A certain narrative has become more prominent in recent times, with various well-known proponents. This narrative tells us that Western values are being eroded, Western culture is under threat, Western history is being erased, and that some of the biggest problems we face as Western countries are large-scale immigration, woke culture and radical left-wingers. It also tells us that Islamist extremism is a particular threat to our Western way of life and that, consequently, the large-scale and unmanaged immigration of Muslims into Europe and America is especially dangerous. This way of thinking has become particularly apparent after the recent UK riots. Support for politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump is testament to its popularity. The online popularity of some of its proponents, such as Douglas Murray and Konstantin Kisin, is also revealing.
There are other things to note about this narrative. Often, it sees an interrogation of the ills of Western history, such as the Transatlantic Slave Trade, as part of an organised attack on our culture and society. It asserts that technological innovation, capitalism and industry will solve most, if not all, of our problems. It tends to claim that the climate crisis is either overblown or non-existent. It rarely (if ever) addresses biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and our general poisoning of Mother Earth. Interestingly, you can tell more about this narrative by what it omits rather than by what it directly addresses.
Some arguments about protecting Western values and Western culture are valid. For example, I feel that freedom of expression and democracy need to be cherished and protected. I also agree that there have been legitimate threats to these in recent times and that these threats need to be taken seriously. I believe that diplomacy and civility should be prioritised above violence and war. I agree that a number of people take for granted the comforts and conveniences of the modern West. I agree that healthy debate and dialogue is essential and has been in decline in recent years. Another valid argument is that British culture and the British empire have provided us with benefits, as well as negatives. One can’t take a complex occurrence like the British empire and say that it is totally one thing or another. Whether it be good or evil, right or wrong, beneficial or harmful. To attempt to do so betrays a simplistic way of thinking.
However, the people who usually advocate for Western values make their arguments in a skewed and inconsistent fashion. They didn't, for example, champion freedom of expression with regards to the imprisonment of Julian Assange. They didn’t promote robust, healthy debate when Jeremy Corbyn was relentlessly smeared by the legacy media and the political establishment. They also don't see that by far the biggest threats to democracy and an informed, critical-thinking citizenry stem from the corporate takeover of most of our planet, not woke culture. This is because corporations spend inordinate amounts of money shaping public opinion, discouraging critical thinking, and distracting people from the most important issues today. If one is genuinely concerned about individual liberty, democracy and diplomacy, one’s attention should be primarily focused on the corporatisation of our world.
Our democracies are only democracies in name, not in practice. Corporations and billionaires lobby politicians, direct government policies, and fund most of the legacy media and think tanks that condition people to support corporate hegemony. They condition people to be blind to the most important issues of all, how our societies are organised and how they can be meaningfully changed for the betterment of their citizens. The former German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, is reported to have said to Yanis Varoufakis “elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy”. This statement says a lot about our world.
A particular essay has been doing the rounds online by Josh Treviño, which has been widely shared by the 'Western values advocates’. In the article, Treviño laments the loss of British culture in modern times. Treviño thinks that this loss and our supposedly growing disdain for British history is a result of "the importation of millions of foreigners" and of what he ominously and vaguely calls “the regime” (by which I think he means an organised woke/anti-colonial movement with the aim of dismantling Western history and culture). Treviño, interestingly, doesn't use the word woke, but presumably this is what he means when he deridingly talks about "the hundreds of images of London's queer population" lining the corridors of the London Underground, with pronouns underneath the pictures. He then refers to this kind of phenomenon as part of a new religion that "clambers upon the ruined edifice of the old and apes its forms". Treviño’s article is written in a veiled, verbose way which conceals more than it reveals. What it conceals is prejudice and lack of insight. We should be wary of superficial cleverness, eloquence and rhetoric. These qualities are often used to manipulate and condition people.
I find it fascinating that when people like Treviño opine about the loss of British culture and history, they often leave out some of the most beautiful examples of that culture and history. For example, you could look at our wonderful tradition of Romantic poetry. Wordsworth, Blake, Coleridge, Keats. Poets who have given us immortal works about nature and the British countryside. With regards to Wordsworth, we find the most profound meditations on humanity's connection to nature. We also find a criticism of the growth of industry and how this, even 200+ years ago, was beginning to disconnect us from nature and blind us to environmental destruction. Wordsworth, we need you now more than ever.
