Method to Madness of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

No one is really "colour-blind", of course, but can only feign it, humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are.

Why has it taken me so long to recognise this simple truth? Why have academics still not recognised it?

Because POWER (of the state) forbids it, and because academics invented post-racial multiculturalism, persuading their “patron states” to embrace it, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, effectively, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

See previous BLOG in which I elaborate further.

America's Gun Laws

Until recently I’d never been able to make sense of America’s gun laws, which allow so many people to own a gun and results in a huge toll of death and injury. How, I wondered, could a rational and civilised society possibly justify such laws? The answer, I eventually decided, was that America was neither a rational nor a civilised society.

However, in the light of the Darwinian view I now take of all human societies (their power structures) being shaped by human nature, itself being a product of Darwinian evolution, I have now revised my opinion.

It’s not that America’s gun laws are irrational or uncivilised, but that America is not a genuine society (i.e. a nation, which would be a natural extension of one’s original tribe), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT – or “jungle”, as it is sometimes called – where, despite the pretence of being a PEOPLE and a NATION (i.e. a genuine society), the individual (family) is still engaged in the primordial struggle for survival, advantage and “success”.

Within your tribe (a genuine society) you don’t need a weapon, because you are all brothers and sisters (i.e. closely related), cooperating (all for one and one for all) in the primordial struggle for survival and “success” in the wider natural environment, which originally included other, rival, tribes. It was only when individuals left the security of their tribe that they took their weapons with them.

America’s gun laws reflect the fact that it is not a genuine society or nation, but a “jungle”, where everyone needs to be on their guard, every ready to defend themselves (and their family) and to grab the opportunities that are available.

A semblance of “society” and “nationhood” is maintained and cultivated by the STATE, which maintains order and prevents chaos for the good of everyone, but also facilitates society’s self-exploitation, as an environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.

This also explains the lack of enthusiasm for state welfare, with the state taking care of everyone as if they were all member of the same tribe or nation. Because, deep down, most Americans know that they are not a PEOPLE or a NATION, despite their politicians’ frequent references and appeals to them as such (enthusiastically supported by the “national” media) – politicians who would never dream of exploiting “society”, but always refer to themselves as its “servants”.

It also explains the different outlooks of the political right and left: the right doesn’t want the state playing the role of tribe (i.e. genuine nation), but just to maintain the social environment and the rule of law, so that those with wealth or talent can exploit it; the liberal-left, on the other hand, want the state to play the role of tribe and genuine nation, taking care of all its people’s needs.

If America really were a PEOPLE and a NATION the liberal-left would be right to take the stance they do (which, of course, is what they believe), but it is NOT, so what they are doing is trying to bang a square peg into a round whole. You can do it – but only with force: thus the justified accusation of “liberal fascism”.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary’s 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].

Also, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the idea of a multi-ethnic nation (which America is supposed to be ) an oxymoronic absurdity.

If America (and the same also applies to multi-ethnic Britain) isn’t a PEOPLE or a NATION, what is it? It’s a mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, in order to facilitate the self-exploitation of its population (see the rest of my blog).

This is a harsh reality to face up to, but better that than to go on denying it.

Basically it's a (collective) “relationship issue”. To quote the Beatles, “we can work it out”. It won’t be easy or painless, but it’s doable, provided one faces up to reality, and maintains a sense humour and humanity.

The Absurdity of Multi-Ethnic Nationhood

This is in response to a recent piece in the Telegraph, Are white girls really ‘easy meat’? by Andrew Gilligan, the thread to which, with my comment on it, has been removed, whether deliberately or by technical fault, I don’t know.

“One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate.”

If this is a specifically Muslim view then perhaps it’s time that I (and a lot of other natives) converted . . !

It illustrates, for the unblinkered eye, the MADNESS of creating a multi-ethnic society on the scale we now have. Because it’s one thing criticising publicly those you identify with as your OWN, but quite another criticising those you don’t identify with.

“What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities?“

It’s the audacity of those Muslims (a minority), who, having chosen all the advantages of British citizenship over those of their country and culture of origin, then slag us off, which really gets up our (the natives’) noses.

But then, you can’t blame Muslims who were born here, because they didn’t make that decision. Neither would I blame their parents or grandparents for making the decision to come here, with all the advantages and opportunities Britain offers over their country of origin, nor for wanting to retain their own ethnic and cultural identity – after all, they’re human beings, and not just the “human resource” or ideological ammunition which state and capital primarily see them as.

“What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?”

Those to blame are our own ruling elites, who wanted cheap foreign labour for British business, on the one hand, and to implement the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race-doesn’t-matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, on the other, thereby establishing their moral superiority and claims to power (much as the Catholic church did in the Middle Ages, only using a different ideology to claim the moral high ground with).

The truth is that race and ethnic origins DO matter – for human beings! – for an individual’s sense personal and group identity. Denying this and trying to impose a sense of multi-ethnic nationhood on us, which is what our ruling elites have been doing for the past 60 years, by condemning anyone who objects as a “racist” (or “bigot”), is economic and power-political madness. And we should know where madness (of whatever kind), sooner or later, leads . . .