As I write these words, in September 2001, it is probably no exaggeration to claim that racism has become one of the big issues of the new Millennium. For many years in fact the media and a large number of organisations – not all of them overtly leftist – have bombarded the British people with a non-stop stream of propaganda about the evils of racism and how this poison must be opposed at all costs. Numerous attempts have been made to destroy our basic freedoms including freedom of speech and freedom of association (and non-association) on the premise that preserving them gives aid and comfort to racism and racists. Some of these attempts have been successful. If though you were to ask a hundred people – white or otherwise – what they understand by racism, it is doubtful if the answers you received would have any consistency.

Indeed, the varieties of racism appear to multiply with the passage of time. Asian-American academic Dinesh D’Souza identifies benign racism, cultural racism, metaracism and unintentional racism just for starters. (1) At the time of writing the big talking point is institutional racism, (2) which was supposedly exposed in the Metropolitan Police by the ludicrous Macpherson Report. (3) Be that as it may, the word racism (or racist) has become a mantra, an epithet which is hurled at any (white) person who dares to take issue with the self-styled “anti-racists”. Whatever may be said of their ethics, there is no denying the success of their tactics. But let us go right back to basics: where does the word come from, and what did it originally mean?

 

Up until the late 1960s, early 70s, the word racism was used more or less interchangeably with racialism, although the latter is of somewhat older origin. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, (4) racialism first entered the English language in 1907, and is defined therein as “Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.” (5)

This definition has clearly been influenced by “anti-racist” propaganda, for it is by no means necessary that a belief in racial superiority must always and inevitably lead to prejudice and antagonism. In the early 20^th Century and before, most of the proponents of “White Supremacy” were anything but antagonistic and prejudiced towards non-whites. Whatever negative effects Colonialism may have had, the British in particular bestowed upon the peoples of Africa and India especially a legacy of which we, their descendants, can rightly be proud. (6)

Most supporters of the animal rights movement would regard animals as inferior to human beings, but that doesn’t mean they hate them. Else why would they oppose vivisection and other perceived mistreatment and brutalisation of sentient creatures?

Whatever its bona fides, the Times Index bears out the genesis of the word racialism, where it appears for the first time in the issue for October 21, 1907, page 3. (7) It is said to have been used in an address two days previously by the South African politician William Schreiner. Specifically he is said to have claimed that racialism still influenced politics in South Africa, though it was now on the wane.

 

It is possible that the word racist may have actually been coined by none other than Leon Trotsky – the ultimate internationalist. The son of a wealthy landowner, Trotsky was born a Jew, but rebelled against his inheritance, and against the very concept of race. (8) The word “Racists,” – in quotes, thus, is to be found in the index to his three volume History Of The Russian Revolution. (9) However, this is a singular reference, clearly does not refer to race in a white/black or white/non-white context, and appears to have been used purely as an epithet. The credit for coining the word proper must go to a contemporary of Trotsky, although one who would most certainly not have approved of his broader political ideology.

 

The dictionary dates racism only to 1935, and defines it thus: “The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.” (10) If one accepts this definition, it is difficult to see why racism should be regarded as even socially undesirable, much less a modern scourge, for surely human characteristics and abilities are determined by race, as indeed they are by many other factors.

The word racism has gradually superseded racialism, and the latter is now more or less moribund. The first entry for racism in the Times Index appears at the surprisingly late date of November 2, 1961, in a reference to a French so-called philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, “and his friends”, holding a 10 minute “silent” demonstration in Paris against “racism and fascism”.

Outside of the dictionary though, the first mention of racism appears to have been made by a German, Magnus Hirschfeld, who published a book with the bland title Racism in 1938. (11) Actually, this book was published posthumously, because Magnus Hirschfeld died in Nice on May 14, 1935, his sixty-seventh birthday.

Although Racism is credited to Hirschfeld alone, it is evident from a study of the book that he was not its sole author. There is a reference on page 279 (in the appendix) to a legal declaration which was made by a Swiss court on the day of his death.

This is probably not very important, however, Hirschfeld’s antecedents and experiences certainly are important, because it is evident that they affected profoundly his views on race. So who was Magnus Hirschfeld?

According to the fawningly homophile Encyclopedia Of Homosexuality, he was the “Leader of the homosexual emancipation movement in Germany”. (12) Hirschfeld was not homosexual himself, rather he was an academic, an early sexologist. He was born in Kolberg in 1868, the son of a doctor. After qualifying in medicine at Strasburg, he entered general practice, taking up sexology only in 1910, a subject to which he was to devote the rest of his life. Hirschfeld was the first academic to propound the belief that those with sexual aberrations were not criminals but people whose “sexual balance” had “gone wrong”. Such views were not popular at that time, but subsequent developments have vindicated him. He has been justly described as the greatest pioneer of sexology next to Havelock Ellis.

