In the same way that religions developed doctrines to shore up their belief systems (virgin birth, Jesus son of God, Koran is the word of God), progressives have their own set of doctrines.
For any faith-based belief system to survive, these doctrines must not be challenged. To this end, those who profit most from the belief system introduce blasphemy laws that punish those who try to expose the basic flaws or inherent weaknesses of these doctrines. With regards to cultural Marxism in the UK, race legislation and ‘hate speech’ laws serve that purpose.
These laws are designed to shore-up the Frankfurt School derived, Critical Theory ideology that is destroying western society. As the scope of allowable opinion gets ever more narrow, it widens the opportunity for cultural Marxists to advance their agenda unopposed.
We will examine some of the doctrines that turn our reality upside down and inside out.
DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH.
It is reported that Tony Blair opened the borders to millions of foreigners in order to “rub our noses in diversity”. When the commentariat praise the increasing ‘diversity’ of London or the UK Olympic team, what they are actually praising is less White British people in London and the UK Olympic team. The word ‘diversity’ is therefore cultural Marxist code for non-white British people.
If ‘diversity is our strength’, it follows that the more ‘diverse’ Britain is, the stronger Britian becomes. Taken to its logical conclusion; when the overwhelming majority of people on this island are non-White British, and the White British are at extinction level, that is when Britain will be at its strongest.
Diversity is our Strength is an inversion of reality. It as an untruth; and it is being inculcated into our children in order to justify mass-immigration and thus bring about the stealthy demise of the White British people.
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE.
After every Islamic terror attack, our leaders and corporate-owned media step forward to tell us Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’. The underlying premise of Islam is for Muslims is to follow the advice given by Muhammad – who ordered his followers to, one way or another, make the whole world submit to Islam. Within a few decades of Muhammad’s death, his followers had violently subdued the whole of North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Europe.
This ‘death to the infidel’ mindset pervades those who carry out Islamic terrorist attacks to further Muhammad’s instructions. In 2018 alone there were 1976 Islamic terror attacks in 56 countries which left 11,769 people dead and 11483 injured (religionofpeace.com).
Examples for 31st January 2018 include: Cotabato City (Philippines) two killed, thirty injured when an Islamic group sets off a bomb at a shopping mall. Manchester (England) three people stabbed at a railway station by a man shouting praises to Allah. Yirgou (Burkina Faso) seven killed by Jihadists from Ansarul Islam group.
Not one day passes without Islamic fundamentalists trying to kill non-believers explicitly in the name of Allah.
The phrase ‘Islam is a religion of Peace’ is an inversion of reality. It is an untruth; and it is being inculcated into the minds of British people in order to help Islam consolidate its hold on British society.
THE NOBLE SAVAGE
Hollywood has an intrinsic anti-White, anti-Christian bias, and apart from making money, its primary purpose is to inculcate a form of self-loathing into white people. A drip-fed self-loathing that over time, can lower their self esteem, discourage them from reproducing and/or encourage them to turn against their own kind.
It is why Hollywood makes films that falsely backdate the arrival of significant numbers of non-Whites in Britain. It is why production companies overly promote aspects of society that undermine the ability for white societies to sustain themselves. And it is why Hollywood is always keen to make films that portray white people in a bad light i.e. films that feature the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the holocaust or the ‘noble savage’.
How soon before Hollywood makes a film showing Black Vikings battling an Arabic King Arthur and his Moslem Knights of the Round Table? Or a pot-smoking transexual Snow White is seen shacked up with seven pygmies? Hollywoods increasingly debased offerings distort history and corrupt society.
Dances with Wolves (1992), Avatar (2010) and Belle (2013) all carried the message that evil Caucasians ventured into a perfect ‘other’ world, and ruined it. Belle also throws slavery into the mix. But were indigenous people on other continents model examples of uncorrupted humanity working in perfect harmony with nature? For this is the message from Hollywood
Whenever different groups of people come into contact with one another, competition for land and resources will inevitably occur. It is human nature.This is why the “Indians” of James Fenimore Cooper’s writings never existed. In fact, the “Noble Savage” never existed.
Native Americans, Maoris, Aboriginals, indeed, all indigenous peoples are no different from any other group of peoples anywhere on Earth – all have been violent, all have been slavers, all have been colonists, all have been imperialist, all conducted massacres and all destroyed the environment to harness resources.
Archaeological evidence shows that centuries before Europeans arrived, native Americans were engaging rival nations in warfare. Whole villages were often destroyed by fire, and human skeletons regularly show marks of violence, scalping, and other mutilations. Warfare was intense around resources like the Missouri River in the present-day Dakotas, where ancestors of the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras were constantly at war with each other, and towns inhabited by as many as 1,000 people were often fortified with ditch and palisade defences.
Excavations at the Crow Creek site, an ancestral Arikara town dated to 1325, revealed the bodies of 486 people–men, women, and children, essentially the town’s entire population–in a mass grave. These individuals had been scalped and dismembered, and their bones showed clear evidence of severe malnutrition, suggesting that violence resulted from competition for food, probably due to local overpopulation and climatic deterioration.
