Multi-National Socialism

I ended my last post acknowledging that undermining the authority of the state by exposing its true, mercenary, nature would lead to accusations of inviting ethnic conflict.

Such fears are not unfounded, since although the primary purpose and function of the STATE is - as it always has been - to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, it has other functions as well, some of which are vital to us all. The most important is enforcing the rule of law and non-violence, without which different regions or factions (originally, tribes) would become embroiled in bloody conflict.

Thus, there are certain functions of the state which have to be maintained, even as exposure of its true nature undermines its authority, especially its false claim to nationhood and to being the legitimate heir of one's original TRIBE, along with the loyalty and commitment evolution hard-wired us to feel towards it.

The state is analogous with a wicked step-parent, who disposed of our natural parents before we had any memory of them and has brought us up to believe that he or she (the father or nanny state) is our natural, loving parent, whom we owe our love and loyalty. The problem is that we cannot help being both materially and emotionally dependent on the state. Freeing ourselves from both these dependencies is going to take time and effort, and is likely to be painful. However, we owe it to ourselves, and natural parents (our true nation) to make the effort and bear the pain.

Rather than just hating the state, as one is inclined to do on recognising its true nature, better to understand it as a product of our own Darwinian nature, seeking to exploit its environment, which now, largely and perversely, comprises human society itself. Once enough of us have recognised and understood this and the situation it places us in, we can begin to do something about it.

To do that we need to organise OURSELVES (instead of the state and capital doing it for us) into genuine nations. Yes, nations! Because we will never all agree on just one nation, and need to get away from having ONE imposed on us by the state. Thus, Britain will become not just a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, but also a multi-national society.

Multi-ethnic actually means multi-national, anyway, ethnic being derived from Greek ETHNOS = a PEOPLE or a NATION.

It goes without saying – or should do – that members of the same COMMUNITY also belong to the same NATION.

I know, this is all very confusing, and it's our confusion which the state (our wicked step-parent) and capital exploit in exerting their control over us.

The confusion results from the conflation of the two very different environments in which human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved over millions of years, long before the advent of civilisation, the state and capitalism. One was the “familiar” environment of our TRIBE, the other the natural environment external to it, which included other, non-related, tribes (related tribes, when they came together, formed a nation). The former was characterised by familiarity, trust, mutuality, shared identity and destiny, the latter by unfamiliarity, mistrust (fear) and the need to exploit it in the struggle for survival.

The conflation of these two environments is embodied in the STATE, which has conditioned us to see and trust it as the natural heir to our tribe, so as to facilitate society’s self-exploitation, as if it were the natural environment, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege.

Within our original tribe, shared property (certainly in respect to land) and mutualism (the ideas behind “socialism”) would have been the norm. The reason that socialism could not be made to work in the modern world is because it was always imposed, or implemented, from above by the STATE, whose inherent primary purpose is the very opposite, i.e. to facilitate society's self-exploitation.

Nationalism and socialism have both been thoroughly discredited through being hijacked and embraced by the STATE (most devastatingly by the Nazis, who incorporated both concepts in their name, after the motto: if you have a nasty product you want to sell, associate it with very positive concepts, something that, like the Nazis, the tobacco industry, or their advertising agents, were also very clever at doing). However, the concepts themselves are of vital importance, because both relate back to our original TRIBE and human nature as it evolved therein.

The concept of nationalism derives from our sense of identity with and loyalty to our tribe, from which socialism (sharing with one's kin) naturally follows.

Thus, what I propose we develop as replacement for the existing socio-economic order of mercenary state and capitalist economy, is MULTI-NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

Which finally gets me to where I can address the fear that undermining the authority of the state (of our wicked step-parent) will lead to ethnic conflict. That is a danger, of course. But by being aware of it, we can hopefully avoid, or at least, minimise it, since the real conflict is not between nations (ethnic groups), but between NATIONALISTS (those openly committed to their own ethnic group) and STATISTS.

What about people of mixed race, or who want to belong to a multi-ethnic nation? They will form a nation, or nations, of their own: a nation amongst other nations. And so long as they respect other (mono-ethnic) nations wish to retain their ethnic/racial identity, rather than trying to force them into a melting pot, as the state currently does, there need be no conflict.

It is worth noting that a “multi-ethnic nation” will inevitably become mono-ethnic over time as individuals intermarry and produce an increasingly, and ultimately wholly, mixed-race population.

The ethnic group that I spontaneously identify with and recognise as constituting my NATION – or SUPERNATION, if you prefer – are ETHNIC EUROPEANS – not the most numerous of nations, but potentially by far the most powerful. Power, which if wisely used, will enable all nations (as opposed to states) to survive the turbulent times ahead and devise a just, humane and sustainable future for humanity.

If you haven't already dismissed me as a nutter, you will probably be wondering where one goes from here, but I think I'd better save that for a subsequent post – notwithstanding that I have already written and published a fair bit on this subject.

