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

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

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

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

The BIG FLAW in David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY

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

The BIG, fundamental, FLAW in this vision of BIG SOCIETY, is that Britain is not a NATION, but a proprietary and mercenary STATE, the primary purpose of which (the reason for which it was created in the first place, back in the European Middle Ages by a self-interested coalition of aristocrats and clergy) is to facilitate society's self-exploitation (as a human ENVIRONMENT) to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege, which inevitably includes everyone in a position of any influence. Which is why challenging the status quo always meets with such massive and generally insurmountable resistance. And even when the status quo is radically changed, as in the British (so-called Glorious), American, French and Russian revolutions, a new status quo, with its own powerful and privileged elites, is quickly re-established.

In order to deal with this fundamental flaw, one first has to recognise and develop an understanding of it, which isn't as easy as it may sound, because it requires taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian view of our own human nature and of the power structures (of state and economy) it has given rise to over the centuries, against which there are massive taboos in place: social, political, professional and personal/psychological. Just try suggesting it and see how long it takes before you are accused and silenced by accusations of “social darwinism” . . .

But don't be put off. If we are to deal with this problem, on which the fate of our civilisation (and with it our children and grandchildren) depends, we have no choice but to overcome these taboos and develop a Darwinian understanding of our situation.

We are, after all, animals, albeit very clever ones, a product of Darwinian evolution. Any other understanding of ourselves, our civilisation and the situation we find ourselves in is self-deception, which of course we have always been deeply immersed in. We are far less a “rational animal” than a “rationalising” (and self-deceiving) one.

David Cameron's vision of the BIG SOCIETY is a classic example of just how self-deceived we are. Not that I doubt his sincerity; he is as self-deceived, I'm sure, as he wants the rest of us to be, in respect to Britain being a PEOPLE and a NATION.

In the past it was a deception which could be maintained (to the advantage of society's privileged elites) more easily than it can now that the state, the established churches, the liberal left, and capital have all conspired to create the manifest absurdity of a “multi-ethnic nation”, which they attempt to disguise, from themselves as well as from the rest of us, by calling it “multi-cultural” rather than “multi-ethnic”.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. If multi-cultural/ethnic Britain is a nation, then it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense.

A NATION, also according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].

Does this describe multi-ethnic British society? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. to the STATE, is not easy, especially when we have all been brought up in the belief that it represents our NATION, and thus tend to identify with it, as well as being both materially and emotionally dependent on it.

The STATE is like a nasty and abusive step-parent, who disposed of our natural, loving, parents (the nation) before we had any memory of it, bringing us up to believe in itself as our natural loving parent (i.e. nation), in order to exploit us.

The British state is not a NATION, but a proprietary, mercenary and now multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national STATE, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege.

Wealth and poverty, along with big differences in privilege and disadvantage do not coexist within a NATION (which would be a natural extension of one's original TRIBE), but only within a STATE. Those who believe that the STATE, posing as our NATION, can create a fairer society (as especially those on the Christian and liberal left tend to do) are bound to be disillusioned – although, in the meantime, it provides them with a sense of moral self-righteousness, if not with the material advantages that go with their claim to the moral high ground (a prerequisite for getting a job with the liberal media, for example).

To the OED definition of NATION, I would add the condition that its members must not only be “identified [by others] as a distinct people”, but, far more importantly, must also mutually identify themselves as a distinct people. This, however, contradicts the universalistic ideology of inclusiveness and indifference to ethnic difference (i.e. “colourblindness”), which the established churches (Anglican and Catholic), now joined by self-proclaimed “progressives” and the liberal left, have elevated to a moral imperative (effectively seeing all humankind as a single tribe or nation, which is pious, self-righteous and self-serving nonsense, contrary to our more enlightened human and Darwinian nature).

Thus, we have the STATE (here the Prime Minister) appealing for national unity and solidarity, while at the same time denying - and where it stirs, suppressing as “racist” - the existence of any genuine sense of NATIONHOOD.

Following a very long tradition of the STATE imposing itself on its population as a phoney NATION, and contradicting what he himself says about “people power” as opposed to state power, David Cameron, said, “. . . today I want to tell you about the part we’ve all got to play, and the spirit that will take us through . . “ . I, in contrast, believe that it should be the PEOPLE – or rather, the PEOPLES, who need to organise ourselves, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, which now constitute the British STATE – who tell David Cameron, or whoever the Prime Minister and government are, about the parts we want to play and the spirit which will take us through.

I am well aware of what a profound, sensitive and potentially explosive issue this is, but for those who want to come to grips with the now existential problems of human existence (creating a just, humane and sustainable society), continuing with the self-deception of British (or other state) nationhood is not an option.

I do not want a knee-jerk reaction, of any kind, to what I am saying (especially from the extreme right or left, which tend to be thus inclined), but to initiate a civilised and rational (rather than rationalised) conversation. Developing and spreading a Darwinian understanding of our situation, which is a prerequisite of positive radical change, is going to take a little while, and is best not rushed.

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

This is the party of the national interest

We will always pursue British interests

The state of our nation . . .

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

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

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

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

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

From big government to the big society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavoj Zizek's Multi-Cultural/Ethnic Statism

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

Quote from article:

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

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

A Darwinian View of (British) Society

 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"

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

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

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.