POLARISED - part 3

There's been a lot of talk about 'hate' in recent years. We've had a programme to eliminate hatred of particular ethnic groups, for example – those who form minorities in Western societies. While that's a laudable objective, the idea that this has resulted in an overall reduction in hatred is an oversimplification. For other social groups, hatred seems to have risen rather than fallen. I seem to tick a few of the currently negative boxes myself: white, male, middle-class, middle-aged.
   Hatred of the outsider, of the foreigner, of the 'enemy of society' – however 'outside' or 'foreign' or 'enemy' is culturally defined – may be hardwired in homo sapiens. But it seems such hatred can be either damped down or cranked up. One of the methods of cranking up is to create narratives or perspectives that associate every member of a particular group with one or more negative characteristics. For example, Jews in 1930s Germany were accused of possessing 'unfair' levels of wealth. (While antisemitism is often characterised as being about contempt, the truth may have more to do with jealousy and resentment.)
   In 1973, when I emigrated from Germany to Britain aged ten, hostile narratives – in relation to groups that are now 'protected' – weren't much in evidence in my country of destination. What was visible to me from popular culture wasn't negative narratives about (say) Blacks, or women; on the other hand, there was a certain amount on the topic of Germans. In practice, I rarely had to deal with seriously anti-German prejudice – but I did find it irritating that practically every German I encountered in fiction or drama was unpleasant.
   The efforts of the last four decades have made the use of narratives that are hostile to protected groups, or of any wording that comes even remotely close, prohibited in public discourse. While this has seriously impacted free speech in the broader sense, you could argue that there's been some benefit to members of minorities.
   But to suggest that hatred in general has been reduced is surely overstating things. What seems to have happened instead is that hatred – to some extent a free-floating emotion, always on the look-out for targets – has been shifted around.

There are new objects of hatred, and new narratives/perspectives to support that hatred.
   For example, in America, groups identifying with right-wing or other anti-leftist positions are now routinely characterised in terms of adjectives that amount to labelling them as evil – and as deserving of contempt, cancel culture, and even violence. Those who identify with such positions are supposedly 'driven by hatred' – which (apparently) makes hating them okay. Anti-leftists, so the story goes, want to oppress minorities. They are misogynist, racist, phobic of sexual minorities. Other than hatred, their principal motives are selfishness and greed.
   These leftist-populist narratives receive important support from academia, which has been busy over recent decades generating theories that buttress such sentiments. Non-leftists (described as 'right-wing', 'conservative', 'neoliberal', and so on – automatic insults in an academic context) are oppressive, ideological, prejudiced, phobic of change, and so on, according to 'research' published in respected peer-reviewed journals.
   In shifting the focus of emotions – "don't hate those people, hate these people!" – academics, highbrow commentators and other intellectuals have gained important power. Power over thought, morality and speech. Ideological power, in other words.
   Such power was once held by the Christian Church. By now it has largely passed to the Church's successor. I see plenty of signs of the Church bowing to the new religion of wokeism, but not vice versa. Transmission of moral ideology has become largely a one-way street, between those two Western hegemonies, the old and the new.

POLARISED - part 2

In the previous post I suggested that increased polarisation can be linked to the fact that – despite the West supposedly having become more secularised and more science-based – there has been a rise in fervent belief. Belief in the absolute rightness of certain theories, or attitudes, chiefly in relation to political topics.
   I suggested that the apparent decline in people's capacity to consider alternatives to their own beliefs could (paradoxically) be attributable to the influence of academia. Far more people nowadays receive training, in the kinds of intellectual approach favoured by humanities professors, compared to 40 or 50 years ago. While some of the approved approaches may be analogous to those used in the physical or medical sciences, many are not.
   Critical Theory, for example, a set of techniques that's become dominant in academic arts subjects, has little in common with science. It's essentially an arm of Marxist ideology.
   Though there's a pretence that 'critical' analysis is being employed, in practice the answers are largely predetermined, and tend to come with a strong dose of moral pressure. 'If you don't agree with our stance, you're probably complicit in causing harm.' The underlying effect seems to be to stir people up, or make them uncomfortable, though they may not always be conscious of it.
   Being repeatedly told (even if only in the form of subtext) that contemporary society is harmful, and that you're complicit unless you're actively opposing the status quo, is bound to leave its mark. For some impressionable individuals, it's likely to change their attitudes fundamentally and permanently. But even for less impressionable students, it's likely to exert profound background influence, however much they may say that they didn't take campus ideology seriously at the time.

