In 2010 of the Labour government made cuts to legal aid with deeper cuts by the coalition government in 2012. The deepest cuts coming after 2013 when LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act was passed by Parliament. The cuts meant many people facing family, civil and criminal cases were defined limits imposed on their legal rights in aid. It would be fair to say those mostly affected were from poorer households. Cuts were accentuated in a time of austerity where the coalition government imposed huge cuts to disability entitlements, which saw thousands commit suicide. Into thousand 17 the Crown Prosecution Service declared they would be cracking down on social media hate speech.
Freedom of Expression guidelines broadly define hate speech as “forms of expression which incite violence, hatred or discrimination against other persons and groups, the tick Lily by reference to vet ethnicity, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation...” The guidelines make no reference at all to disability either mental or physical. The guidelines also acknowledge there is no universally accepted definition. This leaves interpretation open and vague, which could cause more problems than solve, as interpretation could be manipulated to fit an ideology or narrative. It would therefore not take into consideration other factors such as mental health.
As mentioned in M.L. Perlin’s book: The Hidden Prejudice Mental Disability on Trial, in chapter 12 Exposing the Prejudice, Perlin touches upon the law prioritising focus groups such as feminist jurisprudence, economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies, ensuring deep research, great funding and plenty of attention. These groups have been involved in criticising freedom of speech and demanding crackdowns on hate speech over the Internet. They argue that free speech can be offensive and runs the risk of causing psychological harm to otherwise healthy people.
However, what their arguments do not consider is whether the person causing offence is doing so intentionally. It is frequently assumed that offence is often done with intent. But what if the person who has caused offence does not understand this? What if a person who was caused offence is struggling with mental illness? Perhaps the person speaking undesirable fort suffers with depression, bipolar, personality disorder? Maybe they have suffered a traumatic crime at the hands of a person belonging to a marginalised group and are speaking publicly about that event. Speaking of such an experience will inevitably be offensive to some.
Perlin, who wrote this book in 2000 notes the extensive research provided to these various focus groups regarding law in comparison to mental illness which received its last research investigation in the 1980s. A two-decade timespan. Furthermore, research has been non-existent since the year 2000 and seems only to be done in America. Perlin discusses therapeutic jurisprudence and defines it as recognising rules, legal procedures and roles with consideration of those with mental health disabilities with anti-therapeutic jurisprudence providing a negative impact on that group. The CPS crackdown could be considered reflective of anti-therapeutic jurisprudence regarding mentally ill people using social media. It is not Perlin’s intention to create a therapeutic state but instead consider mental health with regards to legislation. This is not believed to be taking place.
It is also Perlin’s concerned that research will be limited to academic circles preventing necessary changes in the legal system or within the fast-evolving society. Despite the extensive literature over the decades regarding mental illness it has continued to be ignored by the judicial system. In Europe under article 14 of the European Convention on human rights individuals have protection against discrimination. However, the freedom of speech guidelines proves this to be wrong, displaying discrimination towards disabled. Perlin provided with research almost 2 decades ago identifying very little research in Western society is provided or considered regarding mental health and the legal system.
So why is this?
Perlin identifies sanism as a dominant psychological force which distorts rational decision-making, encourages pre-textuality and teleology, and prevents focusing on questions are meaningful to therapeutic jurisprudence enquiries. Sanist decisions operate in an anti-therapeutic world. Until this system sanist biases are confronted and social science data is intelligently weighed and assessed, mental health will lack consideration in this way. Perlin has also criticised sloppily drafted law as further evidence to the problem facing therapeutic jurisprudence, which highlights the lack of care and attention legislators devote to mental disability. Also identified is the age of legislation still used in action today as sometimes decades, even centuries old. Apathy towards and disinterest in precision and accuracy in terminology reflects the sanist ways that both legislators and judges subordinate mental disability law issues. So why does this matter?
Is history repeating itself?
Mark P. Mostert wrote “useless eaters: disability as genocidal marker in Nazi Germany” in 2002. Mostert’s chilling first sentence states, “the methods used for mass extermination in the Nazi death camps originated and were perfected in earlier used against people with physical, emotional, and intellectual disabilities.” Mostert observed the focus remaining on the extermination of Jews with little attention paid to precipitating events serving as a catalyst to the Holocaust. Societal and scientific perceptions of difference extended to state policy, which was intensified and codified with the rise of national socialism and Hitler's assumption of power in 1933. Notions of difference were first expressed in state sanctioned killings of children and adults with a wide range of physical, emotional and intellectual disabilities. Mostert examines the manipulation of key variables which allowed a highly sophisticated Western society manipulate via state law and policy to sanction and eventually murdered phase with disabilities.
