Wednesday, 30 March 2011

Liberal-Fascism & the Race Card

According to liberal-fascist/statist ideology which has come to dominate Britain, America and all western democracies and, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, anyone subscribing to the natural ethnic basis of nationhood and national identity, is a “bigot” or “racist”.
THIS is the “race card” that is ALWAYS on the table and has been used for the past 60 years to undermine national identity (in favour of “state identity”) and to impose the MADNESS of mass immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, along with the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-national nationhood”.
Liberal-fascism/statism is the modern equivalent of the medieval church, both of which were able to exploit a supposed, though largely spurious, “moral high ground” (embodied in their respective ideologies) for power-political and economic advantage.

Saturday, 26 March 2011

One Freedom the State Denies Us

The British STATE guarantees its citizens invaluable rights and freedoms which its native peoples have struggled, fought and died for over the centuries.
However, there is one freedom the STATE denies us, which is the freedom to choose our own NATION, because the STATE itself poses as our NATION, in order to legitimise itself and the POWER it exercises over the people it assumes the authority to grant citizenship to. Most people don’t question the state’s claim to nationhood, but its time we did.
The STATE, of course, will respond by saying that if we were all free to choose our own tribes and nations there would be tribal conflict, as in our distant tribal past, which it is the state’s necessary and legitimate role to prevent happening. And I agree. We need the state, certainly for the time being, to enforce, when necessary, the rule of law and non-violence. But that doesn’t give the state the right to pose as our NATION, when it is not – manifestly so, since going multi-ethnic in such a big way (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, thus making the idea of a “multi-ethnic nation” an oxymoronic absurdity).
The STATE has far too much POWER, because of our dependency on it, most of which needs to be transferred the TRIBES and NATIONS we have yet to organise OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into. Tribes and Nations, not defined, necessarily, by the territory they occupy, which characteristically, is how proprietary and power-oriented states define themselves, but by the PEOPLES who comprise them, who are committed to each other and their common welfare, as a closely related group of people and peoples should be.

Liberal-Fascism & the Tory Right

Why has the Tory Right embraced the liberal-fascist ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race and ethnic origins don’t matter”, i.e. are of no social or political relevance, e.g. for national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis (whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of), imposed on us, along with the madness mass immigration, by capital and the statist Left (within the civil service, BBC and Labour party) since the end of WW2?
For the same reason, I suggest, that European aristocracies, of the “medieval right”, were forced into embracing church ideology of the “medieval left”.
It revolves around the role of the “moral high ground” in power-politics. The aristocracy ruled by the power of the sword, but needed to supplement it with moral authority and legal justification, which was provided by the Church.
As the state established itself, not just militarily, but also as a legal and moral authority, which the population were “educated” into identifying as their nation, the need for physical force diminished.
Thus is the Tory Right as bound by liberal-fascist ideology as was the medieval aristocracy by Church ideology, with both sides, now as then, united by mutual self-interest in wanting to retain their own advantages within the state and status quo.
How do we get ourselves out of this fix, in as peaceful, rational and humane a fashion as possible, before a ruthless Mother Nature intervenes? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our situation. Everything else will follow from that.

Thursday, 24 March 2011

Method, Madness and Multiculturalism

In yesterday's Guardian (Cif), a black actor complained of the wide-spread discrimination against ethnic minority actors, like himself, in British TV, with lead roles being given overwhelmingly to white actors and black and Asian actors being excluded completely from most period dramas (Television’s whites-only shows reach well beyond Midsomer).

I sympathise with how this black actor feels, because obviously he and his fellow ethnic minority actors ARE being discriminated against. But for good reason: until very recent times “people of colour” were virtually absent from Europe and would thus be out of place in most period dramas. The more than 2500 years of recorded history of western, i.e. European, civilisation is “hideously white”, as former director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, might put it.

This exposes a paradox and dilemma: race and ethnic origins aren't supposed to matter in the “post-racial” society we are all supposed to want. But, of course they DO matter, and besides which, we don't ALL want to live in a “post-racial”, i.e. “post-European” society; only we can't say so – at least, not publicly – without being accused of “racism”.

This is the MADNESS of multicultural society, which becomes even more apparent when we use the more correct terms of “multi-ethnic” and “multi-racial” to describe it. “Ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.

