Posted on Jul 11, 2020
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This is no extract from George Orwell's 1984, his iconic vision of a dystopian society in which "thought police" persecute individual thought, and where apparatchiks "rectify" historical records to concur with current thinking... but it could well be, writes Gary Cartwright.
The above is an extract from an open letter, signed by 150 academics, teachers, historians, playwrights, authors and journalists, published by the New York based Harpers Magazine on July 7th.
The signatories draw attention to the fears of many that there are elements of the far-left using the current situation following the death in custody of one George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25th in order to force through what would appear to be a raft of neo-Marxist diktats, deliberately creating conflict between demographic groups, "rectifying" historic facts that do not fit their narrative, and stifling all debate.
It is worth noting that among the signatories to the letter is J.K. Rowling, highly esteemed author of the best-selling Harry Potter books.
She has, in the past, been criticised for her left-wing leanings, as have other signatories, notably Noam Chomsky, but it would appear that she is not left-wing enough. The author has effectively been "cancelled", to use a ghastly modern expression, for having voiced her opinion that only women can menstruate.
Until recently, possibly as many as 100% of people would have agreed with her. Today, however, that number may have fallen to 99.9% or even less, but who would dare to voice such an opinion having witnessed the treatment of Ms. Rowling?
To look at the facts, which will not much concern our modern day revolutionaries, Ms. Rowling has been on record as expressing concerns for the safety of trans-women. Her main worries seem to revolve around logistics and infrastructure: “when you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman … then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside”, she has said. It would be hard to find a woman, or indeed any parent, who does not share her fears in this regard.
Her main crime, in the eyes of the Neo-Marxists, is to have opened the debate, something that they will not accept. Whilst some may argue that Marxism is a form of "pluralist democracy", there is little historic evidence of democratic freedom in any Marxist state or institution.
A fundamental pillar of democracy is free speech. Hate and such like are rightly outlawed but the effect of unrestricted attacks on public comment is equivalent to totalitarian control as has been seen so often throughout history. We could well be looking at a general collapse of democracy.
Neo-Marxists disagree with Karl Marx himself in that they do not believe social revolution is inevitable: if it were, it would have happened by now. They believe it is a process that must be forced - to quote Mao, "all power comes from the barrel of a gun".
“Sometimes, you have to destroy something in order to build something better,” author Brandon Sanderson has said, echoing Marx himself.
So today we see the desecration and destruction of that one thing the Neo-Marxists hate more than any other - the past.
Monuments and memorials to historic figures are hurled into harbours, or just quietly removed. No justification, no debate, it is just done. The Union Flag at The Cenotaph, the national memorial to the fallen of two world wars, is put to the flame to a background of gleeful howls of delight from the mob.
The British state, emasculated and seemingly directionless at this time, presented the Neo-Marxists with their greatest propaganda coup to date when officers of London's Metropolitan Police disgraced themselves and their uniforms as they knelt in submission to the mob in Trafalgar Square last month.
Should there be any doubt as to the true agenda of the Black Lives Matter movement, in 2015 co-founder Patrisse Cullors described herself and her fellow organisers as “trained Marxists”.
Of course those who the Neo-Marxists claim to speak for are mere pawns in the game.
‘Black lives matter,’ taken as a sentence, is profoundly true. But it’s not that simple. ‘Black Lives Matter’ did not emerge merely as a sentence. Those three words function as a message and a platform making a significant political statement – one guided by Marxist ideology that seeks to revolutionize our culture and society.
- The day Britain's police knelt in submission to the mob
- Premier League distances itself from political activism of Black Lives Matter UK
Follow EU Today on Social media: