Why I'm so Critical of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

Post-racial multiculturalism is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which it began as an understandable overreaction to (as well as to the injustice and inhumanity of Jim Crow and Apartheid), before being consolidated by academics into an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

Original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) has been replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was mistakingly 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".

In the land of ideological colour-blindness the colour-blind (i.e. those who feign it, since no one really is) are Kings, i.e. have access to positions in politics, the civil service, the judiciary, the media, academia, etc., while those who fail to comply with state ideology do not.

What is "Celebrating DIVERSITY" other than Orwellian newspeak for white people everywhere 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) and ultimate demise . . ??

This explains why the entire western world - led, as usual, by America - has succumbed to the madness of mass poor-world immigration and an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which facilitates it, denying, demonising and suppressing as "racist" the natural ethnic foundations of national identity and genuine (as opposed to pseudo/state) nationhood. There is no need for conspiracy theories involving particular groups of people.

It also explains why our democratically elected politicians have imposed this madness on us: because they have no choice; if they want to pursue a career in politics, they have to comply with state ideology, which academics (who teach them at university and advise them in office) are largely responsible for; although it is no good “blaming” them either, because as individuals they are also beholden to this same ideology. Attacking them for it will just get their backs up, causing them to cling all the more tenaciously to their current ideologies and misconceptions, just as early 17th century academics, i.e. clergy, did when their understanding - and with it, their authority - was challenged by the likes of Galileo.

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, modern academics are themselves privileged clients and employees of our "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.

Political Implications of Evolutionary Psychology

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

Civilisation: An Evolutionary Cul-De-Sac?

Scottish Nationalists or Statists?

The following quote is from an article, “The United Kingdom: Disunited, we will all fall“, in today’s Telegraph:

“Scotland, . . perhaps the most mono-cultural country in Europe . . , whose population has only recently shown a slight increase after years of stagnation, wants more incomers.”

Such MADNESS suggests to me that Scotland’s so-called “nationalist” politicians are not nationalists at all, but statists, i.e. typical power-hungry politicians, merely posing as nationalists.

Genuine (rational) nationalists identify with their own PEOPLE and NATION, which are naturally rooted in shared ethnicity, culture and history (and thus a shared sense of identity and solidarity), and would thus not want immigrants (certainly not many) of quite different ethnicity, culture and history undermining their national identity, as has happened (is happening) in England.

Statists, on the other hand, identify with POWER, which they pursue even at their own people’s and nation’s expense (and ultimate destruction). They don’t care about the “colour of people’s skin”, i.e. ethnic origins, but about “the colour of MONEY” and POWER, which now necessitates embracing core liberal-fascist/statist ideology of “colourblindness”, as a spurious “moral high ground”, which denies and demonises as “racist” the natural ethnic basis of national identity.

The Catholic Church – A Darwinian Perspective

My response to an article in today’s Telegraph on the beatification of Pope John Paul II:

“[the] sexual abuse of children by priests . . [which] he swept . . under the carpet, [was] hardly the conduct of a saint.”

Of course not. It was the conduct of someone more interested in the authority and POWER of the church he headed and so strongly and self-interestedly  identified with.

“This was the miracle that Vatican rules require for the beatification to take place at all (a second is now needed for canonisation).”

This, I think, illustrates the gullibility on which the POWER of the Catholic church depends.

“. . he did not win over the dissenters in his flock, but that didn’t stop him commanding attention and respect.”

“Flock” is an appropriate way of describing the “sheeple” whose belief in and identification with the Catholic church give it so much POWER. Although, if it works to your material advantage (as in the case of Catholic clergy and academics), you are more a shepherd than a sheep, with a vested interest in being gullible.

“ . . the enduring place in our national life of tradition and authority, [which for Catholics] the papacy continues to [serve].”

This, I suggest, reflects man’s deep and inherent tribal nature, which civilisation teaches us to suppress, deny, ridicule, trivialise or demonise (e.g. as “racist”), while at the same time manipulating and exploiting it subliminally for its own (perverted Darwinian) purposes.

Our original tribe having been usurped by the state and a money economy (civilisation), has left us with a profound emotional need for a substitute, be it the STATE itself (posing as our NATION), our religion, company, political party or ideology, football team, or whatever, all of which manipulate and exploit, but rarely truly satisfy, our need for tribal identity and loyalty.

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 . . . !!

Economic Growth: A Darwinian Perspective

In nature there is perpetual growth, at least in respect to successful populations, whose individual members then compete for resources, survival and reproductive success, thereby keeping the population fit and well adapted to its environment, at the cost, however, of all those individuals who are out-competed and perish. It’s harsh, but the way evolution works at this level.

