Comments not approved by the NYTimes

The last 3 times I have attempted to post a comment in response to an article on the NYTimes website it has not been approved and thus not published, which is a shame, so I'm publishing them here instead:

The Issue That Won't Go Away by Paul Krugman, June 20, 2015

My comment:

The issue of RACE won't go away, not because of slavery, but because state ideology, which denies the importance - even the very existence - of race, is misconceived.

Race is NOT a "social construct", as the state and its clients and employees in academia would have us believe (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but REAL and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity, which, of course, the state doesn't want us to have, because it deceitfully poses as our nation itself, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

Western states, like Britain and America, now exploit race to divide and rule society, dividing it into a morally superior, i.e. "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority, and power, just as in medieval times.

No one is really "colour-blind", of course (we are all SINNERS), but can only feign it, humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are.

I elaborate further on these ideas in this BLOG.


White Supremacists Without Borders by  Morris Dees and J. Richard Cohen, June 22, 2015

My comment:

        "Britain, too, is experiencing an upswing of nationalist, anti-immigrant politics."

Unsurprisingly, given the scale of mass poor-world immigration into our country, which has already reduced native (white) Britons to an ethnic minority in large swathes of our major cities and, combined with higher immigrant birth rates, is on course to reduce us to one in the country as a whole, before today's teenagers reach retirement age.

It is NOT racist not to want to be swamped by immigrants and reduced to an ethnic minority in one's ancestral homeland. If you doubt me, try asking a native American, or an Aboriginal Australian.

Those who really hate other races (genuine racists) are a tiny, impotent minority. The real threat to civilisation comes from an  IDEOLOGY of white racial self-denial and self-contempt (an overreaction to the horrors of Nazi racial ideology), which in all western democracies has taken the place of medieval church ideology as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control.

It serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority.

See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Middle-Class Black Families, in Low-Income Neighorhoods by David Leonhardt, June 24, 2015

My comment:

Wouldn't a simple explanation [for the observation that higher earning blacks still tend to live in poorer neighbourhoods] be that they prefer to live in black neighbourhoods, despite them being poorer, than in richer, but predominantly white, neighbourhoods?

Why can't America, or any other western state, simply accept the fact that race is real and important? Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group (e.g. neighbourhood) identity.

It is, I suggest, because post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, just as medieval church society and ideology once did, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, i.e. less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to their ruling elite’s moral authority and power.

This is a shocking suggestion, I know, but surely one that social scientists need to be looked into. 

I elaborate further in this and subsequent BLOGS.

What's Preventing the Sustainability Revolution?

This was my submission to the Conservative Party's Quality of Life Policy Group, which I never received any feedback to and had pretty much forgotten about. I've just rediscovered it and thought I'd post it to my blog.

An evolutionary/anthropological approach to the root causes of the "Sustainability Problem"

Revised version: 11 Feb 07

When tackling big problems, we are often encouraged to "think outside the box", but when someone actually does so – as I have – and comes up with insights and ideas that don't fit nicely into any of the existing boxes, they tend to be ignored or ridiculed.

This tendency to ignore, ridicule, or otherwise resist ideas that would challenge or undermine the status quo is not surprising in view of what is known about human cognition, the fact that we don't experience reality itself, but an interpretation of it, produced by our brains, which it adapts to be more-or-less consistent with the view we already have of the world, and is thereby very strongly influenced by past and present interpretations of experiences, as well as by our dependencies and vested interests.

The view we have of the existing socio-economic order is no exception, and because from birth we are all totally immersed in, familiar with and dependent on it, and because of the anxiety it would cause if we did, our brains, which evolved in, and to cope with, totally different circumstances, actively prevents us from recognizing its inherent non-sustainability. This accounts for our collective blindness to the perilous impact our economy and way of life are having on our finite and vulnerable planet, and the threat they pose, if not immediately to ourselves, certainly to our children and grandchildren.

