Saturday, 31 October 2009

In Response to the View of Mikhail Gorbachev

LINK to Guardian article by Mikhail Gorbachev.
Naturally, we politicians from the last century can be proud of the fact that we avoided the danger of a thermonuclear war.
Proud . . ?! Who had all those nuclear warheads and delivery systems - thousands of them! - developed and deployed in the first place . . ?!

We were extremely LUCKY that the "politicians from the last century", in their madness, didn't annihilate us all.

I'm very thankful to you, Mr Gorbachev, for your pivotal role in putting an end to the madness of the Cold War, but that doesn't exonerate those responsible for creating it.

Nor to I believe that the politicians we have now are any saner than those of the past, which means that what your generation of politicians failed to achieve, the present generation are firmly on course to do, i.e. the destruction of our civilization.

And no, I'm not a cynic or pessimist (far from it), but a realist, someone who recognizes the perverted Darwinian nature of humankind (including well-meaning politicians like yourself), and of the civilization (the power structures of state and economic institutions) it has given rise to.

We have come a very long way over the past 400 years in our understanding of the material world, which has made possible our technological civilization, but when it comes to understanding ourselves and our civilization, we are still in a dark age; not least, because we still look to traditional religions or modern ideologies for enlightenment and guidance, when what we really need to cast light on our situation is a Darwinian perspective (see my BLOG).

Why Darwinian? Because we are not nearly as seeing or rational as we imagine ourselves to be (deceive ourselves into believing), but ANIMALS, who evolved to exploit their environment, which now, perversely, comprises human society and civilization itself.

It's a simple, but fundamental and fatal, flaw, which first we need to recognize, and then develop an understanding of. Only then can there be any hope of our civilization surviving this new century.

. . . humankind has started to transform itself into a single civilisation.
What a horrific prospect . . ! But this, of course, is where the perverted Darwinian logic of "globalization" is taking us.

Darwinian . . ? What else? All one needs to recognise is that civilization is first and foremost an ENVIRONMENT, which individuals seek to exploit, to their own (and immediate family's) advantage. Mr Gorbachev, of course, would flourish is such a global civilization, as he did in the Soviet Union, which is why he is so keen on it.

I don't mean to be too critical of Mr Gorbachev, because we have much to thank him for, but like everyone else, subconsciously, he seeks to maintain, adapt or create an environment that suits himself, automatically assuming that it will also be good for society as a whole. But he is mistaken, deceived, like most people, by his brain's prodigious capacity to interpret and rationalize reality (its environment) to suit its own perceived (perverted Darwinian) advantage.

Friday, 30 October 2009

Faith schools, racial purity, and the moral high ground

LINK to Guardian article, Holy texts and lineage are no way to assemble state schools, by Simon Jenkins
The spectacle of the supreme court trying this week to decide whether racial purity should be the basis for admission to state education shows how close we still are to the dark ages.
Why does Simon introduce the nonsensical concept of racial purity (which, in contrast to "racial or ethnic identity", everyone knows does not exist) into this issue - unless it is to demonstate his own "colourblindness" and moral superiority . . ?
If a church or school or club wants to be exclusive, whether by race, sex, affinity or cigars, I believe society should be robust enough to stand the strain . . . But I am against eccentricity or exclusivity being validated with public money.
Those organizing and staffing faith schools, along with those whose children attend them, are surely also taxpayers and thus entitled to as much state funding, per pupil, as goes into the average state school. In which case, it should be entirely up to them, or any other independent (non-state) school, to decide how they select their pupils.

The state taboo against admitting racial prejudice

LINK to Guardian article, Britons need to start talking about race, by Lola Adesioye
While Americans are quite open about the prejudices in their society, we Brits like to pretend that we don't have them.
That is because in Britain everyone is under massive social, political and economic pressure to pretend that they don't have them, especially those making a career for themselves in politics or the media, who between them dominate public opinion, and where (feigned) "colourblindness" (indifference to ethnic difference) is a condition of employment. You would never gain admittance, or immediately be out on your ear, if you were to admit to any feelings of racial prejudice.

