Dimwit Dawn: Face Coverings DO NOT Affect National Security?

Have you ever had the “pleasure” of reading something so asininely stupid that you ever wondered if those words originated from a human being?

Let me introduce to you, Dawn, also known as Dimwit Dawn (twitter.com/Opticheart), another Leftist fantasist who strongly insists that face coverings do not affect national security… because the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, wasn’t wearing a face covering.

Dawn0

This is the typical reply of a Leftist fantasist.

Isn’t it funny she’s lecturing others on common sense when common sense will tell you that wearing face coverings in public, which is essentially a disguise is not a good idea. People who don face coverings in public and commit crimes are able to get away with it as no one will be able to identify them. It seems like such a simple fact, which a 3-year-old could comprehend, is beyond the intellectual level of Dimwit Dawn. Take a look at her bio.

DawnIntro

“Suffer no fools”? The biggest fool of all is you, my dear.

As if her original tweet wasn’t vacuous enough, she simply has to flaunt her ignorance even more.

Dawn2

“False equivalency”? What a complex word used by the least complex of people.

Keith Walton, another Twitter user, replied to her by stating that he would be arrested if he showed up at a bank or government office in a ski mask, which Dimwit Dawn retorted by claiming it is a “false equivalency”. Dimwit Dawn, do you even know the meaning of “false equivalency”? A false equivalency is when you compare the burqa/niqab with a facial piercing! When you compare a ski mask to a burqa/niqab, you’re basically comparing apples to apples, so there is no false equivalency here! If anything, you are the one engaging in false equivalency as a ski mask has an opening for the eyes and mouth, whereas a niqab/burqa only has an opening for the eyes!

My response to Dimwit Dawn was to kindly ask her if she would allow her kids to hang out with a bunch of balaclava-wearing thugs since they pose no danger at all.

myresponse1

Dimwit Dawn failed to reply my very legitimate question.

As a self-proclaimed Liberal, I guess Dimwit Dawn would love to engage in a logical and mature debate and is open to opposing viewpoints and discussing them. Therefore, I sent her a second tweet.

myresponse2.png

You want false equivalency? Here’s another one for you.

As I pointed out, to claim that face coverings do not affect national security because the Las Vegas shooter wasn’t wearing one is like claiming lung cancer isn’t caused by smoking as there are smokers who die in car accidents.

If you follow Dimwit Dawn’s logic, you could say that lack of revision doesn’t cause poor examination grades as you could attain poor grades if you’re sick too. Accidents do not cause traffic jams as traffic jams could be caused by fallen trees. Sexual intercourse does not lead to pregnancy as artificial insemination leads to pregnancy too. Can you see how utterly ridiculous these her logic is? Yet, she claims to “suffer no fools”. I guess the mantra that modern-day Liberals & Leftists are deluded and living in their own bubble is true.

Back to the Twitter “debate”, I stated that Dawn’s liberalism which opens her up to new ideas and differing opinions would lead to an interesting debate where we could put our point forward and support them with logical arguments. Somehow, I failed to garner a response from her. Why is that so?

dawnblock

She’s blocked me!

Like many modern-day Liberals and Leftists who pride themselves on being Liberal, she has decided to block me instead of countering my points with a well thought-out and logical response. I guess the original assertion that she made is so weak she can’t even defend it and she had no choice but to block anyone who questions her point of view to avoid further embarrassing herself.

If it was me making such a preposterous statement, I wouldn’t be able to find a way to defend it, as it goes against logic and common sense. What I would do is to hold my hands up, admit my mistake and concede that my statement was built on weak foundations, and I would do more research on the topic at hand to further equip myself with the differing viewpoint. However, that seems to be too difficult for Liberals, as they never admit their mistakes, but start playing the victim and crying about “discrimination” and “hate”, demanding a “safe space” where they could hide in.

People like Dimwit Dawn is an utter insult to the traditional meaning of the word “Liberalism” and is the by-product of the “you-can-do-no-wrong” culture in the West, indulged by the Left-Wing indoctrination machines (also known as schools, universities and Mainstream Media) all over America and Western Europe. If she isn’t prepared to have her viewpoints questioned and scrutinised, she shouldn’t be spouting these utterly ludicrous viewpoints on a public platform in the first place.

TheMelancholicGuy

Jeremy Corbyn: Defending ALL Minorities, or Selected Minorities?

