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.