The culture of naming and shaming anyone who does not agree with a particular partisan view is a plague of epic proportions. We see protests and cancellation of speakers at a university because they define gender with reference to genetics. We see protests, cancellation and even dismissal from their jobs and prosecutions for isolated examples of bad behaviour several decades earlier when it was unremarkable and on-line bullying of anyone who dares to point out that mass digging by keyboard warriors has failed to produce more recent behaviour of the sort complained of.

The willingness of not only unregulated social media and blogs with no obligation to provide balance, fair or even true reporting but also mainstream media to see a hashtag as a "movement" creates a hostility to anyone who does not follow the real politik of the day. The ire poured onto people who say "all lives matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" (a curiously US problem that has some militant following in other countries) is an example.

The concept of "solidarity", perhaps today we should call it the "cult", went global in 1980 when a broadly centre-left populist movement caught the attention of the world's media. The movement (in this case the term seems justified) found a leader in a humble, spectacularly moustachioed, Lech Wałęsa. A trade union, the first in a Soviet Bloc country, was formed in the Lenin Shipyard in Gdańsk, Poland and soon its protests in favour of improved workers' rights put the left-wing media in a dilemma. Did it support a hard-line government with Communist/Socialist credentials against the workers? Was this communism's existential threat: Marxism (up the workers) v Lenin (do as you're told or face harsh retribution).

Marxism won which is ironic as fundamentally what Solidarity was fighting against was homogenisation of society and, of course, thought but it turns out that Marxism is just a different type of totalitarianism, like Maoism.

The demands to think in an approved manner are inculcated, indoctrinated into people from many sources: religions, political and social-isms, radicalisms and a desire to belong. It is no surprise that the most rapid growth of online hostility came about during two years of on-off lockdowns during the CoVid-19 pandemic which led to emotional and intellectual isolation, even if there was some relief from physical isolation. People needed, far more than simply wanted, to belong to something and a shallow, quick and dirty reposting or comment, from the anonymity of one's own home, became a way of thinking that person was making a difference.

But the roots are much older. We can look at the cases where a company publicly apologises because someone says "good morning Ladies and Gentlemen" and sends that person for "sensitivity training." But that's not where it started.

We could look at the Pol Pot era in Cambodia where people were imprisoned in torture centres and death camps such as S-21 if they lifted their eyes as they walked or did not wear their uniforms in the approved manner or were denounced, often by their own children, a trial being unnecessary.

IMAGE (c) James Morris-Cotterill

We could look at the Second World War where fascists demanded that citizens denounce those who did not think as required, at the various revolutions of the turn of the 20th Century or the French Revolution where denouncement as a royalist led to death after a cursory trial and, of course, witch trials in many parts of the world. Punishment without trial for trivial or even imagined offences was, and remains, common, at least in the court of social media as reported by lazy journalists who think trawling twitter is investigating a story so giving oxygen to the otherwise inconsequential and turning a hot log into a forest fire.

We could even look at Tang Dynasty (A.D 600 - 1000, approx) where we see the beginnings of the growth of power in the hands of bureaucrats where they make, interpret and enforce the law. In A History of Hong Kong, Frank Welsh wrote "The Chinese Civil Service was based upon recruitment through a system of strictly controlled examinations. In assessing merit polished style was paramount: learning [of Confucianism] and counted for something but originality was positively discouraged..[after successfully passing three sets, usually at age about 24 they were admitted to the "lowest ranks of the gentry" whereupon] "it took a further ten years of dedicated study .." before the final examination "before the emperor himself...it is hardly surprising that successful candidates were "stunned into submissiveness and became cautious and meek officials of the Court.""

This is an early example of where the punishment for independent thought was to be ostracised, what today, some people call "cancelled".

Welsh says "Undeniably those who survived the rigours of unremitting competition had qualities of resilience and toughness but the suppression of original thought often led to a crippling incapacity to react to new circumstances, which was to have serious effects. When faced with the baffling new problems of the nineteenth century barbarians..even men of great personal ability ... could do little more than repeat previously successful responses and to fall back on platitudes."

The fact is that, as I note in "Understanding Suspicion in Financial Crime" people like to cluster, to be with "people like me" and in recent years we have seen the growth of the expression "people who look like me."

There is no sense of irony in those who define themselves as belonging to one group and decrying another, so long as those creating the insults do so from a position of feeling in some way victimised or, more often, know or has read a hashtagged post by someone who feels victimised. So those who would be up in arms at a group for middle-aged, white, male lawyers see no irony in a society for black lawyers or a "women in law" group.

There is often a complete lack of common sense by those who have adopted a particular stance: a publican lost his home and livelihood when a customer made a report of an alleged hate crime because the publican's wife displayed a collection of antique dolls that the customer decided were inappropriate; there was a group of white youths who pulled down a statue and threw it into a harbour in "solidarity" with "Black Lives Matter" and were acquitted of all charges; a veteran bank manager was awarded substantial damages after taking part in compulsory "sensitivity training" during which he asked the black presenter, when discussing "the N Word", "what do I do if a black person says N....?" with the result that the presenter claimed he had been upset by the word and the manager was dismissed.

I had to put "the N word" because LinkedIn's systems would delete this article if used the N word, regardless of the context, and may well ban me because, according to their "community guidelines" it was offensive. This is an example of just how facile the argument is: it's a substitute so everyone knows what the word is. If you are offended by the N word, then you should be equally offended by "The N word."

All the changes in different terminology for mental and physical disability are similarly pointless - whatever is used is going to be used as a derogatory term, and often not about the person suffering from the condition so talking about Snow White and the Seven Little People is not a solution, even if there's a problem.

