Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

This is something I recently posted on the closed Facebook page of Applied Evolutionary Psychology, which I am making generally available here on my own blog.

I’ve been observing the changes in ethnic composition in London, my city of birth, as a consequence of mass immigration, since I was a child in the 1950s and my responses to it, along with those of family, friends, acquaintances and others.

The responses I have observed have been overwhelmingly negative, essentially xenophobic, which is in stark contrast to the attitude of government, which demonises xenophobia and encourages people to celebrate DIVERSITY, i.e. their own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (white Britons have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of their major cities) and ultimate demise as the country’s indigenous and dominant ethnic/racial group.

Why (not for the first time) am I bringing this subject up here? Because I believe that evolutionary psychology can explain this madness, which is what it is. It’s Orwellian and totally insane, which does not bode well for the future.

Homo sapiens evolved as a tribal and territorial animal, so of course we are going to respond xenophobically to an influx of strangers. It would be unnatural, unhuman, not to.

Western governments, it would seem, are deliberately (but not necessarily consciously) provoking xenophobia in their native populations, in order to condemn it and claim a spurious moral authority for themselves, and the power that goes with it.

It is, I have come to realise, a modern, secular incarnation of the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, ”colour-blind” and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors”. 

It is no coincidence that we are taught subliminally to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our tribal nature, despite it being absolutely central to who and what we are as human beings, when what we should really do is study and understand it. This, however, would deprive the state of its ability to manipulate and exploit our tribal nature for its own purposes the way it has been accustomed to do for centuries.

Being a very tribal animal also makes us a very moral animal, which the state uses to intimidate and control us, but there is virtually no awareness of this, even amongst academia, because of the lack of an evolutionary perspective, which is a consequence of a previous generation of academics having made a taboo of it, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, which is what evolutionary psychology and anthropology used to be called.

The problem for evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists is that much more influential social and political scientists, in the service of their state employer, are professionally committed to this madness, which, of course, they fail to recognise as such. If you try pointing it out to them, they stonewall you, and if you persist it might well cost you your job and career, just as criticising church ideology would have done in the past (in medieval times it might have cost you your life). 

I suspect that most of you already know this at some level and are therefor very careful about what you say and who you say it to, as we all have to be on this and related issues.

The social and political sciences, trapped as they are in a pre-Darwinian dark age, are leading western society badly (fatally) astray, and the only ones qualified to challenge them are evolutionary biologists, psychologists and anthropologists. 

These ideas undermine mainstream academic and state authority, which is fraught with danger, but to allow this state-sponsored madness to continue can only lead to disaster. The encouragement by much of mainstream academia of continued mass immigration into Europe is like priming a powder keg, which will eventually explode, but anyone pointing this out is dismissed as a xenophobe, along with xenophobia itself which is simply seen as an evil to be suppressed, rather than as an aspect of human tribal nature which we need to understand and work WITH rather than against the grain of.

I’m not an academic myself, which has made it easier for me to overcome the taboos which might cost an academic their career, but it means that I lack authority. My ideas are simply ignored. I know, the ideas of academics are also often ignored, but when enough academics with highly regarded reputations promote the same ideas, they tend to be listened to.

Without wanting to sound alarmist, time is running out. If we don’t get our act together soon, and succeed in dragging the social and political sciences out of their pre-Darwinian dark age, it will be too late and the consequences catastrophic.

The blogs linked to below are a bit repetitive, I'm afraid, but I hope also complementary, and provide a reasonable account of, not all, but much of, my thinking:

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

Civilisation: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac?

Method to the Madness of DIVERSITY

Why I'm so Critical of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

In Defence of Anders Breivik

#Contrapot

Xenophobe or Familiaphile?

Xenophobia (antipathy towards what is foreign) is just one side of a single coin, on the other side of which is “familiaphilia” (love of the familiar). You cannot have one without the other, although, insanely, this is what is demanded of us by “moral supremacists” in defence of the liberal-fascist/statist ideology, and the MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society, currently being imposed on western democracies.

Liberal-fascist/statist ideology, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi fascist ideology, the horrors of which it was initially an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), but was consolidated in this extreme form through power-political opportunism, mainly by the Left, like the medieval church, seeking the POWER and advantage of the “moral high ground” for itself, but reinforced by the economic opportunism (cheap foreign labour) of capital and the statist (as opposed to nationalist) Right.

The Nazis took xenophobia and familiaphilia to insane and criminal extremes, seeing (“loving”) themselves as objectively superior to others (foreigners), whom they hated or held in contempt, using the basis of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, “survival of the fittest”, to rationalise and justify their inhumanity to their fellow, but non-Germanic, humans.

In response to the horrors that Nazi ideology resulted in, we went to the opposite extreme of demonising xenophobia, “familiaphilia” (love of one’s own, beyond the confines of immediate family) and any application of Darwin’s theory to human society. This overreaction was then set in the concrete of liberal-statist ideology (derived from the internationalism of the Left and from Christian universalism – the Catholic church, not calling itself “catholic” for nothing), at the core of which is the denial that race or ethnic origins are of any social or political importance (especially in respect to national identity), except to evil “racists” like the Nazis.

The problem with this ideology – quite apart from its power-political purpose – is that race and ethnic origins DO matter, being of profound importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, i.e. national, identity.

