Featured post

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Western civilisation, especially in America, is to a large extent defined and shackled by its OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, some...

Sunday 31 January 2016

America has Lost its Way

Trump, Sanders and the Revolt Against Decadence

By Ross Douthat Jan. 30, 2016 (LINK to article)

The truth is that America, along with the rest of western civilisation, has lost its way, which, interestingly, the NYT itself warns of in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris attacks, last November:

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

This is an extremely dangerous and frightening situation to be in, and at the same time, very difficult to face up to. Most will simply dismiss me as a "doom-monger".

And it is not as if western civilisation were moving in the right direction before this overreaction to evil occurred. It wasn't. But it was in a much better position to recognise and develop an understanding of where it was going wrong.

This overreaction was to the evil of Nazism and everything (apart from German motorways) it was associated with.

The Nazis hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, some extremely important ideas, which, thanks largely to the misguided efforts of "anti-faschists", who made a moral imperative of this overreaction to Nazism, remain to this day, effectively, under Nazi occupation.

This included the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which resulted in a previous generation of academics making a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to ourselves, our civilisation and situation altogether, which is what we urgently need to do, if we are to find the way to our future, rather than see our civilisation fail: The West's Overreaction to Nazism.

Friday 29 January 2016

Racial Self-Contempt of the Liberal Left

How Stupid Is Iowa?

By Timothy Egan, Jan 29, 2016 (LINK to article)

To my pleasant surprise, my comment was approve and published by the NYT (LINK). This is the longer, revised version I was intending to post here in its stead:
"Trump can call for a police state pogrom against 11 million people and be rewarded, because a majority of Republican caucusgoers are white, native-born and believe that electing a demagogue will make American white again."
The contempt which "progressives" like Timothy Egan show for their own race is breath-taking.

They can’t express such contempt for other races, of course, but only for their own race, which, ironically and paradoxically, reinforces their sense of moral superiority as “anti-racists".

They don't see it themselves, because they live in an ideological bubble, their views reinforced my fellow "progressives", who see any co-ethnics failing to share their sense of racial self-denial and  self-contempt as "white supremacists".

How is one to understand such blindness and madness on the part of people convinced that THEY are the enlightened ones?  It is their own sense of being enlightened and morally superior, of course, which blinds them. Most of them mean well, which is why I refuse to see them as enemies. They are just misguided. Which is how they see people like ME, of course: misguided, "hateful" and full of "white supremacy".

I guess we are ALL deluded and misguided to some extent. But I'm not hateful or full of white supremacy. For better and for worse, I identify with my own race, which seems to me a natural and healthy thing to do. Denying and despising one's own race, as "progressives" are ideologically bound to do, strikes me as unnatural, unhealthy and pretty perverse.

I want to enlighten them, but they are convinced that I am the one in need of enlightenment, i.e. who should embrace THEIR ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt. But I'm damned if I will. I have too much racial self-respect.

I have also discovered, I believe, the cause of their unnatural and unhealthy attitude of racial self-denial and self-contempt, which began as an understandable OVERREACTION (something the NYT itself warns of an editorial following the Paris attacks) to Nazism and the Holocaust, and which I elaborate on HERE.

Tribalism Behind Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Israel's Image Issue

By Roger Cohen, Jan. 28 2016 (LINK to article)

The root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is human tribalism, as it is of conflicts and tensions all over the world.

This may SOUND like an unhelpful platitude and statement of the obvious, but it's not.

The reality is that we are dismissive of our inherent and intense tribal nature, trivialising, ridiculing or demonising it, rather than giving it the serious attention and study that it deserves.

Instead of grappling with the problems our tribalism creates, we insult each other with accusations of tribalism, so it is no wonder the problems are so intractable. We are not facing up to and dealing with their underlying cause.

And it is not politicians who are primarily responsible for this state of affairs, but ACADEMICS, because they are the ones we all - including politicians - look to as authorities on just about everything. And it is they who have cultivated this attitude of trivialising, ridiculing and demonising our tribal nature, not least, because of their own professional claim to be above it, when, of course, they are not. They pretend to be, and our politicians have to follow their example, and are thus unable to deal with the problems our inherent tribalism causes.

It is the subjectivity of our tribalism that makes it so difficult to deal with, but we must learn to do so, and the only way is by approaching it from a human-evolutionary perspective: http://unapprovedcomments.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-wests-overreaction-to-nazism.html

Saturday 23 January 2016

The Limits of Diversity

The Oscars and Hollywood’s Race Problem

By Roxane Gay, Jan. 22, 2016 (LINK to article)
" . . people of color want to see their lives reflected in the movies they watch"
You mean, they want to see themselves, including their race, reflected in the mirror of film and TV.

