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Original Sin (man’s disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) have been replaced by “Racism”, i.e. racial prejudice (the natural human inclination to identity with members of one’s own tribe, e.g. race or ethnic group), which only submission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.

The Paradox of Race Does/Doesn’t Matter

and its exploitation in the struggle for moral authority and power-political advantage.

This is the text to my 3rd Video blog published on YouTube.

Whether or not race and ethnicity matter depends very much on social context. The paradox arises from the state conflating and confounding three very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature (emotions, motivations, behaviour patterns etc.) evolved, long before the advent of civilisation. The modern state deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation (representing our intra- and inter-tribal environment, or social context), while at the same time facilitating society’s self-exploitation (even to the extent of its own self-betrayal) as an extra-tribal environment (but more about this in a subsequent blog on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation).

At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic origins matter little, because we are naturally inclined (genetically and by social conditioning) to ignore or play down any differences (not just racial and ethnic) with the potential to cause offence, disharmony or conflict.

Normally we want or are required to get on with others and to avoid potential sources of conflict. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any differences (whether relating to race, ethnic origins, opinions, political ideology, religion, or whatever), which, if you like them, disappear into the background, as we avoid (largely subconsciously) allowing them to become a problem.

Although, with close friends and family we may allow or even provoke such conflicts, perhaps for the sake of wanting to be honest, on the assumption (sometimes mistaken) that the relationship is protected by deep mutual affection.

Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I know from experience with my own race that there are some with very nice characters, and some very nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And it’s the same, I assume, with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them (something I know from VERY personal experience), which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.

Thus, I agree with Martin Luther King, when he famously said that an individual should be judged, not by the colour of their skin (i.e. by race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character. But how many people can we get to know well enough to judge their character? Not many. The vast majority will always be strangers to us. And one of the very first things we notice about a stranger is their race or ethnicity.

This is because, from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, race and ethnicity provide an immediate indication of whether a stranger belongs to one’s own (or a closely related) TRIBE, with which, under the conditions in which human nature evolved, one would have had a known relationship, or whether they belong to an unknown and unrelated tribe, to which one’s relationship is unknown and potentially (originally, almost certainly) hostile (with the stranger having no business being in or near one’s own territory!).

Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (i.e. race or ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, once you’ve got to know someone, does not come naturally when dealing with strangers – especially large numbers of strangers; on the contrary, in such circumstances race and ethnicity are natural criteria for judging, not individual character, but whether someone belongs to one’s own tribe or nation (originally understood to be an association of closely related tribes; something very different from the modern multi-ethnic pseudo-nation state).

The word “ethnic” is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, which makes the very notion of “multi-ethnic nationhood” an oxymoronic absurdity. This, however, is currently being imposed on us (or, depending how you look at it, we are imposing on ourselves) for ideological and power-political reasons of STATE

Race and ethnic origins form the natural basis of any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, especially national, identity, which the mercenary multi-ethnic state seeks to deny us, by demonising and suppressing it as “racist”.

It is high time that we challenged the state on this issue, facing down its predictable, power-political, but nonsensical accusations of “racism”: but peacefully and with respect for the law and for others, especially when they are of different race or ethnicity to ourselves.

Also see by blog on The Method to the Madness of Post-Racial Multicultural Society and Ideology.

Power-Political Purpose to the Madness of Multiculturalism

In a multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, the “colour-blind”, or those who can feign it, are kings, by being able to claim moral superiority for themselves and thus access to power and privilege.

In the Middle Ages it was church ideology and its authoritative interpretation of the Word of God which provided the “moral high ground” for society’s ruling elites, the means by which they exerted moral authority and the power that goes with it. Now it is the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”, of “Colour-Blindness”, of “Race-Doesn’t-Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance (especially in respect to national identity), except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.

