The premise underpinning this revolution is that Western European civilisation is fundamentally malignant, and that it must be destroyed from within. This is not a view shared by a large majority of the people in the countries affected, but it is one that motivates the leftist woke activists who have seized the levers of power and influence in many western societies. In short, these activists are traitors to their race, their class, their country, their history and their traditions. They are involved in an orgy of group self loathing, for which everybody else must pay the price.
So when and how did all this begin. Well, there has always been class envy in which the poorer and less educated resented the success and wealth of their betters. Until the 1960s a relatively small cohort, the product of public and grammar schools, formed a governing elite, one that was confident in the rightness of their entitlement to rule society. Their outlook was a conservative one, seeking to preserve the best traditions, but not so resistant to change that new ideas were never adopted.
So there was a clear divide in society, both economic and cultural, between the educated elite and the majority of the population who had to accept a lower standard of living, and who additionally did not necessarily share the cultural outlook, interests or values of their superiors. So Britain faced a fairly strong class divide between the elite minority and the less educated majority.
Not all of the educated elite shared the conservative outlook of their group. They felt uneasy about their privileged position and sought to change society so as to improve the condition of the majority. The vehicle for this change was the Labour Party which was established to further the interests of the working class. During the 1950s the leadership was a partnership between working class members who had risen through the ranks of the trade unions, and academic and better educated middle class members who shared the same objectives as their working class colleagues.
During this period the principal concern of left wing middle class radicals was to identify with, and support, the cause of the working class, about whom they formed an idealised image, one that was often widely removed from reality. From the 1970s onwards this class based sympathy would be gradually replaced by identity politics, as radical leftists discovered that too many of their working class comrades continued to hold unreconstructed views about race, immigration, multiculturalism and homosexual rights.
From a cultural perspective, the first evidence of the coming social revolution was the support given by the Labour Party to the establishment of comprehensive schools that would admit pupils regardless of academic ability. Their introduction would lead to the abandonment of the 1944 Butler Education Act which created a two tiered selective system; grammar schools for the more academically gifted children and secondary modern schools for the remainder of pupils, the latter outnumbering the former by roughly three to one.
In adopting a policy supporting comprehensive schools Labour placed egalitarianism and social engineering ahead of educational attainment. However, the Conservatives continued to support the retention of grammar schools but in what would become a trend of capitulation the Tories soon started to waver and before long they too would start to favour comprehensive schools. As a consequence educational excellence in the state sector would start to weaken, with the most visible manifestation being the decline in social mobility.
This was the start of a pattern where the forces of the Left would take the initiative on a favoured subject and the Right would be placed on the defensive, eventually resulting in growing appeasement followed by a craven surrender on a wide range of issues. But instead of being class based as with comprehensive education, from the 1970s onwards the focus would change to one of identity. Left wing radicals would increasingly start to promote the interests of racial minorities, and the rights of homosexuals, over the concerns of the Labour Party’s working class base. This agenda was given the disparaging name ‘political correctness’ by critics of the Right, which in more recent years has morphed into the term ‘woke’.
The first identity politics cause that attracted the attention of leftist agitators was that of race. However, in the immediate post war years this was a non issue as 99.9% of the British population were White European. But with the introduction of the British Nationality Act 1948 all citizens of the Commonwealth were given the right to enter and live in Britain. The same year saw the arrival of the SS Empire Windrush with over 500 Jamaican men seeking work. Before very long, increasing numbers of people from the West Indies and the Indian sub continent started to arrive in Britain in search of employment. There was absolutely no benefit to the indigenous British people from this large influx of culturally and racially diverse people, who were unlikely to be easily assimilated into British society.
To begin with Labour MPs and trade unionists were those most opposed to this development. The latter were concerned that the new arrivals would form a cheap source of labour undercutting their members’ wages or even displacing them altogether. Some Labour MPs feared the impact on social cohesion, claiming that 'an influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life.' The Conservative government accepted that social problems and white resentment might arise if large numbers of these immigrants did settle in Britain, but did not consider the issue to be then sufficiently serious to warrant taking the necessary legislative action.
Until the end of the fifties the issue of Commonwealth immigration received relatively little media publicity. This was to change with the Notting Hill riots in August 1958 which brought the subject centre stage and into the national spotlight. The clashes brought home to an alarmed British public just how easily racial conflict could spread in Britain, as had happened in some US cities. As a consequence of the riots the government came under increased public pressure to end the 'open door' policy on Commonwealth immigration and to introduce controls.
