I say usa because they dominate youtube and Quora .
Heres some ignorant right wingers who went from liberal liberal to liberal conservative.
Why i left the left- Amala at Washingting Uni
The irony both of these humans went from progressive indoctrination (according to them) to Prageru the most rabid right wing liberal conservative brainwashing propaganda podcast in USA , that makes really really really poor misleading brainwashing videos. The u in prageru stands for university even thou its not a university - the deceit starts in the name and only gets worse. Prageru is a platform infamous for pushing right-wing, liberal conservative anti-progressive talking points— I dont think theyre smart enough to work that out .
Heres Amalas write up on the liberal conservative propaganda webpage Prageru who shes promoting
Raised in a far-left activist household, Amala Ekpunobi was once a student organizer for the left. After a complete ideological transformation, she joined PragerU at age 20. As a leftist turned freethinker, Amala’s fresh perspective made her a sought-after public speaker and returning guest on Dr. Phil, The Ingraham Angle on Fox News, and more. From 2021 to 2023, Amala was an in-house PragerU personality and hosted our show Unapologetic, where she provided commentary on news, culture, and politics.
Misusing
the “Left”: What Amala Ekpunobi’s Story Reveals About American Political Labels
Amala Ekpunobi, a rising conservative
commentator and content creator, frequently describes herself as a former far left or “leftist who moved right to conservatism.” But this is unlikely to be true in
the ideological sense. Amala claims her mother worked for a leftist
organization and that she was taught “leftist” ideology by her mother, but she
does not specify the exact nature of that ideology, nor does she ever name the
organization her mother worked for.
In the U.S., the term leftist is often
used loosely — typically to refer to progressive or liberal views on race,
gender, and social issues — but it lacks a consistent definition. If leftist
ideology were to be taken literally, it would suggest some form of socialism or
anti-capitalism. But in Amala's case, the ideology she describes — centered
around activism, racial justice, and institutional reform — is far more likely
to reflect mainstream centre , centre right progressive liberalism rather than traditional left-wing
(i.e., socialist) thought. Without knowing the actual organization, we can only
infer that it was likely part of the U.S. nonprofit or activist sector focused
on social reform, not economic revolution. She says she participated in
youth-driven social justice causes before shifting ideologically to the right.
In one video, Amala clarifies that her tattoo
is a Black Lives Matter (BLM) symbol, not a socialist one (YouTube). But she thinks BLM is Marxist or socialist and has mentioned it. She also states that her worldview was
focused on race and gender — further reinforcing that her political roots were
in U.S.-style identity-based progressivism, not socialist ideology. This helps
clarify that she likely mistook progressive liberal politics for “leftism,” a
common mislabeling in the American context.
What
“Leftist” Actually Means — and Doesn’t
Historically and globally, being on the left
refers to support for socialist, communist, or otherwise anti-capitalist
ideologies. These positions typically call for a fundamental restructuring — or
even abolition — of capitalism, aiming to create more egalitarian systems
through collective ownership, class struggle, and wealth redistribution.
By contrast, liberals and progressives — who
make up the mainstream of the U.S. Democratic Party — advocate for reforms
within capitalism: expanding healthcare, regulating corporations, and
addressing racial and gender inequalities. These are important causes, but they
do not challenge the basic structure of the economic system. In the western
world, such positions would be considered centrist or even center-right.
Part of the confusion comes from how American
political identities are mislabeled. The Democratic Party is often called
“left,”and leftist by the republicans and liberal conservatives but is in fact
right wing and better described as a coalition of liberal liberals and progressives
— people who are socially liberal and generally supportive of regulated
capitalism. A minority within the party might identify as social democrats, but
even they work within a pro-capitalist framework.
Republicans, meanwhile, are not consistently
conservative in a traditional sense. They are better understood as liberal
conservatives, neoconservatives, or even economic liberals and
another falsely used word, libertarian (which we should always refer to
as usa libertarian) — promoting
low taxes, deregulation, and privatization. Socially, they appeal to cultural
conservatism (on religion, gender, immigration, etc.), but economically, they
support market liberalism. This results in both major parties being
economically liberal, though divided by their stance on social and cultural
values — a contradiction that obscures the absence of a true socialist or
anti-capitalist alternative in American mainstream politics.
In American media and political commentary,
“leftist” is frequently used as a broad, often pejorative label to describe
anyone to the left of mainstream conservatism and Republican party. Liberals,
progressives, and even centrist Democrats are lumped in with Marxists and
communists — erasing meaningful distinctions and muddying political
understanding. The term is often used more as a rhetorical weapon than an
accurate political description.
Where Amala
Fits In
By her own account, Amala was raised in a
progressive household focused on racial and social justice activism — not in a
Marxist or anti-capitalist environment. Her mother’s professional work in what
she calls a “leftist” organization, and Amala’s early involvement in activism,
reflect the type of liberal reformist politics common in U.S. academic and
nonprofit circles.
Her rejection of those views is therefore not
a rejection of “the left” in its historical or global sense. It’s a rejection
of contemporary American liberal-progressive activism, particularly its
emphasis on identity politics — not socialism or communism. The conflation of
these very different ideologies speaks more to how distorted and shallow
political labeling has become in U.S. culture.
Why It
Matters
Understanding the difference between
liberalism, progressivism, and socialism is crucial if we want honest and
precise political dialogue. When people use “leftist” to describe everyone from
Joe Biden to Karl Marx, they flatten political discourse and obscure real
ideological differences. This confusion benefits reactionary forces, allowing
conservatives to vilify an imagined monolithic “left” while ignoring the actual
— and marginal — anti-capitalist left.
Amala Ekpunobi’s personal shift may be real
and sincere, but how it’s framed reflects deeper problems in how Americans talk
about politics. Her story is not about leaving socialism — it’s about moving
from liberal reformism to conservatism. That is a significant transition, but
it is not the ideological shift the “leftist” label implies.
Sources:
- https://www.youtube.com/shorts/keEOF41wUrc — Amala describes her tattoo as a BLM symbol and her early worldview as focused on race and gender.
Here she quotes a moment in a meeting when
white men weren’t allowed to speak – that is definitely not left or socialist
confirming she never left the left
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C2z3j8d3f84
Here she talks of a BLM meeting where they were openly racist to white people - taking her word for it thats not left wing - its not socialist. Beacuse the left are anti capitalist and therefore focused on class war and that type of talk is sectarian and completly unproductive and damaging to creating the proletariat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueNJvT3XKac
Her she is misreading the Left-Right Divide
In one segment of her commentary (around 7:11 in this video), Amala claims that “the left and right switched over” — suggesting that the left abandoned its historic roots in skepticism, equality, and anti-establishment values. She implies that the right now occupies that space. This is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually confused. The modern right, especially in the U.S., has not adopted systemic skepticism or structural equality — quite the opposite. Conservative politics remain aligned with authoritarian tendencies, cultural traditionalism, and the defense of established hierarchies, particularly economic ones.
Both major U.S. parties — Democrat and Republican — function largely as oligarchic entities serving elite interests. While individual figures like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump may position themselves as “anti-establishment,” their personal populism is not reflective of their party's core institutions. The idea that the right is now the engine of social progress or anti-establishment resistance is contradicted by its regressive stance on civil rights, environmental policy, labor protections, and economic inequality.
Amala’s embrace of neoliberal talking points — focusing on culture war narratives while ignoring or downplaying systemic economic issues — reveals the ideological hollowness of her position. She critiques liberal identity politics without acknowledging how neoliberal conservatism is actively accelerating economic decline and social atomization. Ironically, her self-proclaimed conservatism stands against the very idea of “progress,” even while she claims to champion it.
Theres plentty more on promoting this misleading propaganda here
Misha Petrov A Manufactured Conversion Story — Not From the Left, and Not Toward Liberation
Misha Petrov’s PragerU video is titled “Left
to Liberation”, but the title itself is a contradiction. She did not come
from the political left in any meaningful way — her discomfort with sexual
openness, queer expression, and critical social discourse already aligns with
socially conservative values. Nor did she move toward anything that resembles
“liberation.” Instead, her journey leads into right-wing liberal
conservatism, which promotes economic deregulation while imposing
authoritarian norms on culture, gender, and sexuality.
Unlike Amala Ekpunobi reaction to certain
progressive activism and who rebeled against progressive political correctness ,
Misha frames a personal discomfort with liberal environments as a political
awakening. But in truth, this “liberation” is simply a rebranding of
ideological submission — a shift into a worldview that demands conformity,
hierarchy, and moral dogma. Both women claim to have escaped group think, yet
embrace political movements that require rigid adherence to tradition and
nationalist narratives.
