God, I hate Katie Hopkins…

April 23, 2015

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – FEBRUARY 9: Katie Hopkins seen leaving the ITV Studios after an appearance on ‘Loose Women’ on February 9, 2015 in London, England. (Photo by Neil Mockford/Alex Huckle/GC Images)

God, I hate Katie Hopkins. But not for the reasons everyone else does. I hate her in the sense that I can’t help worshipping her and the ground she treads on because she does what I’d like to do but does it so much better: she annoys all the people who most deserve to be annoyed, she remains articulate and collected in the face of all the brickbats that are thrown at her, and above all, she seems to make a damn good living out of it.

The last bit isn’t as obvious as you’d think. I was talking to an agent the other day about the best way to make the most of a career as an outspoken media commenter and his argument was that you shouldn’t stray too far from the middle ground for that way you alienate half your potential audience.

This is especially true if you’re on the right. Outrageous pinkos – look at Owen Jones, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Polly Toynbee, et al – tend to get a much freer pass from our left-leaning media culture. But their equivalents at the conservative end of the spectrum are much harder to find. In fact I’d say that there’s only one and that’s Hopkins.

Over the weekend, you may have noticed, Katie Hopkins was trending on Twitter yet again – this time because of a piece she’d written in The Sun in which she’d upset the Offenderati by using the word “cockroaches” in the context of the boatloads of hapless, parched, pitiable migrants now fleeing Libya. At this point you’re obliged tactically to distance yourself from Hopkins by noting how distasteful you too find her appalling choice of words. But I’m not going to, for several reasons, the first being that that it was so devastatingly effective.

One reason why so many torpedoed mariners were eaten by sharks in the Second World War is that sharks are drawn to explosions. This is what Hopkins achieved with her “cockroaches.” It was her very own USS Indianapolis: in came a veritable Guardianista Who’s Who of finny horrors: Diane Abbott; Owen Jones (natch); Piers Morgan; Russell Brand – all turning the waters of Twitter red in a roiling frenzy of noisome, bleeding-heart self-righteousness.

And in the wake of all the celebrity offendotrons – the Wankerati, as I call them – came shoal after shoal of opportunistic bottom feeders: the ones trying to get her sacked from The Sun; the ones demanding that Hopkins be prosecuted (no really: a whopping 2200 of them have already signed the inevitable Change.org petition) for “incitement to genocide”; the ones tweeting photos of her children and declaring how unlucky they were to have such a frightful mother.

Now the textbook lefty response to this kind of monstering is to play the victim card, as so-called “anti-poverty campaigner” and professional lesbian single mother “Ms Jack Monroe” has just done. She could, of course, have just quietly stopped using Twitter. Except, being a Social Justice Warrior, she couldn’t. No, she had to weaponise her exit with a heart-rending blog about how she felt Twitter was no longer felt a “safe space” : “Today I left my house at 4pm. Head down. Eyes flicking at every stranger walking towards me on the street. Sunglasses on the Tube. The man arrested roams free after 15 hours in Policy custody, updating his blog with sneering comments…”

The not-so-subtle implication of this – and we’ve seen similar tactics from Stella Creasy MP and a feminist campaigner called Caroline Criado Perez – is that free speech has gone too far and it’s time we had a clampdown. This is the guerilla version of the conventional war which has been waged on free speech by the left-liberal establishment (from Keir Starmer, CPS and an emasculated police force to Hacked Off and their amen corner at the BBC and the Guardian) via the Leveson Inquiry and the vexatious arrests of all those Sun journalists. It’s cynical, it’s dirty, it’s illiberal and it’s much, much more dangerous and ugly than anything Katie Hopkins has ever written.

But the reason so few people appreciate this is – ooh look! Katie Hopkins wrote a nasty word, so we needn’t talk about it. That, I’m afraid, is the level to which so many vitally important debates have been reduced these days by the liberal-left’s Alinskyite tactics.

In the case of Hopkins’s Sun piece, no left-wing commentator, so far as I’m aware, felt under any obligation to respond with any manner of reasoned counterargument. They might have pointed out that because the West created the Libyan crisis it has a moral obligation to fix its consequences; or they could have gone the whole hog and argued that we have a duty to house all refugees, come what may.

