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

Childhood is being eroded by modern life . .

According to an article in the Telegraph: LINK.

WHY? Because the SYSTEM (of state and capita)l treats children in accordance with how it treats the rest of us: as a developing “human resource” and consumer (or client), rather than as developing human beings.

To understand WHY, one has to view society and its development from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective. Evolution adapted human nature (emotions, motivations, gratifications and behaviour patterns) to a tribal environment which has now been replaced by the artificial, socio-economic environment of civilisation, which we are ILL adapted and thus corrupted to survive and seek perverted forms of “success” in.

But there is nothing we can do about it without first recognising this and developing an understanding of it. Trouble is that “moral authority” forbids us from taking a Darwinian view of human society, because that’s what those wicked and discredited social Darwinists did.

Darwinian Ethics

It is contrary to everything we have learned is good and true (just as Copernican cosmology once was), but Darwinian ethics is what we need to save our civilisation, which produced Darwin and his theory of human origins, from extinction.

Applied to our understanding of life on Earth, Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fundamental, which, of course, it is; but as soon as anyone attempts applying it to human society, which is surely as much a product of human nature, as human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution, they are confronted with a high, barbed-wired topped wall, which a strip mine-field prevents them from even approaching.

The reason given for the wall, the barbed-wire and the mine field is that beyond it lies the horrific world of social Darwinism and Nazism.

Don’t ask me how I managed it, but I’ve peaked over the wall, and although its true that beyond it there are paths leading to the aforementioned horrors, there are other paths too, leading away from them and, most interestingly, also leading away from the perverted Darwinian situation we are actually in at the moment, but don’t recognise, because of its familiarity and our rationalisations, on this side of the wall.

Recognising the perverted Darwinian nature of the existing socio-economic order would necessitate questioning its very foundations. This is what we – especially our powerful, wealthy and privileged (including academic) elites – are really scared of.

We cannot escape the fact that human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution, or that this in turn has shaped the power structures (social, religious, political and economic) of our civilisation. So what we do, is ignore, rationalise and deny it.

Interestingly, even evolutionary anthropologists and biologists, like Richard Dawkins, don’t seem to recognise what’s really going on, blinded, at a subconscious level, I can only assume, by their own apparent self-interests in preserving the status quo.

However, we urgently need to recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation, because otherwise there is no way that we can possibly find solutions to the problems (social, political, economic and environmental) now threatening to put an end to it.

Central to these solutions will be a Darwinian ethics, i.e. ethics based on a rational and humane understanding of our own Darwinian nature, rather than – as currently – on demonisation or denial of it.

It is not for me, or anyone else, to lay down what these ethics should be, but for us collectively and grass-roots-democratically to work out. It’s going to take a while, because at the moment, very few people even recognise, let alone understand, the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation.

I’ll come back, either here or in another post, with some of my own ideas on the form a Darwinian ethics might take.