The root cause of the paradox the dilemma and the madness is the STATE, which insists on posing as our NATION.

None of this madness would arise if it weren't for the STATE imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us.

Being human, we ALL tend to identity with people like ourselves, certainly until we get to know them personally, when, of course, we may find that someone of our own race, we don't like, while someone of a different race we do. But we can only know a very limited number of people personally; the vast majority will always remain strangers, and thus our inclination to judge and classify them by appearances, i.e. by race and ethnicity, will remain important. The ideal of a “post-racial” society, in which ethnic differences cease to be of any social, political or even personal significance, is just that, an ideal, and a misconceived, power-politically exploited ideal at that. Which brings me to the METHOD in the madness of multiculturalism.

The STATE, the original and still primary purpose of which (evident from a Darwinian perspective of human nature and the social power structures it has given rise to) is to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”, while posing as our NATION, needs those under its jurisdiction, i.e. its citizens, to identity with it as such, in order to lay claim to, manipulate and exploit the powerful tribal loyalty and commitment we evolved to feel towards our original tribe.

Thus, the state's self-interested embrace of the misconceived ideal of a “post-racial” society, a society in which all citizens identity with it as representing them as a PEOPLE and a NATION. Anyone refusing to do so is demonised as a “racist”, much as anyone refusing to accept church (effectively, state) doctrine (ideology) in the Middle Ages was demonised as a non-believer, Jew, heathen, or heretic.

What caused the British state, which was essentially mono-ethnic prior to WW2, to undermine its - thus far, uncontested - claim to nationhood by inviting mass immigration of peoples of completely different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds?

Obviously there were economic reasons, with both state and capital having an interest in cheap foreign labour, but also and far more importantly, yet largely overlooked, there were ideological and power-political reasons, especially on the Left, which opportunistically exploited general public revulsion at the horrors of Nazism (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Apartheid and Jim Crow) by embracing an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, the ideology of “one-human-racism”, of “colour-blindness”, of indifference to ethnic difference, which insisted that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance at all, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. When, in fact, they are of fundamental importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (i.e. national) identity.

Thus, was Left, by denying, demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic basis of nationhood, able to equate all stirrings of genuine national sentiment (positive as well as negative, at least, amongst ethnic Europeans), with Nazi nationalism and the horrors, especially racism, associated with it. Leaving us with STATISM pure, on the one hand, and CONSUMER-CAPITALISM, on the other.

How do we get ourselves out of this mess? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of its causes in the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation.

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

The Approaching Limits to Growth

An increasing number of reports (e.g. “A global energy war looms“, in today’s Telegraph) of looming energy and food shortages, depletion of other scarce natural resources (such as rare earth metals), environmental degradation, climate change and overpopulation, makes me think that we are now fast approaching the “limits to growth” on our finite and vulnerable planet, predicted decades ago – at least since the early 1970s – but effectively ignored by politicians, business interests and the media, who wanted to continue, not just with business and consumption as usual, but by putting consumer-capitalism into turbo mode, so that NOW, instead of having turned the super tanker, which is the global economy, away from the rocks of non-sustainability, or at least being well on the way to doing so, we are STILL heading directly towards them, only even faster (and with DOUBLE the population) than we were before.
Tragically, it seems, the magnitude of the catastrophe we are heading towards will only be recognised in retrospect, by those who survive; who will wonder, WHY those in positions of power and influence, especially in academia and the media, where the best educated, most intelligent and, one would have hoped, impartial, with their central role in advising governments and shaping public opinion, reside, were so BLIND and DEAF to all the warnings.
In fact, it would be a good idea to start wondering about it NOW, because although it is surely too late to prevent the supertanker, Global Economy, from striking the rocks of Earth’s finite resources and carrying capacity, and the massive loss of life which will accompany it, it is not too late to reduce the impact of the catastrophe and loss of life, and increase, at least our OWN children’s chances of survival and recovery.

