Three Secrets to the Culture Wars

It’s been many decades since the term culture wars was dubbed, and the label is now more relevant than ever. What began as a reasoned debate on issues like abortion, multiculturalism and homosexuality has turned into a hearts-and-minds battle for the soul of our civilization.

The rapid growth of the culture wars vocab is evidence enough of this.

We’re all familiar with terms like ‘identity politics,’ ‘white privilege’ and ‘virtue signalling.’ But have you heard of deplatforming, cancel culture, red-pilled, safe spaces, cisnormativity, or Trump derangement syndrome? Most importantly, do you know what it means to be woke?

It’s not easy keeping up with the jargon. Actually, it would be far safer to let others fight the culture wars. This is especially true now that people make a sport of branding others with so many exotic new phobias.

“There is a much deeper war of ideas taking place.”

But to disengage from the culture wars is to surrender entirely. As George Orwell was apt to point out, if you control the language, you win the debate. Words and ideas matter, because they are precisely where the battle rages.

It has become ever clearer to me that underneath most verbal brawls there is a much deeper war of ideas taking place. When we learn to recognise the hidden debates, it becomes much easier to engage and stay on the front foot.

So what are these unspoken battles? I am convinced that if we understand the secrets to the culture wars, the questions behind the questions, we can avoid unneeded hostility—and instead seek out some common ground and some common sense.

Secret 1: Is the Endgame Equality or Power?

‘Equality’ has been the motto for causes of every kind in recent decades. So much so that it’s hard to find anyone today who rejects the idea of equality. Most westerners agree that all people should be raised to a place of equal worth regardless of gender, race or creed.

But in recent years, the notion of equality has been quietly transformed along with the definition of words like racism and sexism. Ironically, these -isms no longer apply equally. Among the woke, they are only allowed to be used in reference to oppressed groups—those who have faced historical injustice.

For example, if I, a ‘white male,’ complain that I have been the victim of racism or sexism, my complaint will be shrugged off—even scoffed at. I will be told to suck it up, since all Caucasians and all males have been living the good life for eons, apparently. According to this logic, it is now my turn to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.

“In recent years, the notion of equality has been quietly transformed.”

Those who hold this line genuinely believe in the virtue of defending only those groups who have a history of ill-treatment. But at this point, they no longer believe in equality. What they are fighting for is unequal power. They want one form of privilege to give way to another.

I’ll admit that being both male and of European descent may have brought brought with it certain privileges not enjoyed by other people in the West. But for as long as I can remember, I have sought to regard all people as my equals and not expect better treatment for myself. Most people I interact with seem to live out the same convictions.

“When you see people trying to wield raw power, call them out on it.”

So while Western societies today may not be perfect, they are the most equal and just that history has ever seen: simply ask your grandparents. To whatever degree we are still overcoming the inequalities of the past, we will never be helped by replacing old injustices with new ones.

Ironically, brazen power grabs are exactly what we were supposed to be avoiding. So when you see people trying to wield raw power like this, call them out on it—and bring the conversation back to genuine equality.

And if you’re a Christian, explain the absolute that grounds this value: we have all been made in the image of God, and that is why are compelled to treat people as equally valuable and precious.

Secret 2: Are People Defending a Race or an Idea?

In some quarters, racism and xenophobia are labels thrown about far too casually. Only recently it dawned on me that, more often than not, these accusations have little to do with race or nationality. Many who brandish these terms are actually seeking to protect an idea.

The light came on for me in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Remember when President Trump—and many others—were accused of racism for calling it the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’?

You may not know this, but in the early stages of the outbreak, the same media who later painted Trump as a xenophobe had previously called it the Wuhan coronavirus themselves—dozens and dozens of times.

And why not? As comedian Bill Maher points out, we’ve always named diseases after their place of origin, from the West Nile Virus to Ebola, Guinea Worms, MERS and the Spanish Flu.

“Many who brandish terms like ‘racist’ are actually seeking to protect an idea.”

The renaming of COVID-19 isn’t a hill I wish to die on. But it was a convenient shift for the Chinese Communist Party who covered up the early spread of the virus and (it seems likely) pressured the World Health Organisation to delay warning the world of a pandemic.

All of this to say, naming the virus after its origin in Wuhan has little to do with Chinese people, and much to do with the villainy of an authoritarian government. This remains true even if Trump did it to take the focus off his own early failures. What Trump and others took issue with, in other words, was the communism—not the Chinese-ness—of the CCP.

Sticking to the theme American politics, this year I have followed the ‘Blexit’ movement with great interest. Founded by African-American commentator Candace Owens, Blexit is shorthand for a black exit from the Democratic party.

“Race isn’t the point—ideas are.”

The idea that black Americans might find refuge with Republicans is a shock to many. What has shocked me, however, is how many ‘Blexiteers’ report racist treatment from liberals for their decision to walk away from the Democrats—or “leave the plantation” as some even call it. Frequently they are accused of being ‘race traitors’ and Uncle Toms.

Ironically, the idea that black Americans should only vote Democrat is itself a racist assumption since it lumps all people of one ethnic group into a single category.

