Mind the Gap in the Salisbury Review

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 11 May 2006 23:45.

The author of Tomorrow is Another Country, Myles Harris, has popped up with a free article in the current Salisbury Review.  It is titled “Made in Broadcasting House” and, fairly obviously therefore, is an attack on the liberal media’s long culture war against the native British peoples.

Here are the best bits:-

Three weeks after the bombings an 18 year old black teenager was murdered by a white thug in Liverpool. Dreadful as it was it was given air time out of all proportion to its significance. Even though it came soon after the London bombings, it was instantly elevated to first place in the news. Senior police chiefs talked sombrely of it, pundits were called in to condemn it and the story was kept alive for months. This was in marked contrast to the way the BBC covered the ‘ordinary‘ murder of a 28 year old white man by a black man in the same week and in almost identical circumstances. It was hardly mentioned on the news, no mention of the race of the victim’s assailant was made and it was quickly dropped. It took a huge number of protests before the BBC gave the story adequate coverage.

The message was clear. Fifty six Britons may have been murdered by religious fanatics, a young white man of 28 may have been casually stabbed to death defending his girlfriend on the top of a London bus, but the murder of a black teenager was far more important. A black man killing a white man or Islamist terrorists killing and maiming people on the tube are crimes but they are not racism. A white man killing a black man is racism and therefore incomparably worse. Racism points to something deeply flawed in a society. So flawed - goes the unspoken message – we can begin to understand how the tube bombings themselves might be ‘explicable’ or even ‘justified‘ in the eyes of a racial minority such as British Moslems, (6% of whom thought them justified). Once we have accepted our racism we will be able to see our society as morally equivalent to that of the Islamist bombers. This view, that all actions are equivalent, that there is really no difference between our society and any other, has been creeping up on us for years. It is a product of extreme liberalism, and its ultimate consequence is a bestial society in which anything is permitted.

... For forty years the British - who had always believed to the contrary - have been told they are irredeemably racist and everything they have automatically thought to be good. We have been told that our police, the army, British tolerance and fair play, our justice system, are all irredeemably flawed. Instead we are constantly reminded that the police suffer from institutional racism, the British army tortures its prisoners, our security service is full of liars, uncontrolled mass migration is beneficial to the country…

At the moment traditional British society is lying whimpering in the floor of its cage under this assault. And like the battered wife awaiting a violent husband, urged on by the left, we are struggling to discover what it is we must do to prevent further blows ...  When all such possibilities are exhausted – and they always are - those who have learnt to be helpless do not remain passive. The beaten wife takes a knife to her husband, the dog lying whimpering on the floor sinks his fangs into the hand that produces a plate of food.

At this point Harris lapses into twittering on about an English Hitler being nurtured deep in the heart of white righteousness.  This is silly, self-defeating talk.  He has fallen into the very Marxian trap he was warning us against, internalising the moral worldview of the left and making it impossible for him to prosecute his argument to its logical conclusion.  And that, unsurprisingly to all who read us here, is that to survive we must repatriate to the status quo anti.

Now, notwithstanding Harris’ unnecessary and stilted conclusion, this is otherwise an entirely clear-eyed article of the anti-liberal type which MR readers know very well.  It is good to see in the dry, serious atmosphere of the Salisbury Review.  Like BNP council seats, it represents progress - albeit at the other end of the intellectual scale.

But it isn’t an argument one instantly associates with British Conservatism.  Too hard-edged, too racial.  After so many vile decades of leftist moralising, just too dangerous. 

As it happens the morally safe and “conventional” position on Conservatism is espoused in the other free article on the SR site - by the doyen of the old guard of the Tory right, Norman Tebbit, no less.

He manages to inform us that:-

The English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh possess these islands as our national home and have the right to defend them against any who seek to occupy them or restrict our liberty. It is for us alone to decide who may be admitted. At the heart of Conservatism is the belief that, since man is born free, laws can only make him less so. ‘Human Rights’ legislation, for example, imposes obligations. It cannot give us the rights which we have long enjoyed by right. Conservatives hold that people are sovereign.

... Also, since a society is a community with common traditions and institutions, it cannot embrace widely differing cultures. Hence there cannot be a multicultural society.

So far, so good.  But then he goes all spineless with this:-

... Let me end with a few words on the ethnic cultural divisions in Britain today. It would make life easier if we had a society without ethnic divisions, but in my view there can be a multi-ethnic society. However, since a society is defined by its culture there can be no such thing as a stable multicultural society. A multicultural society is a society in an instable state in transition or doubt of its culture and identity. I am now free to state this — the obvious — for during the last decade I have been abused as a dangerous extremist for doing so but now I am joined by Sir Trevor Phillips and the new Archbishop of York. Conservatives would not encourage the creation of ghettoes within which people could live in our territory, but in a foreign society. Clearly that involves the question of language and, of course, civil law and social practice, such as the propriety of forced arranged marriages.

So Norman - as right-wing and non-modern Tories get - is a believer in assimilation.  He thinks that the solution to the race question in Britain is a monoculture.  But, importantly, it is a multiracial monoculture governed by Tories like him - Tories who, perversely, think the people are sovereign.  It’s the fast-track to white racial extinction, of course, and “the people” are just beginning to understand it, however faintly for now.

But no such concern colours Tebbit’s thinking.  He is modern enough to hold to first principles which are politically pragmatic.  Assimilation does not “make life easier”.  That isn’t where the pragmatism lies.  No, it is all we can supposedly enact from our present, morally infirm position.

But this is plainly untrue.  It is all that the leaders of conventional politics have the moral firmness to enact.

I have said innumerable times that “relevancy”, “pragmatism”, “realism” etc have been the bane of Conservative politics since the rise of the industrial working class.  Disraelian realism saved the husk of the Party from itself almost a century and a half ago.  But it left Conservatism behind, unused, unwanted.

A terrible price to pay for political survival though this was, it is as nothing to what we face paying today if we follow Tebbit’s monocultural/multiracial recommendation.  In the darkness of the present it is not Conservativism or the Conservative Party which will disappear into the past, but ourselves.  It is for our very survival as we are, truly sovereign in our own homeland, that we must now make, or remake, our politics.

Harris, I feel, is close to incorporating the ultimate value of survival into his thinking.  Thereby, he will arrive at the kind of conclusion most of us do - sans Hitlers, I might add.  Tebbit and his race-blind kind plainly never will, which is a great shame because in so many ways he has been a long-time and staunch defender of the right’s general cause.

Tags: Conservatism



Comments:


1

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Fri, 12 May 2006 11:46 | #

I think the British have become quite jaundiced and sophisticated at reading the implications of media bias. They know that the huge attention given to every case of Evil White violence is a tacit confession that most interracial crime is the other way round: man-bites-dog equals white-attacks-black.

Sooner or later they will become bored with this game of bait-and-switch and demand that such incidents are reported less selectively. The feedback most MSM now permit consumers will put more pressure on the copytasters and gatekeepers to present a rounded picture.

As for Tebbit—he’s become a bit of a JJ Ray, laboriously trying to prove that those frightful oiks in the BNP—not to be confused with Chingford skinheads, dear me no—should be shunned because they’re ‘left wing’. So that’s all right then. We can breathe a sigh of relief and go on sullenly supporting Notting Hill Dave and the Playboys of Globalism: ‘nothing to the right!’ except UKIP (a flop except at Euro elections) and Veritas (defunct).

Tebbit, wittingly or not, aligns himself with the blank-slaters in supposing that assimilation of large numbers of recent arrivals from non-Caucasoid backgrounds is possible; that such people could ever think themselves into being ‘British’ or even ‘English’, as Macaulay once hoped the upper crust of native India could. There is not one modern historical instance of such a transformation occurring: Negroes, for example, remain fundamentally at odds with whites in the USA after 300-400 years of co-existence, although the USA did not have so much of a dominant culture for them to have to crack. If we cannot induce our UK unassimilables to ship out quickly, the ghettoes Tebbit reprobates would be preferable to forcing alien minorities to rub shoulders with the people to whom alone this archipelago rightly belongs.

Looking back, it becomes ever more clear that the systematic denigration of British traditions and continuities under Thatcher, Tebbit and their kind was far more subversive of British nationhood than their empty anti-EU posturings. When it came to the crunch, these neo-conservatives did as little to reverse social liberalism in race and immigration policy as in most of its nation-killing aspects; they were hamstrung by their Liberal-ish rhetoric of freedom and individualism, which easily elides from economics to larger aspects of personal conduct. In the old days of noblesse oblige, no Conservative government would have expired in such a welter of corruption as Major’s. It was the playing out of tendencies engendered by Thatcher and Tebbit.

The Thatcherite foreign policy of subservience to the USA as its little brother in NATO was no break with the past. Instead of decisively repudiating imperial nostalgia, she sought to prolong it as junior partner to a New World hegemon, with consequences we now behold in the Middle East. (And she was always bowled over by rich Jews, from Keith Joseph onward.)

Even the economic legacy was ambivalent. Smashing trade unions—which on the whole had done more good than harm to British national solidarity—and flogging off State industries to the benefit of international financiers, while presiding over the shredding of our manufacturing and agricultural capacity, left us wide open to globalising tendencies. I would rather have had a Tory government of the Japanese LDP type: bowing and smiling to all foreign devils while keeping the ramparts of Fortress Britain strong and head-high.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Solzhenitsyn on saving the nation
Previous entry: My disagreement with Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:32. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 22:02. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

affection-tone