The truth, however, does not lie in the Christian gospels, no matter how interpreted, nor in the ideology of One-Human-Racism. On the contrary, race and ethnic origins are of fundamental importance for any deep and meaningful sense of both personaland group, i.e. national, identity.

It is only the mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, whose authority and power rests on its claim to nationhood, that insists on denying and demonising (as “racist”) the importance of race and ethnic origins for national identity.

America was always multi-ethnic, whereas western European states have made themselves multi-ethnic, in order for their politicians to be able to claim the spurious moral high ground of “colour-blindnesss” for themselves, and the power-political advantages that go with it.

My Experience of the LibDems

I voted for the LibDems at the last general election because of their commitment to a far more democratic electoral system (PR), with the potential to bring real change to Britain’s sclerotic political system, but despite getting into government they failed miserably, even to get the half-baked compromise of AV onto the statute books, the British people, in their infinite wisdom (manipulated by the powers that be), deciding that they didn’t want a more democratic voting system, or the opportunity to bring real change to Britain’s corrupt political status quo.

I voted for them, despite their candidate in my constituency being a Somali refugee. I jest not! Not elected by the local party, but parachuted in by head office to make up for their lack of ethnic minority candidates. He seemed a nice enough guy, but did I want to be represented in the British parliament by a Somali?! Or anyone other than a member of my own PEOPLE . . . ? Definitely NOT. Any more than a native American wants to be represented by anyone other than a member of his own native people.

After the election, I joined the LibDems as a party member, in the expectation of thereby having the opportunity to engage with them and discuss their politics, but apart from putting me on their national mailing list, nothing happened. No one from the local party got in touch. They obviously weren’t interested in engaging with me, but just wanted my support for whatever politics they’d already decided upon.

It seems to me that the LibDems are committed to one policy more than any other: of putting an end to “white majority rule” in Britain as soon as possible (currently predicted to be around the year 2066).

WHY? I joined their party in order to discuss that very question with them, but unfortunately never got the opportunity. Thus, I can only guess at what their motivations are. What I guess is that it’s a power-politically perverted continuation of their former (quite reasonable) efforts to put an end to white minority rule in South Africa, which, in their blind pursuit of moral self-righteousness and political power, they assume is the right thing to do, creating a globalised, “post-racial” and “post-European” Britain.

I regret never having the opportunity to discuss this with them. I’ve allowed my membership to lapse, still without hearing a dicky bird from them. Which is why I’m posting some of my thoughts on the LibDems here.

Nick Clegg’s political career may be short-lived, but guarantees him personal fame and fortune for the rest of his life – not to mention a nice fat pension.

Anti-Racist Racism

If we define racism as an extreme lack of respect for, or contempt of, other races, one can easily adapt it to include one’s own race. This is what makes many “anti-racists”, and the institutions they have infiltrated, racist themselves. Some call it “reverse racism”, but really it’s just a particular form of racism.

And since you cannot really respect other races while failing to respect your own, any more than you can love others without loving yourself, it is interesting to consider what motivates such “anti-racists” to feign respect and concern for “other races”.

There are probably multiply motives, but most important amongst them is surely the desire to claim the “moral high ground” for oneself and to be a “goody”, as opposed to a “baddy”. That is personally very satisfying and can also be of huge social, political and even economic advantage.

Western democracies are currently dominated by “anti-racist racism”, because, following the defeat of Nazism, Jim Crow and Apartheid, which it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of, perversely it now represents an almost absolute “moral high ground”, such as the medieval Church once claimed for itself, which everyone (i.e. every white person) has to embrace, or become a social pariah.

The underlying (subconscious) motivation is, of course, power-political.

And just as the power of the medieval church, no matter how self-serving and corrupt, was considered vital for civilisation (to stop it descending into chaos), so too with the anti-racist racism of the liberal-fascist state – or so it would have us believe: it’s either the self-hating racism of liberal-fascism or the others-hating racism of Nazi fascism.

Or could there perhaps be an alternative to both forms of racism and fascism . . ?