Inclusiveness in Britain

It’s worthwhile looking at the details to see just how totalitarian “inclusiveness” is. Here’s an account of the specifics involved in the duty to promote race equality imposed in Britain by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

All public agencies, including colleges and universities, professional bodies, libraries and museums, have to do whatever they do in a way designed to promote racial equality. The effect? No-one can just do what he does; everyone, including all cultural institutions, has to do it in a way that as a practical matter involves abolition of everything that once made Britain distinctive. And it’s all intended to be enforceable. No-one protests, because it’s all in the best of causes.

To summarize the way things are today: Require Catholic theologians in Catholic schools to teach actual Catholicism—bad. Require all academics and all cultural institutions to tailor everything they do to promote racial equality—good.

2 thoughts on “Inclusiveness in Britain”

  1. I think we can now say that
    I think we can now say that Britain is going beyond “quasi” or “soft” totalitarianism. To think that the Parliament passed such a bill, and that the British people stood for it! And without our racial history! With no supposed historical compulsion rooted in the nation’s distant past (as in our case), they imposed this on themselves. Such is the power, not of racial guilt per se (since Britain had no nonwhites before 1945) but of the dynamics of liberalism, pure and simple.

    Among other things try to imagine the impact of this law on attempts to thwart Islamic extremism and terrorism. Of course it makes such attempts impossible, since to notice that Muslims include a very large number of a particular troublesome class is to treat Muslims unequally.

    When will people see that “equality” is simply a soft term for Communism, that is, a radical denial of the nature of reality which, once a society embraces it, requires the society to give undeserved rewards and undeserved punishments, to suppress the truth, and to enslave its people?

  2. “Polite” totalitarianism is
    “Polite” totalitarianism is the proper term, I think. Such a managerial society avoids the outward motions of tyranny (military parades, tanks in the streets, etc.), but it tries to coax and cajole the population into submission.

    Only a calculated number of the ruler’s enemies are actually punished, in order to set an example. The rest are hassled, marginalized, sued and otherwise forced into submission.

    Yet the regime bends over backward to pretend it is a fair and just society that respects the nation’s heritage and faith. The rulers hide their aims through mountains of pleasant-sounding rhetoric.

    The term was coined several years ago by paleo-libertarian Ronn Neff in “The Last Ditch,” a newsletter that makes this place look downright cheerful:


Leave a Comment