Here, "Comment is Free" - and unmoderated

Multi-National Socialism

2010-11-02T11:25:00.002Z

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.

The New Catholicism

2010-11-01T10:14:00.011Z

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.

If Thinking aloud were Allowed

2010-10-31T09:46:00.013Z

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.

WHAT BRITAIN IS AND IS NOT

2010-10-24T11:18:00.004+01:00

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 . . .

A philosophical view

2010-10-23T13:51:00.004+01:00

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

2010-10-23T13:11:00.001+01:00

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.

Thinking Allowed

2010-10-21T14:41:00.002+01:00

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?

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

2010-10-19T15:39:00.000+01:00

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.

The BIG FLAW in David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY

2010-10-18T13:15:00.001+01:00

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.

Slavoj Zizek's Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism

2010-10-04T08:09:00.001+01:00

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.

A Darwinian View of (British) Society

2010-08-03T16:58:00.008+01:00

According to David Mitchell in last Sunday's Observer,

"[public companies are] incapable of caring – they're merely trying to make money for their shareholders and believe that [the] affectation of human feelings will help them to do so. Conversely, Ryanair has attracted customers canny enough to know that a public company can only have mercenary motives but who are happy to do business with it anyway." (LINK to article)

These observations are valid and support my arguments relating to the Darwinian nature of capitalism and society in general.

Public companies' "mercenary motives" are a consequence of them regarding not just the natural environment, with its natural resources, but also "society", with its human resources and markets (consumers), primarily as an environment to be exploited for profit, i.e. money. Money being the most versatile form of POWER, the pursuit and exercise of which man's primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success, misplaced and perverted in this artificial environment, has largely been reduced to.

This perverted Darwinian pursuit of POWER is the driving force behind the "rat race" we so often lament, but are resigned to, because that's "the way the system works", which is true enough, being so deeply rooted in our perverted Darwinian nature. And even those who do manage to escape the rat race, whether permanently or just temporarily, are still dependent on the products and services it provides.

Yet it is the rat race, this misplaced and perverted pursuit of POWER (especially in the form of MONEY) which is the primary cause of the non-sustainable human behaviour and activity now threatening us, and countless other species, with extinction. We are behaving like rats, because we are still dominated by our primitive animal nature, which has given rise to the pressures and power structures of state and economy that determine our collective behaviour.

Achieving sustainability, which our survival depends on, means putting an end to the rat race. This is the central challenge, once recognised, we must face up to.

The existing economic order is inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable, because it treats human society itself as an exploitable environment; and if anything, "socialist economics" of the now defunct Soviet empire, were even worse, so it cannot be just free-market capitalism which is to blame. It goes deeper than that.

Which is where a human-evolutionary perspective is necessary to reveal that it is not just the economy (whether "socialist" or capitalist), but the state too which is a product of our perverted Darwinian nature, with the task of maintaining and organizing society (under the pretence of serving it) for the purpose of facilitating its self-exploitation, to the advantage of some (generally those in wealth, power and privilege) over others, whereby nowadays things are so complicated and the self-deception so pervasive that the line between exploiter and exploited runs through every individual, though rarely down the middle (some profit more, some far more, than others from society's self-exploitation).

That state and economy, i.e. the entire political and socio-economic order, on which we ALL completely depend are products of our perverted Darwinian nature, and thus the root cause of virtually all our problems, including our inability to achieve sustainability, is very difficult to continence and recognise, because our brains, which evolved to serve us in an entirely different (non-conflated or confounded) environment, are naturally inclined to rationalise everything, so that it can continue its misplaced and perverted struggle for advantage and "success" within its artificial human environment.

And even if we do recognize it, what can we possibly do about it . . ? We cannot simply dismantle the system we all depend on (not just materially, but also emotionally, most people still identifying with the state as their tribe or nation), at least, not before we have created an alternative.

It is this alternative we must set about creating, replacing the existing socio-economic order in the same way that a busy, vital but ageing railway bridge is replaced, by building in and around the existing bridge, in such a way that the new one can gradually take its place, without disruptive interruption.

But before we begin, even after recognising the situation and the need to replace the existing socioeconomic order, we have to develop a clear understanding of it and of the alternative we want to replace it with, an understanding that, if it is to be realistic and of practical use, must be based on an understanding of man's Darwinian nature and of how it has been perverted to create the artificial environment of human civilization.

Recognising the Darwinian nature of free-market capitalism isn't difficult, as many, who see no perversion or inherent non-sustainability in it, will tacitly or expressly admit, but recognising the perverted Darwinian nature of the state is a different matter, because of long established myths and assumptions (based on rationalizations and self-deception) that its primary purpose is to SERVE society (think of Rousseau's "social contract"), the state having effectively taken the place of the individual's original tribe and NATION, especially in respect to our dependency on it (both material and emotional), demanding thereby for itself the loyalty and commitment we evolved to feel towards our original tribe or nation.

The state, however, is is not our tribe or nation, but merely poses as such, like an abusive step-parent, which did away with our natural parents (original tribe and nation) long before we have any memory of them, and brought us up to belief that it is our natural, loving parent (i.e. nation), thereby winning our affection and loyalty, when its true purpose is to facilitate our (self)-exploitation as a human resource and environment, e.g. market.

It is all very confusing, because the two environments in which Homo sapiens evolved and was behaviourally adapted to, long before the advent of civilisation - one within his own tribe, which he strongly identified with, the other comprising the natural environment external to it and including other, rival, groups of humans, which was feared and to be exploited - are now conflated and confounded within the state, which deceives us into believing that it represents the familiar, internal environment is our tribe, while at the same time facilitating our self-exploitation as an external environment.

The vast majority of people still believe the state to be their nation, and thus identify with it. Particularly those on the political left do so, demanding that the "nation state" (as the natural heir to our original tribe) embrace its proper role of ensuring the fair distribution of opportunity and "national wealth", while making sure that the sick, needy and disadvantaged are taken care of, and in so doing, laying claim to the "moral high ground" for themselves, and the advantages (e.g. social status, jobs, power and privileges) that go with it.

Notwithstanding that we are all inclined to believe in the state, because of our material and emotional dependency on it (in the mistaken belief that it represents our nation), the political right especially believes in the state, because it defines and enforces property rights, which they are the biggest beneficiaries of, while the political left especially believes in the state because it provides them with plum jobs in politics, local government, academia and the media.

Work and the "meaning of life"

2010-08-02T07:18:00.003+01:00

Joe Moran writes in Sunday's Guardian/Observer (Cif), The ants march on, but we'd be happier as grasshoppers: the idea that work is the meaning of existence has little basis in biology:

". . . nature writers like Mabey have pointed out that seeing work as the meaning of life is a human, metaphysical invention; it has little basis in biology."

Actually, the work ethic which governs and is wrecking our lives (as well as the planet) DOES have its roots in biology: in the misplaced and perverted expression of our Darwinian nature, which, in the artificial environment of human civilisation, has latched onto the pursuit and exercise of POWER as the most useful route to individual survival and reproductive success.

Work (of the kind we are talking about) translates into economic growth and MONEY, which is POWER in its most versatile form.

Just as humans domesticated certain animals, not for the fun of it, i.e as pets, but in order to exploit them in their struggle for survival, advantage and "success", so too society's ruling elites domesticated their own kind, and themselves into the bargain, in order to exploit them. We are trained and conditioned (just like a dog, by a regime of rewards and punishments, or promises/threats of them) to work long and hard, in order to produce the material wealth which, originally society's elites, and now everyone, wants and feels entitled to.

Work is a source of POWER (though not just, or even primarily, for those actually doing it), the possession of which has the potential to greatly enhance an individual's chances of survival and (especially male) reproductive success, which, from a purely biological perspective, IS the "meaning of life".

Vicar convicted over hundreds of fake marriages

2010-07-30T09:11:00.010+01:00

LINK to Guardian article.

My comment:

And what about all the perfectly legal arranged marriages which bring thousands of immigrants into the country every year, and mass immigration in general into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country . . . ?!

The solution to this vitally important issue lies in first recognising the British state for the "fake nation" it is, has always been, responsible for the injustice and inhumanity of massive differences in personal wealth, power and privilege, which characterize it, and, more recently, for the madness of allowing millions of immigrants into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, thereby undermining the population's natural, i.e. ethnic, sense of national identity, in favour of its own mixed and multi-ethnic state, i.e. "fake national", identity.

Having recognised the state for the "fake nation" that it is, we can start to organize OURSELVES, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, into genuine nations of our own free choice (with biometric verification of claimed identity).

Because most people, given man's tribal nature, when given the choice, will identify with their own ethnic group, the state will intensify its attempts to demonize such behaviour as "apartheid" and "racist".

However, it is not "apartheid" (which was imposed) by the South African state) or "racist" at all, but the most natural thing in the world, and the force by which, hopefully, not just the British state, will be transformed to genuinely serve their populations, instead to facilitating their self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, as they have always done in the past, and continue to do now, notwithstanding all state-sponsored rationalizations and self-deception, to the contrary.

The injustice of scapegoating the few dangerous drivers unfortunate enough to cause death

2010-07-29T10:04:00.005+01:00

According to an article in today's Guardian, Teenagers jailed for 90mph crash that killed rising rugby star, "Sean Goodfellow and Murray McAllan, both 19, were both jailed for four and a half years . . . [and banned] from driving for 12 years . . ".

That's not justice, but scapegoating . . !

Dangerous driving is ubiquitous, goes generally unreported and unpunished, and even when culprits are brought to book, they get away with the lightest of punishments (a small fine or short ban at the most), which manifestly fails to deter them or others from offending again - unless, of course, they cause an accident which results in serious injury or death, as in the case reported here, when the law comes down on them like a ton of bricks, in what can only be described as vindictive injustice, to compensate the state's failure - because of public, i.e. media, pressure - to provide a proper deterrent against dangerous driving, especially speeding.

Sean Goodfellow and Murray McAllan are no worse, or deserving of such serious punishment, than the thousands (probably millions) of others who get away with dangerous driving. They were just UNLUCKY that in their case it resulted in someone's death.

All that's needed to virtually eliminate deaths due to dangerous driving, is a comprehensive monitoring system of our roads, such that dangerous driving (usually speeding) is readily spotted and offenders brought to account, first with a warning, followed by increasingly lengthy driving bans for subsequent offences: one week for a second offence, a month or the third, and so on, so that those who repeatedly offend are simply banished completely from our roads. No need for fines or prison sentences, unless, of course, the bans are violated.

But because lots of people, including many in high places in politics and the media, want the FREEDOM to violate speed limits whenever they see fit, with little risk of being caught or seriously punished when they are, reducing deaths through dangerous driving remains impossible. Instead the law comes down, quite unjustly, like a ton of bricks on the unfortunate few whose dangerous driving results in someone's death.

Collectively humans are behaving like a batch culture of microorganisms

2010-06-18T09:45:00.016+01:00

In response to recent reports (Guardian article 1 and 2) that Afghanistan has mineral deposits worth trillions of dollars, on which a prosperous Afghan economy could be based.

