The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

The Telegraph's Dan Hodges Morphs into Hope Not Hate's Nick Lowles

The Telegraph published Dan Hodges' “'No dogs. No blacks. No Irish' is now Ukip policy” only four days before his 'Ten things you actually can't say about racism' (16th of March). In both pieces, he fuses race and nationality/culture.

Dan Hodges does, nonetheless, hint that he's open-minded on race. After all, he writes for the Telegraph; so you'd think that it wouldn't allow a mindless Leftist rant on racism. Indeed he has written on the racial aspect of the Rotherham scandal.

Dan Hodges even tells us that “[s]ome of Trevor Phillips' 'explosive truths' are things I’ve written about myself”.

Yet if Dan Hodges and Hope Not Hate (Hodges once worked for this organisation) had their complete political way, none of these subjects would have even been discussed.

The fact is that such "explosive truths" were eventually discussed only because people well outside the political/social milieu of the Left had forced them into the open. (This was most certainly the case with Muslim sexual-grooming gangs.) So it's not that Dan Hodges, the Labour Party, Sarah Champion MP, etc. decided (off their own backs) to tackle these issues. It's that other people and groups (such as the EDL, BNP, locals in Rotherham, victims, etc.) have forced them to do so.

Let's put it this way. Only when the shit had well as truly hit the fan (at least in the Muslim grooming-gangs case) did the Dan Hodges and Sarah Champions of this world speak out. In fact Rotherham's Sarah Champion MP first raised her voice about Muslim grooming gangs in 2013/14: over 13 years after it was common knowledge in Rotherham and elsewhere. Dan Hodges (as far as I could see) first wrote about the same subject as late as August the 27th, 2014.

10 True Things You Can’t Say about racism

Dan Hodges offers us his own counter-list of “10 True Things You Can’t Say about immigration and race”. I'll only comment on three of them (as well as on a couple in the notes).

Firstly we have this:

1) “Most of the people who demand an open and honest debate about racism are racist.”

How does Dan Hodges know that? How could he know that? And how does he show us that he knows that? The thing is, he doesn't even attempt to demonstrate his point. Then again, on issues such as UKIP and racism, he rarely does.

3) “Most of the people who demand an open and honest debate about racism only ever see one side of the debate. That’s because they’re invariably white, and have no personal experience of what racism actually is.”

Well, for one, I've many experiences of anti-white racism. When I lived in Eccleshill in Bradford, for example, most of the people under the age of 30 I knew had experienced anti-white racism (mainly from Muslims).

So is this a numbers game?

I suppose you could assume that because most people in the UK are white, then proportionately you'd expect that non-whites would make up most of the victims of racism... Though not so quick! There's a hell of a lot of evidence that says otherwise. (That's also true of the United States.)

Take these statistics:

*) According to the BBC, a report published in 2004 stated that 87,000 blacks and other ethnic minorities were victims of racial attacks in the UK, compared to 92,000 whites.

*) An Independent article of 1999 states that when it came to the victims of racial attacks and offences, 100,000 of the victims were Asian, 42,000 were black and 238,000 were white.

*) The Telegraph tells us that “62% of the 572 racial attacks reported in Oldham” in the year 2000 “were committed by Asians on white victims”.

*) And even according to the Guardian (in 2006), out of 58 murders which were “racially motivated”, 24 of the victims were white.

I'm not saying that any of these stats are conclusive. However, it would help if Dan Hodges (as well as people like them) would at least make the effort to acknowledge that such figures even so much as exist.

Having said that, I'll willingly admit that some (yes some) of the people who talk about “anti-white racism” (especially those who use the phrase “white genocide”) are racists. Indeed their argument is (basically) this:

If blacks and Muslims are allowed to be racists, then so too should whites.

However, Dan Hodges doesn't make these distinctions. (He doesn't make any distinctions.) In fact what he says sounds like Hope Not Hate stuff. In other words, although Hodges may not explicitly state it, he may believe the Marxist theory that it's “impossible for people with power to be the victims of racism” and therefore that “only whites can be racists”. Has Dan Hodges ever rejected this widespread – especially in universities and the law - Marxist theory? I don't know.

10) “Ukip represent the biggest threat to British race relations since Oswald Mosley’s black-shirts.”

The biggest threats to race relations, Mr Hodges, were and still are things like the Rotherham grooming-gangs (as well as Muslim grooming-gangs generally), racist blacks and Muslims (who get away with their crimes because of their colour), the social experiment in mass immigration carried out by the Labour Party between 2000 and 2010 (when Dan Hodges, apparently, was a keen Blairite), Marxist theory on race, positive/inverse discrimination/racism, Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism, the slow Islamisation of the UK, Leftist professors and lawyers and, last but not least, articles such as 'Ten things you actually can't say about racism'.

*) Read my “'No UKIP. No patriots. No platform' is Dan Hodges & Hope Not Hate's policy”.....



1) On Dan Hodges' point 5):

When people want to excuse racism, they channel it through the prism of class. Say 'I have a real problem with immigration' and you will be challenged. Say 'Many working class communities are experiencing real problems with immigration' and you are given a pass.”

Here again Dan Hodges simply assumes that all the people who say such things (e.g., “many working class communities are experiencing real problems with immigration”) are racist.

As I said in the piece, some (yes, some) people will of course use these class-based analyses of immigration as a rationalisation for their pre-existing racism. Then again, many Leftists use anti-racism (as well as much else) as just another tool to further the revolution (or simply to “radicalise” various groups and causes).

In any case, Dan Hodges' blanket dismissal of these “working-class problems with immigration” is condescending and arrogant. Though because he's an upper-middle-class son of a famous actress and Labour politician, perhaps that explains both his snobbery and ignorance.

2) On Hodges point 8):

The lack of black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in British public life is a far greater scandal than the under-representation of women.”

Here again Dan Hodges doesn't even consider the possible (or actual) answers to his own statements.

The obvious point to be made in response to 8) above (so obvious it's often simply missed) is that since minorities are minorities, then there's bound to be less of them in “British public life” than there are whites in public life....

Unless Dan Hodges believe in quotas or positive discrimination! Of course he does.

The thing about positive discrimination (like the positive/inverse racism of middle-class Leftists) is that it actually contributes to racism; rather than dissipates it. But that doesn't matter. As long as Leftists and Dan Hodges can preen their anti-racist feathers in public and get paid a lot of money for doing so.

3) Dan Hodges has the audacity to round off his list by saying that “there may be some people who disagree with some of my inconvenient truths”.

What's with the word “truths”? The things he says in the article couldn't possibly function as truths because they're so overloaded with theory, opinion and hyperbole. There's no data. No argumentation. Only rhetoric and sanctimony. Therefore even if they are politically acceptable in terms of opinion, they still can't stand as “truths” by any stretch of the imagination.

4) Of course it can be said that most victims of racism are white simply because most people in the UK are white. (Just as when Leftists and Muslims say that “most British sex-abusers and paedophiles are white” they conveniently forget the fact that most British people are white.) Yet you'll also have to factor in the fact that there should be proportionately less ethnic minority individuals who would - or do - carry out such racial attacks. In other words, why are their so many white victims of racial attacks from a smaller number of ethnic minorities?

5) People tell me that the Telegraph used to be a very good newspaper. So does that mean that Glenda Jackson MP goes to the same Hampstead dinner parties as the Telegraph's editor?

No comments:

Post a Comment