Category Archives: politico-administrative élite

The pitiful centre-Right’s posture of surrender

Spineless, rude and grossly inept: James Brokenshire, described as the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government

By such cowards are we governed

Two days, writes Dalrymple,

after cables by the ambassador to Washington were published in the Press, in which he characterised the Trump administration as inept, divided, and chaotic, a Left-wing weekly, the New Statesman, belatedly published an apology to Sir Roger Scruton for the wilfully misleading — indeed, defamatory — version of an interview Scruton gave to its deputy editor, George Eaton. As a result of this truncated and mendacious version, Scruton was fired from his honorary appointment as chairman of a commission to try — not before time — to improve the æsthetic standards of modern British housing.

The minister who dismissed him was the one who had appointed him shortly before, a man called James Brokenshire.

Spinelessness, ineptitude, division and chaos of the British government

What unites these two episodes, Dalrymple points out, is

the ineptitude, division, and chaos not of the Trump administration but of the British, which is incomparably greater. To these qualities may be added spinelessness; indeed, spinelessness is at the root of the problem. It is hard to do the right thing, or even to do anything properly, when at heart you believe in nothing.

Mendacious: George Eaton, described as the deputy editor of what was once a journal of some quality, the New Statesman

Few people were better qualified for the job than Scruton, Dalrymple notes, and

to many Britons his appointment came as a surprise because he was so well-qualified for it, such being the contempt in which the politico-administrative class is held.

Rude, incompetent and pusillanimous

Scruton’s sacking

did not really come as a surprise, either. Brokenshire, who had so fulsomely praised Scruton on his appointment (which, incidentally, dismayed all the right people), went into retreat, like a routed army, the moment the distorted interview appeared in public. He dismissed Scruton not only without informing him, which was rude, but without informing himself, which was incompetent and cowardly.

Did Brokenshire immediately apologise and reverse his decision once the true extent of the distortion of what Scruton had said was revealed incontrovertibly by Douglas Murray of the Spectator?

Of course not, because that would have meant admitting that he was wrong — grossly so. Being a minister in Theresa May’s government means never having to say you’re sorry. The thought of resigning because he had behaved so badly probably never entered his head.

Theresa May: being a minister in her government means never having to say you’re sorry

However, very slowly, says Dalrymple,

by degrees, as if under torture or cross-examination by a brilliant attorney,

Brokenshire was forced to travel in the direction of an apology, and eventually he said sorry,

though he still states only that it is a possibility, not a certainty, that Scruton will be reinstated.

At every stage in the lamentable story, Brokenshire

has acted as if all that counted was his own short-term political advantage.

Fear of the Left-leaning Lumpenintelligentsia

What was Brokenshire afraid of that led to his decision to dismiss Scruton? The answer, says Dalrymple, is

the Left-leaning Lumpenintelligentsia that is so quick to take to social media. Because, like May, Brokenshire appears to believe in nothing, he is not able to face down opponents with arguments, instead falling back into an immediate posture of surrender.

The likes of Brokenshire, says Dalrymple,

are the people who govern us, whether we deserve them or not.

How do I appear concerned and compassionate to my friends, colleagues, and peers?

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 23.03.21

More humanitarian than thou, not to mention a great deal richer

This, says Dalrymple, is for the pols, the polly-toynbees, the pundits and the pampered celebs of the West the real and most pressing question raised by any social problem.

The rules are:

  • Never give the appearance of blaming the victim of any social problem, or anyone whose life is poor or unenviable, by examining the bad choices he makes
  • Refrain always from looking at the reasons for those choices, since victims are victims and not responsible for their acts, unlike the small class of human beings who are not victims
  • Do not stare at a social problem for very long. Turn to abstractions, to structures over which the victim has no control

The rawness of reality must be avoided, says Dalrymple, so that

utopian schemes of social engineering can be spun.

The bien-pensants view people as

in the grip of forces that they cannot influence, let alone control—and therefore as not full members of the human race.

That people are reduced to automata suits the élite, for it

increases the importance of its providential role in society.

We the disfranchised

Screen Shot 2015-06-02 at 08.36.47Dalrymple points out that in almost every Western democracy, many voters apprehend that

the political class (including its bureaucratic allies) has become more like a caste—a self-enclosed and self-perpetuating group of people that arrogates privileges to itself, through the enjoyment of which it insulates itself from the rest of the population, whose interests it has therefore no reason to share or understand.

The division between the political class and everyone else

is much greater than any factional divisions within the political class. Though we vote, we are disfranchised.

The main candidates in most Western elections fill decent, right-thinking people with ennui. They all

look the same: smooth-faced and without any discernible trace of individual character. None make jokes. They are earnest without being serious. I can’t bear to look at, let alone listen to, any of them.

Die Nationalsozialistische Schottische Partei

From the British magazine Private Eye

From the British magazine Private Eye

The Scottish National Party, writes Dalrymple, are national socialists.

In economics, they are socialist, or at least corporatist; in politics, their rhetoric is nationalist. They are, in fact, national socialists.

Self-determination is not their true goal, of course. Dalrymple observes that the SNP’s real, though unacknowledged, aim is

increased access of the Scottish political class to the European politico-administrative élite.

This explains why, Dalrymple writes, the SNP are

firmly in favour of the European Union, an entity dedicated to extinguishing national sovereignty in Europe, and the formation of a superstate with few effective checks on the politico-administrative élite.

What they really want

What they really want

The SNP’s policies are, naturally, highly statist.

All private companies would operate, in effect, by licence from the government.

The SNP would hold

Welcome to Scotland

Welcome to Scotland

all the levers of political power, including powers of indoctrination.

Even before the last referendum,

an atmosphere of mild intimidation prevailed, such that those who opposed independence felt it better not to voice their opposition too loudly