The outbreak of World War I caused social and economic repercussions for Germany. With the need to ration food and provide care and medicine for those injured in the war effort, facilities became overcrowded with high-levels of neglect and deprivation on such ill funded institutes. Today, in a time of austerity the consequences are noticeable on our public services including our National Health Service and the prison services. The reallocation of resources saw a divide between those who were healthy and able to contribute and those who were not. That has been notable with the Conservative government review of disability entitlements in the UK in recent years, which sadly saw many suicides as a result to austerity cuts. In Germany it was seen that extensive and expensive care could not aid Germans economic recovery.
Therefore, inappropriate or undesirable behaviour by those who were disabled were often considered a threat to public decency and social order. Today, we have seen a remarkable compassion for most people of marginalised groups, but still notably reject compassion or empathy towards those with mental illness. This acknowledges that physical differences are frequently met with compassion in today’s public sphere, but hidden illness receives less empathy. Mostert states, inappropriate public behaviour by people with disabilities was often dealt with through legal action and the criminal justice system melding disability and criminality in the public mind. Even in today's society many people go undiagnosed with mental illness due to fear of stigmatisation. Furthermore, in today's society there is huge pressure on the public to conform with social ideologies and with this huge pressure anyone who does not conform is targeted and labelled negatively. Labels such as Nazi, Islamophobic, racist homophobic are often thrown out to shame and ridicule those who do not follow the social order. However, there is currently no label for those who lack empathy for those with disability or mental illness. Why is this?
It is rarely argued in today's society that those who are not conforming to social order might be emotionally incapable of empathising or intellectually ill-equipped to understand these new social orders. Why is this not a consideration? As someone who has suffered a traumatic experience by someone of a different race, I wish to speak publicly about this and warn others. In doing so I risk offending many other people and the law, in its discriminatory, sanist way does not cover me for the trauma which I have suffered and the offence which I might cause.
As discussed in a previous blog post, in his 2014 speech “What’s in a name? Privacy and anonymous speech on the internet.” Lord Neuberger reflects on history, observing the benefits of offensive speech actioned by a political critic who wrote under the pseudonym of Junius. It is important to question whether governments are ordering these crackdowns for their own narcissistic fears of being criticised, or whether it is sincerely concerned for marginalised groups. If it is for concern for these marginalised groups, why have they chosen to discriminate against one particular group? If governments fear history repeating itself, then why are they repeating history? John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, political economist and civil servant. He was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism and came up with the harm principle. The basis of the harm principle was considered that as long as no one is harmed, the only justification for interference with other people's freedom would be to prevent harm to others. It is the marginalised groups who argue this and claim that freedom of speech can cause psychological harm.
But as it is raised in this post, it would be harmful to segregate those with mental illness and mental disability from others for fear that their freedom of speech may offend others with the possibility of causing psychological harm. As seen in history, to target and identify marginalised groups, such as those with mental disabilities would be far more harmful than the words they express. In today's society we see more discrimination against those with mental disabilities than any other marginalised group. What is distinctly disturbing, is that this marginalised group receives little protection under the law as it currently stands. This group is once again at the highest risk of being imprisoned for unintentionally offending others and therefore institutionalised.
Governments across the world tell us they are concerned that history is repeating itself. They are right to be concerned, for it is. But as has been seen in the past where governments have been responsible for the discrimination of the mentally ill, today's governments are repeating the exact same patterns. Governments claim to be concerned that history is repeating itself and yet they are ensuring that it does. It is up to us to question why.
the I wrote a blog post regarding Western pornography and its effects on African men, here. And here I would like to further the debate on Western pornography and discuss whether it should be considered freedom of expression, noting the limitations on freedom of expression including harm which may be caused. I would like to then consider the possible harm caused through pornography using the conservative argument, the feminist argument and compare it to the meaning of freedom of expression.
Speech should be context dependent a point illustrated by the judgement by the US Supreme Court in Schenck v Hodges , a case whether defendants were prosecuted for distributing pamphlets arguing against the drafting of soldiers to fight in World War I. “Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and of such nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent... If an actual obstruction of recruiting service were approved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.” Proving that freedom of speech would be limited where a real danger or harm could be caused, the law will seek to limit it. But what accounts for freedom of expression?
Article 10 the European Convention of human rights states; 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. Article 10 seeks to expand on speech by including the use of symbols, cartoons, plays, a particular type of dress et cetera in its use of freedom of expression. The first Amendment to the US Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise there of; 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 readdress of grievances. The ECHR expands its understanding of freedom of expression but limits it with responsibility and duty, where as the first amendment concentrate solely on speech with no acknowledgement of limits to that freedom.