So this increasing public concern eventually convinced the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan to finally take some action. The result was the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 which placed some restrictions on non white immigration. However, this measure was clearly too little, too late, and failed to tackle either the scale or nature of the problem. By this time the outlook of the Labour Party was beginning to change and the new legislation was denounced by Hugh Gaitskell, the Labour opposition leader, as 'miserable, shameful and shabby'. This was the time when hard left activists started to flagellate themselves over the newly discovered original sin of ‘racism’.
Instead of taking firm action to control the growth of the non-white population Governments would start to vilify those who warned of the dangerous consequences. This came into sharp focus when senior Conservative MP Enoch Powell delivered his explosive ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. He warned in stark terms, the consequences of continuing mass third world immigration into Britain. He accurately predicted that over 5 million would have settled here by the 21st century, and that they would mostly choose to live in ghettos with their own kind, separate from mainstream society. He voiced the concerns of the white population who found ‘their neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition’ and mocked the unreality of the then current liberal fad for 'integration'. He then went on to accurately predict a multi-cultural Britain in which there would be a 'growth of positive forces’ seeking to exploit racial and religious differences, so as to ‘agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens’.
Powell identified the disproportionate concern given to allegations of discrimination against the ethnic population, contrasted this with the near complete disregard of the fears of the indigenous population on the 'open ended' nature of immigration, exposed the naiveté of policy on integration and anticipated the cultural separation of much of the ethnic population from mainstream society. The result of his speech was a chorus of self-righteous indignation from virtually the entire political and media establishment.
So most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of the vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, race equality officers in the public sector, race monitoring by local councils, ‘diversity’ officials, 'hate' crimes, public funding of ethnic organizations, all overseen by the self righteous cant of the politically correct obsessives, which has created a stifling climate in which the majority of white people have been silenced from publicly expressing their true feelings about large scale immigration. Powell accurately predicted race riots, ethnic ghettos, civil disturbances, the open ended increase in the numbers of ethnic people, and the ever expanding state apparatus to force race 'equality' on an unwilling population. However, even he failed to anticipate the rise of British born terrorists and the extent of 'parallel lives' which form a gulf between the different races and cultures in some British towns and cities.
To manage the problem an increasingly powerful politically correct elite has incrementally introduced intrusive laws and bureaucratic interference into the personal affairs of ordinary citizens and businesses, which should have no place in a free society. The 'fight against racism' can never be won since it is largely contrary to human nature. Moreover, the publicly funded bureaucracy established to combat it has a vested interest in discovering more subtle forms of 'racism' to keep the issue on the boil and their jobs secure. The liberal multicultural and diversity agenda is centred on insinuating feelings of guilt into the white population. Children and young people have been brought up in an educational ethos where it is normal to denigrate their own history and culture, but to be uncritical of all others. Public concern about the level of immigration, and the changes it is causing to our communities and neighbourhoods, has for decades been suppressed and ignored.
As a consequence Britain is losing its sense of shared cultural history and identity. We have now reached the stage where whiteness itself is under attack as reflected in the grotesque pejorative term ‘white privilege’. There is now an endless campaign to insinuate guilt in the white population on the evils of slavery, despite none of them alive today being in any way responsible for this. In practical terms, the true extent of black crime is being concealed by the police and a compliant media, and the threat from militant Islamism is downplayed for fear of accusations of ‘Islamophobia’.
Turning to another woke obsession, today, after decades of political correctness, a climate has been created in which any criticism or questioning of the homosexual agenda, however mild, rational or well argued, is denounced as 'homophobic' bigotry. This has not always been the case; back in the early 1960s both the political establishment and wider society took a very different viewpoint. At that time there was little public clamour to repeal the laws against male homosexual activity. Instead, there was a general revulsion at such behaviour, which was considered to be unnatural, sinful and disgusting.
There were widespread fears that homosexuals would corrupt the nation’s youth, and that the law should be there to protect vulnerable young men from the perceived threat of supposedly predatory homosexuals. It should be remembered that juries were happy to convict men found to have engaged in homosexual activities. Nobody at the time appeared to consider whether the criminalization of male homosexuality might be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, or whether it dented Britain's supposed reputation for tolerance and fair play.
The Wolfenden Report of 1957 recommended decriminalizing homosexual acts involving adult males over 21. However, it was shelved by the Tory government, fearing a public backlash if it was implemented. The Report made it clear that, although in favour of law reform, it was in no way suggesting that society should condone or approve of homosexual behaviour. It also flagged up concern that the decriminalising of homosexual acts could result in 'large-scale proselytising' by homosexuals, which is indeed what would happen.
