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”.

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 . . !

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.

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.