The Effluent Hits the Fan: Free Speech, Fascism, and Funding Imbalances

From Banning "The Left" to Cancelling Comedians, America is Teaching Us What Actual Suppression of Speech Looks Like

So, I definitely chose the worst possible week to finally acknowledge my own limitations in terms of what is possible to achieve with the 18 to 20 hours I’m awake per day. It would appear, in my humble opinion, that in the US, a stream of effluent is now being power-sprayed into an industrial-sized wind-tunnel fan.

I apologise for my absence over the past few days, but I am now back.

While I was off doing the tending to a life wobble, the US has apparently managed to compress a whole semester’s worth of “Intro to Authoritarianism” into just a handful of news cycles. Free speech has rapidly lurched its way downhill in the supposed land of free speech, the murder of Charlie Kirk was instantly weaponised into fodder for even more rage and even less restraint and the Geriatric Orange Game Show Host had his unprecedented second state visit that had Martin Daubnney go full Partridge outside Windsor Castle with salutes that looked like they were being done by someone who has only the vaguest ideas of what one should be.

In between this all, the online peanut gallery in the UK are still insisting that criticism equals censorship, disagreement equals persecution and blocking a bore on social media is apparently the same as setting Freedom of Expression on fire and stomping on it.

In short, it’s a bit of a shitshow, but let’s try to make a little bit of sense of it (he writes while realising this will probably turn into a two-thousand word ramble - Bear with me, please).

A good place to start is a definition - specifically of free speech, or more accurately in the UK, freedom of expression.

I’m pretty old-fashioned in my approach to this - freedom of expression is not the right to a friendly audience or a guaranteed platform or consequence-free demagoguery. At its core, freedom of expression means that you as a human being cannot be punished by the state for comments that are lawful. As soon as a government starts flirting with the idea of policing political speech it dislikes, your eyebrows should instantly go into orbit.

One of the recurring themes of the past week in the US has been how “the left” was the direct cause of the murder of Charlie Kirk - that the fact that rhetoric towards the current US administration includes the word “fascist” had influenced the shooter to such an extent that he decided to pick up a rifle and take matters into his own hands.

I call bullshit here.

I have used (and will continue to use) the word “fascist” in description of where the current US government’s instincts keep trying to drag public life. If you want to be more precise, what we’re watching happen in America is a toxic mix of authoritarianism (the concentration of power and punishment of dissent), oligarchy (rule by a few wealthy people and their pet projects) and reactionary nationalism (the permanent and pervasive campaign against internal “enemies”).

Combine those three aspects, and the term “fascist” does become a fair shorthand. If you prefer the longer form, be my guest, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… You get the point.

Now, while all this is happening, Mango Mussolini has had his earlier mentioned state visit. I’m going to try and be gracious here, but seeing our Prime Minister greeting the strong man cosplay with a grin and a golf cap makes my stomach flip. I get it, states have to be pragmatic. I understand we can’t exactly hang a “No Orange Authoritarians Beyond This Point” sign over Heathrow T5, but there is a difference between necessary diplomacy and obsequious photo ops. It makes my skin crawl to not have Starmer visibly cringe whenever Trump is nearby.

Yes, diplomacy tastes like cardboard, and you swallow because you must, but, we can also hold two thoughts at once: that our government has a responsibility to manage relationships with other countries, and that it should be done while making clear - publicly - that we stand for liberal democracy, the rule of law and real free speech, not the grievance soaked counterfeit we’re currently being sold as the genuine article.

And I have to add, credit where credit is due - we do have some political figures who have said what needed to be said - Sadiq Khan, Ed Davey and Zack Polanski have all in the past week gained stature in my opinion by pointing out that normalising an illiberal project because it wears a presidential sash is still normalising an illiberal project¹.

Anyway, back to the active dissolution of the American Empire.

We are, in real time, seeing the complete collapse of free speech and what actual violations look like. When a government starts to signal that one side’s speech is suspect by nature - especially when it starts to play with the idea of proscribing nebulous enemies like ANTIFA or “the left” - you’re not dealing with moderation anymore, you’re looking at outright and blatant suppression. ANTIFA and “the left” aren’t organisations with membership rolls, a helpful postal address or a treasurer that can be served with a lawsuit. Trying to proscribe what is in effect an attitude is like trying to ban “people who wear hats indoors” or “anyone called Dave who looks a bit cross on Tuesday.” It’s far too broad, far too non-specific and this sort of language is designed to portray any sort of dissent as criminal conspiracy.

The US is moving into an incredibly dangerous time - voices on the left (or even just considered to be on the left) are being actively silenced. Jimmy Kimmel’s long-running show being cancelled reportedly after pressure from the US government on the FCC is a massive indictment and should, by all accounts, have been met with furious opposition from many voices on the right who have for years nattered on about “cancel culture.” Yet we’re met in most cases with silence, and in some cases celebration that the state has just moved to silence someone because said person stated something they disagreed with.

This has an incredibly chilling effect on a media (and social media) environment that is already fully geared towards amplifying right-wing voices and opinions - a structural issue that needs far, far more scrutiny.

Because this has become, by its nature, a fundamental issue.

On the right, in the US and the UK, commentators and media organisations are swimming in money. Billionaire seed capital, think-tank stipends, donor-advised “dark money” and a content system that’s been designed from the ground up to be entertaining first and truthful eventually (if ever). The Daily Wire in the US alone generates over $100m in revenue annually and has a larger Facebook audience than the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News and CNN Combined.

