Category: Identity politics

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

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

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.

Why Critical Social Justice is a Jedi mind trick.

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

Critical Social Justice underpins the Black Live Matter movement, Antifa and ideas such as intersectionality. It aims at changing the moral landscape and has evolved from ‘illiberal’ elite academics, principally utilising postmodernism as its bedrock. In their enlightening article of 2018 Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian coins the phrase “grievance studies” as an umbrella term to describe these theories. Previously, politicians, CEO’s and establishment members for decades have attempted to quell the masses by controlling the narrative regarding how the world works, using bogus theories such as trickle down economics or by suggesting the world is a meritocracy. Now, we have professors in elite universities pushing the idea of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) in an effort to regulate what we say, how we think and how we behave in society.

The rich have been repeating the fable that humans are inherently selfish since the late 70’s early 80’s, adding to the myth of greed being good, while claiming poverty is due to a lack of a strong work ethic and moral principles. In a similarly simplistic vein, academics in grievance studies have in recent times been announcing that all white people are inherently racist and complicit in maintaining a system of ‘whiteness‘. Everyday law abiding citizens are suddenly labelled oppressors due to immutable traits they cannot change, such as skin colour. Like the neoliberals, the identarian left are using a particular lens in which to view and explain human nature, as a justification for their radical actions and demands. This is nothing more than a calculated attempt to control society, in order to remake it in accordance with their deeply flawed worldview.

Kimberle Crenshaw

Kimberle Crenshaw is one of these inferred academics and major contributor towards Critical Social Justice Theory, creating an idea called intersectionality. Her seminal 1989 paper is titled; “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics” is still considered a vitally important paper within this ideology. The main argument presented by this black feminist is that an experience of a black woman cannot be totally understood simply in terms of being black, or a woman, but must be include interactions of the two.

Ms Crenshaw began academia at Cornell University obtaining her bachelors degree in Government and Africana studies. From there she attended Harvard Law School receiving her JD (Juris Doctor) and finally the University of Wisconsin Law School where she gained her LL.M (Master of Laws). While at Harvard Law she originated the term Critical Race Theory. Over her career she has taught at UCLA Law School and Columbia Law School, attending what are generally considered some of the best universities in America. Interestingly, her academic baby, intersectionality came from an idea called ‘invisible privilege’.

But what about Ms Crenshaw’s academic privilege? Ideas that constitute Critical Social Justice Theory state that privilege is not simply about finances. Indeed not, but with this in mind it’s worth pointing out that only a very small percentage of people would ever get the opportunity to attend one of these aforementioned prestigious academic institutions in any form, student or teacher. Yet, many leading proponents of Critical Social Justice Theory have had a similar privileged academic journeys and are now lecturing others who are less fortunate than themselves, that they are the oppressors and possess power purely due to skin colour.

Beliefs such as these have not only gained massive traction in western elite academic institutions, but are the backbone of societal movements such as BLM, while these egregious ideas are also permeating into the workplace. Young, middle class, university educated people, predominantly women have found Critical Social Justice Theory hugely appealing. It seems that this has created a major shift in the political debate for many people who see themselves on the left, a movement which once challenged issues concerning economic inequality, now almost exclusively concentrates on identity politics, particularly in the US.

I find this distraction technique fascinating, although adherents to this group claim they are pro equality, their focus is undeniably identity based. This has the effect of removing any moral responsibility from this group in relation to economic privileges which many may well have benefitted from, onto a group who can do nothing about their predicament. Under this particular lens the biggest transgressors in society are not the rich and powerful anymore, but generally people who are white and male. By effectively manipulating these ideas, a white working class man with limited education, power or money could be considered more privileged than Kimberle Crenshaw. That my friends is one clever mind trick.

Critical Social Justice Theory is especially pernicious, as it seeks to control language, not only changing the meaning of words such as racism, but also who can say what and when. A hierarchy of importance has been developed deciding whose ‘truths’ are of greater value, based not on reason or science, but identity and ‘lived experience‘. This is an important mechanism as it serves to silence dissenters, critics and free speech, creating an echo chamber of self congratulatory confirmation. Hate speech is now considered anything that challenges this moral orthodoxy and perpetrators are often on the receiving end of vicious attacks on their character, while losing forums in which to speak up.

Objectivity, logic and facts have now given way to subjectivity, lived experience and ‘my truths’ aka opinions. CSJ is inherently anti-science, thus cultivating a place whereby, lived experiences of a person deemed the most oppressed using this arbitrary hierarchy carries the most weight. Expertise in a certain area of study, objective evidence and the scientific method, are all considered irrelevant. Furthermore, science is generally thought of as construct of whiteness or colonialism. It’s of no surprise, therefore, how fake news and bipartisanism has grown exponentially in recent times. In a post truth world all that is required is a convincing story, conveyed to a receptive audience, et voila, “my truth” is born.

In the age of the internet and the creation of echo chambers complete with disciples willing to agree with any shaky narrative that appeals to them, the truth is suddenly whatever you chose it to be. It doesn’t require, knowledge, research, statistics, peer reviews or objective confirmation, all that is needed are feelings; “I feel this way, therefore, it must be true”. These significant changes in how we interpret the world can be witnessed in all political corners, such as; Trump denying the realities of an election result, through to BLM claiming all white people are racist.

Identity politics is marinated in this peculiar belief system and has proven to be a powerful weapon. An example of this would be the use of anti-Semitism to discredit and ultimately remove Jeremy Corbyn not only as the leader of the Labour Party but from the Labour Party entirely. However, the idea that the Labour Party is riddled with anti-Semitism is based on no objective evidence as found in the Chakrabarti Inquiry. Of course this is not to suggest racism as a whole which includes anti-Semitism is absent from the party, but that the extent to which it exists and the damage it causes has been highly exaggerated. Needless to say, this narrative has benefitted many powerful people who saw Corbyn as an existential threat to their ambitions and their way of life. Furthermore, it was also in the interest of the billionaire owned press and the Tory Party to wholeheartedly back this fairy-tale.

Shami Chakrabarti

What Critical Social Justice Theory which includes Critical Race Theory serves to change is any current definition of a word that does not fit with their myopic radical viewpoint. Critical Social Justice Theory pressurises society to change language until it suits their narrative, thus, presenting as a worryingly Orwellian concept akin to Newspeak in the book 1984. In recent times Critical Race Theory has endeavoured to alter the definition of racism dramatically, shifting it from, conscious abuse that an individual or group inflicts on another party, to a system of power and oppression that has nothing to do with intent. In fact, by simply not admitting to your sins of being born white, you are perpetuating this proposed system of oppression and are therefore, racist.

To a large extent these ideas have been mirrored by the right side of the UK Labour Party throughout the anti-Semitism debate. By simply stating that anti-Semitism is not as prevalent as repeatedly claimed by those who oppose Corbyn, this is often more than enough to be labelled anti-Semitic. The CSJ strategy of redefining words has also been heavily utilised by the right of the Labour Party, in order to suit their agenda of purging the left. It appears anti-Semitism is not about hating Jews anymore, but now includes being opposed to Zionism and the Israeli government, particularly when discussing the treatment of Palestinians.

With this relatively recent arrival of fluid meanings, the absence of objectivity, the dismissal of rigorous enquiry, the rejection of science and the ascendancy of feelings over critical thinking will undoubtedly lead us to a very dangerous place. When everything or nothing is the truth, plus the only accepted social currency is your identity and the corresponding ranking within an arbitrary league table of oppression, chaos will ensue. What will occur, is that the truly rich and powerful within society will harness this destructive weapon to maintain the status quo. In the end poor people and the working class will continue to suffer, as the middle classes are hoodwinked into buying into the allure of identity politics in a vain effort to remain on the right side of history. For the sake of a cohesive functioning society, we need to reject Critical Social Justice as soon as possible.

Socialist ideas in a post identity politics world: A road less travelled?

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

The left has a major problem. Currently it has two main paths; one that is based on traditional socialist values viewing economic inequality as the major problem facing society, the other, demands that inequality of identity is our most pressing concern. Although there is some crossover, most people will regard one narrative as more important than the other. Those who have read my previous articles will be aware that I regard economic disparity as one of the biggest problems the western world faces. Generally, because this has negative effects on health, education, crime and also how we treat one another. In a capitalist world where we primarily pay to play, members of the public who have less monetary resources simply cannot access the world in the same way as others.

To be clear, by this I do not mean access to high end experiences or goods and services. I am referring to obtaining basic needs that the majority of us get to enjoy without much thought. Whilst our poorest citizens end up with sub standard education, healthcare (especially in the US), food, transport, shelter, warmth and a shorter lifespan. They are also more likely to live in unsafe environments, have little in the way of support and struggle to find employment. Thus, this group is essentially excluded from society and unable to partake in what many would describe as everyday life. Poverty and hardship such as this transcends skin colour or gender, if you are poor in the west you are screwed.

Homeless,

The other increasingly common pathway focuses on identity, which opines that certain groups are oppressed simply by possessing an immutable trait, such as; race and gender. Groups are ranked according to their perceived oppression, while individual agency or general experiences gathered through life are not accounted for. This recent incarnation of primarily a postmodernist worldview proposes that white, able bodied, heterosexual, men are the most privileged of all, regardless of any personal circumstances. Thinking in such a way it could be suggested that a white man living on the streets for example is more privileged than a university educated, upper middle class black women. A conclusion such as this could only be reached purely by using a person’s assigned physical identity.

Despite this, I’m hopeful that out of the wreckage of 40 years of neoliberalism, which has destroyed society to the benefit of the few, plus the current culture war which is demolishing any remnants of community, a new kind of political sensibility will emerge. Ideally, one that focuses on democratic socialist economic principles while adopting a liberal approach to cultural issues. This would include the now unfashionable idea of valuing the individual, based on the content of their character rather than traits we can do little about. After all, human beings are far too complicated and wonderful to be evaluated in such a crude way.

In the late 1970 through to the 80’s Thatcher and Reagan ushered in the radical free market ideology called neoliberalism. This was quickly viewed as the only economically viable way of running a country. Forty years later, mainstream political parties from the right to centre-left completely embrace this once fringe idea as gospel. Now, a new chapter is being written in the west, as certain movements are attempting to indoctrinate the English speaking world into adopting an extreme form of Social Justice, driven by Critical Social Justice and Intersectional theories. Just like neoliberalism, this ideology has been percolating for decades prior to being unleashed into the mainstream.

Contrary to what’s described in the media, the left is by no means one cohesive and unified camp. As previously mentioned it now consists primarily of two distinct groups who have very little fundamental commonalities. In one corner there are “economic socialists”, largely considered as out of touch dinosaurs by the cultural left who lurk in the opposite corner. Who in turn, are often thought of by their detractors (including me) as; postmodernist, anti-science, “champagne socialists”, with no real interest in class struggle. Which is why I propose a split from the cultural left, in an effort to address economic issues that affect people from all cultures, rather than certain prioritised identity groups.

Plenty of people out there agree with the principle of reducing economic inequality for the good of the most amount of people. Furthermore, there are countless socialists who feel disenfranchised from the narrative of identity politics and believe humanity amounts to much more than our immutable traits. With this in mind, there is room for a movement that would reject neoliberalism as the principle economic orthodoxy, while advocating for increased economic equality. Additionally, current identity politics inspired by Critical Race Theory would be dismissed as the prevailing doctrine of social progress.

So what would this look like in practical terms? Firstly, I think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs offers some clues as to what should be emphasised in any genuine pursuit of human advancement.

2000px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg

Loosely using a utilitarian model of thought, a primary focus would be to provide the most amount of people with a chance to flourish. With this in mind, basic needs towards the bottom of the pyramid concerning our essential requirements would have to be met as a matter of priority. If these are not addressed it is impossible to consistently fulfil needs found among the higher levels. This is why all people should have access to quality shelter, food, warmth, physical security, education, employment and healthcare to name a few factors.

Wealth redistribution can certainly be achieved by methods such as progressive taxes, but beyond this, ideas such as workers co-operatives should also be encouraged and rewarded. A resurgence of strong unions based on fighting not only for workers rights, but worthwhile pay and job satisfaction are required more than ever before. Admittedly, all this is difficult to sell to a population who have been indoctrinated by the “free market economy” ideology or those who have possibly gained from it. For the majority though, this system for decades has failed to deliver a sustained increase in our quality of life.

On the right, freedom is generally referred to as economic freedom. This is a very specific interpretation of the word, which in reality has only been achieved and enjoyed by a tiny minority. In the “anglosphere” wages have stagnated and have even began to decrease, especially since the early 2000’s. This has been reflected by incredibly slow financial growth among moderate and low income families. For the vast majority, stagnation has not been created by abstract economic trends, but by calculated political choices made on behalf of individuals with the most wealth and power.

An article by the Economic Policy Institute offered that US citizens in the broad middle classes would have been earning $18,000 more by 2007 if economic inequality had been zero since 1979. In the UK, it is estimated that real wages grew by about 2% between 1980 and 2000, followed by a slow down until 2007 and since 2008 real wages have decreased by 8-10%. All across the west it also noticeable that while productivity has increased dramatically (72.2% between 1979 and 2014 in the US), hourly wages have gone up by just 9.2% over this time.

wage productivity

It’s interesting to note that this clear disconnect between wages and productivity began in the late 1970’s early 80’s at a time when neoliberalism dominated the economic conversation. Further evidence highlights that during this period of rising inequality since 1979 the top 1% have seen their wages grow by 138%, while the bottom 90% have witnessed a modest 15% gain. The news is worse still for the working class and low wage workers, who have witnessed their wages reduced by 5%.

