Friday, October 23, 2009

You can't be racist towards a majority ?

Jo Brand: 'you can't be racist towards white people'

By Ed West Politics Last updated: October 14th, 2009

The ever-excellent Biased BBC notes that Jo Brand has been explaining the meaning of racism on Radio Five Live:

Jo Brand: My personal opinion is that you can’t be racist towards white people. You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.

Phil Williams: Don’t you think racism is just being derogatory about a race, regardless of the colour?

Jo Brand: No I don’t. I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.
I am reading this statement over, and over, and wonder if it is also true for South Africa.....?

Ignoring the fact that it isn’t illegal to be racist as far as I remember, or at least yet, Brand hits on an interesting point – that so much of society’s problem stem from the fact that the elite’s definition of racism differs so vastly from the people’s understanding of it. Most of us see racism as quite simply, to quote Wikipedia, “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”.

Unfortunately the elite, those in control of the media, academia, politics, the churches and even the police, see racism a different way – through the prism of Marxism, a fantasy world where racism is a form of class exploitation and class division created by whites to exploit not-whites.

To followers of the Marxist ideology of “anti-racism” (as opposed to people who are just anti-racist), racism is by definition only racism when it is white people doing it, because in their make-believe Dungeons and Dragons world only white people are fully responsible for their actions (I know, that’s pretty racist).

This is why our rulers are so determined to ignore the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism – were it white people calling for Jews to be killed and adulterers and gays stoned to death in the name of Jesus, they’d be horrified. Likewise if whites were responsible for the appalling racist oppression of the black southern Sudanese or the Western Saharans the anti-racists would be marching down the Mall in outrage.

This ideology of anti-racism came about in direct reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, which made many Europeans believe their civilisation was inherently evil. But history is full of ironies: just as the horror of the trenches led to the pacifism that made World War 2 inevitable, so “anti-racism” is leading us to the next horror.

Alain Finkielkraut, a French essayist whose father was deported to Auschwitz, has warned how anti-racism, and the inability of white liberal intellectuals to see that all human beings are equally capable of inhumanity, is the biggest danger facing the West. “I think that the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology,” he said in 2005. “And this anti-racism will be for the twenty-first century what Communism was for the twentieth century: a source of violence.”

20 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

Great article!

Vanilla Ice said...

A typical liberal in action. If the definition doesn't fit, then change the definition. What utter twaddle. Racism against whites has become so prevalent that they have been forced to tinker with the definition, otherwise the whole victim gig is at risk of collapsing. Wonder how long it will take to make an appearance in the mainstream dictionaries?

Viking said...

This is an excellent and entertaining read. I particularly like "So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority."

hmm. Hear that? white South Africans can't be racist - ever!

although, wait, in lib-speak, I suppose being white trumps being a minority.

Angulus Calx said...


I have changed the heading.....

hope it fit's better with my thought process.

And yes VI, I agree, however, what is good for geese is good for the gander?

FishEagle said...

"This ideology of anti-racism came about in direct reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, which made many Europeans believe their civilisation was inherently evil."

For me that was the punch line. Viking, as a European you must have known this all along, not so?

The Jews were a superior race with regards to intelligence, compared to white Germans. They were persecuted by the Nazi's out of envy. One can hardly say the same about black 'persecution' in SA. Even though I believe in racial superiority, I believe in giving credit where credit is due - celebrating other's achievement, so to speak. I've finally figured out how my ideologies differ from the Nazi's :)

Islandshark said...

Have you ever SEEN Jo Brand? Chances are she'll never get laid if she spoke out against ANY SPECIES...

Viking said...


what - that I'm inherently evil??!!

I'm not sure this is entirely true, and I was never taught that. There were more Europeans who fought Nazism than supported it, but totalitarianism was just the zeitgeist I suppose.
WWII had more of a lasting mental effect in that Europeans were more determined not to massacre each other in future, which led to the EU, but I think that what led to the current 'anti-racist' liberal/PC bullshit regime was the respectability of left-wing ideas compared to the perceived redundancy of so-called right-wing ones.

I'm not so into the whole racial superiority/inferiority thing, I take an evolutionary perspective in terms of suitability, but that's another discussion entirely..

Viking said...


...yes, I have. And I can never, ever, unsee her.

FishEagle said...

Viking, no. I meant that Europeans believed that they were inherently evil (as a shock response to the Nazi's actions.) There is a difference.

I suspect I also support the evolutionary approach you mention, if I understood you correctly. That doesn't mean that one can't establish traits of superiority like intelligence or virility.

Vanilla Ice said...

In order to better navigate a mine field of political correctness; instead of being superior, it is rather a case of being better suited for a specific environment. This manifests as superior behaviour, given the prevailing world order.

FishEagle said...

Viking, I'm finding it hard to express myself but I'm beginning to grasp the impact of the Nazi's terror on Europe and the rest of white civilization.

Your response was telling.

VI, I couldn't have said it better.

Viking said...

- neither could I. spot on, VI.

Doberman said...

Since it is not racist to be prejudicial against a majority, in power, whites in SA can say and do whatever they want against blacks. Gawd, thank goodness that's been cleared up.

FishEagle said...

I have made peace with the whole racism issue. I have never been more in more awe of the white race than today, regardless of the fact that we have a challenge of monumental proportions on our hands to survive, basically.

FishEagle said...

White South Africans don't have the fears that Europeans experienced in the aftermath of Hitler's rule. We lost our country and many are familiar with envy and spite. That's why many of us stand up against the fascism.

Viking said...

- I think so. The prevailing order of the Multicult is very fascist.

It censors, bans and even imprisons those who opposed it, but does nothing to stop bad behaviour among the nonWestern darlings of the Multicult project.

But I stopped in my tracks when I read your sentence
'actually still a submission to Hitler's terror campaign'
and thought, that's a great point. Just like the US Patriot Act -which Obama has the choice to remove but won't- the European Multicult is really a submission to terrorism. And that's what disgusts me the most.

In fact, I'm just going to post something....

FishEagle said...

Viking, bingo!

FishEagle said...

Whites from other First World countries will consider white SAns as second class citizens because we didn't experience the same fears about Hitler's influence. We compare to the guy that got left behind at base camp because we could type, while the others went to combat. (Anybody see Black Hawk Down?)

FishEagle said...

Hey, what happened to my comment?? It just disappeared!

FishEagle said...

This comment has been resubmitted. It should be the first to appear on the 25th Oct:

Europeans are still afraid of being victimized. The fear is still present, long after the threat (Hitler) is gone.

This whole 'holier than thou' act of tolerance and racial acceptance is actually still a submission to Hitler's terror campaign against those better adapted to the prevailing world order (hey VI? :)) like the Jewish people or whites in the SAn context.

Europeans are still afraid if they don't toe the line they will face the prospect of being labeled 'inherently evil,' which is such an irony. Europeans don't seem to be able to recognize that envy/spite was the driving force behind Hitler's actions because they don't KNOW these qualities within themselves. (How on earth could they compare the apartheid government with the Nazis if they realized that???? How could there possibly be a second wave of anti-Jewish sentiments like the one we are seeing presently if they realized that?) But everyone huddles together in cowardice instead of standing up to the prevailing fascist order.

Now nothing is going to change until Europeans acknowledge that fact. They will just continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, like the Germans made under Hitler. Amazingly, the rest of the white race will also be duped.

When I see the extent of the fear and how widely it has spread across the world - including SA - I am in awe of the white race's influence. Of course it has been rapidly waning due to these negative developments, which is sad.

Viking, would that tie in with the theme of Jonah Goldbert's 'Liberal Fascism'?