Misha
Petrov: From “Left to Right” — or From Liberal Freedom to Conservative Dogma?
In the video, Misha presents her move as a
political transformation — from the so-called “left” to conservatism. But what
she actually describes is a reactionary turn: rejecting liberal cultural
freedom and progressive tolerance in favor of moral rigidity and ideological
orthodoxy.
Sexual
Liberation ≠ Leftism
At around 2 minutes, Misha begins criticizing
hookup culture, OnlyFans, and a pride parade where she encountered open
expressions of kink. Her disgust at these displays stems not from a political
position but from moral traditionalism, rooted in Christian
conservatism. She conflates sexual openness with ideological radicalism, when
in fact these are basic features of liberal societies. Her discomfort isn’t
political dissent — it’s personal disapproval framed as insight.
Conflating
BLM with Riots
She later criticizes the Black Lives Matter
movement, citing property destruction and theft (like looting a Louis Vuitton
store) as a reason to discredit it. But this conflates the broader,
decentralized movement for racial justice against shootings by police with
isolated riot behaviour during moments of unrest. She fails to distinguish
between organized protest against police violence and opportunistic violence,
ignoring that the two, while related by context, are not morally or
strategically equivalent.
Misunderstanding
The Social Dilemma
Misha cites The Social Dilemma as a
turning point in her thinking — though she never explains it. The film, a
Netflix documentary, critiques how social media platforms manipulate users and
deepen polarization through algorithmic addiction. Ironically, it condemns the
very right-wing echo chambers that amplify content like PragerU’s. The film is
a critique of capitalist surveillance systems, not a roadmap toward
conservative thinking.
University:
A Place of Exposure, Not Indoctrination
Even more telling is the story she tells about
seeing a man in the women’s restroom. No one “silenced” her — she chose not to
speak. Yet she frames it as proof of enforced silence. That contradiction
reveals her own projection: the pressure she claims came from others may well
have come from within.
She describes being shocked in university by stolen land acknowledgments of lecturer
and pronoun introductions. And talks of by
people “hating America,” conflating it with communism and marxism . But this is
not “indoctrination” — it’s exposure to diverse and uncomfortable truths.
Encountering opposing ideas is part of critical thinking, not coercion.
Cold War
Nostalgia and Propaganda
Citing her Russian heritage, Misha warns about
communist indoctrination in universities as its bad and anti-American whatever
that is. She conflates the USSR with communism, and communism with critique of
the U.S. system. In doing so, she repeats Cold War propaganda without engaging
in genuine historical understanding. There has never been a truly communist
country; the USSR was a state capitalist dictatorship, not an example of
egalitarian leftism.
She also makes sweeping claims about
professors being “anti-American” without offering concrete evidence. Most of
her examples are from students, not educators — which undermines her
broader claim of systemic indoctrination.
Ironically, American schools are deeply shaped
by anti-communist policies carrying on usa indoctrination. In states
like Texas, lawmakers have mandated that students be taught the negative
aspects of communism — a policy that mirrors the very ideological filtering she
accuses the “left” of. Misha’s failure to recognize this bias shows just how
much she’s internalized the dominant ideology.
The PragerU
Formula: Personal Feelings as Political Truth
Misha’s story follows a familiar pattern seen
in conservative influencer content: discomfort is repackaged as awakening, and
cultural difference is interpreted as political threat. But her claims do not
stand up to scrutiny. Her so-called “leftism” was never grounded in socialist
or anti-capitalist ideology. And her “liberation” is little more than
submission to a new orthodoxy — one that denies the very freedoms she claims to
defend.
From Identity to Indoctrination: Amir Odom, Conservative Media, and the Misuse of “Victimhood”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7H3jUhyvs
In a recent appearance on PragerU, Amir Odom, a gay Black man from a middle-class family, spoke about his personal journey through race, sexuality, and ideology. On the surface, it’s framed as a story of liberation from “victimhood” and “media lies.” But underneath, it reveals something far more troubling: a repackaging of conservative propaganda using the language of personal growth.
The irony is hard to miss: a gay Black man telling his story on a platform that routinely undermines LGBTQ+ rights, downplays systemic racism, and attacks social justice movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM).