They didn’t though because – a bit like with all those rapists out there who just can’t help raping women because they’re provocatively dressed and therefore have it coming to them – their intellectual processes were short-circuited by Hopkins’s outrageously unforgivable deployment of a single term: “cockroaches.”

A piece in the Independent claimed that this was the kind of dehumanising words the Nazis used, so apparently rendering Hopkins’s entire commentary beyond the pale. Lots of people in the comments section and on social media agreed with this analysis. I hope this tendency frightens you as much as it frightens me.

Why? Because it’s a dirty rhetorical cheat, not an argument. No, worse than that it’s a vicious lie. By focusing on just one intemperate word (designed, as so much of the best polemical writing does, to provoke a response) and freighting it with far more significance than any remotely objective interpretation could possibly bear, it calculatingly misrepresents the opinions of a heroically brave, often admirably sensible woman who dares, as so few do, to voice what the silent majority are really thinking.

Related posts:

  1. Television: Weekly shockers
  2. I hate Lush. I love Aldi. How about you?
  3. Twitter: ‘Tweet’ went the birdy, and we did
  4. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election

2 thoughts on “God, I hate Katie Hopkins…”

  1. Sholto says:24th April 2015 at 8:09 amThe Left get to write the narrative because basically they have taken over the public sector. Not, as the Right grumble, because of a cunning Gramscian plot to take over the institutions, but because they have had no choice.
    When I was at Uni (Dept of Maths & Computer Science) there were no lefties in sight, ditto Engineering, Accountancy, Physics, anything requiring accuracy and logic. No, they were bunched up in the softer sciences, in fact the softer the science the lefter its participants.
    Obviously one does not emerge from the academic meringue of a Sociology or Gender Studies course to be confronted with a vista of open doors into the private sector. Whereas here in Australia, and I imagine elsewhere, the public sector often insists on a degree but they normally don’t care what degree. Hence you are best advised to never stand between a leftie and the taxpayer’s teat.
    So we have reverse Darwinism at work – those with the most intellectually and academically questionable degrees end up in the environment where they have most influence over the rest of us.
    Those of us unfortunate enough to live in the real world always face an uphill fight to be heard over the overwhelming superiority of media volume and bureaucratic diktat at the disposal of the other side.
    The West is stuffed.
  2. Richard Treadgold says:25th April 2015 at 3:32 amSuch perception. Such common sense. Such enjoyable simplification. Such is Delingpole.

Benghazi and Obama: The Media Is Trying to Shore up This Desperate Administration

Christopher Stevens: Obama lied; he died

Here’s one thing we can be sure of about the Benghazi affair: almost everything we’ve been told since by the mainstream media is a lie, invariably one designed to shore up the creaky and desperate Obama administration.

Consider how quickly the story was spun by Obama’s amen corner in the liberal MSM. It should, according to any objective news sense, have been a shocking tale of how a woefully unprotected ambassador was murdered in cold blood by Al Qaeda affiliates. Instead, it almost immediately became – of all things – an excuse to demonstrate why Mitt Romney was unfit to be president.

Here, for example, was NBC the day after.

Yesterday we noted that Mitt Romney, down in the polls after the convention, was   throwing the kitchen sink   at President Obama. Little did we know the kitchen sink would include — on the anniversary  of 9/11 — one of the most over-the-top and (it turns out)  incorrect attacks of the general-election campaign .

And here was CBS the day after. (Sounds to me like they have the same White House press officer dictate their stories for them…)

(CBS News) The conventional wisdom emerged in Washington almost immediately on Wednesday: Mitt Romney’s handling of the violence in Egypt and Libya was a disaster.

“The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake,” Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News. “There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they’re a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points.”

Er, with respect Steve Schmidt – and all those other experty experts consulted by CBS – surely what the American people REALLY want when their country is attacked is the truth. They’d also like to be assured that everything possible had been done to prevent the attack happening; that when the attack was taking place, everything possible was done to try to save the lives of the ambassador and his team and that in the aftermath, serious attempts would be made to punish those responsible, reprimand those culpable for any security lapses, and learn important lessons about why the attack happened and how to avoid further such disasters occurring in future. Little, if any of this seems to have been done.

