I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.
Showing posts with label National identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National identity. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 August 2013
An Exchange of Views with Sunder Katwala
This is an exchange if views between Sunder Katwala (Director of British Future) and myself on the Telegraph website below the line of an article he authored (LINK to article).
I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.
I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Britain's Multi-Ethnic Olympic Team
Jim White praises the multi-ethnic composition of Britain’s Olympic team in today’s Telegraph (LINK), and this is my response:
What this article reflects is state ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology) which denies, demonises and suppresses as “racist ” the natural ethnic basis of national identity, which the liberal (and not so liberal) Left has succeeded in in imposing on all western democracies since the end of WW2., The NATION has been removed from what was supposed to be our “nation state “, leaving us with just a mercenary STATE, for which it is the “colour of money, rather than the “colour of someone’s skin ” (i.e. ethnicity) that counts. Just look at the role that money plays in sports (including the olympics) nowadays . . !
I no longer see Britain as my NATION, because it isn’t one, and thus won’t be cheering on its athletes. If I cheer at all, it will be for competitors of my own race and ethnic origins.
And NO, that doesn’t make me a “racist “, as state ideology would have us believe, but someone with a healthy sense of his own ethnic and national identity, who refuses to be intimidated by the all-powerful, but mercenary (to the point of treacherous) STATE.
Why do members, even of the conservative press, like Jim White here, go along with this madness and self-betrayal of one’s own nation? Because they’d lose their jobs (or not get them in the first place) if they didn’t, just as EnochPowell did.
Many are scared of facing up to the truth of what has happened, not because of personal cowardice, but for fear of the social and political consequences. I am more fearful of the consequences of us not facing up to it – or leaving it too late. Sooner or later it is going to be forced on us anyway. The truth is like that.
.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
The Paradox of Race Does/Doesn’t Matter
and its exploitation in the struggle for moral authority and power-political advantage.
This is the text to my 3rd Video blog published on YouTube.
Whether or not race and ethnicity matter depends very much on social context. The paradox arises from the state conflating and confounding three very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature (emotions, motivations, behaviour patterns etc.) evolved, long before the advent of civilisation. The modern state deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation (representing our intra- and inter-tribal environment, or social context), while at the same time facilitating society’s self-exploitation (even to the extent of its own self-betrayal) as an extra-tribal environment (but more about this in a subsequent blog on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation).
At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic origins matter little, because we are naturally inclined (genetically and by social conditioning) to ignore or play down any differences (not just racial and ethnic) with the potential to cause offence, disharmony or conflict.
Normally we want or are required to get on with others and to avoid potential sources of conflict. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any differences (whether relating to race, ethnic origins, opinions, political ideology, religion, or whatever), which, if you like them, disappear into the background, as we avoid (largely subconsciously) allowing them to become a problem.
Although, with close friends and family we may allow or even provoke such conflicts, perhaps for the sake of wanting to be honest, on the assumption (sometimes mistaken) that the relationship is protected by deep mutual affection.
Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I know from experience with my own race that there are some with very nice characters, and some very nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And it’s the same, I assume, with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them (something I know from VERY personal experience), which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.
Thus, I agree with Martin Luther King, when he famously said that an individual should be judged, not by the colour of their skin (i.e. by race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character. But how many people can we get to know well enough to judge their character? Not many. The vast majority will always be strangers to us. And one of the very first things we notice about a stranger is their race or ethnicity.
This is because, from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, race and ethnicity provide an immediate indication of whether a stranger belongs to one’s own (or a closely related) TRIBE, with which, under the conditions in which human nature evolved, one would have had a known relationship, or whether they belong to an unknown and unrelated tribe, to which one’s relationship is unknown and potentially (originally, almost certainly) hostile (with the stranger having no business being in or near one’s own territory!).
Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (i.e. race or ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, once you’ve got to know someone, does not come naturally when dealing with strangers – especially large numbers of strangers; on the contrary, in such circumstances race and ethnicity are natural criteria for judging, not individual character, but whether someone belongs to one’s own tribe or nation (originally understood to be an association of closely related tribes; something very different from the modern multi-ethnic pseudo-nation state).
The word “ethnic” is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, which makes the very notion of “multi-ethnic nationhood” an oxymoronic absurdity. This, however, is currently being imposed on us (or, depending how you look at it, we are imposing on ourselves) for ideological and power-political reasons of STATE
Race and ethnic origins form the natural basis of any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, especially national, identity, which the mercenary multi-ethnic state seeks to deny us, by demonising and suppressing it as “racist”.
It is high time that we challenged the state on this issue, facing down its predictable, power-political, but nonsensical accusations of “racism”: but peacefully and with respect for the law and for others, especially when they are of different race or ethnicity to ourselves.
Also see by blog on The Method to the Madness of Post-Racial Multicultural Society and Ideology.
Saturday, 3 March 2012
In Defence of Anders Breivik
This is the text of my 2nd video blog which can be viewed on YouTube.
It is NOT a defence of what Breivik DID, which is indefensible, but of what I think motivated him, which was his sense of betrayal by his own and other European governments, of their native peoples to the madness of mass 3rd world immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and to the ideology of the “melting pot” of a multi-racial and multicultural society - or “multiculturalism”, as calls it - which suppresses, as “racist”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity and is destroying (as presumably intended to do) native Europeans' distinctive racial, cultural, historical and even prehistorical identity as a community of closely related peoples.
I don't share or understand Breivik's political views or ideology (the threat he sees in “cultural Marxism” and Islam, which is his - I believe, misconceived - way of accounting for this betrayal), and I abhor his use of extreme violence - or any violence, for that matter - against the innocent; but I do share his sense of betrayal, having seen my own country, Britain, transformed beyond recognition in my own lifetime by mass 3rd world immigration and state ideology of multi-racialism and multiculturalism. In many parts of our cities, native (white) Britons are already a minority, and it is predicted (by Professor of Demography at Oxford University, David Coleman) that indigenous Britons will become an ethnic minority in the country as a whole within just 2 more generations (by about 2066). It is a tragedy that Breivik felt compelled by this betrayal to commit such a horrendous act of violence. I will leave it to future generations, with the benefit of hindsight, to judge him. Certainly European governments' deafness to or dismissal as “racist” of their indigenous people's concerns about mass 3rd world immigration, multi-racialism and multiculturalism, must bear much of the blame for driving him to such an extreme and terrible act.
But I'm not interested in allocating blame, so much as exposing the reality of this betrayal (awareness and acknowledgement of which has been suppressed for too long) and in understanding it, before it provokes yet more violence and leads ultimately to civil war, as native Europeans increasingly recognise what is happening and rise up in defence of their continent and ancestral homelands. The sooner we face up to it the better our prospects of negotiating rational and civilised solutions and avoiding further and much greater violence.
How can democratically elected governments possibly “betray” their own peoples, one asks, because it hardly seems credible? That would be an act of “self-betrayal” - which is what, in fact, it is, and makes it so difficult to recognise.
The answer of those in positions of authority, of course, who are largely responsible for this (self)-betrayal, is that there has been no betrayal, and that those who think otherwise, like myself, are just nasty xenophobes and racists (or evil madmen, like Breivik), which doesn't leave a lot of room (in fact, no room at all) for rational argument or civilised debate. Just as in medieval times, anyone objecting to church, i.e. state, ideology was simply dismissed as a “heretic”. Now, we are dismissed as “bigots” and “racists” (or madmen). And it is this dismissal and condemnation of our concerns, more than anything else, I suggest, that drove Breivik to his desperate and terrible deed, as the only way he could see of drawing public attention (otherwise dominated by state ideology and indoctrination) to his cause.
It is a form of collective self-betrayal and thus very difficult to recognise and face up to (especially by those most involved in it, many of whom see it as a moral virtue or imperative). It is perpetrated by those in positions of trust and authority, with the complicity of society at large which has been intimidated and brainwashed into believing the ideology behind it. There are some similarities to the betrayal recently exposed in the Catholic church, some of whose priests were able to get away for decades with sexually abusing children in their charge, because protected by the church itself. Nobody – least of all Catholics – wanted to believe that it could be true (thus the long delay - criminally extended by the church itself - in facing up to it), but it was true. Their children had been betrayed and abused by the institution in which they had placed complete trust. In a similar fashion, only on a far grander scale, the STATE has betrayed us, its native peoples, we who put our trust in it, believing it to represent our NATION with our best interests at heart. Facing up to this betrayal is difficult and painful, just as it was for Catholics to face up to their betrayal by the church they believed in and identified with. And, of course, many Catholics still refuse to face up to it, putting all the blame, as the church would have them do, on the “rogue” pedophile priests. Now it is the STATE and its defenders would have us put ALL the blame for what he did on Anders Breivik himself, while they and their ideology remain blameless.
Britain and western Europe are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated, so the last thing we needed was mass immigration from other continents. Yet that is what we have had imposed on us, in part for economic reasons (the demand for cheap foreign labour), but more importantly, I think, for ideological and power-political reasons of state.
In overreaction to the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust (as well as to the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), western democracies embraced an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It's an ideology which denies, demonises and suppresses, as “racist ”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity, in which race and ethnic origins are considered to be of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite the obvious importance (at least, to the ideologically unblinkered) of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.
As an initial response to the horrors of Nazism, it was understandable, but instead of being allowed to moderate and accommodate itself to the reality of race, along with its social and political importance, it was consolidated in its extreme form by those seeking to exploit it as a source of spurious moral authority and power political advantage. The noble causes of anti-fascism and anti-racism were hijacked (like other noble causes before them; something I will come back to in a subsequent blog) and transformed into what now amounts to “anti-white reverse racism”, by means of which whites (that is, ethnic Europeans) force other whites to deny and despise their own ethnic identity as Europeans, in favour of an “inclusive”, globalised, post-racial (effectively, post-European) STATE identity. It is not an inter-racial issue (as the STATE, which wants to dismiss those who raise it as “racists ”, would have us believe), but an issue of white vs white power politics, and can be summed up in the following adaptation of a well-know proverb:
In the lands of ideological colour-blindness (as all western democracies now are) the “colour-blind” (or those who feign it) are KINGS.
This, I suggest, is the underlying cause of our collective and on-going self-betrayal. Everyone who wants to pursue a career in politics, the media, academia, etc., has no choice but to embrace state racial ideology, just as in medieval times everyone, whatever their station in society, had to embrace church ideology.
I believe my own analysis and understanding of this betrayal, although in need of further development, to be far more realistic than Breivik's, in contrast to whom, I also believe that a peaceful (non-violent), friendly, non-accusatory approach will be more fruitful than his approach, which, apart from all the suffering it causes, only alienates people and hardens divisions between the two sides, i.e. between NATIONALISTS, like myself (who identify with their race) and STATISTS (who don't, or don't dare, but with the state), or, as the latter would have us see it, between “racists” and “anti-racists”.
But now, I think I've said enough for one blog, which I hope will stimulate thought and civilised debate.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Sepp Blatter is Right about RACISM
Genuine racism is largely absent from football (on and off the pitch) and the rest of society, but evoked opportunistically (like the slur of “communist” or “socialist” from the other side of the political spectrum to indiscriminately discredit anyone with even mildly leftwing views) to suppress, possibly offensive, but otherwise perfectly normal forms of behaviour.
There are mighty, ideological/power-political reasons of STATE, why so-called “racism” is portrayed as such a heinous crime, being accused of which is the modern equivalent of witchcraft or heresy in medieval times, used by the authorities, often via the mob, to keep the population in line with STATE ideology: formally Catholicism, nowadays “multiculturalism”.
Genuine racism is about expressions of hate or contempt for other races, while so-called “football racism” has little or nothing to do with this, but with expressions of offended or confused identity caused by the madness of mass 3rd world immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and the accompanying “multiculturalism” that native Europeans are having imposed on them by their respective STATES.
The ideology involved, which has taken over the power-political role that church ideology played in medieval Europe (and which Islamic ideology plays today in Muslim states), is that of “one-human-racism” or “colour-blindness”, which not coincidentally is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, denying, trivialising, ridiculing, demonising and suppressing (as “racist”) the natural ethnic basis of national identity, which it determined to replace with a state-defined multi-ethnic, pseudo-national state identity.
Race, according to this ideology, is nothing but a “social construct”, which the state is free to “reconstruct” it as it sees fit.
It is not race which is a social construct (except when one attempts, as the Nazis did, to racially distinguish closely related peoples, such as Poles, Jews and Germans), but the STATE.
The question is, do we continue allowing the STATE to define our national identify for us, – which it does oxymoronically as “multi-ethnic” – or do we, the people, define it for ourselves, and having done that, proceed to redefine and limit the powers of the STATE?
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Immigration is no longer taboo
“Immigration is no longer taboo”
Writes Alasdair Palmer in today’s comment section.
The core issue, however, and the taboos surrounding it, do not primarily concern immigration, but RACE – which, of course, is inextricably bound up with immigration from non-white (poor, third world) countries.
We can now question the madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, but not the even greater madness of denying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, which the STATE, for reasons of power-political advantage, is forcing on us by declaring it “evil”, i.e. “racist”.
Saturday, 13 August 2011
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 . . !
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
African Archbishop of York Urges English to be More Patriotic!
and to celebrate St George’s Day.
“I have long campaigned for us to have a special holiday where we can celebrate our patron saint and all that is great about our wonderful nation.”
he is quoted as saying (Link to article).
I’m amused and very cynical about the archbishop, an African by birth and descent, presuming to identify with me, my fellow “Englishmen” (all ethnic Europeans by descent) and our “wonderful nation”.
My gut response is as if he (or anyone else I’m not comfortable with) wanted to embrace me physically: Back off! I say, and put my hands up to keep him at a distance. Which he’d better do. Otherwise – if he persists in trying to embrace me – I’m likely to hit him. Then he’ll get the message: I don’t want to be embraced, not by you – thank you very much.
Only, in this political context, if I did hit out at him, or in anyway resist his advances to embrace me, I’d be branded a “racist”.
“Patriotism is only wrong if you are not doing it in the name of the Crown . . .”
archbishop John Sentamu is further quoted as saying, which throws some light on his (I’m sure subliminal) motivations.
“In the name of the Crown”, i.e. the STATE, he is exercising his legal right as a British citizen to embrace all other British citizens as members of his own PEOPLE and NATION.
Why would he want to do that when it is obvious that we do not belong to the same PEOPLE or NATION . . ? Because identifying with the British STATE, just as identifying with the Anglican church, gives him massive personal, social and economic advantages, way and above anything he could hope to enjoy in his native Africa.
I did say that I was cynical about the archbishop’s motivations, and with good reason, I think.
Although it wasn’t my intention, this post follows on nicely from by previous post about the Darwinian nature of the Catholic church.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Immigration & Parliamentary Betrayal
My response to David Cameron’s latest speech on immigration, in which he is reported as saying:
“. . mass immigration has led to ‘discomfort and disjointedness’ in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.”
And so the LIE is perpetuated: if only immigrants would “integrate” and learn English, everything would be honky dory. No mention of the fact that mass immigration has destroyed the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, or that Britain’s indigenous population is predicted to become an “ethnic minority” in its ancestral homeland within the next 50 years!
Not that I’m surprised. To admit that would be to admit that the STATE and Parliament themselves have betrayed the very people they were supposed to serve.
How could they – how do they still – get away with such a betrayal? Because it’s a form of self-betrayal, in which we are ALL implicated, and thus rationalise and hide from ourselves, subconsciously, as a form of collective, self-induced, posthypnotic suggestion.
Thus, there is no point in pointing the finger of blame – least of all, at immigrants. Instead, we need to wake up from the trance we are under, recognise what has happened and develop an understanding of it.
In the meantime, there’s very little any mainstream politician can do. Like the economy – whether socialist or capitalist – mass immigration is based on an ideology, which currently we don’t even recognise as such.
Nothing will change until we change the ideology, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid) - and would have us believe, it is the ONLY alternative to -, before being consolidated in its present extreme form by economic and political opportunism, especially by the Left, who used it to claim a spurious “moral high ground” for themselves, along with the massive power-political advantages that go with it (much as, in its own way, the medieval Church did).
Sunday, 10 April 2011
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.
Monday, 3 January 2011
The British Nation is no More
The basis of British power and the relatively low levels of corruption and anti-social behaviour (e.g. benefit fraud, malingering) in the past was that most people FELT, despite all the injustices associated with class, wealth distribution and privilege, that they still belonged to a single, unique PEOPLE and NATION, sharing a racial/ethnic, cultural (Judeo-Christian) and historical identity. But that’s all gone now, in multi-racial/ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-historical Britain.
All we are left with is the globalist/statist ideology of “Race/Ethnicity Doesn’t Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance except to evil “racists”.
The “liberal-fascist” Left (with the complicity of capital) have succeeded in taking the NATION out of what was a “nation state”, leaving us with just a mercenary, multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, STATE, still vainly pretending to be a NATION, in which the only interest one can have is self-interest (unless, as some like to imagine they are, you are capable of identifying with all humanity as belonging to your tribe and nation).
The question is, how long will it take for a significant number of us to recognise this depressing and frightening truth, and draw the consequences? And what will those consequences be?
The sooner we get on with it (recognising and understanding, before drawing any consequences) the better. On my blog I’m trying to make a start.
My basic attitude to multi-ethnic society is this: love of ones own, respect for others, instead of absurdly pretending (as our statist and moral supremacist overlords insist we do) that we all belong to the same nation.
In the meantime, I wish EVERYONE a Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)