It is therefore fair to say that pornography falls under freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR. However, Ronald Dworkin an American philosopher and jurist, questioned whether pornography should count as free speech, thus benefit from free-speech protections and whether it could cause harm to individuals of a wider society. In 1981, he wrote “the majority of people in both countries would prefer substantial censorship if not outright prohibition of ‘sexually explicit’ material with many of that majority themselves consumers of what ever pornography is on offer, who would strongly prefer that their children, not follow them in that taste.” However, since Dworkin made this statement the accessibility of pornography has progressed.
To define what pornography is, Justice Stewart a US judge famously said in 1964, “I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it”. The Oxford English dictionary defines pornography as “the explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, et cetera in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings.” However, feminist thinkers Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Macakinnon (1988) defined it as “the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women whether in pictures or words,” further explaining the representations dehumanising women as sexual objects or commodities, or as experiencing sexual pleasure in being raped. The problem with this definition however, is it excludes gay and child pornography and also assumes wrong morality with no evidence to prove this. Therefore igniting controversy surrounding the definition of pornography.
Should the law restrict pornography? With this question comes the moral, harm and feminist arguments. So we should explore the Conservative argument first. In 2012, West stated the main opposition to pornography from moral and religious conservatives, was due to its sexually explicit, obscene and morally corrupting content. He explained that according to conservatives, “pornography is deeply offensive to decent family and religious values and citizens who hold these values. Consumption is bad for society, undermining and is stabilising the moral fabric of decent and stable society. It encourages sexual promiscuity, deviant sexual practices that threaten traditional family and religious institutions. It corrupts the character of those who consume it preventing them from leading a good family life... The state is justified in using it is coerces power to uphold and enforce a community's moral convictions understood as ‘legal moralism’, to prevent citizens from harming themselves. Conservatives believe it is legitimate for the state to prohibit consenting adults from publishing and viewing pornography, even in private.” It will also be argued that not all conservatives feel this way about pornography or the prohibition of pornography.
With West’s argument in mind, it is necessary to explore the harmfulness of pornography. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and a professor emeritus at Stanford University created a survey of 20,000 young people of which 75% were men. It was observed young men, who played videogames to excess, excess being about five or more hours a day, and their average viewing time of pornography. That viewing time equated to around two hours per week, but Zimbardo, recorded the psychological change in mindset through excessive use of video games and pornography. He noted how rather than concentrating on work in class boys minds drifted to wishing they were playing computer games. And when in the presence of girls, boys would rather be watching pornography due to never getting rejected. Zimbardo, therefore claimed that this was leading and had already led to a crisis. He noted the change in brain function, the change to the reward centre in the brain and the evidence that it happens more in boys brains than girls brains. He claimed that boy’s brains were becoming digitally rewired.
It was argued that we currently see young men of today drink less than they once did, take less drugs than they once did, they are less violent than they once were, and in other words the picture is not as bleak as what Philip Zimbardo was claiming. Zimbardo argued the less violence is due to their not leaving their room. They are not drinking alcohol because they are drinking Coke and addicted to sugar. He argued young boys are becoming ‘fat arses’. With the increase in obesity, that also increases the likelihood of getting type 2 diabetes a consequence of which is reduced libido. Kids are getting turned on by watching video but physiologically they are less aroused. It is called PIED, porn induced erectile dysfunction. The solution offered by Zimbardo, is for parents to become aware of a number of hours the child spends doing these things. He recommends using a time journal and listing how much time children spend with friends, spend exercising, spend reading and writing. The point which will become realised is that the parents will be alarmed when they do this and therefore set more stringent rules, such as don't do play videos until you finish your homework. Zimbardo, believes media especially American media is to blame providing negative images of men being slobs, or being undesirable. Here Zimbardo has provided mental and physical harm created by pornography.
And now we arrive at the feminist argument. As previously mentioned some feminist writers argue pornography should be censored due to the detrimental impact it can have on the women within society. One such author is Prof Rae Langton. Rae Langton uses the feminist definition of pornography explaining the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women portraying women as sexual objects, as things, or commodities, enjoying pain or humiliation or rape. She goes on to clarify she is concerned only with the type of pornography that does subordinate women and acknowledges not all pornography does that. Rae Langton believes the solution lies in certain material being justified in censorship but prefers an opt in system rather than an opt out system within obtaining pornography through the Internet if you really wanted it. Her concern is not so much that it turns men into rapists but that it dehumanises women and changes the views towards women within society.
As Zimbardo’s study acknowledges, men have become more fearful, not of women but of rejection and therefore avoid them out of preference to their own psychological needs. However, my concern raised in my previous blog post regarding the impact of Western porn on Third World men does reinstate the fear feminists raise with regards to men turning violent having watched pornography. The problem here in lies that those proven to act violently having watched pornography are those who we are deliberately inviting into our society. It would infringe on human rights for studies to take place on particular segments of society to reach a more clear perspective with regards to the effects of pornography on particular societal demographics. With these men now being invited into our Western culture but political correctness suppressing freedom of speech, to dispute this action or discussion the feminist concern with pornography has now become legitimate.
With Mills argument in mind, that is the state should only limit individual freedom if harm is caused to others and having considered all the arguments raised, I now handover this information to you for you to reflect upon and come to your own conclusions as to what should happen with regards to pornography and censorship.
When I received grief for speaking out about what has happened to me, there are moments when I wonder if that person who is calling me a racist is in fact a family member. I have not spoken to any of my family members about what is happening to me since I revealed the incident to one friends and didn’t feel I got the support I should have. So, knowing my family's political leanings and where they stand on immigration, refugees and migrants and knowing how infuriated they become by those who oppose it, I am sometimes left wondering if perhaps it is my family members who give me grief from behind a computer screen. Which then leads me to wonder, how would they feel if they found out that it was myself their own family member and a genuine rape attack, who they were verbally attacking? Is it therefore better to assume that someone who tells such a story about rape is being genuine? And if that person who alleges such a crime is clearly of a similar racial background to yourself and from the same continent or country as yourself is it not wise to try to be empathetic towards what they are alleging whether it fits your own political beliefs or not?
How would you feel if someone confided in you as a stranger searching for help something that contradicted your political beliefs? And on that basis you condemned them rightly or wrongly. With condemning them you ultimately shame, humiliate, and belittle the trauma which they may or may not have faced in reality. The fact of the matter is you may never know whether it was fact or fiction. But what if having handed out that type of abuse you learned sometime later not only that the person, the stranger on the Internet has not only been telling the truth but unbeknown to you and unbeknown of them you were actually related. Try to consider all of the times which you have kept significant secrets from your relatives and immediate family. Now consider why you kept such significant secrets from your relatives and immediate family. And finally now contemplate why a relative or immediate family member might keep something secret from you. It is usually those with strong belief systems we fear exposing to our own truths on the basis that we are unable to predict their response.
It is not unheard of that people are under the misconception that their belief system is a moderate one. This might be particularly so politically in those who are lacking in any religious beliefs. It may not. It is these groups who may consider that because they are open-minded from a religious perspective that they are open minded on the political front. So, consider whether you follow a political pattern and follow particular political beliefs or whether you are also politically open-minded. Do you scorn those with opposing political ideologies on the television or YouTube? Are you unwilling to listen to their thoughts and opinions? I suspect that in the same way I fear telling my left-leaning family that I was raped by a migrant man, I would also fear telling a white nationalist family member of rape by a white man or a Muslim family member about a rape, had it have been the case.
On this basis it could very much be considered the case that it is politics as well as religion which is divisive within our society as well as our families. Referendums such as the Scottish referendum and the UK referendum as well as the Catalonian referendum all show how divisive a yes, no question can be in such a politically passionate climate that we currently have. This political passion and climate has without a doubt been devised by multiculturalism, a feeling of being overprotective towards certain groups and minorities and a yearning to enforce that overprotective feeling onto others. In fact it could be regarded as a cultural and a societal passion as opposed to a political one, but simply dressed up as that. So if you have a deep passion for particular groups in society or specific religions or political movements then you might be someone who is unapproachable to others.
So how can we become indifferent not only to politics but to the experiment of multiculturalism and religion when we live all side-by-side? For myself I have lacked any interest in mainstream media, I have kept out of politics and I have distanced myself from religion in an effort to prevent any of those becoming my identity and surrounding myself with similar like-minded people. The difficulty which I have come across is when I am sharing something so personal such as the rape with somebody and speaking of his different racial background. His race is his identity. As is my racial identity. It is part of his description. He was a stranger to me. How else do I describe a stranger than to note their appearance. If that appearance is different to mine, does that observation of such difference make me racist? He spoke with broken English. Does that observation to describe him make me xenophobic? I’m sure a stranger would describe me as a Caucasian female with green eyes and brown hair. And that would not be offensive to me or anyone else.
It therefore becomes questionable whether in situations like this where many people have distanced themselves from politics, religion and societal confrontations in an effort to integrate into this new diverse world how unreasonable is it for a person of a certain race who is treated cruelly by a person of another race to speak of that cruelty? At the end of the day we could abandon all our possible belief systems, but our different skin colours will always indicate to us all our different identities. Not only that but it will always indicate similarities therefore if someone similar to yourself has experienced significant cruelty at the hands of another, rather than disbelieve and accuse it might be in your interest to be helpful and empathetic without criticism. This is by no means an easy task to take on. It could even be considered unachievable but let's try to be positive and make it our aim.
We live in a society where everyone is keen to judge. Labels are being flung left right and centre which inevitably means, everyone wants to label another. This means that we have stopped listening to each other and conversing with each other and I are now seemingly very passive-aggressive with each other. In our fast-moving world and society, it is far easier to listen to a couple of words, make a judgement and throw a label at a person than to listen and ask questions. The importance of questions in our society today, amongst a variety of cultures, races, religions and abilities will help us all clarify and understand each other as individuals. In today's society with the invention of social media and providing our thoughts within 140 characters, expression for the individual has become brief, reactive and misunderstood. With a thought passed in a minuscule 140 characters, it has helped enable the suffocating judgmental culture within the various cultures. Insults are thrown with no thought given as to why the insult should be thrown. Rarely when someone sees a comment they don't like, do they stop to ask why that comment was made. Why is that? Why are we so quick to insult, but so slow to ask questions and discover the reasoning behind comments we may take offence to?
Being quite new to social media myself, I found the use of twitter by some to be quite absurd. It had not occurred to me how challenging both mentally and emotionally social media would be. Now, we see governments wanting to intervene on the use of social media which could now be seen by many as a public social utility by many. We must question, is it fair to intervene like this? As an adult who is new to the use of such media I can see both sides of the coin regarding this question.
Most people who turn to social media are not adults but are instead youngsters. Of course, youngsters are likely already to be subject to far more bullying than your average adult. They will likely face bullying in school, socially and to face more bullying online, which could and indeed does tip some youngsters and teens over the edge. It is also well reported that children are groomed by adults through social media by paedophiles. It is well documented that it is frequently white paedophiles who work alone through the internet on social media grooming the children. Rotherham shows the other side of paedophilia and child sexual exploitation within gangs a different method used by a different ethnicity, Pakistani Muslim.
As a parent myself who hasn't taken much interest in the past with regards to social media, I am on a steep learning curve. Not only for myself, but my child who I want to be able to protect. However, protection and the use of legislation against true criminals such as paedophiles has become politicised. The politicisation of social media, presumably done in an attempt to direct children into a political understanding and acceptance, has eradicated the recognition for our governments to protect us but instead has made us sceptical of our governments and corporations. There is an obvious use of propaganda within social media, as children and teenagers switch off the television and consume this new media.
For this reason the scepticism shown by parents is understandable. The excuse used to control social media due to paedophilia and online grooming appeared to be predominantly aimed at people who shared comments which did not fit a political agenda. In fact it was frequently reported that this was how the laws were being used not just by the papers but by the corporations themselves. Indeed people risk being sent to jail on the basis that they offended someone. But is it easy to prevent offence with so few characters available? Isn’t it inevitable with so few characters? So, did we need laws, or did we need questions?
I have tested this theory myself. I first noticed the problem when I made a comment that I did not want more migrants coming over, in a social media comment. Quite abrupt comment to make but regardless it was how I felt and with the right to expression, I expressed my thoughts and feelings. Obviously, my abrupt comment regarding a newspaper article about migrants, upset some people as I had expected. What I had expected next were questions asking why I felt that way. Perhaps that expectation was too high because what I got instead was insults, accusations and judgemental labels. As these were thrown at me, not once did those people making these insults ask why I felt that way.
Further to my surprise, the insults did not stop after two or three minutes but continued for a week or more. Hundreds of comments were exchanged and an ever-growing string of insults. But no questions. Nazi, xenophobic, Islamophobe, racist were words and insults I would receive in most comments. But no questions. No one inquired as to why I didn't want migrants coming to the country. So instead I had to tell them. I wonder how easy it is to say sorry when you have spent over a week insulting someone? Someone vulnerable who has experienced something quite traumatic? I wonder if it's easier to continue your argument on the basis of a person, the person you judged and insulted without understanding why, for the sake of saving face.
