The British Regime has made two major announcements this week, both of which have been wrongly interpreted by right-wing commentators as relating primarily to politics. Lucy Connolly – the Northampton mother who sent out, and promptly deleted, a supposedly inflammatory tweet about immigrants in the wake of the Southport child massacre – was denied her appeal against her 31-month sentence, passed after she pleaded guilty. Tommy Robinson, who has been in prison for contempt of court since October 2024, was due to be released this week but has suddenly been charged with harassing somebody in August 2024.
The Jolly Heretic is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s easy to assume that a "Woke Regime" is making an example of these people due to their politics: Lucy Connolly published numerous “far-right” tweets beyond the misjudged one about not caring if hotels full of immigrants were burnt down and demanding “mass deportations.”
Tommy Robinson has long engaged in provocative, anti-fundamentalist Islam, British nationalist demonstrations in which, it might be argued, he has stirred up division. You might assume these people are persecuted because they are right-wing – they are heretics who endanger and do not adhere to the "Woke Regime" – and their words and actions may contribute to public disorder.
I suggest this omits a crucial reason why they must be stopped: they are working class.
The upper class seems to get along with the working class; there’s a kind of noblesse oblige arrangement. A university friend of mine, who went to a public school and lived in a castle, put it best when he jokingly remarked about his close relationship with his college cleaner, who had consoled him when his girlfriend dumped him: “Daddy says that the upper class and the working class can be friends because the working class like serving the upper class, and the upper class like being served by the working class, but neither of them can be friends with the middle class, because the middle class have ambition!”
The upper class, in a sense, cannot survive on their own because they lack practical skills. The working class need the land, secure employment, and military prowess to repel invaders that the upper class provide.
The middle class, by nature, are insecure. They fear falling into the working class and deeply envy and resent the upper class, whom they wish to join, an ambition often frustrated. In many cases, they descend from those who have risen from the working class or fallen from the upper class. Psychologically, they deal with this by telling themselves that, though they may not be as physically tough as the working class or as rich and refined as the upper class, they are superior to both because they are “moral” and “educated.” They are Nietzsche’s resentful “priestly caste,” bubbling with hatred due to their perceived relative powerlessness.
This leads to competitive morality-signaling on the part of the middle class, a process behind many “moral panics” over the behavior of the higher and lower classes. For example, it was quite normal for both lower and upper-class people to have illegitimate children in the early nineteenth century. King William IV had many of them. A middle-class “moral panic,” combined with increasing middle-class influence over a decreasingly agricultural society, made this increasingly unacceptable, until love-children were routinely put up for adoption by the 1950s.
The middle class are high in traits that predict educational success: conscientiousness (rule-following, impulse control) and an optimal level of anxiety that incentivizes hard work and exam preparation. The aristocracy and the working class, according to various studies, are lower in both of these traits and in agreeableness (empathy and altruism) which also weakly predict educational success.
The working class are also significantly lower, on average, in intelligence. As I’ve discussed before, intelligence is associated with social conformity. Intelligent people better norm-map, understand the benefits of conforming, have the effortful control to adopt the norm, and competitively signal their conformity. They proclaim how wonderful the emperor’s new clothes look, whereas a working-class person might simply state that the emperor has no clothes. In this sense, the working-class person tends to be “based.” However, they may also perceive their own class as entirely separate and conform to its norms rather than those of the middle-class-dominated society.
For anxious people who are upset by the prospect of disorder and are physically weaker, this makes the working class extremely dangerous. Additionally, the non-noble upper class – those who reach the top, the innovators – tend to combine high intelligence with psychopathic traits, leading to questioning the system and rocking the boat but also to success in making money. In that sense, they are similar to dissident charismatic leaders and, of course, to the working class and warlords who once became the traditional aristocracy and began assortatively mating with each other. They are dangerous.
So, the working class must be kept in their place. They cannot be allowed to express disorder-inciting views because, to the middle class, they are not “one of us.” They cannot be trusted, their motives are feared, and the middle class worry they might be hanged from trees as traitors if the moment came – and they be correct to be, in the view of the priestly caste.
In 2005 and 2006, the middle-class, privately educated leaders of the BNP – Nick Griffin and Mark Collett – were unsuccessfully tried for inciting racial hatred. The problem was that their party was working class. UKIP leaders were allowed to say, essentially, the same things, in a slightly less blunt manner, to their “middle-class,” “respectable” members.
In 2008, the comedian Jo Brand – a psychiatric nurse educated at a posh grammar school and very much part of the middle-class “Ruling Class” – was, eventually, not prosecuted despite joking about how people should find out where members of the British National Party lived and put excrement through their letterboxes. More articulate than Lucy Connolly or Tommy Robinson, she could better argue it was “just a joke,” and she could be trusted as “middle class,” as could her audience. In 2020, this same comedian was investigated, but not prosecuted, for joking about throwing battery acid over politicians. Her audience of university lecturers and doctors wasn’t realistically going to do this. But, in the minds of the middle class, Tommy Robinson’s childlike, uneducated followers might well do so. The kind of people who would read Lucy Connolly’s tweets – the plebs with their low-status opinions – might well act on them.
The English working class are extremely unhappy, and they are right to feel this way. Their traditional party, the Labour Party, cares about as much for them as Sinn Féin cares about the native Irish. Virtue-signaling adoration is far better achieved, for these insecure middle-class people, by lauding non-whites and sexual minorities than “the Great Unwashed.” Foreigners undercut them (making life cheaper for the middle class), take the council houses they might see as reasonable recompense for accepting poverty, and destroy their “sense of community” (another thing they ask for). They are no longer told they shouldn’t mind being low-status because they are part of a great nation. Their nation is denigrated as “racist” by its own leaders, who encourage its destruction and the native working class’s replacement. They must watch non-British people literally run their country, for which their ancestors struggled down the mines or waded through the stinking mud of the trenches.
The Ruling Class – who are, in so many ways, middle-class administrators who’ve never fought in the army, run a large farm, or run a business, as the upper class do, and who’ve never really suffered or taken serious risks, at least not since World War I – are right to fear the working class. The working class are “based” in the real world and see the consequences of middle-class “luxury beliefs.” This is why it must be made clear – through the state persecution of Lucy Connolly and Tommy Robinson – that they must not be allowed to publicly express their opinions or organize en masse. They are “far-right thugs” who must shut up, know their place, and doff their (baseball) caps to the new middle-class squire.
The question is: How far can the working class be pushed? How much abuse will they take? History shows that their tolerance of the priestly caste, especially when combined with the right dissident leaders, is not infinite. They can, and have, been mobilized, especially if they increasingly have little to lose. Perhaps they can also be more easily mobilized if, like Lucy Connolly last summer, they have never felt the full consequences of conflict – the war generation now long gone – or if, like Tommy Robinson, they have felt this and have been strengthened by the experience.
By Edward Dutton Did you miss the last Dutton’s Digest? Click below:
The Banality of Evil: Who is Lucy Connolly's Anti-British, Woke Judge? May 17 Read full story https://www.jollyheretic.com