To base an economy, or a large part of it, on the exploitation of finite mineral resources, which sooner or later are going to run out, is INSANE.

Thereby you create an economy which comes to support a population and standard of living, which are non-sustainable in the long term and can only end in tragedy.

It is not just individual countries which are behaving thus, but the human species as a whole, and in so doing are following the same blind Darwinian logic as the well-known growth curve of a batch culture of microorganism:

Taken from, Ch. 6 in Prescott et al, Microbiology, 4th Ed. (Link).

The lag phase is when the microorganisms are adapting and developing their metabolism to make use of the nutrients available to them and corresponds in this analogy to human history prior to about 1800 - 1900.

The exponential phase is when the microorganisms are able to make optimal use of the nutrients available, corresponding to the modern and present period of human history (notwithstanding that man's ability to exploit resources continues to increase at its own exponential rate).

The stationary phase is when the limits of growth have been reached, because the nutrients necessary for growth have been depleted and the accumulation of waste products inhibits further growth anyway, even if nutrients are available. This is the situation we are rapidly approaching.

The death phase is when an acute lack of nutrients and the accumulation of waste products causes the microorganisms to die off, which is what awaits us, i.e. our children and grandchildren, if we continue as we are, whereby climate change and environmental degradation, as well as resource depletion and the accumulation of waste (pollutants), will also play an important role.

Microorganisms do not have a brain and thus cannot possibly understand their situation. They are bound to follow this growth curve, and are adapted to it, producing spores or the like which can survive extended periods of unfavourable conditions. The fact that millions or billions of them die at the end of each growth cycle is not an issue for them, as it is, or should be, for humans.

We have a brain which gives us the potential to understand our situation and adapt our behaviour accordingly, which we collectively deceive ourselves into believing we are making use of.

In fact, instead of using our prodigious brain to understand our situation, we use it primarily to rationalise it, to interpret reality (our environment) so as to serve our own personal, narrow and short-sighted, self-interests. So deeply immersed in, familiar with and dependent on a rationalized and delusionary understanding of our situation are we that it is very difficult to recognise, thus causing us to behave, from an environmental perspective, as if we had no brain at all.

In the natural sciences we apply our brains to understanding the material world, with great success, as evidenced by the technology which has transformed, and continues to transform, our lives; but in the political and social sciences we use it primarily to rationalise our understanding of ourselves and the human environment we live in and depend on, seeking to maintain or change it to our own narrow and short-sighted, self-interests, social and political scientists no less than anyone else, or perhaps even more so.

To make any real progress in the social and political sciences they need to be placed on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, foundation. See BLOG.

"Progressives" standing in the way of progress

2010-06-15T10:03:00.007+01:00

Society is being screwed by capital and the political right, of course, but most insidiously, also by the liberal left and self-acclaimed "progressives".

"Insidious", because they deceive many of us - along with themselves - into believing that they are serving society and the individual, especially those who are exploited and "disadvantage". It used to be "the workers" they were so keen to help, but has now shifted, not just, but mainly to ethnic minorities. Thus their embrace of and enthusiasm for mass immigration and multi-ethnic society. They'll have no sympathy for the indigenous population, which they themselves belong to, but fail to recognise or identify with, until it's been reduced to a "disadvantaged minority". Then, of course, they'll be all over it . . .

From an historical perspective it is clear that "progressives" have taken over the role (and social niche) once dominated by the Catholic Church, securing power, advantage and privileges for themselves not by force, as their partners in power, the aristocracy did (itself now largely superseded by the "meritocracy"), but by laying claim to and exerting the power of the "moral high ground".

Speaking truth to POWER

2010-06-11T15:53:00.000+01:00

Speaking truth to POWER means, above all else, telling the STATE that its historical claim to nationhood, along with the loyalty and obligations that go with it, is based on long-standing deception and misunderstanding, and is therefore invalid.

Having spoken truth to POWER, either it didn't hear, or choses to ignore me, in the hope that no one will believe what I am saying and that the deception can be maintained.

All this talk of DEBT, but no mention of the CREDITORS

2010-06-11T15:49:00.000+01:00

All we hear from government and the media at the moment is about the size of public debt, the need to cut public expenditure, along with demands and assurances that "we are all in this together".

Who exactly are WE? And does it include those amongst us to whom at least part of this huge debt is owed . . ? Or is there not for every debtor a creditor . . ?

To whom exactly are these billions of British and trillions of international debt owed, and what are THEY doing to help the situation . . ?

Or, as I strongly suspect, is the whole rotten system coiled around its own throat; notwithstanding that some (those in power, wealth and privilege), have their own, relatively secure supply of air . . ?

The deeper significance of "Bigotgate"

2010-04-29T09:32:00.004+01:00

What I find most revealing about Gordon Brown calling a dedicated, life-long Labour supporter a bigot, because she dared express concerns about immigration ("It was the question about immigration that I think was annoying", he said in an interview directly afterwards), is the light it throws on how the Labour party, for decades, has suppressed all criticism of mass immigration (and of the multi-ethnic society that comes with it), not just within its own ranks, but in society at large, by branding it as "bigoted" or "racist".

Understanding the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society

2010-04-11T09:39:00.006+01:00

Before one can understand the madness, one first has to recognise it, although it has been made very difficult by the social and political taboos which evoke accusations of "xenophobia" and "racism" against anyone who does and dares to say so publically.

I'm sure that many people do recognise this madness, at least from time to time, but dare not say so, certainly not in public, for fear of being branded a "xenophobe" or "racist"; and because it cannot be expressed publically there can be no shared debate, testing or evaluation of this perception, which we are thus left alone to doubt and, in the face of such overwhelming social pressures, eventually reject the validity of, bravely seeking to suppress our own "xenophobic" and "racist" tendencies.

The human brain is such that it can be prevented from recognising even the most obvious things if the taboo against doing so is strong enough. Such taboos can be put in place artificially by post-hypnotic suggestion, for example, or, more naturally, by social and political conditioning, through a regime of rewards and punishments, or promises and threats thereof. Just as we train and condition dogs, so we are trained and conditioned ourselves, to be obedient subjects of the state, as well as a "human resource" and consumer for the economy.

The state wants mass immigration and a multi-ethnic society, and thus trains and conditions us, its subjects, to accept it. And if that fails, we are simply bullied into submission by being branded as "racists", just as in the Middle Ages people were trained and conditioned to accept church dogma (and authority), and those who resisted were bullied into submission by accusations of being "heathens", "infidels" or "heretics".

Mass immigration is madness because our country and subcontinent are already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated. Mercifully, Europe's native population has peaked and is now slowly declining, which, for sustainability's sake, is exactly what needed to happen. To reverse this natural trend, by encouraging people to have more children and through mass immigration of people's with a higher fertility rate, is utter insanity. It beggars belief that our politicians could be so stupid.

The creation of a multi-ethnic (multi-racial and multicultural) society, which the madness of mass immigration has given rise to, is madness in its own right, because it is difficult enough for people with everything in common to organize themselves harmoniously and get along together. The less we have in common, the more difficult (if not impossible) it becomes.

Which brings us to the method, i.e. purpose, behind this madness and thus to understanding it: the state and capital do not want us organizing ourselves, but as has always been their way, want to keep us dependent on them and do the organizing for us, thus facilitating our self-exploitation as a human environment and resource.

State and capital are so overwhelmingly powerful, and we so utterly dependent on them, that it is difficult to imagine how we can possibly escape their clutches. But if we want our civilization to survive, that is what we must do.

British and Israeli approaches to combating their terrorist enemies

2010-03-24T07:07:00.009Z

The difference between the British and Israeli approach to combating those working for their destruction and the murder of their citizens:

The Israelis focus on eliminating the danger they pose, by assassination, if necessary; while the British are more concerned with defending their human rights and will go as far as giving them political asylum and supporting them and their families on social welfare.

The reason, I suggest, lies in Britain's ruling elites being systemically and personally more concerned with their claim to a spurious "moral high ground", along with the political, social and economic advantages that go with it, and following a centuries-old tradition of the clergy, than with the welfare of the "British people", which are not a genuine PEOPLE anyway, but as a human environment and resource, which has to be maintained (served), of course, but primarily to facilitate its (self)-exploitation, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege (which includes our ruling elites in politics, the media and academia). Thus their indifference to Britain's ethnic composition, which, perversely, they have made a virtue and moral imperative of.

Israel's ruling elites, in contrast, are genuinely concerned - in part, at least - with the Jewish people and nation, and in preserving their identity as such.

What evolutionary anthropologists are missing

2010-03-15T19:11:00.000Z

Open email to Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford University:

Dear Prof. Dunbar,

I was very impressed by the interview you gave to the Observer's Aleks Krotoski, but please forgive my boldness for saying that there is a vitally important aspect of evolutionary anthropology which you and your colleagues seem to be missing.

It is the fact that civilizations (most relevantly, our own) are a product of man's Darwinian nature and its misplaced and perverted expression in the artificial environment of human society itself, which states and economy, I postulate, developed over the centuries to facilitate the (self)-exploitation of, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, by deceiving us all (exploiters and exploited alike, and now often embodied in one and the same individual) into believing that the state represents of our original tribe (or Dunbar number!).

In the artificial environment of our civilization, man's Darwinian drive for survival and reproductive success has been largely reduced to the pursuit of POWER, i.e. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc., which, of course, has the potential to greatly enhance the individual's chances of survival and reproductive success.

The profound implications of this insight, I believe, are what make it so difficult to recognise, even for anthropologists, because it undermines the political and socioeconomic order on which we all depend (academics, if anything, more than most), and because our brains didn't evolve to grasp reality itself, but to interpret it (i.e. its environment) to its own (now perverted Darwinian) advantage.

If we fail to recognise and develop an understanding of this harsh reality (instead of using our prodigious brains to rationalize and disguise it from ourselves), it will inevitably become progressively harsher, as we exploit ourselves towards extinction . . .

With best regards

Roger Hicks

A Darwinian perspective of "anti-racism"

2010-03-10T08:19:00.004Z

"Anti-racism" is not the noble cause it started out as (a response to genuine, ugly racism, e.g. Apartheid, Jim Crow, and above all, Nazism) and is still made out to be, but primarily a means of claiming a spurious "moral high ground" for oneself and for a proprietary and mercenary state seeking to assert its traditional, but false claim to nationhood, authority and power over an increasingly multi and mixed ethnic population.

"Anti-racism" no longer simply means opposition to genuine racism, but also the demonization of any assertion of ethnic identity amongst Europeans (i.e. white people), as if this natural propensity itself were racist and therefore evil.

Why, a "Darwinian" perspective?

Because it is an expression of man's continuing (though misplaced, perverted, rationalized, and thus largely unrecognized) primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success" in the artificial environment of human society itself, where, next to material wealth, a successful claim to the "moral high ground" and the social status that goes with it, is the most important advantage one can have.

A Darwinian basis for citizen ethics

2010-02-23T17:54:00.005Z

Last weekend the Guardian newspaper initiated a debate, Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis, publishing a pamphlet with contributions by "prominent thinkers exploring key questions about ethics today".

