There is no such thing as race, how can Clarkson make racist comments?

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 Mailreports:

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

24 comments for “There is no such thing as race, how can Clarkson make racist comments?

  1. July 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    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.

    What I object to is the way words have been hijacked. “Progressives” are not progressive, They are Regressives, in that they are taking us back to a totalitarian situation where even what you think and say is monitored, you’re told you can’t smoke, you’re told how to think and if you don’t think that way, you don’t get employed.

    Reactionaries is a dirty word for the left but what it really means is hanging onto a state where we were once free, hanging on to our last freedoms before they’re gobbled up by the “Progressives”.

    • PT
      July 7, 2011 at 1:43 pm

      Well I say, as I’ve said before, if they want to be known as Progressives, then let them. They are, after all, every bit as Progressive as terminal cancer or motor neurone disease.

  2. Paul
    July 6, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Indeedy-do. Whenever anything, and I mean absolutely anything, is tagged as “progressive” I make sure to dismiss it almost out of hand as being a bad idea, because such things usually are.

    Also, it has become such a priggish word, that of the “we know considerably better than yow” class.

    • Damo
      July 7, 2011 at 12:12 am

      Definition of racism according to the MacPherson Report
      ‘definition of a racist incident’, described as:
      Any incident which is perceived to be racist by:-
      – The Victim;
      – A Witness to the Incident;
      – Any person acting on behalf of the victim; and/or; A Police Officer.’

      This is the syntax of the mad house.

      • July 7, 2011 at 5:38 am

        Spot on!

      • Lord T
        July 7, 2011 at 9:28 am

        There seems to be a bit missing.

        where the perceived victim is not white,

  3. richard
    July 7, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Clarkson wasn’t being racist, but in fact there are races of Homo sapiens if we speak in a biological sense. It’s possible to guess -looking at an Australian aborigine, a Zulu, a Japanese, and a Finn – where in the world they or their parents might be from. The quality of mind and soul is not race specific.

    • luikkerland
      July 7, 2011 at 2:17 am

      Yes, on the face of it, as we are told, race is defined by biological superficialities. In truth, it is a construct that categorises phyical features not only in association with geographical location, but also with culture. Without these associations, race does not exist (therefore no racism).

      Instead, there are only tiny graduations in a dense and wide single spectrum of humanity; all potentially equal in mind and soul. False assumptions made about these unseen qualities based on the physical attributes is not racism, but general prejudice.

      • no
        July 7, 2011 at 2:42 am

        So if people don’t open their eyes and see the obvious associations within groups of people then their is no such thing as race?
        Its like saying if a tree falls and everyone has their hands over their ears the tree didn’t make a sound.

        Single spectrum of hamanity is actually now in dispute.

  4. Voice of Reason
    July 7, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Ask a competent biologist: there is no such thing as race. Every ‘racial’ group has variations which overlap those of every other group, for any given characteristic.

    • no
      July 8, 2011 at 4:18 am

      variance doesn’t negate a trend.

      The colours of the rainbow overlap, and many people may disagree on where red ends and orange begins but no one disputes such different colours exist.
      And if you use a colour wheel all colours overlap each other somewhat.

      Biologists did used to define races:
      Its mainly since the horrors of WW2 that respectable society was frightened away from the subject.

  5. banned
    July 7, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Is it racist to note that there are very few black swimming Olympians yet they dominate in athletics?

    • July 7, 2011 at 5:39 am

      If it currently isn’t, someone’s no doubt working on making it so!

      • July 7, 2011 at 6:31 am

        Per Damo’s comment, it becomes racist if any black competitor, their manager or coach, or any cop or sports fan of any ethnicity perceives it to be racist. Banned, fifty bucks keeps my mouth shut 😉

      • Lord T
        July 7, 2011 at 9:29 am

        It is clearly racist because I as a witness to the statement think it is.

