Sunday, 21 October 2018

The Peasants Are Revolting

The progressive vision is of a society dominated by an elite of well-educated, middle-class professionals doing lucrative work they deem important, without that claim ever being tested against the barometer of public opinion.

The justification for their lack of accountability stems from a belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority, which not only absolves them from the competing interests of others, but justifies them treating their inferiors as helpless victims in need of their guidance and support - an arrangement that not only endorses their sense of importance and provides plentiful job opportunities, but keeps the rest of society in its place.

Their recommendations for how everyone should live do not apply to themselves, because they consider themselves too wise and wonderful to be constrained by such arbitrary fetters. It's everyone else - the uneducated, feckless masses - who need to be kept on a short leash.

The guarantor of their preferred way of life is the almighty state, since it not only has the power to insulate them from accountability, but it stands as a living endorsement of top-down management by people like them. What's more, by sponsoring its redistributive and social engineering policies, progressives enjoy feelings of virtue, which confirm that they are the best among us, as well as a vicarious sense of power, which plays to their belief that they are our rightful leaders.

Progressives love to define themselves against their erstwhile rivals: fusty old conservative types, who still believe in hard work, merit, tradition, and all those other values that kept progressives from power for so long. Considering themselves on a higher evolutionary plane, they enjoy caricaturing these people as snobby suburban racists, and the source of all the world's evils, while gratefully letting them bankroll their own pampered existence.

What angers progressives most is when their nominated victims decide to reject their generous offer to run their lives, and choose to shift for themselves instead. As far as progressives are concerned, this breaks the contract between the ruled and their rulers - a betrayal they respond to by throwing their former mascots into the same basket of deplorables as those hated conservative types. Then they set about finding new, more worthy victims to dote on from the world's ever-growing collection of identity groups.

This is why progressives have been rapidly losing their minds in the wake of Brexit and Trump. The peasants and revolting, and in trying to argue against this phenomenon, they are only exposing their elitist true colours.

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

Televisual Diversity Is Our Strength

Ethnic minorities are massively over-represented on television, be it in adverts, children’s programmes, or TV dramas. I have no hard evidence to back this up, but I suspect even the most fanatical PC zealot would struggle to deny this claim and keep a straight face. Does it matter? We'll come to that, but it's surely no accident. So why might media types be cramming shows and commercials with non-white faces as a deliberate ploy? I can think of several explanations:

1) To prevent members of minority groups from feeling excluded through a lack of media representation.

2) To accurately reflect the makeup of the British population, out of a stickling commitment to statistical accuracy.

3) Because they have swallowed hook, line and sinker the idea that minorities are discriminated against, and are doing their bit to redress the balance.

4) To familiarise the majority with the look, sound and feel of minorities, in order to discourage ill-feeling towards them.

5) To deliberately rile those they suspect of having bigoted attitudes towards minorities.

6) To showcase their non-prejudicial bona fides for the sake of peer approval and to deflect accusations of bigotry.

Take the first two possibilities. Roughly 15% of the population of England and Wales is non-white. Outside of major conurbations, the percentage is generally less than half that amount. I offer no comment on these statistics, except to say that if you were to pull half-a-dozen people at random from the British population, chances are they’d be white. In fact, you could pick a hundred people, and this would still be overwhelmingly the case.

If media folk worked to this probability, there would rarely be a non-white face on screen, which would not only be statistically dishonest, but would almost certainly engender ill-feeling among ethnic minorities, who would feel they were being deliberately excluded. It could be fear of this happening that encourages programme-makers to over-represent minorities. But if all programme-makers take this course then all their output will feature bogus representations of the British public. Since this is closer to the truth than not, and given that only a blind man could fail to notice that the population is predominantly white, one can only conclude that today’s programme-makers are not pursuing statistical accuracy.

The next three explanations draw from a social theory that says that many people harbour racist sentiments, so they need to be educated out of their bigotry through exposure to the objects of their hatred, or punished by having them rubbed in their faces. There is no evidence to suggest the British people are particularly racist (actually, they are less prejudiced than ever), but this is a key tenet of the liberal-left belief system, which divides mankind into the oppressed, their oppressors and the liberal saviour class, whose duty it is to protect the former from the latter. It is not likely to be relinquished any time soon; nor can it be reasoned away with evidence. Suffice to say that it’s a common worldview among those who work in the creative arts, and it would come as no surprise to discover it informed scripting and casting decisions.

The last of these explanations feeds off the aforementioned state of affairs. Since the creative sector is in thrall to the idea that racism is rife, showing off your non-racist credentials is an easy way of winning approval and distinguishing yourself from the benighted masses. It’s a ploy that says nothing about the reality of racism in Britain, but does a great deal to encourage the impression that we are a nation of racists – which, in turn, makes the case for more positive discrimination.

The most frequently given reason for the over-representation of minorities on screen, and the most common criticism levelled at ‘too-white’ programming, is that TV programmes and commercials should reflect the rich diversity of the British population (I’ve been discussing racial diversity to this point, but I could equally toss gender and sexual preference into the mix). But as pointed out already, the Britain commonly found on our screens looks nothing like the one that most people experience every day – and this matters.

Television has the power to unite people around common ideas and experiences, but when it deliberately rejects these norms in favour of minority representation, it has the opposite effect. What’s more, it tells minorities they are defined by the things that makes them different, and that there’s nothing about the dominant culture with which they could possibly identify. In many ways, this is the opposite of diversity, since it says that certain preferences, qualities and beliefs – in this case, those found among the majority of people – are problematic and deserve to be suppressed, at least in their media representation.

This is a message that extends beyond minority groups. It informs us all that the Britain most of us know is not worthy of honest portrayal, and that such a depiction would represent a hostile rejection of anything different – as if failing to putting all people and things front-and-centre simultaneously is tantamount to condemnation.

If the version of Britain people see on their televisions is unrecognisable to the one they know, one of two things will eventually happen: either they will come to distrust programme-makers, who will lose their ability to entertain, enlighten and inform, or they will come to resent the world around them for its failure to mirror what they see on their screens. Then again, maybe the latter outcome is what was intended all along.

Wednesday, 21 March 2018

Shouting past each other

Underlying the philosophy of the Left is the unshakeable belief that its goals and motivations are intrinsically and uniquely good, and that all contrary opinions are, by definition, malicious. From this position, leftists can justify any behaviour, however dubious, if it serves their higher cause, and can condemn any action by an opponent, however benign, for being done in the name of wickedness.

Nowhere is it written, of course, that the Left’s beliefs are morally superior. That's simply an article of faith for true believers and, as such, goes completely unexamined. Because people on the Right don't favour the Left's methods, they can't care about the people the Left claims to care about. Period.

In truth, the morality of a political position is irrelevant if has lousy real-world consequences. If wealth redistribution wrecks the economy and ruins people's lives, it doesn't matter that it was well-meaning. Mass immigration might benefit newcomers to this country, but if it harms the interests of the native population, it can't be considered wholly virtuous. Conversely, if capitalism leaves everyone better off than socialism, then it can be considered a good thing, even if it isn't motivated by compassion.

One could argue that a policy is moral if it helps the most needy, even if it screws over everyone else, but that is a subjective opinion, not a foregone conclusion. Often, prioritising the interests of the needy harms them in the long-run as it undermines the people who prop up their existence. Ultimately, morality alone is an unreliable guide to policy and by no means the grounds for claiming that one particular method or ideology is unquestionably right and proper.

If the policies and ambitions of the Left are not universally popular and objectively laudable, it cannot have a monopoly on virtue, in which case its methods must be judged on some criteria other than their intentions. How successful are they at achieving goals that are empirically desirable and generally popular? How much harm do they cause to people's widely-shared interests? And how, in these respects, do they compare with alternative methods?

