Far-liberal Extremists and The Radicalisation of The Sensible Class
I tend to subscribe to the view that if you resort to personal insults then you have lost the argument, but every rule has its exceptions. When U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently told Emily Maitlis to “fuck off”, I couldn’t help but feel some sympathy.
Maitlis, who spent many years at the BBC feigning traditional broadcast impartiality, has had no trouble morphing into her new role as a far-liberal talisman at The News Agents podcast (which has itself become something of a cult among the old gatekeepers of British media).
If I was being uncharitable, I would say that following the viral clip of Ms. Greene telling David Cameron to “kiss my ass” (after a Sky News reporter relayed the Foreign Secretary’s comparison of U.S. lawmakers to Hitler appeasers), Maitlis set out to get her own viral clip.
This wouldn’t be the first example of lazy journalism by The News Agents. The other week, they revealed an exclusive investigation into the GB News investor Sir Paul Marshall. The hard-working investigative journalists presumably worked day-in, day-out to present the public with these devastating findings. Sir Paul has a Twitter account and, as explained by arch-sensible Lewis Goodall amid a backdrop of otherworldly electronic music, has liked some tweets concerning mass migration to Europe. Shocking stuff, I know, but it gets worse.
Goodall presents some examples which he characterises as “quite extreme, especially on Isslaam, immigration and integration”. They include criticism of the Islamic call to prayer being recited inside a Parisian church and a clip of the Prime Minister of Hungary saying his country cannot be blackmailed into “putting children in the hands of LGBTQ activists”. The rest of the ‘investigation’ then finds other ‘extreme’ tweets, posted by some of the accounts which Marshall had ‘interacted’ with. It appears he is guilty of thought crime by association.
Against better judgement, I replied to the bombshell report saying I liked Mr Marshall more now. I did not expect this to provoke Mr. Goodall into asking me if I “approve of the political content of these tweets” and tagging my employer to ask if they were “comfortable with that”.
Maybe I’m a snowflake, but in my mind, that’s not intellectual sparring between journalists, but a measly attempt to instigate my firing from the company for which I work, also known as cancelling. I tried to respond, as Gavin McInnes often describes, by “talking to liberals in their own stupid language”, and stated I was the grandchild of Muslim immigrants (therefore, not ‘Islamophobic’) but I still thought we should be able to discuss our rapid demographic transformation. I was told that ‘no one is stopping’ me from discussing it and asked again to say whether I ‘agree’ with the content of the liked tweets.
As a reasonable person, I said I agree with some and disagree with others, and asked why he was tagging my employer into this conversation. Goodall then revealed his true colours, saying that as I agree with the migration-sceptic sentiments of some tweets liked by Paul Marshall, I should not “be working as a journalist for a reputable news organisation”, adding that the fact I “feel able to come and say that shows how normalised extremism has become”.
You see, we are allowed to say what we like and we have a free media, but if you dare agree with the sentiment of some people’s tweets that others do not agree with, then a public figure with considerable clout will alert your employer and call for your sacking as they accuse you of having extremist views. This censorious and frankly Soviet attitude of our sensible, friendly News Agent is sadly pervasive in our media and even has a strong grip over those working at organisations that explicitly position themselves as working to break this mould.
Many definitions of extremist are tautological, like the Oxford entry “a person who holds extreme views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.” Collins has gone with “a person who goes to extremes in political matters, a supporter of extreme doctrines.” Merriam-Webster’s entry for extremism is “the quality or state of being extreme, advocacy of extreme measures of views.” Great stuff, but the most interesting definition is given by Cambridge: “someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable.” This is at least definitive. I don’t doubt this is the definition far-liberals subscribe to (consciously or not) but a problem lies within those key words: most people.
Following up their exclusive investigation into Paul Marshall’s Twitter likes, The News Agents have interviewed the other media mogul vying for The Telegraph, Jeff Zucker, who is leading the bid funded mostly by a high-ranking UAE royal and politician. Zucker declared to Jon Sopel, another sensible BBC-man, that The News Agents had “exposed finally that Paul Marshall is unfit to own a newspaper… that was clear from what your reporting last week exposed. We are clearly the best option for The Telegraph and The Spectator”.
