Autopsy of an Argument Between An Extremist And A Moderate

On a Friday night in late September I had a fierce argument with a mate. I use the term ‘mate’ deliberately: he is not a friend. He is not someone I’ve ever phoned for a chat. We’ve never gone for a drink, just the two of us. Instead, this man is part of a wider circle of friends. For the purposes of this article, I’m going to my mate as ‘F’. I will also point that F is Belgian. I point this out not to introduce xenophobia into the conversation, nor to invoke stereotypes but because F’s European background is relevant to where the argument went.

It was an argument that has been brewing for a while. We first noticed we had very different political views during Brexit – F voted Remain so that his children would find it easier to work in EU countries – and, since then, it has become clear that we have polar opposite views on each and every issue of the day: Russia; Climate Change; Covid…There seems to be nothing we agree on. We even once had an argument over which was the best country in Europe. F thinks I hold extremist views.

It’s strange that our views should be so different as we are similar in many ways. We both went to university. We both work in respectable professions. We mix in the same circles. We’re both opinionated yet our opinions couldn’t be more different. It’s not as though we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I don’t think we are. I am right wing and if I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that F is somewhere very near the centre-ground, politically, probably a Social Democrat in European terms which is the political position of every urbane, moderate European who considers themselves civilised and seeks a peaceful, inclusive Europe. In UK terms, it is harder to guess which political party F supports since UK mainstream parties are indistinguishable from each other.

So, arguments are never far away but, recently, we’ve stayed away from controversial topics and have been getting on better as a result. I will point out that F is good company. He is convivial and never short of something to say. Yes, the arrogance of success is never far away but it is quite enjoyable to observe his arrogance. Yet, it seems that failing to conduct regular ‘targeted burns’ may have led to an overabundance of combustible material that allowed a wildfire to erupt. Maybe too many words had been left unsaid for too long.

The context of the argument was all of the above plus, probably more significantly, a WhatsApp group that was set up by a mutual friend, during lockdown in 2020, to discuss the views on lockdowns and other covid restrictions, for the wider circle of local friends. One by one, those friends who supported the government’s policies for tackling covid left the group in the face of anti-narrative covid facts that were being shared by a hardcore group of us who read and shared everything the alternative media was publishing. F was one of the last defendents of the government position remaining on the group but, one day, even he left the group under the bombardment of information he no longer wished to confront. F always holds the mainstream view on any big issues of the day. He is an Establishment man. I referred to F’s leaving of the WhatsApp group during the argument.

The argument went as follows:

One Friday evening, 6 of us were huddled around the outdoor heater of a pub’s beer garden. We had just finished a conversation about class in which F and I were again on opposite sides of the debate. (F thought that class was based solely on how much money you have, whereas I felt that class is a factor of your origins, not your whereabouts: If a taxi driver wins the lottery he is still working class, even if he now lives in the biggest house in town). This was the spark for the conflagration that followed.

Below, I have documented my memory of the argument as best as I can. I cannot guarantee that this is an accurate and complete transcript of what was said – too much beer prevents that – but it captures the main points of escalation and, I believe, it captures the spirit of the incident. In short, this was an argument between 2 people who have no respect for each other’s positions and who each took the opportunity to unload all the animosity that had built up, going back to Brexit disagreements 5 years ago.

We were talking about the vaccines (I can’t remember how we got onto the subject). I asked F if he still thought the vaccines were safe and effective. He said ‘Yes, absolutely’ . I was flabbergasted. It would have been a surprising answer at the end of 2021 but to maintain that position at the end of 2022 was ridiculous. I then tried to point out all of the excess deaths that were occurring in all of the most vaxxed countries. To which F responded ”I’m not interested”. I answered that I was trying to share facts, these aren’t my opinions. To which F responded “I don’t give a fuck about facts.” I should have walked away at that point as F was clearly being deliberately provocative. There is no chance of rational debate with someone who has taken the position that facts are irrelevant. Instead, I ploughed on. I attacked him for what he had just said about facts. I also blasted him for leaving the WhatsApp group. I told him that he left the group because all he had were his opinions whereas the rest of us had facts and his opinions couldn’t compete with our facts and so he ran away. The next thing I remember was F criticising me for wearing my ‘Unvaccinated’ yellow wristband. He said something like “You think you are so clever wearing that band. You only hold these positions because you think it makes you look edgy and different from everyone else. You think you are more intelligent than everyone so you hold these views so you can show off.”

I asked him if he thought I didn’t really believe what I stood for
I think he responded ‘no, I don’t think you do’.
I asked him if Wendy and Jon, [two other anti-lockdown activists on the WhatsApp group] also held their positions for the same reason. F dodged the question. Somewhere around this time I told F that he always holds the positions that the authorities want him to hold. I said that I think critically to make my mind up on issues and that he should do the same thing. I also said something about him coming from “that Grand-Ecole background where you simply trust the experts because you think they are the same as you”. This was a reference to F’s Belgian educational background. F responded “Come on…” and rolled his eyes.

