Category Archives: ideological monomania

Experiments only somewhat ethically superior to Mengele’s

Josef Mengele

How those who crave ideology seek fulfilment

Dalrymple writes that since the failure of Marxism, one of the strangest of the miscellany of sub-ideologies that have proliferated is that of strident transsexualism. In the space of the past few years,

a full-scale ideological movement has grown up that will not be satisfied until the rest of society accedes to its demands, which include the reform of language. The demands are kaleidoscopic, constantly changing, as the ideology twists in an attempt to overcome its contradictions.

This absurd ideology has

disastrous practical consequences in a society too lacking in moral confidence to oppose it (or any other sufficiently strident ideology).

Dalrymple points out that as a result of the supine acceptance of the ideology,

full-scale experiments are being conducted on children, such as the use of puberty-blocking drugs, by doctors without any clear idea of the long-term outcome — experiments only somewhat ethically superior to those of Dr Mengele, insofar as the children themselves agree to them or even demand them, though at an age at which one would not normally think of children as being able to make such far-reaching choices.

A very small pressure group, an insignificant proportion of the population,

has been able to create an atmosphere or climate in Western societies in which well-meaning, honest, and respectable people, including experts, are unwilling for fear of reprisal to express dissenting views about a matter of considerable symbolic if not numerical importance.

The will to power

seems to have infected people who once might have been content to live quietly, power itself now being the only goal worth aiming for in the absence of anything more elevated or elevating.

Pressure groups of this kind

do not so much seek to persuade us by the force of their arguments as irreversibly to change our mentalities. The freedom that many people desire is the freedom to limit other people’s freedom.

Failure and feeble-mindedness of the Left

screen-shot-2017-02-28-at-22-57-00Dalrymple writes that whenever the Left see

a foreign enemy of their own country whom they can usefully co-opt as an ally in their disputes with their own domestic enemies, they resort to nihilistic relativism and multiculturalism, thus explaining away the vileness of their new ally’s atrocities as being the expression of his sacrosanct cultural tradition.

The Left

has comprehensively lost the economic argument that was once its raison d’être, and is reduced to the work of cultural destruction and the balkanisation of society into little communities of ideological monomaniacs—the feminists, homosexual and animal liberationists, and so forth. The Left lost its soul when it lost the economic argument.

So complete has been the defeat of socialism

that anyone who now avowed a belief in the superior efficiency of state-run industry would be more a candidate for the lunatic asylum (supposing that any remained open) than for high political office.

All that the Left can nowadays propose is

social policy so destructive that it allegedly necessitates a vast state apparatus to repair the damage it does.

Of the domestic policy prescriptions of the Left,

multiculturalism is among the most destructive. It was once the honourable goal of the Left, at least in Britain, to spread higher culture to the working class, and to immigrants, so that every person capable by inclination and natural endowment of enjoying, participating in, or contributing to that higher culture would do so. More recently, however, the Left has devoted its energies to denying that there is any higher or lower, better or worse in cultural matters. Not coincidentally, this betrayal allows Leftist intellectuals to preen themselves on the broadness of their minds while they maintain their membership of a social élite. They rarely educate their own children as if their theoretical pronouncements were true.

With regard to the Vietnam War,

it was one thing to oppose it because you thought it was futile and ethically worse than not fighting it (not necessarily true, but at least an honest opinion); quite another because you thought that Uncle Ho was a good man who was leading his people to freedom and prosperity, something that you could believe only by employing all the human mind’s capacity for special pleading and self-deception.