Anyone who doesn’t see the world with red-tinted glasses would already know what a hypocrite and two-faced person Jeremy Corbyn is. It’s really fascinating how Leftists who view the world with their red-tinted glasses elevate this shameless man into a position of godhood and literally worship him at his feet.

One of the claims that Leftists make about Jeremy Corbyn is he’s a staunch defender of the rights of minority groups in the UK, and how he seeks to unite the British people through love and tolerance, which can only be achieved by pandering to minorities while systematically blaming all White, Christian Conservatives for every woe minorities suffer.

Yet, this “defender of minority rights” seems to be very selective when it comes to which minority group he defends. A man who claims to stand up for minorities is quick to send out well-wishing tweets to Muslims for the festivals of Eid Mubarak and Eid Al-Adha and the Hindu festival of Diwali whereas a deafening silence can be heard for the Jewish festival of Yom Kippur.

Isn’t it perplexing that a man who is quick to blame Whites, Christians and Conservatives for everything bad that is happening in the UK right now, can display such a deliberate act of biasedness and hypocrisy, and somehow gets away with it, every single time? Are Jews not worth your time at all to compose one well-wishing tweet for Yom Kippur? To be honest, I am very surprised he even bothered composing a well-wishing tweet for Diwali, and I would like to take the credit for that, as I’ve been bombarding his Twitter days before Diwali, and I guess his PR team picked up on that.

If a Conservative claim to defend minorities while being selective on which minority to send well wishes to, the Leftists would be out in the streets and rioting. Hold on a minute, majority of the Leftists are as anti-semitic as their cult leader so I guess rioting is off the cards in that particular scenario.

Any Labour voter or Commie Corbyn’s comrade care to explain why there was no well-wishing tweet for Yom Kippur whereas Eid Mubarak, Eid Al-Adha and Diwali were given this privilege? After all, standing up for minorities means standing up for ALL minorities, not standing up for certain minorities as long as it fits our political agenda.

If no one bothers to come up with an explanation, can I conclude that the Labour Party places Jews at the bottom of the minority list? Isn’t that tantamount to… Anti-Semitism…? I seem to recall a certain political party in 1940s Germany practising the same thing. And Leftists have the cheek to call anyone who wants stricter immigration controls “Nazis”. I guess this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

TheMelancholicGuy

 

 

Asinine Liberals: “Country Music is as Misogynistic as Rap Music”

I had a very interesting debate on Twitter on Sunday, 15th October 2017. An asinine Liberal who is unable to defend his assertion and resort to profanities and insult isn’t exactly uncommon, but there you go.

As you can see from Screenshot #1, I (@spidieboy56) was replying to Sasha Brown (@SBrown2012)’s tweet regarding the promotion of violence in rap culture. Subsequently, a rap music fan, Sean White (@seanomydog22) started to defend rap music by claiming that all kinds of music contain misogynistic lyrics and they are not solely confined to rap music.

Screenshot #1

Screenshot #1

What Sean said is true, misogynistic lyrics do exist in all genres of music. For example, it can be interpreted that Queen’s hit-song “Killer Queen” is misogynistic as the song is about a high-class prostitute, which critics claim it’s demeaning to women. I whole-heartedly admit it even though I am a huge fan of Queen and Freddie Mercury. However, the disgusting and filthy language used towards women is most prevalent in rap music.

Screenshot #2

Screenshot #2

As you can see from Screenshot #2, I pointed out that songs by John Denver, Chicago, Bee Gees and Air Supply do not contain the kind of misogynistic and filthy language towards women as compared to songs by rappers like Eminem, Lil Wayne and Kanye West.

For the sake of preventing Leftist lunatics from labelling me a “racist”, let’s compare the lyrics of a song by white rapper, Eminem with the lyrics of a song by John Denver. For equality’s sake, I will choose songs that feature women in their lyrics.

