White Nationalism is about White Identity

White-Collar Supremacy

By  Kelly J. Baker, Nov. 25, 2016 (LINK to article)

Ms Baker seeks only to demonise "white nationalism” which she maliciously equates with white supremacism and racism.

Does it not occur to her that there might be more to it than that? White nationalism is on the rise, in America, Europe and other western countries, and those who would demonise and suppress it, should think again, because what they are demonising and suppressing is human tribal nature, which is as much a part of being human as human sexuality is.

It is ironic that people calling themselves "progressives", while celebrating our newly acquired sexual freedoms, lead the mob in condemning anyone wanting to express their own sense of tribal identity, at least if they are white with a sense of white identity, which is what white nationalism is really about: racial/ethnic IDENTITY.

When minorities choose to assert their own ethnic identities that's fine, but the moment members of the white majority attempt to do the same, they are condemned, mainly by fellow whites, as "white supremacists" and racists.

This issue is going to dominate, even more than it does now, the politics of the years ahead. We urgently need to stop demonising and suppressing human tribal nature with accusation of xenophobia (we are also an inherently territorial animal) or racial prejudice, which we all have, and instead study and understand it, which can only be from an evolutionary perspective: LINK.

Moral Supremacism of Extreme Left is Mainstream

Trump Embarrasses Himself and Our Country

By Nicolas Kristof, Nov. 19, 2016 (LINK to article)

Is Steve Bannon really a "white supremacist", or just a white man who doesn't deny and despise his own race the way that white liberals do, because beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt?

It's an ideology which began as an overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, before being incorporated into the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

It is not white supremacism of the extreme Right we have to fear, but the moral supremacism of the extreme Left, which for decades now has been mainstream and dominates the West's political culture.

Society has always been dominated by moral supremacists, of course. It used to be the clergy with their religious ideology; now, in our more secular times, it's their modern heirs and counterparts in academia, politics and the media with their ideology of post-racial  multiculturalism.

I elaborate on these ideas in this and appended BLOGS.

Demonising Tribalism in Others, While Indulging Our Own

Donald Trump’s Demand for Love

By Frank Bruni, Nov. 22 2016 (LINK to article)

"Donald Trump’s Demand for Love"

Don't we ALL want to be loved?

Of course we do, but we need to clarify what it means, in this context, which we can only do from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.

We are an inherently tribal animal, who craves the approval of his or her tribe. Only, our original tribes are long gone, their place now filled by substitute tribes, the most important of which is, of course, the state.

The state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large.

Academics have failed to recognise this, because they are themselves privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk

2nd comment

I've just submitted a comment in which I argue that we ALL crave to be loved, not by anyone, but by members, especially high status members, our own tribe, being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are.

The problem is that our original tribes are long gone and members of the same society identify with different substitute tribes with varying degrees of overlap.

Most citizens of a state identify with it as their nation, because that is what we have been taught for centuries to do, but with increasing DIVERSITY there is an increasing divergence between how different groups and individuals perceive this nation.

America's liberal left have a very different understanding of America than conservatives, especially the Alt Right, which they demonise as a consequence.

The liberal left form an ideological, "progressive", tribe of their own, whose values and perceptions are increasingly out of touch with much of the rest of America, as Donald Trump's election win demonstrates.

The only way to deal with this is not by demonising other tribes, but by developing an understanding of them, and of one's own tribe(s), in the context of human tribal nature and how it is manipulated and exploited by the state, for its own purposes, as well as by capital for commercial purposes, branding being the most conspicuous example.

The Left's Demonisation of White Identity

Trump: Making America White Again

By Charles Blow, Nov. 21 2016 (LINK to article)

"The appointment by President-elect Trump of a racist individual like Mr. Bannon to a position of authority is totally unacceptable"

Perhaps Bernie Sanders knows something about Steve Bannon that I don't, but I doubt it.

For decades, the Left has been demonising as "racist" anyone who refuses to embrace its ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which started life as an understandable overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust, before being transformed into an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for the power-political role of medieval church ideology and serving the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule, whereby society is now divided into a morally superior, supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic elite, on the one hand (people like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton), and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

Society is in desperate need of genuine moral authority to guide out of the mess it is in, but most of those offering such authority are in fact moral supremacists, the likes of which got us into this mess in the first place.

Distinguishing between genuine moral authority and moral supremacism is difficult, but possible. See this BLOG, which I hope will help.

NYT Demonisation of Steve Bannon & White Identity

‘Turn On the Hate’: Steve Bannon at the White House

By the Editorial Board, Nov. 15 2016 (LINK to editorial)

"Mr. Bannon, and his toxic [far-right, white ethno-nationalist] ideology . . "

I don't know Mr Bannon, but I have a lot of sympathy with "ethno-nationalism", which the NYT so despises, along with the whole notion of white, i.e. ethnic European, identity.

White nationalism might have spared Europe centuries of civil war, culminating in WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust. It might also have spared America its own civil war.

White nationalism, as I see it, has nothing to do with white supremacism and is the very opposite of Nazism, which, insanely and self-destructively, divided Europeans into different races, some of which it sought to exterminate. The Nazis were not motivated by racial hatred, but by racial SELF-hatred.

In overreaction to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, western academics, and with them its ruling elites, embraced the exact, but equally extreme, opposite ideology of post-racial multiculturalism, which denies the importance - even the very existence - of race altogether (even when it is real and manifest), along with the Orwellian oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethnic (multi-racial and multicultural) nationhood".

I'm not suggesting that the NYT love those it sees as enemies, e.g. white nationalists, but that it ceases to hate and demonise them the way it does, and to seek to understand them instead. They are not as evil, nor you at the NYT and the Southern Poverty Law Center as good, as you  imagine.

See my BLOG, where I elaborate on these ideas.

Widening the Divide

I’m Muslim, but My Roommate Supports Trump

By Romaissaa Benzizoune, Nov. 11 2016 (LINK to article)

"Did she really expect me to respect her choice . . ?"

Of course she did. And YOU are the one being divisive by refusing to do so.

