3 TRUTH IS THE FIRST CASUALTY OF MULTICULTURALISM

The scholars of the future will struggle to learn much about our times by studying our present-day media, including films, popular television programmes, magazines, newspapers and music. That is because so much of what is now in mainstream public view has been through the digestive system of the PC media treatment.
Advertising is a prime example. Take a look at the majority of adverts and you will be greeted by scenes of happy black and white people together in bars and on sofas and the like. These adverts overly represent the mixing of races. Just one example would be the way some breakfast cereal packets illustrate black and white children eating together in the morning. Now, you have to go to mangled lengths to explain how this could be so (they’re on a school trip together, their mother has married again, to a man of a different colour etc). You could also even say that whatever explanation you come to illustrates the break-up of the family.
People finding their own types better company is not something that is entertained. This is because advertisers are obsessed with not excluding anyone from their adverts who might possibly buy their products. It’s interesting that this representation is not repeated at times when it actually might be particularly appropriate. For instance, in the early ’90s the London Underground carried an (utterly useless, obviously) anti-mugging poster featuring a man behind bars; he was of course a white man. To be closer to the truth it should have featured a black man, as the vast majority of muggings in London are committed by young black men. This fact is far too hot to handle for the advertising and public information industry. And so truth becomes a casualty of multiculturalism.
Achievements in education by ‘minority’ pupils tend to be given extra attention in the media, whether it be a nine-year-old Asian taking A-levels or a sink comprehensive doing marginally better than expected. Almost without intent, the media exercises discrimination by highlighting such cases. In many cases the achievement portrayed would not be worthy of mention if it had involved white children. (Incidentally, it would make grimly fascinating viewing to look at yearly class photographs from 1948 to the present day of an average London comprehensive. The pupils would gradually go from 100 per cent white to around 10 per cent white. I used to live next to the school where Peter Sellers went – now it’s roughly 75 per cent black. Progress, eh?)
We are also served up a make believe ethnic past in which Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’ and had a sizeable coloured population. The smallest item will grab the attention. I remember a couple of years back appeals being made to find the name of a black policeman shown in a photo from around 1907. The paper excitedly exclaimed that he was probably one of the first black policemen in Britain – the whole tone of the piece was one of excited celebration. The quality of the picture was poor – the policemen may not have even been black – and I’m not aware that the quiz was ever solved. (I’m also reminded of an ITV newscaster breathlessly exclaiming, ‘And there’s a black policeman there, helping keep the crowd back,’ a few years back – his colour was of no relevance.) An episode of Doctor Who - The Shakespeare Code - had the Doctor taking Martha back to the time of Shakespeare. He assured her that London was ‘pretty much the same’ as in her times, and to prove the point two black maids immediately strolled past. How easily the past is reinvented for the young!
The Left also seek to ridicule legitimate views by exaggerating them into stupid sounding jokes. For instance, a Leftie might satirise a taxi driver, and have him saying something like ‘Enoch was right about these darkies’. He will offer a colloquial, mocking interpretation of what are actually often truths. Enoch was actually right on the subject of immigration, just as he was on many others. Numbers wise he was right – though underestimated it a bit ­– and entirely correct on the discord immigration would cause. There are other phrases the mocker might use while imitating a reactionary: they smell funny, they all look the same, they breed like rabbits, they live 20 to a room. All of these are exaggerations or warped versions of what is effectively the truth. For each of the statements you could find a way back to a core truth. The Left seeks to de-legitimise truths by abuse. That is why political correctness has become such a desired weapon of choice for them – arguments no longer become necessary, when a culture of stigmatising certain forms of belief is created. Beliefs that they don’t share are made into beliefs they think nobody should have. So the truth is suppressed.
Economic truths are also sacrificed on the altar of our new mixed society, and it’s blackly comic (no pun intended) to see a Labour party bringing in thousands of foreigners to undercut domestic wages while the businessmen rub their hands at the endless supply of cheap labour, leading to big profits for themselves. We are told that without immigrant workers we would struggle to survive, partly because we’re ageing as a society. So immigrants don’t age then? They really are magic! What the politicians don’t tell us is all pretty obvious if you give it just a minute’s thought: more bodies brought into the country means more bodies to be serviced. These people, like the rest of us, need food, toilet facilities, transport, refuse collection, meat and veg, televisions. So they need people to provide them with these things. So if we choose to get these extra providers from abroad then we bring yet more bodies into the country. And so the cycle goes on, potentially infinitely. So what you end up with is a land that has money but no space, no quality of life, no cohesion, no peace.
Every government says they will limit immigration: each one makes it grow. This has been pretty much the case with every administration since 1951. If this isn’t a sign of a democratic deficit I don’t know what is, because people have often given their votes to political parties on the proviso that they would limit immigration. A clear majority of voters have always opposed further immigration. And yet immigration has continued and is now at record levels. So how on earth can this be squared with political parties representing the people? It represents the worst sort of deceit by our rulers, a salient sign that they don’t give a damn for those who elected them. No wonder people are so disenchanted with politics; no wonder so many of them choose to support ‘fringe’ parties.
In Britain, humour has always been a way for us to emolliate our day to day hardships. No matter how bad things get we always seem to make a joke out of it to get through. For instance, the comedian Bernard Manning provided a vital outlet for growing concerns and tensions about the transformation of Britain from the 1960s onwards. Now that he’s gone we don’t have that boil-lancer as there are few others in his mould. Comedians will no longer be in the front line in making our tragedy seem less so. We ourselves can laugh when hearing that blackboards have been banned because they are r-ist – until we learn that actually happened. There’s nothing at all funny about Islamic fundamentalists, although brilliant satirical comic Viz has often punctured the absurdness and pomposity of the likes of Bin Laden and Abu Hamza. One bittersweet example was when character Gilbert Ratchet thought about heading off to the local mosque for some chortles, then at the last moment changed his mind and headed to the local Church of England instead. In this one panel in one comic, the makers unerringly skewered the mess we find ourselves in – but can still laugh about. The friends of the likes of murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh would probably not manage a laugh.
As someone who works in magazines I see examples day after day of the whole truth not being fully reported. For example, one magazine I worked at had an interview with a TV star who mentioned that she had been mugged and robbed by some men - black men, she happened to say. Sure enough, an editor’s proof mark on the page was to delete the word ‘black’. I am not saying that it definitely should have stayed in, because it could have been argued that their colour was not needed to be mentioned, but I cite it as an example of what happens a lot now, and on a much larger scale. Another time a funny caption or anecdote was to include reference to a ‘Chinese man coming into pubs to sell pirate DVDs’. This too was changed to ‘dodgy bloke’ or some such neutral non-race reference. Now, I’ve been to a few pubs, and I’ve seen men selling pirate DVDs in them. And every single one of them has been Chinese! It was the same one for all I know. (A quick note: liberals – and those they have brainwashed – would fall off their chair in horror at the last sentence, but, as is often the case, such observations have their root in truth. Asian and black people look more similar to each other than Western people do to each other. This would be true even if it wasn’t for the fact that their hair is generally the same colour. Facially too, they are not as varied. Again, I’m not suggesting that ‘they all look the same’, as it could be stated colloquially and therefore ‘offensively’, but pointing out how the liberal intelligentsia has ensured that everything we state about a non-white is derogatory. Even to state a truism that Chinese people struggle with the letter ‘r’ would not be entertained.)
Imagine if films were made from right wing points of view and not left wing points of view. It’s almost unimaginable because we’re so used to it being the other way around. Indeed, it might seem positively odd if we had ‘right wing’ television in our house every night of the week. British people tend to have a natural leaning towards social progression and acceptance of the new even if they don’t realise it. This is entirely laudable. But the multicultural ‘push’ has been caught up in this tide of liberalism. Imagine if mass immigration had never happened. Social liberalism would still have carried on, the country would have gone on improving. (This point is never accepted by the Left, who like to thank mass immigration for helping make us a more civilised society. This simply does not stand up to analysis, whether you look at anything from the street crime epidemic caused by young blacks to the rigid, puritanical views of Muslims. The growth in liberalism throughout the 20th century can almost entirely be put down to the white upper/middle class either in the media or politics.) But back to television and film – more often than not the favourable side of what’s happened to Britain will be portrayed, not the dark side. So when the BBC makes a play about an immigrant coming to an English village he is a saint while the villagers are sinners. A soap opera will show the results of prejudice against a non-white person, they will probably not show the detrimental actions of a non-white person, or be afraid to do so (Coronation Street did this a few years back, and was brainlessly admonished by The Sun). It’s something to look for in TV output, and a particularly salient example of how truth is ill-represented by the mass media.
Finally, a note on how the London Bombings in 2005 caused subtle twisting of reality by that detestable socialist newt Kenneth Livingstone. In the aftermath, posters appeared around London saying that we as a city were all one, and highlighting the fact that we are a multiracial city. Yet mass immigration is what indirectly led to the London bombings! If millions of Muslims hadn’t been allowed to make their homes in Britain, it is unlikely that these terrible bombings would ever have taken place. The propaganda was a good example of how no matter what happens because of unfettered immigration, it can be turned upside down by the liberal Left. George Orwell predicted something similar many years ago.