Saturday, 19 November 2011

Sepp Blatter is Right about RACISM

Genuine racism is largely absent from football (on and off the pitch) and the rest of society, but evoked opportunistically (like the slur of “communist” or “socialist” from the other side of the political spectrum to indiscriminately discredit anyone with even mildly leftwing views) to suppress, possibly offensive, but otherwise perfectly normal forms of behaviour.
There are mighty, ideological/power-political reasons of STATE, why so-called “racism” is portrayed as such a heinous crime, being accused of which is the modern equivalent of witchcraft or heresy in medieval times, used by the authorities, often via the mob, to keep the population in line with STATE ideology: formally Catholicism, nowadays “multiculturalism”.
Genuine racism is about expressions of hate or contempt for other races, while so-called “football racism” has little or nothing to do with this, but with expressions of offended or confused identity caused by the madness of mass 3rd world immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and the accompanying “multiculturalism” that native Europeans are having imposed on them by their respective STATES.
The ideology involved, which has taken over the power-political role that church ideology played in medieval Europe (and which Islamic ideology plays today in Muslim states), is that of “one-human-racism” or “colour-blindness”, which not coincidentally is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, denying, trivialising, ridiculing, demonising and suppressing (as “racist”) the natural ethnic basis of national identity, which it determined to replace with a state-defined multi-ethnic, pseudo-national state identity.
Race, according to this ideology, is nothing but a “social construct”, which the state is free to “reconstruct” it as it sees fit.
It is not race which is a social construct (except when one attempts, as the Nazis did, to racially distinguish closely related peoples, such as Poles, Jews and Germans), but the STATE.
The question is, do we continue allowing the STATE to define our national identify for us, – which it does oxymoronically as “multi-ethnic” – or do we, the people, define it for ourselves, and having done that, proceed to redefine and limit the powers of the STATE?

Renegotiating the Social Contract

The following quote is taken from the blog of Norman Tebbit:
“What we are seeing is a significant failure of the state to observe its side of the social contract between the governors and the governed.”
Funny that you should mention the “social contract ”, Norman, since I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately.
When was this “social contract ” negotiated? And between whom? Personally, I don’t remember ever being consulted. Does anyone else on this blog?
In so far as there was an unwritten “social contract ”, it was based on the assumption that the STATE represented a NATION comprising the native peoples of these British isles. It certainly didn’t mention anything about it also including as many 3rd world immigrants as the STATE, under one pretext or another, chose to let in, with the consequence that within the next 50 short years Britain’s native peoples (referred to as “white British ” in the census) will have become an ethnic minority in their ancestral homeland.
I believe it high time that WE negotiated a NEW “social contract “, one which, among other things, I want to guarantee that Britain’s indigenous peoples remain the ethnic majority on these islands for the foreseeable future.
This new contract is going to take a while to draw up and agree upon, so I suggest the we start discussions and consultations about it immediately.

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

The Stephen Lawrence Show Trial

Obviously, this is not a show trial for Stephen Lawrence’s family and friends, who understandably want to see his assailants and murderer brought to justice, but it is, I maintain, a show trial for the British STATE and media (especially on the Left), who are seeking to assert their spurious moral authority and the ideology of “one-human-racism” or “colour-blindness” (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology), on which it is based, and which denies, demonises and suppresses (as “racist”) the natural ethnic basis of national identity.
The STATE wants us to believe that Stephen Lawrence was the victim of evil “white racists”, whereas in reality he was the victim some “native thugs”, whose criminal behaviour there is no excuse for, but who were clearly provoked by STATE immigration and racial policies inimical to Britain’s indigenous population, to which these “native thugs” belonged.
Successive British governments, through their immigration and racial policies, which, for economic and ideological/power-political reasons of STATE, are contemptuous of native British ethnic identity and national (as opposed to “state“) interests, are as much to blame as the thugs who committed the assault. In fact, they are more to blame, because comprising politicians much older and more experienced in life, and far more calculating in their behaviour, seeking their own power-political advantage within the STATE.

Monday, 10 October 2011

Steve Job’s Speech: Inspiration for an Elite

Like a lot of people, I was very impressed by Steve Jobs’ 2005 commencement speech to the graduates of Stanford university when I listened to it for the first time a few days ago on YouTube. However, on reflection, I realised that it was inspiration only for an elite, rather than for society as a whole, and thus key to understanding what’s fundamentally wrong with our society.
After been pushed out of his own company, Jobs says, “. . . the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. . . Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. . . like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it . . . Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. . . . have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”
These are wise words indeed, which I strongly relate to and agree with (as with much else in the speech), but context is everything, which in this case is the people he is addressing: an elite group of Stanford graduates, people who would go on to have elevated positions in society and the economy, and with whom I, without thinking, identified.
But what about the 10s of thousands of low-paid workers having to work long hours at stultifying tasks in the factories that produce Apple products? How do Steve Jobs’ wise and inspirational words apply to them . . . ?
They don’t, of course. They only apply to a privileged, well educated elite.
Like the rest of us, Steve Jobs sees (or saw) the world from his own highly subjective perspective, from where his advice to Stanford’s graduates made good and admirable sense, but he was oblivious to the injustice and inhumanity contained within it for those not fortunate enough to belong to one of society’s elites.
Just as classical Greek society was based on the injustice and inhumanity of slavery, so too is our own society based on other forms of injustice and inhumanity, which self-interest in and dependency on the status quo blind us to, just as it did the ancient Greeks.
Not that we are completely blind to the injustice and inhumanity which underlie our socio-economic order, of course, but rationalise them with the argument that ours is a FREE society, where “social mobility” allows anyone and everyone to join the elites. Added to which, it is also a compassionate society, we tell ourselves (realised through the welfare state), which takes care of those unable to join the elites.
However, taking care of people materially can hardly justify their systemic denial of satisfaction and self-realisation through work, which Jobs rightly valued so highly for himself and the elite he was.
There are many – especially amongst Telegraph readers – who believe that the system we have, notwithstanding its obvious faults, is the best that is humanly possible, but I disagree. It is far worse than we rationalise and deceive ourselves into believing, which, when you belong to a privileged elite, as most of us do, is all too easy – in fact, extremely difficult not – to do.
The SYSTEM we have is not just inherently unjust and inhumane, but also unsustainable, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, which means that it is bound to collapse, with the devastating consequences that will have, including for many members of today’s privileged elites.
There is a very simply reason why the existing socio-economic order is inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable. It’s because it is a product, not of reason and rational intentions, as we like to assume, but of man’s blind Darwinian nature, seeking to continue the primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success in the artificial environment of human civilisation, where it has been perverted and largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER – which brings us back to Steve Jobs and most other heroes of civilisation.
It is very difficult to conceive of a solution to our dilemma (our complete dependency, materially and emotionally, on a system that is inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable), but the only hope we have of arriving at one, is first to develop an understanding it.

National Loyalty is Here to Stay

Says Ed West in “The Euro Delusion“.
True! Because Homo sapiens evolved as a deeply tribal animal, with the nation having superseded our original tribes.
Only, multi-ethnic Britain is NOT a nation, but just a mercenary STATE posing as a nation. “Multi-ethnic nationhood ” is an oxymoronic absurdity which the all-powerful “liberal-fascist” state, with the complicity of capital (as in Nazi fascism), is imposing on us.
Notwithstanding all attempts to deny, trivialise, ridicule, demonise and suppress it, we are very much dominated by our tribal nature, which state and capital manipulate and exploit, the former going so far as to actually pose as our tribe or nation, because, as Ed rightly says, “sovereignty relies on the legitimacy that only nations can provide.”
Like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents long before we had any memory or experience of them, the STATE usurped the NATION we never had the opportunity to become, and brought us up, over the centuries, to believe that it is our loving parent, i.e. nation, in order to facilitate society’s self-exploitation, to the advantage of power and wealth (original restricted to the nobility and clergy, who founded the state back in the Middle Ages), but now including “talent”, of course, and, paradoxically, because of their new role as clients (voters) and objects of largesse by politicians posing as “national leaders” and buying the “moral high ground” for themselves with taxpayers money, the “disadvantaged”,
In overreaction to the horrors of Nazism, as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, western states, understandably initially, but then opportunistically for power-political and economic advantage, embraced the exact but equally extreme opposite racial ideology of “One-Human-Racism”, or “colour-blindness”, which declared race to be a “social construct”, of no social or political relevance, especially in respect to national identity, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.
It’s an ideology which gives spurious moral authority and immense political power to the “colour-blind”, or those who feign it, as anyone who wants a job in politics, the media or academia is obliged (indeed, forced) to do.
In reality, however, it’s not RACE which is a social construct (except when applied to closely related peoples such as Germans and Poles) but the STATE.
On the contrary, race and ethnic origins are of central importance to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity. Only, the STATE doesn’t want us to develop a genuine sense of national identity, but to continue identifying with its own, nasty, mercenary and deceiving self.

