Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The English Diversity Police

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 11, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

16:26

The English Diversity Police

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So yesterday the Essex Police Service launched their diversity recruitment campaign and I kind of hate it.
	I kind of hate everything about it on a really fundamental and visceral philosophical level.
	Like this goes right down to the very basics of any assumption that led up to this having been made.
	This is their main poster and on the surface it looks fine.
	You know there's nothing objectionable about this.
	But to get to the point where you're saying different people, same values, great prospects, you have to have followed one of a very few number of lines of reasoning.
	And I think that we can be sure that the line of reasoning that the police are following, as they are in the Met, as the government is in Scotland and probably England and Wales, it seems to be very, very progressive and that seems to be filtered through an intersectional lens.
	And that's how I think we got this here.
	Because this is the most divisive poster I can really imagine making.
	Beyond the Essex police just instead saying, we hate white people and think non-white people kind of suck.
	Let's start with the first third of this phrase.
	Different people.
	What does that mean?
	Everyone knows that everyone is different.
	So what you mean, surely, are different groups of people.
	Because that's what you're representing, a black person, a woman in a hijab, a Sikh man, a man from presumably the Middle East, a woman who I honestly am not sure where she's from, and then an East Asian lady.
	You're not putting them in the context of living alongside regular English folk in Essex.
	You're separating them out, segregating them, if you will, from the other race in the country that you're not interested in portraying, which would be the English in the case of Essex.
	Now, no one is saying that these people aren't different.
	I think we all accept that on a superficial surface level interpretation of diversity, yes, all of these people are different to each other and the English with whom they live around.
	But that doesn't actually mean they are oh so separate, as you are trying to address in your poster with the next phrase.
	But we haven't got to that yet, because saying that they're different, okay, but they're also all very much the same.
	For example, if I lived next to this Sikh man, while there will obviously be differences between me, my family and my culture and his, that doesn't mean there aren't also similarities.
	For example, we both live on the same housing estate, which means we have the same concerns about crime, means we have the same concerns about getting along with our neighbours and any kind of social activities that might happen in the local community.
	If the council raises our water rates or something like that, it's a mutual concern that we all share.
	I'm honestly of the opinion that it's the basic, the normal, the day-to-day things that actually bind people together, trying to separate them on more abstract ideas like their race, their religion, their gender, the things that in most ways in people's lives, they don't really have much of a difference.
	They don't have any particular effect.
	It's a strange thing to do when you could be tying them into the local community more directly by saying, look, these are people from the local community, which is what you're trying to do.
	And in the process have totally segregated the racial minorities from the rest of the population.
	And then you say, same values.
	Well, are they?
	How do you know?
	What if someone who joins the Essex Police Force doesn't like categorizing people into racial or gender groups?
	What if they treat them as individuals rather than as representatives of a greater group?
	That is the product of a different set of values.
	Is that person eventually going to be fired for wrongthink?
	Not all of these groups have the same values.
	So what values are you trying to make them share?
	Well, obviously, the values are diversity in policing.
	This is an attempt to impose progressive values on the non-white communities of our country.
	Now, maybe that's something that's necessary.
	You don't know that these people share the same values, and so you have to enforce a set of values on them.
	But the thing is, the values that you're promoting here, treating people as representatives of their member groups, because there's never a time when these people aren't representatives by that logic, which means they can't do their job and then go back to being a private citizen.
	They are now always going to be representatives of that race or of that gender or whatever we're talking about.
	At no point do these people kind of deinstitutionalize in that way and become regular folk again.
	What I mean is, once again, you are segregating these people away from the native English population.
	You're saying you can't be like them.
	We can't have the banter that we have with each other with these people because progressive values require you to treat them differently because of the colour of their skin or their gender or whatever.
	And that is apparently called us checking our privilege.
	Everything that could have been done so far has been done specifically to separate these people from the rest of us.
	And then finally, we come to great prospects.
	Well, sure.
	Again, if you're prepared to separate out ethnic minorities from the general population and specifically target them on a deliberate drive to hire people based on their bloody race, then yeah, you can say these races have great prospects in our country.
	Our individualistic, what should be an aracial country at this point.
	But instead, we have our institutions actively separating the non-whites from the whites and offering the non-whites great prospects.
	Presumably separate prospects from the white people with whom they live.
	Is that going to generate resentment, do you think?
	Do you want the white population to see this as a separate benefit that non-white people get, that they personally don't get, that apparently comes with great prospects?
	Because it seems like you are privileging these people, and it seems like you want to do it because you think they are inferior and need the help.
	This is not the result of my values.
	This is the result of progressive values.
	I don't believe that we should be separating anyone on the basis of their race.
	This should never have happened.
	The very concept of saying, well, we need the other races, and this is how we're going to do it, is a bizarre statement to me.
	And so now you have segregated the non-white people from the white people because of some perceived inferiority.
	And I just want to be really clear on this.
	The people who are doing the best in British society, if we've got to break it down by race, are Indians and East Asians.
	It is not white people doing the best in British society.
	So perhaps segregating the non-whites from the whites and then treating the whites as if they are somehow better than these people is counterproductive at best and deeply immoral at worst.
	Because I don't even think it is the non-white minorities in Britain who are requesting that this be done.
