By Frederick Dixon:
Does anyone remember “racial prejudice”? It was something we were supposed to deplore when I was at school, which was quite a long time ago. It came after “the colour bar” but before “racism” and seems to have meant roughly the same, whatever that was or is. Therein lies the problem, the phrase is of such infinite flexibility and vagueness that it can be made to fit almost any hint of racial awareness or feeling – by white people of course.
I was reminded of this almost forgotten phrase by a report in the Daily Mail. The report (with a promising headline screaming about a “rise in racism”) was into a piece of research conducted by the British Social Attitudes Survey which asked some 2,000 respondents whether or not they were “racially prejudiced”. What caused all the alarm was that the proportion who said that they were prejudiced had risen from 25% in 2000 to 30% last year, a rise attributed to 9/11 and the reaction against immigration. My reaction was quite different – “is that all, after 17 years of ever rising immigration?” In the eighties and early nineties the percentage was regularly between 35% and 40% although immigration was then running at much lower levels and generally believed to be under control; it then declined sharply to 25% at the millennium.
What is going on? As the survey was conducted by face to face interviews it is perhaps surprising that so high a percentage were willing to admit to a stranger that they had such disgraceful feelings, surely there must be a much higher proportion who are not willing to admit it? We should probably apply the old rule of thumb which opinion pollsters use when dealing with this sensitive area; divide by three and multiply by four. It still leaves unanswered the question why levels were higher before 1995 when immigration was not such a prominent issue?
I believe that there are two answers. The first is simply that ethnic minorities are now a significantly larger part of the population than they were then, and – interestingly – they seem to interpret “racial prejudice” as meaning prejudice by whites against them, not the prejudice which they themselves may feel for others (Indians for Pakistanis, West Indians for Africans etc.). This curious lack of awareness by ethnic minorities of the beams in their own eyes is brought out by the regional figures – in Inner London where, as we all know, White Brits are thin on the ground, the proportion drops to 15%. Among the young where, again, ethnic minorities are over-represented, the proportion is 25%. The second reason is political correctness – it can now be dangerous to one’s career and social standing to be seen to be a “racist” in a way which was not the case twenty to thirty years ago.
There is one aspect of the survey from which we can take heart; 73% of those who declared themselves to be wholly unprejudiced still want tougher controls on immigration – they may say that they have no objection to ethnic minorities, but they would rather not have any more. Among those who admitted to prejudice, 90% want tougher controls – the only surprise being that 10% of these hard-liners do not!
By Frederick Dixon © 2014
# # # #
Steed
- Edit
If i were asked “Are you racially prejudiced”, the answer wouldn’t be clear-cut. ‘Prejudice’ means ‘pre judicial’ – to form an opinion of someone prior to the judicial process. Of course, my immediate opinion of someone with non-European features, dress or accent is that their rightful home is elsewhere. But (as the wording of this poll shows) ‘prejudice’ is considered the same as ‘racism’. If racism is hating someone purely for their ancestry, or judging their objective worth, then no, I wouldn’t declare myself racist.
This probably also accounts for the percentage not being higher.
John Salisbury
- Edit
A good strategy when dealing with questions or accusations of ‘racism’ is to ask the opponent to define racism. The power of a smear word is in its lack of a definition – it’s just automatically assumed to mean something bad. If you ask for a definition then it becomes something sterile and boring which can be easily refuted. Asking people to define things is often a good way to tie them in knots.
Steed
- Edit
I use the same strategy John. You’re right – it’s very effective. Most would-be accusers have no idea to define ‘Racism’. If they say ‘hatred of another race’, your argument is easy. If they say ‘noticing racial differences’ then, again, your argument is easy – backed by basic rationale.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Exactly. If they say it means you hate other races, you simply point out that you don’t and ask them why they would think that. Ironically, the liberals who try to iron out what they see as racist discrimination have to be able to notice race themselves in order to see that it’s happening. Incredible!
.
The point in asking for a definition is that it takes the power away from the word, and having to say “someone who hates other races and discriminates against them” is much less effective than screaming “RACIST!”. It also allows you to point out every time they say it that they’re not accurately describing what you actually think.
ConnalOakesHolt
- Edit
Racist , rolls off the tongue much easier than Racially Prejudiced, easier to hurl in debates when the argument is being lost to common sence and equality for White people and White Homelands.
Of course there can be little pre-judging when we have lived with the immgrants among us in our homelands for so long , for some of us all our lives. This is perhaps part of the problem. Seeing the wood for the trees , or not doing. We become used to situations , even the most hostile and uncomfortable environments can be endured whilst a kind of mental barrier to the realities is built up. Or else one takes flight from such a situation to a more favourable one , wherein , ‘out of sight out of mind’ is better than ‘put up and shut up’.
An immigrant in a host society stands to gain immensely from the application of political correctness. That many non whites may have taken part in these polls tends to skew the issue. They have gained , when all they stood to loose was to return home. This could be the reason for the hardcore 10% that do not seek tighter immigration. Ask those 10% the same question in their own homelands and the answer may differ.
I must admit , I do remember the term racial prejudice, but cannot point to a specific time that it changed to racist. If I were to hazard a guess I would say , sometime after the murder of Stephen lawrence.
