Category Archives: Free speech

Newspeak (part two of a rant)

Posted on by
1

I’ve been considering the changing meaning of words. I acknowledge that this happens over time: language evolves like everything else. My concern here is the deliberate redefining of words to suit a given (political) agenda. This often underhanded stretching of words to give them new meanings, actually diminishes them and renders them dangerous. 

As part of its definition, Merrian-Webster describes racism as ‘behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster ‘the belief in racial superiority): discrimination, prejudice, or violence against people because of their race.’

Violence, it seems to me, is hardly ever justified. I have detested it since I was a child. There can be no doubt that violence is sometimes motivated by racial hatred, but like all the words I’m dealing with here, racism as an accusation is overused to the point of meaninglessness. While other nations – the Scandinavian countries, the US, Scotland and Wales – proudly fly their national flags practically everywhere, here in the UK it has been deemed to be racist by some on the Left. It’s common for the Ukranian, Palestinian, Scottish, Welsh and LGBT flags to be flown here, why are the English and Union flags now considered to be racist? It might, at a stretch be that they are divisive, but then aren’t all flags? Isn’t that what they’re for, to declare a national identity that is distinct from that of other states? The British flag is no more ‘racist’ than any other. Neither is expressing genuine concern for immigration, which is dismissed by those who’ve failed to control it, as racist. How can it be when those coming into Britain are from a variety of ‘races’, many white and European?

It’s racist, and hateful too, say ‘community leaders’ and white liberals, to object to the treatment of women within Islam, or first-cousin marriage or frequently expressed anti-Semitism. ‘Racism’ in these instances is an attempt to shut down discussion and censure those with legitimate concerns. Similarly, for fear of being considered racist, authorities have failed to investigate (hateful) criminal activities by ethnic minorities. And while it’s become clichéd to say it, criticism of Islam and its practices is not racist: Islam is a religion, not a race, its practitioners drawn from a range of ethnicities. The true meaning of racism has been lost. Those who suffer from it abandoned in the transition of the word into meaninglessness.

My 95 year old mother was in hospital recently. She struggled to understand what some of the nurses were saying to her, either about her condition or treatment or something else. She didn’t know which because, between her deteriorating hearing, the mouth coverings some nurses wore and the accents of those from other ethnicities, she couldn’t understand them. What she couldn’t do, she felt, was say this to them. In Britain today it is regarded as racist to tell someone from another culture you can’t understand them. So she didn’t, nor did she mention the problem to any other of the medical team for fear of being thought racist. This is where we are in today’s Britain.

A Phobia of Hate (part one of a rant)

Posted on by
1

It used to be the case that when writing an essay or presenting an argument, the writer needed to define one’s terms. This way, parameters were set with clarity and, as we say these days, transparency about what was to be discussed. Sadly, this seems not to be the case any more. I don’t blame social media for this; it seems to me politicians have largely led the charge, using terms with usually clear definitions in ways that suit their own purpose, without any regard for that common understanding. Rarely do they make clear that this is what they are doing. The mainstream media are inclined to do the same. What we may think they’re talking about, they may not be. Perhaps both politicians and the media learned the trick from Christian commenters who are happy to change the meaning of words as they see fit (‘Atheists’, ‘myth’, ‘metaphor’ for example.)

I dealt with autism here. The term, and diagnosis, is now stretched so thinly that, according to the social scientist who first proposed the autistic ‘spectrum’, it has become ‘meaningless’. What other terms have been misapplied until they too have been rendered ‘meaningless’?

How about phobia? Strictly speaking a phobia is an irrational fear, one for which there is no real basis: arachnophobia, agoraphobia, claustrophobia, for example. Of course there may be real grounds for being fearful of spiders (some are poisonous) heights (if perched precariously on the top of a mountain) and enclosed spaces (if it is suffocating), but the terms arachnophobia, acrophobia, claustrophobia are reserved, or at least they used to be, for those whose fear is extreme and above and beyond the rational. The term phobia is now applied to anyone who expresses concern about or criticism of any movement or cause: homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia come to mind. The first of these started life as an irrational fear that one might oneself be homosexual. Now it’s considered to be, by those who attribute their not ‘getting on’ in life or being subjected to personal criticism, to be the result of their being gay. Certainly ill-considered remarks may be unkind, a word that more than adequately describes much of what is described as phobic in modern society. But being unkind does not equate with a phobia, nor is it against the law. Not yet anyway.

