The totalitarian agenda of the identarian left: The war against free speech and democracy.

The goal of identity politics is simply to force a specific agenda on to society. It has no tangible structures in place to improve the lives of the very people it proclaims to champion. Worse still, it uses members of those groups to propel a deeply flawed theory upon the world, regardless of whether the vast amount of people agree with it or not. It also alleges to fight the establishment, however, it is the establishment. Evidence for this lies in numerous of hurriedly written ‘hate crime’ laws, the capture of mainstream media, countless diversity training sessions hastily organised by corporations and the narrowing of acceptable thought on academic campuses. Furthermore, there is a growing epidemic of cancel culture reserved for those who commit the cardinal sin of ‘wrong think’. Let’s be clear, advocating for free speech (and thought) has nothing to do with agreeing with the content, the aim is to defend the rights of people to express their views.

In order to amplify the constant white noise emanating from the mouths of the ‘woke’, key mechanisms have been captured in order to create the façade that ‘woke’ ideology is the only clear moral lens in which to critique life. Mainstream media has succumbed to this ‘way of knowing’ possibly out of fear of reprisals and the acknowledgement that many of these institutions have been hijacked by disciples of Critical Social Justice theory (CSJ), which predominantly underpins identity politics. Notable captures with regards to media are the New York Times, MSNBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, while in NZ both online sites Stuff and Spinoff are the distributors of all things woke, with the NZ Herald catching up quickly. To be clear, this is not a lefty narrative but one based purely around identity and supposed group power dynamics.

It’s important to acknowledge that the key players within this movement possess zero interest in enhancing the lives of the general population. On the contrary, supporters of this cult aim to implement a radical moral and societal shift predicated on group versus group oppression. In effect, constructing a new hierarchical system, this time formulated by using the ranking of groups allocated on certain immutable traits. Of course, such a pecking order is arbitrary and readily changeable, but currently the two groups that contain the most fervent activists are black and trans people. However, to claim the victim badge, individuals must pledge allegiance to the ‘woke’ doctrine. Simply being black or trans is not considered enough, members are expected to agree politically, verbatim.

To make sure this ideology sticks, devotees of this uprising have been required to create a convincing narrative in which to garner corporate and organisational approval, while silencing any criticism. Thus on the surface appearing infinitely more popular than the reality. The story generally centres around the notion that society is more bigoted than ever before and if anyone has the audacity to question this they are part of the problem and need to educate themselves. Many of these dubious opinions have been developed within academic arenas mainly in the US, where science, logic and facts scarcely play a part in this new world order. Moreover, the enlightenment is now viewed in these circles with deep skepticism, with virtues such as evidence and objectivity giving way to emotional reasoning and subjectivity. Unsurprisingly, among the prophets of Critical Social Justice, words and the control of language play a sizeable role in regulating public opinion.

So why would I equate Critical Social Justice to totalitarianism? Historically, it’s true to say neither the extreme left or the right have ‘enjoyed’ a monopoly over oppressive regimes. Tyrannical ruling factions such as Hitler’s Nazis, Stalin’s Soviet empire, Pinochet’s regime in Chile or Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia have spanned much of the ideological spectrum. However, autocratic systems fiercely enforce repressive ideologies that demand to be obeyed and unopposed, with severe consequences for any traitors. Which is exactly what identarian activists are currently trying to impose throughout society. Granted, Critical Social Justice activists may not have resorted to exterminating millions of people (yet), however, they have taken to destroying the careers and reputations of countless people, all to maintain their myopic world view.

CSJ proponents repeatedly claim that there is no such thing as truth or facts, only lived experience and something suspiciously termed ‘my truths’. Effectively, this renders meta-narratives such as science redundant. Knowledge suddenly adopts the form of an opaque, malleable, vagueness that could alter within a blink of an eye. With no tangible foundations to cling to, this unearths a problem for anyone daring to grapple with the slippery subject of identity politics. Further to this, CSJ disciples truly believe that the identity of the speaker and listener are of more importance than the content, context, validity and intention of what is being communicated. This fundamental disagreement regarding basic rules surrounding discourse or how truth is obtained, ensures that any sensible debate with this cult is practically impossible and often futile.

To further confuse what we thought we once knew, in true Orwellian style, meanings of many words have been doctored. Racism has morphed from being a conscious physical, psychological, or emotional attack, to the equation prejudice+power=racism (institutional racism). A notion which declares we live in all encompassing systems of power often subtle and generally difficult to detect. It is surmised that this status quo is manipulated to maintain white superiority. Using this reconfigured meaning, CSJ adherents argue that racism can only flow one way, from people with power to those without. Looking through the lens of group oppression, this essentially implies that only white people can be racist, further stifling any meaningful and thoughtful discussion that may be had.

In reality, being connected to a vague often unconscious system of power based on skin colour is vastly different to engaging in bigoted actions and attitudes driven by prejudicial views towards someone with differing racial, ethnic, cultural or national origins. Utilising this new approach, it turns out that racism is not something that can be ultimately resolved or reduced. Furthermore, to disagree with this twisted perception of racism allegedly proves the existence of it. Alternatively, you could simply embrace this ideology by accepting that you are a racist scumbag. Either way, if you are white according to the woke, you are inherently racist.

This is a concept akin to original sin, only there is no forgiveness or redemption to be found within this secular religion. What transpires is nothing less than a morality trap, aimed to keep generally well meaning people in turmoil as they endeavour to do what they think or have been told is the right thing. Ultimately, this path will have no positive effect on reducing racism, chiefly because actual racists do not care what middle class, pseudo academics from elite universities have to say about perceived acceptable moral parameters in polite society.

Unsurprisingly, in places where people are compelled to care about how they are viewed, such as their workplace or in educational institutions, further tools of coercion are in situ. One such restraining device commonly employed is the use of the term microaggression. To appreciate the impact Critical Social Justice has had on society, we have to recognise that the term microaggression is now outlined in mainstream dictionaries. Merriam Webster describe it as, “a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously expresses a prejudice attitude towards a member of a marginalised group (such as a racial minority)”. As with many things connected with identity politics, subjectivity plays a key role in enforcing this mechanism of power and self censorship. Disturbingly, as the victim’s perception is the only authority required, any accusation of a microaggression will never be withdrawn once it is labelled as such, regardless of how tenuous the claim may be

Meanwhile, the ‘woke’ persistently wage war against free speech by creating a set of alarmingly bogus allegations around this linchpin of a liberal democracy. One such assertion the identarian ‘left’ have promoted is the idea that “words are violence”. Let me make this clear, this does not refer to verbal threats of violence which are used to bully potential supporters or intimidate opponents. What this phrase alludes to are words that upset, disagree with, or are critical of these particular groups and its members beliefs. This questionable logic goes something like this, if words can cause stress, and stress can cause physical harm, then certain types of speech can cause violence. This implies that all physical harm is violence, which is quite a leap. In the real world, all violence can be categorised as physical harm, but not all physical harm is necessarily due to violence.

This kind of madness is what ensues if society is evaluated solely through the lens of group identity and oppression. Add this to the tragic death of George Floyd and the whole of the west is suddenly considered by some as systemically racist. Of course, this aforementioned event couldn’t possibly be a combination of poor policing procedures, inadequate training, a sub standard officer and the possibility of personal racism. No, it obviously must be systemic racism. This is despite the fact that people of all races regrettably are shot by the police much too often in the US each year. In 2020, 457 white, 241 black people and 169 Hispanic people were shot dead by police. This is clearly a tragedy, but is it exclusively racism, or are there many factors of which racism may be a component that lead to some of these dreadful events?

Movements such as BLM state that incidents like these are evidently a manifestation of racism and anyone who disagrees with this opinion are of course racist. This kind of political and moral pressure on society leads to a lack of serious discussion around this complex matter, forcing compliance, resentment and self censorship. Critical Social Justice may claim words are violence, but up and down the US and to a lesser extent the UK, aggressive and at times violent protests have occurred in universities and colleges. In cities such as Portland, Oregon actual tangible violence took place for months aimed at the police. But apparently, these events are vindicated due to a relatively rare tragic incident on the other side of the country, whereby a police officer killed a black man, so therefore, all police (including black officers) are fair game. For supporters of BLM and Antifa, this justified actions that were far more damaging than what any words can muster.

Normalising ideas such as “words are violence” or microaggressions create the conditions for the establishment and ‘woke’ academia to employ the concept of hate speech, which is purported to protect us but results in the silencing of dissenting opinions. If words are violence and people can supposedly use them in harmful ways without even knowing (microaggressions), while a member of a certain group has the power to determine what equates to hate speech, effectively we may all be silenced at some point. Furthermore, groups who support this lunacy are now pressurising governments to act on these manufactured transgressions, as hate speech laws are being implemented around the western world at an alarming rate.

Supporters of this identarian cult are not just content with controlling what people do, say, write and think, but also what is not said. This is evident by the often repeated slogan “silence is violence”. Individuals are now vilified and persecuted for saying nothing. Critical Social Justice activists have clearly taken note of Orwell’s fictional dystopian world and added a dictatorial cherry on top. Not supporting a political movement akin to a religion or even displaying ambivalence has suddenly becomes less of an option. Any words uttered without the approval of the self designated new moral police could be instantly labelled racist, however, if that person exercises their right to silence this may also deemed as racist. All this strongly suggests compliance and blind obedience is the only way out. Welcome to your new life citizen and you will like it.

Many people are now frightened of making a false move or saying something innocuous that could be potentially construed as ‘problematic’, maybe years after the initial event. Moreover, refusing to agree with current Critical Social Justice ideas could prove damaging, especially if these views are adopted by an institution that an individual may be associated with. It would seem society is in serious trouble, identarians along with the power hungry hold positions of influence and authority, while creating a moral universe based on the logic of a 4 year old, for which they are willing to enforce to the detriment of the people. The Scottish National Party’s proposed Hate Crime Bill is a prime example of what is yet to come, with New Zealand soon to follow, along with harsher penalties for ‘hate crimes’.

Critical Social Justice ideology is not about eradicating racism, it is simply a vehicle for so-called academics, figures of authority, the logically deficient and useful idiots to force an irreparable reconstruction of society. Undoubtedly, these changes will have enormous repercussions for humanity. Even people who are technically within these groups have been attacked and ridiculed once they are judged to have strayed from the CSJ path. Recently the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities head Tony Sewell, was bombarded with criticism when his report declared that, although the UK still had racism, there was no evidence that the foundations of society within education, work and public life were institutionally racist. The paper unsurprisingly, highlighted the notion that these issues on the whole are complex for example, in schools black children from a West African background perform very well at school, while kids with black Caribbean heritage generally struggle.

For this, Sewell has been labelled a token black man and an uncle Tom, while identarian extremists have sought to discredit his academic credentials. The fact that he and his team had the audacity to question the concept of an all pervasive institutionally racist country has angered people who depend on the identity politics racket for their pursuit of academic and political power. The so called empathic identarian ‘left’ in the face of being challenged simply resorted to overt racism in order to defend their carefully constructed system of control. Sewell and his colleagues concluded that class was much more of a factor than race concerning negative societal outcomes, thus directly challenging the CSJ dogma.

Regarding the other sacred group, that of being trans, a former trans icon has now been declared a heretic for veering from the approved identarian rhetoric. That person is of course Caitlyn Jenner. Jenner committed her cardinal of sin of not agreeing with the trans activists stance, by stating she didn’t think biological boys who are trans girls should compete in girl’s sports. For this transgression, she has been labelled a “traitor”, a MAGA lover and more insanely anti-trans. Alleged comedian Sarah Silverman jumped on the bandwagon accusing Jenner of transphobia. This recent display of outrage further adds to the evidence that identarian extremists have no interest in protecting actual people within the group, rather the ideology itself.

As a long time ex professional strength and conditioning coach, I know that no amount of hormone blockers and surgery can alter some physiological and bio-mechanical advantages trans women have over their biological female competitors. From a physiological perspective lung capacity, cardiac output and the number of type 2b muscle fibres plus the size of these fibres between the two sexes are obvious areas of disparity. These genetic differences are particularly apparent in muscle, where there are said to be 3000 genes that are differently expressed between men and women in skeletal muscle alone. Regarding bio-mechanical advantages, we can simply look to average limb length, where these comparatively longer levers instantly put biological women on the back foot. More than just advocating for fairness, we need to acknowledge the more important issue of safety, particularly when we are considering combat sports and the inclusion of trans women into these sports.

Amidst this current cultural frenzy, to even mention these obvious biological facts, leads to no end of abuse from trans extremists. It is opinions that run counter to the trans activist tide that has led to Caitlyn Jenner’s demise as the shining beacon of the trans activist community. What is deeply disturbing and similar to the race debate is, many of these identarian crazies do not speak for all trans people, nor are the majority of them trans themselves. What is striking, is an exceptionally arrogant and dismissive attitude, particularly towards those who have taken the huge step of actually transitioning. Of course contrary views regarding sport, does not mean trans people should not be treated with dignity and have access to all the rights that everybody else enjoys. However, allowing those who were born as biological men to compete in women’s sport is not progressive, but detrimental to survival of biological women in competitive sport.

These two recent examples mentioned above further show that this cult of identity politics has no desire to defend the individuals within the very groups they proclaim to support. Rather they are driven to preserve and promote an extreme ideology at all costs, while imposing their beliefs on the opposing majority. More disturbingly, this ‘woke’ cult is not afraid to destroy institutions and individuals who dare to object to their logic free dogma. It is totalitarian, principally because it opposes free speech, offering no redemption, while savaging people with differing views. Furthermore, it is intent on hijacking language in order to control the narrative, while flagging up any hint of dissent, particularly on social media. Often this results in a virtual pile on, leading invariably to the destruction of a skeptic’s entire reputation.

In conclusion, I suggest the left should focus on the welfare of all people. Identity politics aims to protect a specific extreme ideology and it’s generally middle class supporters, while caring very little about the poor and the working class. Therefore, I suggest it has no place on the left. I’ll leave you with this quote, which can be applied to all woke academics.

More than words: The identarian left and the manipulation of language.

If you’ve ever read 1984 you will have encountered many slogans used in the book such as; “ignorance is strength” or “freedom is slavery”. To people observing from the outside these phrases appear simply as contradictory. However, anyone having the misfortune of living with this type of indoctrination day in day out may view them as reminders or part of a spell designed to seep into your sub-conscious, influencing your actions. Social Justice Warriors use words in a similar way primarily to manipulate or create a powerful narrative, here’s a selection you my have heard; “words are violence”, “safe space”, “hate speech”, “invalidating my existence”, “woke”, “problematic”, “my truth”, “creepy”, “microaggression”, “toxic masculinity” and “white privilege”.

Both sides of the political fence routinely use these methods, but for the identarian left it is essential and a major tool of control. This political faction doesn’t revel in the luxury of money and the option of lobbying like the oligarchs of the right or the corporate left. Therefore, social control is imperative in order to implement their ideology. If a group can control the boundaries of acceptable language, this will in turn guide which thoughts are considered appropriate and those that are not. In summary the identarian left is very much adept at mind control. More importantly this group ascribe themselves as the morality police, pushing an intolerant and puritanical worldview, based on total subjectivity.

This movement is a belief system that has a religious feel to it. Their churches are college ‘grievance studies’ departments. These are sacred areas, holding ultimate power over the moral direction of both the academic institution and students alike. Social Justice preachers stand in the pulpit of the church of intersectionality, while delivering their sermons from the gospel of Jean Francois Lyotard or Michel Foucault. In truth, what we witness are poorly educated professors, who are graduates of these departments, rising through the ‘ranks of the woke’ while regurgitating a particular set of beliefs.

