The Day My Earth Titled Right
On 27 August 2012 I was watching an episode of QandA whilst following the action on twitter. During the course of the program, a popular lefty feminist tweeted that the ALP was “a racist institution”. As the tweet played out several people, all of whom were white men, proceeded to try and dialogue that the ALP was not “a racist institution” but in reply all that was offered by the lefty was:
- Accusations that their tweets were patronising;
- Accusation that their attempt to dialogue with her was controlling how she should feel;
- The occasional one word dismissal of their opinions with a “Yawn”; and finally
- Her own patronising reference to them as ‘kids’.
It should be added that the lefty was a university educated lawyer and a very public human rights advocate who frequently laments the state of the world and demands we all change to suit her preference.
Forever now I will remember 27 August 2012 as the day I started to believe that the world should move to the right. Not because of the right’s politics, but because it still allows dialogue. Since August 2012 we’ve seen Gamergate, the outrage of the Return of Kings meetup (pro-rape mob indeed), the attempt by the media to dismiss Trump, attempts by SJW’s to silence Dr Robert Jordan and much more.
The wildebeest of the Serengeti don’t migrate for any other reason than their basic needs of food and water. I believe what we are seeing with Trump, Brexit and the rise of the Alt-Right is simply a migration of people towards what they need, the free exchange of opinion.
Willing dialogue between two people with differing opinions is infinitely preferable to willing violence between two people with differing opinions, which is where the human race is destined to arrive at if we stop talking to each other. Conversation between two intelligent people is the only hope we have of exchanging error for truth in a great many areas of our daily lives and I think we all know this. We might not all have read J.S. Mill but at some point in our lives we have all failed to get what we need because either we were unable to explain ourselves, or someone else would not listen to us when we tried to make ourselves clear. This frustration is common to all people of The West.
I think we have primary needs like food, water and oxygen but more deeply we have secondary needs like moral guidance, formation of relationships and understanding the members of our community. The freedom to dialogue our way to these secondary needs must exist within society or we will fight until it exists. At the moment, the right wing of politics is gaining a monopoly on free speech. (With this in mind, the Right’s strategy is clear; keep the left rabid, maintain freedom of opinion in the Right.)
Being Told What To Do
Not only do we have a human need to be listened to, but we have a very severe human hatred for being told what to do. Right now in The West, 90% of people are; working hard, raising children, paying bills, being overtaxed, taking the kids to sport, enjoying retirement etc and do not have time to debate cultural and social issues online. When this 90% get the weekend paper and find out that Australia Day is being moved because it is racist or that to say “guys” is now considered sexist (regardless of whether anyone of those ‘threats’ play out as ‘realities’) they feel as though there is an invisible force limiting their liberties. People feel as though they went to work and while they were there some ratty bunch of activists forced through change via change.org without getting a say in it themselves. People identify this ratty bunch of activists with the left. Thus, we feel left is dictating what is an isn’t acceptable without consultation with the majority.
But I think that if we take a minute to look more closely, we’ll see that the first move in this dangerous game was not made by the right and therefore they really have no bragging rights. Rather, it was the left that has maneuvered us all into this unbalanced position. Sure, the right maintained its free speech position, which is admirable, but the real activity was the left abandoning it’s free speech position in favour of safe spaces, group think and closed mindedness. If this is the case, which I think it is, why would they do that which does not serve them? There are only four explanations that I can think of.
- They didn’t know they were doing it;
- They are subconsciously self sabotaging;
- They thought they could garner sympathy for their position by playing the victim;
- They have come under the control of a sinister force;
Let’s look at these options but also ask ourselves along the way, if we are correct and there is a movement to stifle free speech among the left, cui bono?
A – They didn’t know they were doing it
It is unlikely that the entire left did not know that stifling free speech was a poor move, but it is likely that the young and the politically naive might have thought ‘Trigglypuff‘ had the right idea. From there I could be convinced that the older heads just didn’t want to discourage the youngsters from politics so they let them get on with building safe spaces as an investment in the future and this is how we found ourselves where we are now.
B – They are subconsciously self harming
If there are subsections of the left that have propelled themselves into politics because they felt they had to do so, but now that they are there they are desperate to get out (and I’m really thinking feminism here), it is possible that self sabotaging is going on. Think about it, you’re 22 years old, an activist, think that the world should change and you’ve got a social media account from which you project this opinion every day for about 5 years. However, in time you realise that half the things you thought at 22 were wrong and the other half is far more complicated than you allowed for. Now you are faced with no option but to apologise, or…… stick to your guns but self sabotage so that you’ll never be forced into a position where your dreams become realities which prove that you’ve been wrong for the last 5 years. You can have your cake and eat it too. Have any opinion you want, never actually have to prove that it is right and blame the fact that you can’t realise your dreams on ‘hate speech’ and ‘misogyny’. I think this is a very real possibility.
C- They thought they could garner sympathy for their position by playing the victim
This is obviously a strong candidate for the reason we are looking for. For the SJW to step forth and dialogue openly is to risk defeat, or even worse it is to risk having to learn a different point of view. But to avoid engagement at all and play the victim from the start is a winning strategy for those who merely seek play on the emotions of others in order to win sympathetic agreement (even if the agreement is in appearance only).
D – They have come under the control of a sinister force;
Now this option is rather more interesting. If I was a right wing megalomaniac operating in a world where everyone is democratic and all wars are destined to end in nuclear holocaust, I would want people to move to the right so that they could vote me into power. I think I would understand that coaxing people over with assurances of giving them what they want is hard in the long run. Promise are difficult to keep. I think I would understand that people move quicker and with less deliberation when they are scared, like a heard. Therefore, all I would need to do would be to frighten people away from left by making the left look scary.
How would I do this? Well it would have to involve using the left’s true nature and by that I mean true human nature. All humans are emotive first and then rational exponents of political philosophy second. If a right wing megalomaniac could intercept the left at the emotive stage and deny them passage to the rational stage, the mass actions by a pack of organised, emotive people should scare the hell out of the rest of the population. Who wouldn’t be scared of someone who gets #killallmen trending or thinks all alleged sexual assault victims should be believed without evidence?
I suspect that the following targets have been intercepted at the emotive stage and been denied access to the rational stage;
- wealthy white people with a strong sense of guilt;
- feminists with a strong sense of injustice;
- youth in general with a strong sense of fear; and
- racial minorities with a strong sense of anger;
My explanation for thinking the above must become the subject of a further series of articles.
When you control what the people must have, you control the people. That is a very powerful position to play from. The people must have the freedom to think and act for themselves, but they must also have the security of knowing that they live among rational people. If one side of a two sided battle can control both of these resources, we see that side rise. I believe we might be witnessing this a present.