Multi-National Socialism

I ended my last post acknowledging that undermining the authority of the state by exposing its true, mercenary, nature would lead to accusations of inviting ethnic conflict.

Such fears are not unfounded, since although the primary purpose and function of the STATE is - as it always has been - to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, it has other functions as well, some of which are vital to us all. The most important is enforcing the rule of law and non-violence, without which different regions or factions (originally, tribes) would become embroiled in bloody conflict.

Thus, there are certain functions of the state which have to be maintained, even as exposure of its true nature undermines its authority, especially its false claim to nationhood and to being the legitimate heir of one's original TRIBE, along with the loyalty and commitment evolution hard-wired us to feel towards it.

The state is analogous with a wicked step-parent, who disposed of our natural parents before we had any memory of them and has brought us up to believe that he or she (the father or nanny state) is our natural, loving parent, whom we owe our love and loyalty. The problem is that we cannot help being both materially and emotionally dependent on the state. Freeing ourselves from both these dependencies is going to take time and effort, and is likely to be painful. However, we owe it to ourselves, and natural parents (our true nation) to make the effort and bear the pain.

Rather than just hating the state, as one is inclined to do on recognising its true nature, better to understand it as a product of our own Darwinian nature, seeking to exploit its environment, which now, largely and perversely, comprises human society itself. Once enough of us have recognised and understood this and the situation it places us in, we can begin to do something about it.

To do that we need to organise OURSELVES (instead of the state and capital doing it for us) into genuine nations. Yes, nations! Because we will never all agree on just one nation, and need to get away from having ONE imposed on us by the state. Thus, Britain will become not just a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, but also a multi-national society.

Multi-ethnic actually means multi-national, anyway, ethnic being derived from Greek ETHNOS = a PEOPLE or a NATION.

It goes without saying – or should do – that members of the same COMMUNITY also belong to the same NATION.

I know, this is all very confusing, and it's our confusion which the state (our wicked step-parent) and capital exploit in exerting their control over us.

The confusion results from the conflation of the two very different environments in which human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved over millions of years, long before the advent of civilisation, the state and capitalism. One was the “familiar” environment of our TRIBE, the other the natural environment external to it, which included other, non-related, tribes (related tribes, when they came together, formed a nation). The former was characterised by familiarity, trust, mutuality, shared identity and destiny, the latter by unfamiliarity, mistrust (fear) and the need to exploit it in the struggle for survival.

The conflation of these two environments is embodied in the STATE, which has conditioned us to see and trust it as the natural heir to our tribe, so as to facilitate society’s self-exploitation, as if it were the natural environment, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege.

Within our original tribe, shared property (certainly in respect to land) and mutualism (the ideas behind “socialism”) would have been the norm. The reason that socialism could not be made to work in the modern world is because it was always imposed, or implemented, from above by the STATE, whose inherent primary purpose is the very opposite, i.e. to facilitate society's self-exploitation.

Nationalism and socialism have both been thoroughly discredited through being hijacked and embraced by the STATE (most devastatingly by the Nazis, who incorporated both concepts in their name, after the motto: if you have a nasty product you want to sell, associate it with very positive concepts, something that, like the Nazis, the tobacco industry, or their advertising agents, were also very clever at doing). However, the concepts themselves are of vital importance, because both relate back to our original TRIBE and human nature as it evolved therein.

The concept of nationalism derives from our sense of identity with and loyalty to our tribe, from which socialism (sharing with one's kin) naturally follows.

Thus, what I propose we develop as replacement for the existing socio-economic order of mercenary state and capitalist economy, is MULTI-NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

Which finally gets me to where I can address the fear that undermining the authority of the state (of our wicked step-parent) will lead to ethnic conflict. That is a danger, of course. But by being aware of it, we can hopefully avoid, or at least, minimise it, since the real conflict is not between nations (ethnic groups), but between NATIONALISTS (those openly committed to their own ethnic group) and STATISTS.

What about people of mixed race, or who want to belong to a multi-ethnic nation? They will form a nation, or nations, of their own: a nation amongst other nations. And so long as they respect other (mono-ethnic) nations wish to retain their ethnic/racial identity, rather than trying to force them into a melting pot, as the state currently does, there need be no conflict.

It is worth noting that a “multi-ethnic nation” will inevitably become mono-ethnic over time as individuals intermarry and produce an increasingly, and ultimately wholly, mixed-race population.

The ethnic group that I spontaneously identify with and recognise as constituting my NATION – or SUPERNATION, if you prefer – are ETHNIC EUROPEANS – not the most numerous of nations, but potentially by far the most powerful. Power, which if wisely used, will enable all nations (as opposed to states) to survive the turbulent times ahead and devise a just, humane and sustainable future for humanity.

If you haven't already dismissed me as a nutter, you will probably be wondering where one goes from here, but I think I'd better save that for a subsequent post – notwithstanding that I have already written and published a fair bit on this subject.

WHAT BRITAIN IS AND IS NOT

The MADNESS of allowing mass immigration into our, already natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country (and sub-continent) has resulted in the creation of a multi-ethnic society and state – there is no denying or getting away from that, and the consequences which accompany it.

However, what I do deny, and reject as complete nonsense, is the assumption that Britain is still a NATION. It is not.

Actually, I don't believe that Britain ever was a NATION, but has always been a STATE (like other states) posing as a nation, in order to facilitate its powerful and privileged elites' exploitation of society as a whole. Elites which now include not just aristocrats, clergy and the wealthy, but also those in politics, academia and the media, who between them wield virtually total power in our “democratic” state.

ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. So, if multi-ethnic Britain is a nation, it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense. This is why, in order to aid the (self)-deception, the more ambiguous term “multi-cultural” is generally used.

A NATION, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is “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].

Does this describe multi-ethnic Britain? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. the STATE, is no easy task.

The immediate response of the state and its apologists is to deflect such an attack on itself as a “racist” attack on immigrants, thereby positioning it/themselves on the unassailable “moral high ground”.

This is the state's first line of defence, which, by exposing its ground plan, I hope to help demolish.

Then suddenly, I find that I have virtually EVERYONE against me – because we ALL depend on the state and, for all its short-comings, don't want it demolished; certainly not the bits that we ourselves personally depend on.

Calm down. I understand your fears. I have them too. I don't want to demolish the state (certainly not before we have something better to put in its place), but to expose it for what it really is and isn't. Since only then will we be in a position to change it – not demolish it. It is state deception and deceit I want to demolish.

Maintaining the deception of British nationhood seems to serve individual interests, especially of those who have done, or are doing well for themselves under its auspices, including members of ethnic minorities (for whom it is a lot better - materially, at least - being “British” than whatever they or their parents or grandparents were before them), but this is a narrow and short-sighted view to have – although, unfortunately, one that the human brain, owing to the conditions it evolved under, is naturally very inclined to favour.

What are the consequences of Britain being not a NATION but a STATE posing as a NATION?

The consequences are that whatever the state attempts to do on the assumption of being our nation, it makes a mess (often a complete mess) of, the evidence for which is all around us, but difficult to recognise, just as a wood, when you are in it, is difficult to see for trees.

The STATE has one essential function, which is to enforce, when need be, peaceful coexistence between the different tribes and nations which comprise it, who might otherwise be at each other's throats.

Social welfare (health, housing, education, care of the old and infirm, etc.) belongs in the hands of the NATION, as the natural extension of one's original TRIBE.

The welfare state only works (and even then very inadequately), as the current recession shows, when there is enough money to pay for it. Money derived from an economy based on the ruthless and unsustainable exploitation of both the natural and human environments, where human beings are reduced to the primary role of “human resource” and “consumer”.

A genuine NATION, in contrast, like the TRIBE, would not depend on money and exploit its own people or damage the natural environment they depend on, but facilitate their mutual well-being and sustainability as a PEOPLE.

To be continued . . . 

The BIG FLAW in David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY

It is clear from David Cameron's Party Conference Speech, “Together in the National Interest” (see quotes below), that his vision of Britain as a BIG SOCIETY is, in fact, a rehash of Britain as a NATION, a PEOPLE unified by a sense of shared identity, purpose and destiny. It is a vision which “national leaders” in times of crisis (e.g. war) have always appealed to, since it is not just the cheapest, but also the most effective way of getting people to pull together, appealing as it does to our capacity, hard-wired into the human psyche by evolution, for tribal identity and loyalty.

The BIG, fundamental, FLAW in this vision of BIG SOCIETY, is that Britain is not a NATION, but a proprietary and mercenary STATE, the primary purpose of which (the reason for which it was created in the first place, back in the European Middle Ages by a self-interested coalition of aristocrats and clergy) is to facilitate society's self-exploitation (as a human ENVIRONMENT) to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege, which inevitably includes everyone in a position of any influence. Which is why challenging the status quo always meets with such massive and generally insurmountable resistance. And even when the status quo is radically changed, as in the British (so-called Glorious), American, French and Russian revolutions, a new status quo, with its own powerful and privileged elites, is quickly re-established.

In order to deal with this fundamental flaw, one first has to recognise and develop an understanding of it, which isn't as easy as it may sound, because it requires taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian view of our own human nature and of the power structures (of state and economy) it has given rise to over the centuries, against which there are massive taboos in place: social, political, professional and personal/psychological. Just try suggesting it and see how long it takes before you are accused and silenced by accusations of “social darwinism” . . .

But don't be put off. If we are to deal with this problem, on which the fate of our civilisation (and with it our children and grandchildren) depends, we have no choice but to overcome these taboos and develop a Darwinian understanding of our situation.

We are, after all, animals, albeit very clever ones, a product of Darwinian evolution. Any other understanding of ourselves, our civilisation and the situation we find ourselves in is self-deception, which of course we have always been deeply immersed in. We are far less a “rational animal” than a “rationalising” (and self-deceiving) one.

David Cameron's vision of the BIG SOCIETY is a classic example of just how self-deceived we are. Not that I doubt his sincerity; he is as self-deceived, I'm sure, as he wants the rest of us to be, in respect to Britain being a PEOPLE and a NATION.

In the past it was a deception which could be maintained (to the advantage of society's privileged elites) more easily than it can now that the state, the established churches, the liberal left, and capital have all conspired to create the manifest absurdity of a “multi-ethnic nation”, which they attempt to disguise, from themselves as well as from the rest of us, by calling it “multi-cultural” rather than “multi-ethnic”.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. If multi-cultural/ethnic Britain is a nation, then it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense.

A NATION, also according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “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].

Does this describe multi-ethnic British society? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. to the STATE, is not easy, especially when we have all been brought up in the belief that it represents our NATION, and thus tend to identify with it, as well as being both materially and emotionally dependent on it.

The STATE is like a nasty and abusive step-parent, who disposed of our natural, loving, parents (the nation) before we had any memory of it, bringing us up to believe in itself as our natural loving parent (i.e. nation), in order to exploit us.

The British state is not a NATION, but a proprietary, mercenary and now multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national STATE, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege.

Wealth and poverty, along with big differences in privilege and disadvantage do not coexist within a NATION (which would be a natural extension of one's original TRIBE), but only within a STATE. Those who believe that the STATE, posing as our NATION, can create a fairer society (as especially those on the Christian and liberal left tend to do) are bound to be disillusioned – although, in the meantime, it provides them with a sense of moral self-righteousness, if not with the material advantages that go with their claim to the moral high ground (a prerequisite for getting a job with the liberal media, for example).

To the OED definition of NATION, I would add the condition that its members must not only be “identified [by others] as a distinct people”, but, far more importantly, must also mutually identify themselves as a distinct people. This, however, contradicts the universalistic ideology of inclusiveness and indifference to ethnic difference (i.e. “colourblindness”), which the established churches (Anglican and Catholic), now joined by self-proclaimed “progressives” and the liberal left, have elevated to a moral imperative (effectively seeing all humankind as a single tribe or nation, which is pious, self-righteous and self-serving nonsense, contrary to our more enlightened human and Darwinian nature).

Thus, we have the STATE (here the Prime Minister) appealing for national unity and solidarity, while at the same time denying - and where it stirs, suppressing as “racist” - the existence of any genuine sense of NATIONHOOD.

