Darryl Betts
I am a businessman and father, with particular interests in the philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, epistemology, logic, and AI.
Some things are beyond doubt. That threatening people into silence will not change their minds is one. If anything, it will harden their resolve. In 1962, John F Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [1] It is difficult to believe that those in power in the UK do not know this. But it is equally difficult to believe that they would behave as they are now behaving if they did. I struggle to understand this apparent contradiction.
There are proximate causes and ultimate causes. The major ultimate cause is an anti-enlightenment and anti-Western ideology now deeply embedded within Western society – a huge topic I will not get into here. However, one of the biggest proximate causes is surely the morphing of the mainstream media into the propaganda arm of the state. So much so, that the ruling elite are thoroughly convinced that their viewpoint is not only correct, but also beyond criticism.
If we were to be very charitable, we might think that the UK government just wants to “keep the peace” while addressing the broader issue. We might suppose that the UK government has a plan to address the concerns of a growing number of UK citizens about unchecked immigration and the obvious erosion of English culture. It isn’t just the sheer numbers – it is also that much of the immigration is from incompatible cultures, coupled with immigration and social policies founded on cultural relativism and the idea of “multi-culturalism”, rather than assimilation. But for decades now the people of the UK have made their concerns known, while the numbers and resulting problems continue to increase. The ultimate test is whether the ruling elite acknowledge this problem – and all the evidence suggests they do not. In fact, they appear determined to silence and persecute anyone who does believe there is a problem – and increasingly now with the assistance of the police and judiciary.
The ruling elite and those trapped in the mainstream media echo chamber scoff at talk of “two-tier policing and justice” and “civil war”. But I find myself thinking about the many failed states in the world, both past and present – about how they came to be that way. One thing we can be sure of, is that no failed state was one day a successful harmonious culture and the very next day a poverty-stricken war zone. These changes happen slowly – they eat away at numerous aspects of the society over time.
Consider policing. Most of us have this idealized view that the police have traditionally been neutral enforcers of the law. We cling to this view even as we see increasing evidence of ideology and bias in our police forces, whether it be rainbow colored police cars, or policemen “bending the knee” at BLM protests. We cling to the idea that this is being forced upon them – and to begin with it was.
But the problem is that organizations change over time – as people leave and new people come in. Universities have not stopped pushing out class after class of woke activists. How long before most members of the police really do believe that anyone who isn’t woke is a threat? How long before police in the UK are themselves mostly from incompatible cultures? The same can be said for the justice system. How long before even the most senior judges are no longer willing or able to make neutral judgements? This is not just a function of changing demographics. So entrenched is this ideology, that people with opposing viewpoints simply will not get hired. Simultaneously, the laws themselves are undergoing ideological corruption. The clock is ticking.
The many people concerned about this might be threatened into silence on some level – and there is no doubt that the aggressive and blatantly one-sided rhetoric of UK politicians – with the cheer-leading of the mainstream media – has had that affect. But there is also no doubt that it will not make the concerns go away.
It seems likely that there is only one possible direction of travel here. The government will impose increasingly heavy-handed restrictions – on speech and on behavior. A police state is the eventual outcome. Two other things will happen. Anti-government sentiment will increase – much of it “underground”. Lawlessness will increase as people increasingly disengage from society. When people believe the government has betrayed them or otherwise failed in their duty to the people, those people no longer feel any obligation to follow the rules. Additionally, it seems clear that the economy will further decline. Societal discontent and disharmony are not conducive to economic prosperity.
This is surely a recipe for a failed state if anything is. It is beyond sad to see this once proud nation driven toward destruction. I hope I am wrong, but it is difficult to see how this ship can be turned around, and increasingly difficult to see how that will happen without more violence.
I will close with one final thought, since I do not want my words seen as an incitement to violence – an interpretation that those in power seem increasingly keen on. What is the difference between a “threat” and a “warning”? If I warn of increasing civil strife in the UK if the government fail to listen to the concerns of the people, am I issuing a threat? Am I in some small way helping to bring about that civil strife if the UK government do not do what I suggest? Indeed, whenever anyone warns of a possible future bad outcome arising from current policies – and a significant proportion of all political speech does just this, do those warnings constitute a threat? An incitement to violence?
Like everything in philosophy, the more one reflects on the meaning of “threat” and “warning”, the more difficult it is to come up with a precise definition. I’m not going to try to do this here, but I think the principle of charity – a bedrock principle in critical thinking – is very relevant. A charitable interpretation of what I have said above is that I am issuing a warning. I do not wish what I am warning about to happen, nor will I explicitly try to make it happen. In fact, in writing what I have written, I genuinely want exactly the opposite to happen. This charity should be extended to Douglas Murray, Elon Musk, Tommy Robinson, and everyone else who speaks publicly on this topic. Those who choose to instead treat these criticisms as incitement are themselves part of the problem, not the solution.
This article was originally published here.