1. Struggling With Identity—Then Turning on It
Odom begins by reflecting on his early experiences—feeling like a victim due to his race and sexuality, a perspective he says was shaped by his family and the media. He claims this identity was limiting and that his views changed after watching conservative media, which helped him “see through the lies.”
But this so-called awakening doesn’t read as empowerment. It follows a familiar playbook: take a personal struggle, strip it of its structural context, and reframe it as an example of "liberal brainwashing." Then offer conservative ideology as the cure.
The core issue isn’t Odom’s personal journey—it’s how that journey is being weaponized. PragerU is not a neutral space. It has a long track record of pushing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, minimizing systemic racism, and vilifying movements for equity. Odom’s narrative is being deployed to suggest that acknowledging systemic oppression is itself a form of weakness—or worse, delusion.
2. “Victimhood” as a Conservative Dog Whistle
Let’s be clear: recognizing injustice is not the same as being consumed by victimhood. Black Americans continue to face disproportionate barriers in policing, education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. LGBTQ+ people—especially queer youth of color—experience higher rates of homelessness, mental health challenges, and violence.
But Odom isn’t living at the margins. He comes from a middle-class background, which carries its own forms of privilege. It’s difficult to believe he was systematically told he was “oppressed” in any concrete way—we only have his personal framing, not direct examples. It’s entirely possible he’s misreading the media—or being encouraged to do so.
Calling that "playing the victim" isn’t brave. It’s dismissive. And it fits neatly into a broader conservative tactic: erase systemic injustice by individualizing it, then shame those who speak out.
3. When BLM Enters the Conversation
BLM comes up only later in Odom’s story, when he recalls a moment working at a mortgage company. His white boss responded to the movement by saying, “Don’t my (white) life matter too?” Odom presents this moment as if it reveals the hypocrisy of BLM and those who support it.
But that entirely misses the point.
Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean other lives don’t matter—it means Black lives are not treated as if they do. The slogan emerged to address the disproportionate violence and neglect Black Americans face, particularly in encounters with law enforcement.
Here’s the reality:
-
Black Americans are killed by police at three to six times the rate of white Americans ([Brookings, Washington Post]).
-
These disparities remain even when the victims are unarmed or not posing a threat.
-
BLM has driven tangible reforms—from banning chokeholds to reworking use-of-force protocols in dozens of cities.
To call this “indoctrination” is to confuse data-driven activism with emotional manipulation. It’s not brainwashing—it’s confronting the facts.
4. The “Black-on-Black Crime” Diversion
Like many conservative voices, Odom brings up crime within Black communities as a counterpoint to BLM. But this is a false equivalency. Intra-racial crime exists in every racial group and is largely driven by economic inequality and segregation—not by race or culture ([Teen Vogue]).
BLM’s mission is not to police community crime—it’s to challenge the state violence disproportionately affecting Black people. Bringing up “Black-on-Black crime” is not a critique—it’s a rhetorical smokescreen.
5. The Platform Is the Punchline
Perhaps the most ironic part of Odom’s story is where it’s being told. PragerU, known for its anti-LGBTQ+, anti-DEI, and anti-BLM stances, is not a platform that welcomes diverse thought—it tokenizes it. It's a space that, under other circumstances, would likely dismiss someone like Odom as part of the “woke” problem.
So when a gay Black man appears on that stage, denouncing the very movements created to support people like him, it’s not enlightenment—it’s a performance.
His identity becomes a tool. His story becomes a headline: “Even he doesn’t believe in racism or gay oppression anymore.” That’s not nuance—that’s exploitation.
Final Thought: From One Indoctrination to Another
Odom claims he was indoctrinated by liberal culture to see himself as a victim. But if that’s true, all he’s done is trade one set of influences for another. Swapping progressive media for conservative content and emerging with the belief that systemic racism and homophobia are exaggerated isn’t independent thinking—it’s just a different kind of indoctrination.
Right-wing “media awakenings” don’t teach critical thinking. They just offer a new script—one that ignores material reality in favor of ideological comfort.
BLM, like any movement, isn’t perfect. But its foundation is rooted in real data, real stories, and real injustice. Framing that as fear-mongering or victimhood is a way of silencing the very people fighting for a more equitable future.
We should always question systems—including media systems. But let’s not confuse platforming privilege and personal resentment with real insight. Especially when it’s being broadcast by the very institutions that benefit from the status quo.
Comments
Post a Comment