Many factors have been implicated regarding these disparities. First up, CEO’s are taking a larger share of the wages. In the US this ratio has increased from the CEO earning 22 times the average worker in 1974 to 296 times in 2012. Secondly, throughout the western world the minimum wage has lagged behind productivity and thirdly union membership has declined dramatically. This background information is purely to support the premise that economic inequality has grown substantially over 4 decades and these impacts are crucial to address if we want to move forward as a society.

Even a small reduction in economic inequality changes how people interact with each other, which has been proven to lead to more altruistic acts. Economically unequal societies have less participation in social and civic matters, including political activities such as voting. In addition to this, nations with larger economic disparities display a lower level of trust, which in turn is associated to a higher homicide rate and a decline in health. The mechanism behind this is based around the idea of social distancing, which is exacerbated by income inequality, leading to a decline of social capital, thus preventing strong relationships forming.

Trust plummets in more unequal societies and people start to want increasingly authoritarian leaders. Furthermore, in these types of countries people tend to believe that those at the top of the tree are more competent, while thinking competition between groups and individuals lead to the best outcomes. Finally, it is proposed that individuals in unequal societies are on the whole more disagreeable and less empathetic than people in more equal populations.

There is plenty evidence to suggest that reducing economic inequality doesn’t just positively affect most people from a physical perspective such as an increase of resources to partake fully in society, but would actually contribute to repairing many social fissures in the community, by focusing on what we have in common as human beings. This is in stark contrast to identity politics which sets out to fragment society into arbitrary groups based on things we cannot control. This ultimately will increase tribality within the population, allowing the ruling elite to continue securing all the spoils, while we fight among ourselves.

It’s not just neoliberalism that works against the plight of the working class, while destroying any form of solidarity, Critical Social Justice is equally as guilty. The primary purpose being, to unceremoniously split society into binaries, that of the oppressed and the oppressor. Inevitably, this leads to the so called oppressed groups fighting over the title of biggest victim. This has the effect of pitting group against group, distracting us from what is really important such as; climate change, health, crime, education, global armed conflict among many other topics.

shitty

To be truly on the left is to fight for universals such as; excellent education and healthcare for everyone on the planet. Our shared humanity is what binds us together, in as much as we endure pain, fragility, helplessness simply as part our human condition. There are 4.2 billion people in the world without sanitation and 2.2 billion without adequate clean drinking water, as well as genocide, torture and widespread violence all around the planet. But, Critical Race Theory or Intersectionality has very little interest in global inequality and offers nothing in the way of solutions.

We all acknowledge racism and prejudice exists, but here in the west we are living in some of the safest times in human history. This has been achieved by primarily socially liberal movements such as; the civil rights movement and second wave liberal feminism. It is clear that both universal liberalism and identity politics oppose social inequalities while seeking to remedy them, but each use substantially different approaches.

As opposed to identity politics, the liberal solution focuses on the individual and our shared humanity in order to attain a cohesive society, allowing everybody full access to rights, freedom and all the opportunities a society has to offer. Unlike identity politics universal liberalism is not a political position per se, but a philosophy founded on individuality, liberty, equal opportunities and universal human rights, which grew out of the Enlightenment.

It is worth pointing out that for decades these liberal ideals sat very comfortably on the left. Of course, this was until the arrival of the postmodern inspired Critical Social Justice Theory. Despite it’s persistent claim, Critical Social Justice is not in any way an extension of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. In fact this ideology could be considered as the antithesis of civil rights, focusing on group dynamics and not the individual which was what the original movement was founded upon.

Whether this proposed blend of economic and social theories will take hold remains to be seen. What does seem apparent is the left’s adoption of Critical Social Justice Theory will continue to fragment and diminish the prospect of any left leaning governments across the western world. However, if we can implement the notion of respecting our fellow human as a unique person, by making sure all members of society are considered equally valuable, supported and given the best environment to flourish, maybe we can start to advance together. My hope is, that we can rediscover what binds us together, while respecting, appreciating and celebrating our differences.

Roma and Gypsy Lives Matter: Or do they?

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

The Roma/Gypsy community are by far the most persecuted group in Europe. This is why I am making a case for Roma and Gypsy Lives Matter (RGLM). If we are looking for true equality and support for minority groups, why does this not make sense? The Romani in case people reading this don’t know or care (in which case proves my point) are an Indo-Aryan Ethnic group, who have been persecuted for many centuries and are considered the most intolerable group as recorded in several studies.

A survey in 2015 was conducted by YouGov.com in; Denmark, Finland, France, Britain, Germany, Norway and Sweden. In each nation this minority group garnered the most negative impressions. As an example, in Britain, a question asking “which group do people have the most negative impressions of”; Roma Gypsies scored 58%, Muslims 40%, gay people 9%, Black 8% and Jews 7%. Now, given recent high profile campaigns from Black Lives Matter and the weaponisation of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party (UK), you would be forgiven to display a certain amount of shock regarding the result. Especially given how the media have pushed the plight of both of these groups incessantly over the last few years.

It would seem that minority groups, therefore, do matter, but only certain ones or at the very least there is a pecking order. If at this point you are tempted to suggest that Romani/Gypsies lack power due to small numbers, it is worth noting in Britain that there are approximately 225,000 in the UK, which is a little less than the Jewish community (290,000). So, is it possible we have a ranking system that generally favours groups who possess power in the upper reaches of the establishment or who can manufacture enough political pressure to mobilise the ruling elite into supporting them? Maybe, people really don’t like Romani/Gypsies as discovered in the survey. But isn’t that racist? Or is that a term only reserved for the protection of certain groups?

I’m sure people will be quick to state that racism currently being protested has occurred for many years among black people and this is indeed true. Equally Romani/Gypsies were widely enslaved in what is now called modern day Romania in the 13th and 14th century. They were also persecuted by both the Mongols and the Ottoman empire. In 1749, Spain conducted “The Great Roundup of Romani (Gitanos)” in the region. Later in the 19th century Romani were forbidden on a racial basis to go outside of Europe, primarily into the English speaking world.

In both Austria and Spain, Romani were forced to assimilate, while surrendering large parts of their culture, primarily horse and carts (Austria) and their language (Spain). Also in Spain, Romani men were sent to separate workhouses, while their children were transported into orphanages. This type of forced assimilation also occurred in countries such as Norway, who took 1,500 children from their parents in the early 20th century.

gypsies

In more recent history, in 1935 Nazi Germany stripped Romani people of their German citizenship. They were imprisoned in concentration camps and many later exterminated. This genocide was supported also by allies of the Nazis such as; Croatia, Romania and Hungary. Numbers are hard to ascertain, but figures are generally thought to be between 200,000-500,000, but could be as high as 1.5 million people. This is what Romani call “Porajmos“, which means devouring and was part of Nazi Germany’s ethnic cleansing campaign.