These gatekeepers of ‘special knowledge’ are held in high regard by often impressionable, young women, who are drawn to this area of study. This can be viewed as a process of confirmation for these disciples, who have convinced themselves that they are victims of a harsh and cruel world, one which should revolve around their every whim. In this sense college operates as no more than a very expensive echo chamber. A place to peddle subjectivity, unfounded beliefs and an anti-scientific doctrine with no space for critical thinking or reflection. Questionable ideas such as Derrida’s deconstructionism, Foucault’s musings on power and Lyotard’s criticism of empirical evidence, have chipped away at any notion of truth, thus the age of ‘lived experience’ is upon us as the gold standard of all knowledge.

Like all cults, what is required to recruit believers and to dupe outsiders is a believable story. As with all good tales, it has to evoke emotion, reality is not necessary, rather feelings are utilised to resonate with its target audience. Language embedded within this narrative sets the tone regarding what is considered civilised and indeed permitted within society. What is also crucial is an amplifier, in order to reach as many people as possible with their message. For this they have a willing ally in the form of mainstream media and their billionaire owners, who are keen to use this as distraction to divert attention from the real issues notably neoliberalism. So what is the story that has captivated, mainstream media, government departments, grievance studies students and even Hollywood?

Like many tales it’s simple, or more accurately life has been simplified for the simple minded. Our multi-faceted, complex, highly evolved distinctive features that make us unique, have been whittled down to things we can do nothing about. Our special blend of good, bad and indifferent, abilities and traits formed from a combination of nature and nurture are suddenly reduced to melanin levels and genital configurations. Individual assets, experiences or any contributions to the world in this subjective supposed utopia account for nothing, nada, zip.

If you are a white, heterosexual and male (like me), you are a sinner and there is nothing you can do to secure forgiveness. No amount of saving lives as a healthcare professional or educating our kids or even pulling people from a burning building, as a firefighter can shed the mantle of privilege placed upon your shoulders. You are riddled with “toxic masculinity” and considered a piece of shit by the high moral priestesses of grievance studies academia and you better just live with it.

To keep the moral sinner on their toes, identarians like many tribes have created their own language, designed to detect, socially isolate and destroy non-believers, often purposely annihilating their careers. This parlance is also used to excuse their own tribe from any undesirable actions they may perform, while creating mechanisms to silence dissent. One such method is akin to playing god and principally centres around victimhood, a strategy used extensively by intersectionalists.  By announcing certain groups as oppressed based on skin colour or genitalia, regardless of whether they have actually experienced oppression or not, allows them to decide who is good and who is bad. Ironically, identarians use all the tools of stigmatisation to achieve this; othering, labelling and stereotyping. But all in a good cause right?

Identarians created the word “woke” suggesting that they were somehow the enlightened ones. Hilariously, this has since been hijacked and is now used as derogative term by indentarian sceptics. The identarian claim of moral purity of course, is not supported by any evidence, but rather we are told it is “their truth”, thus immune from any form of critique. Furthermore, by occupying the role of victim it is considered that vitriol and hatred can be administered outwardly without complaint.

In a recent article, academic James Lindsay offered that “identarians repeatedly claim the final word, as people who have lived oppression (real or imagined) cannot be questioned or overruled, and their proclaimed truths are, therefore, considered final”. This logic (or lack of) produces another linguistic web, rendering any form of disagreement impossible. However, if dissention does occur this subsequently provides further proof for identarians regarding the potency of privilege and oppression.

The Social Justice establishment has created and implemented widely accepted word play guarding them against criticism and to admonish them from any irrational, violent and frankly thuggish behaviour. One of these linguistic Orwellian snares is the use of the term “microaggression“. Being called out, verbally flogged, doxed, no-platformed and socially ex-communicated for an overt disagreement with the identarian rhetoric is clearly not enough . Society in their opinion, should now be persecuted for unintentional transgressions against the church of Social Justice. This poses two severe problems; one is the complete reliance on subjectivity, thereby, the same alleged microaggression may illicit a very different response dependent on the recipient. Secondly, like most of postmodernism microaggressions completely disregard the nature of intent, while focusing on emotions and feelings of the individual involved.

As identarians see oppression everywhere, an example of a microaggression could be questions such as, “where are you from”? Apparently this line of ‘interrogation’ insinuates that the person being asked is not from around here. Clearly in the world of SJW’s this question has less to do with natural human inquisitiveness and more about perceived malicious undertones. This form of control extends beyond what the general public are permitted to say, focusing on the implications of what might be said. In effect, this is an attack on an individual’s thoughts not on the words uttered per se. Taking this a step further, behaviour such as this clearly opens the door for an Orwellian style thought police. Even more disturbing than monitoring conscious thought, identarians are attempting to adopt the role of judge, jury and executioner of unconscious thought.

To protect this bizarre idea, SJW’s employ yet another ‘booby trap’, thus curtailing any disagreement regarding alleged microaggressions. This is achieved by accusing the micro-aggressor of ‘victim blaming’. And so the game of oppression roulette continues. The intended outcome is to silence all open, inquiring dialogue, making society subservient to the wishes of the Social Justice thought constabulary. This link contains an example of suggested microaggressions and the alleged message it sends. It was published by the UCLA ‘grievance studies’ faculty. It’s fair to say that documents like this are clear examples how untethered from reality these people really are.

