Sunday, 14 May 2017

Open Letter to Prince Charles

In response to his call for a Sustainability Revolution.

Dear Prince Charles

In your book, Harmony, you say the following:

“The Earth is under threat”. It cannot cope with all that we demand of it . . . If we want to hand on to our children and grandchildren a much more durable way of operating in the world, then we have to embark on what I can only describe as a ‘Sustainability Revolution’ - and with some urgency”.

I agree entirely.

Influenced - like you, I suspect - by books such as E F Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, Meadow’s The Limits to Growth, and Herbert Gruhl’s Ein Planet wird Gep√ľndert (We are Plundering our Planet), the whole essence of which is contained in its title, I came to this same conclusion in the early 1970s - more than 40 years ago!

Clearly, you were also an early convert to the realisation that we couldn’t carry on as we were, but needed a radical change of values and behaviour, in respect to the economy and the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it engendered and depended on. We were placing an increasingly unsustainable drain and strain on the finite natural resources and carrying capacity of our vulnerable and already (even back then) overpopulated planet, which the very survival of our civilisation clearly depended on us putting an end to. There HAD to be a Sustainability Revolution.

I was young and naively expected those in positions of power and influence to recognise this too and take appropriate action. I was greatly encouraged by many eminent individuals, including yourself, who clearly shared my perspective and concerns.

When I eventually realised that, despite all the fine words and good intentions, the radical change of course towards a sustainable economy and ways of life wasn’t happening, and wasn’t going to happen  (on the contrary, the socio-economic order of consumer capitalism responsible in the West for our suicidal direction of travel, was emphatically endorsed by our leaders and put into “turbo mode”), I set my mind to trying to understand the cause of such madness. How could such an intelligent race as our own, capable of putting men on the Moon, be so blind and stupid when it came to the existential need to develop a sustainable global economy and ways of life?

It took a long time, but eventually I discovered what I believe to be the answer. Again, despite being older and wiser, I naively expected those in positions of authority in academia, to recognise the importance of my discovery; but again - thus far, at least - this hasn’t happened. When I’ve tried to communicate my insights and ideas to academics and others, they have not listened, or, if they have, have dismissed them, usually with distain as a form of “social Darwinism” - which I’ll come back to.

The obvious explanation for my ideas being ignored or dismissed is, of course, that they are rubbish, that I am deluding myself about their importance. After all, who am I to judge? 

Then again, who is anyone to judge?  We look to academics as authorities in understanding the human condition and situation, but as my discovery (which is indeed based on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective) reveals, it is a mistake to expect academics to have a realistic understanding of the society, state and economy they themselves, like everyone else, are utterly dependent on, and thus quite incapable of viewing objectively.

Undeterred by the lack of academic interest in my ideas, I’ve continued to develop them and explore their implications for understanding human nature and behaviour (individual, social, political and economic) which evolved, in the natural and very tribal environment as it existed for human beings long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it.

From what I know of your views, you look to “old wisdom” as your main source of inspiration in facing up to the existential challenge of achieving a Sustainability Revolution, while my inspiration is based on the relatively “new wisdom” generally associated with the name of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. I don’t reject the “old wisdom”, where it makes good sense, but see it as part of our historical heritage, which is a mixed bag of ideas and values, which need to be assessed very critically.

The Abrahamic idea of man being a sinner, i.e. a fallen angel, for having disobeyed divine (i.e. priestly/state) authority is a very bad idea, or at least, one well past its sell-by date. I see man very differently, as an aspiring ape. We have to rise above our primitive Darwinian nature, but first we must acknowledge and develop an understanding of it, rather than making it a taboo, which a previous generation of academics did in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism

So, what does an evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective tell us about ourselves and our situation, which academics, because of their self-interested blindness to the true nature of the state and the taboo they themselves put in place, are missing?

First of all, it tells us that the human brain must have evolved to want (subconsciously more than consciously) to maintain the environment on which it depends and has been “successful” in. Clearly, we ALL depend on the socio-economic status quo and don’t want it changing to our own personal disadvantage.

