The Establishment presents itself as moral and opposed to base things like prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. This arrogance prevents them questioning whether they have actually created a multi-racial utopia or not. They too are prejudiced but against their own people. Furthermore, their unrealistic and irrational policies have brought about the very situation the ideology of the last 60 years was supposed to prevent.
In the early days of immigration there was opposition to the "Colour Bar" influenced by the harsh policies of the southern USA and South Africa. Socialists were mainly CND types with beards and duffel coats. In the early 1950s university lectures and tutorials began to use work by American academics or popularisations of, say, "The Authoritarian Personality" like "The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon Allport. These were idealists and overcoming prejudice seemed to lead to a better world.
These people came to power in the 1960's with university riots led by such as now MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and new Establishment luminary, Tariq Ali. It was then that "racism" became the term of abuse directed against "White" people because of the behaviour of Hitler.
The New Left took over and kept the name Liberal but changed the content. Individual rights became group rights which introduced totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). The aims of The New Left were totalitarian and this was summed up by slogans like “Everything is political” and; the call for social engineering: “We must change attitudes”.
This gave rise to the totalitarian state that is being developed now. Politicians, judges, academics, art elites, teachers, lecturers and media leaders inculcated that attitude at university. Liberalism changed from a quest for individual liberty and the Rights of Man to to a form of Marxist totalitarianism and the one-sided bias of Human Rights. French New Right thinker regards the New Left has having democratic goals but how he reached that conclusion is inexplicable.
The New Left were not Labour, working-class Socialists, but bourgeois, Socialists and middle-class students were the apparatchiks. They eschewed economics for identity politics. Classical Liberals genuinely believed in rights; the New Liberals (Left) were authoritarian.( 1) The identity politics are bearing fruit in the battle for homosexual marriage.
1968 was a turning point as the New Left took over universities and nearly brought the French government down with the riots in Paris, the LSE in London and Berkeley in the US. Many leaders of the New Left-Trotskyist groups like Tariq Ali became the new Establishment.
The New Left project was to destroy communities, especially working-class communities that supported the old Socialists while using the term for the new constituency groups like “black” and “gay” communities. They attacked traditional units like the family to replace it with “single mothers”, “lesbians” and “gay men”, and “alternative life-styles” which was presented as personal freedom and sexual emancipation; but ignored the unhappiness, loneliness and deprivation that being de-communalised and decultured causes. The abstract justification mattered; practical consequences did not. Now schools curricula is feminised and young men are denied the invigoration of competition and adequate male role models.
The Indoctrination of schoolchildren
In education Liberals allowed free expression within Liberal parameters and the style of essay writing was to consider the pros and cons of a case and discuss but Cultural Marxists, as the New Left are now known, are removing many subjects from the curriculum especially history because if people don't know their common roots it is easier to socially engineer them into a new people streamlined for utopia. They dumb-down and reduce vocabulary so people can only think what the elites want them to.
In 2010, Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Cultural Marxist Race Relations Act 2000. Teachers have to report children as young as three to the authorities for using ‘racist’ language. She revealed that more than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said, and that was three-years ago. I have added some end links to support these points at (5)
Cultural Marxism inherited much from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book which was fashionable for middle-class students between the 50s and 80s. Mentors like Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hobsbawm were open admirers of Stalin. Both Chinese and Soviet Marxists dealt with dissent with a public show trial where the victims publicly abased themselves and confessed their crime. In contemporary Britain this persecutory role is performed by the media. (2)
The Liberal Capitulation
This movement would have got nowhere without the support of major popular musicians of the time like Bob Dylan and The Beatles. John Lennon donated to the IRA and Black Panthers.
Classical liberals capitulated to the New Left in 1968- colleges and universities gave in to protesting students and Hollywood surrendered to Mario Savio’s free speech campaigns and began a non-realism use of swearing. Despite this the Progressives forbid free speech in opposition to their ideology.