* * * * *

On 10 September 2025, conservative pundit Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a university campus in Orem, Utah, apparently by a young college graduate who objected to Kirk's views, or to what he imagined those views to be.
   More disturbing than the event itself have been the reactions to it. Comments on discussion websites such as Quora.com, presumably representing a cross-section of viewpoints, were at best only lukewarmly sympathetic. On average, they weren't sympathetic at all. Many comments amounted to the view that 'Kirk had it coming'. One got the feeling that there's quite a few people who wouldn't have minded killing Charlie Kirk themselves, if it had been easy and they could have been sure of getting away with it.
   How does what we're seeing fit with the narratives constructed by leftist intellectuals? According to the latter, it's the Right whose views are fuelled by hatred and intolerance. The image that's been created is one of crazed, unreasonable reactionaries; fervent believers who are emotive, verging on hysterical, in their attachment to irrational positions. Yet the evidence suggests that the precise opposite may be true. It's the Left that has become immune to reason, believing in the values of its preferred religion (wokeism) with evangelical zeal. It's the Left which seems to have adopted near-hysterical intolerance as its MO.

POLARISED

Why has political and ethical opinion in the West become so polarised? To the extent that many no longer seem to be able to tolerate living in the same country as others with different viewpoints?
   The Left likes to blame the Right. Figures like Donald Trump are said to be 'divisive'. But the current resurgence of rightism, often denounced as 'extreme', is perhaps best interpreted as a reaction against the increasing cultural dominance of leftism. It's a reflection of the fact that leftism has become gradually more intolerant as it has acquired power – suffocatingly so, from many people's point of view.
   As with any social phenomenon, the causes of increasing polarisation are complex. But one reason seems to be that for many people, their opinions have taken on (in their own minds) the status of fact. They 'know', for example, that men usually oppress women, that white people are racist, and that economic inequality is unjust. Opinions that diverge from these 'facts' are simply wrong. They don't deserve to be given space. Rather, they deserve to be suppressed and punished.
   Where did people acquire this unjustified certainty, and the inability to consider they might be wrong? I suspect the answer in many cases is, they acquired it at university, at least if they studied a humanities subject. Marxist and Marxist-inspired perspectives, which promote dogmatic ways of thinking, have gradually infiltrated the academic humanities. By now, such perspectives have become dominant in many institutions, including blue-chip ones.
   Not all Marxist perspectives are necessarily wrong, so long as one remembers they're just perspectives. The reasons for social stratification (for example) are not well understood; arguably, they're not understood at all. Marx's theory that inequality is due to 'oppression' may be correct, in part, but there's currently no way of knowing. It could be completely false.
   Marxist-inspired perspectives on gender, sexuality and ethnicity can be intellectually broadening, if that's considered an objective worth pursuing – so long as they're presented as perspectives, and not as compelling theory, with alternatives or critiques dismissed as 'ideology'. But that doesn't happen in practice, and it's not clear if it's even feasible. It's an integral part of the Marxist approach to treat itself as factually and morally correct, and to treat other ways of thinking as deluded and harmful. This is one important way in which Marxist analysis is very different from the scientific approach.
   Marxism is toxic to the spirit of free enquiry. It regards 'free enquiry' as an instrument of oppression. It's not surprising that support for neutral debate, and dispassionate weighing of alternatives, has declined, if professors encourage their students to regard such things as merely a cover for dodgy agendas.
   Rather than teaching people to think sympathetically about a range of differing viewpoints, many humanities professors encourage adopting faith-like positions on certain questions. They don't do it by stating categorically that (say) men oppress women; the process is more subtle than that. Students are encouraged to think 'critically', but only in certain directions. Getting good marks depends on getting to the 'right' conclusions, and avoiding the 'wrong' ones.
For example,
• anti capitalism: thumbs up.
• anti state intervention, or anti Marxism: thumbs down.
   Ironically – or hypocritically – it's actually the humanities that are doing one thing (political propaganda) under the cover of another (intellectual analysis). It's made to look like science, but has more in common with religion.
   And if you want to know why professors are attracted to Marxist perspectives, read the book.

the destruction of Britain (contd.)

The Labour government currently appears to have two main objectives:
(1) raise money by any means necessary (the coffers are empty);
(2) penalise the middle class for having 'unfair' advantages.
   As Arthur Laffer recently reminded us, objective (1) isn't necessarily going to be met, in net terms, by having a new tax. For example, if you slap a 20% tax on private schools, but twenty percent of them go bust as a result, you may actually decrease tax revenue. Nevertheless, if you manage to penalise the middle class, then at least one of your objectives will have been met.
   Having successfully punished those who wish to keep their children away from the horrors of comprehensive schools, Labour's next move is to penalise family farms. Farming is linked to private land ownership, one of the primary objects of hatred and disapproval for Marxists and other leftists. Stalin, for example, was willing to let millions die for the sake of eliminating private farming, which he saw as anathema to the communist cause.
   Labour's approach is to abolish the exemption for inheritance tax on agricultural property (agricultural property relief) for farms valued above £1 million. This is a ludicrously low threshold. There are houses in the Oxfordshire village I live in – not by any means grand houses – selling for close to a million.
   One of the concepts that came out of the COVID crisis is that of key workers, and key sectors – sectors of the economy that we cannot do without, if a catastrophe ever hits. One of those sectors is surely food production. Rather than over-worrying about which minority groups need protection (from being offended), shouldn't we be worrying about which sectors of the economy need protection? Because, in a crisis, we are going to be royally screwed if they don't exist and we're forced to rely on possibly non-existent imports? Personally, I would put food production above even medical services and transport, on the list of sectors we cannot do without.
   Farming, more perhaps than any other business, depends on long-term planning and strategy. It can take decades for an agricultural plan to come to full fruition. Continuity across generations has been a crucial part of British farming. And one unwise policy change is all it can take to permanently destroy an agricultural business. Can it ever be rebuilt? Don't count on it.
   Depending on whose data you believe, the proportion of British farms affected by the tax change could be two thirds, or it could be 20 percent. But even 20 percent of our farms being gradually decimated is too much.
   Academic think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recommended the abolition of agricultural property relief, on the basis that "[if we have inheritance tax] it should apply equally across all types of assets."

If the government wishes to promote certain uses of land – such as producing food [...] – it would be fairer and more efficient to explicitly target support towards the activities it seeks to promote.

This line of argument may look convincing on paper. But do the academics responsible for it have any practical knowledge of how farming works? Or considered that a tax you have to pay, plus a subsidy you have to claim, may look the same – in theory – as being left alone, but be very different in practice?
   Even the Institute of Chartered Accountants, not particularly known for having a pro-Conservative stance, has warned that the £1m threshold is set too low, and that it will affect many more farms than the government claims.
   As in the case of private schools, the big players will no doubt find ways and means to survive the onslaught. It's the smaller farms who are likely to go to the wall.
   Do Labour politicians understand the economics of farming? Do they care? Is it wilful ignorance? Whatever the causes, the result will surely be to push the British farming sector closer to the brink.

• My colleague Celia Green has sometimes suggested that perhaps Britain "has a death wish". It's clear that there are people who seem to hate Britain (or a particular version of it), and who seem to want to destroy it. But is it possible for destruction to happen, unless a good proportion of the populace as a whole is to some extent on board with it? Is it possible that Freud's Todestrieb can operate at a societal level?

le déluge (après nous)

It seems France is paying the price for 50 years of cultural-Marxist ideology, which started to become hegemonic over there in the 1970s. The French structuralist and post-structuralist movements – variants of the intellectual collectivism that Marx's disciples pioneered, and hugely influential – no doubt made the French intellectual establishment feel they were masters of the (mental) universe. A pleasant feeling, after the humiliation of the Occupation.
   Their ideas became fashionable, then dominant. It soon became difficult to be a non-leftist intellectual at all in France. Even the occasional maverick like Bernard-Henri Lévy still genuflected towards the basic principle of leftism: that intellectuals were there to make the world 'a better place'. Instead of making France 'better', we can see what the eventual effects of leftist hegemony are: instability, political incompetence, loss of social cohesion.
   France no longer occupies the position of standard bearer for cultural Marxism. (One of the ironies of collectivism becoming hegemonic is that eventually high-grade collectivist thinkers are hunted to extinction, because the concept of an exceptional person, even a leftist one, is regarded as too individualistic.) The role of leadership was transferred to the US during the 1980s and 90s. Applying a temporal analogy suggests that America has about another 20 or 30 years to go before it, too, succumbs to the weight of Marxist-inspired ideology, and starts to go downhill.
   For the moment, the concept of enterprising individuals, and their importance, still forms a key part of America's self-image. Only this morning I was made aware, by an American brain-training app, of the historical role of Boston's 'ice king' Frederic Tudor (1783-1864).
   But the rot has obviously started even in America, as can be seen from yesterday's assassination of Charlie Kirk. Unless the US wakes up and realises that its bloated university system has become a wokeist propaganda machine, it will soon be in the same position as Britain, with every historical figure 'deconstructed' and 'revisionised' to prove they were enemies of social justice, or else mere components of 'social movements'.

• The key to seeing through wokeism is to think about the motivation (conscious or unconscious) of those involved. They would be the first to tell you that everything is about power. Shouldn't you consider whether this applies, a fortiori, to themselves? Who benefits when all political thinking and action is eventually influenced, or outright controlled, by a class of state-authorised intellectuals?

paying the price for pseudo-logic

The tides are changing for higher education. In 2020, Joe Biden was elected on a platform of free college education for all Americans. Five years later, few politicians in the West talk about expanding the bloated university system. The penny seems to have dropped that bumping up participation rates has achieved little, except satisfy egalitarian ideology and generate massive debt.
   As always with state involvement, there's now a ratchet-effect problem. Reversing the expansion will create unemployment among academics, and lead to waste of useless expenditure on infrastructure (lecture halls, student accommodation, etc.) Did New Labour, or their counterparts in other countries, consider this reversibility issue, when they encouraged the spending spree? It's doubtful.
   There's an interesting recent article by a retired academic who says he was opposed to the UK's expansion that started in the 1990s, and who argues that chickens are now coming home to roost. The fact that the article appears in Times Higher Education suggests that even the academic and administrative elites are starting to acknowledge the problem.
   Former politics lecturer Lincoln Allison points out that the UK's current two-tier system (half are graduates, half not) condemns non-graduates permanently to lower-grade jobs. Rather than increasing opportunities for the able, the expansion has succeeded in entrenching class differences.
   Allison says that the university sector has been "bloated to an unsustainable level", and predicts that it is now "bound to decline".

... the government of a new party – or an old party on a new trajectory – may get into power and boldly and deliberately dismantle large parts of the system.
   As a competitor for public funding, universities don't look good compared with health, defence and environment, and we must bear in mind that the British constitution can allow nearly complete control over policy based on 40 per cent of the vote. Such a government might institute a programme of closures and insist on the sale of assets and real estate.

Allison's article doesn't explore the dodgy logic that was used to rationalise the bloating, back in the heady nineties and noughties. The phenomenon is especially noteworthy given that academics themselves – cleverer than the average person? – were presumably involved in developing the case for expansion.
   The 2006 Leitch Review in particular provides a prime illustration of ludicrous pseudo-rationality: statistics, charts, arguments ('Britain needs more graduates in order to compete!'), all conveniently collated and targeted at producing a desired conclusion ('increase participation rate to 40%!') that had probably been fixed in advance. It's a testament to spurious logic of the kind nowadays habitually deployed in the humanities, and a testament to how such pseudo-logic can have massive political consequences, with a massive price to pay down the line, in the form of economic mismanagement and sorting out the mess.

Boycott the universities!

My advice to middle‑class parents:
Keep your offspring away from institutions that promote toxic ideology, and that encourage massive personal debt.

My advice to working‑class parents:
Ditto.

READ MORE.
 

Destruction of the middle class has begun...

