by John Davies
The news came this morning. I read the headline. My bottom lip trembling, I scanned the lines with trepidation: “Tell me this is a joke” I thought to myself. Finishing reading the concluding paragraph of the article, emotions welled up inside my being. I was, for a tense period, overcome with sorrow and anguish… “poor Sayeeda” I whisper to myself. Our Sayeeda is gone. She was our symbol of hope in this world of rich white men dominating all the media, the banks, the entire public sphere.
The Tories say they’re in favour of a meritocracy… are they hell… they’re just another bunch of privileged babies – a bunch of white men, straight out of Oxford; have never done a proper days work in their lives. The best thing they ever did was make our Sayeeda a cabinet minister. I remember when she was made the first even Female Asian Baroness – I was so happy, I was so elated, finally my oppressed brethren were breaking the glass ceiling and Britain was finally embracing its ethnic minorities with open arms. The racism and the sexism that permeates our society, was finally being beaten back – but how wrong I was, the evil white misogynist sexist has tightened his grip across our oppressed throats and has gotten rid of poor Sayeeda.
Right – time to get serious. I hope you enjoyed my little role-playing exercise; I’ve been going to cultural sensitivity classes to try and get over my racial sickness, and one of the recommended exercises is to put myself in the shoes of an “oppressed” individual. So, I thought I’d give it a go and give a synthesised view from an Asian-feminist; I hope you enjoyed it, but now for my take on events.
Sayeeda Warsi’s high profile comes almost entirely from the fact that she is an Asian, a Muslim and a female. If she was a European, Christian, male, her profile would be considerably reduced – in fact I would be comfortable in presupposing that if it wasn’t by virtue of her ethnic and religious background, she would just by another sycophantic careerist politician struggling to find constituency associations that will accept them as a PPC.
Therefore, we can conclude that Warsi is simply successful due to the Conservative party embracing the precepts of positive discrimination as some force for the moral good that is the equalisation of those perceived as disadvantaged.
However, beyond her being a placeman for the PC-vanguards within the Conservative party, she is neither overtly socially liberal nor overtly socially authoritarian. Tracking her record on such issues as homosexual civil rights one finds that her position tends to reflect the midpoint of opinion within the party and that her opinion morphs to mirror the shift in Conservative opinion over the past several years.
In the 2005 General Election, the Warsi campaign in the Dewsbury constituency distributed leaflets decrying Labour’s decision to scrap Section 28 and to reduce the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16, saying that the changes allowed for: “schoolchildren to be propositioned for homosexual relationships” .
This is contrasted with her attitude to homosexual rights and more specifically the issue of civil partnerships during her appearance on the controversial edition of Question Time featuring Nick Griffin MEP where she declared that: “I think that people who want to be in a relationship together, in the form of a civil partnership, absolutely have the right to that.” 
This declaration of support for civil partnerships, coupled with a refusal to comment on the government’s plan to pursue a policy of total equality in the sphere of marriage, in other words, the passing legislation allowing for gay marriage.
Sayeeda Warsi also served as the Conservative party’s populist mouthpiece on immigration, Islam and integration. Not having the moral courage to stand and take the heat from the left over opposition to mass immigration, the Tory leadership decided to deploy Warsi as their secret weapon. I mean who could call an Asian woman opposing militant Islam a racist? She has been one of the first mainstream political figures to come out and say that those who vote British National Party have some legitimate concerns – this was before it was popular – even before Ed Miliband conceded that the Labour party had been too carried away with excitement over our world becoming a global village .
Warsi has also come into collision with members of the Muslim community over support of the Afghanistan war along with theological disagreements, leading them to call her an improper Muslim. It is without doubt certain that she uses her status as a Muslim to establish a political advantage; whether or not she is a good Muslim is also debatable, her sanctioning of the British governments wars in Iraq and the Afghanistan doesn’t indicate a sense of solidarity with her fellow Muslims – solidarity of fellow Muslims being a key part of a function Islamic community. Also, she is known to make use of cosmetic products and to dress in the western style; furthermore, for a Muslim the word of god is law, and the word of god is written in the Qu’ran, this surely means that a good Muslims would press for the laws of the Qu’ran to be passed in the House of Commons – I’m deploying simple logic here – but she has not done so.
Warsi’s use of her background for political advantage extends to other aspects of her identity. She often speaks of how she is a working mum from the North of England, as if it automatically qualifies her as disadvantaged – are Northern working mums inherently more disadvantaged than working mums from Scotland, or the East or South of England? She makes political capital of coming from Dewsbury, a town seen as deprived by many, and that her father was a mill worker and an immigrant. However, she clearly must suffer from some form of amnesia because she fails to mention that her father operates a bed manufacturing company, which has an annual turnover of £2 million. She also sends her children to private schools and a member of the Carlton Club, the “oldest, most elite and most important of all Conservative clubs” .
