Michael Moore's Naivety

'Capitalism is evil … you have to eliminate it', says Michael Moore in an interview published in today's Guardian, and goes on to explain:

"What I'm asking for is a new economic order. I don't know how to construct that. I'm not an economist. All I ask is that it have two organizing principles. Number one, that the economy is run democratically. In other words, the people have a say in how its run, not just the 1%. And number two, that it has an ethical and moral core to it. That nothing is done without considering the ethical nature, no business decision is made without first asking the question, is this for the common good?"

I'm quite astonished at how naive Michael Moore reveals himself to be here, given his fame, although I guess he is pretty typical of the political left.

It is the naive left's equivalent of naive aristocracy's , "Let them eat cake".

What Michael Moore is doing (without realizing it, of course), is claiming the "moral high ground" for himself, and all the advantages (e.g. self-satisfaction, social status, financial gain?) that go with it.

He is as dependent on the socioeconomic status quo (which he describes as evil) as anyone else, and has, in fact, done rather well for himself in.

Thus, he has no real interest in the deeper (human-evolutionary) understanding of the situation, necessary for any genuinely radical and fundamental change, because that would undermine his own privileged niche in the status quo.

Capitalism isn't "evil", but a product of man's (including mine and Michael Moore's) perverted Darwinian nature. This is what we urgently need to recognise and develop an understanding of, if we want our civilization to survive and prosper.

I don't want to be too critical of Michael Moore, because like the French princess who suggested that the people eat cake, if they lack bread, I'm sure he means well.

Obama's State of the Union speech: What a load of statist nonsense . . !!

From President Obama's State of the Union speech:

. . . despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

What a load of statist nonsense. . !!

The problem of economic growth

In response to Andrew Simms' criticism, in today's Guardian of unsustainable economic growth: Growth is good … isn't it?

 

Collectively, we have been struggling both to and not to face up to the absurdity of perpetual economic growth for many years. So what's the problem? Why is it so difficult - apparently, impossible - to face up to?

 

It is because of the following dilemma: the SYSTEM, on which we all depend in 1001 ways, itself depends on perpetual economic growth. Only fundamental and radical change to the SYSTEM can change this, but our brains subconsciously prevent us from contemplating such radical change, partly because it doesn't know where to begin, but mainly because it doesn't want to undermine the conditions on which it's owner's survival or advantage seems to depend.

 

For any one who's interested, I can tell them where they need to begin: by taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature and the civilisation (especially the power structures of state and economy) it has given rise to over the centuries (more on this and my other blogs).

Liberal statists

Hi John,

 

I found this article, "Conservatism Into the Future", by goggling "liberal statists", your characterization of which I quite agree with. It's a more accurate and less provocative term than Jonah Goldberg's "liberal fascist", I think.

 

However, I don't think you really understand them, i.e. what motivates them, or they themselves, for that matter (since it is largely subconscious), although that is what we need to do, if we want to oppose them (i.e. their ideology) effectively. Notwithstanding that we also need to understand ourselves and our own (also largely subconscious) motivations.

 

Man is not just a social animal, but also very much a tribal animal, having evolved behaviourally in emotional and material dependency on his tribe. The development of property rights and a money economy creates the illusion of individual independence, which, notwithstanding all the achievements of civilisation along way, has led us badly astray (into an evolutionary cul-de-sac).

 

The state has effectively taken the place of our original tribe, clearly demonstrated in its claim to nationhood (the nation being the natural extension of our original tribe), demanding its members commitment, loyalty and (in times of war) altruistic sacrifice.

 

What liberal statists are doing is taking the tribal role of the state seriously: thus the demand for state health care, for example, because the tribe was responsible for all its members well-being.

 

In taking the tribal role of the state seriously, they are, of course, serving themselves (often quite ruthlessly), by securing their own position within the tribe, i.e. the state. This is what motivates them.

 

I'm just scratching the surface here of what is a whole new way (paradigm) of understanding ourselves and our civilization in the light of our evolved Darwinian nature, the implications of which I'm still struggling with myself, and attempting to give expression to in this, http://darwinsprimeapes.blogspot.com/, and other blogs.

Politico-socio-economic Darwinism

and the (misplaced and perverted Darwinian) advantage of denying its existance.
Those who deny that we, Homo sapiens, are still fully engaged in the primordial, Darwinian, struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success" (only now misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of human society itself, where it has largely been reduced to the pursuit and exercise of power in its multifarious forms) - justifying their position, perhaps, by pointing to the evils of social Darwinism and Nazism - are deceiving themselves, and others, in (subconscious) pursuit of personal advantage in this very struggle.

The mistake which social Darwinists, Nazis (and Marxists) made was in seeing this struggle occurring between different social, racial and/or national groups, when in reality it is primarily between individuals, i.e. their immediate families, who identify with particular social, professional, religious, ethnic, racial or national groups as a means of advancing their own personal interests.

Because of their misplaced and perverted (Darwinian) nature, it is necessary to disguise one's genuine (perverted self-interested) motivations, not just from others, but also from oneself.

Britain: a "mercenary society"

As I've pointed out, and sought to explain from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, in many earlier posts, Britain is not really a society at all, not primarily, but an artificial, socioeconomic environment, managed by the state and economy (capital), which developed over centuries to facilitate its (self)-exploitation, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, which nowadays includes politicians, media people, many other professions and most of academia, who between them have virtually complete control over public opinion.

 

"Society" really is very much like a mercenary army, which is why the state and those who identify with it are so little concerned for the native population and are quite happy to have it supplemented and increasingly replaced by immigrants. Like the generals of a mercenary army, what our political and business leaders mainly care about is that they have the manpower and skills to carry out their operations, which all relate to the retention, pursuit and exercise of power and their own advantage, thereby deluding themselves, and others, into believing that they are serving "society" rather than exploiting it.

Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP?!

Just because America's ethnic European population, under massive state pressure, is rapidly disappearing into the melting pot of a (ideologically) freely miscegenating, multi-ethnic society, does this mean that Britain and Europe must do the same . . ?

All Britain's mainstream political parties (which one might collectively call, "Parties of the Pot") obviously assume so.

And what about those of us who want to retain our native,  ethnic, historical and prehistorical identity, much of which we've shared with fellow Europeans (including European Jews) over millennia? Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP . . ?!

This is not about "racial purity", which we all know does not exist, but about racial, i.e. ethnic, IDENTITY, which DOES exist and is of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity -certainly for myself. Notwithstanding that there are obviously those for whom, for whatever reason, race and ethnicity are not important, and I respect that. 

What I do not respect or accept is when they self-righteously assume the right to impose this attitude (of "colourblindness", "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race-doesn't matter", "one-human-racism", or whatever you prefer to call it) on everyone else, with the backing of the state, by accusing of "racism" those who resist.

I want to be on the friendliest possible terms with ethnic minorities and their member (with some of whom I am actual friends, I like to think), but I don't want to go on having to pretend (under pain of being branded a "racist") that we are a PEOPLE and a NATION, which is a STATE LIE I am not prepared to go along with.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:

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].

The source of confusion about race

LINK to article by Toby Harnden in Saturday's Telegraph, Under Barack Obama, US is obsessed with race but can't talk about it

The source of all this confusion is the false equation of STATE and NATION, which state power has imposed on man's inherently tribal nature since the dawn of civilisation.

When people are ethnically closely related, as members of the same tribe invariably are, the state can get away with it, but not when obvious ethnic differences bear clear witness to the LIE, which, at the moment, we are too terrified to face up to, for fear of the consequences . . .

But, better sooner rather than later, that is what we have to do.