The pre-chorus of Eminem’s “Kill You” is as follows:
“You don’t wanna fuck with me
Girls neither, you ain’t nothin’ but a slut to me
Bitch, I’ma kill you! You ain’t got the balls to beef
We ain’t gon’ never stop beefin’, I don’t squash the beef
You better kill me, I’ma be another rapper dead
For poppin’ off at the mouth with shit I shouldn’t have said
But when they kill me, I’m bringin’ the world with me
Bitches too, you ain’t nothin’ but a girl to me”

in contrast to John Denver’s “Annie’s Song”,
“Come let me love you
Let me give my life to you
Let me drown in your laughter
Let me die in your arms
Let me lay down beside you
Let me always be with you
Come let me love you
Come love me again”

Eminem’s “Kill You” clearly labels women as “bitches” and “sluts” and he’s “gonna kill her”, whereas John Denver’s “Annie’s Song” portrays the singer giving his love and life to his woman. I hereby challenge anyone who is reading this to find me a song by John Denver song that contains degrading terms such as “bitches”, “sluts” and “whores” when referring to women.

I hereby challenge anyone who is reading this to find me a song by John Denver that contains degrading terms such as “bitches”, “sluts” and “whores” when referring to women. Or any song by a country singer.

Sean, who is clearly getting irate, replied to me by saying it’s none of my business and since I don’t listen to rap, how would I know what I’m talking about.

Screenshot #3

I guess Sean has not heard of the word “Google”.

When it seems like he has displayed enough ignorance, he finds it necessary to reiterate how ignorant he is.

Screenshot #4

Apparently, not listening to rap songs mean I have no idea on how to do research on its lyrics.

I pointed out to Sean that he has a very narrow mindset, making the assumption that a person who doesn’t like rap music won’t bother to do research on the lyrics of rap songs.

Screenshot #5

Apparently, I’m the narrow-minded one now, even though I do proper research on things which aren’t my interest, instead of avoiding them. Like the Leftist lunatics.

Instead of continuing the debate with logical and well-thought-out responses to support his point, or conceding defeat graciously, Sean wants me to “shut the fu*k up”.

Screenshot #6

Didn’t you claim you aren’t narrow-minded, Sean? People with opposing opinions must “shut the fu*k up”?

Sensing his double standards, Sean quickly deleted his “shut the fu*k up” tweet.

Screenshot #7

Notice the “This Tweet is unavailable” box? Sean has decided to delete his tweet about “shutting the fu*k up!”

I thought Liberals often claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive”? A Liberal like Sean who seems uncomfortable when his beliefs (country music is as misogynistic as rap music) are challenged, and want people to shut the fu*k up instead of engaging in a logical and mature debate. If you think Sean is the exception rather than the norm, you would be very surprised. I have debated with many Liberal tweeters and this is the pattern I notice 99.9% of the time.

Sorry Liberals, while you have the right to be offended (even though being offended by differing opinions shows how childish and immature you are), I have the right to cause offence. It’s time you grow up and accept that not everyone will possess the same views as you, and not everyone with different opinions should be shut down so you won’t feel uncomfortable. The world does not revolve around you, Liberals.

TheMelancholicGuy

 

Stephen Paddock: A Radicalised Democrat?

It has been more than 2 weeks since the Las Vegas shooting and details about the shooting and the circumstances before the shooting remain vague and unclear. Many people have pointed out that in a busy hotel like the Mandalay Bay, there should be CCTVs installed in every nook and cranny, yet we have absolutely no details on the contents of the CCTV footage (provided the footage even exists)! Unsurprisingly, people are starting to wonder if the authorities investigating the shooting have something to hide, and things are not what it seems.

I’m not here to discuss the specific details involving the shooting or the circumstances before the shooting, as I have absolutely no idea what went on, and neither do members of the public. I want you to think deeply about the vastly contrasting attitudes towards the Mandalay Bay shooting as compared to other incidents such as Charlottesville, the Portland train stabbings and the Pulse Nightclub attack in Orlando.

After the Charlottesville chaos when one woman was run over by a car, American mainstream media and the Democrats were right on the offensive. Day after day of relentless coverage ensued on networks like CNN and NBC, with relentless attacks on President Trump and the Republican Party.

After the Portland train stabbings when two men were stabbed to death when confronting the killer who was making anti-Muslim slurs towards a young Muslim lady, American mainstream media and the Democrats went on the offensive, accusing President Trump of fanning the flames of Islamophobia and how the Republican Party is the incarnate of Satan who is fuelling division in America. Until it was unmasked that the killer, Jeremy Joseph Christian, was a Democrat and a fan of Bernie Sanders. Suddenly, the Democrats and American mainstream media went quiet on this incident and started reverting to 24/7 coverage on the Russian “collusion”. Discussing hatred and division is not important at all if the perpetrator turns out to be a Democrat.

