Ifayomi Grant

Greetings I hope you are well and thriving and that the Gregorian New Year has brought you fresh drive and impetus and resolutions that will be maintained beyond the first few months of the year!! I had originally planned to use this issue to provide you with a personal finance aide memoire, that you can print off and use to assist you to keep focused on achieving your financial goals. However, me being me, I decided to go with my gut instinct, which led to the production of a very different newsletter. If you think the aide memoire sounds useful, don’t worry, I have already written the relevant content, so you will get it in the March issue (which will actually come out in March)! Anyway, we are going heavy in this issue. It is designed to inform and/or remind you of how the ideology of White Supremacy is structured and operationalised. I have used the reaction to the engagement of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as an illustrative example to highlight some important conceptual points. I hope you will find it interesting and informative. As usual, don’t take what I say at face value. It is my opinions underpinned by research, but still my opinions. Read it, think about it, dissect it and come to your own conclusions. N.B. This is a mega issue. I have a reader who prints out the newsletter and reads it with a hot drink. My advice to him is get down to Staples and buy an extra ream of paper and get out your biggest mug for your hot chocolate! Understanding the Global Racial Hierarchy as conceived, constructed, institutionalised and maintained by Europeans “If you are White you are right, if you are Yellow you are mellow, if you are Brown stick around, if you are Black step back.” The above saying is what one might describe as the colloquial expression and recognition of the racial hierarchy that European people constructed in order to more effectively operationalise the ideology/religion of White Supremacy. I have set out in the table below a more formalised expression of this hierarchy. Now, this is my own formulation, but it is based upon my everyday observations as well as the extensive research I have undertaken for the past twenty plus years which has informed my books, newsletter, courses, workshops interviews etc. I think that regardless of whether you agree with every position in the hierarchy, you will recognise that the premise and overall structure reflects the world we live in.

I use this table as a preface for the next, more parochial issue that I am going to cover as it provides the ideological framework and template for understanding the micro issues that I will explore. In turn the analysis of these micro issues should help you to comprehend why the creation of a structured racial hierarchy was not just central, but essential to the European White Supremacist cultural project. When Harry met Meghan - Why trivial issues sometimes matter I had determinedly set my face against commenting upon the impending nuptials of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, however the recent furore over comments made by Jo Marney, the now ‘former’ girlfriend of, Henry Bolton, the leader (at the time of writing) of The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), regarding the Royal engagement, has led to a change of heart on my part. My reason for now addressing this issue is not because the woman who made these comments is of any significance, but rather because her comments present an opportunity for learning for Afrikan people.

