Category: Cultural comment

Introduction

There’s been anti-Jewish racism since the Jews’ most recent exile from Israel by the Roman empire, and their consequent dispersion throughout Europe.

Exile and diaspora is the conventional narrative – but apparently it’s more complicated than that. Apparently, historically, there was no expulsion two thousand years ago.

But however it came about, Jewish diaspora communities lived in Europe. They lived mainly in productive harmony with host communities, but cynical anti-Jewish rabble-rousing led to outbreaks of racist violence, or ‘pogroms‘; and Christian and Muslim extremism led to persecution and expulsion.

The Granada massacre of 1066, a Muslim pogrom in which approximately 4,000 Jews were killed, marked the end of centuries of peaceful coexistence with a liberal Muslim regime in Spain.

The final Christian reconquest of Spain in the late 1400s led to approximately 2,000 Jews being murdered by the Spanish Inquisition and to the eventual expulsion from Spain of over 50,000 Jews.

Savage pogroms continued all over Europe until as recently as the 1940s.

16th-century Christianity reformer Martin Luther publicly recommended the burning of synagogues. Protestant Luther’s beef with Judaism was supposedly theological – but his bitter hatred betrays something less ethereal.

**Reformer and anti-Jewish racist Martin Luther** | *Painting: Lucas Cranach the Elder*

(Ironically, Luther’s modern namesake, Protestant minister and black civil rights leader Martin Luther King, publicly spoke out against black anti-Judaism. He acknowledged Jewish participation in the civil rights movement and he actively – controversially – supported the state of Israel.)

Encouraged by the original Luther’s widely disseminated anti-Jewish rhetoric, 19th-century German ‘race’ theorists and philosophers ramped up the anti-Judaism.

The 19th-century German ‘race’ theorists invented the pseudoscientific word ‘antisemitic’. (See my post about that ridiculous word for a tragic phenomenon, Antisemitism – anti-what??)

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is often accused of anti-Judaism. However, that reputation was created by his sister Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche, who edited his works after his mental breakdown in 1889 and his death in 1900.

Nietzsche’s sister systematically falsified his writings to match her own virulent anti-Jewish racism. Nietzsche was arguably a protofascist, but he was deeply contemptuous of anti-Judaism and nationalism.

Förster-Nietzsche’s falsifications have since been corrected, but they were current in the 1920s and 30s. The main fakery was in Förster-Nietzsche’s collection of her late brother’s notes, published in 1906 as a book, The Will to Power.

Luther and Förster-Nietzsche were perpetuating derogatory stereotypes of Jews common in Europe for centuries, as exemplified in literature by Shakespeare’s Shylock and Dickens’s Fagin.

For instance, the ‘blood libel’ was a widespread anti-Jewish slur which – ridiculously – accused Jews of murdering Christian children to use their blood in the baking of Passover bread.

Such stereotypes found ultimate expression in the fake but influential 1903 document, The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, which purported to reveal – in great detail – a Jewish plot for world domination.

The Protocols of The Elders of Zion was exposed as totally fraudulent in the early 1920s, but it was taught as factual to schoolchildren in 1930s Nazi Germany. It’s still touted around amongst modern conspiracy theory enthusiasts. (David Icke thinks the ‘Elders of Zion’ are extradimensional beings.)

Anti-Jewish prejudice, unlike most other forms of racism, isn’t colour prejudice. It’s not a reaction to people’s skin colour – it’s white-on-white prejudice.

As with Islam, Judaism is a religion, not a ‘race’. But, although Judaism contains different ethnic strands, the European Jewish diaspora can be said to be a ‘population’, like African or South Asian people. In the social construct sense, they’re a ‘race’. But they’re not a population easily identifiable by appearance. So how does the prejudice arise?

Anti-Jewish prejudice must be a form of culturist racism: specifically – historically – prejudice against the Jewish diaspora, where people of a different culture came to live in or near a settled neighbourhood, not as individuals but as a self-contained community.

Such Jewish diaspora groups arrived at established communities throughout Europe as fringe communities. Romani travellers, also known as Gypsies, who kept moving rather than settling, were similarly outsiders – and were similarly wiped out in the Holocaust.

Jews – like Gypsies – are voluntarily outsiders, not wanting to integrate but keeping to themselves and to their own culture. This marks them out for prejudice – in that being different means being seen as a threat.

The cultural differences are actually harmless – Jews aren’t actually plotting to rule the world – it’s the difference itself that causes fear, probably mainly unconsciously, which manifests as racism.

Culturism, of course, works one way. Racism is power plus prejudice, so the power is with the European majority and the prejudice is against the outsider minority.

(Culturism, as well as underlying white-on-white anti-Judaism, probably also boosts white-on-black colour prejudice, in that a different skin colour indicates a different culture.)

The Holocaust

The Holocaust

European anti-Judaism climaxed in the 1940s in Nazi Germany with the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler’s insane, genocidal ‘final solution to the Jewish question’.

Hitler’s anti-Jewish fascism was boosted by:

Widespread, centuries-old European anti-Jewish stereotypes and culturist racism
The anti-Jewish writings of German uber-Protestant Martin Luther
Racist 19th-century German pseudoscientific ‘race’ theory
The protofascist ‘übermensch‘ writings of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche
The anti-Jewish falsifications by Nietzsche’s fascist sister, Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche in his posthumous book, The Will to Power.
The 1903 document The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, exposed as fake in the 1920s but taught as factual in German schools in the 1930s
Racist, pseudoscientific US eugenics programmes funded by the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and John Kellogg.

Nazi Germany’s increasingly brutal 1930s anti-Jewish campaign ended in genocide when Jews were sent to extermination camps. In the death camps, the German state systematically murdered six million Jews.

Between 150,000 and 1.5 million Romani people were also murdered by the state.

The Holocaust

How could they do that?

For those of us who oppose racist anti-Judaism, the Holocaust’s meticulously organised murder of six million Jews haunts our imagination. It’s difficult to understand how people could have done that.

In 1961 the trial of high-ranking Nazi Adolph Eichmann took place in Israel. Eichmann, who’d been instrumental in organising the Holocaust, famously said he’d merely obeyed orders.

Yale professor Stanley Milgram, a Jewish social psychologist, heard about Eichmann’s defence and posed this question:

human nature

My bolding

Milgram then conducted a famous and controversial series of ingenious experiments – with shocking results.

Milgram showed that ordinary people in thrall to white-coated authority figures were willing to inflict what they believed to be severe pain and even death on strangers. (The strangers were played by actors.)