Hardly a background or lifestyle of a pauper, this is further exemplification of the point, she is more than happy to use snippets of her personal background as political capital.
Concerning her resignation, what I’ve noticed has been how quick the black and ethnic minority interest groups were in sternly condemning her removal from the cabinet. With the chief executive of Operation Black Vote (I wonder what would happen if I postured as chief-exec of Operation White Vote) said that the Conservative party was “looking more and more like the party of privilege”  this is interesting, as, unless he is unaware of Warsi’s own privileged background, he is saying that the Conservative party, by not having an ethnic minority on the front bench are de facto racist and standing for an institutionalised form of racism. No doubt he is aware that Warsi is not a poor woman, and is in fact showing solidarity with another ethnic minority – the whole purpose of the organisation he represents is to further BME (Black and Ethnic Minority) interests in the UK by increasing the proportion of BME people that vote, thereby increasing their influence on the democratic process.
This reaction to Sayeeda Warsi’s sacking is in part hypocritical; Ken Clarke has also been demoted, from Justice Secretary to Warsi’s old job, Minister without Portfolio, despite Clarke being an old man, of 72-years old, no one has spoken out against this injustice. There is not a single person speaking out, calling this an act of ageism, or saying that Clarke’s departure from the senior cabinet will make the party less appealing to the elderly voters? Why is there no Operation Grey Vote? The answer is very simple: an ideology prevails within this society that dictates that those who have traditional held political power within this society, i.e. , white elderly males, are inherently prejudicial and are on the whole acting against the social and political progression of minority groups, so women who want to have a career, homosexuals and others who have non-conformist sexual behaviours, and ethnic and religious minorities.
This is the application of critical theory onto matters such as family composition, race and gender relations; in other words, you have had a group of Marxist theoreticians analysing social relations and have dissected a series of unequal social relations based on traditional western social structuring. This is, essentially the application of the Marxist dialectic on society, and has permeated through contemporary academia. Take for instance, Cultural Studies, cultural studies is in essence the studying the production, interpretation (what it means) and reception (what people think of it) of various cultural artefacts, this could be a CD or a DVD, to a Viking Saga or a piece of Greek poetry; but what the Marxists have done, is analyse this in the context of their own ideological parameters.
Cultural Studies as an academic subject, was principally founded by people who were Marxists or influenced heavily by critical theory. This is how one gets a distorted picture of society – how many contemporary leftists look at the news and observes discrimination and entrenched inequality everywhere, because they have a theoretical starting point and interpret reality (social relations and cultural norms) to suit that theory.
This is why Ken Clarke will not have the chief executive of the fictitious Operation Grey Vote come to his aid after his demotion – and even if Operation Grey Vote did exist, I doubt it would be there to assist rich, white, Ken Clarke – because it doesn’t conform to Marxist cultural theory. For many, this may sound like hocus pocus: “This is just some crazed idiot who see’s Reds under the bed” I hear them cry, but if you do a little research. Go on Wikipedia and research names like Jurgen Harbermas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, et al, and find out just how far there are ideas are incorporated in modern academic discourse, find how even those in the Conservative party have embraced aspects of their ideas, or don’t even understand the culture war.
This is why it is invaluable that we understand that the right isn’t only about opposing the left at a purely practical political level; it’s not just about immigration, gay marriage and Baroness Warsi getting preferential treatment because she’s a Muslim. It’s about identifying how the left have developed these all-encompassing sociological and cultural critiques – they have mountains of theory that collide with traditional western social practice, and they’ve engaged in cultural war.
They’ve failed to win at the purely political level and have transcended this – hence why a Marxist party in Britain has never commanded a significant proportion of the electorate, yet, Marx’s ideological sons carry so much weight in the halls of Universities and colleges; hence why when you walk into a sociology class it is all “Max Weber this” and “ethnic minorities are faced with a glass ceiling that”.
They’ve achieved domination on that plane, but now it’s time for a right-wing backlash. Jacques Derrida proposed that every piece of text that was passed on the concept of binary opposites (two related terms, opposite in meaning, being used to provide an operation paradigm) could be deconstructed and overturned. Derrida was a cultural Marxist, and he proposed this method of literary critique in order to undermine Western philosophy, culture, our entire metaphysics, the very way we look at ourselves, but there was one fatal problem with his theory. Once you’ve deconstructed a piece of text, all one has to do is deconstruct the deconstruction and one gets what one started off with, and this is what we must do.
Western civilisation has been deconstructed from the inside, by traitors within our own borders – it’s time to deconstruct the deconstruction and rebuild the West!
 Question Time, 22 October 2009