Sunday, 27 February 2011

Human Beings or Human Resources?

In response to an article in today's Telegraph, "It's babies, not discrimination, that's holding back women in the workplace" by Jemima Lewis

The root cause of the intractable problems relating to work and family life is a misconceived belief in the individual or nuclear family being the basic unit of society. 

They are not. They are the basic units of the artificial human ENVIRONMENT, which state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, TALENT, which by definition means virtually all members of our political, business, academic and media elites.

The natural, basic unit of a genuine society is the tribe or community, which, having been made redundant by the state and a money economy, no longer exist.

Obviously, we cannot recreate the kind of tribal society evolution adapted human behaviour and emotions to, but, given a realistic (necessarily Darwinian) understanding of ourselves and our situation, we could develop a political and socio-economic order which serves us as "human beings" rather than serving our self-exploitation us as "human resources" and markets (including the "labour market").

The following quote illustrates the author’s “profligate” way of looking at the meaning and purpose of human life, both male and female, which dominates, from left to right, right across the “progressive” political spectrum.
Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fall out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country.
It’s centred around a perverted political and economic philosophy (responsible for current reality, and vice versa) more interested in the exploitation of “human resources” and markets than in the well-being and self-realisation of human beings, which it effectively reduces to their ability to make MONEY and/or to claim a spurious, likewise perverted, “moral high ground” for themselves (especially favoured by the Left).
Trouble is, it’s “successful” individuals, especially in the media, who define what “success” is for society at large, despite being so utterly misguided themselves.
But then, who am I to tell such “successful” people that they’re misguided . . ?

The BBC: Britain's "Statist" Broadcaster

Over the years the BBC has exerted more profound political influence than all the political parties put together. Their influence has been relatively superficial, having to follow the liberal-statist (some say “liberal-fascist”) political philosophy laid down by liberal statists at the BBC and elsewhere, especially in respect to race, immigration and the oxymoronic absurdity of a multi-ethnic British “national identity”.

In fact, it's not so much a philosophy as an ideology, which, not coincidentally, is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology, which, along with Apartheid and Jim Crow, initially it was an understandable overreaction to, subsequently consolidated by political (and to a lesser extent, economic) opportunism into a rigid ideology and basis for a spurious “moral high ground”, comparable to those once used to great power-political effect and advantage by the Church and Marxists. The most powerful and pernicious ideologies being those people are least aware of being ideologies.

It's an ideology which insists that race and ethnic origins are of no social or political significance whatsoever, except to evil “racists”, like the Nazis. It's practical expression, used to intimidate political opponents and the population at large, was mass immigration of non-European peoples and the creation of a multi-ethnic society.

The obvious fact that race and ethnic origins ARE of central importance for a deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, e.g. national, identity is simply denied or (when people refuse to suppress and deny it) demonised – as “racist”.

Apart from this, the BBC (financed by the very people it has betrayed*) does a lot of good work and has a lot of good, well-meaning people working for it. 

* It's a form of “self-betrayal”, based, not just on self-interest, but also on misconceived ideas (ideology) of “national” interest and the interests of humanity at large, so I don't think that anyone at the BBC should be put against a wall and shot, as it was once customary to do with traitors, but should simply be removed from POWER, along with their misguided ideology, just as Eastern Europe did with Marxists and their ideology.

That's easier said than done, of course, in view of this pernicious ideology having permeated society and the body politic so thoroughly. But we could at least start thinking and talking about it, defying the taboos which still brand doing so as "racist", which is just a modern, dismissive, "progressive" word for "heathen", "non-believer" or "heretic", i.e. "evil" individual (anyone who challenges state authority and ideology).

Of Sheep and Men

For centuries, since tribal (including Greek city-state) society was taken over by the STATE, it has been organised, and power exercised, from the top down. The vast majority of men (and women) became like sheep, under the control of a few shepherds and their dogs.
In modern western democracy we sheep have a great deal of freedom, and every few years are allowed to elect a few, but far from all, of our shepherds; not that we have much choice, even with these few, who are preselected by a small number of political parties which are pretty much the same, obsessed by POWER, dedicated to the status quo, and to maintaining the state’s role in facilitating society’s self-exploitation (not least through capital) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and, of course, “talent”.
Although the sheep have the freedom – provided they do so peacefully and within the law – to organise THEMSELVES, grass-roots-democractically, as MEN did when they lived in tribes or city states, they don’t do so. I guess, because we are so used to acting like sheep, always expecting to be led, coaxed and coerced, and otherwise just getting on with one’s sheepish life, in which all the fundamental things are organised and taken care of by the state or capital.
On the other hand, it’s not just because we are so used to acting like sheep, since it wouldn’t be easy organising OURSELVES grass-roots-democratically now that there are so many more of us than when we lived in tribes or city states and society is so much more complicated. That would take not just MEN but SUPERMEN and WOMEN (As a boy, Superman was my favourite hero).
We are not supermen, and obviously cannot organise ourselves as we might have done in relatively small tribes or city states in the distant past, but surely, by using our intelligence and an understanding (yet to be developed) of our own human nature, we can find ways of doing so that makes MEN and WOMEN of us, rather than SHEEP . . . !?

