DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

The Dangers of Illiberal Liberalism

18th August 2018

Read it.

If ever there was a vivid illustration of illiberal liberalism, it was the response to one of the essays in this very series. After The Economist published an by Kathleen Stock, reader in philosophy at the University of Sussex, which sensitively questioned whether “self-declaration alone could reasonably be the only criterion of being trans”, the Sussex Students’ Union denounced her as a transphobe. In the union’s original statement, it declared “we will not tolerate hate on our campus.” “Trans and non-binary lives are not a debate.”

These key tropes—“we will not tolerate” and “this is not a debate”—are now frequently deployed to curtail discussion of issues deemed to be taboo, invariably to “protect” people deemed vulnerable from speech deemed hateful. This secular version of blasphemy follows a sacred script, written by those who consider themselves liberals. Dare to query it and you’ll be damned.

Visitors will note that I no longer use the term ‘liberal’ any more, for the simple reason that even those who had hijacked the term (such as Barbara Streisand) in the modern world aren’t even pretend-liberal any more. The current proglodyte puritanism, in which the Hunt for Heretics and Sinners is all-in, means that the old masks are wearing thin to the point of invisibility. This has reached the point where even The Economist, ordinarily a reliable cuckservative Voice of the Crust, is inclined to notice, like the guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who is prompted by Sir Lancelot’s slaughter of his fellow guard at the door to turn after him and say plaintively ‘Hey….’.

Comments are closed.