In These Polarised Times It Is Important To Hear The Other Side

Megan Phelps, a former member of the incredibly divisive Westboro Baptist Church has given an inspiring TED talk on why and how she left the church – of which she was one of the most zealous and committed members.

Her decision to leave the WBC was not a Damascene conversion. It was part of a long process of engaging with people who opposed her on social media. Often they did so with anger or bemused disdain, but, occasionally, she would encounter individuals who would argue with her civilly. It was these discussions that began to slowly chip away at her harsh worldview, eventually causing it to collapse.

The story of Megan Phelps is a powerful illustration of just how important it is to listen and speak to those with whom you disagree. Especially in these polarised times where people too easily dismiss perspectives they don’t like.


Patrick Cockburn Says Media Coverage Of Syria Is The Worst He’s Ever Seen

Truth is the first casualty of war, as the saying goes and is proved right time and time again.

The 21st century has thus far been consumed by Western wars in the Middle-East. Most of which have been complete catastrophes. Just last week, Westminster MPs released a scathing report of David Cameron’s foolish foray into Libya in 2011. The Foreign Affairs select committee criticised Cameron for intervening in Libya based on poor intelligence. And much of the media which supported the action was also bamboozled by what Peter Hitchens has described as atrocity propaganda. The same pattern has repeated itself in the reporting of the Syria conflict, which long-time Middle-Eastern correspondent Patrick Cockburn has described as the worst he’s ever seen.

The most striking thing about Patrick Cockburn is that when reading or listening to him, you’re not just receiving his opinion or ideology (as is so common in journalism these days), but very important factual information. This is becoming rarer and rarer. And probably one of the reasons why people are so confused about what has happened in the Middle East.


Book Review: Our Culture: What’s Left Of It by Theodore Dalrymple

Cultural Marxism

In erudite, crisp prose, Theodore Dalrymple illuminates concepts and realities that one, previously, may have only had inchoate inklings of.

His thought is an invaluable counter-balance to the Left-Liberal/Marxist narrative that pervades the Western media and education system.

Unlike much of the unpleasant snark which passes for criticism these days, Dr. Dalrymple possesses the physician’s cool analytical gaze: there is no resentment or bitterness in his writing, only a thoughtful critique of the ideological ills plaguing contemporary western culture.

Comprising a collection of essays, Our Culture: What’s Left of It (2005) covers a broad sweep of modern culture, from art and architecture to politics and society.

Dalrymple’s central argument is that our culture has become dehumanised. Adherence to political ideology in public affairs has triumphed over any attempt to genuinely understand human nature.

Instead of observing the world as it is, cultural elites, have, over the course of the last 50-60 years, embarked upon a utopian project of transforming it into an abstract notion of how they surmise it should be, with disastrous, often ugly consequences.

As a prison doctor, Dalrymple has observed the results of lax welfarist social policies on the British underclass, in whom every human vice is carelessly nurtured.

Many of his incarcerated patients have lived lives almost wholly dependent on the state, which does not discourage their bad behaviour, but constantly rewards it monetarily.

The traditional family structure, which, historically, demanded moral and social obligations from an individual has been replaced by a paternalistic, governmental system that permanently infantilises its wayward children, who struggle to live stable adult lives.

This misguided socialism, argues Dalrymple, stems from the refusal of  modern leftist elites to “judge” the habits of the welfare-dependent, no matter how harmful they may be; rather, they choose to maintain a moral distance, refusing to acknowledge that not all lifestyles are equally worthy.

This lack of insight into human psychology and basic social incentives means that those most in need of moral guidance never receive it, to their detriment and to society, which pays literally and figuratively for such folly.

This unerring dogmatism is also evident in contemporary art and architecture. Dalrymple convincingly demonstrates that the pursuit of beauty and aesthetic wonder no longer seems a particular concern of the ideologues who now flourish in those fields. Something Robin Gilbert-Jones has also commented on.

Dalrymple astutely observes that the drab, box-like structures of Le Corbusier are exactly what you get when you combine ideological zeal with a wholesale rejection of history. The Swiss architect suffered from a chronic case of “presentism”, whereby he disdained the aesthetic traditions of the past in favour of the “progressive” trends of the present, no matter how sociologically infeasible.

A similar sentiment is echoed in director Terence Davies’ magnificent film Of Time And The City (2008) which shows through archival footage how the lives of working class English people were upended in the 1960s when they were moved by their local councils from terraced houses into modernist tower blocks.

