"Dirty Chinese Restaurant": My take

Sometimes, it baffles me that in 2017 we have to make a statement about such an incident, but given the dominance of the alt-right in political discourse, the notion that we are constantly advancing towards progress and a egalitarian society is in itself a naive belief.

In an act of supposed "satire", and a rebellion against "Political Correctness", the newly formed indie game developer "Big-O-Tree" released their first trailer for a game called "Dirty Chinese Restaurant".  The premise of the game has players taking on the role of the chef "Mr. Wang Fu" and serving customers, while evading immigration officials and tax collectors and running an underground gambling facility.  Already Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Markham mayor Frank Scarpitti has denounced this game as spreading racism against the Chinese.

But what makes this game so controversial? Haven't we gotten a lot of restaurant serving games already?  Well aside from the fact that some of the "enemies" of the games are immigration officials out to deport your employees and tax collectors, what happens here is that this "game" pretty much relies on offensive and racist stereotypes of Chinese people, and posits this as "satire" or humor.  The gameplay involves hiring waiters and employees for the restaurant, with the option of forcing them to work in sweatshop conditions as a means of generating revenue and traffic.  Ingredients are gathered from two sources.  Either by hunting cats and dogs(the hunt prompt) or by gathering food from a trash can(the scavenge prompt), as well as the ability to put unsavory ingredients in food. The restaurant itself is very dirty and run down and has a polluted appearance, every single one of the waiters at the restaurant wear conical hats.  The manager of the player character is also highlighted as being very rude and demanding to his employee, obviously tied to stereotypes that Chinese people make bad bosses due to supposed aggressive behavior.

The web page for this game also describes the ability to bribe people such as immigration officers and the health inspector with money to get them off of your tail, and a screenshot highlighted the possibility of fighting street gangs and criminals to secure food for the restaurant.  The game also allows you to sabotage competing restaurants by planting bombs on the ships presumably carrying food that is being delivered to them.  The trailers also seem to reinforce sterotypes of ugly Chinese men lusting after attractive looking white women.

As a Chinese person myself, this "Dirty Chinese Restaurant" game is not only highly problematic, but also a VERY, VERY disgusting attempt at satire.  Chinese people have been, in the 19th and 20th centuries, sterotyped as opium smokers and compulsive gamblers, this was particuarly the case in Britain despite the fact that the Opium trade was literally forced at gunpoint on the Chinese by the British Empire.  When the Chinese came to California and British Columbia due to the gold rushes in these areas in the mid 1800s(the 1848 California Gold Rush and the 1858 Vancouver gold rush), as well as contributed their skills to the construction of nation-linking railways such as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the American transcontinental railroad, they faced various sterotypes directed against them by racists in the West.  Many Chinese laborers were sojourners that sought to provide income to their families through remittances due to the economic devastation caused by the aftershocks of the defeat of the Taiping Rebelion in China and the consequent lack of opportunities offered for Chinese on the mainland.  The nature of this work gave rise to racist sterotypes of the Asians as single men out to lust after white women and sell them into sexual slavery(AKA Prostitution).

The work of Chinese labour on nation-linking transcontinental railroads also made the Chinese targets of organized labor organizations such as the Knights of Labor.  While progressive for it's day in seeking an 8-hour work day, the end of child labor, and the willingness to organize women and blacks, it should not be overlooked that the Knights of Labor accused the Chinese of taking jobs desired by white men due to their willingness to work for less as a means of providing for themselves and to send remittances back home or a means for their overseas family to accumulate the money to join them in North America.

In many instances, employers played on the divisions between white and chinese labour during the construction of transcontinental railroads.  For instance, according to Anthony B. Chan in his article Bachelor Workers analyzing the role of the Chinese in constructing the CPR, during the construction of the CPR, the wages of Chinese labourers were kept low by their employers in contrast to white workers. White workers were also given better living conditions and food, while the chinese were only given a monotonous diet of rice and stale ground salmon, and had little medical treatment, with a growing list of scurvy victims as a result.  The racial animosity, according to Chan, was significant because it prevented Chinese and whites from forming an effective union to demand fair wages and job safety.  With this policy of divide and rule, politicians such as Amor de Cosmos and Noah Shakespeare, who was part of the Anti-Chinese Society were able to milk racism against the Chinese by playing on the fears of white workers on the Chinese taking up low wage jobs, with CPR employers relying on racist journalists as a link between themselves and racist politicians to spread anti-Chinese sentiments to divide the workers.