At the level of an individual organism things are very different. Growth is carefully controlled and directed, where it is required, and stopped where it is not. When the control mechanism fails CANCER is the result.

Populations of human “prime apes” are no exception, although there is a strong subjective tendency to assume we are. It’s an assumption which is given some credence by the confusion resulting from most human populations having been organised into STATES, posing as NATIONS, which, when genuine, are a natural extension and abstraction of the individual’s original TRIBE, which developed, as a product of human behavioural evolution, as a kind of super-organism, a level of social organisation which the individual depended on and was thus subordinate to.

Only, the nations states pose as are not genuine, but inventions, to facilitate control and manipulation of the population in question as a “human resource”, and in more recent times, a market, to be exploited to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and TALENT.

States do serve their “human resources”, of course, which are dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, not primarily for the flocks sake, but for his and/or his employer’s sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for MONEY.

The exploitation isn’t usually conscious, and when it is, it’s rationalised. Nor is the line between exploiters and exploited always clearly defined, certainly not in the modern world, although in the past it was much clearer, at least with hindsight, with aristocracy and clergy cooperating (one wielding the power of the sword, the other the power of the word) in creating the state itself in order to facilitate “society’s”, i.e. the peasants, exploitation to their shared advantage, while granting privileges to useful members of certain professions, such as bankers, merchants, some artists, inventors, etc.

In this context, it is also important to consider that human behaviour and emotions evolved in response to two very different environments: one intra-tribal the other extra-tribal, which the state effectively conflates and confounds, playing the role of our tribe (and intra-tribal environment) on the one hand, while at the same time, on the other, also facilitating society’s self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment.

It is no wonder that in the modern world, where advancing technology and turbo capitalism have greatly intensified exploitation of both the natural and human environments, “human beings”, who didn’t evolve to be abused as a “resource” or “market”, should feel so stressed and confused, giving rise to so much anti-social and/or self-destructive behaviour.

In trying to understand politicians’ obsession with perpetual economic growth, the MADNESS of which, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, one would have thought obvious even to a child, the following explanation occurred to me:

That it is perhaps an expression of the same instinctive, subconscious drive for reproductive success, which, in the artificial environment of modern “society”, it has come to supplement or even replace. The MADNESS of it to an unblickered intelligence, is hidden by ignoring or rationalising it, as if under the influence of some form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion.

Even now, despite the growing threat of overpopulation, politicians are still desperate to maintain, if not actually increase, their country’s population (by encouraging a higher birth rate and inviting mass immigration). The same also applies to the Catholic Church, which has many characteristics of a STATE, not least of which is its obsession with POWER.

The drive for reproductive success (increasing population) and power (which would greatly increase an individual’s (especially male) chances of survival and mating opportunities, made good evolutionary sense in the natural environment humans evolved in long before the advent of civilisation. But does it continue to make good evolutionary, or any other kind of sense NOW . . . ?

The answer to that question should be obvious. But unfortunately, our brains evolved to “interpret” reality (i.e. its environment, which now largely comprises the civilisation it has itself helped to create) to its own, highly subjective, narrow and short-sighted advantage, the most tragic example of which (although it has yet to play out) is the refusal of our political, business and media elites and leaders to heed the warnings, which began in earnest way back in the early 1970s, relating to the inherent non-sustainability, on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, of our rapacious, growth-dependent economy and the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it both engendered and depended on.

Money: a Darwinian Perspective

It is well known that “power corrupts”, yet when it comes to MONEY, which is the most ubiquitous and important, because most versatile, form of power, we tend to ignore this fact – perhaps because everything and everyone are so depend on it, being woven into the very fabric of society and civilisation.

Money is so fundamental to our existence that we dare not even question its role. Effectively, we are as dependent on money as we are on air and water, without which we would quickly die. If we are not in a position to acquire money for ourselves, the state steps in and provides it for us (or the essential things it buys). And if the state fails, the “international community” will provide it (in the form of food aid).

It’s not money itself we depend on, which is an abstract entity (power), but what it buys. We all know this and take it for granted, but our understanding of it is extremely superficial.

From a deeper, Darwinian, perspective the importance of money (power) is clear: it has the potential to greatly enhance the individual’s chances of survival and reproductive success, in the artificial environment of human society, especially if they are male. Classically, powerful men have lots of wives (or mistresses) and children.