He was also, apparently, a man of some means, founding the Institute of Sexual Science in the palace of Prince Hatzfeld, Berlin. In 1919 this was endowed as the Magnus Hirschfeld Foundation and handed over to the Prussian Government. (13)

As well as a pioneer of sexual science, Hirschfeld was a Jew, and the combination of his Jewishness and his open advocacy of social tolerance for what was then widely (and rightly) regarded as a perversion, did not exactly endear him to the Nazis. After the ascent of Hitler, his property was plundered and his publications burnt (14) – he was far from the only Jew or academic to suffer this fate, of course, although he didn’t suffer personally at the hands of the Hitler régime, having left Germany for good in November 1931. (15) But thirteen years before the Nazis attempted to purge his writings from German academe by legally enforced tyranny, an attempt was made to purge him from the face of the Earth by clearly unlawful means.

In October 1920, while a professor of physiology in Berlin, Hirschfeld was attacked after a lecture in Munich, apparently by anti-Semites. (16) The attack was so violent that on October 12 he was actually reported dead; (17) a correction was published the following day. (18)

One can never truly know what goes on in another man’s mind, but it is certainly an intelligent speculation that this tragedy profoundly affected Hirschfeld’s attitude towards race. In his posthumous treatise the extent of this effect is apparent, for he advocated the eradication of the word race. (19) Actually, he went much further than that, his book argues not only against the semantics of race but against the promulgation of distinct races of mankind per se. The entire book is in fact a thinly veiled plea for miscegenation.

Towards the end of the book, on page 265, the veil slips entirely, and he makes an overt appeal for the destruction of all races. Earlier in the book, a sub-heading says it all:

MANKIND A UNITY TO BEGIN WITH,
AND DESTINED TO BECOME A UNITY
ONCE MORE

Like today’s committed “anti-racists”, Hirschfeld argued that race as a distinct biological category didn’t really exist, even to the extent of denying the evidence of his own senses. On page 83 for example he denies the existence of racial odours, although he had travelled widely and could not have been unaware of racial odours either from the anthropological literature or from his own experience.

He also used what were later to become all the de rigueur sophistries of the modern “anti-racist” movement. Chapter Six of Racism is entitled IS A HUMAN BEING’S WORTH DEPENDENT ON THE COLOUR OF HIS SKIN? Of course, only a fool or a bigot would answer this question in the affirmative, but the concept of equal rights for all, or perhaps more accurately fair play for all, is totally irrelevant either to the abilities and talents of men or to their classification.

In addition to his wilful blindness of biology and in common with the overwhelming majority of today’s “anti-racists”, Hirschfeld held the fallacious belief that the world is made up of two types of people – whites and everyone else. On page 113 he predicts “a war of extermination” against whites by non-whites who are “treated as fit for nothing better than to become hewers of wood and drawers of water”. (20) This is remarkably similar to the rhetoric of the Socialist Workers Party and the Revolutionary Communist Group in their incessant railing against the evils of “Imperialism” today. (21)

Curiously, four pages later he says England is “A favourite country for mixed marriages” because “liberal views prevail”, the (wicked) British Empire notwithstanding. Doubtless the England of Hirschfeld’s day did seem a remarkably liberal place in comparison with Nazi Germany, but mixed marriages were hardly either common or a “favourite” of its then overwhelmingly white population.

Although the name Magnus Hirschfeld is far from forgotten today, he is remembered only for his pioneering work on sexual aberration and his progressive views on the tolerance of sexual perversion. Unfortunately, his views on race, in particular his absurd dishonest polemics against the supposed evils of racism, are not only still with us but have been widely disseminated without accreditation, and largely for the same dishonest reasons.

It is perhaps uncharitable to denounce Hirschfeld too harshly for intellectual dishonesty. He was as much as any man a patriotic German, and his suffering at the hands of anti-Semites, his more or less enforced exile from his homeland, and the final insult, the burning of his treasured institute by heathens, an institute which he had built up by himself and donated to the nation and in a wider sense to the world, would have profoundly affected the judgment of any man. And in spite of his open advocacy of miscegenation, one finds no trace of the vituperative anti-white racial hatred of today’s “anti-racists” in his writings. There is though no denying that others who have latched onto such ideas with fervour have been far less idealistic than Hirschfeld himself; many have in fact been downright mischievous, none more than Hirschfeld’s fellow Jews, who make up and indeed have always made up a substantial tranche of the white element of “anti-racist” activists.

 

The obsession of a certain type of Jew for the promotion of enforced race-mixing and the resultant miscegenation has long been part and parcel of contemporary anti-Semitic propaganda, and has been woven into the weft of many a conspiracy theory, including those often bordering on the absurd. Unfortunately, when one probes below the surface, one finds that however anti-Semitic the ideas may appear, they are for the most part not propaganda.

The French anthropologist Georges A. Heuse commented diplomatically on Jewish mischief-making on race issues thus: “...we can only hope that precious time will not be lost in recognizing the fallacy of equalitarian anti-racism...In our effort to respect the full complexity of bio-physical and bio-sociological human phenomena, we often meet opposition from Jewish academicians who pose as champions of egalitarianism....These champions, whose power and cleverness we admire, often believe that in denying race and racial psychology, they suppress at one and the same time both racism and anti-semitism. We are indeed surprised at their naive and erroneous belief.” (22)

The above assessment may be accurate as far as Jewish academic involvement in “race relations” is concerned, but those of us who have documented the perfidy of the Searchlight Organisation and its fellow travellers would regard it as unduly charitable.