What Treviño misses is that by far the biggest factor eroding British culture (and culture in general) for the last 40+ years has been commercialisation and corporatisation. I agree with Treviño that the old ways of empire have dwindled. But they haven’t been replaced by woke activists and anti-colonialists. To think that these groups are near the levers of power is rather amusing. The old ways of empire have been replaced by corporate domination. The main religion nowadays isn’t wokeness. It is a religion of profit and self-interest. A religion of globalisation that has no regard for national boundaries, local communities and those in need. It is so ubiquitous a religion that most people are unaware of it, as a fish is unaware of water.
By placing profit, greed and money-making as the highest values of society, thanks to neoliberal thinkers Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, as well as neoliberal politicians Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, culture and creativity has been degraded. I agree with people like Treviño that culture and history are tremendously important. I think art, creativity, philosophy and critical-thinking are deeply valuable. But all these things have been noticeably in decline since we started corporatising and commodifying our world. When musicians, artists and thinkers are trying to appeal to mass audiences, to make more money, the beauty and originality of their creations suffers. This is because great creativity and innovation doesn't come from a desire to make money. It comes from the soul.
Corporatisation doesn’t just degrade art, thought and creative expression. It degrades democracies and societies. Even on its own economic terms, corporatisation failed. This is why during the financial crash of 2008 the banks were bailed out with tax payers money. In his article, Treviño speaks of a couple he met who were from the north of England. They told him about the crime in their hometown, that they couldn't raise their children in a home of their own, that the cost of living is increasingly impossible, and that the NHS is in shambles. Treviño thinks this is due to large-scale immigration and “the regime” (you’ll remember this is his veiled way of referring to organised woke/anti-colonial culture). He misses the salient point that poor people are struggling in Britain because of a political system that serves the rich. Treviño doesn’t, for example, mention Britain’s austerity program once, a program which took money from national services supporting poor people to bail out the bankers after the financial crash of 2008.
We have a political system which has been captured by corporations and the super-rich. Our elections give us no real choice. They are like a show or pantomime. This is because each major party is a representative of corporate interests. The elections we have every few years or so give citizens an illusion of freedom and democracy. But in reality, the most important decisions have already been made. Our political system encourages the super-rich to keep their huge amounts of money and power, even if this is at the expense of millions of poor people. A primary tactic among the ruling classes is to divide the downtrodden, to get us blaming each other for the world’s problems. This is why our corporate system has conditioned us to blame Britain’s problems on immigrants, even though the British working class have far more in common with such immigrants than with the political class who are meant to be representing them.
Corporatisation is intimately linked with globalisation. Whereas people like Treviño will have you believe that poor British people are struggling due to immigration and organised woke culture, in fact over the past 50-100 years many local businesses have been taken over by global chains such as McDonalds and other corporate businesses. When we live in a globalised, free-market world, local businesses and national industries are taken over by global corporations who have no regard for national boundaries and local communities. This is why a lot of publicly-owned British institutions, such as our energy and rail companies, were sold off to companies abroad. It fascinates me that some commentators are obsessively concerned about the migration of human beings, including those in need of help, and yet never mention the unfettered flow of capital and finance across the world. If we are really concerned with our national heritage, borders and local communities, we would do well to look seriously at free-market capitalism and corporate domination. If we are true patriots, we ought to resist globalisation.
Aldous Huxley realised a long time ago that one of the best ways to control and manipulate a population is to numb and distract them with pleasure and entertainment. TV, junk food, celebrity gossip, alcohol, advertising. He correctly understood that this is what began happening in Western countries in the 20th century. Whereas Stalinist Russia used overt dictatorial control, Western countries became ever more commercialised and covert in their control. When this commercialisation of culture happens, critical-thinking and civic responsibility deteriorates. Ordinary people become too distracted by superficial entertainments. We also become more uninterested in traditional societal norms and values. We become more indifferent and less able to think for ourselves. This is because we are more concerned with chasing pleasures and distractions than becoming well-rounded, engaged and integral members of communities. Thus, it is my argument that it is the ruling classes of the West who have contributed to the degradation of British and Western culture, on every metric. It has little to do with immigrants and the woke movement.
