Tea at Trianon: The Hector’s Veto

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Thursday, May 7, 2026

The Hector’s Veto

From The New Criterion:

In contemporary Western society, taking offense (and encouraging others to do so) appears to have become a major pastime. Increasingly few people seem simply to reflect silently on odious behavior when they witness it, or are inclined simply to put it down to ignorance and move on. The required response has become, to use a popular modern term, “performative.” Making it clear to the world that one is graphically offended by anything approaching racial unpleasantness and certain other modern taboos—many of them bred of identity politics of one sort or another—has now become something of a social necessity. It was interesting to note, at the time of the death of George Floyd in 2020, how many of those (around the world) who sought to use this regrettable event for political purposes were white, middle-class people who have never been at the receiving end of racial abuse of any sort in their lives. Some such people who expressed outrage did so, we must be sure, from fellow feeling about the needless death of another human being, some out of guilt at their “white privilege,” but some, unfortunately, because they saw this man’s death as a political opportunity to entice others, of all ethnicities, into a coalition of grievance against the established order.

Only a brute would dispute the ignorance and vileness of overtly racist behavior or attempt to condone it, and society rightly deplores it. But the treatment of this justified taboo has advanced to an extreme degree: to behave as a racist, even without causing physical harm or material loss, has become one of the worst acts in which anyone in Western society can engage. Society always used to punish those who breached taboos by straightforward disapproval or ostracism—in Britain until the 1950s, for examples, divorcées were not welcome in royal circles, because the Established Church disapproved of divorce (remember Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson) and the monarch was the Supreme Governor of that church. But now, ostracism and disdain are not enough; legal remedies are demanded against perpetrators. Why has social vindictiveness reached this pitch? There have been indisputable outrages in which people are injured or die in attacks in which the motivation is plainly the assailant’s hatred of them on account of their race. That, though, is not the sole reason for the taboo’s elevation to a criminal act. In certain parts of society, offensiveness can be and is weaponized by those with political causes to pursue.

The practice of virtue signaling, if perhaps not the virtue signaler, is in its ubiquity relatively new. There is a class of person who covets approbation from his or her peers by pointing to breaches of a taboo and publicly shaming the person who has breached it. These types have always existed—one came across them at school—but now they abound and are encouraged in their quest. Such people do not always by accident come across language or conduct that offends them: they go and look for it, in keeping with taking offense having become something of a pastime. They also look for it in order to exploit it, or to attempt to exploit it, for political reasons. The strategy includes the need to persuade others less alert than themselves that they, too, should be offended. And no one can claim credit from their peers as a virtue signaler more rapidly and comprehensively than someone who has identified anything that might qualify as “racist” behavior. It is not merely a taboo now, it is a bludgeon; it can be career-ending and reputation-wrecking. The more terminal the damage the virtue signaler can inflict on the alleged racist, the more worthy of respect (in the world of virtue signaling) that person is. Winning esteem in the world of virtue signalers brings deep satisfaction to the politically motivated and the self-righteous. In addition to using this tried and tested reason for vilification, the community is always on the lookout for new taboos, or acts or language that can become taboo, to expand the repertoire. (Read more.)