Here are three seemingly separate stories you might have missed in the last week in the UK that, taken together, reveal something far more profound.
First, it's emerged that pro-immigration campaigners helped place and prepare illegal migrants in the audience on the BBC flagship debate programme, Question Time, to “test” pro-migration messages in front of the British people.
Second, it’s been revealed that a writer who helped craft storylines on the popular BBC primetime soap Eastenders is a “migration and racial justice” activist who works on “changing people’s views” through popular culture.
And third, it’s been revealed that the family of Rhiannon Whyte — a young mother who was stabbed to death by an illegal migrant from Sudan — was guided by state officials to “tone down” their statement after Rhiannon’s murder, because of fears it might cause unrest among the wider population.
Three seemingly different stories that involve three different institutions – the BBC, the creative industry, and the British state. What do they all have in common?
They all reflect the Narrative State -- a state that no longer sees its main role as being to describe reality but present a warped version of reality that reflects and reinforces its dominant ideology.
⬇️⬇️⬇️
I had a conversation with a Labour supporting friend at the weekend. She’s far from nuts, not overly political, just instinctively pro ‘being nice’ and ‘looking after the unfortunate’.
The long and short of it is that she has no understanding whatsoever of business or the economy. She sees Britain as a very rich nation but with almost all the wealth trapped in a vault somewhere, with ‘billionaires’ controlling the keys. The government’s job, in her eyes, is to unlock that vault and shovel as much cash to ‘unfortunates’ as possible.
When I point out that crippling taxes on businesses and individuals inhibit growth she just agrees with me and suggests those taxes would be better if they were only aimed at the really wealthy. It’s incoherent but most of all it relies on a worldview that the left have carefully constructed so that they can give money to their clients. It’s going to end in disaster. Arguably it already has.
“Sir -46 percent is already a historical low! But I think if we just play our cards right we mi-“
“Kill the endangered ponies."
"W-what?"
"Ban social media for everyone under 16."
"B-but sir!"
"Abolish life sentences for murderers and give all of them lighter sentences."
“S-sir… you cannot possibly go any lower! Please stop.”
“Legalize incest.”
“SIR!”
“I quit.”
@BlackLabelAdvsr I'm all for bashing Europe, but you're way too stupid to do it. There are plenty of genuine American advantages, but most of the points you list are just factually wrong, to a laughable extent.
The drinking water, homelesness and gun crime points are particularly funny.
White British people are now a minority in England's three largest cities: Birmingham, Manchester & London.
In 50 years, the White British percentage of English cities has fallen by up to -42%, the most significant demographic change since the Black Death.
Credit to @juice8882
@jjeebhoy@okaythenfuture This is stupid beyond words.
By Middle East so you mean Iraq? Syria? Yemen? Egypt?
Or a few tiny Emirates reliant entirely on expats for both low and high skilled work and completely dependent on oil money.
As for this African middle class. Haha.
Percentage of "extreme liberals" under 30 years of age who have been diagnosed with a mental health problem: 56%
Percentage of "extreme conservatives": 10%
What is more, most of the public assume that the people in this sort of social housing are essential workers who need to live close by. I’ve met dozens of the tenants living in social housing in Pimlico - I had assumed they would be cleaners or overnight security guards working in Parliament or the like. In reality many didn’t work and I never met any who were this sort of essential worker who needed to be living nearby. They simply showed “links” to the area by e.g. having their kids at a nearby school, or were there by pot luck
The theory of structural racism runs into serious difficulties when confronted with the data.
Holding genetic ancestry constant, Americans who identify as Black or Hispanic achieve educational and income outcomes that are comparable to, and in some cases better than, those of Americans who identify as White.
In other words, the observed disparities appear to track genetic ancestry more closely than socially defined racial categories.
This is the opposite of what structural racism theory would predict: if social outcomes were primarily driven by discrimination against socially constructed racial groups, racial identification should remain predictive even after controlling for genetic ancestry.