Nothing wrong with free speech—except speaking freely
May 27, 2002, 05:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

Geoffrey Sampson is a British academic and Conservative Party member who until recently held a local council seat in East Sussex. "Until recently" means until the Tory leadership became aware of an essay Mr. Sampson published on his personal website entitled "There's nothing wrong with racism (except the name)." That should explain why Mr. Sampson no longer holds the council seat.

But the kind of fear, intolerance and repression that pushed him into resigning his seat is common enough these days in all the so-called "liberal democracies" of Europe and North America. The larger point here has to do with what Mr. Sampson actually said in his essay and how and why he said it—that there is nothing wrong with "racism" except the word itself. [VDARE.COM NOTE: Here's a cached version from Google of Geoffrey Sampson's essay. His website comes with the following disclaimer:

"Since the storm of vilification which burst over me in May 2002 I have removed this section of pages from my website. Anyone who had already taken copies, and passes them on, does so without my permission and against my wishes."

We sympathize, but we think there's a larger issue involved.]

Part of his point was simply one of language: The word should be "racialism," not "racism." But his larger purpose was to explain, as patiently and carefully as he could to an audience unwilling to listen or learn, that what he calls "racialism" contains nothing to be afraid of.

Paraphrasing his argument, a "race" is essentially a group defined by shared genetic characteristics, some of which (like skin color) are visible to the naked eye. "Co-operating in daily life with fellow members of a social community," Mr. Sampson wrote,

"helps them to flourish, and hence increases the chances of copies of their genes multiplying. So, naturally, we are disposed to co-operate actively with communities of people who appear to be genetically similar to ourselves. If we can tell by looking at some people that they share fewer of our genes, we will be at least somewhat less enthusiastic about active co-operation with them; we will to some extent see them as unwelcome competitors for resources. In a word, we are racialists."

"Racialism," as he's using and defining the word, means merely the inclination toward social cooperation with and attraction to people with whom we share various inherited characteristics (among which he believes is intelligence), and it's a perfectly natural phenomenon—nothing to be ashamed about or afraid of, and certainly nothing to try to deny or suppress.

Mr. Sampson compared the current fears, denials and repression of race and racial consciousness (at least among whites; such anxieties seem to be largely absent among for non-whites) with similar fears, denials and repression of sex in Victorian times.

"In time to come," he wrote,

"the current hysteria over 'racism' will seem as ridiculous to us or to our descendants as horror of naked legs seems now."

Just as the Victorians went through a period of ignorance and fear about sex, so today the Western world is going through the same kind of trauma about race—and just as the Victorians censored, ostracized or actually punished anyone who talked too frankly about sex, so are we imposing similar sanctions on anyone who has the nerve to talk too frankly about race.

That's perhaps understandable, given the history of persecution and repression that has been justified in the name of race, just as some Victorian denials may have been understandable given what had sometimes been done in the name of sex. But the evils of one extreme never justify those of the other.

Mr. Sampson is very careful to explain that his endorsement of "racialism" is not intended to justify any extremes.

"All this does not, obviously, mean that it is all right to act oppressively to members of other races—any more than it is all right for a man to have his way with any woman who takes his fancy. Racial and sexual feelings are natural and healthy, but there have to be social mechanisms controlling how they are manifested in terms of concrete behavior."

Europe, until recently, had just such a social mechanism to control racial feelings of solidarity with one's own race and antagonism towards others. It was called the nation-state.

Ethnically homogeneous nation-states kept ethnically and racially different groups apart and thereby ensured social peace within the nations.

Today, precisely because the realities of race are denied and ignored, such homogeneity has virtually vanished because of mass, multiracial immigration.

The result is the incipient racial and ethnic anarchy, violence and conflict we're beginning to see in both Europe and North America.

Mr. Sampson's realism about race is refreshing. It's easy to see why the cowards and hypocrites who run the "liberal democracies" of the West are so eager to shut him up as they drag their countries toward racial chaos.

As for this country, it would be nice if even a county councillor, let alone anyone else in the political and cultural elites that prevail here, had the courage, and honesty to tell us what Mr. Sampson vainly tried to tell his own people.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

May 27, 2002