Tag: SJW

Zero interest in Rogue One

It was interesting and informative to watch a countdown show of the top 20 moments in Star Wars cinematic history. All of the top moments were from the first two movies, and the so-called “top moments” from the new movies – none of which I have seen – were almost uniformly lame. I had a hard time not laughing at the setup for the death of Han Solo, as all I could hear in my mind was Gandalf shouting “you shall not pass!”

Filmmakers really shouldn’t try to rip off great moments from other films. Sure, the visual is great, but it kicks the viewer out of the movie as surely as a poorly-timed product placement.

The only really good one was the fight between Darth Maul, the young Obi-wan, and Liam Neeson. Some of them, like Girl Luke and her Man Friday accidentally boarding the Millennium Falcon and recreating earlier flight combat scenes, were simply embarrassing.

So, I wasn’t inclined to bother seeing Rogue One anyhow, and the fact that Disney Wars is now fortified with feminism and multiculturalism only confirmed my indifference towards it.

Wait a minute, after thirty-nine years, it turns out that Star Wars is about race?

Sort of. You may not notice at first (I didn’t, until the second half of the movie), but in Rogue One there isn’t a single non-Hispanic white male among the large cast of heroes. The rebel band seeking to steal the plans for the Death Star from the Empire is led by a white woman (Felicity Jones), a Latino man (Diego Luna) and three ethnic Asians (Riz Ahmed, Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang), with advice from a black man (Forest Whitaker) and a droid (voice of Alan Tudyk). Among the rebels, non-Hispanic white dudes (for convenience, I’ll just call them white from now on) are relegated to the background, while the Empire is represented by brigades of sinister white men, led by Ben Mendelsohn and (the digital reincarnation of) Peter Cushing as Imperial officers. It’s as if the cast was meant to echo a Hillary Clinton speech in which she described her coalition as everybody but white males.

The casting was not accidental. The Empire is (now) a “white supremacist (human) organization,” Rogue One co-writer Chris Weitz Tweeted the Friday after Clinton was defeated in the election. Another writer for the film, Gary Whitta, replied with his own Tweet, “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women”—then deleted it.

Needless to say, this aggression will not stand, man. Look for a literary response to the nonsense from Castalia in 2017.

It’s also unsurprising to learn that SJW-converged Wired is up to its usual tricks. The reporter is evidently confused about the difference between “reporting” and “debating”, as can be seen in her impromptu debate with Mike Cernovich:

Hi Mike—WIRED is reporting on #DumpStarWars, which I see you’ve participated in. Any chance you’d like to chat about why you’re boycotting?

Star Wars writers hate Trump voters. Why give them money?

From what I’ve seen, what they really hate are white supremacists. You don’t see throwing alt-right/lite/west support behind the boycott as reinforcing the idea that trump supporters=white supremacists?

Buddy my wife is Persian, we have a daughter, the white supremacist stuff is stupid as hell.

To be clear, I wasn’t saying you were a white supremacist. But much of the backlash has focused on the idea that Rogue One is racist against white men. Are you saying that white supremacist sentiment isn’t a factor in the protest?

Nah that’s not it at all. I don’t see why this is hard to understand. Trump supporters are attacked. Giving money to people who attack them is pathetic. I am going to organize more boycotts.

I’m struggling to find evidence that Rogue One’s writers have been explicitly against anything but white supremacy. Could you point out an example?

What’s the matter, Mike? Why come you won’t make the argument I keep trying to stuff in your mouth instead of saying what you actually think?

Also, as it happens, the movie sucks:

Lobotomized and depersonalized, “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” the latest entry in the film franchise, is a pure and perfect product that makes last year’s flavor, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” feel like an exemplar of hands-on humanistic warmth and dramatic intimacy…. “Rogue One” offers an international cast that, along with Jones, Whitaker, and Mikkelsen, features Diego Luna (as the rebel captain Cassian Andor, who is Jyn’s main cohort), Riz Ahmed (as the band’s intrepid pilot), and Donnie Yen (as a blind martial-arts spiritualist). But it seems as if the condition for assembling this diverse group is not letting them say or do anything of note, anything of any individual distinction, anything of any free-floating or idiosyncratic implication. 

Shut down the universities

Being fully converged, they are no longer fit for their original purpose of educating the sons of the elite.

The prestigious University of Oxford wants students to replace “she” and “he” with the more gender-neutral pronoun “ze.”