STATE and capital, however, are not interested in human beings’ need for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity, which they might make the basis of organising THEMSELVES into genuine tribes and nations, instead of the pseudo tribes and nations which state, religion and capital currently organise us into, in order to facilitate our manipulation and exploitation as a “human resource” and market.

From “Classless Society” to “Post-Racial Society”

How the Left exchanged a noble ideal for an ignoble one.

The Left gave up on their ideal of the “classless society” (characterised, not just by class, but by huge differences in income, wealth and opportunity), exchanging it (along with the “moral high ground” it was associated with) for that of a “raceless” or “post-racial society”, and the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”.

“One-Human-Racism” is the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race doesn’t matter” (or even exist), of ethnic origins being of no social or political importance (especially in respect to group, e.g. national, identity), except to evil “racists” – like the Nazis, whose abhorrent racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.

In contrast to the “classless society”, the ideal of a “raceless society” is much more acceptable to those in power, wealth and privilege, since it doesn’t challenge their status. In this way, the Left were able to become part of the status quo, the establishment, themselves, thereby creating the modern “liberal-fascist” state, which together with capital dominates all western “democracies”.

Why is the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial”, and, by implication, “post-European” society” ignoble? Because it denies (and in respect to white people, demonises, as “racist”) the central importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense personal and group, e.g. national, identity, on the one hand, and creates an uninhibited “melting pot”, on the other, in which human ethnic and cultural diversity will dissolve and disappear, or at least, be greatly reduced.

How were we deceived into believing that the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial society” was a noble cause? Initially, because of a shock response and overreaction to the horrors associated with the Nazi’s criminally insane racial ideology, but also in overreaction to the unjust and inhumane state discrimination and segregation imposed by Apartheid South Africa and America’s Jim Crow laws. Embracing the opposite attitude, of “Race doesn’t matter” (at all), seemed an appropriate response, which was then opportunistically exploited (principally on the Left) by those seeking power-political advantage by claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves.

Only it wasn’t appropriate, because race and ethnic origins DO matter, for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity.

Humans have a tendency, as exemplified here, to swing from one extreme to the other. My hope is that by understanding what is going on, we can avoid doing that. No one in their right mind wants a return to Jim Crow, Apartheid or, least of all, Nazism, although the surest way of doing so is for the state to persist in imposing the ideologically opposite extreme. We need to find a humane and civilised way between these extremes.

How? We could make a start by talking about it.

British Identity: an Ideology!

British Identity is based, not on the natural, spontaneous mutual affinity of its citizens for each other, on the shared ancestry, culture and history which characterises a genuine Nation, but on an IDEOLOGY.

The ideology of “One Human Racism”; of a “Global Melting Pot”; of “Colourblindness”; of “Race Doesn’t Matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”.

It is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which led to the horrors of Auschwitz, from which it is directly derived.

In the aftermath of the Nazi defeat, it was an understandable response to their criminally insane racial ideology to insist that “race doesn’t matter”, especially since the Nazis saw fundamental racial differences even amongst Europeans, which, without their twisted ideology, no one else could see. Europeans are not a pure race, or a single people, but a mixture of very closely related peoples, amongst whom traces of slightly different ethnicities can still be seen, but not disentangled. Thus, nationality was based not on race, but on language and/or territory organised as a sovereign state.

However, the dictum of “race doesn’t matter”, which works naturally well amongst Europeans, because of them being so closely related (racially, culturally, historically and even prehistorically, as evidenced by the relative ease with which any European can settle and integrate into any European society, as well as by the success of the American melting pot of European immigrants), was then forcefully applied to humanity as a whole: no matter how different an immigrant’s or asylum seeker’s racial, cultural or historical background might be – it didn’t matter! And anyone who suggested that it did was branded a “racist” – like the Nazis.

And this, despite the obvious importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense of personal and group (e.g. national) identity: witness the continuing, spontaneous segregation – despite all attempts at desegregation and integration – of African (black) and European (white) Americans, and the “white flight” and segregation now characteristic of many European cities. Most people, whatever their ethnicity, naturally enough, want to live amongst members of their own ethnic group.

Yet our ruling elites are determined to impose a racial ideology on us (that “race doesn’t matter”) which goes completely against human nature.

The only alternative they say, is a return, via the inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid, to Nazi racial ideology and the horrors of Auschwitz.

We are forced to choose between these two extreme ideologies, just as in the Middle Ages, people had to choose between Jesus and salvation, on the one hand, and the Devil and damnation on the other, and, of course, between the institutions (the church, political parties, etc.) associated with them.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: power politics and the importance therein of laying claim to the “moral high ground”.

It was through its claim to the “moral high ground”, as God’s representative on Earth, that the Catholic Church was able to exercise such power and influence in medieval European societies. Everyone, even the aristocracy, which exercised the power of the sword over society, had to “believe” in, or at least pay lip-service to, Church ideology, no matter how absurd (as most of us now agree it was and is). Now it is the absurd ideology of “race doesn’t matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazi, we ALL have believe in, or at least pay lip-service to – certainly if you want a job in politics or the media.

But race and ethnic origins DO matter, socially and politically, and the sooner we put the “moral supremacists” who currently dominate society (mainly through politics and the media), just as the Catholic Church once did, in their place, admit this, develop a sound understanding of it, and learn to deal with it – in a rational, humane and civilised fashion – the better.