An Interview with Dr. Michael Millett

Interviewer: Thank you Dr. Millett for agreeing to this interview. Your article "Politically Correct But Spiritually and Morally Incorrect" has caused much interest with the Danish public.

Dr. Millett: Thank you for your interest in my views. I`d like to also thank the many clients and visitors to my work `Elevated Therapy` from Denmark. Many of them have visited me here in London and I have been invited to Copenhagen many times. Perhaps in 2006.

Interviewer: Why did you write this article?

Dr. Millett: Well, I am against injustice and suffering in all its forms. This disempowers people. I wrote the article firstly to raise awareness by `pressing many people`s buttons` as I am concerned about my country and the world and all its peoples and have to attack injustice and disempowerment where I can.
Multiculturalism as presented in the UK and Eire is too one-sided. I am very concerned that in the name of multiculturalism, the indigenous cultures of Britain and Ireland (my own cultures) have been shamed, belittled and ignored in our own country. For too long because of this enforced political correctness, serious issues such as the many presented in my article as well as positive discrimination of course have been hidden behind the banner of multiculturalism. The word itself has been used as a mantra to silence awkward comment. In writing this article, I ultimately would hope that it leads to a rational critique based on reason through discussion, dialogue and debate leading to change and improvement for everyone. I would welcome a national debate on multiculturalism.
And secondly because I object to the idea that official multiculturalism is an ideology that views humanity as being divided amongst discrete “cultural” groups, with a heavy implication that such divisions are immutable factors encouraging each group to emphasise what differentiates itself from the others, and this inevitably leads to the emphasising of intolerant and backward practices and ideas. I am also concerned that the big votes that the far right have obtained in certain places is not just the continuation of old-fashioned racism, it is also a logical product of “multiculturalism” too, because of positive discrimination and over-immigration, white people are encouraged by the far right to enter into the “cultural struggle” as well.

Interviewer: But aren`t you entering into the cultural struggle for the white indigenous people of the UK and Ireland in writing this article?

Dr. Millett: Yes and no. Yes, in saying that our indigenous cultures have been treated very negatively and our people should be more proud of their nation, culture and heritage respecting the legacy that our common Anglo-Saxon-Celtic culture has given to the world. In doing so, I am rescuing it from the less healthy nationalism which is associated with the extremists who would seek to hijack it for their own purposes and yes I am entering into the cultural struggle for the white indigenous people of the UK and Ireland as you put it in the name of multiculturalism because British history and British traditions in particular have been airbrushed out of British schools making our children feel ashamed of their own history and culture which denigrates part of much of our great history and unique culture and I want this changed. And yes I am entering the cultural struggle for all people in the UK and Ireland in that I seek urgent review and the proper control of immigration in our small islands by preventing illegal immigration and the tackling of the abuse of the asylum system which is so prevalent. However, I agree that legal, radically reduced and managed migration is vital for the continued growth and success of the UK and Ireland`s economy. I also want positive discrimination got rid of. This is discrimination based on ascribed rather than achieved characteristics and is wholly unjust.
As in Ascribed characteristics, I mean traits one is born with and has done nothing to earn. Achieved characteristics are things earned through individual effort.
Race, for instance, is an ascribed trait. Positive discrimination is the strategy to select people using the same acquired characteristics that originally brought disadvantage and, by giving them special consideration, and turning that acquired characteristic into a compensatory advantage. It is, in effect, using racism to combat racism etc. and should not be the basis for fair judgement. Positive discrimination assigns preferences based on gender, race and ethnic heritage. This practice is wrong and strongly encourages some white people by the far right to enter into the “cultural struggle” as I mentioned which really is not OK or healthy into the bargain.
And no I am not entering into the cultural struggle for the white indigenous people of the UK and Ireland wholly in writing this article in that I have a broader vision.
I advocate after we address and rectify the points above, we concentrate on global change by encouraging others to take on their international, moral, ethical and spiritual responsibility as well. This should get things back into a balance and need not be an absolute ideology forever.
We can then explore a positive, more global vision based on members of the same body in the community of humanity, a process through which to create a freer, more equal, more just society. This would allow us to celebrate our common human origin and joint responsibility for our shared planet with a system of fair co-operation and not on any substantial conception of the Good. And no I am not entering into the cultural struggle for the white indigenous people of the UK and Ireland solely in that I suggest a common human culture that welcomes the pursuit of knowledge, reform and tolerance by ALL where everyone at last come into their own as global partners in the human enterprise.

Interviewer: You talk about Utopian society in your article and how it is not working in the way it is being done.
How would you like to see things here in Britain?

Dr. Millett: This is a complicated question and far from simplistic and requires more than my views and input - but in a nutshell, first of all the abolition of political multiculturalism and positive discrimination which is discrimination based on ascribed rather than achieved characteristics. This means no discrimination against any individual on the basis of ethnic group, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. I would want a national debate on multiculturalism with rational critique based on reason leading to change and improvement for everyone.
There should be no problem with being English or Irish etc. in these islands and we should become proud again of our heritage by loving our country and promoting it`s virtues. A healthy reintroduction of British history and British traditions. We need to coincide this with the movement towards a new and developed national identity inclusive of all the racial and ethnic peoples in these islands and have a wider allegiance, adequate humility and respect towards those of other nations and cultures. Immigration and asylum must be reduced and monitored properly.
All religions should be a private freedom and not institutionalised within the public sphere and the right of `freedom of speech` must be upheld always. Ethical values should be put above religious ones and there should be no more religious interference in public life. The goverment needs to manage our country without coercion from religion.
Where ethical values clash with religious and cultural ones, it should be a duty to offer a reasonable account and should require people to justify their own beliefs to persons holding different religious or cultural beliefs or no religious belief at all. This when necessary can be fulfilled without subjecting religious faith totally to external secular criteria and be judged in the light and on the grounds of shared reason
After that, explore a positive, more global vision with the focus on broader humanity, with a view to creating a freer, more equal, more just society worldwide with political liberalism, liberal democracy and a more reasonable pluralism.

Interviewer: You appear to be a strong supporter of Women`s Rights and Gay Rights?

Dr. Millett: I voice my opinion in my writing and conversation if that is what you mean but not in any official or political capacity. I support all inequality.
Suffice to say that homosexuality and being a woman are something that one is. They are ascribed characteristics. They are born, not made and subsequently are a natural difference in society. However, they have had to endure so much intolerance for far too long through religious and political oppression. They have historically been deeply victimized by gender and sexual bias and continue to face pervasive barriers to equality today right around the world. This cannot be accepted, tolerated or excused from religion in particular or totalitarian ideologies and dysfunctional cultures either. They are the dysfunctional ones!

Interviewer: Should religious methods of slaughter really be banned?

Dr. Millett: Well the Farm Animal Welfare Council, an independent advisory body established by the UK Government thinks it causes severe suffering to animals.
Its chairwoman, Dr. Judy MacArthur Clark, says that animals suffer significantly unless they are stunned - a position backed by the UK animal welfare charity the RSPCA. I would see them clearly as the experts here. It should be one rule for all and as everyone else is being forced to slaughter the animals in what is considered to be a humane way, then all animals should be slaughtered in the same way, regardless of what you believe in. Ethical values should be put above religious ones.
A full scientific public investigation should be raised today to find out which method is the most humane once and for all, so that one law can be fully enforced so that no unnecessary suffering can continue.

Interviewer: What would you say to people who may interpret your article as racist?

Dr. Millett: Well, ignorance abounds unfortunately. I would say to them that they haven`t read it properly and if they have they have misinterpreted it or I`d say that their interpretation is a `knee-jerk` reaction by them to anyone who dares to speak out against multiculturalism and that they are unreasonable. They need to look inside of themselves and perhaps look at what or who is pulling their strings. I don`t believe in discrimination in any form based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another - no absolutely not. This would be a violation of human dignity, and a sin against justice and humanity.