After the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, Democrats and mainstream media were quick to lobby for gun control and condemn the Republicans for causing the shooting, until the name of the attacker was revealed. Omar Mateen, who shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the shooting and pledged allegiance to ISIS, deliberately opened fire on party-goers at the Florida gay nightclub. As of today, October 18th, 2017, more than a year after the shooting, the investigating authorities still have no clue with regards to Omar Mateen’s motives. When a terrorist starts shooting people while shouting “Allahu Akbar”, there are other motives to look into, such as radicalised Zoroastrianism or extremist Confucianism, says no one ever. Unless you’re a Leftist lunatic who has lost control of your mental faculties.

Comparing the contrasting reactions to the three above-mentioned incidents, you can see a clear pattern emerging.

  1. If the perpetrator is white, Christian or Republican, the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media start going on the offensive, calling for legislation to curb this and that, depending on the mode of the attack. The motive behind the attack must be white supremacism, Christianity or right-wing politics.
  2. If the perpetrator seems to be white, Christian or Republican, the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media start going on the offensive, calling for legislation to curb this and that, depending on the mode of the attack. The motive behind the attack must be white supremacism, Christianity or right-wing politics. When the perpetrator is unmasked to be black, Muslim, Hispanic, Democrat or illegal immigrants, the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media start to limit coverage on the story and return to reporting on other “news” that make Republicans look bad. The motive behind the attack is unclear.
  3. If the perpetrator is black, Muslim, Hispanic, Democrat or illegal immigrants, the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media immediately start going on the defensive, insisting that the attack has absolutely nothing to do with the above-mentioned groups and the motive behind the attack is unclear.

So, which of the above-mentioned category does the Mandalay Bay shooting fit in? Category #2. When the shooter was revealed to be a white man named Stephen Paddock, delirious Democrats and the American mainstream media started dancing for joy and started with their relentless attacks on Republicans and President Trump, blaming them for the American gun epidemic (which Barack Obama failed to solve in 8 years)! The motive behind Stephen Paddock’s actions must be white supremacism, Christianity or right-wing politics.

When people started pointing out that majority of country music fans are white Christian Conservatives, a group constantly demonised by the Democrats and American mainstream media, some tolerant and peace-loving Leftist lunatics started to post the vilest tweets on Twitter, rejoicing that most of the victims are white Christian Conservatives.

When pictures of Stephen Paddock started to emerge, allegedly showing him attending an anti-Trump rally in Reno, Nevada and several media outlets outside of the United States reporting that Paddock was a recent convert to Islam, Democrats and the American mainstream media started to dismiss these claims. Paddock’s motive is unclear and is not as important as pushing their gun control agenda.

18 days after the shooting, American mainstream media has reverted to their endless coverage about the “Russian collusion” which has produced not a single shred of evidence ever since the hysteria was whipped up by sore loser Democrats, while repeatedly trying their best to convince the gullible American public that there is no link at all between the Democrats and the perverted Harvey Weinstein.

Putting the pieces together, any sane and logical person will deduce from the emerging pattern that Paddock’s motive has something to do with the Democrats, Antifa or radical Islam (if ISIS’ claims that he was a recent convert is true). My personal take on this is that Stephen Paddock was radicalised by the hysterical American mainstream media with their 24/7 coverage on how evil and Satanic Donald Trump and the Republicans are. When the “99% chance Hillary will win” vice-president candidate, Senator Tim Kaine advocated violence by calling upon Democrats to fight Donald Trump supporters on the streets, you would have seen it coming.

Just like how radicalised Muslims obeyed calls to fight against the kaffirs on the streets of Western Europe, radicalised Democrats like Stephen Paddock and Jeremy Joseph Christian heeded the calls to fight against Trump supporters and Republicans literally and tragedies have since unfolded.

Another possible scenario is that the Mandalay Bay shooting was coordinated by deep-state globalists who are trying their very best to undermine President Trump and his administration. Such a scenario is very likely, considering that the deep-state globalists and Democrats ultimately share the same goal for America, to disarm the American population to leave them hapless against Left-Wing terrorism. (On a personal level, I am not very comfortable with the idea of arming all citizens of any given country, as firearms are very dangerous and lethal. However, it is simply not feasible to disarm every single American citizen considering that the right to bear arms has been in place for centuries and any country who forbids private citizens from owning firearms should never go down this route.)

