BY SEAN WALSH
The people who are coming to Britain using innovative entry practices from cultures which are just as good as ours are being given government booklets recommending against sexual assault and casual noncery—at least while they’re here. This is because there seem to have been some misunderstandings, and it’s always good to clear these things up.
Please don’t draw a negative inference about the cultures these creatives are abandoning. They are, I repeat, just as good as ours. It just so happens that these places have different habits of courtship.
When you think about it, it’s just like when you go to another country where their culture is to drive on the other side of the road.
So, if you are new to how things are done here, you can take a moment to rewire your whole psychology with some guidance written in a language that is appropriate for you. Then, when your application to remain has been nodded through, you can make your way to Birmingham and “drive” just how you would back home.
And you can do so in the certain knowledge that the authorities will be looking the other way, and that if you happen to get caught “crashing your car,” then Jess Phillips will be there to say that’s the fault of all young men, especially the ones in Poland.
The main thing is, from the point of view of the government lawyers, all relevant boxes will have been ticked.
The morons in government who are obliged to defend this, along with the media morons who are paid to defend those morons, are trying to persuade us that this booklet provides helpful clarification for people who might otherwise be unschooled in basic human decency. We might reply that they are right on the latter point, but naive when it comes to the first.
For these “progressives,” it’s a sort of Highway Code for sexually aggressive young foreign men—a document they most definitely will cherish, now that they’ve entrusted all other documentation to the care of the Channel.
If only Fred West had been sent one; might have saved a bit of bother.
In fairness, this guidance has been put out by the Home Office, so it hasn’t really got anything to do with the government at all, given that this department has now de facto seceded from Whitehall and stands in relation to it much like Rotherham does to the rest of Yorkshire.
It’s all very amusing to watch. The politicians, on the progressive Left most especially, have put themselves in a bind. They can’t tell the truth about the multicultural experiment (that nobody has ever agreed to be part of) because that truth is that it has failed, and quite likely has taken Britain down along with it.
So, because the truth is inconvenient, they again ignore it and reach for the usual comfort blankets of shallow anthropology and lazy relativism.
And having grabbed those blankets, they try to smother us with them.
Progressivism and relativism don’t really get on with each other, no matter how much they seem to at first glance.
If relativism is true across cultures, then it must also be applicable across time. If it’s wrong to say that the Common Law is self-evidently better than sharia, then it’s also wrong to say that the society the progressives are working towards is better than the one we have now.
You can of course argue these things, but not if you’ve caught the disease of relativism, because that’s an illness that targets the brain.
This is the thing that connects the Arday controversy to the booklet comedy routine: the abandonment of truth in favour of power.
When Lord Woolley, an activist masquerading as an academic, says that Jason Arday, also an activist masquerading as an academic, was lynched, he is telling a lie to cast a spell.
When the government tells you that the unconditioned sexual and violent impulses of young men can be neutralised by a piece of paper, it is, literally, using words in the hope that this will be enough to make the whole thing go away.
The race grifters, sexual perverts, transactivists, and the generally godless have had a good run by selectively and opportunistically deploying the relativist heresy. I wonder if they’re sensing that for them it’s getting to be “end of times” as more of us wake up to the fact that it’s fun to believe in contradictory and absurd stuff—but only while you’re still able to think your way back out again.
If you need convincing that cultures can be brought into contact always and necessarily without causing a disaster, then can I refer you to what’s happened at Cambridge itself, where an imported culture of DEI orthodoxy has extinguished any interest in truth. And where at High Table the exquisite traditions of bitchy gossip have, one suspects, been cancelled by the suspicion that the person to your left could be an HR mole or sleeper agent.
Solzhenitsyn wrote that “the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor through classes, nor between political parties—but right through every human heart.” That line will not be held in place by a piece of paper written by a Home Office official. In a way, it’s a bit insulting to the migrant to assume otherwise.