An appeal NOT to be provoked to violence by the insane response of some European governments to the refugee crisis.
Are the Swedish and German governments DELIBERATELY provoking nationalists to acts of violence with their insane response to refugee crisis, in order to gain political advantage from it?
Whatever the answer, I implore nationalists not to allow themselves to be provoked to violence, especially against refugees or immigrants. They are not to blame. Nationalist anger should be directed at those responsible for this madness, which is our OWN ruling elites.
Anger, but not violence, which will harm, rather than help our cause.
We must sublimate our anger into developing an understanding of WHY our ruling elites are behaving in this self-harming and ultimately self-destructive way, just as they were doing 100 years ago in their respective side’s pursuit of “victory” in WW1. Most of them are not bad people, just deluded and misguided.
Our ruling elites behave as they do, because of the very nature of the state itself, which academics are not being honest with us - or themselves - about, because as privileged clients and employees of the state themselves, they have 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 claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.
There are no "nation states", but only mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.
The primary purpose of the state has ALWAYS been to facilitate society's SELF-exploitation (which it is the role of its priestly/now academic elite to hide, not just from society at large, but from themselves as well, by self-deception), which is why all past civilisations have declined and disappeared, as will ours, and soon, unless we quickly recognise and develop an understanding of the true, perverted Darwinian, nature of the state, and reform it accordingly.
Here's an INTRODUCTION to the true nature of the state which, above all, we need academics to take heed of.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Thursday, 1 October 2015
Nuclear Deterrent, Yes; Trident, No!
Unless it is placed under shared control with our closest allies, who would also be required to share the costs.
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 even 100s of millions of people will die, perhaps not in the initial exchange, but in the aftermath. 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, very small, 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 state governments for their own "national" deterrents, i.e. the power and status that goes with them, 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 governments 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.
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 even 100s of millions of people will die, perhaps not in the initial exchange, but in the aftermath. 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, very small, 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 state governments for their own "national" deterrents, i.e. the power and status that goes with them, 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 governments 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.
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Jeremy Corbyn's Language of Moral Supremacism
Jeremy Corbyn ended his speech to the Labour Party Conference with these words:
"Don't accept injustice. Stand up against prejudice."
This is the language of "moral supremacism".
Being human, we are ALL prejudiced about everyone and everything, including ourselves and race. We cannot be otherwise.
To demonise prejudice is to demonise human nature itself, which is what the state has always done, in order to intimidate, divide, and rule us.
In the past, this demonisation of human nature was based on church ideology, with its notion of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly authority and ideology could save one from eternal damnation for.
In post-racial multiculturalism, we now have a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology (and in academia, the modern heirs and counterparts of the medieval clergy), whereby original sin is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group), which was wrongly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism, which again only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".
Clearly, we need to control our prejudices in an acceptable and civilised fashion, just as we do our sexual inclinations and urges, and if we fail to do so, the law is there to constrain us. But just as we no longer demonise our sexual inclinations and urges, so long as we control them in an acceptable fashion, nor should our prejudices be demonised. They are what they are. We just need to control them in an acceptable fashion.
Man is an inherently moral animal, making it easy for the state to intimidate and control us when it demonises aspects of human nature. It wants us to believe that without strict state regulation, our prejudices (formally our sexuality) would lead to a break down of civilised society. It is up to us to show that this is not the case, that we can learn to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion.
In this BLOG I explain how the state exploits the demonisation of different aspects of human nature in order to intimidate and control society.
"Don't accept injustice. Stand up against prejudice."
This is the language of "moral supremacism".
Being human, we are ALL prejudiced about everyone and everything, including ourselves and race. We cannot be otherwise.
To demonise prejudice is to demonise human nature itself, which is what the state has always done, in order to intimidate, divide, and rule us.
In the past, this demonisation of human nature was based on church ideology, with its notion of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly authority and ideology could save one from eternal damnation for.
In post-racial multiculturalism, we now have a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology (and in academia, the modern heirs and counterparts of the medieval clergy), whereby original sin is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group), which was wrongly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism, which again only submission to priestly/academic/political/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".
Clearly, we need to control our prejudices in an acceptable and civilised fashion, just as we do our sexual inclinations and urges, and if we fail to do so, the law is there to constrain us. But just as we no longer demonise our sexual inclinations and urges, so long as we control them in an acceptable fashion, nor should our prejudices be demonised. They are what they are. We just need to control them in an acceptable fashion.
Man is an inherently moral animal, making it easy for the state to intimidate and control us when it demonises aspects of human nature. It wants us to believe that without strict state regulation, our prejudices (formally our sexuality) would lead to a break down of civilised society. It is up to us to show that this is not the case, that we can learn to control our prejudices in a civilised fashion.
In this BLOG I explain how the state exploits the demonisation of different aspects of human nature in order to intimidate and control society.
Friday, 18 September 2015
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.
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.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Modern Examples of Orwellian Newspeak
There are a number of important words and expressions, the meanings of which are very different, if not the complete opposite, of what they are generally assumed to be, so I thought I'd start a list of examples which spring to mind, and invite others to comment on them and/or add their own examples. I'm sure there must be many more examples for others to contribute. I'll add more of my own, as they occur to me.
Since I also speak German (as a second language), I'm happy to receive examples and comments in that language too.
RACISM: meaning, if you are white, a lack of contempt for one's own race. If you do not deny and despise your own white race, you must necessarily hate other races, especially black people. It is a way of equating any form of white racial identity and perfectly natural "racial prejudice" with evil (see BLOG in which I explain what I see as the power-political purpose of this and the following two examples of Orwellian newspeak).
DIVERSITY: meaning the melting pot of post-racial multicultural society which is actually destroys genuine human diversity (as it gradually dissolves and disappears into it), while undermining social cohesion and solidarity.
CELEBRATING DIVERSITY: meaning, if you are an ethnic European, i.e. white, to celebrate one's own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (whites have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of major western cities) and ultimate demise. It is an expression of white racial self-denial, self-contempt and self-hatred.
LOVE CHILD: meaning a child conceived in an irresponsible, loveless union, which strikes me, not just as a LIE, but also as an insult to children conceived in responsible, loving relationships, whether inside or outside of marriage. I don't believe that the children of irresponsible, loveless unions should be demonised in any way, but neither should they be made out to be something they are not.
Since I also speak German (as a second language), I'm happy to receive examples and comments in that language too.
RACISM: meaning, if you are white, a lack of contempt for one's own race. If you do not deny and despise your own white race, you must necessarily hate other races, especially black people. It is a way of equating any form of white racial identity and perfectly natural "racial prejudice" with evil (see BLOG in which I explain what I see as the power-political purpose of this and the following two examples of Orwellian newspeak).
DIVERSITY: meaning the melting pot of post-racial multicultural society which is actually destroys genuine human diversity (as it gradually dissolves and disappears into it), while undermining social cohesion and solidarity.
CELEBRATING DIVERSITY: meaning, if you are an ethnic European, i.e. white, to celebrate one's own ethnic displacement (white flight), replacement (whites have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in large swathes of major western cities) and ultimate demise. It is an expression of white racial self-denial, self-contempt and self-hatred.
LOVE CHILD: meaning a child conceived in an irresponsible, loveless union, which strikes me, not just as a LIE, but also as an insult to children conceived in responsible, loving relationships, whether inside or outside of marriage. I don't believe that the children of irresponsible, loveless unions should be demonised in any way, but neither should they be made out to be something they are not.
Wednesday, 9 September 2015
Walls, Borders, a Dome and Refugees
This is the title of an article by Thomas Friedman in yesterday's NYTimes (LINK) which I submitted a comment on, which however wasn't approved and published, so I'm posting it here.
First a quote from the article:
Bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East was a great idea, but clearly those who sought to implement it through western intervention had no understanding of the actual situation. Thus, the terrible mess we have helped create.
Politicians, like most people, look to academics as authorities on just about everything, only social and political science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality, both abroad and at home, as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Like Galileo, I'm asking academics to look through my telescope, metaphorically speaking, so that they can see for themselves what I can see.
My telescope is a human-evolutionary view of society, which their predecessors made a taboo of, in overreaction to initial attempts, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology, eugenics program and wars of aggression.
My telescope: LINK
First a quote from the article:
"You haven’t seen this play before, which is why we have some hard new thinking and hard choices ahead."I couldn't agree more. The trouble is, you can think about a situation you don't understand as hard and long as you want, with no positive outcome, while in the meantime the situation goes on getting worse.
Bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East was a great idea, but clearly those who sought to implement it through western intervention had no understanding of the actual situation. Thus, the terrible mess we have helped create.
Politicians, like most people, look to academics as authorities on just about everything, only social and political science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality, both abroad and at home, as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Like Galileo, I'm asking academics to look through my telescope, metaphorically speaking, so that they can see for themselves what I can see.
My telescope is a human-evolutionary view of society, which their predecessors made a taboo of, in overreaction to initial attempts, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology, eugenics program and wars of aggression.
My telescope: LINK
Will the World Come To Europe?
This is the title of an article in the NYTimes (LINK) which I submitted a comment on, which however wasn't approved and published, so I'm posting it here:
Mr Douthat's optimism (in respect to mass immigration into Europe) reminds me of mainstream academic opinion at the beginning of the 20th century, BEFORE the outbreak of WW1.
Of course academics are optimistic about the status quo and direction of travel: they are traveling first class and have every reason to be complacent, to not rock the boat.
No offence meant, but in my view, social science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Why? Because they are trapped in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age by a taboo against viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective; an understandable, but fatal, overreaction to initial attempts at developing such a view, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology and wars of aggression.
Human nature is inherently and intensely tribal, but instead of developing an understanding of this, so that we can learn to direct it in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, we are taught to trivialise, ridicule or demonise it, leaving the state and capital free to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes.
An understanding of human tribal nature reveals the extreme folly of allowing mass migration into Europe, which is creating a powder keg!
Mr Douthat's optimism (in respect to mass immigration into Europe) reminds me of mainstream academic opinion at the beginning of the 20th century, BEFORE the outbreak of WW1.
Of course academics are optimistic about the status quo and direction of travel: they are traveling first class and have every reason to be complacent, to not rock the boat.
No offence meant, but in my view, social science academics have about as good a grasp of social and political reality as Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists and Galenic doctors once did of their disciplines.
Why? Because they are trapped in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age by a taboo against viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective; an understandable, but fatal, overreaction to initial attempts at developing such a view, which went horribly wrong (as first attempts at anything new and difficult often do), especially when the Nazis misused the half-baked ideas of "social Darwinists" to justify their criminally insane racial ideology and wars of aggression.
Human nature is inherently and intensely tribal, but instead of developing an understanding of this, so that we can learn to direct it in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, we are taught to trivialise, ridicule or demonise it, leaving the state and capital free to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes.
An understanding of human tribal nature reveals the extreme folly of allowing mass migration into Europe, which is creating a powder keg!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)