Saturday, 19 January 2008

The Reins of Power

Given that, in conventional far-left ideology, white people are the evil oppressors (the "dominant constituency", the "hegemons"), and non-whites the poor, oppressed, and powerless victims, the following report made interesting reading:
White people are less likely to feel they can influence decisions on running Britain than other ethnic groups, a government survey suggests.

Some 19% of white people agreed they had a say, compared with 33% of other groups, the Department for Communities and Local Government found.

Black African people were most likely to think they could have an influence - 38% said they could.

The DCLG surveyed 3,905 people between April and August last year.

The second most confident group, in terms of its ability to influence the country, was Bangladeshis, on 36%.

But...Muslims are the most oppressed, powerless, and victimised group in history ever...aren't they?

Next on 35% were Indians, followed by 34% of Pakistanis and 33% of black Caribbean people.

White people were also the least likely to feel they could influence their local area - 37% of those surveyed agreed they could, compared with a national average of 47%.

The groups most confident in their ability to shape local affairs were black Caribbean and black African people on 51%.

The figures refer to respondents who replied they "definitely agree" or "tend to agree" they could influence decisions.
Of course, my instinctive reaction is to say that this suggests that Africans are unusually gullible, while whites are disproportionately likely to be realistic about their chances of influencing politicians. With all three main parties singing the same raucous tune from the same rotten hymn sheet, the chances of the general public effecting any real change on any important issue anytime in the foreseeable future is virtually nil. For example, a strong majority of opinion has always opposed mass immigration, and levels of opposition have recently passed 80%, yet no government has ever responded to the views of the public on this issue, and we are presently witnessing the highest levels of immigration in our history. Equally, although there has been overwhelming support for a referendum on the recently-signed EU constitution, Gordon Brown went straight ahead and signed up to the constitution, in violation of Labour's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, and in spite of the large majority who opposed his decision to sign. And in February 2003, the fact that over a million people marched in protest against Tony Blair's plans for war in Iraq didn't stop a single bomb being dropped, or a single bullet being fired. Nor did the petition signed by 1.8million people opposing road pricing alter government policy. No, the only way anyone can influence future decisions is by paying a hefty bribe to the Labour Party (a la Bernie Ecclestone), and anyone who thinks that there is any other way is a contemptible fool.

But, having said this, it does seem that, to the limited extent within which the politicians do pay attention to the views of the general public, it is the views of those members of the public who are not white which take precedence. Consider the manner in which politicians of all parties embarrass themselves in their efforts to gain the Muslim bloc vote, or their desperate attempts to avoid any imputation of racism, however fanciful. Or consider the hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money which is used specifically and solely for the benefit of non-whites, through such schemes as the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant for schools. One can certainly see why non-whites are more likely than whites to feel that they can influence decisions, even if they are still, ultimately, overoptimistic.

Finally, I would suggest that, were the results the other way round, and were it found that whites were most likely to believe that they had the power to change things, then there would almost certainly be a media outcry, just as there is whenever blacks perform worse than whites in their school exams. Race hustlers and liberal academics would queue up to tell us that this was reflective of institutional racism, of white hegemony, of the legacy of slavery. There would be demands for more money for blacks, more apologies and reparations for slavery, programmes of preferential treatment in the workplace. So, why is it that, as with the poor performance of working class white children in education, this news has been greeted with almost total silence?

2 comments:

bernard said...

Fulham.

Well analysed. This report/poll makes for dismal reading.
If it is properly representative in that some 70% of the white indigenous population thinks they have little influence on decisions, it may explain why so many are anticipating, nay, relishing reports of a coming economic recession.
I think a sizable part of the population have now 'laid in store' enough worldly processions to see them through any tough times. It's not that they feel they have no influence on decisions, but that they are not bothered about it, and react negatively.
I strongly believe that people feel thay have wealth and numbers on their side (at the present) and no matter what the govt proposes, they, the people, will be the final arbiters, and are just waiting for the opportunity to prove it. And prove it explosively.

muzzylogic said...

So, why is it that, as with the poor performance of working class white children in education, this news has been greeted with almost total silence?

Because whites do not matter. Politicians work in the interests either of those who fund their careers ("diamond dealers" et al) or of those who can deliver block votes (ethnic groups). On the one side Brown and Cameron, on the other side Ken Livingstone. No side for whites.