She offered you the chance to work on an understanding of WHY she and millions of other Americans chose to vote for Trump, rather than for Clinton, and you rudely declined it. YOU have widened the very divide that you fear.

You don't necessarily have to agree with the other side, but you do need to understand them. Otherwise the path really does lead towards civll war.

America, like western Europe, has had the madness of mass immigration (not just of Muslims)) and DIVERSITY imposed on it by its"progressive" elites, who have dismissed all criticism of it as bigotry, xenophobia or racism.

What is "Celebrating DIVERSITY", for white people, other than Orwellian newspeak for them to celebrate their 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?

Try to see things from mine and your roommate's perspective. Would any majority Muslim country accept Muslims to be reduced to an ethnic minority in their country?

Why are our elites (Clinton & Co) inflicting this madness on their fellow whites and misleading minorities like you? In part it is an overreaction to slavery, Jim Crow and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

If America is to Unite . . .

Homeless in America

By Thomas L. Friedman Nov. 8 2016 (LINK to article)

Hillary lost - and deserved to lose - because of her contempt for white American identity. A contempt shared by the NYT and "progressives" in general.

If America is to unite, it has to stop denying the reality and importance of RACE.

The NYT could play a leading role in ending this denial, which is a consequence of an overreaction to the evils of Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust.

It is exactly the kind of overreaction the NYT itself warned about in an editorial response to the Islamist attacks in Paris last November:

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

America, and the West in general, have indeed lost their way: The West's Overreaction to Nazism.

A More Perfect Union?

Republicans and the Myth of Election Fraud

By William Barber II, Nov. 4 2016 (LINK to article)

"We must press on and vote as never before for a more perfect union and a future that includes all Americans."

"A more perfect union".  What can that mean other than complete assimilation of white America into the global melting pot that America has become?

And not just white Americans, but ALL racial/ethnic identities, so that eventually there will be just ONE "mixed-race American master race".

Is this really what most Americans what to become? I don't think so. I think most Americans want to preserve their racial/ethnic identities.

Forced segregation, according to state requirements (Jim Crow, Apartheid) is an evil, but being an inherently tribal animal, people will segregate naturally into groups whose members are like themselves, i.e. of the same race, ethnicity and culture, sharing the same history.

All states seek to manipulate and control human tribal nature for their own mercenary purposes, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

The American state is bullying its citizens into an ever closer union most do not really want. But Orwellian doublethink is very much in play, with those demanding a "more perfect union" still striving to retain their OWN ethnic identity.

Please, read the blog I've linked to, which seeks to explain the nature of the state (all states) and our situation (which is dire) from an evolutionary perspective.

Why Do White Liberals Mock Their Own Race?

5 Reasons to Vote Trump

By Nicholas Kristof NOV. 3, 2016 (LINK to article)

"Many Americans troubled by demographic change complain that they have been left disenfranchised. Trump speaks up for such oppressed groups — like white men."

But Nick you are a white man yourself. One might expect you to have more sympathy with members of your own race and gender, but no, instead you show your racial self-contempt by mocking them.

Why? I know, it's what all liberals and "progressives" do. But still, why?

America's founding fathers would be horrified to learn that their descendents will soon become an ethnic minority in the country they founded, and yet you shrug your shoulders at the prospect. You don't seem to care if your race becomes a minority, or disappears entirely. 

Why? How can you not care about that?

I think it is a grotesque overreaction to the evil of Nazism (and Jim Crow), which made a big, ugly and misconceived issue of race, in response to which a previous generation of academics decided that race shouldn't matter at all, that it was just a social construct, only of importance to bigots and racists - like the Nazis.

No one wants to be associated with the Nazis or with racism, so we are forced to embrace an ideology (the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) of white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

I elaborate on these ideas, which I believe are very important, HERE.

Don't Mention Darwin,

in a social or political context, except in jest.

Nostalgia for the Grace of George H.W. Bush

by Jon Meacham, Oct 15 2016 (LINK to article, which was approved & published)

"As Henry Adams once remarked of the movement from Washington to Grant, the journey from George H. W. Bush to Donald J. Trump disproves Darwin."

Many a true word is spoken in jest. Only, it's not that Darwin is disproved, so much as mentioned at all in a political context, which is, of course, only permissible as a joke, Darwin having been banned from all political thought in the aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust.

He was banned, because the Nazis hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

They may have been half-baked and largely misconceived, but they didn't deserve to be demonised the way they were, and still are.

Darwinian logic has a vital role to play in understanding ourselves, Homo sapiens, human societies and civilisation at large, and the fact that a taboo has been made of it is comparable to the Catholic Church once having made a taboo of the Copernican view of the universe, only much more serious. The taboo on Copernicus delayed our understanding of the universe by just a few decades, while the taboo on applying Darwin to our own species may delay our understanding of civilisation permanently, i.e. fatally.

The reason the world is in such a mess and heading towards an even bigger mess (civilisational breakdown, no less) is because of the complete lack of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective in the social and political sciences.

I've made a start on correcting this HERE. 

Latest Batch of Unapproved Comments

Just Like Trump, I Avoided Paying Federal Taxes

by Bert Stratton, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

If America were a genuine nation, its citizens would be sharing with each other, instead of always being on the make, always seeking their own profit and advantage.

In this America is no different from any other country, of course, but why the deception and deceit of nationhood, when truthfulness is what we really need?

It is because the state legitimises itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse by deceitfully posing as a nation it is not.

This is a difficult, painful and frightening truth to recognise and face up to, but the truth it is, and if western civilisation is to have a future extending beyond the next few decades this is what we (especially academics) have to do (LINK).

My Syllabus, My Self

by Christy Wampole, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

"We would be able to take a course [great thinkers] privately, separated by time but nonetheless plugged into their brains and hearts."

What separates us from past thinkers, is not just time, but also circumstance and world view. 

