Between December 1968 and December 1972 twenty four men flew to the Moon and returned safely back to Earth. Half of them actually landed and walked on the Moon’s surface.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
After reading an article in the Telegraph on the advantages of single-sex schools, I wondered what the response would be to suggesting that “single-race schools" might also have some advantages. I posted a short comment to this effect, but no more, for fear of bringing the wrath of statists and the PC brigade upon myself.
I might have guessed (which after posting it, I immediately did) that this would result in a challenge to state some of the advantages that single-race schools might offer, which, of course, it did – in exactly the tone of “lets hear what this RACIST has to say for himself”, I had feared:
"Go on then. Sell some cogent arguments about it. Your comment is trolling at its worst - 'I would say something controversial, but I can't, so I'll say it anyway but that gets me out of needing to justify my views. Weak.”
In anticipation, I'd started and virtually finished my initial response even before the challenge arrived:
Firstly, "single-race" schools would challenge the universalistic, cosmopolitan left-wing ideology, which has been imposed on us since the end of WW2, partly to facilitate the mass immigration of cheap foreign labour, that race and ethnic origins don't matter, i.e. are of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis, whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.
I would argue to the contrary, that race and ethnic origins are of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity. After all, “ethnic”, which is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, really means the same things as “national”. It's just that the STATE has hijacked the NATION and the adjective that goes with it.
Secondly, multi-ethnic schools are “melting pots” in which ethnic diversity will dissolve and disappear – not immediately, but in the course of a number of generations. Thus, for those of us – both indigenous and immigrant - who want to retain our ethnic identity, single-race schools are the obvious choice.
The standard statist response to the suggestion of single-race education is to condemn it as a form of “apartheid”, although this is simply not true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. Apartheid was imposed from above by the STATE, just as multi-ethnic schooling is now. Single-race schooling would be entirely optional, for those who want it, e.g. those who want to encourage their children (since they can't force them) to retain and cultivate their own ethnic identity, instead of losing it to the melting pot of globalisation.
Another statist response is the accusation of sharing the Nazi belief in “racial purity”, which again isn't true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. There is no such thing as “racial purity”. What there is, however, and what statists want to (indeed, as statists, must!) suppress, at least in the majority white population, and keep well under control amongst ethnic minorities, is racial or ethnic IDENTITY.
Why? Because the state's (and its government's) own legitimacy and authority rests on its claim to NATIONHOOD. Western democracies do not call themselves “nation states” for nothing. Man is an inherently and intensely TRIBAL animal, which evolved a powerful sense of identity with and loyalty to its TRIBE, which the STATE, as our NATION, now claims to represent.
This is a slightly altered and expanded version of the original, which can be found near the beginning of the thread to the article linked to above.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Saturday, 22 January 2011
What about? Everything! Including race . . .
Why? Because I'm human.
Why does the STATE want me to hate myself for being human? Because that is how, to a large extent, it controls (has always controlled) society: by making people suppress and feel guilty about their natural inclinations. In the past it was “original sin”, especially our sexuality, we were made to feel ashamed of, and dependent on the Church (in the |Middle Ages an essential pillar of the state) for salvation. Now it's “prejudice”, especially “racial prejudice” we are supposed to, deny, suppress and hate ourselves for.
Just as the Church once policed our natural sinfulness and belief in state ideology (i.e. its interpretation of the Bible), now the STATE polices our natural inclination to prejudice and belief in the universalistic, cosmopolitan, left-wing ideology (not coincidentally, the exact, put equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) of “colourblindness”, of race and ethnic origins being of no social or political significance (e.g. for national identity), except to evil “racists”.
It is as natural for us to be prejudiced in favour of our own race as it is to be prejudiced in favour of an attractive member of the opposite sex. When you know someone as an individual, of course, that prejudice is greatly reduced, or disappears entirely – but how many people can we know as individuals? Just a tiny number. The vast majority are, and will always remain, strangers towards whom we are bound to have prejudices.
