The abuse of the middle class
Egalitarian ideology is aimed at persecution and destruction. The hatred of innate ability and resentment of genetically bonded family relationships occurred in the ideology of the French Revolution, which persecuted the aristocracy. Then, as now, people wished to believe that all differences between individuals were the result of education and upbringing. The aristocracy then, as the middle class now, were persecuted in order, allegedly, to protect others, including their own offspring. The Dauphin was induced to accuse Marie Antoinette of sexually abusing him. Nowadays it is common to persecute parents for alleged abuse of their children, a desire to provide them with a suitable or favourable education being counted as a form of abuse.
It may be noted that while, in some cases, immense efforts are expended to damage middle class families in case children might be being subjected to hypothetical psychological harm, the population at large is increasingly subject to definite physical assaults, as the state educated population increasingly lacks inhibition.
In the last Sunday Times there was an account of a case involving Richard McDonald, the headmaster of Aiglon College, a prestigious school in Switzerland. This was clearly a very successful and respectable middle class family, almost certainly with above average IQs. The father was accused of sexually abusing his younger son and the life of the family was completely disrupted. He was put in prison pending enquiries and lost his job. He was separated from both of his sons, whose distress at the situation was arguably greater than any distress the younger son might have been suffering if the accusations of abuse had been true. Quite possibly the effects on the sons' lives might have included damage to their academic work and prospects in life.
The father was eventually acquitted, although in a way which made it possible for those who wished to continue to entertain suspicions. The father has now to discover whether he will be able to obtain a job similar to his previous one, although it is unlikely to be as good. The sons have been exposed to counselling, a tremendous intrusion on their psychological liberty, which may well have deleterious effects on their outlook and future lives.
The effects of investigating this accusation have seriously undermined the stability and well being of three genetically related middle class individuals, viz the father and his two sons.
The father commented that once the accusation had been made, there was no question of his being treated as innocent until proved guilty, but on the contrary no effort was spared to pin guilt upon him. In other respects, however, he reacted with socially acceptable dishonesty, claiming that being in prison had given him an enhanced sense of solidarity with his fellow man. Rather than demanding a return to greater respect for individual autonomy, he says that people should be more aware of the suffering created by such situations, supporting the idea that people interfering in other people's lives is an acceptable way of going on, only they need to take a few more factors into account. (But the whole object of the exercise is to destroy the lives of efficient and intelligent people.)
The father, complaining of the possible future psychological problems from which his sons may suffer, selects as a primary concern that it may undermine their faith and trust in human beings. If it did provide them with realistic cynicism and mistrust, that could be beneficial, but unfortunately, except in my own case, it seems to be the case that people's need to maintain a belief in society as a source of significance and their psychological contortions in the maintenance of such a belief become only more forceful in the face of incompatible evidence.
When I tell people about the ruin of my education and my subsequent deprivation of an academic career, people sometimes ask me if this does not make me want to reform things or improve the world, leaving out of account that the difficulties I have encountered and am still encountering in attempting to reconstruct a tolerable and productive life for myself are unlikely to leave me any freedom for campaigns of social reform. People who ask me this usually appear disappointed when I say that it is very clear to me that state education should be abolished, or at the very least it should be made illegal for anyone with an IQ over, say, 140 to attend a state school.
This, incidentally, should severely limit the range of 'gifted children' who would be eligible to be exposed to the abusive treatment which is proposed to be administered by the new, and atrocious, Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth which is to be set up in association with Warwick University, with connivance from Oxford University, which is known to favour and promote abusive educational ideas, and in consultation with educational 'experts' at Oxford Brookes University. A boy who got his degree at 13 says it is just what he would have wanted if he had not done what he did. Safely in an adult career, and out of the clutches of the educational system, he can afford to curry social approval by endorsing the maltreatment of others.