Uncommon vs Common Sense & the "Insanities of Normality"

The most profound advances in human understanding have occurred when "common sense" was overturned by "uncommon sense". The Copernican revolution (the change from an Earth-centred to a Sun-centred view of the universe) is the most famous example (now simply taken for granted and generally unappreciated); other examples are the fact that a feather falls just as fast as a heavy hammer when there is no air resistance to prevent it, Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum theory.

"Common sense" is to a large extent the recognition of what is considered "normal " and socially acceptable. Evolution has programmed and society conditioned us to see things thus. Politicians love to appeal to people's common sense, because they want to retain the status quo which places them in a position of advantage and privilege. If the physical sciences were as bound by common sense as the social and political sciences still are, as little scientific and technologically progress would have been made as in the so-called social and political sciences.

Nowadays, for example, it is "common sense" for everyone who can afford it to own a car (or two, or more) and to fly away on holiday once or twice a year (or own a private plane). But as ever more of Earth's almost 7 billion inhabitants (and still increasing) can also afford these things, it places an increasingly unsustainable drain and strain on our planet's limited resources and carrying capacity. "Common sense" tells us not to worry about it, because it's "normal " and everyone does it; and besides, experience teaches us that things have always worked out in the past, and - thanks to man's ingenuity - will surely continue to do so in future.

"Uncommon sense ", on the other hand, is telling us that we are now in an entirely new situation, that our growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic lifestyles are fundamentally unsustainable, the consequences of which pose a dire threat, if not to ourselves (depending how old you are), certainly to our children and coming generations.

It is natural for us to see what is "normal " also as being correct, or at least, not too bad. We cannot help it, because we are hard-wired and conditioned by society to do so. It is the biological basis of morals and ethics, words which in their original tongues (Latin and Greek) simply referred to customary (i.e. normal and acceptable) behaviour.

To a far greater extent than we are prepared to admit (except in the nicely compartmentalised field of biology), man is an animal, a "prime ape" (if you will excuse the pun) - in fact, Earth's "Greatest Ape "- and although we have a good deal of social behaviour programmed into us, it evolved to serve the survival and advantage of individuals and their family groups, TRIBES, and under some circumstances, NATION – but NOT a wider humanity, and certainly not our species as a whole. This is why efforts to address even regional problems, let alone state (national), inter-state and global problems, which now threaten our very survival, have been and - without a radical change of awareness and behaviour - will continue to be so hopelessly inadequate.

In the past, rules of behaviour (morals) were passed down from generation to generation and generally contributed to the group's survival. An individual might question the validity of a rule prohibiting the eating of a particular mushroom, for example, but he was well advised to heed it. Natural selection soon eliminated those who didn't. Conforming to the norm and following authority and majority makes logical and practical sense (otherwise evolution would not have hard-wired us to do so). When scientists (renowned for their rationality) conduct an experiment which produces lots of data they will often disregard any that do not fit the general pattern, assuming them to be the result of experimental error. It is usually the sensible and correct thing to do.

Or imagine being in a building when a fire alarm sounds. You have no idea where to head and there are no signs to indicate it, but suddenly you see a large number of people all rushing in the same direction. What do you do? Most likely you assume that, unlike you, they know which direction to head in, and join them. It seems rational to suppose that they will not all to be mistaken. However, that assumes that they all came to their decision independently. In practice it may be that just one person thought - perhaps mistakenly - that he knew the right direction and started heading in it, and others simply followed, creating a chain reaction. They might all be rushing towards danger instead of away from it. By analogy, this also applies to the direction in which modern civilisation is heading, i.e. towards catastrophe; but because virtually everyone is moving in the same direction it is very difficult - psychologically and practically - to believe that this could be true.

Another example: when I see lots of people walking and skating on a frozen lake (as I often did when I lived in Germany), I'm inclined to assume that it is safe to join them. Good sense, however, will tell me to consider other factors as well - like how cold it has been and for how long, or actually to measure the thickness of the ice.

Thus, we are biologically programmed and socially conditioned to conform to the norm. Not that everyone always does, of course, but in general we do. In the modern world things are confused by contact with and knowledge of foreign cultures, and the fact that someone who appears to be courageously non-conformist, may in fact simply be conforming to other, unfamiliar norms, such as those of a street gang, for example, or of a religious sect.

