Nuclear Deterrent, Yes; Trident, No!

Unless it is placed under shared control with our closest allies, who would also be required to share the costs.

Nuclear weapons and their proliferation is one of the biggest threats facing mankind, yet our politicians are currently proving incapable of dealing with it. The way things stand - and are developing - at the moment, it is just a matter of time before, through design, accident, or misunderstanding nuclear weapons are used, and thousand, millions, possibly 10s or even 100s of millions of people will die, perhaps not in the initial exchange, but in the aftermath. And our children will look back and ask WHY?! WHY did WE allow this development, this INSANITY, to happen?

The British and French governments (which, as a European, are the ones that concern me directly and on which I may exert some, very small, influence) have both signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are very strongly opposed to other governments acquiring nuclear weapons, but hypocritically they insist on retaining and periodically updating their own nuclear arsenals and delivery systems.

All the arguments put forward for retaining our own nuclear capability can be (and are) also put forward by other governments (Iran, for example), the rejection of which by Britain and France is blatant hypocrisy.

If there is to be any hope of curbing nuclear proliferation the British and French governments must be persuaded of the necessity for THEM to relinquish their own independent, national nuclear deterrents, handing them over to an international authority, which it should be our urgent priority to work out a structure for and to create. Not an easy task, granted, but an urgent and absolutely essential one.

Advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament would be folly, since it would be an invitation to other, nuclear-armed governments, less democratic and well-intentioned than our own, to dominate us through nuclear blackmail, or even attack. We NEED a nuclear deterrent, but it needs to be under democratic international control, instead of national control. 

It is the desire (perceived need) of state governments for their own "national" deterrents, i.e. the power and status that goes with them, which is driving, and will continue to drive, nuclear proliferation. 

Thus, it is imperative that Britain and France take the initiative in finding a way of placing their own national deterrents under international control (perhaps in stages, in order to facilitate the process). Once they have done that, then they will be in a position, credibly and without hypocrisy, to demand from other governments that they do not seek to acquire national nuclear deterrents as well.

Finding the right structure for this international authority is absolutely essential, because of the trust that must necessarily be placed in it. It will not be an easy task, so the sooner we set about it in earnest the better.

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

Who or What Governs Britain?

In Tuesday’s Telegraph, Daniel Hannan asks “Who governs Britain?“, but the question should really be, WHAT governs Britain?

Modern brain science has shown that decisions are made prior to the individual becoming aware of them. We then rationalise these decisions and our behaviour in order to delude ourselves into a false sense conscious and rational control.

When it comes to our collective behaviour and decisions of the state and corporations (capital), the situation is no different – as history and our current situation bear witness to, although we rationalise them too, of course, either not recognising just how bad things are, or blaming the undeniably bad on others.

Far from being cynical and fatalistic about it, developing an understanding this, I believe, offers a means of raising our awareness and directing our behaviour along more rational, humane and enlightened lines. Currently, our collective behaviour is light years away from being any of these things, although we rationalise and deceive ourselves into believing that this is not the case.

So WHAT is it that rules us?

It is our our primordial Darwinian nature (what else?), which drives the struggle for survival and reproductive success, only now misplaced, perverted and, of course, rationalised (reduced largely to the pursuit and exercise of POWER: social, professional, political economic/financial etc.) in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, where the STATE conflates and confounds our original intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments, which we evolved to response to very differently, posing as our tribe (or nation) on the one hand, representing the intra-tribal environment, while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment.

The British Sheeple say NO!

NO to AV (and PR)

NO to more democracy.

NO to more representative government.

NO to changing the status quo that got us into the mess we are in.

Well done! Your political masters are pleased with you.

Liberal-Fascism & the Tory Right

Why has the Tory Right embraced the liberal-fascist ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race and ethnic origins don’t matter”, i.e. are of no social or political relevance, e.g. for national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis (whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of), imposed on us, along with the madness mass immigration, by capital and the statist Left (within the civil service, BBC and Labour party) since the end of WW2?

For the same reason, I suggest, that European aristocracies, of the “medieval right”, were forced into embracing church ideology of the “medieval left”.

It revolves around the role of the “moral high ground” in power-politics. The aristocracy ruled by the power of the sword, but needed to supplement it with moral authority and legal justification, which was provided by the Church.

As the state established itself, not just militarily, but also as a legal and moral authority, which the population were “educated” into identifying as their nation, the need for physical force diminished.