WHAT BRITAIN IS AND IS NOT

The MADNESS of allowing mass immigration into our, already natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country (and sub-continent) has resulted in the creation of a multi-ethnic society and state – there is no denying or getting away from that, and the consequences which accompany it.

However, what I do deny, and reject as complete nonsense, is the assumption that Britain is still a NATION. It is not.

Actually, I don't believe that Britain ever was a NATION, but has always been a STATE (like other states) posing as a nation, in order to facilitate its powerful and privileged elites' exploitation of society as a whole. Elites which now include not just aristocrats, clergy and the wealthy, but also those in politics, academia and the media, who between them wield virtually total power in our “democratic” state.

ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION. So, if multi-ethnic Britain is a nation, it is also a multi-national nation, which is manifest nonsense. This is why, in order to aid the (self)-deception, the more ambiguous term “multi-cultural” is generally used.

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

Does this describe multi-ethnic Britain? Of course not, but speaking truth to power, i.e. the STATE, is no easy task.

The immediate response of the state and its apologists is to deflect such an attack on itself as a “racist” attack on immigrants, thereby positioning it/themselves on the unassailable “moral high ground”.

This is the state's first line of defence, which, by exposing its ground plan, I hope to help demolish.

Then suddenly, I find that I have virtually EVERYONE against me – because we ALL depend on the state and, for all its short-comings, don't want it demolished; certainly not the bits that we ourselves personally depend on.

Calm down. I understand your fears. I have them too. I don't want to demolish the state (certainly not before we have something better to put in its place), but to expose it for what it really is and isn't. Since only then will we be in a position to change it – not demolish it. It is state deception and deceit I want to demolish.

Maintaining the deception of British nationhood seems to serve individual interests, especially of those who have done, or are doing well for themselves under its auspices, including members of ethnic minorities (for whom it is a lot better - materially, at least - being “British” than whatever they or their parents or grandparents were before them), but this is a narrow and short-sighted view to have – although, unfortunately, one that the human brain, owing to the conditions it evolved under, is naturally very inclined to favour.

What are the consequences of Britain being not a NATION but a STATE posing as a NATION?

The consequences are that whatever the state attempts to do on the assumption of being our nation, it makes a mess (often a complete mess) of, the evidence for which is all around us, but difficult to recognise, just as a wood, when you are in it, is difficult to see for trees.

The STATE has one essential function, which is to enforce, when need be, peaceful coexistence between the different tribes and nations which comprise it, who might otherwise be at each other's throats.

Social welfare (health, housing, education, care of the old and infirm, etc.) belongs in the hands of the NATION, as the natural extension of one's original TRIBE.

The welfare state only works (and even then very inadequately), as the current recession shows, when there is enough money to pay for it. Money derived from an economy based on the ruthless and unsustainable exploitation of both the natural and human environments, where human beings are reduced to the primary role of “human resource” and “consumer”.

A genuine NATION, in contrast, like the TRIBE, would not depend on money and exploit its own people or damage the natural environment they depend on, but facilitate their mutual well-being and sustainability as a PEOPLE.

To be continued . . . 

The BIG FLAW in David Cameron's BIG SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the party of the national interest

We will always pursue British interests

The state of our nation . . .

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

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

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

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

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

From big government to the big society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vicar convicted over hundreds of fake marriages

LINK to Guardian article.

My comment:

And what about all the perfectly legal arranged marriages  which bring thousands of immigrants into the country every year, and mass immigration in general into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country . . . ?!

The solution to this vitally important issue lies in first recognising the British state for the "fake nation" it is, has always been, responsible for the injustice and inhumanity of massive differences in personal wealth, power and privilege, which characterize it, and, more recently, for the madness of allowing millions of immigrants into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, thereby undermining the population's natural, i.e. ethnic, sense of national identity, in favour of its own mixed and multi-ethnic state, i.e. "fake national", identity.

Having recognised the state for the "fake nation" that it is, we can start to organize OURSELVES, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, into genuine nations of our own free choice (with biometric verification of claimed identity).


Because most people, given man's tribal nature, when given the choice, will identify with their own ethnic group, the state will intensify its attempts to demonize such behaviour as "apartheid" and "racist".

However, it is not "apartheid" (which was imposed) by the South African state) or "racist" at all, but the most natural thing in the world, and the force by which, hopefully, not just the British state, will be transformed to genuinely serve their populations, instead to facilitating their self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege, as they have always done in the past, and continue to do now, notwithstanding all state-sponsored rationalizations and self-deception, to the contrary.

Speaking truth to POWER

Speaking truth to POWER means, above all else, telling the STATE that its historical claim to nationhood, along with the loyalty and obligations that go with it, is based on long-standing deception and misunderstanding, and is therefore invalid.

 

Having spoken truth to POWER, either it didn't hear, or choses to ignore me, in the hope that no one will believe what I am saying and that the deception can be maintained.

Disentangling our conceptions of state and nation

I guess it is relatively easy, especially for someone on the political left, to agree with what I say about society being primarily an ENVIRONMENT for the exploitation of, when it comes to our capitalist economy. But when it comes to the state, although it is equally true, it is much more difficult to recognise, especially for someone on the political left, who sees the state as an instrument for realizing their liberal, socialist, humanist, or whatever, ideals.

