A Civil Service whistleblower to James Esses can’t blow the whistle internally without fear of reprisal. Why?
Today’s essay by James Esses describes a Civil Service whistleblower in Northern Ireland under pressure from trans and multi-gender ideology.
It seems a lot of people are 1. unconcerned; or 2. assume the whistleblower is not a compassionate or fair person; or 3. confused why it’s an issue in a modern society.
Let me be clear. I’m all for compassion and fairness (where it’s not counter-productive), and I’ve worked for decades to support many things to improve things for various people in need. But many who have the same good intentions for society seem to be confused by the aggression and intolerance of this ‘compassion’ – this one-sided Civil Service trans and gender policy push and it’s like. Why can’t it tolerate a conscientious view that doesn’t agree with theirs?
Perhaps you’re confused because you know something doesn’t add up, and you don’t know what it is. Well, I went behind the Iron Curtain three times. I get it. It wasn’t pretty. So try this as a warning, test it, and make up your own mind:
It’s not actually about trans – it’s about a modern intellectual elite having shifted from being Civil *Servants* to wanting to be your Civil *Masters*. And the Conservative Government allowed it over 14 years – which is quite incredible. It’s about adopting State power and control over you, and the clear threat to humiliate you if you challenge their ‘authority’. It’s part of a push for totalitarian Marxism, sold as it always was, under the banner of compassion and fairness. It’s going to be neither compassionate nor fair, nor honest, nor help people at the bottom of the pile. Caring for transgender or race is not even the key objective. My non-Marxist black and brown friends understand what it is like to be politically ‘the wrong kind of black’. No compassion or place for them from these New Masters. I had one black friend barred from a black-led meeting for being black! (no doubt the wrong kind of black).
The core objective is the destruction of individual freedom (to do anything they don’t approve of) via State control of you. The move is from a default (and hated) Enlightenment “free individual subject to the same freedoms for others” to a different default, “you can’t – unless our rules say you can”. It’s not a trivial shift of default.
Many of those who are concerned for compassion and fairness are unaware even now of this intent. It’s sad but in Leninist theory there is a name for these ‘compassionate unawares’. Do you know the term?
As James A. Lindsay says, “The issue (trans in this case) is never the issue; the Revolution is always the issue”.
And as Eric Weinstein says, “Are you being fooled? No. You are not being fooled; you are being ‘instructed’. The only question is, are you going to say or do anything about it?’. Hence James Esses’ whistleblower’s dilemma about speaking out within their organisation about their conscientious objections.
Are there good aspects of DEI/EDI? Of course. But have you ever seen a DEI policy that is explicitly bounded? Self-limiting? Self-restrained? Recognising or stating limits to its own virtue? Recognising another side’s view? I hope you have but I suspect not. Everything has its limits, right? In determining public policy you can have too much of anything. We need a balance. We know everything has diminishing returns to scale. Or is it sold as categorical – ‘more of it is always good’ – and even where there are internal conflicts of argument? That’s where you know something is badly wrong, when advocates have no concept or desire to talk about limits. Totalitarian means no limits to a policy. No balance.
In Marxism, after totalitarian control always comes the Gulag and the actual mass murdering of dissidents – including the murders of most of the current ‘leaders’ who (currently) assume they will be in charge when the Revolution is complete. To paraphrase George Galloway, there’ll be as surprised to see their own demise as J. Epstein was. There’s a simple reason this mass murder happens. Once you go away from the principle of individual rights, as has happened to this whistleblower, the State can feel it can do anything to you for a ‘greater good’ – and with more power, it can even kill you. And they see it as justified in pursuit of their Utopia.
I’m all for increasing fairness. But DEI/EDI has been done wrong. It’s so sad as it had so much potential. It was hijacked by Marxist versions of Critical Theory imposing ‘equity’ above free conscientious expression, and few are balancing it out, at least openly. Once you lost the principle of equal rights for individuals under UK law, which was due to an abuse of the UK Equality Act 2010’s ‘protected characteristics’, the door was open to the totalitarians to ‘progressively’ remove you, your job, your income, your freedom of conscientious expression. As our whistleblower is now experiencing, 14 years on.
It’s time once again for the majority to understand Marxism and how it arises, its history and intent, and what it leads to. For it is not the compassion, safety, fairness and prosperity it promises.
Thanks for reading Colin’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.