This means that everyone who is anyone in society, whose “success” within it has given them any degree of power or influence, is the least inclined to want radical change. Or if, like you, they recognise the vital need for radical change, they will, nevertheless, still be subconsciously very much inclined to envisage only the kind of changes which preserve their own privileged position within the changed socioeconomic order/environment.

This is a difficult obstacle to get around, rather like trying to jump over one’s own shadow. We have to trick our brain into recognising what it (subconsciously) doesn’t want to recognise, either ignoring or rationalising it. It is a difficult trick to pull off, not least, because we can never be sure that we have succeeded, are not just rationalising and deceiving ourselves at a deeper level. We have to remain sceptical and self-critical.

If I feel with some confidence that I have got closer than most to the truth, it is because mainstream (academic) understanding of the human condition and situation is so badly misconceived, the academic brain being no different from other human brains in respect to its inclination to rationalise the state and status quo to suit its own, personal, self-interests. 

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics are privileged clients and employees of their respective "patron state", with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as a "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial/formerly religious), on which the state bases its claims to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Secondly, a human-evolutionary perspective reveals how the state and the society associated with it conflate and confound very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, with the so-called “nation state” now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival.

This is why all past civilisations were bound to a cycle of boom and bust which eventually led to their demise, as happened to ancient Greek and Roman civilisation. 

Our own civilisation is bound to the same cycle. The present, unprecedented, boom phase, will soon be followed by an equally unprecedented and likely terminal bust phase. 

Our failure to face up to the challenge of a sustainability revolution will, of course, play a major role in our civilisation’s demise. But so long as we fail to recognise the true nature of the state and its primary role of facilitating society’s self-exploitation, there is no way we can rise to this challenge.

I’m not a doom-monger, any more than you are when you warn of the dire consequences of us failing to achieve sustainability, but a realist - and an optimist. 

If we continue on our present course, we are doomed. That’s just a fact that you and I have been aware of for a long time. It is probably too late now to avoid a degree of civilisational collapse in the decades ahead, which will be terrible enough, but we could still reduce its scale, overall damage to the biosphere and bio-diversity, and greatly increase our children’s and grandchildren’s chances of survival and recovery.

However, before we can embark on the Sustainability Revolution in earnest, we have to develop a much better understanding of society and the state, along the lines I have indicated above.

As heir to the British throne, you are in a uniquely influential position to promote such an understanding and to play a leading role in the revolution that would follow from it.

The question is, are you up to it?

I’m optimistic, but at the same time realistic in respect to just how big a challenge this would be for you.

All I can do is present my ideas and hope that they resonate with you.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

P.S. I know, you receive piles of letters every week and are very unlikely to actually read this one. For this reaon, I will publish it as an open letter on my blog, where others might also read it, and who knows, perhaps someone who knows you personally will recognise its relevance and bring it to your attention.


P.P.S. A few years ago I watched live coverage of the Queen's Speech to both houses of Parliament, in which your mother read out the government’s plans for the coming legislative period.  

My overwhelming impression was of it being a ritual humiliation of the monarch, who is required to present the government’s plans as if they were her own, when everyone knows they are not.  

You will be expected to do the same in due course and, given public knowledge of your views on many issues, I shudder at the thought of you allowing yourself to be similarly humiliated, especially in view of you usually having more enlightened ideas than any British government is likely to have.

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

This is something I recently posted on the closed Facebook page of Applied Evolutionary Psychology, which I am making generally available here on my own blog.

I’ve been observing the changes in ethnic composition in London, my city of birth, as a consequence of mass immigration, since I was a child in the 1950s and my responses to it, along with those of family, friends, acquaintances and others.
The responses I have observed have been overwhelmingly negative, essentially xenophobic, which is in stark contrast to the attitude of government, which demonises xenophobia and encourages people to celebrate DIVERSITY, i.e. their own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (white Britons have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of their major cities) and ultimate demise as the country’s indigenous and dominant ethnic/racial group.
Why (not for the first time) am I bringing this subject up here? Because I believe that evolutionary psychology can explain this madness, which is what it is. It’s Orwellian and totally insane, which does not bode well for the future.
Homo sapiens evolved as a tribal and territorial animal, so of course we are going to respond xenophobically to an influx of strangers. It would be unnatural, unhuman, not to.
Western governments, it would seem, are deliberately (but not necessarily consciously) provoking xenophobia in their native populations, in order to condemn it and claim a spurious moral authority for themselves, and the power that goes with it.
It is, I have come to realise, a modern, secular incarnation of the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, ”colour-blind” and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors”. 
It is no coincidence that we are taught subliminally to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our tribal nature, despite it being absolutely central to who and what we are as human beings, when what we should really do is study and understand it. This, however, would deprive the state of its ability to manipulate and exploit our tribal nature for its own purposes the way it has been accustomed to do for centuries.
Being a very tribal animal also makes us a very moral animal, which the state uses to intimidate and control us, but there is virtually no awareness of this, even amongst academia, because of the lack of an evolutionary perspective, which is a consequence of a previous generation of academics having made a taboo of it, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which is what evolutionary psychology and anthropology used to be called.
The problem for evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists is that much more influential social and political scientists, in the service of their state employer, are professionally committed to this madness, which, of course, they fail to recognise as such. If you try pointing it out to them, they stonewall you, and if you persist it might well cost you your job and career, just as criticising church ideology would have done in the past (in medieval times it might have cost you your life). 
I suspect that most of you already know this at some level and are therefor very careful about what you say and who you say it to, as we all have to be on this and related issues.
The social and political sciences, trapped as they are in a pre-Darwinian dark age, are leading western society badly (fatally) astray, and the only ones qualified to challenge them are evolutionary biologists, psychologists and anthropologists. 
These ideas undermine mainstream academic and state authority, which is fraught with danger, but to allow this state-sponsored madness to continue can only lead to disaster. The encouragement by much of mainstream academia of continued mass immigration into Europe is like priming a powder keg, which will eventually explode, but anyone pointing this out is dismissed as a xenophobe, along with xenophobia itself which is simply seen as an evil to be suppressed, rather than as an aspect of human tribal nature which we need to understand and work WITH rather than against the grain of.
I’m not an academic myself, which has made it easier for me to overcome the taboos which might cost an academic their career, but it means that I lack authority. My ideas are simply ignored. I know, the ideas of academics are also often ignored, but when enough academics with highly regarded reputations promote the same ideas, they tend to be listened to.
Without wanting to sound alarmist, time is running out. If we don’t get our act together soon, and succeed in dragging the social and political sciences out of their pre-Darwinian dark age, it will be too late and the consequences catastrophic.

The blogs linked to below are a bit repetitive, I'm afraid, but I hope also complementary, and provide a reasonable account of, not all, but much of, my thinking:

Wednesday, 28 September 2016


Having recently created the hashtag #contrapot, I thought I’d better explain what I mean by it.

In overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid) the West’s ruling elites embraced an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

The Nazis made a big, nasty and totally misconceived issue of race, seeing profound racial differences where they did not exist, between the closely related peoples of Europe, including  European Jews.

In the aftermath of these horrors there was an understandable overreaction, especially by academics (and, for obvious reasons, even more especially by Jewish academics), who went to the opposite extreme of denying the importance, even the very existence, of race altogether.

Despite being inherent to human nature, prejudice and xenophobia were blamed for the Holocaust and demonised, which is like blaming and demonising male sexuality for rape.

This extreme overreaction should have been recognised for the madness it was and corrected long ago, but wasn’t, because quickly incorporated into the state's age-old state strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a “morally superior”, now supposedly unprejudiced, ”colour-blind” and xenophilic, elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their supposed "moral superiors”.

This new, secular, ideology of divide and rule was of little use as a replacement for church ideology in the essentially mono-racially white societies which comprised the West prior to WW2, where there was little opportunity to accuse transgressors of prejudice, xenophobia or racism (Jim Crow America and Apartheid South Africa being notable exceptions, of course), so multi-racial and multi-cultural societies were created in their place, via mass immigration from relatively poor, non-European countries, which comprised people of different race (conveniently advertised by their darker skin colour) and culture, which also served state and capital as a welcome source of cheap and complaint foreign labour.

