#Contrapot

Having recently created the hashtag #contrapot, I thought I’d better explain what I mean by it.

In overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid) the West’s ruling elites embraced an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology (see links below).

The Nazis made a big, nasty and totally misconceived issue of race, seeing profound racial differences where they did not exist, between the closely related peoples of Europe, including  European Jews.

In the aftermath of these horrors there was an understandable overreaction, especially by academics (and, for obvious reasons, even more especially by Jewish academics), who went to the opposite extreme of denying the importance, even the very existence, of race altogether.

Despite being inherent to human nature, prejudice and xenophobia were blamed for the Holocaust and demonised, which is like blaming and demonising male sexuality for rape.

This extreme overreaction should have been recognised for the madness it was and corrected long ago, but wasn’t, because quickly incorporated into the state's age-old state strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a “morally superior”, now supposedly unprejudiced, ”colour-blind” and xenophilic, elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their supposed "moral superiors”.

This new, secular, ideology of divide and rule was of little use as a replacement for church ideology in the essentially mono-racially white societies which comprised the West prior to WW2, where there was little opportunity to accuse transgressors of prejudice, xenophobia or racism (Jim Crow America and Apartheid South Africa being notable exceptions, of course), so multi-racial and multi-cultural societies were created in their place, via mass immigration from relatively poor, non-European countries, which comprised people of different race (conveniently advertised by their darker skin colour) and culture, which also served state and capital as a welcome source of cheap and complaint foreign labour.

Anyone objecting to immigration or the changing ethnic composition of their neighbourhood or society was dismissed as a bigot, nativist, xenophobe or racist. Only relatively recently, with mass migration to the UK of white Europeans has it become possible to criticise immigration at all, without it automatically resulting in accusations of racism.

Post-racial multiculturalism now serves the state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

It doesn’t seem credible that classically democratic states like Britain, France and the USA would inflict such madness on their own people, but they have, and are, with other western states following suit.

Because it is so incredible, it is very difficult to recognise. Added to which, it is also a very painful and frightening thing to recognise: that the state we trust and identify with as our nation should betray us in such a fashion. How can it be possible? The whole purpose of the “nation state” is to serve its people’s collective self-interests - surely?

I’m afraid not. The primary purpose of the state is very different from what we have been led to believe by academics (formerly churchmen), who are looked upon as authorities, but are privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, with a massive personal self-interest (sub-conscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as a “nation”), and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious) on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

The state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival. This binds all civilisations to a cycle of boom and bust, eventually resulting in their complete demise, as in the case ancient Greece and Rome. Western civilisation, thanks to its development of science and technology, has  boomed like none other before it, but its bust phase is fast approaching, if not already upon us. The way things look at the moment, it is very unlikely that it will survive this present century, especially since the situation is compounded by our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet's compromised ability to support us.

It is a prospect that very few - especially those with children and grandchildren - are prepared to countenance, preferring instead to allow themselves to be deceived by professional optimists (mainly academics and politicians) who deceive themselves first hand.

The state does serve us, of course, and we are all completely dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock; which is not for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost of injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

The state is like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents (our original tribes and nations) before we were born, and brought us up to believe that it was our natural, caring parent, i.e. nation, with all its children’s, i.e. citizens’, best interests at heart, when in fact, its real purpose is to facilitate our self-abuse and exploitation, which is now rapidly leading to our civilisation’s self-destruction.

This explains the otherwise inexplicable self-betrayal we are currently experiencing, but which very few are aware of. Most of what is happening is being driven by subconscious forces, in fact, by our own Darwinian nature, which has been perverted by the artificial environment to civilisation itself.

It is, admittedly, difficult to get one’s head around, but once you do, everything starts to make a lot more sense. And once we understand the madness, we can start to think rationally about how to put and end to it, hopefully before it puts an end to us.

It is important to recognise it as “self-betrayal”, because blaming “others” only makes our situation worse, preventing us from uniting and putting an end to the madness. Instead, we just fight amongst ourselves as we head towards the abyss. It is what happened to ancient Greece and Rome, and is currently also happening to us.

Post-racial multicultural ideology and the government policies it has inspired have led to many western cities, such as London, becoming a melting pot for all humanity. People of different race and culture are officially encouraged to mix, integrate and assimilate, which is pretty Orwellian, when you think about it, because it destroys the very diversity its adherents claim to love and want us all to celebrate.

