I think that it is becoming generally understood as a fact rather than a conspiracy theory that in the 20th century a plot was hatched to bring about Marxist revolution in Judeo-Christian countries where the people had an interest in the hegemony, and the social classes had shared values. It is becoming – dare I say – mainstream to understand that something that we now know as Political Correctness (PC) was conceived in the minds of power-lustful Marxist thinkers to create the social groundwork for revolution. It is becoming common knowledge that the Gramsci/Lukacs evil bag of tricks was seized on by Progressives looking to implement the cultural element of the Marxist takeover of Britain (the collection around the state had already been embraced by a misguided population battered and altered by two world wars).
Look at how PC was deployed to shut down objection to mass immigration, or the extension of the welfare state to cater for women and men who were exercising their newfound rights to abdicate their familiar responsibilities. Post-revolution, and PC is the guardian of the new hegemony, it is the judgement value system that replaces common sense, and courtesy; enforceable by burdensome legislation or ostracisation; punishment for free speech! This is why it important to understand what motivates the storm of outrage that is created by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson when he writes about the energy-saving mode on his new TV, and how it makes the screen so dark that “every programme looks like it is being presented by Lenny Henry in a cave.”
Subsequently, Clarkson has – of course – been accused of making a racist comment, and lo, now all the children at all the schools in the land are about to racially abuse their little pals. Citizens of a 60 year old multi-racial country are about to let fly a volley of abuse at each other over the counters of Tesco. As the Daily Mail† reports:
Race campaigner Lee Jasper branded 51-year-old Clarkson’s comment ‘gratuitous’ and claimed it could lead to playground taunts and racist insults in the street.
He added: ‘People think, “Well, if Clarkson can have a joke at the expense of someone’s race then so can I.”‘
I submit that, objectively speaking, Clarkson’s one liner is no more racist than Les Dawson’s joke about his mother-in-law bending over and blocking out the sun is sexist. I don’t stop there. I submit that there is no such thing as race, and therefore, racism cannot exist, and therefore, the race-victimhood industry cannot exist, nor can anyone anymore ever again play the “race card”.
I think that historically, stretching back into antiquity, race is a construct invented by the dominant power to explain its geopolitical supremacy. Thus, there has been a perpetual confusion between race and the culture that made a people strong or weak throughout the history of the world. Culture and race are not the same. Culture is about the communication of abstract thought and the application of it; it is about ways of doing things that encourage or arrest development; it is dependent on itself and not on race – on one discovery after another (and I would argue, in the first place, God who made all men to correspond with him).
Pre-Darwin it seems that race was considered synonymous with species, and afterwards the distinction could not be lost from the thinking. In modern times, the race-defines-power notion was politicised like never before; already his apologists point to some supposed anti-Nazi sentiment, but please notice the usual suspect Julian Huxley – the infamous eugenicist – was at work around about the same time scratching up the filth. His idea was that degrees in the composition of “black blood” or “white blood” defined moral character and mental capacity (the great irony is that the social engineers that are shaping British society today are exploiting the exacerbation of the race issue as contrived by philosophical forefathers such as Huxley). In my estimation, the problem perpetually boils down to Nimrodian feelings of superiority after Judeo-Christian morality has been discarded. If you have riches and dominion over other men, and you aren’t moral, then other lives become cheap and as that of animals.
Generally speaking, “race” is supposedly a means to define a group of Homo sapiens sapiens based on physical features, in particular skin colour and facial features. This begs the question, how many races are there? Think of all the physical variations between people who can be loosely categorised within one group. Ideas about this vary wildly, and one theory has it that there are 63 races. The larger that number of supposed races, the more it suggests that at the root of the matter is not huge groups defined racially, but many small graduations between inherited physical traits so that it is more to do with characteristics whereby one clan or tribe is different from another. Two individuals of different “races” can fuse their hereditary distinguishing features in the form of their offspring; does this necessarily produce a new race? The offspring might generally be categorised as a “mix”, or they might be classified as belonging to the race of one of their parents, but is that really the case? What I think you have is a unique human with a combination of their parents’ features and who should not be classified by those terms. I definitely think that when the (usually European supremacist) scientists were travelling the world before World War II to document the world’s races, what they were actually doing was defining people by their geographical separation, the local culture and to what extent that had helped or hindered their development.
Looking at the definition of racism through this prism, it would mean to assume unseen qualities based on inherited physical features associated with certain culture and geographical origin. And this is exactly what it is, and therefore nothing whatsoever to do with “race”. On the other hand, noticing that a person with the inherited feature of dark skin is difficult to see in bad light is supposed to be an observation based in reality; because it is meant to be a joke – a stylistic variation of communication – there is some exaggeration. Likewise, mother-in-laws may have big bottoms, and a little exaggeration for comic effect renders the feature capable of removing sunlight. Furthermore, it is OK to judge one culture to be inferior to another, but what is the wrong thing to do is to judge that a person of an inferior culture does not have the same potential as any other human being.
If only it was all that simple. Clarkson was actually being racist as the term is now defined. For an act of racism is any one that makes its victim – or even onlookers for that matter – feel offended, or a bit sorry for themselves, or upset, or angry (for a great example, see the TUC’s definition of what it is to suffer from racism at work – being shouted at and selected for redundancy and you are of a different race? That’s racism). In Clarkson’s case of racial abuse, because this story is really all about an assault on him by Progressive propagandists keen to make some mileage out of such a high value target, someone has made sure that none other than Johnson Beharry gets an opportunity to express how much he is personally offended.
“Clarkson needs to be stopped from saying things like this” says the war hero, who was injured supposedly in the cause of freedom.
Because he is a Victoria Cross winner (and the Progressives don’t care that they are exploiting someone who is both a man of “ethnicity” and a victim of their political masters’ war), and even though Progressives despise medals for bravery, we are supposed to grant him some authority on this matter, and agree that Clarkson is offensive and therefore a racist, and therefore we must act to shut him up.
What this story represents is the drip-drip cultural conditioning that our media is subjecting us to. It is like the attempt that was made to demonise the footballer for knocking over the woman linesman. Our media is full of Progressive zealots who are attacking us to shape not only our perceptions of reality, but our cultural attitudes. Clarkson is a prime target for these people because he will not shut up. Lee Jasper is right, he is a bad example, and by this he means a threat and an obstacle and maybe even (if only in terms of exercising free speech) an exemplar for resistance.
† Of all the printed press, the Daily Mail is in the vanguard of Progressive perception-shaping and conditioning, and so requires the most counter-attacking