I’ll be honest, I never really wanted to write about politics. My primary interests were always history, philosophy and how those studies intersected with my study of all things occult and esoteric. I was always aware that my spurious and sometimes non-sensical ramblings about magic, giants and the New World Order would somewhat taint any serious research or considered political opinion I might give because I would assume that most people don’t believe its possible to both attempt scholarly research on speculative aspects of mysticism whist at the same time maintaining a rational brain on political matters. Truth is however, we’ve reached a point in our civilisation where it’s becoming increasingly salient to enter the political arena and rather than quietly make a disapproving face at people who seek to shout down or shut down political debate, actually become ideologically confrontational to them and force them into retreat.
As a classical English liberal, its been pretty interesting to see the shape of debate in the American political scene because in many ways it has mirrored my own problems with the left in Britain. In the last few years I have seen the goalposts shift significantly in terms of how the pendulum of public opinion swings. It was only a few years ago that I was part of a small political debate group which genuinely lifted my somewhat nihilistic and Anarchistic sentiment towards being politically ‘active’ beyond my own monkeysphere which had formed over years of simply not being able to find people I politically aligned with. It was a welcome challenge to have to maintain consistency among people who could and would call me out on logical errors, but it was only a matter of time before the spectre of Marxism would rear it’s ugly little head and I would find myself in the familiar position of being the only leftist secular humanist in the room who wasn’t enamoured with socialism, leaned far more toward anarchistic individualism and wasn’t looking to embolden or empower the state in order to do my bidding, no matter how compassionate or altruistic my ultimate political goals might be. As a political historian I was all too aware of the Frankfurt school of thought and the necessary expansion of the divisive Hegelian dialectic that socialism required and despite the fact I certainly wasn’t a Blairite by any stretch of the imagination, I welcomed the healthy debate that was happening on the left about what the left should actually be, how it should represent itself and how it should achieve it’s goals.
There was always the creeping thought in the back of mind however, that this kind of healthy debate and reverence for the modern intellectual powerhouses on both sides of the political coin, people like Christopher Hitchens and George Carlin on the left and William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell on the right, was dying out among modern generations and that with the introduction of the internet, for all it’s positives, we we’re going to start polarising opinion purely due to the propensity of human beings to ignore their cognitive bias and surround themselves with a digital monkeysphere of echo chambering and bias confirmation. I don’t think it’s too difficult to look at the effect of Facebook and Google on the average person and see that this is self-evident, very few people can genuinely engage on the topics they frequently post on and the ability to be anonymous and aggressively debate without having to actually personally address the person or the problem you are debating is a double-edged sword. It has allowed many disenfranchised people to have a voice they previously didn’t, but it has also meant that opinion is not tempered by interaction. This is how we have come to a stage where people on the left and the right find themselves being slandered as Nazi’s for going against the ever-changing prevailing social opinion. It’s funny that we used to go by the unwritten edict that anytime anyone violated Godwin’s Law, we stopped and put the debate back in check. Unwarranted comparisons to Hitler were an accepted violation of the terms of debate, they were an unofficial logical fallacy. There is good reasoning behind this adage. My understanding of the socratic method and my initial forays into political debate were forged in the late 20th and early 21st century when the internet wasn’t the omnipresent and somewhat malevolent force it is today. I learned very quickly that there was no place for political extremes in real debate because they got shouted down by the court of public opinion very quickly. Nazi’s weren’t being identified everywhere because if you turned up to a public debate and actually started espousing fascism or genocide that would be very quickly identified and defeated by better arguments. No fascist would dare walk into a debate with Christopher Hitchens because he would destroy them and no extreme socialist would idly waltz into debate with Peter Hitchens because he would do the same (as his Twitter account shows). Their debates, hell even their stints on C-SPAN are endlessly watchable because they are two brothers with wildly differing political opinions but who have the respect and dignity to actually debate each other properly and because they can’t just scream “FASCIST!!” and “COMMUNIST” at one another as ad hominem, they actually have to develop their wit and repartee in order subtly and lovingly jab at one another.
(So endlessly watchable in fact, I just watched all of that and lost my train of thought)
If there need be a crystallisation of the point I am making here, then it comes in no purer form than at the 7 minute mark in that debate, where Peter Hitchens makes a light-hearted joke that there would be grievance councillors available afterwards if anyone on the left felt offended by any of his opinions or even worse, agreed with them. It is both hilarious and depressing that a mere 2 decades later we have actually reached that point and it’s not a joke, it’s not people ironically parodying, it’s absolutely real. Nobody should be surprised that there was a blowback to Blairite neo-liberalism, that was inevitable. The way New Labour handed the party over to corporate interests and traditionally Conservative foreign policy in order to gain the vote is still considered by many as the direction the party should maintain, but as that inevitably meant that the workers basic needs and rights weren’t going to be addressed by the party created to address them, the workers would eventually revolt and force the party back to its original intention. It’s incredibly unfortunate that this revolt was ultimately directed by the neo-Marxist socialist wing of the party but to be fair, we must all take our share of the responsibility for that. I know I was too buried on Grimouires and fringe conspiracies over the last few years to care too much about the political landscape, but as Brexit and Trump happened those Globalist totalitarian surveillance state conspiracies once again crossed over into the political realm and I found myself once again debating contemporary politics by default. The rise of Jeremy Corbyn should, in reality shock nobody who has been keeping an eye on political trends for a couple of decades. My own experience of my own schools and universities had provided me enough of an insight into how Marxism was being pushed on ever younger students on an alarming scale. I myself once betrayed the Anarchism of my teens and had that fabled image of Che Guevara on my wall, flirted with the tide of the coming socialist revolution, allowed myself to believe intellectuals would bureaucracise our way out of all our societal problems which I felt, bar none, could be placed at the feet of our corporate masters and their bourgeoise. It wasn’t until I was clear of state institutions that I began to read, or for that matter was even presented with the counterpoint to those opinions, and began to understand just how malevolent and dangerous the State is and just how compromised I had been by its decades of propaganda. My own political journey after that mirrored very much the Late Chirsopher Hitchen’s move from Trotskyite to ever more rational individualist classical liberal but in the end I cannot betray my anarchist leanings, so I will never be able to be placed in any of the current identity boxes of the left. This presents a problem.
