The climate of political debate in the Western world has long been paralysed by the lack of real arguments and objective reasoning. Instead, people sit around and call each other names, much like they do in kindergarten. There are special gatekeepers in the media, academia and political life who stop too lively debates using such methods.
It’s all about trying to navigate the conversation in such a way that you don’t get labelled a populist, Islamophobe, homophobe, racist or whatever. And nowadays, that’s not the easiest thing to do. For example, Islam contains a lot of views that could be labelled misogynistic or even anti-democratic, so you have to be extremely careful. However, it is permissible to criticise Catholics or Orthodox Christians for similar shortcomings.
And when it comes to homosexuality, it’s not considered OK to question why the public should solemnly celebrate men having anal or oral sex. What people do in the bedroom is their business, but is it worth celebrating in the way we do today, with flags, parades and fireworks? It should at least be worth discussing. It’s not about opposing homosexuality (that’s now a non-issue), but that maybe there are more fun things to parade around?
Similar oddities exist in debates concerning feminism. Universal suffrage was introduced over 100 years ago, women have had the opportunity to fundamentally change society, yet many people believe that there is some kind of patriarchy ruling in secret. If it had not been feminists who put forward the idea, it would have been labelled a conspiracy theory, because it cannot be substantiated by academic statistical studies or in any other way.
Last but not least, there is the immigration debate. And since in many countries immigration is supported or maintained by taxpayers, it should be a public policy issue. There should be no problem saying this or that. As long as it’s our own hard-earned money, we can have opinions about how it’s spent.
But, no, anyone who is against immigration is labelled a racist or a Nazi. This way, the authorities avoid the debate about how tax money is spent, and why they let in hundreds of thousands of people, often without a decent education, illiterate, and with a foreign culture in their luggage.
This could never be sold with normal political arguments, could it?
Let’s take in hundreds of thousands of poorly educated Africans and support them indefinitely, and then invite their relatives too and support them with taxpayers’ money. That’s a good idea that people would vote for. Let’s use this in our election campaign!
No, nobody would agree to it, if it was launched in that way.
This policy can only be implemented in a society where the population is censored and gagged, where gatekeepers control the media and political debates, and where ordinary people are afraid to speak their minds because it could lead to social exclusion or public shame.
But now it has gone too far, people are getting tired of the game, and society is creaking at the seams.
Maybe it’s worth experiencing a little social punishment, or even being called a racist? After all, they are just words, and our views are hardly extreme, but lukewarm centrist politics.
