Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP . . ?!

Just because America's ethnic European population, under massive state pressure, is rapidly disappearing into the melting pot of an  (ideologically) freely miscegenating society, does this mean that Britain and Europe must do the same . . ?

All Britain's mainstream political parties (which one might collectively call, "Parties of the Pot") obviously assume so.

And what about those of us who want to retain our native,  ethnic, historical and prehistorical identity, much of which we've shared with fellow Europeans (including European Jews) over millennia? Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP . . ?!

This is not about "racial purity", which we all know does not exist, but about racial, i.e. ethnic, IDENTITY, which DOES exist and is of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity -certainly for myself. Notwithstanding that there are obviously those for whom, for whatever reason, race and ethnicity are not important, and I respect that.

What I do not respect or accept is their self-assumed right (and self-righteousness) to impose this attitude (of "colourblindness", "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race-doesn't matter", or "one-human-racism", or whatever you prefer to call it) on everyone else, through the overwhelming power of the state, and by accusing of "racism" those who resist.

I want to be on the friendliest possible terms with ethnic minorities and their members (with some of whom I am actual friends, I like to think), but I don't want to go on having to pretend (under pain of being branded a "racist") that we are a PEOPLE and a NATION, which is a STATE LIE I am not prepared to go along with.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:

A large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE [my capitals].

The state's spurious claim to nationhood and moral authority

Nazism, through the understandable, but extreme overreactions to it and their political/economic consolidation and exploitation, continues to mortally afflict European societies through the agency of "liberal statism" (or "liberal fascism", as Jonah Goldberg provocatively calls it), which bases its highly successful claim to the "moral high ground" and political power on it, thereby ensuring its domination of society, much as the Catholic Church was able to do in the Middle Ages, whose moral high  ground was its interpretation of the word of God.

 

These extreme overreactions include the total rejection and vilification of taking a Darwinian view of human society (because that is what the Nazis claimed to do) and the ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic difference, of "race-doesn't-matter, i,e. is of no social or political significance (e.g. has no bearing on national identity), except to (for) evil "racists", like the Nazis.

 

Both these extreme overreactions have had profound consequence, firstly, because without taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of society (of the power structures of state and economy) we are unable to understand it and solve the massive social, political, economic and environmental problems, which will otherwise, before this new century is out, put an end to our civilisation, and secondly, because ethnicity DOES matter, profoundly, for anyone interested in a deeply rooted sense of personal and group identity and in their life having more meaning than the pursuit and exercise of power (in its various forms), or in having been reduced to a "human resource" and consumer.

 

Of course, these attitudes are not just an overreaction to the horrors associated with Nazi ideology, which the state has cunningly used to hide its own self-interest in not being exposed to the revealing light of a Darwinian perspective, and to legitimize its spurious claim to nationhood and moral authority over a multiethnic society.

The New Catholicism

The New Catholicism is the universalist ideology of "colourblindness" (feigned - perhaps subconsciously - indifference to ethnic difference), of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil "racists" (the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to, along with the inhuman ideologies associated with Jim Crow and Apartheid, but which political and economic opportunism consolidated in its present extreme form) and which, like the Catholic Church before it, has been embraced by the state as representing the moral high ground which legitimizes its own authority and power.

Its an irrational and nonsensical ideology (like that of Catholicism), because no one is really "colourblind", i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, unless they subconsciously suppress and deny it, even to themselves, which I suspect many do, because of the massive social, political and economic pressure everyone is under, just as they were in the Middle Ages in respect to Christian ideology.

Added to which, ethnicity (which relates to one's ancestors and their history) must surely be a central component of any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity - which, of course, the state doesn't want its subjects (I beg your pardon, "citizens") to have, because it needs them to identify with its self-serving and superficial self.

Native Britons: an oppressed ethnic majority

In some ways (not all, of course) white people are the most oppressed ethnic group in Britain, especially when it comes to the expression of ethnic identity or solidarity, which is generally condemned and suppressed as "racist", while in ethnic minorities it is deemed an understandable response to white "racism".

Who could possibly have the power to oppress the white majority? White people themselves, of course, as a form of self-oppression, which, if you think about it, is how the Church (first Catholic, then Anglican) exercised POWER and control over society for centuries, by making people feel guilty about their own human  (especially sexual) nature, and their wicked urge to question authority (of God, his church, or the state), which had resulted in the burden of original sin. The church claimed the moral high ground for itself, while offering hope of redemption in exchange for submission and material support.

In modern, secular Britain, Christian doctrine is no longer an effective means of instilling a sense of guilt and inadequacy in the general population necessary to facilitate its control by the state and those laying claim to the moral high ground, so another doctrine needed to be found. What turned up was the doctrine/ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic difference, of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil "racists". A gift to the state and those seeking the power and advantage of the moral high ground (not just in politics, but also in the media), it started life as an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology and, to a lesser extent, to the ugliness and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, which it is more-or-less the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of; because, of course, race and ethnicity DO matter, for most people, who want a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity.

The state has always insisted that its subjects (citizens) identify with itself, rather than freely amongst themselves, subordinating tribal and other loyalties to submission and loyalty to the state. Thus, its enthusiastic embrace of the ideology of "colourblindness" and suppression of ethnic loyalties (which it nips in the bud by condemning them as "racism", in the ethnic majority, at least, where it could pose a serious threat to its own authority).

In order to understand the state one must view it from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective - which I have dedicated another BLOG to.

What have "white men" ever done for us . . ?!

In response to his (my/our) persistent (self)-demonization in Judeo-Christian theology and ideology, and now, in our more secular times, by the extreme left, liberal-fascists and other moral supremacists claiming the advantage of a spurious moral high ground for themselves and intent on his (my/our) subjugation to and ultimate elimination in the melting pot of the multiethnic state), I thought I'd pose a variation of that famously serious/hilarious question from Monty Python's The Life of Brian: What have the Romans ever done for us . . ?!

My version of the Monty Python question is this:

What have white men ever done for us . . ?!

For starters there was Greek civilization (with enough individual contributions to justify its own dedicated blog)

Then there were the Romans (see The Life of Brian for some of their individual contributions)

To be continued . . .