Questions have understandably been raised about the ethics and methodology of Milgram’s experiments. Their relevance to the Holocaust has been questioned. But Milgram’s basic findings still hold true.

The Holocaust authority figures themselves must have had some form of empathy-deficient mental disorder such as psychopathy. But more disturbingly, ordinary people in that situation were able to set aside their empathy.

Perhaps, however, the Holocaust executioners were not only acting in innate obedience to authority figures, as suggested by Milgram’s experiments, but were also indulging an instinctive racist urge.

The Holocaust

After the Holocaust

Ironically, extreme nationalism – a main factor in the Holocaust – is now a charge made against the powerful US-backed state of Israel in its ongoing conflict with Palestinian people, many of whom were expelled from their homes and homeland during the controversial establishment of Israel which began in 1948.

Equally ironically, the number of Palestinian people registered as refugees (in 2025) is six million. (There are about seven million Jewish people living in Israel.)

Following an attack on Israel in October 2023 by Hamas, the militant group running the Palestinian Gaza Strip, Israel launched the one-sided Gaza ‘war’ against Hamas during which many tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, have been killed or seriously injured by the IDF – the Israeli ‘defence’ forces.

**Mahmoud Ajjour, nine, lost both arms during an Israeli attack on Gaza City** | *Photo: Samar Abu Elouf / New York Times*

The International Criminal Court (ICC) accused the Israeli premier of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and – in the final irony – Israel was accused of genocide.

Supporters of the Palestinian cause who criticise Israeli Zionism are accused (perhaps correctly in some cases) of anti-Jewish racism. And so it goes.

Also, showing no one’s immune, there’s Jew-on-Jew racism in Israel, in particular against Ethiopian Jews.

A Sephardi (Jews of North African origin) chief rabbi reportedly said there could be no explanation other than ‘pure racism’.

Outside Israel, despite the terrible lesson of the Holocaust, anti-Judaism continues to thrive.

A 2008 report by the US department of state found there was an increase in anti-Judaism across the world, and both old and new expressions of anti-Judaism persisted.

A 2012 report by the US bureau of democracy, human rights and labor noted a continued global increase in anti-Judaism, and found Holocaust denial and opposition to Israeli policy were used to promote or justify anti-Judaism.

The German government has paid over $90bn in compensation to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and their heirs.

The End

Cosmic architect: Earth crisis – fuck it

Cosmic architect Yin was in bad mood. Something had gone wrong. Yin had picked a universe, found a suitable planet, added a moon, seeded life, guided evolution by wiping out the dinosaurs (with, Yin smugly recalled, a well-aimed asteroid), and now, after four billion planet years (no time at all, really) the sodding superconscious beings were about to destroy their environment!

Reason had replaced religion, so further intervention was out – free will was essential. It was tempting to smite that ‘drill, Baby, drill’ fool, but it was a free and fair election, so… The short life span didn’t help. Yin felt bad about that, but it was what happened with evolution. Apparently.

The angels would try to help, but it wasn’t looking good. Another singularity project down the drain, thought Yin. The same thing, or similar, was happening in innumerable universes. Oh well, fuck it, thought Yin. Plenty more fish in the sea.

Where are you from?

A microracist question

Black and South Asian postwar immigrants to the UK and their descendants are often asked ‘Where are you from?’ – a question loaded with a queasy mixture of idle curiosity and unconscious racism.

Begun 2019 | Revised 2025 | 1,300 words | Contents

This post, a revised version of a section in my post Asian, Indian, Pakistani: what’s in a name?, refers to South Asian colonial and postcolonial history. African Caribbean colonial and postcolonial history is addressed in another post.

Where are you from?

Top 🔺

Introduction
Not so easy to answer
Kenya and Uganda
Why are you here?
Why don’t you go back there?
Conclusion
Postcript

Where are you from?

Introduction

Othering

Britons with brown or black skin are often asked:

Where are you from?

How should they respond to that loaded question? It’s a minefield.

For a white Briton like me, asking that question of a brown or black Briton who’s a stranger or casual acquaintance is a bad idea. Much worse is asking as a follow-up question:

Where are you really from?

Such questions are inconsiderately intrusive and, at best, microracist. Unpicked – though the questioner might not consciously realise it – the question is likely to mean:

Your skin colour and facial appearance suggests your ethnic origin isn’t north European. In which country are your family origins? Actually, though, I don’t really care where you’re from. My question is mainly rhetorical and microracist. I’m really just drawing attention to your otherness.

A 2022 high-profile incident involving a UK royal aide and a black British charity worker is a good example of this phenomenon.

**Former royal aide Susan Hussey** | *Photo: Getty*

The aide, ‘Lady’ Susan Hussey, widow of former BBC chairman ‘Baron’ Hussey, close friend of ‘King’ Charles, ‘Queen’ Camilla and the late ‘Queen’ Elizabeth, and godmother to heir ‘Prince’ William, resigned after the incident.

The incident supports Meghan Markle’s implied claim of racism in the royal household; and implies widespread casual racism amongst the ruling class.

If the question, as in that case, seems offensively rhetorical, the asker’s bluff can be called: ‘Why do you want to know?’

Where are you from?

Not so easy to answer

It can get complicated

If the question seems genuine, and worthy of a helpful response, it might nevertheless be not so easy to answer.

For an answer to be accurate – and understood – both parties need good geopolitical and historical awareness. It can get complicated.

For instance, If a British person of South Asian appearance is known to be a Muslim, they might not be – as might be assumed – of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. Many UK Muslims have origins in the Indian state of Gujerat. (Almost 20 percent of Indian people are Muslims.)

Where are you from?

Kenya and Uganda

Out of East Africa

Many South Asian people came to the UK from Kenya and Uganda. South Asian communities were established before partition in East Africa and the Caribbean, mainly in Kenya, Uganda and Trinidad. They were there because of another piece of clumsy and careless social engineering by the Brutish Empire: indentured servitude.

Between 1834 and 1917, many people were induced to move from India to other colonies as indentured labourers for the empire. Unsurprisingly, the conditions were harsh and the wages low. The workers were derogatively called ‘coolies’.

Indian indentured labourers, seeking to escape the poverty and famine frequent during colonial rule, came mainly from the Punjab and Bengal regions (both later severed during partition).

On completing their indenture, some Indian people stayed on in Africa or the Caribbean. They were joined by family members and formed thriving expatriate communities, albeit protected by the brutal stranglehold of empire.

After those colonies gained independence, many South Asian residents moved to the UK. Those in Uganda were famously expelled by Idi Amin. In Kenya, harsh changes to citizenship rules prompted mass voluntary emigration.

Those UK immigrants, whilst identifying by religion, often also identify by their diaspora community. For instance, people may identify as Kenyan Muslims.

My South Asian Muslim wife, when asked ‘Where are you from?’, sometimes says ‘Nairobi’. Her ethnicity is Punjabi but she was born in Kenya and spent her childhood there.

The person asked that question could give an informative reply, such as:

Punjabi Muslim

Pakistan

1800s

grandfather

Punjab

Kenya

1960s

They could summarise it: ‘Pakistan’. But the question is more likely to provoke a passive-aggressive and deliberately obtuse reply, such as, ‘I’m from Leicester – where are you from?’ (or the deliberately annoying ‘from my mother’s womb’).

Where are you from?

Why are you here?

Racism is never far below the surface

The question ‘Where are you from?’ might seem like casual curiosity framed as a friendly enquiry, but it’s microracism – at best.

To unpick it further, behind that innocent-seeming question – though, again, the questioner might not consciously realise it – lies a worse question:

Why are you here?

The questioner might therefore reasonably be told to fuck off, or be given the pithy retort that emerged from antiracist immigrant activism:

If you’re asking why I’m here, we’re here because you were there’.

Where are you from?

Why don’t you go back there?

There it is

The hidden question, ‘Why are you here?’ at least offers the possibility of debate and reason; but behind that lurks the racist rhetorical question:

Why don’t you go back there?

For postwar immigrants to the UK and their descendants, such racism is never far below the surface.

Note: My post Racism explained as a redundant instinct suggests racism is a redundant anti-stranger instinct revived and twisted by colonialism and postcolonialism – and, sadly, provoked by the postwar mass immigration carelessly engineered by a patrician government. We anti-racists choose to reject and oppose that twisted impulse and to embrace our brilliant multicultural society.

Where are you from?

Conclusion

Don’t answer

Thoughtful white Brits aware of all that – or just wary of the social minefield – don’t ask that awkward, loaded question. But it does get asked.

If I was a British person of colour asked by a white person, ‘Where are you from?’, and the question seemed intrusive, I’d want to challenge it, but it in a non-hostile way.

I’d initially bat it back by – politely – saying, ‘How do you mean?’ If they indicated they were asking about my ethnic origin rather than my place of residence, I’d ask – still politely, if possible:

Why do you want to know?

The questioner might well find it difficult to explain themselves. Serves them right.

British people of colour people also ask the question, ‘Where are you from?’ of each other. The purpose is to find out the other’s origins: country, religion, region, town, caste, class, whatever.

That’s a different can of worms – and it doesn’t excuse white Brits asking that question. As always, context is crucial. The context is the white west and – as always – racism is prejudice plus power.

Where are you from?

Postcript

Bookish

After writing this post, I came across a 2024
book, Where Are You From? No, Where Are You Really From? by British mixed-ethnicity teacher and writer Audrey Osler.

Osler takes the question seriously, exploring her complex Empireland* family heritage, but she starts by explaining how that question can undermine one’s sense of belonging and nationality with its implied accusation:

You don’t belong here – you’re not British

Clearly, not everyone asking that question is aware of the toxic smog it stirs up – but ignorance is no excuse. Osler suggests a barbed comeback: having answered (or not answered) the question, turn it around and ask:

Where are you from?

* Note: The resonant name Empireland was used by award-winning British journalist Sathnam Sanghera as the title of his 2021 best-selling book, which shows how empire shaped modern Britain – but is now weirdly absent from mainstrean cultural awareness.

The End

Feel free to comment. (I answer all comments.)

A house called Christmas

A short fairy tale. With swearing and drugs.

In which Baby Jesus, Santa Claus and a pagan shaman debate the true meaning of Christmas.

Once upon a time, dear Reader – last year, actually – in the nearby dimension where mythical beings live, the house called Christmas had an unexpected visitor.

In the house called Christmas, Baby Jesus lived in the attic with his mother. Santa Claus lived in the main part with Mrs Claus and some elves. A pagan shaman lived in the cellar.

(The absentee landlord, God, lived in a mansion on a nearby mountain. Mother Nature lived next door.)

Many of the beings in that dimension had chosen human form – for the craic. That included the residents of the house called Christmas.

It was a big house, with grounds, paddocks, stables, and out-houses. The residents had their own appartments but there was a shared ground-floor kitchen-diner.

One day, shortly before Christmas, a human called Helen tripped through a gap in the continuum and found herself outside the house.

It was snowing. A sign on the door said “Christmas”. Helen rang the bell – a sleigh bell.

An elf opened the door. “Come in”, he said. “They’re all in the kitchen.” The elf gestured down the hallway, went into a side room and shut the door behind him.

Helen stared after the elf. She heard shouting coming from down the hall and walked towards the sound. A gruff voice shouted, “Fuck you, you fuckin’ little bastard!” She opened the door.

Baby Jesus, with his halo, and Santa Claus, with his red suit, were sitting at a large kitchen island. Baby Jesus was in a high chair. They each had a glass of red wine. There were two empty wine bottles in front of them. A speaker was playing Jingle Bells on the Multiversal Matrix station.

Baby Jesus looked like a baby, but he thought, spoke and drank like an adult. He was drunk, as was Santa.

“Fuck you, yer fucking fat twat!” Jesus slurred angrily at Santa. “You don’ even know where yer from. Is it Greece? Or fuckin’ whatsit, Anatolia? Or the fuckin’ North fuckin’ Pole?!”

Helen, standing in the doorway, cleared her throat. They both looked at her. “Hello,” she said. “Sorry to barge in. I was lost, so I rang the bell. An elf let me in. I’m Helen.”

“Hi,” said Jesus. “Hello,” said Santa.

Helen looked around. Mary, Baby Jesus’s teenage mother, was slumped in an armchair with a cigarette and a glass of wine.

*AI illustration by me/Microsoft Generator*

“‘Twat’ isn’t a nice word, darling,” Mary said to Jesus. She waved at Helen.

A Central-Asian-looking man, the shaman, sat at one end of the island, chopping mushrooms. He said, “What about ‘fucking’? Is that a nice word?” Jesus grunted. The shaman winked at Helen.

Mrs Claus sat at a large dining table, rolling a joint.

As supernatural beings, they didn’t need food or drink – or intoxicants. But in their human form, they’d got into the habit. The elves supplied their groceries and dope.

“Hello, dear. Don’t mind them,” said Mrs Claus to Helen. “They’re always like this at Christmas. Come in, have a seat. We get the odd human visitor every now and then.”

*AI illustration by me/Craiyon – sorry about the hands*

Helen stared at Baby Jesus. He hiccuped. “So,” said Helen to Mrs Claus, “you’re not … human?”

“No dear,” said Mrs Claus. “You’ve strayed into a different world. We’re mythical beings. But don’t you worry,” she added, “Our visitors usually get back – somehow or other.”

“The elves do it,” said the shaman to Helen. “Get you back.”

Helen sat down next to Mrs Claus. “Have a glass of wine, dear,” said Mrs Claus to Helen. She poured one. Helen took a gulp. “Thanks,” she said.

“I’m sorry,” said Helen to Jesus. “I interrupted you. Do please continue.”

“Yeah, well,” said Jesus. He drank some wine. “Thing is,” he added, “Christmas is mine!”

He pointed at Santa and shouted, “He fuckin’ stole it!“.

“Actually, it’s mine,” said the shaman to Jesus. “Your church stole it. Yule.”

“Well, yer’ve still got yer fuckin’ yule log,” sneered Jesus. “Anyway,” he muttered, “I never wanted the fuckin’ church in the first place.”

“But the point,” he went on, “the fucking point is, it’s s’posed to be about my fuckin’ birthday!”

“The clue’s in the fuckin’ name!” he shouted.

“Ah, but,” said Santa. “They don’t say ‘Christ-mas’, with the ‘t’, do they. They say ‘Chris-mas’. Tha’s me – Chris. Chris Kringle.”

Jesus snorted. “Bollocks!” he said. “Tha’s from the German, whatsit, Christkindl. Means Christ child. Me!”

“Yeah, well, it’s me they go on about,” Santa said to Jesus. “Me. It’s Santa this an’ Santa that, innit. Not you. An’ cert’nly not you, Mr fuckin’ Yule.”

“I have my followers,” said the shaman.

“Yeah, a few new-age, sandal-wearin’, tofu-eatin’ hippies. Bless ’em.” said Santa. “Hardly mainstream like me, is it.”

“Mind you,” Santa said to Jesus, “they like your carols, I’ll give you that.”

“They used to be mine too,” said the shaman, sadly. “Kind of. The Holly and the Ivy still is.”

And,” said the shaman to Santa, “you got your red and white and the flying reindeer from me.”

“Matrix,” said the shaman. “Show it.” An image of a Siberian shaman feeding a reindeer appeared on a large wall screen.

“We flew, tripping on magic mushrooms,” said the shaman.

“Wharever,” said Santa. “Christmas is mine now. So you can both fuck off.”

“You, yer’ve got too big fer yer… stupid fuckin’ boots!” shouted Jesus at Santa. He slumped back in his high chair. He sighed.

“I know,” said Jesus. “I know it’s yours. An’ I’m not gettin’ it back. But I’m better than you. People know that.”

Santa busied himself opening another bottle. The speaker played All I want For Christmas Is You by Mariah Carey. “I like this one,” said Mary.

Mrs Claus lit her joint, took a big hit and passed it to Helen. “Go on, dear,” she said. “It’ll take the edge off.”

Helen took a hit, coughed and passed the spliff back to Mrs Claus. She cleared her throat. “So, Jesus,” she said. He glared at her. “I mean, if you don’t mind me asking. Are you really the Baby Jesus?”

“Hah!” said Jesus to Santa, pointing at him. “She’s not asking you if you’re really Santa, is she?” Santa shrugged.

“‘S complicated,” Jesus said to Helen, “the mythical thing. But basically, yes. I’m a, er, a manifestation. Of the Son of God.”

“So what about Joseph?” asked Helen.

“Not here,” said Jesus. “Not mythical enough.”

“Like me,” said Mrs Claus. “I shouldn’t be here, really. But he can’t manage on his own.”

“Hah!” said Santa. “Probably true.”

“The elves got her in.” said the shaman. “Obviously, I’m not personally mythical,” he added. “More representative. And I help with the reindeer.”

“So you see,” Jesus said. “Helen,” he added. He cleared his throat. “As the Baby Jesus,” he said, with the careful enunciation of the drunk, “I’m here in this house – we’re all here – because of bloody Christmas!”

“What about Easter?” asked Helen. The shaman snorted. “Another one stolen,” he said.

“Ostara,” he said to Helen. “Or Ēostre.”

“Moan, moan, moan,” said Jesus to the shaman. “Yer still got yer soddin’ eggs. An’ yer stupid bloody rabbit.” The shaman sniffed.

“Easter. ‘S a different house,” said Jesus to Helen. Mary sighed.

The room fell silent, apart from the speaker playing Merry Christmas Everyone by Shakin’ Stevens. An elf came in and finished preparing their meal.

Helen accepted Mrs Claus’s invitation to join them for dinner. Baby Jesus picked at his food. He’d become maudlin. Helen wished she hadn’t mentioned Easter. The conversation was mainly small talk about yule logs, reindeer and Helen’s family.

Helen wanted to ask Mary about the virgin birth, but didn’t like to. The speaker played Last Christmas by Wham! “Ooh, I like this one,” said Mrs Claus. “Me too,” said Helen. They giggled.

“Still,” said the shaman to Jesus, “Cheer up. You rose from the dead, didn’t you?”

“Tha’s right,” said Santa to Jesus. “‘S why my, er, ancestor was doin’ all those miracles. In Anatolia. In your name.”

“S’pose so,” said Jesus.

“Cheer up, dear,” said Mary to Jesus. “It’s Christmas.” Jesus sniffed.

“Always look on the bright side of life,” sang the shaman.

Jesus laughed. “Hah! Very funny,” he said. The elf gave them each a glass of arak. “Anyway,” said Jesus. “Cheers.”

The mood and the conversation lightened. The elf served coffee and then tapped Helen on the shoulder. “You can go back now if you like,” he said. “OK, thanks,” said Helen.

“Follow me,” said the elf. Helen stood up. The others looked at her. “Well, thanks,” she said. “For the lovely meal. And everything. It was really nice to meet you all.”

“You too, darling,” said Mrs Claus. “All the best.”

Helen started to follow the elf, and then she turned back. “Can I just say,” she said. They looked at her again.