Of course they do. But then they need to make their OWN films with their own directors and actors. Just do it, instead of always blaming white people for being so - errr, white, and preferring white actors.

You prefer to see people of your race on the screen, I prefer to see people of mine. Of course we do. It's natural.

We need to stop pretending that race doesn't matter, when clearly it does.

However, before we can stop pretending, we need to understand WHY we pretend.

It's ideological, an OVERREACTION to Jim Crow, Apartheid and, of course Nazism and the Holocaust. Because they made such an ugly issue of race, with their racial supremacism, we overreacted by denying the importance of race altogether, embodying it in an ideology which now serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

We need to get a handle on this madness, before it drags us even further into the Orwellian world it has already taken us far enough into: http://unapprovedcomments.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-wests-overreaction-to-nazism.html

Thursday 21 January 2016

Civilisational Boom & Bust

What If?

By Thomas Friedman, Jan. 20 2016 (LINK to article)

What if consumer capitalism is inherently unsustainable on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, which I and many others recognised it to be more than 40 years ago, before Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher and Helmut Schmitt led the world in putting it into turbo mode?

We (mine and previous generations of white men) have screwed up badly, with America now leading western civilisation, and the rest of the world following, towards the abyss.

Not that I'm blaming America. A big part of our problem is that we all try to blame others for what's gone wrong, rather than admitting our own part in it.

Nothing new has gone wrong. Ever since the first states and civilisations emerged from a tribal society, they have been subject to a continuous cycle of civilisational boom and bust, just not on the global scale or level of technological development that we are now experiencing, or with such a huge dependent human population that will suffer the consequences.

It doesn't have to be like this, but to put an end to this cycle of boom and bust, we need to view and understand our own species and civilisation from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, which tragically, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes.

It is probably too late now to avoid bust entirely, but it is not too late to reduce the scale and death toll. Here is where to START.

Monday 18 January 2016

Beware When Philosophers Preach

What Do We Owe Each Other?

By Aaron James Wendland  January 18, 2016 (LINK to article)
"Levinas has taught us . . .  our responsibility for others is the foundation of all human communities . . . And since welcoming and sharing are the foundation upon which all communities are formed, no amount of inhospitable nationalism can be consistently defended when confronted with the suffering of other human beings."

The author reminds me more of a preacher quoting a prophet from his sacred scripture, than of a serious philosopher, seeking to assert his own moral authority and thereby promote his status and career prospects within the priesthood, i.e. academic fraternity.

What he says is moralistic nonsense, and could be dismissed as such, if it were not for the pernicious influence it has on society, especially on our political and media elites, just as church ideology and moralising once did.

It needs to be taken apart in detail and debunked, which space doesn't allow for here.

Basically, he is advocating the ideology of post-racial multiculturalism (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology), which demonises prejudice (an OVERREACTION to the Holocaust, which was wrongly blamed on prejudice), instead of recognising it as a healthy aspect of human tribal nature, which, like human sexuality, needs to be managed and controlled in an acceptable and civilised fashion, of course, but not demonised and suppressed as part of the age-old strategy of divide and rule, so successful practiced by the medieval church, as it is now by our "liberal" elites.

See BLOG in which I elaborate on these "heretical" ideas.

Sunday 17 January 2016

We are Being Tribally Scammed by the State

In Online Dating, ‘Sextortion’ and Scams

By Kate Murphy, Jan. 15, 2016  (LINK to article)

“For most of us, there are pockets and maybe whole sections of our minds and hearts that are not really reality-driven. . . . People don’t want to know what’s behind the curtain, they really don’t.” 

This reminds me very much of our relationship with the STATE. which for centuries has manipulated our inherent and intense tribal nature for its own mercenary purposes, posing as it does, not as a lover, but as our tribe or nation, which evolution adapted our brains to feel a deep yearning for and no less passionate about and loyalty towards.

The modern "nation 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. It deceitfully poses 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, i.e. as human resource and market), to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, but at the expense of society at large, which, effectively, is being scammed.

It's a form of "self-scamming", of course, which, as in the case of romantic scamming,  our brains are wired to be mugs for, but which ultimately is not just harmful, but self-destructive.

See BLOG in which I elaborate on these ideas.