Of course, I am not a malicious person. I am not hateful. I am not a Nazi, or a racist perhaps somewhat Islamophobic and yes quite xenophobic too, but no malice is meant by that. It is simply what the name says it is, phobia, fear. And with ongoing terrorism, and ongoing Muslim grooming gangs and ongoing migrant rapes let's not pretend this fear is irrational. It is not. With our laws leaning towards greater protection for children of different races, religions and ethnicities then it is understandable that the British natives fear what protections they will receive. Yet again, biased and propagandist laws directing citizens in a certain politicised manner.
What I found when I tested this theory is that despite being insulted, I was able to question those who insulted me and in doing so we learned more about each other and came to accept why each of us felt the way that we did. In fact, some people when they put themselves in my shoes were able to understand my position on my feelings a little easier than they had when they had insulted me after presuming the worst of me. What this proved was that when people were faced with questions, their position and their outlook was also questioned not only in someone else's mind but in their own mind. Indeed they seemed to be unsure of their political ideology. Things weren't as black-and-white as they had thought.
So, to apply law and legislation to political thinking and comments is not only extreme but infringes on human rights. And yet governments and corporations want to apply such laws and infringement, why? Why not instead, teach people to talk, converse, debate and ask questions? Would this not be far more productive? Would this not mean unnecessary laws and legislation? Would this not expand the minds of those who use social media? Would this not help create an open and free society? Would it not be far cheaper on the taxpayer? And would it not keep the focus on real criminals such as paedophiles? Why? Why are they so scared to teach people to reply to comments with the question, why?
As a child, I remember growing up believing that asking questions was rude. This belief was implanted somewhere. Where, I cannot be sure. But I grew up with a strong belief asking someone questions about their beliefs and their feelings was rude and insulting. Of course, I am an adult now and it wasn't until recently that I understood why asking questions was actually so important. There are likely millions of people, including adults who truly believe that to ask questions of others who they do not understand and possibly judge, is rude and insulting.
Many people are not taught philosophy in school. They are not taught critical thinking, possibly ever. And certainly not on political issues. The vast majority of us tend to accept what we are told. We tend to follow the agenda and the propaganda barely questioning it. We tend to follow what our teachers say, they are after all rewarding us with grades. It is perhaps not ideal for one's future to grate on those with the power to make it a good one. With such compliance, this no doubt makes us easy to mould. All of which is likely intended. And that is why, I believe legislation and hypersensitive laws have been put in place over the idea of educating people to simply ask questions. So, it's time to wake up generation alpha. It is time to teach them critical thinking and philosophy at home. It is time we teach children ourselves.
Before I had my brain tumour removed I had to undergo lots of psychiatric and psychologist reports with one of the main questions being “do you suffer with depression?” and I didn't know how to answer that. The reason why I didn't know how to answer was because I didn't know the meaning of the word “depression” as it was used flamboyantly within conversation. To me it completely lost its meaning and its value. As I spoke amongst people they would say after a hard day at work “I am so depressed”. With the word so frequently used in everyday language I had stopped understanding what depression meant. So, when asked that question I simply answered “Well there are days when I cry and there are days when I feel sad, but I know exactly what I am feeling sad about and I think that it is quite reasonable for me to be feeling sad and emotional about those things. So, if that equates to being depressed then yes I am depressed”. I did get a few chuckles back in response and guaranteed I hadn’t ever suffered with depression.
I bring that up because I think it's important to explain how misuse and over usage of words means they lose their meaning and therefore value. Like with the word racism which is frequently floating around in conversations these days, just as flamboyantly as the word depression. Looking at the Oxford dictionary to get a definition of racism and it states, “prejudice discrimination when criticism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that their own race is superior”. This means Oxford dictionary doesn't direct it to any minority race but rather all races. It is therefore important to recognise it takes place amongst any racial group. It goes on to say, “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics and abilities for qualities specific to that race especially to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races”. That's always what I felt that racism meant, and could be applied to all races.
Reflecting on this, I have horrible days when I feel so down and so angry and frustrated about what’s going on with inequality within our law and establishment and you have to understand that it is the law and it is the judiciary and the establishment who are ultimately to blame. It is not black people. It is not Asian people. It is not Chinese people, Japanese or aboriginals. It is the establishment because they've gone obsessive and hyper-sensitive in their interpretations for these words. The word racism is losing its value and in the same way the word depression has had a terrible impact on those people suffering with it (minorities charities not defending mental health in the latest legal combats such as social media hate speech) the same could happen with “racism”.
Racism does exist, and it needs to be tackled but I don't want to be feeling like I’m a racist because I'm angry that the law and establishment are acting unjustly and imbalanced. This will harm society far deeper too and probably agitate racism. We are at a critical stage whereby we see the BBC double down on political correctness wanting to ensure their employees consist of 50 per cent male and female and then 15% employees in black and minority ethnicities also 8% with disabilities. This is fine presuming the interested population exists for those careers placements. But supposing they don’t? Supposing those people aren’t interesting in those positions? Also, worth considering is meritocracy, which many fully believe in. Without it we could find ourselves with a lazy, entitled, unimaginative population and I it’s probable people worry about this. Changing the way that society operates or manipulating the laws in this way is is going to have an overwhelming backlash.
Suspicion is that the establishment is working on the basis that the black and minority ethnicity group is going to outgrow the native European population and so for that reason they need to pander to this new growing group so there are no complications in the future. Under that concept it seems there is a fast direction towards socialism within Western society with a majority BAME civilians. However, this raises another problem with nepotism within employment which creates a lot of resentment between classes because those who are established continue with their families remaining as established. Those in poverty remain there. No different to capitalism ultimately.
So, in conclusion by overusing and the misuse of labels it could help to ensure loyalty from an increasing population which the establishment hope to establish a pretense of protecting this new demographic. The stretch for equality of outcome within corporations alongside the misuse of words and labels also appears to clarify speculation that indeed a communist/socialist society in the West is being set-up and initiated. This will be considered by some to be a deliberate conspiracy and by others not so.
I have a lot of supporters who are from the alt right, and many of these supporters support the idea of removing the woman's right to vote. I personally am not alt- right but rather anti-establishment. It is my suspicion the alt-right is controlled opposition. With that in mind I would like to go down the rabbit hole of taking women's rights to vote away from them and consider where that leads us in the future. Women of an elite class were allowed to vote at one point along with men. These women were often landowners and would be voting due to business and land matters. But regardless, let’s suppose we do take women's right to vote away from them and supposing we did take this opportunity away from women, supposing that was a decision made by men. Let’s consider the implications…
The aim of the alt-right is to procreate white people back into existence because they fear that there is be a white genocide. I suspect if males, the majority in Western society currently being white, took away a vote and freedoms from females then females would stop looking to men, particularly white men, for relationships and families and look elsewhere perhaps to other races in retaliation. For women at this point men would be a species they would not be able to trust and would certainly not want to mate with, and I believe it is this lack of acknowledgement of the consequences of their words that leads me to believe the alt-right is controlled opposition. In fact, the alt-right could become the creators of their own white genocide. There is reasonable evidence to show that is the case right now with what I believe is also controlled opposition with social justice warriors.
It is true there is an opportunity for the robotic womb and it is true that one-day men will be able to reproduce without women. But the alt-right men are also traditional men and therefore presumably, would not want to use this method of procreation but would rather mate with women. This obviously leaves men, particularly white men in a very awkward situation. They would buy now have become untrustworthy due to taking away women's freedoms and they would have shown themselves to be against equality and therefore unfair and inhumane. Women would obviously find this a deterrent and even threat for potential offspring and also become the particularly fearful with regards to their future freedoms and choices, and would therefore fight back to get their freedoms. It is my suspicion that women would stop reproducing with white men due to their mistrust of them. And therefore men, particularly white national men will have created their own white genocide they fear so much.
However, to prevent such a thing from happening they would have three options in order to pass on their genes. One would be to take the automated womb approach. Many may feel skeptical about this approach as it would not be conventional therefore removing the tradition they desire, it would make them single parents again removing the tradition they desire and there could be nervousness about the potential risk of such automated offspring. So secondly the option to ensure white offspring would be non-consenual offspring through the method of rape. There are historical periods where women have committed mass suicide to ensure the prevention of their own rapes. This is obviously a very cruel option and would ultimately see the genocide of the white race through war between the genders. So finally the third option would be for men to have mixed race offspring by having offspring with other raced women. Obviously white nationalist males do not want any of the options laid out, but I believe they are the designers and creators of their own genocide to their race by even raising such extremist issues such as removing the rights for women to vote. This is why I am incredibly suspicious of their objectives and them as a movement.
But let's not just finish here let's take this one step further, let's not forget that in history the men of our country who had no riches and no assets were also not allowed to vote. Therefore, you must question if there came a day when the woman's freedoms were denied to her and they were removed, would such a day arrive for men without assets and possibly lots of debt? I believe that I know the answer to this question but I'm curious as to your own perception. And having heard these arguments I will ask you again what benefit do men have to gain from removing women's votes?
If a person interprets my protesting the arrival of migrants and Sharia being practiced in Western society as xenophobic and racist, despite what I have faced with regards to being raped by such, then it is absolutely fine for myself and every other person to recognise these overbearing corporations who no doubt ensure this obscene integration (which inevitably turns into segregation) as anti-women, misogynistic, pro-rape, pro-child sex trafficking, pro paedophilia and whatever other disgusting harm these corporations are demanding to be inflicted upon the normal citizen.
