Dear Sir/Madam,

I was very interested to read what London's Major, Ken Livingstone, had to say in yesterday's Guardian, particularly about "racism" (This is about Israel, not anti-semitism):

One can only conclude that anyone justly referred to as a "racist" is completely beyond the pale - best locked up in jail or committed to an institution of re-education. They have surely succumbed to evil and must be made to recognise the error of their evil ways, thoughts and feelings, or else be removed from society.

I'm reminded of medieval heresy trials, and of playing "goodies and baddies" as a child. Many people, it seems, have a need to play such games as grown-ups too, only they don't call the baddies "baddies", of course, but use different words, such as "infidel", "atheist", "communist", "fascist", "anarchist", "terrorist", "racist", or the like. depending on the particular group (ideology) they identify with. 

Being able to identify "baddies" is a great way of contrasting and emphasising oneself as a "goody" and belonging to one's own particular (ideological) group. 

Ken belongs to the ideological group which welcomes mass immigration into Britain and celebrates multiracial/multicultural society, and woe betides anyone, like myself, who doesn't, or whose European ancestry is an essential part of their identity; although, when black people have a need to emphasis their African roots and ethnic identity, that is an entirely different matter, of course.

Ken detests "racism", he says, and understandably so given his definition of it, but the term, despite being so damning,  is loosely and indiscriminatingly applied, resulting in gross distortions of the truth about people's character and attitudes. Yes, I do object to mass immigration and to the multiracial/multicultural society it has forced on this country during the past few decades (especially the extent to which it has occurred), but despite what Ken (and his ideological group) might think and claim, I am NOT a "racist" (a "baddy" whose ideology is "used to justify the greatest crimes in history"). The people I'd most like to put up against a wall and shoot (metaphorically speaking) are nearly all white! (like myself), people who care more about those of other race and culture, as a matter of principle, in order to reinforce their own ideological group identity, than they do about members of their own race and culture. I cannot help suspecting that somewhere (in the subconscious) there may be an element of self-hate involved. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the ones native Britons hate most, the Germans, are the ones they are racially and culturally most closely related to.

We are horrified to learn that in medieval times often good, truly religious people where branded "unbelievers" or heretics and condemned (even burned at the stake) by those who self-righteously considered themselves "true believers" or "defenders of the true faith". Equally horrifying is the realisation that so little has changed. A modern-day group of self-righteous "true believers" likes to call themselves "antiracists", "antifascists" or the like, condemning and damning anyone who does not share (let alone rejects) their religiously held convictions on immigration, and multiracial/multicultural society.

I'm not suggesting that there are no genuine, very nasty racists in the world - I'm sure there are; but the vast majority of those against whom such accusations are made, I'm also sure, are no more (probably far less) nasty than those making the accusations. Most of the time, the "self-righteous" have no need to actually make any accusations (let alone prosecute anyone), since the mere threat of it is usually enough to impose self-censorship on most of the population (as happened with respect to religion in medieval Europe, and still occurs today in many Islamic countries).

To the extent that antiracist ideology has been a response to racist ideologies, such as Nazism, it had - and perhaps still has - an important role to play. However, it is predominately used to counter and suppress the natural, deeply rooted and necessary human inclination to discriminate in favour of those one most closely identifies with. It is an inclination in which, for what should be obvious reasons, ethnicity, race and culture play very important roles. Just as main-stream Victorian society suppressed sexuality, modern main-stream society suppresses feelings of ethnic identity, at least in so far Europeans are concerned. 

In view of recent European history (the insane racial doctrines of the Nazis, for example), one can understand why. We are terrified of letting the lid off, for fear of what may come out. It is what the Victorians did with sex. However, suppressing natural human inclinations is not the best way of dealing with them, no matter how troublesome they may be.  In fact, it is the worst way, since, unable to take their natural course, they find other, often terrible ways of expressing themselves. One can only guess at the untold horrors caused by suppressed human sexuality.

This is not to say that human sexuality and feelings of group (including (European) ethnic) identity should be allowed completely free rein. Both need to be reasonably and responsibly channelled, instead of being suppressed; something we have not been very successful at, however, so far, in respect to sexuality.

Roger Hicks

www.spaceship-earth.org