“We – humans – aren’t very religious these days,” she said. “But Christmas is what it is because of all of you.” The others nodded thoughtfully. “So,” said Helen, “Happy Christmas.”

“Yeah, Happy Christmas,” they said, raggedly but agreeably. The speaker was playing Fairytale of New York by the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl.

Clip from video for *Fairy Tale of New York* | *Image: YouTube*

Helen got back safely and, dear Reader, they all lived happily thereafter.

Helen didn’t tell anyone about her visit to the house called Christmas. She thought they wouldn’t believe her. She died aged 95 in a post-apocalypse commune. (That’s another story.)

The mythical beings had to move further away when their dimension was demolished by the Xogon empire to make way for a new interdimensional highway. (Fortunately, our nearby dimension was just off the route.)

The house called Christmas re-manifested. Baby Jesus, Santa Claus and the shaman continued to debate the real meaning of Christmas. They still got the occasional human visitor. Most of them got back safely.

Christmas continued to the end of time, which was sooner than everyone expected.

The End

Top

Blog News: ‘Tw*t’ removed

Blog News #2
January 2024

Men saying ‘tw*t’ is just wrong

Smug self-censorship

I’ve removed all instances of ‘tw*t’ (as an insult) from this blog. It’s not as obvious, but it’s the same as the c-word. I realised (too late) men saying ‘tw*t’ as an insult is wrong. It’s crude – in a bad way. (Unless you’re a poet like John Cooper Clarke.) But there’s no satisfactory non-genitalia-related alternative. Twit? Prat? Not quite the same meaning. And ‘tw*t! is such a satisfing expletive to explete! For the last time: Twat!

Gingerism: the acceptable face of racism?

**Princess Merida, Brave, 2012** | *Image: Disney*

Recently in my workplace I overheard some jokey chat about ‘gingers’. It wasn’t directed at a particular person but I felt uneasy, as I always do when this casual prejudice happens. It felt like a form of racism.

Prejudice against red-haired people, known as gingerism, apparently exists only in England. It’s always framed as jokey banter and is often heard in the workplace or the pub.

If anyone objects, they’re likely to be chided: ‘It’s just a bit of fun. Can’t you take a joke?’ But is it a harmless joke? Or is it actually racism seeking an ‘acceptable’ form?

In the 1950s and 60s, racist comments were commonplace in the workplace and the pub, but now they’re unacceptable in public. Perhaps ‘harmless’ jokes about red-haired people or about the Welsh, (another similarly mocked group) constitute a new outlet for the redundant but dangerous and destructive anti-stranger instinct upon which racism is apparently built.

A UK Guardian article on the subject downplayed the idea of gingerism as racism, pointing out that people with red hair clearly don’t suffer the same devastating personal and institutional discrimination as people with black or brown skin.

However, the Guardian article suggested an interesting explanation for gingerism: English anti-Celtism, and – more specifically – anti-Irish feeling.

Many Irish people have red hair. Since Cromwell’s brutal colonisation of ireland, there’s been a tendency for the English to disdain the Irish. (Hence Irish ‘jokes’.)

In the 1950s, London boarding-house signs supposedly said, ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish‘. This seems to be apocryphal, but it illustrates a real prejudice.

English red-haired people bravely (Brave!) try to reappropriate the word ‘ginger’ – as African Americans have reappropriated the N-word. But the bullying ‘jokes’ continue regardless.

Red-haired Neanderthals

Neanderthal humans had red hair. Having lived in Europe for over 100,000 years, they were apparently wiped out 35,000 years ago by immigrating early modern humans. (Early modern humans emigrated everywhere – they’re the ancestors of all humans.)

Perhaps ‘jokey’ bullying of red-haired people and colonialist anti-Irish sentiments are echoes of that ancient hostility.

(As well as killing Neanderthals, early humans interbred with them. Most Europeans and Asians have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. However, red hair in modern humans isn’t inherited from Neanderthals – apparently it’s a different gene.)

This post is an excerpt from my longform post Racism explained as a redundant instinct

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Begun July 2021 | 3,000 words | Contents

I was scolded on a local Facebook page for criticizing the phrase ‘mixed race’. The scolder said: ‘I’m mixed race – that’s what I call myself.’ ‘Yes, but…’ I thought.

**Meghan Markle, aka Duchess of Sussex** | *Photo: Shutterstock*

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Top 🔼

Introduction
The words used
Is a number needed to explain mixed ethnicity?
Why describe ethnic origin?
There are no human races
The melting pot
‘Race’ as a social construct
‘If you’re not white, you’re black’
‘That’s what I call myself’
Conclusion
Comments

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Introduction

Loaded phrase

Here in the UK, people have their ethnicity labelled, like it or not. But the phrase ‘mixed-race’ is loaded with prejudice. Isn’t it?

We’re asked to tick a box for our ethnic identity on forms gathering data for marketing or discrimination-monitoring purposes. The UK police use ethnic identity codes to describe suspects. The UK census asks, ‘What is your ethnic group?’

People of colour might, on the one hand, see such labelling as a form of racism. On the other hand, the concept of ethnicity allows people of colour to identify themselves – in positive terms.

Either way, ethnic identification is here to stay. So… is it OK to say ‘mixed-race‘? No. How can it be OK to say ‘mixed-race‘ when ‘race‘ is known to be a false category cooked up by white supremacists with fake science?

But… the phrase ‘mixed-race‘ is in widespread use by both white people and people of colour. In that context, race is supposedly a neutral ‘social construct‘ that simply describes the different human populations.

Even the Guardian (centre-left, the UK’s only national daily newspaper not owned by billionaires) uses ‘mixed race‘ to describe, for instance, Meghan Markle. (The usually brilliant Guardian style guide is silent on the subject.)

When ‘mixed-race’ is used in a social-construct sense, the toxicity of the word ‘race‘ is somehow shut out. The vile supremacist ideology scratches at the door, but is just ignored. The usage may be considered harmless but it carries the baggage of slavery.

As a zealous and pedantic antiracist, I objected to the use of the phrase on a local Facebook page and got a hostile response. People said, ‘I’m mixed-race – that’s what I call myself’.

But why would anyone accept ‘mixed-race‘ as a description of themselves, loaded as it is with outmoded prejudice?

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

The words used

‘Ethnicity’ is best. Isn’t it?

Which words are acceptable alternatives to ‘race’? Ethnicity? Heritage? Ancestry?

