An appeal NOT to be provoked to violence by the insane response of some European governments to the refugee crisis.
Are the Swedish and German governments DELIBERATELY provoking nationalists to acts of violence with their insane response to refugee crisis, in order to gain political advantage from it?
Whatever the answer, I implore nationalists not to allow themselves to be provoked to violence, especially against refugees or immigrants. They are not to blame. Nationalist anger should be directed at those responsible for this madness, which is our OWN ruling elites.
Anger, but not violence, which will harm, rather than help our cause.
We must sublimate our anger into developing an understanding of WHY our ruling elites are behaving in this self-harming and ultimately self-destructive way, just as they were doing 100 years ago in their respective side’s pursuit of “victory” in WW1. Most of them are not bad people, just deluded and misguided.
Our ruling elites behave as they do, because of the very nature of the state itself, which academics are not being honest with us - or themselves - about, because as privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, they have 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.
There are no "nation states", but only mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.
The primary purpose of the state has ALWAYS been to facilitate society's SELF-exploitation (which it is the role of its priestly/now academic elite to hide, not just from society at large, but from themselves as well, by self-deception), which is why all past civilisations have declined and disappeared, as will ours, and soon, unless we quickly recognise and develop an understanding of the true, perverted Darwinian, nature of the state, and reform it accordingly.
Here's an INTRODUCTION to the true nature of the state which, above all, we need academics to take heed of.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Wednesday, 9 September 2015
Walls, Borders, a Dome and Refugees
This is the title of an article by Thomas Friedman in yesterday's NYTimes (LINK) which I submitted a comment on, which however wasn't approved and published, so I'm posting it here.
First a quote from the article:
Bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East was a great idea, but clearly those who sought to implement it through western intervention had no understanding of the actual situation. Thus, the terrible mess we have helped create.
Politicians, like most people, look to academics as authorities on just about everything, only social and political science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality, both abroad and at home, as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Like Galileo, I'm asking academics to look through my telescope, metaphorically speaking, so that they can see for themselves what I can see.
My telescope is a human-evolutionary view of society, which their predecessors made a taboo of, in overreaction to initial attempts, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology, eugenics program and wars of aggression.
My telescope: LINK
First a quote from the article:
"You haven’t seen this play before, which is why we have some hard new thinking and hard choices ahead."I couldn't agree more. The trouble is, you can think about a situation you don't understand as hard and long as you want, with no positive outcome, while in the meantime the situation goes on getting worse.
Bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East was a great idea, but clearly those who sought to implement it through western intervention had no understanding of the actual situation. Thus, the terrible mess we have helped create.
Politicians, like most people, look to academics as authorities on just about everything, only social and political science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality, both abroad and at home, as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Like Galileo, I'm asking academics to look through my telescope, metaphorically speaking, so that they can see for themselves what I can see.
My telescope is a human-evolutionary view of society, which their predecessors made a taboo of, in overreaction to initial attempts, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology, eugenics program and wars of aggression.
My telescope: LINK
Will the World Come To Europe?
This is the title of an article in the NYTimes (LINK) which I submitted a comment on, which however wasn't approved and published, so I'm posting it here:
Mr Douthat's optimism (in respect to mass immigration into Europe) reminds me of mainstream academic opinion at the beginning of the 20th century, BEFORE the outbreak of WW1.
Of course academics are optimistic about the status quo and direction of travel: they are traveling first class and have every reason to be complacent, to not rock the boat.
No offence meant, but in my view, social science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Why? Because they are trapped in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age by a taboo against viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective; an understandable, but fatal, overreaction to initial attempts at developing such a view, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology and wars of aggression.
Human nature is inherently and intensely tribal, but instead of developing an understanding of this, so that we can learn to direct it in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, we are taught to trivialise, ridicule or demonise it, leaving the state and capital free to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes.
An understanding of human tribal nature reveals the extreme folly of allowing mass migration into Europe, which is creating a powder keg!
Mr Douthat's optimism (in respect to mass immigration into Europe) reminds me of mainstream academic opinion at the beginning of the 20th century, BEFORE the outbreak of WW1.
Of course academics are optimistic about the status quo and direction of travel: they are traveling first class and have every reason to be complacent, to not rock the boat.
