What Kanye West’s tweets reveal about the culture war

Of all the bizarre things I thought would spring out of 2018, Kanye embracing President Trump and a resulting tailspin of the culture war was not high on my list. However, neither is a it a huge shock. Many will remember his visit to Trump Tower in 2016 shortly after the victory to “discuss life”, a stunt that whether it was pure provocation or not, did little good for Kanye’s already dubious reputation in leftist circles. He was actively called an Uncle Tom and a token black person for daring to even entertain the ‘deeply bigoted’ president. Curiously though people seemed to forget about the incident, or at least sweep it under the rug, and went back to loving Ye and his music once again. Little did they know that the monster in the cupboard was only resting, and Kanye had far from abandoned his admiration for the Republican president.

Fast forward 18 months and Kanye is back at it, but this time doing more than just standing for a photo-op with the president. Reactivating his Twitter account, he unleashed a tweet storm to end all tweet storms where he included such gems as “Some people have to work within the consciousness while other people can shift the consciousness”, “Just stop lying about shit. Just stop lying” and perhaps my personal favourite “Truth is my goal. Controversy is my gym. I’ll do a hundred reps of controversy for a six pack of truth.” I mean, truly this was golden stuff. Then came an announcement phase, disclosing the release date for his album, a collaboration project with Kid Cudi and Pusha T’s album, all dropping in early June (to my huge excitement).

Then things got serious when he dropped the 7 word bombshell that broke the delusions of so many, “I like the way Candice Owens thinks.” A google search later, and much of Kanye’s fanbase was outraged. A CONSERVATIVE? How could he? Does he not understand the plight of black people? Is Kanye West… you guessed it… A RACIST? So on and so forth. But he went on.. “Self victimisation is a disease”, “There was a time when slavery was the trend but apparently that time is still upon us. But it’s now a mentality.” He then, hilariously, posted himself watching notorious Trump fan Scott Adams’ video, talking about how Ye had flipped the culture on it’s head with his comment about Candice, which knowing Kanye’s history would have been a huge boost to his ego and pushed him further down the rabbit hole. The real kicker though came just a couple of days ago, Kanye saying plainly that he loves President Trump and that they share, wait for it.. DRAGON ENERGY! I mean, I’m trying to be semi-serious here, but really, the best Hollywood screenwriter couldn’t make this shit up. He then posted his MAGA hat, the cherry on top of this beautiful symphony of trollery. Chance, The Rapper later chimed in saying “Black people don’t have to be democrats.”, as well as Kim Kardashian who staunchly defended her husband’s right to like whoever he wants. Who would have thought the day would come where Kim Kardashian is making more sense than The New York Times?

Now, why did I bother laying out this timeline of Kanye’s tweets? Why does all this matter? Well, by Kanye doing what Kanye has always done, stir up the hornet’s nest, he unintentionally exposed many ugly truths about the liberal-conservative culture war that has been brewing furiously on social media for years now, and for once, forced people at least temporarily out of their ideological echo-chambers. The internet has always been a double edged sword when it comes to free-speech and the open exchange of ideas. Initially it promised to be the bastion of such principals, many social networks had humble beginnings as tools primarily designed for connecting people who might not otherwise associate with one another. What they have slowly morphed into however, are moral arbiters tasked with the promulgation of “acceptable discourse”. We can see this playing out legally at the moment with Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago, rightly being asked by Ted Cruz just what the principal role of Facebook actually is. Are they a biased publisher or a neutral platform? Clearly, he doesn’t quite know the answer, but legally it has to be the latter. He can’t have it both ways. What we know for certain is happening though is that social networks are cracking down on whatever they consider to be “hate speech”, a vague, subjective term that really means “speech we don’t like”. Now, this cleanse of mainly conservative voices is yet to fully play itself out, but the wheels are most definitely in motion. Conservative content, especially independent content, is routinely being demonetised on YouTube, censored on Twitter or actively removed from people’s Facebook timelines by biased algorithms. One of the fundamental questions of the internet age is waiting to be answered, do Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey want to promote diversity of thought, or do they want to be moral adjudicators?