Times editor William Rees-Mogg defended Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in an editorial on 1 July 1967 To Break a Butterfly on the Wheel when they were imprisoned for using drugs. William Rees-Mogg also allowed Steven Abrams to place a full page advertisement in the Times, calling for the legalisation of so-called "soft drugs" on the 24 July 1967; (the same month as his defence of Mick Jagger, and just after the "Legalise Pot Rally" in Hyde Park). This was funded by Paul McCartney and supported by such great intellectuals as David Dimbleby, Graham Greene, Brian Epstein, David Hockney, Allen Ginsberg and Jonathan Aitken. It's clear where William Rees-Mogg and the Times stood in the Culture Wars – they promoted them.
The state surrendered to Oz after their 1971”Indecency”trial for the “Schoolkidz” issue. The three principles were imprisoned by Judge Argyle but the sentences were converted to fines.
Roger Hutchinson wrote in High Sixties that the Oz prisoners were taken from their cells to see Lord Chief Justice Widgery who had their handcuffs removed and gave them sherry. If they agreed to cease working on OZ, he told them, their appeal would be certain to succeed. They agreed and were released on bail the following day. Three-months later their appeal succeeded. People without responsibility like comedian Marty Feldman called Judge Argyle ‘a boring old fart’ in court.
Classical Liberals believed in rights for ethnic people and homosexuals but Cultural Marxists give them preferential treatment. They were undermining our respective Western nations with guilt but from the ascension of the New Left Whites became targets for abject hatred and the move to dispossess and dehumanise them began.
This shift in the 60s was the change from fighting for racial equality to dehumanising traditionalists as haters. The term “racist” replaced “racialist.”
In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003, Sir Alfred Sherman, former speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and lead writer for The Daily Telegraph, recalled the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60s:
I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.
Ideological Use of Language
We express thoughts and feelings through language, which is why the Cultural Marxists are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “Whites” or “British”.
They try to change our thinking by changing vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian”. There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists. The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater” or a “racist”.
Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: ‘bigot’ and ‘tolerance’ are prominent examples. ‘Bigot’ means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to the “far-right”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.
The Media Restructuring Thinking
An example: the television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and travellers who had invaded her land. They show her as a representative of us but in the role of the travellers to break the public's views of travellers and change their attitudes. They showed no young Gypsy men, because they are aggressive and would garner support for the woman, though the makers of the programme would not want to show them as a threat. Village life was not shown, because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim.
When the police had to evict travellers from Dale Farm the media again showed no men. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes.
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1689)
Locke wrote this people are born with blank mines which are then impressed by sensory experiences. We are born without rules for processing information; information is added, and rules for processing it, are formed by experience of the senses without any inborn tendencies. That is central to Lockean empiricism. The presumption of a free, self-created mind plus immutable human nature leads to the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights. Because of this belief we are being socially engineering and traditional ways of thinking systematically broken down.
Rousseau's Influence
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, political theorist of the Enlightenment, who inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the romantic generation, used Tabula Rasa to support his argument that warfare is an advent of society and agriculture, rather than something that occurs from the human state of nature. Rousseau used it to suggest that humans must learn warfare. We see this type of thinking now: if war were not learnt we would not go to war. This leaves out the important point that war is an organised form of human aggression which is part of human nature.
in 1750 he published his first major work 'A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts' (1750). The central theme was that man had become corrupted by society and civilisation. In 1755, he published 'Discourse on the Origin of Inequality'. Original man, while solitary, was happy, good and free and the formation of societies, which brought comparisons and, with that, pride.
The Fruition of Tabula Rasa
Tabula Rasa became fashionable in social sciences in the 20th century. Early ideas in eugenics held human intelligence correlated strongly with social class, but these ideas were rejected, and the idea that genes or "blood" determined a person's character became regarded as racist. By the 1970s, social scientists saw gender identity as socially constructed rather than from genetics.
We learn a great deal through experience and our senses, but are born with pre-dispositions to certain inclinations: a carpenter, poet or pugilist, say, are predispositions to those activities and will be inclined in those ways; if they try to operate in different fields they would likely find things difficult and un-inspirational.
