Liberalism on the Retreat: The Left Shuts the Gate on Piers Morgan

Outspoken, former tabloid editor and until recently presenter of ITV’s flagship program Good Morning Britain (GMB), Piers Morgan, stepped front of stage as his very public departure from the show compounded the already existing maelstrom of woke-princess Meghan Markle’s vindictive, attention-seeking interview on the Royal Family.

On the surface, this event may seem pretty unremarkable, just a demonstration of the kind of pantomime which made Piers and the show so popular in the first place. But this is far from being the actual case: Piers’ indignant and somewhat melodramatic exit-stage-left, leaving the show’s extras and his NPC co-host Susanna Reid gasping for a teleprompter update, was indicative of a fracturing in the cultural war between the hegemonic Left and the former liberal hegemony (not economically), which opened the gates to the Left to begin with.

Not that Piers would have been present to the broader political forces in play. In many ways, this was the kind of rude awakening that Lawrence Fox was privy to on his controversial appearance on BBC’s Question Time (see my article, Lawrence, the Sheep in Fox’s Clothing). You see, in spite of his stance on Covid, Piers considers himself to be a liberal. Unfortunately for him though, displaying all the correct liberal attitudes, such as towards freedom of speech, are no longer viable. The Left are no longer singing from the same hippy-song sheet they were whilst his mother was still changing his nappies during the Summer of Love. It is of no surprise to anyone in our circles that the Left is now the biggest proponent of censorship, inversely, because their objective was never liberal: it is the destruction of Western civilization and something approximating a communist uniformity of thought and action.

For Morgan the Bell Tolls

Morgan was one of the last mainstream liberals to hold such a prominent role in the public conversation; and as Morgoth (YouTube sage) pointed out in his excellent, recent video on Morgan:
In the way television is now … you’re not going to see a set-up like that anymore where the white man is like boss and he is sitting there with his two girls like his entourage, and he has got … nearly half the desk to himself.

How prophetic – the bell was tolling for Piers as Morgoth’s video aired. By the following morning, when the populous had tuned in to GMB, Morgan had been overwritten like an avatar in the Matrix Reloaded only not by Agent Smith but Cultural Marxism in the form of Ranvir Singh.

I could have had some sympathy for Morgan’s plight but then I recall that not only have liberals opened the gate to the Left’s trojan horse (please read my article Ash Sarkar: The Trojan Horse Show’s It’s Face for clarification) but also he has firmly kept it shut upon nationalists.

What about Tommy Robinson, Duncast? How many other prime time shows would have given him a platform?

Actually, Tommy is a case in point because out of all his arguments with his guests, Robinson was met with the most visceral-insincerity from Morgan. For instance, Morgan pedantically pointed out to Robinson that the media coined ‘Finsbury Park Mosque attack’ didn’t take place directly outside the mosque itself (it happened in close proximity) as if this fact debunked Robinson’s assertion that the mosque had been targeted for its links to terrorism

The irony being that, as far as cultural-Marxist dogma dictates, Morgan, as a white-heterosexual male, belongs to the same oppressive class as Robinson. Besides, what in principle do they fundamentally disagree upon? Yes, Robinson is anti-Islamic but this is consistent with liberal values because Islam at its core is authoritarian. But then to oppose Islam would have identified Morgan as an Islamophobe, outside of the Left’s parameters of acceptability. And in this lies the crux of the predicament not just with Morgan himself but with the collective mindset of the indigenous liberals at large. In other words, how do they remain true to their liberal sense of fairness and individualistic perspective without falling foul to the increasingly authoritarian, collective dogma of the Left.

Retreat to the Bailey

The inevitable answer being that these two world views can not co-exist. Morgan’s heated exchange with GMB’s weatherman Alex Beresford, which led to Morgan’s explosive departure, encapsulated this. The former’s anguish was genuine, a man who had gone out of his way to be bulletproof against the charge of racism. It was the hill that Morgan was prepared to die on, acknowledging to his BANE inquisitor Beresford that he “Doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.” He wasn’t alone in his sense of irritation though, you could witness Beresford’s frustration too. I think he basically wanted to spell out the obvious from his perspective: “Piers, as a white man you can’t speak of Markle’s experience, other than to affirm the legitimacy of it.” But he wasn’t entirely comfortable with stating this within such a public setting, probably reinforcing his own distorted view about the systemic-systems-of-the-oppressive-institutions-of-structural-white-supremacy. After all, if this wasn’t the case he should have just been able to state freely that the system favours white people despite the obvious self-negation of his world view this freedom of expression would necessitate.

It was a moment in the haze of public discourse where the rubber met the road. The validity of Piers’s opinion and his liberal agency did not matter. To the contrary, what was important is that it flew in the face of an insidious-prevailing ideology that determines all dissent from its totality as heresy, that being of bigotry in a contemporary context, especially of the racist variety. Outspoken liberals like Morgan find themselves now occupying this space, no longer able to punch right because our voice has already been banished from the public square. Therefore, they either go into exile like David Starkey or retreat from the motte to the Bailey like Andrew Neil with his new GB news channel.

However, this is not bad news from our outpost. Liberalism keeps the gate open to our ethnic replacement and subversion of our national identity, but with its collapse at the very least, we will have balkanization. Morgans’ encounter on GMB reminded me of a very enlightening moment I had about the limitations of liberalism. It was many beers ago while I still resided within the imploding civilization of my forefathers. I was listening to a Muslim woman arguing with an English woman on a local radio station. It must have been in 2011 around the time the veil was banned from public places in France. The well-spoken Muslim girl was making entirely liberal arguments about her human right to be free to dress as she pleased. She didn’t offer any moral judgments about the righteousness of such attire. It was a kind of live a let live vibe, where the integration of disparate cultures within the UK was entirely possible because of a liberal outlook, that was until the English girl, who rang in, pointed out to her that she would not be permitted to wear a short skirt in say Saudi Arabia. The Muslim responded quite nonchalantly something like: “Well, that is because they do things differently over there.” And when further pushed (completely unveiled) she said to the English girl in a tone of contempt, “well, you can wear a short skirt if you want to be attacked.”

It never fails to surprise me how quickly liberal values can be disregarded once surplus to requirements. Ultimately, the will to power is the true state of nature on both an individual and a collective level. liberalism is an ideal that never really existed outside of common law and certainly can not work in a divided nation.

The “baseless fabric of this [liberal] vision … all which inherit shall dissolve [and] … leave no rack behind. We [liberals] are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded in sleep.”