Why should I respect corporations who actively supresses the voices of those concerned about the harm their fellow citizens must suffer? Corporations are known to actively inflict harm on citizens. BBC is evidence on this for two separate incidents known to the public, but I suspect there are some real hidden skeletons in their closet. The first instance is their omittance regarding Jimmy Savile and his paedophilic ways. I suspect with their suppression of this story, they are perfectly aware of worse happenings. The second instance is from 9/11 when building 7 was reported to have fallen by the BBC before it had actually happened. Clearly the BBC got the script wrong, or maybe the timer was off on the manmade destruction of the building.
It is no secret I am highly suspicious of large corporations. I’m very self sufficient because of this. I haven’t bought into consumerism, I didn’t buy into feminism. Social Justice I believed everyone deserved a chance. I probably related more to social justice on the basis that I had been sacked from several jobs (by various raced bosses) for having had a seizure on work premises. Obviously, this type of injustice makes a person want to fight and fight hard for equality. That should be appreciated and respected rather than hated and laughed at. But I digress.
I am absolutely sickened by observing these self-named social justice warriors try to weasel the reality of deliberate targeted rapes of white victims by large numbers of predominantly large numbers of Muslims in our society today as a ‘man thing’. We are not denying that these take place by white men in the elite of our society. BBC and Hollywood are proof of this. But what ALL of these men have in common is power to abuse. That power might come in status or in money, or that power might come as a shield through the origins of political correctness, and possible law suits regarding discrimination and racism. These men could be the poorest of the poor, but they still have incredible power over authorities.
What’s more, it seems to me that these huge corporations are now actually colluding with these particular groups to enable more crimes and silence the victims of these crimes from warning others. I’m left with no other alternative than to continue believing these disgusting corporations have always been and will continue to be pro-rape, pro-child sexual exploitation, pro-paedophilia, pro-child trafficking.
I detest the world in which I live. I will continue my heavy support for the independent shops and small alternatives. I hope others will also boycott big corporations. What I do find brings me optimism is that the left and right ultimately both despise the impact these corporations have on us, although sometimes for very different reasons. I hope one day the far left and far right can find some common ground and move forward against these huge overpowering systems together.
I am very clear that I am anti-establishment rather than a political loyalist. This may deter many from taking any interest in what I have to say, but this article is not written to persuade you into my own political rationale. It is now more than ever most important to think critically about what you have read or watched if it is portrayed as factual. Luckily we live in a time where the resources to do such research are at our finger tips, but unfortunately we also live in a time where the majority of peoples time is consumed by work. With the immediacy of information available we should be able to do a little critical analysis of the information fed to us despite our ever increasing working hours. This post is to give you some tips on how to analyse the information provided to us as factual, be that through the news media, documentaries, studies, academia, and various other representations of fact.
· Always important to fact check the author of a piece. What is their background, what is their academic and society/cultural interests? Who do they work for, and who is financing their work? Investigate those financial supporters and their intentions. Also consider the financial capability of all those related to the pieces and how that might affect the writing.
· Consider who the target audience is. Are they writing to appease a specific audience? Do they use language specifically used within their community or audience?
· What are the aims and objectives of the source of information? Does it provide a conclusion? Does the evidence provided in the piece allow for this conclusion? Is it emotionally based or factually based? Do the statistics provide generalisations overall or gain greater depth of types of individuals within the group being discussed?
· How does the mode of the publication influence the approach or style adopted by the author? Is it an article with the flexibility to provide an emotional conclusion, assuming the audience is inclusive to the knowledge and emotions of the article or is it an academic study providing statistics and assuming the audience require further information on the specific language used, perhaps providing a glossary and such.
· What is the sociological context of the piece? Is it concentrated or generalised? Does it take into consideration generalisations or concentrated origins within the piece? Is it legal, environmental, regimental, economical based? What is the origin and scope of the information provided?
· What are the key arguments for the piece? How persuasive are those arguments? Are arguments persuasive for emotional or statistical reasons or both?
I hope you can spend a few moments after watching or reading any factual presentation considering these questions and critically analysing pieces in the future. With many losing trust in the mainstream news as of recent times due to obvious bias shown, many are understandably turning to the use of alternative media or academic studies. However, critical analysis still needs to be applied in all areas of society where factual information is provided, including education.
Are these things you consider yourself? Do you consider any other questions while providing critical analysis of a piece? Let me know in the comments below.