Following a very long tradition of the STATE imposing itself on its population as a phoney NATION, and contradicting what he himself says about “people power” as opposed to state power, David Cameron, said, “. . . today I want to tell you about the part we’ve all got to play, and the spirit that will take us through . . “ . I, in contrast, believe that it should be the PEOPLE – or rather, the PEOPLES, who need to organise ourselves, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, which now constitute the British STATE – who tell David Cameron, or whoever the Prime Minister and government are, about the parts we want to play and the spirit which will take us through.

I am well aware of what a profound, sensitive and potentially explosive issue this is, but for those who want to come to grips with the now existential problems of human existence (creating a just, humane and sustainable society), continuing with the self-deception of British (or other state) nationhood is not an option.

I do not want a knee-jerk reaction, of any kind, to what I am saying (especially from the extreme right or left, which tend to be thus inclined), but to initiate a civilised and rational (rather than rationalised) conversation. Developing and spreading a Darwinian understanding of our situation, which is a prerequisite of positive radical change, is going to take a little while, and is best not rushed.

Quotes from David Cameron's speech “Together in the National Interest”

This is the party of the national interest

We will always pursue British interests

The state of our nation . . .

. . citizenship isn't a transaction . . It's a relationship - you're part of something bigger than yourself . .

We need to change the way we think about ourselves, and our role in society. Your country needs you. And today I want to tell you about the part we've all got to play, and the spirit that will take us through . .

. . the spirit that we need, is the big society spirit . .

. . creating strong societies . . ensuring everyone feels that they belong.

From state power to people power. From unchecked individualism to national unity and purpose

From big government to the big society.

We can build a country defined . . by the values of mutual responsibility . . . A country defined not by what we consume but by what we contribute. A country, a society where we say: I am not alone. I will play my part.

. . . fairness means giving money to help the poorest in our society. People who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly . . That's the sign of a civilized society

. . the state has a clear role, to score a line between right and wrong; to punish those who step over it, and to do it in a way that gives confidence.

There is an incredible appetite out there for people to play their part. Our job is to help them, encourage them, break down the barriers that stop them.

Let's get going with National Citizen Service so more of our teenagers get some purpose in their lives.

When we say 'we are all in this together' that is not a cry for help, it's a call to arms. Society is not a spectator support.

This is your country. It's time to believe it. It's time to step up and own it.

So mine is not just a vision of a more powerful country. It is a vision of a more powerful people . . not small people but big citizens . . People that believe in themselves. A Britain that believes in itself.

At this time of great national challenge, two parties have come together to help make it happen

Your country needs you. So come on: let's pull together. Let's come together.

Vicar convicted over hundreds of fake marriages

LINK to Guardian article.

My comment:

And what about all the perfectly legal arranged marriages  which bring thousands of immigrants into the country every year, and mass immigration in general into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country . . . ?!

The solution to this vitally important issue lies in first recognising the British state for the "fake nation" it is, has always been, responsible for the injustice and inhumanity of massive differences in personal wealth, power and privilege, which characterize it, and, more recently, for the madness of allowing millions of immigrants into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, thereby undermining the population's natural, i.e. ethnic, sense of national identity, in favour of its own mixed and multi-ethnic state, i.e. "fake national", identity.

Having recognised the state for the "fake nation" that it is, we can start to organize OURSELVES, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, into genuine nations of our own free choice (with biometric verification of claimed identity).


Because most people, given man's tribal nature, when given the choice, will identify with their own ethnic group, the state will intensify its attempts to demonize such behaviour as "apartheid" and "racist".

However, it is not "apartheid" (which was imposed) by the South African state) or "racist" at all, but the most natural thing in the world, and the force by which, hopefully, not just the British state, will be transformed to genuinely serve their populations, instead to facilitating their self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, as they have always done in the past, and continue to do now, notwithstanding all state-sponsored rationalizations and self-deception, to the contrary.

"Progressives" standing in the way of progress

Society is being screwed by capital and the political right, of course, but most insidiously, also by the liberal left and self-acclaimed "progressives".

"Insidious", because they deceive many of us - along with themselves - into believing that they are serving society and the individual, especially those who are exploited and "disadvantage". It used to be "the workers" they were so keen to help, but has now shifted, not just, but mainly to ethnic minorities. Thus their embrace of and enthusiasm for mass immigration and multi-ethnic society. They'll have no sympathy for the indigenous population, which they themselves belong to, but fail to recognise or identify with, until it's been reduced to a "disadvantaged minority". Then, of course, they'll be all over it . . .

