Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

This is something I recently posted on the closed Facebook page of Applied Evolutionary Psychology, which I am making generally available here on my own blog.

I’ve been observing the changes in ethnic composition in London, my city of birth, as a consequence of mass immigration, since I was a child in the 1950s and my responses to it, along with those of family, friends, acquaintances and others.

The responses I have observed have been overwhelmingly negative, essentially xenophobic, which is in stark contrast to the attitude of government, which demonises xenophobia and encourages people to celebrate DIVERSITY, i.e. their own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (white Britons have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of their major cities) and ultimate demise as the country’s indigenous and dominant ethnic/racial group.

Why (not for the first time) am I bringing this subject up here? Because I believe that evolutionary psychology can explain this madness, which is what it is. It’s Orwellian and totally insane, which does not bode well for the future.

Homo sapiens evolved as a tribal and territorial animal, so of course we are going to respond xenophobically to an influx of strangers. It would be unnatural, unhuman, not to.

Western governments, it would seem, are deliberately (but not necessarily consciously) provoking xenophobia in their native populations, in order to condemn it and claim a spurious moral authority for themselves, and the power that goes with it.

It is, I have come to realise, a modern, secular incarnation of the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society 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 "moral superiors”. 

It is no coincidence that we are taught subliminally to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our tribal nature, despite it being absolutely central to who and what we are as human beings, when what we should really do is study and understand it. This, however, would deprive the state of its ability to manipulate and exploit our tribal nature for its own purposes the way it has been accustomed to do for centuries.

Being a very tribal animal also makes us a very moral animal, which the state uses to intimidate and control us, but there is virtually no awareness of this, even amongst academia, because of the lack of an evolutionary perspective, which is a consequence of a previous generation of academics having made a taboo of it, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which is what evolutionary psychology and anthropology used to be called.

The problem for evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists is that much more influential social and political scientists, in the service of their state employer, are professionally committed to this madness, which, of course, they fail to recognise as such. If you try pointing it out to them, they stonewall you, and if you persist it might well cost you your job and career, just as criticising church ideology would have done in the past (in medieval times it might have cost you your life). 

I suspect that most of you already know this at some level and are therefor very careful about what you say and who you say it to, as we all have to be on this and related issues.

The social and political sciences, trapped as they are in a pre-Darwinian dark age, are leading western society badly (fatally) astray, and the only ones qualified to challenge them are evolutionary biologists, psychologists and anthropologists. 

These ideas undermine mainstream academic and state authority, which is fraught with danger, but to allow this state-sponsored madness to continue can only lead to disaster. The encouragement by much of mainstream academia of continued mass immigration into Europe is like priming a powder keg, which will eventually explode, but anyone pointing this out is dismissed as a xenophobe, along with xenophobia itself which is simply seen as an evil to be suppressed, rather than as an aspect of human tribal nature which we need to understand and work WITH rather than against the grain of.

I’m not an academic myself, which has made it easier for me to overcome the taboos which might cost an academic their career, but it means that I lack authority. My ideas are simply ignored. I know, the ideas of academics are also often ignored, but when enough academics with highly regarded reputations promote the same ideas, they tend to be listened to.

Without wanting to sound alarmist, time is running out. If we don’t get our act together soon, and succeed in dragging the social and political sciences out of their pre-Darwinian dark age, it will be too late and the consequences catastrophic.

The blogs linked to below are a bit repetitive, I'm afraid, but I hope also complementary, and provide a reasonable account of, not all, but much of, my thinking:

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

Civilisation: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac?

Method to the Madness of DIVERSITY

Why I'm so Critical of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

In Defence of Anders Breivik

#Contrapot

What does science tell us about race and racism?

This was the title of an event at the Royal Institution on Thursday 19th November 2015, in which Radio 4's Inside Science presenter, Adam Rutherford, "hosted a panel of experts including Kenan Malik, Aoife McLysaght and Heidi Mirza for an evidence-based discussion of an always controversial subject".

I sent this email to the organisers, prior to the event, to which I received no response:

Dear Organisers,

Before we can have a meaningful discussion of “racism” we must clarify what we mean by it.

When it means racial hatred, as practiced by the Nazis, or racial supremacism, as practiced not just by the Nazis, but also under Jim Crow and Apartheid, then clearly it is an evil that all right-minded people are opposed to.

However, “racism” is now also equated with racial prejudice, which is absurd, because as human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, including race. We wouldn’t be human if we were free of prejudice. And anyone claiming to be so is either a scoundrel (a “moral supremacist”) or deluding themselves.

We have a natural, surely evolved and inherent, inclination to identify with and favour those most like ourselves and our own family members. This doesn’t mean that we hate, or think ourselves superior to anyone who isn’t like ourselves, but it does tend to make us prejudiced in favour of our own family, tribe, ethnic group and - dare I say it? - race.

The question is, WHY have natural human prejudices been equated with the evil of racism?

The answer, I suggest, is political, power-political. It is a modern manifestation of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite (supposedly free of racial prejudice) 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”.

The biological basis of race is not unimportant (especially in respect to medicine), but has very little bearing on racial prejudice. We are an inherently and intensely tribal animal, so whenever ethnic differences are perceived (and clearly, we all do perceive them) there is bound to be prejudice.

If politicians want to demonise and exploit this in pursuit of political advantage, that (sadly) is their business, but it is not - or shouldn’t be - the business of scientists and academics, whose business it is to understand things (in this instance, human nature and the prejudices that go with it), so that we are better able to deal with them in a rational and civilised fashion.

I look forward to hearing what your speakers have to say about “race and racism” on Thursday of next week.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

The discussion was disappointing, although pretty much what I had expected. The "experts" dedicated themselves to defending state racial ideology (as their jobs in academia and the media, of course, oblige them to), which dismisses race as a "social construct", despite all the evidence suggesting that it is real and important. 

Racism wasn't discussed at all, but simply used, as usual, to demonise anyone who disagrees with state racial ideology or admits to perfectly natural and healthy racial prejudices, which, if we are honest with ourselves (which the "experts" clearly aren't), we ALL have.

Link to BLOGS in which I elaborate further on my "racist" ideas.

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.

The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

This is the title of an editorial (LINK) in today's NYTimes, which I submitted a comment on. It wasn't approved, so here it is on my own blog:   

We all understand and accept that our own lives and the lives of family and friends mean more to us than the lives of strangers.  

However, all strangers are not equal. There are strangers whom we relate to and identify with far more readily than with others, and one of the main factors influencing this is RACE.  

Race is not the "social construct" that the state and state ideology 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 central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity.  

It is the STATE which is the real "social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct", which deceitfully poses as our NATION, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy) clients.  

This is what not just America needs to recognise and develop an understanding of, so that instead of trying to bend human nature to suit the state and its purposes, we can learn to adapt the state, its institutions and moral code to better suit human nature and needs.  

This is how to go about resolving America's racial problems, rather than with accusations of "racism".  

I elaborate in this BLOG.

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

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.

The feckless father of 40 children by 20 mothers

This is the interesting topic of an article in today's Daily Telegraph (LINK)

From a Darwinian perspective, Mike Holpin, the man in question, has been a lot more successful at exploiting his environment (British society) for his own reproductive success than the likes of Bill Gates, whom most people, in line with "British values", on account of his great material wealth, consider to be one of the planet's most successful men.

Not only has Bill Gates produced relatively few children of his own, he is also using his wealth to massively promote the reproductive success of other races than his own, which is a total perversion of man's Darwinian nature, but which our twisted British (and western) values consider morally virtuous.

What this demonstrates is the perverted Darwinian nature of western civilisation itself, which our academic and political elites are so smug about, vainly believing that it make them morally superior.

Only, it doesn't make them morally superior at all - unless you subscribe to their moral and cultural relativism - but very stupid, the price for which will be the extinction of their own race, which, perversely, they don't care about, or even acknowledge the existence of.