Nor is the entirely false narrative that the Robertson's Gollies were born of racism: actually, they were, like Golly in the Noddy Books, exactly the opposite of racism. They were tools to encourage integration; tools to say that Black People and, later. Indians were "people like us" regardless of the colour of their skin. They were doctors, policemen, bus drivers, shopkeepers and scout masters and pretty much every other job you can think of and they had fun, roller skating, playing soccer and more. Was there a broadly similar characteristic, even caricature, style? Yes because that was the point: people might not look like you but they are like you in the ways that matter.

It is the failure to think beyond the immediate, narrow and shallow, that is one reason dissenting voices are hard to find. The Financial Action Task Force has a training college in Korea: it doesn't educate - it teaches people The FATF Way. It does not respond to suggestions that some contrary views should be introduced.

Several regulators have a particular certification company embedded and works closely with it to produce training that lacks balance. Critical thinking is discouraged and, because they control who may deliver approved training, we are now into the third or fourth generation of money laundering reporting officers who have been processed in a way that is not too far removed from the officials of the Tang Dynasty.

But it's worse: I was once sacked from a conference during the lunch break because a representative of a sponsor learned that I was going to expand upon his presentation. He had said to use the internet to find out about people; I decided to use it to find out about him and what I found would, without doubt, have coloured the audience's view of him. What I found was entirely true and in his own words in a website he owned. Word got about: I was a loose canon. No similar conference in that country has invited me to speak since and that was more than 20 years ago. Clearly, saying something that might negatively affect a sponsor is unwelcome. Truth be damned.

It hasn't stopped me. Speaking an event recently, in that country but organised by an industry group, I was asked about aggregation in relation to cash transaction thresholds and I said that whoever designed it was "a moron." It is not a word I regret using (I could explain why I am right but then I'd have to bill you).

Recently, I was asked in a broadcast why regulatory regimes don't achieve the objective of reducing crime and I said "it's because regulators are stupid." I stand by that. I can explain that, too.

I have told audiences that the relationship between regulators and consulting companies is corrupt and I'll continue to say it. Because it's true.

The good stuff is there but it's not easy to find.

So, why is this not often heard on conference platforms? It's because the conferences are organised by regulators and regulator-adjacent bodies and they don't want dissent; they don't want anyone to lift their eyes; they want a homogenised society (except where they get political brownie points for "diversity" and "inclusion" but those things are part of a homegonised regime). And if, as we do, we invite them to take part in a Forum where they may be questioned, they don't want to appear. They want a room full of nodding donkeys who turn up for the free lunch and go away believing the message as if they've been to a Steve Jobs launch of another "Amazing" product and bearing a goodie bag full of new acronyms and buzzwords.

Where conferences are sponsored by vendors, they don't want someone who will challenge the very existence of "artificial intelligence" and can back it up and explain to potential victims, I should say "customers", what the tech actually does and its limitations.

Where conferences are sponsored by big law firms and accountancy/consultantcy companies, they don't want someone who has, for 30 years, tried to hold the line against the complex and ultimately counter-productive regimes that are their bread which is buttered on both sides as they sell to the regulators and the regulated - and then, mostly, say "oops" when a client gets into trouble with the regulator. Conflict of interests abound, just as much as corruption.

So, don't speak up. Don't blow the whistle on the stupidity and corruption of the system because if you do, no one will ask you to speak.

Or, to put it another way, critical thinking and independent thought are under attack from all sides and unless we want, at least figuratively, to be walking around in a grey uniform with a peaked cap, too afraid to lift our eyes, we must do something about it. But we are smothered by self-interest, self-righteousness and self-aggrandisement. It's a powerful and, so far as society is concerned, deadly cocktail.

That, Mr Academic, is why you have to look harder. I'm not the only one. I know some very clever academics who really get this stuff and I know three or four people who sit on industry panels and, in private, can say what they think. They don't use words like "stupid." And they get frustrated because they are almost always shouted down or outvoted by others with a common self-interest.

That's why I started The Financial Crime Forum in 1999 with an ethos that continues today of only great academics, experienced practitioners and no vendors except in carefully identified slots, no big consultancy companies and why I recently created several of the channels on FinCrimeTV. It's for the stuff that you won't hear elsewhere. It's why I write my books: since 1996 and "how not to be a money launderer" I've gone against the grain and fought against short-terminism.

Derogation from the norm exists: I know because I sow it and I harvest it and I bake it into sustenance for those who are fed up with a diet of tasteless and insubstantial gruel with no (intellectual) nutritional value. But it's a tiny share of a huge market dominated by group-think.

One thing remains to be said: critical thinking is not about being critical. It's not about jamming your "socials" with hashtags to make someone's life miserable until they do what you, or someone you think you might enjoy a cup of kale minced with lemon and lime telling you to what do. It's not about telling people they are stupid even when they are. It's actually the first step in fixing stuff.

It's identifying the problem so we can start to find a solution, bearing in mind that, as I've said for decades, there are no solutions, only better managed risk.

When your company, regulator or government policy team wants to make things better, contact me by DM or viawww.countermoneylaundering.com for consultancy, training and (sh..) education.

Further Reading :

Walsh, F. A history of Hong Kong. https://amzn.to/4eXuhJy

Morris-Cotterill, N. Understanding Suspicion in Financial Crime. https://amzn.to/3YcsWYW

Morris-Cotterill, N. How not to be a money launderer (1996 original print files in a PDF) https://vortexcentrum.com/elan/ebookshop/hownotcover

Steve Jobs explains the concept of the iPad to an invited audience: https://www.pleasebeinformed.com/publications/Conversazioni_Fittizie/st…

FinCrimeTV: youtube.com/@fincrimetv

The Financial Crime Forum: www.thefinancialcrimeforum.com

Links to physical books are links to Amazon and we will receive commissions on purchases at no additional cost to you.