Money corrupts because it facilitates man’s exploitation of his fellow man in his pursuit of power; something which democratic states and free-market capitalism between them have made a fine art of. And because so many of us believe ourselves to be doing so well out of it, we don’t want to question it.

We won’t even admit to ourselves that the system we depend on is self-exploitative. We see exploiters, but only in OTHERS, not in ourselves. The political right sees the liberal left as out to exploit their hard work, savings, talents and entrepreneurism (for the benefit of themselves and their less hard-working, less talented and less entrepreneurial clientèle), while the liberal left see the political right and capital out to exploit ordinary workers, while shirking their responsibility for the poor and disadvantaged.

Above the temple in Delphi was written a very wise saying: “Know thy self”. It is, I suggest, even more pertinent for society as a whole than for the individual.

Moral Supremacism

Picking up on the references I made in my last post to “moral supremacists”, I will argue here that they are the biggest threat of all to the survival of our civilisation – far greater than the threat of black and white “supremacists” combined, because far more numerous and powerful.

What are Islamists (those trying to impose Islam on society) other than “moral supremacists”?

What are the Catholic and Anglican churches other than institutionalised “moral supremacism”?

What are those (politicians, academics, media people, etc.) imposing the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, society on us, together with the ideology of “Race doesn't Matter”, is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, other than “moral supremacists”?

Some are moderate, keeping their moral supremacism to themselves, while others – the truly dangerous ones – are intent on imposing it on others, through laws, physical or verbal intimidation, or even violence.

What motivates “moral supremacists”, I suggest, is the desire for POWER over others, in the struggle for survival, advantage and “success” in the artificial environment of human society.

The state itself was founded back in the Middle Ages by a coalition of military supremacists (the aristocracy) and moral supremacists (the clergy).

Moral supremacism is such an integral part of the power structures of any society that it is very difficult, especially from within one's own society, to recognise for what it is.

The Great Philanthropy Con

“Barack Obama discusses philanthropy with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett” is the heading of a short article in today’s Telegraph.

I don’t doubt for one moment that both men mean well. Which is both a major problem and a source of hope.

Why is it a major problem? Because they are highly motivated, but just as misguided, in pursuit of their philanthropic aims, as they were in pursuit of their massive fortunes.

What’s motivating and misguiding them is the pursuit of social status, which of course is a very natural thing for “great apes” like ourselves to do. Only we are no longer in the natural, tribal, environment in which such behaviour evolved and was beneficial to individual and tribe survival and reproductive success, but in the very different, artificial environment of global civilisation.

Social status is inseparable from POWER. The more power an individual has, the higher their social status: thus its ability to intimidate and intoxicate, both of which are inimical to reason and rational behaviour. Power comes in different forms, but in the modern world by far its most important and versatile form is MONEY.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spent most of their lives intent on making as much money as possible, which they were pre-eminently successful at.

Once an individual has gained all the social status and recognition that successful money making affords, the only way of increasing social status and recognition even further (or of maintaining them at the most elevated level) is through philanthropy, i.e. spending a proportion of their fortunes on “good causes”, which benefit their TRIBE, which Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, judging by the projects they are supporting through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, see as humanity at large, whose most needy they want to help out of disease and poverty.

Significantly, this generally excludes ethnic Europeans like themselves, because they have no urgent need of their help, and because they don’t identify with them, but with all humanity, as their TRIBE, from which there is far more social status and recognition to be had. It fact, for ethnic Europeans to identify with their own race is considered evil, i.e. “racist”. So, to gain the elevated social status and recognition they desire they have no choice but to identify with some other tribe – and what more noble (and conveniently abstract) than all humanity?

What I’m trying to point out is the perverted (rationalised and unrecognised) Darwinian nature of all this, which, no matter how well meant, can ONLY lead – is leading! – to catastrophe.

Seeing all humanity as one’s TRIBE is considered the greatest virtue, while not doing so, if you are white, is considered “racist”. Thus, Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffet’s choice of “good causes”. Who doesn’t want to be considered virtuous and non-racist? And their vast wealth enables them to be far more so than others. They must be glowing with self-satisfaction: SUCCESS incarnate.

Only they didn’t see humanity, or any subdivision of it, as their TRIBE when they were MAKING their money. Then, society (largely comprising their own race) was first and foremost an ENVIRONMENT (of human resources and consumers), which they were intent on exploiting to their own perceived advantage, taking a much money from it as possible.

I’m not blaming Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for this situation. They didn’t create it, but have simply been eminently “successful” in exploiting it. And with everyone who is anyone praising and admiring them for doing so, how can they possibly doubt that they are two of the world’s most successful and virtuous men?