They claim, instead, to care about the "human race", which is how they rationalise their claim to moral authority, and the personal advantages that go with it.

See earlier blog in which I elaborate on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation.

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.

An Exchange of Views with Sunder Katwala

This is an exchange if views between Sunder Katwala (Director of British Future) and myself on the Telegraph website below the line of an article he authored (LINK to article).

I think it was a very valuable exchange, in which we both expressed our very different views on the issue of multi-racial and multicultural Britain. I'm republishing our exchange here in the hope that we can continue our discussion and eventually come to a mutual understand.

• 

  rogerhicks

  1 day ago

  Sunder, Your name alone tells me that we belong to different nations, as does just  a glimpse of your face.

  That does't mean to say we can't be friends or at least get along. Certainly we should respect each other as individuals. But please, don't try embracing me as belonging to the same nation, because we don't. That is just the power-politicing of the British state - the same one that took us into the First World War - and its political elite, who want to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethnic nationhood" on us.

  I don't blame third world immigrants, or their descendants, for wanting to enjoy the benefits of British, or any other western state's citizenship, but I feel a far stronger bond with other native Europeans (and European Americans and Australians) than I do with non-European immigrants like yourself - unless I get to know them personally, of course, which is a very different matter, as I elaborate on in the blog I have linked to below.

  On The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.
  • 
    
• 

  Sunder Katwala

  1 day ago

  So, which nation do my children belong to? They have been born here, since 2006, to parents born here in the 1970s, with grandparents born in the 1940s and 1950s in England (1), India (1) and Ireland (2). 

  Do you make a distinction between them and Sebastian Coe, who also has an Indian grandparent? If so, why?
  • 
    
• 

  rogerhicks

  1 day ago

  Sunder, When your numbers were small, to embrace you as one of us was a reasonable and civilised thing to do, because it didn't undermine our identity as essentially a nation of closely related European peoples (you add a few drops of colour to a big pot of white paint, and for all intends and purposes it remains a pot of white paint), but there are now too many of you. We can't embrace you all without losing our own ethnic identity, which forms the natural basis of national identity and genuine nationhood.

  The state has long posed as our nation in order to legitimise itself and its ruling/political elite, but as recent developments conclusively prove, it is not a nation at all. Not a "nation state", as it claims, but a "patron state", which plays us, its clients, off one against the other.

  Like you, I have a lot of sympathy for the fundamental ideas of socialism, which, like nationalism, is deeply rooted in man's inherently social and tribal nature. Only the state is no substitute for our tribe, or nation, as it deceitfully claims to be.

  I would be interested in hearing your response to the blog I linked to on The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter, and also to this blog on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of of the State and civilisation itself.
  
  
• 

  Sunder Katwala

  1 day ago

  Sorry, you failed to answer the question. Are you including or excluding my children? Are you excluding Sebastian Coe too. Is it names that matter? Or glimpses of faces? (They aren't that visibly ethnically different, but maybe its the surname that counts).

  More seriously, your argument fails to provide any future for this country. It is a multi-ethnic country now, which remains majority white and white British, and that can not be reversed, certainly not in any peaceful or democratic way.

  My Dad was born a British subject in India. Like those who came over on the Windrush from the West Indies, a lot of effort went into telling them they were British. They believed what they were told, and were then told it hadn't been intended or (as you say), that the offer was made but it was rescinded. I am confident of my place in this country, and want everybody else to be too.

  But I don't see the case for such a level of pessimism that the British or the English have lost their national identity. I see the Jubilee street parties. I see the plans to commemorate our history in 2014. I see the power of the English language and its literature - from Chaucer and Shakespeare, yet it power also to absorb immigrant influences from Beowulf to Eliot, Shaw to Stoppard and Rushdie, without ceasing to be a single tradition. 

  Michael Gove put this case very well a few years ago

  "I happen to think that request or demand gets its wrong, and that there is a better metaphor. A metaphor that somebody who was themselves a migrant to this country came up with. That was the metaphor that TS Eliot used when he was describing the great tradition of English literature. Eliot described the presence of each new author in the tradition as subtly altering how we saw that tradition.

  What Dickens, or Hardy, or Yeats or indeed Eliot himself contributed to English literature changed how we see all of English literature. And so when we think of Britishness, it is impossible to think of it now without the contributions of each successive wave of new citizens.

  Not just in the sense as Robin Cook famously pointed out that chicken tikka massala is now Britain's favourite dish. Some of those who best summed up how Britons think were not John Bull figures themselves. There is no better author who better understands the English tradition of liberty than Isiah Berlin. There is no better student of British history than Lewis Napier. There is no better exponent of the British tradition of pragmatism and empiricism than Karl Popper

  All of these figures sum up what it is to be British, what it is to have a British sensibility. They are all people who took their place in an existing tradition and subtly altered it by their presence. And that particular British tradition, as Liam argued, has been uniquely open to the world".
  
  
• 

  rogerhicks

  23 hours ago

  Sunder, I can't really answer your question because I don't see Britain as a nation anymore. To me it's just a nasty, mercenary state (the same one that used to allow its children to be exploited in its mines and factories) posing as a nation, in order to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients (to which you, of course, and indeed, myself, belong).

  I don't relate to your sense of Britishness anymore than I image a Native American relates to Barak Obama's or George Bush's sense of American identity, or an Aboriginal Australian to Kevin Rudd's sense of Australian identity.

  I'm a Native Briton and European whose sense of national identity is inseparable from his ethnic identity and origins, which stretch back through more than 2500 years of recorded history and on into prehistory. You are welcome to your own, globalised British identity if that is what you want, but please, don't include me. It is not where I "be-long".

  [Britain]  is a multi-ethnic country now, which remains majority white

  But for how long? We have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in our capital city, and are on course to soon become so in the country at large.
  

  Although, I don't believe that Native Britons, and Europeans in general, are going to allow themselves to become an ethnic minority on their own continent without a fight, which means that we are heading towards civil war. It is a war that I hope we can avoid, but at the moment the prospects don't look good. It feels to me very much like 1913 all over again . . . 
  
  
• 

  Sunder Katwala

  22 hours ago

  Your problem isn't with my claim to my English and British identity. It is two-fold, and primarily with the broad, mainstream white English acceptance of my claim to British identity.

  Firstly, you have no proposal to make which would be accepted, either by Britons today generally, or by more than a slim minority of the white English/white Britons, whose identity you claim to speak for. I am confident the vast majority of white Britons accept that I am British too. This is also the case for English identity.
  Secondly, beyond your fear of civil war (though I am glad you hope it doesn't happen), you have no proposal to make about what happens to the citizenship and identity of the current British. Are you applying a grandparent test? Does one need four grandparents? What different civil and political rights do your insiders and outsiders have. 

  So please tell us what your future programme is, and how it will come about. If you are saying the nation is already dead, so it is all futile, I think the felt persistence of national identity for most people counts against you.
• 

  rogerhicks

  19 hours ago

  Sunder, This is in response to your last post, which is lacking a reply button.

  First let us agree that WE have a problem (which I fear is leading towards civil war), rather than just you or I. Certainly neither of us, nor anyone else with an grain of reason and humanity, wants civil war. I assume that we respect each other and want to get on. 

  The problem is that you want to belong to my nation, while I don't FEEL that you do, because for me the natural basis of national identity is shared race and ethnicity. I'm not bothered about "racial purity", but about racial and ethnic "identity". As I've already said, if it were just you and few others, there would be no problem. But it isn't just you, but millions of others who have come here from a distant continents, because of the massive differences in wealth and opportunity - wealth and opportunities which my ancestors - not yours - created. The Japanese and some other Asian peoples have created their own prosperous societies, and don't come to Europe in their millions to take advantage of ours. And they very sensibly don't allow others to come and take advantage of theirs.

