Justin Welby – a victim of safeguarding overreach

This blog does not normally concern itself with the Christian religion as it considers it to be a distortion of true spiritual reality as outlined at this website http://bit.ly/41sjNfx Nor does it have much time for Archbishop Welby as an individual since he has invariably been an enthusiast supporter of whatever woke nostrums are currently in vogue with the ruling politically correct elite. However, having read the Makin report into the activities of John Smyth, it is extremely difficult to understand why he felt the need to resign as Archbishop.

John Smyth was an eminent barrister and QC at the time the events outlined in the report took place in England. He was a pillar of society as well as a committed Christian, lay reader and preacher in the Church of England. Unlike the accusations against Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Cyril Smith and Greville Janner (see earlier blogposts) which were all credulously accepted by the mainstream media and general public, this time there is compelling evidence that the activities Smyth is accused of did definitely take place.

As accurately reported in the media, during a period from 1978 to early 1982, Smyth inflicted savage beatings on a considerable number of young men attending Christian summer camps (organised by a trust chaired by Smyth) and also pupils of Winchester public school. These beatings were inflicted as ‘punishment’ for behaviour and sometimes thoughts which Smyth deemed to be ‘sinful’. It appears that the young men shared the same mindset as Smyth on the spiritual benefits that the beatings would bring by making them better Christians in the sight of God.

At the time corporal punishment was still legal in schools, and it could be argued that in the summer camps Smyth was acting ‘in loco parentis’ when the young men were away from home. Normally, this practice was used to discipline unruly boys for misbehaviour, and was usually confined to no more than six strokes of the cane. However, the beatings Smyth inflicted far exceeded this number to the extent that appreciable bleeding would often occur and, with one exception involving a short beating, were not for misbehaviour but instead for religious indoctrination objectives. No overt sexual activity occurred during these beatings although Smyth and the young men were sometimes naked.

So it is not entirely clear whether the beatings met the threshold of criminality, although it is probable that most people would think that they should have done had they been reported. However, this is beside the point as no criminal complaint was made before Smyth emigrated to Africa in 1984. What is almost incomprehensible is that there are no reports that any of the victims notified their parents or anyone in authority in the church or elsewhere about the beatings, and that time after time they voluntarily came back for more doses of this savage chastisement. The only explanation is that they were so brainwashed by the fundamentalist evangelical indoctrination that Smyth promoted, namely that these beatings were necessary to make them better Christians and to purge themselves of sin.

In 1982 a report was circulated to the summer camp trustees and the headmaster of Winchester school detailing the extent and nature of the beatings that Smyth was inflicting on the young men. The trustees included six ordained clergy of the Church of England. However, partly to protect the reputation of the trust, and knowing that the victims were unwilling to act as witnesses in a criminal prosecution, the police were not informed at that time. There appears to be no evidence that any of the clergy acting as trustees disclosed the report’s findings more widely with colleagues in the Church of England. Their decision not to inform the police was made in their capacity as Christian summer camp trustees, and not as clergy in the Church of England. The headmaster of Winchester school banned Smyth from any further contact with pupils, and agreed to the request of some parents not to inform the police. These decisions to keep the police and Church of England authorities in the dark enabled Smyth to continue with more beatings when he moved to Zimbabwe and later South Africa.

So how does Justin Welby fit into all of this? Well, as a young man in his late teens and early twenties he attended the Christian summer camps and became acquainted with Smyth. Welby never experienced any beatings himself and claims not to have heard any rumours about Smyth on this matter while attending the camps. Although they both came into contact with one another at this time it appears that they were not particularly close.

The pair briefly met up again in 1981 in Paris where Welby was working for an oil company. Smyth and a group of boys called on him on the way to a skiing holiday in Switzerland . A few weeks later a clerical friend also visited him, and was told that he had recently met Smyth, a mutual acquaintance of both. The clerical friend advised him to stay away from Smyth, but gave no further details or reasons, and nothing was said about the beatings.

Justin Welby was appointed Archbishop in 2013 and a few months later was formally informed of Smyth’s beatings and that the police had been made aware of the allegations against him. By this time Smyth was living in South Africa and died there in August 2018, but was never charged with any offence despite a Channel 4 programme broadcast in 2017 that featured the claims of some victims. Welby in 2013 was given to believe that the police were investigating Smyth and thus concluded that there was no need to become personally involved in this matter, especially as he appears to have no authority to intervene in a police enquiry. For this ‘lack of curiosity’ he is criticised in the Makin report which Welby unwisely commissioned.