Similarly offensive, a word originally that originally signified a physical attack, the meaning it still carries in law. As Paul Simon once expressed it in a rather pleasant little song, ‘One Man’s Ceiling is Another Man’s Floor’: what I might find offensive, in the sense of hurt feelings, is not necessarily what you find offensive, unless you choose to allow it to be. That’s because ‘offence’ in the slack modern sense is ridiculously subjective: it is, it seems, not a problem to call for the death of Jews but it is offensive to show images of an ancient ‘prophet’. Touchy religious sensibilities, sometimes prone to take offence at the slightest provocation, do not signal a criminal or even a criminal offence. And yet that is where we’ve got to, certainly in the UK. Remember your mother teaching you that sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you? Of course this is not entirely true; words can cause emotional hurt. But this doesn’t mean those who use words critically merit investigation by the officers of the law.

Hate is a verb. Unlike its antonym love, it cannot also be a noun. I know, this is pedantic of me, but we’re talking about words and the damage they can cause when misapplied. To alter and stretch their meaning out of all recognition results in the problems we now have in (British) society. All of the accusations of ‘hate’ that fly around these days are, grammatically, ‘hatred’ though in fact, they rarely qualify as this either. According to Merriam Webster, hatred is ‘an extreme dislike or disgust or ill will or resentment that is usually mutual: prejudiced hostility or animosity.’ Hatred is a powerful, destructive emotion. Reasoned opposition to the political manoeuvring of minority groups is not really it.

Of course it is possible to take such opposition to extreme lengths that it may look a lot like hatred, but by and large it is not. I do not ‘hate’ religious group that try to impose their beliefs and practices on me or my society, but I do oppose them and their efforts. I also oppose those who claim that any opposition to their efforts constitutes ‘hate’. It rarely does so, but how convenient it is for those who don’t get their own way to have the accusation in their armoury. Which is not to say real hatred isn’t expressed, often in violent action, but strangely, as a society, we seem less concerned with such action. We are, apparently, required to understand the frustrations of those carrying them out; their grievance is genuine and heartfelt. Hurty words though are of much more concern.

 

Advice

Posted on by
3

Image sourced here

Good news, everybody. The UK Government has released its ‘advice’ to help us all avoid ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. Thank God we have such intellectual giants as Keir Starmer to advise us on such matters. We must not, it turns out, treat Muslims ‘as a collective group’ with ‘fixed negative characteristics’.

This, it also turns out, is what human beings do with every group that exists, and every group that has ever existed, since the beginning of time. We lump people of comparable beliefs and behaviours together no matter how much each category protests they represent a multitude of nuanced perspectives: Jews, Christians, LGB, Trans, environmentalists, Mormons, atheists, feminists, Rastafarians, teachers, sinners, billionaires, politicians, Americans, journalists, the Right, the Left… They’re all subject to criticism as ‘collective groups’. This is often on the basis of the bad behaviour of a few of their ‘community’, or of a caricature of what a member of these groups is perceived to be (as a gay person, I speak from being on the receiving end of this kind of condemnation). It’s neither fair nor reasonable to do this, I agree, but it is what happens. But now we are ‘advised’ we must not do it of Muslims. Don’t criticise Muslims as a whole just because some of them are inclined to blow people up. Don’t criticise them collectively for the pronouncements of extremist preachers. Don’t even criticise them for the practices of the majority.

Okay. But shouldn’t that also extend to all the other ‘communities’ I’ve mentioned? Yes, and it would in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. While we continue to judge Christians as a whole, on the basis of the hypocrisy of some, LGB people because of the excesses of a few and Jews because of the actions of their state (Muslims and their trendy left-wing supporters do exactly this in the case of Jews), then why can we not judge Muslims similarly? You’d have to ask Starmer that. But don’t expect him to give you a straight answer.

Oh, and how long before this ‘advice’ becomes law? 

‘Those who most want to rule others are least suited to do it.’