I agree entirely with them that ETHICS is fundamental to solving the problems of modern society - on which, not just our well-being, but our very survival depends. However, useful ethics cannot exist in the vacuum of idealised, romaticised, theologized, or purely opportunistic values and assumptions, which characterise the Guardian's assemblage of "prominent thinkers", but must be rooted in the Darwinian nature and demands of the individuals and groups to which they apply.

Why Darwinian? Because man is a product of Darwinian evolution and thus essentially Darwinian in nature. Any ethics not based on this reality lacks sound and sustainable foundations.

Before continuing, let me clarify what I mean by "Darwinian", because the word has been terribly misused and abused - to the extent that there are now powerful taboos against using it in any social or political context, because of its association with a ruthless struggle for survival and advantage over others, which is incompatible with a just and harmonious social and political order, social Darwinists having used it to justify social and racial inequalities, and the Nazis their ideology of a master race with the right to subjugate or exterminate what they deemed to be inferior races.

There is certainly a brutal and ruthless side to our Darwinian nature, but our capacity to love, reason and empathise with others are also its products. Human nature, our emotions and behaviour patterns, are adaptations to an environment very different from the one most of us live in today; we need to recognize this and develop an understanding of it, and its profound implications for understanding our situation and civilisation (i.e. the political and economic power structure which underlie it), instead of ignoring or denying them, as we do at the moment.

There are two principal reasons why we deny it: one is the conscious fear that recognising the Darwinian nature of our situation would legitimize and revitalize the past assumptions of social Darwinists, or even of the Nazis, which has led to massive social, political and professional taboos (in the relevant disciplines) against doing so.

The other reason is the, largely subconscious, fear of exposing the actual, though perverted, Darwinian nature of our civilization, i.e. of the political and economic power structures which underlie and permeate it, but which our dependency on, familiarity with and rationalisation of blinds us to, our large "prime-ape" brain being naturally disinclined to undermine the socioeconomic order and environment, on which its owner depends, by recognising its true, Darwinian nature.

We need to understand our own Darwinian nature, how it has shaped the existing political and socioeconomic order, and how it plays out within it, having effectively replaced the natural environment in which human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved. Only then, on the basis of this understanding, will we be able to develop a rational, humane and, necessarily, Darwinian ethics, which might yet save us from the dire situation we are in.

Disentangling our conceptions of state and nation

2010-02-21T14:17:00.001Z

I guess it is relatively easy, especially for someone on the political left, to agree with what I say about society being primarily an ENVIRONMENT for the exploitation of, when it comes to our capitalist economy. But when it comes to the state, although it is equally true, it is much more difficult to recognise, especially for someone on the political left, who sees the state as an instrument for realizing their liberal, socialist, humanist, or whatever, ideals.

Ever since it arose, the state has clothed itself in the mantle of nationhood and demanded for itself the loyalty we evolved to feel towards our original tribe, so it's no wonder that state and nation are seen by most as being one and the same.

It is vitally important, however, that we disentangle them, first conceptually and then emotionally, thus putting ourselves in a position to tackle the difficult task of disentangling them in practice, i.e. politically.

Until we have disentangled them, at least intellectually, any discussion of "citizen ethics" is pretty much a waste of time and energy.

Distinguishing between national and state ethics

2010-02-20T18:44:00.002Z

In his forward to the Guardian pamphlet, Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis, published in the Guardian, Philip Pullman makes frequent reference to the "nation" - as well he might, since it is to one's tribe and nation (the natural extension of one's tribe) that ethics, not solely, but primarily, relate, since here, after all, within and between closely related tribes, is where human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved.

Philip Pullman, however, makes the usual mistake of conflating state and nation, as if the two were synonymous. They are NOT.

In contrast to the purpose nation, which is to serve its people as justly as possible, that of the of the state is to facilitate society's self-exploitation, as a human ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

Philip Pullman, as a "successful" author, is served very well by the state in this respect, so he is perfectly happy to accept the state in place of a genuine nation. But quite different ethics apply to the two.

Britain's state-imposed multi-ethnic national identity

2010-02-13T16:33:00.010Z

According to his Guardian profile, "Cole Moreton is an author, journalist and broadcaster", who in his article, England's daft and pleasant land, advances the notion of a multi-ethnic English identity, and that "England is changing colour", by insisting that anyone who has a problem with it is a "racist".

Well, I'm NOT a racist, but I still have a problem with it, because my own sense of English identity has a strong historical, even prehistorical, and ethnic component. If individuals of manifestly non-European origin want to call themselves English, they are free to do so, but it won't mean much to me (unless, perhaps, I get to know them personally), and I shall assert my own distinctive identity by calling myself "native English" (as in native American).

What Cole Moreton is doing is asserting (very unpleasantly, through intimidation) the state's assumed right to impose its own, proprietary and mercenary, definition of national identity on all its, especially indigenous, citizens.

Does the state really have the right to do this? I don't believe it does. What it does have, however, is the POWER, which Mr. Moreton, for reasons of his own perceived self-interest, obviously identifies with.

A prerequisite of working for Britain's liberal media, e.g. the Guardian and BBC, is embracing state ideology of "colourblindness" and of a multi-ethnic British (including English) identity.

Thus, Cole Moreton's article is an expression of his own perceived self-interest in keeping in with state and establishment ideology, and in maintaining the kind of (multi-ethnic) sociopolitical environment in which he personally thrives.

Anyone who opposes him and the state ideology he has embraced he dismisses as a "racist".

The real issue here is not racism, but statism - or, as Jonah Goldberg would call it, "liberal fascism".

The race paradox, and the political confusion and exploitation it engenders

2010-02-11T10:14:00.003Z

The race paradox is this: at the personal level it is natural and appropriate to play down or deny the importance of race and ethnicity, an individual's person and character being far more important than the colour of their skin, i.e. ethnic origin.

At the political level, however, where we are dealing with large numbers of people, the vast majority of whom are and will always remain strangers, race and ethnicity do matter, because of their natural role (when not suppressed, as it currently is, by massive social and political taboos) in determining a deep and healthy sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity.

The reason why the central, though not sole, role of race and ethnicity in determining national identity is suppressed is clear: it would undermine the legitimacy and authority of the STATE, as currently structured, and with it, deeply rooted ideological assumptions, emotional attachments and vested self-interests (e.g. claims to the established "moral high ground") right across the political spectrum.

Why socialism died before birth

2010-02-09T10:34:00.004Z

In response to Geoffrey Wheatcroft's lament in today's Guardian of the demise of socialism: Socialism has been buried.

The fundamental mistake made by the political Left in their vain attempts to realise socialism, was to identify with a universalist/internationalist ideology (which served their personal advantage in the socioeconomic status quo), rather than with their own PEOPLE, TRIBE and NATION, which are the only genuine sources of the mutualistic and altruistic behaviour which must lie, necessarily, at socialism's core.

Bizarrely (though understandably, once you recognise their true, subconscious, motivations and self-delusions), by encouraging mass immigration and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society, the Left did more than their fair share to help create a situation in which genuine socialism could not possibly develop.

A prerequisite of a genuinely socialist society is that its members identify with each other as belonging to the same PEOPLE, TRIBE and NATION, because it was in a tribal environment that human nature and and behaviour patterns evolved and are thus adapted to.

Politics and "the art of the possible"

2010-02-09T07:53:00.000Z

This is in response to an article by Mike Marqusee, Politics and "the art of the possible", published in today's Guardian under the title, The power of utopianism.

What is possible depends, more than anything else, on our understanding of the issues concerned.

All the wonders of modern technology and what they have made possible (like sending men to the Moon, and probes to the planets, aviation, modern communications, etc.) were complete fantasy before we developed a much deeper understanding, i.e. created ever more realistic models, of the material world than we had before.

The so-called political and social sciences have not advanced as the material sciences have, but are still held up in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, stage of development, because of the massive taboos (social, political, professional and psychological) against anyone taking a comprehensive, human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature and behaviour patterns, along with the civilizations (the power structures of states and economies) they have given rise to.

Everything (including, most relevantly, our survival) depends on us recognising the Darwinian nature of our situation and developing an understanding of it. Then, all sorts of things will become possible, such the creation of just, humane and sustainable societies, which now we can only dream of . .

Political left and right complement each other

2010-02-08T05:37:00.001Z

Our political elites have got things nicely sown up for themselves, with those on the so-called Left and Right complementing each other, much as the aristocracy and clergy did in the Middle Ages. We are deceived (deceive ourselves) into believing that by joining or supporting one side or the other, we are contributing, not just to our own personal interests, but also to social, political and economic progress in general. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth; rather, we are just helping maintain the status quo.

To understand this, one has to recognise the fact - deeply buried beneath centuries of myth and self-deception - that society is, as it always has been, controlled and organized to a very large extent by the state and capital (notwithstanding all the apparent freedoms we now enjoy), not as a genuine society at all (which would be an extension of our original tribe), but primarily as an artificial environment, which they developed to facilitate the exploitation of (to the advantage of some over others) in a misplaced and perverted continuation of Homo sapiens' primordial Darwinian struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", where, however, it is reduced to, and disguised as, the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in its multifarious forms (sometimes complementing, other times contradicting each other), e.g. political office, money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.

Can philosophy save us?

2010-02-06T17:13:00.000Z

In response to a Guardian (Cif) article, Can philosophy save us?, by Darragh McManus.

I'm blocked from posting on the Guardian's Comment is Free website, I guess, at least in part, because they got fed up with me going on and on about my Darwinian view of human nature and the civilisation it has given rise to - which actually provides the best explanation for the fatal preoccupation with economics, politics and celebrity, which Darragh McManus seems to recognise as a problem and suggests philosophy may offer a solution to.

Philosophy, in its most basic (rather than elevated and erudite) form, seeks to understand reality. Very many philosophical questions have, if not entirely, nevertheless to an amazing, mind-boggling extent, been answered by science, although sadly most people (most relevantly, those in positions of power and influence) seem only interested in the political and economic aspects of science, rather than the philosophical ones.

The political and social sciences (if they deserve to be called sciences at all) are, it seems to me, at a Ptolemaic stage of development, still awaiting their Copernican - or rather, Darwinian - revolution.

Primarily we are still animals, preoccupied with exploiting our environment, which now, perversely, includes human society itself, in continuation of the primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", only largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in all its forms (e.g. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc).

Exploitation of both the natural and human environment (with their natural and human resources), is what politics and economics are all about. Thus our preoccupation with them.

If we were to recognise this it would, necessarily, set a revolution in motion, but because no one (already, at a subconscious level) wants that (least of all anyone in a position of wealth, power or privilege), our brains prevent us from doing so.

Why I am tempted to vote for the BNP

2010-02-04T13:53:00.000Z

It is not because I like or feel drawn to them - far from it; after reading their website, I have the gravest reservation about voting for them - but because I am so utterly sick of all 3 mainstream parties, not just, but especially in respect to them having imposed the MADNESS of mass immigration on our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, along with a multi-ethnic society which undermines the whole notion of us being a PEOPLE and a NATION* (I certainly do not FEEL it anymore!).

