Some years ago a scientific experiment was conducted at a university in America. This consisted of a test to see whether peoples’ expectations influenced their perceptions. And the answer was ‘yes’. Those who expected negative treatment – either for themselves or for others – perceived negative treatment – even when this did not exist at all. For those who are interested in reading the fine details of how the study was conducted, I have set this out at the end of this article, in the section titled, with what I hope is helpful clarity, ‘details of the study‘. But for those who simply want the conclusion, it is this: If you expect discrimination, you will perceive it, either directed at yourself or at others, even when this does not exist. Tell someone they are a victim or that they are discriminated against and they will believe it. That will become their ‘lived experience’. So while they might well believe it when they say they suffer from discrimination that doesn’t alter the fact that they are wrong. Monumentally wrong.
The argument for there not being any discrimination is pretty clear. Just look at the facts. The previous prime minister was a woman and the current one is of Asian ethnicity. The previous chancellor was black, as is the current foreign secretary. Of the last four home secretaries, three have been Asians: two women and one man. So the four most important and powerful positions in the country have in recent years mostly been filled with those coming from so-called ‘disadvantaged groups’. What ‘disadvantage’?? And look further: what do the Mayor of London and the First Minister in Scotland have in common? They are also from groups that are supposedly discriminated against. Everywhere you look, from businesses to judges, from the civil service to the arts, women and ethnic minorities abound in senior positions. And yet still all we get is whingeing about ‘discrimination’. The one that made me both laugh and despair the most was the ‘taking the knee’ protest by footballers, claiming to be standing up against discrimination against blacks, when black players make up 43% of Premier League footballers – more than double the percentage of blacks in the general population. Discrimination? What discrimination?
The REAL discrimination
No, as I said before, there is no social injustice or discrimination. Or, at least, not of the kind that the woke brigade think there is. You see, this is where woke – the latest incarnation of political correctness – becomes wicked. Question: how do you solve a group’s disadvantages? Answer: by giving them special help, funding, privileges and benefits. But if they were never disadvantaged in the first place then what you are doing is giving them unfair advantages over other groups. And that is why it is now white heterosexual men that is the only group that is disadvantaged and discriminated against. But wait – am I now the one who is guilty of seeing discrimination where none exists? No. Because the discrimination is not subtle, or subjective, or imagined, but clear, open, unambiguous and deliberate.
Just look around. In every walk of life there are organisations set up deliberately and solely to help women, ethnic minorities etc, not just private but even governmental. There is a minister for Women (not one for men) who, according to the government’s own website, has “strategic oversight of Government’s equality policy, for women, ethnicity and LGBT”. Where is ‘White History Month’? Why is it effectively forbidden to proclaim that ‘White Lives Matter’? Prostate cancer kills more men each year than breast cancer does women, so why is it that for years research funding into prostate cancer has been less than half of that for breast cancer? Discrimination against white heterosexual men is so ingrained, normalised and institutionalised that we even have the insane situation where the Labour Party do not allow this one group to attend their Equalities Conference!
Woke puts us in danger
Media reports of organisations discriminating against men and whites are increasingly frequent, sales companies, advertising agencies, police forces, the BBC, banks, universities … the list goes on and on. Even the RAF has preferred to prioritise the marxist woke anti-white male agenda over the protection of the nation’s security. You may remember that the RAF discriminated against 160 white men in order to achieve ‘diversity targets’. Group Capt Elizabeth Nicholl was put in charge of recruiting more women and ethnic minorities. Presumably the RAF thought they were being cunning in appointing a woman to do this, thinking she was bound to go along with this anti-white male policy. How wrong they were! This highly-principled woman was appalled by this policy which was not only unfair to white men but, by lowering the standard of new recruits, also weakened Britain’s defences and she proved her integrity by exposing this and resigning. She deserves a new medal, to be awarded for those who proved their valour in the War on Woke!
As for the RAF, did they demonstrate any regret or contrition over this vile practice of discriminating against white men and weakening Britain’s defences? Not a bit of it! Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston said he made “no apologies for setting a challenging, aspirational goal for the Royal Air Force for diversity”. Was he sacked? Was he court-martialled? Was he stripped of his undeserved knighthood? Of course not! This filthy discrimination is mandated by the government itself (a ‘Conservative’ government, remember), which has Government declared it wants women to make up 30% of the intake of the Armed Forces by 2030. In the name of God, why? Why set these arbitrary targets? They are not designed to improve the security of the country. Indeed, they will do the very opposite! Women do not have the same characteristics as men, and increasing their number will make our armed forces weaker. And the RAF? The lunatics in charge have gone even further, insisting that they want the number of female recruits to rise to 40% by the end of the decade. Being woke is clearly a form of derangement.
Woke helps islamic terrorists
And it gets worse. The government’s genuflection to the woke agenda (despite their pretence otherwise) has also made us more vulnerable to terrorism, including the appalling bombing of the Manchester Arena in 2017 that killed 22 people and injured hundreds more. You might have read about the failure of the government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy, costing £49 million a year and part of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy. It was created by Labour in 2003 and its remit was widened by the Conservative/LibDem coalition in 2011. The basic concept was to identify potential terrorists before it’s too late and try to prevent them from committing crimes. Think you’ve heard of this idea before? You have – it’s the plot of the Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruise film ‘Minority Report’ that came out just the year before! What a coincidence … Unfortunately, just as in the film, things didn’t quite work out as planned. Given that the terrorist threat comes almost entirely from muslim extremists the problem was that Prevent would turn into ‘Ethnic Minority Report‘, and that was politically unacceptable to our woke governments and officials. So they decided to pretend that ‘right-wing extremists’ were also a threat and had to be included in the programme.
