Before reading, please check out my music by using the music player on the right.
This is part of a series of articles, to read the others please use the links below.
The Agenda of Truth
Everyone has an agenda, this is mine in terms of diversity, multiculturalism, and mass immigration: I want people to realise that these are complicated matters and for people to understand that anyone who pontificates and is either wholly positive or negative, is either echoing their currently preferred dogma or are fixated on an agenda. I want people to reach some understanding between the many complex viewpoints.
The truth is rarely black and white but a grey slurry that we flounder in. So, Brexit, Trump, Clinton, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, if you think you have the solution to any of the above then I would suggest you are driven by your agenda, not the truth. When there are simple truths, things may be solved more quickly, but these issues are not only very complicated, there are layers of truth and lies that are practically impossible to separate. So, if you want to come on this difficult journey that I am proposing we take, prepare to be confronted by agendas, yours, mine, loads of other peoples’.
If the first casualty of war is truth, is the first casualty of deceit conflict? Behind deceit is agenda, and what causes agenda? Well that must be for another day. But in fact, it is agenda not truth that has the most sway.
Ok, before I get side tracked, I’ll just remind you now, diversity, multiculturalism, mass migration and globalisation, they’re problematic. If you believe they are the way forward, then you’re probably thinking that society just needs to try harder, that the concepts are good and should be strived for. But I disagree. I’m going to demonstrate why I think you’re wrong and if at the end of this you think I may have a point, then I would like you to help by trying to find a better way forward. First, quit repeating the same mantras, that diversity is good, that multiculturalism is working, that immigration is the way forward and that globalisation is great. Or if you are coming from the other extreme and you believe they are all terrible, then I hope you’ll want to be part of a dialogue aimed at bringing about a better world. You see not only is my agenda to point out that these issues are complicated but ultimately I’m hoping to get people to start working out where we can go from here. For all the rhetoric no one seems to move on, instead we’re stuck in an ever increasing polarisation.
If you had read the first of this series, “Globalisation, Multiculturalism And Diversity – Part 1 Globalisation“, you’ll know that I was driven to write this because of my experience watching a video in which an audience of so called progressives seemed to howl for globalisation and diversity. It made me angry and I wrote to explain why these issues are too complex and dangerous to be promoting them unquestioningly. I also mentioned Gwynne Thomas in that article, so I am going to refer to him again. Back in about 1979 he and I were talking about racism and he pointed out that there’s a big difference between racism and culturalism. In some ways this lies at the heart of many of the issues that will be coming up. Often people focus on race when it’s actually about culture.
At this juncture I’d like to challenge those who believe that racism is not about colour, ethnicity, culture etc… but instead, believe it’s about “otherness”. Whilst I agree that there is only one human race (as in a species), there are however “races” in terms of social constructs. This makes sense to most people. I think it is an immoral twist to make it about otherness because then it is used to oppress anyone who believes they have an issue with a particular group of people. They are then accused of racism, which silences them through their fear of being ostracised. Also by extension, we would all be racist under that definition because we probably disagree with certain ideologies held by groups of people (Trump supporters), certain nations, or cultural groups. So, for instance, if you think that white South Africans who believed in Apartheid were all wrong then does that make you racist? The argument stems partly from an interpretation of racism which tries to undermine the notion of race. True, the definition of race is quite nebulous however we, as humans, differentiate between each other in many ways, colour being one, culture is another. Also religious belief, class, political persuasion, age, gender, physical appearance (as in disability) are all things which differentiate ourselves from others. Rather than call otherness race, let’s keep these classifications as useful, practical starting points.
When I was a kid I watched Roots, and saw other programs in which black people were persecuted by whites. I saw them as “other” but identified with them nonetheless. Likewise, my heart still breaks when I think of the first wave of immigrants from the West Indies coming over in the 1950s, full of love for the “motherland” only to be greeted by cruelty and violence. Likewise, unlike most people probably, I also feel for the British white people who felt threatened by the influx of black people because in a way they were right. Their world was being turned upside down and they too had no control over these changes. Even now, I would happily fight to defend someone from racism but I also believe that within a very broad definition of what it is to be British, when someone migrates here they have an obligation to learn the language, attempt to understand the culture and most of all, bring their children up within “a British” culture. Notice I said a British culture because there are many variations. This of course is not a new point of view, one hears these sentiments a lot. But this is the view that is at loggerheads with cultural relativism, which states clearly that all cultures are of equal value. This might have some validity but the consequence of following that course is that far more social fragmentation occurs, less identification takes place and division and inequality are manifestly magnified within society.
