The Woke Left is Reaping the Whirlwind
Progressives like to talk about the ‘authoritarian Right’ as if it arrived from outer space in a red baseball cap. In reality, parties like AfD in Germany, Wilders’s PVV in the Netherlands, Le Pen’s National Rally in France, Meloni’s Brothers for Italy and Farage’s Reform in the UK are a delayed reaction to something that happened first.
They are what you get when a self-anointed elite decides to rewrite the moral software of Western civilisation, then calls anyone who objects a bigot.
Every civilisation runs on an operating system. In the West it is a messy yet effective fusion of Judeo-Christian ethics and Enlightenment rationalism. The first insisted that the individual soul mattered more than the tribe. The second insisted that truth must answer to evidence, not authority. Together they gave us equal treatment under law, free conscience, universal human rights and mutual responsibility.
History shows us that whenever a new priesthood decides that this inheritance is oppressive and must be ‘deconstructed’, the result is rarely liberation. The Jacobins’ ‘Cult of Reason’ gave way to Napoleon, Weimar decadence to Hitler, Lenin’s vanguard to a grim Soviet backlash, the Shah’s technocrats to Khomeini. Every time a new cabal of elites tears up the inherited moral order in the name of liberation, what follows is not harmony. It is backlash.
Our latest round began in the universities. Postmodern theorists taught that truth is a mask for power, that knowledge is ‘socially constructed’ by dominant groups. Their disciples in critical race and gender studies took that logic and weaponised it. Objective truth became suspect. ‘Lived experience’ and group identity were treated as superior to data. That jargon leaked from academia into HR departments, schools, charities, media and the civil service. The bureaucratic class learned to talk in a new language where equity trumped equality, speech was violence and ‘positionality’ mattered more than proof.
You can see the effect in public sentiment. In Britain and America majorities now tell pollsters they do not feel free to say what they think about politics or culture at work. Young adults are especially wary. Large shares in both countries no longer trust politicians, parties or the press. In some surveys a fifth of younger voters say they would prefer a strong unelected leader to messy democracy. That is not because they have all secretly become fascists. It is because they no longer believe the people at the top are listening or honest.
Look at the American story from Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump again. Obama ran on hope and change, then governed as custodian of the same globalised order that closed plants in Ohio while flattering editors in New York. By 2016 roughly 13% of Trump’s vote was made up of Obama voters – enough to flip the Rust Belt because the party that once spoke for welders and waitresses had started talking like a graduate seminar, not a union hall.
Biden arrived in 2020 with 81 million votes and a promise to unite the nation and restore normality. Yet within three years only about a third of Americans approved of his performance. The rest disapproved with persistent majorities saying the country was on the wrong track and the economy was failing them.
At the same time, survey after survey showed around 80% of Americans, including most young people, saying political correctness has gone too far. Yet the White House, media and HR class doubled down on pronouns and diversity pledges.
In other words, ordinary working men and women concluded that the people who ran America neither liked them nor listened to them. Both Obama and Biden share one thing in common. Their real legacy is MAGA and Trump: a man voters hired to drain the swamp who is now denounced as a fascistic authoritarian for doing (however chaotically) exactly what he promised to do.
Britain is further along the same road than Westminster likes to admit. In the 2024 election Reform UK took 14.3% of the vote, the third largest share in the country, yet only got five MPs, just 0.8% of the seats. The Liberal Democrats took 12.2% of the vote yet walked away with 72 MPs, about 11% of the Commons.
Labour formed a ‘landslide’ Government with only about one third of the vote, while turnout slumped below 60% and commentators talked openly of a crisis of electoral legitimacy.
No surprise then that trust has collapsed. The latest surveys find 87% of Britons have “not very much” or “no trust” in politicians. Three quarters say the system of governing Britain needs “major” or “great improvement”, levels back at the worst of the Brexit paralysis. At the same time a growing majority even before the latest Labour Budget think the welfare system is too generous or too lax – that benefits encourage dependency rather than self-reliance.
Into that mix walks Reform. Post election analysis suggests almost 80% of Reform’s 2024 voters previously backed the Conservatives in 2019, a quarter of the Tory electorate walking away in one cycle. Most recent polls now have Reform as the largest party nationally, on roughly 30% of the vote, with Labour and the Conservatives languishing in the high teens.
In other words Reform is not a weird fringe. It is the political expression of a country that thinks the main parties have stitched up safe seats for life, filled the landscape with quangos and regulators who police ‘disinformation’ rather than corruption and turned the post-war safety net into a feather duvet.
The professional classes who trade welfare and public sector jobs for votes find this very comfortable. The people who actually fund the system are now looking for someone, anyone, who will blow a whistle on the whole racket and start again.
Christopher Lasch saw this coming 30 years ago in The Revolt of the Elites. He warned that a new meritocratic class would cut itself loose from any loyalty to place or nation and come to view ordinary citizens with quiet contempt. David Betz and others now argue that, if this continues, the main security threat in Western states will not be foreign enemies but internal conflict between rulers and the ruled.
When elites warn that authoritarianism is rising on the Right, they are not wrong. What they never admit is that this new authoritarian Right is largely their own creation, born of progressive overreach, bureaucratic capture and a detached ruling class that stopped listening long ago.
The choice facing Western democracies is not between polite centrists and brutal authoritarians. Yet.
The public mood is no longer reformist, it is pre-revolutionary. You can feel it in every poll and every pub. People do not want a ‘national conversation’, they want a national clear-out.
They are sick of new inquiries and new budgets funding the same failed caste. Either we force a serious reset, with power dragged out of the ministries and quangos and back to the people, or we roll the dice on what happens when a nation that has stopped believing in ballots goes looking for other tools.
Clive Pinder is a recovering global executive, former elected ornament, accidental columnist and mildly repentant political provocateur. He writes about hypocrisy, hubris and the small matter of wresting power back from the bureaucrats on Substack.
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.
There’s no point in a national conversation. Whoever sets the agenda controls the outcome of the debate.
As has been pointed out by others, when Germany was defeated in 1918 and 1945, and Japan in 1945, it allowed the complete clear out of the regimes that had held them in a straitjacket of failure.
Yes, and the outcome of any “inquiries”.
Although in both cases the bureaycracy was largely waived through into the new post war regimes because rising threats from the USSR lef the west to need them for defence.
Most of the SS and most of the administrators, judges and military staff were given nominal or no punishments in 1945 and they returned to their old jobs and soon regained status and prosperity.
The current US President in that photo looks like a body double to me…
Putin reportedly has several. Even Elizabeth II had body doubles throughout her reign, as can be clearly seen from photos of her supposedly attending state dinners in foreign countries, who didn’t know the difference, as some journalists pointed out after she passed.
“Should’ve gone to Specsavers.” Looks kosher to me.
Yeah whatever. And who is the actor playing Biden the retard? That is simply not Joe Biden. Mr Autopen, the don of the Biden criminal mafia. The guy who stole an election with the help of the CIA and Dominion (owned by Demon party supporters).
NB to the author, some basic maths there was a 35 million Demon party vote fraud. Hence the Rona plandemic….that was one of its chief objectives. Kamalalalalalalalalarama had about 25 million fraudulent votes including some 10 million over the age of 120 who supposedly voted (and have collected Soc Sec benes etc against real bank accounts).
Titter.
Bless you. Seek help mate
A meaningful and comprehensive articles few would disagree. But who actually is Clive Pinder and is this his real name? The only reference I could find was on X:
PostSee new posts
Clive Pinder
@iSoSClive
The first defense against cognitive dissonance and propaganda is to always question anything written by anyone who hides behind a pseudonym. Is this the bio of the man writing this? If it isn’t, perhaps he’ll tell us who he is
It’s a disgrace, shouldn’t be allowed….oh wait…
Maybe him: Who We Are – In Search of Sanity | Talk Show, Podcast & Blogs.
Hi Curio, I’m curious why you seem happy to question my authenticity when I use my actual name rather than ‘hiding behind a pseudonym’? If you google my name, you’ll come across someone who sounds alot like the bye-line at the bottom of all my columns (see below), or a “violent and dangerous sex offender”. Hopefully readers of TDS will give credit to the editors that their contributor is the former!
Clive Pinder is a recovering global executive, former elected ornament, accidental columnist and mildly repentant political provocateur. He writes about hypocrisy, hubris and the small matter of wresting power back from the bureaucrats on Substack.
May I say, as you are obviously reading these comments, that I found your column today to be an excellent piece as it concisely covers the issues that we face and why.
Thank you…… whoever you are!
Thank you. And for the record I am exactly who I say I am. Power to the people!
But you are not required to write under your real name, as “Curio” himself/herself does not!
The author calling himself “Eugyppius” often writes articles for the DS, and it is hypocritical of commenters here to criticize others for posting under pseudonyms, when they do the same themselves.
I agree….but! Just to clarify I never use a pseudonym on any social media. I believe if you have something worth saying, unless doing so would expose you to serious legal or physical jeopardy, you should have the courage of your convictions and ‘speak’ as if you are in public. I differ with my TDS colleagues here, but to me hiding behind a pseudonym is the same as hiding behind a burka or niqab in polite judeo-christian culture!
I can only offer my most sincere apologies for my totally inappropriate comment for which there is no excuse. I hope that the author accepts my apology
“People do not want a ‘national conversation’, they want a national clear-out.” I would settle for a few hangings. They probably wouldn’t make any different to the downward spiral we are in, but I would get a substantial dopamine buzz.
Cruel but fair 😂
Can the author please give some examples of this “authoritarian right” he keeps referring to – either in the declared policies of “right wing” opposition parties or in the actual actions of those in government?
au·thor·i·tar·i·an
/əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
adjective
The left seem to me to tick that box a lot more than the “right”.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the left tick the box – in the US the democrats in California is a good example. On the right, and sticking in the US, it is clear to anyone living here that President Trump demands absolute fealty. The actions of ICE and his unprecedented use of Executive Orders add further evidence of an authoritarian disposition. It is worth noting that the so called ‘horseshoe effect’ in politics is becoming clearer everyday with both extreme left and right wing political ideologies converging on authoritarianism.
Thanks for your reply.
Are ICE not simply enforcing existing laws? Laws that the previous President prevented them from enforcing? How is that “authoritarian”?
Which Executive Orders have restricted personal freedom?
As for your comment about Trump
demanding “absolute fealty”, you could re-spin that as him demanding that his team assist him unwaveringly in carrying out what he was elected to do.
Also can you give examples of “right wing political ideologies converging on authoritarianism”?
Thanks for engaging. If you want concrete examples of an authoritarian right, look at Fidesz in Hungary or PiS in Poland, both elected, both then moved to capture courts, media and election rules to entrench themselves. In the US, Trump openly pressed officials to “find” votes, raged at anyone who would not back his version of the election, and talked casually about jailing opponents. You can argue it was justified, but you cannot seriously say that instinct is libertarian.
Thanks again
I don’t know much about Poland or Hungary other than people I know from those countries find western liberal manners and their lack of patriotism perplexing, and Hungary has been keen to resist the onslaught of immigration which will destroy our civilisation. If they acted undemocratically I don’t know.
Regarding Trump you still seem to be pointing to his rhetoric not his actions. Trump is not a libertarian, but then he was not elected to pursue libertarian policies. I’m pretty much a libertarian and tend towards minarchism but very few people share my views. I find the kinds of things imposed in the name of democracy- such as most taxes – to be immoral. But “authoritarian right” suggests a desire or action to undermine democracy- I don’t think that is at all the same thing as “not libertarian”.
Trump may demand loyalty from his staff but he cannot and does not demand it for himself from others. The swamp and tax funded institutions are required to comply with the law and the policy objectives aof a recently elected President. That is not a sign of authoritarian behaviour but of a vigorous and effective politician.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Authoritarian is not “anyone I do not like”, it is a style of politics. Loyalty to a man over the law, rule by decree when you cannot get a vote, and using the state as a weapon against domestic enemies. Trump ticked all three: public loyalty tests and “lock her up” / “enemy of the people” aimed at opponents and the press. Enforcing immigration law is not authoritarian; insisting that anyone in the system who questions you is a traitor is.
May I point out this interesting table of how many Executive Orders have been issued by every US President since George Washington.
Notice that Leftist Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued the most Executive Orders of them all: 3,726 , with Leftist Woodrow Wilson in 2nd place at 1,803.
Executive Orders | The American Presidency Project
Thanks for sharing this. I agree that FDR and Wilson top the table for total executive orders, and they governed through a Depression and two world wars. Raw counts prove very little about authoritarianism. What worries people today is not how many orders a president signs, but when he uses them to override Congress and target domestic opponents, which is a very different question.
“Biden arrived in 2020 with 81 million votes”. At least 10 miilion were fake votes
Do you have any evidence to support the ’10 million’ claim? The evidence I have seen shows that Joe Biden received about 81 million certified votes in 2020, confirmed by all 50 states, Republican and Democrat officials alike, through recounts, audits, and court challenges. Dozens of lawsuits alleging mass fraud were thrown out, often by Trump-appointed judges, because no credible proof was produced.
Obviously looking at the wrong evidence and as for the votes being ‘certified’ does that include the voter who was 116 years old?
One swallow does not make a summer!
No, they were thrown out because of alleged lack of standing. NOT AT ALL the same thing.
Thanks for engaging. I do not wish to question your judgement. However, unless you are a judge in the US legal system I think it reasonable to pay more heed to accredited, appointed and elected judges from both parties.
I suppose we have to accept the term “right” because the left have used it so much to describe someone who disagrees with them. The media enthusiastically adopted it in memory of their university days when anyone who disagreed with their political and social preferences was abused with that term, much as “fascist” is used by them today and with a straight face.
But I do not think we should accept the adjective “authoritarian”. Those described as on the right are far more open and seek greater personal freedom for everyone whereas it is the left which seeks to control everything and tell us how to live.
Totally agree as I’ve posted above
I would like to know exactly what this “authoritarian right” is suspected of wanting to do. It generally seems like a hint towards rounding up Jews and putting them in camps, or maybe banning abortion or homosexual behaviour. I guess abortion has been banned in certain US states though that is no more authoritarian than a Federal Court removing the right of the states to regulate it. But mostly it seems like hinting at things that are not going to happen, or horror of horrors regulating legal and illegal immigration according to the law and wishes of the majority.
Please see my response above, and thanks again for engaging.
I’m happy to retire the lazy “left/right” labels, but “authoritarian” is about methods, not whether you prefer lower taxes or higher welfare. If you want the state to police speech, tame the courts, fix the media and punish dissenters, you are in authoritarian territory, whether you sing the Internationale or God Bless America.
There are plenty of examples on both sides. On the left you get DEI commissars, speech codes and California-style soft one-party rule. On the right you get parties in Hungary and Poland rewriting the rules to hobble courts and broadcasters, US states trying to criminalise journalists, ban books and use the machinery of the state as a cultural cudgel. Wanting more personal freedom for “people like me” while happily shrinking the freedoms of people you dislike is not liberal, it is just a different flavour of control.
My argument isn’t that “the right = Nazis”. It’s that when both tribes decide their cause is so righteous that rules, rights and pluralism are expendable, you get the same authoritarian instinct wearing different colours.
