Sunday, 30 January 2011

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 . . .

Thursday, 27 January 2011

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.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

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.

Saturday, 22 January 2011

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.

Friday, 21 January 2011

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.

Saturday, 15 January 2011

What's Wrong with "Society"?

The elites of so-called developing countries are no more interested in the welfare of their own citizens than Britain’s elites were of theirs in Victorian times. They are just a "human resource" to be exploited and protected against.
The assumption that perpetual economic growth will create enough wealth to lift everyone out of poverty, without restricting the growing wealth of the elites, is pure fantasy.
What’s fundamental wrong with “society” is that it is not a genuine society at all, but an artificial environment, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of.
That’s the problem we have to recognise and understand, if we want to solve it – and survive. Otherwise, our civilisation will self-destruct.

Why the State is Colourblind

And demands that its citizens are too.
By “colourblind” I mean indifferent to race and ethnic difference.
The reason is as simple as it is profound: the STATE is not the NATION it would have us believe it is. If it were, it would not be blind to ethnic difference, which is central to national identity, “ethnic” being derived from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION.
Yet the British and American states both insist that they are NATIONS. The American president in particular is always addressing, referring and appealing to the “American People” and NATION. Yet no American citizen seems to take issue with this, either because they really believe themselves to be a NATION, or because they are deceived by state propaganda into believing it, or, if they don’t believe it, are too scared to openly challenge it?
British politicians don’t make as much of Britain being a NATION as American politicians do of America, but the assumption is still manifestly there, and reference often enough made to it, especially when addressing or referring to the armed forces.
How have two of the world’s greatest democracies succeeded in imposing the oxymoronic absurdity of multi-racial/ethnic NATIONHOOD on their supposedly “free” citizens?
The answer is POWER. The STATE is extremely powerful, which in a democracy, at least, has to be legitimized. This legitimacy lies in its claim to NATIONHOOD.
Only, it’s a LIE. And if we – in Britain, American and other western democracies – want to create just, humane and sustainable societies, with prospects of surviving long into the future, it is a lie we urgently need to recognise and face up to – in a calm, rational, humane and civilised fashion.
Statists will defend the LIE, assuming they acknowledge it, by insisting that questioning it, and with it the state’s legitimacy, would necessarily lead to chaos and violence. Thus, the importance of true nationalists (as opposed to statists posing as nationalists) proceeding peacefully and respectfully towards others and the law. This is not a struggle between NATIONS, but between STATES (posing as nations) and true NATIONS.
STRUGGLE . . ? When at the moment all we have is many mighty STATES (posing as nations) and no true nations at all . . ?!
It is up to us, the people, to organise ourselves, peacefully and grass-roots-democratically, into true NATIONS – instead of continuing to allow ourselves to be organised (manipulated and exploited) by the STATE and CAPITAL (not least through advertising), instead of working ourselves to death all day – for what? – and watching so much television.
What do I hope to achieve with this and other posts? My intention is to prime the peaceful and grass-roots-democratic REVOLUTION that will, hopefully, save our civilisation – and race! – from self-destruction.

Friday, 14 January 2011

Viking Bankers

Like the Vikings, Bankers see themselves as noble warriors, providing for their OWN (families) – and without shedding a drop of blood . . .
Excuse me picking on bankers again. It is because they are currently the most visible example of those, not just serving, but also excessively exploiting society as an ENVIRONMENT.
I call them Vikings, because it is the same (subconscious, Darwinian) motivation for the survival, advantage and “success” of their own families, that is driving them – and everyone else, of course.
Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution (what else?), which drives us to exploit our environment, and now includes human society itself.
The basic unit of human survival and reproductive success, until the advent of civilisation, was the TRIBE, which sometimes organised themselves into a NATION, to facilitate their protection against, or exploitation of, other tribes and nations.
The Vikings were a NATION, which, instead of fighting amongst themselves (although I’m sure they did that as well), went out and exploited the resources they found on foreign shores. Those they plundered (Anglo-Saxons, for example) saw them a evil pirates, but from a wholly subjective perspective. A few generations before, Angles and Saxons themselves had been the pirates, taking land and booty from the Celts.
The primary purpose of civilisation is to regulate human self-exploitation, which those in power, of course, did (and continue to do) to their own advantage. Only, you need more than a strong arm to impose order on a population (of exploitable human resources); you need brains as well, which resulted in nobles and clergy cooperating in the creation of the STATE.
Within the state, individuals in a position to do so, spontaneously organised themselves into quasi-tribes, i.e. classes, professions and other shared interest groups, in order to secure the best possible advantage for themselves in the social environment, which, of course, also had to be maintained: like a shepherd looking after his flock, which he tells them is for their own good, so that they behave and do as they are told (this is where religion comes into its own; and being dumb sheep, they believe and obey him). But, of course, the shepherd’s real interests are his own (and/or those of his employer), which is the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.
Social scientists should be telling you all this, rather than me, but being themselves an interest group, wholly dependent on the state and status quo, they are blinded to the Darwinian reality of our situation. So I keep going on about it, in the hope that some of them will eventually take notice.

