In a state ruled by a totalitarian government nobody can avoid politics anywhere, all areas of life are politicised. Every act is seen as a political act, and nothing people do is devoid of political meaning or interpretation. If there are some areas of life apparently untouched by political demands and commands, such as the privacy within family life, they exist only on sufferance, and the state could have informers secreted within those areas also. As well as no part of life being free of politics in a totalitarian country (“sexual politics”), all these political demands are also made from the regime’s own viewpoint only.

Political meaning, as with all meaning, is expressed mainly in words. In a totalitarian society people have to be careful of what they say or write, careful that their viewpoint is “politically correct”, which is a phrase from the former Soviet Union. The politically correct viewpoint is any viewpoint endlessly repeated by state education and state broadcasting, such as “Britain must stay in the EU”.

The role of the police in a totalitarian regime is to weed out those people whose views, values, attitudes and beliefs are unworthy of the new society the regime is building, that is, people whose lives are “politically incorrect”. The greatest crime in a totalitarian environment is dissent from the values of the regime and opposition to it. Has anybody noticed how few teachers in Britain’s schools voice opposition to multiculturalism, as Ray Honeyford once did, and what happens to them if they do? Dissidents from political correctness risk denunciation and demonisation, as well as dismissal from employment and criminal prosecution.

The campaign against “racism and xenophobia” is arguably the most aggressive form of political correctness in the European Union, due to German feelings of guilt over Nazism. Racism, which anti-racist zealots aim to eradicate, was first described by Leon Trotsky in an article he wrote for a French periodical about “le racisme”, the French origin of the English word “racism”. By “racisme” Trotsky meant belief in the innate superiority of white over black people. Consequently black people are always victims of racism, for if they have racist beliefs themselves, they believe in their own inferiority. Furthermore, nobody can prove themselves being innocent of secretly having an attitude or state of mind. Consequently nobody can prove they do not have racist attitudes or thoughts. Anti-racism is driven by black people intent upon gaining advancement on the grounds of their colour, and by white people intent on discrediting rivals by accusing them of racism. Racialism has a different meaning to racism, as racialism means antipathy & hostility between races, consequently white people can be victims of racialism as well as black, but black people can only be victims of racism, and only white people their racist oppressors. The word ‘racialism’ began to give ground to racism in the 1960’s, now it is rarely heard, if ever.

Totalitarian politics and a police state were brought much closer in Britain through the Macpherson Report of February 1999. This Report arose from Lord MacPherson of Cluny’s inquiry into the investigation by the London Metropolitan Police of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Although the MacPherson Report discovered no racist word or deed by any Met Police officer, it found the Met Police guilty of “Institutional Racism” as defined by Robin Oakley, an eminent authority on training public sector staff in race relations throughout the EU. Robin Oakley’s “Institutional Racism” is hidden and undetectable. It is a matter of thoughts and feelings, attitudes and habits, of which those who are “institutionally racist” can themselves be unaware. Robin Oakley found that “institutional racism is pervasive throughout the culture and institutions of the whole of British society”.

The MacPherson Report made seventy Recommendations to be followed by public sector staff in Britain. Recommendation 12 for the guidance of police officers is that “A racist incident is any incident perceived as such by the victim or anybody else”. So perception is proof, not just presumption, of guilt of racism. Recommendation 14 extended this guidance to those employed in local government or “other relevant agencies”, that is anywhere in the public sector. Recommendation 13 for police is that “The term racist incident must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment”. So all acts (crimes and non-crimes) can be perceived or interpreted as racist and subject to police investigation. The police can pursue the law-abiding (“non-crimes”) in their search for anybody “perceived” as racist.

Recommendation 39 is that racist speech “not in a public place” should be prosecuted, in other words racist speech in private places, such as family homes. MacPherson implicitly recommends that, as in the Soviet Union, children should be encouraged to report the remarks of their parents to their schoolteachers, and that family homes should be invaded by hidden listening devices. So “anti-racism” becomes a political demand that intrudes everywhere into people’s lives. All areas of life are politicised by the regime’s commands, as in all totalitarian states. The search for racists by the police ensures that everyday conversation is no longer spontaneous in England. Now people have to careful about what they say even in their most casual conversation. The European Union in that respect has become like the Soviet Union, its multi-cultural forerunner. As under all totalitarian regimes there is a pervasive fear of informers. People are now afraid to say what they feel, for fear of being reported in social media or to the police. This reduces the trust that binds friends and acquaintances together, trust that can harbour resistance to totalitarian rule.

Even on Saturday afternoons at a football game people are liable for speech crimes. All Association Football clubs in England now have to include anti-racist “Kick It Out” notices on their premises and in their match programmes. These “Kick It Out” notices warn football fans against racist and “offensive” speech, urging anybody who hears such speech to report the offenders to the police. Offensive speech is speech perceived as such, and informants can be so easily offended! This “Kick It Out” campaign applies to all FA clubs, down to those thousands of small suburban and village clubs playing in local leagues where crowds are less than a hundred spectators. They all have to display “Kick It Out” anti-racist posters since the MacPherson Report. You cannot escape from politics anywhere anymore, and you had better be politically correct, or else.

Meanwhile the police have a difficult task allotted to them by MacPherson. They must detect racism that is pervasive throughout public institutions, but which is hidden because it is a matter of thoughts and feelings, attitudes and states of mind, and consequently can only be “perceived” or inferred because thoughts are not available to public examination like words or deeds. The mind itself is not open to public examination, so a presumption of innocence of having racist thoughts would ensure the failure of every prosecution. That is why MacPherson insisted on a presumption of guilt of racist thoughts, when Recommendation 12 says that racism is anything perceived as such, and consequently a racist is anyone perceived as such.

The search is on for the racism that is hidden in peoples’ hearts, and anybody white can be found guilty. Since the MacPherson Report the Salem witch craze and the Stalinist show trials are no longer so far away.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email