Recognising Anti-Social Behaviour

The police are right to stop children picking daffodils, is the title of a Telegraph article which I pretty much agreed with and commented on.

The anti-social behaviour (which is what it is) shown by these parents, who allowed their children to pick whole bunches of flowers in a public park, reminds me of those people who don’t bother to pick up the mess their dogs leave on the pavement for others to tread in.

It also reminds me of bankers bonuses and the kind of grotesquely unfair (and thus also anti-social) income differentials they represent.

“Picking” millions annually from the economy, it seems to me, is no less anti-social than picking daffodils in a public place. It’s just that the former is perfectly legally (because the state “traditionally” favours power and wealth), while the other is not.

I don’t have a problem with income differentials, provided they are fair and proportionate, any more than I have a problem with someone picking a couple of flowers in the park. But when they pick a whole bunch of flowers in the park, or take millions from the economy, that is no longer proportionate or fair and undermines social cohesion and solidarity.

Picking “just a couple” of flowers in the park can be a problem too – if there’s a limited number and a lot of people picking them, which also serves as a good analogy for sustainable/unsustainable human behaviour on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet:

When a few million (even 10s of millions) of people want to drive their own cars and fly off on holiday once or twice a year, it’s not a problem, since quite sustainable. However, when a few billion people want to do the same there is a problem, because unsustainable.

Concern for Ethnic Minorities

According to an article in today’s Telegraph, Karen Buck, shadow work and pensions minister, told the Independent:

“I am very, very concerned about the impact of these cuts on black, Muslim and ethnic minority households, in particular.”

Just what one would expect from a white liberal statist: more concerned for OTHERS than she is for her OWN (Moral Basis of the Liberal-Fascist State).

But, of course, she doesn’t see her fellow indigenous Brits as “her own”, but identifies instead with all humanity that manages to find its way to our shores, and, like her former party leader, Gordon Brown, considers anyone who doesn’t, to be a “bigot” or a “racist”.

THIS clearly illustrates the MADNESS of so-called “British society” and, I guess, western society in general.

Like many other indigenous Brits and ethnic Europeans (I would guess, the majority) I don’t see ethnic majorities as “my own” – unless I happen to know then personally as individuals, which is quite different. The vast majority of ethnic minorities I do not know personally and do not identify with, in contrast to members of my own race (ethnic Europeans) with whom I spontaneously identity – at least, until I get to know them.

Does that make me (and most other native Europeans) a “bigot” and a “racist”? No it doesn’t, although that is what the STATE wants everyone to believe, so that it can continue to pose as our NATION.

What it in fact makes me, is a “nationalist”, someone who decides his own national identity (the natural basis of which is ethnicity), as opposed to a “statist”, who allows the STATE (which suppresses and denies the natural ethnic basis of nationality) to decide it for him.

A racist is someone who hates other races (ethnic groups), which I don’t. I respect them, provide they respect me. But I don’t identity with them as I do with my own race, ethnic group and NATION.

Understandably, this presents a problem to the British STATE, whose legitimacy rests on its claim to representing a single “multi-ethnic nation”, which, in my humble view, is an oxymoronic absurdity.

My national identity is based on how I FEEL, not on how the STATE tells me I should feel.

Are there any other NATIONALIST, like me, out there? I hope so, because we need to start organising ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into genuine NATIONS.

Members of different nations need to respect each other and cooperate in the struggle against STATISM.

What about those who want to continue equating the British STATE with their NATION – people of mixed race, perhaps?

That’s fine, provide they respect other nations, like my own (which is ethnic European), and don’t try demonising us (as the STATE does) as “racists”.

I know quite a few people from ethnic minorities and of mixed-race and hope to remain friends with them. But we have to stop pretending, for the sake of the STATE, to belong to the same NATION

Midsomer Murders Creator Suspended

My response to the article, “Midsomer Murders creator suspended after calling show ‘the last bastion of Englishness’“, the very lively thread to which has simply disappeared from the Telegraph’s website – hopefully soon to be restored.

