In recent years the expression “freedom of speech” has acquired a new dimension, precisely concerning the right to give voice to one’s opinion without having to justify the reason for one’s thought.
In this new society, people feel empowered to give voice to the most despicable opinions (racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.), supported by slogans that incite discord spread by the media, without being more challenged to explain the reason for their position.
Radio, television and newspapers spread the extreme opinions of institutional figures, without challenging them to explain the reason, thus authorizing the rest of the population to do the same. Nowadays when someone requests to respect the right to free speech while presenting his most controversial views, what he really asks is the freedom to speak without having to analyze or explain his position.
The media manipulate collective thinking and instill fear
One of the objectives of terrorism is to spread fear, anger and distrust, and it is not surprising to see how the media lend a hand, doing a great job of spreading hatred.
Just think for example of the period following the attack on London Bridge, the Sun published a piece entitled “If we want peace … we need less Muslims”. Such a context explains the growth of a public opinion that sees people of Pakistani origin as the main cause of heinous acts of terror.
Discussing these issues and trying to prove their groundlessness, which is the goal of the author’s radio program, sometimes, instead of making people understand how much their position has been more indoctrination spread by the media, instead leads to the fateful expression “freedom of speech “, which in this case indicates the freedom to be able to present unfounded theses and opinions without being contradicted.
At the base there is a simple truth: some people are determined to believe that others are fundamentally evil, that a certain ethnic group is more inclined to commit specific crimes and unfortunately they do not even realize that they are prey to hatred as old as humanity itself. People have given up on questioning what they read about various sources of information, be they social media or newspapers.
The example of this situation is precisely the story of a listener on O’Brien’s radio show. “Ray” explains how his anger towards Islamism and Muslims grew day by day after the continuous reading of news and information on the net, he had become intractable even with the family until, at the request of his wife, he took a month off from the Internet. Without the constant messages of hatred, “Ray “‘s anger has faded and he has returned to live a peaceful existence.
The slogans: Best method to push public opinion not to think and at the same time convince it of the contrary
For years in the UK the idea has constantly been repeated that the EU limited the country’s freedom and imposed unwelcome laws. This opinion has existed for so long unchallenged and spread by the media, to become an absolute truth for millions of people, many of whom accept it without however being able to name a single reason for the negative influence of the EU on the United Kingdom.
The slogan phrases repeated by Brexit supporters such as: “Take back control”, “Sovereignty” or “Anglosphere” seem significant and useful in a debate, but they are nothing but empty shells without a clear meaning that discourage thought and avoid facts. . The biggest threat to Brexit is to ask people to describe the reasoning that led them to vote for leaving the EU.
The slogan strategy was also used by US President Donald Trump during his election campaign. To avoid the tiring task of thinking for himself, he promoted slogans that were easy to spread and remember as: ” Make America Great Again “. Furthermore, the slogans were perfect weapons to be used against the truth, for example the expression “fake news”, thanks to which Trump presented an alternative reality in which his lies were proposed as true.
The process is very simple: just take a set of disappointed and angry individuals, claim to understand what they are suffering, offer them a target to target their anger and finally help them not to think thanks to catchy slogans, claiming that anyone who forces them to explain what they mean is only stifling their right to free speech.
Public anger can be changed and redirected by the media
The cause of all the ills of society reported by the media has constantly changed over the years, from single mothers to immigration, however one of the ever-present themes is homosexuality.
The media and political institutions are still reluctant to teach in schools how homosexuality is something perfectly normal. This happens because, as with other issues, poisoning public opinion can bring monetary benefits to certain sectors.
In recent years the attention and accusation of diversity has shifted to transsexual women, for example the article in the Daily Mail by Richard Littlejohn in 2012 with the title “It is not only in the wrong body … but it also does the wrong job” he treated roughly and with devastating effects the story of Lucy Meadows, an elementary school teacher who had decided to change sex.
Two months after the article Lucy Medows committed suicide. Although there are different dimensions on the issue of transsexuality for which the author of this book admits that he has no answer, such as if self-identification is as harmless as his defenders insist or if the problem of men who pretend transsexuality for committing rapes is as acute as others say, the only certainty is that uninformed and hate-focused journalism can push the world to show only its worst side.
The “Incels”, like some straight white men think they are the real victim of discrimination in the last century
The “Incel” short for “Involuntary Celibates” are a group of men who support white supremacy who believe in “forced monogamy”, described by psychology professor Jordan Peterson as a solution for maintaining social stability.
According to Peterson, in a world where women can freely choose their sexual partner, they will automatically be attracted to successful men, thus reducing the remaining half of the male population to involuntary bachelors.
Peterson’s ideology offers men an excuse for their failures by absolving them of all responsibilities and reduces women to mere envelopes intended to satisfy the sexual needs of the male gender. The years of struggle for women’s rights and all the progress achieved can easily be nullified by these radically misogynistic new positions.
The misogyny and abuse of women has reached very high levels on the net and it must be understood that the situation has never been different. Verbal and physical harassment and abuse will not end if society does not change, refusing the practice of objectification of the female body.
The selfish ideology promulgated through the pejorative use of expressions such as “nurse state”
Expressions like “virtue signaling” and “nurse status” are used very often by the media in their pejorative sense, in an attempt to suggest the idea that acts of altruism or generosity are performed only to receive admiration or that the state does not should take charge of protecting individuals from themselves.
This is a vision promulgated above all by taxpayers who see the money of their taxes spent on services they do not directly benefit from, it could be called an egoistic ideology. Very often the term “nurse state” is used together with “economic freedom” to spread the idea that the state should not enact laws that protect consumers but put the sticks in the wheels of large multinationals, therefore unbridled capitalism is promoted.
The prospect is a society in which money is the most important element and the expression “freedom of choice” camouflages a system that continues to enrich the rich at the expense of the poorest.
Helping people to start thinking again
In a world where one is more likely to spread tailor-made conflicts instead of presenting the facts and pushing for logical reasoning, the only solution is a total transformation of the media.
Newspapers and information sources must be the mouths of truth, they must push people to think through targeted questions relating to the motivation of certain opinions.
An environment must be created in which politicians do not feel at ease in revealing another incisive phrase without explaining their motives because they are sure that it will soon be forgotten.