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?

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Don't “progressives” love going on about social and economic injustice

In response to an article in today's Guardian, Comment is Free: Let's make CEOs justify their wages

Don't those writing for the so-called “progressive” media love to go on and on about social and economic injustice . . . ! But try telling them the CAUSE (political and economic power structures rooted in man's very own Darwinian nature, which seeks to exploit not just its natural environment, but perversely its social environment as well) and they don't want to know.

Why? I guess, because they're occupying a nice little niche in the social environment themselves, which they don't want exposed – to themselves or others – for what it actually is.

Monday, 18 October 2010

The BIG FLAW in David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY

It is clear from David Cameron's Party Conference Speech, “Together in the National Interest(see quotes below), that his vision of Britain as a BIG SOCIETY is, in fact, a rehash of Britain as a NATION, a PEOPLE unified by a sense of shared identity, purpose and destiny. It is a vision which “national leaders” in times of crisis (e.g. war) have always appealed to, since it is not just the cheapest, but also the most effective way of getting people to pull together, appealing as it does to our capacity, hard-wired into the human psyche by evolution, for tribal identity and loyalty.

The BIG, fundamental, FLAW in this vision of BIG SOCIETY, is that Britain is not a NATION, but a proprietary and mercenary STATE, the primary purpose of which (the reason for which it was created in the first place, back in the European Middle Ages by a self-interested coalition of aristocrats and clergy) is to facilitate society's self-exploitation (as a human ENVIRONMENT) to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege, which inevitably includes everyone in a position of any influence. Which is why challenging the status quo always meets with such massive and generally insurmountable resistance. And even when the status quo is radically changed, as in the British (so-called Glorious), American, French and Russian revolutions, a new status quo, with its own powerful and privileged elites, is quickly re-established.
In order to deal with this fundamental flaw, one first has to recognise and develop an understanding of it, which isn't as easy as it may sound, because it requires taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian view of our own human nature and of the power structures (of state and economy) it has given rise to over the centuries, against which there are massive taboos in place: social, political, professional and personal/psychological. Just try suggesting it and see how long it takes before you are accused and silenced by accusations of “social darwinism” . . .
But don't be put off. If we are to deal with this problem, on which the fate of our civilisation (and with it our children and grandchildren) depends, we have no choice but to overcome these taboos and develop a Darwinian understanding of our situation.
We are, after all, animals, albeit very clever ones, a product of Darwinian evolution. Any other understanding of ourselves, our civilisation and the situation we find ourselves in is self-deception, which of course we have always been deeply immersed in. We are far less a “rational animal” than a “rationalising” (and self-deceiving) one.
David Cameron's vision of the BIG SOCIETY is a classic example of just how self-deceived we are. Not that I doubt his sincerity; he is as self-deceived, I'm sure, as he wants the rest of us to be, in respect to Britain being a PEOPLE and a NATION.
In the past it was a deception which could be maintained (to the advantage of society's privileged elites) more easily than it can now that the state, the established churches, the liberal left, and capital have all conspired to create the manifest absurdity of a “multi-ethnic nation”, which they attempt to disguise, from themselves as well as from the rest of us, by calling it “multi-cultural” rather than “multi-ethnic”.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. If multi-cultural/ethnic Britain is a nation, then it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense.
A NATION, also according to 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 British society? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. to the STATE, is not easy, especially when we have all been brought up in the belief that it represents our NATION, and thus tend to identify with it, as well as being both materially and emotionally dependent on it.
The STATE is like a nasty and abusive step-parent, who disposed of our natural, loving, parents (the nation) before we had any memory of it, bringing us up to believe in itself as our natural loving parent (i.e. nation), in order to exploit us.
The British state is not a NATION, but a proprietary, mercenary and now multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national STATE, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege.
Wealth and poverty, along with big differences in privilege and disadvantage do not coexist within a NATION (which would be a natural extension of one's original TRIBE), but only within a STATE. Those who believe that the STATE, posing as our NATION, can create a fairer society (as especially those on the Christian and liberal left tend to do) are bound to be disillusioned – although, in the meantime, it provides them with a sense of moral self-righteousness, if not with the material advantages that go with their claim to the moral high ground (a prerequisite for getting a job with the liberal media, for example).
To the OED definition of NATION, I would add the condition that its members must not only be “identified [by others] as a distinct people”, but, far more importantly, must also mutually identify themselves as a distinct people. This, however, contradicts the universalistic ideology of inclusiveness and indifference to ethnic difference (i.e. “colourblindness”), which the established churches (Anglican and Catholic), now joined by self-proclaimed “progressives” and the liberal left, have elevated to a moral imperative (effectively seeing all humankind as a single tribe or nation, which is pious, self-righteous and self-serving nonsense, contrary to our more enlightened human and Darwinian nature).
Thus, we have the STATE (here the Prime Minister) appealing for national unity and solidarity, while at the same time denying - and where it stirs, suppressing as “racist” - the existence of any genuine sense of NATIONHOOD.
Following a very long tradition of the STATE imposing itself on its population as a phoney NATION, and contradicting what he himself says about “people power” as opposed to state power, David Cameron, said, “. . . today I want to tell you about the part we’ve all got to play, and the spirit that will take us through . . “ . I, in contrast, believe that it should be the PEOPLE – or rather, the PEOPLES, who need to organise ourselves, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, which now constitute the British STATE – who tell David Cameron, or whoever the Prime Minister and government are, about the parts we want to play and the spirit which will take us through.
I am well aware of what a profound, sensitive and potentially explosive issue this is, but for those who want to come to grips with the now existential problems of human existence (creating a just, humane and sustainable society), continuing with the self-deception of British (or other state) nationhood is not an option.
I do not want a knee-jerk reaction, of any kind, to what I am saying (especially from the extreme right or left, which tend to be thus inclined), but to initiate a civilised and rational (rather than rationalised) conversation. Developing and spreading a Darwinian understanding of our situation, which is a prerequisite of positive radical change, is going to take a little while, and is best not rushed.

