There's a kind of reverse political correctness when you talk about racism. You almost feel like you've lost the argument when you say something's racist, because the person you've called racist can say "Oh well, you've called me racist now, you PC idiot, I'm not racist - I'm just trying to talk about truths that are too close to the bone for leftie fools like you."
As Littlejohn himself says:
The Fascist Left's favourite trick for shutting down free speech is to slander the messenger. They came up with the suffixes 'phobe' and 'ist' to smear anyone who dares to defy their agenda.
Hey, Littlejohn, you appear to have 'smeared' the Left by putting the suffix 'ist' on the end of 'Fasc'. You witless cunt. At least you could have tried not to do the very same thing yourself that you're complaining about in the same fucking sentence; then you might have come out of it with some credibility. You donut. "Oh you fool, you see, I'm much cleverer than you, I just did that to wind you up and you fell for it" - no you fucking didn't! You dumb one-trick twat.
So that's what you're up against. The term racism is something that really needs to be used sparingly, and it needs to be right every time it's used. No use just calling out racism where it doesn't exist; that just gets people's backs up, and it could end up alienating people that you want to engage with in discussion. Similarly, you will find that any journalist who questions Israel's foreign policy can instantly be branded an 'anti-Semite' in certain quarters. Why discuss the complex issues, the history or the ongoing problems, skewed by interpretation and spin on both sides, when you can just chuck a label at someone? So it's not always productive, healthy or rational to use these labels.
On the other hand, when something is genuinely racist, it needs to be described as such. You can't just let people get away with racism simply because they'll complain about you calling them a racist. They'd like that to happen, of course, because then it's an easy ride for them to spread their hatred and poison. It's very simple, convenient and handy for someone who is racist to point the finger back at their accusers and say that it is they who have the prejudice.
But then there are two kinds of racist in the world. I have a regular correspondent who regularly slags me off, and who wrote to me this morning, in fact. I don't always put through what he writes because a lot of it's just trolling bollocks. But I think it's important to understand where some people come from. I'll explain in a minute why I think this kind of racist is someone who at least has the honesty and dignity to admit they're racist. Anyway, this is what he (I think it's a he) wrote:
Discriminating between different ethnic immigrant groups is an excellent idea.
If we had direct democracy as they do in Switzerland we could actually enforce this instead of being dictated to by the liberal elite and its useful idiots (such as the owner of this blog) into thinking that ‘racism’ is a sin against the Holy Ghost – which it is not.
Racism is a desirable impulse which leads to the survival of one’s race instead of its destruction.
Now while I may certainly not agree with this person's views, I at least admire the lack of sophistry and obfuscation involved with expressing them. Here is someone who admits to being racist, and explains that racism is a desirable thing in their opinion.
Do you know what, I prefer this kind of approach to the subject. I definitely don't agree with it - I passionately disagree - but at least this person isn't dancing around the daisies. At least they have the integrity of their views. Points deducted, I'm afraid, for the use of 'useful idiot', which is a bit lazy, but otherwise, fair comment I think. I think we should try and reach an understanding: I certainly can with this person. He may think racism is acceptable; I can appreciate his opinion. I don't think he's mad or twisted or stupid; I just think he's wrong. I wish he would understand that I am not mad, or an idiot, or deluded by the 'liberal elite' either: my opinions are just as soundly thought through as his; they simply happen to be opposed to his.
We both think we are right and neither of us is going to convince the other. But at least we are both trying to argue from an honest position. He believes discrimination is important to keep his race from destruction. I believe the more that races mix together, the more movement of people there is in the world, the fewer conflicts there will be and the happier the world will be. Maybe we are both stark staring mad. Who knows. But let me say this again: while I disagree fundamentally and passionately, at least this person has honesty in their convictions.
Which brings me to the other kind of racist, who is much more loathsome. This kind of racist doesn't admit he's racist. He thinks he's not racist; he thinks he's just trying to talk about matters in a calm and rational manner, which unfortunately is denied to him because the 'PC Brigade' will come and take us away in their big pink diversity van. The other kind of racism is much more insidious. It's racism that balks at the idea it's racist. It's racism that hates being called racism; it's racism that fights hard against any suggestion that it could be construed as racism.
I remember the world's worst writer, Jack Teague, saying "It's not racist to expect good manners!" before launching into a snotty little barrage against East European people in shops. That's quite a nice example, actually. You'll find this kind of person often decides that the best way to kill off any accusations of racism is to say they're not racist.
It's a brilliant concept and you'll see it all the time. People start off their sentences by denying the exact thing they're about to do. Do you remember Charley off Big Brother 8? "Not being nasty or anything, but I hate you" - "Not being horrible or nothing, but I think you're disgusting". It's that kind of attitude. Have a look at "Not condoning rape in any way" and countless other comments to have a better look at what I mean.
We've all heard blokes down the pub start sentences with "I'm not being racist, but..." where the stream of bile that comes after the 'but' is the most racist stuff you've ever heard in your entire life. Why the apologetic nature of something that's so poisonous? Why not just come out and admit it? What would be wrong with that? There is no 'liberal elite' to come and take you away for thought crimes - you have to be a Muslim to be banged up for that, ironically enough - so I don't see what the problem is, really. Why so coy?
Which brings me to the Mail and Express. I don't know if they think they're racist or not, I'm really not sure. Certainly there's never any explicit declaration of "Yes, this is who we are" from them, although the Express is sailing pretty close to it at the moment with its bullshit about 'invasion'. Personally I think the Express is in freefall and is trying to find a new market. I don't know if it has principles of racism; it may merely court racists because the racist pound is as good as any other pound. And as I've said before, I just wonder what their advertisers think about that. On the other hand, you have to wonder about the constant stream of articles, particularly anti-immigration and anti-Muslim. You have to wonder whether it really is reflecting the views of the readership, attempting to bring in new readers with these views, or whether it really is a statement of intent from the very top. You'll recall there was a 'life under Sharia law' spread that got pulled from the Daily Star, not by the top, but from workers at the bottom who refused to put it in the paper. Something is happening somewhere. Someone is deciding that this kind of thing is a good thing. Who are these people? Or is it just one person? And if it is one person... then what?
The Mail, on the other hand, are a little bit more on the subtle side, though not enormously so. You get Littlejohn saying that Barack Obama might be seen as 'uppity', surely in full knowledge of what that word means. You get the idea of Brits moving abroad as being 'white flight', even though the Mail has no evidence of any kind whatsoever as to the ethnicity of these emigrants other than the destinations that they're going to - and, might I add, given that the US is going to be minority white in the next 35 years, why would 'white flighters' want to go there? And then you have the purulent drivel from Dennis Sewell - a spectacularly unpleasant article that attempts to use statistics to state that different ethnic groups are 'profit centres' and 'cost centres' and that, therefore, discrimination against some immigrants should be used.
The Mail, though, despite all that, would never say it was racist, and it would presumably be upset by any accusations along those lines. All I can say is that it might not like to think it's racist, but it is. It can't keep churning out story after story after story along the same lines, without having some kind of steer on where it wants to go with its coverage. It's not obsessed with Muslims and political correctness because that's what its readers want; there is an agenda, and it's about time the Mail admitted it. And if so, fine. But let's please stop this fucking pantomime of pretence. Let's stop this ridiculous charade about wanting an 'open and honest debate'. Because that is the very last thing that the Mail would ever want. So why not just come out and admit it.