HOW DID THEY GET AWAY WITH IT?
SMOKESCREENS AND MIRRORS
LIES, CONFUSION, TRICKERY AND PRETENSIONS.
A Study of Language
A short summary/review of Dr Thomas E. Turner’s book
Millions pour in from the third world as if a Camp of the Saints(1) were occurring in slow motion. This brings many problems and much strife and grief, e.g.: thousands of British girls are raped; working Brits lose a fortune in lower wages (2) and by paying extra taxes to support the immigrants (and to fund the related industries, etc.(3)); large areas of the land are ‘ethnically-cleansed’ by immigrants; there is destruction of British culture and of the social fabric; and, most significantly, there is the facilitation and threat of genocide of the British people. The people are anxious, angry, unhappy, hurt – the people are being harmed and yet they dare not speak out. How did those who engineered this get away with it?
One significant factor in pulling this off was the use of various words as tools to suppress dissent. These terms suppress dissent by direct means, and also by indirect means – they are used as tools of power to exert social and political power over the people.
In Dr Turner’s book these terms are analysed and it is shown that these words are not even ‘proper’ words – that’s how they work their power.
These terms are a specific type of term: ‘nebulous-power-words’. These terms can act as tools of power because of the very nature of the words. The characteristics of these terms enable them to obscure truth, inhibit rationality – confusing people and distorting perception – and hence the emotions and social forces associated with such terms can act to manipulate people. The power of these terms is contingent upon their features, e.g. their lack of rationality (4) and the fact that most people do not recognise this lack – but instead misperceive the terms as properly rational terms. It is because of these features that the social and emotional power associated with the terms can operate to control people.
You might have heard the non-white Cohesion Officer on television dismissing a poor white person who might have had the audacity to say that he thinks that the policy of favouring non-whites in employment might be unfair and not an act of ‘equality’ – ‘At our Unit’ the Officer snarls, then raising the voice to a terribly superior pitch, ‘we celebrate the diversity and do you not realise that ‘equality’ is the root of ‘multiculturalism’? And quite honestly I think your statement is dangerously close to sounding like ‘racism’!’ The white person will now deny being a ‘racist’ and say how many black friends he has, how much he supports ‘equality’, he thinks it should not matter what a person’s skin colour is, blablabla….on the defence. But defence to what? The statement from the state-paid official is mumbo jumbo.
‘Multiculturalism’ is rooted in ‘equality’ and opposed to ‘racism’
The three terms ‘racism’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘equality’ are nebulous-power-words and should not be used in rational discourse. These terms do not possess high referentiality and also hold strong emotional associations and social force. People celebrate ‘multiculturalism’, even constructing monuments to it (5), and opposing ‘equality’ is heresy. Being a ‘racist’ often is considered the most terrible thing.
These terms have been used to discuss, justify and explain changes in the lives of millions of people. But what so these words actually mean?
Let us examine the definitions of these 3 terms. Definitions are available in dictionaries, glossaries, in the literature, from interviews, etc.
I support ‘equality’ as a moral good!
First, examining ‘equality’ (6) one finds many definitions available. In the sense of being the same (in quantity and/or quality, i.e. equivalence), this term possesses high referentiality – it would be perfectly rational to use this term in such senses (7). However, in the social and political sense one finds that this term is problematic. There are many ways in which this term is used in the social and political context(8), including(9): equality of outcome, (e.g. wealth, income, representation, distribution of goods, etc.); equality of process, (e.g. equality of opportunity, etc.); ontological equality; the idea of being the same; equality of recognition; equality of condition; equality of fraternity; equality before the law; equality of rights; etc.
The very fact of multiple meanings is a factor denoting low referentiality – since one could never be sure which definition was being used. However, there are other problems with this set of definitions. For example, some of these uses of the term ‘equality’ are inconsistent with one another. A well-known form of ‘equality’ is that of equality of opportunity. One could use this in reference to places at university, or jobs, etc. However, if the relevant groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria), then equal processing will produce unequal outcomes. Hence, in these circumstances, one could not have ‘equality’: one could have equality of outcome at the expense of inequality of process, or vice versa(10). So, if the cry is for ‘equality’ – then to which form of ‘equality’ is one referring? ‘Equality’ is not a sufficient term in itself. One would need to specify the exact form of ‘equality’, and then, if there were such transparency, certain issues might become apparent. For example, if one merely wants equal numbers in relation to outcome, then one might wonder why this is? Is this some sort of numerical OCD? Is it moral to deprive the best qualified candidates merely because of their group membership? And if so, is this ‘equality’? Will this rule apply (dare I say ‘equally’) in all contexts? And how does one determine membership in the group categories – is this not inherently unequal? What harms are associated with this (hence raising moral issues)? Why would this necessarily be a moral good? Or an aim?
A single clear high referentiality definition of the term would illuminate many issues concerning the public good, logic, truth, morality, etc. – issues that are obscured by use of the confused and unclear term ‘equality’. Nebulous-power-words tend to confuse and obscure, yet how very dare anyone object to the holy and righteous term of ‘equality’.
We need action against ‘racism’!