No offence meant, but in my view, social science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Why? Because they are trapped in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age by a taboo against viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective; an understandable, but fatal, overreaction to initial attempts at developing such a view, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology and wars of aggression.
Human nature is inherently and intensely tribal, but instead of developing an understanding of this, so that we can learn to direct it in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, we are taught to trivialise, ridicule or demonise it, leaving the state and capital free to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes.
An understanding of human tribal nature reveals the extreme folly of allowing mass migration into Europe, which is creating a powder keg!
Friday, 26 June 2015
The NYTimes' Unintentional Contempt for Europe
This is my response to a NYTimes editorial, "Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants"(June 5, 2015), encouraging Europe to take in yet more immigrants and asylum seekers. I emailed it to them for publication, which, of course, they didn't do, and is why I'm publishing it here.
If the current wave of immigration into Europe was a one off, I would sympathise with the Editorial Board's attitude in respect to Europe taking the immigrants in, as expressed in last Friday’s editorial, “Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants” (June 5th), but this is not the case. Europe has been experiencing wave after wave of poor-world immigration for decades. We have already taken in millions, and there is no indication that the flood is about to stop anytime soon. On the contrary, all the signs are that the flow of immigrants will continue to grow, as population, poverty and conflict in poor-world countries also grow.
So long as there is a significant wealth-poverty, freedom and opportunity gradient and little to impede the flow, people will move along it in one direction only, just as heat moves from hot to cold, until equilibrium has been reached, i.e. when conditions in the West cease to attract, which, in the fantasy world of most social and political scientists (especially economists), will be when the poor world is as rich and free and full of opportunities as the West is, but in reality will be when conditions in the West have deteriorated sufficiently.
I can’t believe that members of the Editorial Board are being wilfully or maliciously blind to the long-term consequences of mass poor-world immigration into Europe, so I assume that their blindness has other causes, which, of course, they are also blind to and thus unaware of.
Clearly, they want to do right by the immigrants and asylum seekers, as individual human beings, who would be hugely helped - in the short to medium term, at least - if allowed to settle in Europe, but far from being a long-term solution, it is a recipe for conflict and disaster on a scale with the potential to exceed even that of the 20th century. The saying, “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions”, springs very much to mind.
Europe, over the centuries, has had its fill of its own inborn ethnic tensions and conflicts (and these between peoples of very similar race, culture, religion and ethnic origins), but now, following the traumas of WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust, just as Europe’s major ethnic groups (nations) are learning to get along, we are importing en masse from abroad the potential for new and additional ethnic tensions and conflicts (which, in respect to Muslims and “blacks” we are already experiencing). Just as Europeans are finally learning to share their continent peacefully with each other, it is deemed not enough; we are now expected to share our continent with an ever-increasing (and this is the crucial point) number of non-Europeans as well, which is MADNESS.
Europe has a distinctive indigenous population of closely related peoples, just as America does, only instead of making up just a tiny, impotent, proportion of the total population, we still constitute the overwhelming majority. Neither have we been subjugated or dispossessed by foreign invaders, as native Americans were, but by our OWN ruling elites, who are now imposing the madness of mass poor-world immigration on our already overpopulated subcontinent and the DIVERSE, multi-ethnic society that comes with it.
The method to this madness, which it took me a very long time to recognise and develop an understanding of, is only partly economic (the import of cheap foreign labour, i.e. “human resources” into the West) and generally acknowledged. Far more important, but largely unrecognised, is the ideological and power-political role this madness plays, serving, as it does, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.
Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", ruling elite (supported by their favoured clients) and the morally inferior, naturally less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to their superiors’ moral authority - and power.
No one is really "colour-blind”, of course, but can only feign it (perhaps without being consciously aware of it), humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are. Although the issue is complicated by the Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter depending on whether we are dealing with personal relationships between individuals or more abstract relationships between strangers, especially in large numbers.
Race is NOT the "social construct" that the state would have us believe it is (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because it reflects our ethnic origins and is thus central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity. Which is, of course, why the state, which poses as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, seeks to deny and suppress this basic truth.