Thus is the Tory Right as bound by liberal-fascist ideology as was the medieval aristocracy by Church ideology, with both sides, now as then, united by mutual self-interest in wanting to retain their own advantages within the state and status quo.

How do we get ourselves out of this fix, in as peaceful, rational and humane a fashion as possible, before a ruthless Mother Nature intervenes? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our situation. Everything else will follow from that.

A Tough Year for Households

In response to David Cameron’s warning of “tough year” for households:

Thanks for the warning David, but even on just half your PM’s salary (£142,000, and notwithstanding your other sources of income), I can manage very nicely – thank you!

Your warning may be of more relevance to those on just half my income, although that still puts them well above the average, and of more relevance still to those on an average income or less.

It will be most relevant, I image, to someone on the minimum wage, which is less than half the average wage (or 1/12 of your PM’s salary).

Although, I guess that you personally must feel undervalued and underpaid when mingling amongst banker friends, CEOs and others with 10 time or more your salary. You’re to them, what someone on the minimum wage is to you: ein armes Schwein!

But, I’m forgetting that we are a NATION, a Big Society, and all in this TOGETHER . . .

P.S. The reference to my own salary, I regret to say, is just a literary device and wishful thinking.

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.

The British Nation is no More

The basis of British power and the relatively low levels of corruption and anti-social behaviour (e.g. benefit fraud, malingering) in the past was that most people FELT, despite all the injustices associated with class, wealth distribution and privilege, that they still belonged to a single, unique PEOPLE and NATION, sharing a racial/ethnic, cultural (Judeo-Christian) and historical identity. But that’s all gone now, in multi-racial/ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-historical Britain.

All we are left with is the globalist/statist ideology of “Race/Ethnicity Doesn’t Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance except to evil “racists”.

The “liberal-fascist” Left (with the complicity of capital) have succeeded in taking the NATION out of what was a “nation state”, leaving us with just a mercenary, multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, STATE, still vainly pretending to be a NATION, in which the only interest one can have is self-interest (unless, as some like to imagine they are, you are capable of identifying with all humanity as belonging to your tribe and nation).

The question is, how long will it take for a significant number of us to recognise this depressing and frightening truth, and draw the consequences? And what will those consequences be?

The sooner we get on with it (recognising and understanding, before drawing any consequences) the better. On my blog I’m trying to make a start.

My basic attitude to multi-ethnic society is this: love of ones own, respect for others, instead of absurdly pretending (as our statist and moral supremacist overlords insist we do) that we all belong to the same nation.

In the meantime, I wish EVERYONE a Happy New Year!

Britain’s Love of Others and Contempt for its Own.

The British state’s inclusive, universalistic attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: “love of others and contempt for one’s own”.

Thus, statist enthusiasm for mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, 1) because this is seen as an expression of self-denial, service to humanity and thus moral superiority, on which, like the Catholic and Anglican churches, it bases its claim to authority and power, and 2) because the economy, which provides the material wealth the state depends on, is thankful for all the cheap labour it can get, without which the NHS and many other sectors, under the existing mercenary regime, could hardly function (something statists are quick and proud to point out).

My more nationalistic, ethno-centric (according to the state, “racist”) attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: love of my own race/ethnic group and respect for others (thus my lack of enthusiasm for mass immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, or for multi-ethnic society).

The British state describes its own indigenous population contemptuously by the colour of their skin as “white British”, while at least some ethnic minorities are described with reference to their place of origin, e.g. British Asian, Afro-Caribbean, etc. When skin colour is used for ethnic minorities it is “black”, which, in contrast to “white” has positive connotations, something to be proud of; while “white” tends to have negative, shameful associations. Anyone describing themselves proudly as “white” (i.e. ethnic European), for example, would automatically be pushed into a “racist” corner as a neo-Nazi, BNP sympathiser or “white supremacist” (when real power and danger, now threatening to destroy us, lies with so-called “progressives” and “moral supremacists” dedicated to the state, which they misguidedly identify as their nation).

WHY does the state demonise as “racist” an ETHNOcentric attitude towards national identity, when ETHNOS (from Greek) actually means a NATION or a PEOPLE ?

Because that’s what the Nazis did (in their brutally insane fashion)! And doing the exact extreme opposite from the Nazis allows British statists to claim the absolute “moral high ground” for themselves, along with the authority and POWER that goes with it.

And also, because the British STATE itself lays false claim to nationhood, on which its very legitimacy rests. Any genuine claim to nationhood (based on ethnicity) it MUST condemn and suppress. What better way of doing so than by calling it “racist”?