Posted on by
4

More stories that we really should be questioning. First today, a perennial favourite:

We, the Left / Right / Green / Centrist / Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, and I as party leader, pledge to solve the country’s problems / Make America Great Again / limit taxes / reduce bills and the cost of living / build new houses / curb immigration / lift families out of poverty etc, etc. We have fully costed these policies and they are achievable, unless we discover they are not, which we might though this is unlikely, but we can’t be sure. This we promise.

Admittedly there’s a hint of scepticism in this particular paraphrase, but even so, once elections roll round again, plenty of us will be taken in by guff like this. However, politicians create more problems than they solve. The difficulties the world faces right now, those that are not the result of religion, have been created by our political leaders. Whatever they promise in order to gain your vote, they will deliver only a small fraction. Don’t believe anything they tell you. Vote for the party that tells you they’ll do f**k all, and as well as being impressed by their honesty, you will find you’re not disappointed. Democracy is broken. As Douglas Adams put it:

It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

And:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

We really are this much stuffed. And that’s before A.I. takes charge. 

Second, a much repeated mantra in the UK today:

Britain is a fully integrated and wonderfully diverse society. Diversity is truly one of our strengths. We also need people from other cultures to do menial jobs and boost the economy. We must be tolerant and understanding of the cultural practices of some of these newcomers, even if, for example, their attitude towards women and Western values is markedly different from our own. This doesn’t mean their beliefs are any less valid. Anyone who questions this or suggests we are not in fact a fully integrated, diverse society is a hater, racist or fascist. Such individuals are the cause of division. Diversity is our strength.

This sort of rhetoric is typical of the UK’s Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. If ever there was anyone who should on no account be allowed to do the job, it is Sir Keir. He has clearly watched too many episodes of Bridgerton in which all races and cultures enjoy a sumptuous life, rubbing along happily together in a comfortable upper class milieu. While many of us do co-exist happily with our neighbours from elsewhere, Britain today is not quite like Bridgerton.

According to Sir Keir, extreme right-wing views among the settled indigenous population prevent it from being fully realised. It is this faction who refuse to compromise or make any concession to accommodate the cultures who now live among us. This is simply not true.

Many cultures have assimilated into the British way of life, but equally many have not and do not wish to. Like Christians who shun ‘the world’ there are newcomers to the British Isles, many Muslims in particular, who reject the way of life here and seek to assert their own cultural values. Many of these are at odds with hard fought Western principles: the equality of women and gay people, religious tolerance, the humane treatment of animals, the long established rule of law, the rights of those who do not subscribe to the tenets of Islam. For many, such people are kaffar, infidels of lesser value than those within the Muslim fold. They see no reason to compromise or integrate with them. And yet, the obligation to do so is theirs; they are the ones who have chosen to make their homes in the UK just as it is. To try to change it to be more like the cultures they have come from – escaped from in many cases – is not how asylum works.

Starmer and his government, meanwhile, blame the indigenous population, many of whom are of immigrant stock themselves, for the lack of assimilation and unity. To teach them the error of their ways, he plans to appoint an ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’ to champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred when directed, as he or she sees it, at the Muslim community. This, you’ll note, is a process intended only to work in one direction.

You might wonder why, if we’re already living in Sir Keir’s wonderful Bridgerton-esque society (the only division being caused by pesky extreme right-wingers) such an appointment is necessary, but if Sir Keir thinks it is, then surely it must be so.

You may have your own examples of the kinds of stories we’re told today that don’t hold up to closer inspection. You may feel I’ve been conditioned to feel uncomfortable with the particular narratives I’ve looked at, and you would no doubt be right. I’d be interested to hear your views.

 

Surviving 2026

Posted on by
Reply

It’s that time of year when, according to the media, we need to consider what our strategies might be for surviving the 12 months ahead. I thought I’d share with you some of my thoughts along these lines:

1. Have the lowest expectations of politicians that you can muster. That way you’ll only be mildly disappointed when they fail to live up to them.

2. Have a sense of proportion. The universe has existed for 13.8 billion years, the earth for 4.54 billion, life for 3.8 – 3.5 billion, humans for a mere 300,000 years and you for a miniscule fraction of even this final statistic. None of these events has been directed by a sentient power. They are all the result of natural forces. With this perspective you’ll recognise how nonsensical it is to attribute anything to a tribal deity.