There is a difference between understanding the past ills of Western history and culture in a healthy way, whereby you appreciate and cherish the beneficial aspects and learn not to repeat the harmful aspects, and understanding the past ills of Western history and culture in an unhealthy way, whereby you condemn all the evil white people and heap guilt on the current population for the sins of their ancestors. I agree that we should value much of Western history and culture. But I also feel we should be secure enough to look at where harmful actions have been taken in the past so that we don't repeat such actions. We don’t need to stop here as a society. Western societies haven’t reached an apex of development. We can still change, adapt and learn from past mistakes, if we are courageous enough to do so.
Britain and the US are still involved in foreign wars, whether directly or indirectly. They are still responsible for violent devastation in poorer countries. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine. We have either staged military interventions in these countries or we continue to sell weapons to violent regimes who bomb such countries. Perhaps one of the reasons some people are resistant to addressing some of the horrors of the British empire is because this would mean making meaningful changes to current society. It would mean genuinely addressing current power structures which still oppress and disregard the poor and the downtrodden, across the world, and which still benefit from the sale of weapons internationally.
A lot of the vehement critics of immigration into Europe and America, more specifically immigration of Muslims, conveniently fail to mention that Western countries, over many years, have wrought havoc on the Middle East and have destabilised whole areas of that region. The US and the UK militarily intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, mainly due to oil interests and as a reason to keep the global arms trade running. By destabilising these areas, we’ve had a significant part to play in immigration from these countries. It is unintelligent to say that immigration is bad and needs to be stopped without addressing the wider context in which it takes place. As Western countries, to not recognise our complicity with regards to unrest in other parts of the world (the Middle East being a clear example), to shirk all responsibility and blame, isn’t a noble or admirable position.
It is also clear that Islamist extremism has worsened since the West began violently intervening in this area of the world. This raises the idea of how problems arise to begin with. When we look at Islamist extremism, we need to properly understand how this phenomenon has come about. It hasn’t occurred unprovoked. The terrorist group Hamas, for example, didn’t fall from the sky. We can still condemn and abhor terrorism, but if we’re genuinely concerned with peace, civility and preventing future violence, then we must understand how terrorism is born and how it is fueled and perpetuated. It doesn’t help to attempt to bomb terrorists into oblivion, for this just creates more hate and trauma and the cycle will never end.
Following the recent UK riots and general election, the state of British society has become a fixation with certain well-known figures, who’re regularly commenting about it on X (formerly Twitter). These figures are sharing outlandish posts about the negative effects of Muslim immigration in the UK, displaying little awareness of what’s happening on the streets of Britain. With their millions of followers, they seem to be fomenting yet more division and animosity. These figures are also revealing their ignorance of basic political ideas. Kamala Harris and the Democrats are often described as Communists while Keir Starmer and Labour are regularly described as Socialists. While Labour and the Democrats admittedly appeal to left and woke issues on a superficial level (to their detriment), fundamentally they are still both firmly right-wing, in that they still support neoliberal free-market policies and foreign wars.
Democrats and Republicans, Labour and Conservatives, are different expressions of the same economic system. Neither of them speaks for the citizenry they pretend to speak for. Instead, they both speak for transnational, corporate interests, implicitly supporting our system of globalisation. This is the same system that benefits from brutal wars in poor countries. The same system that props up a transnational group of corporations and investment companies. The same system that cares more about profit and growth than the natural world on which we depend for our well-being and survival. The same system that oppresses poor people through austerity programs. The same system that discourages populations from thinking critically and becoming well-rounded, aware human beings.
A lot of liberals superficially rail against figures like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk, often with weak arguments. These liberals fail to address where real power lies. They contribute to a world of repetitive, cyclical arguments about needing to get rid of Trump or, in the past, trying to reverse Brexit. Therefore, they add fuel to the fire of division. By criticising figures like Trump and Farage (and their supporters) without addressing the conditions that give rise to such figures, they fail to solve the issues they purportedly care about. They also give ammunition to their adversaries and, interestingly, make their adversaries believe that they’re anti-establishment. For example, Trump and Farage are wrongly seen as anti-establishment politicians. Musk also appears to see himself as a rebel or someone speaking truth to power, bravely challenging the liberal/woke establishment. One can’t help but find this hilarious. What neither side of this superficial cultural debate realises is that the real establishment is the corporate world that has a strangle hold on Western societies.