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

Bankers: “Parasites” in our Social Wood

Bankers are a species of tree, as it were, in the wood that represents society.

It is difficult to see the wood for trees, because very different from what we have been taught it is like, and because so much is hidden underground.
The hidden roots of the “banker trees” are drawing nutrients parasitically from the rest of the wood – which is why they have grown so tall and prosperous. While above ground, we only see how dependent everyone is on them.
If a host is dependent on a parasite, strictly speaking it’s not a parasitic, but a mutualistic relationship (which is what bankers want us all to believe, of course). Only in the case of human society, the parasites have made their hosts far more dependent on them than they need be, in orderto take far more than they are giving or deserve.
Only it’s not just bankers who are taking far more from society than they are giving or deserve – which is why no (effective) action is taken against them. Society is, in fact, a tangle of mutualistic, semi-parasitic and fully parasitic relationships, which everyone is afraid of exposing to the light of day (especially those doing well for themselves), for fear they might lose their own advantage.
Society is a self-exploiting organism (a product of man’s misplaced and perverted Darwinian nature), making it inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable.
We are half aware of this, seeing OTHERS as exploiters, but not in ourselves. The political right sees the liberal left as out to exploit their hard work, savings, talents and entrepreneurship (for the benefit of themselves and their less hard-working, less talented, less entrepreneurial and “disadvantaged” clientèle), while the liberal left see the political right and capital out to exploit ordinary workers, while shirking its responsibility for the poor and disadvantaged.
If we want our civilisation to survive – which I assume most of us do – we have no choice but to change this. It’s a BIG challenge, which some think not worth even trying to rise to. But if we don’t try, we are not just giving up on ourselves, but on our children and grandchildren as well.
The first thing we have to do is recognise and develop a sound understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of society as it currently exists.

Money: a Darwinian Perspective

It is well known that “power corrupts”, yet when it comes to MONEY, which is the most ubiquitous and important, because most versatile, form of power, we tend to ignore this fact – perhaps because everything and everyone are so depend on it, being woven into the very fabric of society and civilisation.

Money is so fundamental to our existence that we dare not even question its role. Effectively, we are as dependent on money as we are on air and water, without which we would quickly die. If we are not in a position to acquire money for ourselves, the state steps in and provides it for us (or the essential things it buys). And if the state fails, the “international community” will provide it (in the form of food aid).
It’s not money itself we depend on, which is an abstract entity (power), but what it buys. We all know this and take it for granted, but our understanding of it is extremely superficial.
From a deeper, Darwinian, perspective the importance of money (power) is clear: it has the potential to greatly enhance the individual’s chances of survival and reproductive success, in the artificial environment of human society, especially if they are male. Classically, powerful men have lots of wives (or mistresses) and children.
Money corrupts because it facilitates man’s exploitation of his fellow man in his pursuit of power; something which democratic states and free-market capitalism between them have made a fine art of. And because so many of us believe ourselves to be doing so well out of it, we don’t want to question it.
We won’t even admit to ourselves that the system we depend on is self-exploitative. We see exploiters, but only in OTHERS, not in ourselves. The political right sees the liberal left as out to exploit their hard work, savings, talents and entrepreneurism (for the benefit of themselves and their less hard-working, less talented and less entrepreneurial clientèle), while the liberal left see the political right and capital out to exploit ordinary workers, while shirking their responsibility for the poor and disadvantaged.
Above the temple in Delphi was written a very wise saying: “Know thy self”. It is, I suggest, even more pertinent for society as a whole than for the individual.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