The climate of xenophobia fostered by anti-Chinese sentiments led to the imposition of laws prohibiting Chinese from entering North America.  In the United States, this was represented by the Chinese Exclusion Act, signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur, on May 6, 1882 that prohibited immigration for 10 years, even through it was never truly repealed until 1943, when it was replaced with the Magnuson Act allowing Chinese back into the US, through in very limited numbers(105 a year).  In Canada, anti-Chinese immigration laws were represented by first the Head Tax which forced the Chinese to pay $50 before immigrating to Canada, and this bill being constantly amended to increase the tax until it reached $500 in 1904; the Canadian government collected $33 million from the head taxes.  Finally on July 1st, 1923, the Canadian government passed the Chinese Immigration Act to permanently bar Chinese immigration from Canada.  This remained in place until 1947 as the provisions of the Chinese Immigration Act was incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  The Canadian government however would not apologize or provide compensation for those whose lives were destroyed by these draconian immigration policies until 2006 in response to greater calls for redress of past grievances.

What the historical experience of Chinese-Canadians show is that in the past Chinese-Canadians have been attacked and disenfranchised on the basis of the stereotypes present in this game.  Regardless of if the creator genuinely wanted this to be satire or not, the bringing up of these negative stereotypes in a way adds to the discourses within society and may end up normalizing negative stereotypes.  One could argue that it's the 21st century and no one would willingly accept the stereotypes presented in this game, but what if the influx of stereotypes into any given media allows for people to see it for it is, and for ignorant people to frame their perceptions of Chinese people on the basis of these stereotypes.  The more apathetic or ignorant a population are to these stereotypes, then the more they will be normalized, or rather re-normalized into society and lead to bigotry, xenophobia and disenfranchisement of the vulnerable minorities.  Consequently efforts to perpetuate such sterotypes must be resisted.

Of course, people can argue that excessive political correctness would lead to authoritarianism.  Regardless of any merit in that statement, which has been used to justify a place in society for hate speech or hate material, even if we live in a society where efforts to "police" speech is seen as counterproductive or autocratic, it does not give the far right or satirists the right to say anything they want.  At the end of the day they would still have to face accountability for their action.  If the government chooses not to take action on the basis of freedom of speech, then someone might find it in their interest to take actions themselves.  Just because one has something to say does not give their speech special treatment due to democratic principles.  If one believes it's fair to express hateful views, then it's also fair for people to express opinions exposing just how hateful and backwards said views are and take it on themselves to warn others of said worldviews.  

My thoughts on the NDP leadership race

On September 18, members of the New Democratic Party(NDP) of Canada vote for their new leader replacing outgoing leader Thomas Mulcair.  Naturally, hard right news outlets paint a “boring” and uninspiring picture of the NDP race as irreverent due to the space between their conservative-leaning ideology and the social democrat(abeit moving to the centre) ideology of the NDP.  More liberal-leaning outlets give more adequate coverage by contrast.  As a hard democratic socialist leftie myself, this race I feel is really relevant.  Namely, the question of: With the rise of left wing populism worldwide through the campaigns of Jean-Luc Melenchon, Jeremy Corbyn, and Bernie Sanders himself (in spite of his relative moderate stances and the fact that he’s just a social democrat, abeit much better than what passes for rational questions in the US), how would the NDP address the need to move left to address the key issues of our time and challenge the injustices of neoliberal policies and the alt-right?  Or would they choose to maintain supposedly pragmatic and centrist policies, and grow weaker as a result?  My primer analyzing the NDP race will go over the policies presented by the NDP candidates, as well as provide my own analysis of who I am supporting in the race in ranked choice, as well as my own take on the media coverage of the candidate of my first choice, the coverage of which I have a lot of problems with.  

A Sad Day for the Star Wars fandom.......

It has come to my attention that Carrie Fisher has become one with the force.  She has passed away today at the age of 60 due to her recent heart attack.  Her loss is a significant blow to Star Wars fans everywhere.  The Star Wars Saga has seen many of its great collaborators pass on over the years, with the actors for Count Dooku in the Prequels, Sir Christopher Lee, as well as the actor for R2D2 passing on very recently. But this? This is the equivalent of losing a Beatle. 

We, the fans, never think of our heroes as being mortal but they are. It is now time to thank Carrie for taking the role of Princess Leia Organa despite what others thought at the time about sci-fi movies. Carrie paved the way for other SF heroines on film and TV and thereby inspired so many girls and women with her character.  Princess Leia was a important and crucial figure in both current canon and the old Expanded Universe Legends canon.  Leia's devotion for peace  and democracy was part of what fueled the leadership of the Alliance and in the new canon, the leadership of the Resistance against a resurgent Neo-Empire, the First Order.  Let’s hope Star Wars VIII uses Leia well, in both the marketing of the movie and the movie in general, and gives her a proper sendoff .  

It was truly marvelous that she not only was an icon in Science fiction, playing the role of Princess Leia and all, but the sort of challenges she went through in her own life and how she managed to overcome the challenges and adversity that she faced.  Fisher, had a long history of drug abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. She turned that experience into the comic novel Postcards From the Edge to raise awareness of drug addiction.  The novel was adapted into a film by Mike Nichols in 1990, which brought even more awareness to her condition.  In the 1990s, she further revealed her diagnosis with bipolar disorder and her experiences with depression.  This in turn raised awareness of how she deals with these issues and why there is a need to address physical and mental barriers.  Carrie Fisher didn't just fight Space Fascists as a badass space princess, but she also fought a more real and tangible battle dedicated her platform to mental health awareness & female empowerment.

What was important about her fight for awareness was how open it was, she made no secret of her mental conditions.  Fisher gave honest testimonies of the trials and tribulations of battling drug addition addiction and bipolar disorder, and gave no quarter when it comes to discussing the realities of mental health conditions.  In her final column, published in November, Fisher advised “Alex,” a twenty-something looking for guidance on living with bipolar disorder.  She stated that "We have been given a challenging illness, and there is no other option than to meet those challenges. Think of it as an opportunity to be heroic – not “I survived living in Mosul during an attack” heroic, but an emotional survival. An opportunity to be a good example to others who might share our disorder. That’s why it’s important to find a community – however small – of other bipolar people to share experiences and find comfort in the similarities"

It was very appreciated for the media to focus and give emphasis on this part of the legacy.  I don't have much faith in the media for reasons I will not state here.  Yet, it was very appreciated that they didn't gloss over this part of her legacy but gave a significant degree of emphasis to it. 

In regards to activities on this blog, I had the idea of two Star Wars centered articles that I wanted to post regarding how the themes of Star Wars are relevant to our own society.  However, one of them is on indefinite hiatus because I have simply lost the will to post that one due to this tragic moment and the other one is cancelled permanently, I feel that the theme of at least one of them is totally obsolete now considering the plot changes that need to happen now, and any way to drag this plot point up that I want to happen now to make the sociopolitical themes I want to make will now be totally unethical and insensitive.  Thus that post will not appear on this blog, ever.  

May the force be with Carrie and her family now mourning her loss, always

The Far-Right in the absence of a Strong Left: A Warning

This post actually isn't mine per say but it came from a blog called skeptic.ca, the author is an anarchist, through he has a degree of sympathy for the NDP while it was under Tommy Douglas.  This post was written as part of a longer post on that blog regarding the author's concerns about the NDP's movement to the center, which accelerated under Mulcair and his "third way politics" and cost them arguably the 2015 election. 

I decided to share it, while I may not agree fully with the ideology of the original writer, because of it's relevance to politics in both the US and arguably Canada too(not to mention that it kinda predicted Trump).  We may think that we have it so smug(despite the fact that our society was also founded as a settler colony at the expense of the indigenous population and rooted in racism too) or that we're somehow progressive and post-racial.  Yet, within days of Trump's victory, we have seen alt-right hate propaganda spreading across Canada targeting racial minorities, and a potential Trump in the wings in the form of Kellie Leitch.  Never mind we have our own racist demogorgues and maniacs in the form of Ezra Levant and Lauren Southern.  As I mentioned in my post back from my long hibernation, the rise of Trump was tied to the failings of neoliberalism.  And as Justin Trudeau is becoming more and more of just another neoliberal, maybe we ourselves need a strong progressive movement or face the same consequences as America. 

The post below.  The original post can be found here:

Back in the Bloggers Chair: Thoughts on the 2016 election.

I’m back on the bloggers chair after a long hibernation!! Yay!  Originally I wanted to update reguarly, but grad school got in the way.  I apologize for any mess that this has left and I will try to make up for it....if I can!  Below are my thoughts on what has transpired with the victory of Donald Trump.