‘Racism’ is a very powerful nebulous-power-word. People go to great lengths to avoid being called ‘racist’ (11) – sometimes even making ‘friends’ with people from other races. Many people do not do what is correct because they want to avoid being labelled as ‘racist’ – this allegation also made against the police(12). International conferences are held to combat ‘racism’(13) and governments speak against it. We need to stop ‘racism’ in football too(14). Some believe ‘racism’ is a criminal offence(15) – many are reported in the media as being arrested for ‘racism’(16). ‘Racism’(17) warrants censorship and many other punishments(18). This term controls speech, perceptions, conception and behaviour.
However, what does this word actually mean?
Many people cannot define the term at all, and some definitions available present low referentiality, e.g. that a racist incident is one so perceived(19) . If one examines the definitions that are available, one finds many definitions – again denoting low referentiality. Popular definitions include (in relation to a race or races): hatred; superiority; stereotyping; prejudice; discrimination; mistreatment; ‘inequality’; genocide(20); preference; intolerance; power; and yet others, including the idea that ‘racism’ is the state of being uninformed/uneducated/unintelligent, evil/wicked, etc.
Again, if a single definition were chosen, then the power of this term would diminish. This term, as a nebulous-power-word, has the immense power it does because it lacks high referentiality. For example if one were to pick the popular definition of ‘hatred’. If this had always been(21) the one and only definition of the term, then what would be so terrible about this? People hate all sorts of groups, why is this case so demonised and not others? Surely people are entitled to their own emotions? And if this were the only definition, then the numerous times this term is attributed in an unwarranted manner (used to silence and control) would become apparent. For example, if someone were to state that ‘group X has on average a lower ability in Y’, then why should this necessarily be attributed to hatred? Could it not just be true or false? This replacement exercise(22) can be performed with all the commonly-found definitions of the term and the intellectual dishonesty becomes clear, as do other matters – such as questions of morality. If one wants action against ‘racism’ what exactly is one wanting to prevent, and why?
All the definitions of ‘racism’ present problems – such as the inconsistent manner in which ‘stereotyping’ is used. It is not ‘racist’ to stereotype groups unless it is unfavourable to non-white groups(23). ‘Anti-racists’ can sneer at whites, including Brits, no problem – ‘Brits are too lazy to work and need immigrants’, etc.(24) Even putting to one side the unequal application, if ‘racism’ were merely defend as stereotyping/generalising about a race(s), then ‘racism’ would merely be such generalising. What is so very terrible about that? Do we really need to hold an International Conference because someone might have made a generalisation in their mind? Or even said it out loud? What if the thought is actually true(25)? And surely if ‘racism’ is defined as mistreatment of a racial group – then is not mass immigration a racist act against us? Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ were ‘racism’ and also ‘anti-racism’ (internally inconsistent)? So if ‘racism’ is defined only to disempower one racial group – then is this ‘racist’?
Dr Turner deconstructs this term to the extent that after reading his analysis you will never view the term ‘racist’ the same again.
It’s a celebration of ‘multiculturalism’
Investigating the definitions available of the term ‘multiculturalism’ one finds that there are 7 commonly found parts of the definitions that are available(26), plus the descriptive definition:
1. All groups practising their own culture
2. All the same
3. Celebration of diversity
4. Everyone living happily together
7. Cultural relativism
These elements present problems from a rational perspective – whether examined alone and/or in combination, as will be shown briefly here.
I want to preserve all the world’s cultures and the diversity!!
Element one presents an idea that is not achievable in practice: all groups cannot practise their own cultures(27) in one place at one time. This simply is not possible. The one set of rules dilemma illuminates the logical fact that since a culture is described by a set of descriptive ‘rules’(28), only one such set can define the culture in question. Thus, if two (or more) cultures differ on any of these rules(29), then both sets cannot describe the resultant area at any one time. For example, if a culture has the custom of all houses being painted pink, then if a blue-house-painting culture moves in to the city, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue and all pink. Not possible. One or both cultures will be changed(30). The idea of ‘everyone doing their own thing’ is not preserving the original cultures, and neither does it represent ‘everyone doing their own thing’ in this context. This dilemma is played out across immigrised areas in Britain today(31). Is the Muslim call to prayer to be played across public space(32)? Are gays to be allowed to be gay? What are women to wear? May they drive on the roads? Is alcohol allowed? Is Piglet allowed(33)?
If one really did believe in preservation of culture and all cultures being allowed to practise their own cultures, then the political policy of mass immigration would not be a good idea.
All the different groups are the same!!
As to element two, we are not all the same, and if we were on wonders how on earth one would be able to categorise people into the relevant groups anyway. This is simply an untrue statement as are all the related lies such as ‘we are no different to other people’, ‘there is no such thing as race’, ‘we are all the same inside’, etc. If this element is used to define the term ‘multiculturalism’, then ‘multiculturalism’ is defined with an untruth.
It’s just a non-stop celebration here!!
Element Three (celebration of diversity) does not describe general reality. Diversity (as brought by immigration – which is the only type of diversity relevant here) in fact tends to make people less happy and, despite frequent claims to the contrary, tends to harm the people/society experiencing it (other things being equal). Studies show diversity causes people to be less trusting, less willing to sacrifice for others, less secure, less mentally healthy, more anxious, and is also associated with lower levels of social capital(34).
