs, and theirs change so fast and so frequently that I am surprised even the most “progressive” Marxist can keep up with their own rules these days. It must be like trying to grab hold of a wet eel with greasy hands!
Well that concludes this post, the first part of my four introductory posts to explain my philosophies and reasons for being here on Substack in the first place.
I welcome any comments, and I hope this new outlet proves to be beneficial and, if nothing else, cathartic for me!
Until next time…
Mark