We have already mentioned the Protocols Of Zion, which spread like wildfire throughout Europe and the United States in the early 1920s. The promotion and spread of the Protocols – and the extensive promotion of other anti-Semitic literature – by Henry Ford, led to a public outcry. (146) At one point, a hundred and nineteen prominent Americans of Gentile birth signed a petition against the Protocols, declaring it to be a spurious document designed to engender religious and racial hatred. (147)
Nevertheless, this nonsense is still very much alive today, and in the strangest of places. In November 1994, the Jewish Chronicle reported that an Israeli diplomat had demanded an apology from a national Japanese newspaper for advertising books which claimed that the world was secretly controlled by Jews. Jewish conspiracy books were said to be a cottage industry in Japan; among other things, such books are said to claim that Jews are planning to destroy the Japanese economy by buying out its corporations, and that the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre was fabricated by the Rothschilds in order to discourage Japanese corporations from investing in China! (148) It is amazing that anyone could take such nonsense seriously, much less campaign to suppress it, yet any mention of any sort of Jewish conspiracy in the media, the government, and of course in the economy, drives Organised Jewry and their lap-dogs wild.
Generally speaking, the theory of racism is nothing like as overt as the Protocols and its precursors, nor its various updates, including the above lunacy, but it is, as stated, most definitely a conspiracy theory. However, in 1993 an American scholar published an excellent book which documented many of the more bizarre claims that are made about the mythical White Anglo-Saxon conspiracy of racism, and most of these conspiracy theories, although not generally committed to paper and circulated as trashy, scurrilous pamphlets such as the Protocols Of Zion, are every bit as overt, every bit as fanciful and every bit as absurd. Yet, strangely, no one bats an eyelid at them, there are no demands that they be banned, no campaigns to suppress their dissemination, and no public outcry that some of the most honest, upstanding and economically productive members of the community are being slandered from pillar to post.
The book in question is I Heard It Through The Grapevine; subtitled Rumor in African-American Culture, it was written by a black female academic, so charges of racism and sexism are refuted at the outset. (149) The author has taken a seminal journey through the folklore of Black America, and, a surprising number of the ridiculous urban legends she digs up have both a strong anti-capitalist bias and striking parallels with Protocols-type literature.
Among other things, a soft drink called Tropical Fantasy is said to be manufactured by the Ku Klux Klan and to contain an ingredient which is said to make black men sterile! (150) A successful fashion company named Troop (which manufacture sportswear which was popular with blacks) went bankrupt after urban legends drove away its custom. Some wag coined the acronym “To Rule Over Oppressed People”; this was said to be a Ku Klux Klan slogan! A Troop running jacket was said to contain a printed message in the lining that read: “Thank you nigger for making us rich”. Ironically, the company was owned by the Held brothers (Jews) and William Kim, a Korean-American.
Kool cigarettes, a brand popular among blacks in the 1960s, was said also to be part of the Ku Klux Klan plot, (presumably to give blacks cancer). (151) Author Turner quotes the Tobacco Institute thus: “One can assume these lies are most likely perpetuated by those groups or individuals who oppose tobacco interests and will say anything to disparage the industry.”
Another brand of cigarette, Marlborough, was said to be owned, manufactured or distributed by the Ku Klux Klan!
Al Copeland, CEO of the Popeyes fried chicken restaurant chain, offered a $25,000 reward for information leading to the identity of those responsible for spreading the rumour that he supported David Duke, (the former Klansman who later campaigned as a Republican).
Turner quotes one historian who says that people with low levels of education are susceptible to conspiracy literature. In reality, conspiracy literature often appeals to – and is just as often written by – highly intelligent men and women. However, a high IQ does not guarantee wisdom any more than it guarantees happiness.
Turner also draws parallels with other well-worn anti-Semitic nonsense, including the Blood Libel (with the Atlanta child murders), and with another urban legend popular among American blacks, that AIDS was created in the laboratory as part of a CIA-backed genocide campaign against them. (152)
As stated, these conspiracy theories are absurd and disgusting; certainly they are no less absurd and no less disgusting than the anti-Semitic nonsense that was peddled by Hamilton Beamish and his fellow travellers in the Britons and more generally in the Anti-Semitic International earlier in this century; the big difference is that these anti-capitalist (and anti-white) conspiracy theories, are socially acceptable. Let us now return to the mainstream.