Ms Marney, who is pictured above with Mr Bolton, made several disparaging comments about the forthcoming marriage of Ms Markle to Prince Harry. She suggested that that Prince Harry’s ‘black American’ fiancée will ‘taint’ the Royal Family with ‘her seed’ and pave the way for a ‘black king’. She went on to state she that she would never have sex with ‘a negro’ because they are ‘ugly’. Ms Marney also describes Ms Markle as ‘a scrubber’ and a ‘gender equality t***’ who is ‘obsessed with race’ and a ‘dumb little commoner’. I have reproduced her text messages below to provide greater context.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5266657/Ukip-leaders-girlfriends-racist-Meghan-Markle-messages.html Given her comments about black people being ugly I thought I would reproduce the photo of her and Mr Bolton to demonstrate that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder and if you look at photos of her without make up on (I won’t inflict them upon you) you would be shocked to know that she is only 25 years old. Anyway, I digress. The main point I wanted to make was the underlying basis for her anger about and disapproval of the relationship between Prince Harry and Ms Markle. To me there is a strange irony that part of the basis (she had many racist reasons for condemning their relationship) for her anger and concern about the coupling of Prince Harry and Ms Markle was based on the ‘the one drop rule’ as developed during and after the enslavement period; by Europeans, and this is precisely the same idea underpinning the rather pathetic glee expressed by many Afrikans regarding this same union. “The one drop rule was a social construction that emerged discursively in US history. The language was first used by the government in the Fourteenth Census in 1920 when the color line was redefined by the Census Bureau. Instead of using the category “mulattoes,” the Bureau adopted the one drop rule. According to it, ”the term ‘white’ as used in the census report refers to persons understood to be pure blooded whites. A person of mixed blood is classified according to the nonwhite racial strain.” Thus, ”a person of mixed white … and Negro … is classified as … a Negro … regardless of the amount of white blood” (Bureau of the Census 1923). By 1924 the term one drop rule was also being used in state legislation. For example, in 1924, a Virginia Act for ”Preservation of Racial Integrity” defined a white person as someone with ”no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian” (Hickman 1967). And the Virginia legislature in 1930 defined as colored any one ”in whom there is ascertainable any negro blood” (Hickman 1967).” http://sociology.iresearchnet.com/sociology-of-race/one-drop-rule/ As partially noted above the principle or belief underpinning the ‘one drop rule’ is that Europeans are ‘White’ (an identity that they created in order to create cohesion amongst their disparate ethnic groups and between social classes) and are genetically and morally pure, whereas Afrikans are ‘Black’ and are morally degenerate, intellectually inferior and generally irredeemable. Therefore, any sexual congress between the two groups which produces offspring (so-called miscegenation) is like putting ink into a glass of clean water i.e. it contaminates the water just as Afrikan genes contaminate European bloodlines. Based upon this ideology of ‘the one drop rule’ (although not at the time articulated as such), as operationalised in the US during slavery, posited that any person who was at least 1/16th Afrikan should be considered a Negro, with all the attendant mistreatment that status brought. In the British colonies the benchmark was 1/8th. This genetic rule reinforced the ‘White’ = purity, Afrikan = contaminant, dichotomy and contributed greatly to the ‘strong Black genes’ rationale for labelling people who look more European than Afrikan and who have a majority European genetic ancestry, as ‘Black’. In some ways it has led to the idea of ‘Blackness’ as some sort of genetic dustbin. A not inconsequential benefit of this genetic rule was that it considerably broadened the scope and hence numbers of people who could be enslaved with consequential economic benefits. Ms Marney, whether she was consciously aware of the ‘one drop rule’ or not, proved once again that racist ideology is passed down through the generations and centuries by Europeans, seamlessly and without any conscious effort. She spoke of Ms Markle tainting the royal family’s bloodline with her seed (a layperson’s term for her genetic material). Contrarily, but as I noted ironically; based upon the same line of reasoning we have had numerous Afrikans squealing in delight in the belief that there will be ‘Black’ children in the Royal Family, if and when the couple produce children. This idea was captured quite evocatively by Nimco Ali, a young British Afrikan woman who stated that: ‘The fourth in line to the crown is engaged to a black woman. The Queen is going to have black grandchildren’ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-wedding-fever-it-s-just-another-dress-and-hat-a3702721.html Now putting aside the facts that Harry is fifth in line at present and that the children will be the Queen’s great-grandchildren we should be clear that Meghan Markle herself is quite categoric that she is not Black but is Bi-racial. More significantly, the idea that the children she produces with Prince Harry will be Black is ridiculous (unless such a child was a genetic ‘throwback’). Although, like Ms Marney, she may not be aware of it, Ms Ali’s statement is based entirely upon the ‘one drop rule’. Most people with the type of genetic ancestry to which she refers do not look ‘Black’. At best you will normally get dark eyes, dark hair and a propensity to tan easily. You do get exceptions, but they are that, exceptions. Just to emphasise the point let’s take a look at the case of Ross Barkley, an England international footballer who has recently been transferred from Everton to Chelsea in the English Premier League. Mr Barkley, whose photo I have included below, has some African ancestry. To be precise one of his grandfathers is Afrikan (Nigerian), one of his parents is mixed race and thus Mr Barkley is quote unquote 1/4 Afrikan. Now if you saw Mr Barkley walking down the street would you think that he was ‘Black’? You might, if you looked at him closely, think ‘there is something in him, but I don’t know what it is’, but that is very different to saying he is Black. Despite Mr Barkley pretty much looking like a European there was an incident involving him which emphasised how keenly some Europeans are ‘genetic watchdogs’. Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun newspaper, wrote an article in that newspaper in which he basically accused Barkley of being ‘thick’ and compared him to a Gorilla. Now of course, when a media furore developed, MacKenzie claimed that he knew nothing of Barkley’s part Afrikan ancestry, despite the fact that this had been documented in the Sun some years earlier, and claimed it was political correctness gone mad and a storm in a tea cup. However, I did not believe him, especially given his reprehensible track record in relation to race, and I think many people thought that he was lying. I have laid out the details of the incident below. "MacKenzie was suspended by the Sun after he wrote in his column that he was not surprised that Barkley, whose grandfather is Nigerian, was punched in a nightclub because he was similar to an animal in a zoo. He also said the only other men in Liverpool who earned similar amounts of money to the Everton player were drug dealers. ..... News UK apologised for MacKenzie’s comments and the Sun removed the article from its website on the afternoon of Friday 14 April, the day it was published. In a written apology to Barkley in the Sun, the newspaper said it had been “unaware of Ross Barkley’s heritage and there was never any slur intended”. In the column, MacKenzie wrote: “Perhaps unfairly, I have always judged Ross Barkley as one of our dimmest footballers. There is something about the lack of reflection in his eyes which makes me certain not only are the lights not on, there is definitely nobody at home.... I get a similar feeling when seeing a gorilla at the zoo. The physique is magnificent, but it’s the eyes that tell the story. So it came as no surprise to me that the Everton star copped a nasty right-hander in a nightclub for allegedly eyeing up an attractive young lady who, as they say, was ‘spoken for’..... “The reality is that at £60,000 a week and being both thick and single, he is an attractive catch in the Liverpool area, where the only men with similar pay packets are drug dealers and therefore not at nightclubs, as they are often guests of Her Majesty.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/08/the-sun-owner-in-discussions-with-kelvin-mackenzie-over-his-departure As noted above, a few years prior to the publication of this article by MacKenzie the Sun newspaper had made reference to Ross Barkley’s racial origin, so I will leave it to you to decide whether McKenzie’s descriptions of Barkley were purely coincidental. I don’t believe him, especially given his and the Sun’s track record.

I have pasted an image of Ross Barkley above. Now, if you saw him walking down the road, would you immediately think of him as a 'Black Man'? My view is, of course not, in fact it was a relative, who has a keen eye for such things, who said to me whilst we were watching him play football in a match that was televised, "I think he has got some Black in him". Please note, he did not say "I think he's Black". Barkley has the same sort of genetic ancestry as Ms Markle's prospective children with Prince Harry would have and this highlights the nonsense of projecting a 'Black' let alone Afrikan identity upon such people. This was another example of how the ‘one drop rule’ is still alive and well. As far as I am aware Mr Barkley is quite at peace with his ancestry, however this is a far cry from suggesting that he thinks of himself as 'Black'. What is interesting is that I did not hear any Afrikans claiming Ross Barkley as ‘Black’ at the time of this incident. Of course, as well as being, often unwittingly, informed by the ideology of the ‘one drop rule’ the silly comments of Ms Ali et al, in relation to Meghan Markle’s prospective children, are also driven by one of the central motivators of many, if not most, Afrikan people in ‘the West’, which as I have often told you is the ‘desperate need for acceptance’ by Europeans. They think, or perhaps more accurately put, hope, that having some non-‘White’ children in Buckingham Palace will open the floodgates of acceptance and signal the end of racism, just as many delusional Afrikans around the globe hoped that having a ‘Black Family in the White House’, after the election of Barack Obama, would do the same. I think it is safe to say that the jury is in on that fantasy. So, it is important to be clear that just because a person is classed as non-White and they have some African ancestry does not mean that they are Black or Afrikan. Why Europeans want to be ‘White’ and ‘fair’ There are a few basic things to reiterate and always bear in mind if you are to understand the way race operates as a concept. First, is that people who are classified as ‘White’ decide who is ‘White’ and who is not, and the key people who do this classifying are ‘primary whites’ (as classified in the earlier racial hierarchy l table). So for example, some of the groups I have categorised as ‘secondary whites’, such as the Irish, did not become accepted as ‘white’ until in the late 19^th century (see the book ‘How the Irish became White’ by Noel Ignatiev) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/305686.How_the_Irish_Became_White Other groups such as the Italians and European Jews did not get their white credentials fully endorsed until the first half of the 20^th century (and even then Hitler et al had other ideas). Whiteness is a moveable feast, which is essential to the ideology of White Supremacy. It was created so that Europeans could unite the disparate tribes of Europe into a cohesive group and ascribe to themselves the positive attributes associated with whiteness such as pure, unsullied, flawless etc. If we look at a dictionary definition of the history of the word White, it states: “ ..being of the colour produced by reflection of all the visible rays in sunlight, as of pure snow, common salt etc. Also v.t.., n. WH: pre-1200. Old English hwit, from Germanic, from Indo-European. Cp. German weiss.

In this second definition we see some more of the attributes that Europeans wish to claim for themselves. So, Whiteness becomes the basis for ascribing moral and all other forms of superiority to Europeans and the justification for the racial hierarchy that I have detailed in this issue and also the systematic racial oppression that such a racial hierarchy has been used to justify. Language is really important as it helps to shape and structure the way we perceive and think about the world. So, if we connect the dots of European racial identity we see that they appropriated the word white for reasons explained above and we also know that they like to refer to the palest of themselves as ‘fair-skinned’ rather than pale skinned. I have previously explained this latter point and it is similar in nature to the use of the word white. “Fair a. just, reasonable. Also adv ….WH: pre-1200. Old English faeger, from Germanic. Rel. to FAIN and FAWN. The sense blond (of hair) evolved in the 12-14C on the basis that dark hair was regarded unfavourably (i.e. as ‘foul’). The same applied to a light (as opposed to dark) complexion.”

I hope the latter definition illustrates to you how deeply racial concepts are embedded in what you make take as everyday neutral language. And of course we all know the words of the witch from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves: “Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the fairest of them all.” To which the mirror replied, “Snow White is the fairest of them all”. In terms of the supposed ‘whiteness’ of Europeans I thought I would slip in a link to an article about ‘Cheddar Man’, who lived in Europe around 10,000 years ago. I have to admit it made me laugh and in terms of White Supremacy once again illustrates that belief is more powerful than reason..

Full facial reconstruction model of a head based on the skull of Britain's oldest complete skeleton on display during a screening event of The First Brit: Secrets Of The 10,000 Year Old Man at The Natural History Museum, in London CREDIT: PA

“The earliest Britons were black-skinned, with dark curly hair and possibly blue eyes, new analysis of a 10,000-year-old Somerset
skeleton has revealed.
Scientists at the Natural History Museum have used pioneering genetic sequencing and facial reconstruction techniques to prove that
the first hunter-gatherers successfully to inhabit Britain were far darker in complexion than previously thought.
The groundbreaking discovery was made in a “stroke of luck” after archeologists found scraps of DNA in the ear of the Mesolithic
“Cheddar Man”, the oldest complete skeleton ever found in the UK and one of the museum’s most treasured specimens.
They then cross-referenced the genomes of modern inhabitants of Cheddar, near Gough’s Cave in the Cheddar Gorge where the remains
were discovered in 1903, as well as other fossils from across Europe.
The results show, contrary to popular belief, that the founding generations of Britons owed more in appearance to Paleolithic
Africans, from whom all humans descend.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/02/07/first-britons-black-natural-history-museum-dna-study-reveals/

So, returning to the earlier racial hierarcy table, why was a detailed racial hierarchy necessary rather a simple White/non-White dichotomy? Well, a simple two-tier system of classification would have brought the danger of uniting those classified as non-White against
this oppressive ideology. However, by separating people into many different tiers and rungs on a racial hierarchy, it is; and has
proved possible to play one group off against another. You get one non-White group that is higher on the ladder to look down upon
and mistreat groups further down and whilst this takes place the ‘White’ groups at the top of the ladder continue to rule the roost.
Even within racial groups you then get sub-hierarchies created based upon characteristics such as skin shade, hair texture, breadth
of lips and nose etc. which all help to sow and reinforce the seeds of confusion and self-hatred.

The Mixed-Race question in the racial hierarchy
As I have noted before, Meghan Markle classifies herself as ‘Bi-racial’. It is important to recognise that she, like virtually everyone
in society, is heavily influenced by wider societal trends and norms in terms of how she constructs her racial identity. If she had been
born at different points over the past 150 years ago she might variously have described herself as Mulatto, Negro, Coloured, Half-Caste
or Black. The time and context in which one lives is central to identity formation. Bob Marley lived in Jamaica amongst an overwhelmingly
African population therefore it is not surprising that he sung about ‘Black Man Redemption’ and not ‘Mixed-Race Man redemption’.
By contrast Meghan Markle grew up in an overwhelmingly European suburb in the USA where she was virtually the only person of full
or part Afrikan descent, apart from her mother. From the admittedly little I have read it does not appear that her mother was keen
on teaching her about the racial realities of the world, more like trying to escape them. Therefore, one should not be surprised that Ms Markle identifies herself as she does. I think what is more dangerous about her ‘cultural/racial equidistance’ stance is the dangerous and false understanding that I have heard her, and other bi-racial people relate; namely that racism is something between ‘white’ and Black people and that the only role for ‘mixed’ people is to play the role of impartial arbiters who understand and have empathy for both groups, but are objective observers. Whilst this opt out ideology is perhaps understandable given the reluctance of people like Ms Markle to ‘take sides’ the reality is that if you are not fighting against the ideology of White Supremacy you are supporting it, either by acts of commission or by omission, and the spreading of the idea that Afrikan people are in any way responsible for racism in society, which is the logical implication which flows from this ‘there is fault on both sides’ ideology, is tantamount to promoting White Supremacy.

It seems that Ms Markle has been surprised and somewhat disappointed by the keen interest of the British media and much of the public in her racial origins, perhaps due to labouring under the misapprehension that Britain is some glorious post-racial melting pot, however she is getting a crash course in British racism. What she perhaps does not understand is that based upon the racial hierarchy that I detailed earlier, all mixed-race people are defined, either explicitly or tacitly, by the race of their parent who is lowest on the racial totem pole. For example, Tiger Woods has an Afrikan father (despite his father’s oft repeated desire to emphasise all his non-Afrikan genealogy) and a Thai (South East Asian) mother, therefore he was defined by his Afrikaness not his Asianess (despite describing himself as Cablasian, short for Caucasian-Black-Asian, which was a sure sign of his own confusion). When Woods was publicly castigated for his serial infidelity there was a very strong strain of racial stereotyping involved in the denouncements of his conduct. However, the racial stereotypes evoked were not those associated with Asians. They were clearly and unmistakably Afrikan stereotypes. This was Woods’ ‘Negro wake up call’ moment, however unfortunately it has seemingly only taken him from being in a deep coma to a deep sleep.

Meghan Markle has an Afrikan mother and European father and hence is also defined by her Afrikaness. If Ms Markle had a Chinese mother she would be defined by her Chinese/Asianess, but the degree of scrutiny/Interest/alarm would be not as great because the Chinese occupy a position much further up the racial hierarchy than Afrikans and hence the perceived ‘contaminating effect’ of race mixing would not be so great or so worrying.

In my view there are two easily understandable, if regrettable, reasons for the excitement over the racial component of this wedding. First, there is that desperate search for acceptance from Europeans which is a hallmark of so much contemporary Afrikan thinking. Secondly, there are a large number of Afrikan women who perceive the engagement of an avowedly bi-racial woman (who they fervently wish would say she is Black) to a high status European male as affirmation of Afrikan women's attractiveness and femininity. Of course, this latter point (as well as the former one) is delusional, however the context is the centuries during which Afrikan women's femininity has been under attack. The irony of course is that the primary perpetrators of this vile propaganda have been the very European males who increasing numbers of Afrikan females now seek validation of their femininity from.

So this wedding is something and nothing. It is meaningless in terms of the condition and prospects for Afrikan people in the UK and elsewhere, however it tells us so much about how the global racial hierarchy is maintained through cultural propaganda.

The reality, which many Afrikans run from, is that Europeans have created a world of racial insanity where the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

Are ‘Mixed Race’ People ‘Black’?
This is an interesting; an age old question, which has come to the fore in recent times with the rise of ‘mixed race/bi-racial’ identity in places such as the UK and US where the numbers of people classified as such has risen dramatically.

I am conscious that this is a sensitive topic and as usual I will make it clear that anything I say on this topic is not directed at any individual or intended to offend, but is simply my view on this topic which i hope will provide some useful points for consideration.

Ok, so having provided some context what do I think? Well, I take a pragmatic view for me it is quite a simple answer. If a person classified as ‘mixed race’ (one Afrikan parent, one non-Afrikan parent, or two ‘mixed race’ parents) tells me or asserts publicly that they are Black then I accept them, without reservation, as Black. Conversely, if they say that they are not Black and belong to a distinct group called ‘mixed race/bi-racial’ etc. then I am not going to challenge them and will leave them in peace. So, Ms Markle is clear about her identity and I think it is silly to try to force a Black identity onto her, when she clearly rejects it.

Where I do draw the line is with individuals such as Ross Barkley or Meghan Markle’s prospective children. I think it is nonsensical to try to project a Black identity onto such individuals and for me there is a basic sight test i.e. if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck then it is probably a duck and the same is true in reverse.

There is another aspect of this mixed race question that I think is worth airing. This relates to some of the widespread reactions of Afrikans to people classified as mixed race. In general, I would say that this response seems often to comprise of a mixture of suspicion and jealously. The suspicion component seems to revolve around whether mixed people who identify as Black can be relied upon to fight for the Black cause when the going gets tough. This frequently creates an unspoken dynamic where some mixed race people feel they have act ‘super-Black’ in order to gain acceptance.

The flip side of the coin is the jealously component. This stems from the skin shade hierarchy that is firmly entrenched globally amongst Afrikans and the inferiority/superiority dynamic it creates, based upon how light (never say fair!!) or dark one is. Because you can’t get much lighter than most mixed race people, amongst people often considered as Black, they naturally move to the top of the Afrikan intra-racial hierarchy. So, despite the suspicion dynamic, one finds that mixed race people (as well as light skinned Afrikans with two Afrikan parents) are more likely to ascend to positions of leadership or prominence than darker skinned Afrikans. This is because, in my opinion, most Afrikans, of all shades, prefer light skinned or mixed Afrikans to represent the group ideal. Matthew Knowles, the father of Beyonce, noted recently that she would not have achieved the same level of success if she had been dark-skinned and I think we all know that is true. https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/beyonc-s-father-matthew-knowles-says-singer-is-only-successful-because-she-has-lighter-skin-a3758936.html

In my first book, Ni**ers, Negroes, Black People and Afrikans, I said that we, as a people, were ‘functionally mentally ill’. My description of this concept was that most Afrikans could function reasonably well on day to day basis i.e. hold down a job, interact with friends and family, run a household etc. but on deeper level we are a sick people riddled with self-hatred and insecurity which fundamentally impedes our ability to co-operate. It’s been 15 years since I first coined this term so let’s create a proper definition:

“Functional Mental Illness amongst Afrikans is the superficial appearance of normal day to day functioning and psychological well-being, which masks underlying deep-seated, insecurity, self/group-loathing and an inferiority complex which impedes the subject’s ability to execute long-term plans and most fundamentally to trust and co-operate with other members of his/her group.”

The bottom line for me is that, whether you are ‘mixed’ or ‘unmixed’ (which not many in the diaspora are) we need volunteers not conscripts in fighting European domination and the bar should be set no higher or lower, in terms of commitment, for mixed Afrikans than for Afrikans like me.

Ignorance and Feigned Ignorance - Staple defences of White Supremacy
I have probably covered these issues before, however as I am providing a broad overview of racist ideology I think they are worth revisiting.
Europeans have been strongly promoting the idea that racism is a product of ignorance for the past few decades. The implication of this idea is that first, racism is essentially an individual failing and not a group phenomenon, which is critical to confusing ‘non-White’ people. Second, this idea suggests that racism is confined to poorly educated Europeans and by implication exonerates the European middle and upper classes. The irony of course is that the whole philosophical and ‘pseudo-scientific’ underpinning of White Supremacy were created by the most intelligent and educated European (mainly) men.

