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

Academics Modern Counterparts of Medieval Clergy

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics (especially in the social sciences and humanities) are 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 power-political claim to legitimacy and to moral and knowledgeable authority.

This has profound implications for our understanding of social and political reality, because we all look to academia (even if not to every individual academic) as the highest authority on virtually all matters.

We tend to blame politicians for all that is wrong with society, but it is the academics who teach them at university and advise them once in office who are really to blame, i.e. the one's who need to be held to account.

Only, there is no one to hold them to account, other than themselves. And just like our political class (or any other class or profession, come to that), they are not inclined to be too critical of their own.

There is a classic example of this in today's press, with the parliamentary standards watchdog having found “no breach of the rules on paid lobbying” by two former foreign secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, after an investigation into cash-for-access allegations (LINK) . . .

Academics are the one's ultimately responsible for the madness of post-racial multicultural society and ideology, which now serves the state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did (LINK). They are the one's demanding that we "celebrate DIVERSITY", when it is nothing less than Orwellian newspeak for ethnic Europeans to celebrate their 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 . . .

It is not my intention to demonise academics (as they tend to do with anyone who dares to fundamentally question their authority or ideology*), because that will just cause them to close their minds and hearts completely to my criticisms, when what I want them to do is listen to my criticisms and  think about them. Because when all is said and done, they are the ones who must hold themselves to account. No one else can do it.

* Anyone questioning the wisdom of post-racial multicultural society and ideology,  or the desirability of DIVERSITY is dismissed as a "bigot" or "racist" just as in earlier times anyone questioning church ideology was demonised as a heathen or heretic.

What I'm asking of academics is no easy task. It's a huge and daunting challenge, but one which the very survival of our civilisation urgently depends on them first recognising and then facing up to. It is about developing a much better, more realistic, understanding of ourselves, of society, the state and our situation. But before they can do this, they must first recognise just how deeply flawed current understanding it.

I provide an introduction to how deeply flawed current understanding is in this BLOG.

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.

Family: the Last, Wretched Vestige of our Original Tribe

According to an opinion piece in yesterday's Telegraph, "The Tories have broken their marriage vow",

"Marriage is one of the most important of all social institutions."

This is because, along with the nuclear family it is associated with, it is the last, crippled, vestige of the original tribe and community in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, but which, between them, state and a money, wholly for-profit  economy have over the centuries (especially during the last) made redundant.

The state, which usurped our original tribes and now poses as our nation, which we mistakenly assume exists to serve us, was in fact created and has developed over the centuries to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage, originally of just the rich and powerful, but nowadays of a very numerous and diverse elite, and, paradoxically, because of their role in modern democracy as clients and

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.

An Ideal (socialist) Society

In an ideal socialist society we would treat each other like “royalty” (L. Rex = king, which has the same root as “kin“).

There is nothing wrong, it seems to me, with “socialist” ideas or ideals, which are a necessary and healthy response to (consumer) capitalism which treats people not as “kin” or even as human beings, but primarily as a “human resource” and market.

The problems arise – which have given socialism such a bad name – when the STATE, i.e. politicians, attempt to implement socialist ideas in a population they see as “clients” (a “market“, to be served for personal advantage and profit) rather than as kin (to be served forkinsake). It’s a view greatly facilitated by the creation of a multi-ethnic society . . .

On right-wing websites the words “socialist” and “socialism” are mainly used as terms of abuse, dismissal or belittlement, much as the words “capitalist” and “capitalism” are on left-wing sites.

Having evolved, long before the advent of civilisation, as a tribal animal, our brains are obviously hard-wired to see things in terms of “them and us” (my tribe and other tribes!). We often speak of “tribal behaviour” in respect to politics, but again, only to disparage it; never, that I’ve noticed, in a serious, non-judgemental, attempt to understand it.

You’d think that academics – evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists – would attempt to understand human society in the light of man’s deeply tribal nature, but they don’t, prevented, it seems, by the same taboos which cause politicians and the rest of us to trivialise or demonise it (especially as “racism“).