Zucker’s decade-long stint as President of CNN saw that channel descend from a liberal-leaning and generally respected outlet to a collapsing parody of itself, irreparably damaged by thousands of hours of hysteria over the now disproven ‘Russia-gate’ allegations.
His reign also saw the network adopt a number of radical agendas including Covid-authoritarianism, accelerating uncontrolled immigration and carbon fanaticism. I’m not an expert on American social attitudes, but I’d expect ‘most people’ to find these beliefs ‘unreasonable and unacceptable’.
Most people wouldn’t agree with many Emirati customs either. Goodall’s view that engaging with critical views of mass migration to Europe from radically different cultures is racist extremism, would not be deemed reasonable by most people. The insistence of Maitlis that the many millions who have thrown their lot in with Trump are “conspiracy theorists” rather than concerned ordinary voters, would not be acceptable to most people.
I’m not trying to say ‘the other side are the real extremists’ (even though it’s an arguable case with this definition). I don’t find this word meaningful or useful – we already have words for those who advocate violence, and demonising people for not sharing an (alleged) majority view is not only unreasonable and unacceptable but the basis of all totalitarian societies.
In any case, watching The News Agents’ current tour of America is fascinating stuff. There’s a palpable sense they view themselves as political versions of Louis Theroux visiting rural Klan members or an Amish village. As a viewer though, the glaring perception gap between interviewers and interviewees cannot be missed. When Maitlis speaks to Congressman Byron Donalds, a black Trump-supporting Floridian, she asks him in incredulous tones whether he finds it “deeply offensive” when he hears Orange Man being racist and bad. Her questioning also includes some interesting remarks: “Donald Trump is trying to target the young black African-American: the masculinity vote”, asserts Maitlis. Her racial characterisations of the visibly bemused Congressman Donalds continue: “[Trump’s] lost a lot of women over the whole issue of abortion, so he’s going after young black men because they like his machismo”. The lack of self-awareness is truly astounding.
What happened to these people? As is often the case, they suffer from many of the afflictions that they ascribe to others. When the gammon awakening first took root at the advent of Brexit and Trump, we often heard about ‘the left-behind’, those people who, unable to deal with the changing world around them, had retreated to echo-chambers from which they sniped and lashed out. Look how the tables have turned!
In 2024, the far-liberals don’t even bother to hide their disdain for the masses with faux-empathy and anthropological labels. They don’t even engage with those they view as ideologically inferior anymore – they are simply to be mocked and then ignored. This is seen in the increasingly preferred format of propaganda, where mid-wit sensibles like James O’Brien angrily shout at and put down their listeners for being thick plebs.
What we are seeing is a radicalisation of those who view themselves as the sensible people in society. They are the dinner-party class and they have reacted to the deplorables breaking into the mainstream and creating thriving new media spaces by embracing their dismissive labels with a new vigour. While in the near-past there was some desire not to alienate the hoi polloi too much by calling them all whatever-ist or something-phobic, now the far-liberals don’t even try to restrain the scope of what they consider to be radical and extremist (as the inclusion of The Conservative Party, GB News, Reform UK, The Telegraph and even this esteemed publication in Hope Not Hate’s recent ‘State of Hate’ report shows).
As such, ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘extremists’ (and privately, ‘nutters’ and ‘cranks’) have become magic words for far-liberals to signal their virtue to each other, and to shut down anyone else who they deem politically incorrect. ‘The public are idiots’ and ‘voters are incredibly stupid’ are sentiments heard all too regularly from journalists off-camera. This fully closed mind has given up on intellectual curiosity and severed its connection with facts.
The conspiracies that they deride are often based on genuine intersections of vested interests and power structures, yet they have started to engage in their own conspiracy theories, alleging with little evidence that Boris Johnson is a FSB spy, that Russian interference decided Brexit and that dark shadowy forces are behind groups against lockdown and the endless restrictions on motoring. In their world, conspiracies are not engaged in by the elites against the people, but by the people against the elites – how about that!
These arguments can easily evolve into semantics so allow me to bring us back down to earth for a second – let’s picture in our head a hypothetical ‘normal, ordinary person’, and put to them a few differing positions and imagine what they’d say is the ‘extreme’ position:
- Increasing our population by many millions with spiralling numbers coming from the poorest and most backward parts of the world VS taking in a very small and manageable number who have genuine ties and come from compatible countries.
