The New Catholicism

In the Middle Ages it was the aristocracy and clergy (Catholic Church) who between them created, managed and controlled the state, thereby facilitating exploitation of the rest of society, i.e. the human environment, to their own, mutual advantage.

In modern Europe (and western civilisation in general) centuries of development have seen the aristocracy replaced by - or incorporated into – a much wider body of capital and professional interests, while the clergy have been largely replaced, i.e. incorporated into, a larger and more diverse body of "moral supremacists", seeking advantage in their social environment by claiming the "moral high ground" for themselves, especially through their universalist ("inclusive", catholic) ideology (e.g. “multi-culturalism”), by equating state and nation, and calling themselves “progressives”.

It is not my intention to demonise capital and professional interests, “progressives”, aristocrats or clergy, but to expose them to the light of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of their role in society, i.e. how they seek to exploit it - as an artificial, socio-economic environment - to their own advantage.

The ancient Greek aphorism, “Know Thyself”, should apply, not just to our individual selves, but also, and most urgently, to the society and civilisation we belong to and depend on.

The truth - which we have been trained and conditioned (in the context of our general self-domestication) not to recognise - is that so-called “human society” serves primarily, not as an extension of our original tribe (the modern nation State), ultimately concerned for the best interests of all its members, as we are (self)-deceived into believing, but as an artificial, socio-economic, ENVIRONMENT, where the primordial, Darwinian, struggle for survival, advantage and “success” has been perverted and largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER in its various forms, e.g. MONEY, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.

Those in a position to do so - naturally enough - attempt to exploit and even shape the human environment (society) to their own perceived advantage, whereby anyone in the public eye (especially in politics, the media, established religion and academia) have to pay particular attention to hiding and rationalising their subliminal, narrowly self-interested motivations as being for the general good. Business and capital, in contrast, are free to be far more honest about their motivations, not just to society at large, but to themselves as well.

The vast majority of politicians, academics, media pundits and churchmen - between them representing the New Catholicism, which, in coalition with capital, completely dominate society - sincerely believe in their own good intentions for society at large, their primary self-interests (in personal POWER, advantage and “success”) being largely subliminal, with only rationalisations allowed into consciousness.

Encased in the darkness of their own subliminal motivations, it is bitterly and tragically ironic that most see themselves as “progressives”, like the medieval church, offering hope and salvation to humanity.

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".

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.

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

From President Obama's State of the Union speech:

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

What a load of statist nonsense. . !!

"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.