Today’s Liberals: Unoriginal Cultural Marxists Exploiting Student Ignorance

It's a losing battle for those who consider free speech a core to democracy

A bulletin board on the UC Berkeley campus on April 27, 2017 in Berkeley, California. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

The April 28 marked an important day for both the U.S. and western liberal democracies around the world. On this day, regardless of what he may do as President, Donald Trump’s galvanization of the left has been incredibly important, because we now see their true colors, and what they really stand for. On a live feed of the AntiFa (“antifacist”) protest at UC Berkeley, one of their members said:

“Russia and China had to purge millions to institute communism—and so do we.”

Thought leaders have accused the left of cultural Marxism for a number of years, and—with the left’s constant push for gender-fluid pronouns, concepts of “white privilege” (and privilege in general), patriarchy, intersectionality and cultural appropriation—they’ve been right to do so. Most of these are clear attempts at social engineering for the purpose of redistributing power—whether real or perceived—to those deeming themselves oppressed in some way. More importantly, these “virtuous” souls believe they know so much better than the average person, and will handle that power appropriately.

The cat is now completely out of the bag. The left’s goal isn’t just cultural Marxism, but full blown communism. It isn’t even an original form of communism—because, like in the Soviet Union or Maoist China, and as remarked upon in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, everyone will now be equal… but some more equal than others. We see this in the left’s obsession with their hierarchy of oppression, where women like Linda Sarsour get a pass on anything they say or do purely on the basis of ethnicity and religious affiliation. Sarsour is apparently proud to share a speaking dais with Rasmea Odeh, a convicted terrorist, has tweeted that Ayaan Hirsa Ali should have her vagina taken away (classy, considering Ali was subjected to FGM as a child), and once said there is no place in feminism for people who support Israel. For this Sarsour was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people. If you’re a white heterosexual male, however, you’re at the bottom of the left’s hierarchy of oppression—so shut up and check your privilege (regardless of whether the facts are on your side). That’s doubled, by the way, if you’re from a minority but don’t want to tow the party line.

The left’s method isn’t original, either. Tell People that it’s someone else’s fault that they aren’t where they want to be in life. That they won’t be able to get a job, that they’ll be held back, that they’re oppressed, and that they need to fight those who have what they want and which is rightfully theirs. Tell this to college students, who haven’t actually lived in the real world, and it’s going to be even more effective because you’re exploiting their ignorance. These tactics are straight from The Communist Manifesto, where the proletariat was encouraged to rise up against their oppressive bourgeois overlords to seize the means of production for themselves.

If you’re a regular person who’s been working and paying taxes for any reasonable amount of time, you probably don’t have the time or energy to sit around thinking about idiot protestors wrecking havoc at university lectures, featuring people you may or may not have heard of. The problem? Not only do universities produce the leaders of our future, but these people have already infiltrated all forms of the government and public system, and are working to change it from within. At this point, our universities have fallen. They are so overrun by administrators, staff and students whose values do not align with freedom of speech, democracy or even critical thought (exactly what education is supposed to encourage) that no parent should send their kids to school for anything other than STEM subjects or degrees of a vocational nature.

As if the situation at university wasn’t bad enough, we now have feminist indoctrination occurring at the high school level in the Victorian state of Australia, where teachers are encouraged to develop “feminist collectives.” This new program introduces the concept of “white privilege,” dismisses the notion that sexism against men is possible, and is taught entirely from the gender feminist perspective. “Safe Schools”—which has ostensibly been promoted in Victorian primary levels (the equivalent of American elementary school) as an anti bullying program—is in fact a vehicle for teaching concepts like gender fluidity and having kids take part in homosexual role-playing. In Alberta, Canada, from grades seven and up, students are taught that there is no relationship between sex and gender—that gender is in fact a “social construct.”

To be clear, I have no issue with homosexuality or gender identity. What I do have a problem with is when children are “educated” (indoctrinated) with bogus concepts that come from the echo chambers of women’s/gender studies and their acolytes who are given carte blanche, as opposed to people with an education in biology. The architect of the Safe Schools program, Roz Ward, has an MA in Gender Studies and is a self-proclaimed Marxist. In May of 2016, she said:

“Now we just need to get rid of the racist Australian flag on top of state Parliament and get a red one up there and my work is done.”

Of course, criticism of the Safe Schools program is immediately shouted down as bigoted and homophobic, despite the fact that the creator’s goal is actually a communist engineering of society. At a Marxism conference, Ward said:

“To smooth the operation of capitalism the ruling class has benefited … from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia [which] serve to break the spirits of ordinary people [and make us] feel like we should live in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for people in those units.”

Nowhere in the world are homosexuality and gender identity more accepted than in the West, where tolerance is a core value. So long as you contribute to society (and we’re even lenient on that), you’re free to do what you like. But go to most countries in the Middle East and homosexuality, gender fluidity and even atheism will, at the very least, have you shunned—and more likely thrown off a building or hung by your neck from a crane. Badmouth the government in China and your family will be billed for the bullet put through your head. Say anything derogatory about the royal family in Thailand and you’ll have a not-so-pleasant stay in jail. Apparently freedom in western democracies is not enough, however, because the left feels that anyone who is white and heterosexual has too much privilege—and things need to be set aright by redistributing both money and power to those who best display the benevolence to use it correctly.

