The State That's Betraying Us

The State, which poses as our nation, is betraying us – in 1001 ways, but primarily by giving citizenship to millions of 3^rd world immigrants and allowing them to settle in our already natively and unsustainably overpopulated country and subcontinent, and whose high birth rate means that within 50 years or so, they and their descendent will replace us, the indigenous population, as Britain’s ethnic majority. Britain’s ethnic identity will change from being European (with all the history that goes with it) to being “global”, post-racial and post-European, this being the unspoken ideological goal of liberal-fascism.

If that is not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

How is the STATE able to get away with betraying us like this?

Firstly, by having all who oppose it, or the ideology of “colourblindness” it is based on, condemned and dismissed as “racists”.

Not coincidentally, it is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (also to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), only to be consolidated is this extreme form for the sake of economic and power-political advantage, gained from claiming an absolute but spurious “moral high ground” for it.

Secondly, by deceiving us into believing that it represents our NATION, and thus into identifying with it, thereby making it a form of “self-betrayal”, which, of course, is particularly difficult to recognise and face up to.

Lebensraum for Immigrants in the West

“[T]he poor, unemployed and undefended of Asia and Africa who are looking for new places to live and work cannot be kept out of Europe indefinitely.”

This is quoted from a piece, “The souring of Turkey’s European dream”, by the left-wing Turkish author and intellectual, Orhan Pamuk, in today’s Guardian (Cif), that champion of “progressive” values and ideology.

In June 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in pursuit of Hitler’s desire to acquire Lebensraum for Germany’s expanding population in the East, a desire he’d given clear expression to in his book Mein Kampf, but which presumably many people didn’t take seriously.

Now, according to Orhan Pamuk, Europe and America should provide Lebensraum in the West for Asia’s and Africa’s still expanding populations.

He and his ideological brethren of the liberal-fascist left do not dispose over the modern equivalent of the German Wehrmacht, as Hitler did, so instead they seek to achieve their goal, not of a Germanised, but of a “post-racial”, i.e. post-European, West, through the power of the “moral high ground”, much as the Catholic Church in medieval Europe and Islam in Muslim countries today achieved their goals.

The threat posed by “Liberal Fascism” is here clearly stated, just as the threat of Nazi fascism was in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Yet few seem to recognise it or take it seriously. And those who do are dismissed and condemned as “racists”, just as opponents to religious authority were (and in some countries still are) dismissed and condemned and “non-believers”.

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.