I am in complete support of women’s access to abortion services, but what difference does it make to somebody who believes abortion is murder whether the fetus is the product of incest or rape over against other pregnancy causes? We don’t kill children because their parents are related or because the father is a rapist. You don’t punish children for the crimes of others. The fetus is a child in the eyes of those who believe abortion is murder. The only reasonable exception given this premise is life of the mother, since then killing the fetus is analogous to self-defense.
Is this the candidate you should support for GOP Senator of Pennsylvania?
Complaints from those who support women’s access to abortion services over arguments that conceptualize life as beginning at the moment of conception of fertilization as well as the question of viability are also ineffective in this debate. Really, if one is being honest, one must grant that life at conception. Fertilization is the conception of a new human life. That’s biology. As for viability, suppose the fetus is viable at fifteen weeks, are authorities going to ask the woman seeking an abortion to undergo surgery to safely remove the fetus so it can grow in some other incubator artificial or living?
Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, November 2005.
The only viable argument for abortion is from liberty—appeal to the rights to bodily autonomy, personal sovereignty, and medical privacy. The woman doesn’t want to have the fetus inside her. That is the only criterion that matters. She needs no justification except that it is her body and therefore her choice. She can have something living in her body removed if she wants. To stop her from removing a fetus is to deprive her of fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. That’s tyranny. Her choice is none of your business. Stop being such a busybody.
“But doesn’t the fetus have those rights, too?” Does the person breaking into my house? Does the person trying to enslave me? Each have their rights inviolate until they violate the rights of others. My rights supersede theirs because they have no right to break into my house or enslave me (police with warrants and the judge who sentences me to hard labor have neither broken into my house nor enslaved me). Likewise, nobody has the right to use my body to sustain the life of another. It is an unjust interference with my liberty. You cannot have my kidney. It’s mine. I will decide what happens to it. This is true for every other part of my body.
How can it be, then, that the state can force her to sustain with her body the life of another person? A woman has the same rights that I have as a man. You cannot use her uterus to sustain the life of another person any more than you can use my kidney for this purpose (or any other). This would make women uniquely subjects of the state. It’s not only tyranny but discrimination on the basis of sex.
Currently, some 800,000 people have end-stage kidney disease, requiring either dialysis or a kidney transplant for survival. There are more than 50 thousands deaths every year from nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis, making kidney disease the tenth leading cause of death in America. Think of the lives saved if the state were to commandeer the healthy kidneys of Americans, most of whom have two healthy kidneys yet only need one. That most Americans would register outraged if the state were to announce such a life-saving program, yet many cannot muster the same outrage when it comes to the bodily autonomy of women, reveals a deep-seated patriarchal reflex. The desire in action reduces women to second-class status, making women objects of other people’s designs and purposes. It represents the supreme objectification of women.
I don’t want to hear conservatives talk about individual liberty if they’re not prepared to defend the clearest instantiation of it. If you support restricting abortion, then your liberty talk is in bad faith. Spare us your hypocrisy.
* * *
Afternoon note (same day): Protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices is profoundly authoritarian. I hear the incitement to violence against the judges—“If abortions aren’t safe, then neither are you.” An independent judiciary is one of the pillars of a free and rational society. It’s an expression of proto-fascistic mentality to attempt to intimidate judges into voting your politics or sharing your argument.
There is a vast difference between protesting the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court and showing up at the homes of politicians and judges in a threatening manner. Every person has a right to be secure from the mob and to live a quiet, private existence. A judge’s home is not a legitimate site of protest any more than a woman’s body is a legitimate site of state control.
Where is the Biden Administration on this outrage? Jen Psaki says the president “strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.” Words are not enough—especially not these words: “I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be.” Sounds more like encouragement and sympathy that condemnation.
Perhaps the national guard should be deployed around the homes of justices and the mob physically removed by police from these neighborhoods. Public safety suggests it. For sure this is stupid politics. Democratic strategist Paul Begala nails it when he says, “This is wrong, stupid, potentially dangerous, and politically counterproductive.” Exactly.
It would have helped a lot I think had those who believed in the right of women to not be incubators had also been vocal in their support of the right of individuals to not be quarantined, masked, and vaccinated.
I recently asked friends on Facebook to reflect on who has always been consistent on the question of bodily autonomy and medical privacy. Because Facebook continually punishes me for the content of my posts by lowering them in the news feed (at least they tell me they’re doing it; Twitter just shadow bans), it took a while before somebody asked me who I was asking them to remember. The answer, of course is me. I am the person who has been consistent on the question of bodily autonomy and medial privacy. I say this not to pat myself on the back, but to isolate one of the core problems in today’s politics: the abandonment of principle for partisanship in the rhetoric of left versus right.
The person who asked about who I was talking about remarked that “it’s odd how the same people who felt wearing a mask during a pandemic was tyrannical overreach by the gubment but forcing a women to carry a child she does not want is perfectly fine.” He is an extreme partisan on the side of the Democratic Party who frequently mocks conservatives by portraying them as hicks. He suggested that “if men could bare [sic] children those same people would me amassing with weapons to attack SCOTUS or congress.” I responded snarkily: “Just like the people who oppose restrictions on abortion were okay with forcing people to wear masks, locking down society, and mandatory vaccination.” He liked that comment because he had missed the point.
Alas, my provocation failed. I wanted somebody to scold me for drawing an equivalency between abortion and the COVID-19 pandemic. The equivalency is undeniable. The counterargument I anticipate is the argument that proves the point. “Masks and vaccines save lives. You don’t have the right to appeal to bodily autonomy and medical privacy when you could be carrying a virus that may sicken and even kill others.” I’m not imagining this line of attack. We heard this from progressives for months. Well, what does abortion do? If the state can force people to wear masks, quarantine, and receive mRNA injections to save lives, then does it not follow that the state can force people to carry a fetus to term? Preventing abortions save lives. The fetus is alive. There’s no getting around that. The fetus is a member of our species. It only has yet to be born. The question of life, viability, etc., is beside the point.
Please don’t forget—or if you don’t know my stance, read by blog—I support a woman’s right to be free from the practice of forced childbearing. I support this right on the same grounds that I support a woman’s right to free from the practice of forced vaccination. The death of a fetus or a grandmother is not as important as the liberty of the mother and granddaughter. I work from principle and the same principle operates beneath both actions. Abortion isn’t the right. Abortion is an instantiation of the right in question. The right is freedom from state tyranny. The demand is the defense of life, liberty, and property—our lives, our liberty, and property in self. Think of all those who were killed because they tried to deny the life, liberty, and property of others. Those weren’t murders.
I told my Facebook friend that the sides have been misspecified. By that I meant that the partisan divide, the way politics is articulated, force the same contradiction on both sides, where the principle of liberty is corrupted by ideology. The right wants the state to force people to give birth to save lives. The left wants the state to force people to receive mRNA injections to save lives. Yet, almost for sure, failing to force women to carry a fetus to term costs lives. The source of the contradiction is failure to obey principe. If principle is the consideration, then the sides are these: either the state strictly controls our bodies and our liberties for the sake of others, which is a perverse form of humanitarianism (a culture of masochism), or bodily autonomy and medical privacy are excluded from state control except where the state defends and upholds those rights. The sides are authoritarianism versus libertarianism.
Partisan politics confuses the matter even more with the recklessly deployment of the word “democracy.” The Washington Post runs the headline “In draft abortion ruling, Democrats see a court at odds with democracy.” That’s a weird take, since one of the primary arguments against Roe v Wade is that it circumvents the will of the people in those states who have voted to end or restrict the practice of abortion; a majority in support of abortion rights in New York is not a majority opposed to abortion rights in Mississippi. In fact, Roe was at odds with democracy when it was handed down.
That is, in fact, the conservative’s argument and it’s profoundly hypocritical in light of the constant rhetoric from that side about how the United States is a republic not a democracy. Conservatives do want democracy, conceptualized in its worst form as majoritarian, to determine not only whether women have to carry a fetus to term, but whether gays have access to the institution of marriage. But these are not things society should ever subject to majority rule, as they are rights, and rights are for individuals to determine, not the collective. The collective is only obligated to defend rights. Reproductive freedom is not a matter of majority rule any more than slavery is. It’s not even an analogy.
One last thing. If there is no right to privacy, as we have heard conservatives say concerning the basis of Roe (see my recent blog on the problems with the 1973 decision), then on what principle does the Fourth Amendment rest? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” If there were no right to privacy assumed in that amendment, then why would there be any problem with the state arbitrarily violating the security of my person, house, papers, and effects? Violation of personal security in the manner described in the amendment necessarily presumes privacy.
Politico is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down Roe v Wade (1973), as well as Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), according to a draft majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, circulated inside the court and obtained by Politico. That this is (to my knowledge) the first Supreme Court decision ever leaked to the press is a central issue that must be taken up by the government. How it was leaked is an interesting question; why it was leaked and who leaked it even more so.
Abortion rights supporters and anti-abortion demonstrators outside the Supreme Court, November 2021.
However, I knew Roe was doomed and that its demise was just over the horizon. I told my wife and my mother only a month ago that the Supreme Court would soon overthrow Roe. I have been feeling this in my bones for a long time. In May 2007, in a short blog, Judging the Religious, I write, “If one day the Supreme Court is dominated by Catholics, we will be justified in worrying about reproductive freedom in America.” However, it was not only the composition of the Court that spelled the precedent’s demise. Roe was doomed from the beginning because Roe was a bad decision—not because it legalized abortion, but because it is bad law.
Before I tell you why it’s bad law, I want to make sure you understand my position on the matter of abortion. I am a libertarian. I stand entirely on the side that demands the right of individuals to control their bodies. This right is paramount not only for women, but for all consenting adults. I have blogged about this many times over the years. Here are three representative pieces, one from 2008, a second from 2013, and a third from 2020, if you want to understand my argument: The Fetus is a Person. Now What?; Abortion is Really About Freedom; Liberty is America’s raison d’être. Preserving Reproductive Freedom for the Sake of the Republic.
Why is Roe a bad decision? “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” late associate justice to the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsberg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice.” She characterized it this way: “it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” In an earlier New York University lecture in 1992 Ginsberg argued that Roe should have focused on a Texas law that “intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy” by permitting abortion only when the mother’s life is in danger.
“Suppose the Court had stopped there,” Ginsberg said in 1992, “rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force.” “Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?” she wondered rhetorically. “A less encompassing Roe,” she answered herself, “might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.”
In its ruling, penned by associate justice Harry Blackmun, the Court held that a set of Texas laws concerning abortion violated the constitutional right of privacy, which Blackmun held to be implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” However, the Court rejected Jane Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any manner and at any time. It instead attempted to balance a right of privacy with state interests in regulating abortion. In its attempt at compromise between right and power, the Court constructed an arbitrary set of rules and imposed them on every state, thereby dooming Roe to failure in the long run.
I have always found it strange that that the court avoided appealing to the rights to liberty and property explicit in the Fourteenth Amendment and instead appealed to the right to privacy, which, while necessarily assumed by the Constitution (for example, the Fourth Amendment only works if privacy is the underlying principle), does not appear in the text of the amendment in question. My view is that the Court should have accepted Roe’s assertion. Liberty demands that a human beings cannot be forced to sustain the life of another human being with his own organs. How can you be free under those conditions?
Moreover, property in ones body, which is the foundation of the property right, repels the power of the state to use ones property for whatever arbitrary ends it seeks. What possibly could be the justification for commandeering the woman’s body to use as an incubator? As I have argued elsewhere, does this not represent the essence of tyranny? This isn’t about running a railway through the middle of your estate. This is about running the railway through your body.
Politically, the pending decision may function as a monkey wrench thrown into the populist takeover of the Republican Party. The populists were well on their way to dominating the 2022 midterm elections and continuing their transformation of establishment politics. The ruling should motivate progressives to get out the vote, with the effect of slowing the Republican advance. At the same time, violent protests, which are highly likely (we’re already seeing the signs) may work against Democrats in the midterms.
Beyond the midterm elections, there needs to be a post-Roe national strategy dedicated to expanding the right of women to unfettered reproductive freedom. This strategy must be focused on liberty and bodily autonomy. In this fight, progressives are among our worst enemies. With demands for lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates and passports, censorship, speech codes, etc., progressive attitudes complicate the argument for freedom. Indeed, Democrats are responsible for the conservative character of the court by driving people into the arms of the Republican Party with their woke nonsense. (See The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes; On the Ethics of Compulsory Vaccination; Biden’s Biofascist Regime.)
Woke progressivism also alienates Americans with its incessant and irrational focus on identity. We are already hearing a lot about how the composition of the Supreme Court, being majority male, tells us something about how Roe gets overturned. Yet the Supreme Court that established the Roe precedent was all male. We should remember that those who abolished slavery were all males. All white males. Brown v Board of Education. All male. All white. The 1964 Civil Rights Act? Out of 535 congresspersons, there was a grand total of fourteen women in Congress in 1964. There were only five black congressmen in 1964. Oh, and associate justice Amy Coney Barrett is female.
What matters is not skin color, chromosomes, or gonads, but ideas. We don’t need restrictive moralism from either the right or the left. We don’t needs an overbearing administrative state. American politics require a radical course correction. Libertarianism must take its place at the heart of American politics. We must return to our liberal roots.
Remember, when the United States was founded, most states continued to operate under the English common law right to abortion, which permitted the termination of a pregnancy before fetal movement (quickening). Laws criminalizing abortion did not appear until the late 1800s. Abortion is a fundamental right stretching back millennia. Remember also that, before Roe, abortion was legal in several states and will likely continue to be legal after Roe is overturned.
Our struggle is to extend to each citizen regardless of the state in which they reside access to what should be understood as a fundamental personal right. To do this, we must reclaim an authentic politics of human freedom and begin again.
* * *
Note (5/4/2022): I am not disparaging my Catholic friends. I am drawing upon an understanding of Catholic ideology. If you understand Catholicism, then you can probably understand what I’m saying. There is a lot of history behind my prediction.
Until the emergence of the New Right in the 1970s, which was a reaction to overbearing progressivism and concomitant suffocation of liberal values by Democratic Party ideology, Protestants didn’t much care about abortion. Certainly not in any organized way. Catholic side-switching fused other conservative tendencies to give right populism cachet in the Republican Party, which Southerners found attractive in the post-Civil Rights period. Progressivism crushed populism on the left and American became deeply polarized along cultural lines. Democrats abandoned the working class and individualism, as well as embraced neoliberalism (having already embraced globalism), and millions of working people gravitated to the conservative movement. The end of Roe is ultimately the consequence of woke progressivism clearing the path for conservative Catholicism to replace liberal Protestantism and secular Judaism on the Court.
I’m no oracle. I have gotten things wrong, but not very often. And this one I saw coming from miles away. My predictive ability has to do with a methodology of maximal objectivity. That methodology depends on a perspective rooted in secular humanist and left-libertarianism. These elements comprise a standpoint that’s resistant to the corrupting effects of partisan political-ideology (albeit, political-ideology still constrains me). This standpoint is why I alienate Democrats and Republicans alike. They don’t know what I am. That’s okay. Just look at my record.
On April 27, 2022, during a 2023 budget hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, only a few days after President Obama expressed regret over not doing more to combat “disinformation” (see Obama for Commissar), DHS director Alejandro Mayorkas revealed the existence of the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), a new organ of the Department of Homeland Security. Nina Jankowicz, formerly a “disinformation fellow” at the Wilson Center (named after the progressive president Woodrow Wilson) and an adviser for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, where she managed programs for the National Democratic Institute, has been appointed the director of the DGB.
Director of the Disinformation Governance Board of the Department of Homeland Security Nina Jankowicz
America’s inaugural Disinformation Czar is author of the July 2020 book How To Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict. An alum of Bryn Mawr College, Jankowicz holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. From the description of the book (from the website of publisher Bloomsbury): “Since the start of the Trump era, the United States and the Western world has finally begun to wake up to the threat of online warfare and the attacks from Russia, who flood social media with disinformation, and circulate false and misleading information to fuel fake narratives and make the case for illegal warfare. The question no one seems to be able to answer is: what can the West do about it?”
Jankowicz has a history of spreading disinformation, amplifying both the so-called Steele Dossier, the discredited work of British ex-spy Christopher Steele used by the Democratic National Committee to falsely link Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency to Putin and the Russian government (the “Russian hoax” for short), and a letter signed by more than 50 former senior intelligence officials (including five head spooks of the CIA) asserting that emails belonging to Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden implicating the Biden family in international criminal activity were likely a Russian disinformation campaign. Jankowicz appears to have found the ideal vehicle through which to channel her cracked understanding of how the world works.
You may have seen the term "color revolution" floating around social media the past few days.
Despite her reputation in government circles, most Americans were introduced to Jankowicz in a video shared recently on Twitter that dates from September 18, 2020 in which she either engages in disinformation concerning the nature of the color revolution (see my blog “A New Kind of American Radicalism”: The Campaign to Portray Ordinary America as Deviant and Dangerous to learn about the color revolution and its application to the United States during the presidency of Donald Trump) or exposed her profound ignorance of the way the world actually works. In either case, this tweet, which amounts to a lie, and Jankowicz’s work more generally, if trusted, functions as disinformation, misdirecting public concern in a direction that benefits the corporate state establishment and the transnationalist project, of which she is an enthusiastic participant.
After it was announced that Elon Musk would buy out Twitter, it appeared that the extensive throttling I have experience since returning to that platform to promote my blog was lifted (or was at least lessened). Whatever happened, my blog about Musk buying Twitter (Elon Musk and the Peril of Free Thinking) generated more attention than usual. In comments and messages, people expressed wonder about my characterization of the present situation as fascism. As readers of Freedom and Reason know, I have blogged extensively about the new fascism, the signs of which are everywhere, the creation of the DGB the most recent, so I invite visitors to read my blog.
The sledgehammer rhetoric of left-right, etc., and faulty understanding and ignorance of fascism has people staring blankly at the signs. Some in the establishment media spin concern over a formal Ministry of Truth as rightwing paranoia. The Daily Beast carried the headline “Fox News Hosts Rage Against New Government Disinformation Board.” But the usual wall-to-wall defense of authoritarian measures in the current order of things has yet to emerge. And, while Orwellian language is deployed (“Big Brother” and “Ministry of Truth” are trending), there is not mention of the fascism problem. I keep hoping that with the progress of the system, as more and more of what I say will happen happens, that people will look around them and say, “Damn, this looks a lot like fascism.” Of course, by then it may be too late. It may already be too late.