Such diversity tends to bring discomfort, strife, conflict and increases the chances of civil disorder, (e.g. race riots in 2001 across Britain, Birmingham’s inter-racial riots in 2005(35), etc.) and even civil war(36). Caldwell notes that every country that has experienced mass immigration has some form of ‘simmering’ ethnic conflict (Caldwell, 2009(37)). John Derbyshire predicts our grandchildren asking why we couldn’t see that such diversity obviously causes trouble – and they will be asking ‘what could be more obvious?’(38). Some hold that inter-group conflict is merely the way of nature – and that hostility and separation between groups may be instinctive and natural.
It would be inconsistent to celebrate all diversity (this could involve celebrating uniformity if practised by a group), and amoral by definition. This would also entail celebrating any practice – including child sacrifice, slavery, rape, etc. (e.g. see Press, 2007, page 17(39)). These practices, and others, are still found around the world – even human sacrifice.
Such diversity in one space also tends to uniformity, and this is hence inconsistent (in the context of immigration). This contradiction has prompted some to say that ‘multiculturalism’ is ‘the anti-thesis’ of what is presented as meaning, thereby making it a form of Orwellian ‘doublethink’(40). If one were a big fan of diversity, then mass immigration should not be a policy one should support.
Hence, such ‘celebration’ is inconsistent, immoral, is rarely found in real life (other than amongst journalists, politicians, etc.), and irrational in light of the problems it brings – plus the diversity brought by immigration ironically tends to become uniformity.
Everyone’s so happy together!!
Element Four (everyone living happily together) also does not describe reality accurately. As documented by Taylor (2011(41)) with numerous real-life examples, people generally prefer to separate and will do so when feasible (and in the absence of other incentives, etc.). Segregation in Britain is increasing, and is significant – as noted by many. For example, the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has stated that Britain is ‘sleepwalking’ into segregation(42) and Ted Cantle referred to communities living ‘parallel lives’ in his Report following the 2001 riots(43), etc.
When people are mixed together, this tends to decrease happiness and many other measures of well-being (as noted above). Different groups living together increases the chances of civil disorder or even war (as noted earlier).
Most people do not believe that ‘everyone lives happily together’; quite the contrary. During the author’s research it was found that most people not only desire to be ‘amongst their own kind’, but also believe that this makes people happier. Taylor cites a study conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley, which found that the majority of the four major racial groups in California surveyed (blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians) agreed with the statement that ‘people are happier when segregated’ (Taylor, 2011, page 41, ibid).
The desire to live amongst one’s ‘own kind’ is reported around the world – sometimes to and/or by governments (which hence would make it difficult for those governments to claim not to know this). For example, the British Government Home Office Report commissioned after the 2001 riots noted that the main cause for the segregation found in Oldham was the preferences of groups ‘to live with their own kind’ (Oldham Independent Review, 2001, page 9, ibid). German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted as stating that:
‘Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,’
(E.g. as quoted in the Guardian, 17th October 2010)
The fact that groups do not live together happily is sometimes noted even by some proponents of ‘multiculturalism’. In fact, the ‘multiculturalism’ industry is based largely on the assumption that diversity is problematic. Many other phenomena implicitly acknowledge that in fact groups do not simply live happily together. For example, the very existence of numerous lavishly-funded government bodies to ‘create cohesion’(44) and suchlike admit, if only by implication, that there is at least a strong possibility of problems between groups. One could also cite the systematic media censorship and distortion conducted for the purpose of ‘maintaining’ ‘cohesion’.
As a description this element is therefore false and irrational, and as an aim it is irrational to attempt since it seems unlikely to occur and is harmful (because of the problems it causes – increasing unhappiness, increasing the chances of civil disorder, etc.).
Some believe that the problems that arise from ethnic diversity are best resolved by the achievement of homogeneity through inter-marriage (hence refuting Element Four). There are a number of influential people in politics, academia and the media who explicitly call for miscegenation as a solution, (e.g. Podhoretz(45)). But if the problems of mixing ethnic/racial groups within one country are so severe and intractable that the best solution involves the ending of the relevant groups (or at least the indigenous group(46)), this calls into question both the attainability and the descriptive accuracy of this idea of ‘everyone living happily together’.
Hence, this element is neither a rational description nor an easily achievable policy. The moral justification for attempting to achieve this situation is not clear – especially if this involves destruction of groups (culture and/or people).
Equality! Even if it’s unequal it’s good!
As noted above, the term ‘equality’ (in the social and political sense) is a nebulous-power-word and hence should not be used in rational discourse. However, in the context of mass immigration (descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) this nebulous-power-word presents further specific problems – including the fact that equality of fraternity is not generally found (which can present various problems as well as inconsistencies). Also, in relation to indigenous rights(47), the indigenous group inherently have many of these rights infringed by the very fact of immigration, presenting an intrinsic inequality when descriptive ‘multiculturalism'(48) exists. Equality of representation is not achievable if numbers differ and/or distributions in relation to the relevant criterion (a) – unless some inequalities are enforced to make it equal. This renders descriptive ‘multiculturalism’ incompatible with ‘equality’ in these senses – and in many others.
