Category Archives: resentful apathy

A grievance-politics entrepreneur’s imbecilic proposal

A man called Dedrick Asante-Muhammad has proposed in the London newspaper the Guardian that every American with an enslaved ancestor be given $20,000 annually for 20 years.

Dalrymple sees in this

a great deal of anxiety and self-contempt, as well as condescension. It is not deemed necessary to assist any other group in the way proposed, not even women. There is in it the suspicion that in an open society, blacks are doomed to end up, on average and as a group, at the bottom of the pile unless they are given special privileges.

Prejudice by itself, Dalrymple notes,

provided it is not universal and there are people who do not share it, does not prevent ascension on the social scale. It is not a lifetime ago that some of the élite educational institutions placed limits on the number of Jews admitted. No one would say that the Jews in America were impeded. Something similar is true of many other groups, some of which started off poorer than American blacks today, and whose members did not require subsidies to advance.

In any unequal society, he says,

life is easier for some people than for others. This is unfair, but as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the quest for cosmic justice is both totalitarian in implication and can lead only to continual sifting of the entrails of group and individual disparities, a sifting that promotes resentment as well as conflict.

Open societies have a disadvantage.

They force you to look at your part in your situation. Unless you are a rip-roaring success, which few of us are (and those few are often not very attractive), you are forced to confront your ineptitude, lack of talent, bad choices from an early age, etc., etc. It is much easier to deny that your society is an open one, and sink into apathy, politicking, and continuation of immediately gratifying but ultimately self-destructive bad habits.

The uncolumnist

Hitchens is a onetime communist (Trotskyist, to be more precise) who unlike so many of this species has had the guts to admit that he was wrong and that the doctrines he espoused were evil

Hitchens is a onetime communist (Trotskyist, to be precise). Dalrymple points out, however, that unlike so many of his kind, Hitchens has had the courage and intellectual honesty to admit that he was profoundly wrong — indeed, crack-brained — and that the doctrines he espoused were murderous and evil

The Mail on Sunday censor has been at work. Peter Hitchens, the onetime Trotskyist who is the Rothermere-owned newspaper’s best writer, has had his columns spiked, the skewering being timed to coincide with the run-up to, and the aftermath of, the British general election.

It is speculated that the newspaper, recognising the commercial imperative of identification with the winning side, decided — after seeing which way the wind was blowing — that it would back the Conservatives. It would help that disreputable party secure a convincing victory. It gagged Hitchens so as to ensure that readers would not be influenced to follow his (wise) counsel. This has long been that right-thinking, decent people ought to desist from voting for the corrupt Tories.

According to the magazine Private Eye, Hitchens (who has not been silenced altogether — there remains much engaging material on his blog) is ‘talking to his lawyers’.

Reviewed by Dalrymple: Hitchens's 2003 polemic

Reviewed by Dalrymple: Hitchens’s 2003 polemic

Dalrymple reviews Hitchens’s A Brief History of Crime

Hitchens’s rage at what has been done to British society is more than justified, Dalrymple writes. In A Brief History of Crime, Hitchens is especially astute on the matter of the failings of the British criminal justice system. Hitchens has discovered, Dalrymple points out, that the systemic corruption causes people no longer

to believe very deeply in the majesty of the law or the legitimacy of the British State; and this disillusion in turn must lead to a kind of resentful apathy.

Hitchens appreciates, says Dalrymple, that such a state of mind

will be highly receptive to authoritarianism: for order will come to be valued over freedom. As the author points out, this is useful to many politicians and it explains why the rigorous enforcement of the law is so essential to liberty.

The spike: destination of Hitchens’s two most recent columns for the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday

The spike: destination of Hitchens’s most recent articles for the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday

Dalrymple writes that in A Brief History of Crime,

Mr Hitchens traces the descent of Britain, in only a few decades, from being one of the best-ordered societies in the western world to being among the worst-ordered.

Hitchens places the blame, explains Dalrymple,

firmly where it belongs: on a supine and pusillanimous political establishment that, for four decades at least, has constantly retreated before the verbal onslaught of liberal intellectuals whose weapons have been mockery allied to sentimental guilt about their prosperous and comfortable lives, and whose aim has been to liberate themselves from personally irksome moral constraints, without regard to the consequences for those less favourably placed in society than themselves.

How Hitchens became an unperson at the Mail on Sunday, as reported by the magazine Private Eye

How Hitchens became an unperson at the Mail on Sunday, as reported by the magazine Private Eye

Dalrymple says that Hitchens’s outrage at the compromising and besmirching of British traditions, values and liberties is palpably

of the genuine and generous variety that comes from a real understanding of the conditions which millions of people now endure — unlike the simulated and self-regarding outrage that is common among liberal reformers.

Examining the way in which British peace and order have gradually disappeared,

Mr Hitchens in every case finds the self-satisfaction of people such as Roy Jenkins, who introduced lenient treatment for criminals without ever having personally to face the social consequences.

Dalrymple thinks Hitchens

Not so optimistic any more: Hitchens discusses the election result on his blog

Not so optimistic now: Hitchens discusses the election result on his blog

is too optimistic about the prospect of the nation coming to its senses: the march of ‘progressive’ sociology through the institutions has been so thorough that there is no constituency left which could preserve the kind of traditional limited polity that he believes Britain once was and which he would like to see restored.

Judging from Hitchens’s pronouncements on his blog and on Twitter since the election, he is no longer nearly as optimistic as he was when he wrote A Brief History of Crime, which Dalrymple commends as

a lucid polemic by a man who is so obviously more interested in the welfare of the common man than in the approbation of his peers.

Hitchens in the People's Republic of the Rothermeres: now you see him, now you don't

Now you read him, now you don’t

 

Hitchens as he was: the conceited Marxist participant in cheap middle-class protest

Hitchens as he was: the conceited Marxist, active in cheap middle-class protest. He gave up the Leninist claptrap along with the donkey-jacket many years ago