But how does this tie in to Kanye’s tweet storm? Whether he meant to or not, Kanye opened up a schism in the normal order of social media. The recipe; huge celebrity, perceived to be of the left and for social justice, a free thinker who loves controversy. The truth is, the left knew that Kanye was always a danger in the culture war simply because he can not be pigeon holed. He has routinely shocked me with his very unique blend of provocation and a disregard for social niceties and norms. Love him or hate him, he will never give you anything but his honest take on things. Many of those takes might be ignorant and crass, but they are always from the heart. However like many great artists throughout history, he has been routinely mischaracterised by people who think he stands up for them and their beliefs. A comparison can be made to my favourite artist ever, Bob Dylan, who also resolutely refused to be labelled as standing for an ideological position, and predictably got torn to shreds when he then chose to go against the ideas of the group. The mistake people make is associating individual statements on distinct situations with a firm political affiliation. It is possible for instance, for Kanye to see George Bush’s response to hurricane Katrina as insufficient or even racist, without him then having to swear an oath of allegiance to the Democratic Party. The unfortunate truth of social media is that it promotes tribalism and radicalism on both sides, encouraging group think and closed debates where thinking is not required. There is a human desire to seek out the collective in all of us. It is secure, safe and doesn’t require the confrontation of chaos that comes with considering radically different viewpoints. Nobody is exempt, and even without dodgy algorithms these social and cultural divides are simply inevitable on a platform that requires little courage or accountability.

But what Kanye has done over the last few days is shatter this divide to some degree, as trivial and non-consequential as it all sounds. Liberals have been forced to look at one of their cultural hero’s in a whole new light, and likewise conservatives have had to look more seriously at someone they chose to dismiss as crazy for a long time. Sadly, the echo-chambers are too powerful to be taken down so easily. In fact ironically, the response to these tweets has shown me that the reverse might be true – they might be strengthened. I am sure that Kanye will prompt some liberals to look up the likes of Candice Owens and Scott Adams, who I think are reasonably rational political commentators, and perhaps they will re-evaluate some of their long-held prejudices. Likewise I hope that some conservatives will take the likes of Kanye and others like Kendrick Lamar more seriously and push for greater cultural unification. But I suspect and see a much more sinister side to all of this. Many liberals have simply doubled down on their beliefs, promising to boycott Kanye’s future albums, sell their collections of his shoes and commit themselves to attacking him vehemently. Equally there are right-wingers who are trying to use Kanye as a weapon for their own rigid ideology, one that I am personally more inclined to but by no means fully attached. The truth is that Kanye is the same person he always has been since bursting onto the hip hop scene in 2004, and we have to take his utterances one by one and sometimes with a grain of salt.

Scott Adams’ argument is that a Kanye, like Trump before him, has broken long-held cultural taboos and opened up an a new frontier for free-thought that will act as a gateway for all of us to escape our ideological mental prisons. This all sounds great, but isn’t this space also a power vacuum that will be filled by a new set of demagogues? There is no obvious reason to think otherwise. I like a lot of what Trump has done as president, but you’re a fool if you think he hasn’t also done a great deal of harm to the idea of decency and honesty with his rhetoric. Populism is incapable of fostering a truly healthy public debate on important issues, as we are seeing with this degradation of common values on social media. It is a dangerous game to play. What we really need is a space that can act as buttress against ideological possession, much like the territory people like Jordan Peterson have opened up with his hours of lectures on personal responsibility and individualism, or Sam Harris’ ideas about mediation, the need for rationality and the scientific method. These are people who I see as really leading the charge against the Hell on the extremes of politics, with their willingness to debate their ideas with people to which they disagree in the public arena, as it’s clear to any thinking person that there is a reason for both sides to exist. If Kanye or anyone else can add to that discussion then I applaud him for that. In truth I already applaud him for not being afraid to speak his ideas loudly, just as he always has. But let’s keep it in perspective, worshiping or hating the man will get us nowhere. Let’s start seeing each other as fellow brothers and sisters instead of despicable enemies, and judge each idea (or tweet) on it’s own merits. Adams is right that we have a chance to forge a new world, but we must do it responsibly and with our highest virtues in mind, free-speech, compassion, understanding and critical thinking. Or as Kanye says, “Be fearless. Express what you feel not what you’ve been programmed to feel.”