‘Racism’ is very very bad
‘Anti-racism’ is good
‘Racist’ ‘anti-racism’ – still good!!
‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word – and as such should not be used in rational discourse. This is true in general, but there are specific additional issues if this nebulous-power-word is used in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’. For example, if ‘racism’ is hatred (of a racial group or groups), could not mass immigration be viewed as an act of hatred(49) against indigenous people(50)? Some supporters of mass immigration claim that animosity, or even loathing(51), towards Britain is a motivation, e.g. Hitchens states that: ‘we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain’(52). As many have stated, integration/assimilation and having children outside one’s race could be viewed as killing one’s own race and as hateful(53). Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ in its descriptive sense is defined both as anti-racism, and also is ‘racist’. The associations of the term ‘racism’ with genocide(54) might become illuminated were the term merely defined as ‘hatred’ (or any other definition). The power to control people and inhibit objections to mass immigration would diminish were this term clearly defined(55).
It’s all relative – don’t bother thinking about it…
Under what is thought to be the original usage of the term ‘cultural relativism’ it was suggested that cultures should (or could) only be judged on their own terms. If this is true, then is problematic for descriptive ‘multiculturalism’, e.g. how is public space to be governed, (e.g. how are laws to be formulated?)?
The more recent interpretations of this phrase include that of ‘you shouldn’t/can’t judge’ – but this is a judgement and hence internally inconsistent, as well as being immoral. The spreading of such ideas has harmed society as some people are inhibited from making moral judgements(56).
Other popular interpretations include that of ‘all cultures are equal’. As ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word it is not clear what this actually means. The ways one might interpret this do not necessarily make sense alone or as a definition of the term ‘multiculturalism’ either – this would be a true or a false statement and so what does this have to do with mass immigration? And does anyone actually believe this in the sense of being ‘equally good’?
It’s just a description…
Of course, the term ‘multiculturalism’ is sometimes used in its descriptive sense – to refer to an area that has experienced as influx of incomers and is hence racially and/or ethnically mixed. In Britain this thus denotes the results of the political policy of immigration. This definition has high referentiality and possesses no rational problems per se – although being inconsistent with some of the other definitions (see above – all of which it underpins). However, there are some problems with this definition – including those of: this definition not always making sense if a replacement exercise is performed; and the issue of why this would be represented in a positive manner (and, not unrelatedly, why would a government implement this as a policy?).
In relation to the replacing of the term with its definition: how can ‘multiculturalism’ merely mean the diversity of immigration in sentences such as: ‘’multiculturalism’ is the solution to diversity’, ‘’multiculturalism’ is the justification of a ‘multicultural’ society’, etc.? How can it ‘be taught’ (as is recommended)? How can it ‘be’ a value/moral?
In relation to the idea of the positive emotions associated with the term (including its celebration) why would the results of this political policy be considered as positive(57)? Most Brits view immigration in a negative light, as shown in surveys and also by comments made in daily life (when people feel safe to speak that is). In Britain immigration has been harmful – especially to the poor who have been made poorer(58). Immigration (and its associated management) has cost the country a lot of money(59). Immigrants have committed a disproportionate amount of crime(60). The victims of these immigrants include thousands of raped women and children(61). The social fabric is destroyed by immigration, causing much misery – this in both dramatic ways and also the less dramatic daily miseries(62). Many freedoms have been inhibited or lost as a consequence of immigration(63). There have been many other means by which the country has been harmed as a result of immigration(64), (e.g. in education, housing issues, strains on resources such as water, importation of disease, etc.). Hence, immigration into Britain in recent years has caused great harm. In fact, many immigrants and supporters of mass immigration view immigration as an act of revenge against the Brits(65) – not very positive.
Not looking at the specifics harms that immigration has brought to Britain in recent years, one could examine the process of immigration from a theoretical perspective. When there is immigration there is what is known as the dilemma of cultural contact. This dilemma points out that immigration can bring only one of 2 outcomes(66): there is either diversity; or there is homogeneity. This is true irrespective of any specific consequences of immigration, (e.g. financial losses to the country, etc.(67)). Diversity is associated with much harm qv, and homogeneity can only be achieved by cultural destruction, and full homogeneity by racial destruction(68). Even if one supports ‘only’ cultural homogeneity: were this achieved, then racial homogeneity would follow in time. Thus, the dilemma of culture contact illuminates the logical truth that the only 2 options are both associated with harm: harm of diversity or the harm associated with achieving homogeneity. This truth holds no matter which terms are used to describe the relevant processes/outcomes, (e.g. ‘assimilation’, ‘integration’, ‘creolisation’, ‘métissage’, etc.). Of course, there are those who do not view the loss of racial existence as a problem(69), e.g. Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Walkington is quoted as allegedly stating that: Britain is ‘a country with the most mixed race relationships in the world. In 200 years’ time, we’ll all be coffee coloured and I’ve got no problem with that.’(70)
According to the United Nations(71), genocide is an international crime and punishable as such(72). One action that can qualify as genocide is: deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (see Article 2). Under this definition not only does the political policy of mass immigration possibly qualify as a genocidal act (intent dependent), but many of the academics, media, politicians and other experts appear to possibly be guilty of ‘complicity in genocide’ (an international crime under Article 3).