Human racial and cultural diversity is a consequence of populations having been more or less isolated from each other in the past. Bring them together in a city like London and what you create is a melting pot in which this diversity will gradually dissolve and disappear. In overreaction to the Nazi’s insane notion of a "pure" Germanic master race, we have gone to the opposite extreme of trying to create a “mixed-race master race”. Those seeking to maintain their racial identity by opposing the melting pot (especially if they belong to the non-Jewish white majority) are demonised as racists or white supremacists (a blind eye is turned to ethnic minorities, which, naturally enough, are often just as keen to retain their racial/ethnic identity as white people).

Post-racial multiculturalism might also be called “one-human-racism”, or the “ideology of the Pot”, and those who support it, “people of the Pot” (“miscegenate man”, as opposed to “ethnic man”). Britain has a “Pot Parliament”, committed to white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which promotes racial mixing in the melting pot of the post-racial multicultural society it has engineered and imposed on British society by demonising anyone who opposes it as “racist”.

It is not just the British state, of course. The French and American states have done the same, as, to varying degrees, have all western “democracies”. The power-political method to this madness I have already explained.

My opposition to state ideology of the Pot I call “Contrapot”. Thus the hashtag.

Evolution wired our very tribal brains to see things in terms of “them and us”, and it is better to go with the grain of human nature rather than against it.

We each need to decide which side we are on: Pot or Contrapot? It has to be one or the other.

Which ever side you choose, or while you remain undecided, it is important not to demonise the other side. The revolution I am hoping for cannot be achieved by force, violence or intimidation, but only peacefully and with respect, for others and for the rule of law. The truism, "united we stand, divided we fall", is indeed true. The very survival of our civilisation depends on us uniting, which we cannot do if we are hating and fighting each other, or trying to impose our own views on others, even when encouraged to do so by the state.

Multi-ethnic society has been imposed on us by the state using lies, deceit, force, intimidation and rewards (as you would expect from an abusive step-parent), but we cannot free ourselves from it using the same methods by which it was imposed. In fact, we can’t free ourselves from it, unless we use force and inflict grave injustice on others, which I certainly do not want to do. We must learn to live with it now, but in such a way that it is genuinely enriching for all concerned. At the moment it is Orwellian in nature, imposed as it is by the state, deceitfully posing as our nation, via a system of rewards & intimidation.

Contrapot is defined by its non-violent and respectful opposition to the Pot, i.e. the oxymoronic absurdity of multi-ethnic nationhood, which is what the British and other western governments seek to impose on their countries. But opposition is not enough. It must offer an alternative, or at least point in a direction that will lead to an alternative. So much has to change in the radical reformation of society and the state that it will take some time, years, if not decades.

Challenging the authority of the state is a tricky thing to do, given its immense power and our dependency on it (both material and emotional, so long as we identify with it as our nation), but it has to be done, so that we can carry out the radical reforms to it that are necessary, if it is to serve our long-term survival and well-being, rather our self-exploitation and self-destruction, as it has done up until now.

There is a lot more to be said, some of which I say in the blogs I link to below, but this will have to do for now.

Civilisation, an evolutionary cul-de-sac?

The West’s Overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust

The Method to the Madness of Post-Racial Multicultural Society and Ideology

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn’t Matter

Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

This is the first draft of the first part of the party manifesto of #Contrapot-UK (please, scroll down to 2nd draft):

https://twitter.com/rogerahicks/status/1074238587896508416

Jeremy Corbyn's Language of Moral Supremacism

Jeremy Corbyn ended his speech to the Labour Party Conference with these words:

"Don't accept injustice. Stand up against prejudice."

This is the language of "moral supremacism".

Being human, we are ALL prejudiced about everyone and everything, including ourselves and race. We cannot be otherwise.

To demonise prejudice is to demonise human nature itself, which is what the state has always done, in order to intimidate, divide, and rule us.

In the past, this demonisation of human nature was based on church ideology, with its notion of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly authority and ideology could save one from eternal damnation for.

In post-racial multiculturalism, we now have a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology (and in academia, the modern heirs and counterparts of the medieval clergy), whereby original sin is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group), which was wrongly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism, which again only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

Clearly, we need to control our prejudices in an acceptable and civilised fashion, just as we do our sexual inclinations and urges, and if we fail to do so, the law is there to constrain us. But just as we no longer demonise our sexual inclinations and urges, so long as we control them in an acceptable fashion, nor should our prejudices be demonised. They are what they are. We just need to control them in an acceptable fashion.

Man is an inherently moral animal, making it easy for the state to intimidate and control us when it demonises aspects of human nature. It wants us to believe that without strict state regulation, our prejudices (formally our sexuality) would lead to a break down of civilised society. It is up to us to show that this is not the case, that we can learn to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion.

In this BLOG I explain how the state exploits the demonisation of different aspects of human nature in order to intimidate and control society.

Academics Modern Counterparts of Medieval Clergy

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics (especially in the social sciences and humanities) are privileged clients and employees of their respective "patron state", with 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 power-political claim to legitimacy and to moral and knowledgeable authority.

This has profound implications for our understanding of social and political reality, because we all look to academia (even if not to every individual academic) as the highest authority on virtually all matters.

We tend to blame politicians for all that is wrong with society, but it is the academics who teach them at university and advise them once in office who are really to blame, i.e. the one's who need to be held to account.

Only, there is no one to hold them to account, other than themselves. And just like our political class (or any other class or profession, come to that), they are not inclined to be too critical of their own.

There is a classic example of this in today's press, with the parliamentary standards watchdog having found “no breach of the rules on paid lobbying” by two former foreign secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, after an investigation into cash-for-access allegations (LINK) . . .

Academics are the one's ultimately responsible for the madness of post-racial multicultural society and ideology, which now serves the state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did (LINK). They are the one's demanding that we "celebrate DIVERSITY", when it is nothing less than Orwellian newspeak for ethnic Europeans to celebrate their own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . . .

It is not my intention to demonise academics (as they tend to do with anyone who dares to fundamentally question their authority or ideology*), because that will just cause them to close their minds and hearts completely to my criticisms, when what I want them to do is listen to my criticisms and  think about them. Because when all is said and done, they are the ones who must hold themselves to account. No one else can do it.

* Anyone questioning the wisdom of post-racial multicultural society and ideology,  or the desirability of DIVERSITY is dismissed as a "bigot" or "racist" just as in earlier times anyone questioning church ideology was demonised as a heathen or heretic.

What I'm asking of academics is no easy task. It's a huge and daunting challenge, but one which the very survival of our civilisation urgently depends on them first recognising and then facing up to. It is about developing a much better, more realistic, understanding of ourselves, of society, the state and our situation. But before they can do this, they must first recognise just how deeply flawed current understanding it.

I provide an introduction to how deeply flawed current understanding is in this BLOG.

With What Right Does Government Promote Desegregation?

This is the text of a comment I made (which may or may not be approved and published) on an editorial, The Architecture of Segregation, in the Sunday Review of this weekend's New York Times.

 First, a quote from the editorial:

". . . the fight against the interlinked scourges of housing discrimination and racial segregation in America is far from finished." 

What right does government have trying to prevent racial segregation which the majority of its own citizens clearly want, even if state racial ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) makes if difficult, if not impossible, without serious personal and/or professional disadvantage, for them to admit to publicly?

The American state has embraced an IDEOLOGY which denies, demonises and suppresses, as "racist", people's natural inclination to identify with members of their own race or ethnic group.

Why?  

1) Because the state's claim to represent a single PEOPLE and NATION demands it. It is how all "nation states" legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy) clients, at the expense of society at large, its well-being and long-term survival.

2) Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (given man's inherent tribal nature) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s spurious moral authority and power. It is a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

See first of series of BLOGS in which I elaborate further.

Why are our Parks so White?

This is the title of an article in yesterday's NYTimes Sunday Review, which, as you can imagine, laments the relatively low percentage of ethnic minority, compared to white, people who visit America's national parks.

My comment was not approved, so I'm posting it here:

The article's obsession with DIVERSITY makes my skin crawl. 

What is promoting DIVERSITY other than Orwellian newspeak for white people to promote our own ethnic decline (as the article points out, America's founding race will soon have reduced itself to an ethnic minority) and ultimate demise?

Will a "white-free" America really be something to celebrate . . ?

It seems to me that we have gone from the ugly extreme of "racial hatred" (especially towards black people) to the opposite extreme of "racial self-hatred", or if "hatred" is too strong a word, to racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is hardly any better.

I've been observing this madness for many years in London UK, my city of birth, experiencing Native (white) Britons, like myself, being reduced from the overwhelming majority (>99%) to an ethnic minority, and being told by politicians that it is something I must "celebrate" - or be condemned as a "bigot" and "racist".

It took a long time, but I've finally discovered the power-politial method to this madness, which is this:

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a supposedly morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority, and power.

See BLOG in which I elaborate.

The NYTimes' Unintentional Contempt for Europe

This is my response to a NYTimes editorial, "Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants"(June 5, 2015), encouraging Europe to take in yet more immigrants and asylum seekers. I emailed it to them for publication, which, of course, they didn't do, and is why I'm publishing it here.