In the contemporary world, Romani are associated with poverty and accused of high rates of crime, while perceived by others as antisocial and inappropriate. In Eastern Europe some children still have to attend separate Roma schools which places them at an academic disadvantage. In Kosovo following the war, Romani people have been practically wiped out by ethnic Albanians. Furthermore, as late as 1973 Czechoslovakia carried out a terrible program of sterilisation of Romani women which continued until 1989.

The list of oppression is a long one, but the point is, when we are looking at group oppression certain ones get widespread recognition and others clearly don’t. This is a tricky game to play, unless you don’t truly care about equality, in which case you are free to pick the groups that you find palatable. Or maybe you support a group that you think will get you more likes or follows on social media. Which again smacks of racism.

Wouldn’t it be easier if we just treated all people with respect. Or as Dr Martin Luther King Jr more eloquently said;

mlk-content-character

Sadly, even the words of one of the most important human beings in history does not seem to pass the purity test in the minds of many of these so called anti-racists. As I have repeatedly said, identity politics will lead to nowhere good and will achieve nothing positive. It serves to divide us and alienate us from our shared humanity. I used the Roma/Gypsy community as a suitable example in order to highlight the double standards on display and the misguided use of this divisive form of politics. The bottom line is, we need to treat all people with dignity and respect, judging people by immutable traits we cannot control is not the way forward.

The trouble with centrists is…..

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

Justin Trudeau, bless him. This is a man who built a whole brand on identity politics, changing laws in Canada to fit his political agenda. This is a leader who is happy to continue former PM Stephen Harper’s work, destroying Alberta in order to pursue only the dirtiest of methods to produce oil. In contrast Trudeau has constructed a government that is morally outraged if an individual is caught using the wrong pronouns regarding someone’s identity. This type of “faux pas” potentially can land you in big trouble under Bill C-16! So forgive me if I take some time out of my day to ridicule this man.

If you are going take the path of the identarian righteous, be sure to have no skeletons in your cupboard/closet or ensure that you’ve deleted any trace of being a fallible human being. It’s a little like “original sin” only Social Justice Warriors usually offer no form of redemption. I’d like to think that the SJW brigade will be as hard on him as they would be on any other cis gendered, white man, who transgresses across their puritanical boundaries, but alas, I suspect equal handedness is not an identarians strong point.

For those who have been living in a cave, or quite rightly have better things to do, you may have missed that Mr Social Justice dressed up as a genie nearly 20 years ago, complete with brownface. Some of you will be instinctively outraged and consider this as deeply racist. While the more pragmatic among us are probably thinking “well that wasn’t a smart thing to do, if you’re going to pursue a career in public office built entirely on identity politics”. Just for reference, you’ll find me in group two.

Do I think what he did was racist? Nah, it has to be put into context, but context appears illusive in this era of instant outrage. Under normal circumstances identarians both in the media and among the activists would devour him, but I guess Super Justin will get a pass. He’s already rocked up to the cameras while giving his best little boy lost impersonation and he may well cop a little flack, but in the end I’m sure he’ll live to fight another day.

This, however, is not an article on the exploits of Teflon Trudeau, but more about the hypocrisy centrists in general. Firstly I acknowledge that the term liberal is as wide as the political chasm between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. It has quite specific meanings dependent on the country involved. In the US it can range from centre right often known as classical liberalism through to the centre left sometimes called modern liberalism, which includes social liberalism. Hence, why I opted for the term centrist.

It’s a political stance that could be used to describe Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau, Hillary Clinton, Jo Swinson (Lib Dems UK), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP UK) and Joe Biden (US ex Vice President) among countless others. In short, a centrist makes an appeal to the public based on competency. The idea is to appear slick, media savvy and professional, a political insider if you will. This of course can backfire spectacularly if confronted with a populist or outsider such as Trump, as seen in the case of Hillary Clinton.

HRC smug

Many people have suggested that centrist politics in our current polarised political climate are dead, but not so quick with the obituary. Firstly, I’m going to propose a simple definition to make thinks easier when separating centrist liberals from the left. My view goes as follows; if you embrace capitalism and promote it as the best way for society to proceed and flourish, then you are not on the left. To clarify, you could be stuck in a capitalist society working towards substantial change through democratic means, such as Corbyn, for me that’s fine. But, to not search or strive for a better system outside of capitalism is a departure from the left, in my opinion.

In recent times centrists, liberals, 3rd wayers or whatever you want to call them generally promote shades of a similar viewpoint. It goes roughly like this, they support capitalism, some more fervently than others and they routinely use social justice as a tool of control. The whole “liberal” thing can be baffling, from the Democrats in the US, the Liberals Democrats in the UK, the Liberal Party in Canada and even the confusingly named Australian Liberal Party, which describe themselves as centre-right. Simplistically, what all of these parties have in common is they have nothing to do with the left.

Of course there are a small group of politicians who are part of the Democrats and who proclaim to be on the left, however, the driving force is still very much from the centre/centre-right or corporate Democrats. This was never more obvious, than when Bernie Sanders ran in the 2016 primaries and how biased the DNC were in favour of Hillary Clinton. In global terms many of Bernie’s proposals would be seen no more than common sense centrist ideas, hardly an extremist. Although, in the socialist phobic US he is laughably considered in some political circles as the reincarnation of Lenin.

In many ways I have more of a problem with centrists than I do with the Republicans (US), Conservatives (UK) and the National Party (NZ). With right-wingers you know where you stand, unless of course you are politically illiterate or simply uninterested. Take Boris Johnson, he is an upper class Conservative Prime Minister, who is a direct descendant from George II and a distant cousin of the present Queen. His full name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, he was educated at Eton School and attended Oxford University. It doesn’t take a genius to work out he probably isn’t a man of the people or not people you and I know.

In contrast centrists may sound like they care, they’ll talk endlessly about reducing gender wage gaps, and racial inequality. They may even look and appear empathic, but underneath the façade they are deeply committed to corporate capitalism. Former President, Barack Obama was the poster boy of centrism, known for his shapeshifting style of politics, consisting of all spin and no substance. Incidentally, he left the White House with the military still bombing 8 countries, more than George W, while stealing from the US treasury to enrich the corporate elite.

Obama didn’t invent identity politics, but he did manage to force it upon the mainstream’s consciousness. In brief, it is the notion that an individual’s varying identities shape their political views and is the primary method for which most parties now rally support. In many nations within the ‘anglosphere’ the idea of “one nation” or the notion of being “colour blind” or “group blind” is considered outdated and racist. However, this approach was born not out of ignorance for other people’s struggles, rather out of unity to fight against the tiny cabal of the ruling elite that continue to pull the strings even today.