Feigned ignorance is a subtle but distinct concept. It occurs when Europeans pretend that they have historical amnesia in relation to racist ideology and history. An example would be the lies used by Europeans to defend the confederate flag and monuments to the confederacy which were erected in the USA in the early 20th Century. Or the recent row over the Afrikan child modelling the ‘coolest monkey in the jungle’ hoodie for the H&M clothing company. In this latter case Europeans pretend that they are unaware of the long history of Europeans referring to Afrikans as monkeys, apes, gorillas, chimps etc. and so the ‘liberals’ express shock and surprise when there is an outcry over their actions, whilst the ‘conservatives’ accuse Afrikans of being over-sensitive and having chips on our shoulders.

Why Europeans won’t let go of White Supremacy
For as long as I can recall many Afrikans have been attempting to persuade Europeans, individually and collectively, that racism is a bad idea which needs to be discarded. The seemingly bottomless well of optimism that this brand of Afrikan is able to tap into is epitomised by the refrain I have heard since I was a child, which goes along the lines of, ‘I can’t believe this is happening in 19XX’. You just fill in the number where the Xs are and of course 19 became 20 when we moved into the 20^th century. The fact that they keep on saying the same thing literally year in and year out and yet nothing changes substantively (there are always superficial changes), seems not to register.

So, even though I assume (which is always dangerous) that my readers do not belong in that camp I thought I would explain quite concisely (for me!) why Europeans cling tenaciously to White Supremacy, which has become the cornerstone of their cultural identity.

As I see it there are two inter-linked reasons why Europeans cling so tenaciously to this ideology. First, racism is instrumental. By that I mean that all Europeans, to a greater or lesser degree, derive economic and material benefit from the operation of this ideology. White Supremacy is both the glue that created and binds ‘White identity’, as explained earlier, as well as the justification for European’s historic and contemporary global pillaging of the resources of ‘non-White’ people. It also provides the justification for European’s right to slaughter non-White people in their notorious ‘humanitarian interventions’ which are connected to both economic goals and satisfying their psychological desires.

Second, and linked to the latter point regarding psychological desires, White Supremacy provides a tremendous boost to Europeans’ individual and collective ego. Even the most intellectually challenged European who has never achieved anything of note and who sits at or near the bottom of the socio-economic ladder can wake up feeling that ‘I am part of the master race and will always be better than those nig**rs’. This latter point is the reason why, despite the exhortation of many European socialists, communists etc the so-called white working class has always exhibited great reluctance to find common cause with poor Afrikans and other ’non-White’ people to fight against the ruling elites. They have always been suckers for White Supremacy and would rather ally themselves to European billionaires who regard them as ‘white trash’ than Afrikans who they regard as sub-human. This is why Donald Trump appealed to so many poor European Americans and it has been the basis of the Republican electoral strategy since Lee Atwater devised the ‘Southern Strategy’, to appeal to European-American racists who voted lived in the South and voted Democrat, in the 1960s. European Socialists just don’t comprehend, or at least pretend not to understand, that the historical roots of White Supremacy long predate the birth of industrial capitalism or even mercantilism and hence even if you created a socialist nirvana you would still have White Supremacy, even if in suppressed form. In fact many of these socialists are racists themselves.

Conclusion
So, the lesson is, don’t hold your breath if you are waiting for White Supremacy, particularly the more covert and nuanced form that became the norm in the latter part of the last century (as compared to Trump’s 1950’s version), to disappear. White Supremacy will not die of natural causes.

OK, we have been on a whistle stop tour of the ideology of White Supremacy. It may not seem like that, but there is so much more that could and has been said on this topic that I could have written a book on it. However, I wanted to give you a clear understanding of the fundamentals of racist ideology so that you can pick up on the more subtle manifestations of this evil belief system, and as they say; forewarned is forearmed.

If you think this article is useful to our people then why not share it with sensible people. Better than sharing photos on Facebook of what you had for dinner!!

If you have any comments they are welcome.

Stay Blessed

Ifayomi

The Navig8or Newsletter

CONNECT WITH US

CONTACT US

SHARE THIS EMAIL