If Paddock’s motives were inspired by white supremacism, Christianity or right-wing politics, the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media would be relentless in the coverage of the shooting, considering that they’ve been going strong on the Russian nothing-burger (thank you, Van Jones!) for 11 months. Violent protests would have erupted across the United States as Democrats come out to “resist” against Trump and Republicans, and condemn them for the tragic events in Las Vegas. Somehow, apart from the odd Democrat voice on Twitter or the mainstream media every now and then, there has been collective silence from the Democrats and American mainstream media, and I would really love to understand the rationale behind it.

An 11-month long Russian conspiracy which has yielded no evidence warrants relentless coverage by the Democrat-controlled American mainstream media, whereas the deaths of 58 people in American’s worst mass shooting warrants no such coverage. It is so sinister and malevolent and what’s disturbing is the fact that they don’t even bother hiding their double standards anymore.

Make no mistake, the Democratic Party is the enemy of a free and prosperous America. Never put it past the deep-state Democrat-controlled globalists to launch false-flag attacks to rock the administration of a non-establishment President in Donald Trump. Never put it past individual Democrats to heed the call to violence to fight Republicans on the streets of America by Democratic politicians.

With the deep-state so entrenched in American politics, my heart goes out to the loved ones of the victims of Mandalay Bay. I fear they might never get the justice they’re seeking.

TheMelancholicGuy

The Dilemma of Remoaners; Performing Mental Gymnastics

It has been a year and 4 months ever since the historic EU referendum was held in the United Kingdom. It is incredulous that 16 months after the results were declared, there are still many people who are unable to accept the result of a democratic election and are calling for the subversion of democracy by holding a second referendum, even though the result of the first referendum has not yet been honoured!

What is hilarious about the attitudes of these Remoaners is their sheer hypocrisy and double standards, and yet they don’t even seem to notice that! They seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that they hold contrasting beliefs when it comes to issues involving the EU. What do I mean by that? You’ll find out soon enough.

When the Remoaners start to get questioned by people who possess basic logical thinking, they start to squirm their way out of the debate, performing mental gymnastics to justify their contrasting views. I think that says it all about their intellectual ability to understand and analyse the contradicting views that they hold.

The main argument that Remoaners trot out is that curbing of freedom of movement will have a negative impact on the economy and healthcare of the UK. Remoaners don’t seem to understand that the restriction of freedom of movement doesn’t mean a total stop on all immigration; in fact the tightening of immigration laws will allow the British Government to allow only the best talents to enter the country which will help to boost the economy and healthcare, instead of letting all and sundry in with no checks whatsoever. However, I understand such a concept is too difficult and complex for the average Remoaner to understand, so let’s put that aside (and I’ve not even gotten to my main point!).

Majority of the Left-Wing Remoaners claim to stand up for the rights of the less fortunate and vulnerable, which is the rationale behind their demands for open borders, so as to allow the less fortunate and vulnerable from other countries to seek a better life in the UK. Their main argument is that the NHS and economy will collapse without immigrants, and Brexit will be a detriment to the UK. Maintaining an open border by allowing all immigrants into the UK will boost the NHS and grow the British economy, as most of these immigrants are skilled nurses, doctors, scientists, engineers, mathematicians (you name it, you got it). That’s according to the majority of the Remoaners, not me.

Think about this for a minute. If the majority of these immigrants are really skilled doctors, scientists and engineers, they will definitely be a net contributor to any country’s economy. The Left claims to stand up for the rights and welfare of the less fortunate, yet they support the poaching of these talented doctors, scientists and engineers from other less well-off countries so these people could work in the UK and contribute to the UK’s healthcare and economy.

Isn’t this what we call “brain-drain”? Once these skilled doctors, scientists and engineers leave their countries and move to the UK, that would negatively impact the healthcare and economy of their home countries. Mortality rates in their home countries will continue to rise, and their economy will crash to the level of Venezuela’s. Left-Wing Remoaners who claim to look out for the welfare of the less fortunate don’t seem to be doing much looking out by demanding that the UK maintains an open border to allow these talented and skilled migrants to leave their countries en masse, whereas their home countries will have to deal with the consequences of brain-drain. Remoaners love to paint all Leavers as selfish people who are racist and xenophobic. I think it’s fair to say that on this basis, the Remoaners are the racist and xenophobic ones, as they don’t seem to be particularly concerned about the welfare of less well-off countries.