Where this surreal story will lead is anyone’s guess and I can’t pretend to know anymore than anyone else. As always there have been takeaways that I like and others that are straight up crazy. Predictably The Washington Post labelled Kanye alt-right, another term that has been twisted to the point of utter deformity by it’s overuse. Ben Shapiro credited West but warned people that he might still be a crazy lunatic and to not jump to conclusions. The late night hosts gave spiels denouncing him. But overall, the comments on these tweets give the most accurate picture of the response, and sadly it seems that a lot of his fans have put him permanently in the loony bin and thrown away the key. Personally I wish Kanye all the best for his upcoming album releases, which I await with baited breath. This might all turn out to be the greatest marketing scheme in music history, as you can be damn sure that our outrage obsessed culture will want to see what Ye is going to say when he raps even if they are currently ‘boycotting’ him. I still predominantly care about Kanye because I see him as one of the greatest artists of his generation, controversial as that may be, but to pretend that this past week has not been a significant cultural moment would be very naive even if I wish it wasn’t. As Andrew Breitbart said “politics is downstream from culture”, and it’s about time we got our act together on both fronts.

Send me your thoughts with a comment or on Twitter @Balzo93

Milo Comes Home to Launch Young British Heritage Society

Milo Yiannopoulos is a devisive figure. That’s exactly how he likes it. I have been a fan of his for about a year now, ever since I saw him on British television and debate shows like The Big Questions and Sky News. Since then, Milo has taken it to the next level, touring America’s campus scene on his infamous ‘Dangerous Faggot Tour’, a name I am particularly fond of. What is so invincible about Yiannopoulos is how he displays the exact opposite traits to your typical right wing commentator. It makes him into a kind of juggernaught. We have been led to believe, somewhat justifiably so, that right wingers are these dull, faceless traditionalists with a chip on their shoulder about everything. Milo though, is colourful, gay, religious and brilliantly funny. He is the embodiment of odd, making it very hard to stereotype him.

I had the privilege of seeing Milo give a speech in London a couple of nights ago. He was there to launch the Young British Heritage Society at Conway Hall. A conservative libertarian society set on promoting the merits of British values and principals, with a particular emphasis on bringing back free speech and open discussion of ideas on university campus’s around the country. It is a mission statement I can get behind, having been at university myself and experiencing a increasing level of censorship within my institution and especially within the mainstream media. Despite my interest in the society, I was primarily there to see Milo. Without going into too much depth on the society as a whole, I came away a little perplexed by it. Much of what was said I agreed with, but the manner in which many of these people speak is the exact thing I am opposing on the left. This sort of self-aggrandising, disturbingly ignorant type of rhetoric that serves very little purpose aside from getting a reaction from the audience. 

Milo was his typical unabashed self however. He gave a good speech, if not a little recycled. He touched on his infamous ban from Twitter, the dangers of the left’s influence on campus, Brexit and the US presidential race, candidly speaking about his support for Donald Trump, but also his fear and distain for another potential Clinton administration. The best thing about Milo is that he treats his audience with respect, never stopping to explain his points in too much depth but instead assuming that the audience is intelligent enough to keep up. His quick wit is what keeps his act feeling fresh and dynamic, stopping seemingly every other sentence to make a quip about either himself or the radical left. It kept me engaged and listening to everything he was saying. Staying within the theme of the society, he concluded by talking about Britain, and how we are a country based on strong values and a tendency for subversion and mischief, which makes our press 'the best in the world'. It was a very patriotic moment for most of the audience. The event had a different tone to it than the other speeches he's given on his campus tour so far, most of which have taken place in the US, where students have turned up with the sole purpose of sabotaging him with random and irrelevant protests that ironically only go to further his message. At one point he even vocalised exactly what I was thinking, ‘part of you comes to see me for the spectacle, the protests and the controversy’. He’s right, a part of me was hoping for exactly that. I’m afraid to say though, that is one of the main fears I have for the movement Milo is trying initiate, that it will just turn into an ‘us vs. them’ type of ordeal. In truth, it already has become a bit like that. 