Arizona Shooting - Symptom of Very Sick Society

Miss Giffords and 13 others were wounded, but six people, including a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge, were shot dead as the gunman sprayed bullets from his semi-automatic Glock pistol.”
How does anyone, let alone someone as mentally unstable as Jared Loughner obviously was, get hold of a semi-automatic Glock pistol (and magazines carrying 33 bullets each) . . ?! (see my blog:America’s Gun Laws).
Roxanne Osler, whose son had been a friend of Jared Loughner’s, said he had a bad relationship with his parents and had distanced himself from family. ‘I wish people would have taken a better notice of him and gotten him help. … He had nobody, and that’s not a nice place to be.’”
This is a situation familiar, I suspect, to most of us at some stage, or stages, in our lives. But we didn’t go out and kill anyone – others or ourselves (perhaps because we didn’t have easy access to a gun, or weren’t quite as unstable as Jared Loughner was).
The point I want to make, however, which is the main theme of my whole blog, is that “society” isn’t organised for optimal human welfare, development or happiness (or even for its long-term survival), but to facilitate its self-exploitation to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.
The Arizona shooting, like bankers’ bonuses, is a striking symptom of a VERY sick society. There are countless other symptoms as well, of course, but so familiar they go unnoticed most of the time.
The individual symptoms in themselves are relatively unimportant (unless you are directly affected by them), but together they have something vitally important to tell about the state of western “society” at large; namely, that it is VERY sick.
If “society” were a human body it would be riddled with cancer, in virtually every organ. It may take another generation or so to actually die, but what is that compared to a history that goes back 2500 years?
There are those who refuse to accept that western society is terminally sick, and others who see that it is, but conclude there is nothing to be done about it, other than “make the most” of the short time still left to us.
I’m working on a “magic bullet therapy” which will kill the cancer (or at least, most of it) and enable western civilisation to survive and prosper for centuries to come, but no one, so far, has shown any interest – either because they believe my diagnosis to be wrong, or my magic bullet therapy to be a hopeless dream not worth bothering with.
I shall persevere anyway – continuing to report on my blog -, although on my own I’ve no more chance of success than a lone researcher working on a cure for all forms of cancer.

America's Gun Laws

Until recently I’d never been able to make sense of America’s gun laws, which allow so many people to own a gun and results in a huge toll of death and injury. How, I wondered, could a rational and civilised society possibly justify such laws? The answer, I eventually decided, was that America was neither a rational nor a civilised society.
However, in the light of the Darwinian view I now take of all human societies (their power structures) being shaped by human nature, itself being a product of Darwinian evolution, I have now revised my opinion.
It’s not that America’s gun laws are irrational or uncivilised, but that America is not a genuine society (i.e. a nation, which would be a natural extension of one’s original tribe), but an artificial ENVIRONMENT – or “jungle”, as it is sometimes called – where, despite the pretence of being a PEOPLE and a NATION (i.e. a genuine society), the individual (family) is still engaged in the primordial struggle for survival, advantage and “success”.
Within your tribe (a genuine society) you don’t need a weapon, because you are all brothers and sisters (i.e. closely related), cooperating (all for one and one for all) in the primordial struggle for survival and “success” in the wider natural environment, which originally included other, rival, tribes. It was only when individuals left the security of their tribe that they took their weapons with them.
America’s gun laws reflect the fact that it is not a genuine society or nation, but a “jungle”, where everyone needs to be on their guard, every ready to defend themselves (and their family) and to grab the opportunities that are available.
A semblance of “society” and “nationhood” is maintained and cultivated by the STATE, which maintains order and prevents chaos for the good of everyone, but also facilitates society’s self-exploitation, as an environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.
This also explains the lack of enthusiasm for state welfare, with the state taking care of everyone as if they were all member of the same tribe or nation. Because, deep down, most Americans know that they are not a PEOPLE or a NATION, despite their politicians’ frequent references and appeals to them as such (enthusiastically supported by the “national” media) – politicians who would never dream of exploiting “society”, but always refer to themselves as its “servants”.
It also explains the different outlooks of the political right and left: the right doesn’t want the state playing the role of tribe (i.e. genuine nation), but just to maintain the social environment and the rule of law, so that those with wealth or talent can exploit it; the liberal-left, on the other hand, want the state to play the role of tribe and genuine nation, taking care of all its people’s needs.
If America really were a PEOPLE and a NATION the liberal-left would be right to take the stance they do (which, of course, is what they believe), but it is NOT, so what they are doing is trying to bang a square peg into a round whole. You can do it – but only with force: thus the justified accusation of “liberal fascism”.
Here the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a NATION:
"a large aggregate of people so closely associated with each other by factors such as COMMON DESCENT, language, CULTURE, HISTORY, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a DISTINCT PEOPLE” [my capitals].
Also, ETHNIC drives from Greek ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION, making the idea of a multi-ethnic nation (which America is supposed to be ) an oxymoronic absurdity.
If America (and the same also applies to multi-ethnic Britain) isn’t a PEOPLE or a NATION, what is it? It’s a mercenary, multi-ethnic STATE, posing as a NATION, in order to facilitate the self-exploitation of its population (see the rest of my blog).
This is a harsh reality to face up to, but better that than to go on denying it.
Basically it's a (collective) “relationship issue”. To quote the Beatles, “we can work it out”. It won’t be easy or painless, but it’s doable, provided one faces up to reality, and maintains a sense humour and humanity.