America’s Lefty Military

It’s amazing to what extent socialist principles expounded by the Left are actually realised in the American military, as revealed in this OP-ED article from the New York Times, Our Lefty Military, providing food for some very deep thought, I think, at least, for those capable of deep thought, which of course isn’t everyone.

Who or What Governs Britain?

In Tuesday’s Telegraph, Daniel Hannan asks “Who governs Britain?“, but the question should really be, WHAT governs Britain?

Modern brain science has shown that decisions are made prior to the individual becoming aware of them. We then rationalise these decisions and our behaviour in order to delude ourselves into a false sense conscious and rational control.

When it comes to our collective behaviour and decisions of the state and corporations (capital), the situation is no different – as history and our current situation bear witness to, although we rationalise them too, of course, either not recognising just how bad things are, or blaming the undeniably bad on others.

Far from being cynical and fatalistic about it, developing an understanding this, I believe, offers a means of raising our awareness and directing our behaviour along more rational, humane and enlightened lines. Currently, our collective behaviour is light years away from being any of these things, although we rationalise and deceive ourselves into believing that this is not the case.

So WHAT is it that rules us?

It is our our primordial Darwinian nature (what else?), which drives the struggle for survival and reproductive success, only now misplaced, perverted and, of course, rationalised (reduced largely to the pursuit and exercise of POWER: social, professional, political economic/financial etc.) in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, where the STATE conflates and confounds our original intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments, which we evolved to response to very differently, posing as our tribe (or nation) on the one hand, representing the intra-tribal environment, while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation as an extra-tribal environment.

What Ails the Family?

Evolution never intended the nuclear family to exist on its own, but within the context and with the support of an extended family and community, both of which the modern STATE and a money economy have made redundant and thus caused to wither and virtually disappear.

It is as if we had cut the arms and legs off a person’s torso and attached artificial limbs (provided by the state or bought with one’s own money), in their place, and now wonder why they can’t dance as well as we would like.

If you’re rich and can afford the very best artificial limbs, that helps a lot, but even that is no substitute for extended family and community (genuine community, not the meaningless abstractions politicians harp on about).

The fundamental problem, which is it high time we recognised and developed an understanding of, is that social structures (material, such as housing, and organisational), having been shaped by man’s perverted Darwinian and thoroughly corrupting drive for POWER, are adapted to managing and servicing “human resources” and “consumers“, rather than to providing for the needs of human beings.

What’s needed is a fundamental reorientation and reorganisation of society as a whole – not from the top down, as left-wing statists and fascists would impose on us (with the catastrophic consequences we are familiar with from the 20th Century), but grass-roots-democractically, from the bottom up.

Instead of continuing to allow ourselves, like “sheeple, to be organised by state and capital, whose perverted Darwinian nature seeks to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation as a human resource and environment, we need to organise OURSELVES, as “people”, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into rational TRIBES and NATIONS.

Where to start? First, by recognising and developing an understanding of our own Darwinian nature and how, misplaced and perverted in the artificial environment of human civilisation, it has given rise to the social, political, religious economic and financial power structures which provide its framework and shape society.

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 . . . !!

Human Beings or Human Resources?

In response to an article in today's Telegraph, "It's babies, not discrimination, that's holding back women in the workplace" by Jemima Lewis


The root cause of the intractable problems relating to work and family life is a misconceived belief in the individual or nuclear family being the basic unit of society. 

They are not. They are the basic units of the artificial human ENVIRONMENT, which state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, TALENT, which by definition means virtually all members of our political, business, academic and media elites.

The natural, basic unit of a genuine society is the tribe or community, which, having been made redundant by the state and a money economy, no longer exist.

Obviously, we cannot recreate the kind of tribal society evolution adapted human behaviour and emotions to, but, given a realistic (necessarily Darwinian) understanding of ourselves and our situation, we could develop a political and socio-economic order which serves us as "human beings" rather than serving our self-exploitation us as "human resources" and markets (including the "labour market").

The following quote illustrates the author’s “profligate” way of looking at the meaning and purpose of human life, both male and female, which dominates, from left to right, right across the “progressive” political spectrum.

“Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fall out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country.”

It’s centred around a perverted political and economic philosophy (responsible for current reality, and vice versa) more interested in the exploitation of “human resources” and markets than in the well-being and self-realisation of human beings, which it effectively reduces to their ability to make MONEY and/or to claim a spurious, likewise perverted, “moral high ground” for themselves (especially favoured by the Left).

Trouble is, it’s “successful” individuals, especially in the media, who define what “success” is for society at large, despite being so utterly misguided themselves.

But then, who am I to tell such “successful” people that they’re misguided . . ?

What's Wrong with "Society"?

The elites of so-called developing countries are no more interested in the welfare of their own citizens than Britain’s elites were of theirs in Victorian times. They are just a "human resource" to be exploited and protected against.

The assumption that perpetual economic growth will create enough wealth to lift everyone out of poverty, without restricting the growing wealth of the elites, is pure fantasy.

What’s fundamental wrong with “society” is that it is not a genuine society at all, but an artificial environment, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of.

That’s the problem we have to recognise and understand, if we want to solve it – and survive. Otherwise, our civilisation will self-destruct.

Viking Bankers

Like the Vikings, Bankers see themselves as noble warriors, providing for their OWN (families) – and without shedding a drop of blood . . .

Excuse me picking on bankers again. It is because they are currently the most visible example of those, not just serving, but also excessively exploiting society as an ENVIRONMENT.

I call them Vikings, because it is the same (subconscious, Darwinian) motivation for the survival, advantage and “success” of their own families, that is driving them – and everyone else, of course.

Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution (what else?), which drives us to exploit our environment, and now includes human society itself.

The basic unit of human survival and reproductive success, until the advent of civilisation, was the TRIBE, which sometimes organised themselves into a NATION, to facilitate their protection against, or exploitation of, other tribes and nations.

The Vikings were a NATION, which, instead of fighting amongst themselves (although I’m sure they did that as well), went out and exploited the resources they found on foreign shores. Those they plundered (Anglo-Saxons, for example) saw them a evil pirates, but from a wholly subjective perspective. A few generations before, Angles and Saxons themselves had been the pirates, taking land and booty from the Celts.

The primary purpose of civilisation is to regulate human self-exploitation, which those in power, of course, did (and continue to do) to their own advantage. Only, you need more than a strong arm to impose order on a population (of exploitable human resources); you need brains as well, which resulted in nobles and clergy cooperating in the creation of the STATE.

Within the state, individuals in a position to do so, spontaneously organised themselves into quasi-tribes, i.e. classes, professions and other shared interest groups, in order to secure the best possible advantage for themselves in the social environment, which, of course, also had to be maintained: like a shepherd looking after his flock, which he tells them is for their own good, so that they behave and do as they are told (this is where religion comes into its own; and being dumb sheep, they believe and obey him). But, of course, the shepherd’s real interests are his own (and/or those of his employer), which is the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

Social scientists should be telling you all this, rather than me, but being themselves an interest group, wholly dependent on the state and status quo, they are blinded to the Darwinian reality of our situation. So I keep going on about it, in the hope that some of them will eventually take notice.

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.

America's Gun Laws

Until recently I’d never been able to make sense of America’s gun laws, which allow so many people to own a gun and results in a huge toll of death and injury. How, I wondered, could a rational and civilised society possibly justify such laws? The answer, I eventually decided, was that America was neither a rational nor a civilised society.

However, in the light of the Darwinian view I now take of all human societies (their power structures) being shaped by human nature, itself being a product of Darwinian evolution, I have now revised my opinion.

It’s not that America’s gun laws are irrational or uncivilised, but that America is not a genuine society (i.e. a nation, which would be a natural extension of one’s original tribe), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT – or “jungle”, as it is sometimes called – where, despite the pretence of being a PEOPLE and a NATION (i.e. a genuine society), the individual (family) is still engaged in the primordial struggle for survival, advantage and “success”.

Within your tribe (a genuine society) you don’t need a weapon, because you are all brothers and sisters (i.e. closely related), cooperating (all for one and one for all) in the primordial struggle for survival and “success” in the wider natural environment, which originally included other, rival, tribes. It was only when individuals left the security of their tribe that they took their weapons with them.

America’s gun laws reflect the fact that it is not a genuine society or nation, but a “jungle”, where everyone needs to be on their guard, every ready to defend themselves (and their family) and to grab the opportunities that are available.

A semblance of “society” and “nationhood” is maintained and cultivated by the STATE, which maintains order and prevents chaos for the good of everyone, but also facilitates society’s self-exploitation, as an environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.

This also explains the lack of enthusiasm for state welfare, with the state taking care of everyone as if they were all member of the same tribe or nation. Because, deep down, most Americans know that they are not a PEOPLE or a NATION, despite their politicians’ frequent references and appeals to them as such (enthusiastically supported by the “national” media) – politicians who would never dream of exploiting “society”, but always refer to themselves as its “servants”.

It also explains the different outlooks of the political right and left: the right doesn’t want the state playing the role of tribe (i.e. genuine nation), but just to maintain the social environment and the rule of law, so that those with wealth or talent can exploit it; the liberal-left, on the other hand, want the state to play the role of tribe and genuine nation, taking care of all its people’s needs.

If America really were a PEOPLE and a NATION the liberal-left would be right to take the stance they do (which, of course, is what they believe), but it is NOT, so what they are doing is trying to bang a square peg into a round whole. You can do it – but only with force: thus the justified accusation of “liberal fascism”.

Here the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a NATION:

"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].

Also, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the idea of a multi-ethnic nation (which America is supposed to be ) an oxymoronic absurdity.

If America (and the same also applies to multi-ethnic Britain) isn’t a PEOPLE or a NATION, what is it? It’s a mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, in order to facilitate the self-exploitation of its population (see the rest of my blog).

This is a harsh reality to face up to, but better that than to go on denying it.

Basically it's a (collective) “relationship issue”. To quote the Beatles, “we can work it out”. It won’t be easy or painless, but it’s doable, provided one faces up to reality, and maintains a sense humour and humanity.

Margaret Thatcher was right about Society

“There is no such thing as society, [just] individual men and women, and families . . “, she is reported to have said.

This is pretty much the basis on which western civilisation is organised. And that’s the PROBLEM, because we evolved to survive and “succeed”, not as individuals or single families, but as part of a larger society, i.e. tribe or nation.

What is referred to as “society”, notwithstanding its vital social importance, is in fact far more an “artificial human environment” (of niches, resources and markets), the self-exploitation of which, state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate, mainly, but not exclusively, to the advantage of power, wealth and privilege (including academics, favoured professions, and everyone who is anyone in the media, politics, the church and business).

State and economy do serve us, of course, and we are all completely dependent on them, which deludes us into seeing this as their primary purpose, but in fact only as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not primarily for the flock’s sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern for a lost or 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.

This is the core of my human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding human “society” and its ills, which I’m still developing on this and other blogs, and could do with some academic help in expanding upon.

A Human-Evolutionary View of “Society”

From a human-evolutionary perspective it is clear that our democratic state and capitalist economy developed over the centuries to facilitate society’s self-exploitation, as a human environment, resource and market, to the advantage of those with the power to influence these developments – which is why there are such powerful taboos against taking a Darwinian (= evil) view of our own society, which would destroy the illusion (necessary for its smooth functioning) of it being our nation (the extension and modern equivalent of our original tribe).

Like all the great apes, Earth’s Greatest Ape, i.e. humans, evolved to exploit its natural environment in the primordial struggle for survival and reproductive success, not as an individual, but as a committed member of a tribe, making us inherently not just the most social of animals, but also the most tribal.

However, with the advent of civilisation, this environment was extended, perversely, to include human society itself, with state and economy developing to facilitate its exploitation, initially to the almost exclusive advantage of its ruling elites of aristocracy and clergy, but expanding and diversifying over the centuries to culminate in western democracy and capitalism, where everyone – in theory, at least – is “free” to exploit their human environment, while maintaining the necessary illusion and self-deception, initiated and cultivated by the original ruling elites and extended by “socialists” and “progressives”, of serving society as their nation (David Cameron’s Big Society).