Saturday, 13 August 2011

The Big Society - but on 'their' terms

Over at Orphans of Liberty, JuliaM has another 'pointed' post (as are all of hers!) on the difference between Turkish Kurds and Sikhs (armed) turning out to defend that which they considered theirs and the indigenous "whitey's" (unarmed) doing likewise. It would appear from Julia's article that both the elected and unelected only want the 'Big Society' implemented on their terms.

What is distressing is the first comment to her article, which shows that if she (Barbara Trimblett) is indicative of the electorate at large, then either the 'brain washing' practised by the political elite has been successful; or the electorate, at large, hasn't one brain cell between them. 

More importantly and just as distressingly, it also shows that the likes of Barbara Tremlett has a vote - don't you just love democracy?

Just saying..................


6 comments:

Edward Spalton said...

Obviously you haven't understood the official concept.

If immigrant groups defend their own, that is "community action". If we aboriginals should dare to do likewise, it's "Vigilantism.

This is all of a piece with what I was told about RAT (Racial Awareness Training) by a lady who worked for the social services department.

It is some years ago that this deeply Christian woman turned up on our doorstep, looking absolutely shattered.

She had been on one of these indoctrination courses and the instructor had told them that racism was a purely white phenomenon. Being a valiant-for-truth sort of person, she had questioned this and given several completely factual instances of racial oppression by non white groups - only to be told "that is entirely different".

What had really upset her was that all her colleagues, knowing what would earn them Brownie points (if I can call them that!), had agreed with the instructor and put a great deal of pressure on her to "change her thinking" to the "correct" line.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

ES: And it is exactly that type of social-engineering which I find most offensive!

Unfortunately the majority appear brain-dead and accept it.........

James Higham said...

It raises legitimate questions about democracy, that's for sure.

Edward Spalton said...

When I was canvassing in the 2005 election, I lost count of the times when people started to tell me how they felt and checked themselves, asking "Am I allowed to say that?"

This was on their own doorsteps! Once they had expressed that fear of the Thought Police, it took considerable encouragement (not always successful) to get them to resume telling me what they really thought.

I am afraid that the British people, once renowned for their freedom of speech and thought , have been tamed.

Sometimes even public officials rebel. One anonymous policeman wrote that he had been to go on a day's "Diversity Training". He had been told to take something with him which was very special to him for what it said about diversity.

He found a picture of Nelson Mandela embracing Colonel Gadaffi.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

ES: As was said in Dad's Army: We're doomed I tell you, doomed......

TomTom said...

Unfortunately the majority appear brain-dead and accept it.........

Called GroupThink. Fine, if they want to be followers they must simply obey New Leaders