Anyone objecting to immigration or the changing ethnic composition of their neighbourhood or society was dismissed as a bigot, nativist, xenophobe or racist. Only relatively recently, with mass migration to the UK of white Europeans has it become possible to criticise immigration at all, without it automatically resulting in accusations of racism.

Post-racial multiculturalism now serves the state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

It doesn’t seem credible that classically democratic states like Britain, France and the USA would inflict such madness on their own people, but they have, and are, with other western states following suit.

Because it is so incredible, it is very difficult to recognise. Added to which, it is also a very painful and frightening thing to recognise: that the state we trust and identify with as our nation should betray us in such a fashion. How can it be possible? The whole purpose of the “nation state” is to serve its people’s collective self-interests - surely?

I’m afraid not. The primary purpose of the state is very different from what we have been led to believe by academics (formerly churchmen), who are looked upon as authorities, but are privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, with a massive personal self-interest (sub-conscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as a “nation”), and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious) on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

The state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival. This binds all civilisations to a cycle of boom and bust, eventually resulting in their complete demise, as in the case ancient Greece and Rome. Western civilisation, thanks to its development of science and technology, has  boomed like none other before it, but its bust phase is fast approaching, if not already upon us. The way things look at the moment, it is very unlikely that it will survive this present century, especially since the situation is compounded by our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet's compromised ability to support us.

It is a prospect that very few - especially those with children and grandchildren - are prepared to countenance, preferring instead to allow themselves to be deceived by professional optimists (mainly academics and politicians) who deceive themselves first hand.

The state does serve us, of course, and we are all completely dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock; which is not for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost of injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

The state is like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents (our original tribes and nations) before we were born, and brought us up to believe that it was our natural, caring parent, i.e. nation, with all its children’s, i.e. citizens’, best interests at heart, when in fact, its real purpose is to facilitate our self-abuse and exploitation, which is now rapidly leading to our civilisation’s self-destruction.

This explains the otherwise inexplicable self-betrayal we are currently experiencing, but which very few are aware of. Most of what is happening is being driven by subconscious forces, in fact, by our own Darwinian nature, which has been perverted by the artificial environment to civilisation itself.

It is, admittedly, difficult to get one’s head around, but once you do, everything starts to make a lot more sense. And once we understand the madness, we can start to think rationally about how to put and end to it, hopefully before it puts an end to us.

It is important to recognise it as “self-betrayal”, because blaming “others” only makes our situation worse, preventing us from uniting and putting an end to the madness. Instead, we just fight amongst ourselves as we head towards the abyss. It is what happened to ancient Greece and Rome, and is currently also happening to us.

Post-racial multicultural ideology and the government policies it has inspired have led to many western cities, such as London, becoming a melting pot for all humanity. People of different race and culture are officially encouraged to mix, integrate and assimilate, which is pretty Orwellian, when you think about it, because it destroys the very diversity its adherents claim to love and want us all to celebrate.

Human racial and cultural diversity is a consequence of populations having been more or less isolated from each other in the past. Bring them together in a city like London and what you create is a melting pot in which this diversity will gradually dissolve and disappear. In overreaction to the Nazi’s insane notion of a "pure" Germanic master race, we have gone to the opposite extreme of trying to create a “mixed-race master race”. Those seeking to maintain their racial identity by opposing the melting pot (especially if they belong to the non-Jewish white majority) are demonised as racists or white supremacists (a blind eye is turned to ethnic minorities, which, naturally enough, are often just as keen to retain their racial/ethnic identity as white people).

Post-racial multiculturalism might also be called “one-human-racism”, or the “ideology of the Pot”, and those who support it, “people of the Pot” (“miscegenate man”, as opposed to “ethnic man”). Britain has a “Pot Parliament”, committed to white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which promotes racial mixing in the melting pot of the post-racial multicultural society it has engineered and imposed on British society by demonising anyone who opposes it as “racist”.

It is not just the British state, of course. The French and American states have done the same, as, to varying degrees, have all western “democracies”. The power-political method to this madness I have already explained.

My opposition to state ideology of the Pot I call “Contrapot”. Thus the hashtag.

Evolution wired our very tribal brains to see things in terms of “them and us”, and it is better to go with the grain of human nature rather than against it.