If there is one thing which characterizes human nature, however, it is prejudice. We are all stuffed full of it - including racial prejudice. But because state ideology condemns it as evil, i.e. "racist", most people suppress and deny it, even to themselves.

Very few (only those who are genuinely "colourblind") in politics or the media can afford to be honest, even with themselves or behind closed doors, about how they really feel about race and ethnicity.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

The "original sin" of being a "white man"

LINK to Guardian article, "JFS puts faith schools in the dock", by Jonathan Romain

BeatonTheDonis wrote:
"I'd say the vast majority of atheists in Europe and North America identify with Christian values, and history, but do not believe in God."

There is some - but only some - truth in this, I'd say.

Most of the history of European, i.e. western, civilization is steeped in Christianity, its beliefs, values and attitudes, so that there is no getting away from it, if this is the civilization you belong to and identify with (and, if you live in a western society, even if you don't). However, there are many so-called Christian values and attitudes, as well as beliefs, which a majority of the population no longer accepts, certainly not without reservations.

It is interesting to note that western civilization, for the first two and a half thousand years of its existence, was dominated overwhelmingly (for better and for worse, not just militarily and politically, but also culturally, artistically, scientifically and technologically) by "white men", who are now demonized to the extent that it is considered evil, i.e. "racist", to identify with them at all.

Those of us who cannot help being white men are only forgiven our "original sin", and deemed socially acceptable, if we fervently loath ourselves for it and submit to the moral superiority and authority of those occupying the moral high ground (which now, in our much more secular society, the Catholic Church has to share with the liberal-left and others).

This is all very much in the Judeo-Christian tradition, of course, which cultivates a sense of guilt, inadequacy and self-hatred as a means of facilitating social control and domination to the advantage of those occupying the moral high ground.

The importance of the moral high ground (whether based on the word of God or some secular ideology) is most readily understood from a Darwinian perspective (see my BLOG), which those claiming to occupy it seek to suppress and deny (even to themselves), because it reveals their primordial (subconscious) motivation in doing so.

Next to money, the moral high ground it is the most important source of social status and POWER, which facilitates their exploitation of society itself (notwithstanding its perversion of evolutionary intentions), as an artificial environment, to their own (and immediate family's) personal advantage.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Our love/hate relationship with the state

Our relationship with the state is a love/hate relationship, as one might have with an abusive parent. Only he is not our true (biological) father or mother (i.e. the legitimate heir of our original tribe) who has adopted us (taken the place of our original tribe) for noble and selfless reasons, as we have been deceived, since birth, into believing, but an imposter whose purpose has always been to exploit us, to whom, notwithstanding our dependency on him, we owe no love or loyalty whatsoever.

Some of his children he spoils, at the expense of the others, thus encouraging and exploiting sibling rivalry and dividing us amongst ourselves.

If we were not so deceived and divided, we could, over time and proceeding peacefully and grassroots-democratically, make ourselves independent of this unnatural, exploitative and abusive father (mother or Auntie), and finally rid ourselves of them, along with vast majority of the problems now posing an existential threat to our whole civilization.

To understand the truly horrific nature of the state (thus our reluctance to recognise and face up to it) one must view it from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective: see other BLOG.

An anthropologist visits Wall Street and - surprise! surprise! - discovers its tribalism

LINK to guardian article - i.e. book review of an ethnographic study of Wall Street by Karen Ho - from which the following quote is taken:
. . . what could be more outlandish than the tribes of Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and . . Goldman Sachs . .
This looks like a very interesting and important book, although I suspect, not having yet read it, that the detail it goes into may obscure, rather than illuminate, the underlying truth contained in the above quote from this review: the fact that these financial institutions really do behave very much as tribes - struggling for survival, advantage (over other tribes) and "success" (for themselves and their members) in their environment, which is the global economy.

We are deceived, and deceive ourselves, into believing that they (like all social, political and economic institutions) exist primarily to SERVE society, when in fact, their primary purpose is to EXPLOIT it, as an (artificial, socioeconomic) ENVIRONMENT.

This, I think, illustrates the validity of my own human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding our civilization, i.e. the power structures of state and economy which underlie it (see my BLOG).

Why is "indigenous", when applied to Europeans, ridiculed and demonized as "racist"?

LINK to article by the Guardian's Madeline Bunting, from where the following quote is taken:
It must have been the first time that the Ice Age had been dragged into the heat of contemporary political debate.
Madeleine is missing the point which Nick Griffin, if I understood him correctly, was making, which was a perfectly reasonable one, no matter how loudly and unreasonably "British statists" (which most nationalists  have now become) and others may seek to demonize it as "racist".

Obviously, no one lived in what are now the British Isles when it was covered by hundred's of metres of ice. Thus the relevance of the Ice Age when discussing Britain's, or rather, northern Europe's, indigenous population.

Since the end of the last ice age, Europe's peoples (tribes) have been mixing, amongst themselves and, to a lesser extent, with people from neighbouring regions, i.e. North Africa, the Middle East and western Asia. In contrast, there was very little mixing, until very recently, with people's from beyond these neighbouring regions, i.e. with non-Caucasians.

I cannot imagine many people with a valid claim to being entirely "indigenous" to these islands, certainly not myself. However, most of us do have a valid claim to being "indigenous" to Europe, i.e. ethnic European (or "white people", if you prefer that term). This doesn't mean to say that we don't have any African or Asian blood in us at all (obviously we do, if one goes back far enough), but not enough to notice and thus be of much relevance in respect to our sense of identity and belonging (an interesting word, that: to "be-long").

And IDENTITY is what it's all about, because humans evolved to be as much a "tribal animal" as a social one. We need a tribe (or substitutes for it) to identify with. Being human, means being tribal as well as social, yet some, encouraged by the state, never tire of ridiculing or demonizing our tribal nature.

This is because the STATE has effectively (although quite inadequately) taken the place of our tribe, thereby laying claim to the subjugation, loyalty and commitment we are genetically programmed and socially conditioned to show towards it. Not that it forbids us from identifying with other substitute tribes (our circle of friends and family, employer, profession, football team, or whatever), provided our first loyalty is to itself (Britain, America, or whatever your state is). It is the STATE (under the guise of being our primary tribe) which suppresses and manipulates our tribal nature for its own ends.

And what are these ends? As a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of civilization reveals (see my BLOG), they are to facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of its dominant individuals and elites (now predominant in business, politics and the media).

Monday, 26 October 2009

Where the Guardian's Gary Younge sees "class struggle", I see a misplaced, perverted and unrecognised Darwinian struggle between individuals

LINK to article and comments
"Prince Andrew [has] . . an intellect worthy of the gene puddle from which he was fished."

I say, steady on, Gary . . ! The "gene puddle" you refer to is part of a much larger, ethnic European, gene pool. Making derogatory comments about one's OWN gene pool (or puddle) is one thing. Making them about other people's, is quite another, and there' a name it . . .

Otherwise, I thought your article was very good point, targeting the SYSTEM "that makes some people rich by making others poor."

However, the exploitative roots of the existing socioeconomic order go much deeper than your Marxist concept of "class struggle" gives credit to.

Classes (elites and interest groups) arise spontaneously as an expression of individuals (and their families), no longer dependent on and committed to their original tribe, continuing the primordial struggle for survival, advantage (over others) and "success" in the artificial environment of human society itself. Members of any group (class, profession, or whatever) seek the advantage of their own group(s) in the expectation that it will also be to their own (and immediate friends and family's), advantage. Thus, the fundamental (Darwinian) struggle is not between classes, but between individuals who simply (or convolutedly) use their various group affiliation(s) (class, profession, ethnicity, or whatever) to their own personal advantage.