When you question a Remoaner on their contradicting views, the most common response is since they’re in the UK, they’ve got to look out for British interests first, and by remaining a member of the EU and keeping freedom of movement, that will allow skilled migrants to enter the UK and it will boost the UK’s healthcare and economy, and surely that’s a good thing. If a person who voted for the Conservatives or UKIP said something like this, they will be the first one to cry “racist” and “xenophobic”! However, it’s perfectly not racist and xenophobic at all to put your own country first if you’re anti-Brexit. Can’t you see the sheer hypocrisy in this?

I think it’s apparent now that the Left-Wing Remoaners are facing a dilemma here. If they truly believe in the welfare of the less fortunate, they should be calling on the British Government to start strictly enforcing British immigration laws, so as to curb the brain-drain affecting less well-off countries and ensuring the talented doctors, scientists and engineers remain in their own countries to boost their own healthcare and economy, which will raise the standards of living for their people. That is simply not possible if the UK remains a member of the EU!

The Left-Wing Remoaners will then proceed to claim that such a scenario will negatively impact British healthcare and economy.

Hold on a minute, since when did Left-Wing Remoaners start to side with the “lazy and privileged native British people”? Surely a negative impact on the NHS and the economy is a punishment for these “white supremacists”? By allowing these skilled migrants to leave their countries for the UK, enriching the UK in the process while leaving their home countries in a state of dilapidation, isn’t that beneficial for the UK and detrimental for the less well-off countries and their people who the Left-Wing Remoaners claim to stand up for?

Since when did the Left-Wing Remoaners start to prioritise the interests of their own country over the interests of people from other countries? Isn’t that… xenophobia? So what do they really believe in? Let’s do a summary of the quandary the Left find themselves in.

  1. If they believe that the UK should remain a member of the EU, they cannot claim to look out for the welfare of the less fortunate, as it will cause brain-drain in less well-off countries.
  2. If they believe in looking out for the less fortunate, the UK should not remain a member of the EU, as it will cause brain-drain in less well-off countries.

Good news, Remoaners, I will offer you two solutions to solve your contradicting beliefs once and for all.

  1. Continue to advocate for the UK’s membership of the EU, while focusing strongly on improving the NHS and the economy, stop claiming to stand up for the less fortunate, as you support the brain-drain of their countries.
  2. Support the democratic decision made by the British electorate on the 23rd of June, 2016. Advocate for stricter immigration laws, and train your native British people to become doctors, scientists and engineers to boost the NHS and economy, which will keep skilled would-be migrants in their home countries and contribute positively to their own healthcare and economy which will lead to a higher standard of living for the people in their home countries. A win-win situation.

Dear Remoaners, isn’t it tiring to hold such contradicting beliefs, and having to perform some kind of mental gymnastics to justify your beliefs whenever you are questioned, and if all else fails, cry about being a “victim of hate”, just because you’re unable to hold your own in a mature and sensible debate?

Which solution will you choose then to absolve yourselves from further quandaries and mental gymnastics? If I were you, I would go with solution #2.

TheMelancholicGuy

 

 

 

Denouncing Liberalism, from an ex-Liberal

The saying “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” is a saying that is perpetually used by people on the Right of the Political Spectrum to label Liberals and people who are on the Left of the Political Spectrum.

I was a hardened Liberal. I held concrete Liberal beliefs and I genuinely believed anyone who identified as Conservative and Right-Wing are selfish and heartless individuals who are more concerned with their own well-being than the well-being of the underprivileged and less fortunate around them. I was very adamant that my Liberal beliefs will never waver.

The 2nd President of the United States, John Adams once said: “If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at 40 you have no brain”. When I first came across this quote, I was frankly insulted. Deep in the crevices of my mind, I insisted that I will still be a Liberal at age 40; a compassionate and intellectual Liberal, just to prove Adams wrong. Boy, I got it so wrong.

What exactly is a Liberal? Someone who identifies as a Liberal can be described a person who is willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own and are open to new ideas. Even today, I believe I am the perfect fit for this description.

From a political standpoint, Liberals are on the Left of the Political Spectrum (Left-Wing), whereas Conservatives are on the Right (Right-Wing). I was proud to identify as a Liberal. Little did I know that a few years down the road, I would come to the realisation that people who identify as Liberal usually turns out to be extremely illiberal and intolerant. Perhaps I was guilty of being just that little bit naive.