Not content with promoting the conspiracy theory of racism and foisting “anti-racism” onto all and sundry on peril of being branded racist if we reject any aspect of it, the self-styled “anti-racist” bureaucracy has taken upon itself to impose sexual and other quotas. However ridiculous it is to pretend that race doesn’t exist and that at times the differences between races will manifest in important ways, it is surely absurd to pretend that sex doesn’t exist, or that it isn’t important. Even the thoroughly sexist Anglo-Saxon law recognises this. For example, there is a special offence of infanticide. The law in Britain – and in many other countries – recognises that sometimes a woman who has recently given birth will go off her head in some manner and may, in extreme cases, harm, or perhaps even kill her new baby. Usually by smothering it to death. (153)
On the rare occasions such tragedies happen they are usually recognised for what they are, and a murder charge will not be proferred. Probably the woman concerned will be ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment. There is no parallel offence for men. The great difference between women and men is, of course, that only women can have babies, and it is often very difficult for a woman to have both a family and a career. (154)
That being said, there are other differences between women and men in the workplace. Women are generally not as ruthless as men; often (especially non-professional) women prefer to work nearer their homes, to work part-time or take temporary work; to tailor their work to suit their personal circumstances rather than vice versa. All this makes anti sex-discrimination legislation rather impractical. The fact though is that anti sex-discrimination legislation is drafted not for the benefit of women but for the benefit of the same imbecilic bureaucracy which administers the "anti-racist" legislation, and has been drafted by many of the same people. (155)
An excellent if alarming example of this was the company in the United States which operated a policy of not employing fertile women in its battery making division. The reason for the operation of such a policy by Johnson Controls had nothing whatsoever to do with keeping women in their place, rather this was a fetal protection policy which was necessary, in the company’s opinion because, in the light of scientific evidence, the exposure of lead to women under such circumstances could lead to birth defects or even to miscarriages. This policy was ruled in breach of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. (Other companies also operated fetal protection policies). Johnson Controls’ policy was challenged on the grounds that it discriminates against women – which it does and will do until such time as men too can become pregnant. The American Civil Liberties Union (of all bodies), championed this piece of nonsense, and eventually the case was argued all the way to the Supreme Court where it was held that companies have no right to operate such policies.
The end result of such a ban is that “companies, in complying with a ban on fetal protection policies, will be opening themselves to potential tort liability in state courts for children prenatally exposed to dangerous chemicals and suffering lifelong impairments because of such exposure.” (156)
This is quite clearly an abrogation of the rule of law, for common sense, if nothing else, should dictate that nobody – not an individual nor a company – should be forced into a position where obeying one law: criminal, company or whatever, should leave him, her or it, open for prosecution under another. Leaving that aside though, it is obvious, is it not, that anyone who would be prepared to enlist such specious arguments in the cause of women’s rights, doesn’t really give a monkey’s about women, or workers? For what caring person – as socialists always claim to be – would insist on promoting “equal opportunities” when they endanger the unborn?
Such nonsense does have its limits, thankfully, and, very sensibly, in September 1995, a sex discrimination tribunal ruled against the woman worker who was fired after damaging her boss’s carpet with her high heels. (157)
Another form of discrimination the public is rapidly growing sick of hearing about is discrimination against homosexuals. A special word has been coined for this and for all alleged fear and loathing of homosexuals and their obscene practices: homophobia. We are told that we must not discriminate against homosexuals – gays as they have the audacity to call themselves – because this too is a form of ignorance. (158) Not surprisingly, the queers have also jumped onto the “stop-the-Nazis” bandwagon, (159) claiming that they too were sent to the gas chambers [sic] in Nazi Germany, and that, by implication, they must also enjoy the special privileges that Organised Jewry and other minorities have carved out for themselves by legislation, and such things as government and local authority grants.
Unfortunately for them, ethnic minorities are just as revolted (if not more so) by their obscene practices, and refuse to have anything to do with them. (160) Ultra-Orthodox Jews find them particularly offensive; Moslem Fundamentalists would like to see them exterminated! (161) While (we are told) only a bigot would discriminate against others on the basis of race, religion or creed, this argument – however sophistic – cuts no ice with many religious groups, cults and sects when applied to homosexuality. Devout Jews, strict Moslems, and many others, find homosexuality deeply offensive, and would shrink in horror at the thought of their children being indoctrinated with queer propaganda in the guise of equal opportunities. Are such people to be compelled to send their children to schools which employ homosexual teachers? (162) Are they to be compelled to let their premises to homosexuals? Are they to be compelled to stock pro-homosexual publications in their bookshops? And so on.