  Not that European civilisation and prosperity is sustainable as it is currently maintained, with or without the aggravating madness of mass third world immigration. We are light-years away from achieving a sustainable global economy, which is also leading to global conflict and catastrophe.

  The source of all our problems, I see in the perverted Darwinian nature of the state and civilisation itself. Until we recognise and develop an understanding of this, there is nothing we can do to avoid conflict and catastrophe, which is why I'm always going on about it.

  We need to recognise the essentially (perverted) Darwinian nature of our situation. Denying this, as we do, does't change the fact; it just makes it impossible to deal with consciously in as rational and humane a fashion as possible.
  
  
• 

  Sunder Katwala

  16 hours ago

  Dear Roger,

  I would like to take the challenge seriously. I believe it is more important to engage with those who are anxious, not confident, about our future. For me, an important way to engage is to ask "what shall *we* do now?" ... I am not sure 'it is simply too late to do anything' is a useful response.

  So here's what I would propose
  - We need clear  foundations of our common citizenship: I think we need everybody to speak English; obey the law; respect the freedom of speech of others. We need to encourage people to be committed to our society, and to making a positive contribution to it.
  -  For those who have that commitment to us, I want us all to be fully part of us. We don't have two-tiers of being British. I do think we want and need a Britishness which can include people across every colour and creed), with the space to respect the range of different English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and other routes to that shared Britishness. So we need a political community with shared rules, and I think common traditions and shared understandings of history matter too, though they are doubtless sometimes contested and contentious issue. But, in place of civil war, we could also favour finding room in a liberal society to have some plural disagreements about the attachments which matter. There might be many more traditional and modern associations (rural and urban, high church and secular. classical and popular culture, the monarchy and our modern sporting teams. Some contributions - the export of cricket and football, and the import from newcomers of fish and chips, tea and curry) that this encompasses.

   I think we can and should have a nation, and one that most people will respond to and value. Nor need it be dismissive of your more traditional understanding of who we are, except that it can't encompass your desire to exclude millions of British-born British citizens with a felt allegiance to Britain. But I don't want our inclusion to entail your dispossession, since I can't see how you insist that it must. Our presence is a result of your (and our) shared history. The English went out to the world; they did not stay at home in a fortified island. Everything that has followed is in part a consequence of that.

  This is a possible future. I am not sure you are offering us a future at all.
  

  • 
    
  • 

    rogerhicks

    50 minutes ago
    
    

  
  
  

  I apologise about the delay in responding to your last post, Kunder, which again doesn't have a reply button.

  I think that this is a very valuable exchange of views we are having, which I hope will help us avoid the conflict between third world immigrants and native Europeans that is brewing, not just in Britain, but right across Europe, and in America too, where, although its founding race and still its ethnic majority, whites are not the native, i.e. indigenous, population, which creates a different situation than we have in Europe, where whites ARE the indigenous population.

  Clearly, you identify with the British state and accept its claim to representing a nation, which I don't. This is the fundamental issue which separates us. I hope to bring you - eventually -  around to my way of thinking and viewing our situation, which is very much outside of the political box, or boxes - in fact, outside the room in which the boxes are kept - in which we are used to thinking, being based on my own, human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective.
  
  Initial attempts at applying Darwin's ideas to human society went horribly wrong (especially when the Nazis got hold of them) and were thus discredited and dismissed as "social Darwinism", which it is now considered a moral imperative to condemn. The mistake of social Darwinists was to use the theory to rationalise and justify prevailing values and the status quo with its social and racial inequalities. However, as I elaborate on the blog I linked to, a Darwinian approach is absolutely essential to developing anything like a realistic understanding our situation, which is the only way that we can take any kind of rational control of it.

  We delude ourselves into believing that we are in control of our situation at the moment - because that is what our brain evolved to make us believe - but nothing could be further from the truth.

  This is all I have time for at the moment, although there are a number of things you say in your post that I would like to respond to.