If state-enforced equality, for example, is a worthwhile aspiration, it's because it delivers the benefits people most care about better than capitalism. Its advocates might consider equality of outcome an innately noble cause, and there may be times of popular support for their position, but it is really just a personal opinion.

It's asinine, then, to claim that opposing the Left's efforts to expand the state and increase public spending is ‘nasty’, since this starts from the unspoken assumption that bigger government is our best and only ethical option, and that all else is, by definition, wrong-headed and uncaring. The absurdity of this thinking should be obvious, yet it's rare to hear conservatives calling out the Left for begging the question and taking for granted the fundamental assumptions on which political differences are based.

This is why most political debate involves people shouting past each other - or, more often, involves conservatives allowing the Left to dictate the terms of the debate, instead of extolling their own position and brushing aside presumptive left-wing dogma.

Wednesday, 20 December 2017

Immigration - the unanswered questions

Mass immigration is here to stay and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. That was the message of EU Commissioner on Migration Dimitris Avramopoulous in a piece he wrote for POLITICO entitled “Europe’s Migrants Are Here to Stay”. So stop your whining and get used to the new normal.

This is an old debating tactic: steer clear of fundamental questions, which, if answered, might cause your argument to collapse, and advance the debate so far beyond these questions that it's generally assumed they were settled in your favour and that your position is the sensible status quo. These assumptions are then established as gospel, which only heretics and lunatics would dare speak against.

So it is with the immigration debate in the UK - if there were one, of course. The Tories briefly flirted with the issue when they thought a failure to do so would cost them votes (which Theresa May managed to lose, anyway), but since then the party has reverted to its ‘don't frighten the horses’ policy. Labour, suffice to say, is a strident supporter of mass immigration, having kicked it off under Tony Blair, and is in no hurry to discuss the matter. This leaves an enfeebled UKIP and a few fringe groups trying to keep the debate alive, who are easily dismissed as extremists.

The issue is talked about more vigorously elsewhere in world, but the fundamental questions remain unanswered. Sweeping assumptions about the inevitability of widescale migration go unchallenged, allowing the pro camp to control the conversation and confine its opponents to arguing the small stuff.

Supporters of mass immigration talk as if the time prior to it happening was one of racial apartheid - as if would-be migrants were penned up in enclaves (aka their own countries) by white devils - a travesty that ended with the dismantling of border controls, which granted them rightful passage to their nations of choice.

Now that unchecked immigration is the Western norm (or the aspiration of most politicians, at least), this view of border controls as a form of apartheid is commonplace. Respectable opinion holds that it's not only selfish to deny foreigners unhindered access to your country, but counterproductive, due to the benefits they bring - namely a more diverse culture, a willing labour force, and a greater tolerance of foreigners among the natives.

This is the common answer to the big question about mass immigration: What's in it for us? These supposed boons of welcoming untold millions into your country have never been properly challenged or qualified, and they don't hold much water, anyway, since they're based on the principle that immigration is the cure for problems caused by too much immigration.

For instance, to say we need more diversity to encourage tolerance of foreigners in our midst only makes sense if you accept continual mass immigration as a fait accompli. Otherwise, it’s like telling a vegetarian they should eat more bacon to get used to the taste. If we didn’t have such a torrent of newcomers in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for more of the same to acclimatise the natives to their arrival.

This analysis of immigration as cause and cure applies to the cheap labour argument, too. Importing migrant labour drives down wages among the low-paid until the indigenous workforce opts for the dole queue, leaving jobs that are only fit for more migrant labour. The ensuing increase in population drives demand for goods and services, creating new jobs that need filling by - you guessed it - yet more migrant labour. It’s a perpetual motion machine that exists to solve problems of its own making.

Which leaves us with the alleged benefits of a more diverse culture, the need for which apparently grows the more of it we have. To this I would ask: what was wrong with our country exactly that needed fixing with greater diversity? Why was our largely homogeneous society of old so bad that it required an injection of foreign blood? Was there widespread discontent at such undiluted Britishness? Was our reluctance to compromise our national identity an impediment to our success?

