Race, Culture and Nation

The Local World

Part X

by Geoffrey Dobbs

From Class War to Race War

This chapter is going to be difficult to write, for in it I have to challenge some of the major prejudices which have been massively established in the public mind, especially that of the post-War generations, by those who have the use of the mechanisms of mass-opinion control. What I am referring to is not genuine opinion formed by the individual, after thinking through the emotional, superficial and sloganish aspects of anything, nor is it that common thinking which arises from a centuries-old common culture founded upon generations of common beliefs, such as those of Christianity, which is the first target of such propaganda.

It is something called the 'mobpsyche,' the irrational but formidable force of public 'opinion backed by hostile emotion against anyone who challenges it, which is formed by the endless repetition and suggestion to which we are all subjected through the broadcast media, the press, advertisers, employment, books, the political and educational systems. It then maintains and spreads its pressure through the every- day exchanges between people.

Such mob-psyching propaganda is as old as civilisation, but was formerly limited by the range of the human voice. Now its powers are magnified beyond all estimation and reason by modern electronic technology. It is the chief tool of revolution, that is, organised ideological war waged upon an existing culture in order to 'destabilize' it and bring about social chaos with a view to displacing the current 'ruling class by a dictatorship of the revolutionaries, whose actions are the inverse of their idealistic propaganda.

The most obvious is that of Marxist socialism, with its ideal of the classless society of free and equal citizens in a State whose power is progressively withering away, to be obtained by class war under centralist socialism. The reality, as manifested in the U.S.S.R. was the opposite. But the tyranny, religious as well as political, lasted 70 years, and only recently has weakened and broken up enough to allow the age-old religion it aimed to suppress to emerge again into the light.

The cardinal error in the ideology of class war is the illusion of ‘equality' as applied to men. Millions of words, from Plato onwards, have been expended on this subject, and millions of men have been verbalised into dying for it. But even a Himalaya of verbiage cannot change the fact that, physically, mentally and spiritually, all men are unequal and 'equality' cannot be one of their properties. But as I pointed out in the last chapter, it is very convenient for those who seek to govern people en masse by remote control, to treat them as equal units. Equality is totally incompatible with freedom; and the nearest to its ideal state is war.

Equality versus Equity

Is there then no reality behind the age-old passion for equality? Indeed there is; but it is disastrously the wrong word for the real thing, which is 'equity.' 'Equity' is an active thing, it is that treatment of people which takes account of their inequalities and aims at fairness, or natural justice, which is also a characteristic of the Common Law. as distinct from Statute (or politicians') Law which tries to treat people 'equally.'

There is, indeed, one matter in which equity also demands equality of treatment of everyone, since it does not involve merit or demerit or personality in any way. This concerns the enormous cultural inheritance due to past inventions and improvements in productivity to which everyone is owed an equal measure of monetary access without debt, quite apart from personal inheritance or work. But this has become obvious only since the technological revolution, when wealth production lost touch with reality and became controlled mainly by the symbol 'money.'

It is probably the general, unacknowledged awareness of the monetary restrictions on access to this beneficial wealth and its gross squandering in destructive ways which lies at the root of the passionate demand for equality; but it still remains that 'c-quality' is a passive denial of 'quality' in people. To claim it for oneself is to surrender all the properties of a person, and to be content to be a passive, character- less unit for the mass-manipulation of remote anonymous masters.

A class is a number of individuals (whether men or other beings) grouped into named categories by their common attributes. Though human classifiers may make false classes remote from reality, thought and language could not exist if 'class' in this sense were not real.

Since all men are different, in any large community they inevitably and naturally fall into different groupings or classes in respect of every human attribute we can think of. To maintain that the sum of all these differences in every whole person is 'equal' is ludicrous.

Among these attributes certain of them, such as strength, cunning, ingenuity, and fighting ability lead not only to human survival among, and domination of, other forms of life, but to the domination of some men by others; to the emergence of a ruling class. This is not limited to mankind. Even hens have their social hierarchy. They approach equality only when kept in battery cages for human use.

Differences a Fact of Nature

It is ironic for those who seek to align themselves with Nature to deny that such differences are a natural part of Man's more complex society. There are, and must ever be, more and less powerful, richer and poorer, rulers and ruled; and the more that egalitarians try to crush out these differences by political force, the cruder and the more despotic they become. The late U.S.S.R. was a prime example. Centralised power always corrupts and the powerful have always oppressed the powerless to some extent. The great political question is: How little can we make it?

