Jeremy Corbyn's Language of Moral Supremacism

Jeremy Corbyn ended his speech to the Labour Party Conference with these words:

"Don't accept injustice. Stand up against prejudice."

This is the language of "moral supremacism".

Being human, we are ALL prejudiced about everyone and everything, including ourselves and race. We cannot be otherwise.

To demonise prejudice is to demonise human nature itself, which is what the state has always done, in order to intimidate, divide, and rule us.

In the past, this demonisation of human nature was based on church ideology, with its notion of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly authority and ideology could save one from eternal damnation for.

In post-racial multiculturalism, we now have a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology (and in academia, the modern heirs and counterparts of the medieval clergy), whereby original sin is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group), which was wrongly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism, which again 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".

Clearly, we need to control our prejudices in an acceptable and civilised fashion, just as we do our sexual inclinations and urges, and if we fail to do so, the law is there to constrain us. But just as we no longer demonise our sexual inclinations and urges, so long as we control them in an acceptable fashion, nor should our prejudices be demonised. They are what they are. We just need to control them in an acceptable fashion.

Man is an inherently moral animal, making it easy for the state to intimidate and control us when it demonises aspects of human nature. It wants us to believe that without strict state regulation, our prejudices (formally our sexuality) would lead to a break down of civilised society. It is up to us to show that this is not the case, that we can learn to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion.

In this BLOG I explain how the state exploits the demonisation of different aspects of human nature in order to intimidate and control society.

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.

Moral Supremacism

Picking up on the references I made in my last post to “moral supremacists”, I will argue here that they are the biggest threat of all to the survival of our civilisation – far greater than the threat of black and white “supremacists” combined, because far more numerous and powerful.

What are Islamists (those trying to impose Islam on society) other than “moral supremacists”?

What are the Catholic and Anglican churches other than institutionalised “moral supremacism”?

What are those (politicians, academics, media people, etc.) imposing the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, society on us, together with the ideology of “Race doesn't Matter”, is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, other than “moral supremacists”?

Some are moderate, keeping their moral supremacism to themselves, while others – the truly dangerous ones – are intent on imposing it on others, through laws, physical or verbal intimidation, or even violence.

What motivates “moral supremacists”, I suggest, is the desire for POWER over others, in the struggle for survival, advantage and “success” in the artificial environment of human society.

The state itself was founded back in the Middle Ages by a coalition of military supremacists (the aristocracy) and moral supremacists (the clergy).

Moral supremacism is such an integral part of the power structures of any society that it is very difficult, especially from within one's own society, to recognise for what it is.

Cannibalism: an Answer to Overpopulation

Like most people, the very thought of eating human flesh makes me feel physically sick, but if cannibalism is the ONLY way to survive, then surely it is an option that must be considered, rather than dismissed out of hand.

It’s easy to dismiss something as unthinkable, when there is no pressing, no life or death, need. But when your, and your children’s, very survival depends on something, no matter how abhorrent, then surely you have a moral duty, to your children, if not to yourself, to at least contemplate it. That doesn’t mean you have to do it – just think about it, as a option for survival. Only a “moral-supremacist” would forbid it – notwithstanding that there are many of them about.

Normally, cutting off your own arm, would be a morally abhorrent thing to do, comparable with cannibalism, but there are circumstances, as the recently released film, 127 hours, shows, when it can be the right, even heroic, thing to do.

Or if an isolated population, for example, were faced with starvation, with the only way for at least some to survive until the next harvest being cannibalism, then surely that is what they would have to consider doing. Some of the men, perhaps, instead of sacrificing themselves in war (as canon fodder for kings, popes or politicians), offering themselves as food for their people.

We have few quibbles about men sacrificing their lives in war, even for the most dubious interests of state, so why should we not accept them sacrificing their lives so that their bodies can serve as food for their nation?

Our physical repugnance at the thought of eating human flesh is probably no different from the repugnance many feel at the thought of eating any animal flesh, and many more at eating certain kinds or parts of an animal.

Personally, I cannot conceive of eating human flesh to save myself from starvation. I’d rather starve, or so I believe at the moment. But placed in that extreme, life or death, situation, who knows? Perhaps I would change my mind. On the other hand, if my own children were facing starvation . . . . ?

If I were to offer myself, MY body, to MY people as food, if that is what they needed to survive, would that not be a noble thing to do?

I’m reminded of the story of the Buddha, in one of his lives, sacrificing it for the sake of a starving tigress and her cubs, laying down in front of her and cutting his own throat with a sharp piece of bamboo.

Is that story morally abhorrent, as I imagine most Christians would say it is? Not to me. I found it an inspiring story (though not necessarily one I would want to imitate) and still do, expressing the belief that we are far more than just our body, which will eventually die anyway. If we choose, for a good cause, to sacrifice it earlier, why not? It’s just a body. It’s my immortal soul that counts, which may well be strengthened, rather than diminished, through self-sacrifice.

The first point I want to make with these shocking ideas is that when it comes to survival, a question of life or death (not just your own, by your children’s) even cannibalism is an option that only a “moral supremacist” would forbid (better to let your children die than offer them human (even your own) flesh).

For me, personally, cannibalism would be the very LAST option, when the choice was between that and death – and even then I might choose death. I can’t say for sure, without actually being in that situation.

The second point I want to make is that cannibalism, whether we like it or not, WILL be a consequence of overpopulation, as will be (to some extent, already are) starvation, disease and war. These are ruthless Mother Nature’s ways of re-establishing balance and sustainability, when humans prove incapable (as we currently are) of doing it for themselves . . .

And what are we doing about it? Nothing. We’d rather not think about it; or when we do, delude ourselves into believing that human ingenuity, technology and perhaps the colonisation of other planets will come to our rescue – before we are forced to resort to cannibalism. Unless “moral supremacists” force us to leave the job to starvation, disease and war.

The Importance of Being White

i.e. an ethnic European

List of Great Whites	List of not so Great Whites
Socrates Plato Aristotle Copernicus Kepler Galileo Newton Lavoisier Darwin Einstein Neil Armstrong (rep. Apollo Project)	Hitler Stalin Goebels Himmler Ian Huntley

One could extend both lists without limit, but I’m just picking out names most people are familiar with.

If my choice of words seems a bit punny and elicits a smile, that’s good, because this is NOT an exercise in white supremacy (as, of course, “moral supremacists” and statists will insist it is), but in white, i.e. ethnic European, awareness and identity (But that IS racism, they scream!).

No, it’s not, any more than the expression of black, native American, or any other minority ethnic awareness and identity is; although, if allowed to, it can of course lead to racism, as it most horrifically did in Nazi Germany. In part, it is fear of this which has resulted in the demonisation, as “racist”, and suppression of all expression of white (ethnic European) awareness and identity (although the most vicious Nazi racism was directed at their fellow Europeans). And the existence of groups of neo-Nazis and white supremacists is used to reinforce such fears, which are not completely groundless, but massively exaggerated, in order to intimidate and exert political control.

In stark contrast to the “multi-ethnic states” and “pseudo nations” all western democracies, in this age of monetisation and globalisation, have become, ethnic Europeans, despite having no state, or power, of their own, actually form a “natural nation”, which accords pretty well with the dictionary (OED) definition of a nation:

“A large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Despite the massive pressure that I and everyone else in Britain and other western democracies is under to see the multi-ethnic STATE as our NATION, I find it quite impossible to do so, and the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it is nonsense and wrong – to give in to state pressure and intimidation by the moral supremacists, who occupy all positions of power in politics and the media and who, in contrast towhite, black or Islamic supremacists, are the real enemy within, because they currently have us in their statist iron grip.

I see ethnic European as my “natural nation”; my tribe as native English. So those who identify with the multi-ethnic British state as their nation, see me as a threat, who they thus demonise as a “racist”.

Only, I’m not a racist – any more than native Americans, or any indigenous people seeking to retain their ethnic identity, are. The only people I “hate” (and even then, not to the extent that I wish them harm), or feel “superior” to (which is how genuine racists are supposed to feel towards other races) are those members of my OWN race who would impose their moral supremacist ideology on me and everyone else, in defence of the oxymoronic absurdity of the multi-ethnic British state being a nation (Greek, ETHNOS, from which “ethnic” is derived, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION), just as the medieval church imposed its own moral supremacist ideology (its interpretation of the Gospel truth) on everyone, likewise demonising as evil anyone who did not comply, and for the same power-political reasons.

Today’s statist and moral supremacist ideology is based on belief in the none importance of race and ethnic origins, despite its obvious importance for an individual’s sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.

Race and ethnic origins don’t matter, they say, and as far as our mercenary state and capital are concerned, they are right. But for anyone who wants a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity, they DO matter.

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.