Tightening our borders might send the message that immigrants aren't as welcome as they used to be, which could hurt the feelings of those who've already reached our shores; but unless you believe the relentless influx won't eventually lead to unpleasant trade-offs, we'll eventually have to take action. If not now, when? How much is too much? And when the time comes, will you know or admit to knowing?

If the introduction of alien cultures into our own has made things spicier and more interesting than they used to be, that doesn’t mean there's no upward limit to the process. At some point the indigenous culture becomes so diluted that people stop recognising the country as the one they grew up in. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, but it's not one that's ever been gauged or listened to by our decision-makers. Certainly the only opinion that should matter in this regard is that of the people who already live here, but current policy prioritises the interests of the people who want to live here.

One thing’s for sure: those flocking to Britain must think it’s a better place to live than their own countries, or they’d have stayed put. In which case, shouldn't we be preserving our customs, rather than trading them for those of places people are fleeing in droves? Even if there are aspects of those cultures that would enrich our own, how can we be sure we’ll get the good and keep out the bad, especially when the creed of multiculturalism discourages this kind of discernment? And if we can’t be sure, why risk it? Is the prospect of doing without more diversity really that awful?

If the West desperately needs to adopt more people and customs from the developing world, why isn’t the opposite true? You don’t hear anyone ticking off Pakistan for being too Pakistani, or Somalia for being too black. In fact, any attempt to recommend Western values to impoverished nations would be labelled cultural imperialism. They're fine as they are, apparently, despite millions of their people voting to the contrary with their feet. Why the double standard, when it would seem they’d be better off being more like us?

To answer these questions honestly is to understand the real reason for the mass immigration movement. Virtually no one is against migrants living and working in Britain, providing they accept our laws and values, and arrive in controlled numbers. Nor is anyone against taking in genuine refugees, providing our solution to strife in other countries isn’t to siphon off their populations and turn our own into a giant soup kitchen. But the pro-immigration lobby isn't interested in just importing the best or the wretched few. It wants to invite the unskilled Third World masses, too, without any expectation of them adapting to our way of life. Indeed, it actively discourages them from doing so by promoting the doctrine of multiculturalism and doing down our own culture at every opportunity.

The truth is that pro-immigration types don't expect Western society to remain essentially unchanged by the mass influx of people from foreign lands. On the contrary, they expect and hope that it will be radically and irrevocably altered. They have a visceral dislike of our culture and the people who find it amenable, and want to see them suffer. They want to introduce so many alien influences that the centre cannot hold and the whole thing comes crashing down. From the ruins they imagine a society will rise run for and by people like them.

These wreckers are ably assisted by useful idiots who've ingested the idea that any criticism of immigration is racist - the recourse of prejudiced proles and bourgeois bigots - and think that flying the flag for immigrants makes them better people. Because they don't rub shoulders with migrants (except for the educated, assimilated kind) or compete with them for work, they can blithely ignore their effects on the wider community and lecture the rest of us on the virtues of tolerance and diversity.

It’s tempting to avoid the immigration issue in the belief that it’s something bad people obsess over; but it’s not an understatement to say that it will determine the fate of the Western world. It’s more important than ever, then, that those who wish ill upon us don’t get to fast-forward past the questions that matter.

Friday, 17 November 2017

Bash away at the subversive Christmas ads

Oh Jesus, as if it matters. Who cares whether TV Christmas commercials feature Muslims, gays, transsexual cripples, rutting donkeys, or anything else for that matter? No one’s trying to insult Christians, upset conservatives or ruin all the yuletide fun. Get over it. Move on.

Social media has been full of this kind of thing since the big stores launched their festive ads, featuring images seemingly designed to infuriate the reactionary bigots of the progressive imagination. And yes, it’s ridiculous that such a trifling matter should provoke so much outrage, but it’s also hard to avoid the suspicion that this is precisely the point.

