Some Harsh Words About the Cult of ‘Kindness’

One of the most witless, inane and paradoxically evil ideas to contaminate contemporary culture in recent years is kindness, or, as what amounts to a campaign slogan says, ‘Be Kind’. On the surface, what could possibly be wrong with being kind to each other? Only brutes and criminals would find something wrong with such an obviously decent notion. The problem, though, is that beneath its beautiful and superficially moral surface, kindness, in its contemporary iteration, is surreptitiously ideological and smuggles into everyday life entirely new ideas of metaphysics, logic and epistemology, ones that have profoundly negative consequences for liberal democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

The photo featured atop this article is of workers — colleagues, in fact — who are being respectful, courteous, and, yes, kind to each other. The scene is Central Europe in the summer of 1944. Apart from the uniforms, nothing is unusual; the photos could have been taken at any off-site staff training session anywhere in the world. What most people who view the photos won’t know, though, is that the happy, collegiate staff were taking a break from murdering 600,000 Hungarian Jews in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. They are members of the Schutzstaffel, abbreviated as SS or, in more simple terms, Nazis.


The political philosophy of Nazism, which, like all ideologies, is founded on a metaphysical view of the world, and on a logic that permeates all aspects of life, informs the grotesque inhumanity that these otherwise normal people inflicted on innocent human beings. The cruelty, in other words, is built into the system and percolates downwards from the ideology to everyday behaviour. And being kind, respectful and courteous to your colleagues, friends or even strangers is irrelevant in this situation. The underlying political philosophy is what’s important in guiding the perpetrators’ actions.

I use this analogy to explain that ideology overrides and distorts everyday behaviour and that ideas are more important as a guide to action in a political system than a simplistic call “to be kind”. The corollary is that getting the politics right is imperative to getting the morality and ethics right. Group morality — ideology, that is — is always based on a lie. Also, no political ideology has ever presented itself as anything but moral. The Nazis, in one of the great ironies of history, believed that what separated the Aryans from other races was their kindness to one another and to animals.

We’ve established that kindness per se is not a sufficient condition for decent behaviour because political ideologies determine who can be treated with kindness and who can be treated with cruelty. This gets to the crux of the present situation because underpinning the current notion of kindness is the contemporary moral and ethical system of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), which has been introduced into almost every institution in Western liberal democracies. The HR department in your workplace, and workers’ rights legislation in your state or country, will almost certainly be infused with this ideology.

The problem, though, is that the politics of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — wokeness, in other words — establishes a hierarchy of the saved and the dammed through the postmodern notion of identity. Where you sit on the hierarchy of marginalised groups, or whether you are intersectionally oppressed — perhaps doubly, triply or multiply oppressed — determines your saintly status. Individual rights, then, are no longer the sine qua non of liberal democracy. What we have, essentially, is irrationalism as a new metaphysics.

How has this situation come about? How are individual rights being supplanted by group rights, which are the modus operandi of all authoritarian regimes? How has this occurred in a liberal democratic political system where debate is a constituent part of its philosophy? It’s simple: institutional capture. Individual rights have been hollowed out from the inside by ideologues. What’s most depressing, though, is that the whole unedifying spectacle has been performed in the plain sight of our governing elites, who, while often hard-working and honest, are seldom intellectually sophisticated. Advocating for a zebra crossing or a new school hall does not need an understanding of Derridean deconstruction.

While kindness is the slogan, the Trojan Horse of the ideology is the triple strategy of equivocating speech with violence, subjectivism and the weaponising of mental health. It’s a tapestry of confusion where all the threads fit together.

Conflating speech with violence means that hurt feelings, rather than damaged bodies, are utilised as a weapon of the ‘oppressed’. Hurting someone’s feelings — subjectivism, in other words — is viewed as violence. This is important because liberal democracy, at its core, rejects violence. Violence, as any civilised person should know, is always the last resort in adjudicating conflict. Consequently, indulging in violence, especially towards a disadvantaged person or an identity group, is the very definition of discrimination.

Modern subjectivism is based on the postmodern claim that truth is a fiction — bizarrely, even logical and scientific truths. Reason, according to Foucault, one of the most influential postmodern philosophers, is no more than a political strategy of the elites to gain and maintain power. There could be truth, but it’s irrelevant whether it exists because ‘truth’ is always an instrument of power. “Truth”, in its modern iteration, is defined as the epistemology of straight white males, who are viewed as the purveyors of all that is destructive in modern history. According to postmodernists and intersectional feminists, though, there are other ways of understanding the world, amongst them the ‘lived experience’ of identity groups , which are presented as equally valid. Feminists, for example, have claimed for decades that witchcraft and alternative medicine have been ‘marginalised’ by male ways of knowing, and that these epistemologies are as legitimate as the scientific method. That this is nonsense needs to be stressed because the idea that all opinions are valid has become a constituent narrative of contemporary culture. The irony is that postmodernists could not flourish if they followed their own philosophy, because irrational people live sub-optimal lives or simply die.

Which brings us to mental health. The expansion of mental health psychology into areas that, until recently, were considered the existential and ordinary facts of life, is not coincidental. The phenomenon runs parallel and in conjunction with the rise of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Feelings are now the gold standard of whether one is suffering from a mental health problem, not an imprudent lifestyle choice or any of the dreadful psychological conditions that make life a misery for people whose minds or brains are not working in a functional way.

The three strategies are equally important to the ideology, and they shift, twist, intertwine and turn depending on the situation. Put them all together and a comprehensive strategy exists to curtail freedom of speech, individual conscience and, inevitably, liberal democracy.