An early writer on the race issue, Colonel Silburn, makes passing references to such Jewish influences in his sympathetic study of the race problem in South Africa, (23) while extremely well documented is the perfidious influence of the German-born Jew Franz Boas (1858-1942). Boas, who emigrated to the United States in 1886, held the Chair of Anthropology at Columbia University for 43 years.

According to his New York Times obituary, Professor Boas, who considered the race question to be the most important issue in the world at that time, made the incredible statement: “What we know as race is largely a matter of environment. There is no such thing as pure race.” (24) It beggars belief that a man who could endorse nonsense like this could be considered suitable to hold such a prestigious academic post, and to poison the minds of the cream of America’s anthropology students for more than four decades.

In spite of his high academic office, Boas had no formal training in either anatomy or general biology. This would not necessarily disqualify him from making meaningful contributions in either field, (25) but a lack of such formal qualification does mean that both his peers and his successors should have paid close scrutiny to the quality of his work and to the conclusions he, and others, have drawn from it. The most damning criticism that can be made of Boas is that like Hirschfeld, he allowed scientific truth to play second fiddle to a (perverted) ideology. Boas is known to have had no less than forty-six Communist front affiliations, (26) although he was himself no Communist.

In 1921, in a similar and earlier plea for miscegenation to Hirschfeld’s, Boas wrote “It would seem that, man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recognized...” (27)

Not only did Boas advocate the total assimilation of the Negro into the white population (and the resultant degradation of both races), he assumed, erroneously, that there was such an entity as “the Negro problem”. It is not, of course, and never has been, the Negro who is a problem in white society, rather it is the likes of Professor Boas and his fellow travellers – Jew and Gentile – who are the root cause of all race problems.

Further damning evidence of the pernicious influence of Boas – and the perfidy of Organised Jewry – can be found in the official history of the American Jewish Committee. Herein, the reader is informed that “the Committee helped subsidize the work of Columbia University’s famous anthropologist, Franz Boas, and other social scientists in refuting the Aryan myth.” (28) And that the AJC helped organise an international conference on race in the 1930s, to which Boas was an “American” delegate. (29)

The protegés of Professor Boas include his co-racialist Melville Herskovits, who penned these embarrassingly candid words: “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?”(30)

In other words, let us lie about history to combat prejudice. It is difficult to believe that at the time of writing this drivel, Herskovits was Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University.

The idea that prejudice and bigotry can be overcome by blatant dishonesty is a novel concept, not to mention a dangerous, one. Indeed, the principal cause of racial antagonism, in particular the overt antagonism so many of today’s younger and more educated blacks exhibit towards whites, is this outrageous rewriting of history to show Imperialism and Colonialism in purely negative terms. The black man is all the while being conditioned to believe that he owes the white man nothing but contempt, and that all his failings in the modern world are due exclusively to racism, this mysterious and for the most part indefinable entity which causes blacks to suffer higher crime rates, illiteracy rates, illegitimacy rates, and a plethora of other problems, real and imagined. (31)

 

In her book Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, Paula Rothenberg denies not only the existence of race but of blacks! For her (and her ilk) there is no such thing as a black man or a black woman, rather they are “people of color”. (32) This would not have gone down at all well with Sir William Macpherson and his gang, who claimed in their report that the words “coloured” and “negro” are “now well known to be offensive”. (33) In fact, the word Negro (note the capitalisation!) is a perfectly valid term, and until Malcolm X began referring to “the so-called Negro”, most American Negroes were happy to refer to themselves as such. The word colored (American spelling!) is an unnecessary euphemism. The preferred terms nowadays appear (in the United States) to be “African-Americans”, and in Britain to be “black people” (which is almost as patronisingly offensive as “people of color”). (34)

Returning to Rothenberg, she admits that defining racism is difficult but settles for a definition of racism (and sexism) as “any policy, practice, belief, or attitude that attributes characteristics or status to individuals based upon their race or their sex.” (35) But she goes further in asserting that racism (and sexism!) require “prejudice plus power”. (36)

Thus “individual persons of color or women”; can discriminate against whites or others or women can discriminate against men but “this does not qualify as racism or sexism...because neither the person of color nor the woman can depend upon all the institutions of society to enforce or extend his or her personal dislike”. (37)

To leave the reader in no doubt what is being implied here, we are told that “For this reason, even if a person of color gives a speech filled with vicious racial hatred or carries out violence against others because of their white skin, it is not, strictly speaking, racism. It may be despicable and it can be condemned and deplored, but it doesn’t qualify as racism because the element of power is not present.” (38) Battering a white man over the head lacks an element of power?

A further insight into the author’s mentality is given by her reference to the “male door-opening ritual”, a seemingly innocent but oppressive practice, no less, from which she infers: “The point is that sexism and racism can [be] and are perpetuated by people who are just trying to be nice.” (39) She misses the point, which is that racism (and the even more absurd chimera of sexism) are not supposed to be nice, hence the demonising of racists (and sexists!). It is difficult if not impossible to argue with this sort of mentality.

