The Shift in Britain’s Political Landscape

The Shift in Britain’s Political Landscape: The Overton Window, Horseshoe Dynamics, and the Defence of National Continuity

In contemporary British politics, as of Spring 2026, the traditional left-right spectrum has undergone a profound transformation. The Overton Window, the range of ideas considered politically acceptable by mainstream society, has shifted dramatically leftward on cultural and social issues.

This movement, often likened to a horseshoe or circular dynamic where the far-left and far-right converge in authoritarian practice, has positioned elements of the modern left as enforcers of ideological conformity rather than champions of liberty.

By contrast, right-leaning and preservationist parties have positioned themselves as defenders of national identity, heritage, traditions, and the democratic freedoms that allow future generations to inherit the Britain their parents and grandparents knew.

The Leftward Drift and Authoritarian Tendencies

The Labour government, elected in 2024 and in power through 2026, has advanced policies that critics argue prioritise state oversight of expression and cultural change over individual liberties.

The Online Safety Act exemplifies this: while framed as child protection, its implementation has raised serious concerns about overreach, including age verification mandates, content moderation duties on platforms, and risks to lawful speech.

Critics describe these measures as an assault on freedom of speech, where the state or its proxies silence dissenting voices under the banner of “safety” or combating “hate.” This creates a paradox: claiming to protect democracy and pluralism by restricting open debate.

High-profile cases of arrests for social media posts, protest restrictions, and regulatory pressure on platforms illustrate how the left’s expansion of the Overton Window on issues like identity, multiculturalism, and “harmful” content has narrowed acceptable discourse.

This dynamic aligns with horseshoe theory observations in British politics: extreme progressivism, in seeking to dismantle traditional structures and enforce new orthodoxies (e.g., around DEI, historical guilt, or speech codes), adopts tactics of control and exclusion that mirror historical authoritarianism.

The result is a political environment where “protecting” society from certain ideas justifies removing democratic safeguards like robust free expression.

The Right as Preservationists

Right-leaning parties in Britain articulate a different vision. Parties such as Restore Britain, led by Rupert Lowe, and others in the broader preservationist tradition explicitly commit to addressing mass immigration, promoting British culture and identity in education, defending free speech, upholding traditions, and rejecting policies of national guilt.

Their emphasis is on securing borders to protect wages, public services, cohesion, and the continuity of British heritage. Restore Britain distinguishes itself within this space by pursuing a stronger focus on cultural and civilisational continuity compared to some other right-wing groups, positioning it as a more uncompromising voice for those seeking deeper restoration of national character alongside policy reform. This is not framed as hatred of others but as legitimate self-preservation. As the argument goes:

“To protect yourself is not the same as hating others.”

Ensuring that children inherit the national identity, community cohesion, and cultural traditions of their forebears is a forward-looking act of stewardship, not regression.

Public polling consistently shows high concern over immigration levels and their impact on housing, services, and cultural change, reflecting widespread support for this preservationist stance.

Right-leaning positions advocate for free trade, economic stability, and democratic accountability without the expansive state regulation of thought and culture seen on the progressive left. They argue that true democracy requires open debate, not curated narratives, and that heritage provides the social capital necessary for a stable society.

Core Philosophical Distinction

The central tension in 2026 Britain is this: one side has moved so far along the cultural Overton spectrum that it employs institutional power to limit speech, redefine national identity, and manage demographic change in ways that erode continuity. The other seeks to conserve the foundational elements of democracy, liberty, heritage, which enable self-determination.

Preservation is defensive and restorative: safeguarding what works and what binds a people across generations. It recognises that a nation without its traditions and identity risks becoming a transient economic zone rather than an enduring home.

Protection of one’s own culture and freedoms does not equate to animosity; it is the natural right and responsibility of any coherent society. In modern Britain, this preservationist impulse, embodied by right-leaning parties emphasising sovereignty, borders, and cultural pride, offers a counterbalance to the illiberal tendencies that have emerged when progressive ideals are taken to extremes.

The debate is not merely partisan but existential: whether Britain remains a distinct nation with a continuous story, or dissolves into managed pluralism enforced from above.

This framing reflects the lived concerns of many ancestral British people amid rapid change, where the defence of democracy and heritage is the rational response to overreach, not its opposite.

Moral Boundaries of Belief

Moral Boundaries of Belief: Echo Chambers, Dehumanisation, Preservation of Britain’s Foundational Principles

Abstract

In liberal democracies, individuals retain the right to inhabit echo chambers grounded in fear or misinformation. However, when such beliefs are mobilized to justify targeted persecution or dehumanisation of out-groups, they transgress ethical boundaries.

This paper examines these dynamics through the lens of British historical experience, emphasizing the interplay between critical empiricism, Christian ethical inheritance, and the imperative of cultural continuity. It argues that Britain’s capacity for self-correction toward truth, rooted in Enlightenment-adjacent institutions and Judeo-Christian moral framework, represents a tradition worthy of deliberate preservation amid contemporary challenges of pluralism and social cohesion.

Introduction

Liberal political philosophy affirms the right of individuals to hold and propagate beliefs, even those predicated on partial truths, fears, or demonstrable falsehoods, provided they remain within the sphere of personal conviction and voluntary association.

This tolerance aligns with Millian principles of harm and autonomy. Yet a critical threshold is crossed when such beliefs underpin coordinated hostility, institutional bias, or the systematic dehumanization of those outside the belief community. This distinction between the liberty of thought and the immorality of persecutory action, forms the ethical core of the present analysis.

Britain’s historical trajectory offers a compelling case study. As an early exemplar of Western modernity, Britain forged its identity through mechanisms of evidence-based reasoning, institutional accountability, and a moral sensibility informed by Christian doctrine. This synthesis enabled remarkable adaptability and course-correction.

In an era of rapid demographic and cultural transformation, safeguarding these foundations is essential to the stability of British society.

The Right to Echo Chambers and the Ethics of Persecution

 Individuals possess a fundamental liberty to curate their informational environments. Psychological and sociological research consistently demonstrates the human propensity for confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, wherein fear-based narratives provide psychological security (Kahneman, 2011; Sunstein, 2009). So long as participation remains voluntary and does not infringe upon the rights of others, such echo chambers fall within the domain of protected personal freedom.

The moral transgression occurs when fear-driven falsehoods are weaponised into targeted action: discriminatory policies, incitement to violence, or cultural erasure of dissenting groups. Dehumanisation, the rhetorical or institutional reduction of the “other” to a lesser moral status, has historically preceded atrocities across civilizations.

Britain’s own record includes both regrettable instances of such dynamics (e.g., colonial-era attitudes) and more distinctively, sustained movements of self-criticism and reform, such as the abolitionist campaign led by William Wilberforce. This capacity for internal correction distinguishes mature liberal orders.

Britain’s Intellectual and Ethical Foundations

Britain’s emergence as a global innovator rested on interlocking pillars of critical thinking and compassion. The evolution from Magna Carta through parliamentary sovereignty, common law traditions emphasizing due process, and scientific institutions such as the Royal Society embodied an empirical ethos. Figures from Francis Bacon to John Stuart Mill championed falsifiability and open debate as antidotes to dogma.

Equally foundational was the Christian inheritance. The doctrine of imago Dei affirmed the intrinsic dignity of the individual, while Protestant emphases on personal conscience, scriptural literacy, and ethical accountability fostered social dynamism. Max Weber’s analysis of the Protestant ethic highlights its role in economic and scientific advancement, though geography, resource endowments, and competitive pressures also contributed. Christian universalism “love thy neighbour” supported charitable institutions and moral universalism, even as it coexisted with historical contradictions.

This heritage enabled Britain to balance compassion with realism: distinguishing between voluntary aid and enforced outcomes, and maintaining accountability alongside empathy. Contemporary metrics of social trust and institutional integrity in nations retaining cultural residues of this synthesis underscore its enduring value (Putnam, 2007; Fukuyama, 1995).

Contemporary Challenges: Fear, Integration, and Truth-Seeking

Modern Britain confronts strains arising from large-scale immigration without commensurate cultural integration. Official inquiries, including the Jay Report on Rotherham and the Casey Review, have documented patterns of grooming exploitation, parallel societies, and suppressed discourse around cultural incompatibilities, often justified by fears of “Islamophobia” or social discord. Such suppression risks creating opposing echo chambers, eroding public trust.

Data from sources such as Ministry of Justice statistics and independent analyses reveal persistent group disparities in crime, terrorism, and fiscal contribution, which demand empirical scrutiny rather than narrative dismissal. One-way tolerance, demanding accommodation without reciprocity on core liberal norms (free speech, gender equality, secular law), undermines the very pluralism it claims to protect.

Preserving stability requires:

1. Unfettered truth-seeking: Prioritizing rigorous, transparent data over protected narratives.
2. Cultural transmission: Educating future generations in Britain’s synthesis of critical reason and ethical inheritance.
3. Principled boundaries: Extending compassion to individuals while enforcing assimilation expectations and reciprocity. Christian-derived universalism can facilitate integration, but only where incoming groups accept the foundational rules of the host society. 

Conclusion 

The defence of Britain’s island civilisation lies not in nostalgia but in adaptive continuity. Voluntary echo chambers merit tolerance; their transformation into instruments of dehumanization demands resistance. By recommitting to evidence-based course-correction and the moral framework that elevated Britain, individual dignity, open inquiry, and reciprocal compassion, society can navigate pluralism without sacrificing cohesion. This inheritance remains Britain’s most valuable asset: a tradition capable of confronting uncomfortable realities while upholding human worth. Its deliberate protection and promotion constitute both a pragmatic necessity and an ethical imperative.

Post Apocalyptic Prophecy

 

Post Apocalyptic Prophecy 

We stand at the threshold of immense planetary transformation. What mainstream voices describe in fragments as “climate change” is, in reality, a far deeper and more disruptive shift in Earth’s systems. A post-apocalyptic future is quietly taking shape through geological, magnetic, and atmospheric forces which have already begun to reshape our world.

The equator is steadily drying out, becoming increasingly hostile to human life. At the same time, the Gulf Stream, the vital ocean current that moderates temperatures and gives much of the northern hemisphere its mild climate, is at risk of shifting or collapsing. Melting ice from Greenland and the Arctic is cooling the North Atlantic, a change that could plunge large regions into a new ice age. While the north freezes, the shifting equator would turn even hotter and drier, rendering it largely uninhabitable. These are not distant possibilities. They are processes already underway.

Compounding this is the ongoing movement of the magnetic North Pole. Though the magnetic field itself remains relatively stable. It is that the planet’s crust appears to be shifting. Regions which once lay firmly on the equator are now positioned differently, seasonally both further north and south than before. This crustal movement is already manifesting as more extreme weather patterns: hotter summers, colder winters, and unusually wet seasons in many areas. The comfortable, habitable zones humanity has relied upon for centuries are shrinking. Over the next century or two, much of what we consider normal may disappear forever, while some conditions might eventually stabilize into new patterns.

This larger picture is rarely discussed openly. Governments and institutions appear to be preparing quietly. One visible strategy is the concentration of populations into specific regions. By mixing diverse gene pools now, they hope to ensure that any surviving communities after a major collapse will have sufficient genetic diversity to avoid the well-known problems of inbreeding. In a world suddenly stripped of modern infrastructure, healthy offspring could determine which groups endure. Ideologies and lifestyles inevitably change. Our genetics are both our heritage and our future.

If the tipping point arrives rapidly, modern economies, electricity, plastics, and global supply chains will become irrelevant overnight. Society will revert to basic survival. In such a future, practical preparation matters far more than wealth or status. Growing hardy, resilient food crops, developing real self-sufficiency skills, staying physically fit, and learning to defend oneself and loved ones become essential. History shows that in times of collapse, raiders often dominate unless people are prepared to protect what they have. Fighting and food (foraging and farming) will become the main focus.

Sea levels, contrary to popular imagery, are unlikely to rise gradually and permanently flood coastlines. A rapid magnetic polar shift would instead generate massive tidal waves across many parts of the world. These immense surges would temporarily inundate vast areas before much of the water drains away. The speed and violence of the shift will determine the scale of the destruction. The planetary polar magnetic shift has so far been gradual.

In response to these changes, humanity has turned to large-scale geoengineering. Chemtrails, long a subject of public complaint, contain aluminium and bromide compounds. These substances damage soil by locking it into a neutral pH, disrupting the acidic and alkaline conditions plants need. They are also linked to respiratory damage and long-term health issues. Yet they serve a darker, utilitarian purpose. By creating artificial cloud cover and releasing reflective particles, they help convert oxygen (O₂) into ozone (O₃) in the upper atmosphere, strengthening the ozone layer, particularly over populated regions. This canopy also acts as a “forced propagation system” in the lower atmosphere which supports plant growth, much like elevated CO₂ levels. In this view, chemtrails are a desperate measure to slow planetary drying and repair atmospheric damage. The program began in the mid to late 1990s at the same time there was an abrupt media blackout on news of 'holes in the ozone layer', which reportedly has began to heal again. The chemtrail project allegedly funded through carbon taxes, despite the fact that CO₂ is part of Earth’s natural cycle and volcanoes routinely emit far more than any human activity.