... I mean the second stage of it has begun. Or is it Stage 3, or Stage 4 by now? It's hard to keep track.
   British private schools have started to crack, under the onslaught of a >20 percent increase in costs, VAT now being applied to fees, combined with a recent rise in employers' National Insurance.
   As I predicted, it's the smaller private schools at the margin which are suffering the most, and are the first to go to the wall. I'm sure Eton, Harrow and Winchester will manage somehow. So it's the poorer members of the middle class who are being punished. The very rich will be okay. Perhaps because they have (figuratively) made a 'deal' with the left-wing hegemony? It might help to explain the politics of figures such as Etonian David Cameron and Wykehamist Rishi Sunak.
   Hatred of the middle class has been 'legitimised', using ideology that was invented by Karl Marx, spread by his disciples, and which is now being disseminated to vast numbers via the university system. Maybe that's why New Labour were so keen to get more young people to go to college.
   Most of the current Cabinet went to comprehensive schools. Were their spirits nearly crushed there? Making them want to take it out, not on state education, but on the private education they missed out on? It's one of the paradoxes of leftism in a mixed economy – and a reason why its influence has a tendency to rise over time – that the suffering its policies cause often leads its victims to blame, not leftism, but capitalism, ironically leading to more ammunition for leftism. It's one of those negative feedback loops.
   Contemporary state education inculcates collectivist values.* So private schools remain a small but potent threat to il-liberal hegemony. A person tends to emerge from them not brainwashed to believe in collectivism, or that he/she (and any other individual) is insignificant in relation to the collective.
   Many among the Left call private schools "out of touch". Out of touch with what? Leftist ideology, which has become hegemonic among educational, academic and cultural institutions? But why should every school reflect the dominant values? Isn't it one of the central tenets of left-wing thought (the academic kind at any rate) that it's virtuous to be oppositional to, or at least divergent from, the dominant ideology?
   It's worth bearing in mind that state provision is not an essential element of universal education. There are private schools whose fees are lower (or were, before they were subjected to Labour's penalties) than the average government spend per state school pupil. Vouchers would be consistent with universal education. But socialists, which includes most humanities professors and the teaching unions, have usually rejected the idea of a voucher system. It would leave too little power in their hands – power to boss people about in the name of fairness and equality.

update
I have just gathered, via an article in Monday's Telegraph, that ideological support for attacking private schools came, not just from comprehensive-educated Labour politicians, but from former Conservative Education Secretary Michael Gove, currently Editor of the Spectator.
   There are various possible ways of interpreting this extraordinary and mind-boggling fact, which was news to me. I think it illustrates perfectly what is wrong with contemporary British 'Conservatism', and why genuine conservatism needs to start looking to alternatives – ones that have become less complaisant and complicit with il-liberal hegemony.

• A reader has queried my suggestion that discussion of transgender, and other topics to do with gender, sexuality or race, should be "banned from universities". What about conversations in the cafeteria? And how am I proposing such a ban would be enforced?
   My suggestion only applies to formal discussions: papers, books, lectures, talks. Obviously individuals on campus would go on exploring those topics informally among themselves – ideally, without the current policing by university authorities.
   If an individual wants to complain they are being treated disrespectfully – for whatever reason – they should be able to complain. But I don't see any reason for having special rules for this in respect of gender/sexuality/ethnicity, any more than I see a need for special laws for crimes that have a gender/sexuality/ethnicity aspect to them, or for laws against so-called 'hate speech'. (Before New Labour brought in such laws, there was already legislation against incitement to violence. I don't see why punishment should vary according to whether anti-minority motivation was alleged to be involved.)
   As to how a 'ban' would be implemented, I'm certainly not advocating legal restrictions on what universities can or can't teach, or what speakers may or may not be invited – let alone having rules that certain types of speaker must be invited for the sake of creating legally required 'balance'. I think that universities should themselves recognise the absurdity of hosting formal debate and research on topics for which some possible perspectives are prohibited. It's universities themselves who should be adopting internal policies on the issue.
   Of course that's very unlikely to happen. It would entail at least partial acknowledgment that much of the 'research' and 'debate' done under the banner of the humanities so far has been carried out to serve an agenda. Also, acknowledgment that much of the rest of the research and debate is tainted, as a result of having been conducted in an environment of agenda-serving institutionalised bias. An agenda is still an agenda, however much it's ostensibly aimed at a 'virtuous' end result.

* 'Critical Theory', in this case inspired by nutty French professor Louis Althusser (1918-1990), claims that modern state schools disseminate capitalist, not collectivist, ideology. This is either ironic, or hypocritical, depending on what you think the underlying motivation of Critical Theorists is.

Image source: Daily Telegraph