We each need to decide which side we are on: Pot or Contrapot? It has to be one or the other.

Which ever side you choose, or while you remain undecided, it is important not to demonise the other side. The revolution I am hoping for cannot be achieved by force, violence or intimidation, but only peacefully and with respect, for others and for the rule of law. The truism, "united we stand, divided we fall", is indeed true. The very survival of our civilisation depends on us uniting, which we cannot do if we are hating and fighting each other, or trying to impose our own views on others, even when encouraged to do so by the state.

Multi-ethnic society has been imposed on us by the state using lies, deceit, force, intimidation and rewards (as you would expect from an abusive step-parent), but we cannot free ourselves from it using the same methods by which it was imposed. In fact, we can’t free ourselves from it, unless we use force and inflict grave injustice on others, which I certainly do not want to do. We must learn to live with it now, but in such a way that it is genuinely enriching for all concerned. At the moment it is Orwellian in nature, imposed as it is by the state, deceitfully posing as our nation, via a system of rewards & intimidation.

Contrapot is defined by its non-violent and respectful opposition to the Pot, i.e. the oxymoronic absurdity of multi-ethnic nationhood, which is what the British and other western governments seek to impose on their countries. But opposition is not enough. It must offer an alternative, or at least point in a direction that will lead to an alternative. So much has to change in the radical reformation of society and the state that it will take some time, years, if not decades.

Challenging the authority of the state is a tricky thing to do, given its immense power and our dependency on it (both material and emotional, so long as we identify with it as our nation), but it has to be done, so that we can carry out the radical reforms to it that are necessary, if it is to serve our long-term survival and well-being, rather our self-exploitation and self-destruction, as it has done up until now.

There is a lot more to be said, some of which I say in the blogs I link to below, but this will have to do for now.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

The State, The Matrix & The One

I recently submitted the following to the op-ed section of the NYT

Dear Editors,

If I were to tell you that I am The One, a real-life Neo, here to save humanity from The Matrix, you would take me for a nutter or a joker. Nutters don’t usually realise they are nutters, so perhaps that is what I am, but let’s assume, if you will bear with me, that I’m a joker, and that many a true word is sometimes spoken in jest.

The Matrix, as I see it, is not a near-future creation by intelligent machines, as it was in the film, but an ancient creation of man himself, which has developed over the centuries and long dominated the world. I am referring to civilisation itself, i.e. the STATES which comprise it, in their various forms, notwithstanding that relatively recent developments have given rise to a single, increasingly global, civilisation 

We are all so immersed in, subjectively familiar with, and dependent on the state, i.e. the society it provides a distinctive framework for, that we fail to recognise it for what it is, just as we once failed to recognise the true nature of the material universe. I am referring especially to academics, who are generally seen as experts and authorities in their particular field of study. Today's social and political scientists, who are responsible for our understanding of society, the state and civilisation are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, and mainstream society with them.

To make a historical, instead of a cinematic, analogy, one might see me as a modern-day Galileo, challenging the established world view. While Galileo challenged the Church's Earth-centred view of the universe with the more realistic Copernican view, I'm challenging modern academia's anti-Darwinian view of society with a pro-Darwinian view.

Pro-Darwinian, anti-Darwinian! What am I talking about? Perhaps I am a nutter.

In overreaction to the horrors and evil of Nazism (something the NYT itself warned its readers about in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris terrorist attack last November), which hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism to justify its own insane racial ideology, ruthless eugenics and euthanasia programmes, and wars of aggression, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of the whole idea of applying Darwin's ideas to their own species, despite this being the only way to understand ourselves, human societies, the state and our situation.

What a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective reveals is that the state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern, deceptively named, "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment, which we are also exploiting to destruction) to the narrow and short-sighted personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large, which must ultimately lead to its self-destruction. Thus, the passing of all earlier civilisations, including those of ancient Greece and Rome, the precursors of modern European/western civilisation, which is now rapidly approaching its own self-demise.

The state is like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents (our original tribes and nations) before we had any contact with them (although we retain a race memory of what a genuine nation should be like), bringing us up to believe that it was our nation (our natural loving parents) with our, its citizens, best interests at heart, when in fact, its primary purpose is to facilitate our self-abuse and exploitation, playing us off one against the other in a self-harming and ultimately self-destructive fashion.

The state does serve us, of course, and we are all very dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost of injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

Because of the taboo against viewing their own species from a Darwinian perspective (based on the fear of it leading down the same path the Nazis followed) academics fail to recognise the cycle of civilisational boom and bust that has thus far put an end to all civilisations, and will soon put an end to our own.

I don’t have Neo’s super powers to impress and convince others with. All I have are insights into the perverted Darwinian nature of the state and civilisation itself, which mainstream academics are loath to recognise, least it undermine their own status as favoured clients and employees of the state. They won't admit this, of course, even to themselves, preferring instead to demonise my ideas by associating them with Nazism, i.e. the Devil, just as their priestly predecessors once did with Galileo's ideas.

Those who want to free themselves from the Matrix of state power and delusion, I invite to test my ideas with their own reason. Many - initially, at least - will prefer to stay within the Matrix of their delusions about the state and status quo, so long as it seems to be working for them, which it may do for a while longer, but not for very much longer, because already we are exceeding the limits of our planet’s ability to support the grossly materialistic civilisation and economy on which we currently all depend.

If our civilisation is to survive and prosper, there must be rapid and radical change, i.e. revolution, which we have an understandable aversion to, our brain being wired to want to preserve the socio-economic environment on which it depends and has been successful in, as everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence, invariably has been. The thought of radical change scares the shit out of us, so that even as we recognise the urgent need for radical change, our brains rationalise and defend the status quo, thus preventing us from taking the necessary action.

So, I have now revealed myself to you as The One. The question is, will you pass this information on to your readers by publishing it in your op-ed section, so that they can decide for themselves whether I am a nutter, a joker or, perhaps, someone with the insights that will enable us to understand our situation and correct the self-destructive course our civilisation is on?

I can guess the answer to this question, which is both yes and no. You will publish it one day, I think, but not yet. In the meantime, I shall post it on my own blog, followed by subsequent posts in which I will elaborate on these ideas further.

Friday, 20 November 2015

What does science tell us about race and racism?

This was the title of an event at the Royal Institution on Thursday 19th November 2015, in which Radio 4's Inside Science presenter, Adam Rutherford, "hosted a panel of experts including Kenan Malik, Aoife McLysaght and Heidi Mirza for an evidence-based discussion of an always controversial subject".

I sent this email to the organisers, prior to the event, to which I received no response:

Dear Organisers,

Before we can have a meaningful discussion of “racism” we must clarify what we mean by it.

When it means racial hatred, as practiced by the Nazis, or racial supremacism, as practiced not just by the Nazis, but also under Jim Crow and Apartheid, then clearly it is an evil that all right-minded people are opposed to.

However, “racism” is now also equated with racial prejudice, which is absurd, because as human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, including race. We wouldn’t be human if we were free of prejudice. And anyone claiming to be so is either a scoundrel (a “moral supremacist”) or deluding themselves.

We have a natural, surely evolved and inherent, inclination to identify with and favour those most like ourselves and our own family members. This doesn’t mean that we hate, or think ourselves superior to anyone who isn’t like ourselves, but it does tend to make us prejudiced in favour of our own family, tribe, ethnic group and - dare I say it? - race.

The question is, WHY have natural human prejudices been equated with the evil of racism?

The answer, I suggest, is political, power-political. It is a modern manifestation of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite (supposedly free of racial prejudice) and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors”.

The biological basis of race is not unimportant (especially in respect to medicine), but has very little bearing on racial prejudice. We are an inherently and intensely tribal animal, so whenever ethnic differences are perceived (and clearly, we all do perceive them) there is bound to be prejudice.

If politicians want to demonise and exploit this in pursuit of political advantage, that (sadly) is their business, but it is not - or shouldn’t be - the business of scientists and academics, whose business it is to understand things (in this instance, human nature and the prejudices that go with it), so that we are better able to deal with them in a rational and civilised fashion.

I look forward to hearing what your speakers have to say about “race and racism” on Thursday of next week.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

The discussion was disappointing, although pretty much what I had expected. The "experts" dedicated themselves to defending state racial ideology (as their jobs in academia and the media, of course, oblige them to), which dismisses race as a "social construct", despite all the evidence suggesting that it is real and important. 

Racism wasn't discussed at all, but simply used, as usual, to demonise anyone who disagrees with state racial ideology or admits to perfectly natural and healthy racial prejudices, which, if we are honest with ourselves (which the "experts" clearly aren't), we ALL have.

Link to BLOGS in which I elaborate further on my "racist" ideas.

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

An Appeal to Nationalists

An appeal NOT to be provoked to violence by the insane response of some European governments to the refugee crisis.

Are the Swedish and German governments DELIBERATELY provoking nationalists to acts of violence with their insane response to refugee crisis, in order to gain political advantage from it?

Whatever the answer, I implore nationalists not to allow themselves to be provoked to violence, especially against refugees or immigrants. They are not to blame. Nationalist anger should be directed at those responsible for this madness, which is our OWN ruling elites.

Anger, but not violence, which will harm, rather than help our cause.

We must sublimate our anger into developing an understanding of WHY our ruling elites are behaving in this self-harming and ultimately self-destructive way, just as they were doing 100 years ago in their respective side’s pursuit of “victory” in WW1. Most of them are not bad people, just deluded and misguided.

Our ruling elites behave as they do, because of the very nature of the state itself, which academics are not being honest with us - or themselves - about, because as privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, they have a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

There are no "nation states", but only mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.

The primary purpose of the state has ALWAYS been to facilitate society's SELF-exploitation (which it is the role of its priestly/now academic elite to hide, not just from society at large, but from themselves as well, by self-deception), which is why all past civilisations have declined and disappeared, as will ours, and soon, unless we quickly recognise and develop an understanding of the true, perverted Darwinian, nature of the state, and reform it accordingly.

Here's an INTRODUCTION to the true nature of the state which, above all, we need academics to take heed of.

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Nuclear Deterrent, Yes; Trident, No!

Unless it is placed under shared control with our closest allies, who would also be required to share the costs.

Nuclear weapons and their proliferation is one of the biggest threats facing mankind, yet our politicians are currently proving incapable of dealing with it. The way things stand - and are developing - at the moment, it is just a matter of time before, through design, accident, or misunderstanding nuclear weapons are used, and thousand, millions, possibly 10s or even 100s of millions of people will die, perhaps not in the initial exchange, but in the aftermath. And our children will look back and ask WHY?! WHY did WE allow this development, this INSANITY, to happen?

The British and French governments (which, as a European, are the ones that concern me directly and on which I may exert some, very small, influence) have both signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are very strongly opposed to other governments acquiring nuclear weapons, but hypocritically they insist on retaining and periodically updating their own nuclear arsenals and delivery systems.

All the arguments put forward for retaining our own nuclear capability can be (and are) also put forward by other governments (Iran, for example), the rejection of which by Britain and France is blatant hypocrisy.

If there is to be any hope of curbing nuclear proliferation the British and French governments must be persuaded of the necessity for THEM to relinquish their own independent, national nuclear deterrents, handing them over to an international authority, which it should be our urgent priority to work out a structure for and to create. Not an easy task, granted, but an urgent and absolutely essential one.

Advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament would be folly, since it would be an invitation to other, nuclear-armed governments, less democratic and well-intentioned than our own, to dominate us through nuclear blackmail, or even attack. We NEED a nuclear deterrent, but it needs to be under democratic international control, instead of national control. 

It is the desire (perceived need) of state governments for their own "national" deterrents, i.e. the power and status that goes with them, which is driving, and will continue to drive, nuclear proliferation. 

Thus, it is imperative that Britain and France take the initiative in finding a way of placing their own national deterrents under international control (perhaps in stages, in order to facilitate the process). Once they have done that, then they will be in a position, credibly and without hypocrisy, to demand from other governments that they do not seek to acquire national nuclear deterrents as well.

Finding the right structure for this international authority is absolutely essential, because of the trust that must necessarily be placed in it. It will not be an easy task, so the sooner we set about it in earnest the better.