About discrimination

The process of growing up is largely a matter of learning to discriminate. The five senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell are the basic equipment for this purpose. Understanding is added later with speech. Like all mammals the human infant is born very much undeveloped. Unlike other mammals which have to learn to survive early and reach their full stature and capabilities within a few months, the human infant develops into a much more complicated creature reaching full size and capabilities in 18 years or thereabouts .During all those years the young human has to be in the care and at the charge of its elders; usually and ideally its biological parents. In modern society that is a considerable burden.

Many of the social ills from which our society suffers at present, and which to some extent justify the Islamic view of it as decadent, stem from the failure of elders, perhaps themselves brought up in an anything goes environment, to teach discrimination, to set and require standards and above all to set an example.

The crawling baby cannot be told that it is undesirable to poke little fingers into electrical sockets. It has to be prevented by mechanical means or by constant supervision from doing so. At that age and beyond "because I say so" has to be a sufficient answer to the unspoken question "Why?".

As it develops to adulthood the young human should learn the difference between good and bad in all its aspects; what is safe and what is not; what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, within its circle what is against the law and what is not, and sadly in our current society that trust is a rare commodity not lightly to be bestowed. With any luck the youngster will be able to survive independently and to make his way.

In his daily life our young human will make choices. He will discriminate against A, B, and C in favour of D. He will prefer the company of some people rather than others. If he adheres to the normal life pattern he will discriminate in favour of one partner rather than another. If his circumstances give him choice he will prefer to live in one neighbourhood rather than another. In all these choices he does not have to explain to anybody why one rather than the other. In many instances he could not.

All of this makes it difficult to understand why some politicians are so keen on anti-discrimination laws. They are anti-human nature laws.

However if we look at who benefits from such proposed laws a pattern and a motivation emerges or several converging motivations.

So called ethnic groups, gays and religions are the main beneficiaries. We can perhaps leave aside the gays who are just bundled together with more important elements possibly because there are so many of them amongst legislators. Politicians seek to protect ethnic groups firstly because they have promoted their presence and look eventually for their votes, but also because of a philosophical mindset deriving from the likes of Karl Marx which sees all people as the same the world over; citizens of one world. They are internationalists and in order to preserve their position they seek to suppress the natural defensive attitude of people in dealing with ‘foreigners'. They would deny that the term has any meaning. They certainly do not approve of tribes, clans or nation states.

Toleration of religious beliefs is such a beguiling cosy idea that it is a shame to refer to devious or unworthy motives in connection with it. Unfortunately that is the way it is.

The Roman Catholic Church has nursed for centuries a grievance about King Henry VIII and his repudiation of the Pope's authority. It has sought ever since to regain that position of dominance. In the 16th and 17th centuries it tried foreign invasion and insurrection. That resulted in 1688 in Catholics being barred from every public office, in their churches, save one chapel, being banned and their permanent exclusion from proximity to the crown. It also resulted in an end to the Catholic question for 3 centuries.

It is at it again; however, this time by infiltration. Populations like the Southern Irish have been inserted. Now we have an influx of charming industrious Poles, virtually all Roman Catholics. At the same time, on the political plane, Britain has been embedded in a Catholic European State. All the main British newspapers are now Catholic owned, edited, and very largely written. Institutions like the BBC are heavily infiltrated to the extent that its head and his deputy are both Roman Catholics. None of this would matter were it not for the fact that Roman Catholics are subjects of the Pope and obedient to him. They cannot be loyal to two masters.

Some of those calling for anti discrimination laws are seeking to make it illegal to oppose a Catholic takeover.

A similar situation exists in relation to Islam. Those internationalists who seek to protect ethnic groups from the resentment of indigenous people by making it illegal to discriminate against them in any way are, perhaps unwittingly, protecting another aggressive religion which seeks dominance; again by infiltration.

The weakness in the internationalist position is that the world is not as they see it. It is a cockpit in which a variety of forces struggle for advantage and ultimately for dominance. Not least amongst those forces are two monolithic religions - Roman Catholicism and Islam - both of which claim to be the one true faith. They cannot both be right though it is possible that both are misguided. Each is capable of unspeakable behaviour towards heretics or infidels. The English, poor souls, are both heretics and infidels.

Unless these two forces can reach an accommodation and divide the world into spheres of interest conflict between them would seem inevitable. It is on the cards that any accommodation could only last until one felt strong enough to overwhelm the other.

By their nature both need allies. Islam needs its Charlemagne. Roman Catholicism needs its revived Holy Roman Empire.

To return to the United Kingdom which is assailed by both these conflicting forces, albeit by infiltration, the only defence against infiltration is exclusion. That however would be discrimination. It would also be wise.