The ability of the stronger to kill the weaker of their own kind is fatal to that kind if not strictly restrained. The weaker may possess other properties far more valuable. Even in a wolf pack, if the master wolf were to kill every young male who challenges him, the pack would soon die out. But so long as the youngsters submit. to him they are allowed to live. In human affairs we have had appalling examples of wholesale killing by rulers, notably in the U.S.S.R. - the home of 'equality.' But in general, laws, customs and conventions arise in human society which protect the weaker from the stronger and more ruthless: and the result is, inevitably, the grouping of people into 'classes' in respect of power. In other words, 'class' is a natural phenomenon inhuman society, whether called 'Upper, Middle and Lower,' Bourgeois or Proletarian, or A, B, and C, though these categories are far too large for practical use, and being based on one criterion in one League Table as fighting-for-money-power classes, inevitably promote the class war.

The establishment by convention and tradition of a social hierarchy of cultural classes performs several essential functions. It provides a basis for mutual co-operation, so that it is in the interest of the strong to protect the weak, and of the weak to be led by the strong, rather than the weak being simply eliminated. This was the basis on which slavery, existed as an accepted institution for most of human history. But it is also true that hierarchy is essential in the carrying out of any major undertaking. Some must plan and lay down methods and give orders, others must obey them; otherwise nothing can be achieved.

This is in no way opposed to 'democracy,' which is concerned with the willing acceptance of the objective by all concerned, not with organising to attain it. But it should be remembered that our idea of a voting 'democracy' is derived from that of ancient Athens, a slave society in which the slaves (helots) had no votes, since that would merely give multiple votes to the owners. There is an analogy to be drawn here with the control of votes in modern elections by the parties and the all-pervading 'media.'

The centuries of Trinitarian Christianity have taught us that a balance of central powers is essential to minimise the oppression of the weak by the strong. That knowledge is being abandoned with the religion which gave it, in favour of the totalitarian illusion of the revolutionary: Smash all rival powers and classes, seize unitary power, and force compulsory 'equality' on all the units of mankind! As Orwell made very clear, this programme requires a special, permanent. class or party of 'equality-forcers' to attempt to impose this impossible ideal.

A Community lives by Class Co-operation

Just as class is a natural phenomenon, so co-operation between people of different classes to their mutual benefit is a natural occurrence without which any society must soon break down. A class-war is thus a division in a society which, by its nature, must, if pursued for long, be disastrous to it, though necessary for those who seek to 'divide and rule' over the resulting chaos. In fact a class war c now an unnatural culture-war converted into a money-war by a falsely based credit-system which bears upon all classes.

Thus, contrary to the approved thinking of our incipient thought- police, the honest acceptance of class (as with race and sex) differences. with the recognition that each has its special excellence and superiorities to contribute to any effective enterprise, is the only way in which mutual respect and hence amicable association can be achieved.

How on earth could any sizeable collective undertaking be successful without a wide range of workers, manual and non-manual, relatively skilled and unskilled, willingly co-operating under a hierarchy of management? The ideology of workers versus management clearly, allots to the workers the role of unwilling wage-slaves, not of free men contributing their part to the enterprise.

This workers' ideology is always imposed by middle or upper class intellectuals, writers, talkers, journalists, teachers, lawyers, i.e. the opinion-forming sub-class with money-power 'behind it. Marx was typical of such, a lawyer's son, financed by Engels, a capitalist factory-owner. Lenin, a law graduate, with German and Wall Street backing, is memorable for insisting that 'the masses' were incapable of either understanding or organising the revolution and must be under the continuous control and direction of the elite of the instructed Communist Party.

Race-war - a Deeper Division

But there are deeper divisions which can be carved into human nature than those between cultural and economic classes: being biological they are even more deadly.

'Race' is one of these. In one sense it may be said that in the matter of insane thinking about 'race,' Hitler won the War. While the totalitarian imposition of 'correct' political and religious opinion in the U.S.S.R. was tolerated and even praised by the opinion-formers of the Left in the West for generations, because they agreed with the opinions imposed, the monstrous abominations committed under the Nazi regime, as suddenly and dramatically revealed at the end of the War, produced a reaction so violent that it partakes somewhat of the insanity which produced it.

What concerns me is that the abominations which came to light when the Hitler War ended have so long occupied and polluted our minds and emotions that after fifty years they have induced a sort of back-to-front Naziism (one might call lzanism) intolerant of any impartial enquiry into them or into how the German people came to follow Hitler.