In 2018 Christopher Hitchens opinions on free speech are tantamount to oppression by the white male patriarchy and would have him branded a fascist. His learned and articulate criticism of Islam, forged in a genuine fight alongside the secular Kurds and years of being a leading debating figure on the edge of the atheist critique of all organised religion, would have him branded a Nazi. This is the shifting of the goalposts, and it has been defined by an embrace of such extreme neo-liberal marxist social attitudes and statism that it has unbalanced the political spectrum. And it’s not just the left who are experiencing the problem, it’s effecting anarchists, classical liberals, conservatives, essentially anyone to the right of Jane Fonda. “e’re it just a few marginalised groups on University campuses it wouldn’t be a problem. It seems however that this march toward totalitarian statism is taking over the debate. If you want egalitarianism and meritocracy as opposed to equality of outcomes the debate is so improperly framed that you will be called a Nazi. It’s why it is now becoming incredibly important not just to speak truths, but speak uncomfortable truths as loudly as possible.
This is why, despite the fact I disagree on many of the opinions they hold, I will continue to share and promote their debates and talks because if the mainstream is going to prostrate itself in the face of the screaming regressive left, then it falls to anyone who still believes in free speech and the open forum of ideas to subvert that in every way possible. As Ben Shapiro says, because the left has embraced this culture of perpetual victim-hood and identity politics, there is a demand for Nazi’s that simply isn’t being met but the actual supply. Genuine fascists and Nazi’s remain incredibly small in number and are mostly pushed to the fringes of political debate, but the regressive left have built their entire identity crusade on the back of the presence of oppressive fascist structures all around us and rather than admitting this is a false precept to begin with, they must now label anything and everything that disagrees with their prescribed solutions as a Nazi, even people who were formerly comrades in arms with the left like Dave Rubin.
Whilst America is truly in the grip of this battle, we are beginning to see it emerge in Britain too. Last week at kings college, Carl Benjamin the English classical liberal and Yaron Brook the Jewish objectivist met to have a debate, and had their party crashed by some brave Antifa warriors who forced the meeting to a different venue. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent but luckily the college administration acted with some grace, and Sargon is not one to cow-tow to intimidation. As with all these events, the SJW’s don’t seem to realise that all they are doing is giving ammunition to free speech advocates to turn around and mow them down with.
As with now infamous encounter Jordan Peterson had with Cathy Newman on the Channel 4 news highlighted perfectly, when confronted with logic the ill-logic of marxist identity politics crumbles incredibly quickly, which is why these regressives have decided that there is no point trying to debate with their political opponents, they must instead character assassinate, try to intimidate or simply shout ad hominem insults at them to try to shut them up. That debate could not have come at a more relevant time in this cuntry, and Dr. Peterson deserves a medal for leading a bigot to some self-realisations on the unreasonable bullshit she was spouting.
Though the tide seems to be turning in the U.S., Britain appears to be becoming more subtly SJW every day. Ony recently, the despicable racist Munroe Bergdof was hired by a Labour front-bencher as an adivsor on LGBT issues. It certainly isn’t that Ms. Bergdof hasn’t been roundly trashed and humiliated in the court of public opinion for her racial slander, that happened on one of Britain’s top political programmes “This Week”, where a motley assortment of Michael Portillo, Ed Balls and Andrew Neil took her to task on her abhorrent opinions.
But it no longer matters to Labour that these ideologues have been roundly beaten in the court of debate, like the election of Sadiq Kahn or the rise of Justin Trudeau in Canada, the floor is consistently being given those who virtue signal the strongest and those who most neatly fit the identarianism of the regressives. The same problem encountered on American campuses is now being seen on British campuses too and it’s leading to a degradation of debate and a genuine need for the centre right and centre left to become ever more vociferous in its condemnation of the extremes on both sides. In this climate of escalating polarisation, the only entity that truly wins is the state itself, who can both use the distraction to enact some pretty disgusting legislation, and has the luxury of having both sides of the debate clawing for more government regulation of speech, ever more totalitarian control of behaviour and ever more consolidated power over every aspect of our daily lives. These ‘progressives’ don’t want freedom, they don’t want liberty and they don’t want diversity or equality in any real terms other than their own warped interpretations of those concepts. They want uniformitarianism under their own flawed ideology, and their secular Marxist bible tells them they can use all the violence and all the underhand tactics they can to achieve it. This makes them just another organised religion in my eyes, these people have replaced the human need for idol worship and religion with their own secular religion of statism and in many ways, it is the most dangerous of all the religions. The need to rebalance the political spectrum and re-assert the importance of logic and reason over appeals to emotion and subjective claims of victimization is becoming ever more pressing, so I won’t apologise for making a point of sharing contrarian, controversial and even offensive counter-points simply for the fact that they need to be heard, debated and if they are illogical or unreasonable, defeated. There are no safe spaces, you are not allowed to go running to a room full of puppies to calm your fragile sensibilities. Grow the fuck up, enter the fray and sharpen your arguments by being proven wrong and refining your understanding, because the alternative is a situation nobody wants.