In these recent times there has been prejudice from the mainstream political spectrum. The Labour Party has an atmosphere of prejudice towards Jews, Israel, common ordinary people from the working classes and even in some cases racist remarks to Conservatives. The Conservatives have also had some prejudice towards certain groups, such as socialists, Labour activists with strong Marxist feelings, impoverished and jobless people, and some minority groups.

However the issue that I am talking about here isn’t racism or party prejudice, it’s about choosing the groups that you favour to suit your own agenda. I think prejudice is difficult to eliminate because people feel comfortable only with groups of people that they are familiar with. As an autistic activist I have struggled to find a way to be accepted by certain groups of minorities and the people within them. In ‘A Puzzle in a Tunnel’ I covered about disability issues within minority groups.

In George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ the ruling pigs use tactics and a play on words to twist the running of the farm to their own personal agenda led by Napoleon. I mention this book because I think the pig-like nature of the ruling of Animal Farm applies to the way we practice diversity and use political correctness here.

I have looked at the way Labour has operated under Jeremy Corbyn with so-called ‘kinder, gentler politics’. Assisted by his radical support group Momentum the party has taken on anything but kinder, gentler politics. It has become an organisation of class hatred, anti-Semitism, and an extremist form of anti-democratic vitriol that thinks like the pigs of Animal Farm. There is a rule from Animal Farm that goes ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’ Some Labour members have this mindset as well because some of them choose not to be friends with Tories, think certain races are less deserving than others and that people who show pride in their community are distasteful.

Racism is a word frequently used in defence of diversity. But it’s actually being used from a narrow-minded perspective to make sure that only certain types of people get prioritized over other groups. This is why I as an autistic person get fewer options and rights than Black and Asian people. This way of accepting diversity doesn’t work because it leads to disabled people within those communities experiencing dual prejudice.

Racism has been overused to the point where it has lost its meaning. But racism is also used in areas where race doesn’t apply to the situation. I think it is time we started to expand the vocabulary on prejudiced terms to build a case for civic nationalism so that all classes of citizens can live in harmony. You can’t make grand sweeping generalisations about minorities in the context of a race issue.

Racism isn’t the only form of prejudice in this world. There are those who suffer prejudice from within their own circle. Some of the Jewish community have experienced prejudice from die-hard Labour supporters who resent them for their wealth and think that Israel does not deserve recognition. Yet they speak up for other minorities like the disabled and the autistic community. This isn’t just hypocrisy, it’s a judgement of who they favour according to what suites their own agenda. In the eyes of these Labour supporters the Jews represent ‘great wealth and power’ over the world’s prosperity and believe they have a sinister influence on moral behaviour.

To me as an autistic conservative the idea of a collectivist approach to dealing with prejudice and embracing diversity is a futile one. In the years that I have lived under a New Labour government that embraced diversity it dismissed me and shunted me at the back of the queue in an unfair way. It didn’t encourage integration, it encouraged segregation and rejection of mutual harmony between communities. It was achieved by playing on the words used by people of power to manipulate the social order to the way the party saw it to its own means.

The word racist has been used in this manner by several other nations during the progressive philosophy of the 20th century. One of the first recorded mentions of the use of the word ‘racist’ was by Leon Trotsky, one of the architects of the Soviet Union. Trotsky is considered by followers of communism to be a hero and a victim of a betrayed revolution. But in reality he was just as much a supremacist as Joseph Stalin.

In 1927 Trotsky came across a group of Russian Slavs, who were traditionalist in nature and wanted to protect their community from the murderous rampages of the Red Army that he commanded at the time. Trotsky used his power and way with words to invent a way of describing traditionalism as ‘backward thinking’ and obstructive to the glory and progressive nature of the communist ideology, and hence he described them as racist. The pig like nature to collectivism and socialism is apparent here.

What Trotsky was doing with his condemnation of the Slavs was to lay the groundwork for communism to dominate the world. Stalin believed that communism wasn’t matured enough to be accepted on a global scale and believed that Trotsky was undermining Russia’s belief in the system. Especially with his arrogant and patronising approach to dealing with people who disagreed with him.

Alternative history experts believe that if Trotsky had become leader instead of Stalin then communism would have become much more widespread in Western Europe. He once remarked that he didn’t care what kind of destruction he or his beliefs wreaked or how many people died. This attitude can also be seen in some liberal and socialist parties here in the west, especially with the way they endorse diversity of minorities.

My approach to diversity isn’t based on collectivism, it’s based on individuality. The smallest minority on Earth isn’t a group, it’s the individual. In my activism in support for autism I declare that ‘Inequality is a fact of life, we should accept all classes of citizens’. By that I mean that all forms of life were created unequal to each other by their characteristics and their minds, no two brains are the same and it is impossible to achieve equality collectively. There is no such thing as a collectivists mind.

What the civil libertarians and social justice warriors ought to be doing is building a consensus based on civic nationalism. This is a form of nationalism in which the country’s cultural and religious heritage is recognised in a non-xenophobic way that is compatible with freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights. That way all classes of citizens can live in mutual harmony.

SHARE
Previous articleLet’s lower the age of voting
Next articleAbortion: Murder?
Charlie Keeble is an activist, writer and science geek. Self styled Autistic Conservative with an interest in minority sports, reading, travelling, science and technology. His work for United Politics as a feature writer covers localism, British affairs, sports and community, autism and social and civil issues. Campaigner and aspiring archer for the Commonwealth Games. Conservative Party member focusing on geeking up the government. Leading to a positive reinforcement of creative, intellectual and advancing ideas for Britain.

NO COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.