Long-time British socialist MP, George Galloway has well and truly hit the nail on the head. Galloway responded to a statement by American actor Donald Sutherland in which he claimed to feel personally ashamed at the supposed concept of ‘white privilege’.
Galloway, who throughout his political career has been a friend to downtrodden, the abused, the marginalised and the discriminated, responded in the following way:
Do liberals like Donald Sutherland think that being “ashamed of being a white male” is going to cut it with, er, white males? Or their mums? If the left doesn’t lose this obsession with identity politics it’s going to be crushed.
Do they honestly not realise that the wives, lovers, mothers, sisters, daughters of “white males” identity more with him than not? That poor working class white black Asian men and women have different interests to rich white black Asian men and women? That imagining immigrants, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants, want more immigration and even illegal immigration, is sheer nonsense?
Any Labour Party without the support and identification of the working class has no future. The imagined homogeneity of minorities is no substitute.
I agree with each word of Mr. Galloway’s statement.
Donald Trump won an election based not on ‘racial’ values, if such a concept exists. He won his election on shared economic values, shared cultural values, shared community values, and, I believe also because of an emerging notion in America and across the western world, that peace is to be valued over frivolous, immoral, deadly and costly war. He won on these issues as a conservative, though someone like Bernie Sanders could have also likely won on similar values, only articulated from a socialist perspective.
I consider myself a traditional conservative. I find liberalism to be an abhorrent ideology and its bastard children, neo-liberalism/neo-conservatism to be the most grotesque manifestations of an ideology that has long outlived its usefulness.
As a conservative, I am deeply sympathetic to many though certainly not all socialist causes. I support free education including higher education for those who are qualified, I support free health care for all with no questions asked, I support the funding of arts, culture, sport and science, and I support the state ownership of major utilities.
This however is the extent of my socialism. Beyond this I am as conservative as they come, especially in my temperament.
What’s interesting though is that as I said, perhaps better put, as I warned, prior to the US election, traditional conservatives and honest socialists have far more in common with each other than they do with liberals, globalists, the tired establishment of elites and the mainstream media. I define my conservatism as a value system which opposes frivolous change, supports the existing social orders and cultural norms in each society.
I support the unique and sovereign aspects of each society, I do not believe in the invasion or blackmail of independent states by any alien entity, I am opposed to cultural Marxism and obscenity of any kind, and I support patriotic people on the left and the right rather than subversive cosmopolitan snobs and bandits.
I have many socialist and indeed communist friends, I can’t say the same about liberals. Their views of the world and mine give us little common ground even insofar as the places and the people where and with whom we socialise.
What’s more, I am a human being before I am a conservative and before I am anything else. The fact that my skin is pale and I have male rather than female genitals has never informed my views of the world nor has it informed my views of another person in the world.
For people like Sutherland to suggest otherwise is slanderous to me and millions of others. Before he became bitter and decrepit, Sutherland stared in one of my favourite films, Kelly’s Heroes. The film was about brotherhood, comradery and victory against the odds. It also was a film that showed that humour is necessary even in the worst of times. It was an interesting look back at the American experience in the Second World War through the eyes of a country in the midst of the Vietnam War (the film was realised in 1970).
It seems that Mr. Sutherland has forgotten the lines he once read on camera and is instead parroting a self-defacing, anti-human and anti-humane liberal position which is mechanistic rather than compassionate, anti-reality rather than one which accepts the world for what it is, and one which seeks to undermine all cultures by positing a post-cultural reality.
Like others who are true to themselves, I am who I am. Anyone who doesn’t like that can go to hell.