Tuesday, 2 November 2010

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.

Monday, 1 November 2010

The New Catholicism

In the Middle Ages it was the aristocracy and clergy (Catholic Church) who between them created, managed and controlled the state, thereby facilitating exploitation of the rest of society, i.e. the human environment, to their own, mutual advantage.
In modern Europe (and western civilisation in general) centuries of development have seen the aristocracy replaced by - or incorporated into – a much wider body of capital and professional interests, while the clergy have been largely replaced, i.e. incorporated into, a larger and more diverse body of "moral supremacists", seeking advantage in their social environment by claiming the "moral high ground" for themselves, especially through their universalist ("inclusive", catholic) ideology (e.g. “multi-culturalism”), by equating state and nation, and calling themselves “progressives”.
It is not my intention to demonise capital and professional interests, “progressives”, aristocrats or clergy, but to expose them to the light of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of their role in society, i.e. how they seek to exploit it - as an artificial, socio-economic environment - to their own advantage.
The ancient Greek aphorism, “Know Thyself”, should apply, not just to our individual selves, but also, and most urgently, to the society and civilisation we belong to and depend on.
The truth - which we have been trained and conditioned (in the context of our general self-domestication) not to recognise - is that so-called “human society” serves primarily, not as an extension of our original tribe (the modern nation State), ultimately concerned for the best interests of all its members, as we are (self)-deceived into believing, but as an artificial, socio-economic, ENVIRONMENT, where the primordial, Darwinian, struggle for survival, advantage and “success” has been perverted and largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER in its various forms, e.g. MONEY, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.
Those in a position to do so - naturally enough - attempt to exploit and even shape the human environment (society) to their own perceived advantage, whereby anyone in the public eye (especially in politics, the media, established religion and academia) have to pay particular attention to hiding and rationalising their subliminal, narrowly self-interested motivations as being for the general good. Business and capital, in contrast, are free to be far more honest about their motivations, not just to society at large, but to themselves as well.
The vast majority of politicians, academics, media pundits and churchmen - between them representing the New Catholicism, which, in coalition with capital, completely dominate society - sincerely believe in their own good intentions for society at large, their primary self-interests (in personal POWER, advantage and “success”) being largely subliminal, with only rationalisations allowed into consciousness.
Encased in the darkness of their own subliminal motivations, it is bitterly and tragically ironic that most see themselves as “progressives”, like the medieval church, offering hope and salvation to humanity.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

If Thinking aloud were Allowed

I'm a regular listener to Laurie Taylor's BBC Radio 4 broadcast, Thinking Allowed, which often deals with some very interesting sociological topics - but never from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective. It is very politically correct (as one would expect from the BBC) and provides a perfect example of how, in practice, thinking is only allowed when it conforms to the ruling political paradigm and ideology.

If thinking aloud were actually allowed and not suppressed by fears of social disapproval (e.g. accusations of RACISM), what would it reveal?
It would, for example, reveal that a large majority of Britain's indigenous (white, ethnic European) population are thoroughly pissed off with having mass immigration and multi-racial/multi-cultural society imposed on them by the STATE and CAPITAL interests.
And they have every reason to be so!
Firstly, because our country and sub-continent are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated. We need a SMALLER population, not a larger one. Otherwise, in the decades ahead we will be culled by a ruthless Mother Nature, using the means available to her (famine, disease and war). Believing (and claiming the moral high ground for it) that Darwin's theory doesn't apply to us humans, won't stop it doing so in practice.
Secondly, a genuine society, held together by more than just individual self-interest, requires a sense of shared identity and destiny, i.e. of NATIONHOOD, which a multi-ethnic society cannot possibly provide, because it is in fact (despite being disguised as “multi-cultural"), a multi-national society, ETHNIC deriving from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.
If Britain is not a genuine society or nation, what is it?
It is a Mercenary State posing as a Nation State.
And what applies to Britain applies to most, if not all other states as well - certainly to France and America.
If I leave it there I'll be accused of inviting ethnic conflict, which is not my intention, but I'll deal with that in a subsequent post.

Sunday, 24 October 2010


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 . . . 

Saturday, 23 October 2010

A philosophical view

My "comment" in response to an article by Neil O'Brien, "Should we only get what we deserve? It's a revolutionary idea" which I found on the Telegraph's website.

At last, someone has the courage to take a philosophical view of the social situation.