3. Reserve your respect for people who merit respect. You do not have to respect those who espouse nonsense and/or don’t respect you. You certainly don’t have to genuflect in front of ideologies, whether religious, philosophical or political. Ideologies are not people.

4. Party like it’s 1999. That way you can pretend the world isn’t being run by septuagenarian megalomaniacs.

5. Resist the Newspeak that is daily foisted upon us. Call a spade a shovel, an Islamist a Muslim, and send the Thought Police packing when they turn up at your door because someone somewhere is offended by something you’ve said, on someone else’s behalf.

6. Spend lots of time with friends. Studies repeatedly show that socialising contributes significantly to living a longer, happier, healthier life. Even talking to strangers helps. I know that other people can sometimes be  challenging (see below) but being with them is, on balance, pleasurable and rewarding. They do you good (and you them).

7. Stop anyone who starts a sentence with ‘Me and partner’. Point out that this is grammatically incorrect and reflects badly on both their education and personal integrity.

8. Read comic books.

9. Take pride in your country. It belongs to you, not just to politicians and billionaires. Other countries quite rightly take pride in their country’s achievements, culture and values. We need to as well. .

10. Write to your MP/Congressperson to tell them what you think of the job they’re doing. Tell them what they should be doing instead, like keeping their promises. Do this while trying not to use swear words.

11. Do something you might not normally do. Keep it legal. Or at least don’t get found out.

12. Question everything, including everything that’s written here.

I hope 2026 turns out to be a great year for you.

What Is Truth?

Posted on by
1

I’m sceptical (or skeptical if you’re in the US). It’s a legacy of my years of believing the promises of Christianity. Preachers, pastors, Bible study leaders told me for 25 years that the promises of the bible, of Jesus himself, were all true. And like a fool I believed them. Jesus had made a new creature out of me; he loved me; he was guiding my life; he was returning soon; I’d be resurrected; I’d live in heaven forever… and on and on.

What a preposterous set of propositions! It took my Great Realisation, my own personal revelation that there was no God, to make me see how ridiculous they were.

It is this that left me with a legacy of scepticism. If I’d been misled all this time by people I respected and admired, what else was I accepting as true that very well might not be? I wasn’t going to be fooled again and so began to question practically everything I was told by authorities, experts and the media. If it seemed ‘off’, as we say these days, not quite right or too good (or bad) to be true I asked, ‘Who says so?’, ‘How do they know this?’, ‘What is the evidence?’, ‘Do they jump to conclusions or is their reasoning sound?’, ‘Why should I believe what they say?’ It’s exhausting, I assure you, having to search out the evidence – the primary sources of information – and to sift through it, recognising any bias that has been imposed on it. It’s either this or I must accept without question that everything I’m told is true. I can’t do that any more.

Here are a few examples of claims that I’ve been sceptical of on the recent past:

We are being guided by the science, said politicians during Covid to ensure compliance with whatever lockdown measures were being imposed. Did this really just mean was ‘we are being guided by our interpretation of some rather suspect data’? It became clear after we emerged from the hysteria surrounding the pandemic that this was the case.

Tens of thousands will die of Covid unless you comply: this based on computer predictions which turned out to be very far from accurate: the suspect data that ‘guided’ politicians.

A woman can have a penis. A man can have cervix. Yes, our politicians told us this during our recent fixation with transgenderism. Whatever you think of people changing sex, these two statements, designed to change hearts and minds, if not penises and cervixes, are patently false. Whatever was guiding those who said such things, it certainly wasn’t ‘the science’.

No more irresponsible, undeliverable promises. So said the Prime Minister exactly a year ago. I’m not going to be sceptical or cynical about this. I feel sure it’ll turn out to be true. Is he implying though that promises made earlier than this were indeed ‘irresponsible and undeliverable’. Surely not.

We will not raise taxes on working people (and energy prices will fall by £300 in the long term), Labour politicians, now the government, said only last year in an attempt to gain our votes. I was sceptical about this, as with much they said, and for the first time in many years Labour did not get my vote. Taxes have increased considerably for working people and everyone else in the last year and are set to rise again this week. The price of energy has risen too, by 18%, and will do so again in January. A £300 reduction by 2030, if it happens at all, is not really going to offset this by much. This was all very predictable; since when do politicians tell us the truth in order to get us to vote for them?