Have we not all heard those who challenge establishment narratives with contrary accounts mocked for operating from “alternative facts”? Surely you are familiar with the progressive refrain, “You are entitled to your opinions but not to your facts,” as if “the facts” are beyond question—as long as they’re those facts approved by “the authorities.” Appeal to non-approved facts, such as those known to biology, are met with terms indicating bigotry and even disordered psyches. When mocking and shaming fail to dissuade those challenging power, charges of “misinformation” and “disinformation” are leveled and demands to censor raised and directed at those owning and managing the means of communication.
The Biden administration on Thursday unveiled an international Declaration for the Future of the Internet howl endorsing efforts to curb online “disinformation” and “harassment.”
In the case of the Internet, which was initiated by US government in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), funded by the Department of Defense, those means belong to the people. The Internet is a public utility and it is of significance that the logic of the infrastructure on which the global operating system, namely the World Wide Web, depends was invented by the nation with the most expansive free speech protections known to humanity. These protections should indicate the norms of the system in perpetuity.
These protections were presented in their definitive form in the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, ratified in the late eighteenth century, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There are no qualifications placed on the rights enumerated therein. Crucially, the First Amendment is not a list of government powers, but the explicit identification of the rights of the American people—the sovereign in a democratic republic.
Freedom of expression was recognized as a right of global humanity in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the majority of the world’s nations in 1948. Section 1 of that article states, in part: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” This is considered international law.
Recognition of this right was reinforced in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted in 1966, which states in several section: “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Unfortunately, however, section 2 of Article 10 of the UDHR lists potential restrictions of the right that contradict section 1: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.” It then identifies justifications for such laws: “the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” That’s quite an expansive list.
The ICCPR also identifies potential restrictions on the free speech right, specifying that “these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.” Furthermore, it states in the next article: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
Consider the justification “for the protection of health” (specified as “public health” in the ICCPR). This is the basis of governments characterizing as and restricting “misinformation” challenging claims made by, for example, the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus one can see how the exceptions provide powerful and politicized and corporate-captured entities with the tools to rationalize and even depoliticize corporate state propaganda.
Consider also the problem of irreligious criticisms. At what point does criticism of Islam rise to the level of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination”? Why is it wrong to advocate hatred of a religion, which is a species of ideology, that preaches doctrines that themselves promote hatred and discrimination? Why is Islam (or any other religion) different from any other ideology, such as National Socialism? To put this another way, why are we allowed to promote hatred of National Socialism and not Islam or any other doctrine? Ruthless criticism of doctrine is hate speech in whose eyes? Who decides?
Recently I argued (see Obama for Commissar) that it is not the role of executives to determine the truth of information or theories. These are determined over time dialectically in courts of law and science. I cited Alex Jones and his theory concerning the role of inter-dimensional demons in world affairs and rhetorically asked if this is false theory. No more so than the theory that a man met with angel in a cave and received a revelation from God. Do we really want the government to declare Islam disinformation or a conspiracy theory and remove it from social media platforms? Of course not. But why is it protected—even declared off limits from speech promoting hatred—while Alex Jones is forced into bankruptcy? (See my Project Censored article, Defending the Digital Commons: A Left-Libertarian Critique of Speech and Censorship in the Virtual Public Square, as well as my interview on the Project Censored show out of Berkeley on the Alex Jones case.)
Elites believe that the masses are too naive to determine for themselves what is misinformation. If the Internet is an open system, then the people will come to believe false things. Disinformation, they tell us, is a threat to democracy. What do they mean by democracy? Really they mean technocracy. You surely noted without me telling you that the world’s major religions are not included among the false things the people will come to believe. These are useful to power. And they are hardly democratic systems. Indeed, when you study the matter, the only false things that trouble those who seek tighter regulations of the systems of communication are those things that undermine the legitimacy of various elite projects and the authority of the elite generally.
Crucially, religion is not a system that people take up because they are naive; history shows that people are compelled to adopt religious doctrine because an elite control the means of communication and punish in various way those who deviate from it. This fact is as true for everything else as it is for religion. Elites have throughout time controlled the means of ideological production and determined the content of its transmissions in order to control the people in a fashion that suits exclusive interests of power. It must be remembered that it was only with the advent of the Enlightenment and the emergence of the free speech right and various means of popularly distributing information—of whatever sort—that the stranglehold elites held over the public mind was loosened and religion and other ideologies were pluralized and, in may places, marginalized in the lives of people.
How did homosexuals break free of compulsory heterosexuality? Not because elites forced the masses to ally with gay liberation. Elites were opposed to the normalization of homosexuality. But they no longer controlled the minds of the masses in this area. That was because the free speech right allowed for the criticism of those doctrines that inspired and perpetuated laws oppressing homosexuals. This development testifies to the capacity of the individual to determine what he shall believe in the absence of a requirement that he believe what an elite says he should. Often all it takes for justice to prevail, or at least to get things moving, is the removal of constraints on the ability of people to make up their own minds. Did elites believe homosexuality was unacceptable? Yes. But now it is acceptable. This is but one of a myriad of examples one could cite in making the case for unfettered speech.
Galileo Galilei, whose Dialogue the Church banned. The man himself was placed under house arrest for life.
The intrinsic good of a maximally open system of free thought is no more true that in the realm of scientific development. Imagine an official proclamation by the corporate state that the laws of physics must be fixed in a particular way and that any information that challenges the official formulation is misinformation worthy of suppression. This was the case before the advent of robust free speech. Recall the history of when the Church insisted that the arrangement of the celestial bodies that adorn the heavens could only be one way. Why is it any different when doctors and scientists challenge claims made by pharmaceutical corporations and powerful medical associations and government organizations? Do these bodies not act as the Church in the days of Copernicus and Galileo when they censor contrary views? Again, who shall decide the truth? Who shall be commissar?
As I noted in my previous blog, Elon Musk and the Peril of Free Thinking, the European Union, which has embraced all of the restrictions suggested by the UDHR and the ICCPR, reminded Elon Musk, which has reached an agreement to buy out the social media platform Twitter, that he must comply with EU regulations on policing online content or face severe penalties. As I reported, in an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, Thierry Breton, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, told Musk that Twitter must cooperate with the EU’s rules on content moderation, including the pending Digital Services Act, which will require large tech platforms to remove illegal content, such as “hate speech.” I told readers that this situation should alert everybody to the inherent problem with globalization: if a US-based corporation in charge of an effective public utility is required to bow to European Union rules, and these rules concern fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, then the rights of Americans are potentially violated by an outside entity.
We learned today that powerful countries in the nascent new world order have been formulating a global scheme concerning the future of the Internet. According to The New York Post, “Biden staffers lead 50-country pledge to ‘reclaim’ internet, fight ‘disinformation’.” Beyond the headline: “The Biden administration on Thursday unveiled an international ‘Declaration for the Future of the Internet’ with 50 other countries, slamming the policies of ‘authoritarian’ governments — while endorsing efforts to curb online ‘disinformation’ and ‘harassment’.” The Declaration, is written in lofty terms that anybody who cares about the fundamental right to freely transmit and receive information can support. Smartly, the document avoids getting bogged down in the concrete struggles over internet freedom we are witnessing in the trans-Atlantic system. The various state mass surveillance apparatuses and the censorship of information by social media platforms go unmentioned.
However, one can read between the lines threats to the very freedoms the Declaration claims to defend. And context and statements made around the declaration leave little doubt. Under the section titled “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” the signatories pledge to “combat violence online, including sexual and gender-based violence” and “make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, particularly women, children, and young people.” Given the emerging definition of violence on the woke left, which includes the concept “harmful speech,” behind which lurks the notion that speech is a form of violence (including even silence), and in light of international law, will censorship of such speech be necessary to create this safe and secure space for these groups? For example, if criticism of transgenderism is deemed harmful to those alleged to suffer from gender dysphoria, or who claim to have been born in the wrong body, will this criticism be disallowed for the sake of safe space? The use of this term “safe space” in the context of woke progressive politics should alarm those who care about liberal freedoms.
The following bullet point is also troubling: “Promote safe and equitable use of the Internet for everyone, without discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnic, national or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of an indigenous population, property, birth, disability, age, gender identity or sexual orientation.” Does this bullet point strictly refer to unhindered Internet access for all those categories identified? Or do the terms “safe” and “equitable” signal variable access to the Internet based on power asymmetries and the progressive stack? What if members of a group find that the Internet contains content that they and their allies believe discriminates against them by preventing them from safely using the Internet?
