Among all the hip new election maps, up to date polling analysis and software, Votecastr, fresh out of shiny Silicon Valley, was its neon flagbearer. This hot little start-up proudly led the charge of algorithm-based big data companies seeking to transform a polling industry during the US election. I, alongside many others, found myself checking their homepage just before America went to the polls. Its business model promised to provide real-time projections as votes were collected, before any official tallies. The company partnered with Slate and Vice News to absorb data from dozens of polling locations and outfits throughout election day, before feeding it through their predictive software to generate “minute-by-minute projected outcomes”. While releasing vote estimates before poll closure is controversial, the value of such technology is obvious. Using a large variety of polling data (reportedly from Democrat and Republican party sources), Votecastr would overwhelm any biases or misinformation, leading to better predictions. Of course, as the company admitted on its homepage, predictions still depend on the veracity of input data, but this read like an afterthought amid technical jargon and promises of lifting the election curtain. For market speculators, real-time election projections offer a potential edge few can ignore.

The early predictions as votes came in suggested a Hillary landslide. After observing 20-50% of the votes in seven battleground states, Votecastr had the Democrats not only winning but dominating in all. And the markets may well have listened. By 11:45am Eastern Standard Time, well before official projections emerged, investors had seized on this, with stocks and the peso spiking. The shock the markets later suffered, futures tanking and the peso hitting a record low, mirror the reaction of the global consensus: shock, horror, and panic. The abject failure of Votecastr, as well as countless other predictive polling sites used by media outlets, reveals a deeper, societal disconnect. In the case of both Trump and Brexit, there seems to be a clear trend of silent support, camouflaged by the media. Clinton received support from 240 editorial boards to Trump’s 19, a number unprecedented in US election history. Whatever you think of Trump, how does a free and open press fail to reflect half the American electorate, and until now, not even realise they existed?

My answer is that our consumer society feeds off pop culture, celebrities, sensationalism, and trends. On my first day at school, I was castigated for not knowing about the rapper Eminem. I quickly learned who he was, didn’t listen to him, but had enough information to avoid awkward encounters. Did this happen with the polls? The unifying nature of popular culture has transformed a phenomenon which used to involve pop stars or fashion into a political one, and one dominated by the Left. Putting the example of silent support for Trump into this context, the explanation becomes clear. Yet what this doesn’t explain is his success. With media so firmly entrenched in one camp and many of Trump’s election promises objectively ridiculous, how did he win? The explanation is twofold.

First, an addiction to collectivist thinking on both sides of the spectrum has driven our society apart, both in Europe and America. With Corbyn’s Labour (the American Left will now follow their lead) and Trump’s Republicans, both sides have become polarised, legitimising their hatred of one another. Alternative media on the right facilitate a lack of critical thinking for conservatives in the same way mainstream media do for the Left. Trump’s support thrived despite his disadvantage. Second, with the Left so dominant in media and culture, its supporters have become both arrogant and complacent. Trump’s movement, against all the odds, became an underdog. Large numbers of first-time voters supported Trump, motivated by the idea they were fighting a system represented by television talking heads they despised. Essentially, leftist media hegemony has made the right into a counter-culture.

The failures of polling organisations were not technical, nor due to bias. The real failure was in society, where ordinary people, dismissed by an authoritarian Left, fled into the arms of a resurgent Right. Both sides are now circling, sabres drawn, neither wishing to give an inch, and I suspect this is only the beginning of our society’s radicalisation. While Votecastrwas widely scapegoated, almost every pollster got this one wrong. Yet the polls accurately captured America as a land divided, confused, angry, and scared.

The post The Polls Were Wrong — But Revealing appeared first on Standpoint.

It was on Friday August 4 that the UK branch of Black Lives Matter (BLM), the American civil rights movement turned political juggernaut, made its presence felt in Britain. The group, with its banners, chants and headbands, obstructed traffic in Nottingham and Birmingham and on the way into Heathrow during rush-hour in “Project Shutdown” — an “ideological and political intervention in a world where black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise”.

For the most part, the reaction of holidaymakers, commuters and others who found their journeys delayed was: “Eh?” Their incredulity eventually turned to bemused politeness. They waited patiently while police removed the protesters.

For the British onlooker, ignorant of precisely what BLM represents, the whole scene was Pythonesque, a harmless distraction caused by well-meaning, if deluded, activists. For the activists, this was a successful operation. But why target commuters rather than police stations? The answer lies in the core political ideology espoused by the group: one of Marxist origins, nurtured by leftist academics on American campuses and fed by America’s racist past and tense contemporary political climate.

Part of a wider political movement involving young people throughout the West, BLM’s activists are so convinced of their righteousness that they often become quasi-religious in their activism.

The key concept of this secular religion is “intersectionality”: a theory born out of feminism, obsessed with categories based on race, class, religion, sexuality and appearance, assigning them “victim” or “privilege” points. So the target is not in fact the police, or even police brutality — it is society itself. Those British commuters had to pay the price of privilege: they owned cars.

If any of this sounds ridiculous, consider the political demands recently laid out by BLM in America: redistribution of wealth based on race and huge reparations for slavery, with the money being divvied up depending on how “victimised” a group has been — though there has already been infighting between rival victim groups. BLM also wants police to be removed from black neighbourhoods and a new education system established, with the movement’s tenets force-fed to children.

Intersectionality devalues personal agency. If non-whites are rejected by society, why should they struggle to succeed? Only collective success counts; individual success is downplayed. Intersectionality identifies real problems of inequality or injustice, yet its only answer is to attack the “privileged” and redistribute their money.

This is an old argument, yet it would be a mistake to underestimate BLM. Its leader in the UK is an Oxford student, Adam Elliot-Cooper, and the protests are backed by the first Muslim President of the National Union of Students, Malia Bouattia, already notorious for her hostility to Israel and refusal to condemn ISIS. The devotees of intersectionality are most numerous and strongest in universities — and they are our future.

The post Intersectionality appeared first on Standpoint.

To elaborate, while the hard Left has always been strong in universities (Socialist Workers Party posters littered my campus seven years ago), it has now become the establishment. The academics are no better than the students. One English Literature student I spoke to at the YHBS event recounted how she had been set an essay entitled: “Show proof of Shakespeare’s racism and misogyny.” She asked if she could offer an alternative point of view on Shakespeare’s views, in more of a discussion format, but was refused. She ultimately conformed to her professor’s wishes. This dogmatic and limited approach to education is far-reaching. A uniformity of ideas has created hypersensitivity among students to language and opinion, throughout America and also in Britain; and led to a stifling atmosphere where voices are restricted — all encouraged and supported by professors and the NUS. We now have “safe spaces”, where if an opinion “triggers” (upsets) someone, that opinion is removed. Originally intended to target bullies, it has devolved into a method of silencing speech.

The YBHS was proposed to counter all this. The first thing to strike me was I’d never experienced a “conservative” event so upbeat, diverse, and numerous in its clientele. Such was demand that the organisers relocated to a larger venue, and high turnout led to a long delay in starting. Most curiously, the attendees were distinctly normal. I should add a caveat that, in my experience, students who openly express right of centre views fall under the “outcast” spectrum in many cases. By taking such positions they often isolate themselves socially — there are many exceptions, but this is certainly a trend.

While mostly male, the number of women and minorities, and the class fluidity, was striking. The YBHS chairman, Danial Mirza, is a Muslim. A young black student was so enthusiastic he left his seat and approached the stage in an effort to be noticed during open questions. People were excited, jovial, and relaxed: a boy in front of me advertised his public gaming channel on the back of his shirt. Beneath the surface however, was a wariness and uncertainty.

“Hi! Which university are you from?”

“I’m actually here as press.”

“Oh.” The guy’s expression morphs as the ramifications filter through his brain. We continue to talk; he’s not hostile, but he is guarded.

The audiene is asked how many of them have been banned from Facebook, and there is an instant show of hands — more than fifty. (Facebook has been accused of bias towards conservatives — and of banning them for unjust reasons.)

“Fantastic,” says Milo, before encouraging his fans to rebel against the establishment and take every opportunity to mock or ridicule their “oppressors.” He is wearing some kind of absurd seraphic toga.

I’ve no idea why these people were banned from Facebook, or even if it’s true, but it highlights how far these young people are from traditional conservatives. Attacks on freedom of speech have fuelled a strong sense of rebellion. If this were the 80s it could be a British punk concert. These conservatives no longer wish to conserve; they wish to burn.

The other speakers — Sophie Thomas, who discussed free speech on campus and the no platforming of speakers such as Julie Bindel, and Potkin Azarmehr, an Iranian activist who spoke about the dangers of political Islam and the need for vigilance — were decent enough. We’d all heard it before. As one well-dressed young gentleman put it, “I’m here to see Milo.”

“Are you a big fan then?”

He smiled at that. “No, but I agree with a few things. I mostly came here with an open mind, you know.” Pretty clear then, who was the big draw. If you are unfamiliar with Mr Yiannopoulos, he is a contrarian British journalist (a columnist at Breitbart) who has become notorious for his anti-feminism, provocative language, over-the-top mannerisms and willingness to debate opponents on any platform. Now a celebrity in America, his style is that of a stand-up comedian: everything is exaggerated and obnoxious. And yet he so infuriates the modern Left that it’s easy to see why he has fans.

But in truth I heard nothing outrageous being said, even from Milo. There was plenty of patriotism: “The values which will serve you best — which Americans don’t have — are British values, and they are conviction, bravery, camaraderie, critical thinking — and pride.” Massive cheers to that, and similarly to Sophie Thomas arguing against intellectual uniformity in education. Not to say there weren’t unsavoury opinions, such as odious Trumpism and uncritical hand-wringing over the evils of feminism, but it never felt like dogma. There was plenty of disagreement. Everyone I spoke to was open-minded. This was a collection of young people passionate about politics, who feel unable to express themselves in our halls of learning. That we have allowed this to occur is astonishing.

Ultimately, this was all pantomime. But as it ended I couldn’t help but wonder if, just like geek culture, being a young conservative was starting to become cool. There are far more young people out there who I’d suspect would privately agree with many of the things said at this launch. Many of them avoid politics like the plague, but as the hard Left invades people’s lives, and pushes harder in universities, those people may well end up in the arms of Milo, or joining their local YBHS chapter. Time will tell.

The post The New Student Right appeared first on Standpoint.