Let me explain a little ...

A reflection on the response to yesterdays post

I have to say I am somewhat saddened, and at the same time not wholly surprised, by many of the reactions to my posting Hannah Spier’s article. Indeed it might be argued that it confirms the view that only certain opinions will now be tolerated. It’s how that state of affairs has come about – a topic of the greatest possible importance for the flourishing of our civilisation – that is the true topic of Spier’s article. Oddly it is not with that that people have taken issue, but, predictably, with politics.

Radicalisation is the problem - and Spier’s article addressed that question intelligently

I can only conclude that there must be a big difference between our experience in Europe and the situation in America – but I am sure there is more to it than that. Like many thoughtful people, I puzzle over how it is that a whole range of opinions that until 15 years ago would have been considered uncontentious, middle-of-the-road, liberalism have become literally unspeakable. The assassination of a young man - a young man, I should add, of whom I knew nothing until he was killed –because his opinions do not conform to your own is now apparently not only justified, but becomes the subject of scornful laughter and rejoicing. This is pure barbarism; barbarism is the downfall of civilisation. Please think, if you can bear to do so, of the callous laughter that accompanied many of the appalling acts of cruelty of the Nazis and the Soviets.

In the UK there is (or was heretofore) a much lower rate of physical violence than in the US. But there has come about a radical shift towards what I think may fairly be called the totalitarian left. This is often called ‘soft’ totalitarianism: it brands people according to how ‘right on’ – in other words, far-left leaning – their opinions on a whole range of issues may be. This totalitarianism is far from ‘soft’ in reality. It shouts down and physically assaults those who disagree; it destroys careers and turns people into non-persons; it skews debate in academe, even in the sciences. There is no question that students and their teachers who dissent from the ‘woke’ dogma hide their reasonable opinions out of fear, and this has been repeatedly confirmed by research. I know from conversations with people who lived under totalitarianism in Eastern Europe that the situation in the UK now is worryingly resonant with their experience.

When we are considering the genesis of totalitarian thinking, it is worth remembering that the indescribable crimes which totalitarianism in the 20^th century committed almost all took place in leftist regimes: those of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, to name the most egregious examples. Even Nazism, which is thought of conventionally as a rightist regime, was the National Socialist Party of Germany. I mention this not to ‘score points’ or ‘point fingers’, but to suggest that we continue to look for totalitarianism coming from the right, whereas it may be – indeed it already is – coming from the left. This is only natural, but it is a mistake; and it’s very important we are not blind to the fact.

Furthermore there is blatant discrimination against those who have no ‘protected characteristics’, especially young white males. The name DEI is deeply ironic, since it acts to exclude rightful candidates, is founded on a philosophy of inequality, and debars diversity of thought, opinion and culture. Unsurprisingly all this builds resentment; and those who help build and sustain it must accept much of the responsibility for the backlash that is coming, and of which, to be absolutely clear, I deplore the prospect. Extreme positions inevitably, in the end, produce extreme reactions. By temperament and by upbringing I have always looked to harmony and peace, and abhor discord and violence. Unfortunately I have seen disharmony and violence deliberately stoked in civil society during the last 20 to 30 years.

I have a belief that this is not accidental, but part of the deliberate weakening of the fabric of western society – but that is a story for another time.

It is possible that my viewpoint is that of an older generation. I stand convicted of being out of date. It’s true that I find the world in which I now live unrecognisably different from the one in which I grew up. I could not have believed in the ’60s & ’70s that enmity and aggression between races and between the sexes would positively increase rather than diminish in my lifetime, nor that the gap between rich and poor would actually get dramatically larger. We were full of hope.

As I often say, I think the old terms ‘left’ versus ‘right’ are losing their meaning, and it is more a case of extremists (of either left or right) versus those of a tolerant centre. Radicalisation is the problem, and Spier’s article addressed that question intelligently. She is undeniably right in seeing many of the hallmarks of a cult in the way young people can be seduced into believing unexamined doctrines with such a fervour that they feel entitled to kill people who disagree with them, and even rejoice in the committing of evil deeds. That is what we are seeing: and saying so should be considered a duty, absolutely not something to be ashamed of.

How is it that young people become so certain in their opinions that they are prepared to shout down, intimidate, vilify and physically assault people who disagree with them? You may say this is nothing new – that young people, in the nature of things knowing little, think they know it all. But there is something that runs right across society now, not just among the young, that means that the reporting of events in the press is skewed to fit what I call the current ‘narrative’. Anything that might not fit that narrative is either not reported, barely reported or skewed in the way it is reported. As a small example, but one that is of immediate irrelevance, I am led to believe that the mainstream press in the US have reported more on the reaction to Kirk’s killing on the ‘right’ than on the abomination of the killing itself. One instance from Britain which may be familiar is that gangs that repeatedly raped young girls in care were covered up for years because of the ‘protected characteristics’ of the abusers. Not just the press, but the police themselves were so brainwashed that they colluded in appalling crimes. We really should be talking about this, not trying to shut down debate.

I haven’t at present the time or energy to engage in a long debate – my fault, then, for not foreseeing that posting a psychologically insightful piece by an intelligent fellow psychiatrist on how this kind of rabid thinking takes hold of a population would spark such a reaction. I don’t think Hannah Spier’s article was primarily about the appalling murder of Charlie Kirk, but about the sickening reaction of glee amongst those in the ‘right on’ community; and about the much, much bigger question of how people become radicalised. I think her account of how this happens is worthy of a better reception than it has had here. It was not primarily about politics, but about how to get an insight into the human psyche.

If you don’t think that conservative thinkers are being hounded and silenced by their counterparts on the left, you do need to open your eyes, and think a little more critically. Even to admit to being broadly ‘conservative’, in the old-fashioned sense of reasonableness, tolerance and respect for people, place, and their past, will bring down obloquy upon me. That’s a shame, and our culture is diminished and degraded thereby.