Project 2025, that plan that we were told was just a conspiracy but now is very clearly the foundations of the second Trump administration, has received over $120m in donations from ultra-wealthy families since 2020.

In the UK, right wing think-tanks have made £28m from charities over the past two decades, including $14.5m in US based funding since 2012. GB News itself has been posting losses year after year, yet stays afloat and keeps broadcasting thanks to constant funding from its parent company - because profitability isn’t the point when you’re out to buy influence.

Funding on the left? Virtually non-existent. Far more often it’s people with day jobs squeezing in a few words at the margins of life, trying to keep the lights going while arguing with strangers who have venture funded camera rigs and a legal team on retainer. Progressive online media has started operating in what researchers from Objective Journalism call a “funding desert”, where creators have to:

“…prioritise substance over style, nuance over engagement and education over entertainment - all while operating with a fraction of the resources available to their right-wing counterparts”

Graphic via Media Matters report.

This asymmetry in resource is incredibly important. It directly shapes who gets heard, who gets paid to be heard and who can keep speaking after the algorithm turns against them. It’s also why the free speech conversation feels so incredibly inverted - the people with ten-story tall amplifiers insist they’re being constantly muzzled while the rest of us try to yell through a paper cup and get told we’re censors for daring to block trolls. It’s maddening.

The US is in a bad state, and the UK isn’t anywhere near this point of suppression we’re seeing, but, I am worried. There is the possibility of drift. If Reform UK ever graduates from culture-war talk radio to actual governance in the House of Commons, the gap between “I’m just asking questions” and “say the wrong thing and expect the state’s boot on your rib cage” has the potential to narrow very rapidly. We have three-ish years where this is a possibility.

The strategist in me says: use this time.

Build the habits and networks now - support independent media, back the watchdogs, practise the muscle memory of solidarity. My ambition with Bearly Politics has become to grow into something more than just me ranting on² semi-coherently and slightly swearishly. I would like it to become a place devoted to truth - not truth as I see it, but truth that can withstand scrutiny, and to earn its place as a bulwark in the network of voices who are tirelessly trying to defend us against the daily torrent of lies we’re fed without sliding into conspiratorial bullshit. In three and a half-years, I want it to stand alongside publications like Byline Times and other essential outlets that form the safety net when democratic norms start fraying. The worst time to learn how to defend free speech is after someone has already turned out the lights, and the worst time to build a media ecosystem of holding power accountable is when someone has already decided accountability is optional.

Which brings me back to… well, me. I had to step away this week. Life tilted in a big way. Things are now fine, I am okay and situations are steadier - and I’m grateful that I could take the time to go quiet for a few days. It also reminded me that one person, no matter just how caffeinated, just cannot keep pace with the political reality we’re currently living through.

Bearly Politics has been, at its heart, a stubbornly independent little project of mine that’s grown over the past couple of months. It’s mostly done on time that I can smuggle between my actual work (some of you know I spend my days desperately trying to keep my tiny patch of the NHS from collapsing). I’m not great at the “support me” bit that needs to be done - it took me months of sleepless nights to switch on paid subscriptions, and I still blush when I mention it.

But the imbalance we’re seeing is very real - and if you’ve ever given a thought to why the loudest reactionary voices seem professionally produced while the rest of us post between meetings and life falling over, it’s because they are. The support I’ve personally received from you guys - financial, moral, caffeine - makes a ridiculous difference.

Which is also why I would like to try something with Bearly Politics. I want to publish some more voices on my platform - especially when I inevitably hit the bandwidth wall and fall over. If you have a clear take on something, a good head for identifying fact over fiction and an ability to cut through nonsense with care and a bit of wit, I really would like to hear from you. I would like you to pitch me an op-ed, a dispatch from your corner of the country, a mythbust for where you have a certain area of expertise or a “what the hell just happened” explainer.

The only rules are: kindness to people, ruthlessness towards bad arguments and no conspiracy mulch. Send me an email with your ideas and note “Pitch” in the subject to iratusursusmajor@gmail.com.

Let me end this rant with where it began - it’s been an ugly week to be away. The air has felt particularly grimy with manufactured rage and consequence-free power. But, the antidote to this shouldn’t be despair - it should remain, as ever, unfashionable and stubborn insistence on facts, on proportion, on context and on refusing to confuse cruelty for courage. Keep your standards, keep your sense of humour and, above all, keep your receipts.

---

If you'd like to help me keep doing this - and I'm genuinely embarrassed to keep mentioning it, but here we are - paid subscriptions keep the site running and unlock the full archive (everything older than seven days). If you can't or don't want to, that's absolutely fine and please don't feel guilty for a second - reading, sharing and arguing well is already a gift, and frankly, more than I probably deserve.

If you can spare it, though, it genuinely helps level a playing field that others have spent eye-watering fortunes to tilt. But honestly, no pressure. I'll keep writing either way, probably while muttering complaints about my own shameless begging into my coffee.

1. Also, if a certain visiting couple arrive with a living-room lamp masquerading as a First Lady prop again, I wholeheartedly reserve the right to point and laugh - you can be serious about democracy and be unserious about taste.

2. He writes mid-rant.