On man's self-domestication and exploitation

Homo sapiens is essentially a pack and tribal animal, which has domesticated itself, just as it domesticated other animals; not consciously, of course, but for essentially the same purpose, i.e. to facilitate their - in this case, their own - exploitation (to the advantage of some over others) in the continuing primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", only now misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of human society itself, where it has largely been reduced to the pursuit and exercise of power in its multifarious forms (money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc).

Of course, it is less straight forward than with other animals, where domesticator and domesticated are clearly distinguishable. Our self-domestication is complex, confusing, and not something we want to recognise anyway (since it would demolish our self-image), because domesticator and domesticated, exploiter and exploited, certainly nowadays, cannot be clearly separated, both usually being present, though very unequally, in every individual (e.g. the multi-millionaire who works himself to death).

The main instrument of self-domestication and social control has always been the state (having usurped our original tribes), in which, up until recent times, established religion always played a dominant role, through its generally accepted, and otherwise enforced, claim to the "moral high ground", along with the authority, power and privileges that go with it (part of the perverted Darwinian struggle already referred to).

Religion has lost its monopoly of the moral high ground (based on particular interpretations of the word of God), so that other sources have had to be found to fill the gaps. These sources, a new "moral elite" has latched onto, in order (subconsciously) to claim for its members the associated advantages, authority and power (I'm not suggesting that they do this consciously, any more than members of the clergy do, or did; they are all sincerely convinced of their own self-righteousness, I'm sure).

What are these new sources of "moral high ground" (and associated advantages)? On the face of it, they are all very worthy: human rights, anti-racism, the brotherhood of man, etc. In fact, they have much in common with basic Christian values. And, of course, there are the relatively new claims to the "moral high ground" of environmentalism and sustainability.

How could anyone possibly object to any of these noble causes . . ?!

One could, and many eventually did, question the church's claim to the moral high ground (based on its interpretation of the word of God), which is why it has lost so much of the power it once had. Modern (in western democracies, essentially liberal-left) claims to the moral high ground are, it seems, unassailable, certainly in principle (even by the liberal-left's political opponents), thus hugely facilitating their (largely subconscious) exploitation in the interests of personal advantage and power.

The REVOLUTION begins here - Part 1

I finished my last post saying that having painted such a bleak, but all too realistic, picture of our situation, in my next post I would present some of my ideas on how, once recognised, we might face up to this existential challenge. So here goes:

The REVOLUTION begins (as John Lennon says in his song of that name) in each individual's head (and heart), with recognition (which John, I guess, lacked) of the perverted Darwinian nature of the power structures which underlie the existing socioeconomic order of state and economy, and of our civilisation in general.

Notwithstanding our complete material and (often neglected) also emotional dependency on it, the whole system is fundamentally flawed, having developed over centuries or millennia as a misplaced and perverted expression of our Darwinian nature (tabooed, rationalise and thus unrecognized), to facilitate society's (self)-exploitation as an artificial environment. This is the context in which history and all the social and political sciences need to be studied and understood.

Since we can survive neither with nor without it, we have no other choice, unless we leave a ruthless Mother Nature to take her course, than to create an alternative, based, not as the existing socioeconomic order is, on the blind (subconscious) perversion of our Darwinian nature, but on a conscious, rational and humane understanding of it, and of the situation it has got us into, which we have to get out of if we want our civilisation (and our children with it) to survive and prosper beyond the middle of the current century.

I realise that recognising this is a huge, initially terrifying, step in itself, but it has to be taken before we can proceed.

Then the next step is to recognise that at the moment "we" are just a tiny, relatively powerless, minority who must cultivate hope and patience, rather than succumbing to frustration or resignation. I've put "we" in quotation marks because there will never be agreement on what this alternative should be, and we cannot afford to waste time arguing or fighting over it. We have to get a move on, which means developing a number of different alternatives, in order to accommodate our major differences. We just need some very basic rules of mutual respect, non-violence and democracy to regulate how the different alternatives interact and cooperate, analogous to those which now regulate relations between the states comprising the European Union.

