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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Family: the Last, Wretched Vestige of our Original Tribe

According to an opinion piece in yesterday's Telegraph, "The Tories have broken their marriage vow",

"Marriage is one of the most important of all social institutions."

This is because, along with the nuclear family it is associated with, it is the last, crippled, vestige of the original tribe and community in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, but which, between them, state and a money, wholly for-profit  economy have over the centuries (especially during the last) made redundant.

The state, which usurped our original tribes and now poses as our nation, which we mistakenly assume exists to serve us, was in fact created and has developed over the centuries to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage, originally of just the rich and powerful, but nowadays of a very numerous and diverse elite, and, paradoxically, because of their role in modern democracy as clients and

Multiculturalism's Toxic Legacy

This post is in response to the following article in yesterday's Telegraph, Multiculturalism has left Britain with a toxic legacy:

"Labour ministers . . . thought the only issue would be racism from the local population."

Which they could then exploit to massive power-political advantage by claiming "colour-blindness" and the authority of the moral high ground for themselves, with Conservative politicians, if they didn't want to be branded "racist " themselves, having no choice but to follow suit.

It is exactly the same power-political strategy used by the medieval church to claim moral authority for itself, which it was able to use to exert control not just over the peasantry, but over the aristocracy as well.

Back then it was belief in church ideology that was demanded, now it is belief in the ideology of "colour-blindness" or "One-Human-Racism", which, not coincidentally, is the exact but equally extreme opposite

Sepp Blatter is Right about RACISM

Genuine racism is largely absent from football (on and off the pitch) and the rest of society, but evoked opportunistically (like the slur of “communist” or “socialist” from the other side of the political spectrum to indiscriminately discredit anyone with even mildly leftwing views) to suppress, possibly offensive, but otherwise perfectly normal forms of behaviour.

There are mighty, ideological/power-political reasons of STATE, why so-called “racism” is portrayed as such a heinous crime, being accused of which is the modern equivalent of witchcraft or heresy in medieval times, used by the authorities, often via the mob, to keep the population in line with STATE ideology: formally Catholicism, nowadays “multiculturalism”.

Genuine racism is about expressions of hate or contempt for other races, while so-called “football racism” has little or nothing to do with this, but with expressions of offended or confused identity caused by the madness of mass 3^rd world immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and the accompanying “multiculturalism” that native Europeans are having imposed on them by their respective STATES.

The ideology involved, which has taken over the power-political role that church ideology played in medieval Europe (and which Islamic ideology plays today in Muslim states), is that of “one-human-racism” or “colour-blindness”, which not coincidentally is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, denying, trivialising, ridiculing, demonising and suppressing (as “racist”) the natural ethnic basis of national identity, which it determined to replace with a state-defined multi-ethnic, pseudo-national state identity.

Race, according to this ideology, is nothing but a “social construct”, which the state is free to “reconstruct” it as it sees fit.

It is not race which is a social construct (except when one attempts, as the Nazis did, to racially distinguish closely related peoples, such as Poles, Jews and Germans), but the STATE.

The question is, do we continue allowing the STATE to define our national identify for us, – which it does oxymoronically as “multi-ethnic” – or do we, the people, define it for ourselves, and having done that, proceed to redefine and limit the powers of the STATE?

The Stephen Lawrence Show Trial

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

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

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

Immigration is no longer taboo

“Immigration is no longer taboo”

Writes Alasdair Palmer in today’s comment section.

The core issue, however, and the taboos surrounding it, do not primarily concern immigration, but RACE – which, of course, is inextricably bound up with immigration from non-white (poor, third world) countries.

We can now question the madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, but not the even greater madness of denying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, which the STATE, for reasons of power-political advantage, is forcing on us by declaring it “evil”, i.e. “racist”.

Was David Starkey Being Racist?

This is the question put by Toby Young on his blog in today’s Telegraph. Here’s my response:

It is hard to exaggerate the degree of intimidation contained in this question.

In the Middle Ages the corresponding question would have been, “Does he believe in God?” Of course he would have believed in God (only the heathen didn’t, who, in our midst, were either converted, cast out, or killed), i.e. is not a racist (only evil people like the Nazis are, who we cast out of civil society).

The real question is, “Does he believe in the Church’s (the state’s) interpretation, i.e. ideology, of what it means to believe in God, i.e (not to be a racist)? If not, he’s a HERETIC, which is almost as bad as being a complete non-believer (racist), because defying the authority of the Church, i.e. the STATE; and ultimately this is all about POWER, the power of the Church or STATE over the population they claim to SERVE.

So, what is state ideology in regard to race? Basically and not coincidentally, it’s the exact, but equally extreme opposite, of the racial ideologies which underlay Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism, the contrast with which it uses to claim an absolute (but also spurious) moral high ground for itself. Anyone who challenges, or even questions, it, as with church ideology in the past, is automatically dismissed and condemned in the harshest possible terms, which nowadays is as a “bigot” or “racist”.

It is the ideology of “colour-blindness”, of “one-human-racism”, of the “global melting pot”, or whatever one chooses to call it, which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite their profound importance for any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national identity, although, of course, it is for this very reason that this ideology is so attractive to the multi-racial state, which, in order to legitimise its authority and power, must pose as a single nation (notwithstanding the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” ).

America was already multi-racial, but not European states, which chose to become multi-racial in order to demonstrate their ruling elites’ adherence to state racial ideology and thus moral superiority and right to rule (the cheap foreign labour it brought into the country also suiting business and capital interests).

Where “liberal (and not so liberal) fascism”/statism and its ideology of “colour-blindness” reigns supreme, the “colour-blind” (or those who can feign it) are kings . . !

An Ideal (socialist) Society

In an ideal socialist society we would treat each other like “royalty” (L. Rex = king, which has the same root as “kin“).

There is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with “socialist” ideas or ideals, which are a necessary and healthy response to (consumer) capitalism which treats people not as “kin” or even as human beings, but primarily as a “human resource” and market.

The problems arise – which have given socialism such a bad name – when the STATE, i.e. politicians, attempt to implement socialist ideas in a population they see as “clients” (a “market“, to be served for personal advantage and profit) rather than as kin (to be served forkinsake). It’s a view greatly facilitated by the creation of a multi-ethnic society . . .

On right-wing websites the words “socialist” and “socialism” are mainly used as terms of abuse, dismissal or belittlement, much as the words “capitalist” and “capitalism” are on left-wing sites.

Having evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, as a tribal animal, our brains are obviously hard-wired to see things in terms of “them and us” (my tribe and other tribes!). We often speak of “tribal behaviour” in respect to politics, but again, only to disparage it; never, that I’ve noticed, in a serious, non-judgemental, attempt to understand it.

You’d think that academics – evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists – would attempt to understand human society in the light of man’s deeply tribal nature, but they don’t, prevented, it seems, by the same taboos which cause politicians and the rest of us to trivialise or demonise it (especially as “racism“).

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”.

From "White Supremacy” to “White Inferiority”

If an extraterrestrial biologist were observing human population dynamics, i.e. demographics, on planet Earth, it would be puzzled by the strong population growth in Europe, beginning in about the 15th Century, accompanied by the spread of these fair-skinned (white) humans around the globe, but then followed by their increasing replacement through non-whites, even in their original European habitat.

In terms of being better adapted to their environment, there must have been something “superior” about this white population, otherwise it wouldn’t have expanded the way it did. But what happened, this extraterrestrial biologist would wonder, to halt and reverse this expansion? Why is the white race now being replaced by other races? What is it that now makes other races “superior”, i.e. better adapted to their environment, even in the white race’s original habitat?

Only able to observe superficial human characteristics, such as skin pigmentation, this extraterrestrial biologist is puzzled, and curious to know the explanation for what is going on: why this reversal from being a particularly successful (“superior”) and expanding race, to a relatively unsuccessful (contracting, “inferior”) race?

To understand this, our extraterrestrial would have to come to Earth and study human evolutionary psychology, along with its social and power-political implications.

Human populations are organised by their power elites, not as genuine societies, serving the general good of their members (as they are led to believe by the power elites, who deceive themselves into believing it as well), but as an exploitable environment and human resource (now also as a market), for the benefit of these power elites.

Originally, these power elites comprised just an aristocracy (ruling by the power of the sword) and a priesthood (ruling by the power of the word), who cooperated (competed and sometimes fought) in creating and exploiting to their own advantage the power structures of the STATE, which they shaped to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation as a human environment.

Over the centuries, others (e.g. certain professions) managed to gain advantages for themselves, culminating finally in western democracy, in which, in theory at least, EVERYONE is free to advance themselves and exploit both their natural and human environments to maximum advantage for themselves and immediate family – provided they keep to rules (law), of course; although, these are often bent or even broken by those hopeful of getting away with it.

From an evolutionary perspective it is clear that human civilisation and the states that comprise it represent something of a perversion of evolutionary purpose, which humans themselves, despite their knowledge of Darwinian evolution, are loath to continence, having created taboos which prevent them from developing a Darwinian understanding of themselves and their civilisation. There is an understandable reluctance, hard-wired into the human brain, to undermine the very environment (the socio-economic status quo) they depend upon, especially if they have been particularly “successful” or occupy a privileged position within it.

Man evolved as a tribal animal, and although his original tribe is long gone, destroyed and replaced by the STATE, he is still dominated by deeply rooted tribal needs, emotions and behaviour patterns, which the state (and capital), while denying, ridiculing or condemning the existence of, manipulates and exploits to its own advantage. The very legitimacy of the state is based on its claim to representing a NATION, as the equivalent and extension of its subjects’ (citizens’) original tribe.

For a tribal animal, like Homo sapiens, there are effectively two very distinct, but often interdigitating, environments, in response to which he has evolved very different behavioural response patterns: one intra-tribal, the other extra-tribal. What the state, and state-like institutions such as the Catholic Church, do, is conflate and confound these two environments, which they then facilitate the self-exploitation of to the advantage of their particular elites.

Europeans were organised by their power elites into pseudo-nation states, i.e. “super tribes” which proved to be very powerful and successful in extending their influence around the globe. However, not having the interest of a genuine tribe or nation for its people as a whole, but being primarily concerned with personal advantage (often associated with the interests of particular groups) within the pseudo-nation, and with rivalries, leading to war, between European pseudo-nation states, the European race was soon in decline. A decline which its power elites make not just a moral virtue of, but a moral imperative, any interest in themselves as a genuine (super) nation of closely related peoples being demonised and condemned as an evil they call “racism”.

Thus, our extraterrestrial observer might begin to understand his puzzling observations.

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 . . ?

A Better Breed of Briton?

No longer European, but mixed and multi-ethnic.

Is this what we ALL want?

The British STATE, led by the BBC and the liberal/fascist/statist Left is imposing the melting pot of internal globalisation on us, forcing us into becoming a multi-ethnic, mixed-race, post-racial, post-European society by condemning any opposition to it as “racist”.

The reason for this madness, which the state has embraced as a moral imperative, as it once did Roman Catholicism, is power-political. It is the expression of an ideology that is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which enables its adherents to claim something close to an absolute, though quite spurious, “moral high ground” for themselves, much as the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages, which they then use for power-political advantage and domination.

The ideology is so dominant and all-pervasive that it is difficult even to recognise, and anyone who dares questions it – just as anyone who dared question Church ideology in the Middle Ages – is demonised and condemned, as a “non-believer”, “heretic” – or “racist”.

How do we face up to the liberal-fascist STATE and its ideology?

By being “good nationalists”. By ceasing to identity with the STATE, which wants to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us, and organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine nations of our own choosing.

Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Gained

We are trapped in a paradigm which prevents us recognising and facing up to the two principal existential problems now threatening to put a premature end to our civilisation: 1) the inherent non-sustainability of rapacious, consumer-capitalism, and 2) the liberal-fascist/statist ideology (not coincidentally, the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) used to impose the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on us, by equating the natural ethnic basis of national identity with “racism”.

This paradigm (which we urgently need to “lose”, i.e. replace with a more realistic, rational, humane and sustainable paradigm) equates STATE and NATION, so that however the former chooses to define itself (whether racially “pure”, like the Nazi state, or “multi-ethnic” like the liberal-fascist state) it remains a NATION, with a legitimate claim to its citizens’ loyalty.

The truth, however, is that the STATE is not our NATION, and never was, but only poses as such, in order to fulfil its perverted Darwinian purpose of facilitating “society’s” self-exploitation as a human environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”.

The STATE and consumer-capitalism are mutually dependent on each other, and on the madness of perpetual economic growth, to provide ever-increasing material wealth for individuals and revenue stream for the state, without which the mercenary democratic STATE cannot survive, because of its vassals (voters and party donors) insatiable demands. The obvious fact that such a system is inherently unsustainable (as well as unjust and inhumane), on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, is simply ignored, as if under some form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, because trapped in the existing socio-economic paradigm.

The STATE, has always demonised and suppressed its subjects inherent tribal nature and its free and spontaneous expression, in order to co-opt, manipulate and exploit it for its own ends. This is what the Nazi state did in one particularly extreme and unpleasant form; it is also what our own liberal-fascist state is currently doing in an oppositely extreme and (not so obviously) unpleasant form. It brings different races and ethnicities together in the name of DIVERSITY, which it then destroys, i.e. homogenises, in the melting pot of the multi-ethnic state.

The alternative paradigm is a new, grass-roots-democratic, Nationalism of Good Nationalists, as opposed to the state nationalism we have only known up until now. A nationalism based on “love of ones own (nation) and respect for others”. It’s a paradigm in harmony with our healthy (as opposed to perverted) Darwinian and tribal nature.

Being grass-roots-democratic, it is up to US work out the details. So what are we waiting for?

It goes without saying, I hope, that this revolution, i.e. change of paradigm, must, if it is to succeed, proceed peacefully. It’s a revolution which will take place in our heads and hearts, rather than on the streets.

Liberal-Fascism & the Race Card

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

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

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