Noticing an internet forum thread entitled, ‘You know you’re getting old when . . .,’ a personal ‘when’ came swiftly to mind as: ‘. . . you hear (usually much younger) people discussing something as a matter of history, whereas, for you it, was lived experience.’
Dear oh dear, this can give rise to some fearful fulminating. And no more so than in regard to The Troubles. Even on ‘serious’ media channels like the BBC, I frequently hear this episode of Anglo/Irish relations referred to as a matter of religious strife. Apparently, someone like me who recalls those depressing early morning news reports of shootings and bombs in the Shankill, Ardoyne, Andersonstown or Sandy Row, as strikes either for or against the Nationalist cause, is mistaken – we’re now told that the violence was, first and foremost, a manifestation of sectarian hatred.
There is of course a correlation between Republicanism and Catholicism and another between matters Loyalist and Protestant, but the religious divide is secondary and coincidental. And as I find myself shouting at the radio, correcting these ill-informed youngsters on the history itself, I also begin to reflect on how inclined they are on this, and many other topics, to anchor the debate around the notion of hatred. This has become a word which the Libfascists revel in deploying to transform relative minor matters into issues involving the very basest of human motives and traits. It’s a paradigm of the use of manipulative semantics.
Next the Libfascists link that hatred word – and its attachment that they’ve implied to certain demographic classifications and behaviours, (e.g. ‘right wingers’ and believers in national sovereignty) – to racism, apparently the most abhorrent of all human character traits. But before judging that notion in its own right, consider the circumstances which surround and justify that charge. For a long time now we have had to accept that anyone brainwashed by Libfascism sees no difficulty with applying the term to a behaviour in which no reference has been made to race. Thus, an Englishman making fun of Welsh choir singing, a Brit bemoaning the building of a mosque in his locality or a Scots holidaymaker addressing every restaurant waiter as Pablo, are being ignorant racists.
There! – more crafty word play. From the Libfascist point of view anyone holding opinions of which they do not approve must be ignorant. People who say illiberal things are uneducated. Now this business of education is interesting for many an illiberal person’s education cv is much more impressive than that of a typical ovine Libfascist. Yet the latter believe that the more one learns about foreign cultures the more one will feel well disposed towards them. The reality of course is that often the reason someone doesn’t like or is wary of alien ways is because they’ve taken the trouble to research them in detail and identified specific points of undesirability. Even so, the Libfascist response – as seen for instance in media-reported incidents of ‘racism’ in the workplace – is to insist that transgressors be sent on (indoctrination) courses with titles such, ‘Diversity Awareness.’ Just to be belt-and-braces, the offender will be said to have *.*phobia – Islamophobia being probably the most often cited. And here is yet more weaponising of words, for the term ‘phobia’ can be taken to be in reference to an illogical reaction and a loose indication of mental instability. But, but, but, to be concerned about the longer term eroding effect of an alien culture on the established British way of life is no indication of illogical thinking – quite the opposite really. So, perhaps because the phobia slur may be rumbled, Libfascists are now topping-up the invective by introducing a derogatory physical appearance reference by calling such dreadful racists, ‘Gammons.’
And what underlies the racism practised by Gammons? White Supremacy, apparently. Yet, while this may be an issue in the U.S., I don’t sense this at all in contemporary England. It is surely perfectly easy to understand that you may not like a person or group of people without feeling that you’re ‘better’ than them. Again I emphasise, for myself, and, I’m sure, on behalf of many others, the word ‘dislike,’ not, ‘hate.’ And this disposition is largely founded on aesthetics. I relate this to the characteristics of things such as the cultural ‘look,’ language, and, in terms of spoken English, accent, pronunciation and vocabulary. There is no corollary of an interest in persecution or genocide. Mind you, when I hear a multicultural issue being argued by someone who includes at least a couple of ‘like’s and a ‘ya know wha I mean’ in every sentence, and nary a ‘t’ fully pronounced at all, murder seems to me to be the fate of our precious English language