Why I'm so Critical of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

Post-racial multiculturalism is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which it began as an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), before being consolidated by academics into an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

Original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) has been replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was mistakingly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

In the land of ideological colour-blindness the colour-blind (i.e. those who feign it, since no one really is) are Kings, i.e. have access to positions in politics, the civil service, the judiciary, the media, academia, etc., while those who fail to comply with state ideology do not.

What is "Celebrating DIVERSITY" other than Orwellian newspeak for white people everywhere to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . . ??

This explains why the entire western world - led, as usual, by America - has succumbed to the madness of mass poor-world immigration and an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which facilitates it, denying, demonising and suppressing as "racist" the natural ethnic foundations of national identity and genuine (as opposed to pseudo/state) nationhood. There is no need for conspiracy theories involving particular groups of people.

It also explains why our democratically elected politicians have imposed this madness on us: because they have no choice; if they want to pursue a career in politics, they have to comply with state ideology, which academics (who teach them at university and advise them in office) are largely responsible for; although it is no good “blaming” them either, because as individuals they are also beholden to this same ideology. Attacking them for it will just get their backs up, causing them to cling all the more tenaciously to their current ideologies and misconceptions, just as early 17th century academics, i.e. clergy, did when their understanding - and with it, their authority - was challenged by the likes of Galileo.

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, modern academics are themselves privileged clients and employees of our "patron state", with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

Civilisation: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac?

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.

From “Classless Society” to “Post-Racial Society”

How the Left exchanged a noble ideal for an ignoble one.

The Left gave up on their ideal of the “classless society” (characterised, not just by class, but by huge differences in income, wealth and opportunity), exchanging it (along with the “moral high ground” it was associated with) for that of a “raceless” or “post-racial society”, and the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”.

“One-Human-Racism” is the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race doesn’t matter” (or even exist), of ethnic origins being of no social or political importance (especially in respect to group, e.g. national, identity), except to evil “racists” – like the Nazis, whose abhorrent racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.

In contrast to the “classless society”, the ideal of a “raceless society” is much more acceptable to those in power, wealth and privilege, since it doesn’t challenge their status. In this way, the Left were able to become part of the status quo, the establishment, themselves, thereby creating the modern “liberal-fascist” state, which together with capital dominates all western “democracies”.

Why is the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial”, and, by implication, “post-European” society” ignoble? Because it denies (and in respect to white people, demonises, as “racist”) the central importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense personal and group, e.g. national, identity, on the one hand, and creates an uninhibited “melting pot”, on the other, in which human ethnic and cultural diversity will dissolve and disappear, or at least, be greatly reduced.

How were we deceived into believing that the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial society” was a noble cause? Initially, because of a shock response and overreaction to the horrors associated with the Nazi’s criminally insane racial ideology, but also in overreaction to the unjust and inhumane state discrimination and segregation imposed by Apartheid South Africa and America’s Jim Crow laws. Embracing the opposite attitude, of “Race doesn’t matter” (at all), seemed an appropriate response, which was then opportunistically exploited (principally on the Left) by those seeking power-political advantage by claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves.

Only it wasn’t appropriate, because race and ethnic origins DO matter, for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity.

Humans have a tendency, as exemplified here, to swing from one extreme to the other. My hope is that by understanding what is going on, we can avoid doing that. No one in their right mind wants a return to Jim Crow, Apartheid or, least of all, Nazism, although the surest way of doing so is for the state to persist in imposing the ideologically opposite extreme. We need to find a humane and civilised way between these extremes.

How? We could make a start by talking about it.

Single-Race Schools

After reading an article in the Telegraph on the advantages of single-sex schools, I wondered what the response would be to suggesting that “single-race schools" might also have some advantages. I posted a short comment to this effect, but no more, for fear of bringing the wrath of statists and the PC brigade upon myself.

I might have guessed (which after posting it, I immediately did) that this would result in a challenge to state some of the advantages that single-race schools might offer, which, of course, it did – in exactly the tone of “lets hear what this RACIST has to say for himself”, I had feared:

"Go on then. Sell some cogent arguments about it. Your comment is trolling at its worst - 'I would say something controversial, but I can't, so I'll say it anyway but that gets me out of needing to justify my views. Weak.”

In anticipation, I'd started and virtually finished my initial response even before the challenge arrived:

Firstly, "single-race" schools would challenge the universalistic, cosmopolitan left-wing ideology, which has been imposed on us since the end of WW2, partly to facilitate the mass immigration of cheap foreign labour, that race and ethnic origins don't matter, i.e. are of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis, whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.

I would argue to the contrary, that race and ethnic origins are of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity. After all, “ethnic”, which is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, really means the same things as “national”. It's just that the STATE has hijacked the NATION and the adjective that goes with it.

Secondly, multi-ethnic schools are “melting pots” in which ethnic diversity will dissolve and disappear – not immediately, but in the course of a number of generations. Thus, for those of us – both indigenous and immigrant - who want to retain our ethnic identity, single-race schools are the obvious choice.

The standard statist response to the suggestion of single-race education is to condemn it as a form of “apartheid”, although this is simply not true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. Apartheid was imposed from above by the STATE, just as multi-ethnic schooling is now. Single-race schooling would be entirely optional, for those who want it, e.g. those who want to encourage their children (since they can't force them) to retain and cultivate their own ethnic identity, instead of losing it to the melting pot of globalisation.

Another statist response is the accusation of sharing the Nazi belief in “racial purity”, which again isn't true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. There is no such thing as “racial purity”. What there is, however, and what statists want to (indeed, as statists, must!) suppress, at least in the majority white population, and keep well under control amongst ethnic minorities, is racial or ethnic IDENTITY.

Why? Because the state's (and its government's) own legitimacy and authority rests on its claim to NATIONHOOD. Western democracies do not call themselves “nation states” for nothing. Man is an inherently and intensely TRIBAL animal, which evolved a powerful sense of identity with and loyalty to its TRIBE, which the STATE, as our NATION, now claims to represent.

This is a slightly altered and expanded version of the original, which can be found near the beginning of the thread to the article linked to above.

From One Extreme to Another

From forced racial segregation (Apartheid, Jim Crow etc.) to facilitated (subtly forced) racial mixing, integration, assimilation and miscegenation.

From a situation of great racial and ethnic diversity to themelting pot of racial and ethnic uniformity.

From an obsession with non-existent “racial purity” to denial of the importance of racial and ethnic identity (at least, for ethnic Europeans).

From the Nazi’s Germanic and white supremacists’ white master race to the melting pot and mixed-race master race of the moral supremacists’ who dominate post WW2 British politics (especially so-called “progressives” of the liberal left), established religion, and the media (especially the BBC).

From the noble ideal of a “classless society” to the moral-supremacist ideology of a “raceless” (colourblind, post-racial) society, which denies and suppresses (with accusations of “racism“) the importance of ethnicity for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.

From Nation State (1940) to Mercenary State (2010)

From genuine Big Society (1939-1949) to David Cameron’sphoney Big Society (2010-2015)