What are the political beliefs and viewpoints of Liberals and Conservatives? There are many issues but for the sake of time, I’ll list 5 of the most common viewpoints in the table below:

No. Issues Liberals Conservatives
1 Immigration Believes in open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Believes in legal immigration and strict enforcement of immigration laws.
2 Healthcare Believes in Universal Healthcare. Believes in privatised Healthcare, the state should not be in control of Healthcare
3 LGBT Marriage Marriage for all individuals should be legal. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; opposes LGBT marriages.
4 Social Security Social security acts as a safety net for the vulnerable and therefore should not be reduced. Social security is a financial burden on the state, individuals should manage their own savings.
5 Abortion A woman has the right to decide what happens with her body. A foetus is not a human life, so it does not have separate individual rights. Abortion is the murder of a human being, human life begins at conception.

As the staunch Liberal that I was back then, I held Liberal beliefs for all the above-mentioned issues. I felt the Conservative point of view was too inhumane and lacked compassion. As of 2017, the only issue that I still retain a Liberal slant on is healthcare.

The turning point in the shift of my political views was a General Education lesson that was part of the curriculum at Singapore Polytechnic back in 2012. The lecturer, an entertaining and genial African lady, was discussing euthanasia with our class. Majority of the students in the class were insistent that an individual should have the right to end his own life (a Liberal viewpoint). In the midst of the debate, I remarked that I am extremely uncomfortable with legalising euthanasia as they could lead to assisted suicides of non-critical patients. Insurance companies would also encourage doctors to deny life-saving treatment, which is often expensive.

Hold on a minute, anti-euthanasia is a Conservative viewpoint! As someone who dwells on his thoughts for a prolonged period of time, I started mentally regurgitating the things I’ve said in that particular lesson. I actually held a Conservative belief, but Conservative beliefs are often self-serving and not in the interest of the general population! Although I can see why there are many people who believe that euthanasia should be legalised and I respect their point of view, I simply could not bring myself to adopt a pro-euthanasia belief.

A few weeks later, the topic of the debate was abortion. During the heated debate, I stated that I am against the idea of abortion, as human life begins at contraception and to abort the foetus is against the human rights of the foetus. Unsurprisingly, the words “sexism” and “misogynistic” rang out across the classroom. Once again, I sided with a Conservative point of view in a debate. It was a very different experience though, as the heated debate eventually descended into profanity-filled slurs and insults (which was ultimately resolved with a few humble apologies from both sides).

To say that I was shocked would be an understatement. I was taken aback at the uncivilised retorts and profanity-filled remarks by the pro-abortion side. Being pro-abortion is a Liberal belief, and Liberals are supposed to be respectful of opposing views and be open to new ideas. Their behaviour did not fit the definition of Liberalism! As Liberals, they should be respectful of the opposing point of view and not try to shut down the debate with profanity-laden insults.

Remarkably enough, those on the anti-abortion side are the ones who actually made the effort to ensure the debate was respectful and emphasised that we understood why people might be pro-abortion, even though we are not in favour of abortion.

In 2013, I started taking a deep interest in the events unfolding in Syria. As a Liberal, I was aghast at the atrocities (or some would call it alleged atrocities) committed by the Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad on the ordinary Syrian citizens. General Education lessons in 2013 were focused on the Arab Spring and the escalation of violence in Syria, and as a Liberal, I remarked that Bashar Al-Assad should be deposed immediately so peace could be restored in Syria. What a naive and foolish person I was back then.

With the escalation of the violence and rise of ISIS in 2014, refugees started to flee Syria and made their way towards Lebanon, Jordan and Europe. Being the Liberal that I was, I was critical of the European countries who refuse to take in the “refugees” and disgusted at the concerted efforts made by countries such as Hungary to stop them entering their countries. I was naive enough to believe that these “peaceful refugees” should be granted asylum in countries such as France and the United Kingdom, despite them breaching the international law that states refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they set foot on.

At the start of 2015, the “refugee” situation in Europe was beginning to descend into a full-blown crisis. Photographs of the “refugees” violently breaking down fences in Macedonia in an attempt to cross into Greece struck my beliefs hard.

