An Appeal to Nationalists

An appeal NOT to be provoked to violence by the insane response of some European governments to the refugee crisis.

Are the Swedish and German governments DELIBERATELY provoking nationalists to acts of violence with their insane response to refugee crisis, in order to gain political advantage from it?

Whatever the answer, I implore nationalists not to allow themselves to be provoked to violence, especially against refugees or immigrants. They are not to blame. Nationalist anger should be directed at those responsible for this madness, which is our OWN ruling elites.

Anger, but not violence, which will harm, rather than help our cause.

We must sublimate our anger into developing an understanding of WHY our ruling elites are behaving in this self-harming and ultimately self-destructive way, just as they were doing 100 years ago in their respective side’s pursuit of “victory” in WW1. Most of them are not bad people, just deluded and misguided.

Our ruling elites behave as they do, because of the very nature of the state itself, which academics are not being honest with us - or themselves - about, because as privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, they have a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

There are no "nation states", but only mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.

The primary purpose of the state has ALWAYS been to facilitate society's SELF-exploitation (which it is the role of its priestly/now academic elite to hide, not just from society at large, but from themselves as well, by self-deception), which is why all past civilisations have declined and disappeared, as will ours, and soon, unless we quickly recognise and develop an understanding of the true, perverted Darwinian, nature of the state, and reform it accordingly.

Here's an INTRODUCTION to the true nature of the state which, above all, we need academics to take heed of.

Comments not approved by the NYTimes

The last 3 times I have attempted to post a comment in response to an article on the NYTimes website it has not been approved and thus not published, which is a shame, so I'm publishing them here instead:

The Issue That Won't Go Away by Paul Krugman, June 20, 2015

My comment:

The issue of RACE won't go away, not because of slavery, but because state ideology, which denies the importance - even the very existence - of race, is misconceived.

Race is NOT a "social construct", as the state and its clients and employees in academia would have us believe (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but REAL and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity, which, of course, the state doesn't want us to have, because it deceitfully poses as our nation itself, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

Western states, like Britain and America, now exploit race to divide and rule society, dividing it into a morally superior, i.e. "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority, and power, just as in medieval times.

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

I elaborate further on these ideas in this BLOG.


White Supremacists Without Borders by  Morris Dees and J. Richard Cohen, June 22, 2015

My comment:

        "Britain, too, is experiencing an upswing of nationalist, anti-immigrant politics."

Unsurprisingly, given the scale of mass poor-world immigration into our country, which has already reduced native (white) Britons to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities and, combined with higher immigrant birth rates, is on course to reduce us to one in the country as a whole, before today's teenagers reach retirement age.

It is NOT racist not to want to be swamped by immigrants and reduced to an ethnic minority in one's ancestral homeland. If you doubt me, try asking a native American, or an Aboriginal Australian.

Those who really hate other races (genuine racists) are a tiny, impotent minority. The real threat to civilisation comes from an  IDEOLOGY of white racial self-denial and self-contempt (an overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology), which in all western democracies has taken the place of medieval church ideology as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control.

It serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority.

See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Middle-Class Black Families, in Low-Income Neighorhoods by David Leonhardt, June 24, 2015

My comment:

Wouldn't a simple explanation [for the observation that higher earning blacks still tend to live in poorer neighbourhoods] be that they prefer to live in black neighbourhoods, despite them being poorer, than in richer, but predominantly white, neighbourhoods?

Why can't America, or any other western state, simply accept the fact that race is real and important? Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group (e.g. neighbourhood) identity.

It is, I suggest, because post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, just as medieval church society and ideology once did, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority and power.

This is a shocking suggestion, I know, but surely one that social scientists need to be looked into. 

I elaborate further in this and subsequent BLOGS.

In Defence of Anders Breivik

This is the text of my 2^nd 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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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 3^rd 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.

The Stephen Lawrence Show Trial

Obviously, this is not a show trial for Stephen Lawrence’s family and friends, who understandably want to see his assailants and murderer brought to justice, but it is, I maintain, a show trial for the British STATE and media (especially on the Left), who are seeking to assert their spurious moral authority and the ideology of “one-human-racism” or “colour-blindness” (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology), on which it is based, and which denies, demonises and suppresses (as “racist”) the natural ethnic basis of national identity.

The STATE wants us to believe that Stephen Lawrence was the victim of evil “white racists”, whereas in reality he was the victim some “native thugs”, whose criminal behaviour there is no excuse for, but who were clearly provoked by STATE immigration and racial policies inimical to Britain’s indigenous population, to which these “native thugs” belonged.

Successive British governments, through their immigration and racial policies, which, for economic and ideological/power-political reasons of STATE, are contemptuous of native British ethnic identity and national (as opposed to “state“) interests, are as much to blame as the thugs who committed the assault. In fact, they are more to blame, because comprising politicians much older and more experienced in life, and far more calculating in their behaviour, seeking their own power-political advantage within the STATE.

Preparing for WW3

The next world war will not be between STATES (posing as nations), but between an allegiance of genuine NATIONS and the STATES which currently monopolise virtually all political and military POWER.

This war, and the preparations for it, will not be fought on the streets or on battle fields, but in the hearts and minds of every individual on the planet. And if we prepare ourselves well, there need be little – ideally, no – bloodshed.

The state is a product not of “rational man”, but of retarded and perverted Darwinian man, created originally and developed over the centuries to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” and the “disadvantaged”. It has given all the fruits of civilisation, but is now on course, as it approaches the limits of our finite and vulnerable planet to support it, to bring about its own destruction.

We can continue as we are, leaving it to a ruthless Mother Nature to deal with us and our situation, which will mean decimation of human populations through disease, famine, war and natural disasters, or we can develop a Darwinian understanding of ourselves and our situation and attempt to deal with it a more rational and humane fashion.

We have to create an alternative to the STATE, which only poses as our TRIBE or NATION, in order to facilitate our self-exploitation. And the only way to do this, that I can conceive of, is by organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine TRIBES and NATIONS.

In western democracies, we have the invaluable freedom to do this. Now, with the Internet, we also have the means. All that’s lacking is the WILL.

It is my hope that by recognising and developing an understanding of our own Darwinian nature, and of the civilisation (its political and economic power structures) it has given rise to, the will to save ourselves will grow and grow and grow, and with it, a just, humane and sustainable alternative to the political and socio-economic status quo, with us gradually transferring our loyalties, activities and dependences (material and emotional) from one to the other.

The Good Nationalist

My, the Good Nationalist’s, response to an article in today’s Telegraph, “Miliband’s plan for power is putting his party back on course”, in which Peter Oborne says that

“Fundamentally, there is only one key dividing line in British politics today”

And what does it all revolve around? MONEY, of course. How much money the STATE raises in taxation and spends on services and “servicing” a great army of special interests.

The only difference between the two sides is that Labour has a much broader base of special interest groups and a greater commitment to them, which require higher taxes and a bigger state.

This doesn’t reflect a really fundamental difference, as Peter Oborne would have us believe, but is really quite trivial. What we have are two (or 3, if the LibDems still count) thoroughly STATIST parties interested primarily in POWER, both for its own sake (a highly addictive intoxicant for alpha human “prime apes”) and for all the personal advantages that go with it.

All the Parties equate STATE and NATION, which, in order to legitimise themselves, they claim to SERVE. Only they don’t. They serve the STATE, and with it themselves, creating one great mercenary mess. Which is why everything revolves entirely around MONEY, as the most versatile and important form of POWER – and the insane, because totally unsustainable, obsession with perpetual economic growth, which provides an ever increasing flow of it.

If the STATE really was our NATION and the political parties really were serving it, they would never have allowed the MADNESS of mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, thereby creating the oxymoronic absurdity of a “multi-ethnic nation”, which is not a genuine nation at all, but just a mercenary STATE posing as a nation.

Why? Because all the parties have embraced (have had to embrace) a liberal-fascist/statist 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.

The fundamental dividing line, which has yet to be recognised and drawn (because most people sincerely continue to equate state and nation) is between STATISM and NATIONALISM – Genuine, good, nationalism, based on the moral maxim of “Love of one’s own; respect for others”.

The moral maxim of the liberal-faschism/statism we have had imposed on us by all the political parties since the end of WW2, in their need to claim a spurious “moral high ground” for themselves, is effectively, “Love of others; contempt for and denial of one’s own”. Ask any of the main political parties where they sand on Britain’s indigenous peoples and they’ll tell you, or insinuate, that the question itself is “bigoted” or “racist”. For them there is no NATION, just a mercenary STATE posing as a NATION.

Liberal-Fascism & the Race Card

According to liberal-fascist/statist ideology which has come to dominate Britain, America and all western democracies and, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, anyone subscribing to the natural ethnic basis of nationhood and national identity, is a “bigot” or “racist”.

THIS is the “race card” that is ALWAYS on the table and has been used for the past 60 years to undermine national identity (in favour of “state identity”) and to impose the MADNESS of mass immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, along with the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-national nationhood”.

Liberal-fascism/statism is the modern equivalent of the medieval church, both of which were able to exploit a supposed, though largely spurious, “moral high ground” (embodied in their respective ideologies) for power-political and economic advantage.

Method, Madness and Multiculturalism

In yesterday's Guardian (Cif), a black actor complained of the wide-spread discrimination against ethnic minority actors, like himself, in British TV, with lead roles being given overwhelmingly to white actors and black and Asian actors being excluded completely from most period dramas (Television’s whites-only shows reach well beyond Midsomer).

I sympathise with how this black actor feels, because obviously he and his fellow ethnic minority actors ARE being discriminated against. But for good reason: until very recent times “people of colour” were virtually absent from Europe and would thus be out of place in most period dramas. The more than 2500 years of recorded history of western, i.e. European, civilisation is “hideously white”, as former director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, might put it.

This exposes a paradox and dilemma: race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter in the “post-racial” society we are all supposed to want. But, of course they DO matter, and besides which, we don't ALL want to live in a “post-racial”, i.e. “post-European” society; only we can't say so – at least, not publicly – without being accused of “racism”.

This is the MADNESS of multicultural society, which becomes even more apparent when we use the more correct terms of “multi-ethnic” and “multi-racial” to describe it. “Ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.

The root cause of the paradox the dilemma and the madness is the STATE, which insists on posing as our NATION.

None of this madness would arise if it weren't for the STATE imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us.

Being human, we ALL tend to identity with people like ourselves, certainly until we get to know them personally, when, of course, we may find that someone of our own race, we don't like, while someone of a different race we do. But we can only know a very limited number of people personally; the vast majority will always remain strangers, and thus our inclination to judge and classify them by appearances, i.e. by race and ethnicity, will remain important. The ideal of a “post-racial” society, in which ethnic differences cease to be of any social, political or even personal significance, is just that, an ideal, and a misconceived, power-politically exploited ideal at that. Which brings me to the METHOD in the madness of multiculturalism.

The STATE, the original and still primary purpose of which (evident from a Darwinian perspective of human nature and the social power structures it has given rise to) is to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”, while posing as our NATION, needs those under its jurisdiction, i.e. its citizens, to identity with it as such, in order to lay claim to, manipulate and exploit the powerful tribal loyalty and commitment we evolved to feel towards our original tribe.

Thus, the state's self-interested embrace of the misconceived ideal of a “post-racial” society, a society in which all citizens identity with it as representing them as a PEOPLE and a NATION. Anyone refusing to do so is demonised as a “racist”, much as anyone refusing to accept church (effectively, state) doctrine (ideology) in the Middle Ages was demonised as a non-believer, Jew, heathen, or heretic.

What caused the British state, which was essentially mono-ethnic prior to WW2, to undermine its - thus far, uncontested - claim to nationhood by inviting mass immigration of peoples of completely different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds?

Obviously there were economic reasons, with both state and capital having an interest in cheap foreign labour, but also and far more importantly, yet largely overlooked, there were ideological and power-political reasons, especially on the Left, which opportunistically exploited general public revulsion at the horrors of Nazism (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Apartheid and Jim Crow) by embracing an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, of “colour-blindness”, of indifference to ethnic difference, which insisted that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance at all, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. When, in fact, they are of fundamental importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (i.e. national) identity.

Thus, was Left, by denying, demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic basis of nationhood, able to equate all stirrings of genuine national sentiment (positive as well as negative, at least, amongst ethnic Europeans), with Nazi nationalism and the horrors, especially racism, associated with it. Leaving us with STATISM pure, on the one hand, and CONSUMER-CAPITALISM, on the other.

How do we get ourselves out of this mess? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of its causes in the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation.

Conversation Between a “Racist” and an “Anti-Racist”

The following exchange is between myself, the “racist” and a Guy, the “anit-racist”, posting under the name of GoatFakir, on the thread below the line of an article in the Telegraph, “Martin Nowak: a helping hand for evolution�by Tom Chivers.

Rogerhicks: GoatFakir, Thanks for the dictionary definition [of “tribal”], its derogatory meaning being of particular interest, I think.

Human behaviour is very malleable and complicated, thus often making it difficult to understand the details of, but there can be no doubt that we are an intensely tribal animal, capable of very strong emotions in respect to our sense of group identity and loyalty (because we evolved as a member of an extended family group, or tribe).

