In Defence of Anders Breivik

This is the text of my 2^nd video blog which can be viewed on YouTube.

It is NOT a defence of what Breivik DID, which is indefensible, but of what I think motivated him, which was his sense of betrayal by his own and other European governments, of their native peoples to the madness of mass 3^rd world immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably overpopulated subcontinent, and to the ideology of the “melting pot” of a multi-racial and multicultural society - or “multiculturalism”, as calls it - which suppresses, as “racist”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity and is destroying (as presumably intended to do) native Europeans' distinctive racial, cultural, historical and even prehistorical identity as a community of closely related peoples.

I don't share or understand Breivik's political views or ideology (the threat he sees in “cultural Marxism” and Islam, which is his - I believe, misconceived - way of accounting for this betrayal), and I abhor his use of extreme violence - or any violence, for that matter - against the innocent; but I do share his sense of betrayal, having seen my own country, Britain, transformed beyond recognition in my own lifetime by mass 3^rd world immigration and state ideology of multi-racialism and multiculturalism. In many parts of our cities, native (white) Britons are already a minority, and it is predicted (by Professor of Demography at Oxford University, David Coleman) that indigenous Britons will become an ethnic minority in the country as a whole within just 2 more generations (by about 2066). It is a tragedy that Breivik felt compelled by this betrayal to commit such a horrendous act of violence. I will leave it to future generations, with the benefit of hindsight, to judge him. Certainly European governments' deafness to or dismissal as “racist” of their indigenous people's concerns about mass 3^rd world immigration, multi-racialism and multiculturalism, must bear much of the blame for driving him to such an extreme and terrible act.

But I'm not interested in allocating blame, so much as exposing the reality of this betrayal (awareness and acknowledgement of which has been suppressed for too long) and in understanding it, before it provokes yet more violence and leads ultimately to civil war, as native Europeans increasingly recognise what is happening and rise up in defence of their continent and ancestral homelands. The sooner we face up to it the better our prospects of negotiating rational and civilised solutions and avoiding further and much greater violence.

How can democratically elected governments possibly “betray” their own peoples, one asks, because it hardly seems credible? That would be an act of “self-betrayal” - which is what, in fact, it is, and makes it so difficult to recognise.

The answer of those in positions of authority, of course, who are largely responsible for this (self)-betrayal, is that there has been no betrayal, and that those who think otherwise, like myself, are just nasty xenophobes and racists (or evil madmen, like Breivik), which doesn't leave a lot of room (in fact, no room at all) for rational argument or civilised debate. Just as in medieval times, anyone objecting to church, i.e. state, ideology was simply dismissed as a “heretic”. Now, we are dismissed as “bigots” and “racists” (or madmen). And it is this dismissal and condemnation of our concerns, more than anything else, I suggest, that drove Breivik to his desperate and terrible deed, as the only way he could see of drawing public attention (otherwise dominated by state ideology and indoctrination) to his cause.

It is a form of collective self-betrayal and thus very difficult to recognise and face up to (especially by those most involved in it, many of whom see it as a moral virtue or imperative). It is perpetrated by those in positions of trust and authority, with the complicity of society at large which has been intimidated and brainwashed into believing the ideology behind it. There are some similarities to the betrayal recently exposed in the Catholic church, some of whose priests were able to get away for decades with sexually abusing children in their charge, because protected by the church itself. Nobody – least of all Catholics – wanted to believe that it could be true (thus the long delay - criminally extended by the church itself - in facing up to it), but it was true. Their children had been betrayed and abused by the institution in which they had placed complete trust. In a similar fashion, only on a far grander scale, the STATE has betrayed us, its native peoples, we who put our trust in it, believing it to represent our NATION with our best interests at heart. Facing up to this betrayal is difficult and painful, just as it was for Catholics to face up to their betrayal by the church they believed in and identified with. And, of course, many Catholics still refuse to face up to it, putting all the blame, as the church would have them do, on the “rogue” pedophile priests. Now it is the STATE and its defenders would have us put ALL the blame for what he did on Anders Breivik himself, while they and their ideology remain blameless.

Britain and western Europe are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated, so the last thing we needed was mass immigration from other continents. Yet that is what we have had imposed on us, in part for economic reasons (the demand for cheap foreign labour), but more importantly, I think, for ideological and power-political reasons of state.

In overreaction to the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust (as well as to the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), western democracies embraced an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It's an ideology which denies, demonises and suppresses, as “racist ”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity, in which race and ethnic origins are considered to be of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists” like the Nazis. This, despite the obvious importance (at least, to the ideologically unblinkered) of race and ethnic origins for any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

As an initial response to the horrors of Nazism, it was understandable, but instead of being allowed to moderate and accommodate itself to the reality of race, along with its social and political importance, it was consolidated in its extreme form by those seeking to exploit it as a source of spurious moral authority and power political advantage. The noble causes of anti-fascism and anti-racism were hijacked (like other noble causes before them; something I will come back to in a subsequent blog) and transformed into what now amounts to “anti-white reverse racism”, by means of which whites (that is, ethnic Europeans) force other whites to deny and despise their own ethnic identity as Europeans, in favour of an “inclusive”, globalised, post-racial (effectively, post-European) STATE identity. It is not an inter-racial issue (as the STATE, which wants to dismiss those who raise it as “racists ”, would have us believe), but an issue of white vs white power politics, and can be summed up in the following adaptation of a well-know proverb:

In the lands of ideological colour-blindness (as all western democracies now are) the “colour-blind” (or those who feign it) are KINGS.

This, I suggest, is the underlying cause of our collective and on-going self-betrayal. Everyone who wants to pursue a career in politics, the media, academia, etc., has no choice but to embrace state racial ideology, just as in medieval times everyone, whatever their station in society, had to embrace church ideology.

I believe my own analysis and understanding of this betrayal, although in need of further development, to be far more realistic than Breivik's, in contrast to whom, I also believe that a peaceful (non-violent), friendly, non-accusatory approach will be more fruitful than his approach, which, apart from all the suffering it causes, only alienates people and hardens divisions between the two sides, i.e. between NATIONALISTS, like myself (who identify with their race) and STATISTS (who don't, or don't dare, but with the state), or, as the latter would have us see it, between “racists” and “anti-racists”.

But now, I think I've said enough for one blog, which I hope will stimulate thought and civilised debate.

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.

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 . . !

Scottish Nationalists or Statists?

The following quote is from an article, “The United Kingdom: Disunited, we will all fall“, in today’s Telegraph:

“Scotland, . . perhaps the most mono-cultural country in Europe . . , whose population has only recently shown a slight increase after years of stagnation, wants more incomers.”

Such MADNESS suggests to me that Scotland’s so-called “nationalist” politicians are not nationalists at all, but statists, i.e. typical power-hungry politicians, merely posing as nationalists.

Genuine (rational) nationalists identify with their own PEOPLE and NATION, which are naturally rooted in shared ethnicity, culture and history (and thus a shared sense of identity and solidarity), and would thus not want immigrants (certainly not many) of quite different ethnicity, culture and history undermining their national identity, as has happened (is happening) in England.

Statists, on the other hand, identify with POWER, which they pursue even at their own people’s and nation’s expense (and ultimate destruction). They don’t care about the “colour of people’s skin”, i.e. ethnic origins, but about “the colour of MONEY” and POWER, which now necessitates embracing core liberal-fascist/statist ideology of “colourblindness”, as a spurious “moral high ground”, which denies and demonises as “racist” the natural ethnic basis of national identity.

Liberal-Statist Self-Delusion

An example, taken from today’s Guardian, “Living with diversity”, of more liberal-statist self-delusion:

“. . . neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation.”

Thus, there is no need to restrict immigration or criticise multi-ethnic society, i.e. to challenge the ideology of the liberal-fascist Left, which is devastating our country and subcontinent.

Preparing for WW3

The next world war will not be between STATES (posing as nations), but between an allegiance of genuine NATIONS and the STATES which currently monopolise virtually all political and military POWER.

This war, and the preparations for it, will not be fought on the streets or on battle fields, but in the hearts and minds of every individual on the planet. And if we prepare ourselves well, there need be little – ideally, no – bloodshed.

The state is a product not of “rational man”, but of retarded and perverted Darwinian man, created originally and developed over the centuries to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” and the “disadvantaged”. It has given all the fruits of civilisation, but is now on course, as it approaches the limits of our finite and vulnerable planet to support it, to bring about its own destruction.

We can continue as we are, leaving it to a ruthless Mother Nature to deal with us and our situation, which will mean decimation of human populations through disease, famine, war and natural disasters, or we can develop a Darwinian understanding of ourselves and our situation and attempt to deal with it a more rational and humane fashion.

We have to create an alternative to the STATE, which only poses as our TRIBE or NATION, in order to facilitate our self-exploitation. And the only way to do this, that I can conceive of, is by organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine TRIBES and NATIONS.

In western democracies, we have the invaluable freedom to do this. Now, with the Internet, we also have the means. All that’s lacking is the WILL.

It is my hope that by recognising and developing an understanding of our own Darwinian nature, and of the civilisation (its political and economic power structures) it has given rise to, the will to save ourselves will grow and grow and grow, and with it, a just, humane and sustainable alternative to the political and socio-economic status quo, with us gradually transferring our loyalties, activities and dependences (material and emotional) from one to the other.

Race, Ethnicity & National Identity

The following quote is taken from a piece in yesterday’s Telegraph, “Why the British political class is so snooty about Gibraltar“, by Brendan O’Neill:

“New Labour was redefining Britishness as something pluralistic and open-ended, . . . a ‘gathering of countless different races and communities’, in Robin Cook’s words”.

Did Robin Cook really say that? It’s in quotation marks, so presumably he did. But what an idiot! What a complete and utter idiot. Then again, it does describe the reality, the idiocy, the complete MADNESS of multi-ethnic Britain – which no one dares question for fear of being branded a “bigot” or “racist”.

When we argue about the pros and cons of “immigration” or “multiculturalism” we are always beating about the bush of “race and ethnic difference and their importance for national identity”.

Why? Because the liberal-fascist/statist ideology** (not coincidentally, the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) we have had imposed on us since the end of WW2 has succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of national identity with “racism”.

** Initially an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazism (also to the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), but subsequently an extremely effective power-political tool for claiming a spurious “moral high ground” for oneself (or political party) and the massive advantages that went with it.

Alongside the inherent non-sustainability of rapacious consumer-capitalism on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, this is an issue of existential importance, on which the very survival of our civilisation depends. Yet both of these issues we either trivialise or ignore completely, because of their profound implications and the powerful taboos associated with them.

However, a ruthless Mother Nature will (is already beginning to) force these issue on us, whether we are prepared to face up to them or not. And if we remain unprepared, they will hit us (a combination of the two) like a giant tsunami.

The Good Nationalist

My, the Good Nationalist’s, response to an article in today’s Telegraph, “Miliband’s plan for power is putting his party back on course”, in which Peter Oborne says that

“Fundamentally, there is only one key dividing line in British politics today”

And what does it all revolve around? MONEY, of course. How much money the STATE raises in taxation and spends on services and “servicing” a great army of special interests.

The only difference between the two sides is that Labour has a much broader base of special interest groups and a greater commitment to them, which require higher taxes and a bigger state.

This doesn’t reflect a really fundamental difference, as Peter Oborne would have us believe, but is really quite trivial. What we have are two (or 3, if the LibDems still count) thoroughly STATIST parties interested primarily in POWER, both for its own sake (a highly addictive intoxicant for alpha human “prime apes”) and for all the personal advantages that go with it.

All the Parties equate STATE and NATION, which, in order to legitimise themselves, they claim to SERVE. Only they don’t. They serve the STATE, and with it themselves, creating one great mercenary mess. Which is why everything revolves entirely around MONEY, as the most versatile and important form of POWER – and the insane, because totally unsustainable, obsession with perpetual economic growth, which provides an ever increasing flow of it.

If the STATE really was our NATION and the political parties really were serving it, they would never have allowed the MADNESS of mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, thereby creating the oxymoronic absurdity of a “multi-ethnic nation”, which is not a genuine nation at all, but just a mercenary STATE posing as a nation.

Why? Because all the parties have embraced (have had to embrace) a liberal-fascist/statist ideology, not coincidentally the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which denies, demonises and suppresses, as “racist”, the natural ethnic basis of national identity.

The fundamental dividing line, which has yet to be recognised and drawn (because most people sincerely continue to equate state and nation) is between STATISM and NATIONALISM – Genuine, good, nationalism, based on the moral maxim of “Love of one’s own; respect for others”.

The moral maxim of the liberal-faschism/statism we have had imposed on us by all the political parties since the end of WW2, in their need to claim a spurious “moral high ground” for themselves, is effectively, “Love of others; contempt for and denial of one’s own”. Ask any of the main political parties where they sand on Britain’s indigenous peoples and they’ll tell you, or insinuate, that the question itself is “bigoted” or “racist”. For them there is no NATION, just a mercenary STATE posing as a NATION.

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.

Liberal-Fascism & the Tory Right

Why has the Tory Right embraced the liberal-fascist ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race and ethnic origins don’t matter”, i.e. are of no social or political relevance, e.g. for national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis (whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of), imposed on us, along with the madness mass immigration, by capital and the statist Left (within the civil service, BBC and Labour party) since the end of WW2?

For the same reason, I suggest, that European aristocracies, of the “medieval right”, were forced into embracing church ideology of the “medieval left”.

It revolves around the role of the “moral high ground” in power-politics. The aristocracy ruled by the power of the sword, but needed to supplement it with moral authority and legal justification, which was provided by the Church.

As the state established itself, not just militarily, but also as a legal and moral authority, which the population were “educated” into identifying as their nation, the need for physical force diminished.

Thus is the Tory Right as bound by liberal-fascist ideology as was the medieval aristocracy by Church ideology, with both sides, now as then, united by mutual self-interest in wanting to retain their own advantages within the state and status quo.

How do we get ourselves out of this fix, in as peaceful, rational and humane a fashion as possible, before a ruthless Mother Nature intervenes? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our situation. Everything else will follow from that.

Method, Madness and Multiculturalism

In yesterday's Guardian (Cif), a black actor complained of the wide-spread discrimination against ethnic minority actors, like himself, in British TV, with lead roles being given overwhelmingly to white actors and black and Asian actors being excluded completely from most period dramas (Television’s whites-only shows reach well beyond Midsomer).

I sympathise with how this black actor feels, because obviously he and his fellow ethnic minority actors ARE being discriminated against. But for good reason: until very recent times “people of colour” were virtually absent from Europe and would thus be out of place in most period dramas. The more than 2500 years of recorded history of western, i.e. European, civilisation is “hideously white”, as former director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, might put it.

This exposes a paradox and dilemma: race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter in the “post-racial” society we are all supposed to want. But, of course they DO matter, and besides which, we don't ALL want to live in a “post-racial”, i.e. “post-European” society; only we can't say so – at least, not publicly – without being accused of “racism”.

This is the MADNESS of multicultural society, which becomes even more apparent when we use the more correct terms of “multi-ethnic” and “multi-racial” to describe it. “Ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.

The root cause of the paradox the dilemma and the madness is the STATE, which insists on posing as our NATION.

None of this madness would arise if it weren't for the STATE imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us.

Being human, we ALL tend to identity with people like ourselves, certainly until we get to know them personally, when, of course, we may find that someone of our own race, we don't like, while someone of a different race we do. But we can only know a very limited number of people personally; the vast majority will always remain strangers, and thus our inclination to judge and classify them by appearances, i.e. by race and ethnicity, will remain important. The ideal of a “post-racial” society, in which ethnic differences cease to be of any social, political or even personal significance, is just that, an ideal, and a misconceived, power-politically exploited ideal at that. Which brings me to the METHOD in the madness of multiculturalism.

The STATE, the original and still primary purpose of which (evident from a Darwinian perspective of human nature and the social power structures it has given rise to) is to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”, while posing as our NATION, needs those under its jurisdiction, i.e. its citizens, to identity with it as such, in order to lay claim to, manipulate and exploit the powerful tribal loyalty and commitment we evolved to feel towards our original tribe.

Thus, the state's self-interested embrace of the misconceived ideal of a “post-racial” society, a society in which all citizens identity with it as representing them as a PEOPLE and a NATION. Anyone refusing to do so is demonised as a “racist”, much as anyone refusing to accept church (effectively, state) doctrine (ideology) in the Middle Ages was demonised as a non-believer, Jew, heathen, or heretic.

What caused the British state, which was essentially mono-ethnic prior to WW2, to undermine its - thus far, uncontested - claim to nationhood by inviting mass immigration of peoples of completely different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds?

Obviously there were economic reasons, with both state and capital having an interest in cheap foreign labour, but also and far more importantly, yet largely overlooked, there were ideological and power-political reasons, especially on the Left, which opportunistically exploited general public revulsion at the horrors of Nazism (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Apartheid and Jim Crow) by embracing an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, of “colour-blindness”, of indifference to ethnic difference, which insisted that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance at all, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. When, in fact, they are of fundamental importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (i.e. national) identity.

Thus, was Left, by denying, demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic basis of nationhood, able to equate all stirrings of genuine national sentiment (positive as well as negative, at least, amongst ethnic Europeans), with Nazi nationalism and the horrors, especially racism, associated with it. Leaving us with STATISM pure, on the one hand, and CONSUMER-CAPITALISM, on the other.

How do we get ourselves out of this mess? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of its causes in the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation.

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.

Conservative Statism

It’s generally assumed that statism is a characteristic of the political Left, which the Tory Right is opposed to, but in fact, both the Left and the Right are committed to the STATE and, in their own rather different ways, each as statist as the other, much as in the past the aristocracy and clergy, who cooperated in creating the state in the first place, were.

The difference between the Left and the Right is that the former wants a big state, the latter a small state; only the perverted Darwinian nature and purpose of the state remains the same in both cases, which is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, talent.

Both sides, Left and Right (in the past, aristocracy and clergy) deny this, of course, each claiming, on the contrary, to SERVE society, which to some extend they do, through the STATE, which we ALL depend on; but as a shepherd serves his flock, which isn’t primarily for the flock’s sake, but for his and/or his employer’s own sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY, i.e. POWER.

It’s important to realise that most individuals on both sides of the political divide sincerely believe that they are not exploiting society, but either behaving neutrally or contributing positively to it; the clergy (or liberal left), for example, by administering to the poor and disadvantage, the aristocracy (or Right), through their contributions to business, government and/or charities.

In reality, there’s a lot more to it than that, of course, with things being incomprehensibly complicated, confused and contradictory. However, if one takes a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of the situation, thereby distancing ourselves, with all our dependences and prejudices, at least to some extent, from it, one can begin to understand it.

Over millions of years of evolution, human emotions and behaviour patterns evolved in response to two interdigitating and interacting, but very different environments: one intra-tribal the other extra-tribal. Then, with the advent of civilisation, along came the STATE, which conflated and confounded them, playing the role of our tribe (and intra-tribal environment) on the one hand, while, on the other, also facilitating society’s self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment. THIS is where all the confusion and contradictions, present in our own society, come from, most of which we simply ignore or rationalise. This is why one moment we see the STATE as our friend and the next as our enemy.

The extent to which we interpret and rationalise the situation (whether particular or general) to suit our own preconceived ideas and advantage cannot be overemphasised. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to see in ourselves, although a lot easier to see in others we disagree with.

It’s difficult to see how we can hope to be objective at all. Certainly, we can never be entirely objective, but I think that by cultivating awareness and understanding, from a Darwinian perspective, of just how subjective and rationalising we are (all of us), we can achieve at least a degree of objectivity.

Statist Capitalism or Multi-Nationalist Socialism?

This is written in response to the misconceived hostility towards “socialism” prevalent on this website, and to the Left’s hostility towards “nationalism”.

Superficially, viewed from the Right, “socialism” may seem responsible for most of society’s woes, just as viewed from the Left, “nationalism” does – or did, until the state succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of nationhood with “racism”.

Socialism and nationalism were the most powerful motivating ideas prior to ww2, because deeply rooted in man’s inherent social (socialism) and tribal (nationalism) nature. But being so powerful, both were misappropriated by the STATE or statists, who misused them to their own power-political advantage, whereby giving both the extremely bad names they now have.

The Nazis, being supreme propagandists, went the whole hog in calling themselves “national socialists”, the appeal of which, as a concept, to basic human instincts was doubly profound. This the Nazis abused to an insanely criminal extent, resulting in the concept of “national socialism” being dragged into the abyss along with their evil selves, where it remains to this day, no one daring to go even near it for fear of all its terrible associations.

Which is not just a shame, but a tragedy (representing perhaps Hitler’s ultimate victory over us), the concepts of both nationalism (from nation) and socialism (from social responsibility and solidarity) being vitally important for any healthy, just, humane and sustainable human society, and you can’t have one without the other.

We urgently need to recover the CONCEPT of “national socialism” from the abyss into which the Nazis dragged it, cleanse it of its evil associations and re-examine it. And since much of Nazi nastiness revolved around its mono-nationalistic self-centredness, at the expense of others, I suggest we alter the name to “Multi-National Socialism”.

Another misconception on the Right is that free-market capitalism is anti-statist. It’s not. It just wants a small, non-interventionist state, rather than a large interventionist one. Capitalism needs the state to maintain law and order amongst the work force (the human resources” it exploits) and enforce property rights to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and “talent”.

The primary purpose of the STATE, clearly visible from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, which the political Left and Right merely take different approaches to. Both look to the STATE to serve their own particular (social, political, financial, ideological, or whatever) advantage.

I envisage Multi-National Socialism as a grass-roots-democratic alternative to the statism of both the Left and the Right.

How to proceed? By organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into TRIBES and NATIONS of our OWN creation and choosing, which will cooperate with each other (without the imposed statist pretence of single pseudo-nationhood) in creating alternatives to the oppressive state institutions and non-sustainable, unjust and inhumane capitalist-consumer economy we currently all depend on.

I know how fanciful this all sounds, for which there are understandable psychological reasons. It is very difficult for our brains to imagine anything that is not an extension of existing experience, especially when it is materially and emotionally so dependent on the status quo. It wants to maintain the environment which supports it and gives it an advantage over others, and is thus terrified of truly radical change, even though without it we are doomed.

The BBC: Britain's "Statist" Broadcaster

Over the years the BBC has exerted more profound political influence than all the political parties put together. Their influence has been relatively superficial, having to follow the liberal-statist (some say “liberal-fascist”) political philosophy laid down by liberal statists at the BBC and elsewhere, especially in respect to race, immigration and the oxymoronic absurdity of a multi-ethnic British “national identity”.

In fact, it's not so much a philosophy as an ideology, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which, along with Apartheid and Jim Crow, initially it was an understandable overreaction to, subsequently consolidated by political (and to a lesser extent, economic) opportunism into a rigid ideology and basis for a spurious “moral high ground”, comparable to those once used to great power-political effect and advantage by the Church and Marxists. The most powerful and pernicious ideologies being those people are least aware of being ideologies.

It's an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance whatsoever, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. It's practical expression, used to intimidate political opponents and the population at large, was mass immigration of non-European peoples and the creation of a multi-ethnic society.