Anything Donald Trump says. Insert your selection here.

The NHS is the envy of the world. Pundits and politicians are very fond of this one. They like to add too that the NHS is underfunded. But the NHS is expensive, management heavy and wasteful. Is it really the envy of the world, and if it is, so what, when it’s constantly in crisis at home?

The BBC is the envy of the world. It is impartial and balanced. Is it? A number of independent reviews have determined that it has its own agendas and biases. During lockdowns it fuelled hysteria and now contributes to climate change panic. Rather than reporting facts, it tells us too often what we’re meant to think about issues. It has also been rocked over the past dozen years by sleaze and scandals.

Islam is a religion of peace. So many questions about this one. Many Western politicians have claimed something like it. President George W. Bush did, shortly after 9/11. Perhaps ordinary Muslims are committed to peace but there are many Islamists (the term now used for Muslim extremists) are evidently not: as well as 9/11 there have been acts of Islamist terrorism in London (7th July 2005), at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, in Manchester, the slaughter in the street of an off duty soldier, the massacre of Israeli young people in October 2023, the killing of Christians and others in Nigeria.. Is ‘Allahu Akbar’ really a cry of peace?

We can halt or reverse the climate changes we ourselves have caused. Can we? Who says? (Greta Thunberg, yes, but no actual scientists that I can find.) We can perhaps mitigate and slow down the change, and we should. But the climate will continue to change. Are these changes solely the fault of us humans – we’re contributing to the pace of change, certainly – when the climate has been in constant change from time immemorial?

I was accused of trying to be a maverick in a recent comment on an old post. Honestly, I’m not. It’s more a case of ‘once bitten, twice shy’; I’m not going to be told ever again what to think, especially not by those who don’t present good reasons why I should (I’ve Jesus to thank for this). Everything needs to be questioned, otherwise our minds are not our own. Be sceptical.

Not The Answer

Posted on by
2

Unlike most Brits, I knew of Charlie Kirk before his assassination last Wednesday. He cropped up on American blogs I read, most frequently on Joe.My.God. I profoundly disagreed with practically everything Charlie Kirk had to say, though a little of it made me re-examine my position on some issues. His views on gun control seemed to me to be extremely foolish and I objected to what he had to say about gay people, our relationships and status in society. I reacted against his Christian views, entangled as they were with his extreme political views. I objected too to his promotion of his faith; it seemed trite and smug (but then I think this of anyone who preaches Jesus.)

Following Kirk’s death, it’s been reported that he was prepared to debate with those who disagreed with him. He said, ‘When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence… When people stop talking, that’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, they lose their humanity.’ Seemingly then he valued free speech and recognised the importance of dialogue and discussion, though perhaps his intent was to influence the views of others rather than reconsider his own.

He was opposed to transgenderism and this, at the time of writing, looks to have prompted his murder. Many on the Utah University campus last Wednesday would have been incensed by Kirk’s position that trans people were an ‘abomination’, showing a ‘throbbing middle finger to God.’ Some engaged him civilly on the issue, asking pertinent questions. Tyler Robinson, however, decided he would oppose Kirk’s more extreme views and advance the Trans cause by shooting him dead.

There is no justification for what Robinson did. Executing people one disagrees with is a feature of Putin’s Russia or Kim Jong Un in North Korea. It ought not to happen in the democratic west where we debate our opponents or, if they happen to be politicians, vote them out of office. Murder is never the solution, and in this case did not advance the cause the shooter felt so strongly about. Quite the opposite.

Those who argue that his shooting was justifiable – and yes, they’re out there – on the basis that Kirk’s views were extreme and reactionary must also accept that the assassination of any public figure is justifiable on the basis that some people find their views objectionable. Do we really want to go down this road, of rationalising assassinations on the basis the target espouses an ideology we find objectionable?

Those who rejoice at Charlie Kirk’s demise demonstrate a lack of humanity and support the desecration of Western values, free speech in particular.