Monday, 26 September 2011

Power-Political Purpose to the Madness of Multiculturalism

In a multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, the “colour-blind”, or those who can feign it, are kings, by being able to claim moral superiority for themselves and thus access to power and privilege.
In the Middle Ages it was church ideology and its authoritative interpretation of the Word of God which provided the “moral high ground” for society’s ruling elites, the means by which they exerted moral authority and the power that goes with it. Now it is the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”, of “Colour-Blindness”, of “Race-Doesn’t-Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance (especially in respect to national identity), except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.
The truth, however, does not lie in the Christian gospels, no matter how interpreted, nor in the ideology of One-Human-Racism. On the contrary, race and ethnic origins are of fundamental importance for any deep and meaningful sense of both personaland group, i.e. national, identity.
It is only the mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, whose authority and power rests on its claim to nationhood, that insists on denying and demonising (as “racist”) the importance of race and ethnic origins for national identity.
America was always multi-ethnic, whereas western European states have made themselves multi-ethnic, in order for their politicians to be able to claim the spurious moral high ground of “colour-blindnesss” for themselves, and the power-political advantages that go with it.

Childhood is being eroded by modern life . .

According to an article in the Telegraph: LINK.
WHY? Because the SYSTEM (of state and capita)l treats children in accordance with how it treats the rest of us: as a developing “human resource” and consumer (or client), rather than as developing human beings.
To understand WHY, one has to view society and its development from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective. Evolution adapted human nature (emotions, motivations, gratifications and behaviour patterns) to a tribal environment which has now been replaced by the artificial, socio-economic environment of civilisation, which we are ILL adapted and thus corrupted to survive and seek perverted forms of “success” in.
But there is nothing we can do about it without first recognising this and developing an understanding of it. Trouble is that “moral authority” forbids us from taking a Darwinian view of human society, because that’s what those wicked and discredited social Darwinists did.

My Experience of the LibDems

I voted for the LibDems at the last general election because of their commitment to a far more democratic electoral system (PR), with the potential to bring real change to Britain’s sclerotic political system, but despite getting into government they failed miserably, even to get the half-baked compromise of AV onto the statute books, the British people, in their infinite wisdom (manipulated by the powers that be), deciding that they didn’t want a more democratic voting system, or the opportunity to bring real change to Britain’s corrupt political status quo.
I voted for them, despite their candidate in my constituency being a Somali refugee. I jest not! Not elected by the local party, but parachuted in by head office to make up for their lack of ethnic minority candidates. He seemed a nice enough guy, but did I want to be represented in the British parliament by a Somali?! Or anyone other than a member of my own PEOPLE . . . ? Definitely NOT. Any more than a native American wants to be represented by anyone other than a member of his own native people.
After the election, I joined the LibDems as a party member, in the expectation of thereby having the opportunity to engage with them and discuss their politics, but apart from putting me on their national mailing list, nothing happened. No one from the local party got in touch. They obviously weren’t interested in engaging with me, but just wanted my support for whatever politics they’d already decided upon.
It seems to me that the LibDems are committed to one policy more than any other: of putting an end to “white majority rule” in Britain as soon as possible (currently predicted to be around the year 2066).
WHY? I joined their party in order to discuss that very question with them, but unfortunately never got the opportunity. Thus, I can only guess at what their motivations are. What I guess is that it’s a power-politically perverted continuation of their former (quite reasonable) efforts to put an end to white minority rule in South Africa, which, in their blind pursuit of moral self-righteousness and political power, they assume is the right thing to do, creating a globalised, “post-racial” and “post-European” Britain.
I regret never having the opportunity to discuss this with them. I’ve allowed my membership to lapse, still without hearing a dicky bird from them. Which is why I’m posting some of my thoughts on the LibDems here.
Nick Clegg’s political career may be short-lived, but guarantees him personal fame and fortune for the rest of his life – not to mention a nice fat pension.