The term Racial Prejudice implies that it is something that a person does, that a choice is involved or at least that the racially prejudiced person might be brought around to a different view. Racist on the other hand , is the severe case . Racist is something a person is , it is the terminal case , there can be no help , only ostricization , termination of employment and the denial of any platform to speak , often coinciding with the screaming of the name of the sickness by those fortunate enough not to posses it.
Of course , the architects of multiculturalism have realized this. Through Political Correctness , the innate sence of belonging to a racially conscious group that naturally seeks to preserve itself and its culture, must be crushed , in favour of a society of a non aware group, that becomes progressively marginalized as immigration from outside the racial group continues. Unless that Racist Spirit is demonized there will be a greater risk that the multicultural experiment will fail.
And fail it will. Despite the vilification of those who seek to preserve our own kind on the lands which our ancestors struggled, laboured , bled , died and are burried by the use of the pejorative term ‘Racist’ , the natural inclination towards those of ones own racial and ethnic group can never be erased whilst the Racist Spirit is kept alive in the hearts of those who are living in conscious accord with their biological natures.
The idea to demonize this conscious accord , through linking the murder of Stephen Lawrence with this sence of our own preservation and calling his killers racists , the genocidal maniacs of the multicultural kind were able to strike a heavy blow against White people.
So , given that to be accused of being racist, in the pejorative sense is the ultimate case of a severe social illness , what follows after our immunization from this attack ?
We live ! We live and we grow long into the future.
.
Brin of the family Jenkins
- Edit
I have 78 year old opinions and preferences, and I object to these being re-labelled as prejudice that needs to be dealt with.
I rarely swear, but “Bugger off.” Springs to mind
John Salisbury
- Edit
We should be careful not to interpret positive results from opinion polls about immigration as meaning that those people are opposed to multiracialism or having more members of ethnic minorities living here. There are also some purely economic reasons why someone might be against further immigration that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, for example concerning jobs, housing, overpopulation and the strain on the NHS and other public services and infrastructure.
.
I suspect that if you ask people why they are against immigration, a large percentage of them will in fact respond with concerns about the economy. They may or may not have an underlying concern about demographics but this should not be assumed; in tailoring our propaganda to the public, we ought to provide ourselves with the most accurate possible picture of what the public really wants and believes. I’m glad that this article has done some analysis of the poll results instead of simply presenting them.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I would be surprised if any significant proportion of those opposed to immigration were opposed only on economic grounds. If you were to dig you would nearly always find regret or hostility towards the changes which immigration has brought about. This would vary in intensity and emphasis from place to place, from age group to age group, from one socio-economic group to another, but it will usually be there even if the individual doesn’t know it!
It is this that gives the Left a semblance of credibility when he shouts the “r” word at those who express doubts about immigration – they know that racial feeling is just below the surface when people talk about the effect of immigration on”jobs/houses/hospital beds”.
John Salisbury
- Edit
It’s quite possible that you are right, but I’ve never seen any figures. Nevertheless, we should certainly use all arguments at our disposal, including economic ones.
Brin of the family Jenkins
- Edit
Brilliant summing up!
Shaun
- Edit
To some degree, most people are ethnocentric! Most people, however, have far ”deeper issues” to contend with like their new kitchens, career prospects or new businessness — many people follow a base, hedonistic philopohshy.
To these people, the base-hedonists, their experienced reality is permanent and the perquisites of Western civilization are independent of race. I wish I was one these people, but I all I can say is I know how they think. They can’t! How wonderful. Life is about having fun and they will not concern themselves with ”boring” subjects like polictics, the nature of civilization or life itself — there is shopping to do.
How wonderful!
I mean it!
John Salisbury
- Edit
Maybe most people have a tendency against accepting problems that would put an onus on them to do something. If the problem doesn’t exist, they don’t have to do anything, but if it does exist, they would feel very bad about doing nothing. It’s the ostrich mentality: my head is in the sand, I can’t see the problem, and therefore it doesn’t exist and I can carry on as normal.
.
It’s rather like the SEP field in one of the HG2G books.
Steed
- Edit
This is a superb point. I believe it explains a lot.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Think about this: if people are told what we want to tell them i.e. that the world is sleepwalking into some some of horrendous global dictatorship, that their race is being destroyed, that a huge amount of what they have been taught is a lie and that time to correct these problems is rapidly running out, how are they going to feel?
.
Believing what they are told would entail accepting an enormous burden to act and potentially the despair of knowing that victory is unlikely and difficult at best. If instead they choose to believe that we are lying, they have only to continue living their lives as normal.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I very much believe this too & it ties into the idea that the bigger the lie the more it’s believed.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I think the whole concept of “racial prejudice” along with its twin “anti Semitism” has been engineered to destroy our country & culture.
As you say this concept is generally only aimed at white people as being guilty of it, even though it’s abundantly clear others practice prejudice but are not criticised in the same way.
Originally I fell for the lie of tolerance & progress but I see it’s an agenda meant destroy us.
We have Islamic terrorism here along with a desire for sharia law amongst imported moslems, you can argue that is a form of prejudice against the majority culture, though in many areas already that is a minority culture.
It is not questioned that when you go to third world countries, that you abide by their rules, no bleating about minority rights there.
But the liberals will not see the hypocrisy in this.
I think many people are frightened of being labelled racist & the consequences, they are quite tolerant & bear no ill will to other races but now feel unease about the double standard forced upon them.
There’s no choice in this.
That in their own country they have to integrate into another culture or at least modify their behaviour.
Why are we not allowed to have something of our own?