David Cameron has garnered high praise and volumes of positive reaction to his statements made on Sunday Feb 5th regarding Europe, Britain, Diversity and Multiculturalism. It is being hailed as a Prime Ministerial dumping of shackles of political correctness. Many analysts and social commentators have long been fearful that the diversity and inclusion debate, which sit at the heart of multiculturalism, have single handed created paralysis in debate and prevented any comment that might question the efficacy of multiculturalism. The fear, of course, is to be labelled as a fascist or, at best a racist and pilloried for even considering such a notion. The new liberal dogma of anti-liberal debate (just in case it offends) has been exposed as a “naked emperor” for some time. It seems now, at least for the moment, that the Prime Minister has decided it is safe to state the “bleeding obvious”.
The Prime Minister is quite correct when he identifies multiculturalism as an important problem because it has eroded common British values and identity. If we wish to live in the liberal utopia of being an inclusive and diverse culture which embraces and celebrates difference then we must recognise that there need to be differences and the eroded and perhaps absent British identity does not afford differences. In fact it only ensures a new racism to emerge. The British identity must be submersed at all costs and replaced with lots of variable identities. These variables demand nothing from anyone; they have no structure, no social cohesion and certainly tolerate nothing. As such no group, community or individual can feel bound in a shared national project. Worse still, because it has no common intellectual identity, it affords a schizophrenic response and legitimises a lethal set of double standards.
What this creates is a society which is fragmented, nobody is sure what they can or cannot believe or say. The disenfranchised young Asian men, whom some enjoy to target and stigmatise, also find it hard to identify with Britain. Not because white Britain does not tolerate them; far from it, but because white Britain has allowed the weakening of a collective British identity. The result is staggering; when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, they are rightly condemned. However, when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, a fear creeps in and there is no such condemnation. Caution and fear creates an inertia which in turn creates a dualism of morality and fails to stand up to something that is objectionable and racist by equal comparison. The failure, for instance, of society to challenge arranged or forced marriages where young women are bullied and on occasion abducted overseas in order to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. The attitude adopted by the neo-liberal, illiberal, politically correct elite that tolerates such an abomination only goes to reinforce that cohesion and diversity has become dualism and contradiction.
But what are the implications of ending the nonsense of multiculturalism? Just as a starter the Muslim Association of Britain but the supposedly more mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, along with most if not all of its affiliates, would now be considered as illegitimate. The Muslim Parliament would be declared illegal – the British Parliament would be the one source of prima-facia value and identity. The assorted groups preaching jihadi subversion on our University campuses would be thrown into prison and the Saudi funding of mosques and university Islamic studies departments would end. The inclusion of sharia law in Britain would be stopped and removed along with the sharia commercial financing that affords small Asian businesses to start and grow.
But what of elsewhere? In the United States, affirmative action (equal opportunity) is also beginning to run out of steam. The very country where only a black person may call another black person a “N****R” because if a white person were to do so they would be shot on site – yet strangely a black person is quite able to call a white person “whitey” without any sanction.
For the last generation at least affirmative action has been at the heart of education; thus forming the mainstream thought for the educated middle classes as they graduate and assume control over the society that has spawned them. However, the diversity and inclusion agenda is clearly the purpose of affirmative action is now under attack. From some quarters there is growing concern that far from being an “essential” to a college or university education, such diversity is ploughing a road to its destruction. The argument goes that diversity – particularly ethnic diversity - is merely racism in a politically correct disguise. As I said above, perhaps the naked Emperor is now visibly so.
For the last generation at least affirmative action has been at the heart of education; thus forming the mainstream thought for the educated middle classes as they graduate and assume control over the society that has spawned them. However, the diversity and inclusion agenda is clearly the purpose of affirmative action is now under attack. From some quarters there is growing concern that far from being an “essential” to a college or university education, such diversity is ploughing a road to its destruction. The argument goes that diversity – particularly ethnic diversity - is merely racism in a politically correct disguise. As I said above, perhaps the naked Emperor is now visibly so.
In our liberal, democratic Western Society, racism to most is perceived to be a belief that one race is superior to another. However, it is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and completely wrong) view of human nature. Racism has become the notion that race determines identity. This understanding then proceeds further as it promotes a view that a person’s convictions, values and character are determined not by intellectual judgement but by blood and genetics. Therefore, people can only be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership.
The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence and belief in his own intellectual ability. Such an individual then will look elsewhere for a sense of belonging or identity in a group. David Cameron suggests that the disenfranchised young Asian men who become Muslim extremists are such individuals. They seek a sense of identity. Perhaps first in the identity of the culture in which they live – a multi racial British identity – and when that fails (because of its dilution or absence) by clinging to some other group, thus abandoning their autonomy and their rights and allow an fundamentally singularly focussed ethnic group or an extremist part of that group dictate what to believe and think. Because they now think of themselves as a racial entity, they now are only free to feel themselves as individuals amongst others of the same race. They become a collective of separatists, choosing friends—and enemies—based exclusively on ethnicity.
To return to the United States, this separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations. Ghettoism, imposed by self inflicted, de-personalisation, effected by a neo-liberal flim-flam of false dogma and fear in being confident in one’s own skin. For us in the United Kingdom, whole urban villages have become stigmatised with being a "no go area" for Whites, or Indians or Caribbean's. What is so awful is that this ghettoism is the result of the Western Liberal diversity movement which claims to have as its Key Performance Indicator a goal to extinguish racism and build a society of tolerance of celebrated differences. It is a total sham.