It was to facilitate this misplaced and perverted Darwinian struggle, to the advantage of society's dominant individuals and elites (originally comprising just an aristocracy and priesthood), that state and economy arose in the first place, developing over the centuries to what we have today and thereby being largely reduced to the pursuit, retention and exercise of POWER, i.e. money, the moral high ground, social and professional status, etc. etc.

Like everyone else, Gary, you are pursuing your OWN self-interests, through the groups you belong to, while deceiving yourself (and others) into believing that you are serving (British) society as a whole.

It is interesting and important to note that virtually everyone in a position of power and privilege, from the monarch (president or whoever) down, will emphasize how they are SERVING society (their country, company, institution, or whatever), when in fact their primary and effective purpose (usually subconscious) is to exploit it to their own advantage.

This is what we need to recognise and develop an understanding of, if we are ever going to come to grips with the problems (social, political, economic and environmental) which between them now pose an immediate and existential threat to our civilization.

Friday, 23 October 2009

Can the BNP define 'British', asks the Guardian's Dave Hill

LINK to article

Of course they can - for themselves; just as everyone else is free to do. At least, in theory. But not in practice, of course. That is decided by the STATE.

My issue with the BNP, as with the liberal-left, is both their attempts to impose their own definition (or cosmopolitan lack of it) on everyone else, via the state, on which we all depend, and seek to influence to our own perceived (economic, social, political and/or ideological) advantage.

A healthy and humane society is one whose members freely identify with it as their OWN (constituting a genuine PEOPLE and NATION, the natural and legitimate heir of one's original tribe), but the STATE long ago took that choice away from us, coercing us with a system of (promised) rewards and (threatened) punishments (just as we train dogs) to identify with itself, however defined.

The Nazi fascist state brutally imposed its own, insane, definition of a mono-ethnic identity, while the liberal-fascist state (see Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism") imposes a multi-ethnic melting pot on our society, in which the human diversity it claims to love, must in the longer term surely dissolve and disappear (most human diversity being a consequence of human populations having been effectively isolated from each other in the past).

What I would like to see a truly liberal and enlightened (as opposed to liberal-fascist, i.e. statist) state do, is stop pretending, and enforcing the ideology that "ethnicity doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political importance except to evil "racists", and allow its citizens to freely choose - peacefully and grassroots-democratically - their own national identities.

Britain and America would then become multinational states, which, I am convinced, is the way to create the kind of just, humane and sustainable societies (note the plural) most liberal-lefties actually want, but mistakenly believe only the STATE can provide.

What the STATE wants - as presently constituted, above all else - is POWER.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

"All is hubris", writes Simon Jenkins, on which I agree and elaborate

 LINK to Guardian (Cif) article.
All is hubris. The arrogance of empire has mutated into the arrogance of liberalism.
Nicely put, Simon, but this hubris permeates the ruling classes (including those in the media) to a far greater extent than I think you realise, and the way things look at the moment, will bring our civilization crashing down before this new century is out.

How, did we - people intelligent enough to put men on the Moon and probe the fabric and origins of the universe - manage to get ourselves into such a hopeless social, political, economic and environmental mess . . ?

That's the question we urgently need some honest answers to and an understanding of, if there is to be any hope of us getting ourselves out of this mess, and surviving this present century.

But where the answer lies, currently we refuse to go, or even look, since it lies in our own Darwinian nature (being the evolved animals we are) and the social, political and economic power structures (of state and economy) it has given rise to.

I keep banging on about this, and many of my posts are now moderated on Cif for doing so (this one included), but it really is the key to understanding our situation and being able to do anything wise and enlightened about it. Otherwise a ruthless, brutally Darwinian, Mother Nature will simply take her course . . .