Racism? So What?!

I sometimes despair at my conservative colleagues, but never more so than when they mishandle accusations of ‘racism’. Being in favour of an inquiry into Muslim rape gangs “isn’t racist” according to Rupert Lowe. Phew! We can all sleep soundly in our beds, safe in the knowledge that we have dodged the ire of Emily Maitlis.

Naturally this slur isn’t limited to grooming, but extends to any vaguely controversial fact of which the Left disapproves. It is neither ‘racist’ for instance to believe in an English identity; to desire change the European Rights Treaty; or object to mass immigration.

This fixation is excruciatingly problematic - not just because disingenuous accusations of racism are a large part of why Britain has facilitated these crimes against the innocent, but because playing by the terms of the enemy affords them ill-deserved legitimacy - particularly the insinuation that there is no crime worse than ‘being racist’. Did you get that memo?

Consider the justification given for the 31-month imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, the woman who tweeted in exasperated response to the mass slaughter of little girls in Southport:

Here is leftwing luvvie Matthew Stadlen explaining why Connolly deserved a spell in clink (although to his credit, at least he considers the sentence ‘excessive’):

“It was a disgusting, racist, horrific tweet that could could have been interpreted as incitement to murder. I thought it was an outrageous and despicable thing for her to say. And by the way, there was another tweet, I think, from a few days earlier, which was completely racist. But my view is that 31 months in prison for what she did was excessive.”

I have read and re-read Connolly’s tweet, analysed and dissected it several times, and can find nothing to seriously object to. I don’t read it as incitement, and I don’t think anyone could argue that it was in good faith. In any event, it was certainly not in the league of Kneecap demanding you “Kill your MP”, nor Bob Vylan’s exhortations of “Death to the IDF” - both of whom were platformed by Glastonbury and the BBC, and both of whom have escaped serious consequences. Unfortunately for Connolly, she has two black marks against her: the ‘victims’ of her tweet aren’t White, and she is. In addition, as she righty acknowledges her post could be interpreted as ‘racism’.

This is hardly the first time that spurious grounds have been used to investigate the charge of ‘racism’ in the United Kingdom. It’s not so long ago that Hampshire Constabulary were investigating ‘It’s OK to be white’ posters in Basingstoke, which were touted as examples of white supremacy. Nor is it beyond living memory that Sam Melia was sentenced to two years for distributing similarly branded stickers.

The fact is, for those determined to find it ‘racism’ can always be located in the presence of non-whiteness and the absence of evidence - the essence of the ‘hate incident’:

A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

Evidence of the hate element is not a requirement. You do not need to personally perceive the incident to be hate related. It would be enough if another person, a witness or even a police officer thought that the incident was hate related.

‘Racism’ in Britain is given priority in prosecution over serious crime, as the authorities appear to be more comfortable defending damaged feelings over damaged bodies. Consider the outrageous case of the teenage girl, hauled into court for racially abusing her abusers - her rapists naturally escaped scrutiny until years later. That’s not justice; it’s ideological insanity.

I’m going to let you into a secret: I couldn’t give a f*** about anyone being racist, and neither should you. I say that for two reasons: A) racism against Whites is not only tolerated, but promoted. The media routinely screams anti-white headlines; government policies attempt to enforce a second-class status upon Whites; woke companies peddle guilt-trips; and schools force white kids into re-education camps. It’s a one-way street of sanctioned bigotry - which means objection to racism is selective at best. B) racism is a thought, and as such is none of anyone else’s business.

Please let me be clear: I am of course not talking about violence or genuine discrimination, which are rightly illegal (except notably when Whites are the target). On my side of the aisle, I am more than a little concerned about senior Labour Party figures such as Sadiq Khan, David Lammy and Shabana Mahmood, whom I consider to be both anti-white and anti-British. While I strongly disapprove, I’m only really worried if and when they are able to impose their prejudices upon the rest of us. As far as their private feelings are concerned, I consider that sovereign territory (however repugnant).

Racism does not preclude one from being right or wrong. Biases may lead us astray, certainly, but they may also guide us to uncomfortable truths. Prejudices and stereotypes exist for a reason: a natural response to an unbalanced world. If Blacks are overrepresented in crime, Muslims in rape gangs, or pro-Palestinians ever so slightly antisemitic - is that the fault of the people who notice it, or the perpetrators?

Moreover, ignoring one’s prejudices can be just as fatal as pandering to them. Manchester Arena security guard, Kyle Lawler, admitted he “had a bad feeling” about Salman Abedi, but “did not have anything to justify it”. I wonder how many of the 22 victims and their families would have wished Lawler could have brought himself to be just a bit racist on that particular night.

Policing thoughts rather than deeds is a dangerous business. No matter how confidently the authorities claim ‘hate crimes’ are worse than mere crime and deserve longer sentences, I am not convinced. Are we to believe rape victims suffer less when they are targeted randomly, as opposed to on the grounds of protected characteristics? Is a murdered ex-wife’s death somehow ameliorated by her former husband’s inability to live without her?!

Surely in terms of crime, a simple flowchart ought to be applied: has an actual crime been committed? If yes, act; if no, then the thought processes of someone else is nothing to do with you.

Alas, the consequences of policing thoughts in lieu of deeds are all around us. UK police are more frightened of being called racist than allowing young black men to carry knives with impunity. The nation’s daughters (and sons) were abused, tortured and raped en masse, because the authorities similarly refused to intervene. And while Britain already has two-tier justice in all but name, the government are still desirous of enshrining it into law.

So what’s the solution? Well, if we’re going to take the soi-disant ‘anti-racists’ at their word, then why not file ‘racism’ alongside other unpalatable traits we tolerate like greed or envy - at least until Whites get a fair shake too. Until such time as we get that (and I think it’s an awfully long way off), how about ditching the thought police altogether? Let’s hold people accountable for their actions, not their attitudes.

As I wrote back in 2019 in Banalysis: The Lie Destroying The West:

For the right to make genuine progress, the effectiveness of this term (‘racist”) must be destroyed absolutely; there can be no half measures. The only way to do this is simply to meet it head-on. I do not say this lightly, nor underestimate the venom that will be unleashed in so doing. Nevertheless, it is a necessary step.

When they call you racist, what they are really saying is, ‘You have violated the homogeneity lie’. That’s their argument in a nutshell: a non-argument. They are testing that you understand the boundaries of acceptable speech and opinion, and it is vital that you do not pass their test. Instead, it is my firm belief that the correct answer ought to be, ‘So what?’

It’s time facts took precedence over feelings. I’m not interested in hearing how racist something or someone is - that’s none of my business. And it ought to be none of yours either.

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!