"Celebrating Diversity" is nothing other than Orwellian newspeak for ethnic Europeans (white people) 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, including my own birth place) and ultimate demise . . .
In place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) we now have "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which absurdly was 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".
Why did it take me so long to recognise these simple and now - to me, at least - obvious truths? Why have academics still not recognised them? And why have they resisted all my efforts, thus far, to point them out to them?
It is because POWER (of the state) forbids it, and because academics, like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, are themselves privileged clients and employees of their respective "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.
Our understanding of ourselves, society and the state is fatally misconceived, because the human brain (including, most importantly, that of academics) evolved to want to maintain the environment on which it depends and has been “successful” in (as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been), and thus rationalises its view of reality accordingly.
Overcoming this obstacle and developing a more objective and realistic understanding of society and the state is no mean task - a bit like trying to jump over one’s own shadow - but at the moment most academics are not even aware of it, which means that the social and political sciences are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, with modern social science academics clinging to their misconceived ideas just as Ptolemaic astronomers and Galenic doctors once did to theirs, and for much the same reasons.
If we are to solve our - increasingly dire - social, political, economic and environmental problems, which the very survival of our civilisation urgently depends on us doing, we need a much better, more realistic, understanding of ourselves, society and the state, which at present is clearly lacking.
As human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, including RACE, notwithstanding the huge pressure that state ideology puts us (especially our academic, political and media elites) under to deny and suppress it in ourselves and to demonise it in others. Demonising racial prejudice was an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology, and to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, but instead of allowing reason and good sense to correct this overreaction, it was quickly consolidated into an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) of socio-political intimidation and control.
Demonising racial prejudice for its role in crimes of racial hatred is like demonising male sexuality for the role it plays in rape. Obviously, the two are connected, and we need to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion, just we do our sexuality, but not deny, demonise and suppress them. The legitimate role of the state is to formulate and enforce laws which ensure that our prejudices and sexuality are expressed in an acceptable and civilised fashion.
I appreciate just how shocking, or absurd - initially, at least - the ideas I have expressed here must appear to you at the NYTimes, including members of the Editorial Board, who will, of course, have to approve their publication in your Op-Ed section. I feel like an atheist hoping to get my views on Christianity published in a conservative Catholic journal.
Like the Catholic church, you at the NYTimes are committed and beholden to an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) that I am radically criticising. However, you are also committed to seeking the truth through free debate and discussion, by means of which we might arrive at a better understanding of ourselves, society and the state.
It would be naive of me to expect you to publish this offering, but I hope that you will at least read and give some thought to my ideas.
Best regards
Roger Hicks
Friday, 24 April 2015
A Comment NYT didn't want to Publish
The New York Times published an article, Migrants Face Fortress Europe’s Deadly Moat, by Kenan Malik, in which the author says the following:
"The European Union should . . dismantle Fortress Europe, liberalize immigration policy and open up legal routes for migrants."
This was my response, which the NYT chose not to publish:
Kenan Malik is a native of ASIA and unconcerned for the interests of native Europeans not to be inundated with immigrants from other continents.
Despite being overpopulated itself, Europe has already taken in 10s of millions of poor-world immigrants, who are the cause of rising ethnic tensions in our cities. Tensions that will grow as the number of immigrants and their off-spring grows.
Allowing even more in, as Kenan Malik would have us do, will make an already difficult situation even more difficult and eventually lead to violent conflict and even civil war.
Post-racal multicultural ideology, which encourages mass poor-world immigration (not just into Europe) and the creation of multi-ethnic societies is not what it is made out to be, but an instrument socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for medieval church ideology, which I elaborate on in THIS and further (linked to) blogs.
Sunday, 4 August 2013
An Exchange of Views with Sunder Katwala
This is an exchange if views between Sunder Katwala (Director of British Future) and myself on the Telegraph website below the line of an article he authored (LINK to article).
I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.
I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
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
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>
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.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Immigration is no longer taboo
“Immigration is no longer taboo”
Writes Alasdair Palmer in today’s comment section.
The core issue, however, and the taboos surrounding it, do not primarily concern immigration, but RACE – which, of course, is inextricably bound up with immigration from non-white (poor, third world) countries.
