National Unity Based on Lies and Deceit

Europe the Unready

By Paul Krugman, Nov. 27 2015 (LINK to article)

"I’m just thankful that America has the kind of unity Europe can only dream"

Most Europeans wouldn't want America's unity, thank you very much, because it would have to be based on even more lies and deceit than America's is.

This aside, even the unity of Europe's individual "nation states" is being undermined by mass immigration and DIVERSITY, which are destroying the natural ethnic foundations of genuine nationhood on which Europe's welfare states were originally based.

There is and can be no such thing as "multi-ethnic nationhood", which is an oxymoronic absurdity on a par with Orwell's Ministries of Peace and Truth.

What is "Celebrating Diversity" other than Orwellian newspeak for white people everywhere to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities) and ultimate demise . . ??

In overreaction to Nazism's criminally insane abuse and exploitation of the natural ethnic foundations of national identity, the West - led by America, as usual - went to the opposite but equally insane extreme of denying them altogether, which was quickly incorporated into the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism to serve the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

We urgently need to recognise this madness, while there is still time for us to deal with it in a rational and civilised fashion. Persisting with DIVERSITY and "reverse Nazism", with its inherent racial self-denial and self-contempt, will otherwise result in an even bigger catastrophe than Nazism itself did.

Understanding America’s Obsession with Race

I sent a shorter version of this post to the opinion section of the NYT on Nov. 10 2015 in the vain hope that they might publish it.

America’s obsession with race - as reflected in the media, including the NYT - is a consequence, I suggest, of suppression of its importance. The same phenomenon in regard to sex has a much longer history. 

Fearful of the consequences of not doing so, social/state authority seeks to suppress awareness and discussion to them both, which results in our unhealthy obsession with them.

The situation is very confused, because the suppression is far from complete or uniform, varying from individual to individual. And what we suppress we don’t like talking about. If we could freely talk about them, they wouldn’t be suppressed.

The suppression of sex has been greatly relaxed in recent decades and, not withstanding some negative effects (promiscuity, VD, teenage pregnancies, etc.), most would agree that, on the whole, this is a good thing. Sex is an extremely important matter, and it is better to acknowledge this, so that we can deal with it at a personal level consciously (and conscientiously), rather than suppressing it and submitting (or not) to the commands of external authority.

Suppression of the importance of race, on the other hand, is still very much mainstream, especially amongst those who consider themselves “progressives”, with many even denying the existence of race altogether, dismissing it as a “social construct” only of importance to “bigots” and “racists”, much as women admitting to having sexual desires would once have been demonised as “wanton whores” or the like.

Why are the same “progressives” who are for sexual liberation, so fervently opposed to “racial liberation”, i.e. ending our denial and suppression of its importance?

Obviously, fear of the consequences (e.g. racial supremacism) is one major reason. But another, more powerful reason, I suggest, is the sense of moral superiority and authority which goes with it, and is not just a personal matter, but also has huge social, professional and political implications.

Denial and suppression of the importance of race (not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity) has been fashioned, mainly by academics, into an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, with "racism" i.e. the natural human inclination towards racial prejudice, playing the same role that "original sin" once did, thereby serving the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

Woodrow Wilson, Racist or White Nationalist?

The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton

"[Woodrow Wilson] was an unapologetic racist"

Is it really racist, i.e. evil, to identify with one's own race - even when it is white?

We don't think that Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians are being racist when they seek to defend and preserve their own ethnic and racial identity and interests, although we perhaps would if they were in a position of power and likely to severely disadvantage other races or ethnic groups, as America's dominant white majority clearly is.

I'm not defending Woodrow Wilson's actions, which clearly disadvantaged blacks, but to call it racist, i.e. evil, is going too far, I suggest, showing a lack of understanding of human nature and our natural tendency to identify with our own tribe, race or ethnic group.

Woodrow Wilson is guilty of identifying with and seeking to promote the interests of his own race, for which he can be justly criticised, but shouldn't, I think, be demonised.

Ethnic minorities are not demonised for expressing their own, distinct sense of ethnic identity, so why are members of America's white ethnic minority demonised for doing the same? Is it just because whites are the ones in positions of power which they are likely to abuse, or is there more to it? I think there is more to it: see BLOG in which I elaborate.

Britain's Responsibility for First World War

A Century Ago, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Changed Everything

By Dennis Overbye, Nov. 24, 2015 (LINK to article)

"Cheered on, to his disgust, by most of his Berlin colleagues, Germany had started a ruinous world war." 

Wrong! Germany got involved in a European war, for which it was no more -  or less - to blame than its main adversaries, Russia and France.