Quotes from David Cameron's speech “Together in the National Interest”

This is the party of the national interest

We will always pursue British interests

The state of our nation . . .
. . citizenship isn't a transaction . . It's a relationship - you're part of something bigger than yourself . .

We need to change the way we think about ourselves, and our role in society. Your country needs you. And today I want to tell you about the part we've all got to play, and the spirit that will take us through . .

. . the spirit that we need, is the big society spirit . .

. . creating strong societies . . ensuring everyone feels that they belong.

From state power to people power. From unchecked individualism to national unity and purpose

From big government to the big society.

We can build a country defined . . by the values of mutual responsibility . . . A country defined not by what we consume but by what we contribute. A country, a society where we say: I am not alone. I will play my part.

. . . fairness means giving money to help the poorest in our society. People who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly . . That's the sign of a civilized society

. . the state has a clear role, to score a line between right and wrong; to punish those who step over it, and to do it in a way that gives confidence.

There is an incredible appetite out there for people to play their part. Our job is to help them, encourage them, break down the barriers that stop them.

Let's get going with National Citizen Service so more of our teenagers get some purpose in their lives.

When we say 'we are all in this together' that is not a cry for help, it's a call to arms. Society is not a spectator support.

This is your country. It's time to believe it. It's time to step up and own it.

So mine is not just a vision of a more powerful country. It is a vision of a more powerful people . . not small people but big citizens . . People that believe in themselves. A Britain that believes in itself.

At this time of great national challenge, two parties have come together to help make it happen

Your country needs you. So come on: let's pull together. Let's come together.

Monday, 4 October 2010

Slavoj Zizek's Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism

The Slovenian (Marxist?) philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, in a contribution to day's Guardian (Comment is Free), “Liberal multiculturalism masks an old barbarism with a human face”, clearly expresses his belief in Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism and its justifying universalistic (catholic) ideology (“One-Human-Racism”), which denies (and suppresses as “racism”) the importance to ethnicity in determining an individual's sense of personal and group, i.e. national (Gr. ETHNOS = nation), identity.

Quote from article:
This vision of the detoxification of one's neighbour suggests a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one's neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other. Even if it is cloaked as a defence of Christian values, it is itself the greatest threat to Christian legacy.”

OED definition of UNIVERSALIST: A person advocating loyalty to and concern for others without regard to national allegiances.