We can now question the madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, but not the even greater madness of denying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, which the STATE, for reasons of power-political advantage, is forcing on us by declaring it “evil”, i.e. “racist”.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
China building a better future for all
According to a speech given by Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, published in part in today’s Telegraph, “China is building a better future for all“.
In how many party political manifestos of our own have we heard words like these . . ??
In how many party political manifestos of our own have we heard words like these . . ??
According to Wen Jiabao:
“To build socialism with distinctive Chinese features has been the solemn choice made by the country’s 1.3 billion people.”
Reminds me of the “solemn choice made by Britain’s c. 50 million people” in the early 1950’s to invite mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and become a multi-ethnic society, which within a few generations will reduce indigenous Britons to an ethnic minority in their own country, thereby realising the statist Left’s goal (now fully embraced also by the Tory Right) of eliminating its own race and ethnic identity.
Frustrated in its attempts to achieve its noble goal of a “classless society”, the Left shifted its claim to “moral superiority” (and the power-political advantages that go with it) to the alternative ideological goal of a “race-less” or (looking to America) a “post-racial” society, a society in which everyone (except evil “racists”, who have to be suppressed) is “colour-blind”, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference and identity, a melting pot, where people of all ethnicities mix and intermarry, so that over time racial differences and ethnic identities dissolve and disappear.
It seems to me that we have gone from one nasty ideological extreme to another, from Nazi fascism’s ideology of a “pure-race Germanic master race”, to that of the liberal-fascist/statist Left’s ideology of a “mixed-race master race” – What else can the melting pot of multi-ethnic society result in . . ??
Multi-ethnic society is destroying (in the melting pot) the very diversity its advocates claim to love.
And anyone who speaks out against this madness is dismissed and condemned a “racist”.
So, what purpose does this madness serve? It serves the power-political control and manipulation of society by those claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves, just as in medieval society the religious ideology of “original sin” gave immense power to the church, submission to whose authority was all that could save the individual from damnation. In the Middle Ages it was damnation because of “original sin”, now its damnation because of the natural inclination of white people to identify with their own race, i.e. “racism”.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
The Problem is Our Low Birth Rate?
My response to the claim, made in a comment on my Telegraph blog (The Union Flag) that “the white man’s problem is his low birthrate.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Our low birth rate is a BLESSING. It is a tragedy that we fail to recognise that. What we need is quality, not quantity.
Our planet is already unsustainably overpopulated, certainly given the kind of lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations most people are currently pursuing or aspiring to. But never mind exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity, as we are currently doing; as a species, we need to live WELL within its limits, leaving ourselves plenty of room for manoeuvre when environmental conditions change, as they surely will.
We urgently need to stabilise and start reducing the global population – something our own, white race, is already doing. Instead of worrying about our decreasing numbers and bringing in immigrants to make up for them (which is utter madness!), we should be rejoicing at the fact, and adapting ourselves, i.e. society, to the changing demographics.
What’s happening at the moment is that Europeans are being displaced and replaced by migrating and faster breeding non-European races, which is very Darwinian, of course: survival of the fittest and all that. From a primitive Darwinian perspective, Europeans seem to be flawed, thus accounting for our absolute and relative decline in numbers, to the advantage of less flawed (dare I say, “superior”) races.
However, what from a primitive Darwinian perspective seems to be a flaw, isn’t, if we want to avoid a primitive and brutal Darwinian struggle for resources and survival with our fellow humans, which a ruthless Mother Nature would, as a matter of course, subject other, less intelligent, species to; this being the way that evolution works!
We have the knowledge and intelligence to transcend our primitive Darwinian nature and avoid this brutal struggle within our own species, but at the moment it doesn’t look as though we are going to use them, because of our blindness to the way in which our Darwinian drive for survival and reproductive success, misplaced in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, has been perverted to a struggle for individual advantage, POWER and riches.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Liberal-Statist Self-Delusion
An example, taken from today’s Guardian, “Living with diversity”, of more liberal-statist self-delusion:
“. . . neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation.”
Thus, there is no need to restrict immigration or criticise multi-ethnic society, i.e. to challenge the ideology of the liberal-fascist Left, which is devastating our country and subcontinent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)