Sunday, 20 March 2011

The Land of Ideological Colour-Blindness

Trust not the moral supremacists and statists, who claim to be colour-blind, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, for they seek (usually subconsciously) to advance their own interests and advantage by claiming a spurious moral high ground for themselves, and in pandering to the STATE. Better to trust those who admit their prejudices and allegiances towards their OWN (ethnic group), while showing respect for others.
In the land of ideological colour-blindness*, the colour-blind – or those who can feign it – are KINGS (for example, getting all the plum jobs in politics, academia and the media).
* “Colour-blindness” is an ideology which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, based on the moral imperative that race and ethnic origins are no social or political importance, especially for the individual’s primary sense of group, i.e. national, identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.
This is as absurd (because equally extreme) as Nazi racial ideology was (even if not as evil), race and ethnic origins being of profound importance, for most people, for any deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.
What we have here is a state ideology intended to support its spurious claim to nationhood, to representing a NATION and a PEOPLE, from which it derives its authority and POWER.

Saturday, 19 March 2011

Conversation Between a “Racist” and an “Anti-Racist”

The following exchange is between myself, the “racist” and a Guy, the “anit-racist”, posting under the name of GoatFakir, on the thread below the line of an article in the Telegraph, “Martin Nowak: a helping hand for evolution�by Tom Chivers.
Rogerhicks: GoatFakir, Thanks for the dictionary definition [of “tribal”], its derogatory meaning being of particular interest, I think.
Human behaviour is very malleable and complicated, thus often making it difficult to understand the details of, but there can be no doubt that we are an intensely tribal animal, capable of very strong emotions in respect to our sense of group identity and loyalty (because we evolved as a member of an extended family group, or tribe).
This the STATE has always understood how to manipulate and exploit the expression (and suppression) of for its own purposes, by ridiculing, demonising and, when necessary, punishing its unsanctioned expression.
Our tribal nature inclines us strongly to identify with members of our own ethnic group, which the state now demonises as “racist”, at least if you belong to the ethnic white majority. Amongst ethnic minorities the state tolerates (would even have us celebrate) expressions of ethnic identity, because it doesn’t threaten its authority and POWER (at least, not yet), in the way that the expression of white ethnic identity would.
GoatFakir: Ludicrous to even imagine there are white skinned people: pink puce yes. My skin colour is one of the least interesting and least identifying factors about me. How did you come to be so lacking for your inaccurate perception of yours to become your identity?
Rogerhicks: Skin colour in itself, as we all know, isn’t important, except for how long you can expose yourself to the Sun without getting burned. I know Europeans who can tan a lot darker than many “dark-skinned” people. What’s important (extremely important for a tribal animal like ourselves) is its associations with ethnic (tribal) identity.
One might compare skin colour with a national (or rather, state) flag, which is just a piece of patterned and coloured cloth; in itself, like skin colour, completely unimportant. But the associations people make with it are extremely important, millions having died (usually vainly) in wars fighting for them.
GoatFakir: My house has folk from what you’d regard as at least four “ethnicities” and I identify with this group of people. Other loyalties and interests are overtaking racism in their importance thankfully.
Loved the Irish Iranian West Indian wedding I attended a few years back
Rogerhicks: GoatFakir, You are equating my ideas with “racism”, i.e. demonising them, which is, of course, what the STATE wants us all to do, so that IT can lay claim to both your, my and everyone’s tribal loyalty.
It is not for the STATE to tell us what our tribal, i.e. national, identity is. If you want to identify with the British (or whatever) State, you are welcome, but not me. I decide my own tribal, i.e. national identity. And if you want us to be friends, rather than enemies, you must respect that, just as I respect whatever national identity you choose to be, which seems to be a mixed and multi-ethnic national identity.
You choose (or have allowed the state to choose for you) to be “colour-blind”, i.e. indifferent to ethnic difference, and perhaps you really are, which is fine. But most of us are not and are sick of having to pretend (in order to please the state) that we are.
GoatKakir: As I have already pointed out I act independently of state ideology which has often been racist. I fear you ignore clear facts which show also that your racist ideology is on the wane
Rogerhicks: It’s not a “racist” ideology that I am championing, although I appreciate how difficult it is for you to recognise that, your own, statist ideology of “anti-racism” defining itself by declaring all opposition as “racist”.
The Catholic Church did much the same thing, and for the same power-political reasons, in the Middle Ages, condemning any contradiction of its teachings (ideology) as “heresy”.
It is your misconceived “anti-racist” ideology which will soon be on the wane, I hope, just as Catholic ideology was forced to give way to truth and reason, and to people’s desire to define their own identity (whether religious or national), rather than have it dictated to them by the state or church.
GoatFakir: Cap fits. I’m rather more independently minded vis a vis the state than you of course having quit Labour over the racist 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act. Impressed with your practiced dissemblance before breakfast. Now less than engaged with it however.
Rogerhicks: GoatKakir, I’m disappointed that you continue to disparage me, as a “racist” and “dissembler”. Hardly the way to promote understanding and friendship.
However, I’m not holding it against you, since, like most people, you have been seduced into believing state ideology.
As this ideology is increasingly recognised for the statist, power-political tool it is, hopefully, you will come to understand and respect my position.

GoatFakir: You may characterise the dominant ideology of the middle ages and the rising world zeitgeist as the culture of some imaginary “state” but I fear you delude yourself tendentiously.
The catholic church of the middle ages may have seemed like a state: neither the UN nor any other body acts so world wide now In fact the foreign based media of the UK uses racism whenever it can to distract from the growth of world wide multiculturalism and equality.
Rogerhicks: The dominant ideology of the European Middle Ages was Catholicism, which fragmented following the Reformation, before Christian ideologies (belief) in general went into steep decline, leaving something of an ideological power vacuum, which Marxists and fascists succeeded in filling for a time, before ww2 eliminated fascism and disillusionment set in with respect to Marxism/Socialism.
Following ww2, the ideological power vacuum was filled by adoption of an ideology which was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which also fitted in nicely both with state ideology and with the Left’s internationalist, i.e. anti-nationalist, ideology: the ideology of “colourblindness” or “one-human-racism”, of race and ethnic origins being of no social or political importance, i.e. for national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.
Only, race and ethnic origins ARE important, certainly to most individuals, when not forced by state intimidation to suppress and deny it (even to themselves), for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.
This may seem to pose an irresolvable dilemma; but not so, once you realise that the STATE is not a NATION, but just likes posing as one, in order to legitimise its authority (and POWER) over all the people, irrespective of ethnicity, under its jurisdiction.
We can’t simply abolish the STATE, because of our dependency on it, especially for enforcing the rule of law and non-violence (we don’t want to return to the times of tribal warfare), but we do need to understand its perverted Darwinian nature, how it facilitates “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and talent, and is thus inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable, addicted as it is to perpetual economic growth.
GoatFakir: Even the chinese are becoming less racist. They do have the wit to want their economy to grow.
Rogerhicks: The Chinese, I’m afraid aren’t even liberal-statist, as Britain and other western demoncracies are, but just statist, which the MADNESS of their own obsession with perpetual economic growth testifies to.
GoatFakir: Their racism is reducing and they are wise to look for economic growth. Perhaps you should look to your own identity problems rather than externalising them?  Bye.
Rogerhicks: It was my “own identity problems” with the British state abolishing the ethnic basis of its claim to nationhood which motivated me to try and understand what was going on.
I used to identify with Britain as my nation, but no longer can, because, as I’ve come to realise, it is not a nation, but just a mercenary state posing as a nation.
So now, I’m in search of my nation, as I believe everyone should be, so that together we can put an end to the tyranny of statism. Bye.

