Copyright © Larry Johnson November 2020 – Revised January 2023
In recent times there has been a development in a group characterized as the ‘intelligentsia’ or ‘cognoscenti’. Society has always endured such a consortium. It appears to have become more problematic in the 18th Century, or even with the Reformation in the 16th century; when too many supposed their own view of life’s truths were objectively more correct than those of their predecessors. They instead however, deliberated themselves into a significant level of imbecility.
There have always been groups or individuals who profess an expertise regarding the meaning of life and other issues, whether or not the appropriate qualifications and/or knowledge are extant. It is also peculiar that on particular topics, even in the case of the ostensibly qualified, agreement is beyond reach. Select any subject you like, climate change – whether it is warmer now than a thousand years ago, or CoVid-19 – whether borders should be closed or not, you will find opposite angles espoused by the self-proclaimed ‘learned’. Now in trivial matters this is not a significant problem, and it is also acknowledged that not all issues are deliberated upon with reference to an objective foundation i.e. right or wrong. Determinations regarding trivialities are not the end of the world. However, when it comes to the more serious issues, then the role, influence, and objective of the ‘intelligentsia’ is critical.
As stated, the cognoscenti has always existed. Whether it is the university scholar, the powerful business tycoon, politicians or journalists, opinions have been forthcoming since time immemorial. But there is a difference in the contemporary world. If you contemplate circumstances before the advent of television, you will find opinions written in newspapers and commentaries on radio expounding advice and suggestions on fixing this or that matter. The commentator would state their view and defend it; but if others did not concur, they would affirm as much, nonetheless defending their own position, but normally without too much retribution. There may have been frustration, but it was not ordinarily worth working themselves into a monumental paroxysm. I would refer the reader to the example of G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw in my essay ‘The Lost Art of the Civil Debate’. Without reiterating the whole story, here we had a journalist and playwright at opposite ends of the spectrum who debated each other enthusiastically but remained friends. I would venture to assert that even up until the last 15 to 20 years the atmosphere of vigorous argument without ongoing and long-term vitriol has normally prevailed. Even the Australian Prime Ministers Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser ended up with some form of reconciliation post the 1975 Dismissal. If you are Australian and know the history this was quite astounding. Both may not have ended up ‘bosom buddies’ but they appeared to have at least, admittedly not immediately, put a nasty situation behind them. I wonder if this would occur in 2023.
But here is the thing. As well as having a penchant for their own infallibility, many of the modern intelligentsia are too eager to intransigently meddle more than is necessary or useful. I maintain that these individuals or groups are unable to begin from a position of objective truth and consequently their input becomes irrational. Their opinions are directed towards creating a new world view for everyone in accordance with their own. I realise that at this juncture, the reader will accuse the writer of the same behaviour. The reader may claim – aren’t you always stating your views? Have you not written essay after essay expounding your thoughts? Are you not putting yourself forward as ‘intelligentsia’? I retreat most assuredly from the notion of being included among the cognoscenti, but otherwise you are entitled to your interrogation. Notwithstanding, I beseech the reader to continue.
The reader of this essay may agree or disagree with my point of view. The reader may not even have reached this paragraph before casting the whole project off as nonsense and a waste of time. And whereas I would be chuffed to find everyone who perused this little deliberation in concurrence, granting me the feeling that I have changed some of the world, it would not represent a common-sense approach. If the reader is not accepting of the thoughts expounded in my essays that is quite all right. Neither party should lose any sleep over it. However, the new intelligentsia do not appear to see it that way. They avow that if you are not in agreement, you are wrong: end of story. If you dare to challenge their views, you could very well be made to feel like a pariah. Their victory will be complete when they have crushed any will to challenge them at all.
This has occurred with many issues in recent times. If you do not agree with abortion, you are a misogynist. Incidentally, I wonder if women at all are really aware of the probable reasons that some men support abortion. If not, they really do not know the male of the species very well. I will let the reader work it out, but it may often have something to with fidelity and responsibility. We proceed. If you do not agree with same-sex marriage you are homophobic; if you do not agree with climate-change you are a destroyer of the world; if you do not ‘take a knee’ you don’t like coloured races; if you are not in agreement with IVF you are a callous individual with no concern for pro-creation. I wonder what percentage of those who agree with IVF also assent to the act of abortion, considering that many embryos are destroyed during the process of IVF.
On all levels, the new intelligentsia have ambitions to ‘lord it over’ everyone, and as in any form of totalitarianism will seek to crush any opposition. Once you have removed from society the confidence of people to express an opinion, the road to totalitarianism looms large. You see, I along with numerous others, am a Christian. If I express Christian views on those social issues stated in the previous paragraph, there is a significant chance that the conversation will result in castigation, often by radical left-wing socialists that assuredly include the authorities. My arguments may be presented in a civil manner, but the response will often be uncivil. Derision and suppression would follow so the fashion of the day may triumph. The irony is that if the other parties were not to agree with me, I would not consider that the end of the world. We must take the view that in accordance with an authentic understanding of morality and common sense, cognisant of historical lessons, one is entitled to use his or her free will to decide for themselves. But much of the modern intelligentsia appear to have a poor grasp of authentic morality and common sense, as well as a purposeful disregard of history. It is evident that if one cannot submit to the view of the new intelligentsia, then upon that individual is lashed rebuke and humiliation, and on occasions, even violence.