“An ITV spokesman said: ‘We are shocked and appalled at these personal comments by Brian True-May which are absolutely not shared by anyone at ITV. We are in urgent discussions with All3Media, the producer of Midsomer Murders, who have informed us that they have launched an immediate investigation into the matter and have suspended Mr True-May pending the outcome’.”

The jackboot of “liberal-fascism” doing its work of suppressing honest, majority opinion.

The British STATE itself has betrayed (and continues to betray) its own indigenous peoples.

This is a difficult and painful truth to recognise and face up to. But it’s high time we did. But – and this has to be said and emphasised – in a humane and civilised fashion, because we don’t (I certainly don’t) want the pendulum swinging back to the opposite extreme experienced in Nazi Germany, or even to Apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow America.

The STATE is attempting to impose the oxymoronic absurdity of “multi-ethnic nationhood” on us. It’s the STATE we need to deal with, rather than the symptoms it causes, which we must avoid causing us to scratch ourselves to death; but before we can do that, we must recognise and develop an understanding of its perverted Darwinian nature. It will be an exercise in self-awareness and understanding, because most of us identify with the state, and we don’t want to tear ourselves apart.

The Nation as Enemy of the State

My response to the BBC’s new face of religion:

“The BBC’s religious output is overseen by [a Muslim], Aaqil Ahmed, head of religion and ethics”

Yet more evidence for the STATE broadcaster’s central role in undermining the ethnic, cultural and historical basis of Britain’s national identity, thereby strengthening the STATE’S role in determining and enforcing the oxymoronic absurdity of Britain being “multi-ethnic nation” (“ethnic” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION).

And they even manage, thus far, to make us pay (through the licence fee) for our own national undoing. You have to hand it to them, they are clever, very clever (most having passed through our best universities) – like the medieval Catholic Church, which wielded POWER using much the same methods as the BBC now uses, claiming to SERVE “society” with its absolute moral authority, based now not on the Bible, but on the secular ideology of “One-Human-Racism” (an alternative to Marxism), which, not coincidentally, it the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology. It’s an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political importance, especially in respect to national identity, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis.

This ideology now forms the basis of our liberal-fascist state, which of course capital, as it did with Nazi fascism, has cozied up to. And anyone opposing it is dismissed and condemned as a “xenophobe”, “bigot” or “racist”, just as in the Middle Ages opponents of the church/state (religious) ideology were condemned as “infidels”, “heathens” or “heretics”.

Statist Capitalism or Multi-Nationalist Socialism?

This is written in response to the misconceived hostility towards “socialism” prevalent on this website, and to the Left’s hostility towards “nationalism”.

Superficially, viewed from the Right, “socialism” may seem responsible for most of society’s woes, just as viewed from the Left, “nationalism” does – or did, until the state succeeded in equating the natural ethnic basis of nationhood with “racism”.

Socialism and nationalism were the most powerful motivating ideas prior to ww2, because deeply rooted in man’s inherent social (socialism) and tribal (nationalism) nature. But being so powerful, both were misappropriated by the STATE or statists, who misused them to their own power-political advantage, whereby giving both the extremely bad names they now have.

The Nazis, being supreme propagandists, went the whole hog in calling themselves “national socialists”, the appeal of which, as a concept, to basic human instincts was doubly profound. This the Nazis abused to an insanely criminal extent, resulting in the concept of “national socialism” being dragged into the abyss along with their evil selves, where it remains to this day, no one daring to go even near it for fear of all its terrible associations.

Which is not just a shame, but a tragedy (representing perhaps Hitler’s ultimate victory over us), the concepts of both nationalism (from nation) and socialism (from social responsibility and solidarity) being vitally important for any healthy, just, humane and sustainable human society, and you can’t have one without the other.

We urgently need to recover the CONCEPT of “national socialism” from the abyss into which the Nazis dragged it, cleanse it of its evil associations and re-examine it. And since much of Nazi nastiness revolved around its mono-nationalistic self-centredness, at the expense of others, I suggest we alter the name to “Multi-National Socialism”.