‘Race’ is used in what’s meant to be a neutral social-construct sense to describe the different human populations. But the supposed neutrality of that context doesn’t mask the word’s stench of bigotry. An alternative to the toxic word ‘race’ is needed.

Ethnicity

The UK government style guide recommends the word ‘ethnicity’:

‘Ethnicity’ is an awkward mouthful of a word, and might seem blunt. But its meaning is clear – and it’s neutral.

The UK census uses the phrase ‘ethnic group‘. It quacks like a nerdy Dalek, ‘What is your ethnic group?’

Under ‘Mixed or multiple ethnic groups’, the UK census lists several options, including write-it-yourself in 18 characters or less (good luck with quadruple ethnicity):

(The insensitive Dalek means well. UK public services being mainly multicultural, the data can shape progressive policy.)

Heritage

The government guide and the census don’t use the word ‘heritage‘ – perhaps partly because there’s a connotation problem.

‘Heritage‘ could sound like something to do with the National Trust collection of stately homes – many of which, according to a 2020 NT report, have links to the slave trade and colonialism.

But ‘heritage’ has some merit as an alternative to ‘race’. ‘Mixed heritage‘ is a syllable shorter than ‘mixed ethnicity‘; and ‘heritage’ is easier to say than ‘ethnicity’, lacking that awkward ‘thn‘ sound.

Also, ‘heritage‘ sounds less personal and direct than ‘ethnicity‘. ‘Your heritage‘ sounds more discrete and less intrusive than ‘your ethnicity‘.

And when addressing someone’s cultural background, ‘heritage’ is more meaningful than ethnicity.

Note:

cultural heritage

innocuous

racism

culturism

‘strangerness’

African

Asian

west

different culture

cultural difference

prejudice

Ancestry

Then there’s ‘ancestry‘, which is acceptable if the context is understood.

So…

‘Heritage‘ and ‘ancestry‘ are useful non-toxic alternatives to ‘race‘ and they’re less direct than ‘ethnicity‘. But they’re ambiguous and euphemistic. We’ve all got mixed heritage and ancestry – but we haven’t all got mixed ethnicity.

So – with some reservation – I’ll mainly use ‘ethnicity‘ in this post – it’s more meaningful.

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Is a number needed to explain mixed ethnicity?

More than one

If you have more than one ethnic identity, would you want to say how many? If so, how would you say it – and when?

Some people describe themselves as having dual ethnicity. They want people to be aware of the challenges and benefits of having two different ethnic backgrounds.

That’s understandable. But ‘dual ethnicity‘ or the occasionaly used ‘biracial‘ – which includes that word – can be seen as pointlessly limiting, like the horrible ‘half-caste‘ (which leads to a hell-hole of outdated racist numerical classifications such as ‘quadroon‘).

What if you have more than two ethnicities? If, say, one of your parents has African ethnicity and the other parent has dual South Asian and European ethnicity, would you say you have triple ethnicity (or you’re triracial)?

What if your parents have four ethnicities? It’s increasingly possible: say, East Asian, South Asian, African and European. Would you say you have quadruple ethnicity? (It sounds a bit like ‘quadroon’…)

‘Mixed ethnicity‘ is discreet and flexible, giving enough information without a number. It says, in effect:

more than one

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Why describe ethnic origin?

A need to identify

Ethnic identity is used negatively by racists. But it’s used positively by people of colour – and usefully by public services such as the census and the police.

Racists use ethnic identity negatively to assert their imagined superiority.

However, people of colour identify themselves positively as, for instance, black British, Asian British or mixed ethnicity, thereby identifying their family origins, the colour of their skin, and their cultural allegiances.

The UK census usefully records ethnicity statistics which can help shape progressive policies.

And apparent ethnicity can be useful to describe an unknown person. In the Facebook incident that prompted this post, a man harassing women in a park was described as ‘mixed-race‘.

The UK police use radio shorthand identification codes, known – tautologically – as IC codes, to describe suspects to colleagues. For instance, IC3 stands for black, IC4 for South Asian and IC5 for East Asian.

There’s no IC code for people whose appearance indicates mixed ethnicity. However, IC7 means unknown.

During ‘stop and search’ operations, police use more complex ‘self-defined ethnicity‘ codes. People stopped are asked to choose one of 18 codes. The codes follow census categories (see above) by including options for mixed ethnicity.

(Although such ‘racial profiling‘ is useful to the police, it’s also abused by them. For instance, the controversial practice of stop and search is overused against young black men by a force repeatedly said to be institutionally racist.)

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

There are no human races

Just different populations

Science-denying racists say there are different human races, some of which are intrinsically superior to others. They’re wrong.

Pseudo-scientific racists, from Enlightenment philosophers (eg Kant and Locke) onwards, tried to justify colonialism and slavery by claiming Europeans are inherently more intelligent than other ‘races‘. They aren’t.

Taxonomically, all modern humans are Homo sapiens (the only surviving species of the genus Homo).

Race is a slippery concept, but in biology it’s an informal rank below the level of subspecies, the members of which are significantly distinct from other members of the subspecies.

Genetic research has confirmed the obvious: apart from some ‘single-gene’ disorders*, the differences that evolved between different human populations, albeit visually and culturally obvious, are not significantly distinct. This means the different populations are not races in any scientifically meaningful sense.

There are no different human races, just human populations – which are becoming increasingly mixed.

White racists, of course, don’t care if there are scientifically meaningful races or not. They just indulge in bullying prejudice against people of colour. The disused phrase, ‘colour prejudice’ is more linguistically meaningful than ‘racism’.

* Single gene disorder: genetic disease caused by a mutation in a single gene.

Some single-gene disorders are specific for certain populations, like Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews, cystic fibrosis in Caucasians, thalassemias among people from Southeast Asia and the Mediterranean countries, and sickle cell disease in people of Western African origin.

Single Gene Disorder, Science Direct, 2020

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

The melting pot

What we need

The different human populations are becoming mixed. The historical causes are bad but the mixing is good.

Increased travel in recent centuries brought large numbers of people of different appearance face to face for the first time in human history. Unfortunately, most of that contact was colonial.

The consequent vile transatlantic slave trade and carelessly engineered postwar mass immigration resulted in black and white people living in the same country. Inevitably, in spite of racism and conflict, they’ve mixed.

Before pseudo-scientific racism was rumbled, racists sneered about ‘miscegenation‘; and amongst ethnic minorities there’s pressure to resist assimilation and preserve cultural heritage by not ‘marrying out’.