We live in very exceptional times and circumstances, which are changing at an unprecedented pace. Things changed in the past, of course, but rarely at a pace that people noticed. Now the rate of change is quite dizzying, which makes many of us sick (I've just read and commented on the editorial about the millions struggling with pain and missing from the labor market (LINK). But not the author of this piece, who has clearly found a secure and satisfying niche for herself in academia. As have most academics, who, at the centre of things are not subjected to the same centrifugal forces and insecurities that affect those on the periphery.

I hope the author will excuse my critical comment, but academics are the ones most people, including our leaders, look to as authorities in understanding the world, which I see hurtling towards oblivion, while they tinker with and delight in their syllabuses.

http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/contrapot.html

Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market

by Editorial Board, Oct. 16 2016 (LINK to article)

"Millions of American men are struggling with pain and missing from the labor market . . "

The principal, underlying cause, I suggest, is that we are dealing with people, who struggle with being treated as "human resources" and consumers, rather than as the human beings they actually are.

We are taught that state and economy exist to serve society and people (human beings) at large, but this is simply not true.

Then why do we believe it? Because we are naturally inclined to believe what we are taught by those in authority, who are well served by the state and the existing socio-economic order.

Everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence (including our teachers in academia) is well served by the state and status quo, which blinds them to their fundamental flaws. The system is working well for them, so they rationalise and defend it, something their above average intelligence makes them very good at.

This presents such a huge challenge that it is tempting to give up on it and simple to make the most of the current, favourable situation while we can, before the system breaks down, as it eventually must.

However, I think we owe it to our children and grandchildren, who are going to experience the fast approaching breakdown, to at least think about this challenge, even if it does seem insurmountable at the moment: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html

Their Dark Fantasies

by Paul Krugman, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

"the portrait of America Mr. Ryan painted last week was, in its own way, as out of touch with reality as the ranting of Donald Trump"

While Nobel Laureate and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, is fully in touch with reality, of course.

Being a reasonable man, I suspect that Prof. Krugman would not claim to have a perfect grasp of reality, but a pretty good grasp, nevertheless.

But then, who doesn't believe themselves to have a good grasp of reality? How can we not believe this without going mad?

From an evolutionary perspective, our brains evolved a need to believe in the soundness of its sense of reality. Otherwise, it would not know how to respond to its environment, which would cause it distress. It is comforting to be sure of yourself and your view of reality, and have it confirmed by others, especially to the extent that Prof. Krugman has.

Prof. Krugman's view of reality, I believe, is deeply flawed, as is that of most, probably all, people.

My view of reality is also flawed, of course, but less flawed than most, because based on an evolutionary understanding of my species and its situation. An understanding that is blocked to Prof. Krugman, because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species from a evolutionary perspective, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism: http://unapprovedcomments.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-wests-overreaction-to-nazism.html

‘Only White People,’ Said the Little Girl

by Topher Sanders, Oct. 13 2016  (LINK to article)

"And what of the little girl? . . infected by racism before she can even spell the word."

And when it's a white kid being racially discriminated against, as also happens - is that "racial hatred" as well?  

The West's liberal elites - in politics, the media and, most authoritatively, academia - have, for decades, been teaching ordinary people that race is just a "social construct", only of importance to bigots and racists. The author has clearly also swallowed these misguided teachings.  

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 believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity.  

These liberal elites want everyone to identify with the state as their nation, so that they can lay claim to their tribal loyalty, and obedience. That is why they deny and suppress the reality and importance of race.  

It also serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

The Wall Is a Fantasy

by (LINK to article)

"Public sympathy for immigrants . .  has been curdled by terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris and Nice."

Wrong! It's been curdled by the SCALE of immigration and demographic change. No one likes being reduced to an ethnic minority, where traditionally they have been the majority. Naturally, it makes them very unhappy and angry.

But what to do with their anger? At the moment state authority forces them to suppress it, by demonising it as racism and xenophobia, but increasingly people are realising that this is nonsense. Many of Donald Trump's white supports, I suggest, are directing their anger at those responsible for the madness of policies that will soon make them an ethnic minority in the country their forebears founded, namely America's liberal elites, embodied in the Clintons.

"With the rise of Mr. Trump, America’s sense of itself is suddenly less sure."

Wrong again! The rise of Mr. Trump is a consequence of mass poor-world immigration undermining many Americans sense of what it means to be an American. There used to be white America, which was overwhelmingly dominant, alongside black America and a number of other less numerous ethnic minorities. America has now gone global, a mishmash of all humanity, with white Americans on course to become just another ethnic minority, and in which Orwellian newspeak and doublethink is all that holds the country together - but for how long? (LINK)

Delusions of Nationhood

Can the U.S. Win This Election?

By Thomas Friedman, Oct. 12 2016 (LINK to article)

"it won’t just be emotionally depressing, we’ll really start to decline as a nation."

America (nor any other country) can not begin to tackle its problems, which are now existential, until it recognises its OWN true nature as 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, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival.

States have been deceitfully posing as nations since the end of the Middle Ages, supported by their academic elites, as they always are, because of their massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending their state employer, its role, self-image (as a "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

And it is not just academics, of course, who have a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending the state and status quo, but everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence.

Why would they want to question the state and status quo which serve them personally so well?

I can think of only one reason: state and status quo are leading us towards disaster, which they are. But first they have to recognise THIS.

Two More Comments on Articles Demonising Donald Trump

When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 7

By Nicholas Kristof, Oct. 1 2016 (LINK to article)

"only 39 percent of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was born in the United States."

This, I suggest, is an example of Freudian displacement behaviour. Not allowed to admit publicly, or perhaps even to themselves, that they have difficultly accepting a black president, they invent other grounds for rejecting him.

In the land of the free, people are not free to say what they really think or how they really feel in regard to race, because if they do they will be demonised as "racist".

European societies have always been ruled by a supposedly morally superior elite. It used to be the clergy, of course, with their religious ideology. Now its the clergy's modern heirs and counterparts in academia, politics and journalism, with a more secular, racial ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) who are the moral supremacists, telling others how they should and shouldn't feel.

Racial prejudice is the new original sin, which only submission to priestly/academic/state authority and ideology can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes or racists.