This the STATE has always understood how to manipulate and exploit the expression (and suppression) of for its own purposes, by ridiculing, demonising and, when necessary, punishing its unsanctioned expression.

Our tribal nature inclines us strongly to identify with members of our own ethnic group, which the state now demonises as “racist”, at least if you belong to the ethnic white majority. Amongst ethnic minorities the state tolerates (would even have us celebrate) expressions of ethnic identity, because it doesn’t threaten its authority and POWER (at least, not yet), in the way that the expression of white ethnic identity would.

GoatFakir: Ludicrous to even imagine there are white skinned people: pink puce yes. My skin colour is one of the least interesting and least identifying factors about me. How did you come to be so lacking for your inaccurate perception of yours to become your identity?

Rogerhicks: Skin colour in itself, as we all know, isn’t important, except for how long you can expose yourself to the Sun without getting burned. I know Europeans who can tan a lot darker than many “dark-skinned” people. What’s important (extremely important for a tribal animal like ourselves) is its associations with ethnic (tribal) identity.

One might compare skin colour with a national (or rather, state) flag, which is just a piece of patterned and coloured cloth; in itself, like skin colour, completely unimportant. But the associations people make with it are extremely important, millions having died (usually vainly) in wars fighting for them.

GoatFakir: My house has folk from what you’d regard as at least four “ethnicities” and I identify with this group of people. Other loyalties and interests are overtaking racism in their importance thankfully.

Loved the Irish Iranian West Indian wedding I attended a few years back

Rogerhicks: GoatFakir, You are equating my ideas with “racism”, i.e. demonising them, which is, of course, what the STATE wants us all to do, so that IT can lay claim to both your, my and everyone’s tribal loyalty.

It is not for the STATE to tell us what our tribal, i.e. national, identity is. If you want to identify with the British (or whatever) State, you are welcome, but not me. I decide my own tribal, i.e. national identity. And if you want us to be friends, rather than enemies, you must respect that, just as I respect whatever national identity you choose to be, which seems to be a mixed and multi-ethnic national identity.

You choose (or have allowed the state to choose for you) to be “colour-blind”, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, and perhaps you really are, which is fine. But most of us are not and are sick of having to pretend (in order to please the state) that we are.

GoatKakir: As I have already pointed out I act independently of state ideology which has often been racist. I fear you ignore clear facts which show also that your racist ideology is on the wane

Rogerhicks: It’s not a “racist” ideology that I am championing, although I appreciate how difficult it is for you to recognise that, your own, statist ideology of “anti-racism” defining itself by declaring all opposition as “racist”.

The Catholic Church did much the same thing, and for the same power-political reasons, in the Middle Ages, condemning any contradiction of its teachings (ideology) as “heresy”.

It is your misconceived “anti-racist” ideology which will soon be on the wane, I hope, just as Catholic ideology was forced to give way to truth and reason, and to people’s desire to define their own identity (whether religious or national), rather than have it dictated to them by the state or church.

GoatFakir: Cap fits. I’m rather more independently minded vis a vis the state than you of course having quit Labour over the racist 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act. Impressed with your practiced dissemblance before breakfast. Now less than engaged with it however.

Rogerhicks: GoatKakir, I’m disappointed that you continue to disparage me, as a “racist” and “dissembler”. Hardly the way to promote understanding and friendship.

However, I’m not holding it against you, since, like most people, you have been seduced into believing state ideology.

As this ideology is increasingly recognised for the statist, power-political tool it is, hopefully, you will come to understand and respect my position.

GoatFakir: You may characterise the dominant ideology of the middle ages and the rising world zeitgeist as the culture of some imaginary “state” but I fear you delude yourself tendentiously.

The catholic church of the middle ages may have seemed like a state: neither the UN nor any other body acts so world wide now In fact the foreign based media of the UK uses racism whenever it can to distract from the growth of world wide multiculturalism and equality.

Rogerhicks: The dominant ideology of the European Middle Ages was Catholicism, which fragmented following the Reformation, before Christian ideologies (belief) in general went into steep decline, leaving something of an ideological power vacuum, which Marxists and fascists succeeded in filling for a time, before ww2 eliminated fascism and disillusionment set in with respect to Marxism/Socialism.

Following ww2, the ideological power vacuum was filled by adoption of an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which also fitted in nicely both with state ideology and with the Left’s internationalist, i.e. anti-nationalist, ideology: the ideology of “colourblindness” or “one-human-racism”, of race and ethnic origins being of no social or political importance, i.e. for national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.

Only, race and ethnic origins ARE important, certainly to most individuals, when not forced by state intimidation to suppress and deny it (even to themselves), for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

This may seem to pose an irresolvable dilemma; but not so, once you realise that the STATE is not a NATION, but just likes posing as one, in order to legitimise its authority (and POWER) over all the people, irrespective of ethnicity, under its jurisdiction.

We can’t simply abolish the STATE, because of our dependency on it, especially for enforcing the rule of law and non-violence (we don’t want to return to the times of tribal warfare), but we do need to understand its perverted Darwinian nature, how it facilitates “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and talent, and is thus inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable, addicted as it is to perpetual economic growth.

GoatFakir: Even the chinese are becoming less racist. They do have the wit to want their economy to grow.

Rogerhicks: The Chinese, I’m afraid aren’t even liberal-statist, as Britain and other western demoncracies are, but just statist, which the MADNESS of their own obsession with perpetual economic growth testifies to.

GoatFakir: Their racism is reducing and they are wise to look for economic growth. Perhaps you should look to your own identity problems rather than externalising them?  Bye.

Rogerhicks: It was my “own identity problems” with the British state abolishing the ethnic basis of its claim to nationhood which motivated me to try and understand what was going on.

I used to identify with Britain as my nation, but no longer can, because, as I’ve come to realise, it is not a nation, but just a mercenary state posing as a nation.

So now, I’m in search of my nation, as I believe everyone should be, so that together we can put an end to the tyranny of statism. Bye.

The Liberal-Fascist/Capitalist Pact

Has dominated western “democracies” since the second world war.

Under its terms, free-market capitalism, championed by the political Right, was allowed to remain the ideology of economics, so that the wealthy, talented and astute could continue exploiting “society” through their wealth, talents and astuteness, while the Left was given a free hand in imposing its universalistic, cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist ideology of race and ethnicity being of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

For those who have a problem with the term, “liberal-fascist”, “liberal-statist” has for me exactly the same meaning.

German fascism, i.e. Nazism, was extremely (to the point of being criminally and insanely) nationalistic, whereas liberal-fascism, not coincidentally, has gone to the opposite extreme of being extremely anti-nationalist (to the extent of equating it with evil, i.e. “racism”), replacing it with multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, “statism”, whereby the STATE dresses up and presents itself as our NATION.

The NATION, as defined by the (liberal-fascist) state is a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national NATION.

Hmmmmm . . . . If ever there was an oxymoron . . !!

But anyone pointing it out (the absurdity of a multi-ethnic nation) is accused of “bigotry” and “racism”, or of being "unpatriotic", and because the STATE is so powerful, it has been able to get away with it for more than half a century.

STATE and CAPITAL have both got what they want, both are free to exploit “society” and its human resources in their own fashion, one through the institutions of state and a spurious claim to the “moral high ground”, the other through property and wealth accumulation.

Stop Confusing Socialism with Statism!

From a Telegraph opinion piece, “The Equality Duty has no worthwhile purpose“:

“That particularly egregious attempt at social engineering had been labelled ’socialism in one clause’.”

Why does the Right always have to demonise “socialism” by equating it with the Left’s “statism”? Just as the Left demonises (and has thereby succeeded in suppressing) all genuine “nationalism” by equating it with “racism”.

Trouble is, neither side, Right nor Left, recognises what is really going on, how between them they are screwing their own country, their own PEOPLE, as they battle each other for political and/or economic advantage.

And of course there’s another reason why the importance of both “socialism” and “nationalism” is not recognised: “National Socialism”.

Why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? So that everyone would know how evil they were? Of course not. But because, at the time, this combined two VERY positive and appealing concepts (which, propaganda experts that the Nazis were, they knew how to capitalise on). And not without reason: these concepts are of fundamental importance; “socialism” because we are an inherently social animal, “nationalism” because we are inherently tribal (no matter how much the STATE would have us deny, demonise, or trivialise it).

If we want to create a just, humane and sustainable society (the alternative to which is our demise), we have to recognise and understand ourselves as the product of Darwinian evolution that we actually are, no matter how politically incorrect it is considered to be.

There can be no solutions to our social, political, economic or environmental problems without a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of our own human nature and of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.

Multi-National Socialism

Those on the political right tend to hate “socialism”, while those on the left hate “nationalism” (which they have succeeded effectively in equating with “racism”).