Regarding the environment, the notion that indigenous cultures live in harmony with the environment is also an anti-Western myth. Shortly after the Polynesian Maoris arrived in New Zealand in around 1200 AD, 30% of the bird species was extinct and the giant Moa bird, which was slow and carried much meat, was hunted to extinction by 1400.
In pursuit of the Moa, the Maoris burned down forests so that by the time Captain Cook arrived in 1770, 50% of the islands had been deforested. Extreme deforestation was also a custom of the Native Americans, who burnt down hundreds of square miles of trees to flush out deer, moose and elk. In fact, deforestation was more prevalent prior to European settlement that it was after. (Whelan, Wild in the Woods: The Myth of the Noble Savage 1999 pp 31-34)
Like the Native Americans, the Maoris were not so kind to their fellow human either. In 1835, 900 Maoris from the North Island of New Zealand invaded the Chatham Islands and killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of their bodies and enslaved all the others, killing most of them over the next few years as it suited their whim. One Maori later explained, “Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these were killed and others were killed, but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom”. (Sandall, The Culture Cult, 2001 p.113. Also see; Barry. B., Culture and Equality, An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, Cambridge Polity Press, 2001 pp. 253-54.)
We need to set aside the noble savage narratives spewed out by Hollywood. Natives wreaked havoc on the environment, fought each other, sought revenge, enslaved, raped and kidnapped women, murdered children and old men well before Europeans arrived. Portraying native peoples as mere victims of Western colonisation is therefore an inversion of reality designed to guilt trip Westerners into submission.
ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL
The gospel of multiculturalism preaches that in society, there can be no dominant culture because all groups and cultures are equal, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigoted racist. To ensure all groups and cultures become equal, those groups and cultures that have done the most to advance society in terms of relative wealth, technological advancement and human rights must be brought down to the level of the group or culture that has done least to advance those concepts. This belief is a driver of western destruction.
The doctrine of multiculturalism grew out of necessity, not design. Mass immigration as a means of destroying the UK nation state was first camouflaged as bringing in essential workers. Then they were refugees. Now they are the the answer to a shrinking White population. Different excuses, same end result.
Because so many migrants had arrived in a short space of time, there was no possibility of them ever being integrated, so the Government dreamt up the concept of multiculturalism.
To foster this approach, they fomented a belief that all cultures were equal, and anyone who disagreed had an impure heart. It became a leftist’s test of virtue, and much like religion, those who wandered from the true path had to be punished.
Of course, treating new cultures as equal, and vigorously promoting them on that basis, necessarily undermines the pre-existing culture and eventually displaces it. This is why the only victim of multiculturalism is White British culture.
Under the doctrine of multiculturalism (cultural relativism), no culture is allowed to be classed as superior or inferior. In such circumstances, it is impossible to define what is right or wrong. By this measure, the White British have been forced to accept into their country, community and lives, cultural practices that are incompatible with a civilised and orderly society.
Under this doctrine, cultural practices/special privileges that are in some cases undesirable, unjust or abhorrent, but also in many cases beyond that which UK law would normally allow, are being tolerated/condoned simply because these cultural practices help break down social cohesion, and therefore undermine the viability of the UK nation state.
These practices include female genital mutilation, sexual instruction in primary schools, honour killings, gender segregation, Halal slaughter, compulsory celebration of homosexuality, over-promotion of Transexualism, Sharia law, career promotion based on factors other than merit, institutionalised misogyny, polygamy, male child genital mutilation etc. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that criticism of the Islamic prophet Muhammad constitutes incitement to hatred – but Muslims and others remain free to besmirch the name of the Christian prophet Jesus.
Clearly, all cultures are not equal, and some cultures are treated more equal than others (just try to organise a ‘hetrosexual pride’ march in your town). Therefore, claims that all cultures are equal is an inversion of reality.
GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.
Dictionaries prior to the rise of cultural Marxism equated the word ‘gender’ exclusively with ‘biological sex’. For example, Samuel Johnson’s 1768 Dictionary of the English Language listed gender as, “1. A kind. 2. Sex.” The 1901 Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary states: “Gender : kind, as respects sex.” And as late as 1994, Harrap’s Essential English Dictionary reads as: “Gender: 1.A persons gender is their sex, the act of being either male or female.”
Today, Western schoolchildren are being deliberately confused about their sexuality. When they scour the internet looking for the meaning of this word, they will only find references to gender being a social construct i.e. a figment of the imagination. This demonstrates the degree of social control cultural Marxists have acquired over our society.
Marxism has always been at the forefront of the cause of women’s emancipation. There are not many who will argue against that, particularly in respect of equal pay for equal work. However, the argument that men and women are equal, and there are no differences whatsoever between them, is plainly ludicrous. But that is what lies behind the ideological assertion that gender is a ‘social construct’.
The fact that latter-day pseudo intellectuals have re-written the definition of the word ‘gender’ to advance their ideological objective does not alter the fact that the word ‘Gender’ refers to biological sex. The clue is in the origin of the word itself. Coming from the Latin Genus, meaning a biological classification – where biology cannot be a ‘social construct’.
