Category Archives: diversity

The opinion that dare not speak its name

Freedom is slavery

Diversity is uniformity

Tolerance is conformity

In today’s America, writes Dalrymple, you can have any opinion you like as long as it is a socially liberal one. Otherwise you’ll find yourself in the dustbin of history.

The view, for example, that homosexuals should not be permitted to conduct ceremonies that ape the institution of marriage

is now so outré, so utterly beyond the pale, that nobody is allowed to espouse it in public and keep his job.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

If you enunciate such a view, you will be treated as if you had

pronounced himself in favour of lynching or slavery. No decent person can hold such an opinion.

The magazine Forbes judges that if you give voice to such thoughtcrime, you may be able to save your job, but only if you issue a recantation and an apology. Forbes thus, Dalrymple notes,

is the place at which billionaire capitalism meets the Maoist Cultural Revolution.

Deny for a second that legalisation of homosexual marriage is fully in the interests of natural justice, humanity and civilisation, and you will be, Forbes believes, ‘on the wrong side of history’. In other words, homosexual marriage

is not so much a legislative choice as an institution whose development was teleologically immanent in the whole of human history. It is what the Second World War was all about, though the soldiers who fought in it didn’t realise it.

Dustbin of history

Common sense on Islamic terrorism

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.16.31

Islamic horror

Dalrymple Q&A

What do you say to those who pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam?

Such a view violates common sense.

Should internet providers and universities be less complaisant towards Islamic extremists?

Yes.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.18.50

Conspiracy theories

Should the conspiracy theories Islamists peddle be countered and mocked?

Vigorously.

Is Islamic terrorism caused by poverty?

No.

Is there any other reason for complaint that justifies Islamic terrorism?

No.

Certain immigrant groups do not flourish in the UK.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.22.26

Symbol of success

This reflects more on their group characteristics than upon the host country.

Give an example.

The Sikhs, who came to Britain from the Punjab with nothing, are now the second-wealthiest group by household, as classified by religious affiliation; notwithstanding individual successes, Muslims who came from the Punjab at the same time remain relatively poor.

Are values such as democracy, freedom, sexual equality and non-discrimination compatible with Islam?

They do not appear at first sight to be so, though no doubt some Muslim reformists would like to make them so; and Bangladesh, from which a large group of immigrants to Britain have come, is one of the few countries to have witnessed an explicitly anti-democratic mass demonstration. In most Muslim countries, it remains dangerous to be explicitly atheist. Criticism of Mohammed, even if reasoned and scholarly, would be even more dangerous.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.27.16

Banner of failure

Is it a problem that many immigrants to the UK do not feel British?

This misses the point. It’s not how immigrants feel that matters, but how they behave. No one has any idea how British the Polish, Brazilian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and other immigrants (of whom there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions in total) feel, but nobody cares, because none of them is intent upon the destruction of British institutions. This is not true of some unknown and probably unknowable—but possibly not negligible—proportion of Muslims, no matter which part of the Islamic world they come from.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.28.43

The great enabler

Does diversity make England a better place?

Success in Britain isn’t caused by diversity, but becomes possible for diverse people because of the rule of law—British law, not shariah, Jewish, canon, or any other law. And I doubt that the general population feels that the Kosovars, say, or the Romanian gypsies have, as a group (irrespective of any individuals among them), made Britain a better place.

If we had only listened to Honeyford

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.25.58If we had done so, we should not have sown what we are reaping

Ray Honeyford, who was headmaster of a ghetto school in Bradford in the early 1980s, knew, writes Dalrymple, that

the official multiculturalist educational policies that he was expected to implement would sooner or later lead to social disaster.

When he exposed the folly of these policies,

the advocates of ‘diversity’, who maintain that all cultures are equal but that opinions other than their own are forbidden, mounted a vicious and vituperative campaign against him. He was branded a near-murderous racist and drummed out of his job.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.26.28His ideas were

logical, sensible, and coherent. He argued that Islamic immigrants needed to be integrated fully into British society. He did not believe that the cultural identity necessary to prevent the balkanisation of our cities into warring ethnic and religious factions implied a deadening cultural or religious uniformity. On the contrary.

He

enunciated painful truths that were tangential to his central argument: for example, that Pakistan (the country of origin of most of the immigrants in his area) had been unable throughout its history to develop either democratic institutions or a culture of tolerance.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.25.16The ghetto school, called Drummond Middle, was a

piece of high-Victorian public architecture, grand without being overbearing, and conveying implicit aesthetic and moral lessons to its pupils, however humble the homes from which they came. The collapse of the cultural confidence that had produced such a school building was soon complete: after Honeyford’s departure, the school quickly received an Urdu name and was burned down beyond repair by an arsonist.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.26.14Honeyford brought his troubles down upon him when he published an article exposing the follies of multicultural education in the Salisbury Review. The Review’s name

hardly ever appears without the qualification that it is rabidly right-wing, implying that no intellectual engagement with the ideas expressed in it is ever necessary—only the kind of opposition appropriate to dealing with brownshirts and blackshirts.

An unremitting campaign gathered steam,

under the leadership of local politicians and pressure groups, some of which sprang up expressly to get him fired. He received death threats. A few small children learned from their parents to chant ‘Ray-cist! Ray-cist!’ at him and to hold up denunciatory placards, some with a skull and crossbones. The Bradford Education Authority considered the possibility of a court order against the demonstrators, but it decided that such an order would inflame passions. Thus political extremists learned a valuable lesson: intimidation pays.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.25.44Honeyford was

mild-mannered and unexcitable. He was a believer in the virtues of plain speaking—formerly a tradition in the north of England. He thought that different opinions might be tolerated, not having grasped that the purpose of those who argue for cultural diversity is to impose ideological uniformity.

Screen Shot 2015-03-09 at 22.25.28He believed in the redemptive power of education and in

the duty of schools to give the children of immigrants the same educational opportunities as everyone else. His only regret about the affair was that it drastically shortened his teaching career. It is a tribute to the power of Orwellian language that a man who believed these things should successfully have been labeled a racist.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 22.30.23