Will the World Come To Europe?

This is the title of an article in the NYTimes (LINK) which I submitted a comment on, which however wasn't approved and published, so I'm posting it here:

Mr Douthat's optimism (in respect to mass immigration into Europe) reminds me of mainstream academic opinion at the beginning of the 20th century, BEFORE the outbreak of WW1.

Of course academics are optimistic about the status quo and direction of travel: they are traveling first class and have every reason to be complacent, to not rock the boat.

No offence meant, but in my view, social science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.

Why? Because they are trapped in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age by a taboo against viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective; an understandable, but fatal, overreaction to initial attempts at developing such a view, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology and wars of aggression.

Human nature is inherently and intensely tribal, but instead of developing an understanding of this, so that we can learn to direct it in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, we are taught to trivialise, ridicule or demonise it, leaving the state and capital free to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes.

An understanding of human tribal nature reveals the extreme folly of allowing mass migration into Europe, which is creating a powder keg!

The NYTimes' Unintentional Contempt for Europe

This is my response to a NYTimes editorial, "Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants"(June 5, 2015), encouraging Europe to take in yet more immigrants and asylum seekers. I emailed it to them for publication, which, of course, they didn't do, and is why I'm publishing it here.

If the current wave of immigration into Europe was a one off, I would sympathise with the Editorial Board's attitude in respect to Europe taking the immigrants in, as expressed in last Friday’s editorial, “Europe’s Shared Responsibility for Migrants” (June 5th), but this is not the case. Europe has been experiencing wave after wave of poor-world immigration for decades. We have already taken in millions, and there is no indication that the flood is about to stop anytime soon. On the contrary, all the signs are that the flow of immigrants will continue to grow, as population, poverty and conflict in poor-world countries also grow. 

So long as there is a significant wealth-poverty, freedom and opportunity gradient and little to impede the flow, people will move along it in one direction only, just as heat moves from hot to cold, until equilibrium has been reached, i.e. when conditions in the West cease to attract, which, in the fantasy world of most social and political scientists (especially economists), will be when the poor world is as rich and free and full of opportunities as the West is, but in reality will be when conditions in the West have deteriorated sufficiently.

I can’t believe that members of the Editorial Board are being wilfully or maliciously blind to the long-term consequences of mass poor-world immigration into Europe, so I assume that their blindness has other causes, which, of course, they are also blind to and thus unaware of. 

Clearly, they want to do right by the immigrants and asylum seekers, as individual human beings, who would be hugely helped - in the short to medium term, at least - if allowed to settle in Europe, but far from being a long-term solution, it is a recipe for conflict and disaster on a scale with the potential to exceed even that of the 20th century. The saying, “The way to Hell is paved with good intentions”, springs very much to mind.

Europe, over the centuries, has had its fill of its own inborn ethnic tensions and conflicts (and these between peoples of very similar race, culture, religion and ethnic origins), but now, following the traumas of WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust, just as Europe’s major ethnic groups (nations) are learning to get along, we are importing en masse from abroad the potential for new and additional ethnic tensions and conflicts (which, in respect to Muslims and “blacks” we are already experiencing). Just as Europeans are finally learning to share their continent peacefully with each other, it is deemed not enough; we are now expected to share our continent with an ever-increasing (and this is the crucial point) number of non-Europeans as well, which is MADNESS. 

Europe has a distinctive indigenous population of closely related peoples, just as America does, only instead of making up just a tiny, impotent, proportion of the total population, we still constitute the overwhelming majority. Neither have we been subjugated or dispossessed by foreign invaders, as native Americans were, but by our OWN ruling elites, who are now imposing the madness of mass poor-world immigration on our already overpopulated subcontinent and the DIVERSE, multi-ethnic society that comes with it.

The method to this madness, which it took me a very long time to recognise and develop an understanding of, is only partly economic (the import of cheap foreign labour, i.e. “human resources” into the West) and generally acknowledged.  Far more important, but largely unrecognised, is the ideological and power-political role this madness plays, serving, as it does, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", ruling elite (supported by their favoured clients) and the morally inferior, naturally less "colour-blind", masses, who must submit to their superiors’ moral authority - and power.

No one is really "colour-blind”, of course, but can only feign it (perhaps without being consciously aware of it), humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are. Although the issue is complicated by the Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter  depending on whether we are dealing with personal relationships between individuals or more abstract relationships between strangers, especially in large numbers.

Race is NOT the "social construct" that the state would have us believe it is (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because it reflects our ethnic origins and is thus central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity. Which is, of course, why the state, which poses as our nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, seeks to deny and suppress this basic truth.

"Celebrating Diversity" is nothing other than Orwellian newspeak for ethnic Europeans (white people) to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (we have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities, including my own birth place) and ultimate demise . . .

In place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) we now have "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which absurdly was made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and “racists".

Why did it take me so long to recognise these simple and now - to me, at least - obvious truths? Why have academics still not recognised them? And why have they resisted all my efforts, thus far, to point them out to them?

It is because POWER (of the state) forbids it, and because academics, like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, are themselves 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 our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Our understanding of ourselves, society and the state is fatally misconceived, because the human brain (including, most importantly, that of academics) evolved to want to maintain the environment on which it depends and has been “successful” in (as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been), and thus rationalises its view of reality accordingly. 

Overcoming this obstacle and developing a more objective and realistic understanding of society and the state is no mean task - a bit like trying to jump over one’s own shadow - but at the moment most academics are not even aware of it, which means that the social and political sciences are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, with modern social science academics clinging to their misconceived ideas just as Ptolemaic astronomers and Galenic doctors once did to theirs, and for much the same reasons.

If we are to solve our - increasingly dire - social, political, economic and environmental problems, which the very survival of our civilisation urgently depends on us doing, we need a much better, more realistic, understanding of ourselves, society and the state, which at present is clearly lacking.

As human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYTHING and EVERYONE,  including RACE, notwithstanding the huge pressure that state ideology puts us (especially our academic, political and media elites) under to deny and suppress it in ourselves and to demonise it in others. Demonising racial prejudice was an understandable overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology, and to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, but instead of allowing reason and good sense to correct this overreaction, it was quickly consolidated into an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) of socio-political intimidation and control.

Demonising racial prejudice for its role in crimes of racial hatred is like demonising male sexuality for the role it plays in rape. Obviously, the two are connected, and we need to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion, just we do our sexuality, but not deny, demonise and suppress them. The legitimate role of the state is to formulate and enforce laws which ensure that our prejudices and sexuality are expressed in an acceptable and civilised fashion.

I appreciate just how shocking, or absurd - initially, at least - the ideas I have expressed here must appear to you at the NYTimes, including members of the Editorial Board, who will, of course, have to approve their publication in your Op-Ed section. I feel like an atheist hoping to get my views on Christianity published in a conservative Catholic journal.

Like the Catholic church, you at the NYTimes are committed and beholden to an ideology (post-racial multiculturalism) that I am radically criticising. However, you are also committed to seeking the truth through free debate and discussion, by means of which we might arrive at a better understanding of ourselves, society and the state.

It would be naive of me to expect you to publish this offering, but I hope that you will at least read and give some thought to my ideas.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

From "White Supremacy” to “White Inferiority”

If an extraterrestrial biologist were observing human population dynamics, i.e. demographics, on planet Earth, it would be puzzled by the strong population growth in Europe, beginning in about the 15th Century, accompanied by the spread of these fair-skinned (white) humans around the globe, but then followed by their increasing replacement through non-whites, even in their original European habitat.

In terms of being better adapted to their environment, there must have been something “superior” about this white population, otherwise it wouldn’t have expanded the way it did. But what happened, this extraterrestrial biologist would wonder, to halt and reverse this expansion? Why is the white race now being replaced by other races? What is it that now makes other races “superior”, i.e. better adapted to their environment, even in the white race’s original habitat?

Only able to observe superficial human characteristics, such as skin pigmentation, this extraterrestrial biologist is puzzled, and curious to know the explanation for what is going on: why this reversal from being a particularly successful (“superior”) and expanding race, to a relatively unsuccessful (contracting, “inferior”) race?

To understand this, our extraterrestrial would have to come to Earth and study human evolutionary psychology, along with its social and power-political implications.

Human populations are organised by their power elites, not as genuine societies, serving the general good of their members (as they are led to believe by the power elites, who deceive themselves into believing it as well), but as an exploitable environment and human resource (now also as a market), for the benefit of these power elites.

Originally, these power elites comprised just an aristocracy (ruling by the power of the sword) and a priesthood (ruling by the power of the word), who cooperated (competed and sometimes fought) in creating and exploiting to their own advantage the power structures of the STATE, which they shaped to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation as a human environment.

Over the centuries, others (e.g. certain professions) managed to gain advantages for themselves, culminating finally in western democracy, in which, in theory at least, EVERYONE is free to advance themselves and exploit both their natural and human environments to maximum advantage for themselves and immediate family – provided they keep to rules (law), of course; although, these are often bent or even broken by those hopeful of getting away with it.

From an evolutionary perspective it is clear that human civilisation and the states that comprise it represent something of a perversion of evolutionary purpose, which humans themselves, despite their knowledge of Darwinian evolution, are loath to continence, having created taboos which prevent them from developing a Darwinian understanding of themselves and their civilisation. There is an understandable reluctance, hard-wired into the human brain, to undermine the very environment (the socio-economic status quo) they depend upon, especially if they have been particularly “successful” or occupy a privileged position within it.

Man evolved as a tribal animal, and although his original tribe is long gone, destroyed and replaced by the STATE, he is still dominated by deeply rooted tribal needs, emotions and behaviour patterns, which the state (and capital), while denying, ridiculing or condemning the existence of, manipulates and exploits to its own advantage. The very legitimacy of the state is based on its claim to representing a NATION, as the equivalent and extension of its subjects’ (citizens’) original tribe.

For a tribal animal, like Homo sapiens, there are effectively two very distinct, but often interdigitating, environments, in response to which he has evolved very different behavioural response patterns: one intra-tribal, the other extra-tribal. What the state, and state-like institutions such as the Catholic Church, do, is conflate and confound these two environments, which they then facilitate the self-exploitation of to the advantage of their particular elites.

Europeans were organised by their power elites into pseudo-nation states, i.e. “super tribes” which proved to be very powerful and successful in extending their influence around the globe. However, not having the interest of a genuine tribe or nation for its people as a whole, but being primarily concerned with personal advantage (often associated with the interests of particular groups) within the pseudo-nation, and with rivalries, leading to war, between European pseudo-nation states, the European race was soon in decline. A decline which its power elites make not just a moral virtue of, but a moral imperative, any interest in themselves as a genuine (super) nation of closely related peoples being demonised and condemned as an evil they call “racism”.

Thus, our extraterrestrial observer might begin to understand his puzzling observations.

Guardian Advocates Europe’s Islamification

The following is quoted from an article by Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian, "If this is young Arabs’ 1989, Europe must be ready with a bold response":

“As their homelands modernise, young Arabs – and nearly one third of the population of the north African littoral is between the age of 15 and 30 – will circulate across the Mediterranean, contributing to European economies, and to paying the pensions of rapidly ageing European societies.”

I find it hard to imagine that the author, who sometimes expresses quite sensible opinions, really wants to promote the Islamification and de-Europeanisation (globalisation) of Europe, so why is he encouraging it?

Presumably, he naively believes that in Europe, Arabs will become liberal-minded Europeans like himself. No doubt, some will. But as we now know from experience (those of us not blinded by economic interests or liberal-statist ideology), many won’t. Understandably (if you see them ashuman beings rather than just a human resource,to be manipulated and exploited by state and capital), they will remain true to their Islamic roots, and seek to change Europe accordingly.

The Liberal-Fascist Vision for Europe

And anyone daring to oppose it is a RACIST.

The following quotes are take from an article in yesterday’s Guardian (where else?) by Loretta Napoleoni:

Title: “May Europe’s multicultural new generation succeed where we failed”

The new generation of teenagers is the first born inside the united Europe’s multicultural melting pot, one no longer just populated by Europeans.

Multiculturalism may well be our saviour, wresting us out from the straitjacket of our history, thrusting the old continent into an environment where other ethnicities, less cynical and more positive, will play a big role in its future.

The new blood of the children of immigrants both drives transnational protest and cements solidarity among Europe’s young [link to article containing even more brazen liberal-fascist misinformation and ideology].

I wish I were young again to walk that line with you, to share the experience of reshaping a continent. My generation had similar dreams but failed to achieve them.

Will you succeed where we failed? I believe so. Because the socio-cultural paradigm of Europe has finally shifted, and those who rule us today do not represent such a shift [because still so hideously "white"!]. As your generation comes to power, then the political paradigm will inevitably alter.

Europeans will no longer be explorers; they will not adventure across unknown seas to steal others’ treasure, they will not scale the highest mountains to plant flags, nor will they look west or east to decide what to think and how to behave internationally. But they will be able to delve into the new multicultural spirit of a reinvigorated continent for new economic, social and political formulas.

That is the Europe I dream of for you and the one I want to belong to.

It makes for very disturbing reading and if you feel as I remember feeling in the past, your initial reaction will be to push it aside and forget about it, because we know that any objections we raise, unless self-censored to meaninglessness, will immediately be met with accusation of “racism”.

But don’t dismiss it. That is what many people did after reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf, refusing to take seriously his horrific vision for Europe, dominated by a Germanic master race.

The liberal-fascist Left have got their OWN master race in mind: the product of mass non-European immigration and the melting pot thus created. They are as intent on eliminating their own white race of ethnic Europeans as the Nazis were on eliminating the Jews – but, of course, for our own good and that of humanity as a whole (motivated, not by hatred for others, but by self-hate, or perhaps just a pathological lack of love for or identity with their own, which their ideology has misled them into believing is ALL humanity).

And if anyone dares say they don’t want to see their own, white, ethnic European race, eliminated, they are accused of being “racist”, on the ideological grounds that “Race Doesn’t Matter”, or even exist. Suggesting that it does matter, i.e. for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity (as I do), is considered “racist” – at least, if you are white.

Once the Nazis got to power, no one could oppose their ideology without landing in jail, or worse. Now, having gone from one extreme to the other,liberal-fascists are in power and no one can oppose their ideology without being condemned a “racist”, which isn’t as bad as the threat of jail, but has thus far proved just as effective.

But lets be clear: liberal fascists, thank goodness, are not nearly as bad as Nazi fascists. They mean well, as most communists, socialists, Christian missionaries, etc. did (or still do), but are just misguided. Most, once they realise that, will, I am sure, change their views, just as most communists did, when they realised that the Soviet Union wasn’t, and wasn’t going to become, the utopia they had dreamed of.

Only it’s not just the liberal-fascist Left (represented in the media by the Guardian/Observer, the Independent and the BBC) that are misguided. The conservative right (represented by the Telegraph, Mail, etc.) are misguided too.

In fact, I seem to be the ONLY one who isn’t !At least, not as misguided as most; but still lost, looking for my, my people’s, while not forgetting other people’s, way . . .