 

 

Hysteria/Mission Creep/Overreach

Posted on by
4

When I was head (principal) of a primary (elementary) school in the 1990s, I had a staff member who regarded every small problem as ‘a Major Disaster’ (her words). Everything from a mislaid document to wet weather on sports day was an earth-shattering calamity. She was not the only one to overstate manageable events. Those who wield authority over us, their media lackeys and those with a cause of their own to promote are expert in whipping the populace up into a frenzy disproportionate to the given situation. After a short period in the spotlight, the hysteria and the movements that cause it usually fade, as the media finds something newer and shinier about which to induce panic. Occasionally, the newly out-of-favour movements fight back with renewed vigour, a mission creep extending their influence into new areas.

Looking back over the last 25 years, I and my fellow citizens here in the UK have been expected to be alarmed to an alarming degree about:

The Millennium Bug, when every computer in the world, so the experts said, would crash the instant the year 2000 started. This would, in turn, crash every automated system everywhere, causing chaos and mass fatalities. You all know what actually happened.

Foot & Mouth Disease, when millions of cattle and sheep were slaughtered and burnt. Millions of healthy animals were destroyed in case they contracted the disease.

Weapons of Mass Destruction supposedly amassed by Iraq who, we were told, could unleash them on the West within 45 minutes. That there was no evidence of any WMDs and the fact Iraq did not deploy them (because you can’t deploy something that doesn’t exist) did not deter George W. Bush and Tony Blair from launching their oxymoronic (with the emphasis on the moronic) ‘war on terror’. In so doing, they destabilised the world, creating many of the problems we face today.

Child Abuse Scandals: After either missing or covering up the serial abuse of children and vulnerable people by a BBC celebrity, British authorities went to town on ‘suspected paedophiles’, many of whom were nothing of the sort. (A friend of mine was caught up in this hysteria and spent time in prison for a youthful indiscretion many years earlier.) Unfortunately, this national crisis and the perceived need not to offend Muslims came into conflict when, over 20 years, rape gangs comprised mainly of Pakistani men were able operate in up to 50 UK cities with impunity. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, white working-class girls were systematically groomed and raped while the police and authorities turned a blind eye, the consequence of a woke priority taking precedence over the rights and safety of others.     

The Covid Pandemic and Lockdown, when governments the world over (apart from Sweden) panicked about a flu-like virus, closed down entire countries, failed to protect the vulnerable and crashed the very economies needed to fund healthcare and treatment for the infected. Britain was closed down for almost 2 years and still hasn’t recovered from the consequences. Citizens are now paying heavily for actions taken by a government that extended its powers to achieve very little.

        Cartoon by Mark Woods, Spectator magazine, 7th June '25

Mental Health issues and the medicalised labelling of ordinary human behaviours. We all have mental health issues; this is what it is to be human. Some, it is true, have more than others. Determining an individual has ‘mental health issues’ forces him or her to become his or her issues. Instead of being prone to depression (as I was) or anxiety, the individual who experiences these is now ‘neuro-diverse’. Instead of suffering from a condition the individual could do something about they become that condition. Some people, usually males, used to be diagnosed as autistic. Now that autism is seen as a spectrum, everyone is deemed to be on it somewhere; everyone as a result is autistic. People become trapped in their condition with no way out, lifelong treatment the only recourse.

Black Lives Matter. As Lionel Shriver asks here, do black lives matter any more now than they did before all that righteous indignation and virtual signalling from white people?

Identity Politics in which individuals were told as a matter of urgency to self-identify solely on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality. Gender dysphoria became a thing from which the trans-movement emerged. While I’ve every sympathy for those who feel they were born in the wrong body, society was unprepared for and incapable of dealing with the consequences. Women became ‘cis-women’, sex became ‘gender’ (a grammatical term), ‘non-binary’ became an option and the abuse of pronouns was politicised. An individual could identify as a plural ‘they’, while others lost their jobs if they declined to play along. Worst of all, children, who were too young to be allowed a tattoo, were given puberty blocking drugs, and in some cases surgery, because they felt they were the wrong sex. Children.

The High Court in the UK recently ruled that a man cannot become a woman, entrenching the views of campaigners and prompting other supporters to claim they knew this all along.

Wokeism; while it’s right and proper to treat each other with kindness, courtesy and consideration, politicising something we were, by and large, already doing was not. Wokeism pushed the boundaries over what could be done or said, or rather could not. Anything that might cause someone else offence was forbidden; commenting or criticising others’ religious beliefs or defending women’s rights became ‘hateful’; having a view on unsustainable immigration numbers made you a fascist. This was the era of cancelling those who did not conform to woke ideals. Toppling statues was popular too on the basis that a long-forgotten figure from 250 years ago may have had a slight connection with the slave trade. Western guilt for actions over which people living today had no part in and demands for reparations to those equally uninvolved ensued.

The ‘necessary’ control of free speech, a panic we’re still mired in. Stupid and inflammatory comments on social media can now earn you a prison sentence longer than that of a paedophile offender, often preceded by a visit from half a dozen policemen who will root through your house looking for evidence that you might have once had a ‘Brexity’ thought. Subjects off limits are; arguing that Covid19 began in a Wuhan laboratory (it might upset the Chinese); Islam, Islamic extremism and the Pro-Palestinian movement (however it’s still okay to criticise and condemn Jewish people for the actions of their government); expressing views different from the UK government’s and whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be. A government agency, ‘Prevent‘, last year redefined terrorism (see below) as ‘vocal support of ideologies that advocate discrimination’ and any expression of what it calls ‘cultural nationalism’. What this means is that those who call out religiously-motivated discrimination, lawlessness and terrorism are to be considered terrorists themselves. Actual terrorism and violence is therefore protected against those who would speak out about it, those who do so being the real terrorists. To put it another way, which I read recently (though can’t remember where): those who say hurty things are far more culpable than those who commit actual hurty things. This Orwellian doublespeak must now be taught in universities and other higher education institutions.  

The Climate Crisis and Net-Zero. You must be alarmed by the climate crisis (see here for how much of it Al Gore got wrong). You must too pay heavily for net-zero, thanks to additional taxes; energy prices in the UK are the highest in the world. You must buy into the government’s attempts to enforce a net-zero energy policy by 2050, despite net-zero being unachievable.

What if, might, could, maybe: the media’s favourite phrases to ramp up hysteria. ‘There might be terrible consequences’; ‘we could be headed for another Major Disaster’; ‘if X happens (though it hasn’t) then Y could possibly follow.’ When did the media stop reporting what has actually happened and take up fortune telling instead?  

* * * * * *

There is some comfort in the fact that the so-called crises and hysteria of the past eventually receded and faded away. So too will many of these current causes. All things, as George Harrison once wisely reminded us, must pass. They will, however, be replaced by others equally irrational and preposterous. Those who create them, be they governments, special interest groups or overwrought Swedish teenagers will expect us to conform to their Chicken-Little levels of hysteria. When they do, don’t be alarmed and be sure to seek out the evidence for yourself.

Neil’s Third Letter, to the Sceptics

Posted on by
1

Dear Sceptic,

I understand, I really do. Some of your explanations for what’s going on in the world are way out there. Some of them, in fact, are absolutely preposterous. But, I know how you got there. You’ve spent so long being misled, deceived and, yes, let’s face it, lied to by politicians and some of the media that you’ve come up with your own explanations for things. You’ve suspected in some cases that the establishment’s frequent misdirection and disinformation amounts to conspiracy, and certainly there have been conspiracies of silence in recent years (we’ll get to some examples soon). Unfortunately, this has meant those same authorities have been able to say that your views can be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories. You should be cancelled. Certainly some of your more way out theories – satanic overlords, faked moon-landings and microchip vaccines – need to be. Unfortunately this has also meant any reasonable arguments you’ve arrived at that run contrary to the prevailing narrative have also been airily dismissed as the work of nut-jobs and thrown in the dumpster along with all the whacky stuff.

You were right, it turned out, about Covid19. It was manufactured in a Chinese laboratory, partially funded by the US, from where it escaped in 2019. Even the US State Department has accepted that this is the most likely explanation of the virus’s origin and has asked Chinese authorities to release the relevant data (you can guess how this request was met.)

Look where it got you during the pandemic when you argued for the virus’s lab based origins. Despite the evidence you presented you were labelled conspiracy theorists, were cancelled and hurled in the ‘not worth your time’ trash can. It’s still happening now, because no-one can be allowed to upset the Chinese authorities when it could mean research labs in the West could lose Chinese sponsorship.