Instead, the post-Benghazi media coverage quickly became an exercise in finger pointing designed to show that it was anyone’s fault but the Obama administration’s. First, the attack on Romney. Then, the attempts to deflect attention on to the poor sap who made the anti-Islam hate video (which supposedly – though not at all in fact – provoked the fatal assault in the Benghazi consulate) – as if in some way to persuade us all that, hey, the lynching of the ambassador and his staff/protection kind of wasn’t that bad because, hey, we sort of invited it…..

Here in Britain, where the general understanding of Obama’s manifold inadequacies is so pitifully thin that about the most vigorous criticism we’re prepared to make of him is that maybe the muscle tone on his beautiful arms isn’t quite so perfect as that on his immaculate and delightful wife Michelle’s the Benghazi scandal hasn’t had much play.

But in the US conservative media – which basically means talk radio and the internet and the Wall Street Journal – the story is snowballing. And rightly so.

Here are a few examples: this one, this one and this one courtesy of the mighty Rush. Now, even the not noticeably conservative Reuters is joining the fray with more shocking revelations.

This is a big deal.

The Obama administration’s duplicity and mendacity is nothing those of us who’ve been observing, aghast, his disastrous foreign policy approaches since at least his infamous Cairo surrender monkey speech couldn’t have predicted. And while it’s nice to see his chickens coming home to roost and encouraging to realise that his chances of becoming a second-term president are diminishing by the minute, it’s hardly a situation you might call – hmm what’s the word? Oh yeah – “optimal” for the grieving relatives of the four men who died needlessly in order to satisfy the President’s wishful thinking that the Al Qaeda threat is diminishing and that there’s nothing wrong with the Middle East’s intractable problems that can’t be solved with a few emollient words, beautiful lies and maybe the occasional NASA-endorsed outreach programme….

Related posts:

  1. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?
  2. Romney’s Bad Judgement
  3. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  4. Is ‘Kojak’ Obama losing all his hair?

After Libya: where should Cameron strike next? | James Delingpole

August 28, 2011

Rockall: the obvious choice

Rockall: the obvious choice

Some readers may have woken up today wondering whether they have been transported into a parallel universe. In this parallel universe – let us call it Moronica – it is considered wise and statesmanlike when your country is falling to bits and £4.8 trillion in debt to borrow money you can’t possibly afford in order to finance your crumbling military to fire missiles at a million pounds a pop at a ramshackle army in a far off country in order to replace the insane despot who was formerly in charge with a newer, likely more dangerous regime.

Assuming, for a moment, that this really is Moronica that we now all inhabit, let us consider the options as to where Our Glorious Leader Dave should strike next in order further to demonstrate his international statesmanship:

China

Pros: on the verge of taking over the world and enslaving us all; mines evil rare earth minerals in environmentally unfriendly fashion which Sam Cam, like, totally, like hates, even though it’s OK really because they go towards the wind farms which make Daddy nearly £1000 a day on his estates; a big, juicy target that would impress David Cameron’s Notting Hill friends way more than poxy Libya.

Cons: We’d lose

Sierra Leone:

Pros: We’ve done it before so we can (probably) do it again; would strike the right Heir to Blair note.

Cons: Sierra Leone people mainly black – might raise difficult race issues in these fraught, post-Starkey times.

France

Pros: Would be hugely popular with the home crowd and guarantee re-election in 2015

Cons: Victory would depend, crucially, on whose turn it is to use the aircraft carrier.

Germany

Pros: see France

Cons: Our airforce likely to be decimated in low-level attacks by the massive preponderance of wind farms on the Hun’s territory.

Jersey

Pros: Small, potentially do-able target in keeping with Britain’s new look, post-cuts military.