Thursday, 24 February 2011

Not ‘nations’ as we understand it

Arab countries are not 'nations' as we understand it 
writes Ed West in his latest blog, “It is not prejudice or racism to suggest Arabs ‘can’t do democracy‘”, to which I responded with the following comment:
And neither is Britain! Not since going “multi-ethnic” in such a big way.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a NATION is “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 notion of a “multi-ethnic British nation” an oxymoronic absurdity.
It’s an absurdity which the majority of Britain’s indigenous (ethnic European) population, are mildly to extremely uncomfortable with (depending on circumstances), but can say, let alone do, nothing about, without being branded and dismissed as “racist” by STATE media (the BBC), which the rest of the media and political elite had to follow, or be branded “racist” themselves, just as anyone deviating from state/church ideology in the Middle Ages was branded a “non-believer”, “heathen” or “heretic”. It’s all about state POWER.
Europe’s tribal societies were destroyed by the STATE centuries ago, which then coerced and taught us to identify ITSELF as our tribe or nation, which we owed our powerful (and in times of war, passionate) tribal loyalties to. This made the state extremely powerful and goes a long way to explaining European global dominance.
Only, the STATE is not a NATION, but merely poses as such, in order to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation (as an artificial environment) to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent” – and not just at the BBC.
The STATE’S (and capital’s) principal interest in “human resources”, “markets” and voters as vassals to the political elite, makes race and ethnic origins (vital to “human beings” for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity) irrelevant, except as as something to deny the importance of as an expression of “moral superiority” and continued allegiance to the STATE.

Monday, 21 February 2011

On Celebrity Salaries

In response to an article, “Today presenters to take pay cuts”, in last Saturday's Telegraph:
There’s so much confusion and hypocrisy surrounding this issue – which is hardly surprising, because it goes to the very core of human “prime ape”, i.e. Darwinian, nature, which, having always denied or demonised it, we are compelled to rationalise.
Notwithstanding all the other attractions of as large an income as possible – and all assertions to the contrary -, psychologically and socially it is by far the most important measure of social rank and personal worth. Nothing is more important to a tribal “prime ape” like ourselves than that.
I imagine that most – certainly anyone who has any knowledge of evolutionary anthropology or psychology – will agree with me, nod, maybe smile, but then move on, without really taking it seriously, or appreciating just how important it is: the fact that we, and society at large, are still so completely dominated by emotions and behaviours which evolved long before the advent of civilisation, and are thus inappropriate (ill-adapted to long-term survival) in our present, very different, situation.
We fail to recognise this, because man is not so much a “rational animal”, as a “rationalising animal”, our brain having evolved to “interpret”, maintain or modify reality (its environment) in accordance with preconceived ideas, social norms, as well as narrow and short-sighted self-interests (such as drawing a very large income).
There is hope for us, however, because evolution has indeed produced a rational side to our nature. It’s just far less developed than we think it is. If we were to recognise this (the fact that we currently rationalise more than we recognise reality), our rational nature might slowly get on top of our inclination to rationalise, and thus guide us towards a more rational, just, humane and sustainable future.

Saturday, 19 February 2011

From “Classless Society” to “Post-Racial Society”

How the Left exchanged a noble ideal for an ignoble one.
The Left gave up on their ideal of the “classless society” (characterised, not just by class, but by huge differences in income, wealth and opportunity), exchanging it (along with the “moral high ground” it was associated with) for that of a “raceless” or “post-racial society”, and the ideology of “One-Human-Racism”.
One-Human-Racism” is the ideology of “colourblindness”, of “race doesn’t matter” (or even exist), of ethnic origins being of no social or political importance (especially in respect to group, e.g. national, identity), except to evil “racists” – like the Nazis, whose abhorrent racial ideology, not coincidentally, it is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of.
In contrast to the “classless society”, the ideal of a “raceless society” is much more acceptable to those in power, wealth and privilege, since it doesn’t challenge their status. In this way, the Left were able to become part of the status quo, the establishment, themselves, thereby creating the modern “liberal-fascist” state, which together with capital dominates all western “democracies”.
Why is the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial”, and, by implication, “post-European” society” ignoble? Because it denies (and in respect to white people, demonises, as “racist”) the central importance of race and ethnic origins for an individual’s sense personal and group, e.g. national, identity, on the one hand, and creates an uninhibited “melting pot”, on the other, in which human ethnic and cultural diversity will dissolve and disappear, or at least, be greatly reduced.
How were we deceived into believing that the ideal of a “raceless” or “post-racial society” was a noble cause? Initially, because of a shock response and overreaction to the horrors associated with the Nazi’s criminally insane racial ideology, but also in overreaction to the unjust and inhumane state discrimination and segregation imposed by Apartheid South Africa and America’s Jim Crow laws. Embracing the opposite attitude, of “Race doesn’t matter” (at all), seemed an appropriate response, which was then opportunistically exploited (principally on the Left) by those seeking power-political advantage by claiming the “moral high ground” for themselves.
Only it wasn’t appropriate, because race and ethnic origins DO matter, for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity.
Humans have a tendency, as exemplified here, to swing from one extreme to the other. My hope is that by understanding what is going on, we can avoid doing that. No one in their right mind wants a return to Jim Crow, Apartheid or, least of all, Nazism, although the surest way of doing so is for the state to persist in imposing the ideologically opposite extreme. We need to find a humane and civilised way between these extremes.
How? We could make a start by talking about it.