Racism and “anti-racism” are not just about black and white of course; the colour most frequently associated with the latter is red. Thus the American Communist Party tells us that “Racism is a specific product of capitalism and a universal feature of capitalism. Racist and national oppression and discrimination will be completely eliminated only under socialism.” (40) The oppression of minorities, especially ethnic minorities, is always central to the Marxist thesis. Racism itself is supposed to have arisen as an attempt to justify this oppression, slavery in particular. This is demonstrably false, because in the first instance slavery was never an issue of black and white. (41) In the second instance, very young children can discern the existence of racial differences and can exhibit racism, ie racism is first and foremost an innate or inherited trait, rather than one that has to be learned.

Interestingly, the existence of non-white racism (rather than mere racial antagonism) has occasionally been recognised by the authorities. As far back as 1961, a (formerly secret) police report on the development of racism in Jamaica (held by the Public Record Office) points out that “The word ‘racism’ is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as ‘antagonism between different races of men.’[but]...the meaning of the word in Jamaica is more complex in that it represents not only black Jamaicans against white Jamaicans and expatriates but against brown Jamaicans, Jamaican Jews, Syrians and Chinese, and indeed against black Jamaicans who can be associated with the retention of the present structure of society in Jamaica.” The same file identifies the black nationalist Marcus Garvey as “the primogenitor of racism in Jamaica”. (42) In spite of this concession – that racism cuts both ways – it is noteworthy that even as far back as the early sixties, the police gave spurious credence to the perverted terminology of the “anti-racist” lobby.

Before moving on, let us take one more definition: “RACISM: the belief that one group of people [is] superior to another and therefore [has] the right to dominate, and the power to institute and enforce [its] prejudices and discriminations”. (43)

This definition is very similar to that proposed by the Macpherson Report (see below), and again, it has been tainted by “anti-racist” propaganda, because (again!) it manifestly does not follow that a group which believes itself to be superior – whatever is meant by that term – believes it has the right to dominate others. (44)

Let us for the moment put aside all the left wing cant and specious nonsense about racism and take a straight look at race from a logical point of view.

 

The Iraqis have a saying: “I and my brother against my cousin, I and my cousin against our neighbor, I and my neighbor against the world.” (45)

This saying is not an expression of antagonism, it is merely common sense. As another writer puts it: “it is a universal practice to prefer members of one’s own group over strangers.” (46) Most of us are more tolerant of our families and friends, and in times of adversity we rally round. This does not mean that we will never go to the assistance of a stranger, most of us do from time to time, even if it is only something as trivial as helping a blind man across a busy road. In times of national disaster, people rally round strangers in need on a far grander scale. One example will suffice. In March 2000, a televised appeal through the BBC brought in millions of pounds of aid for the African nation of Mozambique, which was at that time experiencing flooding of Biblical proportions. A BBC report of March 3 revealed that over 90,000 calls had been received.The British Navy was said to be sending in a ship and additional helicopters; on March 5, it was announced that the British government had pledged no less than seventy-six million pounds towards flood relief. This was far from a lone British effort; aid to Mozambique poured in from all over the world, including from many non-white nations. This is a regular phenomenon whenever disasters – natural or man-made – occur.

Yet we are led by the “anti-racist” industry to believe that racism and racial antagonism (read white on non-white) is increasing by leaps and bounds. At the time of writing, the greatest manufactured controversy in the arena of race relations is that of so-called asylum-seekers. At one time we in Britain had immigrants, then we had ethnic minorities, now we have asylum-seekers.

Literally hundreds of thousands of people from the non-white nations of the world (and lately from many poorer white ones) have sought entrance to Britain. These people are overwhelmingly economic migrants; for the most part they are unwelcome, at least by the white population, and increasingly by the non-white population also. (47) Why is this? There are many reasons, and few of them have anything to do with racism or bigotry. The simple fact is that immigrants are never welcome in any society. Unless they have easily recognisable blood ties, or they are fabulously wealthy. (48) And like so much about race, this is not a black and white issue. (49)

Another, and related reason for what is often perceived mistakenly as racial antagonism, is the refusal to acknowledge what might be called “the terms of the trade”. When people meet, socially or otherwise, unless they do so on mutually agreeable and recognised terms, antagonism and/or resentment is sure to manifest in either or both parties. Often these terms are unspoken, but they are no less tangible for that. If a man invites you into his home it is generally on the understanding that you do not proposition his young daughter, spit on his carpet, or help yourself to the contents of his refrigerator. If a man doesn’t invite you into his home, it is probably not a good idea to invite yourself.

Serious misunderstandings often occur between the sexes when one party – usually the male – doesn’t understand the terms of the trade, or misreads them drastically. Sometimes men interpret mere friendliness by women as a sexual come-on; this happens most frequently with men who have very limited contact with the opposite sex. Such misunderstandings can lead to resentment, and in more serious cases to sexual assault or rape.

Some people keep their business and personal lives in totally separate compartments, or even different aspects of their personal lives in separate compartments. A man who drinks with his workmates after work may not wish to socialise with them in some other setting. None of this has anything to do with hatred, bigotry or even snobbery, or in racial terms, with racism. How many of the countless millions of people (white or otherwise) throughout the world who contributed to the Mozambique flood appeal and to similar appeals would invite a flood victim into his or her own living room much less the bedroom?

