Douglas Murray has written an interesting piece for the Times today about what he refers to as “Britain’s new elite”. Who are they? He starts by considering a recent spat between Andrew Neil and Charles Moore in which each accused the other of being part of the “the Establishment”, while, as Douglas says, neither really is – not really. Here is the key passage in which Douglas identifies the people he thinks comprise the current Establishment.
So who is in charge today? What might the elite be right now? Charles Moore addressed himself to this question in his response to Andrew Neil. The new establishment, he suggested, is largely “a public sector affair”. As he said, they run almost everything that comes from the largesse of the state. They are in control of the universities, museums and oversight bodies. They are in charge of the BBC, quangos and all the major charities that receive money from government while also lobbying government.
The fact that this establishment exists can be discerned not least from the private language they have come to employ. These are the people who speak the present-day equivalents of Nancy Mitford’s U or non-U. The “U” of the past used to be about saying “loo” rather than “lavatory” or “sofa” over “couch”. In the present era the elite language signals come from the people who talk about “diversity”, “inclusion” and “sustainability”. They are the people who hold lockstep views on Brexit, LGBT issues and gender fluidity.
If you doubt this then consider for a moment if you can think of anyone who heads — or even sits on — any major public body who holds any of the “unacceptable” views on the questions of our day. Is there anyone in charge of our major institutions who believes that the UK must have a restrictionist immigration system and that the government should enforce the laws of the land when it comes to such matters? Has any one of these people ever spoken out in support of such policies?
What about the grinding intersection that clearly exists at the meeting place of trans rights and some women’s rights? Would any of the women who have spoken out about these matters, from Kathleen Stock to JK Rowling or Julie Bindel, ever be offered the chancellorship of a university in this country, the head of a government body or the chairmanship of a museum? These might sound like rarefied institutions and hardly the sorts of places where the moving and the shaking in the land occurs. And yet that would be wrong. The cultural weather of the country is precisely controlled by the people who control this country’s institutions. And while they are not of any one political party, the people in charge of nearly all such bodies in Britain today are people who have signed up to the exact same set of approved orthodoxies. To step outside these orthodoxies would be to commit a type of heresy.
For all elites have their rules and standards. And the rules and standards of the current establishment are to hold exactly the views that you are meant to hold on issue after issue. Run for a post at such an institution while saying the government’s net zero ambitions are fantasy or that governments across the West need to turn to coal, nuclear or fracking as energy solutions and you will find the coolest reception imaginable. And no job offer at the end of it.
That is the point that Moore made after his bruising doing-over at the hands of Neil. Neil believes Moore is part of the establishment, while Moore clearly believes Neil is. And while both of them are part of something, nobody could say it is the absolutely dominant elite of our time. For while both are masters of robust journalism, neither has the god-like right to cast people out of what passes for society in 21st-century Britain. Moore or Neil might duff an interviewee up and leave them wounded. But they cannot unperson someone. They cannot denounce them as a heretic and ensure that the life work of the opponent is reduced to a radioactive husk.
Worth reading in full.
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.
stnuc…. the lot of em
.
But …. maybe they are expecting deaths from pathogenic priming (which they will not admit, of course) and creating bogus numbers to suit their narrative. Then these bogus numbers will be ‘proved’ to be correct.
The government’s latest modelling.
That sums it up for me.
Complete and utter Bollox.
“were it not for the unforecast Delta variant their modelling since February would have overstated the position of deaths, cases, and hospitalisations by June 21st by around 1,000%. “
Crap assumptions on top of crap data. ‘R’ values again quoted, although they re total fiction.You cannot analyse this sort of computer gaming shite.
I managed to make a reasonable forecast of autumn mortality last year that was massively more accurate than the SPI-M crap – without resorting to any up-your-arse model unreferenced to reality.
Do just cut to the chase in these articles without treating the garbage seriously when there are no grounds to do so.
Their modelling creates an excuse to impose restrictions and enforce the useless ‘vaccines’. The insanity continues… and the masses just accept it!
It’s thge other way rund, Government has decided on another lockdown and a return to muzzles and SAGE are required to provide the “evidence.
The fda just voted against providing boosters. This despite mr. Biden demanding people to take the booster “just take it”. It will be offered in a few more days in the USA. I note the JCVI in this country does not recommend a booster at the time, and yet guess what, they are being offferredto those who would like one.
it would be nice to hear, a little more often, from the great Dr. Johnny Ioannidis, Stanford University epidemiologist. His number crunching and data is always worth a look. Instead we keep having to listen to scaremongering from sage, Boris and sleepy Joe. Anyone else had enough of that?
Project Fear know no bounds
One of many problems is that they should not be putting in the R factor in as a constant but rather it should be calculated by the model depending on other conditions such as season, vaccinations (I know that is a joke,) and so on. Their models are like the models that people used to have that the Sun went around the Earth, but not as accurate at predicting what would happen.
There’s an assumption that the models incorporate all variables that can affect the outcome, this is exactly what has happened with climate models.
The models referred to relating to a geocentric solar system actually couldn’t predict the course of events, it finished up with each planet having epicycles as it went round the Earth in the centre, this had to be true as the science was settled! Copernicus and Galileo were the sceptics of their day, the former didn’t publish until he knew he was dying and the latter faced the inquisition.
Well worth a watch to get the big picture.
https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/Reiner-Fuellmich-Introduction-English_BestCut:e?fbclid=IwAR17Y7l-6Y-ZMNaqwH6GvV74kcq-VfhCRrRIvMAgVJUWJyhS5qGq8t-jWVQ
The most damning thing about this is that it’s completely unsurprising.
Reiner Fuellmich is right when he says they are losing and so threatened measures and lies becoming more absurd (if that’s possible). Join people for the people on telegram – March, protest, use cash, refuse,
This is pure ass covering/predictive programming for the deliberately created epidemic of ANTIBODY DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT which they know is coming because that is the whole point of the jab rollout – TO CREATE ADE.
It’s very simple – 2002 to 2012 they tried very hard to create Coronavirus vaccines but they discovered that they only lead to death and worsened disease via ADE which is where the vaccine reconfigures the immune system in a way which is negative and causes all manner of issues including death.
Fast forward to the Corona scam and they have now tricked 2 billion plus people into taking a Coronavirus vaccine when the truth is they are naturally immune and have absolutely zero risk from this disease. Professor John Ioannidis puts the survival rate of COVID19 at 99.97% for the under 70s – nearly all of which have been tricked into taking the death shot.
Why would they run a scam of this nature where the whole endgame is to inject people with Coronavirus vaccines when they know 100% for sure that Coronavirus vaccines cause ADE which causes death and severe disease? It’s a genocide, and the COVID19 story provides PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY for their blatant crimes.
Robert Kennedy on why mRNA vaccines could never receive FDA approval (ADE dangers)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2zm5qa2wAuPa/
Dr. Lee Merritt All the Animals Died from ADE
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0GLonaOiXA39/
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13795
Global perspective of COVID-19 epidemiology for a full-cycle pandemic
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.13423
BREAKING NEWS ! Prof Dr John Ioannidis Stanford University On Real Data On Coronavirus Pandemic Apr 30, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btvDL6kIDsA
Status of COVID-19
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19
Am not quite sure what this means in terms of future government policy, but interesting that the ‘behaviour experts’ (AKA control freaks) are pissed off at apparently being sidelined.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/17/no-10-accused-of-sidelining-behaviour-experts-on-latest-covid-measures
Something needs to be done about the government’s handling of this scamdemic. Its reached criminal proportions and heads have got to roll now! The incessant lies and overstating of cases and PCR tests are an insult.