The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Western civilisation, especially in America, is to a large extent defined and shackled by its OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, something which, without realising it, the NYT itself warns about in an editorial response, The Price of Fear, to the Islamic terror attacks in Paris earlier this month (LINK to article)):

“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”

By far the most important example of this was the overreaction to Nazism, which has gone virtually unrecognised for decades, not least, because of its very profoundness, magnitude and all-pervasiveness, and because of the personal, professional and power-political self-interests that quickly became bound up with it.

The Nazis took the natural ethnic/racial basis of national identity and nationhood to criminally insane extremes in their efforts to exploit it for their own evil, power-political purposes. In overreaction to this we, i.e. our parents' and grandparents’, went to the opposite extreme of denying the natural ethnic basis of national identity and nationhood altogether, along with the very existence of race itself, which we are now obliged to believe, is just a “social construct”, only of importance to bigots and racists.

Only race is not a "social construct" (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists, like the Nazis or supporters of Jim Crow or Apartheid, believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity.

The Nazis also hijacked the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which they abused to rationalise and justify their insane racial ideology, eugenics and euthanasia programmes, and wars of aggression, which also resulted in a massive overreaction on the part of a previous generation of academics, who made a taboo of the whole subject of applying Darwinian logic to the human situation, society and civilisation.

This was a tragedy we are still suffering under, because how else are we understand ourselves, our society, civilisation and situation if not from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective? Are we not, like other animals, a product of Darwinian evolution? Such a perspective reveals profound insights into the nature of society and the state, which academics have been unable to view objectively or dispassionately, because of their own dependency on it, and which are crying out for our urgent attention.

There will be understandable fears that to remove the taboos would once again lead to the abuse of Darwin’s ideas, which, of course, can’t be ruled out, but we can guard against it by being proactive in developing a rational and humane Darwinian ethics of our own, which is what we urgently need anyway.

Extricating ourselves from these overreactions and taboos is going to be difficult, because over more than half a century they have become deeply imbedded in the very fabric of academia, which is looked upon as a moral and knowledgeable authority, just as the church once was, whose values and attitudes are hugely influential and difficult even to challenge, let alone change.

Challenges to church authority were often condemned, not because they were considered unjustified, but because of fears of the consequences, not just for the church, but for society at large, which, it was feared could descend into anarchy; however, if those fears had been heeded by everyone the Reformation might never have happened and the Catholic Church would have kept its iron grip on western society, much as Islam has kept its grip on the Muslim world.

Further reading:

1) The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter

2) The Method to the Madness of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

3) On the Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation

4) Contrapot

5) The Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

States Posing as Nations Can't Save Us

What the Paris Climate Meeting Must Do

By the Editorial Board, Nov. 28 2015 (LINK to editorial)

The "nations" the Editorial Board makes multiple references to and clearly sees as the primary problem solvers are not genuine nations at all, but mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense of society at large.

These "patron states" are institutionally incapable of doing what only genuine nations would be capable of, but which the Editorial Board vainly demands of them. We were warned about the inherent non-sustainability of consumer capitalism more than 40 years ago, but instead of slowing down in preparation for a radical change of course, world leaders, complying with the demands of their "patron states", put their foot on the gas and consumer capitalism into turbo mode.

If we are to save ourselves from the self-destructive forces which threaten our survival, we must recognise and develop an understanding their source in the perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself - and not be too slow about it. See BLOG in which elaborate.

West's Fatal Addiction to Compulsive Work Ethic

Addicted to Distraction

By Tony Schwartz, Nov. 28 2015 (LINK to article)

This is an excellent and important piece, many of the negative aspects of which I recognise in myself and others.

Why are we driven to distraction? And isn't reading also often just a distraction?

Distinguishing between what is compulsive and what isn't can be difficult, and compulsive isn't always bad. Charles Darwin was a compulsive collector of things, without which he would not have become the renowned scientist he did.

I'm reminded of the hilarious film, The Gods Must Be Mad, in which the compulsive activity of white South Africans is contrasted with the much healthier activity of indigenous Bushmen.

On the other hand, is it not this very compulsiveness which drove Europeans to create western civilisation?

The Germans are particularly compulsive when it comes to work (I know, because I lived in Germany for many years), but it has played no small role in making them so wealthy and "successful". Sometimes I felt like tapping them on the shoulder and pointing out that they had succeeded in rebuilding their country after the war and could now relax a little, but it would have had no effect. Their work ethic is compulsive, distracting them from, what exactly? Themselves? Reality?

Trouble is, we have made a virtue of a compulsive work ethic, seeing the material wealth  it results in as some absolute good.

We tend to admire East Asians, because they can be even more compulsive and driven than "successful" white people are, but perhaps we should question

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).

Black Identity Fine, White Identity Racist!

Race, College and Safe Space

By Charles Blow, Nov. 15 2015 (LINK to article)

  ". . safe spaces, for racial sanctuart, . . not by black design, but as a byproduct of white racism. .  [Black] schools, born of hate, [i.e.] white people’s deep desire to resist racial commingling."  

