The Ideology of Failure

by Stephen Pax Leonard

  With a socialist minority coalition Government, Sweden is anxious to silence all opposition to what seems to be a rather explicit pro-Islam and feminist agenda. Members of the Miljöpartiet (party to the current coalition Government in Sweden) seem incapable of speaking about anything but extremism and gay rights, but judging by the friends they keep apparently have no problem with Islamic extremism (surely the greatest enemy to the gay rights platform).37 A bonfire of incompatibilities. The leader of the party described 9/11 on live Swedish television as an olycka (‘accident’) and many leading members have been caught displaying hand gestures associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.38 Following the Åke Green case, church sermons in Sweden were monitored carefully by gay activists with the hope that parties such as this on the Left could effectively couple Church attendance with bigotry and homophobia. Such developments explain the obviously atheistic bias of the Swedish state media which takes its instructions from such ideologues.

  Freedom of speech is one thing, but now freedom of opinion and expression seems threatened too. It is no longer the case that people have the right to express their own views, and if they do so, there will be consequences. With actions like this, it seems the current paradigm is simply one where one must either sign up to the increasingly totalitarian liberalist agenda, or else one’s career is jeopardised.

  An objective outsider would surely conclude that hate-speech legislation has been drafted with a view to discriminate against the ethnic Swede or Briton, and to somewhat explicitly favour minorities. As a corollary to this, cartoons depicting Muhammed led to violence perpetrated by Muslims all over the world and resulted in the death of at least 200 people, but cartoons showing the gassing of a Swedish anti-mass immigration politician were ignored and apparently totally acceptable.

  The leader of the Swedish anti-mass-immigration party (Sverigedemokraterna), Jimmie Åkesson, was portrayed by journalists in Länstidningen, a social democratic newspaper in Östersund as a cockroach that needs gassing.39 A disproportionately large cockroach with the SD party emblem blazoned on its thorax is about to gobble up the party leader. His neck and caricatured head can be seen stemming from the creature’s mouth. Behind it stands a pest controller dressed in boiler suit and wearing a gas mask. The gas tank has all the emblems of the other Swedish political parties stuck to it. The pest controller is moving in and Jimmie is about to be exterminated.

  The symbolism could not be clearer. The SD is a political party that is made up of part humans, part insects. The whole image feeds into the Nazi imagery used in Hitler’s speeches when referring to the Jews as animals that should be exterminated. In a classic dehumanisation of political foes, dissidents to the Leftist agenda are to be exterminated. The only archetypes the cartoon can be associated with are the Nazi hate pictures of Jews in the 1930s. Those images paved the way for the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Sobi Bor and Bergen-Belsen and the execution of millions of Jews, as well as the mentally ill and other groups.

  There is increasingly a ban on satire, but once again only if the satire involves ideologically protected immigrant groups. A number of leading French intellectuals have been convicted of incitement to racial hatred for satirising or simply telling the truth about Muslim immigration: Renaud Camus (one of les nouveaux réactionnaries) faced charges and was ordered to pay 4,000 euros for saying that local French populations will be replaced by newcomers who produce faster.40 One might indeed argue that France’s sovereignty is under threat from Arab immigration, and that the French are living in a context of censorship. This is a fact, but as Pamela Geller always reminds us: ‘truth is the new hate-speech’.41 A French intellectual is unable to tell the truth, even in a way that could in no way be seen as racist, but female Arab immigrants break French law on a daily basis by wearing the niqab, the cloth that covers the face as part of sartorial hijab, which the Sarkozy Government banned. If caught, they are cautioned but never charged.

  When hate-speech laws are drafted in such a way as to ensure legal protection for ‘minority groups’, an Islamic fundamentalist promoting jihad on Swedish soil might not be charged, but an ethnic Swede denouncing militant Islam may be culpable. Hate-speech laws were introduced in a context of macroscopic, rising Islamic terrorism. As the law stands at the moment, they serve potentially to victimise the ethnic Swede. Their purpose appears to be to suppress the views that the illiberals cannot tolerate. The effect is precisely the opposite to what they should have been intended for. Depending on how they are implemented, hate-speech laws in Sweden might result in the loss of freedom of speech in public spheres, unless one is part of a minority. This is perverse (perhaps in the rhetoric of liberal groupthink a form of ‘racism’ against its own people, sometimes known as ‘reverse racism’) and is nothing but the ‘politics of folly’. In this respect, America has the advantage of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the making of any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

  In some cases, legislation appears to suggest that there can be only one permitted opinion, that of the islamogauchistes where religion is concerned. The Government wants to do the thinking for us, and it is therefore a regime that is increasingly tyrannical. The right to disagree is inherent in democracy; in certain west European states such as Sweden, that right is fading further in the public domain at least, and thus it is fair to assume that democracy is in danger. The acceptable discourse has become so narrow, it represents more or less the mono-perspective of barefaced propaganda, a propaganda which is supported, as we shall see in the essay ‘What is going on in Sweden?’, by all the State-subsidised national newspapers.