Cons: They still might beat us, if France has got the aircraft carrier (see France)

The USA

Pros: Would send a clear signal to Guardianistas that Britain is not going to be “America’s poodle”; might well result in a sexy-sexy congratulatory tete a tete with Christine Lagarde; would make the Lib Dem element of the Coalition feel more at home than ever.

Cons: Our record of beating America in wars is not good. Then again, with a President as lame-duck as Obama in charge this could yet be our best hope.

Rockall

Pros: technically feasible; unlikely to offer too much resistance; could probably sustain assault by at least £10 billion worth of Storm Shadow, King Dong, Mighty Whopper, Streak Megalodon Boomibang, Whackamole, Deliberator XI, and Whooshiwhoosh missiles before giving up the ghost in a haze of satisfying black powdery stuff; a perfect opportunity to waste truly stupendous quantities of borrowed/taxpayers’ money, to no purpose whatsoever, and at no risk to UK military personnel thus avoiding any unhelpful images of Union Flag-draped coffins which might derail this project of unutterable pointlessness and stupidity. Another Libya then….

Cons: NONE. Rockall, we are go!

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Obama’s boot boys strike back
  2. 10 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Be In Libya
  3. Cameron’s first stupid mistake
  4. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight

2 thoughts on “After Libya: where should Cameron strike next?”

  1. K Gallowglaich says:4th September 2011 at 5:36 pmDear Mr Delingpole,

    I see that you are stretching out into areas even more outlandish than usual in order to increase your exposure and blog traffic. Well, we all have to make a living I suppose.

    I see that it has recently been announced that one of your favourite climate change skeptics papers has been exposed (the Spencer and Bradwell rubbish) as dubious in the extreme and caused the resignation of a fringe journal’s editor. Would that there was more of this sort of decent behaviour in response to such dangerous nonesense.

    My belief is that your stance on climate change will be seen ultimately to have been dangerously wrong. It is something I fail to understand in the light of all the evidence to hand and I can only assume that the somewhat manic right-wing posturing “stance” is to bring in the bacon. KG

  2. Nige Cook says:7th September 2011 at 12:05 pmCameron has already “insulted” the Chinese dictators by “pointing fingers” at them over their human rights abuse record during and before Premier Wen Jiabao’s 3 day visit in June.

    1. Britain secured $4.3 billion trade deals with China in June 2011.

    2. France secured $19.1 billion trade deals with China in November 2010 (see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-06/28/c_13953788.htm )

    3. Germany secured $15 billion trade deals with China on 29 June 2011.

    The point was made that Cameron’s “firm stance” on human rights has no effect whatsoever on Wen Jiabao, other than leading him to make bigger trade deals with other countries which don’t try to preach human rights morality.

    British “moral posturing” has gone a long way since 14 May 1938 when Prime Minister Chamberlain (proudly acting as “his own Foreign Secretary”) ordered the Foreign Office to ensure that British footballers gave the Nazi salute in Berlin’s Olympic Stadium to appease and cuddle up to fascism.

    Cameron should resolve the problem of China’s human rights record and British-Chinese trade relations by doing what is paid to do, i.e. deciding whether or not Britain is serious about human rights abuses in China. If Britain is serious, then trade imports from China should be banned. (Goodbye to all excellent electronics manufactured cheaply in China.) Then conscription, ultimatums to China, military mobilization, etc. In other words, he should come up with a definite plan and mechanism whereby complaining to China about its human rights abuses will resolve the problem, and if he cannot do that, he should admit that the hot air is not sorting out the problem (just as Nazi salutes in by British footballers did not sort out the problem with Hitler).

    The error is the arm-waving vague assumption that there is some kind of benefit to gestures which cannot solve the problem. The gesture of Nazi salutes, instead of resolving problems, made them worse just as wallpapering over the cracks makes problems worse. Cameron’s vocal BS on Chinese human rights is hypocrisy because he’s preventing any referendum on our EUSSR membership, which takes away our human rights here because most laws we’re subjected to are coming from the EUSSR which Britain has no control over. It’s effectively a dictatorship. Until he gives us a referendum on EUSSR membership, maybe he should be consistent and try to cultivate pure friendship with the uneChinese dictators for trade.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation