The schizophrenic society

Cleft stick

A regular theme appearing in my articles is the fragility of the liberal consensus and the neurosis of its supporters. My argument is that the liberal elite’s hypersensitivity to criticism betrays its insecurity; those that are confident in what they believe look upon criticism as an opportunity to argue their case.

The difficulty for liberals is that they exist primarily in the realm of faith, and since the relationship between faith and logic is a bit like that of oil and water, and since logic is the language of argument, liberals have an aversion to argument - hence their tendency to seek refuge in dogma.

In my previous article on this website I examined the BBC’s response to the growing scepticism about the so-called ‘benefits of diversity’, and I concluded that the BBC (and the liberal establishment in general) finds itself in something of a cleft stick. In attempting to support its fundamental beliefs it exposes their weakness, which is that they are based not on fact but on sentiment and wishful thinking.

A month or so ago in a small circulation student newspaper Leeds University lecturer Dr Frank Ellis had criticised multiculturalism (multiracialism) as unscientific. But instead of ignoring Dr Ellis’s comments in the knowledge that hardly anyone reads student newspapers, like a moth drawn to a flame, the liberal media couldn’t stay away - even at the risk of singeing its wings. And as a result everyone who bought a newspaper, listened to the radio or watched TV was made aware of Dr Ellis’s well argued critique. Where’s the sense from the establishment’s point of view? Methinks these liberals do complain too much.

Off with his head

Before the media circus opened, protest was limited to the usual suspects. And although Leeds University had labelled Dr Ellis’s views “abhorrent”, officials had said they would not be taking any action against him because there was no evidence that he had discriminated against any of his students.

Frank Ellis has said what he’d said in the Leeds University student newspaper in a number of other journals a number of times, but only now has his employer seen fit to act. Whether it was in response to the student demonstration and petition calling for his head, or to the establishment’s outrage at Dr Ellis’s assault on its foundations, Leeds University changed tack. And in a statement to the media, university secretary Roger Gair said that, “Given the seriousness of the issues. the vice-chancellor, Professor Michael Arthur, has decided to suspend Dr Ellis from his duties while the disciplinary process is underway.”

And what were those issues?

According to the university, in publicising his personal views on race and other matters, Dr Ellis had acted in breach of its equality and diversity policy, “and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values”. Secondly he had “recklessly jeopardised” the fulfilment of the university’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. And thirdly he had failed to comply with “reasonable requests” to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people, or to give an undertaking he would make no further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another “unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds”.

It seems that Leeds University’s commitment to “equality and diversity” is greater than its commitment to free enquiry in the pursuit of knowledge. In academia today in totalitarian Britain fact and truth are acceptable only in so far as they support the status quo. But then that’s what we’ve come to expect; in Britain emotion has replaced reason.

Paradox

On first impression you’d have thought that Trevor Phillips Chair of the CRE occupied the other side of the coin to Frank Ellis, for whereas Phillips sings in praise of equality, Ellis questions its validity. In fact the CRE has been critical of Frank Ellis and may have played a part in Leeds University’s decision to consider disciplinary proceedings against him.

Yet if we read between the lines of Phillips’ latest pronouncement, which came in advance of a speech he is due to give in Leicester, it appears that some of what he says actually adds weight to Frank Ellis’s argument.

According to Trevor Phillips, “Cities where ethnic minorities are in a majority pose a critical threat to tolerance and stability.” and, “Cities where whites are in a minority will bring a risk of mistrust and fracture between rival groups.” Am I alone in thinking these statements are incompatible with the notion of racial equality?

If cities where minorities are the majority pose a critical threat to tolerance and stability, then surely it follows that cities where whites are the majority promote tolerance and stability. Phillips seems to be saying that tolerance and stability are functions of race - which is precisely what Frank Ellis was saying. Yet Ellis gets suspended while Phillips is lauded. Work that one out!

Poor confused Trevor Phillips; he’ll never square the circle no matter how hard he tries. He fights for racial equality, yet he believes race is a social construct. He says all cultures are equal yet believes in a common set of beliefs to which we all should subscribe. He values diversity yet promotes the integration and unification of communities. Just what exactly is it that he believes?

Phillips’ contrariness could be a model for liberalism, and it illustrates perfectly why liberals hide from argument; as is the case with egalitarianism, there is no consistent thread running through Phillips’ thinking which binds his position on every issue. It’s as if Trevor Phillips and his fellow liberals have an inability to see the big picture and instead view each issue in isolation. Consider for instance Phillips’ support for integration with his support for educational apartheid for black males - what is it that prevents him from seeing one as the negation of the other? What logic does he employ that enables him to compromise these mutually exclusives?

Of course this schizophrenia isn’t peculiar to Trevor Phillips - it is common throughout the whole liberal establishment. They don’t have a coherent argument, and we have reached the situation where their every answer contradicts the preceding one!

Fasten your seatbelts

They say that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, and if the saying applies to individuals it must equally apply to societies. British society is insane and it is on course for a fall. Like a teetering building constructed on foundations of sand, where the props are supported by more props, and up there, on the top floor with their heads in the clouds, the liberal elite perform a balancing act rushing to and fro in a desperate effort to stop their crumbling edifice tumbling to earth.

It can’t work because it can’t answer the questions asked of it; that’s why liberals won’t lock horns with people like Dr Frank Ellis - they prefer to shut him up. Whereas his feet are planted firmly on the granite foundations of fact, theirs are sinking in the shifting sands of wishful thinking.

Their equality idea has run its course and has reached its logical conclusion, a jumble of contradictions. And I’m beginning to wonder who really believes in this nonsense any more. It’s as if the state structures set in place to further the egalitarian agenda are carried along by nothing but their own inertia, and that those involved are going along for the ride for the simple reason that as yet they can’t hitch a lift on anything else.

And surely the seemingly self-defeating drawings of attention to the arguments of Dr Frank Ellis (and Nick Griffin and the BNP) are a ‘guilt thing’ - like when someone can’t help but draw attention to something that they’d rather keep hidden.

This crazy society can’t last because, to use a favourite phrase of Karl Marx, its ‘inherent contradictions’ will be its undoing. And that undoing is going to happen sooner rather than later because those contradictions are now too obvious to ignore.

---

---

Share this page: