Anti-Racist Racism

If we define racism as an extreme lack of respect for, or contempt of, other races, one can easily adapt it to include one’s own race. This is what makes many “anti-racists”, and the institutions they have infiltrated, racist themselves. Some call it “reverse racism”, but really it’s just a particular form of racism.

And since you cannot really respect other races while failing to respect your own, any more than you can love others without loving yourself, it is interesting to consider what motivates such “anti-racists” to feign respect and concern for “other races”.

There are probably multiply motives, but most important amongst them is surely the desire to claim the “moral high ground” for oneself and to be a “goody”, as opposed to a “baddy”. That is personally very satisfying and can also be of huge social, political and even economic advantage.

Western democracies are currently dominated by “anti-racist racism”, because, following the defeat of Nazism, Jim Crow and Apartheid, which it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of, perversely it now represents an almost absolute “moral high ground”, such as the medieval Church once claimed for itself, which everyone (i.e. every white person) has to embrace, or become a social pariah.

The underlying (subconscious) motivation is, of course, power-political.

And just as the power of the medieval church, no matter how self-serving and corrupt, was considered vital for civilisation (to stop it descending into chaos), so too with the anti-racist racism of the liberal-fascist state – or so it would have us believe: it’s either the self-hating racism of liberal-fascism or the others-hating racism of Nazi fascism.

Or could there perhaps be an alternative to both forms of racism and fascism . . ?

The Land of Ideological Colour-Blindness

Trust not the moral supremacists and statists, who claim to be colour-blind, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, for they seek (usually subconsciously) to advance their own interests and advantage by claiming a spurious moral high ground for themselves, and in pandering to the STATE. Better to trust those who admit their prejudices and allegiances towards their OWN (ethnic group), while showing respect for others.

In the land of ideological colour-blindness*, the colour-blind – or those who can feign it – are KINGS (for example, getting all the plum jobs in politics, academia and the media).

* “Colour-blindness” is an ideology which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, based on the moral imperative that race and ethnic origins are no social or political importance, especially for the individual’s primary sense of group, i.e. national, identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.

This is as absurd (because equally extreme) as Nazi racial ideology was (even if not as evil), race and ethnic origins being of profound importance, for most people, for any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

What we have here is a state ideology intended to support its spurious claim to nationhood, to representing a NATION and a PEOPLE, from which it derives its authority and POWER.

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.

Why Globalized “Society” ?

The one thing that both the political left and right (i.e. capital) generally agree on is the inevitability and general good of globalisation.

A globalized economy means that capital has access to a global work force (both stationary and migratory) and to global markets, which translates into to increased returns on investments.

For the Left, globalisation means implementation of its ideology of a post-racial/post-European society, in which the despised (on the left, self-hating) white man (and woman) slowly but surely disappears from history into a global melting pot of a predominantly darker-skinned humanity.

Capital’s interest in the increased returns on investments that globalisation brings is readily understood, like capitalism itself, in terms of a predominantly mercenary motivation, but what about the motivation behind the Left’s ideology of a globalized, post-racial/post-European society . . . ?

Anyone who identifies with this ideology, whether consciously or not, and whether of the Left or not (both the Catholic and Anglican churches, for example, embrace much the same ideology), will, I’m sure, deny that it is an ideology at all, but simply an expression of their enlightened, “anti-racist” humanity, or of their Christian faith, which only evil “racists”, or uncharitable/unchristian souls, identifying with their own nasty European race, rather than with humanity as a whole, would oppose.

Thus, the Left and Christian churches see the creation of a global melting pot (often referred to as “multi-cultural society”), in which ethnic Europeans (the despised “white man”), presumably along with all other races or ethnic groupings, must eventually merge into a “single human race”, as a noble goal, on the way to which, the noblest of moral causes is to bring people of different races and cultures together in a multiracial/multi-ethnic/multicultural society, where, united by their common humanity, all will embrace each other to live in brotherly and sisterly harmony – amen. And if inter-ethnic relations are not as harmonious as they ought to be, that is because of an evil “racist” tendency, particularly amongst white people, to identify with their own race, rather than with multiracial society as a whole.