Saturday 16 January 2016

In Overreaction to Evil Society Risks Losing its Way

Can Germany Be Honest About Its Refugee Problems?

By Jochen Bittner, Jan. 15 2015 (LINK to article)

While this article is more realistic than many others, which completely gloss over the difficulties of "integrating" millions of immigrants/refuges into an ethnically very different established society, it still doesn't address the central issue, because that would contradict the ideology which the West embraced in OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, an ideology which denies the importance of race and ethnic origins and demonises natural human prejudices in respect to in-group/out-group psychology and dynamics.

It is an overreaction of the kind that the NYT itself warned against in an editorial, The Price of Fear (Nov. 20, 2015), in response to the Paris attacks:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”
This is exactly what happened in the aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust.

As an ideology it also became an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology, serving the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

I elaborate HERE.

Thursday 14 January 2016

The Gordian Knot of Post-Racial Ideology and Reality

The Other Obama Legacy

By Charles Blow, Jan. 14, 2016 (LINK to article)

In this piece Charles Blow is clearly indulging - as most writers do on the subject of race - in Orwellian double think:
"I spoke to a room full of beaming high school and middle school boys, a vast majority of whom were black,” he writes, but then goes not to say that  “. . race is tangential to [Obama's] record."
Mr Blow's black identity is clearly and understandably of huge importance to him, but at the same time, in line with post-racial ideology, he is denying, or playing down, the importance of race.

We cannot have an honest discussion about race and ethnicity without facing up to their reality and importance, which post-racial multicultural ideology denies, or plays down, and suppresses. Thus the ease with which “progressives”, who embrace this ideology, exhort Europe to take in ever more refugees and immigrants irrespective of their different ethnic origins and identities.

The ideology of post-racial multiculturalism was, I believe, misconceived, in overreaction to European (white) imperialism, slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust.

Interestingly, a recent NYT editorial, The Price of Fear (Nov. 20 2015), warns against just such an overreaction:  “In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”

Race and ethnicity are clearly not just the social construct we are taught they are (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 they are, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity.

This, however, contradicts the “nation state’s" claim to represent a single nation, thus creating the demand for the Orwellian double think that has us tied up in a Gordian knot.

Notwithstanding our fears of the consequences, this Gordian knot urgently needs to be cut.

I elaborate on these ideas in THIS and appended blogs.

Wednesday 13 January 2016

The False Premise of American Nationhood

When the State of the Union Is Strong, but Doesn’t Feel Like It

By Bryce  Covert, JAN. 13, 2016 (LINK to article)

This commentary on the "state of the union" is so wrong-headed it is difficult knowing where to begin in criticising it.

It is based on false premises. First and foremost, the false premise that America is a nation. It is not. Like all states, it is 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 and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients personal advantage, at the expense of society at large.

Then there is the false premise (which follows from the first) that economic growth is an absolute good, that everyone, no matter how wealthy they may be, always needs more money.

Far from being an absolute good, perpetual economic (and population) growth poses a dire threat to any society's very survival.

In order to understand where I'm coming from with my criticism, one must view ourselves, our society and civilisation from a human-evolutionary perspective, which tragically a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which they abused for their own evil purposes.

It is exactly the kind of overreaction warned against in a recent NYT editorial, The Price of Fear: “In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way".

Western civilisation has indeed lost its way - badly, and unless corrected, fatally.

Monday 11 January 2016

When Philosophy Lost Its Way

When Philosophy Lost Its Way

By Robert Frodeman and Adam Briggle, January 11, 2016 (LINK to article)

I submitted two comments on this excellent piece, neither of which were approved, so I've combined them and posted them here:
"When Philosophy Lost Its Way"
It is not just philosophy which has lost its way, but western civilisation at large, led, of course, by academics, including tenured philosophers.

It is something the NYT itself warned about in a recent editorial, The Price of Fear: “In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way".

What the editorial's author overlooked was the fact that western societies have already lost their way - badly! - in overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, embracing an ideology which is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, denying the importance, even the very existence, of different races.

In the European context of the Holocaust this was reasonably enough. The overreaction was applying it in a global context, where there clearly are important racial differences. Important, not in the way that racial supremacists like the Nazis believed, or those responsible for Jim Crow and Apartheid, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity.

This ideology now serves the state (which employs most academics) as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

Contrary to what the authors claim, academics - collectively, at least - are still seen as moral and knowledgeable authorities, just as they were in former times as members of the clergy/church, like whom they are also privileged clients and employees of their respective "patron 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 own claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

It is primarily academics (whose moral authority others tend to accept) who, in OVERREACTION to Jim Crow, Apartheid and especially the Holocaust, imposed an ideology on western societies which is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, an ideology which demonises and suppresses (as "racist") the natural ethnic/racial foundations of national identity and genuine (as opposed to pseudo, state) nationhood, and which serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

See BLOG(S) in which I elaborate on these ideas.

Sunday 10 January 2016

Need for Darwinian Understanding of Society

It’s Payback Time for Women

By Judith Shulevitz Jan. 8, 2016 (LINK to article)
"it’s society that’s getting a free ride on women’s unrewarded contributions to the perpetuation of the human race."  
This reveals a complete, though typical, lack of understanding of the human condition and situation - which is Darwinian.

Yes, Darwinian! Just because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of it (in OVERREACTION to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism for their own evil purposes), doesn't make it any the less true.

In order to understand ourselves and our situation we HAVE to view them from a human-evolutionary perspective. The taboo against doing so does not make us morally superior, as supposed, but stupid, as testified to by the dire state of our civilisation and its propensity to self-harm and self-destruction.

If our civilisation is to survive this century it must quickly overcome its fear of crossing this bridge to a Darwinian understanding of itself and its situation.

The Nazis demonstrated only too well how NOT to go about it, plunging themselves and Germany into the abyss. I've made a fresh start (HERE), but I need academic support. It is not a bridge that I, or anyone else, can cross on their own.

What Madness Drives Our Own Ethnic Replacement?

Germany on the Brink

By Ross Douthat Jan. 9, 2016 (LINK to article)

You can't INTEGRATE millions of people of different race, culture and history into  a native/indigenous population without radically changing it. Go to any area where immigrants have already reduced native whites to an ethnic minority and you will see what I mean.

The Left's argument against objections to mass immigration is that we are ALL human beings, and so it doesn't matter when native (white) Europeans are replaced by immigrants from other continents. Only it DOES matter, if you happen to identify with to the ethnic group being replaced.

What madness is driving Europeans - and white Americans - to promote their own ethnic replacement by other races?

It is, I believe, an OVERREACTION (which the NYT itself warns against in a recent editorial, The Price of Fear: “In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”) to Nazism and the Holocaust, which was blamed of "racial prejudice", instead of on the Nazis' criminally insane racial ideology.

This resulted in our ruling elites embracing an ideology (the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology) which demonises natural human  prejudices, in favour of one's own ethnic (but only if you belong to the white majority)  and serves as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once served.

I elaborate further HERE.

Saturday 9 January 2016

Many Don't Want to INTEGRATE

Germany’s Post-Cologne Hysteria

By Anna Sauerbrey Jan. 8, 2016 (LINK to article)

Referring to the difficulties of integrating millions of immigrants into German society, Anna Sauerbrey writes:
". . the left and the right have played their respective roles of under- and overestimating the challenges of integration."
I disagree. It is the LEFT which massively underestimates the challenges of integration, the demand for which is part of a misguided IDEOLOGY which denies the natural ethnic foundations of national identity and genuine (as opposed pseudo state) nationhood (in overreaction to its abuse by the Nazis).

People who have their own racial and cultural identity, their own history, do not want to be INTEGRATED with peoples of different race, culture and history. It's as simple as that!

So, why does the left insist on demonising and suppressing human nature (natural human prejudices) and those who seek to defend them?

It began as an OVERREACTION (which the NYT itself warns against in a recent editorial, The Price of Fear: “In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”) to Nazism and the Holocaust, which was wrongly blamed of "racial prejudice", instead of on the Nazis' criminally insane racial ideology; an ideology which we have now gone to the opposite but equally insane extreme of, insisting that race and ethnicity are unimportant and that different races, cultures and histories can simply be "integrated" into a single society and "nation".

Well, they can't! And the sooner the left recognises this the better.

I elaborate further HERE.

Wednesday 6 January 2016

Comment not Approved by American Renaissance

This has nothing to do with the NYT. I posted a comment (LINK) to an article on the American Renaissance website which was approved, but my response to a reply which seemed to blame Zionists for more than I thought reasonable was not approved. I though that I made some good points, so I'm posting it here:

One must remind oneself that not all Jews were Zionists. Certainly, during WW1, most German Jews identified strongly with their German fatherland - to the extent that they were prepared to fight and die for it, against their fellow Jews on the Allied side.

