Magazine article The Spectator

Eurocrats Rush in Where Hitler and Verwoerd Feared to Tread

Magazine article The Spectator

Eurocrats Rush in Where Hitler and Verwoerd Feared to Tread

Article excerpt

Britain is quite right to veto the proposal to establish the `European Union Centre for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia'. Its officials would have the authority to investigate 'offences' anywhere in the EU and drag those they accuse before the European Court. This is a very suspicious idea indeed. In the first place it comes from the Irish republicans. One of the many disadvantages of belonging to the EU is that it gives them the opportunity to put forward schemes whose chief object is to embarrass or annoy the English or forward the cause of Irish reunification. Their strategists have been longing to get Britain on a racist rap, and they believe they can put forward a case that the very existence of Northern Ireland is racist. The xenophobia charge is a second barrel to the gun if the first fails to work. What is xenophobia anyway? Almost anyone can be charged with it. It will certainly be used against those who oppose European supranationalism - if you are anti-federalist you are, by definition, xenophobic. I do not fancy ending my days in a Brussels dungeon. A second objection is that bodies which are set up to counter racism, real or imaginary, invariably end up by becoming racist themselves. That is certainly illustrated by the gruesome history of the British race relations industry, dominated by embittered anti-white racists. Britain has never been racist, though it sometimes tends to be xenophobic. But its xenophobia has found religious rather than racial expression. The only truly racist institutions in Britain today are the National Front, which is anti-black, and the Commission for Racial Equality, which is, in effect, antiwhite. The first supports itself and the second is paid for by taxation, which means that all of us, in a sense, are accessories to racism. It has been the same story in the United States, where the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the centre of a huge network of agencies set up to enforce anti-racist policies, soon became an antiwhite racist body itself. One of its statutory functions was to ensure that government employed minorities in proportion to their share of the total population. In no time at all the EOEC's budget shot up from $2.3 million to $125 million, its staff from 314 to 3,746, and of these 49 per cent were blacks, though blacks make up only 12 per cent of the total US workforce. Whites were crowded into a ghetto of 20 per cent. Challenged on this, the EOEC bosses replied blandly that their situation was `rather unique'.

Once you try to introduce remediable measures on race - as opposed to letting time and common sense perform their healing work - you find yourself engaged in the worst kind of compulsory social engineering, with quotas and targets and enforced inequalities. And immediately you introduce quotas and privileges based on race or ethnic origins, you run into problems of classification. The history of race classification is peculiarly grisly. In the British Caribbean islands, baffled 18thcentury governors tried to settle on eight types in addition to white: negro, sambo, mulatto, quadroon, mustee, mustiphini, quintroon and octoroon, all except the first being based on degrees of interracial marriage. Some Latin-American territories had 128 official combinations. There were 492 in Brazil. All these systems eventually broke down under the weight of the human race's propensity to propagate itself in ways bureaucrats find inconvenient. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.