No one with any self-respect allows themselves to be told how they should think or feel, which is why millions are turning to Donald Trump. He may be very imperfect, but at least he does not belong to America's moral supremacist, liberal elite.

How Could Anyone Vote for Trump?

By Gail Collins, Sept. 30 2016 (LINK to article)

"It’s possible Trump is just riding a swell of white-male alienation."

White males, for better and for worse, played a very dominant role in making not just America, but western civilisation at large , what they are.

Most recently, they both created and defeated fascism (militarily and intellectually) and put men (white men, of course) on the Moon, but for some reason they have turned against themselves, embracing an ideology white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

More subconsciously than consciously, support for Trump is, I think, a reaction to this.

One might wish for someone better than Trump, but beggars can't be choosers. It is either him or Hillary, and Hillary makes no secret of her contempt for her own race, in which regard, she is just a typical liberal, of course.

The NYT is a liberal newspaper, and there are many liberal values and attitudes that I agree with, but what I cannot accept is this ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is perverse, an overreaction, I believe to the evils of slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust, all of which white men were largely responsible for, but which white men also defeated.

I appeal to the NYT and its white liberal readers to look inside themselves and examine their attitude towards their own race, which has little to do with skin colour, but a great deal to do with ethnic origins, one's ancestors and cultural heritage.

Trump, Clinton & White Identity

Trump? How Could We?

By Thomas Friedman, September 27 2016 (LINK to article)

"Electing such a man [as Donald Trump] would be insanity."  

I'm inclined to agree. But electing Clinton, who, like her husband and all so-called "progressives",  is committed to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, would also be insane - certainly for white America.

In overreaction to the evil of the white supremacism of Jim Crow, mainstream America (especially in academic circles) went to the opposite extreme of white self-denial and self-contempt.

It is exactly the kind of overreaction that the Editorial Board itself warned its readers about in response, The Price of Fear, to the Islamic terror attacks in Paris last November:

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

It wasn't just an overreaction to Jim Crow, but also, and probably more so, to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, which white people were also responsible for and Jewish academics (although white themselves) especially traumatised by.

This overreaction is understandable, but urgently needs to be recognised and understood, because it has caused, not just America, by western civilisation at large, to badly lose their way (see BLOG)

Not that we were on a good, sustainable course before hand. But it is preventing us from finding such a course, which I elaborate on HERE.

Paving the Way to Hell with Good Intentions

Would You Hide a Jew From the Nazis?

By Nicholas Kristof, Sept. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

My response to Nicholas Kristof's self-righteous demand that the West (governments and people) should welcome an endless stream of poor-world refugees and immigrants into their already overpopulated countries.

We should indeed "think of Sousa Mendes’s heroism in today’s context", which is VERY different from that of more than 70 years ago, when global population was barely one third of what it is today. 

The West, certainly western Europe, is OVERPOPULATED already. The last thing we need is more people, and what we need even less is people of different race and culture from our own, because this invariably leads to ethnic tensions and conflict.

For posterity's sake, Nick, open your eyes!

" . . history eventually sides with those who help refugees, not with those who vilify them"

I'm not "vilifying" refugees, or poor-world immigrants, who understandably want to settle in the wealthy West, and I would ask you, Nick, and your "progressive" colleagues, to stop vilifying those of us who oppose you in wanting to allow an endless stream of refugees and immigrants into the West, which ultimately can only end in disaster, not just for those fleeing here, but also for the West's Native (still largely white) population.

Your good intentions are paving the way to hell, which you are unable to see, because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species from an evolutionary perspective - an overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

Our situation is dire and the only way to understand it is from an evolutionary perspective (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

Sociopolitical Sciences Stuck in Pre-Darwinian Dark Age

The Age of Post-Truth Politics

By Prof. William Davies, August 24 2016 (LINK to article)

As a professor of political economy, the author of this piece expects others to believe, as he does himself, of course, that he has an expert grasp of social and political reality - but does he?

I don't believe that he, or any of his academic colleagues have any better grasp of social and political reality than medieval academics had of the material world, be they Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists, Galenic Doctors, Aristotelian physicists, or whatever.

The social and political sciences are, in my view, still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, because of the taboo a previous generation of academics made of viewing their own species from the same evolutionary perspective they view every other species.

This taboo began as an overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused for their own evil purposes the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism. It should have been recognised and corrected by now, but hasn't been because a whole ideology has been built around it, on which academic and state authority now rests, just as it once did on church ideology.

When mainstream interpretation of social and political reality is so deeply flawed, it is hardly surprising that other interpretations are now gaining ground, some just, if not even more flawed than the mainstream, but others - if one can but recognise them - more realistic.

Here's a LINK to my own efforts.



This comment was approved and posted by the NYT, but I thought I'd post it here anyway.

The Collective Trauma of Nazism & the Holocaust

Putting the Power of Self-Knowledge to Work

By David Bernstein, August 23, 2016 (LINK to article)

This article relates to how childhood trauma can be a major factor in an array of social ills. However, it is not just individuals who can suffer such trauma. Western civilisation itself, I believe, suffered collective psychological trauma in the form of Nazism and the Holocaust, which is widely overlooked but having a hugely negative affect on modern western society.

In an editorial response to the Islamist terror attacks in Paris last November (LINK), the NYT offered these wise words of warning:

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

Western civilisation has indeed lost its way, but because our leaders - in politics the media and, especially, academia - would have to take responsibility for it (despite a previous generation bearing personal responsibility), they are loath to admit it, even to themselves.

There is also the problem of so many personal, professional and political self-interests now being bound up with it, which something I elaborate on in other BLOGS.

Because the Nazis made a huge and very ugly issue of race, there was an overreaction to the opposite extreme of denying its importance, even its very existence, altogether.

Race is not the "social construct" we are taught to believe 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, i.e. genuine national, identity. This explains why the state, which deceitfully poses as a nation itself, is so keen to suppress its importance.

America, and increasingly Europe, will never solve their race problems by denying the importance of race, but quite the contrary.

Jews were especially traumatised by Nazism and the Holocaust, and thus find it especially hard to face up to. Perhaps this is why they seem to play such a prominent role in the west's extreme overreaction to it.

Would Some Jews Have Made Good Nazis, if . . ?

My Parents’ Mixed Messages on the Holocaust

By Jason Stanley, August 20, 2016 (LINK to article)

"Jews were hated. But this, [my mother] explained, was the fate of Jews. Anti-Semitism was a permanent feature of the world, not special to the Holocaust. My father [in contrast] . . argued powerfully against the stance of the victim. It was morally dangerous [he said, and] was scornful when he saw signs that I was taking the Holocaust to mean that Jews were special. 'If the Germans had chosen someone else,” he often said, 'we would have been the very best Nazis.'”

Prof. Stanley, I'm very much on your father's side, who, I think, takes the more rational, objective, and self-critical view - of himself and his own Jewish tribe.

It is not just victims who pose a danger, because of their understandable lack of objectivity, but the "moral supremacists" who exploit their own or others' victimhood as a source of supposed moral authority: if you are, or identify with, the victim, you are automatically against the perpetrator (in the case of the Holocaust, the Nazis) and thus a "good guy", who others will attribute high social status to, which confers huge personal, professional and/or political advantage.

The Nazis being the very embodiment of evil, their victims are ideal for moral supremacists to identity with, making them the very best of goodies.

The problem is, there is a moral supremacist in all of us, often difficult to distinguish from just wanting to be moral - inherently moral animal that we are.

Moral supremacists, who have always had immense power within society (formally as priests, now more influentially as academics, politicians and journalists), exploited the understandable overreaction to Nazism, incorporating it into the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic, elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less virtuous, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors" (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

The above is an edited and very slightly longer version of the comment I submitted to the NYT, but wasn't approved.

Now I want to respond to what you said about being a "white Jewish-American [whose] sons and wife are black Americans", and your concerns about "a thoroughly unjustifiable racism directed against [them]".

It was natural, but mistaken, I believe, to blame the Holocaust  on "racial prejudice" against Jews, i.e. anti-Semitism, as a consequence of which racial prejudice, of any sort and towards anyone, was demonised and suppressed. It was an understandable overreaction, which should have long been recognised and corrected, but hasn't been, because of its incorporation in state ideology and its strategy of divide and rule.

The truth is that human beings are prejudiced about everyone and everything, including race; in fact, especially race, given our inherent tribal nature. To demonise and suppress this is madness, which, however, there is power-political method to.

Understandably, you don't want people to be prejudiced against your wife or children, because of their colour, i.e. race, but people are and always will be prejudiced, so long as they are human.

Racial prejudice is a problem that has to be dealt with in multi-racial society, but demonising and suppressing it (as "racist", i.e. evil) is NOT the best way to go about it. In fact, it is the worst, being an overreaction to Nazi racism, which involved a lot more than just racial prejudice. Ironically, far from reducing the chances of another Holocaust, demonising and suppressing racial prejudices is a sure way of paving the way for the next one.

The demonisation of racial prejudice serves the modern, democratic state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did. It has taken the place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly/academic/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes, nativists or racists.

Demonising racial preferences and prejudices is no different, if you think about it, from demonising sexual preferences and prejudices, which, of course, until very recently, the state also did.

Demonisation and criminalisation are major sources of state authority and power. Clearly, there are certain behaviours which need to be criminalised, but demonising them, and what causes them, is an obstacle to understanding both, which is what we need to do, if we are to learn the live with our prejudices in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, which is the only alternative to living in oppressive, Orwellian kind of society, which we are well on our way to at the moment.

Before we can deal with the issue of race and racial prejudice (rather than just demonising and suppressing it) we have to deal with the nature and purpose of the state itself, which is very different from what we are taught by academics, most of whom are themselves employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

The Darwinian Nature of Human Situation

The World Loves Refugees, When They’re Olympians

By Roger Cohen, August 8 2016 (LINK to article)

"There is talk of making the United States great again — read making the United States white again." 

America was founded as a "white nation", by people (the founding fathers) who, were they to return from the grave, would be horrified at Roger's contempt for his own race.

Why such racial self-contempt? they would ask. And I would explain to them that it is an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust.

What Roger fails to understand is that the Holocaust itself was an expression of white racial self-hatred, which he, in effect, with his own racial self-denial and self-contempt, is perpetuating.

"Nobody wants refugees."

 In Europe, everyone with any sense does not want large numbers of refugees of different race or ethnicity from our own settling here, because that would be inviting ethnic tensions and conflict for decades, if not centuries, to come. We have enough people of our OWN and enough problems without adding to them.

What Roger and his "progressive" colleagues also fail to understand is the Darwinian nature of our situation, a previous generation of academics having made a taboo of it, again in overreaction to the Nazis, this time for having hijacked the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism and abused them for their own evil purposes.

There is a natural rivalry between different human races, as the full title of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species indicates. One does not have to use this as a justification for racial supremacism, let alone for genocide, as the Nazis did, but going to the opposite extreme of denying its existence, along with that of race itself, is an extremely dumb thing to do.

Roger provides a classic example of good intentions (along with the moral supremacism that often accompanies them) paving the way to hell.

See BLOG in which I elaborate further.

Why Would Muslims Want to Settle in the West?

And why would western governments encourage them to do so?

This is an expanded version of the comment I submitted to the NYT in response to the article, "Raising American Muslim Kids in the Age of Trump" by Wajahat Ali, August 6 2016 (LINK to article)

I can't help asking myself why a Muslim with ancestral, cultural, religious and historical roots in a distant continent would want live in America, or any other western, essentially European, country, populated and ruled by people with quite different ancestral, cultural, religious and historical roots?

The obvious answer is that the West is materially so much richer and offers so much more freedom and opportunity than any Muslim country does, other than to their wealthy elites.

I also ask myself why western governments have allowed so many Muslims (and other poor-world immigrants) to settle in their countries, given that many, certainly in Europe, are already overpopulated and that ethnic differences (whether racial, cultural or both) have always been a source of social tensions and conflict?