Monday, 12 September 2011

On Political Correctness

Political correctness is a means of exercising social, political (and economic) control, a degree of which is, of course, necessary; but it lends itself to massive abuse by those seeking power-political and/or economic advantage - as those in politics, business and the media always are.
In the Middle Ages, political correctness was defined by the Church, which derived massive political power and social advantage for its members from it. With the decline in Christian belief, a “moral power vacuum” arose, which has been largely filled by the, mainly secular, liberal (and not so liberal) Left.
In place of “original sin”, which only submission to the authority of the church could save us from, it is now “prejudice” (especially, racial prejudice, i.e. “racism”**), we must be saved from by our “moral superiors” in academia, politics and the media.
** Being human, we are all stuffed full of prejudices, about everything, including race, of course, which we need to control in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we need to control our sexual lusts and other aspects of “original sin”, but by demonising them as “evil” we are forced to suppress and deny them, even to ourselves, thereby providing the state (in earlier times, inseparable from the church) with an artificial and spurious source of “moral authority” as a powerful means of social control.
If you consider what a deeply tribal animal we humans are, it is obvious that racial prejudice is as natural and healthy a part of our nature as sexual lusts are, which the individual needs to be aware of, in order to exercise rational and civilised control over them, rather than allowing their demonisation and suppression by the state for the purpose of authoritarian social control.

Western Economies Staring into the Abyss

In response to an article in today’s Telegraph by Jeremy Warner, “Is the world doomed to suffer another Depression?
“. . with Western economies once more staring into the abyss . . . . there is little or no consensus about what needs to be done.”
Because the global capitalist-consumer economy – on which we all depend, and are thus loath to question – is built on sand, which business people, investors, economists and the politicians they advise are, thus far, psychologically incapable of recognising and facing up to, rationalising this behaviour by insisting that the only alternative would be “socialism” which has been tried and rejected as being far worse, notwithstanding all its faults, than consumer capitalism.
It’s fascinating and frightening to observe how such highly esteemed, intelligent and well educated people, as all the leading social science academics who advise our business and political elites surely are, can still be so blind towards and deceived about human nature, the society (social, political and economic structures) it has given rise to over the centuries and our situation within it, and when anyone (like me) tries pointing it out, we are simply dismissed as unqualified crackpots – just as those questioning the literal truth of the Christian gospels or belief in an Earth-centred universe were in earlier times . . .
The denied or trivialised truth is that our economic system is deeply rooted in man’s Darwinian nature, which is why, in many respects, it works so well – because it comes naturally to us, appealing to our inherent drives.
Only, Darwinian evolution adapted us to a tribal environment VERY different from the artificial environment which now constitutes civilisation, and behaviours and motivations which once served our survival are now leading to our self-destruction.
We deceive ourselves into believing that we are a “rational animal”, guided by reason, when in fact we are far more a “rationalising animal”, interpreting reality to suit our own, largely preconceived and socially preconditioned, narrow and short-sighted self-interests.
Until we recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation and situation, we are doomed to suffer the blind Darwinian fate of an animal no longer adapted to its environment.

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Immigration is no longer taboo

“Immigration is no longer taboo”
Writes Alasdair Palmer in today’s comment section.
The core issue, however, and the taboos surrounding it, do not primarily concern immigration, but RACE – which, of course, is inextricably bound up with immigration from non-white (poor, third world) countries.
We can now question the madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, but not the even greater madness of denying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, which the STATE, for reasons of power-political advantage, is forcing on us by declaring it “evil”, i.e. “racist”.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

Was David Starkey Being Racist?

This is the question put by Toby Young on his blog in today’s Telegraph. Here’s my response:
It is hard to exaggerate the degree of intimidation contained in this question.
In the Middle Ages the corresponding question would have been, “Does he believe in God?” Of course he would have believed in God (only the heathen didn’t, who, in our midst, were either converted, cast out, or killed), i.e. is not a racist (only evil people like the Nazis are, who we cast out of civil society).
The real question is, “Does he believe in the Church’s (the state’s) interpretation, i.e. ideology, of what it means to believe in God, i.e (not to be a racist)? If not, he’s a HERETIC, which is almost as bad as being a complete non-believer (racist), because defying the authority of the Church, i.e. the STATE; and ultimately this is all about POWER, the power of the Church or STATE over the population they claim to SERVE.
So, what is state ideology in regard to race? Basically and not coincidentally, it’s the exact, but equally extreme opposite, of the racial ideologies which underlay Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism, the contrast with which it uses to claim an absolute (but also spurious) moral high ground for itself. Anyone who challenges, or even questions, it, as with church ideology in the past, is automatically dismissed and condemned in the harshest possible terms, which nowadays is as a “bigot” or “racist”.
It is the ideology of “colour-blindness”, of “one-human-racism”, of the “global melting pot”, or whatever one chooses to call it, which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite their profound importance for any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national identity, although, of course, it is for this very reason that this ideology is so attractive to the multi-racial state, which, in order to legitimise its authority and power, must pose as a single nation (notwithstanding the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” ).
America was already multi-racial, but not European states, which chose to become multi-racial in order to demonstrate their ruling elites’ adherence to state racial ideology and thus moral superiority and right to rule (the cheap foreign labour it brought into the country also suiting business and capital interests).
Where “liberal (and not so liberal) fascism”/statism and its ideology of “colour-blindness” reigns supreme, the “colour-blind” (or those who can feign it) are kings . . !

Sunday, 7 August 2011

Capitalism can’t support Socialist Welfare State

“The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes.”
I agree very much with Janet Daley’s analysis in today’s Telegraph (LINK), but it doesn’t go deep enough.
Socialist ideals (notwithstanding their opportunistic exploitation by socialist politicians and welfare scroungers) are based ultimately on the state’s claim to representing our NATION, which as an extension of our original TRIBE, has an obligation of care towards all its members.
When Britain’s welfare state was founded in the aftermath of WW2, there was a strong sense of national identity and a huge amount of social solidarity to base it on. Apart from a few rouge individuals, my parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of exploiting it inappropriately, as in the meantime millions – in fact, the vast majority – have become accustomed to doing.
The question is, why is the welfare state now seen as something to be exploited, rather than used responsibly? It’s because the sense of national identity (except in sport and war) and of social solidarity, on which it was originally based, are long gone, although we –especially our politicians – are obliged to maintain the pretence.
Why, notwithstanding that many still cling to its symbols and as an abstraction, did we lose our sense of national identity and social solidarity?
The madness of mass immigration (into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country) and multi-ethnic society is partly to blame, but there is a much older and more fundamental reason than this, which is the example set by society’s wealthy and ruling elites, who have always considered it their God given right to
exploit the rest of society to their own advantage. What the welfare state did, was give those at the other end of the social hierarchy the opportunity to do the same, not in the same style as those at the top, but nevertheless.
We need to stop going round in circles (in fact a rapidly descending spiral) blaming each other (the Left the Right, and the Right the Left) and develop a much deeper understanding of our situation, which is essentially, believe it or not (and it’s high time that we did!), DARWINIAN.
Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution and adapted to an environment which existed long before any kind, let alone modern industrial, civilization arose. We can’t help but see “society” as an environment to be exploited to our own advantage (i.e. that of our own little tribe or family). And this, in fact, is what the STATE (and the economy) developed over the centuries to facilitate (while posing as our TRIBE or NATION), to the advantage, of course, of those in a position to shape the power structures of its institutions. Initially, these were just members of the aristocracy and clergy, but over the centuries others (bankers, merchants, industrialists, and numerous professions) got in on the act (of exploitation), creating favourable niches for themselves. Until, with advent of universal suffrage, even the poor and disadvantage were able to exert influence as the clients of politicians in need of their votes.

Monday, 1 August 2011

Anders Breivik's (In)sanity?

My response to an article, Anders Behring Breivik is not insane, in today’s Telegraph:
No one in their right mind could have any sympathy for what Breivik did (killing so many innocent people), which was psychopathic, but many of us have a lot of sympathy for what motivated him, which, if I’ve understood him correctly, is the betrayal of western Europe’s indigenous peoples by their own governments, by allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated subcontinent, and destroying the long-standing and natural ethnic basis of our national identities.
All these people won’t have died in vain if, instead of scapegoating it onto a madman, we face up to this self-betrayal and develop and understanding of it, before it leads to far greater damage and death tolls.

Sunday, 3 July 2011

An Ideal (socialist) Society

In an ideal socialist society we would treat each other like “royalty” (L. Rex = king, which has the same root as “kin“).
There is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with “socialist” ideas or ideals, which are a necessary and healthy response to (consumer) capitalism which treats people not as “kin” or even as human beings, but primarily as a “human resource” and market.
The problems arise – which have given socialism such a bad name – when the STATE, i.e. politicians, attempt to implement socialist ideas in a population they see as “clients” (a “market“, to be served for personal advantage and profit) rather than as kin (to be served forkinsake). It’s a view greatly facilitated by the creation of a multi-ethnic society . . .
On right-wing websites the words “socialist” and “socialism” are mainly used as terms of abuse, dismissal or belittlement, much as the words “capitalist” and “capitalism” are on left-wing sites.
Having evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, as a tribal animal, our brains are obviously hard-wired to see things in terms of “them and us” (my tribe and other tribes!). We often speak of “tribal behaviour” in respect to politics, but again, only to disparage it; never, that I’ve noticed, in a serious, non-judgemental, attempt to understand it.
You’d think that academics – evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists – would attempt to understand human society in the light of man’s deeply tribal nature, but they don’t, prevented, it seems, by the same taboos which cause politicians and the rest of us to trivialise or demonise it (especially as “racism“).

