Ideological reinterpretation of Reality

I believe that societies always have a central idea around which all else is understood and interpreted. That central idea gives rise to a certain psychology and culture. The great Irish political thinker Edmund Burke understood this. His Reflections on the Revolution in France provided the world with a most incisive and intensely practical guide to how we should view politics.  Burke warned of the dangers inherent in ideas which reject God and and exalt utopian notions of total human equality, invariably imposed and policed by the State. This is why I published a more accessible edition of that work last year, titled: “Core Conservatism: Edmund Burke’s Landmark Definition”.

Today we live with the effects of what Edmund Burke identified succinctly and accurately as “atheistical fanaticism”. We know it as “political correctness”

News in Britain this last week highlights again the damage done when God is rejected and human beings think they can take his place. One example is the ‘pingdemic’. Apparently some 620,000 people are off work for the simple reason that the government “track and trace” app. has told them that they have had contact with a person who has tested positive for Covid. Mass surveillance in anticipation of what-may-never-happen is leading to key workers being absent and therefore to shortages in shops and petrol stations. This is an example of government creating yet more problems by playing at God.  

But this week’s news also highlights how this God denying, man centred thinking prejudices the output of the media and the terms of reference for political analysis and decision making. 

I refer to a report in the main stream media. The report typifies

  • the ideological reinterpretation of reality according to ideology, not reality
  • the censorship of facts in order to suggest the opposite of what is actually going on
  • the illogical and emotional nature of assertions which do not stand up to scrutiny of the facts
  • the refusal to tell the plain truth and so supply solid data and the appropriate terms with which to solve problems

The report on Sky News gave a platform to organisations supporting the flow of illegal immigration across the Channel from France. Such organisations don’t like the British government’s Immigration Bill now proceeding through parliament. Those organisations don’t represent the resident population of the UK; they are not the government  elected on a manifesto put to the people constitutionally, legally and democratically. No, they represent a narrow, alien interest seeking to justify the un-justifiable. 

Now, there are indeed pressures provoking illegal immigration to Europe across the Mediterranean. Pressures such as intense population growth, unemployment, wars and terrorism. Everyone can understand people fleeing such difficulties. 

But people crossing the sea Channel illegally from France to England are not fleeing from a war zone and insecurity – they are in fact seeking maximum advantage. Such people are not migrants as the new political lexicon requires us to label them. They are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That is the plain truth. The use of the word ‘migrant’ is ideological sanitisation of the facts, not objective reporting. 

The bald assertions cited within the Sky report are false. They are misinformation. They are ideologically processed reinventions of reality. My evidence ? I cite directly from the Sky report: 

Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty UK’s refugee and migrant rights programme director, said: “Criminalising people just for trying to reach a place of safety is morally and legally indefensible. People cross the Channel and put themselves in serious danger because there are simply no safe alternatives open to them.

They are not leaving a war zone in Africa – they are quitting peaceful France.  That vital fact is airbrushed out of the narrative. It is inconvenient and exposes the lie that is being told.  Also censored is the critical fact that international law says refugees should make application in the first country of safety:  ipso facto no one crossing the Channel from France to England is eligible to apply for UK asylum. No-one. But the most pertinent facts are deliberately removed in order to present an ideological claim as truth.   

Then there is this from Tim Naor Hilton of Refugee Action: 

Criminal smugglers prey on refugees who have little choice than to risk their lives in rickety boats because ministers refuse to create more routes to reach safety here. And the government’s cruel anti-refugee bill will do little to stop the boats. It is unworkable, unlawful and will end up an expensive disaster that criminalises people who are simply asking for our help.

Despite the facts, Mr Hilton casts the British government as wicked and  illegal immigrants as totally innocent victims.  In reality they choose to travel to England, and quit France where many Brits retire to !  They choose to employ criminals and pay exorbitant fees.  Illegal immigrants create the market for criminal gangs to exploit.  The UK government on the other hand has a fundamental and prior duty to its people to secure the United Kingdoms’ borders. 

But these dangerous assumptions of the Utopian Brotherhood of Man have displaced the Christian paradigm and associated obligation to tell the Truth. Their dangerous assumptions include:  

  • the nation state is wrong – it is a barrier universal government and rights
  • every individual has the right to do whatever they like
  • all the problems of the world are caused by wealthy wicked white men

In reality of course:

  • the nation state is the only practical, viable arrangement to ensure good government
  • none of us can do just as we want – we are all constrained by circumstance and by character
  • the problems of this world are caused by people – by all of us, to varying degrees – because we are all sinners and we all do wrong at times

Notions that good and evil equate to particular classes of people or to particular races are not just false, they are also very, very dangerous – reference e.g. China today, and China under Mao; reference Nazi Germany etc

We desperately need to jettison “atheistical fanaticism” and assume the Christian paradigm as our central idea

Ray Catlin

The Sky report on Immigration is at ‘We will end up with even more chaos’: Govt warned immigration bill will make the situation worse | UK News | Sky News

a report on the Pingdemic problems is at UK to launch daily COVID tests in food sector to tackle ‘pingdemic’ | Reuters

my accessible and more comprehensible edition of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France is available on Amazon at Core Conservatism: Edmund Burke’s Landmark Definition: Edmund Burke’s Landmark Definition eBook: Catlin, Graham R.: Kindle Store

By Conservatism Institute

The profile photograph displayed on this site is a portrait of Edmund Burke [1729 - 1797] whose book, Reflections on the Revolution in France, articulates the perspective and principles associated with a conservative view of politics in the English tradition. The photograph is supplied courtesy of

%d bloggers like this: