Race and the Middle-Class Mentality

by John Nobull

THE NEGRO QUESTION is an old one, and much of the hypocrisy associated with it remains embedded in the middle-class mind. If you are “self-made” yourself, it is tempting to rationalise your position by claiming that anyone else, given the chance, could have done the same. The root of the trouble, philosophically speaking, is the notion that man is everywhere essentially the same — a notion taken not so much from Christianity (although it does find some justification there) as from the Enlightenment. The ancient Hebrews certainly did not consider themselves the same as their neighbours, and the Old Testament is “the book” of those Western societies which still retain some racial cohesion (Northern Ireland, the American South, South Africa [This article was written in 1982, before the suicide of South Africa. — Ed.]). But it is also the Bible’s Hebraism which makes such cultures constricting and limited.

Mediaeval Christians were mostly Europeans. Toynbee records expressions of Arab hostility where the physical traits and accompanying psychology of Europeans were concerned, while the Christians, for their part, tended to regard all those with swarthy features, and especially the Orientalids, as their natural enemies. To be sure, they knew of Christians in the Near East, and made uneasy alliances with them, and they repeated the legends of Prester John (e.g., from the pages of that egregious and engaging liar Mandeville) who allegedly ruled a nation of black Christians somewhere beyond the Mohammedan world. I believe that this sentimental desire for black allies to help in the fighting eventually led to the widespread use of colonial troops against fellow Europeans. John Betjeman has a poem about a lady praying in Westminster Abbey, c. 1940, which admirably expresses the psychology involved:

Keep our Empire undismembered,
Guide our Forces by Thy Hand,
Gallant blacks from far Jamaica,
Honduras and Togoland;
Protect them, Lord, in all their fights,
And, even more, protect the whites.

The expansion of European power from the end of the 15th century involved the moral problem of how to deal with alien peoples. These, especially in Africa, were so different from Europeans as scarcely to be considered members of the same species. Indeed, the great Linnaeus classified
the orangutan as a kind of human. In point of fact, the classification is not that far-fetched, if we consider the extent to which the intelligence of the higher apes overlaps with that of populations classified as fully human.

At the same time, it must be said that some of the best minds spoke out against the destruction of alien cultures and the enslavement of alien peoples. Las Casas is a one-sided commentator (he glosses over the appalling cruelties of the Aztecs, for example), but it is evident from his pages that it was not always the best types who emigrated to Latin America, and the same may be said of the indentured labourers who were sent after the early colonists into North America (see, for example, Defoe’s Moll Flanders). Dryden’s Noble Savage and Pope’s Christians “lusting for gold” were not figments of the imagination. There was indeed something wild and free about the American Indian, to which writers from Columbus himself through Fenimore Cooper and Karl May responded. On the other hand, Europeans on the spot, including most of the best of them, felt that some form of bondage was necessary to keep the aliens under control. Once in contact with European civilisation, the lower peoples began to lust after the products of that civilisation without having the slightest capacity to produce them unaided. (The same problem exists, on a much larger scale, today.) But the opinions of those on the spot were neglected, because their interests were so obviously involved.

I would argue that both the idealists who pleaded for the aliens to be left alone and the practical men who insisted on some form of bondage were justified in their way. I see Lincoln’s desire to send the blacks back to Africa (expressed shortly before his assassination) and the determination of the Old South to maintain slavery as two sides of a single coin. Separation is obviously the long-term ideal, especially from the genetic viewpoint, but a legalised racial hierarchy is the only possible short-term
solution compatible with the preservation of the higher culture. This will always be true, because psychology is bred in the bone. Note, incidentally, that removal of the coloureds from their state of dependence on the whites would result in a very rapid decrease in their numbers, and that lily-white
societies are very much happier than those which are not so lily-white.

The hypocrisy of the middle classes becomes evident when it is remembered that those who agitated against slavery came from the same Nonconformist class which had previously made fortunes in the slave trade. Machines had merely proved more productive than slaves, and aristocratic societies like that of the Old South could be better undermined by attacking them on moral grounds. It has been
demonstrated that the situation of the ante-bellum Negro was better than that of the post-bellum one, just as it can be shown that Negroes in Black Africa are by and large worse off since independence than they were before it. But those who put money-making first never want to be confused with facts. They used to sing a hymn, known to the unregenerate as “The Pawnbroker’s Hymn,” which puts their world-view in a nutshell:

Whatever, Lord, we lend to Thee
Returned a Thousandfold will be,
Then gladly will we lend to Thee!

It was Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote a book in defence of the Duchess of Sutherland when she was criticised for driving the Highlanders off her estates to make room for the more profitable sheep. It was the Quaker chocolate manufacturers, Cadbury, Fry, and Rowntree, who operated a most inhuman kind of forced labour system on their West African plantations. G.K. Chesterton drew attention to this in his verse: “Cocoa is a cad and coward,/ Cocoa is a vulgar beast.” But then there was some remedy. Today, the multinational company does not wish to face colonial officials who may have the best interests of the natives at heart. It prefers to deal with a corrupt native government, entirely
lacking in skills, and to employ white expatriates, who can be fired at short notice if necessary. Of course, the advantages of this are larded over with love of the United Nations and concern for the plight of the world’s poor. Greed and Hebraic morality go naturally together, whether we are dealing
with the Jews themselves or their imitators. Dr. Verwoerd once said to Sir Oswald Mosley, “We shall control the Jews through their greed.” He was murdered shortly afterward.

Exploiting blacks in Africa is a common occurrence. Blacks have very little concern for each other. When a car thief is caught in Lagos, the crowd does not sentimentalise over his need to thieve and the deficiencies of the welfare state. It pours petrol over him, puts an old tyre round his neck, and burns him alive. The Daily Telegraph (March 21, 1981) reported no fewer than 24 such cases in the previous few months. Nor does it matter to Mobutu that he rules some of the world’s poorest people. His Swiss bank accounts are some of the largest in private hands. Black leaders inflict horrors on other blacks in the normal course of events, and the cases of their callousness are legion. Only whites are afflicted with the do-gooding need to improve the lot of the blacks, and this is what has made it possible to foist millions of them onto us since World War II.

Even before World War II, the South Wales district of Tiger Bay was a terrible indication of what conditions would spread if further coloured immigration was permitted. But the establishment of the welfare state in Britain set the stage for a further enormous influx. The native working class could now refuse the dirtier jobs because they could always fall back on welfare payments. This made it “necessary” to import cheap labour to fill the vacancies. In due course, the imported blacks went on the dole themselves. Many of them are virtually unemployable in a modern economy, even if they were not so unstable emotionally. This was actually turned into an excuse for importing yet more cheap labour, and so on. The effect on the poorer members of the native population was different from what they had expected. Far from enjoying stable employment, with the alternative of a fairly easy life on welfare, they find their welfare payments eroded by inflation and their jobs taken by coloureds who are favoured by the law. As Konrad Lorenz would put it, the native labourer has lost his social role and is relegated to the scrapheap. Blacks are preferred to all other applicants for work (because they prefer not to work) and East Indians compete on at least equal terms with the native white:

I went down to the labour exchange,
They was havin’ a ball,
They was all gettin’ lovely jobs,
But I got no job at all.
‘Cause if you’re black, all right, Jack,
If you’re brown, stick aroun’,
But if you’re white, a brother,
You’re a skite, you’re a skite, you’re a skite…

Much more needs to be written about the way in which anti-immigration protests, supported by substantial majorities in the opinion polls, have been stifled in England since the war. Middle-class liberals have played their part by arguing incessantly for more integration and fewer restrictions on immigration, but it is the Jews who have concentrated their attentions on anyone brave enough to oppose immigration openly. Every filthy little trick has been used, perfected over centuries by a minority which is always and everywhere just an organised pressure group: denigration, the ruination of one’s career or business, petty persecution, telephoned threats, scrawled slogans, parcels with disgusting contents, physical assaults, mysterious fires, damaged cars — the whole bag of tricks. The Jewish theory is that if rightist groups can be infiltrated, undermined and neutralised before they can gather momentum, then Jews can never lose their decisive influence. My theory is that, while we should never hesitate to support people brave enough to challenge the system openly, we should do everything in our power to change hearts and minds so that a future right-wing movement will not soon find that it has run out of supporters. Mosley’s support before the war came mainly from the London working class which had suffered most by Jewish immigration, from elements of the old upper class which had suffered from property speculation in land, and from businessmen also ruined by Jewish entrepreneurs. Everyone else was prepared to believe what the newspapers told them, although the powers-that-be had a bad moment at Munich, when peace seemed possible. Also, I fear that these powers-that-be included not only the Jews and liberals, who were avid for war, but also the Nazi leaders, especially Ribbentrop, who had been convinced that war against Poland and Russia was inevitable. Nothing is inevitable.

Since the war, British nationalists have received most of their support from people suffering directly from coloured immigration. What they must do now is win over the middle classes, who are only now beginning to realise that there is a threat to their very existence as a people. I am convinced that the reason why British academics had to bear the brunt of recent budget cuts is that rightist ideas were beginning to make headway in academic circles, particularly in the fields of economics and genetics. I am not suggesting that more than a few have been affected as yet, but the enemy’s case is vulnerable, because it is built upon sand. If too many professors are allowed to retain security of tenure, they may say almost anything in the future. Some, indeed, have already spoken out.

The only kind of integration desired by blacks is sexual. It has to do with loose shoes and other forms of relaxation. Apart from that, they prefer not to be looked at by whites. It makes them feel self-conscious, for some reason. In fact, it is notable how often black sex with white women involves injury and violence, even when the woman is willing. They just don’t like us psychologically, and would be happy to see as few whites as possible, provided they continued to receive larger and larger handouts. Integration is not really designed to help blacks, but is used as a weapon to coerce and demoralise whites. The guerrilla warfare of black crime and the recent black riots do not indicate a very deep desire to integrate on the part of the blacks. A News of the World poll (Nov. 30, 1981) indicated that a majority of Britain’s blacks agree with Enoch Powell and want to return to their countries of origin (47% very much, 19% not quite so much). The Race Relations Board, staffed by white liberals, but set up with Jewish support, was very upset. Yet no one can doubt that Britain’s survival demands massive repatriation of the coloureds, the alternative being more destruction, culminating in a series of civil wars.

(Based on an article in Instauration)

Read more at Jamie Kelso’s online Instauration archive