Email exchange with Hilary Benn on Whites Becoming Ethnic Minority in UK

From: Roger Hicks <rah@spaceship-earth.org>

Subject: On becoming an ethnic minority and the paradox of race does and doesn't matter

Date: 15 March 2013 07:51:00 GMT

To: hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr. Benn,

I've heard both you and your father talk in London (Redbridge) on different occasions in the past, but didn't get the opportunity to put the question I wanted to ask to you. Thus this email, which you might like to forward to your dad, as well, since I couldn't find his email address.

My question is simply this: how do you both FEEL about native Britons, like ourselves, having become an ethnic minority in our capital city, and being on course to become an ethnic minority in the country as a whole long before this present century has run its course?

I appreciate what a difficult question this is to give an honest answer

to, due to the massive ideological and psychological pressure, especially you, in your position, are under to dismiss such a question as only being of interest to bigots and "racists", and don't expect one from you. But I, who am neither a bigot nor a racist, do ask you to consider it in your own mind, and if you feel so inclined, to get in touch with me, so that we might discuss it privately at your convenience when you are in London.

The point is that no matter how much we may deny it, race and ethic origins ARE important; not in the way that genuine racists believe they are, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity, and with profound implications for national identity and politics.

In overreaction to the Holocaust and the criminally insane racial ideology with which the Nazis justified it, we went to the opposite extreme, denying the very existence of race, dismissing it as a "social contract", only of interest to evil racist, like the Nazis. Such an overreaction was understandable in the aftermath of the Holocaust (in the context of which "race" really was a social, or rather, ideological, construct), but it was quickly consolidated into an extreme ideology of its own and exploited to economic and power-political advantage. It has effectively taken the place, in our more secular times, of medieval church ideology, with its notion of "original sin", which the individual could only be saved from eternal damnation for by submitting to church and state authority. Now it is "racism" (= racial prejudice, i.e. the natural human inclination to identify with and favour members of one's own race or ethnic group) which the state is determined to save us from, in order to assert its authority and power over us . . .

I have produced this blog on The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter, if you fancy taking a look.

This is a very important issue, which we have to recognise and face up to as such if we are to deal with it in a rational and civilised fashion.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

*****************
From: "BENN, Hilary" <hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: On becoming an ethnic minority and the paradox of race does and doesn't matter
Date: 15 April 2013 11:02:57 BST

Dear Mr. Hicks

Thank you for your email.

Being the son of an immigrant, but also being very British I think our great strength as a nation is our ability to overcome difference and live alongside each other.

I will pass on your best wishes to my father.

Kind regards

Hilary Benn MP

***********
From: Roger Hicks <rah@spaceship-earth.org>
Subject: On Native Britons becoming an ethnic minority
Date: 16 April 2013 07:44:06 BST
To: "BENN, Hilary" <hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk>

 Dear Mr Benn,

Thanks for responding to my email. Only, you didn't answer my question about how you FEEL about becoming an ethnic minority in your own country (already a reality in London and predicted to become a reality for the country as a whole within about 50 years).

You mention being the son of an immigrant, but not from the third world, I'll wager. Your mother was a European American returning to her ancestral homeland in Europe.

Please, don't do a Gordon Brown (as with Mrs Duffy) on me, i.e. dismiss me as a bigot for being concerned about mass immigration and becoming an ethnic minority in the country/continent where my ancestors have lived for 1000s of years. I'm sure that you would not dismiss a Native American or Aboriginal Australian with similar concerns about his people's future as a bigot - or would you?

You may find this issue, and me for bringing it up, tiresome, but be that as it may, it is a hugely important issue with profound implications, because a very large number of Native Britons and Europeans are not going to sit back and watch themselves become an ethnic minority on their own continent without putting up a fight - which might prove to be very costly.

There is still time for us to avert such conflict, but only if we recognise and face up to the issue, which you seem to want to dismiss as only being of interest to bigots and "racists". But there is nothing bigoted or racist about wanting to preserve the ethnic identity and majority of one's own people. Native Americans and Australians struggling to do this are not bigots or racists, and neither am I.

If we are to avoid bloody conflict, we must talk. This is why I'm writing to you. You have children, I presume, for whom, like most fathers, you want a peaceful and prosperous future. But if Parliament continues to show such contempt for the interests of Britain's native (white) population, the future looks very gloomy.

I want a peaceful solution to this issue, but not at the price of seeing native (white) Britons reduced to an ethnic minority in their ancestral homelands. If you and the political elite you are a member of continue to deny that there is an issue, even that there is a native British population with an interest in remaining this country's ethnic majority, you are the ones who will be responsible for the bloody conflicts it will eventually give rise to. Thus my appeal to you to address (start discussing) this issue now, while there is still time to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

P.S. It is not just about skin colour, but about the importance of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

************

I'm still awaiting a response - but not holding my breath.

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.

Response to Madeleine Bunting

Who, in an article, “Labour still haunted by Gillian Duffy”, in today’s Guardian (Cif) claims the following:

“Enoch Powell’s predictions [Rivers of Blood speech] have been proved wrong.”

Like the predictions made around the same time (in the late 60s and early 70s) relating to the “limits to growth”, i.e. the inherent non-sustainability of consumer-capitalism, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet . . !!

The course of the 21^st Century will reveal such claims to have been tragically premature.

She also writes:

“The debate of the 80s about whether it is possible to be black and British is now seen as absurd.”

Absurd? By whom? By the liberal-fascist/statist left who actually believe in the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” they have imposed on us since the end of WW2 . . !!

The fact is that ANYONE, without any regard whatsoever to race, ethnic origins or culture, is now considered BRITISH, thereby destroying any claim the British STATE may (or may not) have had to representing a PEOPLE and a NATION.

Sure, you can be “black and British”; you can be “absolutely anything and British” nowaday, thus removing all meaning from the word – except to liberal-statists, of course, who would embrace anyone and anything in their ideological, self-righteous and moral-high-ground-claiming obsession with “inclusiveness”.

Having completely undermined its claim to nationhood – and the legitimacy, authority and loyalty that went with it – all that our mercenary STATE is left with now is POWER, our dependency on it, and our reluctance to face up to reality and disillusionment.

Race, Ethnicity & National Identity

The following quote is taken from a piece in yesterday’s Telegraph, “Why the British political class is so snooty about Gibraltar“, by Brendan O’Neill:

“New Labour was redefining Britishness as something pluralistic and open-ended, . . . a ‘gathering of countless different races and communities’, in Robin Cook’s words”.

Did Robin Cook really say that? It’s in quotation marks, so presumably he did. But what an idiot! What a complete and utter idiot. Then again, it does describe the reality, the idiocy, the complete MADNESS of multi-ethnic Britain – which no one dares question for fear of being branded a “bigot” or “racist”.

When we argue about the pros and cons of “immigration” or “multiculturalism” we are always beating about the bush of “race and ethnic difference and their importance for national identity”.

Why? Because the liberal-fascist/statist ideology** (not coincidentally, the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) we have had imposed on us since the end of WW2 has succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of national identity with “racism”.

** Initially an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazism (also to the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), but subsequently an extremely effective power-political tool for claiming a spurious “moral high ground” for oneself (or political party) and the massive advantages that went with it.

Alongside the inherent non-sustainability of rapacious consumer-capitalism on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, this is an issue of existential importance, on which the very survival of our civilisation depends. Yet both of these issues we either trivialise or ignore completely, because of their profound implications and the powerful taboos associated with them.

However, a ruthless Mother Nature will (is already beginning to) force these issue on us, whether we are prepared to face up to them or not. And if we remain unprepared, they will hit us (a combination of the two) like a giant tsunami.

I am Prejudiced . . !!

What about? Everything! Including race . . .

Why? Because I'm human.

Why does the STATE want me to hate myself for being human? Because that is how, to a large extent, it controls (has always controlled) society: by making people suppress and feel guilty about their natural inclinations. In the past it was “original sin”, especially our sexuality, we were made to feel ashamed of, and dependent on the Church (in the |Middle Ages an essential pillar of the state) for salvation. Now it's “prejudice”, especially “racial prejudice” we are supposed to, deny, suppress and hate ourselves for.

Just as the Church once policed our natural sinfulness and belief in state ideology (i.e. its interpretation of the Bible), now the STATE polices our natural inclination to prejudice and belief in the universalistic, cosmopolitan, left-wing ideology (not coincidentally, the exact, put equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) of “colourblindness”, of race and ethnic origins being of no social or political significance (e.g. for national identity), except to evil “racists”.

It is as natural for us to be prejudiced in favour of our own race as it is to be prejudiced in favour of an attractive member of the opposite sex. When you know someone as an individual, of course, that prejudice is greatly reduced, or disappears entirely – but how many people can we know as individuals? Just a tiny number. The vast majority are, and will always remain, strangers towards whom we are bound to have prejudices.

It is these natural and healthy prejudices, in respect to race and ethnic origins, which the STATE demonises and suppresses, not least, because it falsely claims our tribal and national loyalty for ITSELF.

Of course, we have to control our racial prejudices and inclinations, in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we have to control our sexual prejudices and inclinations. But this is the responsibility of the individual. Only if the individual fails to behave in a civilised fashion by persistently being offensive towards a member of the opposite sex or another ethnic group, is it appropriate for the state to intervene.

If the state were to try telling us what our sexual prejudices should and shouldn't be, we would have no difficultly recognising the absurdity it. But because we are so used to identifying with the state as our nation (although manifestly, it is not), it has been able – up until now, at least – to get away with it.