When Will the Left Accept That Public Anger is Not “Manufactured”?
“There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” So muses Shakespeare’s Hamlet, as he dithers about avenging his murdered father, the late King of Denmark. Those familiar with the play will know why a philosophy of moral subjectivism seems attractive to the procrastinating prince. Hamlet knows that in neglecting to kill the usurper, Claudius, he is failing to do his duty as revealed to him by his father’s ghost. But what if good and bad were mere ideas, just the fruit of one’s “thinking”? Then, as long as Hamlet could convince himself that the reign of the treasonous, adulterous Claudius is not such a bad thing – that the state of Denmark was not so “rotten” after all – this would seem to absolve him of any duty to address this burning wrong. Hamlet could go precisely on as he was, without needing, painfully, to admit his failure to himself – and, harder still, to do something about it.
Like Hamlet, today’s embattled liberal political class, wedded to failed Blairite ideals and with public support for them in total collapse, prefers to imagine its problems are wholly immaterial. Among many reasons for discontent, the public are most furious about immigration, an anger that underpins the seemingly inexorable rise of Reform UK. With MRP polls predicting a comfortable Reform majority at the next election, this is of course the BlueSky classes’ worst nightmare. What they cannot face admitting is that this surge of populist feeling is well-earned – that ‘multiculturalism’ was always a foolish ideal and that it is only natural for the public to have come to despise those who have foisted it on them. They would prefer to believe that after years of culturally and economically enriching immigration and far-sighted rule by sensible technocrats, all is hunky-dory in the state of Britain. They are mystified that the British electorate could be so unenlightened as to look at their country today and want anything but this.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The only consolation I have is that like me Blair and Campbell are getting older and less relevant, however hard they try to resist. Campbell may eventually drink himself to death and how Blair hasn’t been bumped off I have no idea. Can’t bear their meddling and pronouncements as if we await their every word. Enjoyed the essay thank you which has lessened the despair I feel this Sunday morning.
Bliar probably sleeps in a Coffin ! Now where’s that wooden fence post 🤔
Sadly, it’s only the good who die young. We’re cursed with the likes of Campbell and Blair for some time to come. Although if Blair gets sent to Gaza, I suppose there’s hope.
I doubt the many useful idiots on the left will ever accept it because they are convinced that they are wise and that opinions of the unwashed masses cannot, do not and must not count because those opinions are arrived at by people who are uneducated and intellectually inferior.
The left cheat and lie their way to power. They can never be elected but truth and facts.
It does seem that the problem the inappropriately termed “elite” have is they talk in theoretical or ideological ways. They simply have to dismiss criticism otherwise their theories break down and they have to then modify their theoretical position. Clearly it impossible for them to do so because it would prove them wrong. Instead they universally retreat behind socialist, manipulative BS, such as rights and values (theirs of course). They fail to see that their lame attempts to convince people that their rights are being upheld because they have been championing so many minority groups that they are now in conflict with themselves and the general population. As far as immigration is concerned it’s clear that the population are fed up with it all and to make matters worse it is has reached the point where the migrant groups are now at each others throats because we have imported every single conflict in the world, which is now being played out with demonstrations on the street and the unfortunate terrorist atrocities of late and the recent past. I think the only way to make these people understand is to take a leaf out of the Blair game-plan and rub their… Read more »
I think this essay highlights a very important difference between the left and the right.
Yes, the left truly believes that it can manufacture reality and human nature is infinitely malleable. To the extent that, fir example, a man can turn into a woman.
The traditional view is that God created reality and certain things are the way they are because he willed it. So, going back to the same example, He created man and woman. The reality He created is as solid as, say, the laws of gravity. You may not like the laws of gravity when you are falling off a cliff but you have no way of overriding them.
The leftist view is a form of infernal rage against this idea. No, we set the rules! If we so choose, a man can turn into a woman. In a similar way, there are no moral absolutes either: if we want to kill the kulaks/political enemies/economically inactive people (“assisted suicide”), etc we can because we set the rules. Forcing any reality into existence is just a matter of power, if people don’t embrace the fake reality, then that can be fixed by re-educating them.
Indeed. Thomas Sowell said something similar about the right accepting human nature is flawed and will always be so, and that everything is a tradeoff, whereas the left purport to believe that you can perfect society if only you get the institutions right. Another crucial difference, to me, is that the left are much keener than the right on imposing their “solutions” on others, whereas the natural instinct of the right is to leave individuals freer to act within a basic framework of obvious laws (ordered liberty). If you believe than things can be perfected, it will be easier to justify tyranny.
Exactly.
The right accepts that human nature is inherently flawed and we live in an imperfect world. We can only strive to make things better but ultimately because of our flawed human nature we can only ever find imperfect solutions. Also – and I think this is especially a key point with Christianity – to make the world better, you have to make yourself better. Your own flawed human nature contributes to the overall brokenness of the world.
The left wants to implement utopia, the perfect society. It assumes that human nature is infinitely malleable and therefore mankind can be perfected. Those who are not infinitely malleable need to be eliminated, thus we are only a few million corpses away from the perfect society. The perfection of human nature is “progress”, such leftist ideas are always “progressive”.
