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!

On Political Correctness

Political correctness is a means of exercising social, political (and economic) control, a degree of which is, of course, necessary; but it lends itself to massive abuse by those seeking power-political and/or economic advantage - as those in politics, business and the media always are.

In the Middle Ages, political correctness was defined by the Church, which derived massive political power and social advantage for its members from it. With the decline in Christian belief, a “moral power vacuum” arose, which has been largely filled by the, mainly secular, liberal (and not so liberal) Left.

In place of “original sin”, which only submission to the authority of the church could save us from, it is now “prejudice” (especially, racial prejudice, i.e. “racism”**), we must be saved from by our “moral superiors” in academia, politics and the media.

** Being human, we are all stuffed full of prejudices, about everything, including race, of course, which we need to control in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we need to control our sexual lusts and other aspects of “original sin”, but by demonising them as “evil” we are forced to suppress and deny them, even to ourselves, thereby providing the state (in earlier times, inseparable from the church) with an artificial and spurious source of “moral authority” as a powerful means of social control.

If you consider what a deeply tribal animal we humans are, it is obvious that racial prejudice is as natural and healthy a part of our nature as sexual lusts are, which the individual needs to be aware of, in order to exercise rational and civilised control over them, rather than allowing their demonisation and suppression by the state for the purpose of authoritarian social control.

Government want's "Fairer Nation"

In an article published in today’s Telegraph, Nick Clegg and Iain Duncan Smith state:

“. . . our overriding ambition is to take real steps to build a fairer nation.”

Only you cannot “build a fairer nation” when there is no nation to start with.

A NATION, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is

“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].

The concept of belonging to a NATION is vitally important for an animal so inherently and intensely tribal as ourselves, and contrary to received wisdom and centuries-long indoctrination, the STATE is no equivalent to or substitute for it.

Our politicians, like generations of “leaders” before them, are determined to equate state and nation, because it is from this that governments derive their legitimacy, authority and POWER, which is what politicians are primarily interested in, of course, notwithstanding their – I’m sure, quite sincere but self-deluded – assurances of wanting to SERVE society.

I’m not reproaching our politicians, or anyone else, for this, because the pursuit and exercise of power (not just political power, but also other forms, especially its most versatile form of MONEY), is what Homo sapiens’ Darwinian drive for survival, advantage and (reproductive) “success” has been perverted and reduced to in the artificial environment of human “society”. All alpha human males and females amongst us are at it.

Instead of ignoring, denying and rationalising this, which is necessary in order to continue with it, we need to face up to the truth, to the perverted Darwinian nature of our so-called “society” – especially those alpha males and females who profit most (in perverted Darwinian fashion) from it, because they have an essential role to play in helping to get us out of this self-destructive evolutionary cul-de-sac we are in.

This requires a paradigm shift, the likes of which no human population has ever been through before, which is bound to provoke massive resistance from those blindly determined to defend their narrow and short-sighted self-interests in the status quo of the current paradigm. Thus, it is vital that those spearheading this paradigm change do so as gently and non-confrontationally as possible, with understanding for the fears and motivations of those resisting it, and above all, peacefully. This has to be a non-violent, grass-roots-democratic revolution, which will be won, not on the streets (or battlefields), but in our own hearts and minds. And it’s going to take a while: a few years, at least.

But first, we have to make a start by recognising and developing an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our society, embodied in the conflation of STATE and NATION.

The fundamental difference between STATE and NATION, is that the former facilitates “society’s” self-exploitation, now with everyone (not just the ruling elite as in the past) in a position to exploit is as best they can, whatever their social status (think banker’s bonuses and benefit cheats), while putting as little as possible back – doing everything they possible can to avoid taxes.

A genuine NATION, on the other hand, facilitates a sense of common identity, purpose and destiny, with individuals WANTING to share with the PEOPLE and NATION they belong to, and deriving great pleasure from it, rather than thinking only of their individual selves and families.

A NATION also organises ITSELF, grass-roots-democractically, from the bottom up, while a STATE is organised by state institutions and capital from the top down.

STATES are for SHEEPLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…NATIONS for PEOPLE . . . !!

On Celebrity Salaries

In response to an article, “Today presenters to take pay cuts”, in last Saturday's Telegraph:

There’s so much confusion and hypocrisy surrounding this issue – which is hardly surprising, because it goes to the very core of human “prime ape”, i.e. Darwinian, nature, which, having always denied or demonised it, we are compelled to rationalise.

Notwithstanding all the other attractions of as large an income as possible – and all assertions to the contrary -, psychologically and socially it is by far the most important measure of social rank and personal worth. Nothing is more important to a tribal “prime ape” like ourselves than that.

I imagine that most – certainly anyone who has any knowledge of evolutionary anthropology or psychology – will agree with me, nod, maybe smile, but then move on, without really taking it seriously, or appreciating just how important it is: the fact that we, and society at large, are still so completely dominated by emotions and behaviours which evolved long before the advent of civilisation, and are thus inappropriate (ill-adapted to long-term survival) in our present, very different, situation.

We fail to recognise this, because man is not so much a “rational animal”, as a “rationalising animal”, our brain having evolved to “interpret”, maintain or modify reality (its environment) in accordance with preconceived ideas, social norms, as well as narrow and short-sighted self-interests (such as drawing a very large income).

There is hope for us, however, because evolution has indeed produced a rational side to our nature. It’s just far less developed than we think it is. If we were to recognise this (the fact that we currently rationalise more than we recognise reality), our rational nature might slowly get on top of our inclination to rationalise, and thus guide us towards a more rational, just, humane and sustainable future.