Monday, 22 November 2010

Britain’s Love of Others and Contempt for its Own.

The British state’s inclusive, universalistic attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: “love of others and contempt for one’s own”.
Thus, statist enthusiasm for mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, 1) because this is seen as an expression of self-denial, service to humanity and thus moral superiority, on which, like the Catholic and Anglican churches, it bases its claim to authority and power, and 2) because the economy, which provides the material wealth the state depends on, is thankful for all the cheap labour it can get, without which the NHS and many other sectors, under the existing mercenary regime, could hardly function (something statists are quick and proud to point out).
My more nationalistic, ethno-centric (according to the state, “racist”) attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: love of my own race/ethnic group and respect for others (thus my lack of enthusiasm for mass immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, or for multi-ethnic society).
The British state describes its own indigenous population contemptuously by the colour of their skin as “white British”, while at least some ethnic minorities are described with reference to their place of origin, e.g. British Asian, Afro-Caribbean, etc. When skin colour is used for ethnic minorities it is “black”, which, in contrast to “white” has positive connotations, something to be proud of; while “white” tends to have negative, shameful associations. Anyone describing themselves proudly as “white” (i.e. ethnic European), for example, would automatically be pushed into a “racist” corner as a neo-Nazi, BNP sympathiser or “white supremacist” (when real power and danger, now threatening to destroy us, lies with so-called “progressives” and “moral supremacists” dedicated to the state, which they misguidedly identify as their nation).
WHY does the state demonise as “racist” an ETHNOcentric attitude towards national identity, when ETHNOS (from Greek) actually means a NATION or a PEOPLE ?
Because that’s what the Nazis did (in their brutally insane fashion)! And doing the exact extreme opposite from the Nazis allows British statists to claim the absolute “moral high ground” for themselves, along with the authority and POWER that goes with it.
And also, because the British STATE itself lays false claim to nationhood, on which its very legitimacy rests. Any genuine claim to nationhood (based on ethnicity) it MUST condemn and suppress. What better way of doing so than by calling it “racist”?

A Human-Evolutionary View of “Society”

From a human-evolutionary perspective it is clear that our democratic state and capitalist economy developed over the centuries to facilitate society’s self-exploitation, as a human environment, resource and market, to the advantage of those with the power to influence these developments – which is why there are such powerful taboos against taking a Darwinian (= evil) view of our own society, which would destroy the illusion (necessary for its smooth functioning) of it being our nation (the extension and modern equivalent of our original tribe).
Like all the great apes, Earth’s Greatest Ape, i.e. humans, evolved to exploit its natural environment in the primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success, not as an individual, but as a committed member of a tribe, making us inherently not just the most social of animals, but also the most tribal.
However, with the advent of civilisation, this environment was extended, perversely, to include human society itself, with state and economy developing to facilitate its exploitation, initially to the almost exclusive advantage of its ruling elites of aristocracy and clergy, but expanding and diversifying over the centuries to culminate in western democracy and capitalism, where everyone – in theory, at least – is “free” to exploit their human environment, while maintaining the necessary illusion and self-deception, initiated and cultivated by the original ruling elites and extended by “socialists” and “progressives”, of serving society as their nation (David Cameron’s Big Society).

From One Extreme to Another

From forced racial segregation (Apartheid, Jim Crow etc.) to facilitated (subtly forced) racial mixing, integration, assimilation and miscegenation.
From a situation of great racial and ethnic diversity to themelting pot of racial and ethnic uniformity.
From an obsession with non-existent “racial purity” to denial of the importance of racial and ethnic identity (at least, for ethnic Europeans).
From the Nazi’s Germanic and white supremacists’ white master race to the melting pot and mixed-race master race of the moral supremacists’ who dominate post WW2 British politics (especially so-called “progressives” of the liberal left), established religion, and the media (especially the BBC).
From the noble ideal of a “classless society” to the moral-supremacist ideology of a “raceless” (colourblind, post-racial) society, which denies and suppresses (with accusations of “racism“) the importance of ethnicity for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.
From Nation State (1940) to Mercenary State (2010)
From genuine Big Society (1939-1949) to David Cameron’sphoney Big Society (2010-2015)

Friday, 19 November 2010


Anyone not accepting anyone else as belonging to their own NATION on grounds of race or ethnic origins (certainly in western democracies like Britain and America) is deemed a RACIST, and condemned and vilified as such. But this, I suggest, is a bit like calling someone who expresses a fondness for children, other than his own, a paedophile.
A genuine racist is someone who hates others on account to their race and/or considers their own race inherently superior to other races, and gives public expression to such feelings, which I add, because no one should be held accountable for how they FEEL - or think - but only for how they BEHAVE and what they DO.
Anyone who considers ethnicity central to nationality is in fact a true NATIONALIST, “ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, while those who consider ethnicity irrelevant and want to impose a multi-ethnic nationality on everyone else is a bullying STATIST.
STATISTS hate NATIONALISTS and thus vilify them, with the most damning appellation available, as RACISTS.
The most enthusiastic statists (anti-nationalists and “anti-racists”) are on the political left, of course; the further left, the more statist they tend to be. But in their own minimalist way, the political right are statists too, the apparent contradiction arising from the historical conflation of STATE and NATION.
Apart from anarchists, most agree on the need for the STATE: to pass and enforce laws that regulate social interactions and prevent society from descending into violence and chaos. Those on the left also see the state as an instrument for implementing their socialist ideals (education, health care, social welfare, etc.) and universalistic ideology of “one-human-racism”, while the political right wants a minimalist state which simply maintains a political framework within which individual self-interest and private enterprise can work their magic, capital make a good return in its investments, and personal fortunes be amassed.
The Left tends to see the state as an extension of one's original TRIBE and NATION, and thus responsible for taking care of everyone, because that is what tribes, in an evolutionary context, did and what human social behaviour is adapted to. The Right, on the other hand, tends to see the state as providing a framework within which the INDIVIDUAL and CAPITAL should be free (within certain limits) to exploit the social and human environment to their own advantage, with some of the wealth they create trickling down for the benefit of society as a whole, which, even if they feel no social obligations towards it, needs to be maintained as a source of human labour and consumers.
It seems to me that the political choice we have, between Left and Right (between socialism and capitalism), is like having to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea.
In practice, what we get is a mixture of the two, which is deeply unsatisfactory (except for some, of course), dehumanising and, most importantly, inherently unsustainable, meaning that radical change will come whether we want it or not, only the forces driving it will not be rational or humane, as we would wish, but irrational, ruthless and brutal – like the history of the 20th Century, only far worse.
The Left wants the state to impose the social mores and ideals of our original tribe on us (thus the close association - vigorously rationalised and denied, of course - with fascism), while the Right wants it to maintain a human environment that can be exploited by the individual and capital.
It is easy to understand why most people, especially when young, tend towards the Left, because it's the natural way to go, seeing society as the equivalent of our original tribe. However, experience of life teaches most of us, despite official ideology and (usually sincere) efforts to the contrary, that it isn't anything like our tribe, and that to get on in “society”, one has to treat is as an environment in which one struggles for advantage and “success” - which is the default attitude of those on the Right.
It seems to me fundamentally wrong to treat society as an environment, a human resource and market to be exploited to one's own advantage (whether via status, a profession, capital, or social welfare), but I also loath having the STATE pose as my NATION, i.e. as the legitimate heir to my original TRIBE, when it is NOT.
Which brings me to the task of untangling the conflated concepts of STATE and NATION - which will be the subject of my next post.

One Side hates Nationalism the other Socialism

Thereby neutralising – and, courtesy of the Nazis, demonising - the vital concept of National Socialism.

The Left's blind hatred of nationalism led to it conspiring with the state, established religion and capital to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the real meaning of which was deliberately hidden behind the more ambiguous concept of “multi-cultural”.
The Left traditionally (not without some, understandable but misconceived, reason) hate nationalism – and thus conspired with capital (with its interests in profit and globalisation) and established religion (with their shared interest in laying claim to the "moral high ground") to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION) – but love SOCIALISM, which they want the STATE, that they identify with (and which rewards them in return), to implement.
The political Right, on the other hand, are traditionally sympathetic towards nationalism and the nation – which, overwhelmed by a mighty coalition of capital and "moral supremacists", they have been forced to sacrifice – but hate SOCIALISM.
Thus, between them, the political Left and Right have eliminated the two ideas vital to the creation of a just, humane and sustainable society: those of SOCIALISM and of the NATION. We need socialism (properly understood), because we are social animals, but it can only beimplemented within the context (currently non-existent) of a genuine NATION (because we are also tribal animals, the nation being the natural extension of our original tribe), which is inherently (though not perfectly) mutualistic and grass-roots-democratic. It cannot be successfully implemented by the STATE (thus the justly negative reputation the state has burdened it with), because of its primarily role (which I go into in other posts) of facilitating society’s self-exploitation as as a human environment, resource and market.
There is another problem, of course: the NAZIS called themselves, National Socialists, dragging the vital concept of national socialism, which they hijacked and so abused, into the abyss along with themselves.
Whatever one's political views, there is an urgent need to defy the taboos, recover it, cleanse it of its nasty Nazi associations, and re-examine the concept of national socialism.