UKIP is in the middle of a fight for its soul between being an uncontroversial libertarian party or being tough on terrorism and barbarity with the risk of being a pariah to many. The bias in this article is toward proudly being a pariah.
There are dangers to civil society that have to be faced, which the two parties, sitting on the see-saw of power, are not likely to tackle because these are divisive issues. UKIP Daily readers are familiar with these issues, but just to recap:
- Terrorism and barbaric practices that have been ignored or spoken about with euphemisms and deflections.
- Ideological insanity such as multiple genders, child abuse through transgenderism summarised as postmodernist-Marxism. (Also known asCultuaral-Marxism, PC, social justice etc).
- The failure to escape the EU.
What is likely to happen if those three areas became the major targets of UKIP policy? Firstly, howls of outrage from the media and insults in the street by ideologues and those who believe the media. But, look at what happened when a barely known Canadian Professor of psychology stood up against their postmodernist-Marxist Government…
Hundreds of thousands of viewers on YouTube reacted to Professor Jordan Peterson with support and messages of goodwill when he stood up to the Canadian government by objecting to being forced to use personal pronouns.His research funding was refused for the first time in his career. He turned to Crowdfunding and is now receiving $600,000 a year from around the world; that is from 4,800 patrons donating an average of $135 a year each. They are giving this money just to resist postmodernist-Marxism.
He is lauded as a hero for standing up against postmodernist-Marxism and is using some of this money to build a website to expose postmodernist courses.There is the more recent example of an engineer at Google, James Damore, being sacked for saying that you can’t question ideology at Google. He has been lambasted by the mainstream media and interviewed with great affection by the anti-ideology YouTube channels; he obtained 12,000 new followers on Twitter within 12 hours.
There is the more recent example of an engineer at Google, James Damore, being sacked for saying that you can’t question ideology at Google. He has been lambasted by the mainstream media and interviewed with great affection by the anti-ideology YouTube channels; he obtained 12,000 new followers on Twitter within 12 hours.
What would happen to UKIP with a strong stance on Sharia and on postmodernist-Marxism? How many tens of thousands would flock to the party or just sign-up for £2 a month or even as much as £100 a year as in the case of Jordan Peterson? There are likely millions of people who would be delighted by such a scenario, and other millions who would be apoplectic.
Taking such stands is radical, dangerous, and wonderful: It would be reviled with the false labels of ‘xenophobic, racist, and bigoted’ just like when arguing for the referendum, plus ‘fascist’ or maybe even ‘literally Hitler’.
We have to deal with the problem of terrorism and the existence of practices we find barbaric or unlawful, which are ignored so as not to offend the community which practices them.
We also have to tackle postmodernist-Marxism, because in this ideology there is no such thing as good and bad, or better and worse social practices; everything is just a point of view. This makes it impossible to seriously discuss social issues.
The ideologues believe that presenting a case, giving evidence and persuading the other side to your point of view, all these traditional ways to settle disputes or prove facts, are nothing more than a trick done by the powerful to the weak. Therefore they shout down, misrepresent and insult any serious argument.
They believe that free speech itself is just a trick used by ‘Nazis’ to befuddle, confuse, and defraud the poor oppressed non-whites or women or other randomly favoured groups seen by the ideologues as ‘oppressed’. This is the root of why it is so hard to talk seriously about any subject that involves culture, race or sex.
The ideology has been exposed and excoriated by many including the aforesaid Professor Jordan Peterson and Professor Gad Saad; both of whom detailed the insanity in videos on YouTube and in presentations to the Canadian Parliament. Being a party that declares itself opposed to postmodernist ideology would be international news.
Completing Brexit is surely uncontroversial within UKIP. The need to deal with all things PC is frequently addressed in UKIPDaily. And, of course, dealing with terrorism and barbarity. These are all very much in line with the views taken by some of the candidates for leadership of the Party.
Countering the two ideologies would be as radical as, and more dangerous than, the original aim of the Party and I believe will be greeted with cheers of relief and howls of outrage.
What’s your opinion of these three elements being part of a UKIP manifesto?