One of the most memorable stories in Boswell’s Life of Johnson (1791) is about Johnson “passing by a fishmonger who was skinning an eel alive.” Johnson heard the fishmonger “curse it, because it would not lie still.” Boswell said the story was a “striking instance of human insensibility and inconsideration.” Those traits are still flourishing. If you think of the eel as ordinary White Britons and the fishmonger as Britain’s liberal elite, the elite are horrified and indignant that the lower orders won’t “lie still” as their country is invaded, their incomes slashed and their futures destroyed. The victory for Brexit in the EU referendum has been greeted by a howl of liberal rage. The lower orders did not vote as their ethical and intellectual superiors wanted them to.
“What nobler vision?”
Worse still, the lower orders refused to be swayed by the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, despite being clearly told that she was one of the saintliest women ever to draw breath. A Guardian editorial described the murder as both an “exceptionally heinous villainy” and, “in a very real sense, an attack on democracy.” The editorial went on:
Jo Cox, however, was not just any MP doing her duty. She was also an MP who was driven by an ideal. The former charity worker explained what that ideal was as eloquently as anyone could in her maiden speech last year. “Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration,” she insisted, “be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir. While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”
What nobler vision can there be than that of a society where people can be comfortable in their difference? And what more fundamental tenet of decency is there than to put first and to cherish all that makes us human, as opposed to what divides one group from another? These are ideals that are often maligned when they are described as multiculturalism, but they are precious nonetheless. They are the ideals which led Ms Cox to campaign tirelessly for the brutalised and displaced people of Syria, and — the most painful thought — ideals for which she may now have died. (The Guardian view on Jo Cox: an attack on humanity, idealism and democracy, The Guardian, 16th June 2016)
Pass a sickbag, please. Elsewhere, Jo Cox’s family said that “she was a human being and she was perfect.” She was described by her local vicar as “a 21st-century Good Samaritan” and as “someone with whom Jesus would have been so pleased.” There was a schmaltzy memorial service at Parliament led by Rose Hudson Wilson, the Black female chaplain of the House of Commons. The Labour MP Emily Thornberry, notorious for her contempt for White working-class men, recited from “a poem by Kurdish writer Zeki Majid called Mother’s Day.”
And liberals were in no doubt what lay behind the murder. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “She was taken from us in an act of hatred. … It is the well of hatred that killed her.” The new London mayor Sadiq Khan condemned “the climate of hatred, of poison, of negativity, of cynicism” and the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, son of the former Labour leader Neil “Windbag” Kinnock, demanded an end to “the hatred that killed Jo, the poison that has seeped into our politics in recent years, with increasing venom in the past weeks and months.”
The humanitarian-industrial complex
This festival of ostentatious public grief was strongly reminiscent of the hysteria that followed the death of Princess Diana. But there was a very important difference. In 1997 no-one pretended that Diana had been a saint. In 2016 the liberal elite were united in proclaiming the sanctity of Jo Cox. She had a noble vision of a Rainbow Britain. She was an eloquent champion of diversity, a tireless campaigner for “the brutalised and displaced people of Syria,” as the Guardian phrased it. And she used an informal version of her first name, just like Tony Blair. What greater proof of her sincerity and humility could there be?
I’m afraid I wasn’t convinced. To me, the grief festival proved nothing about Jo Cox, but did prove two things about the liberal elite: first, their remarkably exalted opinion of themselves; second, their utter intellectual bankruptcy. By heaping fulsome praise on Jo Cox for her idealism and compassion, they were celebrating themselves as much as her. After all, it was the liberal elite that had recognized her worthiness and put her in Parliament. After a degree in Social and Political Sciences at Cambridge, she spent years toiling in the humanitarian-industrial complex, building the contacts she needed to become an MP. She worked for Oxfam, campaigning for the Third World, and acted as an adviser to Glenys Kinnock, a European Member of Parliament whose husband Neil had been the verbose and ineffectual Labour leader during Margaret Thatcher’s time in Downing Street.
After she had thoroughly proved her goodthinkfulness, she was put on the all-female shortlist for a safe Labour seat in Yorkshire, won the nomination to stand at the 2015 General Election, and entered Parliament to sing the praises of diversity and campaign for lots more Muslims to enter Britain. But few people would have known her name when news reports of her murder were first broadcast. According to “Page Information” at Wikipedia, there were only twenty-eight visits to her biography there on 14th June 2016. She was murdered two days later and visits shot up to more than half-a-million. That demonstrates the power of the media — and of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign.
