I often hear prominent, right-wing YouTuber ‘Academic Agent’ referring to Owen Jones as Squealer, the caricature of a state propagandist in George Orwell’s classic allegory of the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm. I think A. A. reaches this conclusion because Jones is in lockstep with the current orthodoxy and whatever ‘progressive’ edict they push in relation to diversity. But mark my words, Jones is no sophist. I think the literary allusion to Squealer would be more becoming of Alastair Campbell or Lord Adonis, thinking in particular of their manipulation and dishonesty post Brexit vote, when I became actively interested in mainstream politics for the first time.
Instead of Squealer, Boxer may be a better comparison to make because he embraced the struggle wholeheartedly in Animal Farm, whether breaking his back day after day building the windmill, or singing fanatically “Beasts of England.” Jones too is a fanatic. In a Sky News interview back in 2016 he childishly storms off set while discussing the horrific act of an Islamic fanatic in a gay club in Orlando. His outrage was genuine but what had got him so irate was Mark Longhurst and Julia Hartley-Brewer downplaying the “homophobic” aspect of the attack. Unwittingly for both Longhurst and Hartley-Brewer, they had both transgressed: they offered opinion on the significance of the attack in a manner which did not defer to Jones as the authority, with him being the only homosexual present. This incensed Jones, especially as his attempts to assert this ground were rejected by Hartley-Brewer, who refused to allow him to police her description of Mateen or make the dominating move of claiming that he was speaking for the entire LGBT community.
In this respect, Jones, like Boxer, is the perfect adherent of the system because it necessitates ideological conformity. There is no room for divergent thinking. In accordance with the identity politics of Cultural Marxism, he had seniority as a gay man and the others were being extremely disrespectful by not operating within this paradigm, which for him is hermetic, hence his petulant closing remark on the reaction of a further newspaper’s response to the atrocity:
“Oh! So you have a LGBT voice speaking about it – interesting.”
An objection from any of our enemies from the left upon encountering this last point, however, may be something like: “What paradigm? The man was reacting to a heinous act. What does that even have to do with politics?” Well, in addition to his framing assertion that as a gay man he not only takes seniority in this discussion but also speaks for hundreds of thousands on this topic, Jones doesn’t care ultimately about LGBT voices. Put another way, he has no problem with the censorship of right wing homosexuals such as Milo or Douglas Murray. For instance, in 2016 Soho’s vigil for the victims of Orlando, Jones managed to get Murray deplatformed from a Channel 4 coverage panel by refusing to attend with him. This somewhat counter intuitive suppression of gay voices is rational because the struggle was never about the individual. Equality is the moral absolute that can justify any encroachment onto a non-compliant population, but as with the Murray example, we can see some gays are more equal than others.
In truth, Jones’s politics are just another cultural manifestation of Socialism. It is Socialism in chaps, just as Feminism is Socialism with blue hair. Jones rides the LGBT movement like a horseman of the apocalypse. He is a warrior in the gay division of the Cultural Marxist offensive: on the nuclear family; on Capitalism in an exclusively Western context; on the so-called patriarchy; and more poignantly, on White masculinity, and especially White Ethno-Nationalism, as it is a natural bulwark to this destructive indoctrination.
It is not surprising then that Jones, on record, refuses to condemn Antifa, and back in 2017 came out in support of the unprovoked assault on Richard Spencer on the spurious basis that Spencer is a “Nazi” – apparently, a magical label that can justify violence, regardless of what the person in question actually believes or has done. I guess, in this case, that label could also be applied to any form of White-ethnic collectivism, making myself, anyone associated with Patriotic Alternative, or perhaps anyone who can just be positioned as “far right” fair game too.
Despite this incitement to violence and his role in purging dissenting voices from the public square, Jones could not be more mainstream, because he is totally immersed in the hegemonic-ideological narrative. What is alarming is not that he is a hypocrite or a sophist, but a puritan, ideologically possessed. Thus, he goes after Andrew Neil on the BBC, not appreciating that Neil gave them a veneer of impartial legitimacy, as their token right-winger.
This self-destructive impulse will always persist in the left, not just because equality is not attainable in any real sense but because ultimately they don’t want equality: they want ideological submission. Murray, in his latest book The Madness of Crowds, uses the analogy of a train that instead of pulling-up once it reaches its destination accelerates into the distance for the civil rights movement in relation to what we now have with the woke agenda. However, he was missing the point – the struggle is an end in itself, as the late, great Johnathan Bowden pointed out.
At the denouement of Animal Farm, despite his loyalty and service to the cause, they came for Boxer too; with harrowing echoes of the Soviet gulags – they haul Boxer off to the knacker’s yard. But on reflection, unlike Jones, Boxer is a tragic hero. Despite his lack of intellect Boxer did question the narrative:
“But Boxer was still a little uneasy
“I do not believe that Snowball was a traitor at the beginning.’’”
Jones on the other hand has no problem with doublethink, never once calling out Islam for its stance on homosexuality. Conversely then, the puppies taken by Napoleon to be raised as instruments consolidating his power are the best match for Jones, metaphorically speaking. Supposing the left did get what it wanted, ideological subjugation to the multicultural hegemony and in the process crushing us, who would their destructive energy, then, be directed towards? Jones himself would obviously be put against the wall as a White male and I don’t think his gay card would hold much sway say in an Islamic constituency. Nonetheless, I doubt even in this eventuality he would become self-aware, protesting about his innocence and ideological purity but not at the legitimacy of the struggle itself, just at its error in his case. Boxer did tragically realise, but only after it was too late as he fought for his life trying to kick his way out of the slaughter van. Revealingly, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn informs us in the Gulag Archipelago that it was perhaps the most painful for the loyalists who were incarcerated in those death camps:
“To say that things were painful for them is to say almost nothing. They were incapable of assimilating such a blow, such a downfall, and from their own people too, from their dear Party, and, from all appearances, for nothing at all. After all, they had been guilty of nothing as far as the Party was concerned – nothing at all.”