I am not angry with, and certainly do not hate, the immigrants themselves, who one can hardly blame for coming here, given the opportunity, in search of a much higher standard of living and far greater opportunities than they had in their countries of origin, but I am extremely angry with the politicians and other members of our ruling elites (in the civil service, the media and academia) who have imposed this madness on us by accusing of "racism" anyone who dared raise any objections.

The British government and authorities usually describe immigrant minorities by their ethnic origins: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Chinese, etc. while the indigenous population are reduced to being called "white British" or "white Irish". Why not "native" or "indigenous" British or European. . ?!

Because that is not supposed to matter, is it?! The fact that one is a native or indigenous. Just as race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter (except for ethnic minorities wanting to maintain their identity). Yet no one would dare say that to a native American or Australian, or to any other indigenous people anywhere. ONLY to their own PEOPLE, whom they condemn as "racist" if they dare express any sense of identity as members of the indigenous, ethnic European, population.

The BNP, for all its faults (which are many and make it difficult to vote for), is the only party that even acknowledges the existence an indigenous population. For all the other political parties, we natives are just "white British". Why is there no respectable, mainstream party which recognizes the existence of an indigenous population and its overwhelming interest in facing up to the MADNESS of mass immigration and the undermining of national identity which multi-ethnic society has brought about . . ?

* 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].

Racism, or statism?

2010-02-03T11:48:00.002Z

Human nature and behaviour evolved to be not just very sociable, but also deeply tribal. This is as true now as it was 10,000 years ago, the only difference being that the material dependency on our tribe has been replaced by a dependency on the STATE and a MONEY economy. Our emotional need for a sense of tribal belonging remains, however. Under different circumstances and in varying degrees it is now projected onto the state (masquerading as our NATION), the company we work for, the football team we support, a political party, a religion, an ideology, or whatever.

The state did not replace our original tribes by democratic consent (Social Contract, indeed!), but by force, through the swords of an aristocracy, aided by the "moral", intellectual and organizational support of the priesthood, i.e. Church, which received its material reward.

Thus was the state originally created, by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy, to facilitate exploitation of both the natural and human resources at their disposal, to their mutual advantage; notwithstanding the, sometimes deadly, rivalries within and between these two groups (or classes).

Central to facilitating society's exploitation by its ruling elites was the creation of the myth of NATIONHOOD (a nation being the natural extension of our original tribe, a federation of closely related tribes, as when the Greek tribes, which had developed into city states, exploiting slaves rather than their own people, united into a nation to face down the Persian threat). The state was thus able to harness people's powerful sense of tribal belonging and loyalty for its own exploitative purposes.

Effectively, though not consciously, the state domesticated society, just as we domesticate a dog, for example, based on the animal's dependency and a regime of rewards and punishments (or promises and threats thereof) to gain control of and exploit for our own purposes its innate behaviour.

Returning to human nature: when football fans, for example, jeer a player on account of his race, i.e. ethnic difference, it is not usually an expression of racism, as politicians and the media would have us believe, and claim the "moral high ground" for (on which they base their authority and power, on which, in turn, their livelihoods depend), but a healthy, though rude and impolite, expression of tribal belonging. They are jeering at players they FEEL do not belong to their tribe, or maybe the opposing tribe. Imagine the Japanese sending a football team, half of whom were not ethnic Japanese, but ethnic Europeans or Africans . . . Would that not offend one's sense of ethnic identity in respect to who the Japanese are?

Anyone with a healthy sense of their own, and other's, ethnic identity, would, of course. But the state demands that we suppress and deny (even to ourselves) any sense of ethnic identity, and direct our need for tribal belonging at itself instead.

The answer to my question - racism or statism? - is clearly STATISM.

But how are we (any more than a dog its master) to oppose the mighty STATE?

By peacefully and respectfully cultivating a sense of our ethnic identities, thereby giving rise to a New (multi) Nationalism.

Why is it not racist when it's directed at white people?

2010-02-02T10:51:00.001Z

This is the title of a popular Facebook page, which frustratingly permits no comments on its wall - I wonder why?

It poses a very interesting and relevant question. Here is my suggested answer:

It is because it is only necessary for the state to intimidate the white majority into denying or condemning any stirrings of a shared ethnic European identity, in preemptive defense of the false claim to nationhood, on which it bases the legitimacy of its power and control over (American/British) society as a whole.

Mass immigration spells disaster for indigenous populations

2010-02-02T09:33:00.001Z

Mass immigration from distant continents always spells disaster for the indigenous population - whether in the Americas, Australasia, or now, most relevantly, in Western Europe . . !

Unfortunately, it is not the interests of indigenous populations which count, but those of STATE and CAPITAL.

The political left rants against the crimes of capital, but, to its shame, identifies with and embraces those of the state.

Michael Moore's Naivety

2010-01-30T07:16:00.009Z

'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 . . !!

2010-01-28T08:38:00.003Z

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

2010-01-25T11:54:00.000Z

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

2010-01-25T09:00:00.000Z

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

2010-01-18T09:40:00.003Z

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"

2010-01-17T13:30:00.000Z

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?!

2010-01-17T10:14:00.008Z

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

2010-01-17T08:46:00.005Z

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

2010-01-17T07:42:00.005Z

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

2010-01-16T12:58:00.001Z

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"

2010-01-12T09:46:00.000Z

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

2010-01-09T10:38:00.002Z

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

2010-01-07T07:30:00.001Z

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

2010-01-05T08:00:00.002Z

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".

The common source of lawful and unlawful crime

2009-12-29T05:16:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian editorial on "organized crime".

The essential thing criminologists miss about organized (or not so organized) "crime" is that it is the flip side of the same coin, on the other side of which is the "legal" exploitation of man's natural and human environments.

Granted, "criminal" exploitation tends to be - but certainly isn't always - more ruthless than legal exploitation (just think of the tobacco and advertising industries which have spent and earned billions encouraging people - especially young people - to smoke, despite all the evidence for the terrible harm it causes, or the oil industry's denial of its role in causing climate change), and some "regulation" is certainly better than none, but the difference between "legal" and "criminal" is not as black and white as the state (which decides what is and isn't legal) would have us believe.

The crime currently being committed, quite legally, against our own children and grandchildren through our continuing ruthless exploitation and spoiling of their planet - despite all the warning about the consequences - is as morally reprehensible as anything the Mafia has ever done.

The editor of this editorial needs to smell the air and look down at the pile of corpses which constitutes the "moral high ground" on which he or she is standing, as they pontificate about the evils of organized (or not so organized) "crime".

The root cause of crime (legal and illegal) is the individual's perverted biological propensity to ruthlessly exploit his environment (natural and human) in man's continuing (but rationalized and unrecognized) primordial struggle for survival, advantage and "success", now largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, e.g. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.

The ideology of "Liberal Statism", its unchallenged claim to the "moral high ground" and political power

2009-12-19T07:40:00.006Z

LINK to Daily Telegraph article, Our human rights culture has now become a tyranny, by Charles Moore.

Charles Moore makes some very good points, but what he is criticizing are mere symptoms of a disease inherent to the state, which in the past we were generally blissfully unaware of, and even now are only beginning to wake up to. It is the state's need for moral authority, in order to justify the immense power it wields (to raise taxes, make and enforce laws, to send its men folk to war, etc.), which it used to derive from its preferred - varying according to circumstance - interpretation of Judeo-Christian scripture.

Until quite recently, the people of these Islands were not free to choose their own beliefs, but were coerced into accepting Christian dogma, which the Church, through the state, that it was instrumental in creating and running, used to exercise its power over society, from the highest noble to the lowest peasant, and from which, of course, it derived huge material advantage for its, especially higher, members (a lot better to be a shepherd than a sheep).

The precipitous decline in Christian belief in the past century has left a partial moral power vacuum, which has been increasingly filled by secular (overwhelmingly liberal-left) morality, itself virtually the exact, but almost equally extreme, opposite of Nazi morality and ideology, which, of course, its rise to power was largely an - at the time, understandable - overreaction to, as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Apartheid and Jim Crow.

This liberal-left ideology, which Jonah Goldberg poignantly refers to as Liberal Fascism, now represents the "moral high ground", which everyone (including those on the liberal right) must accept the validity of - or be dismissed and condemned as a rightwing extremist, neo-Nazi or "racist", which are the modern, liberal-statist equivalents of the medieval Jew! Heretic!, Heathen! or Non-Believer, i.e. "not one of us!"

The underlying cause of the Sustainability Problem is not economic growth so much as what is driving it

2009-12-15T07:14:00.002Z

LINK to Guardian article, "This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity", by George Monbiot from the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, [economic] growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet.

What George Monbiot says about economic growth is quite true, but he overlooks what is driving it. Yet, until we recognise and develop an understanding of this, we are powerless to do anything about it.

What's driving economic growth is man's Darwinian nature, which the existing socioeconomic order developed over centuries to simultaneously serve and exploit in a misplaced and perverted continuation of his primordial struggle for survival, advantage and "success" (largely reduced to the individual pursuit and exercise of POWER, i.e. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.) in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself.

The Darwinian purpose of the state and universalist ideology/religion

2009-11-29T17:47:00.000Z

The state and universalist ideologies (political, economic or religious) all appeal, amongst other things, to man's tribal nature, in order to create the illusion of us all belonging to the same super-tribe, which then serves as a socioeconomic environment and human resource, organized primarily by the state and capital to facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege.

In modern western democracies, to a greater or lesser extent, most of us are privileged, especially academics, whose independence and objectivity, without them being aware of it, is severely compromised as a consequence, rendering them incapable of recognising the true (Darwinian) nature a socioeconomic order so favourable to their own advantage and success.

Letting go of the STATE

2009-11-29T17:15:00.003Z

Instead to trying to reclaim the British state for the indigenous population, my suggestion is that we let it go - notwithstanding all the difficulties involved with letting go of something one is materially and emotionally so dependent on, like a child dependent on an abusive step-parent, which it has been brought up to believe is its natural parent (see previous post).

My response to email from David Cameron, informing me how he will combat climate change

2009-11-29T08:25:00.005Z

I received an email from the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, the other day (available on his so-called Blueblog), informing me how, as Prime Minister, he will deal with the threat of global climate change.

I sent my response as a comment to his blog, but it didn't get past the moderation. So here it is, on my own "unmoderated" blog, for all to read:

Dear Mr Cameron, I don’t question your sincerity in wanting to tackle climate change, or on any of the other issues you will have to deal with, should you become prime minister, but like most people, you fail to recognise the ROOT CAUSE of our problems, which lie in our own Darwinian nature and the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to over the centuries.

Until the political and social sciences are placed on a firm, Darwinian, foundation (and it’s about UNDERSTANDING ourselves and our situation, not justifying it, as Social Darwinists were often guilty of doing), we are going nowhere, except to our doom.

For all sorts of reasons there are massive taboos against us taking a Darwinian view of ourselves and our civilization, but if we are to understand them and have any chance of correcting their ills, which are terminal, THIS is what we must do.