I’m not a Christian but I do try to focus on getting my own house in order and being a good father and husband before I put too much energy into worrying about what everyone else is doing.
That’s the best thing you can do.
And, incidentally, that’s also Matthew 7:5.
The natural instinct of the right is that a good state is one ruled by just and dilligent and enterprising monarch. Think Prussia under Friedrich II. Anything else is left-wing. In particular, liberalism is (a left-wing ideology forced onto Germany in 1918/19) and so-called libertarianism is nothing but communism fulfilled: The state as now useless instrument of oppression by some dominanting class of “oppressors” has withered away and everyone’s happily living in a world of communal anarchy.
Unfortunately, since the imperfection of people, let alone their outright malice and selfishness at times, this will never be achieved.
I’ve no objection to some form of constitutional monarchy, as long as they leave me alone as far as is reasonable.
I was intentionally referring to an absolutist monarchy. But at a certain size, that’s probably simply no longer practical. A constitutional monarchy would be ok, too. But only one where the monarch actually has political power and isn’t just an ‘fancy dress’ extension of a parliament.
Maybe but what would you do about terrible monarchs?
Myself? Probably nothing, like most other people. I’ve been consciously living through more than forty years of terrible governments, sometimes with and sometimes without a so-called right to vote. The change of government I most ‘fondly’ (sarcasm) remember was from Helmut Kohl’s CDU – FDP coalition to the first Red/Green cabinet led by Gerhard Schröder. Kohl had become chancellor instead of Helmut Schmidt (SPD) after a vote-of-no confidence triggered by the the FDP absconding from the SPD – FDP coalition led by Schmidt in 1982. Minus the so-called German re-unification it didn’t earn (but at least achieved – the SPD would have absolutely loved to keep the GDR alive as this would have meant another German government where SPD politicians could get government posts) the Kohl-government did mainly two things: It’s so-called “cheque book diplomacy” foreign policy, ie, generously bribing foreign politicians with German money to make them do or not do something (the USA usually wanted them to do or not do) and in the area of domestic politics, the continuous salami slicing cutback of the welfare state. Kohl’s political end as chancellor was mired in scandal when it became known that he had, over the course of the… Read more »
Maybe
If Charles or his likely successor had political power all I can imagine them using it for is stopping Reform forming a government or blocking their legislation
The traditional division was that the king or people appointed by the king governed the country and had to come to terms with parliament or something like it in order to raise new taxes or create new laws. Hence, with the king performing his real function in the UK, there wouldn’t even be prime minister as leader of cabinet as this post was just created because the first Hannover king couldn’t lead the cabinet himself because his English was too poor and he wasn’t particularly interested in changing this situation. Because of this, the situation you’re thinking of couldn’t ever occur.
I agree that granting political powers to Charles III. would probably be a very bad idea but the guy is an old fool people in earlier times might well have declared mad and thus, prevented from ever becoming king, who lead a hassle-free life without responsibility for anything save being an extremely well-paid actor who has to play certain costume rules and he comes from a family whose members have been doing this and nothing but this for a few generations.
“Well paid actor” Lol – spot on.
The system is not dissimilar to the US system – the interaction between the executive and legislative branches – except in the US case the Chief Executive is elected.
Who do you think should be able to elect MPs in this system?
My half-baked ideas about this would be: Divide the country into regions which have some form of internal coherence but with complete disregard for the number of people living there (ie, without preferring cities over urban areas) and let people living in some region who aren’t dependent on welfare elect a representative for the region from among themselves. Political parties are to be strictly prohibited. That’s obviously not going to work but it’s only supposed to work for as much as it can. These would form a chamber whose consent would be mandatory for any form of taxation, with tax laws created in this way only being valid until changed or until the next election. The chamber has a right to be heard on all other matters, that is, it may provide written advice to the government on any topic (decided by majority wrote) the government mustn’t simply ignore. It must either accept it and act accordingly or provide a written justification for not doing so and defend that (with arguments, obviously) in a parliamentary session dedicated to that topic. I’m, however, not convinced that my half-baked ideas really make sense. There’s, however, a historical fact: From 1871 – 1914,… Read more »
Doesn’t seem completely unreasonable. I wonder how similar it is to what we had in the UK in that same time period. Certainly working people did not all have the vote – only people with property.
Fundamentally Socialists believe that people are born as ‘blank slates’, which may be perfected by (their) social education, and thus lead to a glorious Utopia.
But people are not born as ‘blank slates’. It is a fallacy. But then the effectiveness of social education and the glory of Utopia are also fallacies. Which is why Socialist politicians work so hard to convince people that reality is malleable.
Oh, very much so.
Lenin was totally excited by Pavlov’s experiments with dogs and assumed that just like a dog can be conditioned to develop a salivating reflex when a bell is sounded, the new communist man will be a similarly “reprogrammed” human being.
I have an idea for the opening of a novel (film?) about the civil war that results: an armed man stands on a pile of bones. The bones are those of his enemies. The ones who caused him to have to be standing there.