Another central theme is the idea of there being a subconscious understanding within society, stating that if one integrates, the host culture will defend you ardently. However, if you don’t integrate, in fact if you actively show hatred towards the host culture then there may be some justification to their rejection of your animosity towards them. This sentiment applies to all members of society, as an ultimate example there are laws regarding treason but on a more day to day level, try pushing-in on a queue and see what happens. Some people may abhor such an ethos that is so negative towards people who wish to criticise the host culture, especially given many “natives” reject British culture too and want to change it. Yet in a way this is the reality of our society right now. Just look back to the McCarthy era where people in the USA were ostracised for believing Communism was a better system to Capitalism, and whilst nowadays we are more open to people living with very different ideologies, there are still limits, in fact this is the reality for every society throughout the world. It is only those so-called progressives in Western societies who propose that the deconstruction of only Western, mainly white, societies is the way forward. This is something which I believe has some quite racist undertones to it, after all they would never suggest any other nation follows suit, for instance, to tell Arabs they were too Arabic and needed a bit of dilution to improve themselves, they know this would clearly not go down well. And funnily enough, many members of Western societies do not react well to the same message that they are not pluralistic enough and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Even after decades of a pretty much failed social experiment to mould people into a non-racist, multicultural society, people are essentially not much different to how they were 7 decades ago. Sure they can pay lip service but really people are very concerned about mass migration and the non-integration of sections of non-indigenous communities. This is not only because the papers tell them to be concerned but because when they look around themselves, they see a completely different Britain to the one they knew 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago. They can also feel the fragmentation which has developed from it and there is even less trust between the different sections within society than there ever was, even when the class system was so much more dominant. I am not suggesting that we go back to a 1950’s segregated, racist, homophobic, sexist era. Instead I aspire to one that balances diversity and universalism along with some sense of inter-connection between these varying strata of society. A cohesive society which embraces a national identity, but still maintains a sense of belonging to a global community.
Ironically we seem to have already unwittingly returned to a bye-gone era, but not particularly a British one. Instead, as can be seen by the reaction towards globalisation in the form of anti EU rhetoric and Brexit voting, we are already living within a world that resembles the Soviet era. Speak openly out of line when it comes to the party politically correct line and you’ll be sent to Siberia, or worse still, Coventry! Thanks to the pervasive paranoia about appearing racist, ultra-right wing, or questioning the status quo when it comes to matters of race and mass immigration, it is pretty much close to unofficially illegal to speak of such matters. Yet, in the hushed secrecy of the voting booth, Brexiteers and Trumpeters got to have their say without uttering a word. And what they said was “We don’t like the direction we’re going in.”
The Soviet Union was famed for amongst other things, its facility to manipulate information, to create an atmosphere of self-censorship, a climate where free speech was not encouraged, to create new histories, new enemies, both outside and within, to make people feel that what they had was better than in other countries and to trust in the state. The Soviet peoples only had one option (realistically speaking) when it came to voting, but as Brexit showed, many people in the UK did not trust the rhetoric, and were willing to suffer economic hardship to take control of immigration and sovereignty in many areas of law that had been taken away via being a member of the EU. The difference between Soviet elections and the British referendum on the EU was that there was more than one option on the polling card, a detail those in charge seemed to have erroneously overlooked.
Just like in the Soviet era, politically useful myths replaced history, even today I read a senior UK opposition politician espouse how we’ve always been a country of immigrants. Most people don’t know otherwise or don’t question such myth-information, so over the following chapters I’m going to offer a more accurate view that will allow such myths to be questioned directly. Given they are constantly used to back up further mass immigration, in the sense that because we allegedly were so open historically (which we were not) we got to be so successful. It is therefore logical to have more immigration in order to be even more successful. This is utter rubbish and needs to be nipped in the bud. No I’m not advocating stopping immigration, but there is a big difference between being open to cultural influences and using immigration as one of many tools to aid the advancement of a country. Whereas mass immigration is a very different matter and this confusion must stop if we are to avoid further inequality and social upheaval which may prove to be very destructive to us all.
I’m now going to begin tackling some of these myths. Firstly “The British are a nation of immigrants” and secondly “The British are a tolerant nation”.
Editor: Naomi Stanley
I can thoroughly recommend the book linked to below