Having said all that, what makes Milo more than simply an entertainer with an funky hair cut is that he brings it back to his libertarian values. He understands that a key element of why people behave and think in the way they do is because they have strayed from what made us as a nation, and America, the leading proponents of libertarianism. He is not here to start a war with the left, just to make fun of them and point out just how irrational and brainwashed many have become. Under all the layers of fake tan and hairspray is somebody who is concerned about the younger generation and is willing to do something about it. This was the crux of his speech, returning to the importance of action. He boldly stated that ‘By coming here tonight you haven’t really done anything’, and he’s right. He followed it up by urging people to go out and do things, to fight for what they believe in. ‘This is why the left always win’ he quips, ‘because they band together and get things done’. I am glad that he did this as it felt like he way putting most of the audience, and some of the speakers in fact, in there place, telling them not to get too wrapped up in the petty politics that a large proportion of our generation engages in. I know I have been guilty of this in the past, but I am reaching point now where I am beyond arguing with people who refuse to see sense. I will only engage in political debate if it feels right and I am not just trying to convert the person I am speaking to. It is still hard at times, and much of the politically correct stuff I am seeing in the media needs to be addressed, but addressed in a logical and sometimes comical way, like Milo does.

Milo Yiannopoulos will continue to gather steam as more and more people cotton on to the ridiculousness and genuine danger of movements like extreme feminism and phony organisations like Black Lives Matter. He will be a leading figure simply because of how likeable and vocal he is, but I hope that as we move forwards, he uses his influence to encourage real action and doesn’t just act as the pied piper for the angry, disenfranchised youth who simply want to spout hatred and vitriol at those they oppose. This speech gave me a fair amount of faith that he understands the people he is seeking to address. I don’t agree with Milo on everything, but that is part of the process of rebuilding an open dialogue within universities and other sections of society. We should be able to listen to speakers that we respect and be able to disagree with them. Yes, he might have been preaching to the choir with this one, but at least it didn’t end up like a Trump rally. Well… not quite. 

Thoughts On Cecil The Lion

Let's talk about Cecil the lion...

Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard about the killing of Zimbabwe's "most famous lion" last month, perpetrated by Walter Palmer, an American dentist who reportedly payed $55,000 for the hunt. Let me preface by saying I am a huge animal lover. I have grown up with pets my entire life and have just graduated from an environmental science degree where a large part of the course focussed on animal conservation. When I initially heard about this case, my skin crawled. I have been lucky enough to have visited Africa and go on safari back in 2010, and seeing these magnificent animals roam around in the wild all around me was easily one of the most spiritually rewarding experiences of my life thus far. I remember the moment our group was having lunch in one of the lodges and we got word that a lion had been spotted near the gates. We jumped straight in the truck and went to look for it. About 5 minutes later I glanced over my shoulder and out of the window and  saw this majestic lioness on the precipice of a rise about 50 meters from the van. It was a beautiful sight that has stayed with me and has most definitely left its mark on me and my view of the animal kingdom. So naturally when I first heard that about Cecil being killed, two thoughts naturally came to me. The first was the obvious reaction, "that's disgusting, who could do such a thing?", and secondly "What is so special about THIS lion? Surely this happens all the time." Obviously these two thoughts are conflicting, but on deeper reflection, the first is a purely emotional response whereas the second is an entirely rational and more considered reaction. After seeing how the story has developed, my question is still yet to be answered. It baffles me just how much this story has been blown out of proportion by the news media and also the mass public who have so willingly lapped it up. I have a couple of major issues with the framing of this story which I will briefly discuss below.

