Capitalism can’t support Socialist Welfare State

“The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes.”

I agree very much with Janet Daley’s analysis in today’s Telegraph (LINK), but it doesn’t go deep enough.

Socialist ideals (notwithstanding their opportunistic exploitation by socialist politicians and welfare scroungers) are based ultimately on the state’s claim to representing our NATION, which as an extension of our original TRIBE, has an obligation of care towards all its members.

When Britain’s welfare state was founded in the aftermath of WW2, there was a strong sense of national identity and a huge amount of social solidarity to base it on. Apart from a few rouge individuals, my parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of exploiting it inappropriately, as in the meantime millions – in fact, the vast majority – have become accustomed to doing.

The question is, why is the welfare state now seen as something to be exploited, rather than used responsibly? It’s because the sense of national identity (except in sport and war) and of social solidarity, on which it was originally based, are long gone, although we –especially our politicians – are obliged to maintain the pretence.

Why, notwithstanding that many still cling to its symbols and as an abstraction, did we lose our sense of national identity and social solidarity?

The madness of mass immigration (into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country) and multi-ethnic society is partly to blame, but there is a much older and more fundamental reason than this, which is the example set by society’s wealthy and ruling elites, who have always considered it their God given right to

exploit the rest of society to their own advantage. What the welfare state did, was give those at the other end of the social hierarchy the opportunity to do the same, not in the same style as those at the top, but nevertheless.

We need to stop going round in circles (in fact a rapidly descending spiral) blaming each other (the Left the Right, and the Right the Left) and develop a much deeper understanding of our situation, which is essentially, believe it or not (and it’s high time that we did!), DARWINIAN.

Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution and adapted to an environment which existed long before any kind, let alone modern industrial, civilization arose. We can’t help but see “society” as an environment to be exploited to our own advantage (i.e. that of our own little tribe or family). And this, in fact, is what the STATE (and the economy) developed over the centuries to facilitate (while posing as our TRIBE or NATION), to the advantage, of course, of those in a position to shape the power structures of its institutions. Initially, these were just members of the aristocracy and clergy, but over the centuries others (bankers, merchants, industrialists, and numerous professions) got in on the act (of exploitation), creating favourable niches for themselves. Until, with advent of universal suffrage, even the poor and disadvantage were able to exert influence as the clients of politicians in need of their votes.

Anders Breivik's (In)sanity?

My response to an article, Anders Behring Breivik is not insane, in today’s Telegraph:

No one in their right mind could have any sympathy for what Breivik did (killing so many innocent people), which was psychopathic, but many of us have a lot of sympathy for what motivated him, which, if I’ve understood him correctly, is the betrayal of western Europe’s indigenous peoples by their own governments, by allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated subcontinent, and destroying the long-standing and natural ethnic basis of our national identities.

All these people won’t have died in vain if, instead of scapegoating it onto a madman, we face up to this self-betrayal and develop and understanding of it, before it leads to far greater damage and death tolls.

The State That's Betraying Us

The State, which poses as our nation, is betraying us – in 1001 ways, but primarily by giving citizenship to millions of 3^rd world immigrants and allowing them to settle in our already natively and unsustainably overpopulated country and subcontinent, and whose high birth rate means that within 50 years or so, they and their descendent will replace us, the indigenous population, as Britain’s ethnic majority. Britain’s ethnic identity will change from being European (with all the history that goes with it) to being “global”, post-racial and post-European, this being the unspoken ideological goal of liberal-fascism.

If that is not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

How is the STATE able to get away with betraying us like this?

Firstly, by having all who oppose it, or the ideology of “colourblindness” it is based on, condemned and dismissed as “racists”.

Not coincidentally, it is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (also to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), only to be consolidated is this extreme form for the sake of economic and power-political advantage, gained from claiming an absolute but spurious “moral high ground” for it.

Secondly, by deceiving us into believing that it represents our NATION, and thus into identifying with it, thereby making it a form of “self-betrayal”, which, of course, is particularly difficult to recognise and face up to.

Britain's Hereditary "Honky" Head of State

In response to the many articles relating to the up-coming royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, who are expected to produce heirs to the British throne:

For the predominantly non-white country Britain is predicted to become by 2066 (Link) a hereditary white head of state will be politically unacceptable.

By the time ANY child, regardless of sex, of Prince William and his bride, Kate, might be expected to take the throne, Britain’s population will be predominantly non-white, with no place for a hereditary white head of state, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission would, understandably, strongly object to.

I point this out, not to irritate or offend, but in the hope that the implications of mass immigration and the liberal-fascist ideology we are having imposed on us might finally sink in.

It’s not “racist” to want to preserve your race (the ethnic identity of your people and nation). It’s madness not to want to. And this madness has a name: liberal fascism. Not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi fascism. See post.

Liberal-Statist Self-Delusion

An example, taken from today’s Guardian, “Living with diversity”, of more liberal-statist self-delusion:

“. . . neither immigration nor ethnicity is the primary predictor of a lack of social cohesion. Instead, as the most recent research has shown, it is the level of economic deprivation.”

Thus, there is no need to restrict immigration or criticise multi-ethnic society, i.e. to challenge the ideology of the liberal-fascist Left, which is devastating our country and subcontinent.

Immigration & Parliamentary Betrayal

My response to David Cameron’s latest speech on immigration, in which he is reported as saying:

“. . mass immigration has led to ‘discomfort and disjointedness’ in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.”

And so the LIE is perpetuated: if only immigrants would “integrate” and learn English, everything would be honky dory. No mention of the fact that mass immigration has destroyed the natural ethnic basis of our national identity, or that Britain’s indigenous population is predicted to become an “ethnic minority” in its ancestral homeland within the next 50 years!

Not that I’m surprised. To admit that would be to admit that the STATE and Parliament themselves have betrayed the very people they were supposed to serve.

How could they – how do they still – get away with such a betrayal? Because it’s a form of self-betrayal, in which we are ALL implicated, and thus rationalise and hide from ourselves, subconsciously, as a form of collective, self-induced, posthypnotic suggestion.

Thus, there is no point in pointing the finger of blame – least of all, at immigrants. Instead, we need to wake up from the trance we are under, recognise what has happened and develop an understanding of it.

In the meantime, there’s very little any mainstream politician can do. Like the economy – whether socialist or capitalist – mass immigration is based on an ideology, which currently we don’t even recognise as such.

Nothing will change until we change the ideology, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which initially it was an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid) - and would have us believe, it is the ONLY alternative to -, before being consolidated in its present extreme form by economic and political opportunism, especially by the Left, who used it to claim a spurious “moral high ground” for themselves, along with the massive power-political advantages that go with it (much as, in its own way, the medieval Church did).

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.

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.

Welfare Nation vs. Welfare State

This is my response to an article in today’s Telegraph by Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, “It’s time to end this addiction to benefits

The problem lies far deeper than with the welfare-state, which is just 60 years old, having been created at a time, following years of exceptionally strong national unity and purpose in the struggle against Nazism, when there was still a very strong sense of national identity and solidarity.

This basis of national identity and solidarity, on which the welfare-state was founded, has since been massively eroded by mercenary consumer-capitalism, on the one hand (in which people serve primarily as a “human resource” and “market”, rather than as members of a nation), and mass immigration (of cheap foreign labour) and the creation of a multi-ethnic (effectively, multi-national) society, on the other, thereby destroying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity.

This was justified and enforced by the state adopting a internationalist, left-wing ideology, which, not coincidentally, was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite, of Nazi racial ideology, and condemned the natural ethnic basis of national identity as “racist”. The STATE and its ideology, rather than the people themselves, would define national, or rather, "pseudo-national" identity; but of course, when things are imposed from above and directed from the top down, they don't work very well.