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

China building a better future for all

According to a speech given by Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, published in part in today’s Telegraph, “China is building a better future for all“.

In how many party political manifestos of our own have we heard words like these . . ??

According to Wen Jiabao:
To build socialism with distinctive Chinese features has been the solemn choice made by the country’s 1.3 billion people.” 
Reminds me of the “solemn choice made by Britain’s c. 50 million people” in the early 1950’s to invite mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and become a multi-ethnic society, which within a few generations will reduce indigenous Britons to an ethnic minority in their own country, thereby realising the statist Left’s goal (now fully embraced also by the Tory Right) of eliminating its own race and ethnic identity.
Frustrated in its attempts to achieve its noble goal of a “classless society”, the Left shifted its claim to “moral superiority” (and the power-political advantages that go with it) to the alternative ideological goal of a “race-less” or (looking to America) a “post-racial” society, a society in which everyone (except evil “racists”, who have to be suppressed) is “colour-blind”, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference and identity, a melting pot, where people of all ethnicities mix and intermarry, so that over time racial differences and ethnic identities dissolve and disappear.
It seems to me that we have gone from one nasty ideological extreme to another, from Nazi fascism’s ideology of a “pure-race Germanic master race”, to that of the liberal-fascist/statist Left’s ideology of a “mixed-race master race” – What else can the melting pot of multi-ethnic society result in . . ??
Multi-ethnic society is destroying (in the melting pot) the very diversity its advocates claim to love.
And anyone who speaks out against this madness is dismissed and condemned a “racist”.
So, what purpose does this madness serve? It serves the power-political control and manipulation of society by those claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves, just as in medieval society the religious ideology of “original sin” gave immense power to the church, submission to whose authority was all that could save the individual from damnation. In the Middle Ages it was damnation because of “original sin”, now its damnation because of the natural inclination of white people to identify with their own race, i.e. “racism”.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

America’s Lefty Military

It’s amazing to what extent socialist principles expounded by the Left are actually realised in the American military, as revealed in this OP-ED article from the New York Times, Our Lefty Military, providing food for some very deep thought, I think, at least, for those capable of deep thought, which of course isn’t everyone.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

Why the Left Betrayed Us

It will surprise many to learn that it was in response to our betrayal by the Right.
The rich and powerful have always exploited the rest of society, which they created the STATE to facilitate and legitimise, by deceitfully and self-deceivingly equating it with our NATION.
They, and those who identified with them for the rewards to be had, were the original Right. While the original Left were those who pressed them to show more humanity towards the people they exploited.
As the “nation state” took more definite form, there were calls for the rich and powerful to treat their compatriots as members of the same nation, to share with them, instead of exploiting them as a human resource.
This was the original idea behind “socialism”: that members of the same nation should share with each other, rather than exploit each other. Only the rich and powerful weren’t interested. All they wanted to do was preserve their power, wealth and privileges, and go on exploiting their fellow countrymen.
Many on the Left were well-intentioned in wanting to create a more equal society, but some (now the majority) misused the moral high ground they claimed for their own personal advantage, serving the STATE for the rewards to be had, rather than their PEOPLE, thus making them no better than the rich and powerful (and more despised because of their hypocrisy).
Others on the Left, reacted to the indifference of the Right to national identity and solidarity (except when they needed loyal soldiers to fight their wars), with a form of collective self-harming, promoting the destruction of their own nation through mass immigration of unrelated peoples and the creation of a multi-ethnic, as opposed to national society.
Thus, we are being betrayed by the Left and the Right, because both fail to recognise and show solidarity with their NATION. But since most people make the mistake of identifying with the STATE as their NATION, and politically with either the Left or the Right, it is a form of national self-denial and self-betrayal.
Only united can we stand and survive, as a PEOPLE and a NATION, but we are utterly divided (not even knowing who our people or nation are) and in free fall. It’s just that on a historical scale, things take time, and blinded by our own individual, narrow and short-sighted self-interests, we don’t even notice it.
It seems it will be left to those who replace us (another, hopefully, better breed of Briton) to recognise and study our fall and demise, and hopefully learn from our mistakes.