The university’s behavior code states that using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person is considered an offense, and a new leaflet distributed by the student union supposedly aims to cut down on hurt feelings and discrimination by encouraging students to use “ze” instead, the Independent reports.oxford

British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell applauded the move.

“It is a positive thing to not always emphasize gender divisions and barriers,” he told the Daily Mail.

“It is good to have gender-neutral pronouns for those who want them but it shouldn’t be compulsory,” Tatchell said. “This issue isn’t about being politically correct or censoring anyone. It’s about acknowledging the fact of changing gender identities and respecting people’s right to not define themselves as male or female.”

“Giving people the ‘ze’ option is a thoughtful, considerate move,” he said.

The change suggested by the Oxford’s student union follows a trend of schools moving toward more “gender inclusive” language to describe students who don’t want to be labeled male or female.

The University of Tennessee’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion issued a list of suggested gender-neutral pronouns for students that included “ze,” as well as other terms like “xe,” “hir,” “zir,” “xem,” and “wyr” to identify transgender students that created a public firestorm, The Tennessean reports.

Officials later removed the guidance from the university’s website amid the backlash, according to EAGnews.

In England, Cambridge University is also moving toward more “inclusive” language, and student welfare officer Sophie Buck told The Sunday Times student union events there “start with a speaker introducing themselves using a gender neutral pronoun.

“It’s part of a drive to make the union intersectional,” she said.

Remember, this is all entirely predictable. It is the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence on display: No institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.

From SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police:


The public schools can no longer educate, so people are turning to homeschooling. The universities can no longer provide liberal arts educations, so people are becoming technology-assisted autodidacts. The banks no longer loan, the state and local governments no longer provide basic public services, the military does not defend the borders, the newspapers no longer provide news, the television networks no longer entertain, and the corporations are increasingly unable to provide employment.


Even as the institutions have been invaded and coopted in the interests of social justice, they have been rendered unable to fulfill their primary functions. This is the great internal contradiction that the SJWs will never be able to positively resolve, just as the Soviet communists were never able to resolve the contradiction of socialist calculation that brought down their economy and their empire 69 years after Ludwig von Mises first pointed it out. One might call it the Impossibility of Social Justice Convergence; no man can serve two masters and no institution can effectively serve two different functions. The more an institution converges towards the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice, the less it is able to perform its primary function.


There is no point trying to debate about what the purpose of a university is any longer. The public should stop funding them, their assets should be seized and distributed to the public, and new institutions will rise up to take their place. Nothing of value will be lost in the process, because they’re already not educating anyone anyhow.

It’s fascinating to see how quickly allowing women to attend the elite universities destroyed an institution that was centuries old. One would think someone, somewhere, would eventually notice that the same pattern is playing out again, and again, and again in a wide variety of institutions, from the men’s clubs to the churches.

CORRECTION: Apparently the situation at Oxford is not QUITE as bad as the article makes it look. It’s only the Oxford Student Union that has adopted this policy, not the entire university. So, it’s about 3-5 years less converged than the article describes it.

Mailvox: why everyone needs SJWAL

That’s not an exaggeration. Literally everyone needs to read it nowadays, because absolutely no one is off-limits as far as the SJWs are concerned. Do you have a job? Are you dependent upon someone else having a job? One trival slip-up, one petty violation of an ever-changing Narrative is all it takes for you, or someone upon whom you are dependent, to become a target. Fortunately, this guy happened to have read the book before he came under SJW attack.

I just finished SJWs Always Lie and it was discovered at a much-needed time. Within the last year, I’ve gradually become Alt-Right. I’ve also been making my way through [a Master’s degree in a fully converged field]. The place is a viper’s den of SJW so I’ve largely been reserved while informing myself as much as possible so as to have ammo to fire back with if exposed. I’m usually much more confrontational by nature but I know when I’m outgunned.

That didn’t last.

Events went down almost *exactly* as you describe them in your book. I worked (for free mind you) at a [redacted] doing the necessary bitchwork to advance through the internship component of the program. Someway, somehow a “friend” of mine emailed the office a month-old post I made regarding the differences between men and women in society. Of course, I didn’t know this until two weeks after I was fired and told I’d be reported to the university for my misconduct. After two weeks of stonewalling, the head of my department at the university finally told me what I was accused of.

Since then I’ve been kept in limbo as the department decides what to do with me.

