It’s the task of this platform to examine current events in the light of fundamental Right wing principles. Not just because Politicians and the media refuse to consider right wing thinking – but because they refuse to think comprehensively, dispassionately, practically and fundamentally in general.
The discussion about a definition for anti Muslim behaviour is a good example.
Significant people in public life have already commented on the risks associated with the definition proposed by an All Party Parliamentary Group. There is a link below for further information.
My concern in this post, however, is not the rights and wrongs of this specific proposal. My concern is with the fundamental principles and broader context involved.
Principles and context. Vital starting points which are neglected in a media world addicted to quick fix hype and superficial propaganda.
So let’s put the current concerns about hostility to Muslims in Britain into their historical and philosophical perspective.
Before I do let me be crystal clear about hostility – be it to Muslims or any one else. It is wrong. It is not Christian. And where criminal acts are committed, appropriate punishment must follow.
I blogged recently that the perpetrator of the murder of 51 people in a New Zealand mosque should pay the appropriate penalty – the death penalty. His guilt is beyond doubt. He did not do this for the Right, witness his deranged meandering manifesto. He did it because he had a criminal mindset. He usurped the place of God in the lives of human beings made in God’s image … and to God he should answer.
But such a crime is no reason to identify any group in society as privileged in law. If we are going to identify one religion in this way, then we must identify all religions in this way and preserve the principle of equality of treatment.
And that begs the question. Will the Liberal Democrats and Labour party who have approved the proposed definition re Muslims, adopt a definition about hostility to Christians – because it is no less a problem, in fact it is worse. A recent report identified that 80% of religious persecution in the world is aimed at Christians…
For centuries, the UK and especially England was a haven for people fleeing religious or political persecution in other parts of the world.
Jews came to England; Huguenots came to England; Karl Marx came to England – and pursued his godless agenda in the safety and tranquility of the British Library in London.
At the end of the Second world war many Poles found refuge in the UK, understandably reluctant to return to a Soviet controlled Poland.
Philosophically, of course, England’s moral and spiritual wisdom was for centuries Christianity.
And it is in the soil of that Christian heritage which the weeds of political correctness now grow, thrive and threaten to choke off the cultivated flower of our traditional freedoms.
The fundamental Principle of our Constitution derives from Magna Carta by which the Executive power was committed by king John – and confirmed by his successors – to be subject to law and to this use of its power:
TO NO-ONE WILL WE SELL, TO NO-ONE WILL WE DENY OR DELAY RIGHT OR JUSTICE
The executive power in our Tradition is to guarantee justice for all. Not just for any group, but for all. It forbids preferential treatment to any person or group for whatever reason [nb to no-one will we sell …]. Everyone – native or foreigner – within the jurisdiction of the English Executive is to be treated equally before the law, as a human being inherently entitled to security in their person and their property.
Everyone. No exceptions.
Christianity of course reinforces this moral imperative because it provides exactly the paradigm which facilitates this fundamental principle.
Christianity says we are all equal before God our maker and our Judge. We are all his creatures, and we are all sinners. We are all capable of doing wrong to our neighbour. We are all capable of doing right to our neighbour, too, because we are all made in the image of God.
And Christianity says we are to love others, including our enemies…
This wisdom informed our culture and our attitudes; it was taught as fundamental in our places of worship and education. It permeated our society.
But since the Enlightenment this entire worldview and its framework of thinking has been progressively denied and undermined.
God does not exist: the world is merely material; men are rational and fundamentally good; they are not tainted by sin. Man becomes the sole judge of right and wrong – man is now his own god ….
It is not only a revolution in world view; it deliberately destroys the spiritual world view, and is actively hostile to it.
This fundamental philosophical conflict lies behind the distinctions between Left and Right politics today.
Karl Marx gave a new focus and twist to this materialist world view – a twist which has proved to be fatal for millions and hostile to the fundamental liberty of all obliged to live under its influence.
Marx redefined morality – right and wrong – around social groups. There are exploiters and exploited. There are perpetrators and victims.
It is the historic, manifest destiny and right of the victims to fight back, gain control and overwhelm their persecutors. All right is on their side, and all wrong is attributed to those they identify as exploiters and persecutors.
Certain groups are deemed righteous, while others are by virtue of their identification as perpetrators deemed inherently, and incorrigibly, evil.
That is the mindset which informs and determines today’s politically correct culture. It is so convinced of its own moral rectitude that it even changes our language to manipulate our thinking and therefore our behaviour.
That is why they created various –phobias. These -phobias did not exist when I was young, yet we managed !
Having identified and named a group as subject to a -phobia, they have thereby deemed them inherently righteous and so beyond criticism. And they have thereby automatically created and defined a persecuting group as evil [without explicitly saying it but very much meaning it].
You are automatically suspect [subtext: Evil] if you in any way question this assumption. You are questioning the very basis of their entire moral narrative, and that is something you cannot be allowed to do; their entire worldview would collapse and they’d be proven wrong.
A mere man called Karl Marx, redefined the divine narrative as a conflict between man and man. He thus blasphemously says that God’s analysis that every human being is capable of being good [made in God’s image] and capable of being bad [afflicted by innate sin], is wrong.
Traditional English justice is based on the Magna Carta/Christian world view. It addresses the real issues in a real and fair way.
The modern Marxist view does not. It corrupts the basis of right and wrong, and therefore corrupts our politics, our laws [hate speech etc] and our official decisions. It creates conflict where there should be honest assessment of the realities, not imposition of ideological agendas.
People sense and know that there is a fundamental injustice being dressed up as morally right. But they cannot quite explain or understand it.
People see endemic, systematic abuse of vulnerable white girls by Muslim men; they see a hypocritical judicially imposed media blackout on reporting these extensive crimes, knowing that if this were white men and Muslim girls we would be fed the condemnation and the guilt trip in news bulletins for breakfast, lunch and tea.
People see Islamic fundamentalists committing terrorist outrages around the world on a regular basis, but they are told it is wrong to question the religion which these ideological fanatics espouse. They see a serious difference of values and liberties in countries where Islam is the national religion.
The politically correct Marxist culture, however, keeps telling them they are wrong to fear what is going on. Instead, they are themselves to blame for not being nice to the adherents of a religion which fundamentally challenges all we hold dear.
The politically correct insist on a moral paradigm which makes their identified victim groups righteous ipso facto. It therefore makes innocent people automatically guilty of a crime they did not even understand, let alone commit.
The politically correct edit and censor all information which contradicts their thesis that oppressed groups are righteous and beyond question because they have deemed them righteous according to their self righteous worldview. To question on the basis of normal, natural commonsense is therefore to commit a grave moral crime.
In reality, this Marxist moral framework is itself fundamentally offensive and unjust. It is itself a moral outrage. It can only feed the downward spiral of hostility which they erroneously believe can be eliminated by rules and moral blackmail.
They start with symptoms, not the root of the problem.
Christianity goes to the root of the problem; not the symptoms of sin.
And at the root of the politically correct mindset is a fundamental psychological issue:
Why beholdest thou the speck of dust that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, “Let me pull out the speck of dust out of thine eye”, and, behold a beam is in thine own eye ?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the speck of dust out of they brother’s eye
for a post identifying the issue, the concerns and the definition in question, see