One of the reasons that social conservatives have been almost entirely on the defensive in western politics for the last fifty years is due to the remarkable ability of such conservatives to lie to themselves about their own failure to influence anything outside of their own homes. The truth is that the long neo-liberal/neo-radical march of identity politics has been a remarkable triumph. No longer are the western political class content to follow the words of the Christian Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. which attempted to convince society as a whole that people ought to be judged by the “content of the character” rather than by accidents of birth.
Instead, today’s radical liberals assert (often through grossly illiberal intimidation tactics) that one’s virtue and social worth are indelibly linked to one’s unchangeable personal characteristics. The corollary to this is that anyone who looks, sounds or even acts in the manner of a prototypical westerner from the early part of the 20th century (let alone before) is inherently inferior to everyone else.
Although many have grown fed up with this trend and wish to return not to an era of discrimination against minorities but instead to the ideal set forth by Martin Luther King, such a mood is but a reaction among those who cannot bring themselves to admit that whilst they may not have lost the argument, they clearly lost influence over the liberal elites who shape inorganic social trends and author new political creeds.
If this was where the story ended, it would be an interesting case of studying where and how supporters of a moderate though often socially conservative meritocracy failed to influence society. What is far more interesting is the fact that whilst the old divisions between race, nationality, sexuality, the sexes, class and appearance have largely broken down, they have by replaced by the rebirth of a battle of ideologies – one almost as heated as those which divided Europe during the age of the French Revolution and subsequent social shocks.
Because people are no longer allowed to divide themselves on the basis of inherent characteristics as they did for example in the days of the Jim Crow south in the United States, new divisions are forming and these divisions are increasingly about ideas rather than about personal characteristics or social positions.
The results have helped to expose the sham behind identity politics in the first place. If the radical liberals who promoted identity politics were actually interested in creating a tolerant and harmonious society, they could have simply promoted the socially meritocratic creed of Martin Luther King and other figures generally associated with Christian reformism (as opposed to secular radicalism).
Instead, identity politics was cunningly and dishonestly used as a means of championing anything and anyone who appeared to oppose the values of traditional religions, traditional cultures and the social mores they have created throughout the world. And yet, now that social emancipation from the “old ways” has been achieved, people are using their ineradicable free will to associate themselves with the kind of socially conservative values of Christian reformers rather than those of secular radical liberals.
In this new age where ideology is all that remains as a means of separating people, those who do not look or necessarily behave in the way that an English Christian would have done in the year 1900 are nevertheless increasingly associating themselves with moderate conservative social and political values. There are two overriding reasons for this. Firstly, many non-white people living in and in many cases born in the west come from immigrant families whose origin is in cultures that remain wholly socially conservative.
Such people when living in western societies have no wish to adopt the beliefs of overwhelmingly white secular liberal radicals but instead seek to maintain their own private traditions which are culturally conservative. As such, it should be no surprise when immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean along with their children and grandchildren find that they have more in common at a social level with white Christians of European lineage than they do with the equally white but anti-Christian liberal radicals of the western world.
This phenomenon owes more to cultural anthropology than to matters of free will. Contrary to a tired old myth of rebellion among one’s progeny that has been shamelessly peddled by liberals for decades, most children grow up to be much like their parents in so far as most will share the views of their parents on matters including religion, politics, manners, the goals of education and the goals of family life.
Because of this, the second reason behind a more visible surge in social/cultural moderate conservatism is because when left to their own devices, free people of all backgrounds will make free choices. Because of this, many people who were “supposed” to be “indebted” to liberal radicals have instead used their freedom of choice to adopt conservative political and social views.
The reasons underpinning this are not as mysterious as they might sound. In their quest to remake the world in their image, radical liberals ended up throwing the baby out with the bath water. Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King whose reformism was centred on ancient Christian values, the secular and overwhelmingly white liberals wanted not only to eliminate the ills implicit in discrimination but they wanted to eliminate all forms of traditional culture and social continuity. It turns out that people of all backgrounds reacted quite harshly to this fanatical utopianism among the radical liberals.
