Racism, or statism?

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This is as true now as it was 10,000 years ago, the only difference being that the material dependency on our tribe has been replaced by a dependency on the STATE and a MONEY economy.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.

The Darwinian purpose of the state and universalist ideology/religion

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.

The perverted tribal nature of the STATE

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.

"Poppy fascism" and the need for tribal/state (national) unity

LINK to Guardian article, Spare us the phoney poppy apoplexy, by Marina Hyde

A good article, but interesting to note that even those, like Marina and Jon Snow, who speak out against "poppy fascism" are very quick to assure everyone of their fundamental belief in this institution of remembrance, just as those who in earlier times criticized the excesses of Christian zealots left no doubt as to their own fundamental belief in Christianity.

Few had the courage, or could afford, to publicly (or even privately) question the underlying belief itself, which I believe it is very important to understand. Marina goes to the heart of the matter, but then gets things round the wrong way:

"poppy fascism" . . [is] . . a reminder of our hard-wired one‑upmanship and infinite capacity to find ways to divide ourselves.

Fascism, of whatever kind, is an overzealous, forceful, imposition of group conformity and unity. Its purpose is thus to minimize division, not increase it. It's just that some rebel against excessive coercion, thus creating division. This is an expression of the tribalism that is hardwired into us as firmly as "socialism" is (by which I mean the mutualistic social behaviour patterns which evolved within the context of an extended family or tribe). There is an inherent and deeply felt need for "tribal unity", because of its profound importance for the survival of one's tribe, when human behaviour patterns were evolving.

Our original tribe, however, has effectively (but perversely and wholly inadequately) been replaced by the state, which we are coerced, by a regime of (promised) rewards and (threatened) punishments, into identifying with as its legitimate heir, thus leading to the expectation that other tribe/state members (fellow citizens) do likewise, and in like manner.

"Poppy fascism", like the institutional belief it springs from, and which not even Marina or Jon Snow question the validity of, primarily concerns state/tribal (national) unity. Thus, the dead are not remembered for their own sakes (not in this context), but for the sake of national/state unity - ironically, because that is what got them killed in the first place . . .

In truth, the only thing that really unifies us, as British citizens, is our dependency on the British state, which some are able to exploit to a much greater personal advantage than others. And this, of course, notwithstanding the massive taboos against recognising it, is the very purpose for which the state exists.

Saturday 7 November

colacho, I made reference to our "original tribe", which, of course, cannot be reconstructed in the modern world, but to which human nature and behaviour patterns are very much adapted, and which the state has always ruthlessly suppressed, manipulated and exploited to its own ends, which are to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its dominant individuals and elites.

I am sure that your would readily recognize the aristocracy and clergy (who originally cooperated in creating and shaping the state) as belonging to these elites, along with numerous others (merchants, bankers, capitalists, industrialists, etc.) who have joined them over the centuries, but what I guess you don't recognise is that many liberal-lefties and "progressives" (in politics, academia and media especially), in their own, perhaps well-meaning, but self-deceptive way, now also belong to them.

There is nothing "dodgy", as you suggest there is, about my evolutionary psychology. It is time we started applying it (i.e. a human-evolutionary perspective), not just to the details of individual human behaviour, but to our civilization as a whole and the power structures of state and economy in particular.

MickSmetaphor, If you read Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism, you'll learn that liberal democracies like Britain and America have strong fascist elements within them. Fascism is a form of statism and both manipulate and exploit man's inherent tribal nature for their own purposes.

"Progressives" like to deny, or demonize, man's tribal nature, or insist that our tribe is now the whole human species, which is complete ideological nonsense, of course, but serves to give them a spurious moral high ground, from which, like the Catholic Church before them, they derive all kinds of personal advantage in the environment which now comprises human civilization itself.

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

LINK to guardian article - i.e. book review of an ethnographic study of Wall Street by Karen Ho - from which the following quote is taken:

. . . what could be more outlandish than the tribes of Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and . . Goldman Sachs . .

This looks like a very interesting and important book, although I suspect, not having yet read it, that the detail it goes into may obscure, rather than illuminate, the underlying truth contained in the above quote from this review: the fact that these financial institutions really do behave very much as tribes - struggling for survival, advantage (over other tribes) and "success" (for themselves and their members) in their environment, which is the global economy.

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

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