Your book was the exact battle plan I needed. Reminders to never apologise, never back down and always remember that the enemy deal in lies are very useful.

I am curious if you have any input, however. Some of your book I have a hard time following simply because a lot of the strategies and risks you call for I don’t have the power to implement fully. I got a lot riding on this. For instance, I don’t have a ton of experience, good field connections or ability to tell the faculty to fuck off.

That being said I am locked into the program so it would be hard to remove me plus [for redacted reasons] they can’t punish me for speech too severely. I’ve been consulting with FIRE, a non-profit for legal advocacy for free speech on college campuses. You seem like the type of man to have a lot of insight so any input or wisdom is welcome.

Thank you for inspiring me to keep up the fight during this hell.

Consult with FIRE, prepare an exit strategy in case they’re able to kick you out, and stop your online and social media activities. That’s the point that a lot of people don’t seem to understand. If you aren’t in a position to fight, don’t hand them information, which is ammunition. I’d also look at registering a complaint concerning the firing for misconduct if the [redacted] violated its own policies. Sure, you don’t want the job, but it’s a future vulnerability if it is given a pass.

Look, I never had a choice. Because I started writing in the pre-Internet era, but close enough to it that my columns and media interviews were made available on the Internet from the start, I knew that I’d be cut out of jobs and other opportunities all along. Long before WND was even created, I was blackballed from the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial page when I was easily the best candidate for the job and they didn’t even need the Internet to do it.

But as long as you have a choice, it’s best to lay low. Keep your Facebook innocuous. If you’re going to express an opinion of any kind, do it under an anonymous identity you develop for that purpose and for which you can always maintain plausible deniability. (Translation: always drop identifying details that point at someone else, preferably an SJW.)

Otherwise, the chances are pretty good that some “friend” is going to bring you to the attention of an SJW-converged authority. And, of course, stay out of the vipers’ dens! That’s a good way to get yourself bit.

Why I don’t give to my alma mater

In a single picture. This was not my elementary school, but the university from which I graduated. Bucknell University, to be specific. What a pathetic laughingstock it has turned out to be since it started embracing “diversity” in my sophomore year, which at the time confused everyone there, especially the nominally diverse. I wonder, do they offer degrees in collages, coloring books, and eating paste yet?

The war for Google

There appears to be a battle going on inside Google between SJWs who want to fully converge the organization and more rational liberals who understand that way lies madness, reduced market share, and eventual disruption and decline.

Internal pressure is pushing for the expansion of hate speech to include everything and everyone that fails to submit to the SJW narrative, for more intense action against so-called “fake news”, and even broader definitions of “fake news”. So far, they are only cracking down on genuinely fake news, but there is some belief that this is the proverbial dipping the toe in the water, to see what they can do without provoking a backlash.

The victory of the God-Emperor Ascendant was a massive blow to the SJWs inside Google, and like most SJWs, they have completely lost the plot post-election. They were openly calling other Googlers racists, sexists, and homophobes just for voting for Trump. Those are firing offenses at Google. Google has insane civility requirements imposed on anyone talking to a member of a protected group, but apparently calling for all Republicans to be fired is perfectly acceptable.

Of course, if they were to get their way, this would be tantamount to Google cutting it’s own throat in the Age of Trump, but because the authorities there are amenable, the internal SJWs will not be excised and will continue to converge the organization.

But permitting the SJW infestation to get worse is short-sighted and self-defeating. Every social media organization which is corrupted and converged will be disrupted and replaced. Both Google and Amazon are keeping their SJW infestations under control for the time being, but the question is, how much longer before they can’t keep a lid on it and they go the way of Twitter, Apple, Wikipedia, and other declining technology giants.

Facts are “fake news”

The social media giants are increasingly demonstrating themselves to be the servitors of Big Brother. White is black, day is night, Islam means peace, and real news is fake news:

Under the guise of tackling “fake news,” Google is removing search results that pertain to crime statistics that show black people commit more crimes, despite the fact that this is widely documented to be true. An article in the Guardian entitled Google ‘must review its search rankings because of rightwing manipulation’ details how “leading academics” are pressuring Google to artificially edit its search algorithm to prevent certain subjects from appearing at the top of its search rankings. In response, the piece notes that Google has removed search results that suggest “black people commit more crimes”. Negative results about the religion of Islam were also removed.
This is alarming given that virtually every metric proves that criminality is more prevalent in black communities compared to white and Hispanic communities in America. It’s an uncomfortable fact that black people commit more crimes than any other race in America, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Claiming that reality is actually “fake news” because it suits your political stance doesn’t change the nature of reality.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.