If the current wave of immigration into Europe was a one off, I would sympathise with the Editorial Board's attitude in respect to Europe taking the immigrants in, as expressed in last Friday’s editorial, “Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants” (June 5th), but this is not the case. Europe has been experiencing wave after wave of poor-world immigration for decades. We have already taken in millions, and there is no indication that the flood is about to stop anytime soon. On the contrary, all the signs are that the flow of immigrants will continue to grow, as population, poverty and conflict in poor-world countries also grow. 

So long as there is a significant wealth-poverty, freedom and opportunity gradient and little to impede the flow, people will move along it in one direction only, just as heat moves from hot to cold, until equilibrium has been reached, i.e. when conditions in the West cease to attract, which, in the fantasy world of most social and political scientists (especially economists), will be when the poor world is as rich and free and full of opportunities as the West is, but in reality will be when conditions in the West have deteriorated sufficiently.

I can’t believe that members of the Editorial Board are being wilfully or maliciously blind to the long-term consequences of mass poor-world immigration into Europe, so I assume that their blindness has other causes, which, of course, they are also blind to and thus unaware of. 

Clearly, they want to do right by the immigrants and asylum seekers, as individual human beings, who would be hugely helped - in the short to medium term, at least - if allowed to settle in Europe, but far from being a long-term solution, it is a recipe for conflict and disaster on a scale with the potential to exceed even that of the 20th century. The saying, “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions”, springs very much to mind.

Europe, over the centuries, has had its fill of its own inborn ethnic tensions and conflicts (and these between peoples of very similar race, culture, religion and ethnic origins), but now, following the traumas of WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust, just as Europe’s major ethnic groups (nations) are learning to get along, we are importing en masse from abroad the potential for new and additional ethnic tensions and conflicts (which, in respect to Muslims and “blacks” we are already experiencing). Just as Europeans are finally learning to share their continent peacefully with each other, it is deemed not enough; we are now expected to share our continent with an ever-increasing (and this is the crucial point) number of non-Europeans as well, which is MADNESS. 

Europe has a distinctive indigenous population of closely related peoples, just as America does, only instead of making up just a tiny, impotent, proportion of the total population, we still constitute the overwhelming majority. Neither have we been subjugated or dispossessed by foreign invaders, as native Americans were, but by our OWN ruling elites, who are now imposing the madness of mass poor-world immigration on our already overpopulated subcontinent and the DIVERSE, multi-ethnic society that comes with it.

The method to this madness, which it took me a very long time to recognise and develop an understanding of, is only partly economic (the import of cheap foreign labour, i.e. “human resources” into the West) and generally acknowledged.  Far more important, but largely unrecognised, is the ideological and power-political role this madness plays, serving, as it does, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", ruling elite (supported by their favoured clients) and the morally inferior, naturally less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to their superiors’ moral authority - and power.

No one is really "colour-blind”, of course, but can only feign it (perhaps without being consciously aware of it), humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are. Although the issue is complicated by the Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter  depending on whether we are dealing with personal relationships between individuals or more abstract relationships between strangers, especially in large numbers.

Race is NOT the "social construct" that the state would have us believe it is (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 it reflects our ethnic origins and is thus central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity. Which is, of course, why the state, which poses as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, seeks to deny and suppress this basic truth.

"Celebrating Diversity" is nothing other than Orwellian newspeak for ethnic Europeans (white people) to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities, including my own birth place) and ultimate demise . . .

In place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) we now have "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which absurdly was made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and “racists".

Why did it take me so long to recognise these simple and now - to me, at least - obvious truths? Why have academics still not recognised them? And why have they resisted all my efforts, thus far, to point them out to them?

It is because POWER (of the state) forbids it, and because academics, like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, are themselves privileged clients and employees of their respective "patron state", with 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.

Our understanding of ourselves, society and the state is fatally misconceived, because the human brain (including, most importantly, that of academics) evolved to want to maintain the environment on which it depends and has been “successful” in (as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been), and thus rationalises its view of reality accordingly. 

Overcoming this obstacle and developing a more objective and realistic understanding of society and the state is no mean task - a bit like trying to jump over one’s own shadow - but at the moment most academics are not even aware of it, which means that the social and political sciences are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, with modern social science academics clinging to their misconceived ideas just as Ptolemaic astronomers and Galenic doctors once did to theirs, and for much the same reasons.

If we are to solve our - increasingly dire - social, political, economic and environmental problems, which the very survival of our civilisation urgently depends on us doing, we need a much better, more realistic, understanding of ourselves, society and the state, which at present is clearly lacking.

As human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYTHING and EVERYONE,  including RACE, notwithstanding the huge pressure that state ideology puts us (especially our academic, political and media elites) under to deny and suppress it in ourselves and to demonise it in others. Demonising racial prejudice was an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology, and to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, but instead of allowing reason and good sense to correct this overreaction, it was quickly consolidated into an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) of socio-political intimidation and control.

Demonising racial prejudice for its role in crimes of racial hatred is like demonising male sexuality for the role it plays in rape. Obviously, the two are connected, and we need to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion, just we do our sexuality, but not deny, demonise and suppress them. The legitimate role of the state is to formulate and enforce laws which ensure that our prejudices and sexuality are expressed in an acceptable and civilised fashion.

I appreciate just how shocking, or absurd - initially, at least - the ideas I have expressed here must appear to you at the NYTimes, including members of the Editorial Board, who will, of course, have to approve their publication in your Op-Ed section. I feel like an atheist hoping to get my views on Christianity published in a conservative Catholic journal.

Like the Catholic church, you at the NYTimes are committed and beholden to an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) that I am radically criticising. However, you are also committed to seeking the truth through free debate and discussion, by means of which we might arrive at a better understanding of ourselves, society and the state.

It would be naive of me to expect you to publish this offering, but I hope that you will at least read and give some thought to my ideas.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

DIVERSITY is Orwellian Newspeak

DIVERSITY, as promoted in the West in the context of post-racial multicultural society, is Orwellian Newspeak for a "melting pot", into which genuine human diversity (racial and cultural) is dissolving and disappearing, i.e. being DESTROYED.

Those claiming to "celebrate" human diversity in the form of multi-ethnic society are in fact doing the exact opposite, i.e. celebrating its destruction. Because that is what melting pots do.

Human diversity is a consequence of human populations having been more or less isolated from each other in the past. Bring this human diversity together in a city like London and it may look very impressive (like seeing lots exotic animals, who don't naturally belong together, at a zoo), but it won't last - intermixing will see to that.

After putting an end to Hitler's dream of creating a Germanic "master race", in overreaction to it, we are now on our way to creating a "mixed race master race". What else can come of this melting pot that has been created?

Looked at more subjectively, as a Native Briton myself, whose ancestors have lived here or on the neigbouring continent for countless generations, "Celebrating Diversity" is Orwellian newspeak for me and other white people everywhere to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . .

Why are we (i.e. our political establishment, supported by other establishment elites, especially academia) inflicting this madness on ourselves?

There are, of course, economic reasons, but far more important are the power-political reasons, along with the underlying perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself, which I elaborate on in this and subsequent BLOGS.

Method to Madness of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

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

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

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

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

See previous BLOG in which I elaborate further.

Why I'm so Critical of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

Post-racial multiculturalism is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which it began as an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), before being consolidated by academics into an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

Original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) has been replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was mistakingly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

In the land of ideological colour-blindness the colour-blind (i.e. those who feign it, since no one really is) are Kings, i.e. have access to positions in politics, the civil service, the judiciary, the media, academia, etc., while those who fail to comply with state ideology do not.

What is "Celebrating DIVERSITY" other than Orwellian newspeak for white people everywhere to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . . ??

This explains why the entire western world - led, as usual, by America - has succumbed to the madness of mass poor-world immigration and an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which facilitates it, denying, demonising and suppressing as "racist" the natural ethnic foundations of national identity and genuine (as opposed to pseudo/state) nationhood. There is no need for conspiracy theories involving particular groups of people.

It also explains why our democratically elected politicians have imposed this madness on us: because they have no choice; if they want to pursue a career in politics, they have to comply with state ideology, which academics (who teach them at university and advise them in office) are largely responsible for; although it is no good “blaming” them either, because as individuals they are also beholden to this same ideology. Attacking them for it will just get their backs up, causing them to cling all the more tenaciously to their current ideologies and misconceptions, just as early 17th century academics, i.e. clergy, did when their understanding - and with it, their authority - was challenged by the likes of Galileo.

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, modern academics are themselves privileged clients and employees of our "patron state", with 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.

Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

Civilisation: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac?

The PM’s Ethnically Enriched Environment at Party Conference

I captured this as a screen shot from the video of Boris Johnsohn’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday and couldn’t help wondering whether the fact that David Cameron had a representative from each of Britain’s largest ethnic minorities (Muslim, Asian and Black) sitting directly next to, behind and in front of him was pure coincidence.