I can hardly expect you to publically embrace my suggestion, which would be political suicide (like a medieval politician questioning the divine right of kings or the truth of the Christian gospels), but you could help remove the taboos by encouraging academic engagement in the development of a human-evolutionary understanding of our civilization and its situation.

The "social sciences" are about as scientific as Ptolemaic astronomy and Galen medicine once were

2009-11-28T05:25:00.004Z

LINK to Guardian article by Polly Toynbee, in which she speaks out for the social sciences.

Polly Toynbee's "social sciences" are about as scientific as Ptolemaic astronomy and Galen medicine once were, and will remain so until placed on a firm, human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, foundation.

What are the reasons for such stubborn resistance amongst social scientists for this, for the survival of our civilization, so urgently needed development?

They are pretty much the same reasons why Ptolemaic astronomers and Galenic physicians resisted the new astronomy and the new medicine, an understanding of which requires the same human-evolutionary approach they refuse to continence.

The STATE, our imposter parent

2009-11-27T19:42:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Towards a new civic patriotism, by Antony Lerman

As this article shows, deep self-delusion continues to dominate our ideas about the nature of the STATE, which disguises itself in the gab of COUNTRY and NATION, in order to legitimize its claim to our powerful tribal feelings of subordination, love and loyalty, which it uses to facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

Those well served by the state, as I'm sure Antony Lerman is, are understandably reluctant to recognise its true role, which is analogous to that of a shepherd, caring for his flock, which he does, not primarily for the flocks sake (notwithstanding the genuine concern he may feel for a lost or injured lamb), but for his own, and/or employers sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be sold at market, for what it's really all about, i.e. MONEY, the most versatile form of POWER.

The state can also be compared with an abusive step-parent, pretending to be our natural parent, who, despite all their faults, really cares for us, thereby eliciting our love and loyalty towards them.

Only they don't really care for us, not for our own sakes, any more than the shepherd does for his sheep. And they divide us, its children, amongst ourselves by showing favoritism to some - all those in wealth, power and privilege, which nowadays, to a greater or lesser extent, includes most of us.

It's a real dilemma, being so dependent, materially and emotionally, on an imposter parent (the state), who took you from your real parents (your tribe and nation) when you were just a few days old, and is a complete bastard who will utterly ruin your and your siblings lives, if you fail to free yourselves from them.

How power corrupts - in Kabul, London, Washington, and everywhere

2009-11-27T09:42:00.008Z

LINK to Guardian article, How power corrupts in Kabul, by Alex de Waal
An excellent article, which should give us long pause for thought, not just about Afghan society, but primarily about our own, which is also held together by forms of patronage, coercion and the institutionalized lies and self-deception, developed over centuries, they are rationalized and concealed behind.
In order to get a handle on this, however, we have to view our own nature and the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to from a Darwinian perspective.
The reason we are so reluctant to do so, why there are such massive taboos preventing it, is because it will necessarily undermine the political and economic order we are all currently dependent on (especially those in wealth, power and privilege, which, to a greater or lesser extent, includes most of us), but unless we do, there can be no realistic understanding of our situation, and no thus hope of remedying it.
Recognising the lies and self-deceptions on which our own society is based need not scare us as much as we subconsciously assume it will, thus prevent ourselves from doing so. The social, political and economic structures based on them will need to remain in place until, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, we have created viable (rational, humane and sustainable) alternatives.

Like the STATES which comprise it, the EU is deeply rooted in man's Darwinian nature

2009-11-26T08:34:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article by Timothy Garton Ash on the state of the EU.

The EU, understandably enough, reflects the nature of the STATES that comprise it, which is deeply Darwinian, notwithstanding our complete denial (refusal even to contemplate) this profoundly important fact - which itself is a consequence of our Darwinian nature, our advanced prime-ape brain having evolved to interpret reality, i.e. its environment, to its own perceived (perverted Darwinian) advantage, thereby blinding us to reality (like a form of collective posthypnotic suggestion).

Anyone who belongs to our political, media, business, religious, or academic elites, has a massive personal interest (which, they would have the rest of us believe, and no doubt believe themselves, is in everyone's best interest) in maintaining the politico-socioeconomic status quo, despite its misplaced and perverted Darwinian nature and inherent inhumanity and non-sustainability.

Unless we recognise this pretty soon and develop an understanding of it, so that we can put it right, the EU and our civilization as a whole are doomed.

TGA, for all his academic qualifications, obviously doesn't have a clue - because subconsciously his brain doesn't want to question, fundamentally, the SYSTEM in which he has found such personal and professional success.

Scientists' failure to recognise the Darwinian nature of their own civilization

2009-11-26T05:41:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article,

[In] the drive to commercialise science . . . even the pure quest for knowledge is subverted by the need for profit.

It is about time (150 years, now, since publication of On the Origin of Species) that scientists like John Sulston recognised the Darwinian nature of our civilization, i.e. the social, political and economic power structures on which it rests.

The reason that he and his colleagues do not recognise it - or if they do, don't make an issue of it - is that they themselves, even more than most, perhaps, are materially and emotionally completely dependent on this deeply Darwinian SYSTEM, in which human society itself - perversely and unsustainably - serves primarily as an exploitable ENVIRONMENT.

If we recognised and developed an understanding of this, we could place the necessary constraints on the SYSTEM, or better still, radically transform it, so that it ceases to treat civilization as an exploitable environment and "human resource".

Scientists are absolutely brilliant at understanding the material world, but when it comes to understanding themselves and their own society they are still very much in the Dark Ages.

Who are society's REAL "parasites"?

2009-11-25T14:37:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Filesharers are parasitic freeloaders, by Anne Wollenberg

Filesharers are parasitic freeloaders

Basically, this is about "property rights", which, from its very inception, the STATE has defined and enforced, either by the sword or the word of authority - fairly, humanely and to the well-being of society as a whole, of course, or so, with some reservations, we are taught.

A more realistic view of history shows that the state has always defined and enforced property rights to the massive advantage of those in wealth, power and privilege (because primarily society is not a genuine society at all, an extension of our original tribe, but an ENVIRONMENT, which those in a position to do so, seek to exploit to their own advantage).

Originally it was just the aristocracy and clergy who were the big winners (not that society as a whole didn't enjoy certain benefits as well; after all, the human environment had to be maintained, in order for it to be exploited), but over the centuries, especially in the last, the number of (apparent) winners greatly increased and diversified, many in the media and "creative industries" being amongst them.

We all depend on society (the social environment) and need to make a living, but why should some, thanks to property rights (including copyright) determined by society's ruling elites, be so disproportionately favoured?

I'm very appreciative of Paul McCartney, for example, who as an artist I have much to thank for and would consequently always have an open door and helping hand for. That he should have a good income, goes without saying - but one that is 100s of time the national average . . ?! He, rather than the filesharer who obtains his songs for free, is the real parasite, for taking far more than is appropriate (assuming the generally held illusion that society really is a society, and not just an environment to be exploited for as much as you can get out of it).

That is a harsh thing to say about someone you like and whose work you admire, but it's the truth. Not that I hold it against Paul McCartney, or any other millionaire artiste, personally, who have all been corrupted by the values and power structures embodied in the British state, masquerading as a NATION, at whose head the most insidious parasite of all still resides.

Demand for a Voluntary DNA Database

2009-11-25T08:00:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian article, My DNA dilemma, by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson

Dear Minister, Will you please create a Voluntary DNA Database for those, like myself, who would welcome the opportunity to help the police in their investigations into serious crime.

Let those who, for the sake of their own (misconceived - or not) self-interest, would provide cover for the most heinous criminals continue to do so. But I want no part of it.

I WANT you to have my DNA profile, whose 20 digit code I would be proud to carry on my lapel. Only, I don't want it mixed up with those of convicted criminals, but in a database, for responsible citizens, of its own.

I want to belong to an Open Source Society, where everyone is known (potentially) to everyone else. I am very happy for everyone and anyone (who's interested) to know who I am. Notwithstanding my grave reservations concerning the STATE.

***********

bumpngrind: ". . if you are NOT going to commit a crime, how is your DNA going to help any police investigation?"

A major aspect of any criminal investigation is narrowing down the list of suspects.

THAT is how my DNA, in its small way, will help police investigations. And the more of us who are in the Voluntary DNA Database, the more effective this help will be.

********

Judging from the responses, I'm obviously in the minority on this thread, as I would also be on the Telegraph's or Mail's comment pages, so I'm not too bothered by that.

Not that some of your concerns are not reasonable. They are, and I have my own reasons for not trusting the STATE, which I go into in more detail on my BLOG, but if my DNA profile helps (in its small way) to catch just one serial rapist before he strikes again, as far as I'm concerned, it is worth the relatively small risk that I am taking.

I may be wrong, but I would guess that all those so fervently dismissive of my suggestion of a Voluntary DNA Database are MEN.

Europeans vain attempts to civilize the rest of the world in their own idealized image

2009-11-25T07:06:00.002Z

LINK to Guardian article, The Commonwealth is a jamboree of repression, by Tom Porteous.

When will the WHITE MAN stop trying to civilize the rest of the world in his own idealized image?

Perhaps when we recognise the ego trip we are on in claiming the moral high ground for ourselves.

Only, it's not just an ego trip - no matter how well rationalized and disguised - but an expression of our unrecognized, but continuing Darwinian struggle for survival, advantage and "success", misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of our own society.

We need to get ourselves sorted (by developing an understanding of our own Darwinian nature and how it is now driving us towards self-destruction), instead of distracting ourselves vainly trying to sort the rest of the world.

*************

gymnutkamal:

Whatever do you mean by that?!?! The whole world, from what I see, is headed for self destruction - why not share around the doom and gloom?

The answer to your question is that I identify myself as a "white man" (a native European), and would feel uncomfortable criticizing any other ethnic group. In addition, western civilization is synonymous with European civilization, the historical roots of which are "hideously white" (as the former Director-General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, might put it) and go back more than 2500 years to the ancient Greeks, and further back into prehistory. Europeans are responsible for the mess we are in - no one else. Native Africans, Americans, Australians, etc. were doing just fine, until us Europeans came along and screwed things up.

"What Darwinian nature?"

Have you not heard of Darwin and his book, On the Origin of Species?

In their arrogance, Europeans assume that they, or their political and academic elites, at least, are rational animals, when in fact, like everyone else, they are still very much a Darwinian animal, preoccupied with exploiting their environment to their own personal (or family) advantage, which now, perversely, includes human civilization itself. Notwithstanding their cleverness in rationalizing and disguising it from themselves, and others. I go into this in more detail on one of my BLOGS.

Hope for the future of our civilization requires a Darwinian understanding of it

2009-11-25T05:54:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, A climate deal is like trying to halt the rains in Cumbria, by Paul Kingsnorth, in which he predicts our failure to combat climate change.

Thank you, Mr. Kingsnorth, for an all too realistic perspective.

Although, when you speak of "painful decline ahead", that is putting it much too nicely, perhaps because you don't want to scare your readers. What is in store for us, i.e. our children and grandchildren, quite literally, doesn't bear thinking about, which is part of the reason why we persist in clinging to false hopes.

HOPE is incredibly important, without which we really are lost, but it needs to be realistic, based on a sound understanding of ourselves and of our past and present situation.

Such a realistic understanding, however, is what we lack.

How to we arrive at a realistic understanding?

By overcoming the massive taboos against taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature, of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to, and their history.

I've been going on about this for some time, because it offers the only realistic hope there is.

The rapidly increasing probability of a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran

2009-11-24T07:16:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian article, Obama's nuclear spring, by Benny Morris on the rapidly increasing probability of a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

A chillingly realistic article.

twiglette: "There is no evidence that if Iran were to obtain a deliverable nuclear warhead that it would use it."

Sure. Like there was no evidence (1933-38) that Nazi Germany, if continually appeased, would still unleash WW2 by attacking Poland and then the Soviet Union . . .

"America's broken politics" - a consequence of its false claim to NATIONHOOD

2009-11-24T06:09:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, America's broken politics, by the renowned American economist, Jeffrey Sachs
The fundamental problem, which Jeffrey Sachs seems oblivious to, lies in the nature of the STATE and its false claim to NATIONHOOD.

Homo sapiens evolved not just as a very social animal, but also as a very tribal one. Only as tribes, or groups of closely allied tribes (NATIONS) can we survive and prosper in the long term.

America is not a nation, nor a genuine society, at all, but an artificial, socioeconomic ENVIRONMENT, which the STATE, opportunistically claiming the mantle of nationhood for itself, provides the legal framework for the self-exploitation of, to the massive advantage of wealth, power and privilege, to which Jeffrey Sachs himself, of course, like most academics, belongs, and is why none of them question, are psychologically capable of fundamentally questioning, the status quo, on which they themselves are so dependent.

America (like Britain) has no future as it stands at the moment, based as it is on the LIE of it being a NATION. The only question is whether it will tear itself apart in violent convulsions in the further course of this century, be held together by a totalitarian regime, or find a way to transform itself, essentially peacefully and democratically, from an unsustainable NATION-STATE (rooted in, serving and exploiting, man's misplaced and perverted, but rationalized and unrecognized, Darwinian nature) to a sustainable STATE of NATIONS (rooted in an understanding of man's Darwinian nature and how to direct it along more just, humane, rational and sustainable lines).

The need to place the political and social sciences on a Darwinian foundation

2009-11-23T12:50:00.002Z

LINK to Guardian article, Why I couldn't draw a full MP's salary, by Anneliese Dodds.

An excellent article that goes to the "rotten heart" of so-called "British society", which isn't so much a society at all, but rather, an artificial ENVIRONMENT, which, as a human-evolutionary perspective reveals, our politico-socioeconomic order developed over the centuries to manage and facilitate the exploitation of by its own most powerful and influential elites, thereby rationalizing and disguising itself in the self-delusion of SERVICE to one's NATION.

However, no real difference or progress can be made through the kind of gesture Anneliese Dodds is recommending here (and, I assume, actually making, as the Labour Party candidate for Reading East), no matter how sincerely she might mean it.

As a political and social scientist (which I assume she is), she would serve society far better by helping to place her science on the Darwinian foundations it currently so sorely lacks.
********

The expenses scandal allows us to reconsider the faulty logic that insists 'professionals' be paid so much more than others.

It is not just "faulty logic", but a misplaced and perverted Darwinian logic, which lies at the heart of our politico-socioeconomic order, that we simply refuse to recognise and face up to.

The insidious POWER of the "moral high ground" to censor

2009-11-23T11:37:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, An insidious argument for censorship, by David Henshaw, the executive producer of Channel 4's Dispatches programme.

I haven't seen either documentary ("Undercover Mosque" and "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby"), but agree very much with what David Henshaw writes.

I consider myself a judeophile and friend of Israel, but to suggest that British (and American) Jews don't represent a splintered, but nevertheless very powerful lobby for Israel is absurd. Of course they do, and generally I support them.

However, I prefer my friends (Jewish or otherwise) to be honest and open, and not to intimidate their critics with accusations of racism or anti-Semitism, which, as the author, says, is an underhand attempt at censorship, of suppressing unwelcome views, questions or criticism, rather than engaging with them.

It is a classic example of the POWER of an assumed "moral high ground" used to control and manipulate society to one's own perceived (ideological, religious, political and/or economic) advantage, and as important today (though much diversified) as it was when the Catholic Church had a monopoly over it.

The Darwinian roots of free-market capitalism

2009-11-23T08:45:00.001Z

LINK to Observer article, How much money is enough? by the economist, Robert Skidelsky

Keynes . . . underestimated our appetite for wealth, . . [and] the insatiable hunt for more money.

This is because then, as now, academics are prevented - by their dependency on the state and status quo - from taking a Darwinian view of human nature and the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.

Because doing so would fundamentally question their role and legitimacy, revealing how they facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of its powerful and privileged elites (to which academics and many of us, to a greater or lesser extent, now belong), as an artificial environment, where, misplaced, perverted, reduced largely to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in its mulitfarious forms (e.g. money, property, the moral high ground, social and professional status, etc.) and, of course, rationalized from view by our super prime-ape brain, we subconsciously continue our primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success".

To BE or not to BE - honest with the STATE . . ?

2009-11-23T05:55:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian article, My financial embarrassment, by Ariane Sherine, about the morality of taking (stealing?) excessive change mistakenly given by a parking ticket machine.

The moral conundrum which Ariane so nicely describes is a really profound and important one, as GoldenTriangle's much recommended post suggests and as my own human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of "society" as an "human resource" and artificial environment, which state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate the exploitation of (to the misplaced and perverted Darwinian advantage of wealth, power and privilege, which nowadays in Britain, at least, to some degree, includes most of us) provides a sound theoretical basis for.

STATE and RELIGION have succeeded in conflating, and exploiting, the two very different environments in which human nature and behaviour patterns evolved: one being our original tribe, which we are naturally inclined to subordinate our personal interests to, the other being everything external to it (including other, rival, tribes), which we are naturally inclined to exploit to our own personal (and tribal) advantage.

So long as we fail to recognise the state's primary role in facilitating society's self-exploitation, and continue confusing it with our tribe, this moral conundrum (the rot at the heart of our civilization) will remain - and eventually put an end to us.

I can understand people's reluctance to face up to this more than just "inconvenient truth", since it undermines the whole basis of the "society" we all depend on and don't want to descend into tribal conflicts, violence and chaos. But if we want to change things for the better (which we must, if we are to survive) then we must replace the lies and self-deception on which the existing politico-socioeconomic order is based with a much more realistic, Darwinian, understanding of our situation.

********

wolfmanjack and SeanThorp:

All property is theft..... of one type or another. The post agrarian moral decline that we've suffered in the last 10,000 years is truly lamentable . .

You are both on the right track, but it is not that simple, and the moral indignation (self-righteousness?) your comments imply won't help us understand the root cause of the problem, which is what we urgently need to do.

As I pointed out in my first post, above, understanding this problem demands a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, i.e. for us to view ourselves as the evolved social and tribal animal we are, only now living in a very different environment (of civilization itself) from the one we evolved in and are behaviourally adapted to, and which the power structures of state and economy developed over centuries to facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage, of course, of its powerful and privileged elites.

Once we've recognised its Darwinian nature and developed an understanding of it, it's not a problem that will be easy to solve, but at least we will then have the option - and challenge! - of attempting to in a more hopeful, enlightened and rational fashion than is possible at the moment.

*******

mickangelo: "What an airhead article. People get paid for writing this kind of stuff? Only in the Guardian, folks..."

I couldn't disagree more. Ariane's piece describes a profoundly important moral conundrum, a proper (Darwinian) understanding of which might just enable us to save our civilization from extinction (see my first post, above).

Eurocentric history undermining social cohesion of multiethnic Britain

2009-11-21T04:50:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian article, History? It's history, by Andrew Martin, on the gradual disappearance of history from the school curriculum.

There also lurks an association between "history" and "British history" with all its embarrassing aspects.

This, I think, goes to the heart of the matter.

British history, which is imbedded in 2500 odd years of European history, is not an impersonal subject, as science, maths, medicine and technogy can be (if you leave out their histories), but very - in fact, entirely - ethnocentric, or, as the BBC's former Director-General, Greg Dyke, might put it, "hideously white".

The British government is commited to cultivating a sense of shared multiethnic British identity, which millennia of ethnocentric British and European history runs counter to. Thus its measures to sideline history (as we know it), to consign it to the history books, which it hopes no one (apart from a few historians, perhaps) will bother to read.

History must not be allowed to undermine social cohesion and the unity of the British state. It has to go. In stages, of course, it will be removed entirely from the school curriculum.

*********

chekhov: "why are we adopting the same measures the fascists would have imposed had they won? "

Because what we understand as "fascism" is just a more blatantly authoritarian manifestation of the "statism", which Jonah Goldberg exposes in his book, Liberal Fascism, as characterizing our own society as well.

The function of the state is to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its powerful and privileged elites, which now includes those in politics, the media and academia, who between them, together with capital and established religion, pretty much control public attitudes and opinion.

Having embraced the ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic difference, which is deemed to have no social or political significance, except to evil "racists", the STATE is now bound to suppress anything - such as Britain's Eurocentric history - which might undermine it, along with the moral high ground it is assumed to represent, and on which the state now bases its authority, legitimacy and POWER.

The British state and government would have us believe that the only alternative to its multiethnic liberal fascism (statism) is authoritarian, nationalistic (ethnocentric) fascism and racism, but I profoundly disagree. It is NOT the only alternative.

Whether authoritarian, liberal, or somewhere in between, the fascistic state is a product of man's misplaced and perverted Darwinian nature, which seeks to mould, control and exploit human society itself as an artificial environment and "human resource".

Wishful thinking blinds Greenpeace to Darwinian nature of its own power structures

2009-11-19T07:47:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, Greenpeace chief urges Obama to use 'political capital' to agree climate deal, by Kumi Naidoo

Global warming, which is just one aspect of a much wider Sustainability Problem, cannot be resolved by this kind of wishful thinking, which reminds me of someone who is fat, smokes and completely out of condition fantasizing about competing at the next Olympic Games.

Those societies which wish to survive this Century, like our Olympic hopeful, will first have to get themselves into condition, which means recognising the misplaced and perverted Darwinian nature which is making such slobs of them now.

What prevents Kumi Naidoo from recognising this himself, I suggest, is a reluctance to acknowledge his own Darwinian drive for power, which has placed him at the head of Green Peace.

The Darwinian nature of global politics

2009-11-19T05:36:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Obama's Beijing balancing act points to the new challenge for the west, by Timothy Garton Ash

How this relationship plays out over the next 20 years will, of course, depend mainly on the realities of economic, military and political power.

Yet beyond the hard power relations, there is an almost philosophical question about how we in the west engage with China

"I'm going to make the strongest possible reasoned case for the universal values of the Enlightenment being the best for you as well as for us, but I'm also all ears for your response."

In these quotes, TGA gives clear expression to the dilemma at the heart of the matter, between man's rational nature and his blind, power-obsessed, Darwinian nature; but he obviously fails to understand its true significance himself, leading him to accept as inevitable that the "relationship [between China and America] will . . depend mainly on the realities of economic, military and political power", i.e. be determined not by man's rational nature, but by his blind Darwinian nature and its obsession with POWER.