‘Pro-immigration academic Jonathan Portes insists bluntly that “the terms of this debate are wrong”, as if one can dictate public feeling on immigration in the pages of the Guardian. Like King Cnut, Portes imagines he can hold back the tide of fury about sectarianism, grooming gangs and terror attacks by browbeating the electorate into “recognising that our attractiveness to migrants, especially to those who want to come here to work and study, is a huge comparative advantage, not a problem”.’
The irony is that Portes is right, it is a comparative advantage. Quite apart from the absurdly generous way this country treats its illegal immigrants, this is a country in which a hard-working and able immigrant is more likely to thrive than in most of its neighbours. It is a land of opportunity. But that is where the pro ‘asylum seeker’ lobby goes wrong. We should use it to our advantage and be far stricter about those who we allow to settle here.
Who are those people in the photograph?
A double act from over 20 years ago called the Two Lying C*nts.
It is a characteristic of the Left that they almost always want to change the terms of the debate, because they only ever want to fight from the top of a downhill slope.
Rory Stewart’s self pitying, manipulative bleating is one of the most repulsive sounds available on the internet
I thought he was meant to be a fairly subtle comedy act. You mean, he’s for real?
Good points well made by Rafe. And I’ll hazard a guess the figure is higher than 9%, it’s just that only 9% of people answered honestly; ”Of the 45,000 people on MI5’s terror watch list, over 90% are jihadis That’s larger than the entire size of Hamas on Oct 7 and it’s larger than the ISIS army that launched its Iraq offensive in 2014 It’s half the size of the full-time British Army By 2050, the MI5 terror watch list could be larger than the British Army If those stats aren’t alarming enough, polling shows that (at least) 9% of UK Muslims admit to being jihadis, extremists or supporters of terrorism 9% of the UK Muslim population is approx. 350,000 – 400,000 people As the Muslim population rises, this figures could double in the next two decades Yes, of course many Muslims are well adjusted and integrated. That’s to be celebrated. But we must not pretend – as our political and media class pretend – that extremist views are only held by a tiny “fringe minority” A sizable percentage – hundreds of thousands or more – hold views, attitudes and beliefs that are abhorrent to our society and our way… Read more »
Meanwhile, disgraceful from this load of muck-spreading liberal Jews. Are these the same lot that had Tommy forcibly removed from the protest by approx 20 police and where he was pepper sprayed? He’s been invited to Israel and is going after his upcoming court case;
“Tommy Robinson is a thug who represents the very worst of Britain. His presence undermines those genuinely working to tackle Islamist extremism and foster community cohesion. Minister Chikli has proven himself to be a Diaspora Minister in name only. In our darkest hour, he has ignored the views of the vast majority of British Jews, who utterly and consistently reject Robinson and everything he stands for.”
https://x.com/BoardofDeputies/status/1974570236931412253
Thank you for discovering this. Have already had to change from my wet progressive synagogue who parrot Hamas propaganda. Will have to stop contributing to BoD again who are far to keen to ingratiate themselves with the Govt. line.
This presents a difficulty for a non Jew who wants to express support for Jewish friends and then finds they are not supporters of Netanyahu or Israel’s military action.
Thanks for your support.For many reasons I would find it difficult to be a member of the mainstream United synagogue, but they the majority and its Chief Rabbi are fully supportive of Israels military etc. The problem with the liberals etc.(on this and other things) they still want to appear to be more kind and considerate virtuous etc.
If you’re a member of the “Elite” I expect mass immigration and multiculturalism has been very “enriching.”
Diversity of restaurants to visit.
Cheap servants (nannies, tradesmen, gardeners etc).
Property values driven up.
So many increased opportunities to make money.
Increased opportunities to network abroad …. and make money.
“Job” opportunities within the State/Quangocracy/legal profession managing the chaos mass immigration and multiculturalism has created.
Win, win, win for them.
Lose, lose, lose for the native British population.
Keir Cnut is the very model of a modern major minister. He tells the immigrant boats to stop, but they keep coming. He tries to resist the rise of Reform but they keep coming. He tries to reduce State spending but it keeps coming. He tries to reduce others’ contrary speech but it keeps coming.
So, of course, the problem is other people who are all far Right. Even if they don’t control the levers of the State.
“You should never overestimate the extent to which the BBC changed this country by giving endless airtime to Nigel Farage…”
Funny – given the amount of airtime Labour and the Lib Dumbs gave Nigel Farage at their recent conferences.
Failure of “comms”: is exactly the refrain of the Climatists who after 30 years of near monopoly over the “comms”, complain that the reason why the public no longer see “climate” as a “crisis” is they have failed to get their message across and which is being undermined by “climate deniers”.
And… where exactly is this “Right-wing” media? I suppose “over there” with the “Far-Right”.
The Left has invented its own delusions.
‘cutting the half-time orange’.
These people are taking a fruit knife to a machete fight. However you slice it, the public see that we are getting ever smaller segments of the fruits of our labour. No wonder support is peeling away to the R parties.
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself there!)