Trump and Farage supporters are often disaffected, working class citizens who know that their political system has failed them. The US working class were failed by Barack Obama, who came to be the charming, affable face of corporate greed and drone strikes abroad. The UK working class were failed by Tony Blair, the young, vibrant politician who lied us into the Iraq War. The anger of the working class is justifiable, valid, and needs to be listened to. It doesn’t help to dismiss Trump and Farage supporters. But we should point out that turning to Trump and Farage, who are egotistical and misguided, isn’t how we should channel our anger. We shouldn’t manifest our anger as a hatred of immigration, of Islam, of activists. Instead, we should unify and place our attention where it ought to be placed, on the corporate system that has captured politics, failed the majority, and degraded our culture.
Konstantin Kisin was recently arguing that building an empire is always a violent endeavor and that various cultures throughout the world have either attempted to build empires or have built them. I agree with this. But he then said “when I hear people complain about colonialism what I hear is losers complaining about losing”. To look at the horrors inflicted on Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians and to frame it as “winners winning and losers losing” is not only a heartless and insensitive thing to say. It’s also unintelligent. It's possible that not every culture who has been brutally subjugated also had a desire to dominate the world. It is possible that some cultures are just trying to defend their lands from invaders who arrogantly think that their way of life is better. However, I don’t want to naively imply that all indigenous groups are totally peaceful. Of course, that's not the case. But it’s likely that not all of them wanted to dominate the world.
When you look at what the American empire has done in countries across the world, Guatemala in the 1950s is a prime example, what I see is a murderous bully inciting brutal violence in a developing country. I don’t see two national powers vying for domination in a balanced way. Can Konstantin not empathise with violently subjugated families in different countries? Can he not try to envision a better world?
The ‘Western values advocates’ who proselytise about Western history don’t acknowledge that we, in turn, might have something to learn from indigenous cultures. Just because the West has been good at colonialism and industry doesn’t mean we excel in all areas. Perhaps the relationship Native Americans had with nature could teach us a lot in our modern world. Native Americans saw nature as an extension of their own bodies. They thus respected nature, unlike our free-market capitalist societies. Perhaps being truly respectful to nature would mean less immediate profits, less growth and innovation.
It is my contention that we can combine the benefits of Western culture with a more humane, compassionate approach. It takes bravery to become cognisant of one's flaws and genuinely learn from them. Maybe human beings aren’t done evolving as a species and that, by reflecting on our past (and present) horrors and genuinely learning from them, we can better our societies. This might take a long time. We might not even see significant improvements in our lifetime. But we have to start somewhere. In my view, the best and most noble way to lead is by example. It is weak to exploit, control and bomb. It takes far more strength to embody love and understanding.
It’s lazy to see woke activists, left-wingers and too much immigration as the main problems of the modern West. It’s also lazy to see evil white men in power as our main problem. As a commentator, it takes more courage and insight to look carefully at the overarching systems in which we live. It takes courage and insight to question the repeated narratives of the legacy media which automatically and implicitly support corporate hegemony (most often by careful framing and omission). By prioritising profit and self-interest above all else, our corporate system disregards the flourishing of life, both human and non-human, on this planet. The narratives we hear are so ingrained and automatic that many people struggle to conceive how our globalised system could be organised differently. By limiting the range of acceptable debate, our media doesn’t allow us to analyse this system. The system we live in is thus in the perfect position to control and manipulate, being invisible to most people. Yet it is our globalised economic system that needs to be meaningfully changed if we want to alleviate unnecessary suffering. It doesn’t help to attack the symptoms of this system.
I’d like to end with a reminder. While it is essential to be aware of the systems in which we live and to exercise critical thinking, it is also essential to always embody love and understanding. We can still feel anger. Anger is natural and healthy, especially when faced with immense injustice. But we should avoid descending into bitterness and hate, as so often happens when people are angry. Love and understanding must form the basis of everything we do.