From an historical perspective it is clear that "progressives" have taken over the role (and social niche) once dominated by the Catholic Church, securing power, advantage and privileges for themselves not by force, as their partners in power, the aristocracy did (itself now largely superseded by the "meritocracy"), but by laying claim to and exerting the power of the "moral high ground".

Understanding the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society

Before one can understand the madness, one first has to recognise it, although it has been made very difficult by the social and political taboos which evoke accusations of "xenophobia" and "racism" against anyone who does and dares to say so publically.

I'm sure that many people do recognise this madness, at least from time to time, but dare not say so, certainly not in public, for fear of being branded a "xenophobe" or "racist"; and because it cannot be expressed publically there can be no shared debate, testing or evaluation of this perception, which we are thus left alone to doubt and, in the face of such overwhelming social pressures, eventually reject the validity of, bravely seeking to suppress our own "xenophobic" and "racist" tendencies.

The human brain is such that it can be prevented from recognising even the most obvious things if the taboo against doing so is strong enough. Such taboos can be put in place artificially by post-hypnotic suggestion, for example, or, more naturally, by social and political conditioning, through a regime of rewards and punishments, or promises and threats thereof. Just as we train and condition dogs, so we are trained and conditioned ourselves, to be obedient subjects of the state, as well as a "human resource" and consumer for the economy.

The state wants mass immigration and a multi-ethnic society, and thus trains and conditions us, its subjects, to accept it. And if that fails, we are simply bullied into submission by being branded as "racists", just as in the Middle Ages people were trained and conditioned to accept church dogma (and authority), and those who resisted were bullied into submission by accusations of being "heathens", "infidels" or "heretics".

Mass immigration is madness because our country and subcontinent are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated. Mercifully, Europe's native population has peaked and is now slowly declining, which, for sustainability's sake, is exactly what needed to happen. To reverse this natural trend, by encouraging people to have more children and through mass immigration of people's with a higher fertility rate, is utter insanity. It beggars belief that our politicians could be so stupid.

The creation of a multi-ethnic (multi-racial and multicultural) society, which the madness of mass immigration has given rise to, is madness in its own right, because it is difficult enough for people with everything in common to organize themselves harmoniously and get along together. The less we have in common, the more difficult (if not impossible) it becomes.

Which brings us to the method, i.e. purpose, behind this madness and thus to understanding it: the state and capital do not want us organizing ourselves, but as has always been their way, want to keep us dependent on them and do the organizing for us, thus facilitating our self-exploitation as a human environment and resource.

State and capital are so overwhelmingly powerful, and we so utterly dependent on them, that it is difficult to imagine how we can possibly escape their clutches. But if we want our civilization to survive, that is what we must do.

Why I am tempted to vote for the BNP

It is not because I like or feel drawn to them - far from it; after reading their website, I have the gravest reservation about voting for them - but because I am so utterly sick of all 3 mainstream parties, not just, but especially in respect to them having imposed the MADNESS of mass immigration on our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, along with a multi-ethnic society which undermines the whole notion of us being a PEOPLE and a NATION* (I certainly do not FEEL it anymore!).

 

I am not angry with, and certainly do not hate, the immigrants themselves, who one can hardly blame for coming here, given the opportunity, in search of a much higher standard of living and far greater opportunities than they had in their countries of origin, but I am extremely angry with the politicians and other members of our ruling elites (in the civil service, the media and academia) who have imposed this madness on us by accusing of "racism" anyone who dared raise any objections.

 

The British government and authorities usually describe immigrant minorities by their ethnic origins: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Chinese, etc. while the indigenous population are reduced to being called "white British" or "white Irish". Why not "native" or "indigenous" British or European. . ?!

 

Because that is not supposed to matter, is it?! The fact that one is a native or indigenous. Just as race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter (except for ethnic minorities wanting to maintain their identity). Yet no one would dare say that to a native American or Australian, or to any other indigenous people anywhere. ONLY to their own PEOPLE, whom they condemn as "racist" if they dare express any sense of identity as members of the indigenous, ethnic European, population.