Now, competing groups repeatedly fight for airtime, desperate to be recognised as more oppressed than the other. This moves away from inclusion and universalism towards a society punctuated by deep division. What transpires is exclusivity and a hierarchy regarding who can or cannot speak on certain matters based on their identity. As the game continues, groups split further, in their quest for the title of the least privileged. In general, when groups feel threatened and ignored they retreat into tribalism closing ranks, while becoming more authoritarian and punitive towards outsiders. This is occurring all over the political map and is quite clearly not a galvanising force.

In the US one of the major factors that separates the left from the right is identity politics. Even most political commentators will declare someone on the left or indeed the far left completely dependent on their views around social justice. In the US there is no coherent or forceful economic argument critiquing capitalism while envisioning an alternative path forward. All roads inevitably lead to identity politics, but this is a cul de sac offering no unified vision for a movement that could benefit the most amount of people.

Centrists are marinated in hypocrisy. They talk about equality, but only in the narrow corridor of identity be it; race, gender or sexuality. This conveniently ignores something that affects more people on a daily basis than any other factor. An issue that can cause premature death, an escalation in crime, poorer education, an increase in wars, a demise in social cohesion, destruction of our planet and an erosion of our wellbeing. This my friends is the gap in social economic status, both through relative poverty and general poverty. It has a profound effect on the quality of life and the cause is capitalism.

Returning to Trudeau and his liberal ‘credentials’. In 2018 Trudeau proposed to nationalise the Kinder Morgan pipeline running from the tar sands in Alberta to British Columbia. Trudeau stated to a room full of oil executives back in 2017, “which country would leave 173bn barrels in the ground”. My answer would be, a government and Prime Minister who truly cares about the planet including its inhabitants. This is a typical centrist strategy which they like to refer to as pragmatism. In truth Trudeau is playing politics, to not go ahead with his pro-oil stance could result in a damaging backlash in Alberta, thus jeopardising any future re-election hopes.

JT
Trudeau virtue signalling

Where Trudeau excels, is playing the equity card and his carefully crafted persona. He calls himself a feminist and was quick to assemble a gender-balanced cabinet, while appointing a significant number of people of colour to cabinet positions. Despite his posturing as a purveyor of all things social justice, Captain Fantastic is still happy to sell weapons to some of the most vicious and misogynistic countries in the world; Saudi Arabia and Columbia to name a couple. Trudeau is pro Trans Pacific Partnership and his main idea regarding reducing economic inequality as stated in Davos recently was to hire more women. He is the master of centrist deception, saying one thing but doing another.

People in the UK have seen first hand the empty rhetoric of a centrist in the form of Tony Blair, the master of spin, treachery and deceit. Like Obama, Blair managed to convince the working class after years of Thatcherism and then John Major that he could offer something different for the people. What Blair did do was market his product better than the Tories, while putting the financialisaton of the country on steroids.

To his credit Tony Blair introduced to the UK Sure Start and the minimum wage, but he also ushered in university tuition fees and the “Academy Scheme”, consisting of schools that were publicly financed while privately administrated. In health he created an internal market within the NHS and used the Public Finance Initiative to fund reforms. This was a private-public partnership that has proved more expensive than any publicly funded solution would have been. Blair also deregulated the finance sector, while declaring the Bank of England independent. Most of these ideas were purposefully ripped straight out of the Milton Friedman playbook for a neoliberal economy.

Blair also made a point of switching his target voters from the working class to the middle class, losing hundreds and thousands of core Labour Party members across traditional Labour heartlands. Millions of people in the North, the Midlands and areas such as South Wales felt marginalised or excluded from any economic prosperity. Despite all of this his worst decision undoubtedly, was taking Britain to war in Iraq on a lie centred around the illusive “weapons of mass destruction”. No politician’s reputation should remain intact after such a catastrophic move.

In the UK today still exists what is generally known as Britain’s 3rd party, the Liberal Democrats, a self proclaimed centrist group, currently led by Jo Swinson. The Lib Dem’s recent history is patchy at best, being complicit with the Conservatives throughout David Cameron’s austerity offensive during the time of the Con/Lib Dem coalition government. This saw their MP numbers reduce from 57 MP’s to 8, now however, they seem to be on the ascendancy thanks to their use of Brexit and splits within the two main parties.

New defecting MP’s such as Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger are prototypical centrists, careerist MP’s who fitted in well with New Labour, but not so snug in Jeremy Corbyn’s democratic socialist idea of the Labour Party. Supposedly pragmatic, they are slick, polished and completely driven by identity politics. Spending the best part of the last two years trying to oust Corbyn on fabricated and unfounded anti-Semitic allegations.

Head honcho Jo Swinson has aligned the Lib Dems as the primary remain party, the ultimate safe space for the middle class, bourgeoisie pious brigade. A group who insists on telling any ‘leave’ voter who will listen (or not) how wrong, racist and stupid they are. Without even considering the individual’s personal reasons for choosing Brexit, which incidentally was primarily a kickback against the neoliberal establishment, for which centrists are so wedded to. It’s important to note that during the coalition government, Swinson regularly presided over austerity and tax cuts for the rich. Just to clarify, here’s a portion of Jo Swinson’s voting record.

jo swinson voting record

I’ve written this article with the hope of reminding people that an enemy to the people doesn’t automatically possess diametrically opposing views. Sometimes they are parasitic politicians or parties awaiting a chance to latch on so they can benefit from a volatile situation, such as Brexit. Chameleon’s who will say one thing and do the opposite (Obama) or who will champion the requirements of the wealthy to the detriment of the poorest in society while furthering their own careers (Hillary Clinton).

In summary, centrists are made up of professional politicians who will meticulously groom their image and mould themselves accordingly in order to obtain the highest office. These are people who will never reveal what they truly believe, all we are provided with is the hollow shell of a purposefully manufactured, careerist politician. But sometimes, just occasionally like Justin Trudeau they get caught out. Which frankly makes me smile from ear to ear. Just don’t expect too much to come from it.

Antifa: friend or foe?

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

I’ll nail my colours to the mast right from the start. I am primarily a Libertarian/ Democratic Socialist, mainly in tune with the works of Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin. I certainly agree with a more civil path to implement change. You could say a peaceful revolution, and no that isn’t an oxymoron. I strongly suggest that we must have direct democracy on every conceivable level. The class struggle and the fight against suffocating economic inequality is vitally important.

We need a message and a reason to bring people together, such as the quest to end neoliberalism and grotesque inequality. For me this makes sense, as someone who also has a strong utilitarian streak, this would have a positive affect on the most amount of people, regardless of their identity. This is why I reject identity politics, because it fragments society and counters discrimination with more discrimination. So the question is, does Antifa who claim to fight fascism, represent me, the majority of the left and the working class?

quote-there-is-no-democracy-without-socialism-and-no-socialism-without-democracy-rosa-luxemburg-91-63-09

The simple answer is no. Violence rarely solves anything and cannot create a stable platform for long term democracy. On both sides of the political spectrum, something that has been created on the back of hostility generally requires strong arm tactics to maintain it. This has been witnessed in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina and Palestine. If your starting point is violence it can only escalate in a desperate attempt to keep control.

So who are Antifa? This is essentially a difficult question to answer, because it is generally used as an umbrella term. Plus they’re a fairly secretive bunch. On the whole Antifa have claimed the moral high-ground and yet they attack people who offer no physical threat to them, only a difference of opinion. When I looked on the Portland Oregon Antifa group, called Rose City Antifa, I saw a malleable use of language and an abundance of double standards. Even by their own admission, fascism is difficult to define. So let me help them out, because it surely must be difficult to fight something you can’t define. Here’s Merriam Webster’s crack at it;

Definition of Fascism

  1. Often capitalised: a political theory, movement, or regime (such as that of Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralised autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.
  2. A tendency or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality – J.W Aldridge

In contrast, Antifa’s FAQ’s page makes for exceptionally opaque reading regarding a definition of fascism. It is wordy and yet doesn’t actually say a great deal. The term fascism has been broadened to the point of being a meaningless catch all term. In effect fascism seems to be, whatever they choose it to be. If you ignore their ideology and focus on their actions you could be forgiven for thinking they are describing themselves. The “FAQ’s” section is littered with hypocrisy and inaccuracies, which are clearly used to justify their warped existence.

As an example, they offer that fascists are hostile towards Enlightenment values, which is hard to argue against, however, many of the issues Antifa fight for are antithetical to these very values they claim to defend. The Philly Antifa group offer that they defend trans rights, which is fine, but much of the trans argument is not based on the values of the Enlightenment, such as; science, logic and objectivity. In fact, the very nature of self identification is subjective and not grounded in any scientific rigour, such as the notion that sex and gender is on a spectrum. These ideas share more common ground with Postmodernism, which incidentally strongly opposes the Enlightenment.

There is no argument that Mussolini was a fascist, so too was Pinochet, General Videla could also claim the mantle of a full blooded fascist. A man who headed the Junta in Argentina, who among other generals oversaw the disappearance of 30,000 people between 1976 and 1983. But these are not the sort of characters Antifa are targeting. In contrast Antifa’s victims fail to occupy the same lofty and frightening fascist credentials of the men mentioned above.

Their recent assault on photojournalist and Quillette Editor Andy Ngo would seem to support the suggestion that this is less about halting fascism and more about preventing any dissenting voices to emerge. Without doubt Ngo has been a vociferous critic of Antifa, but quite clearly posed no physical threat to them whatsoever. For his troubles, he received punches to the face, had his equipment stolen and a milkshake thrown on him (which seems to be the trendy tactic of identarians these days). In the end, this cowardice attack landed Ngo in the emergency room with head injuries.

an 2

On the Rose City Antifa website, these ‘moral guardians’ claim to do battle against xenophobia, racism and homophobia and yet Andy Ngo is a gay, Vietnamese man. It would appear Mr Ngo is the wrong kind of homosexual son of immigrant’s. All this strongly infers Antifa’s moral claims are flimsy at best and more likely blatant lies in an effort to legitimise their violent actions. I fail to be convinced that Antifa possess any principled convictions, only a childish desperation to get their own way, like a petulant child.

Antifa is claimed by the right wing media to be made up of Marxists, Communists, Stalinists and any other ‘ist’ they can possibly dream up on Fox News. This is all done generally without any knowledge of what Marx even wrote about. This group I would hazard a guess, would be happy to be connected with such ideologies, feeling it would add some form of credence to their misguided cause. Both sides appear content with these convenient labels and so the idea of Antifa being on the far-left has stuck. However, when we dig a little into a couple of Antifa’s webpages, the idea of a proletarian Antifa carrying the fight to fascists and the bourgeois doesn’t ring true.

On the Philly Antifa site, their front page suggests they “are in direct conflict with Racism, Homophobia, Sexism, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Transphobia, and all other flavours of Fascism”. Firstly, if you direct you gaze back to the definition of fascism, most of these issues, although distasteful, uncivil, and surely scary if on the receiving end of such bigotry, are not directly connected to fascism. Secondly, on any of the Antifa sites I’ve browsed their is no mention of fighting for the working class, securing workers control and abolishing capitalism. This is an important point, as this crucially was Marx’s main thrust.

Marx’s primary work (unsurprisingly called Capital) consisted of critiquing capitalism to the nth degree. However, confusingly for a supposed leftist group there is no sign of a counter narrative calling for a push against capitalism on their sites. Undoubtedly, according to the content of their websites this appears to stir little interest among the ranks of Antifa. In fact their main objectives could be considered centrist/3rd way goals, as championed by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Justin Trudeau in Canada. Obviously these areas that they mention as their core issues, are unsavoury and it would be great if we could live in a world where discrimination of any sort wasn’t a factor, but equally these views do not constitute fascism.

JT
Trudeau virtue signalling

Third way politics headed by people like Tony Blair presented identity politics as a way to combat societal views considered unacceptable in his idea of a utopian world, while deflecting the populous away from the fact he was a neoliberal disciple. Democrats and Labour Parties around the world suddenly found themselves with a new enemy to rally against. Primarily anyone who didn’t think the same way as them. Meanwhile, the likes of Blair and Clinton continued to deregulate the financial sector with little resistance. This neoliberal blueprint has since been handed down to successive Prime Minister’s and President’s. During this time, the disenfranchised working class have been labelled public enemy number one, for not subserviently going along with this masterplan.

It is apparent that Antifa has more in common with the corporatist status quo, than they would care to admit. Incidentally, they only seem to have resurfaced since the arrival of Donald Trump. This is significant, because many workings of the government have changed little since Obama’s departure. For example the US have continued with their usual aggressive foreign policy. Of course, Trump is a narcissistic, sexist, bigoted idiot, who has no moral integrity, uttering anything so that he can maintain power. However, Antifa are more concerned with this loud mouthed political puppet, rather than the government machinery that continues to perpetuate massive inequality, climate change inaction and endless bombings of sovereign nations.

I have a very strong suspicion that Antifa are comprised of middle class, relatively well educated, financially comfortable, identarians and are the attack dogs of the liberal elite. This political class have recently been rejected by the working class, in the form of Brexit and the election of Trump. With many people voting against both Hilary Clinton and the chance to remain in the EU. This maligned group are now used as a conduit for hate, therefore, a seemingly appropriate target for these masked thugs. Cunningly, conflicting or opposing worldviews have been rebranded as hate speech, providing a justification for such violence.

This slide from a differing point of view, to suddenly branding an opinion as hate is known as concept creep, where definitions broaden and behaviour that is less extreme is suddenly considered dangerous, such as ‘problematic’ opinions. It’s this very idea that supports the notion that “words are violence“, leading to punishment, which includes no platforming, censorship or violence. This is then passed off as a valid response and classified as a form of self-defence.