All the main authors of the report are involved in child safeguarding and thus it may be reasonable to assume that they strongly subscribe to the current ‘believe the victim’ narrative, which places in an invidious position anyone questioning or challenging the accounts of those presenting themselves as victims. It is clear that all the sympathies in the report are with those claiming victimhood and very little with those facing accusations, including the Archbishop. So the whole report is severely one sided, taking minimal account of the behaviour and beliefs held by the victims at the time.

The Makin report repeatedly raises the issue of child abuse. There appears to be no evidence that any of those beaten at the summer camps were under the age of eighteen, although some of those beaten at Winchester school were aged seventeen. Child abuse is a somewhat tendentious and overused term among safeguarding activists who invariably interpret both ‘child’ and ‘abuse’ in the broadest possible terms. It is perverse to apply it to the young men who were victims of Smyth. They were all clearly sufficiently adult to have been in a position to personally judge whether Smyth’s vicious methods were the best way to liberate themselves from the effect of sin.

The beatings took place in a garden shed located in residences occupied by Smyth and his family. The victims were never coerced to visit Smyth’s home, to accept his hospitality, to agree to walk through his garden and enter the shed, and finally to make themselves available for a beating which most of them had experienced several times before. There is no point decades later blaming the Church of England for not taking any action, when these young men were complicit in keeping the church authorities in ignorance of Smyth’s brutal behaviour at the time. No safeguarding system would have caught Smyth, since there was no record of abuse against him at the time, and nobody reported his behaviour to those with any authority in the church until some years afterwards. Although occupying lay posts in the Church of England all his beatings were carried out in locations or at events over which the Church had no remit.

Given that Welby only knew Smyth very slightly decades before he became Archbishop, and that there were innumerable current issues of greater priority relating to the church which he would have needed to give his attention, the conclusion of the Makin report appears bizarre, taking into account the length of time since the beatings had taken place, the complicit behaviour of the victims, that the abuse took place at venues outside the control of the Church of England, and the very peripheral involvement of the Archbishop. It is impossible for any person however eminent to micromanage everything that comes across their desk, and the Makin report authors’ assumption that this outcome could have been achieved, in a matter rightly considered of low priority at the time, is absurd.

It is ironic that Welby has done considerably more than any previous holder of his office to improve the safeguarding of children in the church. Those writing the report seem to have framed their conclusions with the sole aim of triggering Welby’s resignation and, with the publicity generated, to further embed their extreme safeguarding regime into broader society. This promotes an agenda which seeks to portray all men as potential child molesters who need to be kept away from all children unless it is absolutely unavoidable. It is in effect a system in which all men are treated with suspicion and kept under surveillance by the authorities, one that has destroyed the hitherto normal healthy relationship of trust which previously existed between adults and children. The Makin report recommends that this authoritarian system of control should be further extended and enlarged, demonising men still more, thus preventing young people building resilience to the obstacles and difficulties they may face in society.

Only one bishop called on Welby to resign, and the senior colleagues he discussed this with advised him not to do so. He should have heeded their advice and thus avoided the loss of reputation, both to himself and the Church of England, which followed his foolish and difficult to comprehend decision to quit.

A fantasy far right thought experiment

The far right has been in the news quite a lot recently. The Labour government, the BBC and much of the British mainstream media have claimed that the recent disturbances, mainly involving working class white males, have been inspired and orchestrated by the far right. So it is worth examining what constitutes the main concerns of the far right?

What appears to primarily motivate those who are attracted to the far right is a concern about the detrimental impact on British society of the open ended, apparently unending, immigration from around the world that has taken place since World War II. They fear that the ever increasing presence of culturally different and racially distinct residents in their towns and cities will seriously degrade the cohesion of their communities and traditional British society.

Thus their motivation is clearly one that is racist, so on this point their opponents the political left are correct, although cultural factors also play an important part. Left wing activists consider that the far right’s hostility towards racial minorities and immigration is not merely wrong-headed but positively wicked, claiming that it is motivated by hatred against people who do not look like themselves. The activist left take the opposite view to the far right, declaring that third world immigration has brought much needed diversity and enrichment to our society. So again, it is worth examining the evidence to discover which of these viewpoints is correct.

The far right is clearly correct in concluding that the huge level of third world immigration has had an enormous impact on many neighbourhoods. To begin with these would have been almost entirely white, but gradually many became populated by people of different races and cultures from around the globe. If these numbers were small and evenly distributed there would be no problem. The newcomers would have no choice but to integrate as best they could with the existing majority. But this is not what has been happening; the new arrivals soon started to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves, and when this occurs many of the existing white residents prefer to move away to a more congenial neighbourhood where they will be surrounded by their own kind, a process known as ‘white flight’. This response has been continuing for decades and is clearly motivated by racial and cultural identity, both by whites and also the immigrant communities.

Governments of all political parties have presided over the continuing inflow of ethnic minority immigrants. The Tories have occasionally tried to sound tough about restricting the flow, but in reality have never taken the measures needed to realistically address the problem. The other political parties believe that immigration of this kind brings enrichment and diversity, and so delivers their positive vision of a multicultural society, and thus is a desirable end in itself. The British public has never been consulted on this matter, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a significant proportion of the white population are strongly opposed to the immigration that has taken place.

For governments to allow the inflow of ethnic minorities in such numbers, one might reasonably assume that there must have been clearly identifiable reasons to justify it. However, these have never been clearly stated although some commentators have suggested that they were originally encouraged to come to fill the low paid low skilled disagreeable jobs that it is claimed the white population were no longer prepared to do. However, this is not the case; the immigrants came of their own volition in the hope of improving their material circumstances compared with what they might expect in their home countries. They could do this because the British Nationality Act 1948, introduced by the Labour Attlee government, granted British citizenship to everyone born in the British Commonwealth and colonies.

So what are the benefits that ethnic minorities bring to Britain confidently proclaimed to be ‘enrichment’ by leftist activists? Well, to begin with it appears reasonable to conclude that the contribution of different ethnic groups may vary, so it is necessary to assess each of them individually. Those that seem to attract the fewest problems are the Hindu, Sikh and Far East Asian (Chinese) communities. Although they mostly congregate in their own ethnic enclaves, there is no evidence to suggest that they differ much from the host population in terms of criminal activity and educational achievement. However, for the most part they seem reluctant to become involved in traditional British social and cultural activities, preferring instead to remain loyal to the familiar customs of their countries of ancestry. Moreover, significant numbers of both Hindus and Sikhs marry partners from their country of ancestry, thus contributing to chain migration.

Muslims demonstrate some of the same upsides and downsides as Sikhs and Hindus; a different cuisine that is very popular, but also chain migration due to marriage, social, cultural and religious attachment to their countries of ancestry, together with an even greater sense of separateness from mainstream British social and cultural life. Whilst the majority as individuals cause no serious problems, and some make a positive contribution such as doctors, a vocal and more radical minority have created widespread concern and fear in the white population.

There are a number of reasons for this. The first is terrorism. Islamists, in the name of their religion, have been responsible for several outrages which have killed and injured British people. One issue which has aroused the fury of the white working class has been the grooming gangs of Muslim Asian men targeting young white girls. The treatment and control of women by Muslim men is another area which offends modern mainstream values. So it must be concluded that the continuing growth of the Muslim population presents a serious threat to the cohesion and stability of British society.

The final group to be considered are people of Afro-Caribbean ancestry. Those who follow a religion are mostly Christian, so there is no real problem here, even though many of them prefer to attend their own ‘black led’ churches. Compared with other immigrant groups, there is more social and cultural integration through sport and popular music, although again black people mostly prefer to live within their own racial and cultural communities.

One area where black people have made a positive contribution has been through popular music although most of the best acts are American. Artists such as Nat King Cole and The Platters were immensely popular in the 1950s, although they were heavily dependant on a white music industry. But from the 1950s to the 1970s black performers were able to take full control as shown by Chuck Berry, Motown artists such as The Four Tops and The Supremes, and later the Philly sound of The Stylistics. These were all extremely popular in the white market. But from the mid 1970s onwards the music began to change appealing more to black tastes. This has led in more recent decades to a degradation of black music that mostly ranges from the forgettably bland to the seriously degenerate.

