HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST A "BROWN" PRIME MINISTER WITHOUT BEING CALLED A "RACIST"

An unwitting symbol of genocide who can't help having divided loyalties.

by Colin Liddell

Recently there was a rather interesting phone-in call on LBC, in which the caller tried his hardest to argue against Rishi Sunak becoming Prime Minister. Despite an energetic effort, the caller ultimately failed and was backed into a corner, at which point the Indian-English host was able to call him a "racist." Game over!

You can watch the whole debacle here:

As you can see, the caller was obviously arguing disingenuously. He was attempting to mask his real reasons for opposing Rishi, namely that he was a brown man of Indian background.

In doing this, he employed several "front" arguments -- "He will lose", "He doesn't love England," "He's a globalist," "He destroyed our economy," etc. -- all of which the host patiently deconstructed, homing in all the time on what she thought was the man's real reason, his "knuckle-dragging" racism.

People on the Alt-Right would probably say that the caller lost here because he wasn't prepared to simply "own" being a racist. If only he had shot back with, "Yes, I'm a racist and proud of it," then he would have defeated his opponent, they would argue. 

Of course, he wouldn't.

That would only allow the host to immediately dismiss him as a monster unworthy of further engagement. As it was, the caller managed to stay in the ring for a good few minutes and even land one or two punches before getting knocked out.

But is there a more effective way to argue against the appointment of a "brown man" as PM of the UK without being called a "racist"?

I would say there are two arguments that could be employed effectively in a delicate situation like this. They are:

      (1) the "split identity" argument 

      (2) the "symbol of genocide" argument

Both arguments invoke the "slave morality" of victimhood, which is unavoidable in the feminised modern West with its culture of harm avoidance, inclusion, individualism, and liberty. 

The first argument would go something like this:

Host: "So, you're saying that Rishi isn't British. Aren't you simply a r..."

Caller: "Of course, he's British by birth, passport, education, etc. But he's not just British, is he? He's also Indian by blood, family, ethnicity, and marriage. You wouldn't want him to deny any of that, would you? He has two identities, at least. "

Host: "But isn't that a good thing?"

Caller: "Yes, of course, but that effectively means he doesn't have a single identity. Instead, he has two half identities, unless of course you are arguing that he is twice as good as dull, uninteresting people like me who only have one identity."

As you can see, the Host would now be in the awkward position of arguing that people with dual identities are "superior" to the lowly "monos". Any attempt by the host to assert that Rishi's Englishness is equal to the Englishness of the caller thus becomes an attempt to define him as an inferior lesser person. The host thus becomes the bigot.

The second argument would go like this:

Host: "So, do you just hate Rishi because you're a rac..."

Caller: "I don't hate Rishi. In fact, I think he's a splendid fellow, and he may even be a brilliant Prime Minister. But to me and people like me, having someone of a recent immigrant group becoming Prime Minister in this way can't help looking like mass-immigration-fuelled racial replacement to us. Maybe that's fine, and possibly as individuals we have nothing to fear, but we can't help seeing Rishi's appointment as a symbol of some kind of rapid demographic shift and even genocide. Of course, Rishi and other brown people are not responsible for that, and I don't claim that they are, but for us it looks like yet another milestone on the road to our demographic decline and extinction, yet you are surprised that we should feel uncomfortable about that."

With this argument too, the only real way the host can push back is by pursuing the line that indigenous British people somehow deserve this fate and should embrace it by accepting Rishi as PM or that their feelings are somehow irrelevant. She might even be tempted to mock the fears of the caller or gloat. But by doing that she is forced into the bigot position again and loses the argument.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).