More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. From 2011 to 2013, 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. This figure is three times higher than the 13% black population figure. Black males aged 15-34, who account for around 3% of the population, are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes.

Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

While it is understandable that Google would want to prevent neo-nazi content from appearing at the top of its search rankings, the fact that the tech giant is now censoring objective facts under the justification of tackling “fake news” is chilling.

This indicates that Google, along with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media sites, are using the excuse of “fake news” to bury factual information that is inconvenient to leftist political narratives.

This dedication to falsehood and deception will only make it all the easier to disrupt them when the time comes. Furthermore, the charges of “neo-nazi” are every bit as dubious as the charge of “fake news”.

Never forget the First Law of SJW: SJWS ALWAYS LIE.

Well, we certainly aren’t submitting

This is a good interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson on hate speech and SJWs:

Do you believe that society should draw the line at all when it comes to limitations on hate speech?

No. Hate speech laws are wrong. The question – not a question, but THE question – is ‘who gets to define hate?” That’s not to say there’s no such thing as hate speech – clearly there is. Hate speech laws repress, and I mean that in the psycho-analytical sense. They drive [hate speech] underground. It’s not a good idea, because things get ugly when you drive them underground. They don’t disappear, they just fester, and they’re not subject to correction. I made these videos, and they have been subject to a tremendous amount of correction over the last six weeks. I don’t just mean from my public response, but also partly from the university’s response, partly from a group of friends who have been reviewing my videos and criticizing them to death. This is why free speech is so important. You can struggle to formulate some argument, but when you throw it out into the public, there’s a collective attempt to modify and improve that. So with the hate speech issue – say someone’s a Holocaust denier, because that’s the standard routine – we want those people out there in the public so you can tell them why they’re historically ignorant, and why their views are unfounded and dangerous. If you drive them underground, it’s not like they stop talking to each other, they just don’t talk to anyone who disagrees with them. That’s a really bad idea and that’s what’s happening in the United States right now. Half of the country doesn’t talk to the other half. Do you know what you call people you don’t talk to? Enemies.

If you have enemies, you have war.

If you stop talking to people, you either submit to them, or you go to war with them. Those are your options and those aren’t good options. It’s better to have a talk. If you put restrictions on speech, then you can’t actually talk about the difficult things that need to be talked about. I have about 20,000 hours of clinical practice and all I do for 20 hours a week is talk to people about difficult things – the worst things that are going on in their lives. These are hard conversations all the time. The conversations that are the most curative are simultaneously the ones that are most difficult and most dangerous. Most normal people will not have those conversations. That’s why so many marriages dissolve. People don’t like to have those conversations. Part of that too, is because – let’s say you have a little tiff with your wife, and you know there’s more to it than the little thing that’s bothering her, and you ask ‘what are you REALLY upset about’? Try peeling that back. You might find she’s upset about something her grandfather did to her grandmother two generations ago that hasn’t yet been resolved within the family, and that’s the determining element of her attitude at the present moment. If you unpack it though, then you don’t have to live it over and over again.

There’s also this idea that you shouldn’t say things that hurt people’s feelings – that’s the philosophy of the compassionate left. It’s so childish it’s beyond comprehension. What did Nietzsche say: ‘you can judge a man’s spirit by the amount of truth he can tolerate.’ I tell my students this too, you can tell when you’re being educated because you’re horrified. So if its pleasant and safe, it’s like you’re not learning anything. People learn things the hard way.

People learn things the hard way because MPAI. The reason why the mainstream media and the Left hate the Alt-Right so much is that unlike the conservatives and moderates, they understand that we will never submit to them. And the reason they fear us is that they know we will utilize every tactic they use against us. Especially because every time they deny us a platform, we simply build a replacement, and moreover, one that is actually superior to the original platform.

I don’t have a problem with hate speech laws. After all, there are so many kinds of hate speech that need to be banned.

  • Feminism is hate speech.
  • Equality is hate speech.
  • Globalism is hate speech.
  • Diversity is hate speech.
  • Inclusivity is hate speech.
Don’t learn the hard way. Learn the smart way.

The spice will not flow

A letter from Penzey’s Spices reveals they are fully SJW-converged. Also, that they are amusingly delusional. The amusing thing is that they think anyone was paying any attention to their “stand”, and that they think they’ve proved “Donald Trump simply has no one supporting his views for America”.