While a welfare-NATION can be organised to work well, a welfare-STATE cannot. In other words, Ian Duncan Smith is flogging a dead horse.

The welfare-state is "Socialism" implemented by the STATE and financed by a capitalist economy.

No wonder things are in such a MESS!

The natural basis of Socialism is the NATION, which is characterised by the shared identity and solidarity of its members. When the STATE, which only "poses" as our nation, attempts to implement Socialism (social services and welfare) from above, it can only make a mess of things: witness 60 years of Britain as a welfare STATE . . !

But I'm on dangerous ground here, bringing together the ideas “Socialism” and the “Nation”. Just one step further and you get “National Socialism”, which, because of its Nazi associations, is the very epitome of evil.

So why did the Nazis call themselves National Socialists? Because they wanted everyone to know how evil they were? Hardly. It was because at the time it was a very positive and popular concept, combining as it did the ideas of nationhood (and nationalism) with those of socialism (and the Nazis were supreme propagandists). In the meantime, of course, both concepts have been thoroughly discredited and demonised; nationalism by the Left, which it equates with “racism”, and socialism by the Right, which it equates with statism. And because the Nazis combined the two, nationalism (racism) and socialism (statism), the concept of National Socialism is abhorred by all.

But the fact remains that the basis of viable socialism (by which I mean all the POSITIVE aspects of social services and welfare, which even the most callous libertarian wouldn't deny the value of) has to be a genuine nation.

The Nazis deserve to be abhorred, but the concept of “national socialism”, which they hijacked and dragged into the abyss with their nasty selves, needs to be recovered, cleansed of its evil Nazi associations, and re-examined.

It's going to be difficult and painful process, I know, because words and their associations (especially those surrounding “nationalism”, “socialism” and “national socialism”) can be extremely powerful and difficult to separate form each other, not just intellectually, but also emotionally. But we cannot allow the Nazis, so long after their demise, to continue their ownership of such a vitally important concept. An ownership which continues to be confirmed and reinforced even today by the political Left and Right, who have incorporated it, i.e. their opposition to it, into their own tribal identities.

Britain now being a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the concept we need to be looking at is “multi-national socialism”.

Single-Race Schools

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.

Why the State is Colourblind

And demands that its citizens are too.

By “colourblind” I mean indifferent to race and ethnic difference.

The reason is as simple as it is profound: the STATE is not the NATION it would have us believe it is. If it were, it would not be blind to ethnic difference, which is central to national identity, “ethnic” being derived from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.

Yet the British and American states both insist that they are NATIONS. The American president in particular is always addressing, referring and appealing to the “American People” and NATION. Yet no American citizen seems to take issue with this, either because they really believe themselves to be a NATION, or because they are deceived by state propaganda into believing it, or, if they don’t believe it, are too scared to openly challenge it?

British politicians don’t make as much of Britain being a NATION as American politicians do of America, but the assumption is still manifestly there, and reference often enough made to it, especially when addressing or referring to the armed forces.

How have two of the world’s greatest democracies succeeded in imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of multi-racial/ethnic NATIONHOOD on their supposedly “free” citizens?

The answer is POWER. The STATE is extremely powerful, which in a democracy, at least, has to be legitimized. This legitimacy lies in its claim to NATIONHOOD.

Only, it’s a LIE. And if we – in Britain, American and other western democracies – want to create just, humane and sustainable societies, with prospects of surviving long into the future, it is a lie we urgently need to recognise and face up to – in a calm, rational, humane and civilised fashion.

Statists will defend the LIE, assuming they acknowledge it, by insisting that questioning it, and with it the state’s legitimacy, would necessarily lead to chaos and violence. Thus, the importance of true nationalists (as opposed to statists posing as nationalists) proceeding peacefully and respectfully towards others and the law. This is not a struggle between NATIONS, but between STATES (posing as nations) and true NATIONS.

