Today, anti-Nazis everywhere claim that the Nazi régime was totalitarian; some anti-Nazis – the American John Birch Society and the British Freedom Association for example – equate National Socialism with international socialism. This is not entirely accurate because Nazi Germany was neither a totalitarian state nor a socialist one. Hitler is said to have chosen the word socialism deliberately, so that people would identify with its pleasing connotations. (70)
That notwithstanding, we can identify certain features of the Nazi attitude towards the Jews which have ominous parallels in the so-called Free World today, and they are all the more ominous because, like the numerous anti-Jewish decrees the Nazis passed, they too have become increasingly enshrined in law. These are the singling out and persecution of an industrious minority, the laying of all the world’s troubles at their feet, crazy and for the most part unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, (71) and increasingly hostile discriminatory legislation, racial quotas for example. We will return to this shortly, but first we will take a brief look at how the failure of Nazism has been used to discredit the success of capitalism.
When the British liberated Belsen on April 15, 1945, they found approximately 13,000 bodies of emaciated and disease-ridden inmates lying around the camp in appalling scenes of horror, and a great many people dying of both disease and hunger. Similar scenes were found at other camps, including Dachau. When Mauthausen camp was liberated, some 700 bodies were found lying around the camp – significantly fewer than Belsen – but over two hundred were still dying every day from malnutrition, typhus, tuberculosis and other diseases. By June (ie after the liberation) they were still dying at 5-15 per week. (72)
On May 8, 1945, a small article on the front page of The Yorkshire Post and Leeds Mercury reported that four million people had been murdered at Auschwitz. This was a Soviet dispatch; the anti-capitalist nature of the propaganda is clearly visible here, (73) and indeed this has been maintained in the Holocaust literature down through the years. In 1957, an official Polish publication reported that at Auschwitz, up to twelve kilogrammes of gold were extracted daily from the teeth of murdered prisoners. A team of SS dentists and forty inmates was employed on this gruesome work. (74) The same book claimed that there was documentary evidence that over 100 tons of bone pulp from murdered victims was sold for industrial processing. (75) In February 1995, the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party published an article on Auschwitz which claimed inter alia that Auschwitz was the logical outcome of not only racism but of capitalism. (76) The message was that in order to prevent another Holocaust (77) one must oppose capitalism as much as one must oppose Nazism. In other words, socialism is the only salvation of mankind. Subtle they aren’t!
However, in spite of the emblematic name of Auschwitz, it has always been the horrific scenes at Belsen that have been the primary focus of “anti-racist” propaganda. Even today such scenes are bandied around as proof not only of the alleged Nazi genocide of the Jews but as proof of the evils of racism, AND of capitalism.
Indeed, although many so-called anti-fascists don’t agree on or even understand what fascism is, (78) the idea that it is in some sense the strong arm of the capitalist state or a tool of the ruling class figures heavily in most anti-capitalist propaganda. This is a convenient fiction for the Socialist International, because although their tyrannical, repressive and downright inefficient system of government had already been thoroughly discredited before the start of the war, the end of the Second World War allowed them to focus the eyes of the world exclusively on the horrors of Nazi Germany. The fact that by that time countless millions of Russians and others had already been murdered and enslaved by socialism/communism was conveniently ignored. The victims of communism, socialism and enforced human “equality” lay in countless unmarked graves hidden from prying Western eyes, whereas in Belsen one could see the ultimate horror, the inevitable result of racism.
All manner of nonsense was churned out about the wicked Nazis and their plans to exterminate all inferior races. Hitler was said to have wanted to extend the Third Reich to the rest of the world and to rule over a race of blond-haired, blue-eyed supermen. Anyone who wasn’t both blond and blue-eyed would presumably be shovelled off to the gas chambers along with the Jews. (79) This included by definition anyone who wasn’t white, so the communist concept of class struggle – itself a convenient fiction – could be redefined in terms of race.
It wasn’t that all whites were seen as oppressors, nor that all non-whites were seen as oppressed, except in the most general sense, but to be a good socialist one had also to be an “anti-racist”. This didn’t happen overnight, (80) but incredibly, as time went by the propaganda against racism intensified and the identification of racism with Nazism and with the gas chambers became more or less automatic.
This is rather ironic, because not only has socialism – and the doctrine of human “equality” – murdered far more human beings than even the most virulent form of racism, (81) but because the Second World War was neither a struggle against fascism nor a struggle against racism but simply another Imperialist war, which in its earlier stages not even the communists denied. Indeed, along with fascists, Western communists opposed the entry of first Britain and then the United States into the war. (82) At one time there was even an organisation called the Campaign Against Fascism And War. This is all now conveniently forgotten.
Also conveniently forgotten is the racism and poisonous hatred that was spewed out by the Allies not only against the Germans but against the Japanese. A classic example of this was the 1943 Batman series that was shown in American cinemas. Here, the Axis agent was the evil Jap, Dr Daka, a yellow-skinned fiend. (83)
That being said, with the influx into Britain of West Indians after the war, and later of Indians and other Asians, the communist and extreme socialist left quietly shifted their rhetoric from anti-capitalism to “anti-racism”. (84) Ironically, many Asians came to Britain because they had been expelled by the black racist Idi Amin. Britons who objected to their being allowed in were smeared as racists, but little or nothing was said about the antics of Amin, who, according to the French author Jean-François Revel “in a few years exterminated hundreds of thousands of Ugandans, expelled the Indian merchants and shopkeepers (without the slightest trace of racism, needless to say), ruined both agriculture and commerce, and transformed this land of milk and honey into a museum of horrors.” (85)
According to some estimates, the number of those murdered under Amin’s rule was around two hundred thousand, while a Washington source estimated that 100,000 to 200,000 were murdered in the three years following Amin’s departure! (86) As the population of Uganda was about 15 million, that was quite a Holocaust.
Whatever the racial aspects of the Ugandan Holocaust (under both Amin and his successors), it is certainly possible to interpret this genocide in Marxist terms, as part of a struggle against the ruling class (real or imagined). There are strong parallels between the Asians of Uganda, and of many other countries, with the Jews of Mediaeval Europe. There, the Court Jews acted as physicians, advisers, and the like to the king; Jews were heavily involved in commerce as traders, merchants and bankers, and were often comparatively wealthy. (87)
While the persecution or murder of Jews is today unmentionable in far left circles, (88) ditto Asians, it is perfectly permissible in their eyes to incite the murders of capitalists, whatever their ethnic origins, and indeed of police officers, members of the judiciary, and any and every other servant of “the ruling class”. Frequently the minions of the far left actually do this, (89) and see nothing at all wrong with it. The Spring ’95 issue of the violent hate sheet Green Anarchist plumbed new depths when on its back page it slagged off the mystic David Icke as an anti-Semite (90) and in an adjacent article praised the murders of three French policemen. This is sheer lunacy, one can do no better here than echo the words of Revel: “All things considered, I prefer discrimination without murder to murder without discrimination.” (91)
When Hamilton Beamish and his fellow travellers in the Britons observed the prominence of Jews in finance and commerce, they interpreted this apparent dominance as a conspiracy. I say apparent because there is in reality no such thing as financial or commercial sovereignty. As the great free market economist Ludwig von Mises put it: (92) “Every entrepreneur and every owner of means of production must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers.” (93)
In July 1962, the British Nazi leader Colin Jordan organised a rally in London’s Trafalgar Square under the slogan “Free Britain From Jewish Control”. This led to a riot. (94) Certainly anyone who attempted to rally or march under such a banner today would be subjected to the same sort of treatment. In short, they would be assaulted, spat on, hounded in the street and at their places of work, and treated like lepers. It is in fact very doubtful even if they would be permitted by the authorities to rally or march, such would be the public outrage the very suggestion would cause. (95) Be that as it may, there is one minority which is targeted every day by lobbying organisations, the mainstream media, and anyone else who wants to have a go: the White Anglo-Saxon Male.
The reason for this is that for the greater part of this century, and for some considerable time before it, the world economy has been dominated, and indeed largely built by, the white Anglo-Saxon. This is a simple historical fact. When the great historian Arthur Toynbee wrote that the Negro had never made a creative contribution to any civilisation, he wasn’t being bigoted, simply accurate. (96) Leaving aside the non-contribution of the black race, whatever the contribution of the non-white races to history, they are dwarfed by those of the white race. It was the white race which, almost single-handedly, built the United States and before that the great civilisations of Europe, and the civilisations of the ancient world, including Rome, Greece, and Egypt. This is a demonstrable fact that is hardly worth debating.
In recent years, “Afro-Centrists” and others have formulated a politically correct history of the ancient world. The claim has been made that the Egyptians were black, that great civilisations existed in Africa and all manner of nonsense. The plain truth though is that this “history” has been made up out of the whole cloth; one “cultural anthropologist” even admitted it in so many words. In 1941, Melville Herskovits wrote: “Let us suppose, in short, it could be shown that the Negro is a man with a past and a reputable past; that in time the concept could be spread that the civilizations of Africa, like those of Europe, have contributed to American culture as we know it today; and that this idea might eventually be taken over into the canons of general thought. Would this not, as a practical measure, tend to undermine the assumptions that bolster racial prejudice?” (97) In other words, African history is a myth, but we should invent it inorder (supposedly) to combat that most insidious of evils, racism, and to promote peace, love, tolerance and the brotherhood of man. (Backed up by repressive “anti-racist” legislation, that is).
The ruins at Zimbabwe (98) have long been the subject of the most bizarre theories by Afro-Centrists, but serious scholars dismiss them as the fantasies they are. (99)
Of course, civilisation is a double edged sword, and the great irony is that the creative genius of the white man has also been used to wreak havoc and destruction on a colossal scale. Rather than invent mythical histories or, worse still, carp on about racism, the Negro should take solace in the fact that if he didn’t get round to inventing the wheel, he didn’t invent the H-Bomb, napalm or germ warfare either, nor any other weapon or method of mass destruction. However, rather than apply such faultless logic, the Socialist International and their fellow travellers had invented the theory of racism to explain – or explain away – the alleged backwardness of the black race and the “social disadvantage” of many non-white minorities. The fact that many of these minorities – including many blacks, incidentally – now enjoy a higher standard of living than many whites, is something which is conveniently overlooked. But then, no committed socialist has ever allowed the factsto stand in the way of a good theory.
The theory of racism is principally a conspiracy theory. That doesn’t mean, automatically, that it is incorrect: conspiracies exist everywhere, but to be meaningful a theory has to be falsifiable, that is, it must be possible to prove it wrong if the facts do not fit. (100) The concept of racism appears to have been invented, or largely invented, by the founding father of “cultural anthropology”, Franz Boas (1858-1942). (101) Boas’s “theory” is that, essentially, there is no such thing as race, and that our environment is the sole determinant of intelligence, and virtually every other human characteristic. This theory is not only demonstrably bogus but equally demonstrably politically motivated. (102)
Since Boas’s death, and since the cynical exploitation of Holocaust propaganda by the far left, this “theory” has been developed by leaps and bounds. Just as every new generation of Germans is tainted with the original sin of the alleged Nazi extermination programme, so is every white person tainted with the original since of racism. Apparently, all white people are inherently anti-black and have an innate propensity to send all blacks (103) to the gas chambers and turn them into lampshades. The line that has been sold – and is still being sold – is that racism (whatever it is), arose out of capitalism, and you can’t have capitalism without racism. (104)
In Britain, this lying propaganda has been pushed at street level first and foremost by the Socialist Workers Party. It was probably the SWP who coined the trite phrase “racism and sectarianism divides workers”. As with most socialist propaganda, this nonsense is based principally on slogans which have no basis in fact. Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945, but racist South Africa didn’t come into being in a meaningful sense until the introduction of Apartheid in 1948. The reader will doubtless be aware that, up until the fall of Apartheid, South Africa was subjected to a campaign of blind, unconditional hatred by the “anti-racist” lobby such as even Nazi Germany never experienced.
Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s there were angry protests and disruptions of sporting events in which touring South African sportsmen were subjected to the most outrageous abuse. There were campaigns against South African products; there was even a continuous picket outside the South African Embassy in London. The hatred was blind, it was unreasoning, it was totally impervious to argument, and it was directed not simply at the alleged policy of white supremacy enacted by the South African government, but against capitalism.
People who have visited South Africa, especially in the 1970s and early 80s, frequently tell a different story. Some time ago the current writer had cause to research articles from the South African press for the mid to late 1970s, and what I found amazed me. The press was aimed not simply at whites but at all races; the sports pages were often devoted to the achievements of black sportsmen, blacks and other non-whites featured in the advertising, in short, there was not the slightest manifestation of racial hatred. Indeed, when an organisation calling itself the South African National Front reared its ugly head and began causing trouble, there were demands for it to be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. (105)
Anti-Apartheid activists – many of them dyed-in-the-wool socialist agitators – were responsible also for the large scale imposition of sanctions against South Africa, and a policy of disinvestment which could only harm those who were at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, principally the blacks. (106) Apartheid was represented in the Western media as the most unacceptable face of capitalism, but the truth is very different, because in the first place Apartheid is actually a form of socialism, and in the second place the greatest opposition to Apartheid has come always from capital, and its grass roots support has come from the white working class.
The Apartheid system enshrined racial discrimination in law; in the pre-Apartheid South Africa of 1911, white gold miners earned 11.7 times more than blacks in 1911, and in 1951 they earned 14.7 times as much. (107) In 1907, 1913 and 1914, a series of strikes by white mine workers forced mine owners to reserve some semi-skilled work for whites. Eventually, the Chamber of Mines broke its agreement and replaced some highly paid whites with blacks; as a result of this, white miners formed armed commandos under the slogan “Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White South Africa.” !! (108)
Further evidence of the racelessness of capital as opposed to the apparent bigotry of labour comes from a contemporary report by an American scholar: “In Natal to-day the suggestion that Indian labor should no longer be imported is met by an outcry from the planters, the farmers, and landowners, and a certain number of manufacturers, that industries and agriculture will be ruined.” (109) Interestingly, the same author wrote of socialism that “in every quarter of the globe, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United States, Bolshevik agitators whisper in the ears of discontented colored men their gospel of hatred and revenge. Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social discrimination, is fuel for Bolshevism’s hellish incitement to racial as well as to class war.” (110) Which hits the nail right on the head; even way back then “anti-racism” was about hatred, not about racial tolerance, peace, love and the brotherhood of man.
Finally, a much more contemporary example. In a letter to the London Times, August 3, 1963, page 7, which was published under the heading HOUSING FOR THE COLOURED, a Mr Michael Cookman protested that it was not landlords but tenants who objected to both furnished and unfurnished accommodation being let to non-whites. His letter ended with the words: “it is time that the public appreciated that their own views on racial discrimination are the cause of some of the difficulties of coloured people finding accommodation because the tenants are part of the public.”
All this has been conveniently written out of socialist history books and sociology texts; the point is that a capitalist, any capitalist, would rather employ blacks at a lower rate than whites at a higher rate. In a free market, wage rates tend to harmonise; the only way capitalists can be forced to pay whites more is by legislation: fixing wage rates, quotas, and that sort of thing. This may be many things, including racism, but one thing it manifestly is not, is capitalism. For the record, the greatest racial struggles in South Africa have never been between black and white, rather they have been between the British and the Afrikaaners on the one hand, and the various black tribes on the other, in particular between the Zulus and the Xhosas.
The dominance of the white Anglo-Saxon male will not last forever, and indeed is rapidly coming to an end. There is no single reason for this, one reason though is that as other nations develop – particularly the Far Eastern nations – the franchise, equality of opportunity, and most of all, education, are extended to an increasingly broad spectrum of the population. We are all of us beneficiaries of a common cultural inheritance, (111) which means that the genius and industriousness of previous generations of inventors, entrepreneurs and reformers belongs to us all regardless of race, religion or creed, as rightly it should.
Be that as it may, there are some people – principally socialists and their fellow travellers – who are not, and never will, be satisfied that the lot of mankind is steadily improving. These people don’t ask for rights, they demand privileges, and the way they set about obtaining them is through the “anti-racist” industry. “anti-racism” is based primarily on lies, deception and hatred, far more so than Nazism, because in the first place the Nazis really did believe that Jewish capitalists and entrepreneurs were parasites rather than benefactors, and their hatred of Jewry was unconcealed: the Nazi Party programme stated quite candidly that Jews would be disenfranchised.
On the other hand, the “anti-racist” industry is funded by a) the government and b) private foundations, (112) either way, it is a parasite which owes its existence to the wealth of others. (113) It remains to be seen how much of their own propaganda “anti-racists” believe, but the fact that they have used the criminal law – and in some cases naked tyranny – to silence all opposition, speaks volumes for their self-confidence.
The fundamental premise of the “anti-racist” lobby is the unique wickedness of the white race, and a belief that white people have an inherent desire to exterminate all non-whites, though not necessarily in gas chambers as the Nazis were alleged to have done to the Jews. The only thing that will prevent whites from organising this genocide at some time in the near future is large doses of something called “anti-racism”, and when the poison doesn’t work, double the dose.
It would be over-simplistic to attribute the growth of “anti-racism” and all the associated nonsense to any one group of people, organised body or ideology, but the groups most responsible have been the Socialist International, Organised (Zionist) Jewry, left wing academics, (114) professional lobbyists, the misnamed women’s movement, various ethnic minority pressure groups, and, increasingly and most alarmingly, the organised homosexual movement. There is a great deal of overlap here, and the claims by conspiracy theorists that the “anti-racist” movement constitutes an homogeneous entity dedicated to the extermination of the white race are grossly over-simplistic. All of these groups follow their own agendas, and frequently they fight each other, and even amongst themselves. (115)
Whatever their internecine squabbles though, the “anti-racist” movement always presents a united front against the common enemy. Any manifestation of race consciousness by white people is denounced as racism. Any suggestion that racial differences might be innate, or even that they exist, is denounced as racism. Any hostility towards forced race-mixing or miscegenation is racism. Any opposition to unrestricted immigration is racism. Any and all inadequacies of any minority (unless that minority is white) is racism. Any patterns in employment, crime, success, achievement, etc, which indicate, or appear to indicate, that whites are better at some things than non-whites, can only be racism.
Although the word conspiracy is never used in this connection, there is little if any difference between the Jewish world conspiracy of the Nazis – or even of the Protocols Of Zion – and the concept of institutional racism (or institutionalised racism), be it in government, industry, the media, or anywhere else. The final goal of the “anti-racist” movement – although it is never stated in such explicit terms – is the total extermination of the white race. (116) In the short term, its aim is to deracinate whites – and to some extent, non-whites – and to destroy what is left of the free enterprise system by increasingly repressive bureaucratic controls.
It is a staple of far right propaganda that most street crime is black, and that much of this, or most of it, is black on white. A great deal has been written about this subject by white racists for purely propaganda purposes, and much of it is spurious and quite transparent nonsense, but at the end of the day there is a large and growing black underclass, an underclass that is responsible for far more street crime than its white counterpart, as even black “civil rights” activists now admit. (117) The explanation offered by the “anti-racist” lobby is racism. Indeed, this is the only explanation that is acceptable on peril of being branded racist.
Similarly, the lack of success – or apparent lack of success – of blacks in certain professions, the small number employed in the police, perhaps, is again the fault of racism. One of the methods adopted for combating this alleged racial disadvantage is something that is called affirmative action in the United States, or positive discrimination in Britain. Positive discrimination is a semantic nonsense, since all discrimination is in some sense positive. To discriminate means simply to choose.
What is conveniently overlooked here is that while blacks may be (supposedly) under-represented in the hard sciences, and many other fields, they are vastly over-represented (whatever that means) in many fields besides mugging old ladies. The most obvious is sport, heavyweight boxing in particular, which, since the ascent to the title of Joe Louis, has been dominated by blacks, most of them Americans. There are many other areas in the sporting field which are dominated by blacks also. In September 1995, Sir Roger Bannister, the first man to record a sub four minute mile, (in 1954), was widely reported to have said that blacks had an innate advantage over whites – and indeed over other races – when it came to running. (118) This simple observation by someone who might well be expected to know what he was talking about, caused a minor controversy.
The simple truth is that racism is not any sort of explanation at all for any of the above; one does not explain a phenomenon merely by putting a label on it. Leaving that aside, there is an enormous fallacy in the rhetoric of the “anti-racist” lobby, this is the unstated premise that there is a problem here, and that racism, whatever it is meant to be, and however broadly defined, is the cause of this problem. The reality is different: the reality is that so-called racial disadvantage is no such thing, what we are witnessing in the “over-representation” of young blacks amongst the underclass, and all the other alleged manifestations of racism is simply the natural social order. In short, we are witnessing not racism at work, but different socio-economic patterns.
I swear the following is true, and anyone who doubts me should consult the relevant issue of the TV Times and the relevant day’s press reports. On June 1, 1994, a report on that evening’s Channel 4 news programme claimed that discrimination is still rife in the workplace in Britain. Blacks and Asians suffer discrimination, so do women, and yes, you guessed it, black and Asian women suffer double discrimination. Even though, get this, black and Asian women have better qualifications than white women! (119) Now here comes the punch-line: the news that night was read by two non-white women, Zeinab Badawi and Shahnaz Pakravan. At least one report was filed by Eleanor Goodman, and the following night we were graced with the presence of Miss Anyar Sitahram!
The message was the same as ever: we need more “anti-racist” (and anti-sexist!) legislation, more public money – your money, sucker – spent on overcoming this supposed racial (and sexual) disadvantage, so that these glamorous young Asian starlets who already earn three, four or more times the national average can bleat on about how they are getting such a raw deal at your expense. One wonders how all this must go down with unemployed white youths in Sunderland (and older men everywhere who may never have a full time job again). (120) The message they will undoubtedly hear is that public money that could be spent creating jobs for them (121) is to be spent instead on paying inflated salaries to anti-discrimination industry bureaucrats, and the likes of Zeinab Badawi and Shahnaz Pakravan, who are already doing very nicely, thank you!
The world professional snooker championship was first contested in 1927. To date – 1995 – the only overseas player who has ever won the title – has been the (white) Canadian Cliff Thorburn. Although it is not true that every heavyweight “world champion” since Joe Louis is or has been black, (122) the vast majority of them have. Now there is, as far as I know, no colour bar in sport. (123) Boxing has always been a fairly unbigoted sport; in 1892, the last of the bare-knuckle champions, John L. Sullivan, boasted that he had never fought a Negro and never would, but there has been little in the way of racism in the sport since then. (124) And there has certainly never been any sort of colour bar in snooker. (125)
The two above examples illustrate the irrelevance of racism to sport. Many more such examples could be adduced, recall for example Sir Roger Bannister’s comment about black runners. There are other factors of course: a poor country will obviously have fewer opportunities for sportsmen than a rich one, although that hasn’t prevented Cuba from turning out a disproportionate number of world class amateur boxers. Most of the Negroes who have aspired to the heavyweight championship (126) owe as much to their American heritage as to their African genes. In boxing, an African Hope is almost as big a joke as a White Hope. (127)
Now let us apply the same logic to business. We have seen already that the entrepreneurial success of Jewish merchants in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries was interpreted by the Britons, the Nazis and others as a conspiracy. Curiously, no one seems to have placed a similar interpretation on the activities of Patel, Khan and Dar in buying up half the corner shops in Britain. This figure is no exaggeration. An article in the London Evening Standard of May 18, 1981 quoted a prediction by the managing director of the Spa supermarket chain that more than half of Britain’s independent grocery stores may be owned by Asian shopkeepers in 5 years “because they give customers what they want”. (128)
In some areas, far more than half the retail outlets are owned by Asians. Most of the electrical shops in London’s Tottenham Court Road are owned by them. To my personal knowledge, there are entire streets in the East End of London, Southall and other places in which the shops are owned entirely or almost entirely by Asians. It stands to reason therefore that if Mr Patel – aided by Mrs Patel and cousins on both sides of the family – are busy buying up half the retail trade, they won’t have a lot of time for serving as government officials, customs officers, social workers, and many other things. Therefore the claim that racism and racism alone is responsible for blacks, Asians, and any other minority being “under-represented” in some profession or other, is as demonstrably false as the claim that some minorities “under-achieve” in certain academic subjects or other fields. There is no “problem” of under-representation any more than there is a problem of under-achievement, what there are, are different socio-economic patterns for different races, ethnic, and other groups.
One further piece of evidence will be adduced in support of this hypothesis. The distinguished American economist Thomas Sowell has written that in the United States one of the most “get-ahead” groups are West Indian immigrants. (129) You would be hard pressed to find anyone in Britain – even the most fawningly, sickeningly, pro-race-mixing liberal, who would claim that West Indians in Britain are “get-ahead”. Sowell adds that “It is, incidentally, a common pattern among immigrants to eventually overtake native-born people of the same ancestry.” (130)
I do not propose in this short study to discuss the social engineering and other tyranny that has been inflicted on this country – and on many others – in the guise of improving race relations, protecting (supposedly) powerless minorities, (131) and promoting equal opportunities for all regardless of race, colour or creed, but I will point out that the outlawing of a lot of practices in the employment field by our increasingly repressive legislators has been as detrimental to many people’s employment prospects as to race relations. At times, the most absurd warnings about recruitment practices have been issued by these fascistic quangos. (132)
In 1986, the Flag, the newspaper of the National Front, reported that a Coventry firm called Edgar Clews had placed an advertisement (presumably) in the local press which included the words “Must live locally”. The company was subsequently warned by the so-called Commission for Racial Equality that because few blacks and Asians lived in the area the advert could be deemed illegal by discriminating against them indirectly! (133) This is too ridiculous for words. Who pays these people to spend hours pouring over newspaper and other advertisements to scrutinise them minutely for the most absurd suggestions of bias or discrimination? The answer to that question is you! The taxpayer. It is you who are paying these people to destroy your freedom, and the economy, and to tyrannise and intimidate others.
Other instances of petty tyranny and absurdity are not difficult to find. One of the first cases to be referred to (or sought out by) the race tyrants in the 1960s was that of a doctor in Eastbourne who advertised for a “Scottish daily help able to do plain cooking including porridge”! (134)
Nor were minorities exempt: there was, for example, the case of the Pakistani who was accused of race prejudice for putting a notice in his window “Wanted – English Lodger”. (135) Actually he wanted someone to teach his children English! Ironically, the CRE itself has not been free from charges of racism. At one point “the Home Affairs Committee...pointed out, that 51 per cent of the commission’s staff were either black or Asian – hardly their entitlement under a racial quota régime.” (136)
Though surely the most absurd story in this field comes from the United States. In 1992, the magazine American Renaissance reported that the owner of a Chicago company fired one of his female employees (who happened to be black) for rudeness and inefficiency. The woman he hired to replace her was black, but that didn’t stop her reporting him to the “Illinois Department of Human Rights” (I kid you not) for the heinous crime of racism. Not only did the entrepreneur concerned replace the fired woman with another black woman, but sixty-three of his eighty-three strong workforce were non-white. So what did the “Illinois Department of Human Rights” do? It asked him “to prove that he hadn’t hired so many minorities just to make it look as though he didn’t discriminate” !!! (137) Did anyone ever hear of such madness?On the job front, it is a well documented fact that in business, finding staff, customers, or whatever, much recruiting is done by word of mouth. (138) One might ask how many Asian shopkeepers place advertisements in the local job centre for staff? The answer is almost certainly none, or very few. Most such positions are filled from within the extended family.
The infrastructure of Black Africa, as far as any exists, was built by White brains. This is a documented fact. We have already alluded to the fact that the Negro never got around to inventing the wheel, much less a higher civilisation. However, the theory of Imperialism developed by communists, socialists and fellow travellers and expounded in lengthy, and for the most part vacuous, social(ist) studies in academia, has given the world an entirely different reason for the alleged backwardness of Black Africa. According to the Cloud Cuckooland theory of Imperialism, the West someone sucked the wealth out of Africa, and out of other non-white nations to varying degrees. (139)
Largely as a result of brainwashing and indoctrination by collectivists and egalitarians, the great European powers decided to divest themselves of their colonies, and were aided in no little measure by so-called movements of national liberation, which were controlled mostly by Western educated “intellectuals”. One of these (although not in Africa) was a certain Fidel Castro (who graduated with a doctorate in law). The history of Cuba, in particular the grinding poverty of most of its poorer citizens since Castro ascended to power in 1959, is a matter of historical record.
Another excellent example is afforded by Kenya. In this context, the current writer can do no better than to adduce the following lengthy quote from a book on subversion and counter-subversion:
“One of the most remarkable instances of a cause being manipulated, if not invented, in order to make a wide appeal is afforded by the Mau Mau movement in Kenya. In this case educated African nationalists clearly wanted to get control of the government so as to steer the country towards independence, but they realized that such an idea was far too vague to appeal to the tribally minded people of the time. They therefore decided to concentrate on one relatively minor grievance which existed by reason of the fact that when the country had been settled by Europeans in the first decade of the present century, a very small area of Kikuyu land had been occupied because, at the time, there were no Kikuyu living there. None of the other land settled had ever belonged to this tribe, and the arrangements made with the other tribes concerned had been perfectly satisfactory. It is a measure of the understanding shown by the leaders of the rebellion that they should have selected this issue for their cause because it immediately awoke a response throughout the length and breadth of the tribal area which could never have been matched by any political or economic programme however firmly based on reality. Night and morning prayers were offered up for the recovery of the stolen land whilst those praying held aloft a handful of sacred soil. The Mau Mau gangs were known collectively as the Kenya Land Freedom Army and many of their songs centred around this crucial issue. In the end thousands gave their lives for it, neither knowing nor caring that the original area only extended to a few square miles. In their minds they had come to regard any land occupied by a European as their land, and it is in men’s minds that wars of subversion have to be fought and decided.” (140)
It is certainly true that the real wars of subversion are fought in the minds of men; it is far less certain that any native peoples anywhere at any time have benefited from the expulsion of their “Imperialist oppressors”.
Another case was that of Rhodesia, which later changed its name to Zimbabwe. At the time of writing, Zimbabwe is ruled by the man who succeeded the former Imperialist régime of Ian Smith. (141) In 1982, whites were said to be emigrating en masse after Mugabe broke his promise to give them a fair place in the country. (142) Mugabe was said to be planning to Africanise white businesses. (143) It is curious, is it not, how similar is that word to the Nazi equivalent Aryanise?
The reader will recall the claim of the Jewish Chronicle that some of the best brains in the Reich were contained in non-Aryan crania. By the same token, some of the best brains in Black Africa were contained in non-African crania, (144) and indeed, this has been recognised by the more prudent of African leaders, including, fortunately for South Africa’s blacks, by Nelson Mandela and his (so-called) fellow communists in the ANC. (145) Sadly though, this has not been the case everywhere, and the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, the perpetual revolution in Nigeria and other countries, the sacking of the whites of Zimbabwe, and, not least, the recent horror in Rwanda, are all terrifying examples of what happens when the forces of free market capitalism are suppressed in the name of combating the mythical disease of racism.
To Part 3
To Bibliography
To Notes And References
Back To Part 1
Back To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index