Ironically, like so many other “minorities” who whine and wail about discrimination against them, homosexuals have absolutely no compunction whatsoever about discriminating against “straights” when it suits them. (163)
The function of the economy should be to create the goods and services the community demands, and to create them with the minimum of human effort. Now, realistically, it is not as simple as that. For example, people on the far right are often quick to slag off the trades unions, some even insist that the working classes would be better off without them. The truth though is that although organised labour has its faults, and even its dark side (like any other human institution), (164) without some sort of trades union movement, the working man (and woman) in Britain would have little or nothing. The trades union movement was largely a British invention, and has been exported in various forms to virtually every country in the world. That is surely something of which every native-born Briton can and should be proud.
There are other “interventionist” organisations which perform useful functions too; in spite of the race industry and other parasites, there is still a useful role to be filled by bodies which work towards fairer employment practices. Workers should be treated equitably by their employers, and the simple fact is that some employers will exploit their employees for all manner of reasons and in all manner of ways unless there is some sort of state policeman to keep a watchful eye on them.
What though does the race industry? What does the equal opportunities industry as a whole, do? It creates a vast self-serving bureaucracy and fills it with university graduates who churn our endless and for the most part totally vacuous reports on racism, disadvantage of all kinds, health and safety guidelines and God knows what else. All of this has to be paid for, and all of it ties up entrepreneurs and companies with red tape.
According to one source, in 1990 there were more than sixteen hundred quangos, (165) and that after more than a decade of so-called Conservative government! Again, all of these quangos have to be paid for, and the people in charge of them are – for the most part – university graduates who command high salaries. Their offices have to be heated, cleaned and maintained. Because they are public buildings they have to be guarded; some of them have elaborate security systems. The office of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality is a multi-storey block in London SW1. It has a library which the current writer has used on a number of occasions, but what possible use is the rest of the building I couldn’t say. Whenever I have visited it, people have been sitting around talking, laughing and joking and generally doing sweet eff all. In this case the less they do the better, because every time the CRE’s overpaid bureaucrats stick their unwanted probosces into somebody else’s business they don’t simply damage race relations – usually by antagonising the dispossessed majority still further – but add to the cost of goods and services.
Let’s take a closer look at the so-called Commission for Racial Equality. According to an official publication, in 1994, the Chairman of the CRE was paid (I won’t say earned) £70,000 a year. (166) The organisation employed 211.5 staff (167) at April 1, 1994 and had a budget of £15.083 million for 1993/4, £15.051 million of it from the government. One is entitled to ask if that fifteen million pounds might not have been better spent in investing it in black (and other businesses), or if it might not have been better simply to give it away, for surely if fifteen hundred unemployed young black men had been given £10,000 each a few of them might have invested their money wisely in starting up new businesses.
Of course, quangos do not begin and end with the CRE. The Equal Opportunities Commission received over £5.7 million of government funding; (168) Bristol Urban Development Corporation received £12.8 million of its £29.128 million expenditure from the government. It had a grand total of only 23 staff. (169) There are many other urban development corporations, and, as stated, many, many other quangos.
Returning specifically to the CRE, the biggest and sickest joke of all is that they do precisely nothing to improve race relations, and even less to improve the employment prospects of those non-whites (and whites) who most need it. In March 1994, the Medical Practitioners Union reported in a press release that “Of 147,000 UK medical practitioners approximately 18% are from ethnic minorities.” Yet ethnic minorities make up only 5.5% of the population! (170) In other words, Indian doctors, no problem, but what about unqualified, unemployed – and perhaps unkempt – black youths in Brixton? (171)
Let us pose the question again, then: where does all this nonsense lead? In a nutshell, to the regulation, and ultimately to the strangulation, of the economy by (for the most part) highly qualified university graduates, people who, in a free market, would be eminently employable anyway. More bureaucracy requires more government spending. The government has no money of its own, and can raise it by a) borrowing at interest; b) printing money (and debasing the currency); c) taxation (and reducing the purchasing power of the general public). It may be argued that the government need only tax the rich, but in the first place an enormous bureaucracy cannot be supported by expropriating the wealth of a few super-rich individuals and corporations. In the second place, if companies are taxed heavily they have no choice but to recoup their costs through raising prices. In the third place, taxing the rich reduces their investment capital, and in the medium to long term this destroys jobs, and ultimately, the economy as well. (172)
We have demonstrated that the conspiracy theory of capitalism began by targeting Jews, and, with the change of political climate, switched immediately to whites, in particular to the proverbial WASPs. We have mentioned briefly too that Asians were persecuted in Uganda, primarily on account of their entrepreneurial success. The current writer once read a claim in a right wing document that there was talk among native Africans of an “Asian conspiracy”, (173) which, presumably, was the method by which Indians in particular bought up so many businesses in Uganda and the rest of Africa.
In Malaysia, but not just in Malaysia, the Chinese have suffered similar persecution on account of their entrepreneurial success. (174) The American free market economist Thomas Sowell (whom we have already cited) has written that the Chinese have never experienced equal opportunity in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand or the Philippines, yet although they make up a mere 5% of the population, they own the majority of these nations’ wealth in major industries including 75% of the rice mills in the Philippines and 80-90% of the rice mills in Thailand. (175) They also earn twice as much as the average Malay family. (176) Sowell also reports similar socio-economic patterns with Indians in Africa. (177)
Although this is not the current writer’s field, I have no doubt that the odd conspiracy theory or two is bandied about in Malaysia to account for the Chinese “domination” of the economy. [Odd is certainly the word: can the reader imagine what must be the rhetoric of the Chinese Rice Mill Conspiracy?] In the West, an ugly reminder that whites are not the only victims of anti-capitalist envy came in the shape of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Korean shopkeepers were targeted along with whites in the looting and lawlessness that followed the acquittal of the assailants of the black motorist Rodney King. (178)
This is because young, unemployed (and often unemployable) blacks see these new interlopers arrive in their country, perhaps (ostensibly) penniless, and within a few years the newcomers are doing better than they are. It is this sort of thing which also accounts for black (so-called) anti-Semitism. When the likes of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred (179) to Jewish landlords and storeowners as bloodsuckers, they were not so much displaying an inbred hatred of Jews as their ignorance of economics. And again, while the likes of Farrakhan are sometimes taken to task – albeit mildly – for their (supposed) anti-white racism, (180) the “anti-racist” lobby says essentially the same thing about whites. It doesn’t state point blank that the white race is a race of leeches, parasites and bloodsuckers, but the rhetoric is exactly the same.
If it were not obvious to the reader at the start of this short study, then it certainly should be now, that the destruction of the capitalist economy is precisely what a great many of not simply Britain’s but the world’s bureaucrats want. More than that,it is their raison d’être, for they are the planners who will rule over the New World Order. Never mind that the more they plan the economy, the more they interfere with it, the more they draft and enforce anti-discrimination legislation, the less efficiently the economy will function. At the end of the day they will still have their jobs in the “anti-racist”, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-disabilityist bureaucracy, for their fat salaries are paid by you, the very people they tyrannise.
Briefly then, the classic Jewish world conspiracy theory of the Protocols Of Zion was used by the Anti-Semitic International not simply to incite hatred against Jews but as a political weapon, in particular it was peddled by the Nazis. As soon as Hitler and his merry men took power they began ejecting Jews from the economy and from the bureaucracy. That notwithstanding, they soon realised, in the words of the Jewish Chronicle, that “some of the best brains in the Reich [were] contained in non-Aryan craniums”, and Jews were discreetly readmitted to the economy, although the Nazis never publicly acknowledged their mistake much less apologised for it. Leading Nazis continued to consult Jewish doctors, who were even released from concentration camps in order to tend the war wounded. It is no part of the current writer’s hypothesis that the Nazis’ policy towards the Jews was primarily responsible for the outbreak of World War Two, although it was obviously a contributingfactor, and hatred existed on both sides as well as mistakes being made on both sides. (181)
After the Second World War, hysteria about racism and the newfound hatred for South Africa manifested a new brand of racial hatred and a new brand of interventionism. Rather than freeing the economy from the tentacles of the imaginary Jewish octopus, the clarion call was now to “liberate” the “oppressed” peoples of Africa and Asia from “Imperialism”. For several reasons, this “liberation” was undertaken with far more enthusiasm than the “liberation” of Weimar Germany from the House of Judah. One of these is that the Nazis had never made any secret of their hatred of the Jews, while the hatred espoused for Western Man and his democratic institutions (not the least of which is capitalism) goes largely unnoticed, cloaked as it is in the rhetoric of anti-Imperialism. Another reason is that as far as decolonisation went, the communists and their fellow travellers were able to present themselves to the common people, and to a great extent to the world, as bona fide liberators. As stated, they were aided to a considerable extent in this effort by collectivist-minded egalitarian academics.
The result of the purge of “White influence” throughout the colonies was far more severe than the Nazi purge of “Jewish influence” in Nazi Germany for the simple reason that Germany was a highly developed, industrial power while the African nations in particular were backward, most of their populations were illiterate, and whereas in Nazi Germany it was the “best brains” that resided in “non-Aryan craniums”, in Africa it was “all the brains” that resided in “Aryan craniums”.
In the words of Dr Pendell, a country cannot be governed by ignorance and stupidity, so that where the majority of a country’s citizens are illiterate, as they were in the colonies, some sort of overlordship is not only inevitable but necessary. (182) In other words, the people were not oppressed, it only looked like they were oppressed. The premature “liberation” of African and other countries from their benevolent overlordships (183) resulted in either the institution of brutal and inefficient communist dictatorships or in chaos. So, how do we end this madness?
First and foremost, people have to be made to realise that, whatever injustices and inequalities there may be in the world, it is not the duty of the state to “redistribute” wealth from the rich to the poor, from the undeserving to the deserving, or on any other arbitrary basis. Nor is it the duty of the state to regulate private industry and commerce, and especially not the social lives of its citizens. In the words of Thomas Sowell: “Someone once said that an idea which fails repeatedly may possibly be wrong. It is by no means clear that the supporters of affirmative action are prepared to go that far.” (184) Another author, the distinguished American Jewish scholar Nathaniel Weyl, put it in a nutshell: “...the Negro is entitled to equality under the law and equality of opportunity. Like other Americans, he is entitled to nothing more.” (185) That applies across the board, not just to Negroes, but to every other minority everywhere, be it racial, religious, “sexual”, or anything else.
Affirmative action, positive discrimination, or whatever label the “anti-racist” loonies attach to this madness, is not the antidote, it is the poison. Furthermore, we have reached the (quite absurd) stage now where almost everybody belongs to one oppressed minority or other. Clearly this is absurd, for if we are all being oppressed, who is doing the oppressing?
While most people would agree that the state should not discriminate against people arbitrarily, (186) it is manifestly not the duty of the state to pass and enforce anti-discrimination laws. We have seen that socio-economic patterns vary considerably amongst races (and indeed they vary in many other ways too), so any attempt to enforce “equality” (whatever is meant by that term) is doomed to fail from the start. What the state should do is work for equality of opportunity, and that means freeing the economy from all unnecessary restrictive legislation. In short, the state should leave it to the market.
The reader will recall that under the sub-heading Apartheid = Socialism we pointed out that it is the natural tendency of unfettered capitalism to eliminate discrimination in the marketplace based on purely arbitrary criteria, in particular race. For why should an employer employ whites when he can employ blacks to do the same work and pay them less? If the market is truly unfettered, all such arbitrariness will, in time, disappear. Apartheid could only be maintained by legislation, just as, in the final analysis, cartels and monopolies can only be maintained by legislation, (which is, incidentally, the real reason businesses spend so much time lobbying governments, to encourage them to pass legislation that will give them special privileges at the expense of their – usually foreign – competitors).
Reformers should then work not to end all discrimination by employers by lobbying for more and more repressive “anti-discrimination legislation” but should lobby to remove all such legislation, and all such arbitrary government interference in private enterprise. That way, employers who practise discrimination – for whatever reason – can both reap the benefits and pay the price.
In the case of the American firm Johnson Controls, this would enable the company to refuse to employ fertile women in its battery making plant, which may well incur the wrath of “feminist” groups, but would save the company the problem of ever facing civil litigation for causing birth defects or miscarriages in its female staff.
In the case of overtly racist companies, it would deprive them of much revenue, for blacks are consumers too. In societies where “discrimination” does exist – be it racial or otherwise – it is not so much petty bigotry as deeply ingrained social mores which are the root cause. In the Deep South, blacks and whites live (or lived) fairly peacefully side by side. That is until the “civil rights” movement, made up largely of Northern leftist agitators – many of them Jewish (187) – started poking their unwanted probosces into the natives’ affairs.
Leaving aside the reform of the financial system and other important political-social reforms, (188) the path to a more equitable world lies not through increasing state intervention, and the consequent, disastrous regulation of the economy by unaccountable bureaucrats, but through the total (or near total) elimination of such intervention. This will undoubtedly result in more rather than less economic inequality, but far better a few – or a lot! – of wealthy people than a world where we are all both equally poor and regulated in both our economic and social pursuits.
To Bibliography
To Notes And References
Back To Part 2
Back To Part 1
Back To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index