Ecology and Political Correctness Don't Mix    
    Multi-racialism, says Frank Kimbal Johnson, is against nature's laws    

We are bombarded with ‘globalist’ politics these days. According to those responsible, we should all reconcile ourselves to eventual world government where racial and national distinctions will disappear in an increasingly mongrelised population, and of course every body has a nice day. Nationalist movements like the BNP are dismissed as swimming against the tide of history and holding views about racial differences, which have no rational or reputable foundation. We lack, they say, a sensibly holistic understanding of human nature and world politics.

In this contention, they would doubtless claim to be supported by expert ecologists, i.e. scientists concerned with the evolutionary relationship between various life-forms and the environment. So it seems appropriate to quote Edward Goldsmith, one-time editor of the reputable journal Ecology on that subject. In a paper titled ‘The Limits of Growth in Natural Systems’, he says-

‘It is not surprising that systems, which are sufficiently differentiated, such as biological organisms and societies, will tend to develop mechanisms that will enable them to exclude foreign bodies likely to menace their integrity. At the biological level, such devices are known as rejection mechanisms. Experience with organ transplants has revealed that to suppress these mechanisms is to increase one hundredfold the patient's susceptibility to cancer, i.e. to the anarchic proliferation of cells. Mechanisms of this kind are essential at all levels of organisation. Of the 3,000 simple societies so far examined by anthropologists, all appear to have laws of exogamy and endogamy. Marriage is forbidden within a restricted family circle, but also outside the cultural group; the object being to avoid cultural hybridisation and hence the production of sub-systems that are differentiated parts of neither one system, nor of another.

‘What is today regarded as prejudice against people of other ethnic groups is a normal and necessary feature of human cultural behaviour, and is absent only among members of a cultural system already far along the road to disintegration. The notion of the universal brotherhood of man is therefore totally incompatible with the nature of human cultural systems. It is as absurd as the notion that the cells making up a vast number of different organisms can be shuffled and still give rise to viable biological systems.

‘Economic growth is leading to increased mobility. Industrial countries tend to develop labour shortages and import foreign labour. In this way quite large ethnic minorities are being built up in many countries. In addition, economic development is tending towards ever larger political units which often embrace ethnic groups with little in common with each other. All this is creating a very unstable situation; one which can only lead to civil wars and the massacre of minorities singled out as scapegoats when inevitable economic and social crises occur.’ (Author's emphasis).

So much then for ‘scientific socialism’!

Multi-racialism is therefore as fundamentally flawed as Communism and liberalism in its conception of human nature and what makes for a viable society. It is subversive of the evolutionary process, which is essentially devoted to the emergence of species/races with the most potential for survival and further development.

Multi-racialism is an altogether synthetic ideology compounded of sublimated sexual masochism, post-colonial guilt, holocaust indoctrination, pseudo-anthropology and political correctness. In its fanatical resort to social engineering, propaganda and repressive legislation, it is a towering example of what the ancient Greeks called hubris (arrogant folly) and is doomed to meet its Nemesis in the fullness of time.

Meanwhile, there are other profoundly relevant factors worth noting in exposing the roots of political philosophy, sustainable societies and human behaviour. For example, there are only three types of relationship governing the behaviour of different life-forms on this planet.

  • Predatory-Prey: the former subsisting entirely at the latter's expense.
  • Host-Parasite: the latter subsisting wholly or mainly at the expense of the former.
  • Symbiotic: whereby there are mutual benefits of equal value.

The ways of human society

Such relationships are plain enough for everybody to see in the natural world, and they operate with just as much force and eventual outcome in human society, however well disguised they may be for reasons of personal and political expediency. Not surprisingly, politicians and clerics are forever spouting the symbiotic sermon when the real situation is actually one or both of the other two relationships - typical examples being the attempt to disguise Third World immigration as beneficial to Western Civilisation and to represent the EU as equally beneficial to all the countries involved. A prominent Socialist once defined politics as "the art of the possible." In the light of natural law and the lessons of history, we can only conclude that our multi-racialist and globalist politicians have not understood this and are in blind pursuit of the impossible. For their part, BNP supporters have satisfaction of knowing that their policies accord with natural law, the evolutionary imperative, common sense, historical evidence and political realism. So where else is there to go?

    Spearhead Online