All we demand is your silent, obedient consent

A few years ago, the idea of gay marriage was a bit strange to most people. Unorthodox. Now, not only is it legal in many places in the western world, but has become something of a new orthodoxy. Far too quickly, as Brendan O'Neill puts it very well.

Meet Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young, three women from Massachusetts who have recently married each other as a threesome. God help them - one wife was more than enough for me.  But I'm a cynical bastard.

I notice that their outfits are traditional, at least...

Never mind that polygamous marriages have been forbidden the rest of us for centuries (barring certain communities and cultures). That's not what concerns me here. Neither am I particularly worried about gay marriage either. I do not care who wishes to marry whom. People can have relationships with whoever they choose as far as I'm concerned - as long as all are consenting adults, it's all gravy. The mystery to me is why gay people have wanted government approval for their choice of partner, but each to their own.  And I am certainly not going to pretend that this tripartite tying of the knot (what if one of them wants out - how will the divorce work then?  A Gordian knot is what it'll be) is the herald of a wave of such marriages, because I very much doubt that it is.

What does interest - and concern - me is the reaction to this, and what it portends. Not the false moral panic that the tabloids pedal, but rather the new moral orthodoxy by which any question or hint of criticism of a three-way lesbian marriage will be met with a barrage of fury, accusation or mockery.

You see, ten years ago, gay marriage was the pipe-dream of a very small minority.  The idea of two men or two women marrying each other was...well, slightly preposterous.  Now, of course - in the last year or so - any hint of criticism of the idea is met with the kind of reaction hitherto reserved for the holocaust denier.  And in the YouTube video linked to, we see TJ, 'the Amazing Atheist', rip into those who have a hard time getting to grips with a gay marriage involving not two, but three women.  As though such unions were commonplace and long-established.

And it is this that I take issue with.

You see, changes in societal attitudes happen gradually, over extended periods.  What was unthinkable becomes shocking, then forbidden, then merely outré, then uncommon, then relatively common, then...you get the picture.  This takes time, understandably.  People have to get used to an idea, and have to be able to question it, pull it about a bit, examine it from all sides so that they can decide where to put it, how to fit it into their worldview.  If you are asking people to accept and live with something, you really ought to let them figure out how.  Be patient.  It'll come.

We are, however, seeing an increasing tendency towards social engineering.  The forcing-through of societal 'reform' in a manner that is decidedly out of tune with the usual organic mode of change; the refusal to allow people to question and idea, or offer criticism, or even think about it.  No, unquestioning acceptance is required, immediately.  And if the majority of the population don't like it - well, tough.  You are all bigots and evil; see how we select some of you for public shaming - now get in line, prole scum.

You see, essential to any society is a shared set of values and a commonly acknowledged set of institutions.  If there are no shared values, no agreed institutions, then there is no society.  At all.  There is just a lot of individuals living in physical propinquity to one another, but with nothing else in common.  If the existing values and institutions are destroyed - or at least, changed radically to the point that they no longer resemble their former selves, and so quickly that the populace cannot keep pace with the change (which would effectively their destruction and replacement with something else) - then the society that once upheld those values and institutions no longer exists.

Immigration presented similar challenges to many people; a steady but measured stream of immigrants is something that a people can deal with.  They get to know new people who have arrive from far-flung shores, and understand them.  Acceptance follows understanding - we have seen this with those immigrants who arrived here on the Windrush and in the years that followed.  Acceptance was slow in coming, but it did come.  And once the British population had accepted those immigrants, so it became easier for them to accept other people arriving from India, Pakistan, and many other countries.

However, the progressive left mistook this for, at best an enthusiasm for immigrant communities or, at worst an indifference, which would allow for very large numbers of new people to enter the country in a very short time.  When Labour actively encouraged more then three million people to join the population during their last tenure, they utterly failed to keep in mind that people need to be able to adjust to new circumstances.