Which brings us to the real, largely subconscious, motivation (and moral imperative for mass immigration) of those who identify with this ideology, which is to claim the moral-high-ground for themselves in standing up to the evil “racism” which opposes it. Because, with the moral-high-ground comes POWER, social status and advantage.

In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church was sole master in wielding the power of the moral-high-ground (based on it being God’s representative on Earth and keeper of the key to Paradise), but with the decline in Christian faith, a power vacuum arose which other sources of moral-high-ground have been created to fill. “Progressives” and the Liberal Left are the modern equivalent of the medieval Catholic Church, their social status, power and privileges based on their claims to “moral superiority”: e.g. caring about others (rather than their own), “individual human rights” (over the interests of one’s tribe or nation), and of course, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, “colourblindness”, of “race-doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

Thus, in the final analysis, the interests of both the Left and of capital in globalisation boil down to same interest in POWER (social, political or economic/monetary), along with the personal advantages that go with it.

It is not my intention to demonise the Right or the Left, or the Churches (which is tends to be their favoured tactic, because so effective), but to expose their underlying, largely subconscious, motivations, which are not nearly as noble as they would have us – and themselves – believe.

And where does this leave us? Assuming that you are giving these ideas some serious consideration.

It leaves us in urgent need of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding our own human nature and the civilisation (the social, political and economic power structures) it has given rise to.

British Identity: an Ideology!

British Identity is based, not on the natural, spontaneous mutual affinity of its citizens for each other, on the shared ancestry, culture and history which characterises a genuine Nation, but on an IDEOLOGY.

The ideology of “One Human Racism”; of a “Global Melting Pot”; of “Colourblindness”; of “Race Doesn’t Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”.

It is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which led to the horrors of Auschwitz, from which it is directly derived.

In the aftermath of the Nazi defeat, it was an understandable response to their criminally insane racial ideology to insist that “race doesn’t matter”, especially since the Nazis saw fundamental racial differences even amongst Europeans, which, without their twisted ideology, no one else could see. Europeans are not a pure race, or a single people, but a mixture of very closely related peoples, amongst whom traces of slightly different ethnicities can still be seen, but not disentangled. Thus, nationality was based not on race, but on language and/or territory organised as a sovereign state.

However, the dictum of “race doesn’t matter”, which works naturally well amongst Europeans, because of them being so closely related (racially, culturally, historically and even prehistorically, as evidenced by the relative ease with which any European can settle and integrate into any European society, as well as by the success of the American melting pot of European immigrants), was then forcefully applied to humanity as a whole: no matter how different an immigrant’s or asylum seeker’s racial, cultural or historical background might be – it didn’t matter! And anyone who suggested that it did was branded a “racist” – like the Nazis.

And this, despite the obvious importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity: witness the continuing, spontaneous segregation – despite all attempts at desegregation and integration – of African (black) and European (white) Americans, and the “white flight” and segregation now characteristic of many European cities. Most people, whatever their ethnicity, naturally enough, want to live amongst members of their own ethnic group.

Yet our ruling elites are determined to impose a racial ideology on us (that “race doesn’t matter”) which goes completely against human nature.

The only alternative they say, is a return, via the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, to Nazi racial ideology and the horrors of Auschwitz.

We are forced to choose between these two extreme ideologies, just as in the Middle Ages, people had to choose between Jesus and salvation, on the one hand, and the Devil and damnation on the other, and, of course, between the institutions (the church, political parties, etc.) associated with them.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: power politics and the importance therein of laying claim to the “moral high ground”.

It was through its claim to the “moral high ground”, as God’s representative on Earth, that the Catholic Church was able to exercise such power and influence in medieval European societies. Everyone, even the aristocracy, which exercised the power of the sword over society, had to “believe” in, or at least pay lip-service to, Church ideology, no matter how absurd (as most of us now agree it was and is). Now it is the absurd ideology of “race doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazi, we ALL have believe in, or at least pay lip-service to – certainly if you want a job in politics or the media.

But race and ethnic origins DO matter, socially and politically, and the sooner we put the “moral supremacists” who currently dominate society (mainly through politics and the media), just as the Catholic Church once did, in their place, admit this, develop a sound understanding of it, and learn to deal with it – in a rational, humane and civilised fashion – the better.