John Cram rightly describes racism as 'saying he is part of a group which is
different from me ... and acting towards him not as a fellow human being'.
He continues that 'to claim someone or some group differs from oneself in
that way is mistaken', that 'to act towards someone in that manner seems to
me to be immoral' and that 'these are the types of thought that lie behind
the general disapproval of "racism".'
I agree with John thus far. However I would say that the vices he rightly
diagnoses in racist individuals or movements is as characteristic - or more
characteristic - of 'anti-racist' campaigners and the anti-'discrimination'
industry in general.
[Interesting, by the way, that 'discrimination' used to mean good taste or
judgement, but is now the No 1 thought crime. Similarly it used to be
praise to say of someone: 'he is a moral man'. Now the word 'moral' is made
to sound like some curious perversion.]
'Anti-racists' show by their words and deeds that they oppose the first
principle of a free society - the belief in common citizenship and shared
values. It is considered acceptable, even desirable, for there to be a
'Society of Black Lawyers' or an 'Association of Black Police Officers',
whereas a 'Society of White Lawyers' or 'Association of White Police
Officers' would be condemned as 'racist' and cast into outer whiteness.
Similarly, we have the new concept of 'hate crimes', imported from the
United States. Even the phrase is silly, suggesting as it does that other
violent offences are based on emotions other than hatred. Yet the concept
is taken seriously by the government, which introduced stiffer penalties for
'racially aggravated' offences. This means, in practice, that if a black
lady of my mother's age is mugged by white thugs who insult her because of
her race, these would receive a longer sentence than similar black thugs,
were they to attack my mother and abuse her on grounds of age. Two
identical crimes are treated differently under the law for purely
ideological reasons. The feminist movement behaves similarly: 'womens
groups' - good; gentlemen's clubs - bad.
Similarly, universities provide largely bogus courses in 'black studies' and
wholly bogus courses in 'women's studies' or 'gender studies'. Similar
courses in 'white studies' or 'male studies' would be verboten.
In the US, and increasingly this country, programmes of 'positive
discrimination' are introduced. These are patronising to the 'groups' being
'helped' in this way, as well as manifestly unjust.
Historically, our sense of nationhood has not been shaped by ethnic
identity. This is a very good thing, and is reflected in the positive
contribution made to British society by people of a wide range of ethnic
backgrounds. Abuses do occur, but our record is better than that of any of
our so-called European 'partners', and our culture is more genuine diverse.
Most people welcome this, and whether members of the 'majority' or
'minority' populations get on with their lives happily and are enriched by
each other's cultures. We have more intermarriage between races in this
country than any other 'developed' nation, a fact of which I am proud. The
'race lobby' refuses to acknowledge such positive developments, however,
because it has a vested interest in identifying and attacking 'new' forms of
discrimination, to provide more work for 'race relations' bureaucrats. This
is why as well as bog-standard prejudice, we now have 'institutional
racism', 'indirect racism', etc.
In the odious Macpherson Report, it is suggested that 'racist language' be
outlawed even in private conversation. This shows a clear contempt for any
principle of freedom of speech. Imagine the furore there would be, for
example, if someone were to suggest that all discussion of homosexuality -
let alone the practice thereof - be banned. That such censorship is a
genuine possibility suggests to be that the real enemy of 'anti-racists' is
not racial prejudice, but freedom of the individual under the rule of law.
It is notable that whereas the individual was once the starting point for
liberal thought, modern pseudo-liberals speak solely in terms of group
identification: 'rights' are linked to 'race'. 'sex' or 'sexual orientation'
and are claimed at the expense of other people's rights - to freedom of
association, freedom of religion, freedom of expression.
More worrying still is the 'European' underpinning to 'anti-racism'. A
succession of EU edicts lump together 'Racism and Xenophobia'. The
Amsterdam Treaty, for example, places the Europol (Newspeak for European
Federalist Police Force) in overall charge of policing 'racism & xenophobia'
along with such heinous crimes as terrorism, drug trafficking or trafficking
in children. The definition of xenophobia is so broad as to encompass those
who oppose Britain's membership of the European Union - as I do, and which
opposition I have voiced many times in speech and published writing. Last
year, George Staunton, a 78 year old War hero from Toxteth, was arrested and
charged with 'racially aggravated criminal damage' when he spay-painted
'Remember 1939-1945. Free Speech for England' on a disused building. His
case was taken up by a law firm that often represents black people and other
ethnic minorities. Amid some publicity the charges were dropped. More
recently, a chap was refused permission to put up a War memorial plaque at
Teddington Lock which included the word 'Victory'. According to the
Environment Agency, that word might 'offend foreigners'.
We have seen the ignominious spectacle of policemen, soldiers, civil
servants, medics, churchmen and a host of others 'admit' to
'institutionalised racism' and voice politically correct slogans which of
spine-chilling vacuity. Such scenes call to mind the nonsense of China's
Cultural Revolution, when 'revisionists' were made to recant publicly and
wear slogan-festooned signs. But then we are ruled increasingly by the
1960s generation of students who protested whilst living off the fat of the
land. To a man, such people are anti-British and 'pro-European'. It is
conceivable that it will be illegal to write the words: 'I am a patriot', or
'I oppose EU membership'. Both would be 'xenophobic'.
What has this to do with Kipling? The answer is that, within this
cultural-revolutionary mindset, he often serves as a whipping boy for
'imperialism', 'reaction', etc. Recently, a "British" Council report landed
on my desk for review. It is entitled 'Looking Into England'. Written by a
panel of academics, its thesis is that there is no such thing as 'one
England', but there are 'many Englands', regional and cultural. This should
be reflected in regional government within - guess what? - a 'European'
framework. Many of the commentators come from EU countries and compare
'English' culture and institutions unfavourably with their own. Dr Jopi
Nyman, form the University of Joensuu, Finland, 'deconstructs' The Jungle
Book to reveal 'an allegory for Indians seeking a different way to interact
with their colonial masters'. It is asserted that 'by setting the whole
story entirely in Indian space Englishness is kept free and pure'.
In similar vein, Dr Nyman continues:
'Whereas the Mowgli stories are about the colonised others and Englishness
cannot be represented in them, in The White Seal it can be. This is a story
about a white seal pup who who saves his tribe from Russian settlers. Apart
from the obvious skin colour racial analogy, the seal and his clan represent
many other aspects of Englishness: adventurousness; living in cold waters;
the constant search for new lands; and the need to fight off other empires
like the Russians.
'The seals seek and eventually find an island free from fears of invasion.
They settle on their island which then comes to function as a home for the
white seal race. ... the white seal is a clear articulation of whiteness
representing elitist values.'
Contributors to this paper did not include a single opponent of EU
membership or state-directed 'multi-culturalism. It did include many sneers
at World War II films and those who enjoy them.
Such thinking shares with other totalitarian ideologies the idea that every
aspect of life is political - that Kipling was constantly thinking about
politics as he wrote, and that his writing was shaped entirely by political
forces.
Kipling was rightly proud of traditional British qualities such as
'adventurousness', eccentricity and a sense of freedom - qualities which EU
membership has now eroded considerably. He was a highly individual writer
who wrote about individuals, human and animal, confronting an imperfect
world. 'Anti-racists', feminists and pan-Europeans aim to make mankind
perfect, but they have no use for the individual human being. This is why
they hate and fear Kipling.
Aidan Rankin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
