During my latest annual pilgrimage to Europe, I met many ‘conservatives’ who professed to be sympathetic to the themes developed in my recently published co-authored book The Legal Right to Disobey Law, and opinion pieces, some of which have been published in The Spectator Australia. Nevertheless, some of these ‘conservatives’ still accused me of having become a ‘loose cannon’ lately and suggested that the approach taken in my book (and opinion pieces) is not something they would want to emulate.
In my experience, there is a great reluctance on the part of these ‘conservatives’ to disagree with propositions which, whilst objectively wrong and discredited, have nevertheless received scientific respectability and invincibility. One such proposition is the claim that climate change is anthropogenic and that carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures. Another is that the Covid vaccines provide protection against infection and inhibit transmission of the virus. Specifically, they would never bother excoriating Wokeism or fighting the cultural wars but instead would only ever discuss ‘serious’ issues, like the geopolitical situation of the European Union, the growing power of China, the threat posed by AI, the war in Ukraine, the expansion of Nato, the domestic European federalisation projects, the payment of pensions to elderly people, and the cost of living, among others.
Of course, we know instinctively what a ‘loose cannon’ is, but I nevertheless decided to check its meaning on the internet. I discovered that the phrase ‘loose cannon’ initially described a cannon installed on the wooden warships of the 17th Century that had been mounted on rollers and securely tied down with rope to mitigate its recoil after its firing, but became loose, thereby becoming a ‘loose cannon’.
A ‘loose cannon’ is now described on the internet as an ‘unpredictable or uncontrollable person who is liable to cause unintended damage’. The Cambridge Dictionary indicates that a ‘loose cannon’ is ‘likely to cause problems for other people’, whilst the Merriam-Webster Dictionary talks about ‘a dangerously uncontrollable person or thing’. These definitions reveal that ‘loose cannons’ are typically ‘dangerous’ because of their ‘uncontrollability’.
Based on these definitions, anyone who relies on free speech to criticise the ‘settled’ climate change science and Net Zero fantasies, mandatory vaccination, government profligacy, the policy of allowing transgender females – biological males – to enter women’s spaces, gender self-identification, the use of pronouns, affirmative action, the imposition of a duty of care on social media, disinformation and misinformation policies, indoctrination of students, absence of critical thinking among university graduates, acknowledgments of country, or welcome to country rituals, or a willingness to celebrate the life of Charlie Kirk could be regarded as a ‘loose cannon’.
If that view is correct, most of the commentators who have posted articles and comments to The Spectator Australia could be described as ‘loose cannons’. However, the designation of these commentators as ‘uncontrollable’ and ‘unpredictable’ and even ‘dangerous’ discloses, on the part of their critics, an unwillingness to comment objectively on the abominations taking place in society. Of course, it could also be a case of lack of courage, or a desire to maintain an enviable lifestyle, spent in the company of the powerful elites.
Indeed, I noticed that people, especially those who occupy a high position, are reluctant to associate with the ‘loose cannons’ of The Spectator Australia because ‘they have to be careful whom they associate with’. They believe that such an association might adversely affect their reputation and standing in the elites’ power grid. Guilt by association is the logical fallacy they subscribe to! They do not seem to realise that, in doing so, their life is dictated and controlled by others. They are oblivious to the fact that their ability to think independently is compromised, and that they have effectively become slaves to the prevailing ideologies of the time. They are no longer driven by conviction but by a desire to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.
These people, even alleged conservatives, who are unwilling to be involved in the ‘culture wars’, are infected by the socialist mindset which attributes blame to other people for the misadventures in their life. This insight is crucial to an understanding of today’s Western societies, especially in the European Union but also in Australia. So, it is useful to describe this mindset that motivates the average European, as I found it during my latest pilgrimage to Europe.
Have you been to Western Europe during the last four months? If so, you will have experienced some hot days, not unlike the hottest days we suffer during the Australian summer. Our critics would, of course, attribute this climatic event to the anthropomorphic man-made carbon dioxide emissions. But more importantly, our European interlocutors would probably chastise the ‘loose cannons’ for questioning, even daring to question, the ‘settled’ climate science and the validity of the wisdom of the climate tsars.
This disdain for ‘loose cannons’ is especially noticeable when these critics start to talk about the politics of President Donald Trump and blame him for the sins of the world. I observed that the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a virus that has truly infected Europe. During my latest visit, I have met no one who had any good thing to say about Donald Trump. I attended a reunion of my erstwhile university friends – an annual ritual going back many years. Although it is a most pleasant event, involving the tasting of gourmet food and fine wine and champagne, the camaraderie is tested severely when the Trump issue comes up, as inevitably it does. Their Trump invectives are truly confronting because common sense suggests that even the most despised persons may have done some good things. Indeed, this total and unequivocal rejection of the President is truly bizarre because even a modicum of objectivity requires an acknowledgement that the report card is inevitably mixed. A one-sided report fails the test of objectivity; it is an unequivocal condemnation, fuelled by uncontrolled TDS for which there appears to be no effective medicine.
A ‘loose cannon’, described as a person who is prepared to criticise the prevailing orthodoxies and developments in society, recognises the disastrous consequences of the entrenchment of the philosophy of secularism in society, which is nurtured by a hatred for religion. In this context, I noted the creeping de-Christianisation of Europe, with churches being converted to amusement venues, cinemas, or shops. Christianity has been relegated to the fringes of society and is increasingly characterised as superstition, the beliefs of simpletons. Christianity has effectively been replaced by secularism, relativism, and materialism.
But what is really confronting is the dilution of free speech. If not a consequence of government-imposed rules, it is self-censorship. This is a belief that associating yourself with those who rely on free speech to build a better future, is to appear extreme right-wing. Free speech is only tolerated if one succumbs to, or is sympathetic to, the policies of the left. When I mentioned that my co-authored book The Legal Right to Disobey Law would be launched at a liberal arts college located in an 18th Century castle in Belgium, I was portrayed as a right-winger because an internet search of that institution revealed its interest in fostering free and unimpeded discussion of social issues. Indeed, to favour free speech and critical thinking is being stamped with the sobriquet of right-wing activism.
The tendency to always blame others for real or perceived calamities, and the creeping de-Christianisation with its attendant secularism and relativism also accurately describe the Australian socialist mindset, a phenomenon that I discussed in another ‘loose cannon’ posting to The Spectator Australia.
Regardless of our critics, the ‘loose cannons’ of The Spectator Australia are trying to do something about this unfortunate drift away from common sense, free speech, and normalcy. It is, however, a hard and unrewarding, yet necessary, project.