This fanaticism has ended up uniting those whose skin colour is that of Martin Luther King with those whose skin colour is that of the racialists of the mid-20th century. What has brought such people together is an ideological brotherhood that vastly overrides the latent racialism that liberals are desperate to locate even when it clearly (and correctly) does not exist.
In Britain, the newly formed Brexit Party is loathed by liberals who correctly view the popularity of the Brexit vote as a backlash against decades of hitherto unchallenged radical liberal dominion over western politics. But rather than admit that they are the new elite (who fear losing their political power) rather than the victims they imagine themselves to be, the secular and overwhelmingly white radical liberals continue to throw lazy epithets at Brexit Party supporters, with the accusation of “racism” being shouted the loudest.
The reality is that a quick look at the Brexit Party makes it clear that the party leadership does not seek to prohibit membership to those who are of any particular background. Far from it, based on the diverse racial, ethnic and religious makeup of the Brexit Party, one could be forgiven for confusing the Brexit Party with an exercise in identity politics.
In reality, by returning to Martin Luther King’s conception of equality, the Brexit Party has become a refuge for those of non-white or non-Christian backgrounds who make the mainstream liberal parties uncomfortable by virtue of the fact that they exercised a free choice that remains out of step with the liberal elite.
Whilst there are many examples of pro-Brexit individuals who reject the extreme liberalism of the old elite who simultaneously do not fit the stereotype of a cultural conservative that has been cartoonishly drawn over the decades by the radical liberals, one Brexit Party MEP summed up the entire issue in a factual and eye-opening Tweet.
Louis Stedman-Bryce is the elected Brexit MEP for Scotland. After self-evidently growing fed up with his party being defamed as racially bigoted, Stedman-Bryce authored the following statement on social media:
“My Dad is Jamaican, Mum is English, one of my Grans was Maltese and my Stepmother is Dutch, I have Cousins who are Irish, and I am married to a Scottish man. Yet I have white men and women branding me racist and xenophobic. Is it just me or is there a joke in there somewhere?”.
My Dad is Jamaican, Mum is English, one of my Grans was Maltese and my Stepmother is Dutch, I have Cousins who are Irish, and I am married to a Scottish man. Yet I have white men and women branding me racist and xenophobic. Is it just me or is there a joke in there somewhere?
— Louis Stedman-Bryce (@Lstedmanbryce) August 16, 2019
Unfortunately for Mr. Stedman-Bryce what the radical liberals are doing is worse than a joke. Having successfully made identity politics mainstream, they remain ill prepared to face the fact that free will still exists among people of all conceivable identities. Unlike Martin Luther King, the radical liberals do not seek social tolerance and legal equality as ends in themselves, instead they sought to exploit social, racial, national, ethnic and sexual divisions as a means to an end. The end in question was a desire to eradicate all traces of traditional social values and cultural continuity with the past.
But the experiment has become a victim of its own success because when left to do so, millions of people from all background are exercising their free will to chose traditional/conservative values over radical liberal ones.
Thus, today it is possible for one to have a scathing ideological debate in which colour is blind but ideas still burn. No matter how hard they try, a white radical liberal cannot shout “racist” when for example a British Brexit Party MEP whose familial background is from Pakistan appears on television to debate a white Tony Blair supporter who thinks that the Brexit Party is somehow a racialist institution.
Surreally, the following exchange took place on UK television just days ago:
What this means is that rather than accepting the fact that as sure as water finds its level, one cannot stop free (or even semi-free) people from choosing social conservative values in spite of the intimidation tactics of the liberal elite, the liberals will continue to to insist that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is somehow a racialist, hater of women, hater of homosexual men or hater of those who appear foreign.
Like soldiers of Imperial Japan who refused to surrender decades after the second world war ended or those who even in the 21st century defend the despicable Khmer Rouge, it seems that for today’s western liberals, no real world defeat will result in any display of magnanimous circumspection.