In Social Justice land any hostile language, conflicting words or aforementioned microaggressions are not just considered insulting, but are viewed as violent, contributing to trauma. The phrase “words are violence” is worryingly being accepted in society as a universal truth. This is yet another Social Justice mechanism of coercion that has gained traction, allowing the church of Social Justice to “strike great vengeance and furious anger” on unsuspecting sinners. This reasoning proposed by psychologist and emotional researcher Lisa Feldman Barrett goes something like this; chronic stress can cause physical damage, no argument there. However, she continues, “if words can cause stress and prolonged stress can cause physical harm, words can cause physical harm”. This logic suggest A causes B, B causes C, therefore A causes C. With this in mind her conclusion should be, words cause physical harm, not violence.

This “words are violence” strategy achieves a couple of things; firstly by believing this it allows identarians to lay claim to reprisals on the basis of self defence. Which is exactly what has occurred in numerous US colleges, a direct physical response to a verbal disagreement. Examples of this were played out at Evergreen State College, Middlebury College and UCLA Berkley. Secondly, the use of a disproportionate and aggressive response to a contrary opinion will likely convince many people to keep their views to themselves in public, effectively closing down free speech.

This silencing of free speech is a major component of the identarian plan. Professor of English at New York University Ulrich Baer defended identarians, proclaiming in an article written in the New York Times, “when those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good”. In this piece Baer is inferring that speech can invalidate the humanity of entire groups of people, when all the listener has to do is reject the idea and humanity remains whole once again. If somebody punched me in the face, I would undoubtedly label this as an act of violence. In contrast, as uncomfortable as being lambasted may be, they are and always will be words for which do no direct physical harm. The recipient may feel, upset, hurt and some words may have a lasting psychological effect, but it is still does not equate to violence. My suspicion is this conflation is intentional, allowing in the mind of an identarian an opportunity to respond in an heavy handed manner.

The ultimate game-plan for the identarian left is to prevent anyone opposing their puritanical version of morality. The jewel in the crown for identarians is the development of the concept of “hate speech” and furthermore declaring themselves as moral arbiters. This restriction of free speech may have, at one time been used to curtail bigotry and bullying, now it is primarily used to stifle any hint of resistance. Identarians invariably weaponize these regulations to shut down disagreeable speakers, destroy careers and at times justify violence. Even the laws around hate crime in places such as the UK are so vague and malleable that it effectively allows anything to be viewed as such. The Crime Prosecution Service in the UK defines a hate crime as;

“any offense that is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person of disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; or someone who is transgender or is perceived to be transgender”.

What ideas of hate crime and indeed hate speech suffer from is “concept creep“. It is argued that notions such as; bullying, trauma, mental disorders, addiction and prejudice, now encompasses a much wider range of phenomena. In effect what is observed is an expansion of meaning, reflecting an ever increasing sensitivity to harm. Nick Haslam Professor of Psychology at Melbourne University proposes that the broadening of terms used to explain events is known as horizontal creep. Whereby, the behaviour qualifying an incident as abuse has become over time less extreme, this is referred to as vertical creep. In no way is this to condone any form of abuse, but rather to acknowledge that the boundaries have become elastic, vague and potentially unhelpful.

As an example we’ll use bullying, the meaning has expanded into; online behaviour, workplace conduct and forms of social exclusion that doesn’t actually target the victim with hurtful actions. Being excluded from a group of friends in this sense can now be described as bullying. Behaviour that was considered less extreme than once typical acts of bullying, now lie within these new boundaries. Haslam calls this vertical creep, stating that an incident such as this does not need to be intentional or repeated, nor is it required to occur in the context of a power imbalance.

Descriptions of trauma are also detaching themselves from any form of objectivity, as the recipient is now sole determiner of the meaning, thus providing further evidence of moral relativism. Trauma now encompasses a multitude of events from distress following wartime experiences, through to childbirth, sexual harassment and even a relationship breakup. Here’s a definition from the US Government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration;

“Individual trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being”.

My issue is certainly not to contest that these events can be difficult and contribute to mental health distress, but rather there is a distinct lack of a spectrum or a rational to refer to. Here, postmodernism rears it’s ugly head yet again. All trauma from the most mild all the way to life shattering events are now considered on an equal footing, as severity is now decided upon by the recipient. Through this lens, objectivity is seen as archaic and subjectivity holds sway. With all this in mind; a traumatic event does not need to be a discrete moment, it has no requirement to be a threat to life or limb and does not need to manifest to the extent where it would cause marked distress on almost everyone. Neither does this event have to be outside normal experience or cause significant distress within the traumatised person, who merely has to register it as “harmful”. This type of postmodern “word salad” renders any definition of trauma as pointless and begins to strip words of any remaining substance.

Within this piece, I’ve attempted to uncover the linguistic rules and games that most of us are required or forced to play by. They are created to trap, cajole, manipulate, silence, shame and mould society into complying with the moral fundamentalist minority. Here stands a group of people possessing a myopic viewpoint, with limited life experiences and no tolerance for diversity of thought or indeed freedom of speech. To counter this, these puritans only hold power if we indulge them in their stupid, infantile activities and enter into this charade. This is why it is vital to fight for free speech, resisting any invitation to tread into a murky world, whereby, words hold very little meaning, while emotion and subjectivity conquers all.

In defence of free speech, before it’s too late.

In a world of polarised politics and widely differing moral opinions, free speech is taking a battering and yet it is essential for democracy. On a daily basis you can witness on social media, people shutting down debate with labels such as misogynist and racist, as soon as discourse veers from their comfort zone. Both sides left and right claim that their political opposites are constantly abusing free speech. ‘Black Life Matters’ supporters upset the right, but no more than how Milo Yiannopoulos continuously offends the left.

