Parliament Has Betrayed Us


This was my response to a comment by tokyonagaremono in the thread below an article in the Telegraph by Norman Tebbit:  A return to capital punishment? Tokyonagareono's post became the most recommended comment and my response to it had more than 100 recommendations before being removed ("flagged for review") by the moderation. Here it is:

Parliament itself has betrayed us, Britain's native peoples, to the madness of mass third world immigration and the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism, but we can't shoot or hang them all, at least, not so long as they continue to control the armed forces. It will be them shooting us!


Because of this betrayal, we are in fact moving towards civil war, as is all western Europe, since I don't think that Europe's native peoples ultimately will allow themselves to become an ethnic minority on their own continent without a fight.


But if we recognise and face up to the betrayal which has taken place, instead of celebrating it, as Parliament currently expects us to do, I'm hopeful that there is still time to resolve the issue peacefully.

What we are dealing with here - the reason it is taking so long to recognise and face up to - is SELF-BETRAYAL. It is the SYSTEM, the STATE, and its IDEOLOGY of post-racial multiculturalism which is betraying us. Anyone wanting to make a career for themselves in politics or the media has no choice but to go along with them.


China, Japan and the world’s Agadir Crisis (1911)

This attempt at satire was obviously not appreciated by the moderation at the Telegraph, which removed it from the thread below the article it was in response to: China, Japan and the world’s Agadir Crisis (1911).

If you will excuse my attempt at satire, would it not be in OUR interests to have East Asia tear itself apart as Europe did in the 20th Century, and then to impose OUR ideology of post-racial multiculturalism on them, as America did on us, with the eager participation of our liberal-lefty elite . . .?

Are we not all sick of seeing all these hideously Chinese and Japanese-looking Chinese and Japanese when they turn up for sporting events like the Olympic games . . ??

How wonderful it would be to see a Chinese or Japanese Mo Farah winning Gold for them at a future Olympics instead of some inbred East Asian, who couldn’t possibly win Gold in a running event anyway . . . .

Civilisation: An evolutionary cul-de-sac?

On the perverted Darwinian nature of the state

I put this as a rhetorical question in order to offer an affirmative answer. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure that I am, the implications could hardly be more profound or our recognition of them more urgent.

(This is the text of my 4th video blog, Part 1  and Part 2 on YouTube).

It is not an easy thing to recognise, given that it involves the environment in which we have been totally immersed since birth, are completely familiar with and dependent on, and the fact that our brains evolved to try and maintain the environment it depends on, especially when it has been particularly “successful” in it, as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been. Understandably, the more successful someone is, the less inclined they are to question the political and socio-economic environment that facilitated it. Thus the difficulty in recognising the inherent flaws and non-sustainability of the artificial environment we call civilisation and the evolutionary cul-de-sac it represents.

Britain's Multi-Ethnic Olympic Team

Jim White praises the multi-ethnic composition of Britain’s Olympic team in today’s Telegraph (LINK), and this is my response:

What this article reflects is state ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology) which denies, demonises and suppresses as “racist ” the natural ethnic basis of national identity, which the liberal (and not so liberal) Left has succeeded in in imposing on all western democracies since the end of WW2., The NATION has been removed from what was supposed to be our “nation state “, leaving us with just a mercenary STATE, for which it is the “colour of money, rather than the “colour of someone’s skin ” (i.e. ethnicity) that counts. Just look at the role that money plays in sports (including the olympics) nowadays . . !

I no longer see Britain as my NATION, because it isn’t one, and thus won’t be cheering on its athletes. If I cheer at all, it will be for competitors of my own race and ethnic origins.

And NO, that doesn’t make me a “racist “, as state ideology would have us believe, but someone with a healthy sense of his own ethnic and national identity, who refuses to be intimidated by the all-powerful, but mercenary (to the point of treacherous) STATE.

Why do members, even of the conservative press, like Jim White here, go along with this madness and self-betrayal of one’s own nation? Because they’d lose their jobs (or not get them in the first place) if they didn’t, just as EnochPowell did.

Many are scared of facing up to the truth of what has happened, not because of personal cowardice, but for fear of the social and political consequences. I am more fearful of the consequences of us not facing up to it – or leaving it too late. Sooner or later it is going to be forced on us anyway. The truth is like that.
.

The Paradox of Race Does/Doesn’t Matter

and its exploitation in the struggle for moral authority and power-political advantage.

This is the text to my 3rd Video blog published on YouTube.

Whether or not race and ethnicity matter depends very much on social context. The paradox arises from the state conflating and confounding three very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature (emotions, motivations, behaviour patterns etc.) evolved, long before the advent of civilisation. The modern state deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation (representing our intra- and inter-tribal environment, or social context), while at the same time facilitating society’s self-exploitation (even to the extent of its own self-betrayal) as an extra-tribal environment (but more about this in a subsequent blog on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation).

At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic origins matter little, because we are naturally inclined (genetically and by social conditioning) to ignore or play down any differences (not just racial and ethnic) with the potential to cause offence, disharmony or conflict.

Normally we want or are required to get on with others and to avoid potential sources of conflict. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any differences (whether relating to race, ethnic origins, opinions, political ideology, religion, or whatever), which, if you like them, disappear into the background, as we avoid (largely subconsciously) allowing them to become a problem.

Although, with close friends and family we may allow or even provoke such conflicts, perhaps for the sake of wanting to be honest, on the assumption (sometimes mistaken) that the relationship is protected by deep mutual affection.

Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I know from experience with my own race that there are some with very nice characters, and some very nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And it’s the same, I assume, with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them (something I know from VERY personal experience), which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.

Thus, I agree with Martin Luther King, when he famously said that an individual should be judged, not by the colour of their skin (i.e. by race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character. But how many people can we get to know well enough to judge their character? Not many. The vast majority will always be strangers to us. And one of the very first things we notice about a stranger is their race or ethnicity.

This is because, from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, race and ethnicity provide an immediate indication of whether a stranger belongs to one’s own (or a closely related) TRIBE, with which, under the conditions in which human nature evolved, one would have had a known relationship, or whether they belong to an unknown and unrelated tribe, to which one’s relationship is unknown and potentially (originally, almost certainly) hostile (with the stranger having no business being in or near one’s own territory!).

Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (i.e. race or ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, once you’ve got to know someone, does not come naturally when dealing with strangers – especially large numbers of strangers; on the contrary, in such circumstances race and ethnicity are natural criteria for judging, not individual character, but whether someone belongs to one’s own tribe or nation (originally understood to be an association of closely related tribes; something very different from the modern multi-ethnic pseudo-nation state).

The word “ethnic” is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, which makes the very notion of “multi-ethnic nationhood” an oxymoronic absurdity. This, however, is currently being imposed on us (or, depending how you look at it, we are imposing on ourselves) for ideological and power-political reasons of STATE

Race and ethnic origins form the natural basis of any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, especially national, identity, which the mercenary multi-ethnic state seeks to deny us, by demonising and suppressing it as “racist”.

It is high time that we challenged the state on this issue, facing down its predictable, power-political, but nonsensical accusations of “racism”: but peacefully and with respect for the law and for others, especially when they are of different race or ethnicity to ourselves.

Also see by blog on The Method to the Madness of Post-Racial Multicultural Society and Ideology.

Brendan O’Neill, Gay Marriage & Multiculturalism

I’m not usually a great fan Brendan O’Neill’s Telegraph blog, disagreeing profoundly with most of what he says there, but inyesterday’s blog he offers a very perspicacious explanation for Britain’s political and media elite’s embrace of gay marriage, despite the lack of popular support. Here’s a quote from it, although I recommend reading the whole piece:

“[Supporting gay marriage] is so very useful as a litmus test of liberal, cosmopolitan values, having become a kind of shorthand way of indicating one’s superiority over the hordes . . . . its transformation into a clear-cut moral matter that separates the good from the bad, shows what its backers really get out of it – a moral buzz, a rush of superiority as they declare, to anyone who will listen, that they are For Gay Marriage.”

It’s not just a “moral buzz” they get out of it, but also a means of asserting moral authority as a source of power-political advantage.

And the very same explanation also goes some way in explaining our political and media elite’s much longer standing support of another, far more important and damaging, “moral cause”: that of transforming Britain, via the madness of mass 3^rdworld immigration, into a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and melting pot.

One need only replace the cause of “gay marriage” with that of “multiracialism and multiculturalism”, which assumes, as a moral imperative, that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists ” like the Nazis, when in fact they are of profound importance to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

I don’t know if gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage, as many fear, but I do know that mass 3^rd world immigration and the multi-racial and multicultural society it has given rise to have undermined the institution of the “nation state”, by destroying the natural ethnic basis of the nation on which it was based.

The implications of this are so profound and unsettling (bit of an understatement, I know) that one can understand the resistance (conscious and subconscious), especially on the part of our political and media elites, to facing up to it. But that is what we have to do – and the sooner the better.

In Defence of Anders Breivik

This is the text of my 2^nd video blog which can be viewed on YouTube.

It is NOT a defence of what Breivik DID, which is indefensible, but of what I think motivated him, which was his sense of betrayal by his own and other European governments, of their native peoples to the madness of mass 3^rd world immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and to the ideology of the “melting pot” of a multi-racial and multicultural society - or “multiculturalism”, as calls it - which suppresses, as “racist”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity and is destroying (as presumably intended to do) native Europeans' distinctive racial, cultural, historical and even prehistorical identity as a community of closely related peoples.

I don't share or understand Breivik's political views or ideology (the threat he sees in “cultural Marxism” and Islam, which is his - I believe, misconceived - way of accounting for this betrayal), and I abhor his use of extreme violence - or any violence, for that matter - against the innocent; but I do share his sense of betrayal, having seen my own country, Britain, transformed beyond recognition in my own lifetime by mass 3^rd world immigration and state ideology of multi-racialism and multiculturalism. In many parts of our cities, native (white) Britons are already a minority, and it is predicted (by Professor of Demography at Oxford University, David Coleman) that indigenous Britons will become an ethnic minority in the country as a whole within just 2 more generations (by about 2066). It is a tragedy that Breivik felt compelled by this betrayal to commit such a horrendous act of violence. I will leave it to future generations, with the benefit of hindsight, to judge him. Certainly European governments' deafness to or dismissal as “racist” of their indigenous people's concerns about mass 3^rd world immigration, multi-racialism and multiculturalism, must bear much of the blame for driving him to such an extreme and terrible act.

But I'm not interested in allocating blame, so much as exposing the reality of this betrayal (awareness and acknowledgement of which has been suppressed for too long) and in understanding it, before it provokes yet more violence and leads ultimately to civil war, as native Europeans increasingly recognise what is happening and rise up in defence of their continent and ancestral homelands. The sooner we face up to it the better our prospects of negotiating rational and civilised solutions and avoiding further and much greater violence.

How can democratically elected governments possibly “betray” their own peoples, one asks, because it hardly seems credible? That would be an act of “self-betrayal” - which is what, in fact, it is, and makes it so difficult to recognise.

The answer of those in positions of authority, of course, who are largely responsible for this (self)-betrayal, is that there has been no betrayal, and that those who think otherwise, like myself, are just nasty xenophobes and racists (or evil madmen, like Breivik), which doesn't leave a lot of room (in fact, no room at all) for rational argument or civilised debate. Just as in medieval times, anyone objecting to church, i.e. state, ideology was simply dismissed as a “heretic”. Now, we are dismissed as “bigots” and “racists” (or madmen). And it is this dismissal and condemnation of our concerns, more than anything else, I suggest, that drove Breivik to his desperate and terrible deed, as the only way he could see of drawing public attention (otherwise dominated by state ideology and indoctrination) to his cause.

It is a form of collective self-betrayal and thus very difficult to recognise and face up to (especially by those most involved in it, many of whom see it as a moral virtue or imperative). It is perpetrated by those in positions of trust and authority, with the complicity of society at large which has been intimidated and brainwashed into believing the ideology behind it. There are some similarities to the betrayal recently exposed in the Catholic church, some of whose priests were able to get away for decades with sexually abusing children in their charge, because protected by the church itself. Nobody – least of all Catholics – wanted to believe that it could be true (thus the long delay - criminally extended by the church itself - in facing up to it), but it was true. Their children had been betrayed and abused by the institution in which they had placed complete trust. In a similar fashion, only on a far grander scale, the STATE has betrayed us, its native peoples, we who put our trust in it, believing it to represent our NATION with our best interests at heart. Facing up to this betrayal is difficult and painful, just as it was for Catholics to face up to their betrayal by the church they believed in and identified with. And, of course, many Catholics still refuse to face up to it, putting all the blame, as the church would have them do, on the “rogue” pedophile priests. Now it is the STATE and its defenders would have us put ALL the blame for what he did on Anders Breivik himself, while they and their ideology remain blameless.

Britain and western Europe are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated, so the last thing we needed was mass immigration from other continents. Yet that is what we have had imposed on us, in part for economic reasons (the demand for cheap foreign labour), but more importantly, I think, for ideological and power-political reasons of state.

In overreaction to the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust (as well as to the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), western democracies embraced an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It's an ideology which denies, demonises and suppresses, as “racist ”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity, in which race and ethnic origins are considered to be of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite the obvious importance (at least, to the ideologically unblinkered) of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

As an initial response to the horrors of Nazism, it was understandable, but instead of being allowed to moderate and accommodate itself to the reality of race, along with its social and political importance, it was consolidated in its extreme form by those seeking to exploit it as a source of spurious moral authority and power political advantage. The noble causes of anti-fascism and anti-racism were hijacked (like other noble causes before them; something I will come back to in a subsequent blog) and transformed into what now amounts to “anti-white reverse racism”, by means of which whites (that is, ethnic Europeans) force other whites to deny and despise their own ethnic identity as Europeans, in favour of an “inclusive”, globalised, post-racial (effectively, post-European) STATE identity. It is not an inter-racial issue (as the STATE, which wants to dismiss those who raise it as “racists ”, would have us believe), but an issue of white vs white power politics, and can be summed up in the following adaptation of a well-know proverb:

In the lands of ideological colour-blindness (as all western democracies now are) the “colour-blind” (or those who feign it) are KINGS.

This, I suggest, is the underlying cause of our collective and on-going self-betrayal. Everyone who wants to pursue a career in politics, the media, academia, etc., has no choice but to embrace state racial ideology, just as in medieval times everyone, whatever their station in society, had to embrace church ideology.

I believe my own analysis and understanding of this betrayal, although in need of further development, to be far more realistic than Breivik's, in contrast to whom, I also believe that a peaceful (non-violent), friendly, non-accusatory approach will be more fruitful than his approach, which, apart from all the suffering it causes, only alienates people and hardens divisions between the two sides, i.e. between NATIONALISTS, like myself (who identify with their race) and STATISTS (who don't, or don't dare, but with the state), or, as the latter would have us see it, between “racists” and “anti-racists”.

But now, I think I've said enough for one blog, which I hope will stimulate thought and civilised debate.

Eugenics disguised as Anti-Racism

In an article in last Friday's Guardian (LINK), Jonathan Freedland writes about EUGENICS as the “skeleton in the Left's closet,” pointing out how many prominent and still revered members of the Left were, before the Nazis gave it a bad name, very enthusiastic about it and its application to society.

There are two points I want to make. One in defence of EUGENICS, as a responsibility that human populations (societies) must sooner or later face up if they don't want to degenerate over time, as they most certainly will without natural selection (which one might equally well call “natural eugenics”) to do the job for us. It is a difficult, dilemmacal, call, which was rushed into and made a mess of, before the Nazis spoiled things entirely, but not one that society can carry on ignoring (or demonising and suppressing) indefinitely – at least, not without dire consequences.