But – some dodgy lyrics aside – Blue Mink were right: what we need is a great big melting pot. Marrying ‘out’ doesn’t have to mean loss of cultural heritage – it can be seen as marrying in.

Ethnicity is often related to religion, and there may be concern that marrying ‘out’ will dilute religion and therefore morality. But here in the western melting pot, we live in a post-religious age. God – as the source of morality – is dead.

Fortunately, as social animals we have innate goodness – and any innate badness can be constrained by the rule of law, preferably under liberal democracy (the worst form of government apart from all the others).

(Non-religious spirituality, on the other hand, is alive and well – and isn’t affected by inter-ethnic mingling.)

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

‘Race’ as a social construct

Linguistic dilemma

People say ‘race’ is a ‘social construct’. But the word ‘race’ is still toxic, and the abstract idea of a ‘social construct’ can be misunderstood – and misused.

Science shows there are no human races, but some say ‘race’ is a social construct which doesn’t have to be scientifically meaningful – it’s just a way of describing the different human populations.

A social construct is said to be a concept or category that exists due to shared agreement within a society, rather than being based on objective reality.

‘Race‘ as a social construct is used by non-racists as shorthand for populations of different ethnicity. It’s used in that way in speech by people of colour; and by both black and white writers and speakers in non-racist media. For instance, the liberal, antiracist UK Guardian happily describes Meghan Markle as ‘mixed race’.

But devious racists use the social construct idea to blur the issue and keep talking about ‘race‘ despite the evidence there are no races. Confusion between ethnicity and race is the loophole in the social construct through which racists can slip.

The social construct idea has complex theoretical academic origins. Not everyone gets it. Many people reading or hearing the word ‘race’ in the media, unaware of any ‘shared agreement’ about what it means, might understandably assume it refers to an objective reality and means what it says.

Many people reading or hearing the word ‘race’ will think – and will be encouraged to do so by loophole racists – it means what it meant in the days of empire, slavery and Holocaust, when ‘races’, identified by appearance or culture (or both), were ranked in order of superiority, with white at the top and black at the bottom.

Despite its frequent use by non-racists as – supposedly – a social construct, the word ‘race‘ is fundamentally toxic and redundant. For antiracists, the solution to this linguistic dilemma is to abandon the flimsy social construct context and stop using the word ‘race‘.

(‘Race‘ is, of course, implied in the word ‘racism‘ but until the misnamed thing ends, the word will probably continue to be used, trailing its toxic root.)

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

‘If you’re not white, you’re black’

Partial self-denial

Some black antiracist campaigners say mixed-ethnicity people should identify as black – but how can it be right to deny part of your ethnic identity?

Some radical black antiracists say: ‘If you’re not white, you’re black.’ They’re saying people of mixed ethnicity should identify solely as black (meaning non-white, ie black or brown).

One such proponent was prominent black UK broadcaster and antiracist campaigner, the late Darcus Howe. Fellow activist Sunder Katwala has recalled being on the receiving end of Howe’s rhetoric.

Katwala, the mixed-ethnicity director of immigration think-tank British Future, wrote about the encounter in the conclusion to his 2012 BF report The Melting Pot Generation.

Katwala and Howe were chatting after a TV discussion (about a controversial remark made by a black politician). Katwala apparently referred to himself as ‘mixed-race’, and Howe objected. Katwala:

That old point was jovially roared at me with some emphasis by one of this country’s leading public raconteurs on race and racism.

“But I’ve never thought I was black. Shouldn’t it be up to me to decide?”

“What are you then?”

“British. And English. My parents are from India and Ireland, so I’m half-Asian and mixed race as well.”

“British? Why don’t you call yourself Indian? Are you ashamed of your father, boy?”

Howe was forcefully expressing the well-known position of radical antiracism: ‘mixed‘ is nonsense – if you’re not white, you’re black.

It’s an understandably angry political response to mixed-ethnicity people experiencing racism because they’re not white.

It’s a proud and noble gesture. But should people of mixed ethnicity feel obliged to deny a significant part of their cultural heritage? Isn’t the antiracist cause best served by people of colour feeling free to express their full identity?

(But beware of identity politics. See my post, Whatever happened to Black Lives Matter?)

Note: I came across the story about Howe and Katwala in a 2021 Conversation article by mixed-ethnicity author and academic Remi Adekoya. The article, Biracial Britain: why mixed-race people must be able to decide their own identity, was based on Adekoya’s groundbreaking 2021 book: Biracial Britain: What it means to be mixed race.

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

‘That’s what I call myself’

Whitesplaining word-nerd

Some mixed-ethnicity people call themselves ‘mixed-race’. It’s easy to say – and difficult to criticise.

Some people of mixed ethnicity say:

that’s what I call myself

It must be difficult enough being brown-skinned in a white world – facing microracism (‘Where are you from?’) and conscious and unconscious personal and institutional bias – without having a would-be white saviour (I’m white, by the way – Hi!) tell you how you should or shouldn’t describe yourself.

Whitesplaining word-nerd virtue-signaller – who do I think I am? It’s like a white person telling black Americans not to use the N-word: ‘I say, you rapper chappies – you really shouldn’t use that bad word.’

Except it’s not like that. When a mixed-ethnicity person uses the phrase ‘mixed-race‘ to describe themselves, they’re not re-appropriating the word ‘race‘ in a playfully political way.

They’re giving white people permission to use that phrase – and they’re inadvertently agreeing with zealous racists, the only people who think there actually are different races.

The question remains: why would anyone choose ‘mixed-race‘ as a description of themselves, knowing it to be loaded with outmoded prejudice?

Maybe mixed-ethnicity people call themselves ‘mixed-race‘, thinking, ‘So what? Who cares? It’s a social construct. It’s just what people say. And it’s only two syllables.’

Maybe they’re winding up mitherers like me. If so, damn – you got me!

I just hope it’s not an example of that depressing phenomenon, internalised racism.

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Conclusion

Linguistic detox

‘Mixed race’ is easy to say and ‘race’ is now supposedly a neutral social construct. But shouldn’t that toxic word be retired?

Some people choose to describe themselves as ‘mixed-race‘. The word ‘race‘ has ugly roots but when it’s understood as a social construct rather than a fake biological category perhaps it seems better than the non-toxic alternatives.

The main alternative, ‘ethnicity‘, isn’t an easy word. Although it’s harmless and clear in meaning, it’s a difficult, official-sounding word. It doesn’t roll off the tongue easily – it’s definitely not a people’s word.