Here we have it: white people's desire to preserve their own racial identity by avoiding "commingling" is assumed to be an expression of racial hatred.

What is so terrible about white people wanting to preserve their own racial identity? Just because America's "progressive" white elites have embraced an ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt, doesn't mean that all white Americans must do the same.

Race is NOT the "social construct", these political and academic elites would have us - and themselves - believe (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but real and important. 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, which the state clearly doesn't want its citizens to have, least they challenge its claim to "multi-ethnic nationhood".

We are an inherently and intensely tribal animal, which state and capital seek to define, control and exploit for their own power-political and commercial purposes, just as the state once sought to define and control our sexuality.

We urgently need to become aware what is going on, and why. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

How "Progressives" Demonise they Opponents

What Will Come After Paris

By the Editorial Board, Nov. 15 2015 (LINK to editorial)

"in Europe each [atrocity] intensifies the raucous xenophobia of far-right nationalists ever ready to demonize Muslim citizens . . "  

Believe me - a Native Briton who has experienced what it is like being reduced to an ethnic minority in his ancestral homeland (the suburb of London where I was born) - it is not just "far-right nationalists" who are opposed to any more immigration.

The NYT should stop demonising Native European, like myself, for not wanting to suffer the same fate that European Americans inflicted on Native Americans.

I know, there is some way to go before we are reduced to the tiny percentage of the population that Native Americans now are, but we are well on the way, nevertheless. Only, long before it becomes a reality, there will be civil war. A civil war that the NYT and other "progressives" with your absurd demands for endless immigration and globalisation will be primarily responsible for.

You are always going on about race and the need to have a conversation about it. It is time you started to listen to the concerns of your OWN race (most of you are white, I know), who do not share your ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, nor the power-political purpose it serves. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Our Arrogant Academic Priesthood

Men’s Lib!

By Richard V. Reeves and Isabel V. Sawhill, Nov. 14, 2015 (LINK to article)

This article made my skin crawl, but I left it too late to submit a comment.

What I dislike so much about this article is how its authors presume to tell others - specifically men - how they should and shouldn't behave. It seems to me to typify a certain academic attitude towards society and the people who comprise it, which is purely self-serving. They assume and assert an authority that they in no way deserve, reminding me of some clerics.

Here are some quotes from the article:

We have not pushed hard enough to put men in traditionally female roles — that is where our priority should lie now. This is not just about gender equality. The stakes are even higher. The jobs that many men used to do are gone or going fast, and families need two engaged parents to share the task of raising children.  

As painful as it may be, men need to adapt to what a modern economy and family life demand. There has been progress in recent years, but it hasn’t been equal to the depth and urgency of the transformation we’re undergoing.  

Will this transformation be good for men? In the long run, we think so. But in any case they don’t really have a choice. Recent changes in women’s status and in the economy aren’t going to be reversed. Men must either adapt or be left behind.  

These disturbing trends have led many observers to call on boys and men to regain their competitive edge over women, so they can once again be successful breadwinners and leaders. But that’s the wrong message. Rather than trying to recreate a patriarchal past, men have to embrace a more feminine future.  

Until men seize opportunities in these “pink collar” sectors, they will continue to lose out in this dynamic area of the labor market.

Rome Didn't Fall in a Day

‘Trust’ in the News Media Has Come to Mean Affirmation

By Brooke Gladstone, Nov. 12 2015 (LINK to article)

It is a well-know truism: united we stand, divided we fall, so can anyone seriously doubt that our civilisation (not just America, but the West in general) is falling?

Rome didn't fall in a day, and it wasn't clear until after the event, which took centuries, that it had actually happened. Our civilisation is falling a lot faster, but still too slowly for most individuals to notice, especially when the system is still working for them and they are preoccupied with daily life.

It is inconceivable to most people that our civilisation could be over before this present century is, but that, I believe, is the course we are on.

And no, I'm not a "doom monger", but a realist, who can see where we are heading. I'm not the only one, of course. Others see it too, but tend to assume that nothing can be done about it. I disagree. I think that we could do a lot about it, if only we understood the nature of our situation, which, unfortunately, we don't, or rather, the academics we look to as authorities on such matters don't. And that's what counts.

If you will forgive my presumptuousness, I believe that I have a much better understanding of our situation, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

White Americans: A Dying Race

Despair, American Style

By Paul Krugman, Nov. 9 2015 (LINK to article)

The "style" of this despair may be American, but the cause is as ancient as civilisation itself, because inherently associated with it.

Academics give us a rosy-eyed view of civilisation, because, unlike the majority of people, they belong to one of its privileged elites and have a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending it.

The truth, which academics are loath to admit - even to themselves - is that the state, as the basic unit of any civilisation is a social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct, with the primary purpose of facilitating society's SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.

Even if they admit this about the past, which with hindsight it is difficult to deny, most academics still expect us to believe that with the advent of the American Revolution, Democracy and universal suffrage everything changed, but it didn't.