But the propaganda was intellectually bankrupt. As I pointed out in “Hearts of Darkness,” modern liberals pride themselves on their sophistication and discernment. In fact, their grasp of psychology and epistemology is crude in the extreme. While proclaiming their expertise in diagnosing the hatred, poison and negativity of their opponents, they demand that the purity of their own motives go unquestioned. Unlike the lower orders and the haters, they have attained perfect self-knowledge and can be sure that their noble motives have not a tincture of narcissism, insincerity or self-interest.
But even if their motives were truly selfless — and Tony Blair’s enormous wealth proves otherwise — their attitudes would still be intellectually bankrupt. It’s a truism of moral philosophy that the purity of a motive is no guarantee of the correctness of an action. It’s ludicrous to think that “caring” and feeling “compassion” gives one some special insight into how to heal the world’s suffering. Even if it did, do our liberal elite believe themselves exempt from the law of unintended consequences? Well, I think they don’t care about unintended consequences, so long as they can signal their virtue and feed their narcissism. Among her other noble work for the Third World, Jo Cox campaigned to “prevent deaths in pregnancy and childbirth.” In other words, she helped to increase the already soaring populations of very poor and badly governed nations in Africa.
“Her heart was so full of love…”
Is that a good thing? A pious liberal would gasp in horror to hear such a question. Only a hater could ask it. Jo Cox cared about “deaths in pregnancy and childbirth.” She was passionate about preventing them. Her motives were pure, her emotions politically correct, her behaviour approved by other liberals — what more does a humanitarian need?
As a hater, I would reply: A lot more. One should know something about the world before setting out to improve it. But do you think Jo Cox knew anything about psychometrics, human genetics or concepts like Smart Fraction Theory? She had a degree in Social and Political Sciences, but she didn’t enjoy her time at Cambridge. She said it was because she didn’t like the atmosphere of privilege there. I suspect she was like Michelle Obama and out of her intellectual depth, despite the softness and fatuity of her subject.
Either way, she certainly absorbed the Central Dogma of Liberalism: “There is only one race — the Human Race.” That’s why she didn’t question the value of helping populations with low average IQs to grow even faster. She also wanted to open Britain’s borders to Syrian refugees. Again, who but a hater could question the wisdom of allowing more inbred and clannish Muslims to enter Britain? As Stephen Kinnock wrote in the Guardian:
I can only imagine the outrage she would have felt if she had seen the poster that Nigel Farage unveiled just hours before her death, demonising hundreds of desperate refugees, including hungry, terrified children, fleeing from the terror of Islamic State, under the slogan “Breaking Point”. A poster Brendan, her husband, described as “vile” just hours before Jo’s assassination.
She had many other causes too, recently working with Sarah Brown and others right across the political spectrum on what she called the “epidemic of loneliness” in our society. She deplored the toxic environment that was enveloping our politics. The spreading of fear and the pandering to prejudice. Her heart was so full of love that the politics of hate was alien to her. (Those saying we must ‘take our country back’ need to realise the consequences, The Guardian, 20th June 2016)
Another sickbag, please. If you want to see where Stephen Kinnock’s self-righteous posturing leads, look at the Labour council in Rotherham. They opposed the “politics of hate” by allowing Muslim rape-gangs to prey on White women and girls year in, year out. There were many “terrified children” in Rotherham and the response of the love-filled Labour council was to assist the criminals. It condemned anyone who pointed out what was going on as a hateful racist who was sowing “division” between communities.
That self-righteous liberal attitude is found right across the West. Liberals who allow mass immigration from violent and corrupt Third-World nations can — and do — congratulate themselves on their own nobility and compassion. In liberal eyes, such loving actions strengthen social bonds and help communities to flourish. When Nigel Farage opposes mass immigration and its consequences, he’s being hateful and divisive. That vile poster proves that he and Ukip have the blood of Jo Cox on their hands.
But I’d suggest that liberals’ real problem with the poster isn’t its hatefulness, but its accurate portrayal of reality. The crowd of migrants is overwhelmingly young, male and physically fit. At least two of the young males are concealing their faces from the camera in a highly suspicious way. How hateful of Farage to confront us with reality like that! Liberals want us to see the “migrant crisis” through a haze of mendacious sentimentality instead. That’s why they constantly portray the migrants as harmless women and helpless, traumatized children.
Stale pale haters
It’s also why their first reaction after the Cologne vibrancy was censorship and denial. When reality contradicts liberal fantasies, it’s obvious to liberals that reality has to give way. Facts are “toxic”: we should run our politics on fantasy and feelings. That’s what Jo Cox did, so who but a hater could disagree? This liberal dislike of reality explains a notable omission from their extensive commentary on the Martyrdom of Jo. If you want an earlier example of how a “toxic environment” can provoke the murder of a politician, why not discuss the assassination of the Dutchman Pim Fortuyn in May 2002? Yes, he was a stale pale male, but he was also a flamboyant homosexual with “liberal views favouring the drug policy of the Netherlands, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and related positions.”
