Politics and "the art of the possible"

This is in response to an article by Mike Marqusee, Politics and "the art of the possible", published in today's Guardian under the title, The power of utopianism.

 

What is possible depends, more than anything else, on our understanding of the issues concerned.

 

All the wonders of modern technology and what they have made possible (like sending men to the Moon, and probes to the planets, aviation, modern communications, etc.) were complete fantasy before we developed a much deeper understanding, i.e. created ever more realistic models, of the material world than we had before.

 

The so-called political and social sciences have not advanced as the material sciences have, but are still held up in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, stage of development, because of the massive taboos (social, political, professional and psychological) against anyone taking a comprehensive, human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature and behaviour patterns, along with the civilizations (the power structures of states and economies) they have given rise to.

 

Everything (including, most relevantly, our survival) depends on us recognising the Darwinian nature of our situation and developing an understanding of it. Then, all sorts of things will become possible, such the creation of just, humane and sustainable societies, which now we can only dream of . .

Political left and right complement each other

Our political elites have got things nicely sown up for themselves, with those on the so-called Left and Right complementing each other, much as the aristocracy and clergy did in the Middle Ages. We are deceived (deceive ourselves) into believing that by joining or supporting one side or the other, we are contributing, not just to our own personal interests, but also to social, political and economic progress in general. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth; rather, we are just helping maintain the status quo.

To understand this, one has to recognise the fact - deeply buried beneath centuries of myth and self-deception - that society is, as it always has been, controlled and organized to a very large extent by the state and capital (notwithstanding all the apparent freedoms we now enjoy), not as a genuine society at all (which would be an extension of our original tribe), but primarily as an artificial environment, which they developed to facilitate the exploitation of (to the advantage of some over others) in a misplaced and perverted continuation of Homo sapiens' primordial Darwinian struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", where, however, it is reduced to, and disguised as, the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in its multifarious forms (sometimes complementing, other times contradicting each other), e.g. political office, money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc.

Can philosophy save us?

In response to a Guardian (Cif) article, Can philosophy save us?, by Darragh McManus.

 

I'm blocked from posting on the Guardian's Comment is Free website, I guess, at least in part, because they got fed up with me going on and on about my Darwinian view of human nature and the civilisation it has given rise to - which actually provides the best explanation for the fatal preoccupation with economics, politics and celebrity, which Darragh McManus seems to recognise as a problem and suggests philosophy may offer a solution to.

 

Philosophy, in its most basic (rather than elevated and erudite) form, seeks to understand reality. Very many philosophical questions have, if not entirely, nevertheless to an amazing, mind-boggling extent, been answered by science, although sadly most people (most relevantly, those in positions of power and influence) seem only interested in the political and economic aspects of science, rather than the philosophical ones.

 

The political and social sciences (if they deserve to be called sciences at all) are, it seems to me, at a Ptolemaic stage of development, still awaiting their Copernican - or rather, Darwinian - revolution.

 

Primarily we are still animals, preoccupied with exploiting our environment, which now, perversely, includes human society itself, in continuation of the primordial struggle for survival and (reproductive) "success", only largely reduced to the pursuit and exercise of POWER, in all its forms (e.g. money, social and professional status, the moral high ground, etc).

 

Exploitation of both the natural and human environment (with their natural and human resources), is what politics and economics are all about. Thus our preoccupation with them.

 

If we were to recognise this it would, necessarily, set a revolution in motion, but because no one (already, at a subconscious level) wants that (least of all anyone in a position of wealth, power or privilege), our brains prevent us from doing so. 

Why I am tempted to vote for the BNP

It is not because I like or feel drawn to them - far from it; after reading their website, I have the gravest reservation about voting for them - but because I am so utterly sick of all 3 mainstream parties, not just, but especially in respect to them having imposed the MADNESS of mass immigration on our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country, along with a multi-ethnic society which undermines the whole notion of us being a PEOPLE and a NATION* (I certainly do not FEEL it anymore!).

 

I am not angry with, and certainly do not hate, the immigrants themselves, who one can hardly blame for coming here, given the opportunity, in search of a much higher standard of living and far greater opportunities than they had in their countries of origin, but I am extremely angry with the politicians and other members of our ruling elites (in the civil service, the media and academia) who have imposed this madness on us by accusing of "racism" anyone who dared raise any objections.

 

The British government and authorities usually describe immigrant minorities by their ethnic origins: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Chinese, etc. while the indigenous population are reduced to being called "white British" or "white Irish". Why not "native" or "indigenous" British or European. . ?!

 

Because that is not supposed to matter, is it?! The fact that one is a native or indigenous. Just as race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter (except for ethnic minorities wanting to maintain their identity). Yet no one would dare say that to a native American or Australian, or to any other indigenous people anywhere. ONLY to their own PEOPLE, whom they condemn as "racist" if they dare express any sense of identity as members of the indigenous, ethnic European, population.

 

The BNP, for all its faults (which are many and make it difficult to vote for), is the only party that even acknowledges the existence an indigenous population. For all the other political parties, we natives are just "white British". Why is there no respectable, mainstream party which recognizes the existence of an indigenous population and its overwhelming interest in facing up to the MADNESS of mass immigration and the undermining of national identity which multi-ethnic society has brought about . . ?

 

* 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].

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.

Why is it not racist when it's directed at white people?

This is the title of a popular Facebook page, which frustratingly permits no comments on its wall - I wonder why?

It poses a very interesting and relevant question. Here is my suggested answer:

It is because it is only necessary for the state to intimidate the white majority into denying or condemning any stirrings of a shared ethnic European identity, in preemptive defense of the false claim to nationhood, on which it bases the legitimacy of its power and control over (American/British) society as a whole.

Mass immigration spells disaster for indigenous populations

Mass immigration from distant continents always spells disaster for the indigenous population - whether in the Americas, Australasia, or now, most relevantly, in Western Europe . . !

Unfortunately, it is not the interests of indigenous populations which count, but those of STATE and CAPITAL.

The political left rants against the crimes of capital, but, to its shame, identifies with and embraces those of the state.