Was David Starkey Being Racist?

This is the question put by Toby Young on his blog in today’s Telegraph. Here’s my response:

It is hard to exaggerate the degree of intimidation contained in this question.

In the Middle Ages the corresponding question would have been, “Does he believe in God?” Of course he would have believed in God (only the heathen didn’t, who, in our midst, were either converted, cast out, or killed), i.e. is not a racist (only evil people like the Nazis are, who we cast out of civil society).

The real question is, “Does he believe in the Church’s (the state’s) interpretation, i.e. ideology, of what it means to believe in God, i.e (not to be a racist)? If not, he’s a HERETIC, which is almost as bad as being a complete non-believer (racist), because defying the authority of the Church, i.e. the STATE; and ultimately this is all about POWER, the power of the Church or STATE over the population they claim to SERVE.

So, what is state ideology in regard to race? Basically and not coincidentally, it’s the exact, but equally extreme opposite, of the racial ideologies which underlay Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism, the contrast with which it uses to claim an absolute (but also spurious) moral high ground for itself. Anyone who challenges, or even questions, it, as with church ideology in the past, is automatically dismissed and condemned in the harshest possible terms, which nowadays is as a “bigot” or “racist”.

It is the ideology of “colour-blindness”, of “one-human-racism”, of the “global melting pot”, or whatever one chooses to call it, which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite their profound importance for any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national identity, although, of course, it is for this very reason that this ideology is so attractive to the multi-racial state, which, in order to legitimise its authority and power, must pose as a single nation (notwithstanding the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” ).

America was already multi-racial, but not European states, which chose to become multi-racial in order to demonstrate their ruling elites’ adherence to state racial ideology and thus moral superiority and right to rule (the cheap foreign labour it brought into the country also suiting business and capital interests).

Where “liberal (and not so liberal) fascism”/statism and its ideology of “colour-blindness” reigns supreme, the “colour-blind” (or those who can feign it) are kings . . !

A Better Breed of Briton?

No longer European, but mixed and multi-ethnic.

Is this what we ALL want?

The British STATE, led by the BBC and the liberal/fascist/statist Left is imposing the melting pot of internal globalisation on us, forcing us into becoming a multi-ethnic, mixed-race, post-racial, post-European society by condemning any opposition to it as “racist”.

The reason for this madness, which the state has embraced as a moral imperative, as it once did Roman Catholicism, is power-political. It is the expression of an ideology that is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which enables its adherents to claim something close to an absolute, though quite spurious, “moral high ground” for themselves, much as the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages, which they then use for power-political advantage and domination.

The ideology is so dominant and all-pervasive that it is difficult even to recognise, and anyone who dares questions it – just as anyone who dared question Church ideology in the Middle Ages – is demonised and condemned, as a “non-believer”, “heretic” – or “racist”.

How do we face up to the liberal-fascist STATE and its ideology?

By being “good nationalists”. By ceasing to identity with the STATE, which wants to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us, and organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine nations of our own choosing.

The BBC: Britain's "Statist" Broadcaster

Over the years the BBC has exerted more profound political influence than all the political parties put together. Their influence has been relatively superficial, having to follow the liberal-statist (some say “liberal-fascist”) political philosophy laid down by liberal statists at the BBC and elsewhere, especially in respect to race, immigration and the oxymoronic absurdity of a multi-ethnic British “national identity”.

In fact, it's not so much a philosophy as an ideology, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which, along with Apartheid and Jim Crow, initially it was an understandable overreaction to, subsequently consolidated by political (and to a lesser extent, economic) opportunism into a rigid ideology and basis for a spurious “moral high ground”, comparable to those once used to great power-political effect and advantage by the Church and Marxists. The most powerful and pernicious ideologies being those people are least aware of being ideologies.

It's an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance whatsoever, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. It's practical expression, used to intimidate political opponents and the population at large, was mass immigration of non-European peoples and the creation of a multi-ethnic society.

The obvious fact that race and ethnic origins ARE of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, e.g. national, identity is simply denied or (when people refuse to suppress and deny it) demonised – as “racist”.

Apart from this, the BBC (financed by the very people it has betrayed*) does a lot of good work and has a lot of good, well-meaning people working for it. 

* It's a form of “self-betrayal”, based, not just on self-interest, but also on misconceived ideas (ideology) of “national” interest and the interests of humanity at large, so I don't think that anyone at the BBC should be put against a wall and shot, as it was once customary to do with traitors, but should simply be removed from POWER, along with their misguided ideology, just as Eastern Europe did with Marxists and their ideology.

That's easier said than done, of course, in view of this pernicious ideology having permeated society and the body politic so thoroughly. But we could at least start thinking and talking about it, defying the taboos which still brand doing so as "racist", which is just a modern, dismissive, "progressive" word for "heathen", "non-believer" or "heretic", i.e. "evil" individual (anyone who challenges state authority and ideology).

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 . . .