I do not wish to be governed but live in a country where I am free to make of my life what I can. In the last 200 years humanity has prospered and advanced like no other time ever and that has not been because of governments and leaders. “It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader. Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing ‘compassion’ for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.” Thomas Sowell “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should… Read more »
Another question for the author. If there is an “authoritarian right”, is there also a “non authoritarian right”. If so can you give examples and explain the difference? Would it be like our own Fake Conservative Party – the one that brought us non authoritarian policies like lockdowns, further restrictions on freedom of speech, globalist big government socialism?
Good question. Yes, there is a non-authoritarian right. The difference isn’t left vs right, it’s whether you want to shrink state power or seize it.
A non-authoritarian right accepts limits on government, independent courts, free speech for people it hates, local control, and the idea that it can lose an election without rewriting the rules. The authoritarian right talks “freedom” but wants to bend the media, the courts and the civil service to its tribe and punish dissenters.
Our own so-called Conservative Party is a good example of how this gets muddled: it campaigned as small-state and then delivered lockdowns, speech controls and bloated technocracy. That’s not conservative, it’s just a different brand of managerialism. The piece is arguing we need a right – and a left – that puts liberty before tribe, not new teams fighting over the same overmighty machine.
Then I think you need to find new terms. I don’t think the Fake Conservatives were in any way “right wing”.
Interesting, and bit idd, that DS has lots of articles discussing Reform but none the much more principled, sensible and needed AdvanceUK. Why?
Maybe because “Advance UK” (whose name is a limp imitation of Rupert Lowe’s “Restore Britain”) is “The Sour Grapes Party” set up by Pakistani Benyamin “Sour Grapes” Naeem Habib, after he was rightly replaced as Reform Deputy BECAUSE HE FAILED TO GET ELECTED AS AN MP, and was replaced by an actual Elected Member of Parliament.
It is Indigenous Englishman Rupert Lowe’s “RESTORE BRITAIN”, founded by an ACTUAL ELECTED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, that is “much more principled, sensible, and needed”.
“Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable.” JFK.
The British electorate has voted for change from the Globalist/mass immigration/ Corporatism of the EU/WEF for 14 years. The Not-a-Conservative-Party ignored them.
They voted to LEAVE the EU. The Establishment and the governing Not-a-Conservative-Party ignored them.
They voted for the Brexit Party in the final EU Elections – and won. Johnson “promised” to Get Brexit Done and reduce mass immigration …. and betrayed them.
Two-Tier is continuing mass immigration; shipping in as many criminal migrants as possible and is now attempting to reverse the weak Brino we got.
The Establishment appears to be deliberately provoking the civil war Prof Betz has predicted.
The Anger is now palpable and spoken out loud, no wonder Lammy wants rid of Jury’s it gives them the chance to lock us away, what next I wonder the Gulag? would anyone be surprised?
The latest kick in the teeth to the”Ordinary people” as they like to call us of the budget has actually bought together the varying levels of working classes in the Private sector, including the Farmers. The apathetic welfare recipients won’t be bothered to raise themselves off their sofas to support this technocratic class, likewise the Muslim vote cannot be relied upon as they now have found their own way to power, and have their own politicians.
Labour are frightened and as such they are starting to lash out in the most autocratic of ways, the removal of trial by Jury is just the start, then its the I.D. cards. They seek controlthose of us who value freedom, love the country of what Great Britain was need to stand together and push back. They can only do these things to us if we let them.
Excellent post.
If you want to know why we are beyond f***ed, read Paul Kingsnorth’s “After the Machine: What will human life look like?”
“Labour formed a ‘landslide’ Government with only about one third of the vote, “
NO! One fifth of the electorate voted for “Labour”. Now one TENTH approve of them.
If government ever recognised a “Moral” mandate, this is one that clearly cannot.
”The public mood is no longer reformist, it is pre-revolutionary. “
And the only thing likely to prevent civil war, is Reform UK – maybe not perfect, but at least outside the political establishment and a focus of hope that change can be achieved within our political process.
Without Reform UK, what is there? The Greens? Your Party? Lib Dem’s? Lab Con Uniparty? The Celtic Nationalist-Socialist mob?