Hence, it is difficult to see why this term (policy) would be represented with a positive term. In recent years in Britain much harm has been caused, and even from a theoretical perspective the dilemma of cultural contact illuminates the logical truth that such immigration can only result in either homogenisation or diversity(73) – both outcomes/processes associated with harm/loss.
In recent years there have been some critics of ‘multiculturalism’ – but these voices queried ‘multiculturalism’ and not immigration or diversity. By this means, nebulous-power-words can be used to further obscure issues. If these critics are objecting to diversity brought by immigration, then what are they suggesting? Assimilation? Homogenisation? Is this not genocidal? And what happened to the celebration of diversity?
Nebulous-power-words can be used to confuse, distract, stall or otherwise obscure clear perception and conception. Also, when they are no longer useful, they will be either discarded (and possibly replaced(74)) or their meaning switched. What was good might be said to be bad – or vice versa. Nebulous-power-words might no longer be useful for a number of reasons, including: their purpose has been achieved, they have been exposed, etc. It is predicted that in the future even the very powerful nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ will either switch(75) or fall into disuse.
Hence, ‘multiculturalism’ is not adequate from a rational perspective. This term possesses low referentiality – the elements are all problematic from a rational perspective (ether per se and/or in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) and the one high referentiality meaning(76) found does not always make sense in the contexts in which the term is used – in these contexts the term must mean something else – but what? All the other meanings are shown to be problematic.
Social Representation Perspective on Meaning
So, if ‘multiculturalism’ is a nebulous-power-word, then what does it actually mean to those who know/use/hear/read, etc. it? Dr Turner concludes his book by taking another perspective on meaning. Whereas from a rational perspective this term is inadequate, a social representation perspective on meaning can explain, inter alia, what this term actually means to those who know it – and how social and emotional forces are contained within the very meaning (from a social representation perspective) of this term(77).
Dr Turner identifies various narrative voices (‘identities’) that contribute to constructing the social representation meaning that is found. One voice is that of the abstract – representing the abstract nature of the term and imbuing it with authority. All these experts, judges, highly-decorated academics, etc. use the term – surely it is not bogus? If the politicians have it as a policy it must at least be a real word? The Emperor isn’t naked is he?(78) A second such voice is the ‘nice’ narrative – it is just not nice(79) to challenge this – that would be nasty and ‘racist’(80). Thirdly, there is the danger of being attacked by the voice of the angry if one challenges/dissents(81) – these attacks can be in the form of the sneering/demeaning, the name-calling, or financial and legalistic attacks. There are also many cases of physical attacks to people and to property, and threats of such. Rage-filled people attempt to resolve their emotional problems by drawing upon the construct of ‘villain and victim’ – the immigrants being the ‘pet victims’ of their fantasy community, and the ‘racists’ the villains(82). Snobbery and viciousness are acted out upon dissenters. This frightens many people into submission/silence/compliance. Such utopian thinking is inherently destructive – the abstract and unachievable absurd visions ‘justifying’ destruction, violence, hate and control(83). Many immigrants themselves constitute a fourth voice – one that makes a claim of victimhood and offers motivations such as self-indulgence, pity, fear, shame and guilt. Immigrants can draw upon the utopian rainbow loving images and social representations without necessarily believing the vision/tenets(84) – this can be used, in a manipulative manner, as a tool to further one’s own goals. A fifth significant voice is that of the crowd – following the majority view (as is perceived(85)) and being swayed by social forces, many of this group follow the path of least resistance. All these forces combine and interact to construct the social representation meaning that is found – the social forces hence contained within the very meaning of this term (from a social representation perspective).
Fully assimilated visual images render the social representation impermeable to reason and truth. Images can replace concepts(86). Such images are ubiquitous in Western culture(87), and can ‘make sense’ of the elements in a manner that rational discourse cannot – and hence the term (and its elements) is ‘understood’ in this manner (by all being fitted into an organised structure of thought). The elements match and describe the image, but the image remains decontextualised and abstract.
Repeated linking between such images and the relevant phenomena, terms, mantras, etc. forms and reinforces the associations. This happy rainbow is contrasted constructively against ‘racism’ and this dichotomy constitutes the figurative nucleus of bipolar oppositional form of this hegemonic social representation (parallel to the ‘boy-girl’ construction of gender(88)).
THE JABBERWOCKY GYMBLES AND GYRES
TALISMAN AND TABOO
As can be seen from the foregoing, ‘multiculturalism’ meets all the criteria to be categorised as a nebulous-power-word – words which can exert control because of their very nature. The power of these words is contingent upon low referentiality and on the fact that people do not recognise their true nature – without these factors the emotional and social forces could not hold such power over people. The low referentiality inhibits rational processing, causing confusion and obfuscation. Their emotional and social power governs perceptions, thoughts and feelings – and hence behaviour too. Representation by visual imagery exacerbates these effects. Only because of the nature of these terms can their powerful content operate. Nebulous-power-words are inadequate from a rational perspective, and should not form a part of rational discourse. They are inadequate to be used as social or political policies.
These terms can act as smokescreens and mirrors. The mirrors can reverse the perception of reality, and the smoke obscures truth. In the smoke people are confused and emotional, and hence easily manipulated. Amidst the smoke there is fear and panic and many will be misled – some following the crowd for safety, others are tricked into falsehoods, some push others towards the fire to save themselves, etc.
When one reads that toves are gyring and gymbling one might sort of understand, but it does not really make sense. Some do not want to admit they cannot understand – and others will feel that they do.
As Orwell might have said, ‘People bellyfeel ‘multiculturalism’, it is double plus good and goodthink; ‘racism’ is a thoughtcrime and double plus non good, ‘racists’ are thought criminals and non-persons’. Using the terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘racism’ (or any other nebulous-power-words) is, in Orwell’s terminology, a form of ‘duckspeak’. Duckspeak was the form of speech that involved movements of the voice centres, with sound being produced, but this movement and noise occurred without the higher brain parts needing to be engaged (Orwell, 1984 ibid). Hence, people could be speaking to each other, but not in a rational sense; the noises made acted to control people, and this control was made possible because of the very nature of the noises.
The duckspeak noises acted as tools of power – and yet the people never realised that duckspeak was not rational, nor that the power controlling them derived partly from themselves(89), contained within the very meaning of the terms they knew and used. This is how nebulous-power-words function. People can be controlled from within by such surreptitious means – a more total and perfect form of control than many others.
Boot (2006(90)) discusses such powerful terms being used by ‘glossocrats’ and how such terms can be used ‘as instruments of power’ this ‘long after the seemingly more violent weapons have dulled’. Nebulous-power-words contribute to a sociopolitical environment that is seen by some as ‘soft totalitarianism’. Author Hal Colebatch(91) believes Britain to be becoming the first soft totalitarian state of the modern world – ‘soft’ because it lacks the gulags of previous such regimes, but ‘totalitarian’ nonetheless because of the immense state power over people – including control over people’s thoughts and the punishments for dissent (The Australian, 21st April 2009(92)).
The simple but politically embarrassing truth is that ‘multiculturalism’ simply fails to meets the intellectual, practical or moral standards required for such a world-changing concept. And yet for now, the mass ‘multicultural’ mania continues almost unabated, and challenging its cosy consensus remains a hazardous undertaking. The ethnic emperor is appallingly naked – but although some in the West have started to notice, still too few dare to mention it. It is the very nature of some of the terms used that has facilitated much of this harm. The use of clear rational language could be a significant step in freeing people. If the Lion takes genuine courage, the Tin Man sees where the real compassion is, and the Scarecrow is intellectually honest and rigorous, then perhaps the curtain can be pulled and the pretensions, inaccuracies and dishonesties will be exposed. While the smoke and mirrors confuse, obscure, deceive, intimidate and shame, the good people of Emerald City are being manipulated and controlled.
Dr Turner’s book is recommended reading.
It is available to borrow or to buy from Amazon:
1. Raspail, J. (1994 print) The Camp of the Saints. Social Contract Press
2. Also see:
Express 5th November 2007
Telegraph 17th November 2013
3. E.g. benefits advice, translation services, ‘cohesion’ teams, ‘community’ officers, etc.
E.g. see: Express 14th November 2013
4. Lack high referentiality – meaning that they do not possess definitions that clearly signify the relevant phenomenon.
5. E.g. Perilli’s monuments to ‘multiculturalism’.
6. When the term ‘equality’ is in speech marks this refers to the social and political use of the term – because in this sense it is not properly rational to use. Without speech marks this term is used in its rational sense of equivalence, either quantitative or qualitative equivalence, (e.g. 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc.). Also, speech marks can be used to denote reference to the term itself
7. E.g. ‘the two beakers contain an equal volume of liquid’, ‘the two children are of equal ability in X’, ‘2 plus 2 equals 4’, ‘I like the two cars equally’, etc.
8. Also see: Turner, B. S. (1986) Equality. Tavistock Publications Limited: London, UK
9. Some such categories are overlapping in some senses.
10. Of course, one frequently finds that non-white groups are given unequal preference in such contexts, and this is inversionistly labelled as ‘equality of opportunity’.
11. Google ‘Simon Mol’ (Poland), e.g. see: http://www.e-teatr.pl/en/artykuly/33711.html
12. Such claims are made in many contexts, e.g. see:
13. For example, there was a UN ‘anti-racism’ conference held in April 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland (20th-24th April 2009): the ‘Durban II Anti-Racism UN Conference’. These international conferences use the term ‘racism’ in their titles and literature e.g., the term ‘racism’ wass used in the outcome document at Geneva – including the reaffirming of the call on states to formulate national action plans to prevent, combat and eradicate ‘racism’ (e.g. s.28) and the encouraging of parliaments to regularly address the issue of ‘racism’, and to enhance their policies to fight it, (e.g. s.112).
15. E.g. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/advice/factfile_az/racism
16. Although the legislation used in such arrests uses different vocabulary – for what frequently are termed as ‘racism’ charges, often the relevant sections are Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 or sections 28 and 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. For example, the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 does not use the term ‘racism’ (or ‘racist’).
17. And/or an accusation of ‘racism’
18. E.g. see:
19. E.g. see: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Report Of An Inquiry. By Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. Advised by Tom Cook, The Right Reverend Dr John Sentamu, and Dr Richard Stone. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty. February 1999
This was the result of an enquiry into the police investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence. See:
Dennis, N., Erdos, G., Al-Shahi, A. (2000) Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics: the McPherson Report and the Police. Civitas. The Institute for the Study of Civil Society: London
20. This term is associated with the idea of genocide, and yet in many ways this connection is inversionist qv.
21. Of course, were one definition to be chosen now, then it might be a little late to instantly reduce the power. However, the power of this term will reduce in the future – nebulous-power-words are not terms with high referentiality and so their emotional associations can switch as can their definitions in other senses.
22. The ‘replacement exercise’ is merely replacing the term with its definition.
23. Including unfavourable by comparison, one cannot praise whites without risking the R-word, nor take pride, e.g. ‘white pride’ is considered as ‘racist’, but not ‘black pride’, etc.
24. The Express 28th March 2013:
25. If the thought/statement were true, then this would be defining ‘multiculturalism’ as against truth. And even if it were mistaken and untrue – really, an International Conference? Arresting people? What if they get their maths wrong? Arrest them too?
26. The ‘elements’ – these are used alone or in combination in most definitions in the literature and dictionaries.
27. Cultures in an unlimited sense
28. These do not necessarily all have to be legal – here ‘rules’ refers to descriptive rules that describe a culture in all its qualities – this including habits, traditions, customs and ‘legal’ rules forming a subset of this qualitative description
29. Which they must to be distinguished as different cultures
30. There are endless possibilities on any such variable. In this example it could be the case that both groups maintain their original colours – so the city is now part blue and part pink. This would mean that there are no longer all blue or all pink cities for the residents to preserve their cultural practices. Alternatively, either group (or split combinations of either or both) might change their painting habits to those of the other group, or to any other colour (s), (or maintain their original traditions).
31. Also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html
32. This is sometimes an emotive issue in Britain. See
Sometimes these issues are discussed in relation to threat to culture (or ‘way of life’). See:
Divergences in opinion on this have been recorded from other countries too –
34. For example, Putnam studies the reductions in social capital (Putnam, 2007, ‘Diversity and Community in the Twenty First Century’. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137-174); the reduction in willingness to sacrifice for others is discussed by David Goodhart (e.g. see Prospect Magazine, 2004, and : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/24/race.eu); general levels of trust reduce with diversity (also see for further reading: Salter, F. K., Ed., 2002, Risky Transactions. Trust, Kinship, and Ethnicity. Oxford and New York, Berghahn); studies show detrimental consequences to mental health in some such circumstances, see below. Also see for related issues, e.g. Stafford, M., Becares, L. and Nazroo, J. ‘Objective and Perceived Ethnic Density and Health: Findings From a United Kingdom General Population Survey’, American Journal of Epidemiology (2009) 170 (4):484-493.doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp160
35. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12777437
The concerns of future riots (or other such problems) are sometimes expressed by ‘experts’, e.g. see: Daily Mail 12th November 2013
36. Many predict civil war as a result of mass immigration – even if this does not occur, the fear/anxiety, etc. is a form of suffering for many people
Also, relatedly, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM
37. Caldwell, C. (2009) Reflections on the Revolution Europe. Can Europe be the Same with Different People in it? Allen Lane/Penguin, London: England
38. John Derbyshire, Taki’s Magazine, 29th March 2012:
39. Press, J. K. (2007) Culturalism. Social Books: New York
40. E.g. see: ‘The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations’, Dr. K R Bolton Foreign Policy Journal, 12 March 2011
41. Taylor, J. (2011) White Identity. Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. New Century Foundation: USA
42. E.g. see BBC News website 22nd September 2005
43. The ‘Cantle Report’ – Community Cohesion: a Report of the Independent Review Team. Chaired by Ted Cantle and published January 2001. Home Office.
44. ‘Cohesion’ is a problematic term. Frequently this term is used as a code-word for the absence of civil war and/or race riots.
45. Podhoretz, N. (1963) My Negro Problem and Ours. New York: American Jewish Committee
46. Immigrant groups might have populations remaining in their home countries
47. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007
48. I.e. descriptive ‘multiculturalism’ as a result of immigration
49. And also of ‘mistreatment’.
50. And those objecting to mass immigration were not ‘haters’ but acting against hatred?
51. Also see: Express 14th July 2011
52. Daily Mail 28th June 2013
53. Also see Muhammad Ali being interviewed by Parkinson on the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fvwxB2Bg