In unfamiliar social situations, where we are unsure how to behave, we all usually look to see how others are behaving, in order to fit in with them.

Conforming to social norms is an essential characteristic of human behaviour, inherited from our animal forebears, which has served our survival and advancement. However, recent developments - the exponential increase in human numbers and their impact, hugely increased through the application of modern technology, on our planet - have led to a fundamental change (in fact, a reversal) in such behaviour's survival value.

In the modern world it is perfectly normal for lots of people to make extensive use of a car and fly off on holiday once or twice a year. Our biological programming and social conditioning thus respond by telling us that it must be okay for us to do so as well. On the other hand, our recently acquired, more enlightened, human nature (e.g. our intellect, in its literal sense) tells us that what may be of little consequence for our planet when just a few (million) people do it, is likely to have catastrophic consequences if 100's or 1000's of millions of people do the same thing.

In the past, playing safe for the best chances of survival, meant following the norm and doing what most other people did. But that has now changed. In the modern world, such behaviour has become a threat to our survival.

We all like to think that we see the world with our own, unimpaired eyes, but in fact each of us sees it through a unique pair of very strong glasses, the highly complex, distorting lenses of which we have acquired from our parents, peers, books, the media, and society at large. Although I believe that I see some very important things more clearly than most (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this), my glasses are not uniformly less distorting that those of others. The lenses are very complex. Some things, I'm sure, I see more distorted than others. 

Many years ago I saw a demonstration on TV, in which a man's perception of his environment was remarkably altered through posthypnotic suggestion, following which, when light balls were thrown at him, he ignored them completely, as if they did not exist. When questioned about his behaviour, which had been influenced by the balls, he rationalised it - just as we all rationalise our irrational behaviour to prevent ourselves from becoming fully conscious of what we are doing to our planet.

Among my parents' and grandparents' generations it was common to hear it said that they wanted their children to have it better than they did. Most of us certainly got what they wanted for us, and I for one am very thankful. The question now is, what do WE want for OUR children and grandchildren? For my part, I would like them to have it as good as I have. But they won't, not the way things are going, unless we break out of the trance we are under and come out of denial about what we are doing to our planet.

Some examples of the Insanities of Normality.

The Straw(s) that Broke the Camel's Back

Everyone has heard about the straw that broke the camel's back - and perhaps wondered, whose straw was to blame?

Paradoxically the answer is no one's and everyone's.

But that is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we can be sure that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent economy and multi-billion dollar credit and advertising industries.

This constitutes what I call the Insanity of Normality, which is difficult to recognise (except in flashes, which we are quickly distracted from and forget about), because we are all so familiar with and dependent on it.

The Race Does/Doesn’t Matter Paradox

Which has been ruthlessly exploited by the state to impose the MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on us.

At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic difference matter little, because it is natural for those involved to ignore or play down any differences (and not just racial) that might cause offence, disharmony or conflict, because usually we want to get on with others and avoid anything that might prevent that. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any ethnic perceptions, which, if you like them, disappear into the background.

Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I only know from experience with my own race that there are some extremely nice individuals, and some extremely nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And I presume it’s the same with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them, which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.

I agree with Martin Luther King, when he said that an individual should not be judged by the colour of their skin (race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character.

But how many people can we know as “individuals”? Not many. The vast majority of people will always be strangers to us. And the first things we notice about a stranger are their age, gender, able-bodiedness, and ethnicity.

Why ethnicity? Because it provides an immediate indication of whether they belong to one’s own or a related TRIBE, and can be expected to be friendly, or are from an unrelated tribe, and thus a potential enemy.

Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, does not do so when dealing with strangers, when it is a natural criterion for judging, not their character, but whether they belong to one’s own tribe or nation; “ethnicity” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION (Martin Luther King was well served by the American STATE, and thus not inclined to question it's claim to nationhood).

Because of the state’s claim to nationhood and authority over all its citizens, it has to insist that they all belong, effectively, to the same TRIBE, and suppress their natural inclination to notice and react to ethnic differences. The state does this by demonising it as “racism”.