The Fruition of Identity Politics
The term gender was a meaningless abstraction and gave an unrealistic idea of what is actually a difference of sex. This became the interchangeability of persons but has now nearly lost all meaning as all traces of distinction are being removed and leading to a chaos without accurate definitions. What stops homosexual parents calling their girl a boy or vica versa? I understand that men in a same sex marriage are ''husbands'' and both women ''wives''. That is gender specific but muddles perception of reality. The Same Sex Couples Bill is the fruition of Identity Politics as was the Equality Act 2010.
From the bottom of page 29 to 30 The Bill tells us:
The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for
the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will
include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a
woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another woman or
a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including
both male and female same sex marriage.
On page 30 it says:
The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another
man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman); and “wife” will include a
woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man)
unless specific alternative provision is made.
A principle justification example in the debate,is that not all married couples produce offspring. This has been one of the strongest arguments for "same-sex marriage".
In an intelligent debate one may respond with these words: "Your opinions are irrational because..." The term to stop debate is "homophobic" and is used when the accuser is unable to articulate a rational reason against the most sensible and rational words of the accused. "Homophobic" seems to be an admission that one is unable to tolerate the truth and therefore the only escape from the truth is to pretend that the truth is irrational. (3)
The equality argument is that a male and female couple sometimes also have to resort to a Surrogate Mother, but this not an equal situation because the male and female couples' used as exemplers have a dysfunction but a male and male couple have no capacity for having a baby and always need outside help.
Traditionalism
Abstract thinking is a necessary part of human thinking but governance of the state like the family is a practical business that requires practical reason and concrete words to describe it. Abstract thinking in this sense has no clear meaning and leads to the interchangeability of persons.
To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not propagandise people into thinking that wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of policies not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate assessment of how people really behave to make wise judgements of others. It is a belief in wisdom which comes from living life, rather than learning ideology by rote and mindlessly repeating the right things.
A concrete, definite vocabulary links people to reality instead of a dream of utopia as vague language like person and humanity does; terms like “Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.
The Roman value of “piety” is also expressed in the Fifth Commandment: to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course.
Learning history is a significant part of understanding how people behave from previous examples and of understanding ourselves by knowing our origins. The interpretations vary but the basic facts are consistent. We need to apply the lessons of history to our present circumstances. When aliens are invited in they start to take territory: it is human nature. There are historical precedents to guide us such as when the Anglo Saxons were invited in and then the Normans.
The way to develop a new world view is to study the effects of the elites policies and gather examples of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration; collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to each other. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I distinguish this from the ideological notion on nation that grew from the Enlightenment: England, for example, has been an organic nation Alfred the Great.
Universal abstractions because they lead to unrealistic thinking- they have no substance. Human Nature is a substantial universal because everyone has it: it is not insubstantial and meaningless but a substantial universal because its shared by all peoples.
The ideology of multi-racialism was a reaction to Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jews and their aim - "it must never happen again." But it is happening again and caused by Western elites. Jewish people are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by the Muslim extremists the elites have imported. What an indictment on Western neo-Marxist elites. But still they claim to occupy the moral high ground.
What is interesting is that Cultural Marxists smear Traditionalists as “far right” and even “Nazis” but one of our principle role models, Sir Winston Churchill, tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. (4)
1. Aidan Rankin, 2001 Politics of the Forked Tongue:
Authoritarian Liberalism
2. Rape of Reason is an interesting analysis of New Left
tactics at the Polytechnic of North London by Keith Jacka, Caroline Cox and
John Marks. It shows how Liberals gave in to them.
Roger Scruton.1985. Education and indoctrination: An
attempt at defining and a review of its social and political implications
4. Churchill tried to introduce a Bill to control
immigration but it was not ready until after he had to give up the Premiership
because of failing health. His successor Anthony Eden shelved it.
Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet
Years, 1950-1957 Macmillan. 2003 p 382
The Public Records Office hold a
document that records this: PRO DO
35/5217
Some supportive links
The attempt to destroy
us
Indoctrinating
schoolchildren
The anti- British
mentality
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.html