When you insert your agenda somewhere conspicuous yet trivial, any objection to it looks unavoidably petty. Even non-ideologues will spring to the defence of your propaganda rather than side with fulminating racists. One sneaky attack follows another, and eventually civilisation suffers death by a thousand cuts.

Admittedly, Christmas ads aren’t the ground on which I’d choose to make a stand against the progressive tide, but I didn't pick this fight. If this is how it has to go down, so be it. Allow me, then, to explain for the benefit of the eye-rolling liberals sighing “big deal” why these ads are ‘problematic’.

I’m sure a few people were miffed by the lack of obvious Christian imagery amid the multi-ethnic commercial showcase (Tesco’s advert featured a royal flush of Muslims, Sikhs and gays), but that’s not the real issue here, because religion was hoovered out of large parts of Christmas a long time ago. Nor is that people are appalled at the mere sight of tinsel-draped foreigners and homosexuals, despite what the BBC and the Guardian may think. It’s the pushers of identity politics that are the problem, not the groups they are pushing.

We are frequently told that identity groups should not be criticised, disrespected, imitated, borrowed from, or held to any standards other than their own. We should adjust our way of life to accommodate theirs, and embrace their customs and values as delightful additions to the patchwork of British life. Then we should celebrate the differences between these disparate factions, show them boundless tolerance, and all live happily ever after.

Trouble is, this hands-off approach to group relations is a one-way street. Whereas the majority is expected to keep its nose out of minority affairs, minorities are invited to put their stamp on the dominant culture, and any attempt by the majority to have its own thing is met with howls of protest.

Which isn’t to say that the opposite should be true and the majority should be screwing with minority interests. If Hindus want to celebrate Diwali and Muslims want to celebrate Eid, who is anyone else to meddle? No one would dream of trying to ‘whiten’ their celebrations, but as long as there are double standards in this regard, many will object to being the only ones whose traditions should be done over in the name of inclusiveness - and given the stealth tactics used by the Left, they will suspect that minorities are being used as a weapon against the majority.

A great many people understand that you can’t go down this multiculti identity group route without compromising a country’s values and customs, and changing its look and feel. And they happen to like how their country looks and feels - or how it used to, anyway - and not because they're all haters and imperialists. If minorities should be proud of their identity and their heritage, why the hell shouldn’t the majority? They were never consulted on the changes that have been forced on them, so they’re naturally aggrieved at what has come to pass, and are protective of those traditions that haven't yet fallen to the armies of progress and diversity.

With every victory these armies claim, the guardians of tradition become increasingly sensitive to the appearance of progressive mascots in their midst, seeing them as precursors to another full-scale assault. And they're right to be wary. This, after all, is a society in which a teacher can be suspended for ‘misgendering’ a pupil, citizens who fight with ISIS are rewarded with council houses, and the authorities turn a blind eye to Muslim child-abusers from a fear of seeming racist. Political correctness is not just the stuff of conservative fever dreams; it’s real and it actively works against traditional culture. Little wonder, then, that some want to preserve those areas of life still largely untouched by progressive dogma.

“Yeah, but this isn’t political correctness,” the pushers of PC assure us. “This is just about love and tolerance, and definitely won’t lead to anything else.” To which, most sane people say “pull the other one”. They know how these people work and have seen enough supposedly innocent gestures mutate into full-blown leftist face-slaps not to be fooled again.

As David Cole observes, “Social engineering of the type the left desires is accomplished by a very simple formula. Advance one step, and then promise that this step will not in any way lead to the next step. Wait a brief amount of time, and then advance to the next step, explaining that it’s only logical now that the previous step has become so widely accepted. Simple rule: Swear there’ll be no progression, and then progress.”

Most people get this, so even if the latest suspicious act is as innocent as its protagonists claim, they’ve pulled this shit too often to deserve the benefit of the doubt. Chances are it’s another sly backdoor effort to undermine normalcy and shaft the status quo.