  Sweden appears to be unique in that it does not have a single national newspaper that will report anything tackling the anti-racist propaganda. It is an intellectual dishonesty of staggering proportions. The population has been to some degree socially engineered to put concepts such as ‘racism’ and ‘social justice’ before ‘reason’ and ‘logic’. Individual, critical thinking is frowned upon because by definition it would be ‘deviant’, as it would not follow the State propaganda. In the Soviet Union, this kind of totalitarianism pushed intellectuals underground to form resistance groups, secret meetings and discussion groups etc. In Sweden, they have not so much gone underground as just left the country. The only people that speak out about the statist groupthink are the foreigners and a handful of exiles. In some respects, it is the bureaucratic totalitarian’s dream because people do not question it.

  It is important not to legislate against ‘offence being taken’, because racist or sexist opinions will not go away just because we forbid their expression. We have a moral duty to laugh at fundamentalists of all kinds, but it has become dangerous to do so. There can be no immunity from mockery. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to articulate any judgement that is not in the favour of a minority. To suggest that one taste, religion or belief is ‘better’ than another might be perceived as ‘elitist’ and thus an offence to equality. But notice it is only the liberal elite themselves that hypocritically pass such judgement. The notions of feminism, equality and diversity are of no concern to the average woman on the street. They are too busy just surviving from day to day to dwell on such things.

  If we remove judgement of this kind, we will become the ‘robots’ that some American students furnished with campus hate-speech regulations, racial micro-aggression paranoia (on some American campuses such as the University of Minnesota, asking: ‘Where are you from?’ or saying ‘You people…’ or ‘You are so articulate’ is considered micro-aggression), gender-inclusive language and sexual harassment guidelines have already turned into.42 The University of California has an infantilising micro-aggression policy where such questions and statements (taken from their policy document) are not permissible and ‘legally actionable’ as: ‘I believe the most qualified person should get the job’; ‘America is the land of opportunity’; ‘I don’t believe in race’.43 Such statements apparently represent ‘one form of systemic everyday r
acism’. Elsewhere at Purdue University, describing America as a ‘melting-pot’ is considered micro-aggression.44 It is difficult to imagine a more uptight country than one that enacts linguistic codes which forbid interpersonal offence; such nonsense has a cartoon quality to it but it is spreading fast. Untenured academics, such as the armies of exploited adjuncts in America, will feel as if they have no choice but to abide by this post-Orwellian speech code laid down for them by these sclerotic institutions, for they know they will not get tenure if an authoritarian liberal could claim they are racist.

  On prestigious American University campuses such as Yale, students have signed petitions to repeal the First Amendment.45 At Harvard, they have dropped the title ‘Master’ because the students made the case that it evokes slavery.46 American Professors at UCLA have been accused of racial aggression for correcting students’ grammar.47 Students believed that grammar correction meant they were having an ideology imposed on them. This is the extent of ultra-liberal ideologising in these American factories of conformity. Similar stories can be found right across America. It is the ultimate hypocrisy: a generation of students who describe themselves as ‘tolerant’ embracing a culture of censorship. Universities should prepare students for life. By embracing such a mollycoddling culture, they are failing miserably in their task.

  Academia is no longer the place for open minds and free exchange of ideas that it should be. With these developments in North America at least, it looks more like a ‘closed shop’ which attempts to politicise every aspect of social life. North American (and increasingly European) universities operate under perverse belief systems that centre on victomological practices such as micro-aggression, safe-spaces, BRTs (Bias Response Teams) and no-platforming. More than 100 US universities have BRTs which aim to foster a ‘safe and inclusive environment’ by offering support to anyone ‘who has experienced an incident of bias’. A bias incident can occur whether the act is intentional or unintentional. So, no more jokes or irony. Language is being policed systematically in US universities and the result is a culture of silence. Nobody dares express an opinion in case it might be thought to convey a bias. Students are encouraged to report ‘biased’ speech to BRTs. All these universities employ the same vacuous, totalitarian speech code. They act like a homogeneous blob in their demands for heterogeneity. We provide a ‘safe and inclusive space’, they will insist. By psychological safety, they mean freedom from offence, which in itself is absurd. It is more or less impossible not to offend somebody at some point. Thus a safe environment is a silent one where there is no risk of any bias being expressed. When you have silence, you can run your ideological bull-dozer right over the masses. Shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. It creates instead a culture of fear and paranoia. The notion of ‘safety’ has become one of the most peculiar institutional sacred cows. The irony is that they think they are addressing the perennial post-modernist oppression, but instead have created through authoritarian means a truly oppressive environment. But that was perhaps intentional. Either way, it is a great pity for the generation of students going to university now. At university, you should not have to take yourself off to a quiet corner of the pub for an earnest chat.

  Dissenters, if there are any, are shamed into silence or in fact frequently removed from their posts. The politically correct monoculture is a rigid orthodoxy. As well as ‘safe’, institutions that use this speech code have to be ‘inclusive’. There is nothing inclusive about alienating everybody that does not subscribe to the totalitarian speech code. That is obviously exclusive. It is the antithesis of inclusivity. And so the virtue-signalling is entirely fake: a ‘safe’ and ‘inclusive’ institution is more probably an alienating, authoritarian monoculture that nurtures a psychological paranoia. Adjectives such as ‘safe’ and ‘inclusive’ are therefore institutional double-speak, but are an important part of the new political correctness, the social justice warrior (SJW) ideology, the new pseudo-‘progressive’ authoritarianism.

  The parrhesiastes employ this speech code of safety, inclusion, social justice etc. and wrap all their talk in terms of the Obama discourse of ‘values’ to make their discourse appear innocuous and well-intentioned, but they are in fact pursuing an insidious political ideology that is founded on intolerance. In a UK context, they like to think they are ‘inclusive’, but Brexiteers must stay away. ‘Values’ are once again part of the oratorically persuasive means to make an ideological position sacrosanct. It is a means of making a political statement, but dressing it up in semantic cotton wool. As with political correctness and ‘progress’, to object to values risks making one appear morally inferior. It is a form of moral totalitarianism that perversely uses morals as part of its propaganda warfare. In a totalitarian society, you don’t have the freedom to disagree. And this is more or less the case now.

  The people that use this speech code are on the whole post-modernists who like to frame every argument in terms of power relations and complain of oppression, and yet the entire purpose of discoursal practices such as these ideological speech codes is to sustain power relations, form group identities and create a peculiarly oppressive environment where dissent is not only socially awkward but where infringements on free speech may actually be considered hate-crime.

  By using words with positive connotations such as ‘values’, ‘justice’ and ‘progress’, the liberal-left have managed to make SJW a ‘naturalised’ ideology, i.e. it has for many won acceptance as non-ideological ‘common sense’. The word ‘values’ gives the impression that it is independent of ideological determination. It has become opaque, and is therefore no longer visible as an ideology, but appears instead as more of a social idiom. Since it does not appear ideological and since its reference terms seem morally positive, it is able to quickly become hegemonic at an institutional level. If everyone and every institution subscribes to these values, then they rapidly become meaningless. They are nothing more than ‘just-so’ statements. But in a way, this seems the point of the exercise in documenting the ‘values’ in the first place. It is to confirm that such and such institution has signed up to the erroneous worldview that one moral code is being declared ‘objectively true’.

  But ‘social justice’ is of course a misnomer. It is a clever attempt to take a term whose apparently good intentions one could hardly question. It is a ‘value’ after all. If ‘social justice’ meant helping the poor that would be fine, but it is in fact a blurry cover-term for everything from transgender rights to Islamophobia. It is a form of activism based on deeply polarising identity politics. The liberal-Left have corrupted the language before the conservatives could get a look in. We are ‘progressive, inclusive, safe and fight for social justice’. Who could possibly disagree with that? As Althusser reminds us, ideology works by disguising its ideological nature. Every totalitarian ideology needs a speech code, and this is the contemporary one. The ideology is amorphous with no fixed doctrine, but will seek to fetishise any ‘marginalised’ identity. In a world of proliferating gender identities, potentially new forms of marginalisation can appear all the time and they will be covered by the social justice rhetoric.

  American university campuses have become inquisitorial snow-flake havens for extremists whose actions are Talibanic. A climate of fear has descended on these indoctrination mills. Clinton Committees were set up at American universities to persuade all students to vote Clinton. Attendance at the Clinton Committee was obligatory for Faculty members. The Committee was used to report on students suspected of having voted for Trump. Some American academics have to attend workshops where they are informed students must be free to select their gender and race.

  In America and now in the UK, if you diverge from the nameless totalitarian agenda which acts almost as a secular religion, you will not be given tenure and certainly not be hired. Some universities in the West are beginning to resemble Orwellian nightmares where colleagues spy on one another, with managers reading colleagues’ e-mails (legal
ly under the Prevent legislation in the UK) to see if anybody is challenging the orthodoxy. Orthodox views are strongly held, but weakly supported. In certain parts of the Humanities and Social Sciences, conservative thinkers are non-existent. It is simple: if you are a conservative, you are not going to be hired. Students are unable to defend the orthodox views because they have never been challenged on them. If they are ever challenged, they will claim that ‘you are invalidating my existence’. If universities are not wedded to Mill’s principles (‘He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that’), then the whole future of knowledge is threatened.

  Causing offence in this environment could be a hate-crime. But now we are seeing these belief systems move from the university to society generally. This is the current trend. Not just students, but all of us are now being encouraged to be hyper-sensitive, to embrace this culture of blame where so-called oppressions such as racism and sexism have been wildly exaggerated. The West has embraced cultural nihilism: a pathological distaste for its own culture. And in order to implement the nihilistic agenda of multiculturalism, it has introduced hate-speech legislation, censorship of mainstream and social media. Censorship is spreading rapidly from the universities through the channels of our societies and in the UK is openly supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. Spain has banned the use of social media to call for protests, and the former British Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan, announced a plan to force teachers to report children who disapprove of homosexuality to police and social services under the guise of ‘fighting extremism’.48