Another misconception on the Right is that free-market capitalism is anti-statist. It’s not. It just wants a small, non-interventionist state, rather than a large interventionist one. Capitalism needs the state to maintain law and order amongst the work force (the human resources” it exploits) and enforce property rights to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and “talent”.

The primary purpose of the STATE, clearly visible from a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective, is to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, which the political Left and Right merely take different approaches to. Both look to the STATE to serve their own particular (social, political, financial, ideological, or whatever) advantage.

I envisage Multi-National Socialism as a grass-roots-democratic alternative to the statism of both the Left and the Right.

How to proceed? By organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into TRIBES and NATIONS of our OWN creation and choosing, which will cooperate with each other (without the imposed statist pretence of single pseudo-nationhood) in creating alternatives to the oppressive state institutions and non-sustainable, unjust and inhumane capitalist-consumer economy we currently all depend on.

I know how fanciful this all sounds, for which there are understandable psychological reasons. It is very difficult for our brains to imagine anything that is not an extension of existing experience, especially when it is materially and emotionally so dependent on the status quo. It wants to maintain the environment which supports it and gives it an advantage over others, and is thus terrified of truly radical change, even though without it we are doomed.

Oil Price Shock that’s no Surprise

I posted a rather depressing – although quite realistic – comment on the thread of an article in last Friday’s Telegraph, “Oil price shock; you ain’t seen nothing yet“, which I followed with another, more optimistic one, both of which I though worth posting here on my blog.

First post:

“Oil price shock“

Why the “shock” or surprise? Many of us have seen this coming for decades and been warning about it.

We should have started moving away from a fossil-fuel based economy decades ago, when the necessity was made abundantly clear in numerous publications, but our political and business leaders weren’t interested. Nor the media, which encouraged people not to worry but to follow their leaders example and continue with business and consumption as usual.

The Telegraph was – as it still largely is – particularly dismissive of suggestions that the economy needed to be placed on a sustainable basis.

Still, why should I worry? By the time things start to turn really nasty here in western Europe, with a bit of luck, I shall be dead and gone.

Sorry kids! I’m afraid that we – your parents and grandparents – have screwed up on you. But don’t think we didn’t want the best for you. We did. We were just too stupid, too greedy, too complacent, too distracted (by work, shopping, holidays, providing for YOU etc.) to realise that we were screwing up.

2nd Post:

Despite the above post, and the inherent non-sustainability of our rapacious, growth- and fossil-fuel and other non-renewable-resource depend economy, along with the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it both engenders and depends upon, I see no reason (or excuse) for resignation or despair.

We may not be able to avoid the approaching global catastrophe, but we CAN still reduce its scale and increase our children’s prospects for survival and recovery. The only question is HOW?

Obviously, the first thing an increasing number of people need to do, is come out of denial. Otherwise there’s no hope at all. Keeping our heads in the sand may serve us well, personally, who are soon going to be dead and gone, but that’s hardly a responsible attitude to take towards our children and grandchildren, who will still be alive (hopefully) long after, and who many want children and grandchildren of their own . . .

Then we need to develop an understanding of our situation and how we got into it – why our political and business leaders, aided by the media, led us into denial, instead of facing up to the threat when it was being pointed out to us.

I spent most of the 70s expecting politicians to face up to the issue of sustainability, and then most to the 80s and 90s trying to understand why they weren’t. Why instead, and insanely, they were leading us into denial and encouraging us to carry on with business and life as usual.

The answers I eventually came up with and am still working on (which are in urgent need of being extended and clarified) are based on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding human nature and the social, political, religious and economic power structures it has given rise to over the centuries.

Our situation is essentially a consequence and expression of our own, perverted, Darwinian nature. Only by developing an understanding of it, rather than continuing to deny or rationalise it, is there any hope of us solving our existential 

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.