The recent European elections are not the way that civilizations are saved, and the promising results for a number of slightly more realistic parties may in fact be outliers before the anti-democratic system reasserts itself using its usual tricks.
We have been here before. When the BNP threatened the political consensus in the UK a few years ago, there was a sudden clanking of gears and whirring of wheels as the Great Machine went into action to eradicate the threat, which was done by a variety of techniques:
Of course, the result is not completely negative. UKIP while not nationalist can perhaps be described as Pre-Nationalist. Also, it was highly significant that while UKIP was once positively promoted by the establishment as an acceptable alternative for Britain's growing army of disaffected voters, in the latter stages of the campaign it too was attacked with the same demonization and anti-racist smears as the BNP once was. This was because UKIP, rather than merely serving as a sump for ex-BNP voters, was also becoming a sump for disaffected Tory voters – and even Labour voters!
But even though the big anti-racism guns were rolled out and trained on Nigel Farage's little band, the effect of the ordinance was less than impressive. It is even likely that the anti-racism barrage launched against UKIP actually helped the party storm the defences of the establishment, allowing a party of vacuous opportunists be perceived as noble outsiders who represented a true British identity.
What this result suggests – along with the Front National's even more stunning victory in France – is that the racism card has been so overplayed that it is now losing much of its potency.
UKIP, of course, has been doing everything it can to prove that it is not a racist party, but the interesting thing is that opinion polls suggest that voters actually see it as racist.
But although the British media still has the power to designate who is a racist, it has less people to control how people feel about these terms, and the evidence suggests that this is what has really been changing.
Perhaps the best way to understand what is going on is to use a financial analogy. In the same way that banks leverage liabilities on assets, the power of 'racism' charges derives from leveraging them on actual 'racism' assets. These would be clear-cut examples of violence and brutality, attacks by Neo-Nazi skinhead gangs on Bengali immigrants and lynchings, all the way up to the gold-standard of racism—the Holocaust. To maintain the power of 'racism' as a political tool, however, two things are vital: the validity of the actual ‘racism’ assets as such and the ratio of 'racism' that you leverage on them.
In recent years two things have happened: (1) the actual assets have increasingly come into question, and (2) more importantly, especially in the case of the attacks on UKIP, they have been overleveraged.
To a small degree the first is the effect of historical revisionism, but it is also down to changing perceptions of the victim narrative. From the cliché of Blacks as victims of racism, the perception has now swung strongly towards middle- and working-class Whites being the victims. They are increasingly victims of underclass crime, excluded by affirmative action, and forced to flee from certain neighborhoods (hence UKIP's poor showing in London). Another factor is changing perceptions of the Jews—at least those in Israel, who are increasingly seen as aggressors and oppressors rather than victims. This was recently recognized at the highest level when the US Secretary of State John Kerry made a remark about Israel's 'apartheid' system. In short, the 'racism' assets are seen increasingly as subprime.
In the UK, there is a growing sense that British people have done more than enough for immigrants, especially Muslims, and that rather than British people bending over backwards to accommodate them, it is they who should be doing more to adapt themselves to British society. This perception has been greatly helped by the ongoing scandal of Muslim pedophile gangs grooming, drugging, and raping young English girls.
The second thing that has happened is that too much alleged 'racism' has been leveraged on the available assets. The nature of the 'racism' charges deployed against UKIP is so mild as to make most people wonder what all the fuss is about.
The two best-known cases of 'racism' in UKIP were a candidate telling a rent-seeking Black ex-comedian demanding more affirmative action to go and live in a Black country, and another candidate questioning the Britishness of a Somali runner, who has used his African DNA to successfully represent Britain at various athletic events. Hardly Bull Connor, let alone Auschwitz!
While there is some perceived affinity between the Third Reich and a gang of skinheads stomping on an unfortunate Bengali immigrant that allows the charge of ‘racism’ to resonate with its full Auschwitzean horror, there is absolutely none with most of the charges levelled today.
So, just as a currency that is inflated beyond its credit base will devalue, or a bank will become unstable through an asset-liability mismatch, so we see something similar happening with ‘racism’ in the UK.
A key point to consider is that the kinds of things for which UKIP candidates are being denounced by the media are exactly the kinds of things that normal people find themselves guilty of in their everyday speech. "Yes, UKIP are racist," voters seem to be saying, "but so what? So am I."
UKIP's rise will do little to solve the existential problems of the UK, but the slow death of racism that it reveals at least shows us that one of the establishment’s most potent tools of control is now seriously compromised.
- Racial swamping of the areas involved
- Intense canvassing and the establishment of a detailed voter database to allow tailored approaches to individual voters
- Comforting (and patronizing) noises about the need to understand "the concerns of ordinary voters"
- Cloaked threats about the consequences of voting BNP both at the community level and the individual level
- The promotion of "suitable" alternatives, which is essentially how UKIP got its big start
- Cultural immersion in anti-racism
Of course, the result is not completely negative. UKIP while not nationalist can perhaps be described as Pre-Nationalist. Also, it was highly significant that while UKIP was once positively promoted by the establishment as an acceptable alternative for Britain's growing army of disaffected voters, in the latter stages of the campaign it too was attacked with the same demonization and anti-racist smears as the BNP once was. This was because UKIP, rather than merely serving as a sump for ex-BNP voters, was also becoming a sump for disaffected Tory voters – and even Labour voters!
But even though the big anti-racism guns were rolled out and trained on Nigel Farage's little band, the effect of the ordinance was less than impressive. It is even likely that the anti-racism barrage launched against UKIP actually helped the party storm the defences of the establishment, allowing a party of vacuous opportunists be perceived as noble outsiders who represented a true British identity.
 |
| One of the many attempts to smear Nigel. |
UKIP, of course, has been doing everything it can to prove that it is not a racist party, but the interesting thing is that opinion polls suggest that voters actually see it as racist.
"The finding that nearly a third of voters believe Ukip is a racist party will be a blow to Farage, who angrily rejects claims that his party is the "BNP in blazers". The poll also found that 33% of voters believed Ukip was more honest than other parties. But 38% disagree with this."Due to the sensitivity that people still feel about the term "racism" it can be assumed that a much larger number than one third believe UKIP to be racist. That a party which actually wishes to cut White immigration from Europe rather than immigration per se should be seen a "racist" is of course a demonstration of the established media's power to plant an idea in the minds of the British public, which is what they have chosen to do here.
But although the British media still has the power to designate who is a racist, it has less people to control how people feel about these terms, and the evidence suggests that this is what has really been changing.
Perhaps the best way to understand what is going on is to use a financial analogy. In the same way that banks leverage liabilities on assets, the power of 'racism' charges derives from leveraging them on actual 'racism' assets. These would be clear-cut examples of violence and brutality, attacks by Neo-Nazi skinhead gangs on Bengali immigrants and lynchings, all the way up to the gold-standard of racism—the Holocaust. To maintain the power of 'racism' as a political tool, however, two things are vital: the validity of the actual ‘racism’ assets as such and the ratio of 'racism' that you leverage on them.
In recent years two things have happened: (1) the actual assets have increasingly come into question, and (2) more importantly, especially in the case of the attacks on UKIP, they have been overleveraged.
To a small degree the first is the effect of historical revisionism, but it is also down to changing perceptions of the victim narrative. From the cliché of Blacks as victims of racism, the perception has now swung strongly towards middle- and working-class Whites being the victims. They are increasingly victims of underclass crime, excluded by affirmative action, and forced to flee from certain neighborhoods (hence UKIP's poor showing in London). Another factor is changing perceptions of the Jews—at least those in Israel, who are increasingly seen as aggressors and oppressors rather than victims. This was recently recognized at the highest level when the US Secretary of State John Kerry made a remark about Israel's 'apartheid' system. In short, the 'racism' assets are seen increasingly as subprime.
In the UK, there is a growing sense that British people have done more than enough for immigrants, especially Muslims, and that rather than British people bending over backwards to accommodate them, it is they who should be doing more to adapt themselves to British society. This perception has been greatly helped by the ongoing scandal of Muslim pedophile gangs grooming, drugging, and raping young English girls.
 |
| If you don't equate this with lampshades you are an evil racist. |
The two best-known cases of 'racism' in UKIP were a candidate telling a rent-seeking Black ex-comedian demanding more affirmative action to go and live in a Black country, and another candidate questioning the Britishness of a Somali runner, who has used his African DNA to successfully represent Britain at various athletic events. Hardly Bull Connor, let alone Auschwitz!
While there is some perceived affinity between the Third Reich and a gang of skinheads stomping on an unfortunate Bengali immigrant that allows the charge of ‘racism’ to resonate with its full Auschwitzean horror, there is absolutely none with most of the charges levelled today.
So, just as a currency that is inflated beyond its credit base will devalue, or a bank will become unstable through an asset-liability mismatch, so we see something similar happening with ‘racism’ in the UK.
A key point to consider is that the kinds of things for which UKIP candidates are being denounced by the media are exactly the kinds of things that normal people find themselves guilty of in their everyday speech. "Yes, UKIP are racist," voters seem to be saying, "but so what? So am I."
UKIP's rise will do little to solve the existential problems of the UK, but the slow death of racism that it reveals at least shows us that one of the establishment’s most potent tools of control is now seriously compromised.