Those hulking concrete masses, devoid of doorsteps, were hostile to the friendly neighbourliness of the classic working-class community where everyone congregated on the street.

Though it was published ten years ago, Dalrymple’s careful dissection of the ideologue’s wilful ignorance of the human heart is still highly relevant today. I cannot think of another writer who delivers a more accurate diagnosis.

Featured Image Credit: Lament for Icarus by Herbert Draper (1898). Source: Wikicommons

For Minds Furnished With Beauty


I was recently shown a clip from Question Time where the subject of education was being discussed. An audience member, sceptical of the “usefulness” (for want of a less odious term to describe art) of learning poetry in schools, challenged the panel to recite a poem they learned at school. Most, predictably, failed to do so and I suspect if they could remember one, preferred to toe the politically correct line that we should not be subjecting children to such anachronisms. The erstwhile Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, spouted vague and contradictory statements about how learning the names of the kings and queens of antiquity is no longer educationally relevant, but all the same it is important for children to understand history. The general mood was one of scornful disdain and transparent bias for classical education, presumably fuelled by the oh-so-well-meaning anti-elitist imperative that so animates modern British liberals.

I remember similar arguments even when I was at school, during the height of the Blair years around the teaching of that “dead language”, Latin. Thanks to the modernisation of the curriculum, I was not given an opportunity to be taught Latin, so apparently irrelevant was it to my future career. The fact that this was the prevailing view merely indicates how little the people in a position to make such decisions understood about education. The teaching of Latin is a sort of multi-disciplinary foundational bedrock which gives students a grounding in history, classics, modern European languages, literature, linguistics, archaeology, drama, art, religious studies, politics and philosophy – Oh and while we are at it, every scientific discipline (including mathematics) which makes use of Latin designations and terminology. A dead language indeed.

But I digress; the point is not whether these subjects really are “useful” (there’s that awful word again), besides, education is useful by definition. Although certain skills and areas of knowledge are more directly applicable to everyday life, it is the act of study, of stimulating the mind and generating a lust for knowledge, that is the most important aspect. Much like the well-worn notion that it matters more “how you think” than “what you think”, it matters more how you learn than what you are studying. From this perspective it is important to inspire and ignite.

To return to Question Time, the one panellist who stood out from the rest of the closed-ranked flock was Peter Hitchens who recited on command Into my heart an air that kills by A.E. Housman and called out those who would pour scorn on this knowledge as having declared themselves a spiritual desert. Why should children be raised in a howling beige wilderness of “useful” information rather than having their minds, as Hitchens put it, “furnished with beauty”.

There have been societies before ours who have sought to stamp out education in anything other than directly functional matters and tear down “degenerate” practices or “formalist” art forms. Perhaps I can leave it to you to guess which societies I am referring to – I’ll even give you a clue; if the term “spiritual desert” refers to anything it would refer, despite their differences, to both.

And there is even more at stake; If we insist on taking this attitude to education we risk, not only denying students the inspiration and wonder of classics, poetry and art, but also in denying them an identity. Poetry alone is so bound up with historical context and national identity, that the insight you can gain into your own sense of place and history from the study of poetry, is invaluable; Wordsworth, Blake, Larkin, Shakespeare and many others are part of Britain’s national fabric. While for some reason it seems unfashionable these days to suggest that children should be raised with a sense of identity, place and history, I believe that to raise them in that aforementioned desert will have far worse consequences.

So, for those who don’t know this one:

Into my heart an air that kills

From yon far country blows:

What are those blue remembered hills,

What spires, what farms are those?

That is the land of lost content,

I see it shining plain,

The happy highways where I went

And cannot come again.

A.E Housman (1859-1936)

Featured Image Credit: Design by Imagine Athena, featuring Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

Camille Paglia Laments the Loss of Aesthetics in Art

In this excellent talk at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles, the cultural critic Camille Paglia speaks very candidly about the loss of aesthetic appreciation in contemporary art, which she attributes to the import of political ideologies that prize semantics over image-making.

Imagine Athena‘s Robin Gilbert-Jones made the exact same point in Art Has Ceased To Matter where he argued that, “the physical dexterity and creative instinct of the artist (is) passed over in favour of conceptual pomposities.”

(Click the image below to view the video on the Skirball’s website.)

Camille Paglia

Featured Image Credit: Imagine Athena Banner. Art by Imagine Athena