The whole issue of the intelligentsia, who have self-declared their infallibility, would not be such a threat if there was not an abundancy of the masses sufficiently gullible to follow. I fear the multitudes have lost the ability to discern the information they receive; or are too uninterested to undertake their own investigation or study regarding matters at hand. If something sounds fair enough, or convenient to their circumstance they will follow to nth degree, even to the point of hostility. Numerous are they who will follow an idea, not because the notion is at all intelligent or withstands moral scrutiny, but merely because of expediency, a skewed moral view, or that it facilitates their desired lifestyle. These constitute some of the most dangerous reasons to follow misguided cognoscenti. They that are so easily led into wayward ideas surrender meekly to them, as it may at first appear that their life will be empowered or rendered more comfortable. Empowerment can be a good thing if the aim itself is objectively good. However, violently tearing down society in search of an anarchic utopia is hardly morally upstanding. For example, during the 2020 election many in the United States of America appear to have climbed aboard the socialist bandwagon. One wonders if the majority that did vote in this way really knew what they were doing. Leaders around the world appear to have supported the movement. Did they know what they were doing? I fear the political parties did, but the public did not. The world spent the twentieth century denigrating the evils of socialism and communism, yet now we are willing to swallow the bitter pill that was once anathema. The problem is either gullibility or lack of knowledge leading to incapacity in discerning the message of the new intelligentsia who propose this direction. The test tube, tailor-made baby is another example. Does anybody recall the Second World War? Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the allies fight to defeat individuals that wanted to eliminate certain races? Were not the offending countries condemned for experimentation with eugenics? Yet here we are years later sallying forward with similar callousness. As I mentioned earlier, how many embryos are discarded or destroyed because of IVF? What number are terminated because they contain an ‘inconvenient’ gene? Yet we assent to all of this because the self-appointed intelligentsia consider it reasonable.
So, who is this new intelligentsia? Well, it comprises those professions that are ever present: activists, politicians, journalists, business leaders and academics etc. These individuals and groups enjoy influence and currently appear hell-bent on creating a world according to their trajectory. It would be consoling if one had confidence in their aptitude and motives, but the evidence is clear that they are not that astute and their motives appear self-serving.
Moreover, in recent times two further worrying trends have arisen. Firstly, I refer to ‘contributions’ from the world of the arts who have added their voice to the fray. It now seems as though because you can act in movies or theatre, sing a song, write a novel, or paint a picture, it entitles you to be all-knowing and undertake the guidance of humankind. I once witnessed a ‘rock star’ who determined it a clever idea to support a candidate who was an avid supporter of abortion. I must assume the individual was also a supporter of the slaughter. I watched the ‘rock star’ carry on about how he wanted his country back. Unfortunately, the individual he was supporting won the election and the country henceforth descended upon a rocky road to rabble and so continues. The gentleman is not the only one. There is the case of a famous singer supporting a famous political family in the same country years before: only to be subsequently let down when the family declined to invite one his best friends, a coloured gentleman, to an outlandish party. I understand he regretted his initial involvement. Now it is true that famous ‘stars’ have a history of being overtly involved in fund raising for various political parties. I see nothing wrong with that, but I draw the line when their mouth runs away with them, and they begin to play the politician; attempting to influence the masses through their ‘art’ – much of which struggles to reach heights better than sub-standard. It may be worthwhile for them to furnish a higher benchmark in the quality of their music, art, etc., rather than dabble in the coercion of those who, for some reason, consider their product to be reasonable fare.
The second movement concerns the most recent intervention in society’s machinations; sports men and women. I have no issue with public iterations on matters that directly concern their ability to compete in their chosen sport e.g., issues relating to the rules of the contest etc. However, it is altogether a different matter when they use their sport to promote their own political and social views. If it is their wish to do so, then could I suggest they relinquish their involvement with the sport and enter politics, or other sociological field if appropriately qualified and motivated. I would rather consider their position from this perspective than from the rugby scrum, cricket pitch, netball court, or swimming pool etc.
Recent generations appear content to settle for a lower intellectual benchmark and are prone to not sufficiently question what they hear and read. If the man can play guitar, hit a cricket ball or pass a football, etc., he or she must know all there is to know about life! Yes? So, we will hang on every word he/she speaks! Regrettably, groups alluded to in this essay have a severe leaning toward the socialist radicalisation of society; and they will pummel you if one dares to question their dogmas or actions.
The dilemma as I see it, is that politicians, journalists, television news presenters, comics, singers, actors, writers, artists, and sports men and women etc., are ubiquitous. They are pervasive and ‘always in our faces’. They use this exposure to convince the multitudes of the efficacy of their ideology, realising that their profile assists in forming the minds of those who, often erroneously, respect their ’wisdom’. So, what are we to do? In the case of the ‘rock star’ previously alluded to, although he had long been a favourite of mine, ties were severed in terms of further purchases of his music or even listening to that already in my possession. The adversative response to this is that we should separate someone’s views from their music (or art). I retort that it depends on the gravity of what they proclaim and about what subject. In my view, tolerance is difficult to apply when it comes to something as serious as abortion and the response needs to be commensurate. Apropos politicians, journalists, the ‘artistic’ etc., sub-standard as the quality of their work is these days, it would appear we are affixed to this state of affairs for a while at least. My advice regarding the new intelligentsia is for the rest of us to use the brain bestowed to us by God. Research, reflect, and discern whether what is said is morally upstanding and good in light of the history of humankind and upon that base your judgement. The example of socialism is a case in point. Historically it never worked. Morally and economically, it was a disaster; and for those who in the past believed it to be the answer to their happiness, the results were gravely disappointing. Hence, why would we again consider such a pathway?
