Where deceit, ideological fanaticism and bad policy interesect.

I am probably undercounting the number of ways in which these forces interact. But from my personal observations as a rigorous follower of events across the globe, I have become increasingly convinced that many of these seemingly separate streams are flowing into the same river. If they are not counteracted, we are likely to see an increasingly fractured society in which political identity takes precedence over individual liberty, disagreement is treated as evidence of moral deficiency, institutions become politicized, and the rule of law becomes increasingly conditional.

One of the most visible developments is the proliferation of cultures of victimhood. Increasingly, political movements derive legitimacy not from what they propose to build, but from the grievances they claim to represent. Victimhood becomes a political currency, with the magnitude of the alleged injury conferring greater moral authority upon those speaking on behalf of the aggrieved.

Closely associated with this is the growing demand to restrict freedom of speech and stifle debate through the language of being offended, harmed, or triggered. We are increasingly told that certain words are dangerous, that certain ideas are harmful, and that people must be protected from opinions

A free society was never designed to protect people from intellectual discomfort. Quite the opposite. Freedom of speech exists precisely because some ideas will be unpopular, offensive, disturbing, or wrong.

The proper response to bad ideas is better ideas. The proper response to falsehood is argument and evidence. Once we empower institutions to decide which opinions are sufficiently offensive to be suppressed, however, we have handed those institutions a weapon that will eventually be used by whoever controls them.

From there, we arrive at blacklisting and boycotting. Increasingly, people are punished not for breaking laws, but for holding the wrong opinions, associating with the wrong people, supporting the wrong causes, or simply refusing to adopt the prevailing ideological position. Careers can be threatened, businesses targeted, speakers cancelled, and institutions pressured to sever relationships.

This is not the behavior of a confident society. A confident society argues while an  insecure society tries to silence.