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.

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 3^rd 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?

Anti-Racist Racism

If we define racism as an extreme lack of respect for, or contempt of, other races, one can easily adapt it to include one’s own race. This is what makes many “anti-racists”, and the institutions they have infiltrated, racist themselves. Some call it “reverse racism”, but really it’s just a particular form of racism.

And since you cannot really respect other races while failing to respect your own, any more than you can love others without loving yourself, it is interesting to consider what motivates such “anti-racists” to feign respect and concern for “other races”.

There are probably multiply motives, but most important amongst them is surely the desire to claim the “moral high ground” for oneself and to be a “goody”, as opposed to a “baddy”. That is personally very satisfying and can also be of huge social, political and even economic advantage.

Western democracies are currently dominated by “anti-racist racism”, because, following the defeat of Nazism, Jim Crow and Apartheid, which it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of, perversely it now represents an almost absolute “moral high ground”, such as the medieval Church once claimed for itself, which everyone (i.e. every white person) has to embrace, or become a social pariah.

The underlying (subconscious) motivation is, of course, power-political.

And just as the power of the medieval church, no matter how self-serving and corrupt, was considered vital for civilisation (to stop it descending into chaos), so too with the anti-racist racism of the liberal-fascist state – or so it would have us believe: it’s either the self-hating racism of liberal-fascism or the others-hating racism of Nazi fascism.

Or could there perhaps be an alternative to both forms of racism and fascism . . ?

Why Globalized “Society” ?

The one thing that both the political left and right (i.e. capital) generally agree on is the inevitability and general good of globalisation.

A globalized economy means that capital has access to a global work force (both stationary and migratory) and to global markets, which translates into to increased returns on investments.

For the Left, globalisation means implementation of its ideology of a post-racial/post-European society, in which the despised (on the left, self-hating) white man (and woman) slowly but surely disappears from history into a global melting pot of a predominantly darker-skinned humanity.

Capital’s interest in the increased returns on investments that globalisation brings is readily understood, like capitalism itself, in terms of a predominantly mercenary motivation, but what about the motivation behind the Left’s ideology of a globalized, post-racial/post-European society . . . ?

Anyone who identifies with this ideology, whether consciously or not, and whether of the Left or not (both the Catholic and Anglican churches, for example, embrace much the same ideology), will, I’m sure, deny that it is an ideology at all, but simply an expression of their enlightened, “anti-racist” humanity, or of their Christian faith, which only evil “racists”, or uncharitable/unchristian souls, identifying with their own nasty European race, rather than with humanity as a whole, would oppose.

Thus, the Left and Christian churches see the creation of a global melting pot (often referred to as “multi-cultural society”), in which ethnic Europeans (the despised “white man”), presumably along with all other races or ethnic groupings, must eventually merge into a “single human race”, as a noble goal, on the way to which, the noblest of moral causes is to bring people of different races and cultures together in a multiracial/multi-ethnic/multicultural society, where, united by their common humanity, all will embrace each other to live in brotherly and sisterly harmony – amen. And if inter-ethnic relations are not as harmonious as they ought to be, that is because of an evil “racist” tendency, particularly amongst white people, to identify with their own race, rather than with multiracial society as a whole.

Which brings us to the real, largely subconscious, motivation (and moral imperative for mass immigration) of those who identify with this ideology, which is to claim the moral-high-ground for themselves in standing up to the evil “racism” which opposes it. Because, with the moral-high-ground comes POWER, social status and advantage.

In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was sole master in wielding the power of the moral-high-ground (based on it being God’s representative on Earth and keeper of the key to Paradise), but with the decline in Christian faith, a power vacuum arose which other sources of moral-high-ground have been created to fill. “Progressives” and the Liberal Left are the modern equivalent of the medieval Catholic Church, their social status, power and privileges based on their claims to “moral superiority”: e.g. caring about others (rather than their own), “individual human rights” (over the interests of one’s tribe or nation), and of course, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, “colourblindness”, of “race-doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

Thus, in the final analysis, the interests of both the Left and of capital in globalisation boil down to same interest in POWER (social, political or economic/monetary), along with the personal advantages that go with it.

It is not my intention to demonise the Right or the Left, or the Churches (which is tends to be their favoured tactic, because so effective), but to expose their underlying, largely subconscious, motivations, which are not nearly as noble as they would have us – and themselves – believe.

And where does this leave us? Assuming that you are giving these ideas some serious consideration.

It leaves us in urgent need of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding our own human nature and the civilisation (the social, political and economic power structures) it has given rise to.