The UK government accepts that people cannot change their biological sex, which is binary. However, it cannot help but fall into the legal quagmire cultural Marxists have created. Here, the Equality and Human Rights Commission ties itself up in knots:
“In UK law, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, with a person’s legal sex being determined by what is recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a Gender Re-assignment Certificate (GRC). A trans person who does not have a GRC retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for legal purposes.”
AND
‘Gender’ refers to socially constructed roles of women and men and/or an individual’s conception of their identity. The term is often used interchangeably with ‘sex’, partly in recognition that much of the inequality between women and men is driven by underlying social and power structures rather than by biological sex. Although the Equality Act protects people from discrimination because of their sex, other UK legislation (such as the regulations requiring employers to publish their gender pay gap) refers to gender. This may cause confusion in some circumstances. To avoid any ambiguity, we are reviewing our use of language across our website and publications to ensure clarity and consistency. However, it is important to note that any mistaken or structural use of the term gender does not affect how the law works in practice. (“Our statement on sex and gender reassignment: legal protections and language.” Equalities and Human Rights Commission: 30th Jul 2018)
Aside from all the self-evident contradictions and absurdities in this incoherent rambling (for example, arbitrarily interchanging the term ‘biological sex’, which they say is fixed, with ‘gender’, which they suggest can be changed at will), the EHRC state that in the UK, a person’s sex is an immutable biological condition which imposes a binary condition (man or woman).
However, the EHRC also say a person can change their ‘legal sex’. The EHRC have now defined two types of sexual recognition. There is a person’s real and immutable biological sex, and now there is their legal, or ‘chosen’ sex – which exists only in abstract form. By accepting this concept, the UK courts have created a ‘legal fiction’. A legal fiction is An assumption that something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it.
In Feb 2019, a lady was arrested and locked in a cell on a charge of ‘misgendering’, and then served with a court order that forbids her from calling a transgender person a man on grounds that the court declares this person to be woman.
In other words, people in the UK are being forced to say something exists, when it does not, and if they fail to comply, they will be jailed. This is how totalitarians fill their gulags. However, no matter how hard they try, activist judges cannot defeat the laws of physics.
The UK will only heal when those who force cultural Marxist ideology upon British society are removed from their posts and de-programmed.
The UK authorities seem surprised that male convicts who said they were women, and were therefore placed in womens prisons, carried on behaving as men. In this situation, the judicial fiction that biological men can become women, led to biological women being sexually assaulted in prison.
After these women were assaulted, the UK court that dealt with one of the cases heard that this person had used a “transgender persona” to gain access to female prisoners. A ‘persona’, in the word’s everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor.
If this man had not sexually assaulted female prisoners, he would have carried on acting as a woman, and the courts would have continued to compel members of the public to play along with his fantasy. Only when he deviated from his acting role was the court forced to acknowledge that the “gender is a social construct” concept is merely a legal charade, and there is no physical evidence to support the claim that a biological man can suddenly change his mental disposition and chomosomes; grow fallopian tubes and ovaries, and become a woman.
The fact that men in drag are winning womens races, and the UK prison service is having to segregate them from real women, proves that gender is not a social construct and the immutable laws of nature will always triumph over the contrived laws of ideologues.
Because the government are mining an ever smaller seam of potential discord, the groups they are cultivating to become competitors in the cultural Marxist inspired victim Olympics are increasingly getting smaller. To this end, they are sending recruiters into school to pressure schoolchildren into joining team LBGT. They care not that their actions will invariably lead these children down the path of mental illness and possibly suicide.
Readers may not be surprised to learn that the idea of men becoming women is not a universally accepted concept. In societies where cultural Marxist ideology has yet to triumph, gender is not portrayed as a ‘social construct.’ This becomes clear when we examine how multi-national companies change their definition of the term ‘Gender’ for different target audiences:
For English children, Collins deploys the psychologically damaging cultural Marxist dogma that gender is a social construct.
However, Indian children are simply told gender is a man or a woman.
The Cambridge Dictionary tells Arab children that the word ‘gender’ simply means a man or a woman.
For White British schoolchildren, the Cambridge Dictionary deploys the psychologically damaging fiction that gender is a social construct – and provides them with socially destructive links to ‘gender bender’, ‘gender fluid’ etc This is cultural Marxism in action. It is intented to confuse Western schoolchildren about who and what they are. In some cases it will lead to unwanted sex changes, induced same sex relationships and mental illness.
Cultural Marxist ideology is not intended to persuade, convince or inform the individual, but degrade and humiliate them. The less this ideology corresponds to reality, the more effective it is.
When people are forced to remain silent in the face of obvious lies, or even worse, when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way, to become evil oneself. In such circumstances, people lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Indeed, ones standing to resist anything is eroded, and even destroyed. Those at the helm of the cultural Marxist agenda know that a society of emasculated liars is easier to control.
The downfall of the White British people 