Far from being defenders of the free world Antifa are authoritarian and these self-proclaimed arbiters of morality silence all murmurings of dissent in any way they see fit. This includes the shutting down of free speech, peacefully or otherwise. On the Rose City website this group admits that it is no fan of free speech, describing it as “not applicable”. They would also prefer the state to take a back seat when tackling far-right views or fascism, so that these vigilantes can directly confront transgressors. This is worrying as Antifa clearly have no idea what fascism is, making fighting it I would imagine, pretty tough going.

Equally disturbing, is the leeway mainstream media grants this group, playing down or at times openly supporting their actions. This should be seen as a red flag, signalling that this is not an anarchic left wing group, but a violent wing of the liberal elite, emboldened by selective mainstream journalism. The media regularly appear very keen to report that Antifa has a long storied history, all in an attempt to add a shred of legitimacy or decency to their questionable cause. This again is an effort to silence detractors, implying that if you are against Antifa you must be in support of fascists. Joe Rogan recently described them as middle class, privileged kids doing cos-play. I think they are slightly more dangerous than that, primarily because they hunt in packs and pick soft targets.

Does Antifa speak or act for me as a self proclaimed member of the left? Absolutely not. Do they support and protect the working class, the traditional core of the left? Not even in the slightest. They are defending the capitalist status quo, under the pretence of activism. Antifa are bourgeois, middle class, privileged thugs and bullies. They are more outraged by regrettable but relatively isolated incidents of racism or sexism than a system that has created a despicable level of inequality. This political ideology of neoliberalism is strongly connected to poor health, rising crime rates, sub-par education, a planet that is collapsing from over consumption and a precession of never ending wars.

Antifa has a myopic moral perspective, protecting dubious theories such as intersectionalism. They preach an authoritarian, puritanical, doctrine that has a religious quality to it, demanding full obedience at all times. As a group they fail on every conceivable level to protect and support the working class, the homeless and the powerless. All the while, endeavouring to do everything within their power to control how we act, what we say and how we think.

“How the left was won”. The planned demise of a working class movement.

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

The left as it was once known is withering away. Of course there are pockets of resistance, the much maligned Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters being a prime example. There are certain politicians who show signs of leftist principles based on the pursuance of economic equality, who then feel the need to balance it up, succumbing to the pressure of identity politics. This is principally because many of the identarian left also make up the rank and file of Bernie Sanders (US), Jeremy Corbyn (UK) and Jacinda Ardern’s (NZ) supporters. To ignore them would be committing political suicide, in a world where winning is paramount to implementing any sort of change within the ‘democratic system’.

This erosion of the economic left has occurred from many directions, from within and indeed externally of the leftist citadel. In the mid to late 70’s Keynesian social democratic policies were running out of steam and so entered Thatcher in 1979, with an individualistic ideology known as neoliberalism. This is a brutal system of capitalism that had been waiting in the wings for the day Keynesian economics eventually spluttered and finally collapsed. Thatcher began an overt attack on the working class, that still persists today, as she laid to waste any remaining industries, selling them off at an alarming rate, for the rich and middle classes to benefit from.

Thatcher

The ‘Iron Lady’ made no attempt to hide her disdain for any semblance of a community, as the UK miners can attest to. The UK and also New Zealand a little later from 1984 entered a rabid world of competition and consumption, where more was better and if you didn’t succeed, you only had yourself to blame. Sadly today, this attitude is considered the societal norm across much of the world, where people fight for whatever metaphorical scraps are left on the table. Neoliberalism for many is the only political system they have ever known. With this in mind it’s not surprising the left with a more collectivist, traditionally compassionate perspective struggles to gain traction among the wolves of capitalism.

It makes sense that right wing policies from the Conservatives, Republican’s and National would attempt to manipulate the working class to gain more profit for their mates, but these attacks also occurred from inside “camp lefty”. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair made it clear that they were switching targets in the 90’s, coveting the middle class vote. While the relaxing of financial restrictions, such as Glass Steagall in the US echoed these sentiments. In the UK, Brown and Blair allowed the banks ever more leeway, contributing to the financial crash of 2008.

To appease their newly found middle class and professional class voters, these disciples of the “third way” focused on social justice concessions. This fight for rights for minorities was music to middle class ears, who had little money worries, just everyday dilemmas such as; where to go on holiday that year, or whether to build a summer house or install a new kitchen. Meanwhile, industry after industry was decimated and areas such as the North, the Midlands and South Wales, became one huge call centre, up until these jobs were inevitably shipped off shore, leading to even more unemployment

call centre

Now in the UK, the gig economy (bullshit jobs to you and me) account for 4.7 million workers, doubling in just three years. These jobs possess sparse workers rights, no paid holidays, little security and often requires employees to take on two jobs to cover the bills. This is not a basis for a secure society, but the disparity between the haves and have nots can be witnessed in voting habits. Starting with Blair and Clinton, these traditional working class parties gave up on the very people they were supposed to represent, in search of a less grimy class of voter. This societal neglect has since been returned with interest by the working class, in the form of Brexit and the election of Trump.

The middle class and lefty elite’s reactions on both sides of the pond, was to blame the very people who been shafted for decades, calling them xenophobic, racist or just plain dumb. I’m sure victim blaming is a massive taboo among the identarian left, but alas, maybe they are just the wrong kind of victim. In centrist, middle class land, the gender wage gap (which is a dubious statistic at best) and the crusade to get an even 50% of men and women in all high powered jobs, seems to be on the forefront of the identarian mind. Often they are people who come from very comfortable backgrounds, have attended university, possess very little life experiences, but insist on taking the moral high ground, but chiefly only on issues that directly concern them.

Maybe, just maybe there isn’t enough women who want to be CEO’s in top corporations to make up the 50% quota, or even MP’s or engineers for that matter. Lets be honest, who would blame them, CEO’s are often “Alpha Male” narcissists, who put their life and family on hold, working 80 hours a week for the sake of financial success, both theirs and the company’s. Incidentally, I have never seen identarians protesting to make up 50% of oil rig workers or other dangerous jobs. It also becomes eerily silent when highlighting areas women dominate, such as education (60% are of university graduates are women), new graduate medical students, psychology and publishing.

I am using this as an example to show the disconnect regarding the priorities of middle class, bourgeois, educated, professionals and the working class. Who’s main preoccupations are centred around feeding the kids, paying the bills, debts and getting decent work. If we look at “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs“, many working class people are desperately trying to get out of “Maslow’s Cellar”. While the champagne identarian pretend socialists are focused on growth needs, self-actualisation and trying get into the penthouse. To the centrist middle classes (who often classify themselves as left), the working class are an eyesore, an inconvenience and an enemy of civility. Personally, I would describe them as being crapped on from a great height, repeatedly for 4 decades and who are increasingly desperate for change.

8 stage maslows

The problem is, the working class have little representation. Most unions are toothless and throughout the western world working class MP’s are as rare as “rocking horse shit”. In the 1920’s 70% of Labour MP’s in the UK came from working class backgrounds. Since the 1980’s this has plummeted to today’s figure of just 8%. The powerless clearly lack any representation from people who can actually enact change. We are now awash with career MP’s, who are more interested in keeping their positions, with little experience outside of the political bubble. This is significant, in a recent study it was shown that working class MP’s have much more interest in welfare policies than careerists. In contrast these professional politicians are increasingly likely to adopt policies for political or strategic reasons in order to win over swing voters and ultimately elections.

None of this is set to change, as the working class will continue to be marginalised, silenced and underrepresented. In all likelihood this group will continue to avoid traditional left leaning parties such as Labour and its ilk. Despite Jeremy Corbyn’s hard work in this area, many people from the working class still consider Labour and the Democrats, as not representative of their values and concerns. The legacies of both Clinton and Blair are of course huge reasons for their warranted mistrust. I will conclude by suggesting that this has been a purposeful act by the right wing, the centrists, the media and the identarian left in order to quash working class concerns, while elevating their own self-serving agendas.

 

 

The failure of dialogue and the rise of political polarisation.

Posted on by leftinnewzealand

Question, how long does it take for a discussion on Facebook to turn into a childish name calling competition? Minutes, seconds, instantaneously? If you are on the left of Genghis Khan you are labelled a far left, snowflake, commie bastard and if you are considered to be on the right of Leon Trotsky you are thought of as an alt right, fascist, Nazi pig. There are absolutely no shades of grey in this equation. The overriding mentality suggests you are either with us or against us and if you are the latter, you don’t deserve an opinion because you are a worthless piece shit. At which point ends any faint hope of an adult conversation.

This is played out everyday on social media, in parliament, college campuses and the workplace. You have to devour the entire menu from either the rabid fascists or the commie bastards, otherwise you must be a troll and therefore, should be hung in the main square at noon. Only the team you favour is entitled to free speech and not everyone is allowed a platform or even a viewpoint. Looking at the state of political discourse, this polarisation is intensifying and doing democracy (what’s left of it) no good whatsoever. Below is a protest against Warren Farrell’s appearance at the University of Toronto in 2012, the event was discussing men’s issues, such as suicide. Apparently this wasn’t acceptable to the intersectional puritans.

Most people don’t agree with everything a political party serves up, but often we choose one which aligns with our beliefs, ideals and morals the best we can. This is quickly becoming “out of fashion” as a puritanical political ideology is starting to take over throughout the west. If for example, you show reservations regarding the effectiveness of modern day capitalism in certain quarters, you are suddenly lectured about how the Soviet Union and China was a failed experiment, killing millions of people, while probably being accused of supporting gulags and mass murder. In contrast, if one displays any mild dissent for example, on college campuses towards identity politics, you are immediately branded a misogynistic, racist, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, who probably voted Brexit and is Nigel Farage’s favourite real ale drinking buddy.

My examples hopefully sound ridiculous, but this absurdity is only matched by the lack of sane dialogue and nuance as witnessed in most political arenas. This ideological segregation leaps out at me, primarily because I don’t tick all the boxes of the self-ascribed modern day lefty. I am unashamedly an economic lefty, I believe economic inequality and poverty caused by runaway capitalism is primarily our biggest issue. It affects crime, social cohesion, health provision, education, the environment and foreign policy (aka constant war). Conversely, I view the identarian ‘left’ with it’s rigid all or nothing doctrine and it’s attempt to regulate societal acceptability as deeply disturbing.

Both sides of the political aisle, predictably, doggedly stick to their assigned media echo chambers. In the US, Fox News is the word of God (or indeed Rupert Murdoch) for conservatives while on the left MSNBC is often the liberals choice of propaganda, ceaselessly proclaiming yet another rehashed Russian/Trump accusation. In the UK political allegiance is chiefly grounded in Newspaper outlets; the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Sun tend to cover the varying classes of Brexit voting, apartheid supporting, right wing, sabre rattlers. While the Independent and the Guardian cater for the permanently outraged, woke middle class, remain voting, snowflakes, who are convinced they are the most enlightened human beings ever to have walked the earth. Negligent posting of any form of media outside of your scope of bigotry is punishable by death, or at the very least an accusation of being a despicable troll, rather than an independent thinker.

Newsflash, just because you may read articles outside of your political corridor at times, does not mean you are going to wake up one day the very antithesis of the person who went to bed that night. It is perfectly OK to challenge yourself with speakers and commentators you may not ordinarily agree with (in my case someone like Jordan Peterson). It is good to test what we believe, weighing up the information at hand, refining our ideas and sometimes, lo and behold changing them. This is indeed how we grow, develop or even strengthen our long held ideals. Picking a side and blindly sticking with it regardless of any changes that may have radically taken place within that group, such as Blair’s Labour years, is ludicrous.

As a society we seem to know less and less about our political opposites, yet we have ever stronger opinions about them. We often call for resignations, impeachments and no platforming, not necessarily in relation to what they stand for, but a caricature of what they are deemed to represent. In the US the Democrats have spent over two years trying to build a case against Donald Trump regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The allegations are baseless, but it appears easier than trying to work out why millions of working class white folk voted for him, without referring to them as racist and xenophobic.

MSNBC - Election Coverage - Season 2016
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC host and fulltime Russiagate conspiracy theorist.

The same can be said for Brexit, rather than acknowledging that millions of people particularly outside of the South East, have not benefitted from a system that has been at one with Europe for decades. It’s clearly more satisfying and simplistic to vomit ad hominem’s from a great moral height on the minions down below. Otherwise Remainer’s will have to recognise that neoliberalism either in or out of Europe will not help the working class and no amount of name calling or shaming is going to change that. Unfortunately this working class disenfranchisement has resulted in support for Semi-Gods (yes that’s what I said) such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. When society refuses to listen to its largely ignored, powerless members of the community, they may not protest like bourgeois, middle class know it all’s complete with face paint, but they will try to force change through the ballot box.

I would like to leave this piece with a message of hope, but I desperately fail to see one. Social media will make it increasingly easier for people to display more antagonism towards each other, typing the next line frantically before they have even read the previous reply. Papers sell more and people will watch more if we are perpetually at odds with each other. There will certainly be no solace found within these purveyors of propaganda, who stoke the daily fires of hate, purposefully spewing vitriolic hyperbole and division.

Finally political parties will do whatever is necessary to win and if it benefits society, it will be more luck than judgement. Billionaires will continue to influence big business, economic decisions, as well as national and international policy. In the other class hemisphere, the identarian left will endeavour to redefine societal norms, desperate to influence what we can say, write and think. So as along as the two factions never meet in the middle, government will be delighted and the populous ever more divided.