Category Archives: blacks

Racist agitprop: over-representation of black actors in the theatre

Militant ruthless mediocrity is one of the prevailing cultural currents of our time

Dalrymple writes that black actors

are included in casts out of all proportion to their number in the population, and unlike such disproportion in football teams, it is not the consequence of superior talent or ability. It is obviously, but unmentionably, the consequence of policy.

He goes on:

When John of Gaunt is black and Bolingbroke is white, the audience is being bullied into pretending that it notices nothing odd when father and son are enfolded in each other’s arms. The audience is forced both to see and to deny what it has seen, being subjected to the kind of mental discomfort that was produced by propaganda in totalitarian countries, which was so powerful a method of cowing populations.

An entirely black cast of Richard II

would not be in the slightest disturbing, or even a production in which Richard II alone were played by a black actor. I once saw (about a quarter of a century ago) an excellent Macbeth in which Macbeth was black, in this case a very fine actor of superb diction. Any initial surprise was soon overcome and disbelief easily suspended.

But

it is harder to suspend disbelief when Bagot and Aumerle, John of Gaunt and Lord Willoughby are played by black actors, moreover without great distinction.

One is, Dalrymple notes,

in the presence of agitprop of a racist variety. The British stage is riven with racism, if by racism we mean the tendency to believe that race is and ought to be an important determinant of policy, for example in the allocation of jobs. And it is obvious that, lying not very deeply under the positive discrimination exercised in the casting of plays in British productions, is an attitude of condescension at best and contempt at worst.

You would never guess from the British theatre that

the largest ethnic minority by far in the country is of Indian subcontinental origin: it will be a very long time before you see a Bangladeshi Juliet or a Sikh Angelo. It might be argued that those of Indian origin are not interested in appearing on the British stage, but if so (according to a certain way of thinking) this would only be an argument for even more positive discrimination in their favour. More probably, it is felt that people of Indian origin can look after themselves: they need no helping hand up.

It is here, says Dalrymple, that we see

the implicit condescension or contempt in the positive discrimination in favour of black actors (of course, there can be no positive discrimination without negative discrimination). They are believed to be people who could not survive by their own unaided efforts—unaided, that is, by the intellectual keepers of our conscience. They are like household dogs that could not survive in the wild.

The mental contortions

that are required of us to be considered, and to consider ourselves, decent respectable citizens would be enough to baffle Houdini. Some demographic disproportions must never be alluded to or even noticed, others must be referred to ad nauseam, and the decent person must know by instinct which is which. Some disparities must be constantly measured, others persistently ignored. And you must never let your guard down in discriminating which discriminations are discriminatory. After all, received wisdom can change as quickly as the enemy during the hate sessions in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The musico-industrial complex

Black culture, writes Dalrymple, is

a conspiracy to keep blacks (actually, Jamaicans) in a state of helotry — as a reserve army of reluctant casual labourers.

A few,

possessed of minimal talent and little different from the rest, become very rich, though few hang on to their money because of the very ‘culture’ of which they are both the creators and the victims.

Stardom these days is awarded

not to exceptional people but to mediocrities, in order to keep the rest of the population daydreaming rather than forming proper and realisable ambitions.

The output of the musico-industrial complex

reinforces and makes actual the stereotype of the Jamaican as a man of small brain but large appetites, with a powerful though primitive sense of rhythm.

These qualities

are not very useful in social ascent: on the contrary, they inhibit it. It is therefore no accident that rap music is lionised in our Press, even taken seriously as a genuine rather than as an ersatz and prefabricated, that is to say industrialised, cry of protest from the streets.

It is time, says Dalrymple, that blacks broke free of

the musically and bureaucratically forged manacles that keep them forever subordinate, marginalised and criminalised.

The poor are a goldmine,

and so are the Jamaicans — for the record companies and welfare bureaucracies alike.

How to keep blacks at the bottom of the pile

Kendrick Lamar: industrialised vileness

A contorted form of racism

I don’t give a fuck: the best that can be hoped for from a black man

Dalrymple writes that an informant,

who keeps up more closely than do I with developments in the field of cultural vulgarity,

explains that a man called Kendrick Lamar, of whom Dalrymple has never heard, has won a Pulitzer prize for his ‘songs’, and suggests that Dalrymple look up their lyrics. One of the choruses goes:

I don’t give a fuck, I don’t give a fuck,
I don’t give a, I don’t give a, I don’t give a fuck

Another:

If I gotta slap a pussy-ass nigga, I’ma make it look sexy
If I gotta go hard on a bitch, I’ma make it look sexy
I pull out, hop out, air out, make it look sexy
They won’t take me out my element
Nah, take me out of my element

Perhaps this is meant ironically, but

when you listen to the decerebrate rage with which Mr Lamar intones these words, it is not easy to believe it. When I listened to Mr Lamar, I recalled those cats in laboratories whose higher brain centers had been severed, and whose amygdalae were stimulated with electric currents, reacting with insensate rage directed at nothing in particular.

We should not

assume that Mr Lamar’s ‘art’ is sincere, or that it expresses anything other than a lust for fame and money.

Dalrymple notes that

this kind of paramusical product is elaborated and marketed to ensure that blacks in America remain where they are—at the bottom of the pile.

How, asks Dalrymple,

did the horrible and disgusting coarseness that Mr Lamar so proudly exhibits develop? How did evil became good?

The worst aspect is

the cowardly and insincere fawning over Mr Lamar’s industrialised vileness by a cultural establishment. Could any intelligent, educated person find in Mr Lamar anything worthy of praise, emulation, or reward?

One of the judges said in defence of the award:

The challenge for future juries will be to maintain the mission of honouring high standards of excellence in an expanding sphere of music, and there lie both a sizable burden and huge new opportunity.

Dalrymple comments:

Mr Lamar is so good (by good, I mean evil) that it is difficult to conceive of anything better (i.e. worse). Future juries will have difficulty in finding anything more transgressive to award a prize to, thereby proving their open-mindedness to other minds so open, like their own, that they can contain nothing.

Underlying this

is a contorted form of racism: I don’t give a fuck is the best that can be expected or hoped for from a black man.

A culture of dependence, entitlement and irresponsibility

Dalrymple notes that the thesis of False Black Power? (2017; in the New Threats to Freedom series) by Jason Riley (author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed of 2014) is that

America’s black political leaders, and their white liberal allies, have hindered rather than advanced the progress of the black population. Initially well-meaning policies have undermined the self-help ethos that was a characteristic of black culture in the century between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Society.

These policies, says Dalrymple,

caused a culture of dependence, entitlement and irresponsibility that did not exist before, and is inimical to progress, to put it mildly.

Yet

black political leadership and their white political allies persist in believing, or at least in pretending they believe, that this disastrous culture is the direct and inevitable consequence of an apostolic succession, so to speak, of slavery, Jim Crow policies, and racial prejudice. Their prescription has been political action to destroy not only the practical effects of prejudice (for example, through positive discrimination and quotas) but prejudice itself, through a reform of language and thought. A New Man, long the dream of utopian totalitarians, will have to be created.

Dalrymple points out that

the culture that has emerged, grown up, and been encouraged in the black ares of cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, Washington and Philadelphia, is inimical to progress of any kind.

Of course, efforts

to conjure progress or improvement by bureaucratic, administrative, or redistributionist fiat are doomed to time-wasting and expensive failure. In raising expectations that cannot be met, these efforts stoke the fires of conflict.

Dalrymple likens the liberal political establishment to

a stuck record. It cannot change without having to admit that its prescriptions were mistaken, for to do so would destroy its raison d’être and outlook. What started as a desire to do good has ended as a desire to feel good.

Looters at the ready

The threat of barbarism and mob rule

In conditions of anarchy, after, for instance, a hurricane,

a crude and violent order, based upon brute force and psychopathic ruthlessness, soon establishes itself, which regards philanthropy not as a friend but as an enemy and a threat.

While Dalrymple acknowledges that

all of us who were born with original sin (or whatever you want to call man’s fundamental natural flaws) are capable of savagery in the right circumstances,

he points out that by no means all of us

immediately lose our veneer of civilisation in conditions of adversity, however great. A veneer may be thin, but this makes it more, not less, precious, and its upkeep more, not less, important.

Looters, Dalrymple notes,

look bitter, angry, resentful, and vengeful as they go about what British burglars are inclined (in all seriousness) to call their ‘work’. The gangs are reported to have used racial taunts during their depredations. In all probability, the looters believe that, in removing as much as they can from stores, they are not so much stealing as performing acts of restitution or compensatory justice for wrongs received. They are not wronging the owners of the stores; on the contrary, the owners of the stores have wronged them over the years by restricting their access to the goods they covet and to which they believe they have a right. The hurricane has thus given them the opportunity to take justice into their own hands and settle old scores.

It is, he says,

a terrible indictment of all the efforts undertaken in recent years by government welfare programmes and institutions that practice affirmative action, such as universities, to ameliorate the condition of underclass blacks. It implies that the nihilistic alienation of the looters and gang members is as great as that to be found in Soweto at the height of the apartheid regime. Far from ameliorating the situation, then, the billions spent on welfare programmes, and the intellectual ingenuity expended on justifying the unjustifiable in the form of affirmative action, have resulted in a hatred that is bitter and widespread among those condescended to in this manner.

Petite touche anthropologique: two fashions that may be of carceral origin

Screen Shot 2015-02-08 at 07.39.34Styles of attire which, like rap music, are associated with the jails and black ghettos of the US

The baseball cap worn backwards

The conjecture, writes Dalrymple, is that this

was first employed by visitors to prison, who wanted to get nearer to the prisoner whom they were visiting, and the peak of whose cap prevented this so that the cap had to be reversed.

Screen Shot 2015-02-08 at 07.48.30Trousers worn at half-mast, known as ‘sagging’

This is supposed to be

in imitation of prisoners who were allowed no belts in case they were used for suicide or hanging others, and whose nether garments therefore hung low.

Those who intuit in the low-slung-trousers fashion

Screen Shot 2015-02-08 at 08.07.55an insolent defiance, a deliberate rejection of what would once have been called respectability, are right to do so. The same is true of those who obey the fashion; they are fully aware of the effect it is likely to have on those whom they wish to offend. Such is its purpose.

The fashion

is a symbol of an attempted creation of a mirror-image moral universe, in which what is held to be good by one part of society is held in contempt by the other, and vice versa.

Some leaders of fashion, such as Chris Bryant, the onetime priest who is the UK Labour Party’s ‘shadow minister for the arts’, go further, and dispense with trousers altogether.

Chris Bryant unfrocked

Chris Bryant unfrocked

The institutionally racist Guardian

Screen Shot 2015-05-03 at 18.56.04Dalrymple discusses the editorial policies of what he calls ‘the best newspaper in Britain’, the London (formerly Manchester) Guardian.

He has long had the impression

that blacks were over-represented in photographs in the newspaper by comparison with people from the Indian subcontinent or with Chinese, and I tested my impression by counting the photographs in the edition of 19th September. There was only one photograph of an Indian, and that was in an advertisement. There were 26 photographs of blacks. This is systematic bias amounting to racism. There are more people of South Asian descent in Britain than of African and West Indian descent, yet Indians were the subjects of fewer than 4 per cent of the photographs of ethnic minorities to appear.

Dalrymple explains why.

The people who run and write the Guardian have deep, suppressed and subliminal doubts about the equality of human races. To prove to themselves that they do not have such doubts, they overcompensate by publishing as many photographs of blacks as possible. They don’t have any such doubts with regard to Indians and Chinese. These two groups have a fatal vice: grosso modo, they can shift for themselves, and require no help from the coalition of intellectuals, moral entrepreneurs and bureaucrats. They are well on the way to outstripping the white population in achievement, demonstrating the redundancy of that coalition. By contrast, blacks are regarded in the pages of the Guardian much as conservationists regard endangered species.

The idea that differentials in achievement

are attributable only to bias, illicit discrimination and prejudice is a primitive one, like the Azande idea that everyone dies of malevolent witchcraft, but it serves the ends of those who want to politicise the whole of life and control all social developments. Such people do not believe societies can reach accommodations and equilibria spontaneously and piecemeal, without central direction and an overall plan, usually their own, of course.