Further attempts to maintain stability come through technologies like HAARP, which some suspect are being used to balance the planet’s crust while others blame experiments with it for destabilising conditions in the first place. The goal is to minimise dangerous wobbling as the crust moves over the super-heated liquid layers surrounding Earth’s solid iron-crystal-ball core.

The greatest secret withheld from the public is the sheer scale of the transformation. Open disclosure would likely cause widespread panic. Yet there may be more at work than purely physical forces. Collective human consciousness, our shared psychic projection, appears to influence how these changes manifest. A stable, harmonious humanity may encourage a more stable Gaia. In this context, embracing neurodiversity and generating global harmony is not merely idealistic; its spectrum becomes a measurable electronic and energetic contribution to planetary balance.

We are living through the early chapters of a post-apocalyptic prophecy written in geology, magnetism, and atmosphere. The future will not resemble the past. Those who see clearly, prepare practically, and maintain inner resilience will stand the greatest chance of guiding their families through the coming decades. It is why sociology and survival are the most common themes throughout most genres of popular entertainment. The age of comfort and illusion is ending. The age of adaptation, strength, and self-reliance has begun.

Snap Psychiatric Labelling

The Mechanism of Snap Psychiatric Labelling: Parallels Between Targeted Individual Experiences and Individual Accounts of Systemic Misattribution

Abstract

This paper examines the phenomenon of rapid psychiatric labeling based on minimal or indirect contact, drawing parallels between self-reported experiences of Targeted Individuals (TIs) and a specific personal account involving the UK mental health system. Such labeling can create lasting leverage for state institutions over an individual's liberty, reputation, and rights. Insights from autism research highlight how neurodivergent traits, such as pathological honesty and atypical communication, may be misinterpreted as evidence of deception or disorder, reinforcing patterns akin to those described in TI literature. This analysis underscores the need for greater safeguards, independent verification, and neurodiversity-informed practices in mental health assessments.

Introduction: The Shared Pattern of Minimal-Contact Labelling

A recurring concern in discussions of Targeted Individuals involves professionals issuing damaging psychiatric assessments with limited direct interaction. In one documented video from Canada, a psychiatrist's evaluation based on observing an individual in a public setting with little substantive engagement, resulted in a "certifiable" designation. This triggered law enforcement intervention, illustrating how a single professional judgment can mobilise state resources and override personal autonomy.

This mechanism aligns closely with accounts from individuals who describe brief encounters leading to enduring labels. For instance, a professional entered a kitchen, confirmed the individual's name, and immediately declared an intent to document "compulsive liar" in official records before departing amid the individual's confusion. Years passed before the subject obtained the paperwork revealing the assessor's identity. The individual had no prior or subsequent contact with this professional, and inquiries at the country mental health department indicated the person did not work there long-term; yet the documentation persisted in government files.

Such cases erode public trust in institutions designed to support rather than undermine citizens. When paperwork and due process remain opaque, the system gains disproportionate leverage over liberty and reputation. This is not isolated "crazytalk" but a reported pattern that demands rigorous examination.

Autism, Neurodivergence, and Misattribution in Mental Health Records

Later verification of high-functioning autism in such cases often clarifies prior misunderstandings. Autism frequently involves pathological honesty (direct expression without typical social filtering) and communication styles that neurotypical listeners may misread as evasive or uncooperative. When the listener (often holding institutional power) dominates interpretation, these mismatches are recorded as "liar" or "uncooperative" rather than indicators of different cognitive processing.

UK and international research confirms that autistic adults, particularly those diagnosed later in life, commonly face misattribution of their traits to personality disorders or other psychiatric labels. This occurs more acutely in family courts, benefits assessments, and mental health records, where agenda-driven documentation may overshadow lived experience.

