Wednesday, 18 May 2016

The State, The Matrix & The One

I recently submitted the following to the op-ed section of the NYT


Dear Editors,

If I were to tell you that I am The One, a real-life Neo, here to save humanity from The Matrix, you would take me for a nutter or a joker. Nutters don’t usually realise they are nutters, so perhaps that is what I am, but let’s assume, if you will bear with me, that I’m a joker, and that many a true word is sometimes spoken in jest.

The Matrix, as I see it, is not a near-future creation by intelligent machines, as it was in the film, but an ancient creation of man himself, which has developed over the centuries and long dominated the world. I am referring to civilisation itself, i.e. the STATES which comprise it, in their various forms, notwithstanding that relatively recent developments have given rise to a single, increasingly global, civilisation 

We are all so immersed in, subjectively familiar with, and dependent on the state, i.e. the society it provides a distinctive framework for, that we fail to recognise it for what it is, just as we once failed to recognise the true nature of the material universe. I am referring especially to academics, who are generally seen as experts and authorities in their particular field of study. Today's social and political scientists, who are responsible for our understanding of society, the state and civilisation are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, and mainstream society with them.

To make a historical, instead of a cinematic, analogy, one might see me as a modern-day Galileo, challenging the established world view. While Galileo challenged the Church's Earth-centred view of the universe with the more realistic Copernican view, I'm challenging modern academia's anti-Darwinian view of society with a pro-Darwinian view.

Pro-Darwinian, anti-Darwinian! What am I talking about? Perhaps I am a nutter.

In overreaction to the horrors and evil of Nazism (something the NYT itself warned its readers about in an editorial, The Price of Fear, following the Paris terrorist attack last November), which hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism to justify its own insane racial ideology, ruthless eugenics and euthanasia programmes, and wars of aggression, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of the whole idea of applying Darwin's ideas to their own species, despite this being the only way to understand ourselves, human societies, the state and our situation.

What a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective reveals is that the state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern, deceptively named, "nation state" now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment, which we are also exploiting to destruction) to the narrow and short-sighted personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large, which must ultimately lead to its self-destruction. Thus, the passing of all earlier civilisations, including those of ancient Greece and Rome, the precursors of modern European/western civilisation, which is now rapidly approaching its own self-demise.

The state is like an abusive step-parent which did away with our natural, loving parents (our original tribes and nations) before we had any contact with them (although we retain a race memory of what a genuine nation should be like), bringing us up to believe that it was our nation (our natural loving parents) with our, its citizens, best interests at heart, when in fact, its primary purpose is to facilitate our self-abuse and exploitation, playing us off one against the other in a self-harming and ultimately self-destructive fashion.

The state does serve us, of course, and we are all very dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which is not for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern he may feel for a lost of injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

Because of the taboo against viewing their own species from a Darwinian perspective (based on the fear of it leading down the same path the Nazis followed) academics fail to recognise the cycle of civilisational boom and bust that has thus far put an end to all civilisations, and will soon put an end to our own.

I don’t have Neo’s super powers to impress and convince others with. All I have are insights into the perverted Darwinian nature of the state and civilisation itself, which mainstream academics are loath to recognise, least it undermine their own status as favoured clients and employees of the state. They won't admit this, of course, even to themselves, preferring instead to demonise my ideas by associating them with Nazism, i.e. the Devil, just as their priestly predecessors once did with Galileo's ideas.

Those who want to free themselves from the Matrix of state power and delusion, I invite to test my ideas with their own reason. Many - initially, at least - will prefer to stay within the Matrix of their delusions about the state and status quo, so long as it seems to be working for them, which it may do for a while longer, but not for very much longer, because already we are exceeding the limits of our planet’s ability to support the grossly materialistic civilisation and economy on which we currently all depend.

If our civilisation is to survive and prosper, there must be rapid and radical change, i.e. revolution, which we have an understandable aversion to, our brain being wired to want to preserve the socio-economic environment on which it depends and has been successful in, as everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence, invariably has been. The thought of radical change scares the shit out of us, so that even as we recognise the urgent need for radical change, our brains rationalise and defend the status quo, thus preventing us from taking the necessary action.

So, I have now revealed myself to you as The One. The question is, will you pass this information on to your readers by publishing it in your op-ed section, so that they can decide for themselves whether I am a nutter, a joker or, perhaps, The One?

I can guess the answer to this question, which is both yes and no. You will publish it one day, I think, but not yet. In the meantime, I shall post it on my own blog, followed by subsequent posts in which I will elaborate on these ideas further.

Friday, 20 November 2015

What does science tell us about race and racism?

This was the title of an event at the Royal Institution on Thursday 19th November 2015, in which Radio 4's Inside Science presenter, Adam Rutherford, "hosted a panel of experts including Kenan Malik, Aoife McLysaght and Heidi Mirza for an evidence-based discussion of an always controversial subject".

I sent this email to the organisers, prior to the event, to which I received no response:

Dear Organisers,

Before we can have a meaningful discussion of “racism” we must clarify what we mean by it.

When it means racial hatred, as practiced by the Nazis, or racial supremacism, as practiced not just by the Nazis, but also under Jim Crow and Apartheid, then clearly it is an evil that all right-minded people are opposed to.

However, “racism” is now also equated with racial prejudice, which is absurd, because as human beings we are ALL prejudiced about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, including race. We wouldn’t be human if we were free of prejudice. And anyone claiming to be so is either a scoundrel (a “moral supremacist”) or deluding themselves.

We have a natural, surely evolved and inherent, inclination to identify with and favour those most like ourselves and our own family members. This doesn’t mean that we hate, or think ourselves superior to anyone who isn’t like ourselves, but it does tend to make us prejudiced in favour of our own family, tribe, ethnic group and - dare I say it? - race.

The question is, WHY have natural human prejudices been equated with the evil of racism?

The answer, I suggest, is political, power-political. It is a modern manifestation of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now "colour-blind", elite (supposedly free of racial prejudice) 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”.

The biological basis of race is not unimportant (especially in respect to medicine), but has very little bearing on racial prejudice. We are an inherently and intensely tribal animal, so whenever ethnic differences are perceived (and clearly, we all do perceive them) there is bound to be prejudice.

If politicians want to demonise and exploit this in pursuit of political advantage, that (sadly) is their business, but it is not - or shouldn’t be - the business of scientists and academics, whose business it is to understand things (in this instance, human nature and the prejudices that go with it), so that we are better able to deal with them in a rational and civilised fashion.

I look forward to hearing what your speakers have to say about “race and racism” on Thursday of next week.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

The discussion was disappointing, although pretty much what I had expected. The "experts" dedicated themselves to defending state racial ideology (as their jobs in academia and the media, of course, oblige them to), which dismisses race as a "social construct", despite all the evidence suggesting that it is real and important. 

Racism wasn't discussed at all, but simply used, as usual, to demonise anyone who disagrees with state racial ideology or admits to perfectly natural and healthy racial prejudices, which, if we are honest with ourselves (which the "experts" clearly aren't), we ALL have.

Link to BLOGS in which I elaborate further on my "racist" ideas.


Tuesday, 20 October 2015

An Appeal to Nationalists

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.