But here I will argue that both concepts are extremely important, because deeply rooted in human nature, as it evolved long before the advent of civilisation and the state; which is why they have been subjected to such abuse by the state, in its pursuit and exercise of POWER, which has resulted in them acquiring the most negative associations.

The worst abuse of all, resulting in the most negative associations, was, of course, committed by the Nazis, who actually called their movement “National Socialism”.

Why did they choose that name? Because at the time both concepts were, for very good reason, very popular, speaking as they do to two essential aspects of human nature: socialism to our inherent social nature; nationalism to our inherent tribal nature, the control and manipulation of which the power of the state (and indirectly, also capital) depends upon.

In the hands of the power-hungry state, both nationalism and socialism are obnoxious, which is why they are so hated, one especially by the left the other especially by the right. However, these two concepts belong together (cannot exist apart), but without the state. We need to recover the concept of national socialism from the abyss into which the Nazis dragged it, along with their insane and hateful ideology, cleanse it of its nasty Nazi associations, and re-examine it.

And because we comprise many tribes and nations (rather than the single “master race” the Nazis envisaged) – although we have yet to initiate, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, their formation – I suggest we call it Multi-National Socialism.

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.

Not RACIST but ANTI-STATIST

Anyone not accepting anyone else as belonging to their own NATION on grounds of race or ethnic origins (certainly in western democracies like Britain and America) is deemed a RACIST, and condemned and vilified as such. But this, I suggest, is a bit like calling someone who expresses a fondness for children, other than his own, a paedophile.

A genuine racist is someone who hates others on account to their race and/or considers their own race inherently superior to other races, and gives public expression to such feelings, which I add, because no one should be held accountable for how they FEEL - or think - but only for how they BEHAVE and what they DO.

Anyone who considers ethnicity central to nationality is in fact a true NATIONALIST, “ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, while those who consider ethnicity irrelevant and want to impose a multi-ethnic nationality on everyone else is a bullying STATIST.

STATISTS hate NATIONALISTS and thus vilify them, with the most damning appellation available, as RACISTS.

The most enthusiastic statists (anti-nationalists and “anti-racists”) are on the political left, of course; the further left, the more statist they tend to be. But in their own minimalist way, the political right are statists too, the apparent contradiction arising from the historical conflation of STATE and NATION.

Apart from anarchists, most agree on the need for the STATE: to pass and enforce laws that regulate social interactions and prevent society from descending into violence and chaos. Those on the left also see the state as an instrument for implementing their socialist ideals (education, health care, social welfare, etc.) and universalistic ideology of “one-human-racism”, while the political right wants a minimalist state which simply maintains a political framework within which individual self-interest and private enterprise can work their magic, capital make a good return in its investments, and personal fortunes be amassed.

The Left tends to see the state as an extension of one's original TRIBE and NATION, and thus responsible for taking care of everyone, because that is what tribes, in an evolutionary context, did and what human social behaviour is adapted to. The Right, on the other hand, tends to see the state as providing a framework within which the INDIVIDUAL and CAPITAL should be free (within certain limits) to exploit the social and human environment to their own advantage, with some of the wealth they create trickling down for the benefit of society as a whole, which, even if they feel no social obligations towards it, needs to be maintained as a source of human labour and consumers.

It seems to me that the political choice we have, between Left and Right (between socialism and capitalism), is like having to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

In practice, what we get is a mixture of the two, which is deeply unsatisfactory (except for some, of course), dehumanising and, most importantly, inherently unsustainable, meaning that radical change will come whether we want it or not, only the forces driving it will not be rational or humane, as we would wish, but irrational, ruthless and brutal – like the history of the 20^th Century, only far worse.

The Left wants the state to impose the social mores and ideals of our original tribe on us (thus the close association - vigorously rationalised and denied, of course - with fascism), while the Right wants it to maintain a human environment that can be exploited by the individual and capital.

It is easy to understand why most people, especially when young, tend towards the Left, because it's the natural way to go, seeing society as the equivalent of our original tribe. However, experience of life teaches most of us, despite official ideology and (usually sincere) efforts to the contrary, that it isn't anything like our tribe, and that to get on in “society”, one has to treat is as an environment in which one struggles for advantage and “success” - which is the default attitude of those on the Right.

It seems to me fundamentally wrong to treat society as an environment, a human resource and market to be exploited to one's own advantage (whether via status, a profession, capital, or social welfare), but I also loath having the STATE pose as my NATION, i.e. as the legitimate heir to my original TRIBE, when it is NOT.

Which brings me to the task of untangling the conflated concepts of STATE and NATION - which will be the subject of my next post.