Civilisation: An evolutionary cul-de-sac?

On the perverted Darwinian nature of the state

I put this as a rhetorical question in order to offer an affirmative answer. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure that I am, the implications could hardly be more profound or our recognition of them more urgent.

(This is the text of my 4th video blog, Part 1  and Part 2 on YouTube).

It is not an easy thing to recognise, given that it involves the environment in which we have been totally immersed since birth, are completely familiar with and dependent on, and the fact that our brains evolved to try and maintain the environment it depends on, especially when it has been particularly “successful” in it, as everyone who is anyone in society invariably has been. Understandably, the more successful someone is, the less inclined they are to question the political and socio-economic environment that facilitated it. Thus the difficulty in recognising the inherent flaws and non-sustainability of the artificial environment we call civilisation and the evolutionary cul-de-sac it represents.

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”.

Stop Confusing Socialism with Statism!

From a Telegraph opinion piece, “The Equality Duty has no worthwhile purpose“:

“That particularly egregious attempt at social engineering had been labelled ’socialism in one clause’.”

Why does the Right always have to demonise “socialism” by equating it with the Left’s “statism”? Just as the Left demonises (and has thereby succeeded in suppressing) all genuine “nationalism” by equating it with “racism”.

Trouble is, neither side, Right nor Left, recognises what is really going on, how between them they are screwing their own country, their own PEOPLE, as they battle each other for political and/or economic advantage.

And of course there’s another reason why the importance of both “socialism” and “nationalism” is not recognised: “National Socialism”.

Why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? So that everyone would know how evil they were? Of course not. But because, at the time, this combined two VERY positive and appealing concepts (which, propaganda experts that the Nazis were, they knew how to capitalise on). And not without reason: these concepts are of fundamental importance; “socialism” because we are an inherently social animal, “nationalism” because we are inherently tribal (no matter how much the STATE would have us deny, demonise, or trivialise it).

If we want to create a just, humane and sustainable society (the alternative to which is our demise), we have to recognise and understand ourselves as the product of Darwinian evolution that we actually are, no matter how politically incorrect it is considered to be.

There can be no solutions to our social, political, economic or environmental problems without a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of our own human nature and of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.

One Side hates Nationalism the other Socialism

Thereby neutralising – and, courtesy of the Nazis, demonising - the vital concept of National Socialism.

The Left's blind hatred of nationalism led to it conspiring with the state, established religion and capital to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the real meaning of which was deliberately hidden behind the more ambiguous concept of “multi-cultural”.

The Left traditionally (not without some, understandable but misconceived, reason) hate nationalism – and thus conspired with capital (with its interests in profit and globalisation) and established religion (with their shared interest in laying claim to the "moral high ground") to eliminate the NATION by creating a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION) – but love SOCIALISM, which they want the STATE, that they identify with (and which rewards them in return), to implement.

The political Right, on the other hand, are traditionally sympathetic towards nationalism and the nation – which, overwhelmed by a mighty coalition of capital and "moral supremacists", they have been forced to sacrifice – but hate SOCIALISM.

Thus, between them, the political Left and Right have eliminated the two ideas vital to the creation of a just, humane and sustainable society: those of SOCIALISM and of the NATION. We need socialism (properly understood), because we are social animals, but it can only beimplemented within the context (currently non-existent) of a genuine NATION (because we are also tribal animals, the nation being the natural extension of our original tribe), which is inherently (though not perfectly) mutualistic and grass-roots-democratic. It cannot be successfully implemented by the STATE (thus the justly negative reputation the state has burdened it with), because of its primarily role (which I go into in other posts) of facilitating society’s self-exploitation as as a human environment, resource and market.

There is another problem, of course: the NAZIS called themselves, National Socialists, dragging the vital concept of national socialism, which they hijacked and so abused, into the abyss along with themselves.

Whatever one's political views, there is an urgent need to defy the taboos, recover it, cleanse it of its nasty Nazi associations, and re-examine the concept of national socialism.