It is for this reason that Professor Jordan Peterson’s stand against the new bill in Canadian Parliament is so incredibly important. Many are calling him bigoted, asking why he is against nondiscrimination of transgender people, which is all the bill is seemingly about. The bill’s wording, however, is key. The law is enshrining a responsibility to use specific words at the request of another, based on how those people define themselves. In other words, the law seeks to enforce the use of “correct” terminology (and those coming up with the correct terminology are—guess what—your gender studies acolytes). Failure to do so will violate hate speech laws.

Right now in Australia, the government is seeking to change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as its current wording (put in place by the previous leftist government) makes it illegal to “offend and insult” on the basis of race or religion. Rightly so, the government considers it a step too far to make it illegal to insult or offend someone, because offense is much like beauty: in the eye of the beholder. To make it illegal is pure speech policing. It’s an unreasonable and impossible standard to hold people to, as journalist Andrew Bolt found out when he was prosecuted for two articles he wrote.

Of course, cultural Marxists immediately jumped into attack mode, saying that people don’t have the right to be racist or bigoted. That people who want to repeal the wording are just seeking permission to say offensive and horrible things, that we are essentially opening the floodgates to a tsunami of racism and bigotry. The problem with this is that it’s the worst possible version of the argument, and is intellectually lazy and assumes evil intent as a default. Not once has the best version of the argument been tackled: that, while there are racists and bigots out there, they make up a decreasingly small part of the population. Most people don’t act in such a way, and on the odd occasion that true offense occurs it isn’t intended and an apology quickly follows.

More importantly, this leaves journalists, thought leaders, commentators and any who challenge the status quo in public discourse in a precarious position, as Andrew Bolt found out. It is our job to ask the hard questions, to stir debate, hold people accountable and to push the public to think. This cannot happen when any time a question is asked or a position is put forward, someone is offended and runs to a court to prosecute and silence them. One of the great attributes of liberal Western democracies is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how stupid or ill informed it may be—but this is exactly what is under threat in many Western countries. It has already started with “anti-bias” training (the efficacy of which has not even been demonstrated) and continues with the current bill C-16 in Canada, AntiFa protests against conservative speakers, and the constant labelling of anyone who doesn’t tow the Marxist line as racist, bigoted or sexist.

I do not believe in the benevolence of self described social justice warriors or AntiFa protestors. They will tell anyone who will listen that they are just looking out for the rights of the oppressed, but their actions suggest otherwise. In fact, the obsession cultural Marxists have with bringing down white men, because of their perceived privilege—or in instantly demonizing a minority who decides to have their own opinion (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali)—is eerily similar to Stalin’s purge of the kulak peasantry in order to collectivize their land in Soviet Russia. These are the people who would declare entire swaths of people enemies of the state because they have accumulated even the most modest amount of success. Thankfully, in this case, cultural Marxists aren’t in charge—though not for lack of trying.

We can’t be passive any longer, because those of us considering freedom of speech a birthright and core to Western democracy are losing the battle. The mainstream media, the entertainment industry, universities and even YouTube are the voices of society, and they show every day that they no longer support Western liberal values. With any luck, the current wave of populism started by Brexit and the election of Donald Trump will show leaders around the world that the mostly silent majority need to be listened to, lest they give you a kick in the teeth at election time when they make themselves heard.

And this is the crux of the issue, and why I believe Trump won, Brexit was voted for, Marine Le Pen is a major contender and the conservatives have a vast majority in the lead up to the British election. Ordinary people, people who just want to live a good life, raise a family and live in peace, are being told that they are racist, that they have unearned privilege, that everyone else has it worse and that it is their job to be allies and to help dismantle an apparently unfair system.

History shows that speech policing is a slippery slope, because after that comes censorship and secret police. Ask anyone who lived in Soviet Russia or East Germany. These regimes tend to last a very long time because people are killed or imprisoned for their dissent. Soviet Russia lasted for almost 70 years; Maoist China for decades. Communist regimes were responsible for the deaths of over 100 million in the 20th century through a mix of famine, working people to death and executions. The Khmer Rouge killed one quarter of the population of Cambodia. This is the stuff wars were fought over in the 20th century—the most evil regimes the world has ever experienced.

No one ever said Western liberal democracy was perfect, but looking around the world today it’s very difficult to beat. The oppressive, privileged, white men of the past that people seem to hate so much were actually the ones that gave everyone so much more freedom than most other places in the world have right now. I want to see those freedoms continue. Make no mistake, it’s the great war of our time, and it’s a war that needs to be fought.

Pete Ross deconstructs the psychology and philosophy of the business world, careers and everyday life. You can follow him on Twitter @prometheandrive.