To the extent that Jews were responsible for the defeat and humiliation of Germany in WW1, they paid dearly for it when, as a consequence, the Nazis rose to power.

Certainly, European Jews bear some of the blame for the blight of European civilisation, perhaps more than their numbers would justify, but trying to put most of the blame onto them is madness.

It's no good blaming anyone or any group for our troubles. We are ALL to blame, Jew and gentile.

We need to recognise the root cause of our troubles in the perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself, which has caused ALL past civilisations to decline and fall. The only reason that the Jews have survived so long as a people, is because they didn't have a state of their own to betray them. When one state turned on its Jews, other states took them in.

We are taught to believe that the state exists to SERVE society at large, but nothing could be further from the truth. The primary purpose of the state (including the democratic state) is what it has always been, namely, to facilitate society's SELF-exploitation to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and priestly/academic) clients, at the expense and ultimate self-destruction of society at large.

See BLOG in which I elaborate further on these ideas.

Friday 1 January 2016

Avatar Illustrates Difference Between States & Nations

A Times Course for Young World Changers Asks, ‘Sustain What?’

By  Andrew C. Revkin, Dec. 31, 2015 (LINK to article)
"We’ll look at the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the world’s nations . . "
This sentence contains the fundamental misconception that we must recognise and correct, before we can really get to grips with the issue of "sustainable development".

The misconception is in equating state and nation, which in reality are two very different things. However, in order to recognise the difference, one must view human nature and the societies it has, over the centuries, given rise and shape to from a human-evolutionary perspective, which a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

Modern states deceitfully pose as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse. There is not enough space here for me to elaborate further, so I will illustrate the difference between state and nation in reference to the film, Avatar, which, if you haven't seen it, you can learn about from Wikipedia.

The indigenous inhabitants of Pandora, the Na'vi, represent a genuine nation, while the Earthling employees of the Resources Development Administration engaged in mining activities on Pandora represent citizens of a state, or states.

This BLOG attempts a human-evolutionary perspective on civilisation.

Moral Supremacism of the Liberal Left

America’s Bountiful Churn

By Roger Cohen, Dec. 31 2015 (LINK to article)
"Decency demands that in 2016 Western societies do better in accommodating the millions fleeing the Syrian debacle."
And the 10s, if not 100s, of millions fleeing war and poverty in other parts of the poor world? Does the West have to accommodate all these people too?  

Germany is not defined by its territorial borders alone, but in large degree by the shared ethnic origins and history of its people, who are not Turks or Syrians, who have their OWN ethic origins, history and culture.  

What you are encouraging the creation of, Roger, is a powder keg of ethnic divisions and conflict. And when this powder keg explodes, as eventually it is bound to do, will you take part responsibility?  Of course not. You'll blame the "far right" and "racists" for not accepting your own absurd vision of a global melting pot.  

I don't believe that you mean to do the harm that you are, in encouraging mass immigration into Europe. On the contrary, you clearly mean well. But you know what they say about the way to hell being paved with good intentions . .?  

Like your colleagues on the Editorial Board, you sincerely believe that your attitude to race, multiculturalism and mass immigration is the morally correct one to have, and that anyone opposing it, like myself, is morally inferior, but you are, I believe, mistaken.  

Allow me to explain the method to the madness behind your "morally superior" attitude, which is this: 

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology, on which your morally superior attitude is based, serve the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

P.S. to my submitted comment:

What's in a name? Perhaps nothing. On the other hand, the name Cohen does, I believe, derive from the ancient Hebrew priesthood, which made a profession of its claim to moral authority. 

With moral authority comes POWER, which, as we know, corrupts, leading in this instance to "moral supremacism", which is what I consider your attitude towards mass immigration, race and multiculturalism to be an expression of.

Please, don't take offence, Roger, because that is not my intention. On the contrary, I want us to understand and like each other. When you call someone a "racist", presumably you want the person you are addressing or referring to to recognise their "racial supremacism" and to correct it. In the same way, I want you to recognise your "moral supremacism" and to correct it.

I know, recognising one's own faults is a lot easier said than done, and there is nothing worse than having them pointed out to you in public. So, you are bound to reject my criticism of you, as a "moral supremacist" out of hand, initially and in public, at least. However, if you are the genuine liberal (in the positive sense) I assume your are, you will recognise the need to be open to criticism, no matter how painful it might be. Thus, I ask you not to dismiss my criticism out of hand, but to consider it, in private, in the same spirit of good will that I offer it in.