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 . . !

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 . . ??

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”.

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.