How are we (especially academics) to see what we have a narrow and short-sighted personal self-interest in not seeing? By viewing ourselves and our situation from a human-evolutionary perspective: LINK to blog in which I elaborate.

Multi-Ethnic Nationhood an Oxymoronic Absurdity

Why Would I [an Asian American] Join a Party That Doesn’t Really Like Me?

By Marie Tessier, Nov. 5, 2015 (LINK to article)

One needs to remind oneself that the American constitution was written by and for European Americans, who, belonging to the same race of closely related European peoples (including European Jews), had the makings of genuine nationhood.

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

America is not a nation, but a mercenary "patron state" deceitfully posing as a nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense of society at large.

This is a difficult, painful and frightening truth to recognise and face up to (especially for said elites and favoured clients, who control all the levers of power and influence), but the truth it is and the sooner it is faced up to the better.

Because of their own dependency on it, academics have not been honest with us, or themselves, about the true nature of the state, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

Correction: This comment has, in the meantime, been approved and published by the NYT (LINK). The few inconsistencies are a result of MY editing.

Our Fatal Attachment to the State

Suicide of a Dishonest Officer

By Charles Blow, Nov. 4 2015 (LINK to article)

The eulogizing words of Officer Gliniewicz’s widow remind me of most people's attitude towards the state, which deceitfully poses as our nation and servant, while at the same time taking us all for a ride.

It's an attitude greatly promoted by the state itself, of course, and by those the ride gives favour and advantage to.

No one would criticise Mrs. Gliniewicz in her grief. It would be inhumane to attempt to disillusion her, and we can afford not to. But in respect to our illusions about the nature of the state it is different. We cannot afford to go on deluding ourselves, because if we do, the ride it is taking us on will destroy us all - even those who are currently enjoying it.

The state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first ones emerged from it. Now it deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation (our intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (esp. wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense of society at large.

Just as it would be for Mrs. Gliniewicz, this is a very difficult and painful truth for every citizen to recognise and face up to, but it is what we urgently need to do, if this ride isn't to end in disaster, a kind of collective suicide.

Introduction to understanding the true nature of the state: LINK.

Such Madness Beggars Belief

Let Refugees Settle Italy’s Empty Spaces

By Beppe Severgnini, Nov. 4 2015 (LINK to article)

"Italy is aging. It needs new people . . . "So why don’t we [welcome refugees and migrants]?"  

Because Italy, like Europe (especially western Europe) as a whole, is already overpopulated, and for sustainability's sakes needs a smaller rather than a larger population.

There is also the fact that non-European immigrants are either of very different culture and history than native Europeans (especially Muslims), and/or of different RACE. Thus, allowing large numbers of them to resettle in Europe is a recipe for ethnic conflict, which we have had enough of in the past, and could rather do without in the future.

On the method to the madness of post-racial society and ideology (which the NYT is so keen to promote): LINK.

Is Opposition to Immigration & DIVERSITY Really Racist?

Is Eastern Europe Really More Racist Than the West?

By Kenan Malik, Nov. 3 2015 (LINK to article)

Western Europe has had mass poor-world immigration and DIVERSITY imposed on it by its ruling elites, who have suppressed all objections (no matter how valid) as "bigoted" or "racist".

In Britain, my own country, this has resulted in native (white) Britons being reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities, with the prospect of us becoming an ethnic minority in the country as a whole before today's teenagers reach retirement age.

And THIS, our ruling elites expect us to embrace and celebrate!

I have come to realise that "celebrating DIVERSITY" is nothing less than Orwellian newspeak for native Britons (and white people everywhere) to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement, and ultimate demise . . .

I know, it's happening in America too, where whites are not the native, but the founding population, who have largely shaped the country.

It seems to me that the West, following American leadership, has fallen prey to a self-destructive ideology of white racial self-denial, self-contempt and self-hatred, a pathological overreaction, I suggest, to the shame many whites feel (myself included) for western imperialism, slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid and Nazism, which now serves our elites as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did: LINK to blog in which I elaborate.

NYT's Denial of Reality and Importance of Race

Excluding Blacks From Juries

By Editorial Board, Nov. 2, 2015 (LINK to editorial)

What the Editorial Board will, or cannot admit is that people - ALL people, of ALL races - tend to be racially prejudiced. Some more than others, of course, but prejudiced, nevertheless.

Race is NOT the "social construct" we are taught it is (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but  REAL and important. 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.

Why this determination to deny the reality and importance of race?

It began as an understandable overreaction to the racial supremacism of Jim Crow, Apartheid and, of course, Nazism, before being transformed into an equally extreme ideology of its own, which now serves as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

It is the STATE itself, which is the real social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct, deceitfully posing as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, and thus seek to deny and suppress the natural ethnic foundations of genuine nationhood.

This is a difficult, painful and frightening truth to face up to, but it is the only way we can learn how to deal with this existential problem (see BLOG)