Racism, or statism?

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This is as true now as it was 10,000 years ago, the only difference being that the material dependency on our tribe has been replaced by a dependency on the STATE and a MONEY economy.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The state taboo against admitting racial prejudice

LINK to Guardian article, Britons need to start talking about race, by Lola Adesioye

While Americans are quite open about the prejudices in their society, we Brits like to pretend that we don't have them.

That is because in Britain everyone is under massive social, political and economic pressure to pretend that they don't have them, especially those making a career for themselves in politics or the media, who between them dominate public opinion, and where (feigned) "colourblindness" (indifference to ethnic difference) is a condition of employment. You would never gain admittance, or immediately be out on your ear, if you were to admit to any feelings of racial prejudice.

If there is one thing which characterizes human nature, however, it is prejudice. We are all stuffed full of it - including racial prejudice. But because state ideology condemns it as evil, i.e. "racist", most people suppress and deny it, even to themselves.

Very few (only those who are genuinely "colourblind") in politics or the media can afford to be honest, even with themselves or behind closed doors, about how they really feel about race and ethnicity.