That the politics goes under the radar is a feature and not an accident of the ideology. What DEI means in practice is not what its proponents advertise to the world. In practical terms the ideology works in the following way: Diversity stresses a plurality of group identity and not a plurality of opinion. Equity is an impossible dream which can only be enacted, with dreadful consequences, by force. And inclusion, by definition, welcomes different identity groups without criticism, and no-one else. Remember that, according to the theory, subjective feelings, which are denied validity by individuals and society lead to mental health issues, while truth itself is grounded in the identities of race, sex, class and gender. Everything must be affirmed rather than rejected or criticised because words which offend are construed as violence or are damaging to a person whose “identity” is questioned or criticised.

This is why statues are being pulled down around the world; why people with what were, until about five years ago, moderate views are called bigots; why supporters of free speech are called Nazis; why J.K. Rowling is called transphobic; why bad works of art by minority figures are replacing Beethoven, Shakespeare and Renoir (or, at the very least, how they are presented in concert halls, theatres and art galleries). It’s why those who offend are hounded from their jobs and see their reputations and livelihoods ruined. And all this is being perpetrated by ideologues with a fanatical zeal and, ironically, not a shred of kindness.

I could go on; the list is endless. Nothing solid survives this pernicious attack on everything of value, and it’s why the cult of kindness and its three subordinate strategies — equating speech with violence, subjectivism and weaponising mental health — undermine the entire edifice of liberal democracy, which is a form of government based on individualism and the robust claims of negative rights. Two things define liberal democratic philosophy: don’t do this, and you’ve a right to offend. In straightforward terms, you can be an absolute bastard if you don’t commit a crime or perpetrate violence on your fellow citizens. That’s about all people can ask for or expect.

The rest of the noise about rights is virtue-signalling nonsense, money-making scams, or snake-oil drenched in false morality. Sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind. And sometimes you just need to be kind. Woke kindness is the inverse of the normal conception of kindness and it is toxic to individual rights. Don’t fall for the nonsense, linguistic equivocation is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

7 thoughts on “Some Harsh Words About the Cult of ‘Kindness’

  • Adam J says:

    Liberalism was rooted in Christianity. So you certainly could expect a lot more than bastards who don’t commit crimes. This pseudo-anarchist that you ought to be able to do everything as long it’s not against the law or violent is the very idea that leads to social and moral breakdown. What kind of selfish life would that be?

  • 27hugo27 says:

    This is certainly an excellent article that needs to be iterated again and again, yet will fall on deaf ears amongst most westerners, so brainwashed and immersed in the cult of feelings they are. I place most of the blame on feminism, the vindictive strain dedicated to completely destroying all that is good and worthy. They have sided and abetted every grievance group for 50 years and counting, yet with victory after victory are not satisfied and never will be. Weekend Oz featuring a smug, beautiful woman surgeon complaining of the bullying culture of the operating room and rampant sexism of the males painting herself as victim and heroinne, on another page, the ludicrous Brittany Higgins case goes ahead, despite evidence of her culpabilty. In the Adelaide Advertiser cries of sexism against female umpires is sending would be umpires away from the game (just forget the hundred years of male umpire abuse,, something unfixable in in a free flowing game where half the crowd hates every decision). Then we have nasty scold Graceless Tame apparently weeping whem her poster boy Albanese recounts his tired sob story about his mother – the same Tame who couldn’t have been ruder to Morrison. No politics from this AoY! These are just recent examples of media manipulation in a tsunami of propaganda, swallowed Hook line and sinker by a dumbed down populace. A war is being waged, and Russia /Ukraine is of less importance to this reader than the trojan horses described by the writer.

  • markrow says:

    The writer has correctly and adequately addressed the postmodern component in all this.
    But sadly lacking is any acknowledgement of the basic Marxian roots of this divisive ideology

  • rosross says:

    There is the world as we may wish it to be and the world as it is. The former is Possibility 101 and the latter is Reality 101. We must master the latter before investing everything in the former.

  • pconey71 says:

    Thank you for this article Declan which is a very good summary of the problems with identity politics. I have read much about identity politics but one aspect of it which I find is not often dealt with is the question of what is the actual objective or identity politics – where is it intended to lead? It has no single or group of leaders. Terms such as equality and the like are thrown around but these all seem too vague to represent any clear objective. Declan you clearly know much of this topic so the question of the objective and/or ultimate destination for identity polities may be a good topic for a future article. Thanks.

  • whitelaughter says:

    Have to agree with Markrow – you are describing the symptom; the problem are the traitors who have dedicated their lives to destroying civilization. Destroy ‘woke’ and they will simply create a new stalking horse.

  • rosross says:

    The point surely is that ordinary people do evil things.
    And seriously, if people are horrified by what ordinary people did in Europe nearly a century ago, they would be even more horrified by what ordinary people in Israel are doing to non-Jews in Occupied Palestine today. You could put together a group of Israeli police or soldiers having a bit of fun before going back to abusing, killing, torturing Palestinian Christians and Muslims, children included.
    The entire point is we are talking about ordinary people committing acts of evil.
    Yes, we should practice kindness but it does not have to blind us to the reality that everyone has a capacity for evil and everyone has a capacity for good. No-one is all bad or all good including those pictured above.
    We should look at that photo and know it applies to each and every one of us. If Israelis, despite claiming to act in the name of Jews who died horrifically during world war Two have learned absolutely nothing, then why would anyone else?
    They are committing similar acts of evil while decrying the evils done to some Jews nearly a century ago. That is the problem and that actually is why kindness matters.
    We need to come from a place of compassion and kindness which recognises the capacity for evil in each human being. When we do that, we can understand how such horrors happen. Without compassion we understand nothing.

Leave a Reply