The Election of 2016: My Thoughts

First of all, the 2016 election.  I was not surprised that Donald Trump won.  Donald Trump's victory could boil down to two different factors.  One factor was of course the racism and misogyny prevalent in America.  Trump spoke to the darker elements of American society, the alt-right, the KKK, the white nationalists, the neo-nazis and formed a far-right populist bloc catering to the worst elements of racism, ultranationalism and xenophobia.  Trump promised law and order, as well as the most extreme policies perpetuated against illegals and muslim-Americans.  He overall took advantage of the xenophobia and wounds, hidden by the myths of post-racialism, within American society and offered the idea that if a certain minority, be it Mexicans or Muslims, be removed completely from America, that things will be better.  Trump has dug up hatred, and brought it to the surface.

Yet the narrative that Trump simply galvanized dark and racist forces, while true, is not sufficient to explain everything.  Trump also reached out to elements of American society, such as the rust belt, that lost out to neoliberalism and the movement of industries and jobs overseas.  He manipulated these elements of rural and working-class America with promises that he will "drain the swamp", that he will preserve America for the working class and get jobs that were lost back.   

Do Black Lives Matter for the Democratic Party?

August 31st, 2016 saw the release of emails by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 regarding the Democratic Party's stance on Black Lives Matter.  Suffice to say that it dosen't bode well for the Democratic Party.  Why? Because the leaks exposed all to clear the notion that despite rhetoric condemning Trump's racism and the alt-right, Black Lives don't matter for the Democrats.

These documents were supposedly uncovered from Nancy Pelosi's files.  It stated Black Lives Matter was a "radical movement" and that while Democrat party leaders should meet with them and avoid snubbing them with racist terminology such as "all lives matter", they should not support the platform the BLM.

The Democratic party has tried to shrug off the implications of these leaks.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee(DCCC) has stated that BLM has evolved into a political force with a significant impact on the nation as a whole, and that they welcome dialogue and cooperation with BLM.  They sidelined the contents of the leak by stating that "they will not allow for" the contents of the leaks to negatively affect their relations with the BLM activists.

BLM leaders and activists however, were unconvinced.  Their facebook page offered the statement that the DCCC response was simply used to obfuscate the implications of the issue and silencing black communities.  They state that regardless of party lines, that elected officials in a democratic society have to make legislation reflecting the needs of their constituents.  BLM activists such as Shaun King have stated that the democrats have chosen to not focus on transformative policies to address racism and policy brutality, but instead just chose to "act polite and supportive without giving any real support".

Far-Right Political Correctness: The Hypocriscy of the Alt-Right Exposed

Colin Kaepernick of the San Fransisco 49ers's decision to stay silent during the playing of the American national anthem in a football game elicited strong reactions to say the least.  This was especially true among the alt-right.  That was because Kaepernnick decided to not stand for the national anthem on the basis that there was nothing worth it in his eyes to celebrate about America because of it's racism and "oppression" torwards blacks and other people of color, with a focus torwards police brutality and how cops could get away with dead people in the streets.

As expected, the alt-right's reaction torwards Kaepernick has been totally negative.  NFL fans have taken to burning t-shirts with Kaepernick's number on it, and the far-right has been making statements as to how Kapernick could protest against oppression, but make millions on his contract as a football player(nevermind that he himself accepted that he was privileged with his lifestyle).  The far-right also made complaints about  how football used to be "apolitical" but Kaepernick supposedly "ruined" it by bringing racial justice into the issue.

Why are Third Parties Important?

NOTE: This only at this current stage, applies to federal level elections(barring a very strong Green party or progressive independent downballot candiate).  I noticed how the Bernie Sanders campaign has spurred Berniecrats like him to run for office.  As a result, my belief is that in downballot initiatives, they should support Berniecrats running for office against establishiment democrats, establishiment Republicans, and alt-rightists.  However, progressives should vote for Stein on the federal level and from there, work to ensure that states allow for more alternatives on local elections.

The 2016 election is shaping up to be easily the most unpopular election in American history.  Both Trump and Clinton net unavailability ratings on a massive scale.  Both candidates are viewed to be not only unlikable, but also untrustworthy.  Under these conditions, it is time to consider the importance of third parties and how they may prevent American democracy from being dominated by "the candiate" the populace hate the least and the rule of "voting the lesser evil" to prevent the greater evil from emerging.

Some say that it is impossible for third parties to make a dent on America, that all they would do is split the vote and allow the greater evil to win.  While some may argue that from a right-wing libertarian or moderate prespective, building a third party has a good chance of bearing fruit this election, it seems to be harder to justify progressives building the Green Party in the wake of Gary Johnson's growing chances electoral success that Jill Stein and the Green Party does not seem to share.  This blog entry will discuss some of the reasons to vote Third Party, framing it in the context of the Green Party's struggle for electoral breakthroughs.  It ultimately argues that in an election with the most derided candidates, 2016 offers the best opportunity to start building an alternative to the two party system.

Apologies for the Delay

Hello, Daniel here, and I apologize for the delay.  Watching the Olympics, taking all the beautiful No Man's Sky pictures as well as preparing for my grad school program in September seems to have drained quite a bit of time from me.  Neverthless, this sociopolitical blog is still on, I am not quitting my bloggers' chair any time soon, and will have my next article up as soon as possible.

But first, a quick note on the Green Party Town Hall that occured yesterday.  I was more excited for the Green Party town hall to say the least then any of the upcoming Hillary vs. Trump debates.  As I feel the 2016 election will not be a progressive campaign pitted against a alt-right one, but a business-as-usual neoliberal establishment campaign pitted against an alt-right one.  Despite Bernie's efforts to inject left wing discourse into American politics, it seems that politics remains wedded to the notion of lesser of two evils.  And Hillary looks to be shaping up to be business as usual, seemingly abandoning the most progressive democratic platform in history.  The Green Party Town Hall with Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka is thus a refershing alternative to dead-end politics where voters have to pick between the maintaining of neoliberal policies or give way to the far-right and the dangers it might entail.  The dominance of the political duopoly is even more jarring considering a large percentage of young people want a third party to represent them.

The DNC: Democratic Disunity?

The theme of the Democratic Convention is "Unity".  In this case, unity against Trump and the GOP.  Yet, recent events have shown that unity be out of their reach.  This apparent disunity is because of the revelation of the Democratic Party's disenfranchisement torwards its progressive wing, represented by the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

The cracks were already showing before the convention.  An earlier article I've written discussed ways that Hillary had withdrawn on her promise of a more progressive platform even before Sanders' misguided endorsement of Clinton.  The retreat from fighting for progressive policy and a return to Third Way policies further intensified with Clinton's appointment of Tim Kaine as her Vice President pick.  This is because Tim Kaine has expressed support for the TPP as an "upgrade for labour standards"(he was one of the 13 senators that wanted Obama to fast track this act through Congress), as well as pro-fracking positions and support for the Hyde Act.  The Hyde Act prohibits federal funding for abortions under Medicaid — the repeal of which is called for in the Democratic Party’s own platform promising unlimited federal funding of abortions.  Kaine was also known to support "tough on crime" policies such as  Project Exile, which gave long prison sentences to thoseconvicted on illegal firearm ownership.  This law has bee accused of targeting the black population and feeding the prison-industrial complex.  Thus, it is contradictory for Hillary to promise a leftward shift, yet have a center-right neoliberal VP with policies contradictory to all her promises.

Thoughts on the Backlash torwards the New Ghostbusters(Rant torwards the alt-right)

The new Ghostbusters is not particularly a movie that I had any intention of seeing.  This has nothing to do with its quality or the acting or the characters, but rather because it is not the sort of movie that I'd like.  I admit that I am not a big horror or comedy fan, more of a TV drama fan as well as a sci-fi and fantasy fan. However I was compelled to watch this movie because of one reason: The various Men's Rights movements and the Alt-Right have been hating on it just because it has a fully female cast, which they believe is pushing a supposedly left-wing, progressive identity politics, and politically correct agenda at the expense of film quality.  The trailer for Ghostbusters has received the most dislikes out of any trailer for a Youtube movie, with many far-right commentators condemning the movie for pushing "SJW Values" over actual quality itself, with the implication that a movie with progressive identity politics is inherently bad.  As a result, I chose to watch this movie on the basis of unpacking some of these worldviews and see for myself: "Is the all-female cast supposedly hiding the movie's flaws?"

My opinion of the movie is that the movie, after been seen for itself, is not a bad movie.  It isn't objectively good but it is not the supposedly crap movie that the far right and sexists claim it to be.  I give it a 3/5.  And therefore, it is important to challenge them on this issue whenever they use social media to perpetuate their hatred.  Before we begin my dissection of the far-right's worldviews it bears noting that simply fighting the far-right on issues of misogyny, racism and identity politics, while necessary, is not the solution to the "root of the problem", and that there needs to be progressive socioeconomic policies opposed to neoliberalism to go hand in hand with progressive identity politics in order to effectively defeat this growing far-right.  Nevertheless, it must not be overlooked that the alt-right and the Men's Right's Movement are opposing the movie from the perspective of White Male Privilege, and must be confronted and called to account in battles between progressive forces and the alt-right over identity politics.

Thoughts on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton

On July 12th, 2016, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  He concedes the nomination to Hillary Clinton.  He congratulates her on the nomination and states he will do whatever it takes to allow her to become president to ensure a Democratic victory on November 8th.  He praises Hillary's supposed promises to create a living wage, as well as to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.  This will of course contrast with Trump's plan to nominate a right-wing Supreme Court Justice and to cut minimum ages.  

While this move has finally ended Bernie Sanders' conflict with the Democratic Party, it has split Sanders' progressive base.  Some believe that Sanders made the right decision, rooted in his earlier promises that he will endorse Clinton to defeat Donald Trump.  They believe that the threat of Donald Trump and the alt-right eclipses any sort of protest that could be achieved by voting Third Party.  Thus it is wrong to support Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein because all that would do is take away votes from Clinton, viewing Trump's plans to be detrimental to a progressive America because of his far-right polices.  Others believe that the Sanders' "Political Revolution" laid the grounds for genuine independence from the Democratic Party through an independent Left.  Consequently, they view Sanders' endorsement as a sell-out or a betrayal.  When looking at these arguments, I feel that, while Bernie Sanders may not have sold out(at least in my opinion), the latter camp is in the right, and that it was wrong for Bernie Sanders to have endorsed Hillary at this stage of the campaign.   That is because Hillary's behavior often makes it hard to believe that she would stay true to fighting for a progressive campaign, and this was in fact reflected in certain campaign decisions that was made by her as the convention neared.  Likewise, if she becomes president, it would not be guaranteed if she would actually move to implement more progressive policies because of the supreme court of whatnot as, much of which has come about as progressive policies was due to grassroots activism.  

It also bears noting that this endorsement could actually benefits the alt-right, whom would use Bernie's endorsement to paint Bernie as "corrupt" or no different than the rest.  This will be contrasted with Trump, who would be seen as "incorruptible" and the only one to "deliver" America from corruption.

The Current State of the World and what it means for the Far-Right

2016 couldn't be a more tumultuous time to be alive.  The ongoing stream of bad news seems to multiply every minute.  The war with ISIS for instance, doesn't seem to come to an end, and more terror attacks, such as the recent one on Nice, seem to manifest every single minute.  Geopolitical ties structures that are believed to last are falling apart.  Xenophobia and racism seems to be prevalent in Western societies, and elections seem to solve nothing despite the emphasis on their importance within a democratic society, with both parties representing special interests over those desired by the populace.  Income inequality appears to be rising

The current climate has given rise to a new group of far-right demagogues--the alternative right, or alt-right for short.  The alt-right are far-right activists viewing themselves as "purer" than mainstream American conservatives and more willing to supposedly "discuss" race and terrorism(read: meaning more willing be racist).  Under the current circumstances, the alt-right has been able to normalize their discourse within society and paint themselves as the only ones that are willing to fight against a political establishment perceived to be corrupt and supposedly killing Western civilization with "multiculturalism", "political correctness", and a perceived reluctance to fight against Islamic fundamentalism.  Unfortunately, with the rise of Donald Trump in American politics, a candidate that propagates these far-right worldviews,

The goal of this blog, written by a history and political science graduate, is to document the rise of this alt-right and how geopolitical events may be manipulated to be tilted in their favor.  It is written to be a voice of dissent against the complete dominance of the alt-right on the internet, with many websites, in particular Breibart, the Daily Stormer, Reddit and 4chan, being hubs of activity for this far-right.  This blog will analyze why is the alt-right growing, how they would respond to geopolitical events.  Yet unlike most mainstream media analysis of the alt-right, this is written to focus on more systemic issues as to explain what is causing the rise of the alt-right across Europe and America; hence the title "The Root of the Problem".  In particular, articles on this blog will analyze how current social, political and economic currents supported by current political establishments, or the backlash against these currents, may benefit or intensify support for the alt-right.  Ultimatly, it asks the question: Is it just enough for culture to progress to a certain level in order to leave the reactionary alt-right backlash behind, but maintain current sociopolitical currents?  Does defeating the alt-right require the preservation of current world sociopolitical systems, or to challenge it from a progressive or leftist perspective?  Is the current political establishiment, particuarly in the West, the "Root of the Problem"?