I have a pet theory. It is that the Californian zillionaires of the Silicocracy who control the world’s social media – in which I am a keen participant, thanks to my brace of tin-cans and a trusty length of string – have been experimenting to see how manipulable we are. Thus, for the past decade a few carefully chosen words have been deliberately spread through the mainstream media like barium in a meal, serving as markers of their cultural infiltration.
Take the word “commence”. For decades, this has existed only in the margins of common usage, and, being of French origin, was invariably employed to acquire social status: small ads for secretarial school would declare that courses would “commence” at such-and-such a time. Indeed, the word “commence” in any form was so taboo in The Irish Times in the 1950s that any journalist who used it (apart from reporting on Trinity College’s Commencement ceremony) could be fined five shillings.
Yet, now driven by Silicon Valley – in particular, Wikipedia – “commence” is now being regularly used in preference to those words we have historically chosen, ‘begin’ or ‘start’. Likewise, “multiple”. This used to be a plural-adjective with an associative dimension, such as intentional simultaneity or sequentiality: hence the “multiple warheads” of a nuclear missile or the serial rapid-firing of rocket-launchers. Now, after over a decade of internet mind-programming, newspapers routinely say “multiple” when they mean “many”, as in “multiple Bank Holiday road deaths”.
Simultaneously “faux”, for which there were many (but not multiple) pre-existing synonyms: fake, false, phony, sham, mock, bogus, pretend and so on. There was no reason why “faux” should have gained the currency it enjoys today, other than that the Silicocrats planted it across the internet to see how gullible we are.
Now they know.
Then along came George Floyd and the Covid 19 virus, an unexpected double-bonus, to be sure, but the cultural Marxists were already breaking the ground, and not just through the internet. The media studies and liberal arts university courses were captured in the 1980s by the 60’s generation and have now contaminated the minds of almost everyone under the age of fifty. Entire pseudo-concepts, unconnected by any intellectual tissue or empirical proof, are now accepted as irrefutable truths across the entire moronic spectrum wherein the political and media classes reside.
The mantra runs: all cultures are equally rich, all societies are equally endowed, all people are equally talented and so on, even though these assertions are spectacularly refuted by the mass movements of peoples from some societies into others, and not the other way round. Yet here’s the really fascinating part: the “attractive” societies to which immigrants flee are the ones that are most likely to proclaim that there’s nothing special about them. And even more amazing, so too are the current generation of immigrants who have chosen to live there; and even more so, are the children of immigrants.
This is new. People of immigrant stock have tended to be the most passionate patriots of their country of adoption: look at the Jews in Ireland and Britain, the Tory Hindus and Muslims in Britain, and waves of immigrants in the USA. Until recently, no one thought that native peoples should turn their countries into legally enforceable experiments in multiculturalism to suit incomers. It was generally agreed that small accommodations should be made to allow for new and different habits, but the idea of turning an entire society upside down to satisfy the needs of millions of foreigners would have seemed absurd.
Now it is an obligation. The liberal arts courses have indoctrinated their graduates not merely with the dogmas of anti-racism but also of white Christian guilt. The people who abolished slavery across the world are now being blamed for inventing it. The empires of Rome and Greece, the pyramids of Egypt and the Incas were built by slaves. Three black African empires were based solely on slavery. More black African slaves were sold to the Arab countries of the Mediterranean littoral than were sent across the Atlantic, and the reason why there is little racial evidence of this today is that the African men were castrated on their truly evil journey across the Sahara and the children of African women, who were used as sex-slaves, were killed after birth.
More Europeans were taken by international slave-traders than were Africans up until the 18th century. Barbary slavers raided Christian settlements from Syria to Baltimore in West Cork, and the line in Rule Britannia about Britons “never ever shall be slaves” was written simply because thanks to the Royal Navy, Britain was finally able to prevent slavers raiding the south coast of England. The comparable line in the USMC anthem, From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, celebrates the Marine raid led by the Irish-American Presley O’Bannion on the slavers’ North African base after decades of predation on white Americans.
Thereafter, from 1808 onwards, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron fought the transatlantic slave trade, capturing over 1,600 slave ships and freeing 150,000 slaves. Nearly 1,600 Royal Navy sailors died in the execution of this service. During the 19th century, Britain signed nineteen anti-slavery treaties requiring other countries to end slavery, and for the first time in world history, the international slave-trade was extinguished. Slavery within the USA was ended by force of arms at a cost of nearly a million lives – and though the racism that remained thereafter was utterly deplorable, it was nothing compared to the 20th century mass-slaughters of some 800,000 Tutsi by Hutu in Rwanda or the Gukurahundi massacre of some 20,000 Ndebele civilians by Robert Mugabe’s Fifth Brigade in Zimbabwe.
Those are amongst the more visible (and thus reported) slaughters of Africans by Africans: but Sudan, Uganda, Nigeria, the various Congo states including Zaire (et alia) could all lay claim to mini-Holocausts of their own – and in Sudan’s and Zaire’s cases, not remotely mini. Millions of Africans have been murdered by the fellow Africans in the past sixty years, and Ethiopia’s now at it yet again, but apparently the only murdered black people who are widely remembered around the world are those slain by whites; George Floyd and Stephen Lawrence.
Moreover, we increasingly hear a bizarre reverse tale of racial victimhood. Hence the forcible removal recently of the Union flag in a London school with the approval of the largely black mob of children chanting “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack.” The 19-year-old student Elizabeth Heverin has been banned from her students’ union in Aberdeen University for actually saying the words “Rule Britannnia”, though it could be said to be the foundational anti-slavery anthem.
And I can absolutely state with certainty that up until this evil madness took over the world, no civilised person would ever refer to a journalist’s colour. But after Ian Murray, president of the Society of Editors in Britain (perhaps foolishly: but are we not all fools occasionally?) declared that racism was not a problem in the British media, 236 self-proclaimed “Journalists of Colour” signed a letter denouncing him. One of those leading the campaign against him was the broadcaster Charlene White, who withdrew from presenting the annual editors’ awards ceremony in protest at his remarks. Does the fact that this black woman had been initially selected for this particular task perhaps not indicate that he nonetheless had a point?
So if it’s all right for certain journalists to create an identity around their non-whiteness, surely the opposite must also be acceptable: meaning the white journalists may also operate as a racial group to assert their opinions on racial matters. No? Oh, I see.
How did this barbarity happen? How could the moral worlds of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela have become so hopelessly contaminated that a one-way cultural apartheid is being introduced into white countries by people of black immigrant stock? Cross-channel television dramas now routinely feature black (though not Indian or Chinese) actors in British historical dramas (my favourite was the son of Jamaican immigrants playing a 16th century Highland chieftain), but naturally, no white actors ever play black parts, and to judge from British television adverts, there are simply no white men left in Britain.
And since in Ireland we wait about two weeks before we import pre-packaged cultural concepts from the UK and the US without having the historical circumstances that create those concepts, how soon before we too start demanding or conceding racial quotas to people of African origin? How long before we label our entire society culturally racist, and our journalism schools indoctrinate their students with the Antifa fictions of Black Lives Matter? (Oops, sorry: that’s already happened). And knowing how craven RTE is before the vile PC agenda, we can be sure its programming will soon go the same way. Stand by for multiple faux characterisations to commence soon…..