Something tells me that it wasn’t, that his ethnically enriched immediate environment was stage managed by the party’s public relations people, hoping to appeal for votes to these ethnic groups.

This is the kind of politics which characterises our political culture, and it makes me SICK.

And this is the front page of today's Daily Telegraph: 

Again, it is clearly intended to appeal to voters from ethnic minorities, but tells me all I need to know about the David Cameron’s Conservative Party and its contempt for Native Britons like myself.

Something is rotten in the heart of the Labour Party – but what?

This was the question/title of a Telegraph article, to which I responded with the following:

An ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which denies, demonises and suppresses as “racist” the natural ethnic foundations of national identity and genuine nationhood.

It’s not just Labour, of course, but being an extreme leftwing ideology, Labour has embraced it with more fervour and passion, certainly than the Conservatives. Not coincidentally, it is the exact but equally extreme and insane 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). An overreaction which, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, was quickly consolidated into the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism, and now serves all western democracies as a secular replacement for medieval church ideology and an instrument of political and social intimidation and control.

Original Sin (man’s disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) have been replaced by “Racism”, i.e. racial prejudice (the natural human inclination to identity with members of one’s own tribe, e.g. race or ethnic group), which only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as “bigots” and “racists”.

In lands of “ideological colour-blindness”, which all western states now are, the colour-blind (or those who feign it) are Kings, i.e. have access to all positions of power and influence (in politics, the civil service, the judiciary, the media and, of course, academia, through whose hands all members of our elites, along with the teachers who teach our children, pass at university), while those who refuse to comply with state ideology are denied access and made social pariahs of.

Reco2  responded with the following comment:

“opposite of Nazi racial ideology.” Which is good.

To which I answered:

“Equally EXTREME and INSANE opposite of Nazi racial ideology”, I said, which is NOT good.

To dismiss race as a “social construct” only of importance to evil “racists” is just as insane as Nazi ideas of a Germanic master race.

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, i.e. genuine national, identity.

It is not race that is a social construct (expect when you try dividing closely related peoples of the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but the state itself, which is also “power-political construct”, deceitfully posing as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its political elite and the immense power they wield.

Which explains why the the state (with the support of its privileged clients/employees in academia) is so determined to deny, demonise and suppress the importance of race.

Email exchange with Hilary Benn on Whites Becoming Ethnic Minority in UK

From: Roger Hicks <rah@spaceship-earth.org>

Subject: On becoming an ethnic minority and the paradox of race does and doesn't matter

Date: 15 March 2013 07:51:00 GMT

To: hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Mr. Benn,

I've heard both you and your father talk in London (Redbridge) on different occasions in the past, but didn't get the opportunity to put the question I wanted to ask to you. Thus this email, which you might like to forward to your dad, as well, since I couldn't find his email address.

My question is simply this: how do you both FEEL about native Britons, like ourselves, having become an ethnic minority in our capital city, and being on course to become an ethnic minority in the country as a whole long before this present century has run its course?

I appreciate what a difficult question this is to give an honest answer

to, due to the massive ideological and psychological pressure, especially you, in your position, are under to dismiss such a question as only being of interest to bigots and "racists", and don't expect one from you. But I, who am neither a bigot nor a racist, do ask you to consider it in your own mind, and if you feel so inclined, to get in touch with me, so that we might discuss it privately at your convenience when you are in London.

The point is that no matter how much we may deny it, race and ethic origins ARE important; not in the way that genuine racists believe they are, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity, and with profound implications for national identity and politics.

In overreaction to the Holocaust and the criminally insane racial ideology with which the Nazis justified it, we went to the opposite extreme, denying the very existence of race, dismissing it as a "social contract", only of interest to evil racist, like the Nazis. Such an overreaction was understandable in the aftermath of the Holocaust (in the context of which "race" really was a social, or rather, ideological, construct), but it was quickly consolidated into an extreme ideology of its own and exploited to economic and power-political advantage. It has effectively taken the place, in our more secular times, of medieval church ideology, with its notion of "original sin", which the individual could only be saved from eternal damnation for by submitting to church and state authority. Now it is "racism" (= racial prejudice, i.e. the natural human inclination to identify with and favour members of one's own race or ethnic group) which the state is determined to save us from, in order to assert its authority and power over us . . .

I have produced this blog on The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter, if you fancy taking a look.