Public thinking on this subject is that of the lynch mob: these men were monsters of evil; therefore all they thought or said was untrue and wicked; it follows that anyone who looks into it and finds any truth in some of it shares in their guilt, is condoning their crimes and should be denounced. This was the Nazi attitude towards the Jews, and is the Jewish attitude towards the Nazis, and is now the only 'politically correct' attitude, departure from which is liable to be punished by the post-War invented terms of political abuse such as racist, fascist and 'anti-semitic' (meaning anti-Jewish).

In contrast to this attitude, is that reported of an old priest who had known Hitler in his youth. When asked what this monster was like he paused, and then said, with a sigh: "He was a man. Like every man. Like all men. Like Christ."

Hate is Infectious

The abandonment of Christianity and of Christian commonsense has deprived the opinioneers of the wisdom contained in the Latin tag: corruptio optimi pessima, and they are prone to see evil as a Power in itself rather than a perverter of reality, which was created good. Hence, by concentrating their minds with hatred upon evil they inevitably become infected with it and are deceived into directing the same hatred upon the reality which was perverted.

So far has the public mobpsyche been diverted from any honest consideration of the matter that the main concern now seems to be with the number of Jews who were massacred in the Nazi prison camps, and the method adopted. Any suggestion that some of the announced figure of 6,000,000 may happily have escaped that fate, or that they did not die mainly in gas chambers, is denounced as 'racist,' and in Canada, in recent years, has been prosecuted under the criminal law. Such back-to-front anti- (or reverse) racist oppression now dominates the scene.

It is in this sense that it may be said that, ideologically, Hitler won the War, in that, since his time, race war has been added to class war as a permanent source of social conflict which, being biological, is even more deeply divisive; so that now it is scarcely possible to discuss race sanely or truthfully.

The Nature vs. Nurture argument has lurched to and fro, with the bias first one way and then the other, but after the discovery in the l950's of the role of DNA and RNA in all forms of life it has become absurd to deny, by condemnation, that 'race' plays an important part in determining human characteristics. But it is a subtle and potential part, requiring 'Nurture' also, in human terms the cultural as well as the genetic inheritance, for the full expression of both. To add race war to class war (i.e. culture-war) is indeed to try to make war 'total.' There is only one even deeper and more genocidal step, and that is to add sex war. But both race and sex conflicts are clear extensions of the original socialist class war.

'Race,' in fact, is an intimate and personal matter, concerned not only with one's parentage, culture and up-bringing, but with the precise composition of every cell in one's body. It is a subject with which government, politicians, bureaucrats and the media ought never to interfere with their clumsy propaganda and coercions, whether to force people together or to force them apart. (So now they never leave it alone !).

It is surely unnecessary by now to stress the gross crudity and falsehood of the Race Theory which was borrowed and swallowed by the Nazi Movement. Neither the pure Nordic Herrenvolk, nor the pure semitic Jewry, exists, though the one is a sort of inverted mirror image of the other. The crime which has been burnt deep into our minds is not that any such monstrous persecution occurred but that it was Jews who were persecuted, and that the 'race' and skin-colour of the perpetrators was 'Nordic' and 'white.' So now 'racism' can be committed only by 'whites' of northern origin.

Crime-think to Enquire

It is 'crime-think' to enquire how it was that a lot of normal and decent people came to follow a fanatic into blaming 'the Jews' for all their troubles, as it was then 'crime-think' under the Nazis to befriend or favour Jews in any way whatever. So now, by inversion, it is not 'politically correct' to draw attention to the financial hyper-inflation of 1923 which plunged most Germans into poverty while transferring much (if their property and security to those who knew how to take advantage of it. Many of these new-rich were Jews, and were blatantly bossy towards the impoverished Germans, as I can vouch, having visited the Weimar Republic a few years later. They thus created an 'atmosphere' in which an openly anti-Jew Movement was popular.

There can be no doubt that international debt-finance oppressed the German people cruelly at that time, as well as the rest of the world, as it still does to-day; and it cannot be denied that many (but by no means all) of the world's most powerful financiers are Jewish, and, whether Jew or gentile, have a good deal to answer for the monetary tortures inflicted on mankind.

The Nazi Movement itself could have got nowhere without massive financial backing by international financiers and industrialists (see Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton, 1976). Even so, the Nazi labelling of the oppressive world money power as 'Jewish' (which is an exaggeration) has provided a most formidable defence of that power, in the form of an accusation of pro-Naziism and anti-semitism against any critic of it. Every Jew is now protected by a minefield labelled with the hate-word 'anti-semite,' which may explode even when debt-finance and its worldwide power is attacked with no thought of, or reference, to Jews.

This word 'anti-Semitism' in its invariable application to Jews, makes any criticism of them 'racist' by implying that they are of Semitic race, i.e. that they constitute a 'race,' which is probably untrue of a large number of Eastern Jews (Ashkenazim) who may well have been of Khazar stock, following the mass-conversion of the Kingdom of that name to Judaism about 740 A.D. Arabs, on the other hand, are a Semitic people; so by one of those ironies of history and of the misuse of language, the most manifest example of anti-Semitism in the world today is the conquest and suppression of the Palestinian Arabs by the Jews of Israel which, indeed, was declared to be 'racist' by a vote of the U.N. dominated by Arab nations.

Not Race but Power-policy

The issue here is not 'race' in the genetic sense (though that element is strongly present), but a powerful religious and cultural, long- term power policy which is shared in part by those Christians who adhere more strongly to the Old Testament than to the New. Such people, now welcoming the new label Judaeo-Christians, are in belief and consequent policy virtually Liberal Jews, and it has to be remembered that the State of Israel owes its existence largely to the actions of two Nations with such a Christian background: Britain and the U.S.A., though its precipitation just after the Hitler War was made possible by the Nazi persecution of Jews as a dangerous rival power-group.

What we are concerned with then, is not 'racism' but primarily power-politics, arising from different 'religions.' Judaeo-Christians are liable to remind simple Christians that Christ and the Apostles were Jews. So they were, and on Palm Sunday (as we now celebrate it) the common Jews welcomed Christ, while on Good Friday the power-Jews had their way with Him. But Christ (The Messiah, the Anointed King) had also to explain, even to his disciples, that His Kingdom was NOT of this world, though it extended into it. He was NOT the Great Leader (Führer) who would lead His People collectively into World Power. His Way was spiritual and His salvation was for all men as individuals, NOT for the racial Group.

Through most of the Old Testament we have this contrast in policy, between the prophets preaching the Covenant with God, and those leaders of Judah and Israel who had led the people into social corruption, and who persecuted or killed the prophets. This contrast reached its climax in the Crucifixion; but it may be recognised today in the orientation of Christians and of Jews (plus Judaeo-Christians) to good and evil. In Australia and elsewhere, some Jewish rabbis are urging that Christian teaching on the New Testament be modified to meet their interpretation, with much sympathy from Judaeo-Christians.

In general Christians, having faced once the monstrous events in the Nazi prison camps, cease to pollute their minds with them, but still remember and glorify those who resisted or sacrificed themselves for others, as they glorify, not the victimhood of the Cross but the love which endured it. On the other hand we are daily pounded with the policy of a few influential Jews in dwelling upon, and making the most psychologically, of their mass-victimisation under the Nazis. Their open policy is to seek public vengeance in show trials of obscure old men of dubious identity and involvement in those fifty-year-old crimes in order to perpetuate collective guilt and vengeance-seeking among the young.

Are Most Jews REALLY Vengeance-Seekers

Is it 'anti-semitic' to suggest that most ordinary Jews are not vengeance-seekers but, even more than the rest of us, would welcome any impartial investigation in the hope that it might show that some of the much-publicised figure of 6,000.000 victims had never suffered that fate?

Since Jews are taught to think of themselves racially and collectively rather than individually, as God's Chosen People, called to a moral leadership of the World, if this is corrupted from the spiritual into a form of collective racial pride, is it not then credible that it could be taken over by an anti-Jewish fanatic with Nordic German fantasies and transformed into a racial Herrenvolk, the 'highest human type' with a moral duty to confer the benefits of its rule upon the rest?

For other peoples-e.g. the French, British and Americans -- it is the political unit, the Nation, which unites them and expresses their national pride. But the Germans, before Bismarck, never had been a nation, and even Bismarck did not bring them all under the same flag. Hence it was easy for them to pride themselves as a race. Moreover, the Nazi view of 'non-Nordic' peoples was that they were 'inferiors' to be given the boon of German rule. Only the Jews were different: a rival 'race' which could not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Is it not sensible and charitable to assume that most Germans, like the rest of us, were victims of their Herrenvolk, as most Jews are victims of their own 'Herrenvolk,' and indeed do we not all suffer under some sort of ubermensch? The identity and extent of the tyranny they exercise may be judged by the penalties exacted for confronting their policies. Yet, if ever there were people who should know better than to victimise others it must surely be the power-wielding Jews.