Seemingly aware of the signals the document sends, the Declaration attempts to assuage the concerns the defenders of liberal freedoms will have by offering this bullet point: “Reaffirm our commitment that actions taken by governments, authorities, and digital services including online platforms to reduce illegal and harmful content and activities online be consistent with international human rights law, including the right to freedom of expression while encouraging diversity of opinion, and pluralism without fear of censorship, harassment, or intimidation.” Have we not already seen the inherent problems with this given the justifications outlines in international human rights law? How will human rights be redefined with the evolution of the new world order? Whose version of human rights will prevail? That of the Chinese Communist Party? In 1990, the Muslim-majority nations en masse substituted for the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which presented a set of rights reflecting the conservative Islamic values of Sharia, i.e., Islamic law, which by their very nature conflict with fundamental freedoms protected by the former declaration. How will the Internet everywhere be affected by Sharia?
The Declaration for the Future of the Internet insists on the global character of the system. Therein lies the problem. It is a declaration based on the entrenchment of globalism, which is led by transnational corporate power, represented by, among other elite groups, the World Economic Forum. By what mechanism will such a declaration keep the Internet maximally free when governments across the world, some of them wielding tremendous economic and military power, have laws that limit content based on cultural and religion norms and political ideologies, limitations that will inevitably limit content for those nations where such content is protected by free speech rights? The Declaration for the Future of the Internet itself states: “Access to the open internet is limited by some authoritarian governments and online platforms and digital tools are increasingly used to repress freedom of expression and deny other human rights and fundamental freedoms.” This is accomplished in part by states claiming that the Internet in maximally-free mode creates unsafe spaces for the populations under their control. It should not escape of anybody that the United States and the European Union increasingly resemble the forms of government the document warns about.
Joy Reid and Anand Giridharadas took to the MSNBC airwaves to condemn exemplary US citizen Elon Musk, the successful African-American engineer who just purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion, characterizing his play as motivated by fear of “a future of abundant, equitable speech.” Giridharadas told Reid, “This future in which there would actually be more abundant and equitable speech terrifies the crap out of people like Elon Musk.” Giridharadas did not explain how he knew Musk was terrified or what the term “equitable speech” meant. The author of the 2018 Winners Take All instead went on a rant about all the awful things that might happen now that Twitter is in the hands of capitalist elites—as if it wasn’t before Musk bought out the company.
MSNBC’s Musk Twitter graphic
Progressives are so paranoid and biased—so sure they have the truth—that they’re asking questions about Twitter now after being purchased by Elon Musk that they could have asked about Twitter before Elon Musk bought out the social media platform (like “They might rig elections!”), but didn’t ask because Twitter under old management was doing for their side what they think Elon Musk is going to do for his side now that he owns the company—whatever his side is. To clarify, I am not saying questions they did not think to ask. Grievance-operated human woke machine Sunny Hostin filled in the missing information, telling the audience of The View that Musk bought Twitter for “straight white men.” As I will show in a moment, the concept of “equitable speech” informs Hostin, as well.
Back over at MSNBC, Nicolle Wallace deployed the Hitlerian term “the big lie” to reframe vote rigging in the 2020 presidential election to segue into a rant about “disinformation,” reporting that Musk, with his “more expansive views on speech than Twitter’s current management, has sent shock waves through much of the anti-information political universe.” She warned about the “power and peril of rampant disinformation,” citing examples provided by The New York Times, namely the 2016 US president election, in which the wrong candidate won, and the Brexit vote that same year, which resulted in the wrong choice being made. These bad outcomes occurred because, according to the Times, social media companies opted not to “wade too deeply into what people say on their sites.” What people said on their sites polarized the American and British electorate and caused them to make bad choices.
The Trump experience, which the establishment nobly disrupted from start to finish, and COVID-19, which failed to convince the masses to demand Chinese-style totalitarianism, had social media companies realizing that, for the sake of the agenda, they had to fix the problems of open systems, reframed by the Times as “anger, lies, distortions and division that left some people feeling exhausted and cynical about the world around them,” “some people” referring to those who make bad choices. Wallace cites the elation on the right and the panic on the left as the metric determining the degree of horror in the moment, already determining for her listener what is evil and what is good, her empathic voice clearly identifying which side she is on. Wallace laments (with a touch of snark) that, even if Trump is busy with Truth Social, the social media company he established to get around his Twitter ban, his wicked followers will make good use of Twitter and this, she more than implies, is a terrible thing because it enables Trump.
“If you own all of Twitter…you could secretly ban one party’s candidate…”
This is partisan sides-taking in superficial terms—Democrats versus Republicans, progressives versus conservatives, left versus right. But this not about that. It’s about democratic-republicanism and liberalism versus technocracy and authoritarianism. The point is not whether capitalist elites own Twitter. This is a capitalist society managed by the institutions they control. It is what it is. The question is whether we want elites owning Twitter who believe in the core Western values that make us free and independent people, such values as cognitive liberty and critical discourse, or, over against that, elites owning Twitter who despise those values and use exclusive control over information networks to dismantle Western civilization. The project of managed decline of the American Republic proceeds by disrupting free and open spaces. To be sure, it matters which class is in control. But it also matters which capitalists are in control. The capitalist class is not a monolith. It’s fractional.
For the establishment, it’s not really the fear that Musk will do to them on the new Twitter what progressives did to liberals and conservatives on the old Twitter. Free speech advocates are rarely hypocrites even if they warn about authoritarians making whips for their own backs. The smarter progressives know this. And that is what scares them; it is precisely the promise Musk has made to allow Twitter users to do now what they were not allowed to do before, and that is to speak more freely.
This is why the European Union moved quickly to remind Musk that the peoples of Europe do to enjoy the same levels of cognitive liberty and free expression Americans do. Musk must comply with EU regulations on policing online content or face severe penalties. In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, Thierry Breton, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, told Musk that Twitter must cooperate with the EU’s rules on content moderation, including the pending Digital Services Act, which will require large tech platforms to remove illegal content, such as “hate speech” (see The Guardian). This situation should alert everybody to the inherent problem with globalization: if a US-based corporation in charge of an effective public utility is required to bow to European Union rules, and these rules concern fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, then the rights of Americans are potentially violated by an outside entity. Are you still unclear about what motivated the pro-Brexit vote?
Here’s what is at stake for corporate state elites. The establishment needs to control the narrative in order to control the population in order to perpetuate the conditions that perpetuate the status quo—the status quo that protects their power and privilege. Perpetuating the status quo requires censorship because knowledge of how the system works raises awareness about whose interests the system serves. If you want people to stand in line for vaccines that don’t confer immunity but generate billions for pharmaceutical companies that make the big media buys, then you don’t need people on social media talking about how vaccines don’t confer immunity and generate billions for the pharmaceutical companies that make the big media buys.
We were provided an example of this in today’s news. National Public Radio (US state media) reports that antibody studies have confirmed what I have been saying for months now: Most Americans have been infected with the COVID-19 virus. However, “CDC officials stressed that people should still get vaccinated, because vaccination provides the strongest, broadest protection against getting seriously ill.” There is evidence to this effect, but the reporting skirts the central problem with the vaccine narrative, namely that the vaccines do not confer immunity. They are not, in fact, vaccines, but anticipatory or prospective therapeutics. Those who consult scientific work ignored by the establishment media and actively censored by social media platforms have known this for more than a year. But most people don’t make the effort to consult scientific work that lies beyond that which is selected for them by the corporate state. As a result, they are unaware that the vaccines do not confer immunity (but they are starting to become suspicious). Without this knowledge, many do not reach the logical conclusion: why are business firms and governments mandating vaccination if these vaccines do not confer immunity? It’s not that there is no public health interests in products that reduce risk of severe illness. However, metabolic disorder (obesity, etc.) is the single greatest risk factor for severe illness and business firms and governments are not mandating strict diets for fat people.
Capitalism is not intrinsically illiberal (capitalism is a liberal value). But capitalism in the grip of progressivism is like an animal with a parasitic infection of the brain; it means the thing is not acting right. Progressivism is the antithesis of liberalism; it stands opposite to liberalism’s chief values, among these autonomy, humanism, and individualism. And progressives have never been more authoritarian than they are right now. They don’t even try to hide their disdain for freedom; today’s progressive openly portrays liberal values as racist and rightwing. Very bad people believe in free speech, they tell us. Free speech makes bad things happen—like Trump and Brexit. Yet it’s the woke demagogue who is zealously committed to realizing in practice the anti-democratic ideology of the corporate state. We cannot trust woke elites with our freedoms precisely because they reject the very foundation upon which those freedoms stand.
A new euphemism for centralized corporate/state censorship was just emitted by @JoyAnnReid and @AnandWrites.
The woke today are coding their need to censor and cancel speech with which they disagree as virtue promoting “equitable speech.” What does that mean? Greenwald is right that it is a euphemism for “content moderation.” But it goes deeper that this. It hooks up censorship to the greater social justice enterprise. The equitable distribution of some thing presumes that the present distribution of that thing is unfair. In the world of social justice that means that somebody because of skin color or some other demographic characteristic has something somebody else doesn’t have because of that demographic characteristic. Insert the progressive stack and asymmetrical power relations here. The corollary of equitable speech is “inclusive speech,” which presumes that some speech can make some people feel excluded, and so speech must be constrained by the feelings of others. Not just any others, but others who have been shorted in the distribution of some thing or another. Equitable and inclusive speech seek one thing: to murder diverse speech. Substituting diversity of skin color, gender identity, etc., for diversity of thought and expression, the social justice logic confuses rights with privileges.
