[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: The UK and the US: Same Revolution, Different Consequences? With the election of Barack Obama, the “issue of race” has come to the fore once again in America’s media. In “multicultural” Britain it has long been a staple of the news. Yet, it was fascinating to see Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, say that it would not be possible for a Barack Obama to be elected in Britain, not because of the electorate – who, he said is open to the possibility of a Black prime minister – but because of institutional racism in the governing Labour Party. More specifically, Phillips suggested that it was in fact the government’s ties to “the trade unions, the socialist societies, [and] the left intelligentsia” that had prevented the government from facilitating the promotion of ethnic minorities. His assertion is striking, because it is Labour, and Leftists more broadly, that have led Britain’s multicultural revolution, ostensibly to help ethnic minorities and to quell racism. But the views of Leftists are not as enlightened as they believe. Multiculturalism is merely a form of multi-nationalism. Notably, in Britain, neo-Nazis espouse the same anti-American, anti-British, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian policies as its multiculturalists, and seek to distinguish Islam from the 7/7 London bombings in the same sort of language as Tony Blair and various Muslim groups. Likewise, David Horowitz has noted that White nationalists in the US have, “fallen into a trap set by the ‘multicultural’ left,” calling, to use his example, for “White history month” – an idea derived of course from the multiculturalists’ Black history month. There is a certain irony, then, in Trevor Phillips’ recent suggestion that positive discrimination should be used to help the White, working class British, if the “far-Right” is not to gain support in Britain. According to Phillips, Britain needs to employ, “[…] the sort of special measures we’ve previously targeted at ethnic minorities.” In particular, Phillips highlighted the comparably low educational achievements of the White British, suggesting – in the words of The Times – that the “equivalent of the ethnic minority educational grant” be established to help get more White working class to further their education. The problem is chronic. According to the BBC White boys growing up on housing estates (US: ‘Projects’) now constitute the lowest achieving group in education, and a number of university and government-funded studies have revealed similar findings. Although poverty, lack of parental guidance, the absence of male role models, and a politicized legal system are undoubtedly factors in many cases, the nature of Britain’s education system – and, more importantly, its politicization – has fuelled, if not largely created, this very serious problem. Chris Woodhead, a former chief inspector of schools, recently remarked of the new school curriculum, that its “subjects have become vehicles for politically correct values,” and Melanie Phillips has said, similarly, that multiculturalism has meant that teaching has become a mere way of, “changing the values of the country.” Children as young as 3 must now be observed for signs of “racism,” and sex education will soon be given to those as young as 5, we might note. And, crucially, anti-Britishness and anti-Englishness has also become as much a part of education as they have political rhetoric. According to The Express newspaper, for example, three-quarters of teachers said they felt obliged to warn children about the “dangers” of patriotism. Not surprisingly, according to one report, poor White boys “feel beleaguered and marginalised, finding their own identities under threat.” However, Phillips’ proposals will not stem the rising tide of support for the far-Right, and may ultimately increase it, as, cleaved from the ideology of multiculturalism, such a response can only further entrench racialism and factionalism in the political, educational, and legal systems, further dissolving the UK as an entity. As Horowitz has observed in regard to the US: […]. The left’s multicultural offensive is an attack on America’s national culture, not on its racial or ethnic composition. “Inclusion” and “diversity” are not the real agendas of the left […] The left is hostile to the idea of assimilation. Its agenda is the deconstruction of America’s national identity and culture. […] Under the smokescreen of “diversity,” it has rewritten America’s laws and subverted its Constitution. In Britain do we also find a proposed new Bill of Rights that would enshrine additional, “specific,” rights for ethic and religious minorities in law, the establishment of sharia law courts, increasing racial and religious segregation, and the erosion of free speech and other freedoms that we took for granted not long ago. Add to this a constant parade of lawsuits for “racism” by those who would seek to be exempted from various laws and rules on religious grounds. With the government disbelieving that different groups should be required to adhere to the values of the nation, it has turned to funding them in the hope that this will prevent increasing hostility toward it. An 86 million pound (approximately 172 million US dollar) scheme aimed at preventing the spread of Islamic extremism has been established, with 6 million pounds already distributed to various Muslim groups. Yet, in the last few days it was revealed that Al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers, actively engaged in plotting mass casualty attacks, now number “some thousands” in Britain alone. Now too, it is suggested, poor Whites need to be funded if they are not to turn to extremism. And how many other groups must we bribe, if we are to keep the peace? The US has so far been spared the madness of multiculturalism because it respects its Constitution, founding fathers, and tradition of democracy; and because Americans are still a patriotic and largely religious people. Nevertheless, while Obama’s election to president has been greeted with euphoria and unrealistic hope – with a few people apparently believing that he is like “the Messiah” – the few voices raised against multiculturalism with any earnestness, in Britain, have seen his victory as indicating a disastrous new direction for America – and from the vantage point of Britain this is not surprising. Peter Hitchens, for example, has written a sobering op-ed piece entitled, ‘The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth.’ No doubt president Obama will begin to mold the US to policies similar to those that have so thoroughly damaged the UK, and for this reason we should be deeply concerned. He has said, for example, that he will sign the ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ which will lift all restrictions on abortion, up to the ninth month of pregnancy, in all states. Christian hospitals will either have to act against their conscience and perform abortions or close. Compare this with the Equality Act passed in Britain, which made discrimination against homosexuals illegal even in regard to adoption, and with no exception for Christian adoption agencies, thus likewise forcing them a similar dilemma. But, while Obama may well have played the race card with sleight of hand, by presenting himself as the embodiment of the US electorate’s hope for a post-racial America, as Shelby Steele has said in the LA Times, this doesn’t mean that the US is fated to become mired in the racialism that plagues the UK. Shelby himself wonders whether Obama’s election might not, “infuse black America with a new American nationalism,” and there is some anecdotal evidence of change among America’s Blacks and Whites, in this regard. Nevertheless, Shelby suggests that the disproportionately high illegitimacy rate among America’s Blacks, the disproportionate number of Black prison inmates, and the “academic achievement gap between blacks and whites” will be accentuated. In Britain, of course, it is the poor Whites that are failing, at least in education. But, the (largely White) government has turned a blind eye for fear of being accused of racism. As America’s first “post-racial” president (also described as the “first Black US president”) Obama may have less options open to him than a White liberal president in this regard. Racialism, after all, was foisted on contemporary Britain and the rest of Western Europe by White men and women who have exhibited little more than disdain for the traditions of their respective nations. It was accepted because leaders such as Tony Blair presented themselves as exemplifying, though, a selflessness that all White Brits could embody in a post-Christian country. Thus, in Britain and Europe, Obama’s victory will only reinforce multiculturalism, both in its far-Left and far-Right varieties. (And note the BBC is already complaining that there were not enough Black reporters covering the elections – as if Obama was elected to represent Black America.) Where contention arises in the US under Obama – dubbed also America’s “first far-Left president” – culture, rather than race, is likely to be the major factor, at least in many incidences. Black churches are going to be as outraged by liberal reforms as Evangelical and Catholic churches. Likewise, if we can expect both legal and illegal immigration to the US to increase, then we should also expect Blacks to protest, as it is they who have typically borne the brunt of it, losing jobs to lower-paid immigrants. In 2006, notably, Blacks marched with the Minutemen because, in the words of their organizer, illegal immigration is the, “biggest threat to blacks in America since slavery.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||