In an open society governed by the rule of law, the protection of freedoms, and the refusal of any dominant position, it is legitimate and necessary to allow criticism to be expressed and to submit its arguments. This is thereby a fundamental freedom, that of opinion and speech. It raises the everlasting issue of its limitations and of the audience that it should, or not, enjoy.

We will not speak of libel or defamation; it is regulated by penal laws. Those who repress incitements to racial hatred or denial of crimes against humanity are more debatable, but this is not my subject here.

There are situations where critical arguments are repeated non-stop, even as their rebuttal is irrefutable. One must be a quarrelsome nature to continue with that. The Earth is not flat, the best folks do not exist, my god is not holier than yours. But let’s reassure ourselves, soon no one is listening any more, the audience vanishes by itself, except in lands of fanaticism.

Very often the criticism is of a much convened order. To blame the system, the rich, the profiteers, pollution, or apple pies that are not as good as that of one’s grandmother: whoever utters this kind of pseudo heroism or faked nonconformity actually expresses a staggering banality. It won’t break the bank to join the bandwagon, and it becomes a kind of mushy pensée unique, alas within a majority, the famous main stream, mostly more wrong than right. Showbiz artists and other public figures demonstrate often their “commitment” by swimming in these warm and comfortable waters when asked to express themselves, often also outside their competences (they should refuse, as the wise ones do). Inveterate reactionaries are also of this ilk. Dinner discussions are full of it, otherwise we would never arrive at dessert in peace. Paradoxically however, they all refer to a system and a body of thought to which they adhere without exercising any critical judgment. There is laziness and not much intelligence and reason in this. But it gets a lot of audience, continuously; this anti-censorship by conformism, an abundant and tiresome drool, but it’s not prohibited. Let’s be realistic: we must live with it.

Where it starts to get interesting is when opposition is expressed, showing doubts about majority positions, when criticism is argued against theories and beliefs that are claimed to be universal. It is not necessary to be a recognized expert to detect flaws, ask questions and propose alternatives. Under the pretext that such views would be those of isolated individuals without support, that their competence is not proved, or that these are detailed and cherry-picked views, or that very many experts have spoken and that ” the fat lady has sung”; under the pretext that opening or reopening a debate only delays the enactment of policies declared as urgently needed, then we should regret that audience will be given to such voices. And if it would be open to them (the media do so, though rarely), then they must be crammed into simplistic categories, ridiculed and marginalized. Some even ask to prosecute these troublemakers.

This is a strong argument for it is known that malicious blocking minorities can rot a situation, which may be a weakness in the exercise of democracy.

Yet it has a fascist tone, especially when one or more excuses mentioned above are the only reason invoked to silence the other. This is part of the famous totalitarian temptation. The tactic is to not enter the debate, to make a smokescreen out of illegible references, to avoid examining and refuting the arguments point by point, to reject the other for who he is (questioning ad hominem) rather than confronting what he expresses. This way of reacting is wrong, or even a sin, a crime. But it works!

I will not go back to the Inquisition or the Moscow trials. In those days the orthodoxy had to prevail, not too sustainably for that matter; it seemed to me that those days were over.

Unfortunately, nowadays such censorship is spreading. Civilizational criticism will immediately be reduced to racism, any questioning of “good causes” will be taxed with ignorance or obscurantism, any opposition to a militant environmentalism will be characterized as dirty, incompetent, irresponsible or against sustainability, and every voice demonstrating scandals of dominant majorities will be silenced. And it will be done categorically, without opening any debate, without having the courage to expose oneself with an elaborated rebuttal.

I call this censorship for non-compliance with the ambient air. This climate is heating stronger than that of the planet. We do not live in a freedom loving society.

Simpering is going on, telling that whistleblowers are needed, that democracy blah blah blah … All this is actually not true: when criticism hurts, it has to be silenced, and before all no answer should be provided to it.

It is latent fascism, especially among best of class intellectuals, the high priests of global causes, hysterical scientists, the “know it all” of this world.

As part of the hoi polloi am I right to hate them?

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. [1]

_________________________

[1] Farewell address of Président Eisenhower on January 17,1961, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm