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.

Social Mobility and Integration

Nice sounding concepts, which conceal the liberal-fascist/statist ideology beneath.

I have been giving some thought to these two concepts, which our politicians are so keen on promoting, and what they really mean.

Social mobility boils down to individuals moving UP the social hierarchy, which, of course, everyone likes the idea of in respect to themselves and their own. Only, social status is relative, and as some go UP, others, necessarily, go DOWN. It embodies the idea that life is a competition, or a “rat race”.

It’s important to note that those advocating social mobility have all done very well for THEMSELVES in this respect, so its a kind of self-praise: look how well I’ve done! And because I’m such a wonderful, fair-minded individual, I think EVERYONE one should have the opportunity to do the same. Everyone should be able to “come first”. It sounds good, but is, of course, complete nonsense.

Integration, according to the OED, is

The process of bringing about or achieving equal membership of a population or social group; removal or absence of discrimination against groups or people on racial or cultural grounds; desegregation,

which, it seems to me, is a formula for “assimilation” and “miscegenation”.

“Miscegenation” is now a taboo word, but has to be used to recognise the implications and ideological intentions of “integration” in a historical context, as an overreaction to the unjust and inhumane anti-miscegenation laws of Jim Crow and Apartheid (not to mention the horrors of Nazi racial ideology), which was then consolidated and exploited by those seeking a spurious moral high ground for themselves (mainly on the Left), and the power-political advantages that go with it: anyone not for mass immigration, multi-ethnic society, integration of ethnic minorities and miscegenation is condemned and dismissed as a “racist”, thereby demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic basis of national identity and representing the triumph of the liberal-left’s fascist ideology of “colourblindness” (denial of the importance of race and ethnicity for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity), which, not coincidentally, is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi fascist ideology.

Britain's Hereditary "Honky" Head of State

In response to the many articles relating to the up-coming royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, who are expected to produce heirs to the British throne:

For the predominantly non-white country Britain is predicted to become by 2066 (Link) a hereditary white head of state will be politically unacceptable.

By the time ANY child, regardless of sex, of Prince William and his bride, Kate, might be expected to take the throne, Britain’s population will be predominantly non-white, with no place for a hereditary white head of state, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission would, understandably, strongly object to.

I point this out, not to irritate or offend, but in the hope that the implications of mass immigration and the liberal-fascist ideology we are having imposed on us might finally sink in.

It’s not “racist” to want to preserve your race (the ethnic identity of your people and nation). It’s madness not to want to. And this madness has a name: liberal fascism. Not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi fascism. See post.

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.

Xenophobe or Familiaphile?

Xenophobia (antipathy towards what is foreign) is just one side of a single coin, on the other side of which is “familiaphilia” (love of the familiar). You cannot have one without the other, although, insanely, this is what is demanded of us by “moral supremacists” in defence of the liberal-fascist/statist ideology, and the MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, currently being imposed on western democracies.

Liberal-fascist/statist ideology, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi fascist ideology, the horrors of which it was initially an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), but was consolidated in this extreme form through power-political opportunism, mainly by the Left, like the medieval church, seeking the POWER and advantage of the “moral high ground” for itself, but reinforced by the economic opportunism (cheap foreign labour) of capital and the statist (as opposed to nationalist) Right.

The Nazis took xenophobia and familiaphilia to insane and criminal extremes, seeing (“loving”) themselves as objectively superior to others (foreigners), whom they hated or held in contempt, using the basis of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, “survival of the fittest”, to rationalise and justify their inhumanity to their fellow, but non-Germanic, humans.

In response to the horrors that Nazi ideology resulted in, we went to the opposite extreme of demonising xenophobia, “familiaphilia” (love of one’s own, beyond the confines of immediate family) and any application of Darwin’s theory to human society. This overreaction was then set in the concrete of liberal-statist ideology (derived from the internationalism of the Left and from Christian universalism – the Catholic church, not calling itself “catholic” for nothing), at the core of which is the denial that race or ethnic origins are of any social or political importance (especially in respect to national identity), except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.

The problem with this ideology – quite apart from its power-political purpose – is that race and ethnic origins DO matter, being of profound importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

STATE and capital, however, are not interested in human beings’ need for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity, which they might make the basis of organising THEMSELVES into genuine tribes and nations, instead of the pseudo tribes and nations which state, religion and capital currently organise us into, in order to facilitate our manipulation and exploitation as a “human resource” and market.

PM Brands ‘all white’ University a Disgrace

My response to an article in today’s Telegraph, “David Cameron brands ‘all white’ Oxford University a disgrace“:

It’s sad, but necessary, to be reminded of how the Tory leadership have so completely embraced the liberal-fascist ideology of the Left, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, the horrors of which it was initially an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), but which the Left managed to consolidate in this extreme form for power-political advantage.

So successful was the Left in claiming the “moral high ground” for its ideology of “race doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political importance, especially in respect to national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis, that it was embrace by the state itself (as it did Church ideology in the Middle Ages). Thus, the Tories have had no choice – notwithstanding all the grimaces – but to embrace it as well.

The Left have succeeded in destroying (by demonising and suppressing) the natural ethnic basis of our NATION, leaving us with just a mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE in its place, yet the entire political establishment is in denial of the fact (the truth and reality), not just in Britain, but in all western democracies.

When are we finally going to recognise and face up to this MADNESS?!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Concern for Ethnic Minorities

According to an article in today’s Telegraph, Karen Buck, shadow work and pensions minister, told the Independent:

“I am very, very concerned about the impact of these cuts on black, Muslim and ethnic minority households, in particular.”

Just what one would expect from a white liberal statist: more concerned for OTHERS than she is for her OWN (Moral Basis of the Liberal-Fascist State).

But, of course, she doesn’t see her fellow indigenous Brits as “her own”, but identifies instead with all humanity that manages to find its way to our shores, and, like her former party leader, Gordon Brown, considers anyone who doesn’t, to be a “bigot” or a “racist”.

THIS clearly illustrates the MADNESS of so-called “British society” and, I guess, western society in general.

Like many other indigenous Brits and ethnic Europeans (I would guess, the majority) I don’t see ethnic majorities as “my own” – unless I happen to know then personally as individuals, which is quite different. The vast majority of ethnic minorities I do not know personally and do not identify with, in contrast to members of my own race (ethnic Europeans) with whom I spontaneously identity – at least, until I get to know them.

Does that make me (and most other native Europeans) a “bigot” and a “racist”? No it doesn’t, although that is what the STATE wants everyone to believe, so that it can continue to pose as our NATION.

What it in fact makes me, is a “nationalist”, someone who decides his own national identity (the natural basis of which is ethnicity), as opposed to a “statist”, who allows the STATE (which suppresses and denies the natural ethnic basis of nationality) to decide it for him.

A racist is someone who hates other races (ethnic groups), which I don’t. I respect them, provide they respect me. But I don’t identity with them as I do with my own race, ethnic group and NATION.

Understandably, this presents a problem to the British STATE, whose legitimacy rests on its claim to representing a single “multi-ethnic nation”, which, in my humble view, is an oxymoronic absurdity.

My national identity is based on how I FEEL, not on how the STATE tells me I should feel.

Are there any other NATIONALIST, like me, out there? I hope so, because we need to start organising ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine NATIONS.

Members of different nations need to respect each other and cooperate in the struggle against STATISM.

What about those who want to continue equating the British STATE with their NATION – people of mixed race, perhaps?

That’s fine, provide they respect other nations, like my own (which is ethnic European), and don’t try demonising us (as the STATE does) as “racists”.

I know quite a few people from ethnic minorities and of mixed-race and hope to remain friends with them. But we have to stop pretending, for the sake of the STATE, to belong to the same NATION

Midsomer Murders Creator Suspended

My response to the article, “Midsomer Murders creator suspended after calling show ‘the last bastion of Englishness’“, the very lively thread to which has simply disappeared from the Telegraph’s website – hopefully soon to be restored.

“An ITV spokesman said: ‘We are shocked and appalled at these personal comments by Brian True-May which are absolutely not shared by anyone at ITV. We are in urgent discussions with All3Media, the producer of Midsomer Murders, who have informed us that they have launched an immediate investigation into the matter and have suspended Mr True-May pending the outcome’.”

The jackboot of “liberal-fascism” doing its work of suppressing honest, majority opinion.

The British STATE itself has betrayed (and continues to betray) its own indigenous peoples.

This is a difficult and painful truth to recognise and face up to. But it’s high time we did. But – and this has to be said and emphasised – in a humane and civilised fashion, because we don’t (I certainly don’t) want the pendulum swinging back to the opposite extreme experienced in Nazi Germany, or even to Apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow America.

The STATE is attempting to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us. It’s the STATE we need to deal with, rather than the symptoms it causes, which we must avoid causing us to scratch ourselves to death; but before we can do that, we must recognise and develop an understanding of its perverted Darwinian nature. It will be an exercise in self-awareness and understanding, because most of us identify with the state, and we don’t want to tear ourselves apart.

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).

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.

From “Classless Society” to “Post-Racial Society”

How the Left exchanged a noble ideal for an ignoble one.

The Left gave up on their ideal of the “classless society” (characterised, not just by class, but by huge differences in income, wealth and opportunity), exchanging it (along with the “moral high ground” it was associated with) for that of a “raceless” or “post-racial society”, and the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”.

“One-Human-Racism” is the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race doesn’t matter” (or even exist), of ethnic origins being of no social or political importance (especially in respect to group, e.g. national, identity), except to evil “racists” – like the Nazis, whose abhorrent racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.

In contrast to the “classless society”, the ideal of a “raceless society” is much more acceptable to those in power, wealth and privilege, since it doesn’t challenge their status. In this way, the Left were able to become part of the status quo, the establishment, themselves, thereby creating the modern “liberal-fascist” state, which together with capital dominates all western “democracies”.

Why is the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial”, and, by implication, “post-European” society” ignoble? Because it denies (and in respect to white people, demonises, as “racist”) the central importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense personal and group, e.g. national, identity, on the one hand, and creates an uninhibited “melting pot”, on the other, in which human ethnic and cultural diversity will dissolve and disappear, or at least, be greatly reduced.

How were we deceived into believing that the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial society” was a noble cause? Initially, because of a shock response and overreaction to the horrors associated with the Nazi’s criminally insane racial ideology, but also in overreaction to the unjust and inhumane state discrimination and segregation imposed by Apartheid South Africa and America’s Jim Crow laws. Embracing the opposite attitude, of “Race doesn’t matter” (at all), seemed an appropriate response, which was then opportunistically exploited (principally on the Left) by those seeking power-political advantage by claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves.

Only it wasn’t appropriate, because race and ethnic origins DO matter, for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity.

Humans have a tendency, as exemplified here, to swing from one extreme to the other. My hope is that by understanding what is going on, we can avoid doing that. No one in their right mind wants a return to Jim Crow, Apartheid or, least of all, Nazism, although the surest way of doing so is for the state to persist in imposing the ideologically opposite extreme. We need to find a humane and civilised way between these extremes.

How? We could make a start by talking about it.

The Liberal-Fascist/Capitalist Pact

Has dominated western “democracies” since the second world war.

Under its terms, free-market capitalism, championed by the political Right, was allowed to remain the ideology of economics, so that the wealthy, talented and astute could continue exploiting “society” through their wealth, talents and astuteness, while the Left was given a free hand in imposing its universalistic, cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist ideology of race and ethnicity being of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

For those who have a problem with the term, “liberal-fascist”, “liberal-statist” has for me exactly the same meaning.

German fascism, i.e. Nazism, was extremely (to the point of being criminally and insanely) nationalistic, whereas liberal-fascism, not coincidentally, has gone to the opposite extreme of being extremely anti-nationalist (to the extent of equating it with evil, i.e. “racism”), replacing it with multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, “statism”, whereby the STATE dresses up and presents itself as our NATION.

The NATION, as defined by the (liberal-fascist) state is a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national NATION.

Hmmmmm . . . . If ever there was an oxymoron . . !!

But anyone pointing it out (the absurdity of a multi-ethnic nation) is accused of “bigotry” and “racism”, or of being "unpatriotic", and because the STATE is so powerful, it has been able to get away with it for more than half a century.

STATE and CAPITAL have both got what they want, both are free to exploit “society” and its human resources in their own fashion, one through the institutions of state and a spurious claim to the “moral high ground”, the other through property and wealth accumulation.

The Liberal-Fascist Vision for Europe

And anyone daring to oppose it is a RACIST.

The following quotes are take from an article in yesterday’s Guardian (where else?) by Loretta Napoleoni:

Title: “May Europe’s multicultural new generation succeed where we failed”

The new generation of teenagers is the first born inside the united Europe’s multicultural melting pot, one no longer just populated by Europeans.

Multiculturalism may well be our saviour, wresting us out from the straitjacket of our history, thrusting the old continent into an environment where other ethnicities, less cynical and more positive, will play a big role in its future.

The new blood of the children of immigrants both drives transnational protest and cements solidarity among Europe’s young [link to article containing even more brazen liberal-fascist misinformation and ideology].

I wish I were young again to walk that line with you, to share the experience of reshaping a continent. My generation had similar dreams but failed to achieve them.

Will you succeed where we failed? I believe so. Because the socio-cultural paradigm of Europe has finally shifted, and those who rule us today do not represent such a shift [because still so hideously "white"!]. As your generation comes to power, then the political paradigm will inevitably alter.

Europeans will no longer be explorers; they will not adventure across unknown seas to steal others’ treasure, they will not scale the highest mountains to plant flags, nor will they look west or east to decide what to think and how to behave internationally. But they will be able to delve into the new multicultural spirit of a reinvigorated continent for new economic, social and political formulas.

That is the Europe I dream of for you and the one I want to belong to.

It makes for very disturbing reading and if you feel as I remember feeling in the past, your initial reaction will be to push it aside and forget about it, because we know that any objections we raise, unless self-censored to meaninglessness, will immediately be met with accusation of “racism”.

But don’t dismiss it. That is what many people did after reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf, refusing to take seriously his horrific vision for Europe, dominated by a Germanic master race.

The liberal-fascist Left have got their OWN master race in mind: the product of mass non-European immigration and the melting pot thus created. They are as intent on eliminating their own white race of ethnic Europeans as the Nazis were on eliminating the Jews – but, of course, for our own good and that of humanity as a whole (motivated, not by hatred for others, but by self-hate, or perhaps just a pathological lack of love for or identity with their own, which their ideology has misled them into believing is ALL humanity).

And if anyone dares say they don’t want to see their own, white, ethnic European race, eliminated, they are accused of being “racist”, on the ideological grounds that “Race Doesn’t Matter”, or even exist. Suggesting that it does matter, i.e. for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity (as I do), is considered “racist” – at least, if you are white.

Once the Nazis got to power, no one could oppose their ideology without landing in jail, or worse. Now, having gone from one extreme to the other,liberal-fascists are in power and no one can oppose their ideology without being condemned a “racist”, which isn’t as bad as the threat of jail, but has thus far proved just as effective.

But lets be clear: liberal fascists, thank goodness, are not nearly as bad as Nazi fascists. They mean well, as most communists, socialists, Christian missionaries, etc. did (or still do), but are just misguided. Most, once they realise that, will, I am sure, change their views, just as most communists did, when they realised that the Soviet Union wasn’t, and wasn’t going to become, the utopia they had dreamed of.

Only it’s not just the liberal-fascist Left (represented in the media by the Guardian/Observer, the Independent and the BBC) that are misguided. The conservative right (represented by the Telegraph, Mail, etc.) are misguided too.

In fact, I seem to be the ONLY one who isn’t !At least, not as misguided as most; but still lost, looking for my, my people’s, while not forgetting other people’s, way . . .