The State, The Matrix & The One

I recently submitted the following to the op-ed section of the NYT

Dear Editors,

If I were to tell you that I am The One, a real-life Neo, here to save humanity from The Matrix, you would take me for a nutter or a joker. Nutters don’t usually realise they are nutters, so perhaps that is what I am, but let’s assume, if you will bear with me, that I’m a joker, and that many a true word is sometimes spoken in jest.

The Matrix, as I see it, is not a near-future creation by intelligent machines, as it was in the film, but an ancient creation of man himself, which has developed over the centuries and long dominated the world. I am referring to civilisation itself, i.e. the STATES which comprise it, in their various forms, notwithstanding that relatively recent developments have given rise to a single, increasingly global, civilisation 

We are all so immersed in, subjectively familiar with, and dependent on the state, i.e. the society it provides a distinctive framework for, that we fail to recognise it for what it is, just as we once failed to recognise the true nature of the material universe. I am referring especially to academics, who are generally seen as experts and authorities in their particular field of study. Today's social and political scientists, who are responsible for our understanding of society, the state and civilisation are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, and mainstream society with them.

To make a historical, instead of a cinematic, analogy, one might see me as a modern-day Galileo, challenging the established world view. While Galileo challenged the Church's Earth-centred view of the universe with the more realistic Copernican view, I'm challenging modern academia's anti-Darwinian view of society with a pro-Darwinian view.

Pro-Darwinian, anti-Darwinian! What am I talking about? Perhaps I am a nutter.

In overreaction to the horrors and evil of Nazism (something the NYT itself warned its readers about in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris terrorist attack last November), which hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism to justify its own insane racial ideology, ruthless eugenics and euthanasia programmes, and wars of aggression, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of the whole idea of applying Darwin's ideas to their own species, despite this being the only way to understand ourselves, human societies, the state and our situation.

What a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective reveals is that the state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern, deceptively named, "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment, which we are also exploiting to destruction) to the narrow and short-sighted personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large, which must ultimately lead to its self-destruction. Thus, the passing of all earlier civilisations, including those of ancient Greece and Rome, the precursors of modern European/western civilisation, which is now rapidly approaching its own self-demise.

The state is like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents (our original tribes and nations) before we had any contact with them (although we retain a race memory of what a genuine nation should be like), bringing us up to believe that it was our nation (our natural loving parents) with our, its citizens, best interests at heart, when in fact, its primary purpose is to facilitate our self-abuse and exploitation, playing us off one against the other in a self-harming and ultimately self-destructive fashion.

The state does serve us, of course, and we are all very dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost of injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

Because of the taboo against viewing their own species from a Darwinian perspective (based on the fear of it leading down the same path the Nazis followed) academics fail to recognise the cycle of civilisational boom and bust that has thus far put an end to all civilisations, and will soon put an end to our own.

I don’t have Neo’s super powers to impress and convince others with. All I have are insights into the perverted Darwinian nature of the state and civilisation itself, which mainstream academics are loath to recognise, least it undermine their own status as favoured clients and employees of the state. They won't admit this, of course, even to themselves, preferring instead to demonise my ideas by associating them with Nazism, i.e. the Devil, just as their priestly predecessors once did with Galileo's ideas.

Those who want to free themselves from the Matrix of state power and delusion, I invite to test my ideas with their own reason. Many - initially, at least - will prefer to stay within the Matrix of their delusions about the state and status quo, so long as it seems to be working for them, which it may do for a while longer, but not for very much longer, because already we are exceeding the limits of our planet’s ability to support the grossly materialistic civilisation and economy on which we currently all depend.

If our civilisation is to survive and prosper, there must be rapid and radical change, i.e. revolution, which we have an understandable aversion to, our brain being wired to want to preserve the socio-economic environment on which it depends and has been successful in, as everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence, invariably has been. The thought of radical change scares the shit out of us, so that even as we recognise the urgent need for radical change, our brains rationalise and defend the status quo, thus preventing us from taking the necessary action.

So, I have now revealed myself to you as The One. The question is, will you pass this information on to your readers by publishing it in your op-ed section, so that they can decide for themselves whether I am a nutter, a joker or, perhaps, someone with the insights that will enable us to understand our situation and correct the self-destructive course our civilisation is on?

I can guess the answer to this question, which is both yes and no. You will publish it one day, I think, but not yet. In the meantime, I shall post it on my own blog, followed by subsequent posts in which I will elaborate on these ideas further.

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Walls, Borders, a Dome and Refugees

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

First a quote from the article:

"You haven’t seen this play before, which is why we have some hard new thinking and hard choices ahead."  

I couldn't agree more. The trouble is, you can think about a situation you don't understand as hard and long as you want, with no positive outcome, while in the meantime the situation goes on getting worse.

Bringing  democracy to Iraq and the Middle East was a great idea, but clearly those who sought to implement it through western intervention had no understanding of the actual situation. Thus, the terrible mess we have helped create.

Politicians, like most people, look to academics as authorities on just about everything, only social and political science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality, both abroad and at home, as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.

Like Galileo, I'm asking academics to look through my telescope, metaphorically speaking, so that they can see for themselves what I can see.

My telescope is a human-evolutionary view of society, which their predecessors made a taboo of, in overreaction to initial attempts, 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, eugenics program and wars of aggression.

My telescope: LINK

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 Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’

This is the title of an editorial (LINK) in today's NYTimes, which I submitted a comment on. It wasn't approved, so here it is on my own blog:   

We all understand and accept that our own lives and the lives of family and friends mean more to us than the lives of strangers.  

However, all strangers are not equal. There are strangers whom we relate to and identify with far more readily than with others, and one of the main factors influencing this is RACE.  

Race is not the "social construct" that the state and state ideology 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 central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity.  

It is the STATE which is the real "social, i.e. economic and power-political, construct", which deceitfully poses as our NATION, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy) clients.  

This is what not just America needs to recognise and develop an understanding of, so that instead of trying to bend human nature to suit the state and its purposes, we can learn to adapt the state, its institutions and moral code to better suit human nature and needs.  

This is how to go about resolving America's racial problems, rather than with accusations of "racism".  

I elaborate in this BLOG.

Psychiatry’s Identity Crisis

This is the title of an article in today's NYTimes which I commented on and was eventually approved and published, but I thought that I would post it here on my blog as well, anyway:

". . the complex interactions between genes and the environment that lie at the heart of many mental disorders."

We don't need to understand these "complex interactions", not that it would help much, even if we did.

We need to understand something much simpler, which we - even the experts - don't see, because we don't WANT to see it, not because we can't.

It is the fact that the genetic basis of human nature evolved in a natural environment VERY different from the artificial environment of civilisation we live in today.

If we were the "rational animal" we (especially academics) suppose ourselves to be, we would have shaped this environment to serve the best interests and well-being of society at large, but we are not and we didn't.  We are far more a "rationalising animal" which rationalises state, economy and status quo to suit our own personal, narrow and short-sighted, self-interests.

Society has been shaped over centuries by its ruling elites and their most favoured clients to serve their own personal self-interests, at the expense of society at large and of its long-term survival.

See BLOG in which I elaborate in these ideas.

Capitalism for the Rest of Us

This is the title of an article (LINK) in today's NYTimes, which I made the following - unapproved and thus unpublished - comment on:

Capitalism, notwithstanding the failure of socialism resulting in it now being lauded as the only show in town, is inherently unjust, inhumane and, most importantly of all, unsustainable on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet.

It works fabulously well for millions of people - in fact, for everyone who is anyone in society, and as a consequence is relatively wealthy, including the social science academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the economy.

The human brain surely evolved to want (subconsciously even more than consciously) to maintain the environment it depends on and has been successful in. Thus it is impossible for academics, or anyone else, to be objective about their own society, civilisation or the economy that supports them.

The only way to obtain a degree of objectivity is by viewing ourselves and our situation from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, but this, on account of initial attempts having gone so horribly wrong (especially when the Nazis used misconceived ideas of social Darwinism to justify their insane racial ideology and wars of aggression), academics have made a taboo of.

The fundamental problem lies in our lack of understanding of the true nature of the state itself, which creates the legal framework within which any economy operates.

Here's a LINK to my own approach to developing such an understanding.

Why are our Parks so White?

This is the title of an article in yesterday's NYTimes Sunday Review, which, as you can imagine, laments the relatively low percentage of ethnic minority, compared to white, people who visit America's national parks.

My comment was not approved, so I'm posting it here:

The article's obsession with DIVERSITY makes my skin crawl. 

What is promoting DIVERSITY other than Orwellian newspeak for white people to promote our own ethnic decline (as the article points out, America's founding race will soon have reduced itself to an ethnic minority) and ultimate demise?

Will a "white-free" America really be something to celebrate . . ?

It seems to me that we have gone from the ugly extreme of "racial hatred" (especially towards black people) to the opposite extreme of "racial self-hatred", or if "hatred" is too strong a word, to racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is hardly any better.

I've been observing this madness for many years in London UK, my city of birth, experiencing Native (white) Britons, like myself, being reduced from the overwhelming majority (>99%) to an ethnic minority, and being told by politicians that it is something I must "celebrate" - or be condemned as a "bigot" and "racist".

It took a long time, but I've finally discovered the power-politial method to this madness, which is this:

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a supposedly morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority, and power.

See BLOG in which I elaborate.

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

Comments not approved by the NYTimes

The last 3 times I have attempted to post a comment in response to an article on the NYTimes website it has not been approved and thus not published, which is a shame, so I'm publishing them here instead:

The Issue That Won't Go Away by Paul Krugman, June 20, 2015

My comment:

The issue of RACE won't go away, not because of slavery, but because state ideology, which denies the importance - even the very existence - of race, is misconceived.

Race is NOT a "social construct", as the state and its clients and employees in academia would have us believe (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 central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity, which, of course, the state doesn't want us to have, because it deceitfully poses as our nation itself, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

Western states, like Britain and America, now exploit race to divide and rule society, dividing it into a morally superior, i.e. "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority, and power, just as in medieval times.

No one is really "colour-blind", of course (we are all SINNERS), but can only feign it, humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are.

I elaborate further on these ideas in this BLOG.


White Supremacists Without Borders by  Morris Dees and J. Richard Cohen, June 22, 2015

My comment:

        "Britain, too, is experiencing an upswing of nationalist, anti-immigrant politics."

Unsurprisingly, given the scale of mass poor-world immigration into our country, which has already reduced native (white) Britons to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities and, combined with higher immigrant birth rates, is on course to reduce us to one in the country as a whole, before today's teenagers reach retirement age.

It is NOT racist not to want to be swamped by immigrants and reduced to an ethnic minority in one's ancestral homeland. If you doubt me, try asking a native American, or an Aboriginal Australian.

Those who really hate other races (genuine racists) are a tiny, impotent minority. The real threat to civilisation comes from an  IDEOLOGY of white racial self-denial and self-contempt (an overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology), which in all western democracies has taken the place of medieval church ideology as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control.

It serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority.

See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Middle-Class Black Families, in Low-Income Neighorhoods by David Leonhardt, June 24, 2015

My comment:

Wouldn't a simple explanation [for the observation that higher earning blacks still tend to live in poorer neighbourhoods] be that they prefer to live in black neighbourhoods, despite them being poorer, than in richer, but predominantly white, neighbourhoods?

Why can't America, or any other western state, simply accept the fact that race is real and important? Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group (e.g. neighbourhood) identity.

It is, I suggest, because post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, just as medieval church society and ideology once did, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority and power.

This is a shocking suggestion, I know, but surely one that social scientists need to be looked into. 

I elaborate further in this and subsequent BLOGS.