At the moment we are all totally dependent on state and economy, i.e. capital, which organize society for their own (ultimately, perverted Darwinian) purposes. Creating the necessary alternative(s) requires us organizing OURSELVES, peacefully and grassroots-democratically. These alternatives cannot be created in an instant, but will require time (years) to develop. As they do so, we can transfer our dependencies, activities and vested interests to them, gradually, step by step, each of us, when we are ready and at our own pace - notwithstanding the urgency of our cause. At the moment, at least, any coercion could be totally counter productive, because people naturally and understandably, as a matter of principle, react against it. We need ourselves and others to act from conviction and of our/their own free will. This is what will drive our revolution, in contrast to past revolutions, which, no matter how well-intentioned, have always been forced through and imposed, and have thus miserably failed to achieve their goals.

In liberal democracies like Britain, there is nothing to prevent such a grassroots-democratic revolution, provided we proceed peacefully and within the law. Otherwise the state will simply crush us or incorporate us back into itself, which is what happened to all past revolutions or attempts at revolution.

This revolution must have a base so broad that it can not be easily overturned. And its most basic constituent parts (namely, millions of individuals) so robust that even if they are torn apart, they will quickly reconstitute, i.e. reorganize, themselves once favourable circumstances allow. Just as the whole material universe and the life it has given rise to (certainly here on Earth) are rooted in self-organization at the most basic, atomic and molecular, level, so too with society, where the basic units are the individual and his or her tribe.

Just as atoms, given the right conditions, organise themselves into molecules, molecules into more complex structures (e.g. cell organelles) and these into cells, which differentiate and organise themselves into specific tissues and organs, which finally constitute the finished (but evolving) organism, so too, I suggest, by analogy, with society. Only it is not for me, or anyone else, to tell another individual how he or she should feel and be inclined to self-organize, i.e. which alternative(s) to the existing socioeconomic order, they should commit themselves to.

The state, organized religion and capital currently organize society from the top down for their own perverted, subconscious (and thus unrecognized) Darwinian purposes (the pursuit and exercise of power in its multifarious forms). It is for us - those of us who will - to gradually, peacefully and grassroots-democratically turn this situation on its head.

The basic problem with so-called "society"

The underlying and unrecognized problem with "society", is the fact that it is not primarily a society at all, but an (artificial, socioeconomic) environment, which state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the main advantage of power, wealth and privilege.

 

From a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective it is easy to understand why this should be the case, but massive social, political and personal taboos - the product of a prodigious "prime-ape" brain that evolved to interpret reality (its environment) to its own, now perverted, Darwinian advantage - have thus far prevented this, deluding us into seeing state and economy as serving society, rather than exploiting it.

 

They DO serve society, of course, and we ALL totally depend on them (for order, security, income, products and services), but as a shepherd serves his flock, which isn't primarily for the flock's sake, but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY, the most versatile form of POWER, the pursuit and exercise of which (in all its multifarious forms) is what Homo sapiens' primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, has essentially been reduced to.

 

If our civilisation is to survive, we must recognise and develop an understanding of this, because it is the root cause of the problems (social, political, economic and environmental), which, unless resolved, will put an end to us.

 

Currently, virtually everyone still looks to either the state or the economy (or usually a combination of both) to solve "society's" problems, but they are utterly incapable of doing so, since they themselves are the primary cause of these problems. Only it is not in the state's or the economy's (capital's) perverted Darwinian self-interest (in facilitating the pursuit and exercise of power) to recognise this. And because our dependency causes us to identify our own interests with them, our brains prevent us from recognising it too.

 

One might reasonably doubt that there is a solution, since "society" and the power structures of state and economy which serve and exploit it have never fundamentally been any different to the way they are now. It is just that in the past "society's" privileged elites were not nearly so large or numerous, and the overall impact on the natural environment was far smaller. Now, our collective impact is totally unsustainable and rapidly leading to disintegration of the globalised economy it can only temporarily support.

 

Of one thing I am sure: if there is to be any hope at all of us (our civilisation) surviving this present century, we must quickly recognise and develop an understanding of the situation we are in (and its Darwinian nature), instead of continuing to deceive ourselves into believing that we can carry on more or less as we are.

 

It is a very scary situation we are in (another powerful force deterring us from facing up to it), but we need to be scared - terrified! - not necessarily for our own sakes, but for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Even if we cannot be sure of success, we should at least face up to the challenge. That is the very least we (who have had it so good in our lifetimes) owe to them, and to our forebears, who endured and achieved so much for OUR (their children's and descendents) sakes, but for whom state and economy couldn't give a monkey's. On the contrary, anyone making too specific a reference to them is likely to be accused of xenophobia and racism.

 

The political left and right are not really so different from each other as they like to imagine. Both are intent on maintaining and/or changing the socioeconomic environment to suit themselves. The political right want a state that largely restricts itself to protecting and enforcing individual property rights, which is where their main interests lie, while the political left want a state which gets involved in all aspects of society, because that is where their interests tend to lie. With both sides insisting, of course, and no doubt sincerely believing themselves, that their own interests correspond with those of society at large, since what really characterizes the human brain is not its (hugely exaggerated) rationality, but its capacity for rationalization and self-deception in pursuit of narrow, short-sighted and often perverted or totally misconceived self-interests.

 

No political party or movement, to my knowledge, has the even the foggiest notion of our true situation and thus of how we might yet save ourselves. All are blindly intent, no matter how sincerely and well-intentioned, on leading us to oblivion.

 

Having painted such a bleak - but, I'm afraid, only too realistic - picture of our situation, in my next post I will present some of my ideas (which are far from fully developed) on how, once recognised, we might face up to this existential challenge.

"China overtakes US as world's biggest car market": a milestone on the road to oblivion

LINK to Guardian article: "China overtakes US as world's biggest car market".

I think I've said all that needs to be said in the title of this post.

Klaus Schwab's (of "stakeholder" theory) self-deception

In today's Guardian the world-renowned economist Klaus Schwab writes the following (LINK to article):

Almost 40 years ago, I developed the "stakeholder" theory for businesses. This considers the enterprise as a community, with a number of social groups connected directly or indirectly to the enterprise which are dependent on its success and prosperity. These of course include shareholders and creditors; but employees, customers, suppliers, the state and the society in which the enterprise is active are stakeholders. According to the stakeholder approach, the management of the enterprise acts as a trustee for all stakeholders . . . based on the principle that each individual is embedded in societal communities in which the common good can only be promoted through the interaction of all participants – and business success is also embedded in this interaction.

We have witnessed a gradual erosion of this communitarian spirit over recent years. This erosion of societal values has progressed particularly in the business world, and is also one of the primary reasons of the current economic crisis.

This is a classic example of the subconsciously operating self-deception used to rationalise and perpetuate the existing - inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable - socioeconomic order.

Those in positions of wealth, power and privilege are bound to maintain the illusion that they are SERVING society, rather than exploiting it, as they always have through out history, of course, and prehistory as well, no doubt.

Of course, many in positions of wealth, power and privilege DO serve society, to some extent, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not primarily for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost or injured lamb), but for his own, and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged in the market place for money, the most versatile form of power, the pursuit and exercise of which is what Homo sapiens primordial struggle for survival and "success", perversely, in the artificial environment of human society itself, has largely been reduced to.

The identity crisis smoldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society

The identity crisis smouldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society is rooted in the suppressed reality of states masquerading as nations.

The nation state has always been a lie (see my other BLOGS), but one which the state was long able to rationalise and disguise behind its services to an utterly dependent population.

The madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated subcontinent and the concomitant creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society and melting pot (the very opposite of what constitutes a genuine nation) has torn gaping holes in this disguise, exposing the naked power structures beneath, which we are only just beginning to become aware of, slowly and anxiously in the face of ever more desperate attempts at suppression, mainly through fallacious accusations of "racism".