Global warming is just one major consequence of an underlying "Sustainability Problem" that we should have faced up to 30 years ago, when publications such as "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows et. al. first drew broad public attention to the fact that an ever increasing population of technologically empowered, but essentially insatiable human beings (still dominated by their animal nature and behaviour), is placing an unsustainable drain and strain on Earth's finite resources and carrying capacity. Instead, because of the enormous implications for our economy and way of life, and all the vested interests in continuing with "business (and pleasure) as usual", we went (allowed ourselves to be led) into collective denial. Which, essentially, is where we still are - virtually everyone, although some more than others - but now struggling both to and not to face up to the situation as the effects of our increasing impact on the planet become ever more apparent and threatening. 

At the moment, despite all the talk about the environment, sustainability and saving the planet, we have yet to face up to the sheer scale and magnitude of the Problem. The threat it poses is terrifying, which only adds to our reluctance to face up to it; but continuing to bury our heads in the sand will not make it go away. On the contrary, like an approaching tsunami, it will engulf and destroy us if we refuse to recognise the threat. Only by facing up to it can we avoid - or at least, reduce the impact of - the approaching catastrophe, by creating sustainable economies and ways of life (for 7-9 billion! people) in our own (humane) way. 

If WE fail to do so, a ruthless Mother Nature will do it for us. The climate change we are witnessing is her just "warming up" for the job. If it entails reducing human numbers by 100's or even 1000's of millions, that is what she will do. She is not squeamish. The poor will suffer first, of course, as always, but for once we really are ALL in the same boat, Spaceship Earth, rich and poor alike.

We urgently need to face up to the ROOT CAUSE of the "Sustainability Problem", which lies in our animal nature. Unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, it is in our animal nature and behaviour that the existing socio-economic order (our economy and way of life) is rooted, and which free-market capitalism developed, naturally enough, both to serve and exploit.

Human emotions and behaviour evolved over millions of years to serve the individual and their family group in the struggle for survival and advantage in the "natural environment" (which included other, rival, groups of humans). With the advent of civilisation, for the individual, this Darwinian (blind, dumb-animal) struggle transferred to an artificial, "socio-economic environment", where - greatly facilitated by the development of free-market capitalism - it continues as the driving force of most human (particularly economic) activity. Only now it is driving us towards disaster, because, as things are, we cannot help but give priority to economics (the household of man in the artificial, "socio-economic environment"), rather than to ecology (the household of our planet in the natural environment), despite it being obvious (were we not blinded by familiarity and dependency) that human survival urgently demands the opposite.

From birth, we are ALL totally immersed in, familiar with and dependent on the existing socio-economic order, making it virtually impossible - not least, because of the anxiety it would cause - for us to recognise its INHERENT non-sustainability.

Man is not a fallen angel, but an animal; not just a "prime ape" (if you will excuse the pun, and the one that follows) but Earth's Greatest  Ape, who greatly and dangerously overestimates his powers of understanding and reason; like a child, and misled by his scientific name - Homo sapiens, indeed!  The failure to recognise the extent of our own blindness and irrationality (except in others, of course) is the biggest underlying threat to human survival (and, incidentally, the principal reason for my opposition to the large-scale use of nuclear energy).

The truth - which far from fitting into any boxes, threatens to rupture or sweep many of them away (thus, the massive resistance to facing up to it) - is that our growth-dependent economy and the grossly materialistic way of life it engenders are both rooted in our primitive, animal nature and, as a consequence, are fundamentally unsustainable. 

Mine is an anthropological approach to the "Sustainability Problem". It is an approach which needs to be applied to ALL the social sciences: history, politics, sociology, economics, etc. The reason it is not is that social scientists too, like everyone else, are blinded by their own total dependency on the existing socio-economic order and environment, and on the niches they occupy within it.

In view of everyone's absolute dependency on, and vested interests in, the status quo, implementing the radical changes necessary for Sustainability would be quite impossible, with everyone naturally inclined to preserve their own niche and advantages (social status, source of income etc.) in the existing socio-economic environment. This is why there has been so much talk and argument about global warming, but so little action; and the action which has or is intended be to taken barely scratches the surface, without going anywhere near solving the Problem.

The solution is not to try changing the existing order, but to create an Alternative, within, but distinct from and increasingly independent of it, which, as it grows, we can transfer our activities, dependencies and vested interests to - each of us, when we are ready and at our own pace, bit by bit, and without coercion, which would be counterproductive, evoking strong (if not violent) resistance from our animal nature, in defence of its interests in the existing socio-economic order. 

By “we” I mean those of us who have come out of denial (to some extent at least) and recognized what is at stake, for our children and coming generations. Surely, there can be no greater motivation than that. The way forward is for us to use the Internet to self-organize into groups, and groups of groups ("nonymous religious societies", which I will explain in due course), which will further self-organize and interact, gradually replacing the existing socio-political order (initially, some politicians are not going to like it, but hopefully most can be won over). There will be as many "nonymous religious societies" as are needed to cater for everyone. If you cannot find one you like, you can get together with like-minded individuals and found your own. Genuine, grass-roots democracy will come into its own, with people free to pursue their own enlightened (as opposed to dumb-animal) self-interest. And what greater self-interest can there be than saving the planet for our children and future generations?

We have allowed ourselves to be deceived and dominated for far too long by our own animal nature and a socio-economic order that is rooted in and dependent on it (expending much of our brain power in rationalizing and justifying it). We have to create an alternative socio-economic order, rooted in our more enlightened human nature. Otherwise we will perish.

If this all sounds rather idealistic it is because at the moment that is what it is: just an idea – for preserving the planet for our children and future generations. Although the rudimentary beginnings of such an Alternative are already in existence (organic farming, fair trade, recycling, renewable resources, cooperative rather than exploitative and competitive economics, etc.), they lack a coherent theoretical and moral framework that would provide a clear and distinct alternative to the existing socio-economic order. This is what urgently needs to be developed and put into practice, grass-roots democratically, with experience feeding back into theory and further development.

Diversity is what gives the natural world beauty and stability. For the past 400 years or so, ever increasing globalization, and the absolute priority given (by our animal nature) to economics and MONEY (the most versatile form of POWER), have been reducing diversity in all its forms, biological and human (not least, in the name of “multi-culturalism”). We need to give priority, not to economics, but to Sustainability, and to retaining and cultivating human, social, economic and biological diversity.

I know how tempting it must be to dismiss me and my ideas to the lunatic fringe, but please don't; at least, not until you have given them serious, unhurried consideration. You've nothing to lose, but possibly a whole world to gain.

A Comment NYT didn't want to Publish

The New York Times published an article, Migrants Face Fortress Europe’s Deadly Moat, by Kenan Malik, in which the author says the following:

"The European Union should . . dismantle Fortress Europe, liberalize immigration policy and open up legal routes for migrants."

This was my response, which the NYT chose not to publish:

Kenan Malik is a native of ASIA and unconcerned for the interests of native Europeans not to be inundated with immigrants from other continents.

Despite being overpopulated itself, Europe has already taken in 10s of millions of poor-world immigrants, who are the cause of rising ethnic tensions in our cities. Tensions that will grow as the number of immigrants and their off-spring grows.

Allowing even more in, as Kenan Malik would have us do, will make an already difficult situation even more difficult and eventually lead to violent conflict and even civil war.

Post-racal multicultural ideology, which encourages mass poor-world immigration (not just into Europe) and the creation of multi-ethnic societies is not what it is made out to be, but an instrument socio-political intimidation and control, a modern, secular replacement, effectively, for medieval church ideology, which I elaborate on in THIS and further (linked to) blogs.

How to End Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear weapons and their proliferation is one of the biggest threats facing mankind, yet our politicians are currently proving incapable of dealing with it. The way things stand - and are developing - at the moment, it is just a matter of time before, through design, accident, or misunderstanding nuclear weapons are used, and thousand, millions, possibly 10s or 100s of millions of people will die. And our children will look back and ask WHY?! WHY did WE allow this development, this INSANITY, to happen?

The British and French governments (which, as a European, are the ones that concern me directly and on which I may exert some influence) have both signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are very strongly opposed to other governments acquiring nuclear weapons, but hypocritically they insist on retaining and periodically updating their own nuclear arsenals and delivery systems.

All the arguments put forward for retaining our own nuclear capability can be (and are) also put forward by other governments (Iran, for example), the rejection of which by Britain and France is blatant hypocrisy.

If there is to be any hope of curbing nuclear proliferation the British and French governments must be persuaded of the necessity for THEM to relinquish their own independent, national nuclear deterrents, handing them over to an international authority, which it should be our urgent priority to work out a structure for and to create. Not an easy task, granted, but an urgent and absolutely essential one.

Advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament would be folly, since it would be an invitation to other, nuclear-armed governments, less democratic and well-intentioned than our own, to dominate us through nuclear blackmail, or even attack. We NEED a nuclear deterrent, but it needs to be under democratic international control, instead of national control.

It is the desire (perceived need) of national governments for their own "national" deterrents which is driving, and will continue to drive, nuclear proliferation.

Thus, it is imperative that Britain and France take the initiative in finding a way of placing their own national deterrents under international control (perhaps in stages, in order to facilitate the process). Once they have done that, then they will be in a position, credibly and without hypocrisy, to demand from other national governments (at the moment Iran, but there will inevitably be others in future) that they do not seek to acquire national nuclear deterrents as well.

Finding the right structure for this international authority is absolutely essential, because of the trust that must necessarily be placed in it. It will not be an easy task, so the sooner we set about it in earnest the better.

Most western democracies currently trust America with their nuclear defence. So why shouldn't we create a shared nuclear deterrent and command structure of our own that we can trust instead?

DIVERSITY is Orwellian Newspeak

DIVERSITY, as promoted in the West in the context of post-racial multicultural society, is Orwellian Newspeak for a "melting pot", into which genuine human diversity (racial and cultural) is dissolving and disappearing, i.e. being DESTROYED.

Those claiming to "celebrate" human diversity in the form of multi-ethnic society are in fact doing the exact opposite, i.e. celebrating its destruction. Because that is what melting pots do.

Human diversity is a consequence of human populations having been more or less isolated from each other in the past. Bring this human diversity together in a city like London and it may look very impressive (like seeing lots exotic animals, who don't naturally belong together, at a zoo), but it won't last - intermixing will see to that.

After putting an end to Hitler's dream of creating a Germanic "master race", in overreaction to it, we are now on our way to creating a "mixed race master race". What else can come of this melting pot that has been created?

Looked at more subjectively, as a Native Briton myself, whose ancestors have lived here or on the neigbouring continent for countless generations, "Celebrating Diversity" is Orwellian newspeak for me and other white people everywhere to celebrate our 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 . .

Why are we (i.e. our political establishment, supported by other establishment elites, especially academia) inflicting this madness on ourselves?

There are, of course, economic reasons, but far more important are the power-political reasons, along with the underlying perverted Darwinian nature of the state itself, which I elaborate on in this and subsequent BLOGS.

The feckless father of 40 children by 20 mothers

This is the interesting topic of an article in today's Daily Telegraph (LINK)

From a Darwinian perspective, Mike Holpin, the man in question, has been a lot more successful at exploiting his environment (British society) for his own reproductive success than the likes of Bill Gates, whom most people, in line with "British values", on account of his great material wealth, consider to be one of the planet's most successful men.

Not only has Bill Gates produced relatively few children of his own, he is also using his wealth to massively promote the reproductive success of other races than his own, which is a total perversion of man's Darwinian nature, but which our twisted British (and western) values consider morally virtuous.

What this demonstrates is the perverted Darwinian nature of western civilisation itself, which our academic and political elites are so smug about, vainly believing that it make them morally superior.

Only, it doesn't make them morally superior at all - unless you subscribe to their moral and cultural relativism - but very stupid, the price for which will be the extinction of their own race, which, perversely, they don't care about, or even acknowledge the existence of.

They claim, instead, to care about the "human race", which is how they rationalise their claim to moral authority, and the personal advantages that go with it.

See earlier blog in which I elaborate on The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation.

Method to Madness of Post-Racial Multiculturalism

Post-racial multicultural society and ideology serve the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

No one is really "colour-blind", of course, but can only feign it, humans being the inherently and intensely tribal animal that we are.

Why has it taken me so long to recognise this simple truth? Why have academics still not recognised it?

Because POWER (of the state) forbids it, and because academics invented post-racial multiculturalism, persuading their “patron states” to embrace it, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, effectively, a modern, secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology.

See previous BLOG in which I elaborate further.