You’ve pointed out too that the UK government’s efforts to eliminate the country’s less than 1% contribution to to global emissions is futile. At £22 billion, its plan to ‘capture’ carbon waste is both ridiculously expensive and pointless: carbon capture has never been successfully achieved by any country that has previously attempted it. Never mind, the British taxpayer will fund this particular tilt at windmills (no pun intended); you can be dismissed as climate-change deniers, purveyors of false information as well as conspiracy theorists. A three-in-one success!

You’ve suggested that the current narrative on immigration doesn’t hold water. The government says we need present levels of immigration to fill job vacancies, sustain the economy and fund others’ welfare benefits and pensions. You’ve highlighted the unfounded assumptions inherent in this strategy, pointing out it has failed to improve the economy. You’ve suggested too that in the long term it will necessitate even more immigration to fund those currently entering the country when they draw welfare and claim their pensions. It’s a ponzi scheme writ large that merely kicks the can down the road. And for your trouble you’re labelled far-right, racist and Islamophobic (even when you don’t mention Muslims). You can always tell when those who seek to control the narrative have no counter argument; they’ll subject you to name calling, political slurs and seek to censure your views. Get with the narrative or else!

I could go on –

Question the idea that people alive today are somehow responsible for the slave trade 300 years ago: racist!

Express the view on the deleterious effects of the trans-movement on women’s rights and safety: transphobic!

Ask whether the plonkers who make stupid comments on social media should receive longer prison sentences than rapists and thugs: hate-filled bigot!

– but I won’t. Often, sceptical free thinker, you don’t get it right and others are taken in by your more whackadoodle theories. Unfortunately when you do have a point, backed by sound argument and evidence, it can easily be dismissed by lumping you in with the whackier of your brethren, and ultimately by silencing you and the platform on which you write. That’s Britain today (or is that just a conspiracy theory?)

Yours,

The Apostle Neil

Respect

Posted on by
1

Even before the events in Israel and Gaza, there were numerous recent examples of the term Islamophobia being used to suppress freedom of expression or shield wrongdoing.

A recent report by an all party group of UK MPs.

I’ve been told before that I should respect people’s religious beliefs. We all should apparently.

I can’t, I confess, summon respect for patent nonsense, nor for those who subscribe to it. I’m not even going to try.

There have, I admit, been a few believers I’ve met in life for whom I have had respect and even admiration, but this has been for the kind of person they were, not because of their religious beliefs per se. And no; their religion is not what made them admirable people. They were admirable irrespective of, or even despite, their irrational beliefs. I still hold to the theory of my own making, that religious conviction is like alcohol: both accentuate the existing characteristics of the individual, making them more of the person they already were, for better or for worse.

Equally, I’ve met many non-believers (I hate it that we have to describe ourselves as what we are not), LGBT people (for many religionists, the antithesis of admirable) and individuals whose views and outlook on life I haven’t necessarily agreed with, for whom I have also had respect and admiration.

It comes down to the old cliche, a truism nonetheless, that respect has to be earned. Just because someone believes in the supernatural or that Jesus died for our sins or that their deity or prophet trumps all others doesn’t mean I have to respect such views, or indeed those who hold them.

But this is where we’re headed, it seems. We’re expected to respect any old make-believe so long as it comes under the banner of religion and still more that doesn’t. It’s becoming ‘hateful’ to criticise religious belief and those who practise it. Because their views are sincerely held, the thinking goes, they merit protected status.

I commented some time ago on a Christian site (something I rarely do except when incensed) that was insisting ‘sodomites’ would burn in hell, because… the Bible. I countered that gay people were not going to hell because, in fact, no-one was. As well as the subsequent ‘loving’ comments from Christians, I was taken to task by a gay person telling me I was disrespecting the original poster’s Christian convictions.

Likewise when I suggest that we should be more wary of Muslim beliefs I’m told I’m being profoundly unfair, racist and Islamophobic, towards a minority – as a minority of one myself – and I should show more respect for an ancient and sacred tradition as well as those who subscribe to it.

I can’t do it. I can’t respect religious belief. It is no more worthy of respect than astrology, palm reading and spiritualism. It flies in the face of rationality. Not only is it insupportable, it is dangerous, a threat to hard-earned freedoms and rights.