White woman, presumably filled with guilt, observing Chris Ofili’s “No Woman No Cry,” said to portray Baroness Doreen Lawrence
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/04/the-necessary-rise-of-the-black-baroness/
Given that Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, is now being touted as Labour’s candidate to fight the London mayoral elections in 2016, it is time to reconsider the complexities of British multiculturalism and how the Black population and Britain relate to each other.
The central problem is that because of real average differences in traits like
IQ, Blacks simply don’t fit into White societies, like Britain, that prize “equality.” Most people, of course, know this at a gut level, but on the conscious level there is still a lot of brainwashing, denial, and disinformation, backed up by extremely fuzzy thinking.
People in these societies have been taught that “equality” is a sacred and moral value, so they are naturally reluctant to face up to the awkward fact of continuing Black inequality. It simply does not square with their declared values and actual equality of opportunity that other non-White groups like Asians have no trouble taking advantage of.
The only way out of this paradox is for the society to generate the idea of “racism” and create the myth that Blacks are held back by “evil, racist” White people.
The problem with this, however, is that because these societies are dominated by egalitarian values and the idea that anything “bad” from the past should and can be reformed, they constantly undermine any objective basis for actual racial discrimination with the result that ever more abstruse and chimerical forms of it have to be found or conceptualized.
Advertisement
Unlike parts of America, which once had a system of apartheid, with some laws that could be described as “race laws,” the UK has never had any racial element in its laws, so, when Blacks from the Caribbean started to colonize the British Isles from the 1940s onwards, there was no legal basis for explaining Black inequality as the result of “racism.”
Instead two other ideas were invoked, namely the ideas of (1) assimilative lag and (2) unofficial racism said to stem from the attitudes of certain members of the majority population.
The idea of assimilative lag was compatible with the dominant egalitarian ethos because it hypothesized that any immigrant group would simply be unequal until it assimilated. In Britain in the 1950s and 1960s it was still possible to view Blacks in this way, especially as the first generation of Black immigrants were ostensibly keen to fit in and “become British.” Even today, ludicrously British-sounding names such as “Winston” (from British PM Churchill’s first name) are common among Afro-Caribbeans in the UK.
However, because it is a false hypothesis and because it has a built-in time-obsolesence, the idea of assimilative lag soon had to be abandoned on both sides. The second generation of Blacks, instead of redoubling their efforts to be accepted by the general population, went in what can be called a more alienated and identitarian direction, typified by the unemployable weed-smoking Rastafarian or the gangster Yardie.
Because of this, British society with its stubbornly egalitarian ethos had to fall back on the idea of “unofficial racism,” that Blacks were being held back — literally forced into crime, poverty, and familial dysfunction — by unofficial racism, despite the much greater opportunities offered to them by British society as opposed to their countries of origin.
Unfortunately, even the basis for believing in unofficial racism had been severely undermined by the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968, which greatly constrained the ways in which individuals who wished to dissociate with Blacks could express their preference, by making it illegal to not serve a person at a restaurant or to refuse housing, employment, or public services “on the grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins.”
Rather than reforming a racist system, these laws merely served to shrilly emphasize the non-racial character of pre-existing British society. But they also emphasized the growing mismatch between natural Black inequality and Britain’s egalitarian ethos. This paradox presented fertile political ground for any party that chose to exploit it, so that even the National Front with its crude sloganeering (“If they’re Black send them back,” etc.), thuggish image, and rambunctious street politics was able to make considerable progress.
To avoid exploitation of the paradox in this way, the British establishment responded with a variety of tactical measures, including media propaganda, demonization, infiltration of nationalist groups, etc., but its deeper strategic response can be divided into two main strands: (1) “prejudice mining” and (2) “bundling” — two terms which I have had to coin because they don’t already exist in a political context.
In the same way that data mining extracts new information from pre-existing data, “prejudice mining” enables states to “extract” new forms of prejudice from behaviour that in previous years would not be considered prejudice by anybody. But whereas data mining uses a variety of techniques such “cluster analysis,” “anomaly detection,” and “association rule mining” to get objectively verifiable results, prejudice mining is much more subjective and politically driven.
The typical modus operandi involves “political spotlighting,” namely the selection of a specific area for analysis, based purely on political considerations and amenability to media exploitation, and then measuring any inequality of outcome against an assumption of absolute natural equality.
Where no unfair discrimination exists by a standard of common sense, “prejudice mining” can then postulate such explanations as “institutional racism,” “a hostile environment or culture,” “micro-aggressions,” or “a legacy of racism,” which can then be backdated as much is required. On the basis of this, it can then prescribe various forms of “reverse” prejudice, such as “diversity training” and job quotas.
An obvious analogy exists with the methods of the Witchfinders in the late medieval and early modern periods, with the earlier assumption that the Devil must exist being analogous to the assumption that natural equality must exist and must be uncovered at all costs.
The initiation of this system can be dated to the 1976 Race Relations Act, which established the Commission for Racial Equality and thus the racial grievance industry.
The weaknesses of the Race Relations Acts were twofold:
Firstly, they were founded on a pretence of hostile discrimination based on mistaken notions of group equality, when the objective evidence correlated with a wide range of other examples of immigration suggests that Britain was unnaturally welcoming and indulgent to the incomers, and certainly more so than they deserved on their merits.
Secondly, the Race Relations Acts brought the Black-White divide into sharp focus, leading to clear race consciousness on both sides and a tendency towards objectivism about the underlying natural group inequalities.
The Race Relations Acts of 1965, 1968, and 1976 had two unforeseen outcomes. They bolstered Black paranoia and feelings of being persecuted, but also created antipathy among Whites, especially working-class Whites, who instinctively realized that far from Blacks being protected against an unfair system they were simply being singled out for preferential treatment.
The rise of so-called “Far Right” parties in the UK can partially be interpreted as a response to these Race Relations Acts. The history of the National Front seems to fit this trajectory rather neatly, with the party being founded in 1967 and enjoying its greatest popularity in the late 1970s.
To offset the polarizing effects of focusing on Black inequality, the British establishment developed a strategy of obfuscation with the issues surrounding Black inequality increasingly being bundled together with other “equality” issues, involving such things as gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities.
It is telling that the 1976 Act was the last Race Relations Act, or, more accurately, the last piece of racial legislation to openly declare itself as racial in its title. Increasingly race issues were linked to other issues in such a way as to disingenuously broaden the base of support.
In a similar way the Commission for Racial Equality, which was actually serving to remind Working Class Whites of how they were discriminated against, also underwent a crafty name change. In 2004 it was decided to “merge” it into a new single equalities body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I eventually got up to speed. Or at least I found out what all the fuss was about. Over the next several weeks I viewed this issue from a unique perspective. I was an American in Africa watching an issue ignite ethnic tensions in my homeland. It was almost surreal. 
PhilBest