I’ve always believed these “refugees” are peace-loving people like you and me, who just want to live their lives in peace. Why are they behaving so violently? Isn’t Macedonia a safe country? Why do they need to break down the border fence and get to Greece? Why are they in Macedonia in the first place? To get to Macedonia from Syria would require passing through Turkey and Bulgaria, and both of these countries are safe countries! I was supportive of these “refugees” breaking the “First Safe Country Law” as I believed all they want is a chance at a peaceful existence. Their violent and barbaric behaviour in Macedonia was the start of my shift in political stance on immigration.

From 2012 to 2015, my views on euthanasia, abortion and immigration changed completely, and I started to question myself. “Am I a true Liberal?” was the question that raged in my head.

I’ve always prided myself on my liberal attitude. I am very open to new ideas and I am very respectful of the differing beliefs of others. I am able to befriend someone who has a totally opposite political standpoint. However, I have adopted Conservative beliefs with regards to euthanasia, abortion and immigration! How can I hold Conservative beliefs, yet be open to new ideas and respectful of differing opinions? That’s not possible, Conservatives are self-centered! I tried to force myself to accept euthanasia, abortion and open borders, in order to return to being a “full-fledged Liberal”, but I just couldn’t do it.

Is it really possible to hold Conservative beliefs and yet be liberal? Many people will claim that’s an oxymoron, but I beg to differ. I was so blind all along that I couldn’t reconcile the fact that people who identify as Conservatives can be liberal in their attitudes too, without identifying politically as a Liberal.

Did I try too hard to adopt views that are traditionally held by those to the Left of the Political Spectrum, so that I could be labelled as an open-minded, tolerant and inclusive Liberal? I think it’s crystal clear now that adopting Liberal beliefs doesn’t make one a Liberal, having an open mind and respect for differing political opinions, be it Left or Right, makes one liberal.

In recent years, it is very prominent that majority of the people who call themselves Liberals, preaching peace and love are the most illiberal and intolerant people out there. From the celebrations and disrespectful remarks from the Liberals at the death of Margaret Thatcher (and I am no fan of her, trust me), to the Brexit Referendum and the election of Donald Trump, people who identify as Liberals have showcased their utter intolerance on social media, especially Twitter.

From shutting down debates with cries of “racism”, “sexism” and other types of -ism’s and -istics to physical assaults as seen by violent, hooded Antifa thugs, these Liberals have demonstrated just how illiberal they are. They are frightened to hear an opinion that is different from theirs. They are too emotionally immature to deal with it. They simply cannot allow someone with a differing opinion to voice their opinion as they lack the intellectual capability to engage in a proper debate. These people call themselves Liberals. It seems like a dictionary is something that is lacking in their homes. I suggest doing a 1-minute check in the dictionary, it will do these intolerant “Liberals” a world of good.

Dear Liberals, stop lecturing others about tolerance when the behaviour you exhibit is the exact opposite of tolerance. When you display your utter intolerance and contempt for what being liberal stands for with your sore-loser attitudes with regards to the Brexit Referendum and the election of Donald Trump, you have lost the moral high ground to preach. “Do as I say, not as I do” seems to be the new motto of the Liberals nowadays.

To all Liberals (people who identify as Liberal/Left on the Political Spectrum) and are genuinely respectful of differing opinions and beliefs, I take my hats off to you. It seems like you’re in the minority among everybody who identify as Liberals.

As for the Conservatives, there are many people who hold Conservative beliefs who are intolerant as well, but I personally find that it’s not as rampant as compared to those who identify as Liberals.

You do not see Conservative Party supporters in the UK attacking Labour supporters at a Labour Party Conference, yet the opposite is true. You do not see Donald Trump and Republican supporters attacking people for holding an American flag, yet the display of such uncivilised behaviour is rampant among the Democrats and Antifa, whose attitudes are as fascist as they get. You do not see Conservatives rushing onto the stage to grab the microphone from a Liberal speaker, yet Milo Yiannopoulos has had his speeches cancelled and microphone snatched away by hysterical and unhinged Liberal members of the audience.

If anything, people who identify as Conservatives are now the modern-day liberals. Majority of Conservatives hold staunch Conservative beliefs but they respect the differing political opinions held by their Liberal counterparts and are more than willing to get into a detailed and mature debate. Whereas for the majority of Liberals who are as intolerant and illiberal as they get, from stifling debates to physically attacking Conservatives for expressing their point of view, it seems like the comparisons to Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-il and Nicolae Ceaucescu aren’t too far off the mark.

TheMelancholicGuy