On the downside the principal concern is the level of crime committed by the black population. The political establishment is remarkably coy about providing the public with accurate statistics on this. However, the same establishment is vocal in condemning the ‘disproportionate’ level of black people stopped and searched, those who are in prison, and those who are convicted in the courts. So despite debate on this matter in the mainstream media being discouraged, anecdotal evidence inescapably leads to the conclusion that black criminal activity is considerably disproportionate to their numbers. There is also the problem of fatherless families leading to family breakdown and lack of discipline and adult role models.

Many white people have worked with those of ethnic ancestry and in the experience of this blog the most problematic colleagues are invariably other whites. So it is worth following the advice of Martin Luther King that a person should be judged on their character, not the colour of their skin. The problem is less with minorities as individuals, but more the fear of a collective group threat over which the indigenous population has no control, principally the transformation of neighbourhoods, the greater level of crime and the creation of parallel societies.

So the difficulty for mainstream politicians, parroting their ‘diversity is strength’ delusion, is that the far right include many more people than the ‘thugs’ involved in the recent disturbances. Evidence for this is the over four million votes cast for Reform UK which was achieved from a standing start, despite being denounced by the other parties for its focus on immigration. Although self selecting, the public comments on websites discussing the issue of immigration show almost unanimous resentment about the current level of migrants entering the country, and there is particular hostility to the illegal immigrants crossing the channel. So it appears that huge swathes of British people reject the establishment line that immigration brings enrichment and that diversity is somehow beneficial to our society.

It is not just the level of immigration that is causing anger, but several other factors also. The politically correct establishment that controls nearly all our institutions has an obsessive concern for the rights of minorities, perniciously coupled with a disdain for Britain, its culture, history and traditional values. They flagellate themselves over the evils of slavery, colonialism and empire. They stigmatise white achievement through ‘critical race theory’, they take the knee over ‘black lives matter’, lecture employees on the iniquity of ‘white privilege’, indoctrinate school children with a fantasy narrative in ‘black history month’, fill our screens with black actors masquerading as middle class whites in TV programmes and advertisements, which now extends to the rewriting of history through dramas about the past.

So for all these reasons there is mounting anger in the broader white population, who are becoming increasingly aware that they are being controlled and manipulated by a hard left virtue signalling elite. Although these activists form a relatively small proportion of the population they have over several decades, gradually and incrementally taken over the levers of power in most of our institutions, including universities, schools, most of the media, public sector unions, advertising, and the public sector generally, and this influence is now extending to the private sector. So anyone entering these sectors now has to publicly conform to a woke set of values, or face hostility that can be career damaging. Thus we are living in a form of soft totalitarianism that is being imposed on the majority by a vocal and determined ideological elite minority.

Electorates throughout Europe have started to wake up to what has being going on and an increasing number are voting for right wing ‘populist’ parties. This is the only legitimate response that citizens can make, given the entrenched position held by highly motivated, hard left activists exercising power and influence over society. They try to insinuate guilt by promoting slogans such as ‘white privilege’ and attempt to silence opposition through accusations of ‘white supremacy’. In this respect it is worth remembering that the overwhelming number scientific inventions and discoveries have been made by people of European ancestry, and virtually none by Afro-Caribbeans. There is also no reason why anyone should need to apologise for being white or for promoting the interests of their race.

So what measures would a future far right government be likely to introduce in order to roll back the woke policies that they would face. To begin with a far right government would have to identify precisely what is the source of public concern. It is not immigration itself which gives rise to public fears, but the nature and number of the immigrants. Recently tens of thousands of white Ukrainian women have been welcomed into the homes of British families. This contrasts with the response to the illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, who are overwhelmingly young dark skinned males from outside Europe.

So there appears to be little concern about the arrival of those who are racially and culturally similar to the white majority, but much concern about those who appear alien by reason of their different race or culture. This is where the problem lies and there is no point in pretending otherwise. So for much of the British public, the introduction of racial and cultural diversity is considered to be a most unwelcome development, especially to those belonging to the working class. This explains the existence of parallel communities in the more diversely populated towns and cities.

Given that race and culture are the source of the problem this is where the focus needs to be. In his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech Enoch Powell identified the remedy namely ‘stopping the further inflow and promoting the maximum outflow, of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population’. This is what a far right government would seek to implement. It would be achieved by a variety of policies involving both carrot and stick. This could involve generous resettlement grants coupled with measures to directly favour the white indigenous population. Given that (as outlined in the previous post), the political establishment has been rigging the system to benefit the ethnic population over many decades, this would merely reverse the beneficiaries of an already accepted policy. There would no doubt be howls of protests against these measures by the activist left , but if their demonstrations turned violent those responsible could be treated in the same way as the recent ‘far right louts’ through the handing down of stiff prison sentences.