Christmas is important because it’s about family and tradition - things that get up the nose of leftists and which they routinely attack. It’s a touchstone for those who aren’t exactly enamoured with the direction our country has taken; a beleaguered redoubt in a hostile land of screeching SJWs, scheming Marxists and resentful wreckers. So when progressives start messing with it, the backlash they receive is not, as it may first appear, an attack on the victim groups being showcased; it’s a rebuke to the agitators pulling their strings.

Monday, 31 July 2017

The egotism of the BBC pay gap delusion

One of the guiding beliefs of the modern Left is that we should be treated according to what we feel on the inside, as opposed to what people see on the outside. So, if you reckon you're a capable, hard-working person, it shouldn't matter if everyone else sees you as a oafish layabout. If you want to be considered beautiful, then that's what you are, even if you're pig-ugly. And if you're a man who thinks he's a woman, then a woman you are, in spite your penis.

Whenever someone is bold enough to call a spade a spade (or a penis a penis, for that matter), the Left cries ‘discrimination’ in order to preserve the lie that everyone is what they say they are. This is one reason why leftists are forever pushing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour: because once you put enough unpalatable ideas beyond criticism, it becomes hard to deny people their inner desires, however narcissistic or grotesque they may be.

Which brings us circuitously to the kerfuffle over the gender pay gap at the BBC. The corporation’s release of star salaries has prompted plenty of feather-spitting among leftists, who are appalled to learn that female presenters are generally paid less than their male counterparts. This is, we are told, further evidence of the patriarchy’s relentless campaign of oppression against women. Or something.

Prior to the uncovering of this supposed scandal, the gender pay gap theory had already been thoroughly debunked, but like so many ideas useful to the Left, it continues to be brought to the stream as if it still holds water. Every new ‘exposé’ of pay discrimination is put up in lights, as though it adds weight to the original argument and the previous debunking never happened. Tell a lie enough times, and all that.

The BBC is a public body, of course, so it routinely indulges all manner of PC insanity, but it still has to compete for an audience against privately-owned rivals. As such, it's pay structure must have some grounding in reality. Its most marketable stars will receive large enough salaries to dissuade them from going elsewhere, and its lesser lights will be paid according to their value in terms of talent and popularity.

A celebrity who hosts a successful flagship programme, the appeal of which is largely down to their personality or the expert insight they provide, is likely to be paid more than the host of a less popular show which is more about content than the person presenting it. The Chris Evans show without Chris Evans is not the same thing. The host of, say, a sports programme, who introduces links, asks someone else's questions, and offers little personal insight, is probably interchangeable with any number of other presenters, and won't command the salary of a Chris Evans. That's the reality of the marketplace. Get over it.

According to its press release, Clare Balding, an outspoken critic of the BBC pay gap, earns between £150k and £199k, compared to John Inverdale who is in the £200k to £249k range. Both are BBC sports presenters, so the argument goes that they should be on similar money (which they will be if she's at the top of her pay bracket and he's at the bottom of his, but let's assume otherwise for the sake of argument).

The BBC is one of the most arse-achingly PC organisations in Britain. They're also the same people who gave Balding her first job in broadcasting, then pushed this rather dull lesbian into the limelight, so they're likely to be guided by something other than sexism when determining her salary. Who, then, between Inverdale and Balding, is the more valuable asset? Who would rival stations prefer to snap up, and who has had the longer broadcasting career? The answers are not irrelevant to a person's earning potential, but wage gap obsessives have not bothered asking these questions, let alone answered them.

If Clare Balding is really as bankable as she seems to imagine, she should be able to get a better-paying job with a different employer. After all, commercial stations want presenters who bring in an audience, and they wouldn't get very far if they denied themselves this advantage out of a commitment to sexism. But since Balding hasn't jumped ship yet, she is either wrong in her estimation of herself, or she has prioritised working at the BBC over earning more elsewhere. Perhaps she'd prefer to stay where she is and be paid more, but the BBC isn’t at fault for not letting her have her cake and eat it.

This brings us back to the Left’s belief that an individual should be treated according to their wishes, rather those of the person doling out the treatment. According to this reasoning, Clare Balding should be paid what she thinks she deserves, irrespective of any other considerations, because her opinion of herself is irrefutable. And if she isn’t, then it’s an open-and-shut case of discrimination.

I dare say the BBC is not perfect in its assessment of people’s worth. For instance, it pays Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker £1.75m a year, although it’s highly questionable whether anyone tunes into the programme to see him in action, or would stop watching if he left the show.

I’m sure such bad judgment isn’t confined to Lineker. Some of the women on the BBC payroll may well be undervalued, but others - perhaps a greater number - may be overrated. No organisation will ever base its pay structure on employee self-estimation, so the only alternative to the status quo is to pay by job description alone.

On some level, I suspect those calling for closure of the wage gap know this, which is why they prefer equality of outcome to true fairness. God forbid they ever got the latter, because as Hamlet said, “Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping?”

Wednesday, 26 July 2017

Playtime is over

There is a theory - one I subscribe to - that Western societies have become vulnerable to Islamism because they have lost faith in their own core values, and are unable to offer any resistance to an ideology that is hellbent on bringing them to their knees.

People cleverer than me believe that many Westerners have reflected on their history and on the changes that have taken place in their lifetimes, and become so disillusioned with their way of life that they can’t bring themselves to defend it, even if they don’t especially care for what threatens to take its place.

Maybe. But if there is some deep philosophical explanation for this cultural ennui, those gripped by it must be old enough to have grown world-weary, or learned enough to have a sense of historical perspective. We may have our fair share of geriatric cynics who've fallen out of love with the West, or academics with an axe to grind against it, but they aren't numerous or influential enough to infect an entire culture. For there to be such widespread distaste for Western values, there must be considerable animosity among a younger, less intellectual demographic, whose distaste is rooted in something other than personal experience or scholarly knowledge. I suspect the real explanation is a lot less complicated.

When the Left collapsed as a labour movement in the 1980s, it was hijacked by brattish malcontents looking to dodge the responsibilities of adulthood. They gazed at their society, their culture, their civilisation and saw the prospect of a life at odds with their spoilt childhoods: one of duties and expectations they’d never experienced, criticism where flattery used to be, and toil where once there was leisure. Even their educational achievements, so important to them for so long, looked set to play second fiddle to qualities they conspicuously lacked, like charisma and cunning.

Instead of accepting that things are probably the way they are for a reason and getting with the programme, they sought excuses for why they shouldn't bother. It wasn't that they were lazy, entitled or scared, it was because the system was unjust, and unfairly skewed against them. It was down to elitism, racism, sexism, or whatever -ism afflicted the latest victim group looking for a societal sick note. There should be greater equality, they cried, so there would be fewer opportunities to thwart their precious egos.

Having never grown beyond the idea that their welfare is someone else's responsibility, they blamed everyone who had brought history to its current point for letting them down. It wasn't inevitable that the cosy assurances of their childhood should come to an end; it was a mean-spirited decision made by people too selfish, ill-educated and hidebound to entertain an alternative. Their resistance and state of perma-outrage was proof of their commitment to higher ideals, and confirmation of their moral superiority to the degraded champions of the status quo.

These infantile malcontents spoke the language of rebellion and liberty, but the last thing they wanted was to be left to their own devices. They simply expected society to afford them the same simulacrum of power and freedom enjoyed by a mollycoddled teenager.

They envisaged a world in which their pampered youth was replicated in adult form. So instead of a pat on the head for drawing daddy a picture, there would be cushy jobs that pandered to their narcissistic whim. Rather than suffering the judgment of others, there would be soothing assurances that they are perfect as they are. Any big boys who outshone them, or asked for more than they were willing to give, would be brought to heel. Instead of dealing with the consequences of their actions, some parental figure would tidy up after them and make things better. Being too immature to cope with disagreement, theirs would be the only voice heard and the only advice followed. In fact, as many of their emotional and material needs as possible would be catered for, so they could pursue a life of adolescent insouciance.

