Why the State is Colourblind

And demands that its citizens are too.

By “colourblind” I mean indifferent to race and ethnic difference.

The reason is as simple as it is profound: the STATE is not the NATION it would have us believe it is. If it were, it would not be blind to ethnic difference, which is central to national identity, “ethnic” being derived from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.

Yet the British and American states both insist that they are NATIONS. The American president in particular is always addressing, referring and appealing to the “American People” and NATION. Yet no American citizen seems to take issue with this, either because they really believe themselves to be a NATION, or because they are deceived by state propaganda into believing it, or, if they don’t believe it, are too scared to openly challenge it?

British politicians don’t make as much of Britain being a NATION as American politicians do of America, but the assumption is still manifestly there, and reference often enough made to it, especially when addressing or referring to the armed forces.

How have two of the world’s greatest democracies succeeded in imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of multi-racial/ethnic NATIONHOOD on their supposedly “free” citizens?

The answer is POWER. The STATE is extremely powerful, which in a democracy, at least, has to be legitimized. This legitimacy lies in its claim to NATIONHOOD.

Only, it’s a LIE. And if we – in Britain, American and other western democracies – want to create just, humane and sustainable societies, with prospects of surviving long into the future, it is a lie we urgently need to recognise and face up to – in a calm, rational, humane and civilised fashion.

Statists will defend the LIE, assuming they acknowledge it, by insisting that questioning it, and with it the state’s legitimacy, would necessarily lead to chaos and violence. Thus, the importance of true nationalists (as opposed to statists posing as nationalists) proceeding peacefully and respectfully towards others and the law. This is not a struggle between NATIONS, but between STATES (posing as nations) and true NATIONS.

STRUGGLE . . ? When at the moment all we have is many mighty STATES (posing as nations) and no true nations at all . . ?!

It is up to us, the people, to organise ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into true NATIONS – instead of continuing to allow ourselves to be organised (manipulated and exploited) by the STATE and CAPITAL (not least through advertising), instead of working ourselves to death all day – for what? – and watching so much television.

What do I hope to achieve with this and other posts? My intention is to prime the peaceful and grass-roots-democratic REVOLUTION that will, hopefully, save our civilisation – and race! – from self-destruction.

America's Gun Laws

Until recently I’d never been able to make sense of America’s gun laws, which allow so many people to own a gun and results in a huge toll of death and injury. How, I wondered, could a rational and civilised society possibly justify such laws? The answer, I eventually decided, was that America was neither a rational nor a civilised society.

However, in the light of the Darwinian view I now take of all human societies (their power structures) being shaped by human nature, itself being a product of Darwinian evolution, I have now revised my opinion.

It’s not that America’s gun laws are irrational or uncivilised, but that America is not a genuine society (i.e. a nation, which would be a natural extension of one’s original tribe), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT – or “jungle”, as it is sometimes called – where, despite the pretence of being a PEOPLE and a NATION (i.e. a genuine society), the individual (family) is still engaged in the primordial struggle for survival, advantage and “success”.

Within your tribe (a genuine society) you don’t need a weapon, because you are all brothers and sisters (i.e. closely related), cooperating (all for one and one for all) in the primordial struggle for survival and “success” in the wider natural environment, which originally included other, rival, tribes. It was only when individuals left the security of their tribe that they took their weapons with them.

America’s gun laws reflect the fact that it is not a genuine society or nation, but a “jungle”, where everyone needs to be on their guard, every ready to defend themselves (and their family) and to grab the opportunities that are available.

A semblance of “society” and “nationhood” is maintained and cultivated by the STATE, which maintains order and prevents chaos for the good of everyone, but also facilitates society’s self-exploitation, as an environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.

This also explains the lack of enthusiasm for state welfare, with the state taking care of everyone as if they were all member of the same tribe or nation. Because, deep down, most Americans know that they are not a PEOPLE or a NATION, despite their politicians’ frequent references and appeals to them as such (enthusiastically supported by the “national” media) – politicians who would never dream of exploiting “society”, but always refer to themselves as its “servants”.

It also explains the different outlooks of the political right and left: the right doesn’t want the state playing the role of tribe (i.e. genuine nation), but just to maintain the social environment and the rule of law, so that those with wealth or talent can exploit it; the liberal-left, on the other hand, want the state to play the role of tribe and genuine nation, taking care of all its people’s needs.

If America really were a PEOPLE and a NATION the liberal-left would be right to take the stance they do (which, of course, is what they believe), but it is NOT, so what they are doing is trying to bang a square peg into a round whole. You can do it – but only with force: thus the justified accusation of “liberal fascism”.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a NATION:

"a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Also, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the idea of a multi-ethnic nation (which America is supposed to be ) an oxymoronic absurdity.

If America (and the same also applies to multi-ethnic Britain) isn’t a PEOPLE or a NATION, what is it? It’s a mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, in order to facilitate the self-exploitation of its population (see the rest of my blog).

This is a harsh reality to face up to, but better that than to go on denying it.

Basically it's a (collective) “relationship issue”. To quote the Beatles, “we can work it out”. It won’t be easy or painless, but it’s doable, provided one faces up to reality, and maintains a sense humour and humanity.