Ever since it arose, the state has clothed itself in the mantle of nationhood and demanded for itself the loyalty we evolved to feel towards our original tribe, so it's no wonder that state and nation are seen by most as being one and the same.

It is vitally important, however, that we disentangle them, first conceptually and then emotionally, thus putting ourselves in a position to tackle the difficult task of disentangling them in practice, i.e. politically.

Until we have disentangled them, at least intellectually, any discussion of "citizen ethics" is pretty much a waste of time and energy.

Distinguishing between national and state ethics

In his forward to the Guardian pamphlet, Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis, published in the Guardian, Philip Pullman makes frequent reference to the "nation" - as well he might, since it is to one's tribe and nation (the natural extension of one's tribe) that ethics, not solely, but primarily, relate, since here, after all, within and between closely related tribes, is where human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved.

Philip Pullman, however, makes the usual mistake of conflating state and nation, as if the two were synonymous. They are NOT.

In contrast to the purpose nation, which is to serve its people as justly as possible, that of the of the state is to facilitate society's self-exploitation, as a human ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

Philip Pullman, as a "successful" author, is served very well by the state in this respect, so he is perfectly happy to accept the state in place of a genuine nation. But quite different ethics apply to the two.

Britain's state-imposed multi-ethnic national identity

According to his Guardian profile, "Cole Moreton is an author, journalist and broadcaster", who in his article, England's daft and pleasant land, advances the notion of a multi-ethnic English identity, and that "England is changing colour", by insisting that anyone who has a problem with it is a "racist".

Well, I'm NOT a racist, but I still have a problem with it, because my own sense of English identity has a strong historical, even prehistorical, and ethnic component. If individuals of manifestly non-European origin want to call themselves English, they are free to do so, but it won't mean much to me (unless, perhaps, I get to know them personally), and I shall assert my own distinctive identity by calling myself "native English" (as in native American).

What Cole Moreton is doing is asserting (very unpleasantly, through intimidation) the state's assumed right to impose its own, proprietary and mercenary, definition of national identity on all its, especially indigenous, citizens.

Does the state really have the right to do this? I don't believe it does. What it does have, however, is the POWER, which Mr. Moreton, for reasons of his own perceived self-interest, obviously identifies with.

A prerequisite of working for Britain's liberal media, e.g. the Guardian and BBC, is embracing state ideology of "colourblindness" and of a multi-ethnic British (including English) identity.

Thus, Cole Moreton's article is an expression of his own perceived self-interest in keeping in with state and establishment ideology, and in maintaining the kind of (multi-ethnic) sociopolitical environment in which he personally thrives.

Anyone who opposes him and the state ideology he has embraced he dismisses as a "racist".

The real issue here is not racism, but statism - or, as Jonah Goldberg would call it, "liberal fascism".

Why socialism died before birth

In response to Geoffrey Wheatcroft's lament in today's Guardian of the demise of socialism: Socialism has been buried.

The fundamental mistake made by the political Left in their vain attempts to realise socialism, was to identify with a universalist/internationalist ideology (which served their personal advantage in the socioeconomic status quo), rather than with their own PEOPLE, TRIBE and NATION, which are the only genuine sources of the mutualistic and altruistic behaviour which must lie, necessarily, at socialism's core.

Bizarrely (though understandably, once you recognise their true, subconscious, motivations and self-delusions), by encouraging mass immigration and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society, the Left did more than their fair share to help create a situation in which genuine socialism could not possibly develop.

A prerequisite of a genuinely socialist society is that its members identify with each other as belonging to the same PEOPLE, TRIBE and NATION, because it was in a tribal environment that human nature and and behaviour patterns evolved and are thus adapted to.

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].

The source of confusion about race

LINK to article by Toby Harnden in Saturday's Telegraph, Under Barack Obama, US is obsessed with race but can't talk about it

The source of all this confusion is the false equation of STATE and NATION, which state power has imposed on man's inherently tribal nature since the dawn of civilisation.

When people are ethnically closely related, as members of the same tribe invariably are, the state can get away with it, but not when obvious ethnic differences bear clear witness to the LIE, which, at the moment, we are too terrified to face up to, for fear of the consequences . . .

But, better sooner rather than later, that is what we have to do.

The identity crisis smoldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society

The identity crisis smouldering beneath the powder kegs of western European society is rooted in the suppressed reality of states masquerading as nations.

The nation state has always been a lie (see my other BLOGS), but one which the state was long able to rationalise and disguise behind its services to an utterly dependent population.

The madness of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated subcontinent and the concomitant creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society and melting pot (the very opposite of what constitutes a genuine nation) has torn gaping holes in this disguise, exposing the naked power structures beneath, which we are only just beginning to become aware of, slowly and anxiously in the face of ever more desperate attempts at suppression, mainly through fallacious accusations of "racism".

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.

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 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.

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.