What it really means is that no one is paying attention to their idiot politics. Yet.



Dear CEO,

Please give us a moment to share something we hope you will find very valuable.

Our customers come from all walks of life. The kindness of cooks knows no borders or divides. In the aftermath of the election, seeing the intentional damage inflicted on so many outside the white heterosexual male world, we raised our voice. We felt we had to. We did this because we are Penzeys. The Spice business is so intertwined with history that it’s not really possible to have one without the other. It became clear to us that we are now in a moment history will long have its eyes upon. For the sake of our customers, and for the sake of future generations, we felt the time had come to stand on the right side of history.

And while the reasons for why we took a stand might be specific to our unique outlook, what we learned actually applies to all commerce in the United States. What we learned is that President-elect Donald Trump has no real support. Voters, sure, but no constituency. Running a campaign on “that horrible-terrible-woman who should be locked up,” while at the same time working to raise fear of minorities among white voters with limited access to education, clearly achieved its goal. But none of it left Americans with any sense of connection to the candidate they actually voted for.

Willing to take a hit for what is right, we did what we did. In the two weeks since, online sales are up 59.9%, gift box sales up 135%. And we didn’t have a catalog arrive in this window this year, while last year we had 1.1 million! Yes, maybe for the moment we have lost 3% of our customers because of the so-called “right wing firestorm.” And, yes, they send emails of rage, and ALL CAPS, and bad language with the hope of creating the perception that they are bigger than they really are. But what we learned is that, in terms of retail spending, Donald Trump simply has no one supporting his views for America. He has no constituency.

America’s Values, on the other hand, have a really sizable constituency, and that constituency moves quickly to support those that stand up for the values of America. If, as a company, you have values, now is the time to share them. You may well lose a chunk of your AM radio-listening customers, but if you really are honest and sincere, don’t be surprised to see your promotions suddenly, finally, find active engagement with the Millennial generation.

And the time for this really is now. We understand all too well that, with the holidays, December is a tough month to get things done. We understand that a change in direction will not be easy, but you are where you are because you don’t need things to be easy. If you wait until after the wheels come off the track for the incoming administration, this moment will have passed. And while there’s no bad time to do the right thing, to do the right thing at the same time as others in your industry will work so much better than waiting until someone else has shown the way.

In this moment there is finally the real chance to unite our nation in our shared rejection of sexism, homophobia, and racism. This is your chance to stand up for America’s values and make January a tent pole in your company’s history. Opportunities to do the right thing at the time when doing the right thing makes all the difference come once in a lifetime. Make your history proud.

Thanks for reading,

Penzeys Spices

Don’t support the corporate cucks

Their values are not our values:

The Kellogg Co. said in a statement that it regularly works with media buying partners to “ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as set forth in our advertising guidelines.”

Kellogg’s guidelines state that it won’t place ads in media that “encourages offensive behavior to others, or where the media is not consistent with our product or corporate image.”

The cereal company said that it advertises on a large number of websites, “so occasionally something is inadvertently missed. In this case, we learned from consumers that ads were placed on Breitbart.com and decided to discontinue advertising there.”

It is common for companies to buy online ads through third-party networks or ad exchanges that place the ads on numerous sites. As a result, many companies may not be aware of which sites on which their ads ultimately appear.

Other companies that have pulled their ads from Breitbart in recent weeks include the insurance giant Allstate and the ad exchange AppNexus.

I don’t know about you, but I think I can give up Rice Krispies for America. But it’s good to know that we can refuse to do business with those who don’t share our values.

How New Atheism leads to Neo-Nazism

Blimey! A very scary piece in The Guardian.


It started with Sam Harris, moved on to Milo Yiannopoulos and almost led to full-scale Islamophobia. If it can happen to a lifelong liberal, it could happen to anyone!

‘Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist
The Guardian

I am a happily married, young white man. I grew up in a happy, Conservative household. I’ve spent my entire life – save the last four months – as a progressive liberal. All of my friends are very liberal or left-leaning centrists. I have always voted Liberal Democrat or Green. I voted remain in the referendum. The thought of racism in any form has always been abhorrent to me. When leave won, I was devastated.