Here lies the rub.  We find ourselves in a situation wherein a lot has changed, and very quickly.  Gender (and, if the example set by the three women above does become more common, number of spouses) is no longer relevant in marriage; the demography of the country has changed drastically and rapidly and the arrivals have brought with them their own values and institutions.  Many people have found the communities that they have lived in their entire lives altered almost beyond recognition; political correctness has curtailed drastically how they can express themselves. They are not even allowed to ask questions.

You see, a society is supported by its institutions.  Institutions like marriage, like community values, like language and culture - all of those things.  The institutions might change over time, or be replaced, but it is an organic process that, given time, can happen quite naturally.  The trouble comes when you knock those institutions away, rapidly, forcibly and without offering anything in their stead; when you try to switch common culture for multiculturalism in a very short space of time.  The pillars supporting the society have been knocked away, and the whole thing starts to crumble.  Predictable, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong; I have no wish to sound like some Colonel Blimp bemoaning the loss of Victorian values.  But I do not wish to see the society I live in become morally and intellectually bankrupt.  And that seems to be the way we are going.  And God help anyone who tries to point it out.

What's in a Name?

I've noticed something over the past few years. Names, labels, have changed their meaning. I know that this happens normally, as a language evolves, but this is something quite different.

There used to be people who called themselves communists. Not many people do, now, although there are quite a few who call themselves socialists but seem to espouse ideals that could readily be described as being communist. 

Similarly, people who would once have called themselves socialists as often as not consider themselves to be liberal. It's interesting. Especially when we look at what 'liberal' has come to mean for so many. 

I have had conversations, discussions and arguments with modern liberals. What a tolerant and liberal bunch they are! How accepting of everyone, how ready to stand up for people they are. And how ready they are to listen to the views of others. 

They do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex - unless you're male. They do discriminate on the basis of the - unless you are white. They do not discriminate on the basis of religion - unless you are Christian. They do not discriminate on the basis of wealth - unless you are not poor. They do not discriminate on the basis of sexuality - unless you are heterosexual (and male). They will listen to your opinion - unless you disagree with them. 

And it is particularly this last point that is of interest.

Increasingly, we are finding that those who describe themselves as 'liberal' are less and less tolerant of dissent.  If one dares to gainsay a feminist, one is described as a misogynist.  Make the point that - in the UK, at least - black boys have fallen way behind in school, and you're labelled a racist.  Point out that Islamist terrorism is connected to Islam, and you're labelled an Islamophobe.  And so it goes.

Try going on the Guardian website (for example) and commenting on an article in a vain contrary to that of the majority and see what happens.  Go on - try it.  A tirade of abuse will come your way, be sure of it.  And the abuse will be out of all proportion to whatever comment you may have made - believe me when I say that I speak from experience.  The opprobrium will come flying at you propelled by a shocking degree of vitriol and vehemence.

More and more we see the 'liberal' demanding increased censorship, and distortions of the truth where the truth does not fit the political (i.e. ideological) zeitgeist.  Even students, once considered radical in their opinions and beliefs, are demanding ever more censorship and thought-policing; to a degree reminiscent of countries that are decidedly not liberal, or of certain European regimes of the twentieth century.

Most galling (and worrying) is the degree of self-censorship that is now expected of everyone - politicians most of all, as Rod Liddle points out rather well.  I even find that I do it myself from time to time; and given the level of grief one can get for expressing opinions, I don't beat myself up too badly about it.  But I do also try to make a point of saying just what I mean wherever and whenever possible - and having the argument to back up my opinions.  Much good it does, though, on occasion.

You see, many who now consider themselves to be liberal favour censorship - both in the press and in everyday speech.  They support the suppression of ideas that they find objectionable.  Now, I am not saying that I don't find some of those same ideas repellent, but here is the difference - I would not ever try to prevent anyone from holding those ideas or expressing them.  Acting on them, certainly - but expressing them, no.

Many who now consider themselves to be liberal favour defining certain crimes as 'hate crimes' -  a ludicrous definition by any reckoning, as such crimes are never committed out of love.  If a person is physically attacked because of their race, then the fact that they were attacked should be sufficient under the law for a suitable punishment of the attacker.  The fact that the attack was motivated by race in the mind of the perpetrator is neither here nor there; an unprovoked attack took place, and so mens rea is established.  But not to the liberal; no, to him (or her, lest we offend anyone) the racism involved makes it all so much worse.  It's not the violence he objects to - it's the opinion behind it.