The other point I want to make is that the Left has in fact succeeded in getting the state to adopt an ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology) and policies (especially in respect to immigration) which follow from it, which effectively amounts to a program of EUGENICS: when you bring children of different race together in the same school, many will inevitably go on to intermarry and create a different race. From two or more different races a single mixed race will emerge.

Thus far, this has not been recognised as a form of EUGENICS, but it is high time it was.

The present day Left (including so-called “progressives”, liberals and Jonathan Freedland himself, I imagine), will vigorously deny that mixed-race schools are a form eugenics, but I don't really see how they can be seen as anything else. We should at least be having a debate about it, which currently we are not. It's a taboo issue. Not having mix-race schools is seen (by the Left) as a form of Apartheid and thus “racist”.

Thus the Left have succeeded in implementing their program of EUGENICS, designed to create another, presumably better (non-white), breed of Briton (European and American) by disguising it in the garb (and ideology) of anti-Apartheid and ANTI-RACISM.

What are the Left's motivations for this clandestine program of EUGENICS?

I have no direct evidence of what they are, but it is pretty safe to say, I think, that they are mixed and largely subconscious. When they refute my suggestion of eugenics, most, I am sure, are being quite sincere. Ideologically, eugenics is as abhorrent to them as Apartheid and racism, which thus blinds them to the reality of the eugenics being implicit in their racial (extreme anti-Nazi) ideology of “colour-blindness” and “One-Human-Racism”.

Their underlying motivation, I suggest, is the desire to be morally upright (nothing wrong with that), which, however, all too easily becomes a desire to be “morally superior”, especially when there are huge rewards to be had in terms of social status and political power, which is why, of course, the state itself has embraced the same ideology, just as it did Church ideology in medieval times.

There are 3 principal forms of state POWER: moral authority, money and military might, all of which are necessary, but also subject to much abuse. The more aware we are of such abuse and the better we understand it (necessarily from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective), the better we will be able to limit, if not eliminate it entirely.

Trevor Phillips: a New (post-racial) Briton

There's nothing like being lectured to by an African - I beg your pardon, a New (post-racial) Briton - on how we should and shouldn't behave in our own country, which is what the head of the Equalities Commission is reported to have done in an article in today's Telegraph,

I guess we are getting a taste of our own medicine from the days of Empire when white men went around the world telling the natives there how they should and shouldn't behave.

The question is, WHO is enforcing the administration of this medicine and WHY . . ?

Immigrants, like Trevor Phillips, don't have the power to enforce it themselves, but are being backed up by very powerful forces within the state.

We urgently need to develop an understanding of what exactly is going

Family: the Last, Wretched Vestige of our Original Tribe

According to an opinion piece in yesterday's Telegraph, "The Tories have broken their marriage vow",

"Marriage is one of the most important of all social institutions."

This is because, along with the nuclear family it is associated with, it is the last, crippled, vestige of the original tribe and community in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, but which, between them, state and a money, wholly for-profit  economy have over the centuries (especially during the last) made redundant.

The state, which usurped our original tribes and now poses as our nation, which we mistakenly assume exists to serve us, was in fact created and has developed over the centuries to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage, originally of just the rich and powerful, but nowadays of a very numerous and diverse elite, and, paradoxically, because of their role in modern democracy as clients and

Multiculturalism's Toxic Legacy

This post is in response to the following article in yesterday's Telegraph, Multiculturalism has left Britain with a toxic legacy:

"Labour ministers . . . thought the only issue would be racism from the local population."

Which they could then exploit to massive power-political advantage by claiming "colour-blindness" and the authority of the moral high ground for themselves, with Conservative politicians, if they didn't want to be branded "racist " themselves, having no choice but to follow suit.

It is exactly the same power-political strategy used by the medieval church to claim moral authority for itself, which it was able to use to exert control not just over the peasantry, but over the aristocracy as well.

Back then it was belief in church ideology that was demanded, now it is belief in the ideology of "colour-blindness" or "One-Human-Racism", which, not coincidentally, is the exact but equally extreme opposite