It is these natural and healthy prejudices, in respect to race and ethnic origins, which the STATE demonises and suppresses, not least, because it falsely claims our tribal and national loyalty for ITSELF.
Of course, we have to control our racial prejudices and inclinations, in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we have to control our sexual prejudices and inclinations. But this is the responsibility of the individual. Only if the individual fails to behave in a civilised fashion by persistently being offensive towards a member of the opposite sex or another ethnic group, is it appropriate for the state to intervene.
If the state were to try telling us what our sexual prejudices should and shouldn't be, we would have no difficultly recognising the absurdity it. But because we are so used to identifying with the state as our nation (although manifestly, it is not), it has been able – up until now, at least – to get away with it.
Friday, 21 January 2011
From a Telegraph opinion piece, “The Equality Duty has no worthwhile purpose“:
“That particularly egregious attempt at social engineering had been labelled ’socialism in one clause’.”
Why does the Right always have to demonise “socialism” by equating it with the Left’s “statism”? Just as the Left demonises (and has thereby succeeded in suppressing) all genuine “nationalism” by equating it with “racism”.
Trouble is, neither side, Right nor Left, recognises what is really going on, how between them they are screwing their own country, their own PEOPLE, as they battle each other for political and/or economic advantage.
And of course there’s another reason why the importance of both “socialism” and “nationalism” is not recognised: “National Socialism”.
Why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? So that everyone would know how evil they were? Of course not. But because, at the time, this combined two VERY positive and appealing concepts (which, propaganda experts that the Nazis were, they knew how to capitalise on). And not without reason: these concepts are of fundamental importance; “socialism” because we are an inherently social animal, “nationalism” because we are inherently tribal (no matter how much the STATE would have us deny, demonise, or trivialise it).
If we want to create a just, humane and sustainable society (the alternative to which is our demise), we have to recognise and understand ourselves as the product of Darwinian evolution that we actually are, no matter how politically incorrect it is considered to be.
There can be no solutions to our social, political, economic or environmental problems without a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of our own human nature and of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.
What state and capital want is not human beings, but “human resources” and/or consumers, only they have to deceive us into believing otherwise.
Just as we domesticated certain animals, so too, and for the same general purpose of exploitation, we also domesticated ourselves, with state and capital training us to serve its purposes as a “human resource” (initially to work the fields and fight battles, then as canon and factory fodder, etc.), and more recently also as a “market”.
This sounds ridiculous, I know, which is partly why we have thus far failed to recognise the truth of it. There is much more to individual lives and human society, of course, but this describes the overall situation pretty well, and offers an explanation for most of our problems, some of which are existential and will put an end to us, unless we come up with solutions.
The German and Japanese states made particularly good jobs of training their “human resources”, which is why their economies have done so well (and why they made such good soldiers). The Chinese state seems to be making a pretty good job of it as well.
Our political, business and media elites look to German economic prowess and growth with envy and want us to emulate them, because they translate into more MONEY and POWER, the pursuit and exercise of which is what our natural Darwinian drive for survival, advantage and reproductive success has been perverted and reduced to, in the artificial environment of human civilisation.
What we need to do, if we want our civilisation to survive, is retrain OURSELVES as HUMAN BEINGS. It’s no good expecting the state or capital to do it for us. Or the church, which, in the service of state and capital, trained us to be good SHEEP.
This was written in response to a recent article about the “relatively” high salaries paid to BBC executives.
The BBC justified the salaries with the standard argument that it has to compete for “talent” with the private sector
Even so, the ca. £140,000 per annum involved seems pretty paltry compared with the millions that some bankers, CEOs, film stars, and others make.
Here a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of the situation:
Evolution adapted us (emotionally and behaviourally) to the “natural environment”, as it existed (on the African savannah, or wherever) long before the advent of civilisation, which represents an “artificial environment” where the intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments that once comprised our natural environment are conflated and confounded.
Thus, what we call “society” represents both our TRIBE (which, in the interests of our collective survival, as a tribe, evolution intended us, to put before our individual self-interests) and the extra-tribal environment, which included other – friendly, rival, enemy or simply unknown – tribes, and which evolution did not hard-wire us to put before ourselves, but on the contrary, to put ourselves and our own tribe first.
Economically, our own tribe has been reduced to just ourselves and immediate family, with the rest of “society” serving as an extra-tribal environment, to be exploited to one's own (family's) advantage. Originally, it was just the aristocracy and clergy (as substitute tribes) which cooperated, through the power structures of the state (which they created), in exploiting the rest of society, but over time other self-interest groups (acting as substitute tribes), especially certain professions, managed to secure advantages for themselves and their members (laid down in the legal power structures of state and economy) in exploiting their extra-tribal, i.e. social, environment.
What this view reveals is the perverted Darwinian nature of our situation and civilisation, which represents an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Unless we can find a way out of it, the relentless self-exploitation of both our natural and human environments will inevitably lead to our self-destruction.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
The elites of so-called developing countries are no more interested in the welfare of their own citizens than Britain’s elites were of theirs in Victorian times. They are just a "human resource" to be exploited and protected against.
The assumption that perpetual economic growth will create enough wealth to lift everyone out of poverty, without restricting the growing wealth of the elites, is pure fantasy.
What’s fundamental wrong with “society” is that it is not a genuine society at all, but an artificial environment, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of.
That’s the problem we have to recognise and understand, if we want to solve it – and survive. Otherwise, our civilisation will self-destruct.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Bankers are a species of tree, as it were, in the wood that represents society.
It is difficult to see the wood for trees, because very different from what we have been taught it is like, and because so much is hidden underground.
It is well known that “power corrupts”, yet when it comes to MONEY, which is the most ubiquitous and important, because most versatile, form of power, we tend to ignore this fact – perhaps because everything and everyone are so depend on it, being woven into the very fabric of society and civilisation.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
From a Telegraph article:
“Miss Giffords and 13 others were wounded, but six people, including a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge, were shot dead as the gunman sprayed bullets from his semi-automatic Glock pistol.”
“Roxanne Osler, whose son had been a friend of Jared Loughner’s, said he had a bad relationship with his parents and had distanced himself from family. ‘I wish people would have taken a better notice of him and gotten him help. … He had nobody, and that’s not a nice place to be.’”
Until recently I’d never been able to make sense of America’s gun laws, which allow so many people to own a gun and results in a huge toll of death and injury. How, I wondered, could a rational and civilised society possibly justify such laws? The answer, I eventually decided, was that America was neither a rational nor a civilised society.
"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].
Let’s not be too critical of bankers’ bonuses, but recognise what they have to tell us – if we are prepared to listen – about the very nature of our “society”: the fact that it serves primarily as an ENVIRONMENT, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage of power wealth and privilege.
“ . . rewarding success is an essential part of what makes a capitalist economy more efficient at delivering prosperity to everyone than any of the alternative systems.”
Official description of current BBC programme (see webpage): Series in which British families are given a look at life in Australia ahead of possible migration.
After watching a few minutes of this inspiring BBC programme, I thought how wonderful it would be to create a similar programme for the benefit of aspiring African and Asian immigrants to Britain or Europe . .
Description of proposed programme: Series in which African and Asian families are given a look at life in Britain ahead of possible migration.
Or perhaps it would be better to have different versions for different continents, or even for different countries. The potential media market here is enormous.
If there are any programme makers or people interested in investing in such a venture, please, do get in touch.
I’ve thought of approaching the BBC, but without being able to explain it to myself, can’t imagine them showing much enthusiasm.
This is in response to a recent piece in the Telegraph, Are white girls really ‘easy meat’? by Andrew Gilligan, the thread to which, with my comment on it, has been removed, whether deliberately or by technical fault, I don’t know.
“One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate.”
“What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities?“
“What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?”