So, what do we call our New Liberal?  What do we call someone who believes in censorship, in ideology trumping reality, in the suppression of 'unfavourable' ideas, in the punishment of those who hold those ideas - and in the meting out of violence to those with whom they disagree?  I'd be more inclined to use one of their favourite labels that they apply to others with merry abandon - fascist.

A Brief Note on Racism

Just lately I have heard the words 'racism is power combined with prejudice', although the word 'privilege' is sometimes used in place of 'power'.  Often, it is expressed thus:

Racism=Power+Prejudice

as though making it look like an equation will somehow make it more convincing.  Certainly, it seems to be repeated like a mantra, as though many repetitions will turn a trite soundbite into a truism.

There is, of course, one problem with this little phrase:  it's a load of old bollocks.  Let me explain why.

I could invoke the dictionary definitions of racism at this point, which define it as being discrimination against a person on the basis of their race.  I'm not going to do that, though, as it is often the sign of a weak argument, not to mention being a logical fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam sort. No, no.  I shall leave such floundering to those that can manage no better.

Let us instead take a look at the thinking behind this sentence.

The idea is that to be racist, one must be in a position of power over the one against whom one is discriminating.  I have actually seen the belief expressed that it is 'impossible for black people to be racist', although this has had to be hastily amended to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people', and then to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people in Western countries' when it is pointed out who wields the power in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa.

But this whole idea, this way of thinking, is utterly flawed.  Let us presume that we are talking about the UK.  If a white person espouses opinions to the effect that all people who are not white are inferior and should be treated as such, that white person would be called racist, and their ideals held to be vile and execrable.

That's fine - I can get right behind that.

But if a black, Asian, etc person were to say the same thing about white people, that apparently would be fine and dandy.  Because white people, you see, have the power.  All of them, without exception. Yes.

You can see where the wheels are starting to come off this argument already, can't you?  If all white people are in a position of power, why are so many of them poor and disregarded by successive governments?

Well, now we must look at just what we mean by 'power'.  Being the majority, perhaps?  No, that won't work - no-one would have said that black South Africans under Apartheid had power, despite being the majority by a very long way.

Does it mean being in government?  Well it could; again, looking at South Africa under Apartheid, the government was drawn pretty much exclusively from the white population.  By definition, then, black South Africans now all have power.  All of them.  Even those that live in the townships and can barely scratch a living.

Seems pretty flimsy to me.

Is it perhaps a combination of the two?  Being of the demographic that forms the majority and forms most or all of the government?  It might do. It might well do.  But that's the norm in most countries, isn't it - that the indigenous population forms its own government?  I thought that this was a good thing?  Power to the people and all that.

Perhaps 'power' means being socially dominant?  Isn't that the same thing as being the majority?  Cultural dominance - same thing again.  Oh dear.  We have attempted to grasp what power means in this context, and it's like trying to grasp smoke.  It evaporates like faerie gold at sunrise.

Maybe it means not being subject to the same laws as other demographics within the overall population?  Yes, that might be it!  It would fit the word 'privilege' well too.  I think that we are onto something here.  A person who is part of a group, race or sub-culture - within a larger population - that is accorded greater rights and less responsibility than everyone else.  A group that is not required to observe certain laws that nevertheless pertain to the rest of the population.  A group that cannot be called racist or be prosecuted for racism when they actively discriminate against other races in that population?

Sounds like power to me.  The kind of power that a man on the street might have.

So, if a member of one race can discriminate against people of another race and not face censure of any sort, that person can be said to have power.  Which combined with their prejudice, makes them racist.

So if we examine the original equation-like argument above:

If you say that black people cannot be racist against white people, you are saying that black (or insert any non-caucasian race here) people are exempted from the laws, mores and manners of society with regard to discrimination.  Which means that black people have power.  Which, if one them exhibited prejudice, would by your very own argument make him racist.