So, where do we start when discussing this thorny subject of free speech and free expression? We could start as far back as Socrates, but I guess the Magna Carta is as good a place as any. This was a ‘charter of liberties’ signed in Runneymede, England in 1215, reluctantly by King John (more accurately he used his royal seal). King John succumbed to this document primarily to stave off a rebellion from the country’s powerful barons, following a spate of unsuccessful foreign policies and heavy tax demands.

The Magna Carta was effectively the first written constitution in European history, but it primarily only benefitted the elites at the time. Two further acts; the ‘Petition of Right‘ (1628) referring to clause 39 of the Magna Carta, which states; “no free man shall be…imprisoned or dispossessed, except by the lawful judgement of his peers” and clause 40, the ‘Habeas Corpus Act‘ (1679), “to no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay rights or justice” had huge implications on future legal systems in both UK and the US. As far as other legal documents go the ‘Bill of Rights‘ (UK, 1689), the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man‘ (France, 1789) and the ‘First Amendment of the US bill of rights‘ (US, 1791), were all influenced by the Magna Carta. These were all attempts to secure freedom of speech and expression under the umbrella of human rights.

In a speech given at the University of Toronto in 2006, Christopher Hitchens debating in favour of freedom of speech, paraphrased three great thinkers to summarise the concept. John Milton, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine collectively suggest that; “it’s not the right of the speaker to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something”.

Economist, philosopher and socialist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg surmised that “freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of a person’s view who thinks differently”. Noam Chomsky, renowned linguistic Professor and distinguished Libertarian Socialist declared; “Goebbels was in favour of free speech he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of free speech, then you are in favour of free speech precisely for views you despise”.

So why is free speech so precious? Freedom of expression for which free speech is a part of, is a fundamental human right. Our ability to express an opinion and to speak freely is essential for any society to move forward. It is imperative that in a free society we have an open exchange of ideas and that these opinions are tested and challenged. The most effective way to defeat bad ideas is by the promotion of good ones, utilising ethics and reason, rather than bans and censorship. The other important element, is the ability to listen and to hear other people’s perspectives. The only way we can test our assumptions and ideas is through discourse with people offering a differing view. Furthermore, the weight of public opinion should not be used to decide what may or may not be heard.

Many ideas in the past have been ridiculed initially, only to be proved correct; Galileo Galilei championed heliocentrism while Darwin promoted the theory of evolution. John Stuart Mill wrote in ‘On Liberty‘; “If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”.

The philosopher Karl Popper talked about testing your ideas through “conjecture and refutation“. An individual offers a notion about the nature of reality and this is then tested against reality. This process allows the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The “conjecture” part of this process is the use of free speech. These opinions are offered not knowing if they are correct. It is only by witnessing which ideas withstand being refuted do we attain knowledge.

So given the perceived importance, why is freedom of speech being attacked and eroded? Well contrary to popular belief this isn’t purely a SJW endeavour, the right also use free speech as a political football. Although to be fair to the illiberal left, they do seem to have got the suppression of speech part down to an art form and that’s not a compliment. Free speech on both sides appears to be defined as speech they agree with. Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt portrayed perceptions of free speech in the graphic seen below.

Recently the left have used an array of puritanical actions such as; disinviting speakers, censoring artwork and disciplining wrongdoers of arbitrarily constructed cultural appropriation rules. This behaviour has been justified by suggesting it’s done to make other speakers feel safe. I would propose that by other they mean speakers they agree with. As mentioned, the right play games too; there was an incident when a student secretly filmed Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox referring to Donald Trump in class as a white supremacist. This video was propelled across the internet where she received death threats.

The group responsible for this, the Orange Coast County Republicans stated that removing commentary like ‘hers’ was necessary to ensure the college’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusivity”. If this narrative sounds eerily familiar, it will be because it is the same language often used by the illiberal left. Studies in the US suggest that Republican students are just as likely to agree with the restriction of campus speech that is offensive or upsetting to certain groups, as the Democrats. Which brings us full circle to Haidt’s representation above. As an aside, however, it is twice as likely for Republican’s to support book bans.

Countless speakers who have differing ideas to illiberal left orthodoxy have been regularly disinvited from an array of places in the English speaking world, such as; Ben Shapiro, Germaine Greer, Kate Smurthwaite, Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, Christina Hoff Sommers, Dave Rubin and Nigel Farage. Browsing the database for disinvited speakers on FIRE’s website (Foundation of Individual Rights in Education), I thought it would be interesting to work out which side of the political fence censors speakers the most.

I was unsurprised to find that since the beginning of 2017 the left had disapproved of speakers leading to what the UK call no-platforming on 19 occasions, while the right spat their dummy out just 5 times. The main issues for the left were race, gender and sexual orientation. While on the right, it was primarily sexual orientation and Chelsea Manning for criminal misconduct. It would make sense at this point to investigate why this is happening particularly on campus and what are the implications.

It would appear that over the last few years there has been a campaign to sanitise college campuses in an endeavour to make them clean from words, ideas and subjects that may offend or cause discomfort. This has altered the way professors teach, and the content is often proceded by numerous trigger warnings. Plus any one of us could be easily accused of a microaggression, such as using phrases that appear to be innocuous like, “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”. All this sounds distinctly Orwellian, but psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests this is primarily about emotional wellbeing and the protection of students from emotional harm.