The next thing I remember was explaining why I wore the wristband. I said “I wear it to remind myself how there was an attempt by the authorities to stigmatise the unvaxxed”. I pointed out that during 2021 there were regular articles in the MSM suggesting that the unvaxxed shouldn’t receive NHS treatment nor should we be allowed on public transport to which F interjected with “I agree with those things. You shouldn’t be allowed.” Again, with hindsight, it’s hard to know if F genuinely believes that or whether he was being deliberately provocative.
At the time, I took F at his word and I expressed my incredulity at his hardline position. I asked F why he was in a pub with me if he felt that way. He shrugged and mumbled something that I didn’t catch. Things became very ‘shouty’ from this point. I told F that he’d been hypnotised by government propaganda and he needed to widen his reading material and stop watching TV. I told him that I wear the yellow band to remind myself how there was an attempt to stigmatise the unvaxxed, just like Nazis stigmatised the jews in 1930s Germany.
At this point F blew up. He demanded to know if I was comparing myself to Jews during WW2. I said “No, I’m comparing myself with Jews in 1930s Germany”. We were both really shouting by now. F said if I continued to compare my treatment with that of Jews in WW2, he would never talk to me again. I repeated that I wasn’t comparing myself with Jews during WW2, I was comparing myself with Jews in 1930s Germany. (I don’t know why F distorted my words several times). I pointed out that in the 1930s Jews were called ‘vectors of disease’ and so were the unvaxxed in 2021. I said there were many parallels. I tried to say that government plans to stigmatise the unvaxxed didn’t catch on but that the intention was straight out of 1930s Germany. F was absolutely furious about the comparison and I remember screaming that he couldn’t comment because he didn’t see it from the perspective of an unvaxxed person. I remember shouting “Don’t deny my lived experience”. My lived experience? I never expected to say that!

Anyway, that was my memory of events, written the following day. F thinks I hold my positions to be provocative and I think his positions are provocative in a different way. I cannot believe that he adopts such a one-dimensional, mainstream view on everything and he cannot believe that I adopt such extremist, minority views, seemingly to be deliberately contrary. I am not proud of the encounter however, in some ways it was good to get things in the open.

Afterwards, I considered F’s comments about me being deliberately contrary. I have asked myself if there is any truth to that. There isn’t. I follow the facts to find the truth and I am prepared to endorse the truth no matter how unpopular the truth is at the time. Not many people are prepared to do the same which is why my views are minority views. I find that my positions become more popular over time as the truth reveals itself. That happened with lockdowns and its happening with the vaxx. It’s also happening with Ukraine. I will continue to search for the truth, and see through the Establishment propaganda. F adopts The Establishment position and clings on to it regardless of how much that position is later undermined by the evidence. F is a supporter of ideology over facts. I value freedom over safety.

F thinks of himself as the very model of European reasonableness: He obeys the authorities in every situation. He always defers to the experts put forward by the authorities. He doesn’t like to hear about inconsistencies in official logic. He refuses to consider counter-arguments. Yet he doesn’t see that his blind adherence to government propaganda could lead him down some dark roads. He has already rationalised extreme positions such as agreeing that the unvaxxed should not receive NHS medical treatment or travel on public transport. And those were just the examples I raised. What else does he agree with? Quarantine camps, such as those set up in Australia? We’ve all asked ourselves what we would have done if we were a gentile in 1930s Germany. The last 30 months have answered that question: F would have been an enforcer for the regime.

F thinks it is the height of bad taste to draw analogies with another minority group who were persecuted 90 years ago. Yet he doesn’t see that analogies need to be made to prevent history repeating itself

“Never forget” was the refrain in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Yet F is forgetting already. Worse than that, he doesn’t want to be reminded. It’s like we can’t even talk about the possibility that history might repeat itself until the death count is in the 7 figures, little realising that by then it’s too late. If we truly want to #NeverForget then we need to understand how the situation came to pass that the first person was killed for being different, and prevent that first person from being killed. Because it doesn’t start off with people being killed in camps, it starts off with people being denied access to public transport. It starts off with moderate, well-educated, reasonable Belgians thinking it is perfectly acceptable to remove rights from a minority of the population because they won’t take an unlicensed, experimental medical intervention.

The argument was between a rationalist and an ideologue; between a truth-seeker and a propagandist; between a critical thinker and an adherent of groupthink; between someone who prioritises freedom and someone who prioritises control; between someone willing to risk his reputation to call out illegal, immoral behaviour and a coward; between an extremist and a moderate.