As shameful as are all the lies that have been spread about the murder of Clarke Edward Pearce, and of the dead man himself, and of his family and friends, there is one thing which is equally if not more shameful, that is the uncritical acceptance of these lies by organisations which take it upon themselves to champion the cause of the workers. Clarke Pearce was a postal worker, an ordinary working man; he came from good English working class stock, the sort of people who are the backbone of this country, and who in an earlier era fought and died for this country in two world wars, and in an even earlier era, laboured long and hard in the factories and fields, and by the sweat of their brow supplied the manpower, the resources and the tools by which Britain maintained its position as the world’s pre-eminent imperial power.
This is not the current writer’s rhetoric. If you read left wing publications such as Socialist Worker, this is way the working class is lauded. The Empire and all it stood for may be regarded with the utmost contempt, but never let one word be said against the workers. There is a caveat though: those workers must have no truck with fascism, or latterly with racism.
Up until the early 1950s this country was not only overwhelmingly white, but there was no real suggestion that it would ever be “swamped” by alien races, to lapse into the terminology of the Tory racist right. True, the Empire Windrush had sailed up the Thames on June 22, 1948 with five hundred Jamaicans on board, but it was only the lunatic fringe and outright hatemongers who spoke of the coloured invasion. (1)
A popular slogan of the Socialist Workers Party in the 1980s was “Racism and Sectarianism divides workers”. It is part of their conspiracy theory that the “ruling class” promote these “diseases” as part of their hidden agenda to enable them to continue to lord it over the workers and to extract the maximum returns from their toil and sweat. Trite slogans such as these conveniently ignore the facts of racism, in particular that big business and “international finance” have always tried to ignore or remove racial barriers while resistance to “multi-racialism” has always been strongest amongst the white working classes of all nations, (2) and indeed amongst the non-white working classes of all nations.
The white working class in Britain was always overwhelmingly against non-white immigration, as reports of widespread “racial prejudice” testify. A letter from a Mr Michael Cookman to the Times in 1963 pointed out that:
“The landlord, both of furnished and unfurnished accommodation, is being held up as a monster of racial discrimination. In fact, the landlord has to decide whether he will let his house to white people or to coloured because if he once introduces a coloured person into his house, the white tenants will leave and he will end up with a house which has all coloured tenants.
This, in turn, will probably lead to neighbours objecting that the tone of the neighbourhood is being lowered and a demand for the revision of their rates.
In other words, it is not the landlord who discriminates, it is his tenants and it is time that the public appreciated that their own views on racial discrimination are the cause of some of the difficulties of coloured people finding accommodation because the tenants are part of the public.” (3)
In his 1995 study of race, Marek Kohn - who brings more common sense to this subject than most liberal academics - quotes the French right wing “extremist” Jean-Marie Le Pen thus: “I like my daughters better than my cousins, my cousins better than my neighbours; my neighbours better than strangers, and strangers better than foes...” (4) This sentiment is hardly racist, nor is it unique to the white race; the Iraqis - and doubtless the Arabs in general - have a similar saying (which may have the same root): “I and my brother against my cousin, I and my cousin against our neighbor, I and my neighbor against the world.” (5) It is this sentiment, and similar sentiments, which lie at the heart of so-called racism.
In Britain and throughout the white world in general, white people and especially the white working classes are constantly being reminded by the “anti-racist” lobby that they are basically evil bigoted bastards, rubbish in fact.
Early in the year 2000, floods swept the African nation of Mozambique, already one of the poorest countries on Earth. The country and its economy were devastated. On March 2, an appeal was broadcast through the BBC. By the following day, more than three million pounds had been raised for flood relief. The BBC took over 90,000 calls; the British Navy was to send in a ship and helicopters (in addition to those that had already been sent).
By the evening news it was reported that the British people (who sare still overwhelmingly white) had pledged more than five million pounds in aid. A news report on a London radio station on March 5 said that the British government had pledged 76 million pounds towards the relief effort. All this money comes from the British taxpayer; there was no mass protest or even a meaningful suggestion that such enormous sums of humanitarian aid should not be given at a time when there is much genuine poverty and hardship among ordinary white people. Not even from the British National Party.
The Mozambique disaster was hardly unique; throughout the world ordinary white people, many of them working class, can be found engaged in similar humanitarian efforts. Almost all of them are unsung heroes. This is not an exclusively “white thing” of course; there are Islamic charities, Oriental volunteers, non-white philanthropists...In spite of the obvious physical and other differences between the races - which it is considered sacrilegious even to mention - mankind the world over is much the same.
White people are not anti-black or anti-Asian bigots, like Jean Marie Le Pen they prefer their daughters to their cousins, and like the Iraqis they will side with their brother against their cousin and with their neighbour against the world. They may at times speak ill of men and women of other races; a very few of them may commit violent acts motivated primarily or even exclusively by race, but like blacks, they mistreat and kill mostly their own kind. (6)
In the 50s, 60s and 70s, white workers especially were resentful of mass immigration. They objected to immigrants taking their jobs, being given preferential treatment (as they saw it), and to their culture and their race being slowly eroded by thinly veiled propaganda campaigns designed to promote a lower (white) birthrate and increased miscegenation.
Some people, mostly “academics”, accept this trend and welcome it with open arms. One such academic, American atheist and “humanist” Paul Kurtz, has written:
“The highest good, as I see it, is intermarriage between people of different ethnicities, races, religions, and cultures. People who intermarry are contributing to the new human species that is emerging on this planet...You can see it clearly in the United States: in fifty years we will have a non-white majority. This frightens many people. I can see the same changes in the cities of Western Europe...In due course, the majority may no longer be white. I think this is wholesome and good.” (7)
The idea that Frank Bruno, (8) or even more incredibly Sharron Davies (9) somehow constitute a higher species must surely cause revulsion in any right thinking white person, or any right thinking person of any race for that matter. It is in fact an enormous fallacy that hostility to miscegenation comes entirely or even principally from whites. Black women and Asians in particular abhor the trend that Kurtz and his ilk welcome as inevitable, and the organised left relish with unconcealed glee. (10)
The greatest lie spread by the “anti-racist” lobby, and unwittingly endorsed by most self-professed white racists, is that the world is made up of two types of people: whites and everybody else. This nonsense actually started with the so-called Jewish Question, which attempts to explain anti-Semitism in such terms, the idea that the Jews have evolved separately from the rest of mankind and that they have been persecuted and scapegoated for all the world’s ills and have suffered more than any other ethnic group solely on this account. They haven’t, they have simply screamed louder than anybody else. Which is all that Ram and his dedicated team of liars are doing: screaming louder and telling more outrageous lies to anyone who will listen.
The greatest irony here is that Clarke Pearce was not a particularly race conscious individual, and probably less so than most. He grew up with Asians and worked alongside many of them. Obviously he liked Indian cuisine, which is hardly evidence of xenophobia. Earlier that year he had become engaged, though if he had one passion in life besides his future wife, it was snooker. (11)
His only crime was to ask a waiter to change the music; on this one reasonable request first Ram himself and then the Free Satpal Campaign has erected a massive fabric of lies. No meaningful evidence has ever been adduced either of Clarke’s allegedly racially offensive or abusive remarks, nor of aggressive behaviour, racial or otherwise, towards Ram. The only such evidence comes from Ram, a proven liar who gave the police a cock and bull story about the nature of the weapon used. Ram did not even allow himself to be cross-examined in a public forum; if he had been so desperate to tell what he claims now is the truth he could have refused his legal team’s advice and taken the stand. But the mere fact that Ram is Asian and his victim was white is enough for the organised left. Ram has been interviewed a number of times in recent years, and is in constant contact with the outside world via the campaign who post regular updates to the WorldWideWeb.
Not one of his interviewers has ever had the critical faculty even to question him about his version of events. How could he have beaten off a much bigger and heavier opponent while opening a folding blade? How seriously injured could he have been if he left the restaurant in a taxi while his victim left in an ambulance? Why didn’t his friend Narvinder Shinji speak up for him if he, Ram, was totally innocent?
Clarke Pearce was no racist, whatever is meant by that nebulous epithet, but the mere fact that he was accused of racism by a man with a vested interest in showing him in the worst possible light is enough for the SWP, for the Revolutionary Communist Group, for CARF, and for all the other champions of the exploited and the oppressed. Ram is Asian - black in the parlance of the loony left - while Clarke Pearce for all his working class roots was an oppressor, and no amount of evidence from any source will alter those facts.
If Clarke Pearce had been murdered by a middle class white yob under similar circumstances, he would have been hailed a hero. The fact that his murderer was black means simply that he deserved it; those are the rules of the game for the extreme left for whom truth must always play second fiddle to ideology, and where workers count only as long as they follow the party line, and provided also they are not denounced in the usual Stalinist fashion.
To Notes And References
Back To Other Articles Index
Back To Site Index