Why doesn't TGA recognise this?

It is, I suggest, because he too, like everyone else, is dominated by his own Darwinian nature (misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of human civilization, where it has been reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER in its multifarious forms) far more than by his rational nature, which the need to preserve his own self-image as a "man of reason", prevents him (and the rest of us) from recognising.

***************

dirkbruere:

"Never mind the philosophical crap - China is almost a textbook Fascist state now . . "

While China is an authoritarian fascist state, America and Britain are "liberal fascist" states (see Jonah Goldberg). So I guess we have a lot more in common than generally supposed.

As population pressure and competition for deteriorating and diminishing natural resources increases, the struggle for individual survival and advantage will intensify and the authoritarian fascist state, I suspect, will become more and more attractive to those in wealth, power and privilege.

We in the west have a brief window of opportunity - still wide open, but not for long - in which to recognise the Darwinian nature of our civilisation and take conscious, grassroots-democratic control of its radical transformation. Otherwise, it will be a long (possibly terminal) night of fascism, i.e. statism, at the heart of which lies our unrecognized, and thus misplaced and perverted, Darwinian nature .

Most aid to so-called developing countries is in vain

2009-11-18T18:53:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, Broken promises on aid, by David Cronin

It seems to me that most western aid to so-called developing countries, simply enables their powerful and privileged elites to enjoy rich western lifestyles, while their populations carry on growing, thereby neutralizing, at best, any benefits of increased production.

All that the good intentions of people like David Cronin will do is increase the scale of the looming human and ecological catastrophe, thereby also reducing our OWN chances of surviving it.

David Cronin, I suspect, considers his own stance as highly moral and anti-Darwinian, because of his concern for the survival and well-being of OTHERS rather than his OWN, but I see this as a subconscious perversion of his own Darwinian drive for survival and "success", in the artificial environment of his own society, where he can claim the "moral high ground" for himself, and the advantages which go with it.

We need to come out of denial and view our situation, personally and collectively, from a Darwinian perspective. Otherwise, we cannot possibly understand or take control of it, which will leave a ruthless Mother Nature to run her brutal Darwinian course.

Instead of just criticising established religion, humanists and atheists should create more rational alternatives

2009-11-18T16:11:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, Hey, preacher – leave those kids alone, by Ariane Sherine

What humanists and atheists really need to do, is stop criticizing established religions, which obviously play a very important role (private, social, economic and/or political) in many people's lives, develop an understanding of why and then set about establishing more enlightened and rational alternatives, which we are urgently in need of.

RELIGION derives form the Latin, religare, meaning to bind together, and nothing is more important for a society than that, for its members to be bound together, not in all details, but by a shared fundamental view of that same society, the basic values it stands for, and a sense of identity with and commitment to it.

This is precisely what is so sorely lacking in modern Western society, with its pathological "individualism", where state and established religion no longer fulfill this function.

Not that I want them to reassert themselves. On the contrary, I want us to recognise their perverted Darwinian nature, which accounts for their total inadequacy and the social, political, economic and environmental mess they have got us into, and the global catastrophe they leading us towards.

But we cannot just do away with them. We need to reinvent them, in the light of a humane interpretation of our Darwinian nature and the kind of society we want to create.

At the moment, unfortunately, most humanists and atheists (and academics in general, including even the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, because of their dependency on the state and the socioeconomic status quo) are as reluctant to take a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of society and their own role in it as those attached to and dependent on established religion.

It is not just bankers who have not learned their lesson

2009-11-18T13:32:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian article, A decade late and billions short, by Thomas Noyes, who says,

. . we can't trust that [Bankers] have learned their lesson.

Of course not. But then neither have WE . . !

The lesson we have yet to learn is simply that man is far less a rational animal than a Darwinian animal.

Unfortunately, it seems that those on the "progressive" liberal-left are as reluctant to learn this lesson as those on the religious right. But until they, and others, do, we will remain stuck in a rut, unable to deal - because unrecognised - with the root cause of our problems.

Exposing the LIE which equates STATE and NATION

2009-11-18T07:32:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian Open Thread, which asks the following question:

. . if you could add one piece of legislation to the Queen's speech, what would it be and why?

One of my favourite truisms used to be (and still is): "There is no religion higher than the truth". And the same applies to the STATE.

Like most states, Britain is based on the assumed equivalence of STATE and NATION - which is a LIE.

As head of state and embodiment of this LIE, I would like the Queen to acknowledge it and instruct her ministers to do likewise. Then to order an inquiry and public debate with the aim of developing an understanding of this and its profound political implications.

The rat race: A product of Homo sapiens' self-domestication

2009-11-17T08:17:00.002Z

LINK to Guardian article, Questions for the new world, by Andrew Simms

Why do modern Britons work harder than medieval peasants?

This is a very pertinent question, the answer to which lies in the Darwinian nature of civilization, which despite its central importance for understanding our situation and the existential problems now facing us, is not just being overlooked, but actively denied and suppressed: we mustn't go there, we tell ourselves, because it leads to Social Darwinism and Nazism. Which is true enough, it did, but only because we were mislead down the wrong path. There is, however, another path, with leads to the most profound insights into the nature of our civilization.

With the rise of civilization, what humans did, was domesticate themselves, much as they had already domesticated certain animals, and (this is the really important thing which anthropologists and historians seem to have missed) for the SAME purpose, which was to facilitate their, i.e. our own, exploitation - to the advantage of some over others.

That may take a while to get one's head around, but once you do, the reason why modern Britons, like most modern people, work harder than medieval peasants becomes clear. It is a manifestation of the self-exploitation we have (subconsciously) conditioned ourselves for, and which state and economy developed to facilitate, to the advantage of society's powerful and privileged elites, of course, thereby increasing, potentially at least, their individual members' chances for survival and reproductive success.

On the "hatred" that Michael Tomasky detects in the "white crowd"

2009-11-16T09:22:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Hate Obama? You may not be a racist. But you will be white, by Michael Tomasky

The president's critics are not all prejudiced but the crowd is mutating to the extremes . . . It has to do with the difference between the individual and the crowd.

Michael Tomasky, I think, is making an extremely important point here, but his response is to demonize and condemn, rather than to understand, what is going on.

To do that, one must turn to evolutionary psychology, which reveals humans to be not just very social animals, but also very tribal. Thus the difference between the individual and the crowd, standing in for one's tribe.

It is no good (but on the contrary, very bad) ridiculing, demonizing, condemning, denying and seeking to suppress our tribal nature. We have to understand and learn to live with it, in a humane and civilized fashion.

But, of course, we don't - and couldn't possibly - suppress our tribal nature, it being far too much a part of us. Instead, it is manipulated and exploited by the STATE, capital and organized religion for their own ends, which, since dawn of civilization, revolve around facilitating the self-exploitation of human society (under the guise of "service"), as an artificial ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

The state has always wrapped itself in the gab of NATION (the natural extension of our tribe), in order to legitimize itself and lay claim to the powerful emotions of shared identity and loyalty we evolved to feel towards it.

Like other American presidents, President Obama is always referring to the "American PEOPLE" and the "American NATION", but both are a LIE and (self)-deception, taken over from its British origins and necessary to maintain the authority and POWER of the American STATE, along with the status quo of wealth, power and privilege, which of course includes its liberal elite, who are as keen to maintain the LIE and self-deception which equates STATE and NATION as anyone else, and in the form of Liberal Fascism, (see Jonah Goldberg) even more so.

The "hatred" that Michael Tomasky detects in the "white crowd", I suggest, is the sub- or semi-conscious expression of European-Americans' tribal nature, rebelling against its suppression and forced redirected towards a multi-ethnic American STATE, masquerading as a NATION, when its natural tendency, of course (notwithstanding the taboo against admitting it, even to oneself), is towards its own ethnic group, i.e. towards people it can relate to spontaneously, even strangers, as members of one's own, or of a closely related, tribe.

The IDEOLOGY and POWER politics of multi-ethnic society

2009-11-13T13:26:00.002Z

In response to the same Guardian article as previous post.

We need to recognize and develop an understanding of the POWER politics of mass immigration and multiethnic society, which isn't just about the provision of cheap foreign labour for state and capital, but also about the imposition of a racial IDEOLOGY (the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) which the STATE uses to claim a spurious "moral high ground" for itself, in order to facilitate its control of society, just as Christian ideology (theology) once was, and as Islamic ideology (theology) still is in most Muslim countries.

It is the ideology of "one-human-race-ism", of "colourblindness", of "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political significance except to evil "racists".

But far from being of no social or political significance, race and ethnicity have always been, and still are, of central importance to any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity (because we evolved as TRIBAL animals), vital to a genuine sense of nationhood (as opposed to statehood), the natural extension of our original TRIBE, and social solidarity, which cannot possibly arise spontaneously (except towards individuals) in a multi-ethnic society, but has to be imposed by moral imperatives from above, which the state then uses - is using, massively! - to control society for its own ends.

The problem is that so many people (currently, the vast majority) identify with the STATE, and are rewarded for doing so.

The MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society

2009-11-13T10:49:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Why so defensive on migration, Brown? by Tim finch, who argues in favour of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society.

When will we recognise the MADNESS of our ruling elites in inviting mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent?

Thereby we have created a multiethnic society and melting pot, which isn't a genuine society at all (not that what existed before was either), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT (of "human resources"), which suits the purposes of both state and capital (as they have developed over the centuries), who service and exploit them in facilitating society's self-exploitation to the advantage of those in wealth, power and privilege.

Those who collaborate with the state are rewarded, of course (as are the immigrants who come from much poorer countries), and are now particularly concentrated in politics, academia and the media, with their strangle-hold on public opinion.

Social solidarity must be cultivated from our tribal nature, not imposed by moral imperatives

2009-11-13T05:46:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article, Cameron is halfway there on society, by Lisa Harker

Our country no longer pulls together as it should. But materialism, not big government, has damaged social solidarity

Feelings of social solidarity are an evolutionary adaptation to the individual's dependency (for survival and reproductive success) on their TRIBE.

Extending such feeling of solidarity beyond one's own tribe is fraught with difficulties, which favourable circumstances may briefly overcome, but only for as long as they last (e.g. helping a stranger in need, for example) or can be maintained. Notwithstanding that some individuals may convince themselves (perversely and/or opportunistically) that EVERYONE belongs to their TRIBE, which, of course, is what the STATE and universalist religions and ideologies, for their own, self-serving purposes, encourage us all to do.

If we want the genuine, deeply rooted social solidarity, so sorely lacking, which our leaders, and Lisa here, are always appealing to and for, then we have to cultivate and develop it from our evolved tribal nature (which we need to develop a far better understanding of), instead of trying to impose it through moral imperatives, which invariably are largely motivated by the (subconscious) intention of exploiting it to unfair advantage.

The STATE has always appealed for social solidarity, which is then exploited to the advantage of its powerful and privileged elites. And established religions do the same. In claiming to SERVE society, their primary (subconscious) purpose is to exploit it, to their own advantage.