- Allowing endless thousands of unknown fighting-age illegal migrants from warzones to be escorted on dinghies into our country and to be put up indefinitely in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense VS using our armed forces to protect our borders from illegals.
- Encouraging and subsidising children to mutilate their genitals and take copious amounts of hormones and hard chemicals as part of a legally recognised ‘identity’ and proposing outlawing therapists from talking children out of that VS recognising transgenderism for what it is: a mental illness, often mixed up with autogynephilia and fetishes, made into an identity and promoted by the state.
- Sending billions of our taxes to military contractors via corrupt Ukrainian politicians so that a brutal war of attrition, that could have been ended a month after it started, continues to rage on even at the risk of nuclear armageddon VS telling Kiev that it has to become an explicitly neutral state and normalise relations with Russia so Europe can develop a new and lasting security architecture.
- Systematically discriminating against white people on a political, corporate and cultural level to rectify the microscopic racism that other people face while ignoring heinous crimes like rape-gangs and stabbing epidemics in order to not be racist VS judging people by the content of their character and not by the colour of their skin.
I’ll let you decide which set of views you think Joe Bloggs would find most extreme, but to my mind, there’s no question that the positions of the far-liberals represent the real extremism plaguing our country. They have no sense of proportion or measurement. Despite the negative effects of their Swiss-cheese worldview being all around, ideological sunglasses convince them that they are not only correct but are morally superior. This is insane.
Batya Ungar-Sargon, an American left-wing journalist and big news star has been disowned by elite Democrats for pointing out that the party has lost the working class to the MAGA movement. She recently gave an interesting analysis on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast:
“Working class Americans, whether they vote for Democrats or Republicans, whether they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, they all have the same views. Neither party is really speaking to them, they all agree by and large about the most important issues – polarisation is a totally elite phenomenon.”
We see this here in Britain too. The major parties attack each other in the media while rabble-rousing in Parliament over their cosmetic differences but they agree with each other on all the major issues of the day, and the public by-and-large disagrees with them.
There is nothing sensible or tempered about the policies enacted, both at home and abroad, over the past few decades. There is nothing democratic about the messages sent by voters being disregarded and ignored time and time again. When they try to gaslight you into thinking they are on your side, like Sunak’s recently discovered concern about Islamist extremism, do not forget that it is he who is presiding over the current record levels of both legal and illegal migration, and his party that has enforced failing multiculturalism and indirectly supported radical Islamic terror in the Middle East. All the toys will come out of the box for our Punch and Judy elections, but be in no doubt: all the far-liberal elites are equally responsible for our woes and operate as a uniparty (which neither you nor I am in).
Commentator and author Mark Dice advocates using liberal jargon in reverse, coining phrases like ‘anti-whiteism’ and ‘black fragility’. I think we need to start giving back what we get and incessantly label these dogmatists as far-liberal extremists. Instead of being on the back foot, constantly defending ourselves against smears and allegations, it’s high time to tell these lunatics that we, ordinary normal people, are the real sensibles of this country and that those destroying society with dangerous ideologies are those better described as extremist.
Yet if they still laugh gormlessly in your face, you could always just tell them to “fuck off”.
How to Save Journalism
Since Elon Musk’s purchase of X, Anglophonic media has been under increased pressure to reform. His self-proclaimed empowerment of “Citizen Journalism” is becoming difficult for the mainstream to ignore. Through algorithmic changes that suppress the liberal voices that have dominated for so long, and boost accounts loosely but best described as “anti-woke”, the discourse of the “Global Townhall” is changing. Musk’s commitment to efficiency privileges interactions over anything else, meaning high impact, low complexity is the currency of the day.
For the mainstream, this is challenging: audiences are organisms, they are found, cultivated and pruned by publications; the less they are a known quantity the harder it is to write for them. Most of us possess multiple social medias meaning multiple algorithms, there are more “content” outlets than ever before, and a bottomless pit of data being bought and sold. What were once “audiences” are now millions of individuals, simultaneously a part of as many groups, being groomed into consumers from as many directions. In short, much of what is published in the mainstream is based on presuppositions, both major and minor, that no longer exist.
To remedy this discrepancy, the journalistic “plays” commonly used by the British commentariat must be abandoned. Providing interesting twists on pre-existing answers (I’m paraphrasing the FT’s Janan Ganesh) is not good enough when the questions being asked are not set. The risible construction of “identify a specific issue, universalise it, and then deem it intractable, unanswerable and requiring vague consideration” must go because as the post-war consensus collapses almost everything is up for debate. The practice of articulating a specific consequence of a certain dynamic, e.g. mass immigration, while not admitting the dynamic exists, and presenting the consequence as a driver of outcomes rather than what it is—that is, a consequence—must go as it prevents real discussion. The world is less constrained than it has been for a long time, the long twentieth century is over, globalisation is in retreat and liberalism is on the rocks. Journalists need not twist the same lines of argument to keep things interesting, they must find new facts.
To see what makes an impact we must look to X.
The story of Springfield, Ohio, which in early September 2024 was struck by an influx of Haitians – most likely with TPS (Temporary Protected Status) – said by inhabitants to be eating local animals, serves as an example. To this day if you google it, you will find a page of articles condescendingly informing you it didn’t happen, apart from the Telegraph. Except it did happen (albeit with clarifications), the story was broken on X (albeit amid a flurry of less reliable, engagement-farming posts), and it was an important factor in swinging the vote for Trump; it provided him with an opportunity to clarify and articulate his stance on immigration. It turned the ‘spirit’ of 2016 into policy.
The issue of the Mirpuri rape gangs re-entering the discourse at the beginning of the year is another. Few knew the full extent of the ongoing horror because (for the most part) journalists have historically omitted the specifics of the atrocity. However, during the weeks that Elon Musk had an excerpt of one of the court transcripts pinned to his X profile, people were very aware of the depravity that had occurred. Brits’ revulsion at ourselves combined with pressure from America forced us to come to terms what the rape gangs are: our Chernobyl—the rot at the heart of Britain—and total inditement of the post-war project. We were forced to see ourselves as others see us.
The micro-trends of the Westminster sphere are another. The fissuring of Reform, a party that consistently polls as highly as Labour, took place on X and was provoked by Rupert Lowe’s popularity and success on it. The Trump regime’s distancing themselves from Farage was first alluded to on X and can only really be understood through X as that’s where each does most of its talking. Most importantly, the new and controversial topics entering the media-sphere—the Motability scandal, the two-tier justice system, the demography of who receives state resources, and the emergence of MPs who campaign and win solely on their co-ethnics’ support—are all drawn from a pre-existing discourse on X.
The online and offline worlds are merging. This is a fact. What will life look like as events online further impinge offline, how will journalists react?
When confronted by Trump’s tariffs, a policy thought by many to be consigned to the past, journalists were forced to respond, but here in Britain new visions for our country are only just emerging. Labour have no reason for being in government, the Tory party doesn’t exist apart from Robert Jenrick, and Reform offers little more than anti-woke jibes—the norm has run out of road.
But on X there is a Dissident Right that has answers to the questions of the day and cares as much for the last millennia of British history as it does for the next. It looks to similar movements throughout Europe, all represented on X, who share the same concerns and similarly themed solutions. In fact, the true importance of X is its tabling of an Anglophonic consciousness, something that will come to dominate this century.
All this cannot come too soon as the cratering of the mainstream’s ability to tell us what is happening in the world will only deepen. The termination of USAID was the destruction of a global patronage network that funded news outlets, journalists, NGOs, charities and more. Without it the liberal worldview we are so familiar with will be pushed significantly less. Redundancies have occurred from Politico to aid workers in Africa, liberal mouthpieces are no more. What’s now clear is just how much of the mainstream “discourse” is a confection, created by a small number of highly motivated people. Naturally this will only increase the public’s distrust of the media, but it also clears the ground for new voices to enter the fray, promising a further de-privileging of what manages to hang on.
If journalists are to benefit from what their industry is experiencing, they must see it as a selection event. They must go out and find issues to investigate and investigate them. They must open their eyes to the currents of the world we live in and explore it, broadening their understanding of what is. Finally, they must stop repeating the platitudes of yesteryear. There is a huge opportunity for change, for journalists to ride out on their own and make a real impact on the world. Let’s hope they do.
Photo Credit.