It is a move to turn a college campus into a ‘safe space’ and they will punish anyone who stands in their way. The problem, he suggests is, it ill equips students for the real world, which often requires intellectual engagement with people one may well disagree with. It is also thought that this culture of censorship and the punishment of speakers could lead students to thinking patterns that could conceivably be described in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) terms as pathological. Thinking styles including; black and white, catastrophising, fortune telling, overgeneralising and mental filtering. Haidt claims that all this further contributes to anxiety and depression. So where did these ideas come from, how did this illiberal attitude to free speech evolve and where is it going?

Haidt calls this punitive lack of tolerance “vindictive protectiveness”, he states that Baby Boomers and Generation Xers had more of a free range childhood, spending a greater time looking after themselves. This style of parenting became less popular in the 80’s and 90’s, as parents became more fearful. In turn, this gave rise to the ‘helicopter parent‘ or the ‘cotton wool mum’, who started to micromanage their kids during every waking moment. This was despite evidence proving that incidences of abduction, robbery, assault and homicide remained relatively stable throughout the English speaking world.

What has changed over this time is an increase in varying media outlets and the attention that is drawn to such cases. It is thought that this cultivates the feeling that there is more crime than is actually occurring. Contrary to this, unsupervised play which previous generations experienced while growing up declined from the early 90’s. This type of play allowed kids to explore the world, while making their own friends and at times enemies. They learnt how to get in and out of trouble, to test their limits and negotiate with other kids, all without being overlooked by their parents. These valuable times, that most of us just refer to as being a kid, provided a vital training ground for survival in the real world.

A study by University College London found that children who had more unsupervised time were more sociable and more active. It is believed that the decline in unsupervised play has been matched by a decrease in empathy and a rise in narcissism. This is considered hardly surprising in an environment where children have little chance to play socially. It is argued that schools cannot replace this time, as this environment is more authoritarian and non democratic, meaning that it is not conducive to learning skills such as co-operation. On top of this, these kids are also growing up in an age of increased political polarisation.

Think of what happened recently in the US election or Brexit. This isn’t helped by social media, which doesn’t often provide the conduit for robust debate. Interactions on this medium usually consist of allies providing an echo chamber or an enemy to yell at or a dissenter to discredit. Civil discourse on these platforms are a rare thing to behold. With all this in mind it isn’t surprising that when young adults arrive on campus they seem to require more protection, while being hostile to people with ideological and philosophical differences.

Relatively recently phrases such as, “words are violence”, “invalidating my existence” or “my truth” particularly on college campuses have entered our vernacular. These comments are what is collectively called ‘concept creep‘ and are generally used to shut down debate. To expand on this, here are a couple of real examples of concept creep; a mother leaves her son in the car while she pops into a store and is charged with contributing to his delinquency, or a statue of a man in his underpants causes emotional trauma.

The question we should be asking is, how the hell did we get here and who is reinforcing these concepts? Professor of psychology Nick Haslam argues that terms like abuse, bullying, trauma, mental disorders and addiction have all expanded their meanings (horizontal creep). Additionally the threshold of behaviour qualifying for one of these terms has been steadily lowered (vertical creep).

It is declared that these changes reflect an increased sensitivity to harm. Lisa Feldman Barrett a psychologist from Northeastern University has endeavoured to defend the words=violence equation. Her hypothesis proposes, if words can cause stress (which they can), and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm (and it can), then it seems that certain types of speech can be a form of violence”. This suggests, ‘A’ causes ‘B’, ‘B’ causes ‘C’, and therefore ‘A’ causes ‘C’. With this in mind, insert the phrase “gossiping about a rival” and try again, yes it can cause stress, but that doesn’t turn it into violence.

An English Professor at New York University, Ulrich Baer, justifies shutting down speech of speakers some students might not like, by saying, “When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good”. One could argue that rejecting an idea that has been proposed would be more than sufficient to maintain an individual’s humanity. So how are words violence?

Violence is a physical act, if someone punches me in the face, I can feel a physical force. That’s not the same as being berated by a combination of words, no matter how forceful. It is suggested that much of this has roots in 1960’s postmodernist philosophy that was studied extensively in the 80’s and 90’s. In our case we can refer to Lyotard’s idea of mini-narratives over meta-narratives. Which in short, argues that personal experiences are more important than empirical evidence.

Using a similar phrase from a previous paragraph, which we hear in debates, “who is anyone to deny my truth and what I feel”. Alarm bells should be ringing at “my truth”, it’s either truth or opinion, there is no such thing as “my truth”, that is as erroneous as “alternative facts”. But according to some academics and their students, there appears no such thing as one truth. It is posited that this is no more than a construct of the Euro-west and is a myth.

Postmodernist ideas are in stark contrast to science and the Enlightenment, that they despise and of which I am rather fond of. The Enlightenment period stressed the value of; reason, logic, criticism and freedom of thought, as opposed to dogma, blind faith and superstition. Worryingly it seems, particularly in academia to be regressing away from logic, reason and science.