This is not to say that the state and established religion do not serve society. They do, of course, and we depend on them. But their primary purpose is to maintain society as an ENVIRONMENT to be exploited to the advantage of those in wealth, power and privilege.

Once we recognise and develop and understanding of this, we can begin to transform our civilization from the human environment it is now (full of "human resources" for the (self)-exploitation of) into genuine human societies (for the conscious and rational realization of human potential).

The mis- and missed use of Darwin

2009-11-12T17:20:00.011Z

LINK to Guardian article, The misuses of Darwin, by Simon Underdown

What evolutionary theory should teach us is that man is not just a social animal, but also very much a tribal animal, behaviourally adapted to two very different environments (his own tribe, on the one hand, and everything external to it, including other, rival, tribes, on the other) that no longer exist separately, but have merged to form the single, artificial environment of human civilization, where the primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success continues, but is misplace and rationalized, perverted, largely to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in its multifarious forms, over others, e.g. money, the moral high ground (which established religions specialize in, although now rivaled by "progressives" and the liberal-left), social and professional status, etc. etc.

Darwin, i.e. a human-evolutionary perspective, has a great deal to teach us about ourselves and our civilization, i.e. the power structures of state and economy on which it is based, but because such a perspective would undermine these very power structures, and the positions of those who profit from them, by exposing the lies and (self)-deceptions on which they in turn are based, there are massive taboos in place preventing it, for which the failings of social Darwinism and the horrors of Nazism are just a very convenient justification.

The STATE - the traitor in our midst

2009-11-11T11:52:00.002Z

I've just got back from a local Remembrance Service for the members of the armed forces who served in both world wars at RAF Fairlop.

What struck me was has how symbols of the state (flags and the national anthem) were central to the whole event. The state that sends its citizens off to war, after creating the conditions for it in the first place . . .

The STATE - the traitor in our midst, the ultimate cause of all our woes.

But what to do about it, when it is ourselves, ultimately, who constitute the state and have allowed ourselves to become so dependent on it . . ?

Understanding the "Liberal fascist" state

2009-11-11T10:11:00.001Z

Jonah Goldberg has given us a good description - in part, at least - of Liberal Fascism as it manifests itself in modern Britain and especially America, but says nothing about its origins in man's Darwinian nature, which drives him to exploit not just the natural environment, but also the artificially environment of human society itself, where the power structures of state and economy, under the guise of serving everyone in a supposed extension of their original tribe, were instituted, and continue to be maintained, by the powerful and influential (in politics, business, academia, the media, etc.) to facilitate their own advantage.

What blinds us to reality?

2009-11-11T08:15:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, Too fearful to publicise peak oil reality by Madeleine Bunting

. . in reply to the Queen's question of a few years hence, we did see it coming but we chose to ignore it.

It's not just peak oil, but the depletion of many natural resources and the Limits to Growth (i.e. the planet's carrying capacity) in general, which some of us have seen coming and been warning about for DECADES, certainly since the early 1970's, when I became aware of the issues.

The fact that we - or, more to the point, those in power and influence in politics, business, academia and the media - chose to ignore, deny or massively play down its importance, will have devastating consequences, not for those responsible, of course, who soon enough, if not already, will be dead and gone, but for those who are still young . . .

It is too late to change that now, although we might still reduce the scale of the pending catastrophe and greatly increase our (children's) changes of survival and recovery. But before we can even do this, we must recognize and develop an understanding of what caused us (and those we trusted to lead us) to ignore, deny or massively play down the importance of what should have been (was to me) blatantly obvious: the inherent non-sustainability of our socioeconomic order, and of many of the values, attitudes and aspirations which underlie it.

What makes this so difficult for us to recognise is that these values, attitudes and aspirations, along with the subconscious motivations behind them, and the political and economic power structures they have given rise to, are themselves deeply rooted in our own Darwinian nature, i.e. the drive to exploit our environment (both natural and human) to our own personal (and immediate family's) advantage.

Until we recognise and develop an understanding of this (the perverted and rationalized self-exploitation of our own society as an environment), the situation, especially for our children, will remain hopeless.

The unrecognized Darwinian nature of our civilization

2009-11-11T05:57:00.003Z

LINK to Guardian's edited extract of David Cameron's Hugo Young lecture.

What is seen in principle as an act of social solidarity has in practice led to the greatest atomisation of our society. The once natural bonds that existed between people – of duty and responsibility – have been replaced with the synthetic bonds of the state – regulation and bureaucracy.

I couldn't agree more.

We need to use the state to remake society.

I couldn't agree less.

I don't question Mr. Cameron's sincerity in wanting to create a better society, but like those who went before him, he cannot possibly succeed - other than marginally, perhaps - because he and his colleagues, along with the social and political scientists who inspire and advise them, fail to recognise, even in outline, let alone understand, the true nature of society and of its political and economic institutions.

In this they are like those in power and privilege 400 years ago, who also failed (refused) to recognised or understand the true nature of the World, the Copernican revolution, which had been initiated more than 50 years before, not having yet made much headway against the vested interests of the powerful and privileged in maintaining the misconceptions associated with the status quo.

It is now 150 years since Darwin published his famous book On the Origin of Species, with its implied and later elaborated implications for our understanding of the evolutionary origins of our own species, yet we still refuse to extend this knowledge to an understanding of the development of human society and its institutions.

The main rationalization for not doing so, and making a taboo of it, is the unpleasant experiences made with Social Darwinism, which misused Darwin's theory to justify existing social and racial inequalities, and led to the Nazis basing their criminally insane ideology of a Germanic master race on it.

There is, of course, another, far more powerful, reason for the refusal to take a Darwinian view of our own society: the fact that it would expose its social, political and economic power structures for what they really are, thereby undermining their legitimacy and acceptance, along with the positions of those in power and privilege.

But until we do, we cannot understand our society or right its ills.

The perverted tribal nature of the STATE

2009-11-09T08:35:00.000Z

LINK to Guardian article, Fort Hood and the new McCarthyism, by HA Hellyer

These tensions between American Muslims and non-Muslim Americans (like those which led to McCarthyism) have their source in the (perverted Darwinian) nature of the STATE and its false assumption of NATIONHOOD, i.e. of being the natural extension of our original TRIBE and legitimate heir to the deep feelings of identity and loyalty we evolved to have towards it.

But because we are all so dependent on the state, few dare question its fundamental nature or legitimacy.

The importance of our tribal nature

2009-11-09T06:54:00.001Z

LINK to Guardian article by Peter Preston, which nicely illustrates our much neglected tribal nature.

An interesting article, which provides a vivid illustration of just how deeply tribal we humans are, of what really counts, so far as our deepest emotions are concerned, is our personal relationships and interactions, not just with our immediate friends and family, but also with our extended family, or TRIBE.

In the light of what we now know about human evolutionary origins, it is easy to understand why this is the case, and why - were we to overcome the taboo against recognising it - in modern mass society, there is so much unhappiness, mental illness and anti-social behaviour, most of it perfectly legal and respectable, even greatly admired, such as being stinking rich, and thus (perversely) quite independent of any tribe.

We have the potential for such strong emotional interactions and bonds with our tribe, because when human emotions and behaviour patterns were evolving, long before the rise of civilization, the individual depended completely on his or her tribe for survival and reproductive success.

As small tribes were coerced (by shared security interests, on the one hand, and individual opportunism on the other) into ever larger tribal groups, eventually culminating in states and empires, the individual's original tribe was subordinated (as "local communities") and eventually lost almost completely (in modern mass society), its place (along with most of the emotional and material dependencies associated with it) being taken by the state (and a money economy).

Team sports, military and economic units of organization, for example, offer, and exploit, a more personal experience of our tribal nature, but all are subordinated, ultimately, to the demands and purposes of the state, which sees (sells and imposes) itself as a nation, the natural extension of and heir to our original tribes.

We have all been conditioned to see the state - i.e. our idealization of it, if not its reality - in this rosy light, and because of our emotional and material dependency on it, it is very difficult (in many states, illegal) even to question; but question it we must, if we are to understand our situation and the mounting problems (social, political, economic and environmental) which now threaten our very survival.

Religion in the context of Darwinian civilization

2009-11-08T17:22:00.002Z

LINK to Guardian article by a couple of atheists, Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk, arguing against the political power of organized religion.

We need to understand organized religion (as opposed to the individual's religious feelings, which many professed atheists also have) within the context of the Darwinian nature of human society itself.

The Darwinian nature of human society . . ??

Indeed! If man is a product of Darwinian evolution, as I assume most of us agree he is, it is reasonable to assume that the social, political and economic institutions he has created (including organized religion) are also deeply Darwinian in nature, albeit in a perverted way, because the human environment itself (i.e. the "society", or extension of our original tribe, we are (self)-deceived into seeing it as) has become the venue of man's misplace but continuing primordial struggle for survival, advantage and (reproductive) "success", where it is largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in its multifarious forms.

Who can doubt that in modern western society, "success" is no longer seen as the number of viable progeny an individual produces, but in the POWER they possess over others, especially in the form of money, but also in the form of social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.

It is the moral high ground (based on the word of God), rather than the sword or property rights, which forms the power base of organized religion (notwithstanding the importance of property rights too for some religions), and is why the Church complemented the aristocracy (with its military power) so nicely when it came to initially creating and developing the institutions of the STATE.

When our own state became more secular and democratic, its institutions didn't suddenly become less Darwinian, i.e. no longer primarily adapted to facilitating society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its dominant elites. There were shifts in power, of course, and with so much material wealth being created by industrialization and technological progress, a huge expansion and diversification of society's privileged elites, all striving to maintain or change the socioeconomic environment to their own perceived advantage - or that of their clients - and always rationalized as the social or moral good.

These clients might now reside anywhere in the social spectrum, with moral brownie points (and often government grants, in exchange for votes) associated with any section of society seen as being disadvantage.

From this, Darwinian, perspective, one sees that it is now not just organized religion with seeks power and advantage by laying claim to the moral high ground for itself, but the liberal-left, so-called "progressives" and others besides, and very well it has served many of them, especially in politics and the media.

Some may see this perspective as cynical, but I assure you, it is not; it is utterly realistic, and the sooner others (those who mean well on the liberal left and elsewhere) recognise this, the sooner we can start to develop an understanding of it and make some real progress in resolving our pressing, and increasingly dire, problems. But not before, because all we have at the moment is self-deception and confusion.

Which discovery has most improved your life?

2009-11-07T18:31:00.016Z

LINK to Guardian article in response to Science Museum poll

The most important discovery, in my view, was that of life's, and especially our own, evolutionary origins, which must now be extended, with some urgency, to an understanding of human civilization itself.

This, before civilization's self-exploitation through our misplaced and perverted, but rationalized and thus unrecognized, Darwinian behaviour patterns (which the power structures of state and economy developed to facilitate) leads to its, and our own, self-destruction.

My second choice, after Darwinian evolution, is MONEY.

Can you imagine having to pay for everything in cows or bits of cow, or shoes, or whatever it is you produce yourself . . ?!