The Nation as Enemy of the State

My response to the BBC’s new face of religion:

“The BBC’s religious output is overseen by [a Muslim], Aaqil Ahmed, head of religion and ethics”

Yet more evidence for the STATE broadcaster’s central role in undermining the ethnic, cultural and historical basis of Britain’s national identity, thereby strengthening the STATE’S role in determining and enforcing the oxymoronic absurdity of Britain being “multi-ethnic nation” (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION).

And they even manage, thus far, to make us pay (through the licence fee) for our own national undoing. You have to hand it to them, they are clever, very clever (most having passed through our best universities) – like the medieval Catholic Church, which wielded POWER using much the same methods as the BBC now uses, claiming to SERVE “society” with its absolute moral authority, based now not on the Bible, but on the secular ideology of “One-Human-Racism” (an alternative to Marxism), which, not coincidentally, it the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It’s an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance, especially in respect to national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.

This ideology now forms the basis of our liberal-fascist state, which of course capital, as it did with Nazi fascism, has cozied up to. And anyone opposing it is dismissed and condemned as a “xenophobe”, “bigot” or “racist”, just as in the Middle Ages opponents of the church/state (religious) ideology were condemned as “infidels”, “heathens” or “heretics”.

The Race Does/Doesn’t Matter Paradox

Which has been ruthlessly exploited by the state to impose the MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on us.

At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic difference matter little, because it is natural for those involved to ignore or play down any differences (and not just racial) that might cause offence, disharmony or conflict, because usually we want to get on with others and avoid anything that might prevent that. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any ethnic perceptions, which, if you like them, disappear into the background.

Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I only know from experience with my own race that there are some extremely nice individuals, and some extremely nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And I presume it’s the same with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them, which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.

I agree with Martin Luther King, when he said that an individual should not be judged by the colour of their skin (race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character.

But how many people can we know as “individuals”? Not many. The vast majority of people will always be strangers to us. And the first things we notice about a stranger are their age, gender, able-bodiedness, and ethnicity.

Why ethnicity? Because it provides an immediate indication of whether they belong to one’s own or a related TRIBE, and can be expected to be friendly, or are from an unrelated tribe, and thus a potential enemy.

Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, does not do so when dealing with strangers, when it is a natural criterion for judging, not their character, but whether they belong to one’s own tribe or nation; “ethnicity” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION (Martin Luther King was well served by the American STATE, and thus not inclined to question it's claim to nationhood).

Because of the state’s claim to nationhood and authority over all its citizens, it has to insist that they all belong, effectively, to the same TRIBE, and suppress their natural inclination to notice and react to ethnic differences. The state does this by demonising it as “racism”.

The state has always laid claim to its subjects/citizens’ tribal loyalties, of course, in order to facilitate their exploitation as a human resource, only in the past there were no blatant racial differences to be ignored, suppressed or exploited, only linguistic, cultural or religious ones. Now the state is having a heyday, suppressing, manipulating and exploiting the ethnic differences of its citizens.

It’s time we cottoned on to what’s going on and learned to deal with the STATE, instead of allowing it, as it has always done, to deal with us.