STRUGGLE . . ? When at the moment all we have is many mighty STATES (posing as nations) and no true nations at all . . ?!

It is up to us, the people, to organise ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into true NATIONS – instead of continuing to allow ourselves to be organised (manipulated and exploited) by the STATE and CAPITAL (not least through advertising), instead of working ourselves to death all day – for what? – and watching so much television.

What do I hope to achieve with this and other posts? My intention is to prime the peaceful and grass-roots-democratic REVOLUTION that will, hopefully, save our civilisation – and race! – from self-destruction.

We're All Gurkhas (mercenaries) Now

Written in response to a post on former chairman of the Conservative Party, Norman Tebbit's blog, at the Telegraph, from which the following quote is taken:

". . . there is a large Muslim population of Asian origins and I would rather seek to integrate that population than push it back into ghettoes."

“Integrate”? Most immigrants came here, Norman, to exploit the massive advantages (social, political, economic) Britain has to offer compared with their countries of origin, thereby reciprocating your party's interest in exploiting their cheap labour: a thoroughly mercenary arrangement.

Understandably, as human beings, rather than the “human-resources” state and capital mainly see them as, they had no intention of selling their souls, i.e. giving up their ethnic (which, if you look up its Greek root, is just another word for “national”) identity in the bargain, although you seem to have assumed they would, creating an American-style melting pot with the indigenous population, I suppose.

Admittedly, your party has been forced to go much further than economic interests alone would have driven you, by Labour's ideological embrace of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, which they succeeded in elevating to a twisted moral imperative - the only alternative to “racism” and the extreme right; which, of course, it provoked, thereby reinforcing their claim to the “moral high ground” and political power).

When brave Conservatives like Enoch Powell dared question the wisdom of allowing mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and undermining the ethnic basis of its national identity, they were condemned by the Left as “racists”, and your party leadership, fearful of being called “racists” themselves, joined in the condemnation, making you complicit in taking the NATION out of what was supposed to be a nation state, and leaving in its place just a mercenary state.

We are all Gurkhas (mercenaries) now, which I guess is why there was such a show of sympathy for them recently. So let's end the pretence of being a PEOPLE and a NATION (the Big Society!). It's every man (and his family) for themselves.

I'm thinking of becoming an “American”, which provides even better opportunities, if you have the necessary talents, for exploiting one's human environment (so-called “society”) than being “British” does.

Britain’s Love of Others and Contempt for its Own.

The British state’s inclusive, universalistic attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: “love of others and contempt for one’s own”.

Thus, statist enthusiasm for mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, 1) because this is seen as an expression of self-denial, service to humanity and thus moral superiority, on which, like the Catholic and Anglican churches, it bases its claim to authority and power, and 2) because the economy, which provides the material wealth the state depends on, is thankful for all the cheap labour it can get, without which the NHS and many other sectors, under the existing mercenary regime, could hardly function (something statists are quick and proud to point out).

My more nationalistic, ethno-centric (according to the state, “racist”) attitude towards race can be summed up as follows: love of my own race/ethnic group and respect for others (thus my lack of enthusiasm for mass immigration, into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country and subcontinent, or for multi-ethnic society).

The British state describes its own indigenous population contemptuously by the colour of their skin as “white British”, while at least some ethnic minorities are described with reference to their place of origin, e.g. British Asian, Afro-Caribbean, etc. When skin colour is used for ethnic minorities it is “black”, which, in contrast to “white” has positive connotations, something to be proud of; while “white” tends to have negative, shameful associations. Anyone describing themselves proudly as “white” (i.e. ethnic European), for example, would automatically be pushed into a “racist” corner as a neo-Nazi, BNP sympathiser or “white supremacist” (when real power and danger, now threatening to destroy us, lies with so-called “progressives” and “moral supremacists” dedicated to the state, which they misguidedly identify as their nation).

WHY does the state demonise as “racist” an ETHNOcentric attitude towards national identity, when ETHNOS (from Greek) actually means a NATION or a PEOPLE ?