Every effort seems to be made by the organs of publicity to induce everyone to think collectively in categories of Jews. Nazis, fascists. racists, blacks, whites, Asians, etc., and to discourage the Christian way of thinking of them as individual people, with personal responsibility for their actions. Thus, the bulk condemnation of the entire Jewish race as the 'murderers of Christ' follows a Jewish rather than Christian mode of thinking; but some Jews had responsibility. Which Jews, Germans, racists, Blacks, Asians etc. are we referring to? Crude lumpen-thinking always leads to disaster.

Race-war to skin-colour-war

So now, two generations later, we have Hitler's race-war mania extended to skin-colour differences, with the creation of the great White- skinned Guilt Complex. It is not 'racist' for Jews to oppress Arabs, for Arabs to oppress Kurds, for Serbs to oppress Croats, for people with black, or brown, or yellow skins to oppress each other (as they all do). It is skin-colour that seems to matter rather than oppression.

Even here in Britain, we now have an Izanist official attitude which uses these vulgar and racially insulting skin-terms for people (every whit as crude as Hitler's) : 'black' and 'white.' and more recently 'Asian' - lumping together vast masses of mankind by skin alone. Our language, we are told, must be changed to exclude words like blackmail, blackguard, etc.; neither must we use 'white' in ways indicating harmlessness, such as 'white lie' or 'white magic'; as our thought-masters have prescribed that these words must always have a racial meaning.

Post-war 'anti-racism' did, indeed, start by trying to be just that: to oppose the very idea of race, to depict it as of negligible importance as compared with education and environment. All races were equal, (by implication, in everything) and the Racial Equality Laws attempted to enforce this insulting lack of discrimination. But as the years have passed, its unreality became inescapable, so our anti-racists are now defying their own laws by what they call (ironically, having destroyed the real meaning of the word) positive discrimination; in other words, anti-racism has become reverse-racism.

Izanism's Twisted Word-weapons

There is a Society of Black Lawyers, a Black Environment Network, even a Group which advertises that 'Black Lesbians only need apply'; but the equivalent of White Lawyers etc. are not only illegal, but would be greeted with furious accusations of 'racism,' which are them- selves simply reverse-racism. We are also told, by a Government Agency (English Nature) that our national tree, the oak, so long associated with our history and literature, is no longer to be called the 'native oak' as this is irrelevant, and offends 'ethnic groups' as a form of biological racism. So now, the word 'native' is tabooed by our official Herrenvolk, even as applied to trees, which is contrary to all our knowledge of the ecology of trees, soil and mycorrhiza, and the dangers which may accompany the introduction of alien species or varieties.

It is evident that the development of this language-psyching into a weapon of aggressive Izanism dates from long after the experience of Naziism. It is a product of propaganda which feeds on its own excesses.

One of those most vicious word-misuses has been the complete inversion of the meaning of the word 'discrimination' to serve the purposes of this inverted Naziism. In its proper sense this word means precisely that careful discernment of differences which is essential to harmony 'between races (or indeed any different groups or individuals). It sums up the aim of all real education, and is the basis of all biology. Its inversion to mean a malign prejudice against anyone on racial or sexual grounds, now even embodied in our Law, so that its proper meaning is almost unknown to the young, is a gross offence against our language and against civilisation itself. It is ironic to remember that it started as a witticism perpetrated by the American humorist, Mark Twain.

There are other ways of expressing contempt for other races than the direct Nazi way. The fact that nowadays few people dare be any- thing but carefully polite to anyone with a coloured skin, for fear of the 'racist' hate-smear, makes a colour-bar colder than anything our tougher-minded and less touchy predecessors are accused of.

The selective world propagandist and financial assault upon South African 'whites' for trying to solve their menacing multiracial problems by enforcing some segregation (apartheid) upon each race - excluding from that condemnation the non-white abominations, such as burning people alive, and the corruption, massacres and starvation in non-white countries - in fact was an insult to non-white people not less than that of the Nazis.

What it clearly implied (and is sometimes said in 'anti-colonialist' terms) was that you must not hold 'blacks' to be responsible for gross corruption, atrocities and social chaos: 'whites' alone are responsible people; and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, which is not all that different from claiming total 'white' racial superiority. It is not as if differences in race and colour were anything new in a country such as Britain, merely that our Izanists are trying to destroy the common sense with which, until recently, we all came to terms with them as a normality. Now, by depicting the familiar customs and attitudes of the native population as rotten with an anti-black 'racism' which has to be eradicated by legal force, our racial thought-police are magnifying on both sides the fear and resentment they feel so righteous in castigating, and forcing upon non-white new-corners the feeling of isolation among a hostile people.

How to stir up' Racism'

Scarcely a week passes but they try to find some part of our customary way of life and language which, they say, is an offence to the 'ethnic' minority, never mind what it does to the not-to-be-called-native 95 per cent of the nation. Then they have to persuade the 'ethnics' to feel offended at what they never were before. Even the normal rules of a working-man's club which tend to elect their own sort, have now been found to be 'racist,' if 'their own sort' have skins of the normal 'native' hue.

Consider the behaviour of 'politically correct' operators under the banner of 'anti-racism.' It is usually to maximise publicity for any local act or language , which actually does cause racial offence. Instead of, say, a dozen people being enraged and offended, maybe a million are made so by proxy. This is a strictly post-Hitler phenomenon.

Before that War there was a rough and ready give and take between the races, which took account of a British characteristic of abusive familiarity, which sometimes could even be called affectionate abuse, a sign of acceptance into the group or society in question. The last time I heard a Nigerian student called 'a bloody nigger' during a minor rough-house, it was just such a sign. To have excluded him (on colour-bar-grounds as now required) from the general pseudo-abuse being used at the time would have been a deliberate snub (as it still would be).

A little of that good-humoured tolerance and common sense would reduce the whole thing to a trivial nonsense. What we all know if we are allowed to remember it is that every race rightly deems itself to be superior to all others in some respects, namely those which are especially peculiar to itself and which justify its existence. That cannot possibly mean superior to all others in everything. This is where an insane pride comes in.

It is as hypocritical to deny that European civilisation is vastly superior to any other in certain respects, notably technological power and organisation, as it is to deny its major failings, notably in respect of the environment, or to deny the superiority of a black skin in the tropics, and of a desert culture, such as that of the Bushmen, in the Kalahari. To assert that, in general, a black African is as good a European as is a European is also to assert that a European is as good an African as an African, an Inuit is as good a Zulu as a Zulu, and so on. It is all nonsense, and known to be nonsense, but imposed via the mob-psyche.

Every Race is ' Superior'

Any race or culture which ceases to feel that it is superior to all others in some respects, those which it believes to be typical and unique to itself, is simply on the way out to make way for others which possess that natural and essential self-confidence. The trouble comes when people are bamboozled into making a single, simple League Table and allotting places on it to widely different peoples. The reaction against this of saying that they are all 'equal ' is as foolish and insulting as the superior-inferior idiocy. Do our Izanists really suppose that 'ethnic' people (as they call them) are pleased to be told "You are my equal!"? What is needed is proper discrimination. In precisely what respects are they superior, inferior, or (improbably) equal?

The answer is, of course, each is at the top in its own qualities; meaning that each is best at, and in, its own culture, and, by and large. not so good in other people's cultures. Which is no more than common knowledge and common sense, and this is where discrimination, the careful discernment of differences, is vitally necessary for racial harmony and mutual respect. But this is also where the crude, vulgar, indiscriminate sloshing of people into skin-colour lumpages, such as 'black,' 'white,' or 'Asian' is bound to arouse the maximum tension. It is a nasty form of racial collectivism, and the basic cause of race-warfare.

If we all take it for granted that every race and nation prefers the excellence of its own sort, then it is possible to respect, admire and find our differences valuable. Ecologists need also to remember that, among mankind as among other forms of life, greater variety tends towards greater stability in an association. The attempt to 'harmonise' us, as in Europe, or South Africa, destroys the means of complementary mutualism.

In attempting to co-operate with Nature, some of our Greens are all too liable to ignore human nature. Why do they bother about saving the black rhino, the snow leopard, the natterjack toad, the bee orchid, and so on? If there is good reason for this, why then must the different breeds o men be herded into multiracial, multicultural masses and left to sort out the dominant strains by money-confict and their success in breeding? What is wrong about some degree of 'separate development' to preserve their distinctive character for mutual respect when an imposed close mixing leads to conflict between different breeds of men?

* * * *

There is not room in this chapter to consider the thought-control of that biological division of mankind which is even deeper than that of race, namely gender, which fits in here but will have to appear in the next chapter.