The status war has finally broken out in earnest over the Syrian refugees. The first shot was fired by the glamorous blonde Icelandic blogger who offered to adopt a Syrian child and encouraged her countrymen to let out their spare rooms to the refugees. Around 10,000 Icelanders have responded positively to her Facebook campaign and her picture has been seen around the world as a result. Here’s a video of Dutch welcoming refugees with song.

Then the Finnish Prime Minister weighed in with an offer to let out his second house and got plaudits all around for this selfless demonstration. Again the Finns rallied around and the offers have been pouring in.

But now the big rollers have arrived. Sir Bob Geldof says he will put three Syrian families in his rambling country house in Kent and put another one in his London place. The publicity avalanche generated by this has been predictably huge.

It was very generous of Saint Bob but only fair as the humanitarianism business has been so good to him. Back in 1985 Bob’s pop music career had long fizzled out when he had the bright idea of a record and concert for African famine relief, the big cause at the time.

His business partner remembered that when they first dreamed it up in a greasy spoon café, Bob was so broke he couldn’t pay for his bacon sandwich. Today Geldof is one of the wealthiest men in the British media — thanks to Live Aid. He really did show that you can do well by doing good.

All of which now piles the pressure on Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson. Last week she was enjoying herself hugely chastising her fellow British as “racist” and “shameful” for being reluctant to take in refugees. Now Britain has decided to take in tens of thousands — time to throw open the doors of that huge Hampstead mansion, Emma!

Strangely there is much more enthusiasm for accusing others of racism and shameful behaviour than there is for actually opening up their own houses.

For what the crisis is highlighting is the strength of one of strongest but least acknowledged forces of the age. WEMI — or Western Emotional Incontinence — is a form of narcissism common to prosperous Western countries in which deranged and self-destructive fits of empathy seem to overtake the middle class — and especially the gentle sex.

While not a root cause, WEMI is a massive accelerant to what is happening now. Like atomic fission, WEMI could be harnessed for good causes or wielded for bad ones. Unfortunately our ruling elites seem to know this very well.

It took a commenter on the Steve Sailer blog to put his finger on it and he used the iconic photograph of the dead Kurdish child on the beach.

In Germany, which is being held up as the greatest country in Europe, upwards of 40% of women with advanced degrees have no children. The drowned child was their child, their family is the family of the world. Hence as a result of that photo the prime minister of Finland has announced that he will place his second home at the disposal of Syrian refugees.

Is it too uncharitable to suggest that, amongst left-wing women in particular, this is not fuelled by altruism so much as a combination of attention-seeking, status-enhancement and hatred? Hatred of White men whom they blame for their unhappiness? Hatred of working class White men who, in Britain, are constantly demonized as workshy, benefit-addicted degenerates?

Some men’s rights activists have theorized that a matriarchal society makes women unhappy and they will attempt to open the gates to new, more virile, men as replacements. Perhaps this is cuckoldry on a societal level.

To remember a time when society lost its collective mind in this way British people only have to cast their minds back to the death of Princess Diana when the entire nation’s womenfolk seemed to take leave of their senses. The queues of female mourners, wanting to pay their respects, stretched for miles outside her London home.

Amongst Jews especially there seems little taste for opening their own homes to Muslim immigrants. They don’t like being told what to do. But they seem to have an endless appetite for shaming, nagging, lecturing, preaching and barking out orders about the moral shortcomings of the British while hypocritically ignoring Israel’s response to the crisis. There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees.

One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the UK and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

Failed politician David Miliband chided the British public that they were “betraying their proud history of helping the displaced” — a plea heavily larded with the lachrymose tale of his own family’s wartime struggle to get into Britain. (Miliband now makes a handsome living running a humanitarian aid NGO in New York as consolation for not becoming the Labour leader.)

The Independent was one of the outlets willing to air the hysterical observation from Andrew Stroehlein, media director of Human Rights Watch, that the ghost of the Holocaust was summoned up because the police in Czechoslovakia were numbering the refugees on their arms with pen and ink. Stroehlein’s Twitter feed seems spew out shaming and blaming accusations around the clock.