It was Britain, my own country, which decided to turn this European war, which probably would have been over by Christmas 1914, into the First World War, and to stick with it for 4 long bloody years (costing millions of lives), until, with America's help, "victory" was achieved, Germany defeated and humiliated, and the way paved for the rise of Nazism, WW2 and the Holocaust.

I know this isn't the subject of this piece, which commemorates Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but it is no less important. In human terms it is probably more important, because it is our refusal to recognise our own dire political failings, piling all the blame on the Germans instead, that has got us into the sorry political state we are in, and which we won't succeed in getting out of until we do recognise our own failings.

We need a Copernican or Einsteinian revolution and change of paradigm in the social and political sciences, as we have had a number of in the physical sciences. Otherwise, our civilisation will not survive this century.

I'm Angry at Western Elites

Body Bags in Paris

By Roger Cohen, Nov. 19 2015 *(LINK to article)

I abhor what IS stands for and its barbarism, but I'm not angry at it, I guess because I don't relate to it or its ideology which is totally alien to me, as is the religion of Islam on which it is based. Mohamed, with his 7th century mindset, would probably approve of their militancy and ruthlessness.

I'm angry with the West's political, media and academic elites who are responsible for the madness of allowing millions of Muslims, and other poor-world immigrants, to settle in an already, natively, overpopulated Europe over the past several decades, by demonising all opposition to it as "racist".

Clearly, I am not the only one who is angry; millions of us are. But the moment we express our angry, we are condemned by our own elites as being "far right nationalists", fascists, "bigots" or "racists", made easy by many making the mistake of directing their anger at the immigrants, which is misplaced and wrong, of course. One can hardly blame them for moving from their poor countries of origin to western Europe, with its wealth, welfare, freedoms and opportunities.

I direct my anger where it belongs, which is at Europe's ruling elites, who, as in America, exploit post-racial multicultural society and ideology to their own economic and/or power-political advantage.

However, most of my anger I have sublimated into developing an understanding this madness, which, of course, there is method to: LINK.

It's not just Culture, but also Race

Europe’s Refugee Problem, and Ours

By Ross Douthat, Nov. 18 2015 (LINK to article)

 "[The solution is not] assimilating them all, through some wholly imaginary means, into a Europe that’s roiled by completely-understandable fears about its own near-term security and long-term political and cultural fate."  

Editorial Board, please take note of these wise words.

Also, this European is not only concerned about Europe's "long-term political and cultural fate", but also about something which is clearly a taboo for the NYT, namely the fate of Europe as the ancestral homeland of white people.

I do not accept that it is "racist" to identify with my own white race of ethnic Europeans and to want to preserve it, anymore that it is for Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians to want the same for their indigenous races. I do not want my race reduced to an ethnic minority on their own continent by the forces of globalisation, as Native Americans have been.

I understand where this taboo comes from. It was an understandable overreaction to the Holocaust, which was blamed on "racial prejudice" against Jews, notwithstanding that European Jews are racially indistinguishable form other Europeans, which,  in my view, makes Nazi anti-Semitism an expression of racial SELF-hatred.

Post-racial multicultural ideology, which denies the importance of race, is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, and will have similarly catastrophic consequences if we persist with it, instead of facing up to the reality and importance of race.

America's Catastrophic Military Interventions

Intervention in the Middle East Has Produced Instability, Not Stability

By Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich, Nov. 17, 2015 (LINK to article)

I agree with the author's analysis, which is strongly critical of recent American military interventions in the Middle East, but it is not just recent interventions America has embarked upon which have had catastrophic consequences, the most important of which are not even recognised, because it would be too painful, undermining America's "national" narrative and pride.

I'm thinking, not just, but primarily of WW1, which, until the British government decided to intervene, was a local European war, which more likely than not would have been over by Christmas 1914. It was Britain's (my own country's) intervention that turned it into a world war which dragged on, at Allied insistence, for four long bloody years, until "victory" was finally achieved, Germany defeated and humiliated, and the way paved for the rise of Nazism, WW2 and the Holocaust.

I'm not suggesting that Germany was blameless - far from it; but the Allies, with whom America threw in its lot (for less than purely noble reasons), share far more of the blame for that catastrophic war and the even more catastrophic consequences of "victory", than most historians are prepared to admit - for fear, I suspect, of upsetting "national sensitivities" and their state employer.

We need to be far more self-critical; not in the largely negative way that many so-called "progressives" are, in seeking to demonstrate their own personal moral superiority, but in a positive way, which doesn't point the finger of blame and responsibility at others, but at our collective selves, which requires much better understanding of the nature of the modern state and how it deceitfully poses as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse (see BLOG in which I elaborate further).