If a far right government ever did come to power in Britain these are the kinds of policies that are likely to be implemented in order to prevent the cultural and racial destruction of the country.

Recent protests in England

England has recently experienced the worst outbreak of street disturbances for over a decade. In contrast to previous occurrences those participating were almost entirely working class white males. The trigger was the shocking killing and stabbing of several young girls at a dance class in Southport. False social media reports suggested that the alleged perpetrator was a recent Muslim immigrant arrival. However, the person charged was later revealed to be a 17 year old youth born in Wales to Rwandan immigrants.

The new Prime Minister and Home Secretary have denounced those involved in the riots as ‘thugs’, and the courts have imposed heavy prison sentences on some of those taking part. Mosques and buildings housing asylum seekers have been targeted. The harsh response of the authorities has prompted some commentators on the political right to complain of two tier policing and a double standard response to the rioting. There appears to be some justification for these claims.

At the time of the Black Lives Matter disturbances in 2020 Keir Starmer and his deputy were photographed taking the knee in support of these protests. The trigger for this was the killing of a black career criminal and intoxicated illegal drug user by a white policeman in the USA. Thus these protests had nothing to do with the British legal or political system, or the behaviour of the British police. Nevertheless they attracted widespread support on the left of British politics, and their overwhelming sympathy lay with the black population who were deemed to be the victims of racist policing.

During the past few years there have been innumerable protests carried out by the Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil campaigns. Although peaceful they have been enormously disruptive causing widespread inconvenience to the public. These protests were clearly intended to intimidate ordinary people going about their daily activities. Again the left wholeheartedly supported this strategy on the grounds that it focussed public and media attention on what they considered to be the urgent issue of ‘climate change’, a major obsession of today’s ‘progressives’. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn praised these protests as ‘inspiring climate activism’ and ‘a wake up call’.

Politicians and activists are of course entitled to express their opinions, but it is no surprise that they voice their approval of protests on subjects they support, whilst at the same time denouncing those engaged in protests for causes for which they have no sympathy. The police however are supposed to be impartial and thus should treat all protesters in an equal manner. In recent years this has not been happening. The police treated the Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter disruption indulgently, but were happy to use indiscriminate violence against the covid lockdown protesters, and now again with the latest protests deemed to have been carried out by the ‘far right’. So this explains why the accusation of two tier policing has gained such traction.

One benefit of the heavy crackdown on these protestors is that it has revealed the degree to which Labour politicians now despise ordinary working class people. This is unsurprising as their activists now almost entirely comprise middle class virtue signallers, whose primary concern is advancing the interests of vocal minority groups at the expense of the majority white population. Keir Starmer was happy to denounce the protesters as ‘thugs’ but appeared to show little interest in what caused the protests in the first place. The rallying cry repeatedly made by the protesters was that they ‘wanted their country back’ and an end to the continuing huge levels of immigration which has destroyed the cohesion of their communities and neighbourhoods. In treating their fears with such contempt Keir Starmer will have lost a significant amount of what remains of working class support for Labour, many of whom will now be persuaded by the more sympathetic response of Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

Reverse racism

The previous post described the extent to which white woke liberals have invested in the fight against racism. This follow up examines the reverse racism these same activists engage in, which targets their own race, white Europeans. They shamelessly participate in an orchestrated campaign to denigrate their own race, and to praise and promote the culture, history, lifestyle and behaviour of people belonging to other races and ethnic groups, most notably Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims.

This open discrimination is practiced in a number of areas: in employment, in the indoctrination of children, in the broadcast media, in advertising and in cultural activities such as the theatre, cinema and museums. This is imposed and regulated in an opaque yet pervasive manner, and thus it is difficult for those on the outside affected, the powerless silent white majority, to challenge the virtue signalling elite manipulators pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Legislation with the aim of achieving equal opportunities in employment was introduced because it was widely believed that ethnic minorities were being discriminated against on racial grounds. At the same time, to reassure the white population, it was made clear that quotas for non whites would be illegal, and that employers would legally be allowed to choose the best candidate for a job regardless of skin colour.