Put simply, race isn’t the point—ideas are. This has to be true if people of any ethnicity are able to think for themselves and vote for any political party or cause they are most drawn to.

Next time someone alleges racism or xenophobia, ask yourself this simple question: are they trying to protect a race or an idea? No one should be discriminated against for his or her ethnicity. But all bad ideas can and should be challenged.

Secret 3: Is Western Civilization Good or Evil?

This might just be the question behind the question behind the question. I have seen this and now I can’t unsee it: where the culture wars rage the fiercest, the debate is always about Western Civilization itself.

Simply put, is Western Civilization basically good and worth defending—or is it fundamentally evil and in need of overhauling entirely?

For many today, the West is an oppressive patriarchy that perpetuates, from one generation to the next, the values, beliefs and institutions that oppress minorities and divide society.

In this telling of the story, Western Civilization is one long project of colonisation—the rape-and-pillage of indigenous communities and the environment that continues unabated to this day.

“Is Western Civilization good and worth defending?”

While only the ignorant could deny the West’s many mistakes, such a simplistic version of events has too many glaring omissions. Western Civilization was also the wellspring of countless blessings that have transformed the world—science, liberal democracy, medicine, universal education, and the idea of equality itself, to name just a few.

Violence, slavery, and colonisation are not unique to the West—they have characterised almost every civilization through time. What makes the West unique and truly good is its leading role in subduing these evils, and exporting prosperity and freedom beyond our shores so that others might benefit too.

Even those who say they disagree with me on this point seem confused at best.

“We instinctively know that the West is a blessing.”

The same people who decry nations like Australia, the UK and America as evil, also insist that we open our borders so that people from other nations can flood in at will. If the West is so despicable, why would we want to torture others by welcoming them here? No seriously—why?

In truth, we all want the West to be a blessing to others because we instinctively know that the West is a blessing. We can see that our civilization is not ours to hoard, but ours to share.

And that’s why I’m willing to fight a culture war to defend it.

Big tech is now suppressing conservative content. If you want to make sure you continue seeing my posts, be sure to scroll to the bottom of this blog and subscribe.

Do Facebook, Google and Twitter Censor Conservatives?

‘Big tech’ plays a huge and ever-expanding role in our lives. Without a thought, we now trust platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter to inform us about the latest trends in culture, the products we want, and the news stories that matter.

But over the last year or so, evidence has been mounting that big tech is biased. Disgruntled employees are leaving Silicon Valley with stories of systemic prejudice. Organisations have formed, claiming that the companies we trust are using their power to silence conservative viewpoints and favour progressive ones.

Could it all be true?

I first became aware of this issue not through news stories but through my own experience. I began a blog back in 2014. Like many bloggers, I’ve since worked hard to increase my readership and visibility, relying mostly on Facebook for traffic. I’d been seeing great progress—until around a year ago, when my stats began to stagnate.

“Evidence has been mounting that big tech is biased.”

Maybe the explanation is simple: I’ve become irrelevant. As I’ve pondered this, it seems an unlikely reason, given that in the same period I’ve had many articles published by websites with readership in the tens of thousands.

Ultimately I can only speculate about causes, since big tech companies are tight-lipped about their techniques. But in May this year, something ominous happened.

A close friend shared one of my articles, only to be told by one of his Facebook friends, “I just posted this to a Christian Group Page I am a member of and received a warning from the Facebook Admin for posting inappropriate content.”

“Big tech’s track record was worse than I’d imagined.”

What was so evil about my article that it violated Facebook’s ‘community standards’? Well, in advance of Australia’s federal election, I explained that Christian values can be found on both sides of politics—but given Labor’s policy platform this year, I couldn’t in good conscience vote for them. That’s all. Read it here.

This wasn’t the first time I’d heard of ‘conservative’ content being censored, so I decided to do some research. What I discovered about big tech’s track record was worse than I’d imagined. Here’s just a sampling.

Google fires its first whistleblower | July 2017

The first big story begins in mid 2017. It centres around Google employee James Damore who sent an internal memo highlighting what he called Google’s ‘ideological echo chamber’.

The company, he complained, was guilty of ‘reverse discrimination’ against conservatives, white people, and men. In response to his complaint, Google fired him.

Damore is currently pursuing legal action against the big tech giant.

Twitter allegedly ‘shadow-bans’ Republicans | July 2018

A year later, it came to light that Twitter was using a technique called ‘shadow-banning’ to make prominent Republicans less visible on their platform. When this blatant bias was exposed by VICE News, Twitter adjusted their platform overnight.

Facebook whistleblower quits | August 2018

The next company to show cracks was Facebook. The following month, Brian Amerige, a senior Facebook engineer, made a post on the company’s internal message board with the title, “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity”.

He wrote, “We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views. We claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack—often in mobs—anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

In response to this, over 100 employees at Facebook formed an online group called “FB’ers for Political Diversity”. Amerige later quit Facebook over concerns with its ‘hate speech’ policy.

Conservative non-profit files censorship lawsuit against YouTube | January 2019

Fast forward to January of this year, and the conservative non-profit PragerU filed a lawsuit against YouTube for what it claims is unlawful restriction of speech.

