White Men on the Moon - Part 1

Between December 1968 and December 1972 twenty four men flew to the Moon and returned safely back to Earth. Half of them actually landed and walked on the Moon’s surface.

They claimed to have accomplished this amazing feat (with the help of around 400,000 other American citizens, including a group of naturalised German rocket scientists, engaged in the Apollo Project) for ALL mankind, although the political motivation was America’s Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union.

The standard and highly recommendable account of the Apollo Project was published in 1994 by Andrew Chaikin, which I first read and was enthralled by some years ago. I reread it recently and decided to give a new copy to my next-door neighbour’s young son for Christmas. However, I was very disappointed in the cover of the new edition, which comprised just the American flag, the Stars and Stripes,stretching right across the front and round the spine, where its corner was held by an astronaut’s gloved hand. The rest of the astronaut, saluting the flag, filled the back cover (link to Book covers).

The message was clear: putting men on the Moon was a purely American achievement. America was certainly instrumental in putting men on the Moon, but the real credit must surely go to western civilisation, beginning with the ancient Greeks, as a whole. It was no accident that all the men who went to the Moon were European Americans, as were the vast majority of those who sent them there – and brought them safely home again.

I see Apollo and the Moon landings as the climax of European civilisation and a symbol of what Europeans can achieve when they put the minds to it. Since then it has been in decline, as our mercenary, career-and power-obsessed political, business, media and academic elites lead and bully us into a globalised, post-racial, i.e. post-European age.

If this post-European age held the promise of a just, humane and sustainable future, I would be reluctant to speak out against it, but it doesn’t. Quite the contrary, our globalising world is on course for disaster, because, as I elaborate on in other blogs (e.g. Viking Bankers), the power structures which underlie our civilisation (its institutions, particularly of state and economy), are deeply rooted in our own, misplaced and perverted, Darwinian nature, which is driving us to exploit both our natural and human environments to (self)-destruction.

Only, we don’t recognise our situation or what we are doing, because at a subconscious level we rationalise everything, our brains having evolved to interpret and maintain an environment favourable, from a narrow and short-sighted perspective, to itself. For most of us this means maintaining the status quo, more or less as it is, while trying to maintain or improve our own status within it.

Surviving this new century is the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever faced – only we are not facing up to it, because we do not clearly recognise what the challenge is, let alone how to face up to it. Most people realise that we have some pretty big problems, such as nuclear proliferation, climate change, environmental degradation, diminishing natural resources (e.g. peak oil), mass migrations, overpopulation, etc., but fail to see how they are all connected and ultimately have a common cause: our own, misplaced and perverted Darwinian nature. The enemy is within, within our own society and within our own selves, both of which have been shaped and continue to be dominated by our own Darwinian nature.

Once we’ve recognised this we can BEGIN to make out the challenge, the scale of which is pretty daunting -as, not so long ago was the challenge of putting men on the Moon. Men had dreamed of journeying to the Moon long before it became even remotely feasible, which it only became after a great deal of work had been done in developing an understanding, in the material sciences, of what it would involve.

We are not in a position to face up to the challenge posed by the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation at the moment, because currently we have far too little understanding of it. In fact, most people, because of the taboos that are in place (social, political, religious, economic and psychological), don’t even recognise this as the root cause of our problems. Unsurprisingly, given that it involves questioning the very foundations of state and economy we ALL depend on.

Only when they can see at least the outline of a viable alternative will most people be prepared to seriously question the status quo. It is just such an outline that I am developing and want to convey to others. An outline is all it is – and a broken one at that – which many others will have to fill in the details of.

What makes me think that my alternative is “viable”? I have to admit that this is pretty much an act of faith – in the validity of my own insights and in human nature being capable of making it viable. What I’m quite sure of is that the status quo is not viable, but inherently unsustainable. If our civilisation is to survive this new century, we must make truly radical changes to the foundations on which it rests.

The way forward is for us to start organising OURSELVES, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, instead of continuing to allow state and capital to do it for us.

When J F Kennedy gave the go-ahead in May 1961, and provided the funds, for putting an American on the Moon by the end of the decade, most of those involved where inspired by the challenge, which then gave a huge extra portion of meaning and purpose to their lives. They had a goal which they worked at with all the skill, passion and dedication evolution had equipped them with to secure the survival and success of their original TRIBES and NATIONS, which the American STATE – or NATION, as they saw it – now represented.

They showed what is possible when highly intelligent men and women are united by a common cause that they passionately believe in. They saw and identified themselves as “Americans”, of course, although the vast majority were of European ancestry – not coincidently, since the science and technology they needed to develop and apply in order to achieve their goal was overwhelmingly the work of their fellow ethnic Europeans in the continent they themselves originated from.

The most common example of such intense and passionate cooperation for a common purpose and endeavour is when nations – or those believing themselves to be nations – go to war. When the ancient Greek tribes, or city states, united against the common Persian threat to form a single Greek nation, they achieved their goal. But typically, once the goal had been achieve and the Persians defeated, the Greeks reverted to their usual state of disunity and fighting amongst themselves, thus exposing themselves to conquest first by the Macedonian and then the Romans. Similarly with the Apollo Project, once it had achieved its goal of beating the Soviets to the Moon, interest and government support waned and was finally withdrawn. Man’s excursion into space beyond low earth orbit came to an end.

To be continued in Part 2 . . .

Single-Race Schools

After reading an article in the Telegraph on the advantages of single-sex schools, I wondered what the response would be to suggesting that “single-race schools" might also have some advantages. I posted a short comment to this effect, but no more, for fear of bringing the wrath of statists and the PC brigade upon myself.

I might have guessed (which after posting it, I immediately did) that this would result in a challenge to state some of the advantages that single-race schools might offer, which, of course, it did – in exactly the tone of “lets hear what this RACIST has to say for himself”, I had feared:

"Go on then. Sell some cogent arguments about it. Your comment is trolling at its worst - 'I would say something controversial, but I can't, so I'll say it anyway but that gets me out of needing to justify my views. Weak.”

In anticipation, I'd started and virtually finished my initial response even before the challenge arrived:

Firstly, "single-race" schools would challenge the universalistic, cosmopolitan left-wing ideology, which has been imposed on us since the end of WW2, partly to facilitate the mass immigration of cheap foreign labour, that race and ethnic origins don't matter, i.e. are of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis, whose racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.

I would argue to the contrary, that race and ethnic origins are of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity. After all, “ethnic”, which is derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, really means the same things as “national”. It's just that the STATE has hijacked the NATION and the adjective that goes with it.

Secondly, multi-ethnic schools are “melting pots” in which ethnic diversity will dissolve and disappear – not immediately, but in the course of a number of generations. Thus, for those of us – both indigenous and immigrant - who want to retain our ethnic identity, single-race schools are the obvious choice.

The standard statist response to the suggestion of single-race education is to condemn it as a form of “apartheid”, although this is simply not true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. Apartheid was imposed from above by the STATE, just as multi-ethnic schooling is now. Single-race schooling would be entirely optional, for those who want it, e.g. those who want to encourage their children (since they can't force them) to retain and cultivate their own ethnic identity, instead of losing it to the melting pot of globalisation.

Another statist response is the accusation of sharing the Nazi belief in “racial purity”, which again isn't true, but a power-politically motivated distortion. There is no such thing as “racial purity”. What there is, however, and what statists want to (indeed, as statists, must!) suppress, at least in the majority white population, and keep well under control amongst ethnic minorities, is racial or ethnic IDENTITY.

Why? Because the state's (and its government's) own legitimacy and authority rests on its claim to NATIONHOOD. Western democracies do not call themselves “nation states” for nothing. Man is an inherently and intensely TRIBAL animal, which evolved a powerful sense of identity with and loyalty to its TRIBE, which the STATE, as our NATION, now claims to represent.

This is a slightly altered and expanded version of the original, which can be found near the beginning of the thread to the article linked to above.

The Liberal-Fascist/Capitalist Pact

Has dominated western “democracies” since the second world war.

Under its terms, free-market capitalism, championed by the political Right, was allowed to remain the ideology of economics, so that the wealthy, talented and astute could continue exploiting “society” through their wealth, talents and astuteness, while the Left was given a free hand in imposing its universalistic, cosmopolitan and anti-nationalist ideology of race and ethnicity being of no social or political importance, except to evil “racists”.

For those who have a problem with the term, “liberal-fascist”, “liberal-statist” has for me exactly the same meaning.

German fascism, i.e. Nazism, was extremely (to the point of being criminally and insanely) nationalistic, whereas liberal-fascism, not coincidentally, has gone to the opposite extreme of being extremely anti-nationalist (to the extent of equating it with evil, i.e. “racism”), replacing it with multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national, “statism”, whereby the STATE dresses up and presents itself as our NATION.

The NATION, as defined by the (liberal-fascist) state is a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national NATION.

Hmmmmm . . . . If ever there was an oxymoron . . !!

But anyone pointing it out (the absurdity of a multi-ethnic nation) is accused of “bigotry” and “racism”, or of being "unpatriotic", and because the STATE is so powerful, it has been able to get away with it for more than half a century.

STATE and CAPITAL have both got what they want, both are free to exploit “society” and its human resources in their own fashion, one through the institutions of state and a spurious claim to the “moral high ground”, the other through property and wealth accumulation.

I am Prejudiced . . !!

What about? Everything! Including race . . .

Why? Because I'm human.

Why does the STATE want me to hate myself for being human? Because that is how, to a large extent, it controls (has always controlled) society: by making people suppress and feel guilty about their natural inclinations. In the past it was “original sin”, especially our sexuality, we were made to feel ashamed of, and dependent on the Church (in the |Middle Ages an essential pillar of the state) for salvation. Now it's “prejudice”, especially “racial prejudice” we are supposed to, deny, suppress and hate ourselves for.

Just as the Church once policed our natural sinfulness and belief in state ideology (i.e. its interpretation of the Bible), now the STATE polices our natural inclination to prejudice and belief in the universalistic, cosmopolitan, left-wing ideology (not coincidentally, the exact, put equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) of “colourblindness”, of race and ethnic origins being of no social or political significance (e.g. for national identity), except to evil “racists”.

It is as natural for us to be prejudiced in favour of our own race as it is to be prejudiced in favour of an attractive member of the opposite sex. When you know someone as an individual, of course, that prejudice is greatly reduced, or disappears entirely – but how many people can we know as individuals? Just a tiny number. The vast majority are, and will always remain, strangers towards whom we are bound to have prejudices.

It is these natural and healthy prejudices, in respect to race and ethnic origins, which the STATE demonises and suppresses, not least, because it falsely claims our tribal and national loyalty for ITSELF.

Of course, we have to control our racial prejudices and inclinations, in a rational and civilised fashion, just as we have to control our sexual prejudices and inclinations. But this is the responsibility of the individual. Only if the individual fails to behave in a civilised fashion by persistently being offensive towards a member of the opposite sex or another ethnic group, is it appropriate for the state to intervene.

If the state were to try telling us what our sexual prejudices should and shouldn't be, we would have no difficultly recognising the absurdity it. But because we are so used to identifying with the state as our nation (although manifestly, it is not), it has been able – up until now, at least – to get away with it.

Stop Confusing Socialism with Statism!

From a Telegraph opinion piece, “The Equality Duty has no worthwhile purpose“:

“That particularly egregious attempt at social engineering had been labelled ’socialism in one clause’.”

Why does the Right always have to demonise “socialism” by equating it with the Left’s “statism”? Just as the Left demonises (and has thereby succeeded in suppressing) all genuine “nationalism” by equating it with “racism”.

Trouble is, neither side, Right nor Left, recognises what is really going on, how between them they are screwing their own country, their own PEOPLE, as they battle each other for political and/or economic advantage.

And of course there’s another reason why the importance of both “socialism” and “nationalism” is not recognised: “National Socialism”.

Why did the Nazis call themselves “National Socialists”? So that everyone would know how evil they were? Of course not. But because, at the time, this combined two VERY positive and appealing concepts (which, propaganda experts that the Nazis were, they knew how to capitalise on). And not without reason: these concepts are of fundamental importance; “socialism” because we are an inherently social animal, “nationalism” because we are inherently tribal (no matter how much the STATE would have us deny, demonise, or trivialise it).

If we want to create a just, humane and sustainable society (the alternative to which is our demise), we have to recognise and understand ourselves as the product of Darwinian evolution that we actually are, no matter how politically incorrect it is considered to be.

There can be no solutions to our social, political, economic or environmental problems without a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, understanding of our own human nature and of the social, political and economic power structures it has given rise to.

Human Beings or Resources?

What state and capital want is not human beings, but “human resources” and/or consumers, only they have to deceive us into believing otherwise.

Just as we domesticated certain animals, so too, and for the same general purpose of exploitation, we also domesticated ourselves, with state and capital training us to serve its purposes as a “human resource” (initially to work the fields and fight battles, then as canon and factory fodder, etc.), and more recently also as a “market”.

This sounds ridiculous, I know, which is partly why we have thus far failed to recognise the truth of it. There is much more to individual lives and human society, of course, but this describes the overall situation pretty well, and offers an explanation for most of our problems, some of which are existential and will put an end to us, unless we come up with solutions.

The German and Japanese states made particularly good jobs of training their “human resources”, which is why their economies have done so well (and why they made such good soldiers). The Chinese state seems to be making a pretty good job of it as well.

Our political, business and media elites look to German economic prowess and growth with envy and want us to emulate them, because they translate into more MONEY and POWER, the pursuit and exercise of which is what our natural Darwinian drive for survival, advantage and reproductive success has been perverted and reduced to, in the artificial environment of human civilisation.

What we need to do, if we want our civilisation to survive, is retrain OURSELVES as HUMAN BEINGS. It’s no good expecting the state or capital to do it for us. Or the church, which, in the service of state and capital, trained us to be good SHEEP.

Income Differentials: A Darwinian Perspective

This was written in response to a recent article about the “relatively” high salaries paid to BBC executives.

The BBC justified the salaries with the standard argument that it has to compete for “talent” with the private sector

Even so, the ca. £140,000 per annum involved seems pretty paltry compared with the millions that some bankers, CEOs, film stars, and others make.

Here a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of the situation:

Evolution adapted us (emotionally and behaviourally) to the “natural environment”, as it existed (on the African savannah, or wherever) long before the advent of civilisation, which represents an “artificial environment” where the intra-tribal and extra-tribal environments that once comprised our natural environment are conflated and confounded.

Thus, what we call “society” represents both our TRIBE (which, in the interests of our collective survival, as a tribe, evolution intended us, to put before our individual self-interests) and the extra-tribal environment, which included other – friendly, rival, enemy or simply unknown – tribes, and which evolution did not hard-wire us to put before ourselves, but on the contrary, to put ourselves and our own tribe first.

Economically, our own tribe has been reduced to just ourselves and immediate family, with the rest of “society” serving as an extra-tribal environment, to be exploited to one's own (family's) advantage. Originally, it was just the aristocracy and clergy (as substitute tribes) which cooperated, through the power structures of the state (which they created), in exploiting the rest of society, but over time other self-interest groups (acting as substitute tribes), especially certain professions, managed to secure advantages for themselves and their members (laid down in the legal power structures of state and economy) in exploiting their extra-tribal, i.e. social, environment.

What this view reveals is the perverted Darwinian nature of our situation and civilisation, which represents an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Unless we can find a way out of it, the relentless self-exploitation of both our natural and human environments will inevitably lead to our self-destruction.