However, this did not satisfy the race activists who claimed that non whites were still being discriminated against, and so the rules were changed to allow preferential recruitment of ethnic minorities in areas were they were considered to be ‘under represented’. To further this process schemes to coach ethnic minorities were introduced in many public bodies to improve their chances of success. This was the start of the slippery slope to replace equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, now known as equity. The power of the state would be used to require that any business seeking government contracts must first provide evidence that their workforce met ethnic diversity targets. As a consequence, white people began to be openly discriminated against, since employers hired more black applicants in order to meet the demands of the state’s diversity agenda.

The government describes Black History Month as ‘a time to celebrate the contribution black people have made over the centuries in shaping the dynamic and diverse country we have today’. It is claim that is wilfully deceitful, as expressed in the statement ‘from Roman times black people have been an integral part of our country’. This is pernicious nonsense since Britain was 99.9% white European prior to the arrival of the Windrush generation in 1948. This is a flagrant attempt to brainwash schoolchildren by presenting them with a wholly false narrative. The reality is that since their arrival black people have provided very little of benefit to British history or culture, with the possible exception of a handful of musicians some decades ago.

The broadcast media, particularly the BBC, has been in the vanguard of presenting black people in a positive light, regardless of their actual individual merits. In more recent times their on screen representation has become hugely disproportionate to their real numbers. This is reflected in discussion programmes where minority pundits are invited to participate on the basis of their skin colour, rather than their expertise. Black people are overrepresented in TV drama, invariably occupying positions of responsibility, seniority or integrity, with whites playing the roles of subordinates or villains. A more recent insidious trend is the increasing inclusion of black actors in historic dramas, thereby presenting a wholly misleading portrayal of the country’s past. Many long standing BBC programmes have been hijacked by ethnic presenters such as, The Weakest Link, Mastermind and University Challenge, and Doctor Who is now played by an actor of African origin. The mainstream media remains silent about this racial and cultural capitulation.

For many years non whites were almost invisible in advertising, companies suspecting that the inclusion of black people would alienate a predominantly white consumer market and so view their products negatively. However, public bodies, in particular left wing councils, started to feature black people in their publicity. This was during the time when ‘progressive’ activists started to proclaim the benefits of diversity. For some time private companies resisted this change, but gradually they too would start to include a few black faces in their advertising. This would incrementally continue to increase until about two thirds of today’s advertisements feature Afro-Caribbeans. Again, this development occurred without any response from the mainstream media. Recently, women wearing hijabs have started to appear in advertising and so it quite possible that before long these images will start to multiply and so normalise the extreme ‘modesty’ promoted by this Islamic female garment, which is seen as a symbol of oppression by most Iranian women.

Both the theatre and cinema now appear to have quotas and targets for the inclusion of black actors in prominent roles. It is to be hoped that the British public responds by refusing to attend such top down attempts at cultural indoctrination. Museums today seem far more interested in denouncing slavery and colonialism, for which nobody today is responsible, than in portraying a more balanced and appealing representation of British history.

Given the current open discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities outlined above, any future ‘far right’ government would be provided with the justification and motivation to openly discriminate in favour of the white majority. Woke liberals should have no grounds for complaint about behaviour they were happy to practice themselves.

What is racism?

One of the main obsessions of the British politically correct class over the past half century has been the fight against racism. Until the 1950s this was a non issue since virtually everyone living in this country belonged to the white European race. Since that time open ended chain migration of people from around the world has resulted in the presence of millions of non white residents, a process that took place without the consent of the British people.

So what is racism? There is no meaningful definition since it can cover a wide range of situations ranging from the creation of extermination camps to wrong body language in interviews. The fight against it can never be won since ever more subtle examples of racism can be unearthed to keep the issue on the boil and the jobs secure for those tasked with rooting it out.

The accusation of racism can only be made against white people, thus giving black people a free pass to openly support and promote the interests of their own race without risking any criticism or condemnation. They are aided and abetted by vocal white liberals, motivated by a guilt complex that subconsciously recognises white society’s greater advancement, combined with an urge to parade their moral superiority by projecting a paternalistic concern for the interests of ethnic minorities. In contrast black people can openly claim to belong to the ‘black community’; a similar comment by white people would be denounced as racist.

It is sometimes suggested that Britain is becoming less racist. Examples of this are the greater acceptance of mixed marriages and willingness to live next door to people of a different race. But the reality is rather different, mixed marriages are relatively rare and the phenomenon of ‘white flight’ demonstrates a preference for living in a more racially homogeneous community.

