What would happen if the Broadcast Media combined and launched an attack on the People? They would not tell you it was them, they would select those events that made it appear as if the whole world had shifted to their opinions, they would choose a "moral" basis to condemn their opponents, they would no-platform any opposition and provide copious positive coverage of their supporters.
Has the media launched an attack? They have motivation. Senior management and staff across the broadcast media were devastated
by Brexit and Trump, not because of racism etc. but because it damaged
their prospects. Employment in the media is insecure and most British actors and journalists hope to get wider employment opportunities in the USA, Australia etc. The companies that run the broadcasters have international ambitions which is why they cover the USA in such depth. The advertisers on Channel 4 and ITV are Multinational Corporations who make their money from international sales and trade and are also upset. The BBC wants to expand globally, especially in the USA. It is clear that the broadcasters have a grudge about the shift away from Internationalism. Are they acting on it?
The Broadcasters attempted to fight Brexit head on between 2016 and 2019 but since the overwhelming victory by Leave in the 2019 General Election they have changed tactics. They have now turned to the standby option of hopeless causes: create chaos in the hope of revolutionary change.
What weapon might they use? They know that ID Politics is very popular viewing because sexual ID politics attracts the salacious and racial ID politics attracts the "holy" and minority audience. However racial politics is the weapon of choice because it has an international dimension.
ID politics gained huge momentum after the Equality Act 2010. The Act singled out certain characteristics as "protected" and has created groups who
are identified as generic victims. This is racist. The Equality Act
2010 is racist. It should be replaced by a strengthened law against
harassment. Suitable anti-harassment legislation is available but is usually
poorly enforced. However, despite the racist roots of the Equalty Act, ID Politics are flourishing and the broadcasters love it.
The "Hate Speech" and equality legislation is geared to suppressing speech rather than preventing harassment. Any media company can use the portrayal of protected groups as endless victims with impunity but those opposing such portrayals run a real risk of legal action. ID politics can be used to polarise and damage society with impunity. Which, of course, was the idea behind the legislation. See The Roots of New Labour for a review of the motivation of those who introduced the Equality Act.
Politicians are discovering that the only safe political viewpoint is to support the "protected characteristics" or focus on technical issues. Even discussing, say, foreign trade could result in accusations of xenophobia or racism. The Acts have prevented all political discourse among staff in large Corporations and have allowed those who have the money and media power to shut down public political discourse and divert the population into ID politics.The net effect is to suspend free speech over wide areas of politics and
allow those with an Internationalist agenda to shut down any
opposition.
The modern media are largely Postmarxists and see polarisation and racial conflict as key to revolutionary change. Their bosses see it as the path to Internationalisation so that they can trade and move staff and money anywhere. The media has declared war and we, the People, are bound and gagged.
The Equality Act
The legal basis for ID politics is the law banning "hate speech" and the law banning abuse of protected minorities at work. "Hate speech" was substantially banned by counter terror legislation in 2001 in an effort to protect people who are members of groups that might contain terrorists. However it was the Equality Act 2010 that changed the views of the Corporate Elite to support for ID Politics. The Equality Act compels employers to police the behaviour of their employees and makes employers financially liable for non-compliance. This led to intensive training within corporations on behaving within the Act. The Public Sector was even given a special role for "educating" staff in the Act. Public Sector Media companies were especially affected and drummed the Act into their personnel.
Harriet Harman, who introduced the Equality Act, was a keen defender of paedophile "rights"
in the 1970s. Would she have been allowed to include paedophilia in
her Equality Act? The Equality Act protects genders but does not protect
paedophiles so it embodies the idea of "worthy" sexual orientation.
The Act also protects religions. What of religions that condone Child Sacrifice? There are such religions even today
and from the text of the Equality Act my employer would be committing a
crime if it allowed me to accuse a practitioner of such a religion as
being despicable: I cannot attack the religion but I can attack the
practice. The difficulty here is that religions are "memes", systems of
belief that are passed to others, if I am forbidden from attacking the
religion I am condemning the world to the recurrence of the practice of
child sacrifice. The law will prosecute those performing child
sacrifice but forbids me from tackling its cause. The idea that all members of all religious groups are worthy of protection is
evidently absurd. Yet it is the law.
Religion and race are also protected from hate speech by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which piggy backs far reaching legislation that affects freedom of speech on an emergency bill.
The
Acts protect the characteristics of colour, nationality, ethnic or
national origins as if they were the same thing called "race".
However, colour, National Origins and ethnic origins are very different
from Nationality. The first are about characteristics that are
involuntary whilst Nationality is a currently held attribute. In
principle it would be illegal to refuse employment to a Russian or
Chinese citizen in your leading edge technical department unless you
could definitively prove they were a spy. Discrimination on the basis of Nationality may actually be required in society especially in times of war. What of discrimination on the basis of involuntary characteristics, should that always be illegal?
Involuntary characteristics might seem a secure place to start any Equality Act but ginger people report bullying and discrimination yet seem to be excluded. If the Act were extended to people with ginger hair then why not extend it to any physical characteristic? The Acts themselves are discriminatory and cannot fail to be so because there must be a limit beyond which punishing discrimination is absurd - for instance if ginger people were included what about those with boils on their noses? Should the government really control all conversation about physical attributes? As is the case with sexual orientation the Act implies that some characteristics are "worthy" but fails to explain why.
The net effect of these various Acts passed by the last Labour government is to launch a massive attack on freedom of speech. If any belief or politics can be linked to offences under the Acts or even be portrayed as similar to offences under the Acts those holding contrary beliefs can seize the pseudo-legal and "moral" high ground and refuse to debate any real issues and simply raise the cry "racist"! This is serious because much of politics is about groups. As an example it may be believed that migration policy is unfairly affecting certain trades but if reference is made to, say, Polish migrants, the debate can be terminated. Another example might involve certain employers discriminating in favour of particular castes. Even raising this issue when in employment would be a direct offence under the Equality Act, as would pointing out that this is a common practice in South Asia. Any whistleblower about certain strands of Islam, such as Wahabbism, in their area could be accused of hate speech although the connections between this and terrorism are well known. And so on.
The answer to discrimination is to strengthen the general law on harassment, not to identify protected groups.
How did people with different religions, different skin colours etc.
arise? Much of these differences arose because of historical and
continuing discrimination by the groups themselves. As an example Judaism is matrilineal,
muslims eschew association with non-muslims, non-muslims were enslaved
or treated to special taxes in Islamic countries so forcing conversion,
caste and sub-caste limited whole areas of economic activity to family
members etc, etc. We have the paradox of Acts that are supposed to stop
discrimination against and protect groups that only exist because their members
discriminate. The effect of this is to increase intra-group identity
and polarisation with the consequent risk of racial and religious
conflict. Add to this the perpetual media focus on the
polarisation of the population by race and the result is to make
minorities feel more
victimised and alienated than ever. A society polarised on grounds of race is a racist society.
The Equality Act and hate speech legislation is inconsistent, self contradictory and inherently racist. It is the legal protection for the media as they launch day after day of diatribes about the victimisation of certain groups. Once the groups feel sufficiently victimised and the ordinary population sufficiently irritated it may become possible to have a re-run of the 1930s. The Internationalist faction believe they will win this time.
27/8/2020
Comments