Because that’s what the Nazis did (in their brutally insane fashion)! And doing the exact extreme opposite from the Nazis allows British statists to claim the absolute “moral high ground” for themselves, along with the authority and POWER that goes with it.

And also, because the British STATE itself lays false claim to nationhood, on which its very legitimacy rests. Any genuine claim to nationhood (based on ethnicity) it MUST condemn and suppress. What better way of doing so than by calling it “racist”?

Not RACIST but ANTI-STATIST

Anyone not accepting anyone else as belonging to their own NATION on grounds of race or ethnic origins (certainly in western democracies like Britain and America) is deemed a RACIST, and condemned and vilified as such. But this, I suggest, is a bit like calling someone who expresses a fondness for children, other than his own, a paedophile.

A genuine racist is someone who hates others on account to their race and/or considers their own race inherently superior to other races, and gives public expression to such feelings, which I add, because no one should be held accountable for how they FEEL - or think - but only for how they BEHAVE and what they DO.

Anyone who considers ethnicity central to nationality is in fact a true NATIONALIST, “ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, while those who consider ethnicity irrelevant and want to impose a multi-ethnic nationality on everyone else is a bullying STATIST.

STATISTS hate NATIONALISTS and thus vilify them, with the most damning appellation available, as RACISTS.

The most enthusiastic statists (anti-nationalists and “anti-racists”) are on the political left, of course; the further left, the more statist they tend to be. But in their own minimalist way, the political right are statists too, the apparent contradiction arising from the historical conflation of STATE and NATION.

Apart from anarchists, most agree on the need for the STATE: to pass and enforce laws that regulate social interactions and prevent society from descending into violence and chaos. Those on the left also see the state as an instrument for implementing their socialist ideals (education, health care, social welfare, etc.) and universalistic ideology of “one-human-racism”, while the political right wants a minimalist state which simply maintains a political framework within which individual self-interest and private enterprise can work their magic, capital make a good return in its investments, and personal fortunes be amassed.

The Left tends to see the state as an extension of one's original TRIBE and NATION, and thus responsible for taking care of everyone, because that is what tribes, in an evolutionary context, did and what human social behaviour is adapted to. The Right, on the other hand, tends to see the state as providing a framework within which the INDIVIDUAL and CAPITAL should be free (within certain limits) to exploit the social and human environment to their own advantage, with some of the wealth they create trickling down for the benefit of society as a whole, which, even if they feel no social obligations towards it, needs to be maintained as a source of human labour and consumers.

It seems to me that the political choice we have, between Left and Right (between socialism and capitalism), is like having to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea.

In practice, what we get is a mixture of the two, which is deeply unsatisfactory (except for some, of course), dehumanising and, most importantly, inherently unsustainable, meaning that radical change will come whether we want it or not, only the forces driving it will not be rational or humane, as we would wish, but irrational, ruthless and brutal – like the history of the 20^th Century, only far worse.

The Left wants the state to impose the social mores and ideals of our original tribe on us (thus the close association - vigorously rationalised and denied, of course - with fascism), while the Right wants it to maintain a human environment that can be exploited by the individual and capital.

It is easy to understand why most people, especially when young, tend towards the Left, because it's the natural way to go, seeing society as the equivalent of our original tribe. However, experience of life teaches most of us, despite official ideology and (usually sincere) efforts to the contrary, that it isn't anything like our tribe, and that to get on in “society”, one has to treat is as an environment in which one struggles for advantage and “success” - which is the default attitude of those on the Right.

It seems to me fundamentally wrong to treat society as an environment, a human resource and market to be exploited to one's own advantage (whether via status, a profession, capital, or social welfare), but I also loath having the STATE pose as my NATION, i.e. as the legitimate heir to my original TRIBE, when it is NOT.

Which brings me to the task of untangling the conflated concepts of STATE and NATION - which will be the subject of my next post.