But in spite of that, ‘ethnicity‘ is still better than ‘race‘, isn’t it? The phrase ‘mixed race‘ is easy to say but even in a social-construct context it remains loaded with fake science and colonial notions of white superiority.

Shouldn’t the word ‘race’ be left in the shameful past where it belongs?

‘Mixed ethnicity‘ is a mouthful. It’s got academic roots, three extra syllables and an awkward ‘thn‘ sound. But it avoids that toxic word and in its neutral clarity it celebrates our differences and embraces their mixing.

A casual phrase in use is ‘mixed ethnic’. It’s easier to say someone is ‘mixed ethnic’ rather than saying they have ‘mixed ethnicity’, but when applied to a person, the casual abbreviation ‘ethnic’ might – understandably – be considered offensive.

A commenter on this post (see below) points out that young people of mixed ethnicity tend to refer to themselves simply as ‘mixed‘.

That’s a cool solution. When used in context, the abbreviation ‘mixed‘ keeps the meaning while avoiding both uncool words: ‘race‘ and ‘ethnicity‘.

For older people (like me) the – less cool – solution is:

: ‘mixed-race’

: ‘mixed-ethnicity’

The End

Is it OK to say ‘mixed-race’? No. But…

Comments

Dear reader (or skimmer), feel free to comment. I answer all comments.

Scroll to the end of the comments to leave one. (Blame WordPress.com for that bad design.)

Forward to the Past: huntin’ an’ gatherin’ as a leisure activity

There’s a large park near us with deer in it. I’m an anti-hunting vegetarian, but whilst walking there recently, I felt an atavistic urge to hunt the deer!

**Kill Bambi**! | *Photo: Christopher Day*

Here in the UK, we churlish peasants hate the landed aristocracy (and the nouveaux super-rich), not least for their hobbies of huntin’, shootin’ an’ fishin’. (The dropped end-consonant is an aristo affectation.)

However, putting aside class hatred, maybe that’s what we’d all do if we had their time and money (although perhaps not in pursuit of the inedible fox, UK aristos’ favourite quarry). Maybe it’s intrinsically enjoyable. Maybe it goes back to hunting and gathering.

Putting aside – also – our modern vegetarian sensibilities, maybe hunting and gathering was sociable and enjoyable. Then we invented farming, which was antisocial and boring. (Perhaps nomadic herding is an acceptable intermediate lifestyle.)

After the Norman invasion of England in 1066, the victors stole all the land. They hunted in their forests. No one else could. (Perhaps poaching was semi-tolerated as a safety valve. Huntin’ an’ poachin’!)

So in the future (having somehow survived the climate crisis), with aristos and the super-rich all exiled to the moon (for receiving stolen land and criminal damage to the environment), and with reformed money, a state income, most work automated, food produced hydroponically and the land commonised and rewilded, we can all enjoy some occasional recreational huntin’ an’ gatherin’.

Then, at the end of the day, it’s back to the tribal eco-cave for an evening of eating, drinking, story-telling and singing around the fire. (Finally, drunk as skunks, it’s back by autodrone to our ecopods.)

I’m a woke dirty old man

As an ‘old’ man (over 70), am I a dirty old man? Yes, of course. Not by being a pervert or flasher, but by finding young women attractive. I love my wife and wouldn’t cheat – but I look at young women lustfully.

Women of any age can be attractive – but young women are special. That’s the ‘dirty old man’ bit.

Lust is primal. Age tempers it – it becomes less visceral and more cerebral. And what chance of (genuine) reciprocation would an old man have anyway? But it remains present and incorrect.

So what? The thing is, in the wake of the 2021 UK murder of Sarah Everard and the subsequent Reclaim These Streets movement, men of good will – even old men – must adjust our attitude towards women.

The memorable phrase, ‘All men are rapists‘ (said by a character in the novel The Women’s Room by radical feminist Marilyn French) is a good starting point. If it’s true, what should we modern, civilised men do with that evolved predatory tendency?

First we should acknowledge it. After all we’re animals with monsters from the id. Then we should chose to live above it.

Most men are decent and don’t rape, but the tidal wave of testimony that followed Sarah’s death shows that many men and boys do rape and assault – and get away with it.

Those who wish to reject that brutality can acknowledge the lusftful impulse, admire the beauty, consciously reject any predatory urge and be prepared to protect women and girls.

So If I’m walking in the park, being alive and heterosexual I’ll discreetly admire young women jogging in skin-tight leggings. (Discreetly, because staring is intrusive. French’s character goes on to say, ‘They rape us with their eyes’.)

But I’ll also be on the lookout for any predatory behaviour and be ready to intervene, arthritis permitting. I’m a woke dirty old man.

Coronavirus: Soothfairy speaks

*Image: Praxis Photography / Getty Images / Flickr RF*

This coronavirus – what does it think it is? Coming over to us humans from bats, or pangolins, whatever, killing off our vulnerable old people, making us all stay in, destroying our socio-economic system and that. I mean, what’s it all about? You know? Bollocks!

Mind you, as a global threat it’s shown up market forces and the nation state as inadequate. So, if we end up with voluntary one-world government that can end poverty and war, give us a universal state income, and replace the environment-destroying debt economy with social credit, might not be so bad. Apart from the killing and destruction. Which is bad, obviously. Means and ends and all that.

But this isn’t a case of means and ends, is it. The deaths aren’t a way to get to utopia. The utopian idea comes from the deaths but isn’t caused by them. (The deaths are a way for nature to maintain its inhuman ecosystem. We’ve had plenty of warning.)

So this modern idea of utopia isn’t caused by the sudden mass deaths. It’s caused by the usual complicated pattern of thoughts and events. This virus is probably the catalyst (O-level chemistry, failed). The reaction is taking place. The result won’t be known till the post-virus dust has settled.

So would “they”, the Illuminati or whatever, the union of the super-rich, allow an end to neoliberal global capitalism as we know and hate it?

Not willingly, of course, but they might be forced to acknowledge a tidal turn of events and find another way to keep their loot; or they might try to co-opt New Utopia and bend it to the will of their ruling cabal; or – with a bit of luck – they might retreat in a sulk and rot away behind their security fences.

In the new utopia, in 50 years’ time, United Earth, having repaired the damage done by their greed, will round up the remaining cohort along with their warlord accomplices, convict them of their crimes and exile them to the Moon.