“Sedition”, for example, is defined in Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary (mid-century version) as
insurrection; public tumult; vaguely, any offence against the state short of treasonIn the current Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, “sedition” is:
actions or speech urging rebellion against the authority of a state or rulerIt is clear that on the later definition I have not been able to avoid being seditious, since I was attempting to do research without having been selected by society to have the cachet of authorisation to do so. Why was I attempting this? Because I had been rejected by society. So either there was something wrong with the system which had rejected me, or there was something wrong with me which justified the system in rejecting me.
As I went on trying to do research without being socially authorised to do so, I was implicitly asserting that there was something wrong with the system which had rejected me, and that it was right and proper for someone in my position to act against the wishes of that system. Hence I was being seditious in the modern sense of the word.
This, I suppose, accounts for my having been treated as a criminal from the start, and continuing to be so treated to the present day. Practically everybody will immediately jump to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with me, and not something wrong with the system.
When I met General McCreery (the only time I did) he said “Could we not get the University to accept us working under their supervision?” I said that, at present, the areas in which we were proposing to work were not recognised by the University but that we hoped to do research which would gain recognition, so that perhaps later we might aspire to status within the university system. I said that we had thought of seeking university affiliation straight away, but that we did not think it would be possible unless some senior person made an approach on our behalf, which no one was doing.
Apparently this did not satisfy General McCreery, and later he said to Charles that we should seek to become subordinate to the university before attempting to raise money to finance the research. Clearly he thought that we should actively refrain from doing anything that might fail to be approved of.
The General did not add that if Charles continued to support me in my attempts to raise money, he (Charles) would himself be regarded as a reprobate and an outlaw, whom it was right to slander and disinherit. However, in practice that was how the General proceeded to treat him.
The psychological syndrome requiring the subordination of ability to socially conferred status is evidently extremely strong, although not openly expressed. Several people, other than the General, had expressed the view that since I and my associates were attempting the impossible in setting up an independent academic organisation, it would be kindest to put an end to our suffering as soon as possible, while actively choking off support that we seemed about to secure.
In a similar way, General McCreery advised Charles, as if benevolently, that it would be impossible for us to succeed, and proceeded to ensure that it would be, by using his position as a Patron and ostensible supporter to disseminate hostility, and by impoverishing Charles and bringing about his exile from the social class of which he had previously been a normally acceptable member.
* * *
At the time of my conversation with the General, I had not published anything which was overtly critical of the prevailing collectivist ideology. I was treated as a criminal only on account of the seditious attitudes implied by my continuing to attempt to make a career in academic research despite having been rejected by my Oxford college. This, as may be seen, was apparently considered to be bad enough.
Since that time, I and my associates have published criticisms of various aspects of the modern collectivist ideology. My blog is one of those which have been blocked by China, presumably because China wishes to shield its population from any awareness that such critical attitudes are possible.
Although less explicit, the attitude to any expression of our views has been the same in the West. Our books are given as little publicity as possible, and we are treated as if we do not exist. Thus, although our books must have reached the attention of a wide readership, no financial or other advantage reaches us, of the sort which might make possible further publication, or intellectual activity of any kind.