The greatest taboo with race though is with the inevitable result of enforced race-mixing: miscegenation. For the most part this problem remains unspoken, and when it is discussed it is generally in the most disingenuous terms. For the “anti-racist” movement and its fellow travellers, race does not exist, period. They even go so far as to deny the physical (and other differences) between races in their publications, using the spurious argument that the only difference between races is skin colour. And they would deny even that if they could. (50)

It is the miscegenation which is the inevitable result of enforced race-mixing which leads to resentment amongst all races, and it is this which lies at the heart of the race problem, although only either the very brave or the very foolish will admit it publicly.

 

Although there was a “race problem” in Britain before the 1960s and 70s, including occasional “race riots”, (51) it was only with the advent of the National Front that the “anti-racist” movement really took off. The strategy used was as simple as it was dishonest, but in spite of its simplicity and inherent dishonesty it is one that worked then and has worked in Britain and elsewhere ever since.

The National Front was founded by A.K. Chesterton, a former Mosleyite Blackshirt. Like all political parties it had a range of policies, but the main policy, and the only one that ever received any attention from the media, was its policy on race, which in broad terms was to halt (non-white) immigration into Britain and to begin the repatriation of all non-whites living here. (52)

As might be expected, the NF attracted elements that were undemocratic, including a few neo-Nazis, some of them of very recent vintage. (53) No great investigative powers were needed to uncover this, and very soon the “anti-racist” movement was having a field day smearing all members of, supporters of, and sympathisers with, the National Front, as Nazis. Photographs of Belsen and other concentration camps were circulated far and wide, and the message was clear. Anyone who supported the National Front, who supported forced repatriation of non-whites, or even spoke out against uncontrolled non-white immigration into Britain, was a Nazi, and we all know what the Nazis did, don’t we? They gassed six million Jews.

Nowadays there is less talk of Nazis and gas chambers as such and much more talk of racism. The big talking point at the current time is institutional racism, which like racism itself has been defined so widely – where it is defined at all – as to make everyone guilty of this most heinous of crimes. Every white person at least.

In the Macpherson Report, racism is defined as “conduct or words or practices which disadvantage or advantage people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin”. (54)

There is no reference here to white racism, but the above definition is so broad that it could be used to taint everyone with the racist brush. Some individuals go even further, thus in his book The Racist Mind, the academic Raphael Ezekiel (who rather unsurprisingly is Jewish) writes: “As we grow up within a society that is saturated in white racism, year after year we pass through interactions in which white racist conceptions are an unspoken subtext. We make lives in institutions in which this is true. We cannot live from day to day without absorbing a certain amount of white racism into our thoughts. (We similarly absorb homophobia and sexism). It is foolish to say, ‘I am not racist.’” (55) The broader “anti-racist” movement has two unspoken premises, (though these are not always unspoken). These premises are that:

1) Anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their dogma can only be infected with racism.

2) The slightest manifestation of any form of (white) racism leads inevitably to racially motivated violence, and even genocide.

Taking the first point first, how could anyone but a racist object to uncontrolled (non-white) immigration? How could anyone but a racist believe that different races have different capabilities (or at least different ranges of them?); how could anyone but a racist believe that there is such a thing as a pure race, or that race exists at all, or that even if different races did exist, that this would be desirable? In short, anyone who doesn’t tow the line must be guilty.

The second premise of the “anti-racist” movement is based as much on emotional blackmail as on perverted logic. As stated, in the seventies the trick was to associate any form of (white) race consciousness with the Nazi gas chambers. Again, unsubtle as this may be, it was extraordinarily effective. Nowadays, with the rise of Holocaust Revisionism, the situation in the Middle East, and what might be termed genocide fatigue, the strategy of portraying all racists as overt or nascent Nazis has largely fallen into disuse, but the insinuation of gratuitous racially motivated violence is never far from their minds.

A good example appeared on the front cover of the March 1994 issue of the Jewish-controlled, anti-white, race-hate magazine Searchlight. A photograph of a well-known British National Party candidate, Derek Beackon, holding an election/recruitment leaflet appeared above a photograph of a Mr Muktar Ali. The latter was confined to a hospital bed and had clearly suffered horrific injuries, especially to his face. The cover was captioned

FASCISM
BEGINS WITH THIS
AND ENDS WITH...

Twenty years earlier it would have been more usual to juxtapose a photograph of a National Front activist with an emaciated Jew dressed in Belsen pyjamas, but like I said, genocide fatigue...

Dinesh D’Souza, whom we have already met, echoes this point: “We have one word, racism, that stretches to include everything from lynching to somebody frowning at you in a restaurant. When I ask black students what they mean when they claim this university is a racist place, they often don’t know what to say.” (56)

A lot more could be said about the methodology of the fanatics of the “anti-racist” movement from their use of agents provocateur to their dirty tricks behind the political and financial scenes, but their main technique has always been the application of the time honoured principle that might is right.

The “anti-racist” movement has common roots as well as a large overlapping membership with the anti-fascist movement, and operates strictly on the premise that might is right, although the phrases they use are (slightly) less unsubtle. They might be summed up as follows:

No platform for fascists/racists/Nazis.

And

No debate/no free speech for (as above).