	The diversity recruitment campaign was launched by Chief Constable B.J. Harrington, who says, our force has done too little for too long to recruit more black, Asian and minority ethnic officers, and action is needed urgently to recruit a police force that looks more like the communities we serve.
	Are we giving them absolutely no credit for understanding what Britain is when they moved here?
	Do you think that they didn't think that Britain is something like 85% white British?
	Do you think they didn't know?
	So when they came here, I mean, they knew implicitly, if not having explicitly articulated it to themselves, they knew that the police, the courts, the country, the politicians are going to be mostly white British.
	But they also know that we are an anti-racist country, that we are famous for our fairness and our tolerance, and that we aren't going to directly hold them down on the basis of their race.
	So they must have implicitly at least thought it must be okay to be governed by the British in their own country.
	It's not something they fear.
	And I think that when you say just 77 or 2.5% of our officers identify as non-white, compared to a population in Essex of nearly 7%, so Essex, 93% white English, do you think the black, Asian or minority ethnic people aren't expecting to be ruled by the English?
	If we must break this down into racial categories, which again, I'm not saying all of these people do at all, because I don't know where they're actually supposed to be asking for this, because the only person I see asking for this is a white male.
	Mr. Harrington, how do you know what these minorities think?
	There are a bunch of implicit assumptions that these minorities must have made to come and live in this country that contradict everything about what your entire recruitment process was.
	And even then, you've got 77 of them on your force.
	It's not a massive percentage, I'll admit, but you're obviously not blocking them from joining.
	For some reason, Mr. Harrington, you have fallen prey to the social planner mindset.
	The Essex police under your watch, Mr. Harrington, are racially discriminating against employees.
	They are specifically hiring because of people's race and religion and gender.
	All I'm saying is that seems to go against the fundamental ethos of the civil rights movement.
	It is not your job to bring equality to policing.
	It is your job to police justly.
	And part of policing justly is not racially discriminating against your officers or potential officers.
	The process itself that you are following is morally wrong.
	It is wrong to hire in this way.
	And it creates a mindset and a world in which this becomes permissible and you help it proliferate.
	Mr. Harrington, I'm absolutely sure that you have no personal moral deficiencies, at least in these regards.
	But I as a liberal must object to the way in which you're going about this.
	Again, that creates a mindset that starts proliferating, that it's okay to start thinking of these people as different.
	Because going back to the example of my Sikh neighbour, he is different in some ways, obviously, but in many ways, he's very much the same.
	And surely that's actually what we want to promote to try and integrate these people into our society.
	You can't impose a set of values top down with which the majority of the British population is going to disagree.
	That's not going to work.
	I'm only saying this because of the comments on this page.
	They're really not in your favour.
	And I think this is a barometer of public opinion.
	I don't care what creed, race or orientation Essex police are as long as they actually do something about crime.
	That would be the most refreshing change.
	Isn't that racist?
	Racist much.
	There's no such thing as racism unless it's coming from a white person.
	Shouldn't the priority be policemen who can do the job correctly?
	And then people taking the piss out of you.
	Yeah, no gingers on there.
	I'm outraged.
	You'll have them in Burker soon.
	Hashtag PC Ninja.
	Lol, Britain First are going to love this.
	And to answer questions, no promoting equal representation isn't racist.
	It's literally the opposite.
	The thing is, Britain First absolutely would love this.
	They will say something like, we need to promote English people first or British people first.
	We need to promote them over the minorities.
	And I'm not for that either.
	I don't want any group to be discriminated against on the grounds of their race when it comes to hiring for our public institutions.
	I don't want you to have an opinion on it.
	I don't want you to think about it.
	Disgusting racism Essex Police.
	Best person for the job, not what skin colour you have.
	Where's the white one?
	I can't see any Caucasian in this picture.
	See, people are objecting to the disenfranchisement of the native population by an advertising campaign like this.
	You are making the differences between racial groups more distant and concrete.
	But people generally just want competent police officers hired.
	That's really way more important than what race they come from.
	And you can't take the example of inner-city dysfunction to represent the majority opinion of these communities.
	Yes, there may be ethnic gangs in some cities because of family breakdown and an overall culture of lawlessness in these localized areas that don't necessarily represent wider minorities.
	What I'm saying is, I don't think you should tar all of the non-whites with the same brush in that regard.
	A, it seems kind of racist.
	And B, it seems really unfair.
	But this is what identity politics does.
	It must segregate.
	It breaks people down into their constituent components, segregates them, and insulates them.
	Normally, any person I came across, I would be able to have banter with, and they would be able to have banter with me.
	For example, I'm currently trying to sort out a live show in Scotland, and I'm really looking forward to being the only Englishman in the room.
	And this is important because Edward Longshanks did nothing wrong.
	And there's an example of that right there, and I look forward to seeing the comments.
	But can I do that with any of these people represented in this picture?
	Probably not.
	I mean, hell, what I've just said there might well be considered a hate crime.
	How can these people become integrated into any community like mine that wants to have a culture of integration and shared values, but can't do that?
	How can these people be integrated into the majority British communities around them if we can't banter with them?
	But just to finish, I'm sure that all of the people involved in this advertising campaign are really well-intentioned people.
	Really decent people, hard-working.
	I've got no doubt that everything here was done with the best of intentions, but the results are not going to be what you think they're going to be.
	They're going to be based in division and resentment, because fundamentally, this advertising campaign doesn't share the same values as the people who are seeing it.
	And they are telling you this in your comment sections.
	Your values do not represent their values.
	And fundamentally, I think this is the very primary distinction that the nationalist-globalist split is based on.
	And what we're saying is you kind of have to allow us to make these people local people, national people, a part of our culture, not separate and equal to, or in the case of this, separate and superior to.
	I think that what you're doing is counterproductive to the mission that you would espouse, because you're not taking into account the values of the people that you are going to be policing.

▲