Racist or Nationalist?

According to liberal-fascist/statist ideology, any genuine nationalist, i.e. one who defines their own national identity, rather than having it defined for them and prescribed by the STATE, is a “racist”.

Thus, for liberal (and not so liberal)-fascists, because I don’t identify with multi-ethnic Britain as my nation, but in instead, with my own particular race, I’m an evil “racist”.

I’m not really a racist, in the sense that it is generally understood, but this is how the liberal-fascist left, and the STATE it identifies with, deal with opponents of their scheme of things.

Rationally, they don’t have a leg to stand on, any more than the medieval church did, so the only way they can deal with opponents who question their ideology, and the authority they derive from it, is by demonising us.

It’s not me who will defeat this liberal-fascist STATE, any more than it was Galileo who defeated the Catholic church, but the truth. The STATE will fall, and the truth will prevail – eventually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no such thing as an 'indigenous' Briton

This was the title of an article in Monday's Guardian (Cif), written by two left-wing academics specialising in native (indigenous) American culture.

They write that 

“articles on Comment is free about indigenous peoples [invariably attract comments which ask] “what about the British . . . why can't we be indigenous, [thereby] aligning themselves – surely unwittingly – with the nationalist myth-making of the far right.”

They go on to quote the sociologist and anthropologist Mathias Guenther: 

"Indigenous is a term applied to people – and by the people to themselves – who are engaged in an often desperate struggle for political rights, for land, for a place and space within a modern nation's economy and society."

This is a classic and illuminating example of how the liberal-(fascist) left suppresses all expression of ethnic, i.e. natural and spontaneous national, identity amongst its own, ethnic European, peoples, be we English, French, German, Russian, Poles, Italian, Irish, European Americans, Australians, or whatever. Only ethnic minorities are allowed to have, express and cultivate their own ethnic identities, while for white ethnic majorities the very same feelings and behaviours are condemned and suppressed as “racist”.

Only when indigenous Britons (who represent just a few of Europe's many – more-or-less mixed - indigenous peoples) have become a disadvantage minority themselves (according to current projections, probably, some time during the next century), “engaged in a desperate struggle for political rights, for land, for a place and space within a modern nation's [globalised] economy and society", will we become worthy of state concern for our “indigenous rights”, and of pity from “progressives” and the liberal left. Until then, calling ourselves “indigenous” is just plain “racist”.

People often speak, or write, about “playing the race card”, when in fact it is ALWAYS on the table, with these words written across it in thick letters: Race doesn't matter! i.e. is of no social or political importance, except for ethnic minorities, of course (who must be allowed to peacefully cultivate their own ethnic identities, for the sake of their own self-esteem and the “diversity” that enriches us all), and for evil white “racists”.

It's an insanity (of normality, and thus difficult to clearly recognise and grapple with), of course, but that is the reality we live in, which self-proclaimed “progressives” of the liberal left have succeeded in imposing on us, including conservatives, who are as terrified of the race card as anyone, although they tend not to embrace it with the self-righteous enthusiasm of true believers on the liberal-(fascist) left.

Why is the state (of which the liberal left are the most ardent supporters, ever keen to expand its powers) so concerned to suppress (by equating it with “racism”) all expression and cultivation of white, ethnic European, identity?

It is, I believe, because this represents the stirrings of a natural and spontaneous form of nationalism (the affinity of closely related peoples for each other), which, if allowed to develop, would challenge the state's own (false) claim to nationhood, along with the power that goes with it.