The common source of lawful and unlawful crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 . . ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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 . . ?!

Preserving the peace in multi-ethnic Britain

LINK to Guardian article, The many gods of Ilford, by Abhinav Ramnarayan


An interesting and sympathetic article, which I was attracted to because I myself live quite close to the Ilford temple.

Whereby I can't help thinking of the urgent need for us ALL to face up to the fact that we really are an overcrowded country, which, if we want to continue living in peace together, needs to decrease rather than increase its population. We also need to stop the state trying to impose its shallow ideas of British identity on everyone, when we all known that most immigrants are here to take advantage of the much more favourable (political and socioeconomic) environment than the one they left behind.

Let us drop the ideology, pretence and self-deception, and face up to reality, so that we can deal with the situation that the Madness of allowing mass immigration, of culturally and/or racially very different peoples into our ethnically relatively homogeneous, but already overpopulated country, has created, in a peaceful and civilized fashion, before a ruthless Mother Nature takes her course and has us tearing at each others throats.

Assuming this gets passed the moderation (which I don't expect it to do), it will, no doubt, be interpreted by some as "inflammatory". But that is not how it is intended. I want a happy ending, i.e. future, for us all (native, especially, because that's what I am, but also immigrant, not least because there are a few that I know personally and am fond of), rather than the environmental and human catastrophe towards which we are currently heading, i.e. being driven by the stupidity (and perverted Darwinian drive for power) of our ruling elites with their hare-brained state ideology of "colourblindness", i.e. indifference to ethnic difference, when shared ethnic identity lies at the heart of true nationhood and a genuinely civil society.

Equatorial Guinea coup plot reveals Darwinian nature of Civilization

LINK to Guardian article by Marina Hyde on the Equatorial Guinea coup plot involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher.

Sit back and await the joy of Simon the singing canary.

And while doing so, one might like to reflect on the Darwinian nature of the civilization in which this scene is set, and that of our own roles in it . . .

Nidal Hassan: murderer or martyr . . ?

LINK to Guardian article, American, for better or worse, by Michael Tomasky, in response to the massacre of American soldiers at Fort Hood by the Palestinian-American, Nidal Hassan.

I have a different interpretation of this horrific incident, as that of an individual lashing out in vain desperation against the STATE which he feels (justifiably, I would argue) has betrayed him and what he believes in and identifies with most deeply.

If more of us were to recognise how the STATE betrays us ALL (or at least, most of us, who are not its select favourites), like an abusive parent we are fatally attached to through our material and emotional dependency on it (the state having usurped our original tribe), we could begin organizing OURSELVES, rationally and non-violently, into a more just, humane and sustainable society.


Texasforever writes:

. . there is not, never has been, and never will be a nation based on "morality"

Like most people, you are equating the STATE, and its perverted Darwinian nature, with NATION, and its unperverted Darwinian nature.

Conflation of the two (deliberately promoted by the state, of course) has thus far in human history prevented the nation from developing in a humane and rational (e.g. non-violent) fashion from its deeply social and tribal roots.

State interest in suppressing ethnic identity as "racism"

LINK to Guardian article, How volleyball and pop have shaken China's idea of race, by Isabel Hilton

Mulefish wrote:

Hybrids are genetically superior generally. That's the science of it, and the top and bottom of it, and the beauty of it.

That is not just "racism" of the kind generally equated - quite wrongly, in my view - with "racial prejudice", but something altogether much nastier: the assumption of a mixed-race MASTER RACE - a complete, but equally vile, inversion of the Nazi notion of a German master race.

This notion of a mixed-race master race is, of course, being promoted vigorously, but implicitly, by the "liberal fascist" state (see Jonah Goldberg), with its self-serving ideology of "colourblindness", of indifference to ethnic different, and of "race doesn't matter", i.e. is of no social or political importance, except to evil "racists".

It will be interesting to see whether the Chinese state attempts to impose the same ideology. I doubt it, some how, since it would surely bring about its own rapid demise. Because in reality, when not suppressed, people are not "colourblind", i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, and race DOES matter, because of its role in determining an individual's sense of personal and group identity, thereby making it of great social and political importance.

It is an importance which the STATE currently refuses to acknowledge, suppressing it instead (very effectively, by condemning it as evil "racism"), just as it originally suppressed tribal identity and loyalties amongst racially indistinguishable peoples, in order to claim them for itself.

The state got away with the deception of covering the - essentially, though perverted, Darwinian - power structures of statehood with the stolen mantle of nationhood, when racial and ethnic differences were minimal, but won't be able keep up the pretence for much longer, now that they are so much larger - especially if China faces up to the social and political significance of race.

LINK to Guardian article, 1989 changed the world. But where now for Europe? by Timothy Garton Ash

The one thing it [the 1989 revolution] did not change was human nature.

True enough. Neither did it do much to improve our understanding of human nature itself, or of the civilization it has given rise to (i.e. the power structures of state and economy) - all of which is essentially Darwinian. Only we are forbidden from recognizing or acknowledging it as such. Instead we force ourselves to continue the pretence of being rational, rather than Darwinian, animals, with academics like TGA providing us here with their professionally "rationalized" view of our situation.

But like the rest of us - and, if anything, being an academic, even less inclined to admit it - TGA is far more Darwinian than rational. His professionally "rationalized" view of our situation is really a load of bollocks (no matter how eruditely and academically he may package it), that serves his own - misplaced, perverted and unrecognized (because largely subconscious) - Darwinian purpose of exploiting his environment (our globalized civilization) to his personal (and immediate family's) advantage.

In the past, when only small (state/national) elites were in a position to freely exploit both their natural and human environment, using modest technical means which barely impacted global resources and carrying capacity, the situation, notwithstanding its gross injustices and inhumanity, was essentially sustainable, with some civilizations lasting 100s or even 1000s of years.

But now, with EVERYONE - in "progressive" ideological theory, at least - free to exploit both the natural and human environment for what they can get out of them (and in denial of its perverted Darwinian nature), the situation is very different indeed, and wholly unsustainable.

"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.