Sunday, 15 May 2011

The State That's Betraying Us

The State, which poses as our nation, is betraying us – in 1001 ways, but primarily by giving citizenship to millions of 3rd world immigrants and allowing them to settle in our already natively and unsustainably overpopulated country and subcontinent, and whose high birth rate means that within 50 years or so, they and their descendent will replace us, the indigenous population, as Britain’s ethnic majority. Britain’s ethnic identity will change from being European (with all the history that goes with it) to being “global”, post-racial and post-European, this being the unspoken ideological goal of liberal-fascism.
If that is not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
How is the STATE able to get away with betraying us like this?
Firstly, by having all who oppose it, or the ideology of “colourblindness” it is based on, condemned and dismissed as “racists”.
Not coincidentally, it is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (also to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), only to be consolidated is this extreme form for the sake of economic and power-political advantage, gained from claiming an absolute but spurious “moral high ground” for it.
Secondly, by deceiving us into believing that it represents our NATION, and thus into identifying with it, thereby making it a form of “self-betrayal”, which, of course, is particularly difficult to recognise and face up to.

Friday, 13 May 2011

Scottish Nationalists or Statists?

The following quote is from an article, “The United Kingdom: Disunited, we will all fall“, in today’s Telegraph:
“Scotland, . . perhaps the most mono-cultural country in Europe . . , whose population has only recently shown a slight increase after years of stagnation, wants more incomers.”
Such MADNESS suggests to me that Scotland’s so-called “nationalist” politicians are not nationalists at all, but statists, i.e. typical power-hungry politicians, merely posing as nationalists.

Genuine (rational) nationalists identify with their own PEOPLE and NATION, which are naturally rooted in shared ethnicity, culture and history (and thus a shared sense of identity and solidarity), and would thus not want immigrants (certainly not many) of quite different ethnicity, culture and history undermining their national identity, as has happened (is happening) in England.
Statists, on the other hand, identify with POWER, which they pursue even at their own people’s and nation’s expense (and ultimate destruction). They don’t care about the “colour of people’s skin”, i.e. ethnic origins, but about “the colour of MONEY” and POWER, which now necessitates embracing core liberal-fascist/statist ideology of “colourblindness”, as a spurious “moral high ground”, which denies and demonises as “racist” the natural ethnic basis of national identity.

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Who or What Governs Britain?

In Tuesday’s Telegraph, Daniel Hannan asks “Who governs Britain?“, but the question should really be, WHAT governs Britain?
Modern brain science has shown that decisions are made prior to the individual becoming aware of them. We then rationalise these decisions and our behaviour in order to delude ourselves into a false sense conscious and rational control.
When it comes to our collective behaviour and decisions of the state and corporations (capital), the situation is no different – as history and our current situation bear witness to, although we rationalise them too, of course, either not recognising just how bad things are, or blaming the undeniably bad on others.
Far from being cynical and fatalistic about it, developing an understanding this, I believe, offers a means of raising our awareness and directing our behaviour along more rational, humane and enlightened lines. Currently, our collective behaviour is light years away from being any of these things, although we rationalise and deceive ourselves into believing that this is not the case.
So WHAT is it that rules us?
It is our our primordial Darwinian nature (what else?), which drives the struggle for survival and reproductive success, only now misplaced, perverted and, of course, rationalised (reduced largely to the pursuit and exercise of POWER: social, professional, political economic/financial etc.) in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, where the STATE conflates and confounds our original intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments, which we evolved to response to very differently, posing as our tribe (or nation) on the one hand, representing the intra-tribal environment, while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment.

Sunday, 8 May 2011

The British Sheeple say NO!

NO to AV (and PR)
NO to more democracy.
NO to more representative government.
NO to changing the status quo that got us into the mess we are in.
Well done! Your political masters are pleased with you.

