Parasite

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 U.S. election, the political and cultural landscape has shifted in a way that exposes a truth that has long been evident but rarely acknowledged—the modern left cannot survive without the right. Their entire industry, whether it be legacy media, Hollywood, or online personalities, is entirely dependent on mocking, distorting, and obsessing over Republicans.

This isn’t speculation—it’s observable reality. Take any late-night show, any mainstream host, or any influencer regurgitating establishment narratives, and ask yourself: What is their content without Republicans? Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers—without Trump or anyone with common sense to villainize, their monologues become devoid of substance. Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller, Meryl Streep, and other actors-turned-political activists—without their relentless bashing of Elon Musk, JD Vance, or the newest right-wing figure, they fade into irrelevance.

This is the new universal business model of liberalism: an industry built on co-opting, distorting, and profiting from the existence of conservatives and contrarian voices.

The most remarkable thing about these individuals is that they have successfully sold their followers on the idea that they despise Republicans and find them completely ridiculous. Yet, paradoxically, that’s precisely how they thrive.

A Stephen Colbert segment ignorantly slandering Tulsi Gabbard? Forgotten.
A Jimmy Kimmel monologue without Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Useless.
A viral progressive content creator losing it over what they watched on MSNBC? Nonexistent.

Their relevance is wholly dependent on Republicans, yet they pretend they can function without them. It’s an illusion, and they have somehow convinced millions of followers that this illusion is real.

But even more amazing is how these figures, who exist entirely as reactionaries, do not see themselves as such. They manage to convince not only their audience but even themselves that their success isn’t tied to the very people they claim to despise. In reality, their entire cultural and political capital is an extension of the figures they attack. Without them, their content collapses.

The brilliance of their strategy is that it traps their audience in an ideological echo chamber. By selectively presenting conservatives and dissenting thinkers in distorted, out-of-context soundbites, they manufacture a simplistic binary:

The left = intellectual, morally superior, enlightened
The right = ignorant, dangerous, irredeemable

By reducing political discourse to this infantilized framework, they create a loyal army of followers who are incapable of critical thought. These individuals consume curated outrage and repeat what they’ve been fed in their social circles, never questioning the broader context of the issues they discuss.

This is why their audience never stops to think: If I truly want to silence a political opponent, wouldn’t the best strategy be to ignore them? Instead, the opposite occurs. The louder and more aggressively they attack Homan, Patel, or Bondi, the more oxygen they give them, ensuring their continued dominance in political discourse.

Hollywood, once the dominant cultural force in America, has been completely rejected by the majority of the country. In the wake of the 2024 election, it became undeniably clear that the vast majority of Americans don’t care about Hollywood, Oprah Winfrey, or whoever is holding a Golden Globe on their TV screens.

The film industry has failed because it no longer offers original thought, escapism, or compelling narratives. Instead, it has become a sanctimonious feedback loop, where actors and entertainers exist only to virtue signal and offer pre-packaged ideological commentary designed to appeal to a dying, insular elite.

One of the most blatant contradictions in Hollywood is its obsession with gun control while simultaneously profiting off violent, gun-saturated films. For decades, the industry has glorified firearms, from action blockbusters to stylized ultra-violence, pushing the imagery of guns as instruments of power and justice.

Quentin Tarantino is a prime example of this hypocrisy—his films elevate gun violence to an aesthetic, often going beyond simply depicting it to actively glorifying it through exaggerated cinematography and stylized brutality. His shortsighted view of storytelling prioritizes excessive violence over narrative depth, making firearms more than just props but symbols of power and dominance on screen. And yet, his political views, like those of many in Hollywood, are aggressively liberal and anti-gun.

The contradiction doesn’t stop with directors. Actors like Robert De Niro have built entire careers portraying violent and aggressive characters—roles that go far beyond what is necessary to address a character’s darkness in a tasteful way. Instead of using subliminal storytelling or restrained performances, films like Cape Fear push violence into graphic, almost fetishized territory, making brutality its own form of spectacle. And yet, when a tragic shooting incident occurs, these same actors go on unhinged tirades about how conservative policies are to blame.

Liberal comedians always carry an aura of smugness, but beneath that smug exterior, there’s a noticeable anxiousness—as if they know their job security depends on never stepping outside their ideological framework. They must conform to the political expectations of their audience and their industry, never deviating from the prescribed script. The moment they challenge the narrative, they risk cancellation, industry blacklisting, or social ostracization.

This is why their humor rarely evolves. It is predictable, stale, and entirely dependent on conservative figures to mock. Without Trump, Noem, Musk, or Hegseth, they would have nothing to say.

Perhaps the most egregious contradiction of all is how rich liberals advocate for open borders, defunding the police, and dismantling security, while simultaneously living behind gates, armed security, and private police forces.

They tell working-class Americans that closed borders are cruel, yet they reside in high-security, guarded communities, separated from the realities of crime and economic instability. What do they think living in a gated community is, if not a personal border wall?

They demand America remain open to all, but their own homes, neighborhoods, and schools are impenetrable fortresses that only the elite can access. They demonize conservative policies on security, yet they personally benefit from Republican-led policing and border control efforts that keep their own communities safe.

At this point, Republicans and alternative thinkers can sit back and enjoy the spectacle. While the left continues to spiral, gorging on the empty calories of their own hypocrisy, conservatives will continue to build, lead, and win elections.

And as the left desperately attempts to maintain relevance by attacking the right, they only ensure that their political opponents remain center stage, where they will continue to shape the future.

The reality is that the left is entirely dependent on the right for its own relevance. The same cannot be said in reverse. And that reality was laid bare on November 5, 2024, when Americans overwhelmingly rejected liberal talking points and made it loud and clear that they no longer matter.