This is a very important issue, which we have to recognise and face up to as such if we are to deal with it in a rational and civilised fashion.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

*****************
From: "BENN, Hilary" <hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: On becoming an ethnic minority and the paradox of race does and doesn't matter
Date: 15 April 2013 11:02:57 BST

Dear Mr. Hicks

Thank you for your email.

Being the son of an immigrant, but also being very British I think our great strength as a nation is our ability to overcome difference and live alongside each other.

I will pass on your best wishes to my father.

Kind regards

Hilary Benn MP

***********
From: Roger Hicks <rah@spaceship-earth.org>
Subject: On Native Britons becoming an ethnic minority
Date: 16 April 2013 07:44:06 BST
To: "BENN, Hilary" <hilary.benn.mp@parliament.uk>

 Dear Mr Benn,

Thanks for responding to my email. Only, you didn't answer my question about how you FEEL about becoming an ethnic minority in your own country (already a reality in London and predicted to become a reality for the country as a whole within about 50 years).

You mention being the son of an immigrant, but not from the third world, I'll wager. Your mother was a European American returning to her ancestral homeland in Europe.

Please, don't do a Gordon Brown (as with Mrs Duffy) on me, i.e. dismiss me as a bigot for being concerned about mass immigration and becoming an ethnic minority in the country/continent where my ancestors have lived for 1000s of years. I'm sure that you would not dismiss a Native American or Aboriginal Australian with similar concerns about his people's future as a bigot - or would you?

You may find this issue, and me for bringing it up, tiresome, but be that as it may, it is a hugely important issue with profound implications, because a very large number of Native Britons and Europeans are not going to sit back and watch themselves become an ethnic minority on their own continent without putting up a fight - which might prove to be very costly.

There is still time for us to avert such conflict, but only if we recognise and face up to the issue, which you seem to want to dismiss as only being of interest to bigots and "racists". But there is nothing bigoted or racist about wanting to preserve the ethnic identity and majority of one's own people. Native Americans and Australians struggling to do this are not bigots or racists, and neither am I.

If we are to avoid bloody conflict, we must talk. This is why I'm writing to you. You have children, I presume, for whom, like most fathers, you want a peaceful and prosperous future. But if Parliament continues to show such contempt for the interests of Britain's native (white) population, the future looks very gloomy.

I want a peaceful solution to this issue, but not at the price of seeing native (white) Britons reduced to an ethnic minority in their ancestral homelands. If you and the political elite you are a member of continue to deny that there is an issue, even that there is a native British population with an interest in remaining this country's ethnic majority, you are the ones who will be responsible for the bloody conflicts it will eventually give rise to. Thus my appeal to you to address (start discussing) this issue now, while there is still time to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

P.S. It is not just about skin colour, but about the importance of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

************

I'm still awaiting a response - but not holding my breath.

The Holocaust, an Expression of Racial Self-Hatred ?

We have all been brought up to believe that the Holocaust, the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis, was an expression of “racial hatred” born of racial prejudice. But in what way, shape or form do European Jews constitute a “different race” from other Europeans?

European Jews, I contend, are not a different race from other Europeans, anymore than Scandinavians are a different race from Italians. We all belong to the same race of closely related European peoples (most with some Middle Eastern blood in us). Sure, there are differences, but they are trivial and so mixed up that any attempt to divide Europeans into different races, as the Nazis did, is sheer madness. In addition, virtually all Europeans share a Judeo-Christian culture and history, which is what, rather than race, distinguished us from the neighbouring Muslim world.

In a European context, race really is a “social (or rather, ideological) construct”.

In view of the above, the Holocaust was not, I contend, a consequence of racial prejudice leading to racial hatred, but of racial self-contempt leading to racial self-hatred and self-destruction, massively realised in World War 1 and 2, and almost resulting in our nuclear self-annihilation during the Cold War.

Post-racial multicultural ideology, which denies, demonises and suppresses as “racist” the natural ethnic basis of genuine national identity, not coincidentally, is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, the former seeing racial differences where they did not exist amongst Europeans, the latter refusing to see them where they clearly do exist, between human populations more or less isolated from each other for 10s of thousands of years prior to the modern era (e.g. between Europeans, Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians and South Asians).

In its own extreme way, I contend, post-racial multicultural ideology, which now dominates Britain and other western democracies (as a secular replacement for church ideology**), is also an expression of European racial self-contempt, if not actual self-hatred. It has facilitated the madness of mass third world immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, has already reduced native (white) Britons to an ethnic minority in their own capital city, and will soon reduce us to an ethnic minority in the country at large.

Unable to agree on a definition of race or its significance, even where differences are most striking, and in fear of Nazi-style racial supremacism, academics decided to deny that race has any real existence or significance at all – except to evil “racists”. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, it was a welcome view that seemed to impart moral authority, which politicians, especially of the Left, quickly exploited and consolidated to their own power-political advantage. What they overlooked, and found politically advantageous to suppress in those who didn’t, was the profound importance of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

** Church ideology, with its notion of “original sin”, which only submission to church/state authority could save the individual from eternal damnation for, has been replaced by post-racial multicultural ideology, with its notion of “racism” (= racial prejudice = the natural human inclination to identify with members of one’s own tribe, i.e. race or ethnic group), which again only submission to state ideology and authority can save the individual from eternal damnation for. And now, just as in medieval times, anyone who refuses to submit to state ideology and authority is demonised and made a social pariah.

Parliament Has Betrayed Us


This was my response to a comment by tokyonagaremono in the thread below an article in the Telegraph by Norman Tebbit:  A return to capital punishment? Tokyonagareono's post became the most recommended comment and my response to it had more than 100 recommendations before being removed ("flagged for review") by the moderation. Here it is:

Parliament itself has betrayed us, Britain's native peoples, to the madness of mass third world immigration and the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism, but we can't shoot or hang them all, at least, not so long as they continue to control the armed forces. It will be them shooting us!


Because of this betrayal, we are in fact moving towards civil war, as is all western Europe, since I don't think that Europe's native peoples ultimately will allow themselves to become an ethnic minority on their own continent without a fight.


But if we recognise and face up to the betrayal which has taken place, instead of celebrating it, as Parliament currently expects us to do, I'm hopeful that there is still time to resolve the issue peacefully.

What we are dealing with here - the reason it is taking so long to recognise and face up to - is SELF-BETRAYAL. It is the SYSTEM, the STATE, and its IDEOLOGY of post-racial multiculturalism which is betraying us. Anyone wanting to make a career for themselves in politics or the media has no choice but to go along with them.


China, Japan and the world’s Agadir Crisis (1911)

This attempt at satire was obviously not appreciated by the moderation at the Telegraph, which removed it from the thread below the article it was in response to: China, Japan and the world’s Agadir Crisis (1911).

If you will excuse my attempt at satire, would it not be in OUR interests to have East Asia tear itself apart as Europe did in the 20th Century, and then to impose OUR ideology of post-racial multiculturalism on them, as America did on us, with the eager participation of our liberal-lefty elite . . .?

Are we not all sick of seeing all these hideously Chinese and Japanese-looking Chinese and Japanese when they turn up for sporting events like the Olympic games . . ??

How wonderful it would be to see a Chinese or Japanese Mo Farah winning Gold for them at a future Olympics instead of some inbred East Asian, who couldn’t possibly win Gold in a running event anyway . . . .

Trevor Phillips: a New (post-racial) Briton

There's nothing like being lectured to by an African - I beg your pardon, a New (post-racial) Briton - on how we should and shouldn't behave in our own country, which is what the head of the Equalities Commission is reported to have done in an article in today's Telegraph,

I guess we are getting a taste of our own medicine from the days of Empire when white men went around the world telling the natives there how they should and shouldn't behave.

The question is, WHO is enforcing the administration of this medicine and WHY . . ?

Immigrants, like Trevor Phillips, don't have the power to enforce it themselves, but are being backed up by very powerful forces within the state.

We urgently need to develop an understanding of what exactly is going

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”.

The State That's Betraying Us

The State, which poses as our nation, is betraying us – in 1001 ways, but primarily by giving citizenship to millions of 3^rd world immigrants and allowing them to settle in our already natively and unsustainably overpopulated country and subcontinent, and whose high birth rate means that within 50 years or so, they and their descendent will replace us, the indigenous population, as Britain’s ethnic majority. Britain’s ethnic identity will change from being European (with all the history that goes with it) to being “global”, post-racial and post-European, this being the unspoken ideological goal of liberal-fascism.

If that is not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

How is the STATE able to get away with betraying us like this?

Firstly, by having all who oppose it, or the ideology of “colourblindness” it is based on, condemned and dismissed as “racists”.

Not coincidentally, it is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (also to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), only to be consolidated is this extreme form for the sake of economic and power-political advantage, gained from claiming an absolute but spurious “moral high ground” for it.

Secondly, by deceiving us into believing that it represents our NATION, and thus into identifying with it, thereby making it a form of “self-betrayal”, which, of course, is particularly difficult to recognise and face up to.