The obvious fact that race and ethnic origins ARE of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, e.g. national, identity is simply denied or (when people refuse to suppress and deny it) demonised – as “racist”.

Apart from this, the BBC (financed by the very people it has betrayed*) does a lot of good work and has a lot of good, well-meaning people working for it. 

* It's a form of “self-betrayal”, based, not just on self-interest, but also on misconceived ideas (ideology) of “national” interest and the interests of humanity at large, so I don't think that anyone at the BBC should be put against a wall and shot, as it was once customary to do with traitors, but should simply be removed from POWER, along with their misguided ideology, just as Eastern Europe did with Marxists and their ideology.

That's easier said than done, of course, in view of this pernicious ideology having permeated society and the body politic so thoroughly. But we could at least start thinking and talking about it, defying the taboos which still brand doing so as "racist", which is just a modern, dismissive, "progressive" word for "heathen", "non-believer" or "heretic", i.e. "evil" individual (anyone who challenges state authority and ideology).

Of Sheep and Men

For centuries, since tribal (including Greek city-state) society was taken over by the STATE, it has been organised, and power exercised, from the top down. The vast majority of men (and women) became like sheep, under the control of a few shepherds and their dogs.

In modern western democracy we sheep have a great deal of freedom, and every few years are allowed to elect a few, but far from all, of our shepherds; not that we have much choice, even with these few, who are preselected by a small number of political parties which are pretty much the same, obsessed by POWER, dedicated to the status quo, and to maintaining the state’s role in facilitating society’s self-exploitation (not least through capital) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.

Although the sheep have the freedom – provided they do so peacefully and within the law – to organise THEMSELVES, grass-roots-democractically, as MEN did when they lived in tribes or city states, they don’t do so. I guess, because we are so used to acting like sheep, always expecting to be led, coaxed and coerced, and otherwise just getting on with one’s sheepish life, in which all the fundamental things are organised and taken care of by the state or capital.

On the other hand, it’s not just because we are so used to acting like sheep, since it wouldn’t be easy organising OURSELVES grass-roots-democratically now that there are so many more of us than when we lived in tribes or city states and society is so much more complicated. That would take not just MEN but SUPERMEN and WOMEN (As a boy, Superman was my favourite hero).

We are not supermen, and obviously cannot organise ourselves as we might have done in relatively small tribes or city states in the distant past, but surely, by using our intelligence and an understanding (yet to be developed) of our own human nature, we can find ways of doing so that makes MEN and WOMEN of us, rather than SHEEP . . . !?

Not ‘nations’ as we understand it

“Arab countries are not 'nations' as we understand it ”

writes Ed West in his latest blog, “It is not prejudice or racism to suggest Arabs ‘can’t do democracy‘”, to which I responded with the following comment:

And neither is Britain! Not since going “multi-ethnic” in such a big way.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a NATION is “a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Also, “ethnic” drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the notion of a “multi-ethnic British nation” an oxymoronic absurdity.

It’s an absurdity which the majority of Britain’s indigenous (ethnic European) population, are mildly to extremely uncomfortable with (depending on circumstances), but can say, let alone do, nothing about, without being branded and dismissed as “racist” by STATE media (the BBC), which the rest of the media and political elite had to follow, or be branded “racist” themselves, just as anyone deviating from state/church ideology in the Middle Ages was branded a “non-believer”, “heathen” or “heretic”. It’s all about state POWER.

Europe’s tribal societies were destroyed by the STATE centuries ago, which then coerced and taught us to identify ITSELF as our tribe or nation, which we owed our powerful (and in times of war, passionate) tribal loyalties to. This made the state extremely powerful and goes a long way to explaining European global dominance.

Only, the STATE is not a NATION, but merely poses as such, in order to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation (as an artificial environment) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” – and not just at the BBC.

The STATE’S (and capital’s) principal interest in “human resources”, “markets” and voters as vassals to the political elite, makes race and ethnic origins (vital to “human beings” for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity) irrelevant, except as as something to deny the importance of as an expression of “moral superiority” and continued allegiance to the STATE.