In January of last year, there was a tremor on the reservation, a glitch in the Matrix so to say. The Eye of Sauron fell on the now notorious actor and political activist Laurence Fox. On a pre-lockdown episode of BBC’s Question Time, he put his head above the parapet in relation to Meghan Markle and Prince’s Harry’s break from the Royal family. When responding to race researcher, Rachel Boyle, a member of the audience’s, assertion that they left because of the racist treatment Meghan received from the British press and public (meaning the white indigenous people), Lawrence had the audacity to reject her statement as false, pointing out that:
“We are the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe.”
This counter perspective may have seemed pretty innocuous at the time but unwittingly Lawrence had committed the modern-day equivalence to heresy, which Boyle was only too quick to point out:
“Sez a white man.”
Something seismic happened then, however: the audience in sync with Lawrence gave out a collective groan of disapproval. The coerced response I had expected was something like the nervous silence a member of the audience received on another episode, when she clashed with Ash Sarkar over mass-immigration (see my article about this: Ash Sarkar: The Trojan Horse Shows its Face).
This tremor did not go unheeded; not only did it reverberate around the entire auditorium but also could be felt by, whom Morgoth (YouTube legend) calls, the skintellectuals (a Bane, kind of media pseudo-intellegentsia, that pontificate to the public about how we should think and act in relation to race and gender). Labour politician Shami Chakrabarti, a fellow panelist, certainly went into containment overdrive by distorting what Laurence said. She misrepresented it as a statement that racism does not exist whilst she ironically lectured Fox on his need to listen to Boyle. As there wasn’t any evidence that he hadn’t heard what Boyle said, by this what Chakrabarti, probably, actually meant was “as you are a white male and Boyle is a mixed-raced woman, you can not contradict her on this issue.”
This exchange was enough to make a pigeon laugh, considering Boyle had been racist towards Laurence by liberal standards (she disregarded his opinion on the basis of his race and gender) and now Chakrabarti was correcting him about the power dynamic in play, a culturally-Marxist one that privileges Boyle’s opinion over his, at the same time as asserting he is speaking from a place of privilege because he is a white male.
The subsequent political fall out of Laurence’s stance certainly demonstrated where the institutional power lies. Members of the Soviet-sounding Actors Equity Union having to walk back their public defamations of Lawrence, only to prevent a libel action in court; and whilst this was unfolding, the skintellectuals began to not so much circle the wagons but circle Lawrence. Whether that be Afua Hirsch openly speculating that:
while she gets to determine what racism is to the white members on the panel of the TV show The Pledge. Or whether they call him directly “a racist bully” like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown with the same assumed position of authority within the political dynamic that Chakrabarti was alluding to.; and this against a man that follows the feminist dogma that says if men and women are equal then the man usually gets the job.
This is the dystopian future we have to look forward to, a changing of the whip-hand metaphorically speaking because from all of the above exchanges, what should be becoming funeral-somberly clear is that in those confrontations between Laurence and the skintellectuals it is not about equality – it never was. How can you seriously delude yourself that you’re just about equality when you don’t even want to debate with someone on equal terms (”I will decide what racism is and you have to listen to me not vice versa”). You have to ask yourself what drives racial-cultural ‘theory’ – destruction of western civilization? – resentment?
Fox, to his credit, is courageous. He is actually a sincere liberal, reciting lines from Martin Luther King about “content of character” not like many on the Left, who are only for liberty when it is politically advantageous for making arguments about abortion or immigration, for instance, but discard it when it is no longer the case, as now with freedom of speech.
Actually, Lawrence reminds me a lot of myself not too long ago. I found myself agreeing pretty much with all of what Sargon (a liberal YouTuber) had to say as he pushed back against the ever-increasing authoritarian Left. It was only due to Sargon’s debates with Millennial Woes (a Nationalist YouTuber) that I found myself reluctantly questioning the naivety of liberals in this current epoch, despite my moral compass telling me that I had breached the reservation.
Metapolitically, what Laurence really did on Question Time was try to reclaim a liberal understanding of our national identity, failing to see that it has been, already, irrevocably eroded by a multi-culturalism possed with cultural-Marxism dripping from the mouths of the skintellectualls. This erosion explains the censorious ire he provoked from the Left. You see the Left never concede ground so they had to delegitimize Fox and reframe the conversation in the public’s psyche.
And – Yes – he may well have survived their cull because, the ideologues apart, the Establishment don’t see him as a threat, a wolf, a fox. All you have to do is listen to any of those mainstream interviews he gives, including from so-called Right, political commentators like Peter Whittle or Julia Hartley-Brewer to realize that he is actually a sheep in wolf’s clothing. The first part of the interview is always a moral purity test, where he has to justify himself as non-racist and progressive, which is ipso facto egalitarian. In fact, it would not surprise me at all to find out that the Establishment played a part in his newly formed Reclaim Party, which acts as a pressure valve to funnel populist energy into – a gate to keep the real wolves, us Nationalists outside.