The problem is that people of all races instinctively identify with their own kind, and prefer to live in their own geographical communities which exclude outsiders. Outside the workplace there is relatively little social interaction between people of different races, an outcome which affects committed anti-racists just as much as those they condemn as racist.

So the truth is that racism is intrinsic to the human condition and at best can only be contained, not eradicated. Mass immigration is only fuelling the fire of an intractable problem.

Change of management UK

So the people have spoken, the interminable election campaign has finally ended, and we now have a Labour government with a massive majority. This will make little difference as the new government is wedded to the same managerial approach to politics as were the Conservatives. So we have to ask whether there will be any meaningful changes under the new regime.

It is to be expected that Labour will be more willing to fund public services and the NHS, possibly discovering some extra sources of taxation to achieve this end. They will be more zealous in implementing the Net Zero project, so we can expect our electricity bills to rise, with possible power cuts due to the greater dependence on unreliable sources of power. The promotion of woke policies will continue unabated, so expect further denigration of our culture and history, and capitulation to ever more grotesque demands of favoured minorities at the expense of the rights and interests of the majority. Given Labour’s obsessive enthusiasm for more ‘diversity’ it is inevitable that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at a very high level.

It was to be hoped that Reform UK would succeed in providing an alternative parliamentary political platform to the consensus embraced by the traditional parties. With over four million votes received, they came out in third place but achieved only five MPs. However, this was still significantly better than their predecessors, and will allow a much needed challenge to the prevailing political orthodoxy to be voiced in parliament for the first time.

One surprise outcome was the election of four MPs, operating as a front for a somewhat shadowy and previously little known group, Muslim Vote. Their platform was entirely based on the conflict in the Middle East, and totally ignored domestic issues. It is likely that their objectives will soon broaden to promote exclusively Islamic interests and values, previously a regressive and partisan agenda cynically and opportunistically pursued by the Labour Party. They came very close to winning several more Labour held seats, so militant Islamists will now conclude they can achieve their aims without the assistance and support of virtue signalling leftist agitators.

It is hoped that during the next few years the British electorate finally wake up to the threat they face from the subversives within the political establishment.

UK General Election 2024

We are currently over halfway through what has been described as the most boring general election campaign that anyone can remember. The reason for this is that the Conservative government has lost all credibility, and yet there is only shallow support and little real enthusiasm for the Labour alternative. Nevertheless, all the opinion polls indicate that Sir Keir Starmer will achieve a huge parliamentary majority.

Another factor dampening any enthusiasm is that there appears to be very little difference between the major political parties. They are now ideologically very similar, stressing their managerial competence in delivering near identical policy objectives. The TV debates seem to be dominated by the exchange of simplistic slogans and parroting questionable taxation claims against their opponents. In contrast the party manifestos provide a comprehensive and highly detailed description of the objectives each party hopes to achieve in the next five years. So some scrutiny is necessary to discover if there are any policies on offer that might stand out sufficiently to motivate an apparently apathetic electorate to turn out and vote.

It has to be acknowledged that as far as the two major parties are concerned there is no obvious stand out policy that differentiates them. So the electorate is left to judge which of these two fake opponents can best deliver the consensus agenda they both appear to share. However, it is the case that there are still many issues which the public believes are not being properly addressed due to the deliberate and wilful disregard of the political establishment.

Fortunately, one party, Reform UK, does appear to offer a genuine alternative which might appeal to a significant number of voters. They take a hard line on the open ended chain immigration that has transformed many town and cities. They openly dismiss the obsession with Net Zero, the enormous costs it will incur and the meddling and intrusion in the life of citizens that will result. They oppose the widespread woke indoctrination imposed on an uncomprehending and irritated public. They denounce the self flagellation of the virtue signalling and guilt tripping ‘progressive’ class who appear to hate their country, race, culture and history, whilst at the same time abjectly capitulating to the demands of a ragbag of favoured vocal minority groups, who gradually and incrementally have been undermining the cohesiveness of British society.

So the electorate have at last been given the opportunity to clear out the treacherous cabal intent on destroying the fabric of our society, and replace them with those who can carry out the necessary reforms to reverse the deleterious and damaging agenda imposed on the British public by an out of touch and entitled political elite.