        Book him Danno

  6. Per.Plekst
    July 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Whether we actually are animals or not is a philosophical nicety, but whatever the conclusion there can be no doubt that we occupy the body of an animal. It sometimes happens that wild animals, which normally would never meet in the wild, which we regard as quite separate categories of existence and whose defining characteristics we would like to preserve for ever, can in fact interbreed in zoos. To be logically consistent, should we not apply the same conventions to ourselves as we do to animals and exercise or even enforce an appropriate restraint? If not, why not? Why is it considered right to annihilate human diversity, in accordance with progressive policy, but wrong to disturb the rich variety of species we see in nature?

    • no
      July 8, 2011 at 4:04 am

      Well thats right.
      The liger is a hybrid cross between a male lion and a tigress.
      Does that mean Lions and Tigers don’t exist?

      Infact many mammals can interbreed.
      Horses with Zebras for another example.
      Donkeys + Horses.

  7. bnzss
    July 7, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    You are entirely correct, I think. Race is an artifice. Just like nationality, and any other ingroup/outgroup distinction you can think of.

  8. July 7, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    This article and the comments posted on it by Orphans of Liberty contributors give the impression that this blog is for racism deniers.

    Regardless of whether the highlighted Jeremy Clarkson comments are racist, racism does exist and people do experience racist bullying and discrimination. Racism is wrong, and it should be opposed – not denied.

    • luikkerland
      July 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm

      Prejudice exists. A prejudiced person will choose cultural associations when rationalising their irrational dislike for a person of a different skin colour. Racism cannot exist because race does not. I am afraid just because you insist it does carries no weight against logic. Yes, it looks like some people are denying racism. Some people do not suffer from thought control. What will you do now?

  9. nemesis
    July 8, 2011 at 3:34 am

    Cultural minorities seem to want to impose their differences on us at the same time as wanting to be treated the same. Is there a contradiction here? (ie Seiks being excused from wearing motorbike crash helmets)

  10. Stephan
    July 30, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    I think there is a need for some plain speaking here.

    Of course we are all different variations of a species. Anyone who blindly states that we are all the same is a fool, or has just bought into this politically correct rubbish.

    Let me break it down –

    Poodles, labradors, dobermans, afghan hounds etc have different temperaments, types of hair, size, colour etc. They couldn’t be more different, yet they are all dogs.

    In just the same way the human race has many variations too. We also have different traits depending on what we are and whilst we are clearly more advanced than dogs, the differences are just as pronounced.
    It is no coincidence that certain groups have the technological advantage or are higher achievers in the sporting world. We are different breeds. Some countries churn out astonishingly advanced products packed with electronics and science. Others do nothing. This is a positive thing and should be celebrated instead of making out that we are all the same which we are very clearly not.

    Whether we are compatible to live together in the same countries is another matter. Has anyone ever tried keeping angel fish and guppies in the same tank? Yes they are both clearly fish but one will nibble the other to shreds, so you keep them seperate.
    We have evolved from animals to something far more intelligent but instinct still plays a big part. We like our own kind, we are programmed that way to promote and further our own species.
    This is nothing new, just common sense.

    Why do so many people have a problem with it?

    • Law
      August 17, 2011 at 12:17 am

      I must say, and I don’t mean to offend, but your statement seems to have a massive lack of understanding of biology; i.e dog would not equate to homo sapiens sapiens, or rather dog is the genus of a variety of closely related species, like the homo genus (homo erectus, homo sapiens sapiens, Homo gautengensis, Homo Neanderthalenis). Homo sapiens sapiens is indeed homogeneous. The varations within the species black, white etc are genetic survival traits which are mere adaptations to your surroundings. An ethnicity would be a group that shares common genetic trates. Moreover these genetic survival traits can easily change within a relatively short period of time. It is thought that if you were to take a group of northern europeans and placed them in the sub sahara, it would take as little as 300 generations for that groups genetic structure to share more in common with other ethnicites of that region than those of their northern european ancestors.

      As for your comment on certain groups appearing to be better at sports or technology, I think you’ll find this is due to cultural and socio-economic issues not biological. When a country has a vast amount of poverty, it’s hardly going to produce technology on par with the developed country. And again the reason for the countries underdevelopment is due to more historical socio-economic problems, which in a lot of cases is actually no fault of their own.

Comments are closed.