Frederick Dixon

Western Spring

June 23, 2014

As time goes on we become a steadily more liberal society, more accepting of racial and cultural diversity, more tolerant of the ever burgeoning ethnic minorities in our midst. Well, don’t we? That is certainly what I would have assumed, however reluctantly, until a few days ago when this headline caught my eye:- “Politicians blamed for hostility to migrants: Liberal ruling class is increasingly out of step with public opinion, say academics”.

The article went on:- “the persistent public anxiety over immigrant numbers is something the main political parties ignore at their peril, the government funded study warns. Significantly the study – which has been charting public opinion for more than thirty years – found signs of a rejection of a multicultural definition of Britishness. In striking contrast with a decade ago, when the survey showed rising acceptance of minorities, increasing numbers now single out factors such as being born in the UK or having British ancestry (up from 46% in 2003 to 51% in 2013) as important elements of British identity. The study warned that policymakers and the interest groups they deal with regularly tend to be drawn heavily from the liberal end of the spectrum, creating a potential for disconnect and distrust between a more liberal political class which accepts immigration and an electorate among whom many find it intensely threatening.”

Well, well – who would ever have thought that in 2014 the proportion of those who think that Britishness might have something to do with ancestry, i.e. race, would be going up rather than down? I wonder what the figure was among the White British alone? In a sense it doesn’t really matter if these figures go up or down because we are the faithful who will never waver in our loyalty to the real Britain, and we will in time create a new people from our own ranks – but it’s still nice to know that public opinion seems to be swinging our way for once!

The point about the liberal ruling class was brought home by the news that BBC is to increase the proportion of ethnic minorities visible on the screen from 10.4 % to 15%, while boosting the numbers of minority individuals at every level in the management structure of the Corporation. A “Diversity Creative Talent Fund” is to be drawn from other budgets “to help change the portrayal of ethnic minorities in programmes”. Six “Commissioners of the Future” will be trained specifically to work in comedy, drama, factual, daytime and childrens programming while twenty graduate trainee interns (minorities only need apply) will also be taken on. An “Independent Diversity Action Group” will oversee the changes and the members will include Lenny Henry (inevitably), D. Oudkerk Q.C. (human rights barrister), writer George Mpanga, black footballer Jason Roberts and a certain “Nihal” a presenter on the Asian Network.

The very existence of an “Asian Network” raises interesting questions about the likely racial balance of its workforce, and why is there not a “White British Network”? But putting such questions aside we are still entitled to ask why some posts are being ring fenced for non-whites? If we have to suffer a multiracial society should not, at the very least, all posts be open to the best talent regardless of ethnicity? Why does the perceived need to increase “diversity” trump the employment of the best qualified? Why are white people in a white country being disadvantaged in this way? The answer to these questions is that the liberal mind simply cannot understand them – the idea that white people might have legitimate reservations about being discriminated against could not, would not, occur to the liberal.

The disconnect between the liberal ruling elite and the rest of us was brought home by the enthusiastic reception for the new proposals by the culture minister Ed Vaisey, described as a “Conservative”, who said that the measures were “very much needed”. Still, at least we now know that the more our masters indulge in this sort of nonsense, the more public opinion moves towards us.