The problem now became how to identify these non-existent ‘right-wing extremists’. So, in the words of the official review of Prevent that blew the lid on this scandal: “Prevent takes an expansive approach to the extreme right-wing, capturing a variety of influences that, at times, has been so broad it has included mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, right-wing leaning commentary”. By contrast, with Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism”. Even this criticism was an understatement of how insane the scheme became. Here are a few of the ‘red flags’ that Prevent said could identify ‘right-wing extremists’ and ‘white supremacists’: books such as The Lord of the Rings, Brave New World, and 1984, or the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Kipling, and Tennyson. You were also suspect if you watched television programmes or films such as: Yes Minister, The Thick of It, Zulu, The Dam Busters, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Sharpe, Great British Railway Journeys, The Great Escape, and House of Cards.
This list of mainstream and popular books and programmes is so all-embracing that inevitably the number of supposed ‘right-wing extremists’ was ludicrously and grossly overestimated. The official review reveals that in 2020-21, 46% of the individuals that were referred to the ‘deradicalisation’ part of the programme were the result of concerns about extreme ‘right-wing’ radicalisation, while only 22% were islamic extremists! But look at the investigations of the counter-terrorism police and 80% of their live investigations were islamist cases while only 10% relate to ‘extreme right-wingers’. And because Prevent’s resources were, inevitably, finite, this meant that genuine terrorists, you know, the real ones, slipped though the net. Ali Harbi Ali, for instance, who murdered Tory MP Sir David Amess in 2021, told his trial that he had deceived the Prevent ‘specialist’ he had seen. And Ahmed Hassan (who came to the UK as one of those oh-so ‘vulnerable’ child asylum seekers) planted a bomb on the London Underground in 2017, a year after he had been flagged for ‘deradicalisation’ but was never seen – probably because they were too busy dealing with all those dangerous ‘white supremacists’ who had been watching The Great Escape, which the BBC repeats almost every Christmas in their well-known campaign to radicalise right-wing extremists!
Being woke is based on a false premise, it results in genuine and harmful discrimination aimed at decent people, it weakens our institutions and it leads to terrorism!
Details of the study:
The researchers began with a survey among the campus students to see if they thought that people reacted negatively to those who had (i) visible scars, (ii) physical disabilities, and (iii) an allergy. The students responded that yes, they thought people responded negatively to others with scars or disabilities, but not allergies. The scientists then began the experiment to test whether the students’ expectations influenced their perception of reality. The students involved had no idea that the survey, conducted some time before, and the experiment were linked, as these were done completely separately. The study was conducted with only girls, no men – this was deliberate and clever, since the study was about how people respond to others, and so they eliminated any sexual influence or distortion to the interactions. The girls were divided into several groups. The first group were the ‘interviewers’. They were given no information about the purpose of the study, so that their behaviour would not be affected. They were simply told that they would be interviewing some other girls; they were given ideas of what to talk about and told to interview everyone in the same way. They were filmed as they conducted the interviews. The second group were told that they would be taking part in an experiment to see how people react to others if these have a disability. Now it gets interesting! The ‘disabled’ interviewee girls were divided into three groups:
In one group the girls were given fake scars on the side of their face, from the corner of their mouth to their right ear. They were then shown the scars in a mirror to see what they looked like and sent to be interviewed. Just before leaving (and after having seen the scar) the make-up artist applied some moisturiser to the scar ‘to keep it looking realistic’. After the interview they responded that the interviewer had been negatively influenced by their scar, staring at it and clearly uncomfortable about it. What the ‘scarred’ girls didn’t know was that, when applying the moisturiser, the make-up artist had actually completely removed the fake scar, so that they had, in fact, looked absolutely normal!
A second group of girls was itself divided into two. They all had to complete a two-page cv which was to be given to the interviewer. The first page was just the standard details about them but on the second page half the girls were told to write that they had epilepsy (which was being treated with drugs) and the other half that they had an allergy (which was being treated with drugs) – this latter group was clearly what is known as the ‘control group’, used to confirm the validity of the experiment. The girls were then sent to be interviewed, but were told not to mention their (fake) illness unless the interviewer did. What they didn’t know was that the interviewers were actually only given the first page, not the second one, so had no idea of these supposed illnesses. And the outcome? Well, if you’ve been paying attention you will not be surprised to learn that the interviewees reported exactly what you’d expect: the ‘epilepsy’ group reported that the interviewer had reacted negatively towards them whereas the ‘allergy’ group reported nothing untoward. In other words, they experienced exactly what they expected to experience – not the reality.
And the final part of the experiment was just as convincing. Remember I said that the interviewers were filmed? Well, the videos were shown to another group of girls. Half were told that the interviewers could see the scars of the interviewees, or knew that the interviewee had epilepsy, and the other half were told nothing and just asked to examine the interviews. [The videos of the interviews with the ‘allergy’ girls were dropped, as these interviewees had, rightly, not reported any discrimination]. Once again, the researchers found that the girls’ expectations exactly matched their perceptions. Those who had been told the interviewee was scarred or had epilepsy reported that they could see a negative reaction by the interviewer, while those who had not been given this information saw nothing untoward. A great experiment and very conclusive!
If you liked this article please share it on social media and with everyone on your contacts list. Thank you.