The Guardian gave Jonathan Sachs space to rehearse the well-worn Kindertransport story while the paper’s Diplomatic Editor Julian Borger recited the tale of his own family’s wartime flight from Vienna to Britain, the argument being that if his family was ambitious and talented, all refugees must be similarly endowed and similarly motivated (“Refugees bring hope, not trouble – my father’s story is proof of that“).

And speaking of Kindertransport and the tendency to see the situation as a Jewish allegory, this is from the Jerusalem Post:

With all the questions about how Europe should deal with the Syrian refugee crisis hitting its shores, one Holocaust refugee says that the Syrian refugees should be welcomed in wholeheartedly as he was 77 years ago. Leslie Baruch Brent, a professor emeritus in immunology, was just a child when his parents sent him to live at a Jewish orphanage in Berlin to escape the unbearable anti-Semitism in the small German town where they lived. … “We [meaning the British] owe this to mankind to help the unfortunate people who are desperate and whose plight we are to some extent to blame for,” he said in reference to the Iraq War, which he claimed lead to the creation of Islamic State. … So far, Brent described the British treatment of the refugee situation as “horrendously negative and selfish” and criticized the way Europe as a whole has handled the situation. “Europe has a responsibility to help refugees,” he said. Germany’s recent welcoming of Syrian refugees into their country was described by Brent as a shining example of how other countries should handle the situation. Now with a desperate situation facing refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria, Brent says Europe has a duty to let in the refugees.

In the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland led the finger-wagging by telling us that we must resolve to “do better.” Nevertheless, his heart is warmed by housing projects in Sheffield and London that will prioritise refugees over the natives in overcrowded Britain.

On the BBC, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis was interviewed by Political Editor — and fellow Jew — Laura Kuenssberg. They agreed that White countries must do much more share the wealth with the Muslims. Mirvis discussed the crisis with Pope Francis who has very generously agreed to accept two (2) refugee families at Vatican parishes.

The Pope said: ‘We all share this world together, therefore we need to care for this world together. We need to recognise that the plight of the refugees is not only their problem, it’s also our problem, these are real people.That’s why the first thought that crossed my mind when I saw the picture was, God forbid, it could have been a child of mine, a child of yours, anybody’s child.

But for sheer gall it is difficult to beat Jewish journalist Ronald Brabazon from the Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper in Austria. Rather than making a Julian Borger-type claim based on the success of his own family, he claimed that immigration was proven to produce economic success because of the success of 750,000 Russian refugees who arrived in Israel. Of course, he omitted to say that these were Jews arriving in a Jewish society.

What everyone was too polite to mention was that Israel was taking in no refugees at all. The country is too small, says Netanyahu (although it wasn’t too small to admit the aforesaid 750,000 Jewish refugees). And in any case they are busy exporting their African “infiltrators” to Sweden and building a wall to keep Syrian refugees out.

It’s not just Israel’s behavior that is getting no coverage. What is not being asked is one of the most amazing aspects of the story so far — astonishing given the saturation-coverage. Everywhere you looked, the refugee narrative fell apart. Many of the Syrian refugees are not Syrian and aren’t even refugees. There is the disconnect between the pictures of the strapping, healthy looking young men and rhetoric about traumatized women and children who are nowhere to be seen.

The iconic picture of the dead child on the beach? The Kurdish parents were not in a war zone and had been living in a safe area for three years before their reckless decision to take to sea. But this is hardly mentioned apart from obscure reports like this one entitled “We are being taken for fools.”

And then there is the selective amnesia about the elderly Italian couple who had their throats slit by two Black refugees after arriving by boat from Libya. And how two asylum seekers were arrested after a mother and her son were stabbed to death in IKEA of all places.

And has it not struck you how well televised and photographed an event it is. Even the arrival of migrants to a rapturous applause in Germany seemed to be choreographed. The refugees even managed to co-ordinate chants for the benefit of the cameras? In several languages? Has it not struck you how slick this all is?

Will we discover that this is about as “spontaneous” as the colour revolutions that spread across Eastern Europe and turned out to be largely organised by Western security sources and such selfless individuals as George Soros?

Perhaps people were not asking difficult questions because they are too intoxicated with their own self-righteousness. They are too busy feeling good about themselves — and chastising others.