Michael Moore's Naivety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From President Obama's State of the Union speech:

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

What a load of statist nonsense. . !!

The problem of economic growth

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Liberal statists

Hi John,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Politico-socio-economic Darwinism

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

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

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

Britain: a "mercenary society"

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

 

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

Is our ONLY choice to vote for the BNP?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of NATION:

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