I was curious as to the motives of leave voters. Surely they were not all racist, bigoted or hateful? I watched some debates on YouTube. Obvious points of concern about terrorism were brought up. A leaver cited Sam Harris as a source. I looked him up: this “intellectual, free-thinker” was very critical of Islam. Naturally my liberal kneejerk reaction was to be shocked, but I listened to his concerns and some of his debates.

This, I think, is where YouTube’s “suggested videos” can lead you down a rabbit hole. Moving on from Harris, I unlocked the Pandora’s box of “It’s not racist to criticise Islam!” content. Eventually I was introduced, by YouTube algorithms, to Milo Yiannopoulos and various “anti-SJW” videos (SJW, or social justice warrior, is a pejorative directed at progressives). They were shocking at first, but always presented as innocuous criticism from people claiming to be liberals themselves, or centrists, sometimes “just a regular conservative” – but never, ever identifying as the dreaded “alt-right”.

For three months I watched this stuff grow steadily more fearful of Islam. “Not Muslims,” they would usually say, “individual Muslims are fine.” But Islam was presented as a “threat to western civilisation”. Fear-mongering content was presented in a compelling way by charismatic people who would distance themselves from the very movement of which they were a part.

At the same time, the anti-SJW stuff also moved on to anti-feminism, men’s rights activists – all that stuff. I followed a lot of these people on Twitter, but never shared any of it. I just passively consumed it, because, deep down, I knew I was ashamed of what I was doing. I’d started to roll my eyes when my friends talked about liberal, progressive things. What was wrong with them? Did they not understand what being a real liberal was? All my friends were just SJWs. They didn’t know that free speech was under threat and that politically correct culture and censorship were the true problem.

On one occasion I even, I am ashamed to admit, very diplomatically expressed negative sentiments on Islam to my wife. Nothing “overtly racist”, just some of the “innocuous” type of things the YouTubers had presented: “Islam isn’t compatible with western civilisation.”

She was taken aback: “Isn’t that a bit … rightwing?”

I justified it: “Well, I’m more a left-leaning centrist. PC culture has gone too far, we should be able to discuss these things without shutting down the conversation by calling people racist, or bigots.”

The indoctrination was complete.

About a week before the US election, I heard one of these YouTubers use the phrase “red-pilled” – a term from the film The Matrix – in reference to people being awakened to the truth about the world and SJWs. Suddenly I thought: “This is exactly like a cult. What am I doing? I’m turning into an arsehole.”

I unsubscribed and unfollowed from everything, and told myself outright: “You’re becoming a racist. What you’re doing is turning you into a terrible, hateful person.” Until that moment I hadn’t even realised that “alt-right” was what I was becoming; I just thought I was a more open-minded person for tolerating these views.

It would take every swearword under the sun to describe how I now feel about tolerating such content and gradually accepting it as truth. I’ve spent every day since feeling shameful for being so blind and so easily coerced.

US election day rolled around, and I was filled with dread. Trump’s win felt like EU referendum morning all over again – magnified by a hundred. Although I never shared any of this rubbish with anybody, I feel partly responsible. It’s clear this terrible ideology has now gone mainstream.

It hit me like a ton of bricks. Online radicalisation of young white men. It’s here, it’s serious, and I was lucky to be able to snap out of it when I did. And if it can get somebody like me to swallow it – a lifelong liberal – I can’t imagine the damage it is doing overall.

It seemed so subtle – at no point did I think my casual and growing Islamophobia was genuine racism. The good news for me is that my journey toward the alt-right was mercifully brief: I never wanted to harm or abuse anybody verbally, it was all very low level – a creeping fear and bigotry that I won’t let infest me again. But I suspect you could, if you don’t catch it quickly, be guided into a much more overt and sinister hatred.

I haven’t yet told my wife that this happened, and I honestly don’t know how to. I need to apologise for what I said and tell her that I certainly don’t believe it. It is going to be a tough conversation and I’m not looking forward to it. I didn’t think this could happen to me. But it did and it will haunt me for a long time to come.

The funny thing is that at no point did any of this strike the editors of The Guardian as a pure parody of their SJW Narrative about the Alt-Right. But we are now informed that this brave piece of soul-searching by one of the bravest, most deeply sensitive men on the Internet, the glorious Godfrey Elfwick.

Moreover, it points to the way in which Alt-Right ideas are beginning to appear increasingly seductive to white liberals, progressives, and SJWs, as the reality of identity politics is beginning to gradually penetrate their Narrative-numbed consciousnesses and they finally start to recognize what the eventual consequences of their ideologies are turning out to be.