The state has always laid claim to its subjects/citizens’ tribal loyalties, of course, in order to facilitate their exploitation as a human resource, only in the past there were no blatant racial differences to be ignored, suppressed or exploited, only linguistic, cultural or religious ones. Now the state is having a heyday, suppressing, manipulating and exploiting the ethnic differences of its citizens.

It’s time we cottoned on to what’s going on and learned to deal with the STATE, instead of allowing it, as it has always done, to deal with us.

The Moral Basis of Liberal-Fascism

Love of others; control and contempt of one’s own.

Moral basis of the authoritarian-fascist (Nazi) state:

Hatred of others, idealisation and control of one’s own

The moral basis of a genuine NATION, in contrast, is, or would be if it existed, love of one’s own, respect for others.

Guardian Advocates Europe’s Islamification

The following is quoted from an article by Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian, "If this is young Arabs’ 1989, Europe must be ready with a bold response":

“As their homelands modernise, young Arabs – and nearly one third of the population of the north African littoral is between the age of 15 and 30 – will circulate across the Mediterranean, contributing to European economies, and to paying the pensions of rapidly ageing European societies.”

I find it hard to imagine that the author, who sometimes expresses quite sensible opinions, really wants to promote the Islamification and de-Europeanisation (globalisation) of Europe, so why is he encouraging it?

Presumably, he naively believes that in Europe, Arabs will become liberal-minded Europeans like himself. No doubt, some will. But as we now know from experience (those of us not blinded by economic interests or liberal-statist ideology), many won’t. Understandably (if you see them ashuman beings rather than just a human resource,to be manipulated and exploited by state and capital), they will remain true to their Islamic roots, and seek to change Europe accordingly.

A Tough Year for Households

In response to David Cameron’s warning of “tough year” for households:

Thanks for the warning David, but even on just half your PM’s salary (£142,000, and notwithstanding your other sources of income), I can manage very nicely – thank you!

Your warning may be of more relevance to those on just half my income, although that still puts them well above the average, and of more relevance still to those on an average income or less.

It will be most relevant, I image, to someone on the minimum wage, which is less than half the average wage (or 1/12 of your PM’s salary).

Although, I guess that you personally must feel undervalued and underpaid when mingling amongst banker friends, CEOs and others with 10 time or more your salary. You’re to them, what someone on the minimum wage is to you: ein armes Schwein!

But, I’m forgetting that we are a NATION, a Big Society, and all in this TOGETHER . . .

P.S. The reference to my own salary, I regret to say, is just a literary device and wishful thinking.

Monarchy – A Darwinian Perspective

In response to a piece in today’s Telegraph, “Even the Aussies want to bend the knee to the Queen”,by London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, in support of the British monarchy, from which the following is quoted:

“. . family transitions are, of course, outrageous to democracy, but they reflect a weird superstition, a prehistoric yearning that still exists in our species.”

“. . people all over the country will recognise that Prince William’s wedding is an event in the life of the nation . . “

Time for a reality check, I think. Not just in respect to the monarchy, but in respect to the STATE itself, which has posed as our NATION for long enough!

Boris is right about monarchy and the family transitions associated with it reflecting a prehistoric yearning, although there is nothing weird of superstitious about it. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology it is perfectly understandable. We evolved over millions of years as a tribal animal with tribal leaders.

With the advent of civilisation, the STATE usurped our original tribes, thereby laying claim to our tribal loyalties for itself, effectively coercing us into a super-tribe, or pseudo-nation (a genuine nation being a product not of coercion, but of freely associating tribes), which it then clothed in the garb of genuine nationhood, with accompanying narratives, which eventually everyone, whatever their social status, believed in, not least, because as dependent on the state as on their (our) original tribe, which our brains evolved to identify with, because more important than the individual in ensuring the propagation of our genes.

Unlike our original tribes and the nations they sometimes formed (when confronted with a common foe, as the Greek tribes, or city states, did against the Persians), the STATE is not a natural and healthy product of our Darwinian nature, but a perversion of it, having developed to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, as an artificial ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”.

The STATE does serve society, of course, and we are all dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which isn’t primarily for the flock’s sake (notwithstanding 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 sold at market for MONEY.