Bankers' Bonuses

Let’s not be too critical of bankers’ bonuses, but recognise what they have to tell us – if we are prepared to listen – about the very nature of our “society”: the fact that it serves primarily as an ENVIRONMENT, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage of power wealth and privilege.
This includes bankers, of course, but many others besides, and at the end of the day, everyone is out for their own (family’s) advantage, which is what “social mobility” is also really all about.
If bankers’ bonuses helps bring this home to us, it will have served a very valuable service. I doubt that it will, though. It never has in the past, because such an awareness would undermine the most basic assumption underlying our understanding of state and economy, namely that they exist primarily to SERVE society as a whole, as a NATION, and as expressed in a recent Telegraph opinion piece, “Rewards for success keep our economy going”, justifying the bonus which gave the chief executive of RBS, Stephen Hester, a total annual income of £6.8 million, and from which the following quote is taken:
“ . . rewarding success is an essential part of what makes a capitalist economy more efficient at delivering prosperity to everyone than any of the alternative systems.”
The original motivation for socialism was to end this exploitation of society by its rich and powerful elites, but there was a lack of understanding of just how deeply-rooted in man’s (perverted Darwinian) nature, the phenomenon of self-exploitation was: when one elite was removed, another simply took its place; or, what usually happened, was that once “socialists” gained access to power, they used it to their own advantage, just as the elites they were attacking did – only we hated them all the more for their hypocricy.
Understandably, this has given socialism a very bad name, especially since actual states claiming to be socialist provided examples of the kind of society most of us definitely do not want to live in, making capitalist societies look almost idyllic in comparison.
Socialists’ fundamental mistake (a very human one, given our tribal nature) was to see the situation in terms of “them and us”: us GOOD socialists on one side, those BAD capitalists on the other. They failed to recognise that we are all inclined to take advantage of and exploit our human environment (society), if given the chance – although some, far more ruthlessly than others.
The point is that if we want our civilisation to survive – and I presume most of us do – we MUST put an end to the gross self-exploitation exemplified in bankers’ bonuses. Not that simply reducing or even abolishing them would solve the problem. We have to deal with its ROOT CAUSE, otherwise nothing fundamentally will change.
However, before we can even make a start, we must first recognise and develop an understanding of our own Darwinian nature, and how its perversion, in the artificial environment of human society, has given rise to the social, political, religious and economic power structures of our civilisation. Otherwise we’ll just be thrashing around in the dark, and probably making a worse mess of things than “socialism” did.
It’s a BIG challenge – but one we urgently need to rise to.

“Wanted Down Under” (BBC1) for interested Immigrants to Britain

Official description of current BBC programme (see webpage): Series in which British families are given a look at life in Australia ahead of possible migration.
After watching a few minutes of this inspiring BBC programme, I thought how wonderful it would be to create a similar programme for the benefit of aspiring African and Asian immigrants to Britain or Europe . .
Description of proposed programme: Series in which African and Asian families are given a look at life in Britain ahead of possible migration.
Or perhaps it would be better to have different versions for different continents, or even for different countries. The potential media market here is enormous.
If there are any programme makers or people interested in investing in such a venture, please, do get in touch.
I’ve thought of approaching the BBC, but without being able to explain it to myself, can’t imagine them showing much enthusiasm.

The Absurdity of Multi-Ethnic Nationhood

This is in response to a recent piece in the Telegraph, Are white girls really ‘easy meat’? by Andrew Gilligan, the thread to which, with my comment on it, has been removed, whether deliberately or by technical fault, I don’t know.
One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate.
If this is a specifically Muslim view then perhaps it’s time that I (and a lot of other natives) converted . . !
It illustrates, for the unblinkered eye, the MADNESS of creating a multi-ethnic society on the scale we now have. Because it’s one thing criticising publicly those you identify with as your OWN, but quite another criticising those you don’t identify with.
What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities?
It’s the audacity of those Muslims (a minority), who, having chosen all the advantages of British citizenship over those of their country and culture of origin, then slag us off, which really gets up our (the natives’) noses.
But then, you can’t blame Muslims who were born here, because they didn’t make that decision. Neither would I blame their parents or grandparents for making the decision to come here, with all the advantages and opportunities Britain offers over their country of origin, nor for wanting to retain their own ethnic and cultural identity – after all, they’re human beings, and not just the “human resource” or ideological ammunition which state and capital primarily see them as.
What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?
Those to blame are our own ruling elites, who wanted cheap foreign labour for British business, on the one hand, and to implement the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race-doesn’t-matter”, i.e. is of no social or political significance, except to evil “racists”, on the other, thereby establishing their moral superiority and claims to power (much as the Catholic church did in the Middle Ages, only using a different ideology to claim the moral high ground with).
The truth is that race and ethnic origins DO matter – for human beings! – for an individual’s sense personal and group identity. Denying this and trying to impose a sense of multi-ethnic nationhood on us, which is what our ruling elites have been doing for the past 60 years, by condemning anyone who objects as a “racist” (or “bigot”), is economic and power-political madness. And we should know where madness (of whatever kind), sooner or later, leads . . .