Woke is not about awareness of (social) injustices and oppressions. Woke is about shaping opinion and perception to disrupt class consciousness and solidarity and justify ever greater technocratic control over people’s lives. Manufacturing grievances is a means to these ends.
Not that the organizers of social justice campaigns are confused. They want stuff. But not everybody can have the stuff the woke influencers claim for them. It is a capitalist society, after all. The influencers instead mean to get the attention of the corporations who need influencers to do the street-level work of securing hegemony for corporate rule so they can get the stuff for themselves. So when we’re instructed to go look up the meaning of woke in the dictionary (Sunny Hostin tells us to do this), the expectation is that we will find no more than a word describing concern for injustice and oppression. Who is not for that? But woke is not about awareness of injustice and oppression. Woke is about shaping mass opinion and perception to disrupt class consciousness and worker solidarity and justify ever greater technocratic control over people’s lives. Manufacturing grievances is a means to these ends.
The woke progressive is the new fascist. He does not want a free and open society where people have access to ideas good and bad, right and wrong. Fascists do not trust the masses. To the fascist mind, people are the problem. The fascist seeks to order a tightly-managed network of systems that control what people think—that align the public mind to a narrative beneficial the central authority. The fascist does not genuinely care about the normative order that sustains the traditions of a free society. That he loathes traditions and norms in obvious in his actions. He decouples institutions from that order and turns the major institutions of society into weapons to advance his political-ideological agenda. Societal institutions—culture, family, etc.—are seen only in those instrumental terms. This explains what you see happening all around you.
Do we have a popular social movement to overthrow this fascist power? No. Not yet. Probably not for a while. But we do have Elon Musk. He’s no savior. (Who needs saviors?) But right now, he may be the best we got. At the very least, the ability to speak freely will allow us to help other see what we already see. And building mutual knowledge—while disrupting the prevailing narrative—is essential to building the mass-based movement necessary for overthrowing corporate rule. This is why elites fear and loathe Elon Musk. They cannot trust him.
“What does still nag at me though was my failure to fully appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories, despite having spent years being a target of disinformation myself,” Obama said during a speech at Stanford University on the dangers of disinformation.
It is not the role of executives to determine the truth of information or theories. These are determined over time in the open dialectically or in courts of law where people adjudicate facts. Consider Alex Jones and his theory concerning the role of inter-dimensional demons in world affairs. Is this false? I think it is. Is it crazy? No more crazy than thinking a man hung on a cross rose from the death and will save all those who declare their faith in him from eternal torment. I think that theory is false, too. But do we really want the government to declare Christianity disinformation or a conspiracy theory and remove it from social media platforms?
This desire to combat disinformation is troubled by a very basic truth that Freud noted a century ago. When one person believes something that can’t be true, he is delusional. If he alone believes he talks to an entity no one else can see or hear, then he is crazy. But if millions of people believe something that can’t be true, that the man who talks to an entity they cannot see is really communicating with a spirit, then they are experiencing an illusion. The individually real, which is subjective (and sometimes disordered), becomes collectively real with others and orders things. It becomes what French sociologist Emile Durkheim called a “social fact.”
Shortly after losing his podcast, Obama addresses Stanford University
Obama, would like for particular illusions—Christianity, Islam, Judaism—to prevail (even if he believes in none of them) over other illusions. Those illusions are useful to power. Other illusions not so much. And so these constitute disinformation and conspiracy theories. But it is a conflict of interests to allow the very real entities who wield cultural, economic, political, and social power, i.e., the state and the corporation, to decide for us which illusions we are allowed to have and which are to be censored and cancelled.
Obama said, “You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing, that citizens no longer know what to believe.” But what is sewage or dirt to Obama may not be sewage or dirt at all. It is Obama’s opinion that the things with which he disagrees are sewage or dirt. His concern that citizens no longer know what to believe is that they may come to believe as he wished they would not. His example is COVID-19 vaccination. “Around one in five Americans is still willing to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk rather than get vaccinated,” Obama said. People are dying because of “disinformation.” Indeed, individuals submit to vaccination after being told they are safe and effective and then suffer death or injury caused by the vaccine or contract and spread the virus on the basis of a false believe the vaccine confers immunity.
Part of the reason it’s hard to bring about change is because we live in a media environment that elevates falsehoods as much as truths, and divides people as much as it brings them together.
“In recent years, we’ve seen how quickly disinformation spreads, especially on social media,” Obama tweeted. “This has created real challenges for our democracy.” What Obama is channeling is the spirit of technocracy. He is not defending democracy. He does not believe in democracy for the masses. He is an elitist. It’s not that elitists believe the masses are too stupid to choose for themselves the illusions that will guide them. They do. But more importantly, they believe that, left to their own devices, the masses will choose the illusions that threaten the power of the class he represents, the corporate class. For the illusion may in fact be truth. And truth can be very dangerous for those whose power and privilege depends on lies.
Freedom means that people are allowed to manufacture and believe illusions that they desire as long as they do not impose these illusions on those who do not or cannot consent to them. Mature consenting adults can be furries together. To compel others to believe with them that they are what they say they are, which is the work of the state and corporate power, is tyranny. Let furries be furries. Let others disbelieve in spirit animals and admit this without fear of consequence—and freely share their thoughts on social media.
CNN carried this headline today: “A public university in Ohio will pay a professor $400,000 after disciplining him for refusing to use a transgender student’s pronouns.” The case involves Nicholas Meriwether, a philosophy professor at Shawnee State, who objected to a 2016 policy requiring the use of a student’s pronouns to match gender identity. Meriwether argued the policy violated his religious beliefs, which are protected by the US Bill of Rights, and filed a lawsuit in 2018 against the university. Meriwether had attempted to compromise with the university, offering to use any name the student requested instead of titles and pronouns. In response, the school opened a Title IX investigation against the professor that concluded that Meriwether’s failure to use the desired pronounces created a “hostile environment.” The dean of the university’s College of Arts and Sciences recommended placing a formal warning in Meriwether’s personnel file. If Meriwether persisted in his refusal to use the desire pronouns, he could face suspension without pay or even termination.
Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio.
Shawnee State has agreed to pay the professor 400 thousand dollars to compensate for the disciplinary action taken. The settlement means that Meriwether will not be required to use certain pronouns regardless of a student’s request. Rather than admit wrongdoing in settling the case, Shawnee State claimed that, since the lawsuit was filed, “it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at a cost to the university and its students.” The assumption in the university’s statement is that disagreement with a policy to compel an employee to speak in ways that violated his conscience represents a “divisive social and political agenda” that was costing the university, students, and the community. In fact, a policy compelling employees to violate conscience by speaking required words, a right protected by the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights (Meriwether also argued that his due process rights were violated) represents a socially divisive action pushed by a political agenda.
“As part of the settlement,” according to a release by Meriwether’s attorney, “the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students.” The release clarifies that Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.” Shawnee State rationalizes the settlement as an “economic decision”: “Though we have decided to settle, we adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion.” The statement continues: “In this case, Shawnee State followed its policy and federal law that protects students or any individual from bigotry and discrimination. We continue to stand behind a student’s right to a discrimination-free learning environment as well as the rights of faculty, visitors, students and employees to freely express their ideas and beliefs.” With this settlement, the university is agreeing that the professor’s freedom of conscience is not a form of discrimination. Indeed, it isn’t. It may be bigotry, but so what? What constitutes bigotry in the contemporary sense of the word is entirely subjective.
Amir Vera of CNN writes, “The ruling comes as schools across the nation grapple with balancing the inclusivity of transgender students and the religious beliefs of some teachers.” Have you noticed how the word “inclusivity” is Orwellian speak for exclusivity? That, in order to promote “inclusion,” there are identities and opinions that must be disallowed? Have you noticed the trend that diversity of identity is used to suppress diversity of thought? Disciplining or punishing an employee for his identity and opinions necessarily transgresses the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of individuals to not only speak and be heard (given time and place restraints), but to not be compelled to speak in a way a public institution wishes him to, whether he is an employee, a student, or a visitor.
The attack on Meriwether’s right to his conscience is an attack on the liberal values of cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity, which, along with personal autonomy and privacy, comprise the foundation of a free and open society. This attack is informed by the postmodern instantiation of critical theory, represented by critical race theory, queer theory, and other illiberal ideologies, which holds that transgressing prevailing social norms is necessary in order to liberate marginal groups from cultural, legal, and social structures of oppressive individualism. But it is the mark of an oppressive situation to see a man compelled to speak in ways he would not otherwise but for the threat of discipline and punishment. I delve deeply into this issue in my recent essay Science Politics at the University of Wisconsin—Deliberate Ignorance About the State of Cognitive Liberty and Viewpoint Diversity on College Campuses.
Shawnee State tried to compel Meriwether to speak in a manner that affirmed an ideology with which he disagrees. He refused and they punished him. It took four years for Meriwether to finally see the penalty rescinded and his fundamental rights to conscience and expression affirmed. The struggle to once and for all affirm these fundamental rights for all of us will take many more years. The illiberal force of identitarian politics is powerful and persistent and enjoys the backing of the corporate state. Resisting this force will take many more people standing on principle and defending the liberal foundation of a free and open society. The Enlightenment is at stake.