It took me a long time to work out what I believe to be the full answer to this question. An obvious reason, widely recognised, is the interest of state and capital in cheap and compliant foreign labour, people to do the jobs that white people (the native or founding and still dominant race in all western countries) are often not prepared to do for low wages. A less obvious reason, one that took me quite a while to recognise, because so contrary to our understanding of the "democratic nation state", is its role in facilitating the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule.

In a multi-ethnic society, not only can its ruling elites play the different ethnic groups off one against the other (especially minority ethnic groups against the ethnic white majority), but also elevate themselves above the rest of society as a morally superior, i.e. unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic, elite. The masses, of course, human nature being what it is, tend to be prejudiced towards other ethnic groups and inclined to xenophobia, but must submit, as also naturally inclined to do, to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors". 

As a Native Briton and European I identify strongly with European Americans, because I share so much with them in the way of ancestors, culture, religion, history, and even prehistory.

The West's ruling elites are imposing the madness of mass poor-world immigration the oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethic nationhood" on their populations by demonising and dismissing anyone who objects as a bigot, xenophobe or racist, thereby asserting their claim to moral authority and POWER.

George Orwell might well have incorporated this into his dystopian novel, 1984, had he been capable of imagining what to him at the time would have been quite unimaginable.

The sooner our elites recognise this madness for what it is the better, so that we can put an end to it in a civilised fashion, before it puts an end to our civilisation, as it otherwise will.

First, however, we must recognise and develop an understanding of how we got ourselves into this civilisational mess: In part it was due to an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this and appended BLOGS.

White America's Sense of Betrayal is Justified

The Perils of Writing Off Mr. Trump

By the Editorial Board, August 5 2016 (LINK to editorial)

"[Trump] is speaking to people who detest a Washington they think has betrayed them . .  This is Mrs. Clinton’s chance to present herself . . as a morally serious leader determined to address the country’s real problems."

This betray is REAL and the Clintons are very much a part of it.

Germans were also betrayed by their mainstream politicians, who had accepted and were implementing the unjust and humiliating Treaty of Versailles, which caused many of them to turn to the Nazis, who then betrayed them to an even greater extent.

Would Trump betray white America to an even greater extent than its current ruling elites are? No one knows. All that many whites know, or sense, even if they don't clearly see or understand it, is that they are being betrayed, reduced to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded; and to add insult to injury, they are expect to "celebrate" their own ethnic decline and ultimate demise.

Why would America's white elites betray their own race, condemning it to oblivion in the melting pot of globalisation?

As usual, ideology is the root cause of this racial self-betrayal, which blinds those beholden to it. White "progressives" believe themselves to be, so, err, "progressive" in denying and despising their own racial identity (an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust), but they are not, although most of them mean well, I'm sure, just as most who embraced communism did.

This overreaction produced an ideology which is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, an ideology which denies the importance, even the very existence, of race altogether. Thus, white "progressives" don't see themselves as betraying their own race, because they don't believe that it exists, but make a great moral virtue of denying its existence, dismissing it as a mere "social construct".

Misguided progressive ideology and self-righteousness is driving millions into the hands of Donald Trump - not that he seems likely to win the presidency. I don't think "progressives" need worry too much on that account. They should, however, be worried about the ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt they are beholden to, blinding them to reality, and opposition to which is bound to grow.

See blog: The West's Overreaction to Nazism

In Defence of Human Tribalism

Trump Reflects White Male Fragility

By Charles M Blow, August 4 2016 (LINK to article)

"For as long as racism [i.e. racial prejudice] and tribalism and xenophobia exist in this country, Trump’s foibles will not signal his ultimate failure. . . .  Trump is an unfiltered primal scream of the fragility and fear consuming white male America."

I have news for Mr. Blow and his "progressive" friends, who dominate America: racial prejudice, tribalism and xenophobia will always exist, in America and in every other country, because inherent to human nature, which is very tribal.

Clearly, we need to control our prejudices, tribalism and xenophobia in a civilised fashion, just as we do our sexuality, and if we fail to comply with acceptable standards the law is there enforce them, but why this demonisation and suppression?

It is interesting to consider that human (especially female, homo- and trans-) sexuality also used to be demonised and suppressed by the state, just as racial prejudice, tribalism and xenophobia are now, suggesting to me that they serve, or served, the same purpose of intimidation and control of society by the state.

The modern state controls society by posing as a nation. Only, it is not a genuine nation at all, 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/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large.

Why has this not been recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state?

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics are themselves privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Post-racial multiculturalism is, in effect, a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology, whereby "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was misguidedly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic /state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes or racists.

So there you have it, Mr Blow. Like all "progressives" and advocates of mass immigration, DIVERSITY and post-racial multicultural society, you believe yourself to have God, truth and reason on your side, but you are mistaken, just as the Catholic Church was, and still is.

Progressives Driving us Towards Civil War

Mr. Trump and Spineless Republicans

By the Editorial Board, August 2 2016 (LINK to editorial)

So long as Democrats and "progressives" remain beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, Trump will continue to find support amongst European Americans, as well as amongst more enlightened non-whites, who realise that such an ideology is self-destructive, not just for whites, but for society at large.

On most matters I agree with Democrats and liberals far more than I do with Republicans and conservatives, but not when it comes to the left's denial of and contempt for their own white race, which they dismiss as a "social construct" only of importance to "bigots" and "racists" like myself.

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 believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, identity.

If you liberals insist on the white race being assimilated into the melting pot a globalised humanity, millions are going to vote for Trump, or ANYONE, who seems to offer an alternative. And if voting doesn't work, there will be civil war further down the line.

Is that what you liberals want, another Civil War? Of course not, but that is where the overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust, embodied in your ideology of white racial self-contempt, is driving us (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

Why Do White Progressives Deny & Despise Own Race?

Worthy of Our Contempt

By Paul Krugman, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)

"the great majority of these not-crazy Republicans are still supporting Mr. Trump for president. And we have a right to ask why."

 I can only speculate, of course, but I suspect it has a lot to do with a semi-conscious rejection of "progressive" ideology, which is premised on white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

I say "semi-conscious", because I don't think they are fully aware of what it is they reject, anymore than the "progressives" who embrace it are. If they were, they would reject it too, I'm sure.

Modern neuroscience (see Why You Don’t Know Your Own Mind by Alex Rosenberg) has demonstrated that we are largely motivated by the subconscious, which rationalises our behaviour without us understanding it.

Why are America's still largely white elites making a moral virtue and imperative of reducing their own race to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded? Can you imagine any other race or ethnic group doing the same? Of course not. Because it is not a virtue, but madness. Total madness.

Donald Trump clearly has his faults, but at least he doesn't deny and despise his own race, the way his "progressive" opponents do.

Mainstream academic and political ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt demands an explanation, which I believe I can provide.  It began as an understandable overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which quickly became part of the state's age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, which I elaborate on HERE.

Academics a Self-Interested Class

How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump

By Max Boot, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)

"Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars."

 "Serious scholars" haven't had their jobs outsourced to China, but belong to a global "community" (self-interest group) of academics; thus their dislike of "nativists".

The biggest threat to humanity is from academics pursuing their own personal self-interests, while pretending - not just to others, but to themselves as well - that they are serving humanity at large.

They are modern, secular counterparts of the medieval clergy, a priestly class, which, in coalition with a warrior class (the aristocracy) lorded it, as a dual elite, over society at large. The "nobility" provided the muscle and power of the sword, the priests the brains and power of the Word, i.e. moral authority.

Man is an inherently tribal AND moral animal, and between them these two elites knew how to manipulate and exploit both to their mutual advantage.

Academics are no more trustworthy than the Catholic clergy were (or are), which, however, doesn't mean they are not trustworthy at all.  Many mean well, I'm sure.

I'm not inclined to trust Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but at least Trump speaks out against the betrayal of white Americans to the madness of mass immigration, which is reducing them to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded, while the mainstream is beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt - a self-destructive overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

NYT Misses Point about Immigration

A Few Simple Truths on Immigration

By the Editorial Board, July 30 2016 (LINK to editorial)

As usual, the Editorial Board is missing the main point about immigration, which is the way in which it is changing America's ethnic composition from once overwhelmingly white to ever-increasingly non-white.

I can almost hear the moderator drawing in his or her breath as they read this, because it is an issue that is only supposed to be of importance to bigots, xenophobes and racists. What does it matter what colour, i.e. race or ethnicity, Americans are?

Does it not matter that the Chinese LOOK Chinese? Or that Europeans LOOK European? According to the NYT's logic, clearly not.

I'm reminded of a demonstration I once saw of post-hypnotic suggestion, where an individual was put into a hypnotic state and told that when awoken they would not be aware of something, and they weren't, until the suggestion implanted in their brain was removed.

A form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, it seems to me, has occurred in the West in respect to race and ethnicity. In overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust, which was blamed on "prejudice" towards a particular ethnic group, a taboo was made of attributing any social or political importance to them.

In an editorial response to the Islamist terror attacks in Paris last November, The Price of Fear, the Editorial Board warned its readers,

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

This, I suggest, is what happened, resulting in a form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, blinding some, very influential people, especially in academia, to the importance, even the very existence, of race, which was elevated to a moral imperative, academics being modern heirs and counterparts of the priesthood of earlier times.

"Colour-blindness" became a measure of moral authority, which politicians quickly latched on to as a way of promoting their own authority and POWER.

Race is real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists, like the Nazis, believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity, and thus, socially and politically.

See BLOG in which I elaborate on these ideas.

Left Provoking "Far-Right" Backlash

Germany, Caught Between Two Violent Extremes

By Anna Sauerbrey JULY 28, 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . fear that the attacks will change the character of Germany itself, destroying the tolerant, cosmopolitan identity that we have assiduously built over decades, and that we cultivate as if it were a prize flower."

Frau Sauerbrey is speaking for herself and the political left that is her tribe, but not for a majority of Germans, I am sure, who are as unhappy about mass immigration into their already overpopulated country and the multi-ethnic society that comes with it, as most other West Europeans are, including myself.

The natural decline of Western Europe's native population is a godsend, given how overpopulated we are, as is (or rather, was) our racial and cultural homogeneity, which our ruling elites decided to put an end to - probably not consciously, but nevertheless, though the madness of mass non-European immigration.

There is method to this madness, of course, which I elaborate on HERE.

The Left fears a "far-right" backlash, which is inevitable, once it becomes more widely recognised that  "celebrating DIVERSITY" is Orwellian newspeak for Native Europeans (in America, white Americans) 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.

Tragically, but typically, "progressives" have managed to put themselves on the wrong side of history.

I the blog I have linked to and other blogs you will find links to in it, I attempt to explain this. Only by recognising and understanding our mistakes can we correct them.

What's Wrong with Ethno-Nationalism?

The Donald Trump Show

By Ross Douthat July 23, 2016 (LINK to article)

"[Donald Trump's] ethno-nationalism"

That is mean as a slur, of course, which Trump would reject, claiming to want to be President for ALL Americans.

The question is, does ethno-nationalism deserve to be demonised the way it is? I don't believe it does.

It's demonised because the Nazis were ethno-nationalists, as are some modern groups of racial supremacists, but ethno-nationalism doesn't have to be judged by such negative examples. Zionism is also a form of ethno-nationalism, and, although it includes some extremists, is generally viewed positively. Good Zionists - and there are many of them - reach out the hand of friendship and cooperation to Palestinians, who unfortunately refuse to accept it.

So, taking Zionism as a positive example of ethno-nationalism, how might one apply it to multi-ethnic America?

First, one needs to recognise that the present Constitution was written by and for just one ethnic group, i.e. whites. The founding fathers never intended it to be applied to races other than their own. Thus, America needs to be refounded with a new constitution written by and for ALL Americans, not just whites. A revolutionary idea, but a good one, I think.

Also we need to recognise the deceit of equating state and nation, not just in America, but in all so-called "nation states", which are not genuine nations at all, but mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

What's Wrong With Nativism?

This is in response to an article, A vote against the mass immigration society, by David Goodhart in Prospect Magazine, which I was unable to post a comment on (LINK to article).

The following quote is taken from the article:

"there is a hard core of nativists and racists . . "

What is wrong with nativism? Why should every indigenous population not enjoy certain indigenous rights and privileges?

Does the fact that our ancestors treated the indigenous peoples of the lands they colonised so badly mean that we should treat our own indigenous population with the same contempt? Our ruling elites seem to think so, although most of us are now ashamed of how our ancestors often behaved towards indigenous peoples.

And what is meant by "racist", which is often simply used to dismiss, demonise and dehumanise anyone who doesn't share the state's post-racial multicultural ideology? Racism is generally equated with the evils of racial hatred, racial supremacism, Jim Crow, Apartheid, and, of course, Nazism, while at the same time being equated with perfectly natural racial prejudice, which virtually everyone is guilty of. Like xenophobia, it is inherent to human nature, both of which need to be understood and controlled in a civilised fashion, but not demonised.

Show me anyone claiming to be without prejudice and I'll show you a liar, or someone with a serious lack of self-awareness.

I confess openly to being a nativist and racially prejudiced, but I'm not a racist, except perhaps to a moral supremacist who has no qualms about demonising and dehumanise anyone who doesn't share his and his state's ideology.

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology, it seems to me, after puzzling over it for many years, serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, i.e. "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) more prejudiced, i.e. less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

It is used by the state and its elites (which the mob is keen to please and emulate) as an instrument of socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

If you think about it, "celebrating DIVERSITY" is nothing less than Orwellian newspeak for native Britons (and 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.

Progressives Take Heed as You Push Us Towards the Brink"

A Cure for Trumpism

by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, July 15 2016 (LINK to article)

"an unsubtle emphasis on white identity and white nostalgia."

There is nothing subtle about it when black and Latino Americans assert their ethnic identities, and many white Americans are clearly sick of having their own ethnic identity trampled underfoot, primarily by their own white elites, including, it seems, everyone who write for the NYT.

The support for Donald Trump is an inevitable response to the ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt that has gained ascendency amongst virtually all western elites, initially in overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust (see this BLOG), but subsequently as part of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) more prejudiced, less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

In America the situation for whites is precarious, because already well on their way to becoming an ethnic minority (which Big Brother state expects them to "celebrate"), but in Europe, where whites are the indigenous population the situation is very different.

Native whites, once awoken from their slumber to their betrayal by their own elites, will fight for their continent, and win, or take western civilisation, which they created, with them. So take heed, you "progressives" as you push us, with your "moral supremacism", towards the brink.

Editorial Board, Know Thy Self!

Our Best Defense Against Terrorists

By the Editorial Board, July 15 2016 (LINK to editorial)

The editorial scorns the following remark by a member of the "far right" National Front party in response to the atrocity (more than 80 dead) committed in the French city of Nice by Mohamed what's his name, which pretty much  reflects my own sentiments:

“Spare us the indignation of the vultures of the main parties who let the wolves in to carry out this carnage.”

Why is the Editorial Board so supportive of these "vultures", who have promoted mass immigration of alien peoples into the West, along with the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism that goes with it?

It is, I suggest, because they embrace the same attitude and ideology, which allows them to demonstrate what they consider to be their own moral superiority in respect to their supposed lack of prejudice towards people of different race and/or culture from themselves, which they like to contrast with the prejudiced, i.e. "racist" and xenophobic masses - the kind of people that Donald Trump and the "far right" appeal to.

What the Editorial Board fails to do is recognise the applicability of its own advice to itself.

In an editorial response, The Price of Fear, to the Paris attacks last November, the Editorial Board wisely warned its readers (LINK):

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

This is exactly what happened in response to the extraordinary evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, an overreaction which produced an ideology which is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology: post-racial multiculturalism, or one-human-racism, which demonises human tribal nature, with its natural prejudices and xenophobia, and allows those doing the demonising to claim a spurious moral authority for themselves, along with the social status, and personal, professional and/or political advantages that go with it.

Editorial Board, know thy self!

A History of Moral Supremacism

A History of White Delusion

by Nicolas Kristof, July 14 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . how easy it is for a [white] majority to “otherize” minorities in ways that in hindsight strike us all as repugnant."

Nicholas, are you seriously suggesting that ethnic minorities don't "otherize" the ethnic majority or other ethnic minorities?

Of course they do, and always will, because deeply rooted in human tribal nature.

I'm sure you don't mean to, but what you and your "progressive" colleagues are doing,  is playing the "moral supremacist".

You just want to be "moral", of course, as we all do, because our tribal nature also makes us a "moral animal",  but you were taught, if not by your parents and at school, certainly at university, that being moral entails suppressing your own racial prejudices and demonising them in others, which necessarily involves denying and despising one's own racial identity,  which we are taught is just a "social construct", only of importance to nasty racists.

Instead of demonising human tribal nature and prejudices, we need academics to study and understand them, so that we can better lean to deal with them in a civilised fashion, just as we do with human sexuality, which until very recently was also demonised by the state for purposes of social-political intimidation and control.

The demonisation of racial prejudice was an overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which is something the NYT itself warned its readers about in an editorial response, The Price of Fear, to the Islamist terror attacks in Paris last November (LINK to my comment).

Moral supremacism has a long history, going back to before the first states and civilisations emerged from a tribal society.

Man being an inherently tribal and moral animal, society has always been ruled to a large extent by those claiming moral authority for themselves. This used to be the priesthood, which, in coalition with a warrior class (aristocracy) that provided the muscle and power of the sword, dominated society, exploiting it as a human resource. The priesthood provided the brains and power of the Word, i.e. moral authority, which in modern times has been largely replaced by academia. While the power of the sword has largely been replaced by the power of money, i.e. capital.