Why do Fortuyn’s fellow liberals not mention him as an earlier example of the dangers of hate during the febrile atmosphere of a political campaign? Well, it would be hard for them to do that, because it was a liberal hate campaign that led to his murder. He was called a “racist” for opposing Muslim immigration into Holland on the obvious ground that it was bad for liberal democracy and for homosexuals such as himself. He received death-threats, but the Dutch authorities declined to provide him with security. A White left-winger called Volkert van der Graaf was then able to shoot him dead as he campaigned during the Dutch general election.
Two years later, in November 2004, another Dutch liberal, the film-maker Theo van Gogh, was assassinated by the much more vibrant Mohammed Bouyeri, a Moroccan Muslim who shot him eight times and then added an authentically Islamic touch by slitting his throat. Van Gogh, a friend and ally of Pim Fortuyn, also went unmentioned after the Martyrdom of Jo. This omission is also easy to explain: he was assassinated for mocking Islam and making a film about Koranic misogyny.
First Brexit, then betrayal
In other words, Fortuyn and van Gogh had it coming. So will Nigel Farage if he is stabbed or shot, as many loving liberals fervently wish he will be. Fortuyn and van Gogh were stale pale haters, opposing Europe’s enrichment by Muslim vibrancy, and they are rightly forgotten by the liberal media today. Jo Cox was completely different: she was a saintly woman who wanted lots more Muslim immigration. That her murder did not convince the lower orders to vote “Remain” is further proof of their hatefulness and stupidity in liberal eyes. Well, I’m a hater, so I disagree with that conclusion.
Big MAMA is watching you
Now we have the new liberal hysteria about the tsunami of “hate crime” that has allegedly been triggered by the Brexit hate-quake. Thought-criminals have been at work up and down the country, spraying hate-graffiti, printing hate-leaflets and saying hate-words to Persons of Vibrancy. Tell MAMA, a government-funded Muslim organization that works with the Jewish Community Security Trust to monitor “Islamophobia,” has described a shocking rise in “far-right chatter” fuelled by the vile rhetoric of the Brexit campaign.
The good news is that the lower orders are rejecting the Rainbow Britain imposed on them against their will by the liberal elite. Ordinary Whites have been the victims of murder, rape and ethnic cleansing for decades, but those crimes don’t count in liberal eyes. Just like the fishmonger in Dr Johnson’s story, who cursed a struggling eel as he skinned it alive, the liberal elite are filled with indignation at the behaviour of their inferiors. Why can’t they obey orders and accept their own destruction? The modern Church of England does not defend ordinary Whites; instead, it collaborates with the anti-Christian elite and shares its bloated self-regard.
Reign of the Saints
It was someone from an older generation of Anglicans who criticized the psychology of liberals like Jo Cox, Jeremy Corbyn, Emily Thornberry and Stephen Kinnock. It’s plain that they see themselves as paragons of virtue, sanctified by the purity and nobility of their motives, and entitled to do entirely as they please in pursuit of their fantasies. The Anglican writer C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) pointed out the dangers of such narcissism and arrogance when he said this:
I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication. (C.S. Lewis on theocracy)
Lewis was an old-fashioned liberal Anglican who didn’t allow his ego to rule his intellect. His words apply perfectly to Jo Cox and the rest of the liberal elite. They are narcissistic theocrats intoxicated by contemplation of their own virtue. While loudly proclaiming the virtues of democracy, education and progress, they’ve imported millions of non-Whites from the most illiberal, intellectually backward and anti-progressive nations on earth. They’ve preached feminism and promoted rape. They’ve censored, lied and demonized in the pursuit of risible fantasies like human equality and a Rainbow Europe.
And now, having sown the wind, they’re blaming the approaching whirlwind on everyone but themselves. Mass immigration by low-IQ, clannish, criminally inclined Third-Worlders should have strengthened advanced Western nations. If it hasn’t, it must be the fault of ordinary Whites. How dare they object to vibrancy and enrichment? They should shut up and obey their betters. Those have been the messages of the liberal elite, decade after decade.
Alas, the lower orders are no longer shutting up or obeying. Brexit was only a warning tremor: the real hate-quakes are still to come. And when they finally hit the vast edifice of liberalism, the words of Jesus will be true once again: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.”