These overgrown sixth-formers were successful in rebuilding society in their own image. They took over our institutions and created millions of non-jobs in the public and private sectors - jobs that were like schoolwork in being of little value to anyone other than those doing them. Likewise, they oversaw the proliferation of in-pay ‘experts’, whose findings only ever made the case against autonomous adulthood and for the empowerment of people like them.

They expanded the welfare state and turned the NHS into a national religion, normalising dependency and portraying self-reliance as a hoity-toity privilege. They propagated universal excuses for ineptitude and failure via bogus theories of oppression, then howled down naysayers and called for them to be jailed. They sanctified youth, prioritised the interests of youngsters, and cursed the elderly for not just shutting up and getting out their cheque books.

They upended traditions and trashed social norms with the glee of people too naive and arrogant to believe they served any useful purpose. To this end, they also flooded the country with immigrants, to dilute the dominant culture, upset their opponents, and advance the need for a bigger welfare state. Freedom, and those who cope with its slings and arrows, were vilified, while vulnerability was turned into a virtue and presented as our fundamental condition. In fact, everything they did seemed designed to infantilise the populace and strengthen the hand of the authorities, who were cast in the role of doting parent.

Perhaps the greatest symbol of their success has been the EU: a monument to unaccountable, paternalistic power; a writer of stifling rules that curb our freedoms and, therefore, our responsibilities; a creator of makework jobs to fill the schoolwork-shaped hole in the lives of beta nerds who fancy themselves too smart and sophisticated to join the rat race; an endorser of the kind of people who fill those jobs and of their position as masters of the universe.

But like all leftists, they eventually overreached. The cost of supporting their juvenile Shangri-la became unsustainable, and the people cowed into propping it up decided enough was enough. The financial crash of 2008 exposed its economic inanity, setting a number of Western nations on the long path back to probity. With accountability back in vogue, resentment grew of the institutions that had taken it away in the first place: the EU, the nanny state and the legions of technocrats who presumed to tell us how to live. Brexit and Trump were natural responses to this sentiment.

The position of our sissyfied overlords on social issues began to grate, too. Their insistence that ‘the system’ was profoundly unjust required them to wage a never-ending war on behalf of the ‘oppressed’ - an increasingly ridiculous and unpalatable roll-call of misfits and ne’erdowells. “Why should we sacrifice our way of life to satisfy these people,” the public wondered, “when they are so few and their interests so at odds with our own?”

In the face of this push-back, the left-wing establishment upped the ante, directing its spite at whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, and all those other markers of the status quo. The targets of this blood libel were to blame for all the evils of the world and deserved to be shamed, punished, blotted from history, and replaced by mascots of the brave new world.

Such absurdity was not only offensive to the vast majority of people, it flew in the face of their own experiences and common sense. The declarations of the new Left, for so long taken as the voice of reason and progress, sounded like lunatic rantings. Their underdog-worship became a series of unsustainable contradictions. They rooted for gays, but then Muslims became the victim de jour, who were not so hot on the whole gay thing. Cue hilarious displays of intellectual gibberish and cognitive dissonance, to the eye-rolling despair of sane people everywhere.

In spite of the Right’s resurgence, the cultural establishment remains firmly in the hands of adolescent leftists, who so despise the prospect of a truly free society that they will do anything to avoid its deliverance. They will kick, scream and spoil like sulky teenagers until they get their way. Their rage and their hatred for their own cultural inheritance is all the greater for them being so used to having their cake and eating it. They would rather live under a totalitarian regime if it means avoiding the challenges, frustrations and potential humiliations of freedom. They even believe, on some sub-moronic level, that they will be afforded more grace and favour under autocratic rule than under the ‘iron fist’ of liberty.

With the tide turning, panic is spreading among millennial ingrates and their aging soulmates. Their foot-stamping demands for salvation become more hysterical by the day. They don't want to grow up, dammit, and they see nothing worth saving in the culture that expects them to do so.

Well, sorry kids, but playtime is over.