We have the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece to thank for the philosophical foundations which led to the emergence of modern material science and all the benefits (and dangers) that have come with it.

What we are still lacking is a genuinely scientific basis for understanding human society and its institutions. The foundation stones have been lying around for well over a century and often been tripped over, but not yet recognised and organised into an actual foundation on which to build a science of society.

Social Darwinists had a stab at it, but created something on which some rather nasty ideologies were based (e.g. Nazism, Jim Crow and Apartheid), the response to which was to make a taboo of any further attempts at creating a Darwinian basis for understanding human society.

However, such a basis is indispensable, Homo sapiens, after all, being not just physically, but also emotionally and behaviourally, very much a product of Darwinian evolution. To suppose that this has no, or little, bearing on the development and functioning of human societies and institutions would be absurd – although this, essentially, is the current situation.

What a Darwinian view of society reveals is this: that man has effectively domesticated himself, just as he domesticated certain animals, and for the same purpose, i.e. to exploit them (in an artificial, socio-economic environment) in continuation of his primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success. Only, in respect to human society, it is a perversion of our Darwinian nature, a form of self-exploitation, which the state was created (originally by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy), and has developed over the centuries, to facilitate - to the advantage, naturally enough, of those in power, wealth and privilege (and now including those who exploit social welfare).

Very cleverly, the STATE poses as our NATION (David Cameron's “Big Society”), as the modern equivalent of our original TRIBE, thereby conflating and confounding the two very different environments (intra-tribal and extra-tribal) which evolution adapted us to.

Within the context (environment) of one's own tribe (or nation), the notions of deserving and undeserving make sense, but not within the context of the extra-tribal environment, which one is naturally concerned to exploit in the struggle for survival and advantage.

It is the conflation of these two environments which so confuses and misguides us (and is now threatening to put an end to us), but which we are well trained, from birth and institutionalised in academia, to rationalise and prevent ourselves from recognising.

Rational Religions - for rational nations

Based on an evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of human nature and the power structures it has given rise to

In response to the article, “Don't believe in God? Read this”, by Fred Edwords, which appeared last Thursday in Comment is Free:

I love the ads, which are short, to the point and inoffensive.

However, there are two aspect of religion (L. religare = to bind together) which I think are absolutely vital, both for the individual and for society at large, which established religions hijacked from the very beginning and have exploited ever since.

Far from getting rid of religion, we need a religious revival, new religions (belief and values systems which bind individuals, groups, and groups of groups together, locally, from the bottom up, progressing to a global level), based not on "sacred scripture" (which puts power into the hands of priestly elites), but on reason and scientific understanding, especially relating to human evolutionary origins and our deeply tribal (but academically taboo) nature.

Man evolved, emotionally and behaviourally, long before the advent of civilisation, as a tribal animal, who was then essentially domesticated by the STATE (in an unconscious process of collective self-domestication), much as he more consciously domesticated certain animals, and for the same purpose, i.e. to facilitate their exploitation in his primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success.

In Europe the STATE was created originally and developed (a process still on-going) by a coalition of aristocracy (who ruled by the sword) and clergy (who rule by the word), thus facilitating the exploitation of the human environment to their own mutual advantage, and thereby tricking us (and themselves) into believing that, in their different ways, state and Catholic church represented the original tribe evolution hard-wired us to identify with and feel loyalty towards.

It is all very confused and complicated (especially in modern democracies, where, in principle, everyone is now “free” to exploit their socio-economic environment, while maintain the deception of it being their “tribe”) and we devote much of our prodigious intellect to rationalising it, but this is because we no longer live in the two distinct environments (tribal and extra-tribal) evolution adapted us to, but in an artificial, socio-economic, environment which conflates and confounds them both.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Thinking Allowed

I enjoy listening to BBC Radio 4's social science programme, Thinking Allowed, with Laurie Taylor, because many of the issues discussed are of huge social importance.

However, like all social and political scientists, it seems, Laurie fails to recognise the most basic thing about his discipline and subject matter: the fact that so-called SOCIETY simultaneously represents both our TRIBE* and the ENVIRONMENT we seek to exploit to our own advantage.

* Whether David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY or the GLOBAL VILLAGE/COMMUNITY in general.

Why is it so difficult for social and political scientists, like Laurie, to grasp this fundamental truth (deeply rooted in our evolutionary origins), which underlies our most pressing social, political, economic and also environmental problems?