Editor’s letter

Both at home and abroad, the market for intolerance and illiberalism is as strong as ever. In Florida, there will be no AP African-American studies, lest high school students’ unformed minds be exposed to the curse of critical race theory (see Controversy, p.6). But on the other hand, make sure not to buy the new Harry Potter video game, Hogwarts Legacy, lest you seem to be endorsing J.K. Rowling’s ostensibly retrograde views on gender (Film, p.26). Do buy Salman Rushdie’s new novel, Victory City (Books, p.23)—it’s a great book, and the least you can do considering how many assassination attempts he’s survived since offending the wrong mullah. But wait! Don’t forget about the young people—both Muslims and Hindus—slaughtered and imprisoned by Hindu fundamentalists because they fell in love with someone of another faith (Last Word, p.40).

“The propagandist’s purpose,” said Aldous Huxley (Wit & Wisdom, p.17) “is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.” This very concise insight goes a long way toward explaining why the news is perennially filled with so many disturbing stories of intolerance, hatred, and suppression. There are of course differences in degree. Boycotting a book is not the same as killing a writer. Banning a class is not the same as murdering a newlywed couple. But whatever the precise stakes, the game is always played the same way: The propagandist always claims “They are trying to erase us, so we must nullify them first.” And the goal is always maximum publicity: You only need to shut down one writer or kill one couple to discourage a thousand others. Jacques Ellul, in his classic study of propaganda, underlines that the propagandist is never a “true believer”—manipulation is the point. There is no perfect inoculation against this. But whenever anyone asks you to ban something or hate someone, it’s always worth ask- ing, What’s in it for them?