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

African Archbishop of York Urges English to be More Patriotic!

and to celebrate St George’s Day.
“I have long campaigned for us to have a special holiday where we can celebrate our patron saint and all that is great about our wonderful nation.”
he is quoted as saying (Link to article).
I’m amused and very cynical about the archbishop, an African by birth and descent, presuming to identify with me, my fellow “Englishmen” (all ethnic Europeans by descent) and our “wonderful nation”.
My gut response is as if he (or anyone else I’m not comfortable with) wanted to embrace me physically: Back off! I say, and put my hands up to keep him at a distance. Which he’d better do. Otherwise – if he persists in trying to embrace me – I’m likely to hit him. Then he’ll get the message: I don’t want to be embraced, not by you – thank you very much.
Only, in this political context, if I did hit out at him, or in anyway resist his advances to embrace me, I’d be branded a “racist”.
“Patriotism is only wrong if you are not doing it in the name of the Crown . . .”
archbishop John Sentamu is further quoted as saying, which throws some light on his (I’m sure subliminal) motivations.
In the name of the Crown”, i.e. the STATE, he is exercising his legal right as a British citizen to embrace all other British citizens as members of his own PEOPLE and NATION.
Why would he want to do that when it is obvious that we do not belong to the same PEOPLE or NATION . . ? Because identifying with the British STATE, just as identifying with the Anglican church, gives him massive personal, social and economic advantages, way and above anything he could hope to enjoy in his native Africa.
I did say that I was cynical about the archbishop’s motivations, and with good reason, I think.
Although it wasn’t my intention, this post follows on nicely from by previous post about the Darwinian nature of the Catholic church.

The Catholic Church – A Darwinian Perspective

My response to an article in today’s Telegraph on the beatification of Pope John Paul II:
“[the] sexual abuse of children by priests . . [which] he swept . . under the carpet, [was] hardly the conduct of a saint.”
Of course not. It was the conduct of someone more interested in the authority and POWER of the church he headed and so strongly and self-interestedly  identified with.
“This was the miracle that Vatican rules require for the beatification to take place at all (a second is now needed for canonisation).”
This, I think, illustrates the gullibility on which the POWER of the Catholic church depends.
“. . he did not win over the dissenters in his flock, but that didn’t stop him commanding attention and respect.”
Flock” is an appropriate way of describing the “sheeple” whose belief in and identification with the Catholic church give it so much POWER. Although, if it works to your material advantage (as in the case of Catholic clergy and academics), you are more a shepherd than a sheep, with a vested interest in being gullible.
“ . . the enduring place in our national life of tradition and authority, [which for Catholics] the papacy continues to [serve].”
This, I suggest, reflects man’s deep and inherent tribal nature, which civilisation teaches us to suppress, deny, ridicule, trivialise or demonise (e.g. as “racist”), while at the same time manipulating and exploiting it subliminally for its own (perverted Darwinian) purposes.
Our original tribe having been usurped by the state and a money economy (civilisation), has left us with a profound emotional need for a substitute, be it the STATE itself (posing as our NATION), our religion, company, political party or ideology, football team, or whatever, all of which manipulate and exploit, but rarely truly satisfy, our need for tribal identity and loyalty.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

The Problem is Our Low Birth Rate?

My response to the claim, made in a comment on my Telegraph blog (The Union Flag) that “the white man’s problem is his low birthrate.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Our low birth rate is a BLESSING. It is a tragedy that we fail to recognise that. What we need is quality, not quantity.
Our planet is already unsustainably overpopulated, certainly given the kind of lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations most people are currently pursuing or aspiring to. But never mind exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity, as we are currently doing; as a species, we need to live WELL within its limits, leaving ourselves plenty of room for manoeuvre when environmental conditions change, as they surely will.
We urgently need to stabilise and start reducing the global population – something our own, white race, is already doing. Instead of worrying about our decreasing numbers and bringing in immigrants to make up for them (which is utter madness!), we should be rejoicing at the fact, and adapting ourselves, i.e. society, to the changing demographics.
What’s happening at the moment is that Europeans are being displaced and replaced by migrating and faster breeding non-European races, which is very Darwinian, of course: survival of the fittest and all that. From a primitive Darwinian perspective, Europeans seem to be flawed, thus accounting for our absolute and relative decline in numbers, to the advantage of less flawed (dare I say, “superior”) races.
However, what from a primitive Darwinian perspective seems to be a flaw, isn’t, if we want to avoid a primitive and brutal Darwinian struggle for resources and survival with our fellow humans, which a ruthless Mother Nature would, as a matter of course, subject other, less intelligent, species to; this being the way that evolution works!
We have the knowledge and intelligence to transcend our primitive Darwinian nature and avoid this brutal struggle within our own species, but at the moment it doesn’t look as though we are going to use them, because of our blindness to the way in which our Darwinian drive for survival and reproductive success, misplaced in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, has been perverted to a struggle for individual advantage, POWER and riches.