In the past they have also used “Never again” (still heard occasionally nowadays); and “They shall not pass”. (57)

Anyone who advocates what the “anti-racist” movement perceives to be fascist policies or racism can and will be subjected to this treatment, which at times borders on the hysterical. All in the name of democracy, of course. Again, this policy may be unsubtle, but it has proved remarkably successful over a period of many decades. (58)

It is important to bear in mind that, definitions or the lack thereof aside, what the far left regard as fascism and/or racism is often very different from accepted norms. Usually the mere charge of racism will suffice. Probably the nadir of this sort of nonsense cum tyranny can be seen in the cases of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Satpal Ram.

Abu-Jamal was convicted in June 1982 of the December 1981 murder of a police officer in his native Philadelphia; at the time of writing he is on Death Row. Satpal Ram was convicted of the frenzied knife murder of a stranger in a restaurant in Birmingham. Ram stabbed Clarke Pearce because he objected to something his victim said about the music that was being played; he was sentenced to life imprisonment in June 1987.

Supporters of Abu-Jamal and Ram have not only continued to protest their heroes’ innocence in the face of absolutely overwhelming proof of guilt, but have churned out reams of blatantly false propaganda, and have engaged in long running hate campaigns against both the victims and the families of the victims. (59) Fortunately the legal systems of both the United States and the United Kingdom have not been intimidated by the unremitting cries of racism that have accompanied both cases, but it is a frightening thought that if “anti-racists” had had their way, these two cold-blooded killers would not only have been released years ago but would probably never have been tried for their crimes.

 

Earlier, we alluded to the open advocacy of miscegenation by Magnus Hirschfeld. Usually, today’s “anti-racists” are not so candid about their genocidal plans for especially (but not exclusively) the white race. Occasionally though the mask slips. D’Souza, who styles himself an “anti-racist” but is anything but, (60) reports that with current trends, by 2050 whites will make up only 50% of the population, and that understandably many whites are uncomfortable about “the browning of America”. (61) It is probably the case that after decades of media brainwashing the overwhelming majority of whites view “the browning of America” or of any of the remaining predominantly white nations largely with apathy, but not all of them. Some welcome it with open arms. Atheist philosopher Paul Kurtz has written: “The highest good, as I see it, is intermarriage between people of different ethnicities, races, religions, and cultures. People who intermarry are contributing to the new human species that is emerging on this planet. You can see it clearly in the United States: in fifty years we will have a non-white majority. This frightens many people. I can see the same changes in the cities of Western Europe...In due course, the majority may no longer be white. I think this is wholesome and good. It is difficult for many people’s nervous system to have this clash of cultures and races, but we ought to encourage the widespread intermingling of people as we reach a civilisation which is beyond ethnic differences.”

Incredibly, this piece of genocidal sewage is extracted from an essay on “tolerance”, (62) a word straight out of the Orwellian dictionary of newspeak; when the “anti-racist” lobby write or speak of tolerance they mean anything but.

While Paul Kurtz relishes the imminent genocide of the white race, others advocate a fast track to extermination. Writing in a Sunday broadsheet, one journalist, who has the temerity to call himself a liberal, opines thus on the race problem: “widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy [and] the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress...I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off.” (63) There you have it: repression is good, especially if it leads to the destruction of the wicked whites. It is hardly surprising that so many non-whites, especially blacks, exhibit increasing contempt for the white race when whites such as Paul Kurtz and Andrew Marr – both Gentiles, be it noted – consider white survival to be totally anathema.

 

If the reader lives in contemporary Britain, or the United States, and keeps reasonably abreast of current affairs, the foregoing will be sufficient to enlighten him as to the roots of the current racial malaise. It would be superfluous to describe in detail the ongoing brainwashing campaign which constitutes the war on whiteness: the hysteria over institutional racism, the lunacy of racial quotas, (64) the dishonest rhetoric about racist violence and “asylum-seekers”, and the continuing and for the most part successful lobbying for more and more repressive “race relations” legislation.

In his 1947 book TAKE YOUR CHOICE: SEPARATION OR MONGRELIZATION, the United States Senator Theodore G. Bilbo reported that at the then present rate of miscegenation, the white race would disappear in America within nine generations. (65) Forty years later, a woman doctor writing on an entirely different subject painted an even more pessimistic picture of demographic trends in Sweden, the spiritual homeland of Adolf Hitler’s idealised Nordic race: “It has been estimated that unless the women in Sweden have a higher birth rate soon, there will be no more Swedes after four generations.” (66) Another, and even more recent source reports that in the USA, a staggering 25% of Hispanics marry out; 5% of blacks marry whites, while one in ten American black men between the ages of 15 and 34 are married to white women. (67) Similar alarming figures are reported in the United Kingdom. This alone refutes the lying propaganda of the “anti-racist” lobby that racism has reached alarming proportions, but the propaganda continues, as does the brainwashing.

Contrary to “anti-racist” propaganda, it is not necessary either to share or in any way to endorse Nazi ideals in order to take issue with the genocidal pronouncements of Paul Kurtz and Andrew Marr. Senator Bilbo, who was widely attacked as a bigot, wrote that “the real and true white man is willing to accept the Negro as his brother in Christ. However, he does not prefer to take him as a son-in-law in his family, and this decision comes under the head of an honest and true white man’s business.” (68) This statement is both admirable and honorable, and echoes the words of Sir Harry Johnston, the English colonial administrator, explorer, author and naturalist, who remarked that “The white people in the United States...will have to get used to the presence of the Negro in their midst as a brother, but not as a brother-in-law.” (69) The title of Bilbo’s book identifies both the problem, and the solution.

All over the world, people – and not just white people – are being brainwashed by the insidious propaganda of the misnamed “anti-racist” movement cloaked as it usually is in the robes of the brotherhood of man. People, and especially children, are being taught not only that race doesn’t matter, or that it shouldn’t matter, but that it doesn’t exist, or even that the abolition of all racial boundaries is, in the words of Paul Kurtz, the highest good.

In the name of tolerance, the “anti-racist” movement has been responsible for foisting some of the most Draconian and totalitarian legislation known to man onto Western society, and they are still not satisfied, nor will they be until the last white woman has passed child-bearing age. (70) In short, people – and especially white people – are being denied a real choice. That choice is separation or mongrelisation.

Some white people have taken their choice, most notably the likes of Sharron Davies the former swimmer turned TV presenter, miscegenist and overt messenger of the Gospel of Paul Kurtz and Andrew Marr. The choice she has taken puts her beyond redemption; we can do nothing for her, but we can do something to prevent her contaminating the minds of especially the young.

The vast majority of those white people who oppose the aims of the “anti-racist” movement have fallen into the trap of thinking like their avowed enemy, for by and large they accept the unsustainable premise that the world is made up of two, and only two, types of people: whites, and everyone else. Obviously this is not the case.

The root of this nonsense can be found in the social history of (so-called) anti-Semitism. Jewish historians (71) and apologists have traditionally divided mankind into two groups: Jews, and all the rest. To this schism they have added the largely unspoken premise that “anti-Semitism” is entirely and only the fault of the wicked goyim. You can search in vain through any history of anti-Semitism for the merest suggestion that the Jews or any group of them may just occasionally have brought their own people into contempt. In recent years this has changed somewhat, for example, in his book Esau’s Tears, the Jewish scholar Albert Lindemann opines that it seems facile to assert that “Jews, unlike other human groups, cannot provoke legitimate irritation or that anyone expressing irritation about Jews, or criticism of them as a group, inexorably enters the moral realm of the Nazis.” (72) That being said, there is still a canyon wide gulf between the reality of anti-Semitism and the perceived causes.

We see similar things at work in black/white relations. Most politicians in particular are terrified of laying any blame for the at times parlous state of race relations on non-whites, especially on blacks. Most blacks have themselves been brainwashed into accepting the conspiracy of evil white men theory of racism; in Britain it took the killing of a ten year old African schoolboy (73) by another black to make most blacks realise that occasionally the blame lies with them [see supplementary note]. In its wake, one black man wrote that “Racists don’t have to kill blacks – we are more than capable of doing it ourselves”. (74)

Overt and more often covert hostility to the genocide of all races can be found amongst all racial groups, and again, this has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance, bigotry, hatred, etc. (75) What right thinking, rational person accepts the premise that opposition to racial extinction is evil, and that acceptance of it constitutes enlightenment and tolerance?

A recently published book by the black American Libertarian Larry Elder makes this point. (76) Blacks, he says, are more racist than whites. One of the reasons Elder gives for this pronouncement is that blacks are more likely to oppose miscegenation. Incredibly, he thinks this is a bad idea.

Elder’s book, and similar studies, present us with a dilemma that doesn’t really exist, because there can be social justice and racial justice without miscegenation. Two examples: one modern, one not so modern, will suffice.

In 1931, nine young Negroes were indicted for the rapes of two low class white women at Scottsboro in America’s Deep South. The penalty for rape then was death; one of The Scottsboro Boys was 13 years old.

In view of the young ages of the defendants, the severity of the sentences and the paucity of actual evidence of rape, the case rapidly became a cause celébrè. Death sentences on seven of the nine defendants were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama on March 24, 1932, but thanks to a nationwide campaign, justice was eventually done, although the case dragged on for years.

One encyclopaedia reports that “The Scottsboro case was widely exploited by Communists for propaganda purposes. But the eventual freeing of most of the defendants was due chiefly to the efforts of the Scottsboro defense committee, a predominantly liberal, non-Communist body.” (77)

But it wasn’t only liberals, it was also hard line racists who rallied to the cause of The Scottsboro Boys. In his book on the case, Dan Carter wrote “Interracial leaders of the Deep South had two goals, segregation and justice, and it seldom occurred to most of them that the two might be incompatible.”

This was certainly the view of the white members of the Alabama Interracial Commission. One white Southerner put it like this: “The average white man, he said, is ‘superior to the black man because he is black. My quarrel is not with superiority but with the method of asserting it at the expense of justice...” (78)

Many people protested the death sentences, even if they agreed with the verdict. One man – a lawyer – stressed that he was not a “nigger-lover” or a Communist but deplored the “barbarous penalty...to be applied to these children”. (79)

Likewise, it is by no means incompatible to be both saddened by the tragic death of ten year old Damilola Taylor (see above), and revolted by the practices of Sharron Davies and her ilk.

The case of Mike Tyson is even more striking in that the only people who seemed to give a damn about his victim were white. The rise and fall of former undisputed world heavyweight champion “Iron” Mike Tyson has been too well documented to need referencing here, but the bare facts are as follows. In July 1991, Tyson lured a young black girl to his hotel room. And raped her.

Desireé Washington was a contestant in a Miss Black America pageant. She reported the rape, Tyson was indicted by a grand jury, and eventually convicted of rape and two counts of deviate sexual conduct. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, (four of them suspended); he served three years. (80) From the day Tyson was convicted, the boxing world awaited his return with baited breath. He was not to regain his former glory, but although he was no longer undefeated and no longer in his prime, he still had an aura about him, and, it seemed, the supposedly so racist media and Western world in general would forgive him almost anything. If nothing else, money talks.

In 2000, Tyson was scheduled to fight in Manchester against Julius Francis, a capable domestic fighter, but one well below world class. And a campaign was launched to keep convicted rapist Tyson out of Britain. This campaign was run principally by female anti-rape campaigners, the overwhelming majority of them white. It failed. Money talks. Home Secretary Jack Straw allowed Tyson in. And what happened next? Convicted rapist Tyson was treated like a hero, he was mobbed when he visited black areas of Britain, not least by black women. In Brixton, he literally stopped the traffic. One black woman blamed Tyson’s conviction on the racist American criminal justice system and told the current writer that Tyson would always be welcomed among “his people”. Excuse me?

Black men were no less shameless. In 1992, American film director Spike Lee, who makes a big thing out of how oppressed blacks have been and remain, was quoted thus: “Any girl that goes up to Tyson’s room at 4am doesn’t think she’s going sight-seeing in Indianapolis.” (81) Far more forthright comments were made by Tyson’s (so-called) Muslim supporters.

A for the most part unspoken undercurrent here is that the rape of a black woman doesn’t count if the perpetrator is also black. Or at best, black-on-black rape is something that should be dealt with “in-house”, and not by white man’s justice. Incredibly, some black rape victims swallow this garbage. (82) Fortunately, the white man’s criminal justice system doesn’t see things that way. Any black man (or black woman) who would deny justice to the likes of Desireé Washington and absolve a brute like Tyson simply because he is black has no right to protest against the evils of racism. Better racist justice than black justice.

 

Recall the definition of racism given by the Macpherson Report: “conduct or words or practices which disadvantage or advantage people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin”.

As stated, this definition is so all-encompassing that it could include almost anything associated with race, so why not miscegenation? After all, doesn’t progressive racial extermination qualify as a practice which disadvantages people on account of their race? Won’t white people (for example) be disadvantaged when they cease to exist? Incredible though it may seem, the “anti-racist” lobby have managed to make pure sound like a dirty word.

In order to combat and eventually to defeat the “anti-racist” lobby, the black veil of their censorship, their hysteria and their lying propaganda must first be overcome. To date this has been possible only on a small scale, but it is surprising how vacuous they sound when they are forced by thoughtful race-conscious people to defend their ideas. To date, most of this opposition has come from Black Nationalists, in particular the followers of Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan. Black Nationalism throws the “anti-racist” movement into a quandary; they simply don’t know what to do with it. (83) In 1997, the whinging left wing “anti-racist” magazine CARF (which is run largely by white middle class pseuds) and its sponsor the misnamed Institute of Race Relations named one of its champions of “anti-racism” as Muhammad Ali. (84) Oh yeah? Here is what Ali himself has to say on race: “In the jungle, lions are with lions and tigers with tigers, and redbirds stay with redbirds and bluebirds with bluebirds. That’s human nature, too, to be with your own kind. I don’t want to go where I’m not wanted.”(85)

And: “I never have done anything wrong...I don’t join any integration marches. I don’t pay any attention to all those white women who wink at me. I don’t carry signs.”

“I don’t impose myself on people who don’t want me. If I go in somebody’s house where I’m not welcome, I am uncomfortable. So I stay away.”

“I like white people. I like my own people. They can live together without infringing on each other.” (86)

And, most notably, when asked “Do you believe that lynching is the answer to interracial sex?” he replied “A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman.” (87)

Muhammad Ali has of course been attacked by “liberals” and by mainstream blacks for his anti-integrationist views; some people have tried to portray him as a pawn of the Black Muslims, but the highly intelligent Ali was never anybody’s fool. His principled stand against the Vietnam War brought him hatred and vituperation from many quarters, but he stood up for what he believed in, and was eventually vindicated. Although Vietnam veterans are rightly revered, few people today will defend US involvement in Vietnam on political grounds.

Ali became a conscientious objector because he had no argument with the Vietcong, and was not of a mind to kill people with whom he had no argument, and who had never done him any harm. This is not exactly the stereotype of the typical white racist, but that is hardly surprising when one considers the people who have created and who perpetuate that stereotype. If the far right can successfully take a leaf out of Muhammad Ali’s book by demonstrating what they are for rather than what they are against, the genocidal campaign of the “anti-racist” lobby may yet be defeated. There is still a mountain to climb, but as the saying goes, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

---

To Notes And References
Return To Back Cover
Return To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index