A Violent Coup: If the Leave Campaign Happened on Campus

By Josh Skinner


A change in government done legally is called democracy. A change in government outside the bounds of law is called a coup, which often utilizes violence to achieve their goals. Just as definitions of conventional warfare have expanded over the years, so to has the definition of violence.


Emotional violence is defined as “subjecting or exposing someone to behavior that may result in in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or PTSD”. The Brexit campaign unearthed a lot of ugliness and racial tension that should have remained earthed. In a world dictated by campus rules, the success of the Brexit campaign would have been regarded as a violent coup. In a pluralistic democracy Britain has to live (leave) with its’ stupid democratic decision, and all of the racism (triggering behavior) that came with the campaign.


In the wake of Brexit, the world is bereft of positivity. Ruchir Sharma, a writer and investment banker at a lecture put on by the London School of Economics, found the silver lining in this situation, that all legitimate reform in nations occurs within the first two years of their leader’s term.  David Cameron, in his own words, has left Britain “stronger”; so why does it feel like the opposite is true?


The idea is similar to what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Do you lack character? Get some heat stroke while building something with your bare hands. Need some gumption? Work a minimum wage job for a summer, get the shit kicked out of you, kill yourself and if you’re Jesus, you won’t be dead.


This idea is old but it’s used to justify all sorts of different campaigns. Like when the kitchen industry broke my sweet, tender 15-year-old soul and turned me into a binge-drinking/smoking popper advocate. Was I stronger? I definitely learned how to work a 14-hour shift then go out drinking, after which I would rinse, wash and repeat.


Recently, this idea of being put through the ringer as a way of levelling up outside of the world of Dragon Ball Z (see strength section) has gained traction. Saiyans are the most overpowered aliens in the galaxy in the world of Dragon Ball Z because of one key trait: the ability to have their power levels increase exponentially after getting a big ole serving of fist sammich.


Take Jonathan Haidt, who believes that this trait to become stronger after struggle is is inherent to human nature. Some would call him an expert troll, who uses liberal rhetoric to justify racism, sexism and all sorts of other isms on campus. Others would say that he is a rational human trying to reclaim open discussion on university campuses.


Jonathan Haidt does not believe in safe spaces and is quite concerned about recent developments on campuses. He believes that the language of microaggressions infringes on free speech and is a disservice and restraint to students who are looking to evolve from Charmander to Charzard. He justifies this by using techniques spouted in cognitive therapy and diagnoses campuses in North America as becoming increasingly less resilient. He labels himself as a centrist of sorts but his practice evokes two reactions:


  1. This man is Greg Jennings and Atlas all in one in his efforts to save universities from becoming monocultures of the mind.
  2. This man is silencing and further oppressing people through infantilization of real problems and real struggles that he himself has never faced.


So folks’ perceptions of Jonathan Haidt’s observations are basically just like everything else in this world: wildly divided and downright depressing. During political discussions I get called a cuckold a lot.


Sometimes twice in the same sentence.


On a good day I’m not retarded.


But still super cucked.


For those over the age of 30 reading this, I promise that this is how most of my conversations end up with people who disagree with me. I usually get further cuckholded by multiculturalism after, and go out with some friends for some kebab or a shawarma plate to remind me of the good in this world.


But it’s super dark. And the conversation had during the Brexit campaign is just a much more polite version of those that happen on social media. If left-minded folks examine the doomsday sentiments on the Alt-Right (I know there’s 800 links in here but click that one it’s a comprehensive guide as to why I get called a cuck from the perspective of those who call me a cuck), they will become all too familiar.


I remember all too well that the first year of post-secondary education from September-November 2013 was an extremely angry time for me. Prior to this I knew that climate change was bad, and that things weren’t perfect. But holy god I had no idea that the World Trade Organization was so evil or that countries like Chile went through a military coup, causing anywhere from 10,000-30,000 deaths. It gets overwhelming, and stressful, and makes you lash out.


This general angst at the sad state of the world is what the Alt-Right is going through, in my opinion. There are a host of other reasons why they are hijacking the political discussion, such as being consistently ignored by the establishment and constantly being called racist by the left. But the fact is that a lot of bad things are happening in the world right now, and those on the right are waking up and demanding change. It just so happens that they seem to view the forces of shittiness as coming from external factors such as China, or from Radical Islam, whereas those the left tend to view the forces of shittiness from internal factors such as Wall Street, and a historic context of racism.


It should be encouraging to the world to see that white, working class folks are waking up to realize that the world does kind of blow, and that major change must take place. The problem is that the West is becoming so divided that any major victory for the opposing ideological tribe is seen as catastrophic. Such was the case in Brexit, such was the case when Obama was elected.


Anywho, the fallout from the Brexit was huge, to the sum of US$3 trillion being erased from the world economy, which is the equivalent of just over double of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product. The question that Foreword thinkers should be asking is how do we create an environment in which democracy is respected, but stupid decisions are no longer made. One option is to democratically elect a genius god emperor, that makes democracy an old concept.



Another would be to transcend thinking about a person who would trump everything in his path and begin to think about environments that allow people to Brexit versus environments that prevent this kind of thing. This isn’t to say that the world is on a fast track to the end times with the Brexit vote occurring, because it isn’t. I more want to challenge Jonathon Haidt’s thesis that it’s better to struggle.


A friend of mine recently told me that the mandate behind safe spaces is less of a battle over thought crimes and more of a drive to “make people just a bit less shitty in the public arena”. It’s based on the idea that people who have been through a lot of shit shouldn’t be forced to relive that trauma just because our socioeconomic structure mandates post secondary education. Someone’s mental health matters to their wellbeing, according to entire fields of academia.


So what happens when this framework that is being imposed on a grassroots level in universities and apply it to broader public arena, such as Brexit. This prompts several questions, the first being:



  • Were People Triggered?



So this image is firing shots across the bow of a (sinking) ship that is the SS Eurozone. It depicts Muslim men assaulting Aryan men and women. It also shows Muslim women in hijabs being held behind what could be bars below the ship. It’s not for me to say what triggers some people and not others, but I think it’s safe to assume that Muslim people were probably fairly pissed about images like this during Brexit talks. It’s safe to assume that we can put Muslims in the “triggered” category.


In another photo, the focus is more on immigration, which was the central plank to the Brexit campaign. In this photo we see sandals, sleeping bags, luggage, which is fairly innocuous if you ignore the hijab, gun, and rats that are also taking a trip to Europe. This photo is offensive to Muslim people but it might also cause another group with a history of being compared to rats who become triggered by past trauma. The Jews should be pissed about incendiary images that draw parallels to how the media treated them (not just in Germany, but across the world) and how Muslims are treated today.


The reality is that if this campaign had happened on a university campus, it would have been suspended based on the rules outlined by social justice warriors. The feelings and emotions of Muslims and Jews would have been put above the goals of the Brexit campaign. In this alternate world, Jonathan Haidt would have been disappointed and Britain would have lost out on its ability to grow as a country by going through this character building exercise.


But what if the rules of a University Campus dictated Britain? Alt-Right thinkers would claim that Britain already lives under the oppressive rules of PC culture. However if that were the case then the Brexit campaign would not have been allowed to run; it would have been against the law. Thinkers like Jonathan Haidt and leaders like David Cameron wouldn’t have to justify why shitting on the aspirations of their country’s future is just another bump in Britain’s long road to becoming the world’s greatest empire all over again.