The extension of the argument depends on a cultural curriculum that teaches us that our identity is determined by skin colour. The multiculturalism policy deliberately prevents us from seeing each other as individual human beings. There is an immediate expectation that we should consider ourselves as part of an ethnic group. It is impossible to preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect any of us to have self-esteem. Collective identity will only afford members of that group an identity only while the group exists. If it changes, becomes more aggressive, more radical then the individual will have to become aggressive and radicalised in order to maintain their identity. All evidence of self esteem and personal intellectual identity will have been removed.
The Cameron speech has begun a debate, a much over due debate, on the efficacy of multiculturalism and diversity. It can only now be suggested that the advocates of multiculturalism and diversity are the true racists in the basic meaning of that term. It is they who see the world through glasses coloured by race. To the multiculturalists, race and ethnicity are what count. They are the touchstone for values, thinking, rationality, morality and human identity. If there is ever an argument to explain why racism is increasing it must be that people are no longer allowed to treat each other as individuals; to multiculturalists, they are not.
The advocates of multiculturalism promote toleration and celebration of difference. The differences they have in mind are racial. What they are actually suggesting, I propose, is the ghettoisation of our societies into clear racial or ethnic groups. That is segregation. That is racism.
These same advocates of multiculturalism claim that because the world is a diverse group of racial groups; our societies should be cosmopolitan and reflect that fact. But why should a given individual society within any racial group reflect that global diversity? To impose ethnic diversity is to impose the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That surely is racism? This racism, and not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today's intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in our society is intellectual diversity; that is the diversity of ideas. However, such diversity—far from being sought after—is virtually a forbidden topic of debate. The existence of socially engineered "political correctness" rides roughshod over our freedom to engage at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.
If Britain wishes to be a diverse, inclusive and culturally rich society reflecting the wealth of its history then it must eradicate racism. This means it must eradicate multiculturalism wholesale. In so doing it will be forced to scrap racist programmes and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. It will afford the individual the right to value their own reason and feel secure in a national identity. It will accept that multi racial does not mean multi cultural and that race does not mean identity.
The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence and belief in his own intellectual ability. Such an individual then will look elsewhere for a sense of belonging or identity in a group. David Cameron suggests that the disenfranchised young Asian men who become Muslim extremists are such individuals. They seek a sense of identity. Perhaps first in the identity of the culture in which they live – a multi racial British identity – and when that fails (because of its dilution or absence) by clinging to some other group, thus abandoning their autonomy and their rights and allow an fundamentally singularly focussed ethnic group or an extremist part of that group dictate what to believe and think. Because they now think of themselves as a racial entity, they now are only free to feel themselves as individuals amongst others of the same race. They become a collective of separatists, choosing friends—and enemies—based exclusively on ethnicity.
To return to the United States, this separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations. Ghettoism, imposed by self inflicted, de-personalisation, effected by a neo-liberal flim-flam of false dogma and fear in being confident in one’s own skin. For us in the United Kingdom, whole urban villages have become stigmatised with being a "no go area" for Whites, or Indians or Caribbean's. What is so awful is that this ghettoism is the result of the Western Liberal diversity movement which claims to have as its Key Performance Indicator a goal to extinguish racism and build a society of tolerance of celebrated differences. It is a total sham.
The extension of the argument depends on a cultural curriculum that teaches us that our identity is determined by skin colour. The multiculturalism policy deliberately prevents us from seeing each other as individual human beings. There is an immediate expectation that we should consider ourselves as part of an ethnic group. It is impossible to preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect any of us to have self-esteem. Collective identity will only afford members of that group an identity only while the group exists. If it changes, becomes more aggressive, more radical then the individual will have to become aggressive and radicalised in order to maintain their identity. All evidence of self esteem and personal intellectual identity will have been removed.
The Cameron speech has begun a debate, a much over due debate, on the efficacy of multiculturalism and diversity. It can only now be suggested that the advocates of multiculturalism and diversity are the true racists in the basic meaning of that term. It is they who see the world through glasses coloured by race. To the multiculturalists, race and ethnicity are what count. They are the touchstone for values, thinking, rationality, morality and human identity. If there is ever an argument to explain why racism is increasing it must be that people are no longer allowed to treat each other as individuals; to multiculturalists, they are not.
The advocates of multiculturalism promote toleration and celebration of difference. The differences they have in mind are racial. What they are actually suggesting, I propose, is the ghettoisation of our societies into clear racial or ethnic groups. That is segregation. That is racism.
These same advocates of multiculturalism claim that because the world is a diverse group of racial groups; our societies should be cosmopolitan and reflect that fact. But why should a given individual society within any racial group reflect that global diversity? To impose ethnic diversity is to impose the supremacy of one ethnic group over another. That surely is racism? This racism, and not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today's intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in our society is intellectual diversity; that is the diversity of ideas. However, such diversity—far from being sought after—is virtually a forbidden topic of debate. The existence of socially engineered "political correctness" rides roughshod over our freedom to engage at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.
If Britain wishes to be a diverse, inclusive and culturally rich society reflecting the wealth of its history then it must eradicate racism. This means it must eradicate multiculturalism wholesale. In so doing it will be forced to scrap racist programmes and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. It will afford the individual the right to value their own reason and feel secure in a national identity. It will accept that multi racial does not mean multi cultural and that race does not mean identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment