You’ll have noticed the recent storm in a teacup over remarks by someone called “Naga Munchetty”, a presenter on the BBC. I wasn’t previously aware of Ms Munchetty, but I could hardly miss the fuss which arose when the BBC disciplined her for “calling out” President Trump over some “racist” remarks he is alleged to have made. Apparently Ms Munchetty felt entitled to denounce the President for racism because she is “a woman of colour”, and the pictures of her bear out the fact that she is indeed of non-White ethnic extraction. It’s notable, by the way, that “woman of colour” means exactly the same as “coloured woman” but whereas the former description is worn as a badge of pride, the latter is likely to mean a P45 for anyone who uses it – especially if they happen to be male and of pale complexion.
I’m not much concerned with whatever it was that the President said to give Naga a fit of the vapours, nor am I too bothered about the fact that she was disciplined for displaying political bias only for the finding (after a storm of protest by numerous celebrities “of colour”) to be overturned by Lord Hall, Director General of the BBC; such things happen in all organisations. What does concern me are the reasons given by Hall for overturning the findings of the disciplinary body, namely that the BBC is not neutral on racism and, curiously, that racism is “not an opinion”.
To say that racism is not an opinion is rather like saying that socialism is not an opinion, or liberalism or environmentalism or any other “ism”. And he’s right because, “isms” are not mere opinions but bundles of values and attitudes which form the way in which we look at the world. But I don’t think that’s what Hall meant, in fact I’m sure that what he meant is that any way of looking at the world which has racial identity and survival at its centre is not a valid “ism”. Except that when it’s a “woman of colour” asserting that her racial identity entitles her to call out the President of the United States, then it is not only a perfectly valid “ism” but it allows a breach even of that (supposedly) most sacred BBC principle of political neutrality!
Of course we all know that the BBC is not now, and never has been, neutral on anything to do with race. It will always take care to emphasise the point of view of the immigrant, the asylum seeker, the “person of colour” while the attitudes of the dispossessed are referred to, if at all, only to be mocked and disparaged. They call this “speaking truth to power” which ties in with the universal assumption on the Left that racism is something that powerful people (meaning white people) do to “people of colour”. Which is odd, because in England and throughout the West it is people of power who have inflicted the Great Replacement on powerless whites who are then castigated for racism when we show signs of resistance! And at the heart of that powerful establishment is the BBC.
So Naga cannot be racist because she is a powerless “person of colour” even when, as in this case, she uses her colour as a weapon. It is not easy, to put it mildly, to imagine a white presenter being able to use his race as a defence against an accusation of political bias, especially if there were (as in Naga’s case) racial overtones to the bias; that P45 would be on his desk within the hour.
A flick through Google will throw up several definitions of racism, and our beliefs – which may be briefly summarised as the protection of traditional racial identities and the recovery of our national homeland – do not easily fit with most of those definitions; they tend to major on assertions of racial superiority or racially based systems of economic or political dominance. We could therefore argue that our racial nationalism and race realism is not racism. Or we could say, with equal justice, that we don’t give a damn whether leftists apply their favourite boo-word to us or not! But of course they will, and do, apply it to us, and we should shrug off their hatred because the hatred of the contemptible can only strengthen our own resolve to stand up for truth and justice.
And finally, the BBC licence fee MUST be abolished!
By Frederick Dixon © 2019
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]# # # #
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Notwithstanding that the term “racism” has become the “Progressive Left’s” ultimate weapon in attempting to undermine nationalist sentiment, it must not be confused or conflated with racialism. The former is often associated with actual or perceived hostility towards somebody of a different racial or ethnic group to that of the perpetrator. The later refers to an acknowledgement that humans are divided into distinct racial groups which have evolved over time and is evidenced by physical appearances (the phenotype), behaviour patterns and levels of intelligence.Of course the progressive left abhor suggestions of differences based on biology and genetics and would condemn such studies as being “racist” and dismissed accordingly. In fact such acknowledgement of differences would not be tolerated at any level of academia and Dr Watson, the joint discoverer of DNA was condemed as a persona non grata when he suggested such differences.
Those who uphold traditional “conservative” or patriotic values are often at pains to emphasise that they are not “racist” and in the process placing themselves in a defensive position and responding to the terms set by the left.As the left assert that race is merely a social construct and without any physical justification, nationalists should be confident responding that “racism” is instead an invention without any material justification.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
I would submit that people who claim that only White/Aryans can be Racist have a valid point. Racism presupposes a pride in one’s racial heritage and although it may be possible for a Negro, Chinaman or someone from virtually any other lineage to find some justifiable gratification in his identity their pride can only be insignificant compared to that felt by those of European extraction.
Steve Ambartzakis
- Edit
As we have been told innumerable times in South Africa, it is not even possible for a black or mixed race person to be a racist???????
frederick dixon
- Edit
Of course not, Steve. Only whites can be racist because only whites have power, even in countries with black governments!!!
Alec Suchi
- Edit
The recent abuse of the black players who were recently playing for England in Bulgaria has been described as “racist” and as a result politicised. It is expedient for our opponents to designate this particular form of abuse given to non white people a distinct category, especially if administered by Caucasians.
Abusive behaviour of that type should be condemned and not condoned,as it provides opponents of nationalism an opportunity to undermine the movement even by invalid and misleading arguments.
The football authorities often declare a war on “racism” as do the political elites in Western Europe and they remain at a loss why Eastern Europe continues to remain resistant to political correctness and mass immigration from the Third World.The abuse which is hurled from the terraces is a crude expression of hostility towards multiculturalism and diversity.