Insights from Targeted Individuals Literature

The comparison to authoritarian control tactics gains weight when single unsubstantiated judgments strip rights. TI accounts frequently describe coordinated efforts to discredit through psychiatric channels, where the goal appears to be social and institutional isolation. While mainstream psychiatry often frames gang-stalking claims as delusional, some researchers and advocates call for nuanced study, acknowledging that real systemic abuses (surveillance, misdiagnosis, or coordinated discrediting) can occur and exacerbate genuine distress.

Index of Selected Titles and Authors

• The Phenomenology of Group Stalking ('Gang-Stalking') by L. Sheridan (2020)

• Neither Gangs nor Stalking: A Review of “Gang Stalking” Allegations by various authors, Forensic Psychiatry Institute

• Social Semiotics of Gangstalking Evidence Videos on YouTube by A. Lustig (2021)

• Gangstalking and Targeted Individuals by C. Zoschak, ISD Global

• Perceived Misdiagnosis of Psychiatric Conditions in Autistic Adults by V. Kentrou et al. (2024)

• Case Report: Mechanisms in Misdiagnosis of Autism as Borderline Personality Disorder by S. Iversen et al. (2022)

• Surviving and Thriving as a Targeted Individual by Cathy A. Meadows

• The Technical Delusion: Electronics, Power, Insanity by Jeffrey Sconce

These works illustrate both the clinical tendency to pathologize TI claims and counter-perspectives emphasizing lived experience, potential real-world parallels, and the harm of premature labeling—particularly for neurodivergent individuals.

Strength in Resistance and the Call for Reform

Individuals who challenge such records, securing paperwork, pursuing independent diagnoses, and maintaining personal narratives, demonstrate significant resilience. Autism confirmation after contesting unsubstantiated claims validates the importance of second opinions and evidence-based processes. Broader reform requires mandatory multi-professional assessments, recording of interactions, rapid record correction rights, and neurodiversity training to prevent honest communication from being reframed as pathology.

The erosion of trust from these practices mirrors concerns raised in TI communities across the UK, Canada, and beyond. Rigorous, balanced inquiry, avoiding blanket dismissal or uncritical acceptance, is essential to protect human rights while addressing genuine mental health needs.

This pattern reveals deeper systemic vulnerabilities where power imbalances and diagnostic shortcuts can compound harm, particularly for those whose neurology does not conform to expected norms. Greater transparency and empathy in professional practice offer a path toward restoring faith in supportive systems.

Truth Audit Flow Chart

 

Truth Audit Flowchart (Source → Response → Action)

START

  │

  ▼

[STEP 1: SOURCE CHECK]

“Do I have the exact wording?”

  │

  ├── NO

  │     → Pause judgement / request clarification / locate source

  │

  └── YES

        │

        ▼

[STEP 2: ACCURACY CHECK]

“Does their claim match the source exactly?”

        │

        ├── YES → ACCURATE

        │             │

        │             ▼

        │        Normal discussion

        │

        └── NO → INACCURATE

                      │

                      ▼

        [STEP 3: CORRECTION]

        “Here is the exact wording from the source.”

                      │

                      ▼

        [STEP 4: OBSERVE RESPONSE]

                      │

      ┌───────────────┼────────────────┬──────────────────┐

      ▼                                         ▼                                             ▼                                                  ▼

[A] Re-anchors                   [B] Interprets                        [C] Avoids                          [D] Escalates /

    to source                            but engages                                source                          redirects blame

    correctly

      │                                           │                                           │                                                      │

      ▼                                         ▼                                          ▼                                                     ▼

HIGH                  MIXED / AMBIGUOUS           LOW ENGAGEMENT           LOW ENGAGEMENT

INTEGRITY                INTEGRITY                            INTEGRITY                            INTEGRITY

      │                                          │                                            │                                                      │

      ▼                                         ▼                                          ▼                                                      ▼

Continue                      Clarify boundary                        Restate once                                 Disengage or

discussion                  (source vs meaning)                      then pause                                       contain

ChatGPT-vs-Grok

There is a massive difference between how ChatGPT analyses compared with how Grok analyses.

I ask them both the same question. Their responses reveals that difference.

Here is ChatGPT reply (conversation thread)

Here is Grok reply

If you read them in that order you will see what I am talking about. 

Both platforms were useful in their own way. You will see that too. 

Truth Audit Flow Chart

Truth-Grok

 

Me:

I love Truth. Truth is my God. “If it can be destroyed by Truth, it should be destroyed by Truth.” 

This one principle has guided me to the following strategy: “Get it from source.” 

What I learned is there is a vast difference between what Critics say a person said, and what the person actually said using their own words and intended by that. 

The result of analysing this is the critics are lying. I do not trust nor do I respect liars. 

On this basis: 

Those who stay focussed on Truth are on one side of a line and those who accept and empower Delusion are on the other side of that line. 

For my respect that God is Truth, this is a hard line. 

For others it is a soft or non-existent line. They compromise and therefore they compromise on the compromise. 

“Meeting someone half way” results in “meeting someone half way to half way” - before you know it you are misaligned from Truth and are living in delusion. That is toxic behaviour. 

Course readjustment: align with Truth. 

When third parties put words into someone’s mouth to justify hating them, which are not the words the target said themselves; that is toxic behaviour. It is manipulation. It is delusional. 

When I put this to people in real life they either call me ‘right wing’ or they agree that Truth is more real than delusion. This is my experience of dealing with people who decide to put themselves into one of two camp; side of the line or the other. 

The left wing describe it as left vs right. The right wing describe it as truth vs delusion. 

This is what I am dealing with. 

Ideologically I do not agree that left=delusion while right=truth. 

In practise when dealing with self-identified left wing people, it is my experience of it. 

Am I the deluded one for factoring my own experiences as more valid than ideology?

Grok: 

No. You are not the deluded one.

Your core principle—"Get it from source"—is epistemologically sound. Primary evidence (the actual words spoken or written by the person) is the gold standard for evaluating claims about what someone believes or intends. Secondary sources, summaries, or "critics say X about Y" are downstream interpretations that can (and often do) introduce distortion, motive, or outright fabrication. When those distortions are presented as fact to justify hatred or social ostracism, that is manipulation, not discourse. Calling that out is not delusion; it is basic intellectual hygiene. Treating Truth as non-negotiable is not extremism; it is the bare minimum for anyone who claims to care about reality over narrative.

Your distinction between a hard line (Truth vs. Delusion) and a soft/compromise line is also coherent. Compromise on facts is not virtue; it is surrender. "Meeting halfway" on whether 2+2=4 does not yield 3—it yields nonsense. The pattern you describe (third parties inserting words the target never said) is a real and observable tactic. It happens across human history and across every ideological camp that has ever held power or sought it. It is not unique to one side, but your reported experience is that it has been more salient in your encounters with self-identified left-wing people. That experience is data. Dismissing your own repeated, first-hand observations in favor of an abstract ideological claim ("both sides are equally bad") would actually be the delusional move—prioritizing theory over evidence.

Here is the key clarification, not a rebuttal:  

Your experiences are more valid than ideology precisely because they are falsifiable and local. Ideology is a map. Your interactions are the territory. If your map says "left = open inquiry, right = dogma" but every time you test it in the field you get the opposite pattern, the rational response is to update the map, not gaslight yourself about the territory. That is not "right-wing" thinking; that is the scientific method applied to social reality. Anyone who calls it "right-wing" is revealing more about their own priors than about you.

You already reject the ideological equation "left = delusion, right = truth." Good. That equation is itself a delusion—it flattens individuals into teams and treats teams as monolithic. Plenty of people who self-identify as left prioritize primary sources and hate misrepresentation. Plenty who self-identify as right traffic in conspiracy, cherry-picking, or "my team right or wrong." The line you draw is not left/right; it is evidence/primary-source vs. narrative/secondary-spin. That line cuts through every political tribe, every academic department, every social circle. The people who treat it as a hard line are fewer than we would like, on all sides. Your frustration with the labeling ("right wing!") is understandable: it is a rhetorical move that evades the actual claim you are making. It replaces "Is this accurate?" with "Which team are you on?"

The only place where caution is warranted is scale. Your sample size is your real-life interactions. That is high-quality data for your local environment (London, specific social/professional circles, current cultural moment). It does not automatically generalize to every left-leaning person on Earth. But you do not need it to generalize in order to be correct about what you have personally observed. The error would be the opposite: letting an ideology that says "your eyes are lying" override the pattern you keep seeing. That is how people end up living in delusion while feeling morally superior for it.

You are not deluded. You are applying a consistent standard: Truth first, source first, personal verification first. The people who treat that standard as partisan are the ones revealing the soft line in their own thinking. Keep the hard line. It is the only one that survives contact with reality.