The arrival of Roy Jenkins as Labour Home Secretary in 1965, with an agenda for social reform, set the scene for the liberalisation of the law against homosexuality. However, when Parliament debated the Sexual Offences Bill which sought to decriminalise homosexual activities, all those who expressed their support prefaced their comments with a condemnation of the practice of homosexuality. They considered that the law should be changed, not because they considered such activity morally acceptable, but for more humane reasons, principally to remove the fear of blackmail. They also considered that the law should no longer police private activity of this kind. The measure was generally perceived as a gesture of tolerance to a persecuted minority who many now thought posed little threat to mainstream society.
Unquestionably, at that time homosexuals were persecuted for their personal sexual behaviour. This was a gross and unwarranted intrusion by the state into their private affairs as citizens. Moreover, the police shamelessly abused their position by such means as trawling through address books to frame individuals, and by the use of agent provocateurs to facilitate entrapment. The Labour government was right to allow the implementation of the Wolfenden Report recommendations in 1967, since the state should have no place in policing the private consensual sexual activities of its adult citizens.
Following the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between adult males over 21 it came as an unwelcome surprise to many, when homosexuals, or 'gays' as they now chose to describe themselves, quickly started to openly parade what many considered to be a deviant lifestyle and to claim further rights and 'equality'. Events moved at such a pace that that by the late 1970s appeasing the gay lobby became one of the main planks of the politically correct agenda. 'Gay Pride' marches, gay council committees and gay propaganda in schools were all introduced with relatively little resistance. Such has been the extent of the liberal takeover on this subject that we have moved from a situation where homosexual practices were criminalised to one where criticisms of homosexuals can trigger police action.
The self-inflicted tragedy of AIDS, caused by grotesquely high levels of promiscuity, did nothing to curb the advancement of their cause. Liberals (and many conservatives) failed to condemn their outrageous and destructive lifestyle – to do so was considered to be too 'judgemental'. Instead, homosexuals portrayed themselves as unfortunate, but blameless, victims of an unexpected deadly disease.
This may have been a contributory factor in the decision of the Thatcher government in the late 1980s to introduce what became known as the 'Section 28' regulation, which prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality, particularly in schools. Although no prosecutions followed as a result, it probably acted as a brake on some of the more pernicious 'gay' propaganda that was then beginning to be targeted at young people. Section 28 was intensely loathed by liberals, but the public largely supported it, as was shown by the results of an unofficial referendum held in Scotland some years ago. Needless to say, now that Section 28 has been lifted, the gay propaganda machine has gone into overdrive and we now have a gay history month in schools.
Since a large proportion of homosexuals appear to be highly promiscuous, and a hugely disproportionate number of them suffer from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to the detriment of, and cost to, wider society, it would be entirely appropriate to tightly circumscribe the promotion of homosexuality. There is absolutely no justification for brainwashing children into believing that homosexuality is normal, let alone commendable. This should not prevent sex education classes pointing out that a very small minority of people are attracted to their own sex, or to mention in this context that sexual promiscuity greatly increases the risk of catching STIs. Thus there are sound reasons to reintroduce a Section 28 style regulation, proscribing the promotion in schools of homosexuality as a supposedly normal form of sexual expression, and preventing local authorities spending public money on the promotion of homosexuality and lesbianism.
These examples show how the woke ratchet effect operates. First there is concern about a supposedly victimised majority. Fairly uncontroversial measures are then introduced to alleviate these concerns. But this response is never enough as the activist Left continues to demand further action to address the supposed victimhood from which their favoured minorities are alleged to suffer. So further intrusive laws are introduced to control the actions and behaviour of private citizens and businesses, the effect of which is firstly to openly discriminate against the majority, and then to demonise that majority for its supposedly privileged position, and so it goes on with no limit in sight. It is worth noting that those most engaged in woke activism often turn out to be distinctly unpleasant individuals, full of bile, and fond of expressing the kind of hatred they accuse their opponents of. They are primarily motivated by desire to parade their own questionable virtue, and to claim an unwarranted moral superiority over the rest of society, who are seriously concerned about the destructive consequences of this dangerous, one sided zealotry.
Woke agitators employ intimidation through a range of pejorative terms such as’ racist’, ‘homophobic’ and ‘Islamophobic’ to demonise and denounce their critics. Regrettably, due to the pusillanimous appeasement of the political Right, it has been a successful strategy, as all the mainstream parties have embraced the woke policies outlined above, as well as more recent ones such as the transgender lunacy and climate change pseudoscience alarmism. The end result has been a form of soft totalitarianism where dissidents can be threatened with dismissal from employment if they fail to support the woke agenda. The evidence of history has shown that left wing zealots are quite happy to introduce increasingly dictatorial and tyrannical measures to achieve their objectives. So it is likely that we have not yet reached the end of this ratchet effect, which means that there will be many additional unwelcome surprises to come for those engaged in the resistance to the woke agenda.