 

The BNP, for all its faults (which are many and make it difficult to vote for), is the only party that even acknowledges the existence an indigenous population. For all the other political parties, we natives are just "white British". Why is there no respectable, mainstream party which recognizes the existence of an indigenous population and its overwhelming interest in facing up to the MADNESS of mass immigration and the undermining of national identity which multi-ethnic society has brought about . . ?

 

* 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 identity crisis smoldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society

The identity crisis smouldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society is rooted in the suppressed reality of states masquerading as nations.

The nation state has always been a lie (see my other BLOGS), but one which the state was long able to rationalise and disguise behind its services to an utterly dependent population.

The madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated subcontinent and the concomitant creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society and melting pot (the very opposite of what constitutes a genuine nation) has torn gaping holes in this disguise, exposing the naked power structures beneath, which we are only just beginning to become aware of, slowly and anxiously in the face of ever more desperate attempts at suppression, mainly through fallacious accusations of "racism".

The IDEOLOGY and POWER politics of multi-ethnic society

In response to the same Guardian article as previous post.

We need to recognize and develop an understanding of the POWER politics of mass immigration and multiethnic society, which isn't just about the provision of cheap foreign labour for state and capital, but also about the imposition of a racial IDEOLOGY (the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) which the STATE uses to claim a spurious "moral high ground" for itself, in order to facilitate its control of society, just as Christian ideology (theology) once was, and as Islamic ideology (theology) still is in most Muslim countries.

It is the ideology of "one-human-race-ism", of "colourblindness", of "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political significance except to evil "racists".

But far from being of no social or political significance, race and ethnicity have always been, and still are, of central importance to any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity (because we evolved as TRIBAL animals), vital to a genuine sense of nationhood (as opposed to statehood), the natural extension of our original TRIBE, and social solidarity, which cannot possibly arise spontaneously (except towards individuals) in a multi-ethnic society, but has to be imposed by moral imperatives from above, which the state then uses - is using, massively! - to control society for its own ends.

The problem is that so many people (currently, the vast majority) identify with the STATE, and are rewarded for doing so.

The MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society

LINK to Guardian article, Why so defensive on migration, Brown? by Tim finch, who argues in favour of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society.

When will we recognise the MADNESS of our ruling elites in inviting mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent? 

Thereby we have created a multiethnic society and melting pot, which isn't a genuine society at all (not that what existed before was either), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT (of "human resources"), which suits the purposes of both state and capital (as they have developed over the centuries), who service and exploit them in facilitating society's self-exploitation to the advantage of those in wealth, power and privilege.

Those who collaborate with the state are rewarded, of course (as are the immigrants who come from much poorer countries), and are now particularly concentrated in politics, academia and the media, with their strangle-hold on public opinion.

State interest in suppressing ethnic identity as "racism"

LINK to Guardian article, How volleyball and pop have shaken China's idea of race, by Isabel Hilton

Mulefish wrote:

Hybrids are genetically superior generally. That's the science of it, and the top and bottom of it, and the beauty of it.

That is not just "racism" of the kind generally equated - quite wrongly, in my view - with "racial prejudice", but something altogether much nastier: the assumption of a mixed-race MASTER RACE - a complete, but equally vile, inversion of the Nazi notion of a German master race.

This notion of a mixed-race master race is, of course, being promoted vigorously, but implicitly, by the "liberal fascist" state (see Jonah Goldberg), with its self-serving ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic different, and of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil "racists".

It will be interesting to see whether the Chinese state attempts to impose the same ideology. I doubt it, some how, since it would surely bring about its own rapid demise. Because in reality, when not suppressed, people are not "colourblind", i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, and race DOES matter, because of its role in determining an individual's sense of personal and group identity, thereby making it of great social and political importance.

It is an importance which the STATE currently refuses to acknowledge, suppressing it instead (very effectively, by condemning it as evil "racism"), just as it originally suppressed tribal identity and loyalties amongst racially indistinguishable peoples, in order to claim them for itself.

The state got away with the deception of covering the - essentially, though perverted, Darwinian - power structures of statehood with the stolen mantle of nationhood, when racial and ethnic differences were minimal, but won't be able keep up the pretence for much longer, now that they are so much larger - especially if China faces up to the social and political significance of race.