Friday, 18 March 2011

Conservative Statism

It’s generally assumed that statism is a characteristic of the political Left, which the Tory Right is opposed to, but in fact, both the Left and the Right are committed to the STATE and, in their own rather different ways, each as statist as the other, much as in the past the aristocracy and clergy, who cooperated in creating the state in the first place, were.
The difference between the Left and the Right is that the former wants a big state, the latter a small state; only the perverted Darwinian nature and purpose of the state remains the same in both cases, which is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, talent.
Both sides, Left and Right (in the past, aristocracy and clergy) deny this, of course, each claiming, on the contrary, to SERVE society, which to some extend they do, through the STATE, which we ALL depend on; but as a shepherd serves his flock, which isn’t primarily for the flock’s sake, but for his and/or his employer’s own sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY, i.e. POWER.
It’s important to realise that most individuals on both sides of the political divide sincerely believe that they are not exploiting society, but either behaving neutrally or contributing positively to it; the clergy (or liberal left), for example, by administering to the poor and disadvantage, the aristocracy (or Right), through their contributions to business, government and/or charities.
In reality, there’s a lot more to it than that, of course, with things being incomprehensibly complicated, confused and contradictory. However, if one takes a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of the situation, thereby distancing ourselves, with all our dependences and prejudices, at least to some extent, from it, one can begin to understand it.
Over millions of years of evolution, human emotions and behaviour patterns evolved in response to two interdigitating and interacting, but very different environments: one intra-tribal the other extra-tribal. Then, with the advent of civilisation, along came the STATE, which conflated and confounded them, playing the role of our tribe (and intra-tribal environment) on the one hand, while, on the other, also facilitating society’s self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment. THIS is where all the confusion and contradictions, present in our own society, come from, most of which we simply ignore or rationalise. This is why one moment we see the STATE as our friend and the next as our enemy.
The extent to which we interpret and rationalise the situation (whether particular or general) to suit our own preconceived ideas and advantage cannot be overemphasised. The problem is, it is extremely difficult to see in ourselves, although a lot easier to see in others we disagree with.
It’s difficult to see how we can hope to be objective at all. Certainly, we can never be entirely objective, but I think that by cultivating awareness and understanding, from a Darwinian perspective, of just how subjective and rationalising we are (all of us), we can achieve at least a degree of objectivity.

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Recognising Anti-Social Behaviour

The police are right to stop children picking daffodils, is the title of a Telegraph article which I pretty much agreed with and commented on.
The anti-social behaviour (which is what it is) shown by these parents, who allowed their children to pick whole bunches of flowers in a public park, reminds me of those people who don’t bother to pick up the mess their dogs leave on the pavement for others to tread in.
It also reminds me of bankers bonuses and the kind of grotesquely unfair (and thus also anti-social) income differentials they represent.
“Picking” millions annually from the economy, it seems to me, is no less anti-social than picking daffodils in a public place. It’s just that the former is perfectly legally (because the state “traditionally” favours power and wealth), while the other is not.
I don’t have a problem with income differentials, provided they are fair and proportionate, any more than I have a problem with someone picking a couple of flowers in the park. But when they pick a whole bunch of flowers in the park, or take millions from the economy, that is no longer proportionate or fair and undermines social cohesion and solidarity.
Picking “just a couple” of flowers in the park can be a problem too – if there’s a limited number and a lot of people picking them, which also serves as a good analogy for sustainable/unsustainable human behaviour on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet:
When a few million (even 10s of millions) of people want to drive their own cars and fly off on holiday once or twice a year, it’s not a problem, since quite sustainable. However, when a few billion people want to do the same there is a problem, because unsustainable.

Concern for Ethnic Minorities

According to an article in today’s Telegraph, Karen Buck, shadow work and pensions minister, told the Independent:
“I am very, very concerned about the impact of these cuts on black, Muslim and ethnic minority households, in particular.”
Just what one would expect from a white liberal statist: more concerned for OTHERS than she is for her OWN (Moral Basis of the Liberal-Fascist State).
But, of course, she doesn’t see her fellow indigenous Brits as “her own”, but identifies instead with all humanity that manages to find its way to our shores, and, like her former party leader, Gordon Brown, considers anyone who doesn’t, to be a “bigot” or a “racist”.
THIS clearly illustrates the MADNESS of so-called “British society” and, I guess, western society in general.
Like many other indigenous Brits and ethnic Europeans (I would guess, the majority) I don’t see ethnic majorities as “my own” – unless I happen to know then personally as individuals, which is quite different. The vast majority of ethnic minorities I do not know personally and do not identify with, in contrast to members of my own race (ethnic Europeans) with whom I spontaneously identity – at least, until I get to know them.
Does that make me (and most other native Europeans) a “bigot” and a “racist”? No it doesn’t, although that is what the STATE wants everyone to believe, so that it can continue to pose as our NATION.
What it in fact makes me, is a “nationalist”, someone who decides his own national identity (the natural basis of which is ethnicity), as opposed to a “statist”, who allows the STATE (which suppresses and denies the natural ethnic basis of nationality) to decide it for him.
A racist is someone who hates other races (ethnic groups), which I don’t. I respect them, provide they respect me. But I don’t identity with them as I do with my own race, ethnic group and NATION.
Understandably, this presents a problem to the British STATE, whose legitimacy rests on its claim to representing a single “multi-ethnic nation”, which, in my humble view, is an oxymoronic absurdity.
My national identity is based on how I FEEL, not on how the STATE tells me I should feel.
Are there any other NATIONALIST, like me, out there? I hope so, because we need to start organising ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine NATIONS.
Members of different nations need to respect each other and cooperate in the struggle against STATISM.
What about those who want to continue equating the British STATE with their NATION – people of mixed race, perhaps?
That’s fine, provide they respect other nations, like my own (which is ethnic European), and don’t try demonising us (as the STATE does) as “racists”.
I know quite a few people from ethnic minorities and of mixed-race and hope to remain friends with them. But we have to stop pretending, for the sake of the STATE, to belong to the same NATION

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Midsomer Murders Creator Suspended

My response to the article, “Midsomer Murders creator suspended after calling show ‘the last bastion of Englishness’“, the very lively thread to which has simply disappeared from the Telegraph’s website – hopefully soon to be restored.
An ITV spokesman said: ‘We are shocked and appalled at these personal comments by Brian True-May which are absolutely not shared by anyone at ITV. We are in urgent discussions with All3Media, the producer of Midsomer Murders, who have informed us that they have launched an immediate investigation into the matter and have suspended Mr True-May pending the outcome’.”
The jackboot of “liberal-fascism” doing its work of suppressing honest, majority opinion.
The British STATE itself has betrayed (and continues to betray) its own indigenous peoples.

This is a difficult and painful truth to recognise and face up to. But it’s high time we did. But – and this has to be said and emphasised – in a humane and civilised fashion, because we don’t (I certainly don’t) want the pendulum swinging back to the opposite extreme experienced in Nazi Germany, or even to Apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow America.
The STATE is attempting to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us. It’s the STATE we need to deal with, rather than the symptoms it causes, which we must avoid causing us to scratch ourselves to death; but before we can do that, we must recognise and develop an understanding of its perverted Darwinian nature. It will be an exercise in self-awareness and understanding, because most of us identify with the state, and we don’t want to tear ourselves apart.

Tuesday, 8 March 2011

The Nation as Enemy of the State

My response to the BBC’s new face of religion:
“The BBC’s religious output is overseen by [a Muslim], Aaqil Ahmed, head of religion and ethics”
Yet more evidence for the STATE broadcaster’s central role in undermining the ethnic, cultural and historical basis of Britain’s national identity, thereby strengthening the STATE’S role in determining and enforcing the oxymoronic absurdity of Britain being “multi-ethnic nation” (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION).
And they even manage, thus far, to make us pay (through the licence fee) for our own national undoing. You have to hand it to them, they are clever, very clever (most having passed through our best universities) – like the medieval Catholic Church, which wielded POWER using much the same methods as the BBC now uses, claiming to SERVE “society” with its absolute moral authority, based now not on the Bible, but on the secular ideology of “One-Human-Racism” (an alternative to Marxism), which, not coincidentally, it the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It’s an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance, especially in respect to national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.
This ideology now forms the basis of our liberal-fascist state, which of course capital, as it did with Nazi fascism, has cozied up to. And anyone opposing it is dismissed and condemned as a “xenophobe”, “bigot” or “racist”, just as in the Middle Ages opponents of the church/state (religious) ideology were condemned as “infidels”, “heathens” or “heretics”.

Statist Capitalism or Multi-Nationalist Socialism?

This is written in response to the misconceived hostility towards “socialism” prevalent on this website, and to the Left’s hostility towards “nationalism”.
Superficially, viewed from the Right, “socialism” may seem responsible for most of society’s woes, just as viewed from the Left, “nationalism” does – or did, until the state succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of nationhood with “racism”.
Socialism and nationalism were the most powerful motivating ideas prior to ww2, because deeply rooted in man’s inherent social (socialism) and tribal (nationalism) nature. But being so powerful, both were misappropriated by the STATE or statists, who misused them to their own power-political advantage, whereby giving both the extremely bad names they now have.
The Nazis, being supreme propagandists, went the whole hog in calling themselves “national socialists”, the appeal of which, as a concept, to basic human instincts was doubly profound. This the Nazis abused to an insanely criminal extent, resulting in the concept of “national socialism” being dragged into the abyss along with their evil selves, where it remains to this day, no one daring to go even near it for fear of all its terrible associations.
Which is not just a shame, but a tragedy (representing perhaps Hitler’s ultimate victory over us), the concepts of both nationalism (from nation) and socialism (from social responsibility and solidarity) being vitally important for any healthy, just, humane and sustainable human society, and you can’t have one without the other.
We urgently need to recover the CONCEPT of “national socialism” from the abyss into which the Nazis dragged it, cleanse it of its evil associations and re-examine it. And since much of Nazi nastiness revolved around its mono-nationalistic self-centredness, at the expense of others, I suggest we alter the name to “Multi-National Socialism”.
Another misconception on the Right is that free-market capitalism is anti-statist. It’s not. It just wants a small, non-interventionist state, rather than a large interventionist one. Capitalism needs the state to maintain law and order amongst the work force (the human resources” it exploits) and enforce property rights to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and “talent”.
The primary purpose of the STATE, clearly visible from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, which the political Left and Right merely take different approaches to. Both look to the STATE to serve their own particular (social, political, financial, ideological, or whatever) advantage.
I envisage Multi-National Socialism as a grass-roots-democratic alternative to the statism of both the Left and the Right.
How to proceed? By organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into TRIBES and NATIONS of our OWN creation and choosing, which will cooperate with each other (without the imposed statist pretence of single pseudo-nationhood) in creating alternatives to the oppressive state institutions and non-sustainable, unjust and inhumane capitalist-consumer economy we currently all depend on.
I know how fanciful this all sounds, for which there are understandable psychological reasons. It is very difficult for our brains to imagine anything that is not an extension of existing experience, especially when it is materially and emotionally so dependent on the status quo. It wants to maintain the environment which supports it and gives it an advantage over others, and is thus terrified of truly radical change, even though without it we are doomed.

Monday, 7 March 2011

Oil Price Shock that’s no Surprise

I posted a rather depressing – although quite realistic – comment on the thread of an article in last Friday’s Telegraph, “Oil price shock; you ain’t seen nothing yet“, which I followed with another, more optimistic one, both of which I though worth posting here on my blog.
First post:
Oil price shock
Why the “shock” or surprise? Many of us have seen this coming for decades and been warning about it.
We should have started moving away from a fossil-fuel based economy decades ago, when the necessity was made abundantly clear in numerous publications, but our political and business leaders weren’t interested. Nor the media, which encouraged people not to worry but to follow their leaders example and continue with business and consumption as usual.
The Telegraph was – as it still largely is – particularly dismissive of suggestions that the economy needed to be placed on a sustainable basis.
Still, why should I worry? By the time things start to turn really nasty here in western Europe, with a bit of luck, I shall be dead and gone.
Sorry kids! I’m afraid that we – your parents and grandparents – have screwed up on you. But don’t think we didn’t want the best for you. We did. We were just too stupid, too greedy, too complacent, too distracted (by work, shopping, holidays, providing for YOU etc.) to realise that we were screwing up.
2nd Post:
Despite the above post, and the inherent non-sustainability of our rapacious, growth- and fossil-fuel and other non-renewable-resource depend economy, along with the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it both engenders and depends upon, I see no reason (or excuse) for resignation or despair.
We may not be able to avoid the approaching global catastrophe, but we CAN still reduce its scale and increase our children’s prospects for survival and recovery. The only question is HOW?
Obviously, the first thing an increasing number of people need to do, is come out of denial. Otherwise there’s no hope at all. Keeping our heads in the sand may serve us well, personally, who are soon going to be dead and gone, but that’s hardly a responsible attitude to take towards our children and grandchildren, who will still be alive (hopefully) long after, and who many want children and grandchildren of their own . . .
Then we need to develop an understanding of our situation and how we got into it – why our political and business leaders, aided by the media, led us into denial, instead of facing up to the threat when it was being pointed out to us.
I spent most of the 70s expecting politicians to face up to the issue of sustainability, and then most to the 80s and 90s trying to understand why they weren’t. Why instead, and insanely, they were leading us into denial and encouraging us to carry on with business and life as usual.
The answers I eventually came up with and am still working on (which are in urgent need of being extended and clarified) are based on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding human nature and the social, political, religious and economic power structures it has given rise to over the centuries.
Our situation is essentially a consequence and expression of our own, perverted, Darwinian nature. Only by developing an understanding of it, rather than continuing to deny or rationalise it, is there any hope of us solving our existential 

Sunday, 6 March 2011

Economic Growth: A Darwinian Perspective

In nature there is perpetual growth, at least in respect to successful populations, whose individual members then compete for resources, survival and reproductive success, thereby keeping the population fit and well adapted to its environment, at the cost, however, of all those individuals who are out-competed and perish. It’s harsh, but the way evolution works at this level.
At the level of an individual organism things are very different. Growth is carefully controlled and directed, where it is required, and stopped where it is not. When the control mechanism fails CANCER is the result.
Populations of human “prime apes” are no exception, although there is a strong subjective tendency to assume we are. It’s an assumption which is given some credence by the confusion resulting from most human populations having been organised into STATES, posing as NATIONS, which, when genuine, are a natural extension and abstraction of the individual’s original TRIBE, which developed, as a product of human behavioural evolution, as a kind of super-organism, a level of social organisation which the individual depended on and was thus subordinate to.
Only, the nations states pose as are not genuine, but inventions, to facilitate control and manipulation of the population in question as a “human resource”, and in more recent times, a market, to be exploited to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and TALENT.
States do serve their “human resources”, of course, which are dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, not primarily for the flocks sake, but for his and/or his employer’s sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY.
The exploitation isn’t usually conscious, and when it is, it’s rationalised. Nor is the line between exploiters and exploited always clearly defined, certainly not in the modern world, although in the past it was much clearer, at least with hindsight, with aristocracy and clergy cooperating (one wielding the power of the sword, the other the power of the word) in creating the state itself in order to facilitate “society’s”, i.e. the peasants, exploitation to their shared advantage, while granting privileges to useful members of certain professions, such as bankers, merchants, some artists, inventors, etc.
In this context, it is also important to consider that human behaviour and emotions evolved in response to two very different environments: one intra-tribal the other extra-tribal, which the state effectively conflates and confounds, playing the role of our tribe (and intra-tribal environment) on the one hand, while at the same time, on the other, also facilitating society’s self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment.
It is no wonder that in the modern world, where advancing technology and turbo capitalism have greatly intensified exploitation of both the natural and human environments, “human beings”, who didn’t evolve to be abused as a “resource” or “market”, should feel so stressed and confused, giving rise to so much anti-social and/or self-destructive behaviour.
In trying to understand politicians’ obsession with perpetual economic growth, the MADNESS of which, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, one would have thought obvious even to a child, the following explanation occurred to me:
That it is perhaps an expression of the same instinctive, subconscious drive for reproductive success, which, in the artificial environment of modern “society”, it has come to supplement or even replace. The MADNESS of it to an unblickered intelligence, is hidden by ignoring or rationalising it, as if under the influence of some form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion.
Even now, despite the growing threat of overpopulation, politicians are still desperate to maintain, if not actually increase, their country’s population (by encouraging a higher birth rate and inviting mass immigration). The same also applies to the Catholic Church, which has many characteristics of a STATE, not least of which is its obsession with POWER.
The drive for reproductive success (increasing population) and power (which would greatly increase an individual’s (especially male) chances of survival and mating opportunities, made good evolutionary sense in the natural environment humans evolved in long before the advent of civilisation. But does it continue to make good evolutionary, or any other kind of sense NOW . . . ?
The answer to that question should be obvious. But unfortunately, our brains evolved to “interpret” reality (i.e. its environment, which now largely comprises the civilisation it has itself helped to create) to its own, highly subjective, narrow and short-sighted advantage, the most tragic example of which (although it has yet to play out) is the refusal of our political, business and media elites and leaders to heed the warnings, which began in earnest way back in the early 1970s, relating to the inherent non-sustainability, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, of our rapacious, growth-dependent economy and the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it both engendered and depended on.