PragerU’s videos focus on America’s founding values, and they’ve been viewed online over 2.3 billion times. But currently over 100 of their videos—or a full 10 percent of their video library—are flagged as ‘restricted’ on YouTube, making them difficult for young people to access.

On watching any of their restricted videos, it’s difficult to see how they could qualify as ‘inappropriate’ for younger audiences.

Twitter and Google censor pro-life movie | April 2019

In April, the highly successful pro-life movie Unplanned had its Twitter account suspended. After public outcry, Twitter restored the account, but with almost all of its 200,000 followers removed, and other users unable to follow it.

Around the same time, Google listed the movie as ‘propaganda’. Soon after, the search engine reported that they’d fixed the issue.

Facebook censors author for protesting censorship | May 2019

Yet more happened in May of this year. In an ironic twist, Michelle Malkin, a high-profile author and commentator, was censored on Facebook for protesting the censorship of two other conservative figures, Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes.

In her post, she wrote, “They are banned from Facebook and Instagram for exercising their free speech—while violent jihad groups are allowed on these platforms to spread their murderous poison… I do not know how much longer it will be before I am next.”

She was next. Facebook removed her post, saying that it was a violation of their ‘community standards.’

University study reveals Google political bias | May 2019

In May this year again, a study conducted by Northwestern University found that 86 percent of Google’s top news stories over the course of a month came from a narrow band of left-leaning news sites. CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post appeared most often in these searches.

This came after a seperate study revealed that 90 percent of political donations by Google employees had gone to Democratic candidates.

Google fires a second whistleblower | June 2019

Just last month, Google software engineer Mike Wacker was fired after he criticised the company’s anti-conservative bias in a cable news interview.

He’d previously written a controversial open letter describing ‘outrage mobs’ at the company who “will hunt down any conservative, any Christian, and any independent free thinker at Google who does not bow down to their agenda.”

Pinterest bans prominent pro-life group | June 2019

Also in June this year, Pinterest permanently banned the pro-life organisation Live Action from their platform. Incredibly, Pinterest claimed that Live Action disseminates “medical misinformation and conspiracies that turn individuals and facilities into targets for harassment and violence”.

Earlier in the year, users on Pinterest had been complaining of difficulty pinning Live Action’s content on their pinboards. The reason for this became clear when Eric Cochran, a software engineer from Pinterest, blew the whistle on his own company. He revealed that Pinterest had secretly placed the pro-life group on a list of banned pornography websites.

When Pinterest learned of this, they responded in the most inglorious of ways, by having security escort him from the building—making it clear that he’d been fired.

Google executive filmed hoping to prevent Trump’s re-election | June 2019

In what has been the most widely-reported revelation of big tech bias, last month a senior Google executive was caught on an undercover video. In the video, she suggests that the search engine giant hopes to stop “the next Trump situation” in the upcoming election.

Jen Gennai, Google’s Head of Responsible Innovation, was responding to the idea that Google should be broken up into smaller, less powerful, companies. She was filmed saying, “Smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation… a small company cannot do that.”

“Last month a senior Google executive was caught on an undercover video.”

She went on. “We all got screwed over in 2016… the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like everybody got screwed over so we’ve rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”

The footage, uploaded to YouTube, was quickly removed, with YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, citing its privacy guidelines.

Following the revelation, Google of course denied that they are working to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Who Will Be Next?

Perhaps some of these accounts are tainted by exaggeration, half truths, or even genuine mistakes. But it seems unlikely that they can all be explained in such a way. As many have pointed out, those affected almost always seem to be conservative personalities and ideas.

What’s concerning is that the stories I’ve retold here have only come to light because the people affected were high-profile enough to matter to the media. My story was untold until now: doubtless there are many more everyday people like me falling victim.

This leaves us with one lingering question: who will be next? Based on how quickly big tech bias has accelerated in the last year, it seems to be a question of when and who, not if.

“Doubtless there are many more everyday people like me falling victim.”

Many who discuss this issue contend that since social media and search engine companies are private enterprises, they can choose who and what takes up space on their platforms—so this isn’t really an issue of free speech.

There is merit to this perspective. But it’s also true that these companies now function in a very similar way to the utilities we use daily, like electricity, roads and gas. Intended or not, Facebook, Google and Twitter are now gatekeepers of the internet—and therefore, culture.

As such, when these companies draw lines as they surely are entitled to do, they should apply rules consistently, regardless of politics—and they should do so with the lightest possible touch.

“Facebook, Google and Twitter are now gatekeepers of the internet—and therefore, culture.”

Surely people are best served when public spaces, including online ones, are a battleground of ideas, not a battleground against ideas.

Until something changes, it’s likely that many progressive voices, unaffected by big tech bias, will deny that any bias exists, and that free speech isn’t under threat.

When I hear this, I will simply recall the mantra I’ve heard from progressive circles for years now: privilege is invisible to those who have it.

I’ve got some big writing and travel adventures planned for 2019. If you’d like to stay updated every once in a while by email newsletter, let me know here.