When I search Google for Waukesha is Scheduled to be Memory Holed, my blog concerning the terrorist actions of Darrell Brooks Jr., who, in 2021, allegedly drove his Ford Escape through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, swerving side to side in an intentional action targeting people, injuring at least fifty people and killing six people, I find that it has been memory holed. I have to open my WordPress account and search for it there to copy the link and share it. My own blog has become evidence in the case I make about the media disinformation campaign about race and violence in America. Hence the importance in sharing it.
Frank James, arrested by patrol officers in Manhattan’s East Village.
Why would Google do this? I think the fact that Brooks is black has something to do with it. It has become clear to me that the media plays down violence by blacks because the demographic reality of violence is inconvenient for the political-ideological narrative that insists that it is whites—especially white males—who represent the gravest danger to public safety in America. I think this is also the reason Google News excludes headlines about the Brooklyn subway shooting perpetrated by Frank James. James, reportedly wearing a gas mask, is alleged to have set off smoke grenades on a crowded N train traveling toward the 36th Street station in Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood, then fired a handgun 33 times into the travelers leaving 29 people injured, including ten with bullet wounds. You have to actively search to find stories about James. Had a white man done this, it would likely be the top story in the new aggregator service. Very likely.
I am sure you have noted a pattern emerging in recent mass killings/shootings. They are not being committed by white men. Brooks and James are only two of a spate of mass violence events that have raged across the nation over the last few months. Six were shot to death in a mass killing in downtown Sacramento on April 3, the alleged shooters brothers Dandrae and Smiley Martin and associate Mtula Payton, three black men. Over Easter weekend, Jewayne Price, a black man, injured 14 people at a mall in South Carolina. As the racial identity of these mass killers/shooters has come to light, the media has again been trying to obscure the phenomenon of mass shooting. Their own propaganda caused them to relax their guard. They had been doing a find job until recently in hiding the racial demographics surrounding crime and violence in America.
For years now, I have been telling readers of Freedom and Reason that the memes and stories about mass shootings that portray these events as a conservative Christian white male phenomenon are false—and that using this falsehood to distract from the significance of actual patterns is not only subterfuge, which includes a campaign to undermine the rights of gun owners, but a reflexive expression of anti-white male prejudice widespread in the academy, culture industry, and corporate media. Beyond the hegemonic apparatus, rank-and-file progressive silence in the face of the racial profile of the latest string of high-profile mass killings/shooting not perpetrated by the despised demographic is deafening.
Recall Rolling Stone’s sarcastic take on mass shootings in the August 2019 op-ed White Nationalist Violence has Nothing to do with White Nationalism. White nationalist violence does indeed have something to do with white nationalism. Does black nationalist violence have nothing to do with black nationalism? In the face of all the evidence I have seen, officials in the Brooks’ case deny this was a terrorist event. Recall Naaz Modan’s October 2017 op-ed, published by CNN, “How America has Silently Accepted the Rage of White Men.” Modan’s take is typical. We might ask her a related question to the one implied by the Rolling Stone piece: Is America silently accepting the rage of black men? Clearly the corporate media and progressives are. Even more than this; they are promoting it. (See my blogs Whites Not Overrepresented in Mass Murder and Everything Progressives Say About Mass Shootings is Wrong…and Racist where I debunk these notions and demonstrate that the disinformation is rooted in ant-white male prejudice.)
In recent blogs (e.g., Stop Making Excuses for Violence and How to Misrepresent the Racial Demographics of Mass Murder), I confirm the facts indicating that the misrepresentation of racial demographics of mass murder is deliberate and political. To summarize this content, black men are less than six percent of the population overall, but in raw numbers commit more than half of all homicides in America annually. Moreover, contradicting the assumption that interracial violence is largely whites persecuting blacks, black men are more likely to kill white people than the other way around (see Why are there so Many More White than Black Victims of Interracial Homicide?). One would not know these facts from the media coverage of violence in America.
It’s not just skin color that Brooks and James share in common. They also share a common ideology: specifically black nationalism and more broadly extreme anti-white prejudice. Both were prolific in sharing social media postings expressing a profound hatred and loathing of white people, sentiments informed by the arguments pushed by the progressive stack. How could constantly telling blacks that their situation is due to white privilege and white supremacy not have something to do with blacks targeting white people for homicide and other crimes? How many of these interracial crimes are in fact bias crimes that go unrecorded as such in the FBI statistics? Is the media, hyper-vigilant about white supremacy to the point of imagining things, really telling us that race plays no role in target selection in black-on-white crime? Reparations, retribution—these have been admitted to with respect to rioting. Is it not also obvious in the rampant and audacious acts of theft in stores across the country? Why not violent actions? Why deny this when it is obvious, as in the case of Brooks?
I write in Stop Making Excuses for Violence: “The media cannot wait for the next mass murder committed by a mentally ill white person so it can hypostatize white supremacy. But where is the reporting of the routine mass murder committed by gangs in America’s inner cities? Do the children caught in the crossfire of gang violence not matter? Do bystanders in drive-by no matter? Apparently not, because the left wants to defund the police.” I further write, “If you know anything about gang violence, you will know that mass murders occur routinely in America’s inner-cities, and the perpetrators are not often white, and these crimes are rarely reported.”
According to The Guardian, statistics show that the vast majority of high-casualty events occur in impoverished, disproportionately black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Roughly a third of the incidents with known circumstances were drive-by shootings or identified by law enforcement as gang-related. The authors of the article, led by Champe Barton reports “that many victims and community activists believe that the dearth of coverage of particular shootings owes, at least partially, to the race of the victims.” Barton and associates continue: “In 2020, mass shootings disproportionately occurred in majority-Black neighborhoods. But even the highest-casualty incidents received limited national media attention.” According to a study published in the journal Sociology of Race and Ethnicity about shooting victims in Chicago found that blacks killed in black-majority neighborhoods received roughly half as much news coverage as white people killed in majority-white neighborhoods.
The fact is that whites are consistently underrepresented either or both absolutely and proportionally in the most serious violent crimes. So why is the public being subjected to memes either blaming white males for violence or scolding the public for the imaginary act of making excuses for white violence? The progressive establishment is working racecraft to delegitimize the American republic, which it equates to whiteness, a manufactured characteristic further reduced to white supremacy.
I write in Stop Making Excuses for Violence, “Crime by whites is amplified or manufactured, while crime by blacks is downplayed or ignored. The truth is flipped. The memes are designed to present an inverted truth. They make this about race to dissimulate and drive the dismantling of the nation.” I write further, “Anti-white propaganda is a corporatist strategy to ingratiate the capitalist elite to minorities by manufacturing a fake enemy and making the machinery of liberty and democracy appear as oppressive tools of white supremacy. Identitarian education and training is designed to make minorities feel like their exploiters care about them and see their comrades as their adversaries. The corporatist propagandist manufactures an enemy—this time white people—to distract from the real adversary, namely the corporate elite who exploit minority labor and control their life chances.”
The disinformation concerns not only the domestic situation, but the situation at the southern border. You may have noticed that, with the return of a Democrat to the White House, mass illegal immigration has returned with a vengeance. Two million illegal immigrants crossed the border last year. In March of this year, more than 200,000 illegally crossed, a record for illegal crossings in a single month. Even when Trump was President and the tide of illegal immigration largely stemmed, the problems associated with the thousands crossing the southern border demanded the attention of an objective media. But that’s not what happened.
In Stop Making Excuses for Violence, I write, “The media loves a good story about the lone white person committing a heinous crime, but where is the reporting about the cartels operating north and south of our border murdering people on a daily basis? Have you been following the reality of the transnational trade in human beings supported by the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church?” Have you? Do you know about the crisis of overdose deaths due to the cheap fentanyl pouring across the border? The situation is as bad as it has ever been. Yet the rank-and-file progressive continues to portray public concern over immigration as nativist, racist, and xenophobic.
I don’t think I need to tell readers of Freedom and Reason that woke is suffocating comedy. In this clip from Real Time with Bill Maher, the acerbic comedian does a superb job of documenting the problem of cancel culture in the comedic realm. One particularly troubling aspect of the cancel culture surrounding the professional practice of humor is the situation on college campuses, where Generation Z requires a sanitized form of comedy, one that does not poke fun at the various groups woke politics has deemed off limits—the “oppressed” and “vulnerable” (see the work of Jonathan Haidt for a comprehensive analysis of the social psychology of the Gen Z cohort). It has become so bad that many comedians have opted to avoid the college circuit altogether, a fact that Maher is thankful George Carlin never lived to see.
The woke effect on comedy extends more broadly to free speech generally. This is why it is troubling, as the Wisconsin State Journal reported last week, that the University of Wisconsin System, a sprawling institution spanning thirteen universities and twenty-six campuses, as well as managing a statewide extension network with a footprint in every country, a force educating some 165 thousand students every year, has delayed a free speech survey scheduled for Thursday, pushing out its administration at least until the fall semester.
Shortly after the announcement, Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR) released the final version of the survey, Student Perceptions of Their First Amendment Rights, Viewpoint Diversity, and Self-Censorship. This move, and the manufactured controversy surrounding the survey, may effectively scuttle the project altogether. We can expect opponents will claim, if the survey is administered in the fall, that the controversy renders the survey invalid, that its findings are biased and unsound. Moreover, funding for administering the survey does not carry over to the fall. Without alternative sources of funding, postponing the survey makes its implementation improbable.
Why was the survey effectively scuttled? The Wisconsin State Journal story, by Kelly Meyehofer, reports that the opponents worried that the findings may reflect badly on a particular political-ideological persuasion—obviously progressivism, an ideology that has captured public education in Wisconsin—and help conservatives at the polls. “The delay comes in response to mounting concerns from campuses this week about potential politicization of results ahead of the November election,” Meyehofer reports, as well as “questions about the research protocol process and allegations of political interference.”
Concerns one and three in Meyehofer’s list are essentially the same thing, which is the subject of this blog, as well as the state of free speech on college campuses across the nation that necessitates survey of this sort—precisely the reason progressives seek to cancel or compromise the survey. However, the way in which the human subjects review process is being politicized in this case puts complaint number two in the bucket with the other complaints, so I will say a few things about that before moving to concerns one and three.
Concern two is, on substance, a bogus issue. I was the faculty member at my institution who, as chair of the institutional review board (IRB) in the early 2000s, reconstructed the board, bringing it into compliance with federal law, as well as standing up the institutional animal care and use committee. I understand how these things work inside and out. The survey, if in need of an IRB-sanctioned protocol at all (overkill, in my view), does not rise to the level of full board review. I would have signed off on the protocol without hesitation.
The claim made by individuals on the Whitewater campus, that their institution hadn’t approved sending out the survey, (intentionally, I believe) misunderstands the process of establishing a research protocol. I am routinely asked to participate in surveys organized by scientists from across the country. The institution from where the survey hails approves the protocol and, on that basis, the researchers are good to go and I am free to participate. The research team that developed the survey in this case did in fact receive approval from UW-Stout’s IRB (the Wisconsin State Journal has the documentation). The project received “an exemption from full review,” the same destination I would have awarded the survey had the protocol come before me. The decision is an easy one—that the survey is “low-risk to humans” is an overstatement.
(Does this survey even meets the definition of human subjects research in the federal code? If I develop and administer a survey in my courses to determine student attitudes for use in course administration and development, as long as the findings are not intended to produce generalized knowledge, a key element in determining what constitutes research sui generis, but rather pertain as a practical matter to policy or instruction, there is no need to seek IRB approval. The survey is essentially a climate survey, and element in a self-study. These are administered routinely in schools across the country.)
Additional complaints have emerged in the aftermath of the survey’s effective scuttling. The survey is too long, is poorly constructed, and deploys leading questions are some of the items that have been listed. As to the question of whether the survey is too long, I provided the link to the survey above. You can judge for yourself whether it is too long, but I have an opinion. Professors routinely administer examinations that are more involved. Moreover, the questions are interesting and the survey is likely to find a majority of participants eager to thoughtfully answer them. Indeed, I would expect high levels of conscientiousness and engagement among participants. As we will see, students have concerns about cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity on college campuses.
As for the instrument’s format and items, I can report as a professional social scientist with more than a quarter century experience in designing and administering surveys (I have now taught college-level research methods across several programs for more than two decades), the people who put this together know what they’re doing. This is a well-constructed essay, its protocol (again, perhaps unnecessarily) approved by the human subjects review board at the university where the research project was developed.
The project’s research team includes UW-Eau Claire psychology professor April Bleske-Recheck, a specialist in research methods who studied under Terrie Moffitt (a globally-recognized leader in research design); Eric Kasper and Geoff Peterson, both at UW-Eau Claire, both political scientists, the first a constitutional law scholar, the second an expert in research methods; Tim Shiell, a philosophy professor at UW-Stout; and Eric Giordano, executive director of Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Service and a nationally-recognized expert in citizen dialoguing and rural community development.
Moreover, the Wisconsin State Journal reports that survey questions were vetted by an advisory board that includes, among others: former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske; UW-Madison law school professors Franciska Coleman, a constitutional law scholar, and Jason Yackee, an adviser for the Federalist Society; Sean Stevens, a senior research fellow for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE); Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty; and former Supreme Court associate justice Tricia Zunker.
There is neither ethical nor scientific justification for holding up this survey. The objection is political. It is typical of progressives to take the object of their politics and define it as the political object. This is unacceptable.
* * *
Given the intellectual weight behind the survey and those who vetted it, the integrity of the survey itself, and the need to assess the state of free speech on college campuses across the UW System, one might expect from me an expression of surprise at the controversy. I am not in the least surprised (disappointed in my colleagues, but not surprised by their actions). Disregard for the norms of science has become itself normative on college campuses.
Paul Diesing’s excellent How Does Social Science Work? Published by the University of Pittsburg Press
In my research methods class, I assign a chapter on science politics from Paul Diesing’s excellent How Does Social Science Work? Reflections on Practice. The assigned chapter (chapter 8) is aptly named “Science Politics.” Diesing, a political scientist, distinguishes “democratic science,” wherein researchers place emphasis on the needs of communities in realizing their democratic interests in a free society, from “technocratic science,” wherein science is to serve the needs not of the people but those institutional actors in a position to direct the conduct and application of research. In technocratic science, gatekeepers are not merely content with advancing their own elite interests, but exercise power to prevent research that advances popular interest.
The reflex to stop a survey to determine the state of cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity on college campus is a function of technocratic desire. Corporate power has captured what is now “the neoliberal university.” In Gramscian terms, the traditional intellectual has been replaced by the “organic” one, professional “thought leaders” subservient not to the values of the Enlightenment but to the needs of the corporate class. (The organic character of the professoriate reinforces a point I often make on Freedom and Reason: progressives are not liberals; they are technocrats.) If it is perceived that a free speech survey will find the institution falling down on its traditional liberal guarantees of cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity, and that reforming the institution will harm the interests of the technocracy, which lie in part in advancing the doctrines of woke progressive ideology, then the survey must be altered or derailed or discredited.
We will get to the more conscious-level political objections in a moment, but the subjectivity produced by the social logic of the extended state apparatus, rationalized by the false belief that progressivism represents a left-of-center and forward-leaning philosophy of enlightened values, is the deeper structure that moves many influencers across the system to oppose an action that one might have thought would be highly desirable given matters to which progressives pay lip service. Of course, progressives say other things, as well. They code illiberal ideas in the language of equality and freedom, ideas such as “diversity,” equity” and “inclusion.” In fact, many progressives portray free speech as a Trojan horse used by conservatives to smuggle bigotry and hatred onto university campuses
A Knight-Ipsos report, which I turn to in a moment, suggests that the UW System survey would at least yield similar findings. But it is more than the neo-liberal caused trepidation I describe above that inspired the aggressive effort to prevent the survey from being administered. Here we come to the more conscious-level political objection. After all, the survey was organized by the UW-Stout’s Menard Center for the Study of Institutions and Innovations. That Center was seeded in 2017 with a donation from the Charles Koch Foundation. The Menard family is a major donor to the Republican Party. The Charles Koch Foundation is a right-wing libertarian organization.
Progressive hostility towards conservative and libertarian influence on college campuses is palatable. To be sure, the Menard family and the Koch Brothers are attached to corporate power but, unlike the professional-managerial class, where progressivism lives, a class that was long ago fully integrated into the corporate state system and subservient to the Democratic Party (especially in the colleges and programs of the humanities and social sciences), conservatism and libertarianism still root in the heartland—the farmer, the white proletariat, and the small entrepreneur. In other words, conservatism and libertarianism continue to be the home of small “d” and “r” democratic-republicanism, liberalism, and populism. So when a number of years ago the Charles Koch Foundation approached other campuses (before UW-Stout accepted their money contingent upon establishing the Center) there were a flurry of administrative and faculty meetings across the system to discuss the matter, with most campuses rejecting the offer on political-ideological grounds. I know. I was there.
Trying to save the survey by appealing to good intentions, Shiell acknowledged the political concerns to The Chronicle of Higher Education. “It might help people to understand the center for me to say I’m a liberal professor being funded by a conservative donor to run a nonpartisan center.” I don’t know what Shiell’s politics are for sure, but what Shiell doesn’t seem to understand is that liberalism is dying on college campuses. He is surrounded not by liberals but by progressives (whatever they call themselves). Progressives do not believe in free speech as an overarching value. For them, free thought and expression is a throating-clearing device. You’re familiar with the sentence that starts, “I believe in free speech, but….”
The same is true for many college students, especially those who make it into leadership positions. The Wisconsin State Journal reports that “Tyler Katzenberg, a spokesperson for UW-Madison’s student government, said ‘pretty much every student government was blindsided’ by the survey and not consulted. He said free speech is important but he’d prefer to focus on what he said were more pressing diversity problems, such as students of color feeling unwelcome on campus.” Why does a survey on free speech on campus interfere with these other diversity concerns? It doesn’t. But this sentiment confirms what I was earlier talking about concerning the interpretation of the free speech right (and comedy) as harmful for minorities. Diversity in viewpoint is not the sort of diversity that concerns those who live by the edicts and expectations of identitarianism.