If, on the other hand, you say that only white people can be racist, you are saying that they cannot escape censure for discrimination, which would mean that they lacked power.  Which would mean that they were not being racist.  Which would mean that they could not be accused of any wrongdoing.  Which would mean that they had power.  Oh dear.  What a very circular argument.

All of which is to say - the argument that racism equals power plus prejudice is bullshit.  Racism really is discriminating against people on the basis of their race.  Their race, mind - not religion (but that's a subject for another time).  Just that.  Doesn't matter what the make-up of the population is, if you discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their race, you're a racist.


Oh, before we go, two other things.

Firstly, isn't it racist to refer to black people as though they were a single homogeneous race?  You know, given that only 100,000 people originally left Africa to form the population of the rest of the world, and everybody else stayed in Africa.  Which is why there is far greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside it, and that there is therefore no such thing as 'the black race'.  There are a lot of ethnically and culturally diverse peoples in Africa - lumping them all in together is orientalism, and arguably racist.

Secondly, please do bear in mind also that, if you wish to say that any ethnic minority or minorities within a country cannot ever be considered racist; if those minorities should be better represented in government to a degree disproportionate to their size within the general population; if you wish to grant any those minority groups greater power and control over the country - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid in South Africa. Doesn't matter if you are talking about the UK - you are saying that the principles of Apartheid are sound.

It also means that if you claim that 'black people can't be racist' - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid.  Either that, or you are saying that Apartheid wasn't racist.

Just saying.

Offence, Political Correctness and Censorship

Could someone please tell me when it became the greatest cultural taboo to cause offence - almost, it sometimes seems, worse than murder? When did it become such an evil thing to say something that upsets people?  And why is our language now being twisted by neologisms that are as tortuous as they are execrable?  What are these terms that blossom on the tongue of the zeitgeist like a cancer?

We could blame Political Correctness - the tabloids frequently do so - but this isn't the cause.  Rather, it is the supposedly more palatable term for censorship - or more to the point, self-censorship.  Political correctness is not the cause, but the symptom of the malady.

And the malady, when dissected, comprises three main parts.

The first part we shall simply call:

Labels

Part of the problem seems to be that we are expected to make everyone feel 'included' in any discourse; to consider every possible form that humanity might take, and then tippy-toe around any characteristic that might make any of those that have such a characteristic feel in any way different.  Skin colour, physical disabilities, sexual orientation and anything else that one might care to name or think of.  But different from what, or whom?  The largest set outside their particular subset?  Their interlocutor?

Black people are now Afro-Caribbean.  Never mind that Africans and Caribbeans often dislike one another intensely, as many Caribbean people harbour a grudge towards Africans, as the ancestors of the latter sold the ancestors of the former into slavery (Europeans may have been responsible for the slave trade, but raptor states such as Dahomey grew fat on the trade and supplied the 'merchandise' quite happily).

Disabled people are now 'differently-abled' because they might get upset by anyone mentioning that they cannot walk, see, hear or whatever.  But the shying-away from the obvious fact that someone has a physical impairment that affects one of their senses or their mobility or cognitive ability really does seem ridiculous; the difficulty they have makes them no less of a person, it just makes them a person with a difficulty.  What is the point of trying to hide from the fact?

This, however, is by far the lesser part of the disease.  The usage of nouns and adjectives such as these have a habit of shifting around every few years; it is simply the language redecorating the walls, not making structural alterations, and with about as much real significance.

No, there is a deeper aspect to the illness, marked not by the labels it insists upon but with the shift in thinking it demands of everybody.

And so to the second (and unorignally named) part of the malady:

Thoughtcrime

Not only must we be vary careful with the nouns and adjectives that we use, but also the verbs.  We must avoid any mention of anything at all that could possibly allude to there being any kind of a difference between those perceived as being the 'mainstream' and those who are of a 'different' group.

Helen Lewis sets this out very succinctly - and far better than I ever could - on her tumblr article 'Perfection in Language'. She uses a wonderful example:

...Imagine walking out of your front door, stopping the first person you meet and explaining your beliefs to them....

 Of course, I’ve already done something wrong in that opening paragraph. I’ve asked you to imagine walking out of your front door. But I can guarantee you that if I wrote that in a piece, I would get at least one comment “gently reminding” me that some people can’t walk, and some people can’t leave their houses. I’ve been ableist.

Now, what is wrong with walking out of your front door?  What could be more normal, more quotidian, than that?  Are we supposed to believe that those who are unable to walk, or to leave the house, will be mortally wounded by the reminder that the vast majority of others are able to do so?  That those that cannot see must be cossetted with a false belief that there is no such thing as sight?

So we are to avoid any reference to walking, to seeing, to hearing, to running, to thinking...to living.  And to avoid any reference to these things we must erase them from our thoughts.  We must curtail not only our tongues, but also our brains.  We are to deny to ourselves that our everyday, normal actions are everyday or normal; we must not only pretend to a blind man that there is no such thing as sight, but we must pretend it to ourselves.

Now, it has been the case from time immemorial that if there is an enemy to fight, a process of 'othering' is first undertaken.  It is the psychological distancing of one's own group form the target group; propaganda is often used as part of this process.  In so many of the major wars that have been fought, each side has demonised the other, to make the other side hateful and something less than human.  Because then, the slaughter can begin in earnest.

Now, however, we find that this process has been turned inwards, and we are forced to 'other', to demonise, ourselves.  Be it skin colour, being able-bodied, mental acuity, wealth, ability - whatever you care to name.  If you find yourself in an advantaged or majority group, you are to apologise for yourself and believe yourself to somehow be at fault simply because - to continue Ms. Lewis' example - you are able to walk out of your front door.  Nothing less will do than everyone prostrates themselves at the feet of everyone else, each begging for forgiveness whilst simultaneously demanding that as many others as possible kneel before him as penitents keening their mea culpas.  Genuflect before the masses, the few that are many and the many that are few.

And this leads us to the third, and deepest, part of the disease - the very thing that political correctness, this cultural Marxism that has crept into our world, purportedly seeks to cure:

Divisiveness

The aim of the politically correct mode of thought is to be all-inclusive. We are to censor ourselves in order to not cause offence to any 'group', or to those that get offended on their behalf.  But this is where we find the cancer at the heart of the left-wing mind, the worm that devours the root of the ideology.  And it is this:

By treating every conceivable 'disadvantaged' group with kid gloves, by singling them out for special treatment, any differences between that group and everyone else is highlighted, not diminished.  By refusing to allow any subset to be treated in the same manner as the main set, division is created.  The left would seek to invert what they perceive as being the historic order of things, to turn the 'privileged' white heterosexual male from being at the 'apex' of society into being the lowest and most despised group, and to take those at the very 'bottom' of the pyramid and raise them to a position of exalted status.  And of course, to be at the top of this new world order requires no effort on the part of the new elite; rather a lack of effort is all that is demanded.

This inversion is intended not only to affect the perceived hierarchy of society but also the effort required to reach any particular station.  Are you able-bodied? Hard-working? Independent? Determined? Ambitious? Talented? Then you are a sucker.  Because in this new order, the harder you work, the further down you will go.  You cannot work your way up the ladder - all you can do is slide all the way down.  Refuse to work, blame your background, society, anything you like, and you will rise.  The great shall be abased and the abased made great - the promise of Christianity has come about, but in a wholly secular and hateful manner.


Naturally, the proponents of this way of thinking countenance no dissent.  This uber-tolerant mob can tolerate anything other than a difference in opinion.  Do not dare to speak out, do not think of pointing out the absurdity of the premises, do not imagine that you can go against something that so clearly has the love of humanity at its heart and above all do not, do not examine that discomfort, that cognitive dissonance that perturbs you.

Helen Lewis did, this very week.  Within hours, her feminist and politically correct comrades had hounded her into closing down her Twitter account, to suspending her blogging and writing.  What hatred and bile spewed forth, simply because she dared to try to apply reason.