Given all this, it’s not surprising that students, with minimal life experience, who have been overprotected at home, exposed to questionable ideas such as postmodernism, while engaging in self-indulgent, narcissistic identity politics would be so afraid of free speech and open debate. It would be foolish, however, to think an attack on free speech exists purely within academic institutions. We have seen more and more laws in varying countries clamping down on so called ‘hate speech’. Hate speech is a difficult one to pin down, mainly because, who sets the parameters of what ‘hate speech’ actually is? In the US freedom of expression is protected by the 1st Amendment and this largely includes hate speech.

There are times when hate speech falls into a current 1st Amendment exception, such as; a particular racist may speak to incite imminent violence on a particular group or may be interpreted as immediate threat to do harm. But generally it works quite well, however, some countries have specific hate speech laws. Let’s take the UK as an example. So what is defined as a hate crime? Well, according to the Crown Prosecution Service a hate crime can be; “verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, threats, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property”.

They go on to say, “any offense that is perceived by the victim, or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person of disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; or a person who is transgender or is perceived to be transgender”. There seems to be a lot of perceptions here and a distinct lack of facts, which indicates a hate crime could be pretty much anything, both real or imagined.

One problem with this is, the CPS draws parallels between online abuse and actions taking place in person. This is another example of ‘concept creep’ and fails to acknowledge the differences between an angry tweet and someone shouting at you in the street, or physical abuse. Alison Saunders (Director of Public Prosecutions, CPS) talks about countering extreme views. The problem is, who decides what constitutes as an extreme view. Obviously according to the CPS it appears it’s the ‘receiver’ of said abuse. Furthermore, the offense only has to be perceived by the victim, or somebody else for that matter, with no actual evidence required.

This suggests a pretty low threshold for pinning the tag of hate crime onto someone because they have conflicting views. Most sane minded people would agree that hatred of people because of skin colour or genitalia is abhorrent. But policing hatred often ends up in censorship and the problem doesn’t actually go away. In contrast, there are hundreds of examples of civilians defending victims of abuse in public and shaming racists. Tackling hatred in the public domain is a better way of dealing with despicable ideas, but this can only occur in a society where free and open debate is allowed.

Sadly, I only foresee the strangulation of free speech increasing. This trend chiefly started in academia and has now seeped into the workplace and everyday interactions. Not only this, but in several colleges the illiberal left have been involved in episodes of violence. One such incident took place at Middlebury College Vermont 2017, when students were intent on closing down a lecture given by conservative speaker Charles Murray.

When Murray approached the podium he was shouted down by protesters reciting a pre-prepared script who then proceeded to turn their backs. They chanted until the event was moved to a private venue, but this too was disrupted. The physical incident that irrupted caused the injury of a liberal speaker who was there in opposition to Charles Murray, but was bravely shielding him from the attack.

What’s important to recognise is, in a piece published in the New York Times, the authors tested Charles Murray’s alleged offensive content by sending the material anonymously to 70 university professors to rate it. The scale was from 1 to 9, 1 being liberal, 9 conservative, while 5 denoting middle of the road. From the 57 academics who replied, the mean score was 5.05, indicating the material from Murray was ‘middle of the road’. Two other similar studies were performed, neither suggesting that what Charles Murray was proposing was either offensive or hugely conservative. The article also concluded that some of these protesters had never even read any of his work.

In the same year people were punched and beaten by masked protesters from the illiberal left during a Milo Yiannopoulos speech at UC Berkley. Astoundingly these actions were supported in certain quarters. An Op Ed written after the event by one of the students stated “asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue, with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act”.

This implies that these student felt justified punching people and pepper spraying them, even if all the speakers did was voice some words (albeit challenging words). This is where the “words are violence” phrase becomes dangerous, because it is utilised to justify countering words with a violent action and then passing it off as self-defence. Unsurprisingly this violence from the illiberal left, led to counter violence and this cycle will surely continue. Below is some video footage from the Middlebury debacle.

The group who seem the keenest on stifling free speech are what is termed iGen (short for internet generation). These are students born after 1994 according to social psychologist Jean Twenge. Twenge found that iGen had higher rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness and suicide. Although Twenge offers that much of this is due to smart phones, social media and changing social interactions.

Jonathan Haidt contends that some of this may well be a lack of resilience, suggesting that students are now arriving at college with a distinct inability to cope with; offensive ideas, insensitive professors, and maybe rude racist and sexist peers. Previous generations often learned to deal with such challenges, without having to reconstruct society to accommodate their world view. These obstacles prepared individuals for success and the rigors of life outside the gates of academia.

A poll in the US of 3000 students confirmed that they generally agreed with the idea of free speech and allowing a variety of viewpoints. This is, until these other ideas start to infringe on their values, then they are more likely to support policies to limit speech. Putting it bluntly, they don’t support free speech at all. Also in the same poll 37% thought it was OK to shout down opposing speakers, while 10% stated it was acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from speaking. In an effort to understand which people are against free speech, a further poll was published by the New York Times. When asked what they thought was more important ‘free speech’ or ‘inclusion and diversity’, the results were 53% to 46% in favour of ‘inclusion and diversity’.

Additionally men and women were asked who was in favour of ‘freedom of speech,’ 61% of men said yes compared to just 36% of women. Given that 60% of the student population are now women, all this doesn’t bode well for the fate of free speech on campus. It must be stressed that ‘freedom of speech’ is the ultimate radical idea. It is the notion that individuals should try to settle their differences through debate and discussion, using evidence and persuasion rather than coercive power. At this current moment free speech is in mortal danger, just when it is needed more than ever.