Portrait of a Sadist — The spectre around Jeremy Corbyn

Last year I was challenged by a friend to name a specific constant or inalienable right that the West has achieved and currently practices. Upon thought my response was free speech. This was met with derision. The invective that followed was less than heart-warming but somewhat surprising as there seemed to be a feeling, as I believe there is in the public square, that free speech as it is believed by many is a value much like equality or achievement. I think this is too weak, save for the basic explanation often regurgitated, free speech is THE mechanism by which we keep our society functioning, it’s as a consequence of free speech and the ability to speak that people can postulate truths as they see it or point to problems, articulate what they are so that society can solve them and come to a consensus. It is the one function we must conserve at all costs, any and all claims to repeal, rework or impinge on this must be met with deep scepticism.

Simultaneously, one can almost smell the whiff of anti-western sentiment gaining ground amidst influential writers such as Noam Chomsky. From his comprehensive though somewhat ideologically obedient critique of the Vietnam War through his waning judgement of activities concerning Milosevic’s aggressive attempt at a near extirpation of a people in the Balkans, up to his work regarding the US involvement in Iraq; the remaining constant is either that the West is to blame or that the reaction is a consequence of some imposing globalist agenda, were it not for our previous involvements in past conflicts then such resentment would not have manifested itself as it did.

Today, the determination to continuously recapitulate and not remove oneself from the shackles of decisions made in the past, it seems, is not an option yet one must consider the alternative. This narrative is anathema to me, it manifests itself as apologism for the most heinous of crimes committed and prescribed all the while presenting itself at home as the “unifier”.

Why bring this up though? Well, one cannot fail to take notice on the world stage, including at home, of the recrudescence of radical neo-Marxist ideologues masquerading as human rights’ advocates bereft of any unifying policy and quite content with the exclusion of groups as they see fit. Re-tooled Marxism branded alongside post-modernist theory such as that of Jacques Derrida a man driven by resentment, who claimed the only reason human beings categorise to begin with is to EXCLUDE not INCLUDE is at the root of these movements. This is a corrupt appeal to one’s proclivities towards self-abdication of responsibility in youth and it is finding fervour (or favour?) at an early stage — campus level.

Categories exclude and can be misused for purposes of exclusion, this is what unfair discrimination constitutes and people SHOULD be objecting to this, however the idea that the purpose is to EXCLUDE is an assault on reason itself because we categorise out of necessity that is to simplify the world so it is easier to experience; yet to equate the act of categorisation with discrimination is what the Post modernists have done and are doing. This is very dangerous, if you mandate acceptance you ferment hatred.

Within 15 or so years everything that happens at campus level will find its way to the public square, ergo this is NOT an alarmist perspective neither is it naïve. The various aims of promoting compelled speech that is the imposition to legislatively mandate what one must say as opposed to what one can’t say is beginning to take place now that the 3rd wave feminist provosts, black lives matters radicals et al are having influence on leaders in the West. Nobody can fail to miss Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders’ agreement to legislate on their behalves. This is what I am seeing at home with my subject’s constant referral to terms such as social justice. (One bristles) Radical egalitarians are no-one’s friend.

The manifestation of the aforementioned recalcitrant ideologies finds itself beginning to permeate civic institutions such as the Alberta Teacher’s Association in Canada where children are being taught there is no relationship between biology and gender. It is here at home in the UK where 3rd wave feminists flagrantly promote the soft bigotry of low expectations, all the while seemingly unaware that they are being taken for a ride by their peers. One need only look at the many websites of groups promoting current feminist theory, ethnicity studies and other pseudo disciplines. They are openly looking to recruit and indoctrinate women to be used as tools for activism and political infiltration.

Previous paragons of feminism are even deriding the new wave as ideologues willing to scrap all that women have achieved in favour of concepts such as ‘gender fluidity’. Christina Hoff Summers’ denunciation of LGBT group’s efforts to minimise women’s rights struggles in lieu of legislative power has been met with reprisals and, it seemed to me, a lack of solidarity.

PC authoritarians want no discussion amidst the cries of white privilege and other ‘isms. Analogous to this is Carl Jung’s premise of the unholy alliance that an oedipal mother formed with her child. If your mother is hyper dependent, you can either rebel or take the offering that is to say, “Never leave and I’ll never require that you do anything”. Ergo — “I’m going to teach you a political ideology and it will put you in a position of moral superiority, require no responsibility on your part and you’ll be able to victimise and demonise people and have a place where you can vent your resentment and scream”. This is happening to young people and is at the heart of today’s revolt.

There’s a corruption in the ideology adopted early on that “what I should do as a political idea is change you or the even the world”. If you want to change the world you should start by fighting the corruption in your own heart and mind. Get rid of your own fear, expand your skills, don’t be an uncarved block, stop being pathetic and refute shady offers of power that exclude people. That’s a real struggle that requires responsibility and you’ll place yourself in to the world stronger, even though it is easier to abandon that and complain about the entire structure of society. Individual liberty and opportunity with the element of accountability will bring you more peace.

The regurgitation of baron epithets such as ‘white privilege’ espoused by resentful 3rd wave feminists as an attempt to inculcate their students at all levels demonstrates an alarming paradox in rhetoric. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s comprehensive polemic in the Gulag Archipelago described the rise of internal repression in the Soviet Union brought about by the imposition of collective group based guilt. Marxist doctrines were over time transformed into the murderous outcomes of the Soviet Union. Soviets killed the productive farmers in the late 1920’s, most of whom it must be noted, clambered up the peasant ranks –and were producing most of Russia’s agricultural output — were loaded on trains, shipped to Siberia, exterminated. The Soviet Union collectivised the farms and as a consequence during the 1930’s, 6 million Ukrainians starved to death. As dialectic is the interpenetration of opposites the resulting synthesis of which is the essence of Marxist Theory one cannot take these modern movements to be anything but ideologically compromised power movements predicated on the oversimplification of its narrative.

Alfred North Whitehead stated, “The purpose of thinking is so that we can let our ideas die instead of ourselves”. People looking for an instant reactionary / evasive position here do not deserve the name radical. The far reaches of this bi-modal spectrum which has gained ground amidst the chaos in today’s society, characterised whimsically by Maajid Nawaaz (a noble figure seeking enlightenment within the Islamic faith today and to whom I hold solidarity), as “Ctrl Left, Alt Right, Delete”, is being played out. It is my opinion, as I see it, that groups largely sympathetic to my subject are promoting themselves with antithetical rhetoric which affects the mind and will ultimately negatively impact future discourse.

This is masochism but it is being offered to you by a sadist.