Moral Supremacism

Picking up on the references I made in my last post to “moral supremacists”, I will argue here that they are the biggest threat of all to the survival of our civilisation – far greater than the threat of black and white “supremacists” combined, because far more numerous and powerful.

What are Islamists (those trying to impose Islam on society) other than “moral supremacists”?

What are the Catholic and Anglican churches other than institutionalised “moral supremacism”?

What are those (politicians, academics, media people, etc.) imposing the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, society on us, together with the ideology of “Race doesn't Matter”, is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, other than “moral supremacists”?

Some are moderate, keeping their moral supremacism to themselves, while others – the truly dangerous ones – are intent on imposing it on others, through laws, physical or verbal intimidation, or even violence.

What motivates “moral supremacists”, I suggest, is the desire for POWER over others, in the struggle for survival, advantage and “success” in the artificial environment of human society.

The state itself was founded back in the Middle Ages by a coalition of military supremacists (the aristocracy) and moral supremacists (the clergy).

Moral supremacism is such an integral part of the power structures of any society that it is very difficult, especially from within one's own society, to recognise for what it is.

Social mobility = Survival of (advantage to) the Fittest

In response to the article, “A government in line with public opinion” in the comments section today’s Telegraph:

The welfare state was created in the aftermath of a 6-year struggle against Nazi tyranny which had united people as never before, giving them a powerful sense of shared identity, destiny and solidarity. No longer just a State, run by privileged elites for their own advantage, but with a genuine sense of being a Nation and a People.

My parents, who experienced the whole war (my father as a Royal Marine) would never have dreamed of “exploiting” the welfare state, but remained dedicated to “doing their bit”, “playing their part”, not just for themselves and their own family, but also for the country as a whole. To have been on “benefits”, for whatever reason, would have made them deeply ashamed. My father would drag himself off to work no matter how ill he might feel. They had the attitude one would expect from people who feel that they belong to a Tribe, a Nation, a People, a continuation of the solidarity they had felt with their fellow Britons during the war.

During the 70s, however, my parent’s, especially my father’s, attitude started to change, as wave after wave of Commonwealth immigrants poured into the country he had fought to protect against Nazi invasion. As my parent’s became an ethnic minority in their own street, they realised that the British State had betrayed them.

Their work, sacrifices, sense of nationhood and solidarity had been misconceived, misplaced and in vain. Having helped to save their country from the Nazis, their leaders had opened it up to mass immigration of people we didn’t even have a shared – racial, cultural and historical – European identity with. And anyone who protested – as my father did, to his union and local labour party representative – was told they were being “racist”. – just as Mrs Duffy was, more than 30 years later, not by a local activist, but by the Labour Prime Minister himself. Betrayed, over two generations, from top to bottom.

So it is no wonder that people have turned away from the left and its ideals of social solidarity, towards the right and its more individualistic ideals (of every man for himself); especially since it was the left, with its anti-white/anti-nationalist ideal of a colourblind, globalised (Americanised,) “post-racial”, i.e. post-European, society, which provided the ideological motivation for mass immigration and creation of a multi-ethnic society, alongside and far more important than the economic motivation, i.e. the needs of state and capital for cheap foreign labour.

“Social mobility” is just a rationalised form of “survival of (advantage to) the fittest”, reflecting society’s perverted Darwinian nature, which we are in complete, official and unofficial, denial of.