54. E.g. see http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/03/20/monument-to-multiculturalism/
55. With high referentiality
56. Also see Dalrymple, T. (2001) Life at the Bottom. Ivan R. Dee: Chicago
57. Is immigration always good?
Express 14th November 2013
and, relatedly, Daily Mail, 12th November 2013
Also see: http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/387469/Why-does-the-Left-hate-the-working-classes-so-much
58. Also see: Daily Mail 13th May 2011
As well as by other means, many of the poorest of Britain have been made poorer by being unemployed – immigration often cited as a (or the main) cause, e.g. also see Daily Mail 18th November 2013
Telegraph 17th November 2013
59. Express 5th November 2007:
Express 29th April 2013
Express 14th November 2013
Such costs are found to occur in many Western countries. Also see:
60. Also see: Mirror 29th May 2013
62. Telegraph 29th January 2013
63. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also see Telegraph 25th November 2004:
64. E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264963/Migrant-citys-help-Anguished-letter-Brown-Cameron-reveals-devastating-toll-immigration.html
65. ‘Payback time’, etc. Also see: Browne, A. (2005) Do We Need Mass Immigration? (second edition) Civitas: London
66. ‘Outcomes’ and/or processes. Both processes can be occurring at the same time, e.g. diversity as some groups (and/or subsets of groups) homogenise
67. E.g. this is true whether the immigrants in question are more or less criminal than the indigenous people, more or less intelligent, whether the immigration in question brings financial losses or gains, etc. Whether there are any alterations on any such measures or not – this is still true. The dilemma of cultural contact is applicable to any case of immigration irrespective of the specifics of that immigration, and irrespective of the consequences of that immigration in other ways.
68. The old ‘melting pot’ metaphor
69. Also see: http://www.badeagle.com/2009/06/16/the-hated-white-race/
70. Available at: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/04/candidate-calls-britain-the-most-mongrel-country-in-the-world-yet-the-left-havent-batted-an-eyelid.html ; or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/election/article-1268826/General-Election-2010-Nutters-Nick-Clegg-Theyre-closer-think.html etc.
71. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
72. Also see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-people-of-europe/
73. Of course in many cases there will be a slow genocide occurring simultaneously with the problems of diversity
74. It could be that a new replacement word will be used for ‘multiculturalism’, such as that of ‘inter culturalism’, e.g. see:
Cohesion, Integration and Openness: From ‘Multi’ to ‘Inter’ Culturalism. Institute of Community Cohesion (February 2012)
However, any such term should be clearly defined and also examined in light of the issues noted in Dr Turner’s book, e.g. how would such a policy aim to address the dilemma of cultural contact?
75. E.g. become a badge of pride/rebellion; or settle on one single high referentiality meaning, (e.g. stereotyping or otherwise) and hence lose its power by this means; etc.
76. A nebulous-power-word can still be a nebulous-power-word even if one or more of its definitions possess high referentiality – not all (or any) the meanings need to be problematic per se
77. Moscovici, S. (2000) Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Translated by G. Duveen. Polity Press, Cambridge University
Marková, I. (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
78. This voice hence provides, amongst other things, a motivation not to appear stupid – many do not want to admit that they do not quite understand. Also, people do not want to question or challenge, etc. that which they do not quite understand (and who could understand a nebulous-power-word?). The authority and faux intellectual validity intimidates and confuses many people. Some are shamed into compliance/acquiescence
79. Of course, the definition of ‘nice’ is relevant. Does it mean pleasing people? Is so, then whom? Are some chosen groups pleased at the expense (financial and otherwise) of others? If so, then that is not ‘nice’. Neither is it ‘nice’ to destroy people’s culture, suppress truth, support lies, harm some groups in many ways, or facilitate genocide. Saccharin-covered poison-pills. If ‘nice’ is about truth, genuine compassion or honour, then this voice is not very nice.
80. Also, relatedly, see Horowitz, D. (1997) Radical Son. A Generational Odyssey Simon and Schuster New York: USA; Horowitz, D. (2003) Left Illusions. An Intellectual Odyssey. Spence Publishing Company, Dallas: USA.
Anthony, A. (2008) The Fallout. How a Guilty Liberal Lost His Innocence. Vintage Books: London
And also, relatedly:
81. Also see ‘Passover Syndrome’, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh6YIaJyFnk
82. Also see: Rossiter, L. H. (2006) The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Free World Books, LLC, St. Charles, IL: USA
Glazov, J. (2009) United in Hate – The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Los Angeles, CA: WND Books
83. For a great analysis of utopians see: Scruton, R. (2010) The Uses of Pessimism and the Dangers of False Hope. Atlantic Books: London, UK
84. Also, relatedly, see:
Daily Mail, 6th January 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082527/Diane-Abbott-Twitter-race-row-MP-faces-calls-resign-racist-tweet.html
Fourest, C. (2008) Brother Tariq. The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan. Encounter Books, USA
85. In modern life the media largely influence such perceptions
86. Also see: ‘magic-ritual language’ Herbert Marcuse, (1964) One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press
87. E.g. see:
Martin Luther King’s much publicised I Have a Dream speech (1963) evoked images of this kind.
Much of this form of repetition and linking is focussed on children, such as Crayola’s suggestions for celebrating the diversity, e.g. see:
There are many such activities for children, such as making chains for Black History Month, e.g. see:
88. See Duveen, G. and Lloyd, B. (1990), Social Representations and the Development of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
89. Although, of course, the ultimate origins are from the social and political context – and the intersubjective. By ‘from within’ it is meant that the terms are internalised.
90. Boot, A. (2006), How The West Was Lost. I. B. Tauris Publishers: London
91. Author of the award-winning Blair’s Britain: British Culture Wars and New Labour (1999) Claridge Press, UK – a Spectator book of the year in 1999