1. The sensationalist portrayal of Cecil

This one is of course no surprise. We live in the 21st century, a time where nearly EVERYTHING in the news is designed to either scare, excite or confuse the public. Sensationalism is far from exclusive to this story, but this has taken it to a whole new level in my eyes. First of all the labelling of Cecil as "famous" by the west. I'm sure Cecil never asked for this title, nor wanted it. In fact, a large part of the framing of why we should care about this animal was placed in the fact that he was well known and beloved. But how many in the west knew or cared for Cecil before the shooting? He was certainly well loved in Zimbabwe, and by the Oxford University department tracking and studying him. But aside from that, my guess is there weren't too many who cared deeply for him outside of his home country. But after a week or so of forcing this story on us day after day, every man and his dog suddenly became his biggest fan and a bonafide "expert" on the case, despite not being there and before any legal proceedings or statements had been issued. Why aren't the 96 other lions that are poached each year being given the same treatment? Or how about the 100,000 African elephants that have been killed in the last 3 years for their ivory? The answer is simple - the media needs to make it relatable and marketable. Statistics aren't relatable, a singular "famous" animal with a cute name is. It sells newspapers. This can be extrapolated far beyond this story. It is indicative of any problem in society today. The problem with this is, even though it gets people talking and debating in depth about the incident, the overall result is not usually a significant change in the status quo but simply people looking to point the finger at one person - in this case Walter Palmer. As much as I believe the dentist should be held accountable for any illegal activity he engaged in (if there was any), I think it achieves absolutely nothing to victimise him to the point of being named "the most hated man in America". Yet it is crystal clear that this is the media's agenda. It is time for us all to wake up and educate ourselves on the issue of big game hunting, determine whether there is a problem, and then tackle it from its roots. We can not hope to do this if we are continually seduced and divided by the media.

2. The hypocrisy of the case

I know, I know, I'm hardly discussing anything here that hasn't been brought up thousands of times before. But it needs to be reinforced. I really don't understand how any meat-eating westerner can be outraged by the killing of Cecil. And before you say "hunting for food is different than hunting for pleasure", I want you to consider whether there is actually much difference between the two. Hunting and eating animals as a source of food, it could easily be argued, is completely unnecessary in this day and age, especially for affluent westerners. It is an indulgence and a choice. So in fact, I would argue that hunting for food IS hunting for pleasure. The facts and science on this issue are as clear as day. Vegetarians and vegans can obtain EVERY vital nutrient they need from plant-based sources. They are also responsible for a drastically lower carbon footprint than meat-eaters, with 75% of total nitrogen and carbon emissions in agriculture coming from the rearing of livestock. It also requires a lot more land than arable farming as feed must be grown in addtion simply to feed farm animals. And then there's the ethical debate. A single lion can be shot and killed instantly and cause universal outrage, but caged chickens and pigs can have their legs broken and be forced to continue feeding to make them as fat as possible, all the while being kept in pens and cages barely big enough to accommodate them. Yes I know we all eat free range nowadays, but nonetheless, the meat industry can never be 100% ethical. It will probably shock anyone reading this to hear that I'm not actually vegetarian or vegan (although I am seriously considering it), but the fact is I am only really blaming meat-eaters who were outraged by Cecil's killing. If you can justify eating meat to yourself, then that is your personal choice and one should not be condemned for it. All I would like is for people to see things fairly and rationally, realising that every sentient life is worth something, whether it is a cow or a lion.

Those are my two main issues with the case of Cecil the lion. I am not condoning what Walter Palmer did, and it still upsets me to think about how this beautiful animal met his end. I am simply trying to see this incident in the context of the time in which we live. There is so much pain and death in the world that needs to be talked about and tackled by intelligent people growing up in this limitless time of opportunity. Don't waste your precious time succumbing to the media's constant brainwashing. Instead try to consider everything holistically and live a life where you can influence people by spreading the truth. Only then can we go about making a better world.