One characteristic of those socialized in technocratic values is that belief that individuals cannot be trusted to make their own judgments. For example, Madison student MGR Govindarajan, legislative affairs chair for Associated Students of Madison, told reporter Will Kenneally of Channel 3000 that the survey questions could be misinterpreted. “The way the questions were laid out, people will see what they want to see and that’s going to lead to faulty results, which lawmakers can use to justify faulty policies,” the student said.
People seeing what they want to see is otherwise known as expressing an opinion, which is the point of opinion survey. Indeed, when you administer a survey you want participants to provide their opinion not the opinion of others (unless they are asked to speculate on the opinion of others—but then the response is still ultimately their opinion). One can see in Govindarajan’s opinion that the concern with frank expression of opinion is that, if the opinion expressed is one not shared by Govindarajan, then this could lead to policy choices with which Govindarajan disagrees. Govindarajan is saying the quite part out loud: Govindarajan opposes the survey because Govindarajan knows it will reveal problems with cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity in the UW System and that could lead to reforms that would break the hold progressives have on the institution.
You might detect that the possibility that the survey may help Wisconsin state Republicans is not something that keeps me up at night. As a liberal (a real one), my concern is traditionalist: preservation and rejuvenation of the foundations of a free society. Cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity lie at the heart of that foundation. Indeed, the question of free speech could not be more central to the diversity concern, as viewpoint diversity is foundational to the university experience. That Katzenberg does not grasp this is the failure of the university he attends to enlighten him as the point of a university education. If Republicans are fighting for the cause of liberalism, and Democrats oppose even determining whether free speech is in jeopardy on college campuses in the state of Wisconsin, then the strategic choice of allies is obvious.
* * *
The crisis of free speech on college campuses in America is so well-established that the need to present a lengthy dissertation on the topic feels unnecessary. But I don’t want to be accused of ducking the issue. In this section, I present findings from a recent national survey (only a few months old) similar in form and substance to that effectively scuttled by progressive Democrats in the UW System. The survey reveals troubling perceptions of free speech on college campuses. The good news is that the poll, released in January of this year by Knight-Ipsos, “College Student Views on Free Expression and Campus Speech 2022,” finds that college students place a high value on First Amendment principles. The bad news is that they “feel uneasy” (Knight-Ipsos’ characterization) about free speech for a variety of reasons.
The Knight Foundation commissioned Ipsos to conduct a nationally representative survey of more than 1,000 students ages 18 to 24 who were enrolled at different types of colleges. The survey finds that 84% of college students say free speech rights are extremely or very important in our democracy. The survey also finds that 83% of students believe the First Amendment protects people like them. This is reassuring. However, digging into the numbers, a troubling picture emerges. For example, only five percent of black students feels the First Amendment protects people like this a great deal. There are many problems like this one.
More than half of student respondents (59%) said college campuses should let them be “exposed to all types of speech,” even if students find the speech offensive. This number may also seem promising. But, really, it should be more robust. That more than four out of every ten students do not believe that students should be exposed to offensive speech threatens the legitimacy of a free and open society. This is because the value of free speech lies is in major part in the function of speech to offend.
For example, a Muslim student may find offensive an honest account of the role of Islam in oppressing women, but this account may help liberate that Muslim’s mind from the power of dogma in rationalizing the mistreatment of women. Yet, today, because teachers worry that they may offend Muslim students by speaking frankly, or that in offending Muslim students they may incur the wrath of administers who depend on a flow of immigrants from Muslim-majority students to fill the gap in tuition created by neoliberal policies, they hold their tongue. Moreover, many teachers I encounter, having internalized postcolonial and postmodernist notions of oppressive eurocentrism, have convinced themselves that Islam promotes women’s rights. The problem is thus not only self-censorship, but also cognitive dissonance. Such cognitive dissonance makes it difficult consciousness raising around this issue, an important feminist concern.
Part of the reason that number is not as robust as it should be is because it is dragged down by white progressives and especially black and brown students who believe the prevailing narrative concerning the oppression of black and brown people at the hands of the white establishment, a narrative promulgated everyday by teachers and student organizations on college campuses—a narrative students bring with them for high school. In fact, Republican students now represent the liberal faction on college campuses, with 71% in favor of maximal free speech as defined above. With the Republican Party the home of America’s conservatives, perhaps it is surprising that the percentage is that high. However, support for maximal free speech among Democrats (55%), blacks (47%), and Hispanics (45%) is alarmingly low.
Diving into the cross-tabs reveals troubling patterns and an awareness among Republican students that the university has become a place hostile to cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity. The percentage of students who said freedom of speech is secure today is marked by a partisan divide. Reflecting a sober read of the situation, only 27% of Republican students said freedom of speech is secure or very secure. That is down from 52% recorded in a poll from 2019. Among independent students, 46% said freedom of speech is secure or very secure. This figure stood at 59% in 2019. Unsurprisingly, Democrats, who enjoy an environment aligned with their political assumptions (I know, I live it everyday), reported perceiving little change over the intervening period; 61% reported freedom of speech is secure or very secure versus 63% in 2019. This perception is also held by their teachers, who, again, are disproportionately Democrats. These are the same folks holding up the UW System polls.
On the question of self-censorship, up from 54% in 2016, almost two-thirds of students agreed or somewhat agreed that the climate on their campuses prevented people from saying what they believe because others might find their views offensive. That’s up from 54% in 2016. Less than half of students expressed comfort voicing disagreement with their instructors in class. Just over half expressed comfort disagreeing with peers. Part of the discomfort at speaking frankly at an institution where frank speech is necessary to advance knowledge is awareness of the perception of racial, ethnic, religious, and other minorities who let the public know they feel unsafe on campus because of things people say, not necessarily to them, but generally. The number of students who express feeling unsafe is approaching one in five. As Frank Zappa emphasized on his notorious Crossfire appearance: “Words. We’re talking about words.”
* * *
Those of us who believe in the liberal values of cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity must redouble our efforts to make college campuses safe from both external and internal forms of censorship. By internal censorship, I mean self-censorship. Researching the matter over many years, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has found that far too many student self-censor. As Cherise Trump writes Newsweek, “Student self-censorship on college campuses shows how we are preparing the next generation for a fear-based society.” Teachers self-censor, as well. In today’s climate, uttering basic scientific truths can lead to reputational damage, social marginalization, and loss of professional opportunity, if not disciplinary action. It is also quite possible that teachers who would secretly like to see the survey go forward openly oppose its administration to conform with the sentiment of those around them. (Another problem is compelled speech, an issue I have address on Freedom and Reason.)
Derrick Jensen contemplates the problem of self-censorship
The time to deal with these problems is now, not when majority opinion turns against cognitive liberty and free expression. Today, we stand on the knife’s edge. We need more surveys to determine the extent of the problem. As I noted at the outset, by releasing the survey and distorting its character and purpose, it will be hard to administer the survey later because perception of bias and intent will be used to dismiss the results. Clearly, a lot of people don’t want the public to know about the state of cognitive liberty and viewpoint diversity at Wisconsin colleges and schools and wish to corrupt the survey if they cannot stop it. They are openly telling the public that they believe the findings will make their side look bad and help the other side. They’re probably right.
As I have written about extensively on this blog, there is an agenda that has taken root in established American institutions to generate a subjectivity and manufacture consent around the goals of corporate power, multiculturalism, and transnationalism. Dominated by progressives, the academia, especially in humanities and the social sciences, but also in the administration and elsewhere, rises in opposition to conservative, nationalist, and populist politics where liberalism remains a force.
Sending young adults into the world with the assumptions that benefit the corporate state agenda requires the systematic suppression of contrary ideas. Liberalism threatens neo-liberalism in the same way that Marxism is a threat to neo-Marxism. One sees this in the hegemony of such cracked albeit entrenched theories, describing themselves as “neo-Marxist,” as critical race theory and those underpinning gender and sexuality studies, doctrines targeting young people and portrayed as radical and revelatory—doctrines forming the basis of faculty and staff training programs, as if these are the only ways to look at the world and not the worst ways to look at the world.
In the face of rhetoric about academic freedom and freedom of thought and expression, faculty and students routinely portray free speech as right-wing cover for hateful ideas—a stealthy device enabling those who truck in racism and heterosexism. The values of liberalism, of the Enlightenment—humanism, individualism, rationalism, secularism—are not only routinely represented as expressions of white supremacy and the patriarchy, the ideology of Western colonizers—but programs and policies are constructed and instituted to render the impression that this rendering is the established truth. This objective nonsense is already delegitimizing higher education.
I’m sure I didn’t have to tell regular readers to this blog that suspicions that college campuses in Wisconsin have been doing a poor job of promoting or protecting viewpoint diversity are not without merit and that a survey confirming those suspicions would hurt progressives and the technocracy that makes possible lifetime employment and compensation locating professors at the top of the nation’s income earners—and advantage Wisconsin Republicans politically. That so many progressives worked (and continue to work) so hard to derail and discredit the UW System survey tells you that they fear, whether they are fully in touch with the source of those fears, that the findings will call into question the practices of the UW System, thereby potentially harming its ability to serve the interests of the corporate state, which depends on woke progressivism for competitive advantage and the disorganization of its workforce.
freedom and reason 