Traditional Britain – this awful awful outfit which, like a prehistoric alien at the heart of a 21st century astronaut, aims to return Britain to some allegedly better time by exploding out of the Tory Party in a way no one of any sensible political persuasion could reasonably stomach – needs to revisit this ten-minute video on the history of the English language, where not the “English” themselves.
Not that witty irony or self-deprecation would ever be likely float their racist pateras.
But this is where I begin to wonder whether what drives their prehistoric instincts is really racism at all. In my previous post, I described the concept of “extractive elites” – the definition running as follows (the bold was mine yesterday):
[...] An extractive elite is defined by:
“Having a rent-seeking system which allows, without creating new wealth, for the extraction of rent from a majority of the population for one’s own benefit.”
“Having enough power to prevent an inclusive institutional system – in other words, a system that distributes political and economic power broadly, that respects the rule of law and free market rules.”
It also despises what Schumpeter calls “creative destruction” (again, the bold is mine):
[...] “creative destruction is the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Innovation tends to create new centers of power, and that’s why it is detested.
For the purposes of today’s post, it’s that last phrase which interests me most: “Innovation tends to create new centers of power, and that’s why it is detested.” What if Traditional Britain – and unhappy outriders of a similar bent – have either consciously or unconsciously realised that, in a 21st century of galloping technological advancement, any elite, whether extractive or not, could not possibly get off the ground any project which aimed to preserve their power bases and incumbency by arguing they were against the concept of innovation?
In truth, innovation – as a philosophy, tool and essential driver of latterday Western society – is just too ingrained and built into the foundations of everything we do and think, both nationally and globally as a wider civilisation. No one would get anywhere by fighting such an overwhelming figure. So it is that Traditional Britain claims to exhibit radical thinking, even though its instincts are – manifestly – radically conserving:
The British nation, its institutions, peoples, traditions, and history has been undermined and attacked repeatedly over the last fifty years by those who teach in our schools and universities, cynical politicians in our Parliament and the self-interested officials in our communities and institutions.
Today the Traditional Britain Group has been reinvigorated by a new, dynamic generation of young, intelligent and passionate people, determined to make a difference and show that there is, will be, and has always been an alternative – real conservatism.
Concluding on its About page that:
With courage, pride and determination, the Traditional Britain Group says, ‘No more! The ancient traditions, peoples and beliefs of these isles are worth preserving. There is an alternative for Britain. The fight back begins now!’
As has so often been the case over the past fifty years or so that TBG chooses to underline and focus on, politicians who prefer to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor nail their flags to the masts of radicalism. They have to. We live in a changing world. The overriding meme of the 21st century is precisely that. Who on earth in their right mind would contemplate describing themselves as a dinosaur against progress?
So it is that radicalism becomes a catchphrase for all and sundry – in particular, for those who have no historical right to employ it. And to date, we on the left have tended to allow such politicians their confusing labels – even as the only radicalism involved, the only change engineered, is a progressive (ie regressive) impoverishment of the evermore politically defenceless.
But if we look at such political groupings through the prism of extractive elites, we may begin to perceive a subtly different kind of profile: when right-wing organisations such as TBG, EDL, even the BNP in their time, witter on destructively about immigration, in truth they are wittering on about innovation. Immigration is a code word for such elites – innovation is what they really fear; what they really fear but cannot admit they despise. In a Western civilisation where technological companies, networks and communities are the basis of the future, these anything-but-cosy throwbacks (throwbacks to a past which, in truth, as the video at the top of this post has shown, never existed in the first place) cannot even say what they really think: that stuff should remain the same so that their incumbency, power, rentier statuses and opportunities are not criminally shared out amongst the rest of us.
When they say they want to send blacks back to where they came from, it’s about as ciphered a language as you could imagine: what, in fact, they really mean to say is: “Anyone who threatens my current state of wellbeing must bugger off out of my way.”
For if you’re poorer (or richer) than a TBG-adherent, you don’t have to be black to face their ire.
All you have to be is ambitiously redistributive – more importantly, innovatory – in all your gloriously political and sociocultural instincts.
That’ll soon get their “radicalism” kicking into gear – and on your case.
Immigration’s just the subset of their hatreds: sadly, a socially acceptable way in many parts of our country these days of damning the redistribution – through a yet-as-unexperienced and truly free-market capitalism – of wealth, power and societal control.
The battle is much much bigger than immigration. It’s all, in fact, about the way we want to do our economics.
And they’ve known it much longer than we have.
This is not a simple – even where disgraceful – matter of different skin colours. This has far more to do with our human rights to financial and sociocultural stability. This is a lazy stratum of society looking to maintain its rights to sustain its unproductive habits.
A stratum which clearly would like us to remain unaware of what it’s really getting up to.
And it’s time to wise up, no?
It’s time to wise up.