Friday, 18 February 2011

Why STATE Welfare will always be Exploited

There is a fundamental reason why the welfare STATE will always be exploited. Not because of flaws in the system (which government is vainly attempting to correct), but because it's what the state's original and still primary purpose is: to facilitate society's self-exploitation.

That sounds absurd, I know, but only because we have been brain-washed, for centuries, into believing the opposite, i.e. that the state exists to SERVE society.

It does serve society, of course, and we all depend on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock. Which isn't primarily for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern for a lost or 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.

The primary purpose of the STATE is to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation, as an artificial human ENVIRONMENT. This is what it was created for, back in the Middle Ages, by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy. Not consciously, of course, but subconsciously, in pursuit of a misplace and perverted Darwinian drive for POWER and all the advantages that go with it.

Things have moved on since the Middle Ages, with the aristocracy and clergy being largely displaced by other, more numerous and diverse, “self-interest groups”, but the fundamental purpose of the state's power structures remain the same: to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation as an artificial human ENVIRONMENT.

It is in this context that the problems of the welfare state (along with most other issues) are to be understood, once we have overcome the misunderstandings and confusion caused by the STATE posing as our NATION, which most of us unthinkingly equate it with.

Just as the rich and powerful have always used their wealth and power to exploit society to their own advantage, now, thanks to the welfare system, ordinary citizens are able to as well.

When the welfare system was first created, most people still believed in Britain being a NATION, which they had been intensely proud to serve during the war, and wouldn't have dreamed taking unnecessary or unfair advantage of.

However, 60 years of consumer capitalism (which sees people primarily as a “human resource” or “market”) and mass immigration (which has undermined the natural, ethnic basis of nationhood) have between them strongly eroded our sense of national identity and solidarity.

We see millions of immigrants coming here to exploit the freedoms and opportunities unavailable in their countries of origin (and who can blame them?), with the state and capital in turn exploiting their cheap labour, along with the power-political advantage of being able to claim the spurious “moral high ground” associated with “colourblindness” and the virtues of “multi-ethnic society”. We see mind-boggling income differentials between those at the bottom, or even in the middle, and those at the top of the income scale, as those who can take as much as they can (and then do all they can to avoid paying tax on it). We see MPs taking advantage of their expenses, encouraged, no doubt, by those, less worthy than themselves, they see taking far more.

Those at the lower end of the social hierarchy look up and think to themselves: if those at the top are exploiting the system for all they can get out of it, why shouldn't I do the same? They don't have the opportunities that the powerful, wealthy, privileged and “talented” have, so they use the opportunities that are available - such as exploiting the welfare system.

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Welfare Nation vs. Welfare State

This is my response to an article in today’s Telegraph by Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, “It’s time to end this addiction to benefits
The problem lies far deeper than with the welfare-state, which is just 60 years old, having been created at a time, following years of exceptionally strong national unity and purpose in the struggle against Nazism, when there was still a very strong sense of national identity and solidarity.

This basis of national identity and solidarity, on which the welfare-state was founded, has since been massively eroded by mercenary consumer-capitalism, on the one hand (in which people serve primarily as a “human resource” and “market”, rather than as members of a nation), and mass immigration (of cheap foreign labour) and the creation of a multi-ethnic (effectively, multi-national) society, on the other, thereby destroying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity.

This was justified and enforced by the state adopting a internationalist, left-wing ideology, which, not coincidentally, was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite, of Nazi racial ideology, and condemned the natural ethnic basis of national identity as “racist”. The STATE and its ideology, rather than the people themselves, would define national, or rather, "pseudo-national" identity; but of course, when things are imposed from above and directed from the top down, they don't work very well.

While a welfare-NATION can be organised to work well, a welfare-STATE cannot. In other words, Ian Duncan Smith is flogging a dead horse.

The welfare-state is "Socialism" implemented by the STATE and financed by a capitalist economy.

No wonder things are in such a MESS!

The natural basis of Socialism is the NATION, which is characterised by the shared identity and solidarity of its members. When the STATE, which only "poses" as our nation, attempts to implement Socialism (social services and welfare) from above, it can only make a mess of things: witness 60 years of Britain as a welfare STATE . . !

But I'm on dangerous ground here, bringing together the ideas “Socialism” and the “Nation”. Just one step further and you get “National Socialism”, which, because of its Nazi associations, is the very epitome of evil.

So why did the Nazis call themselves National Socialists? Because they wanted everyone to know how evil they were? Hardly. It was because at the time it was a very positive and popular concept, combining as it did the ideas of nationhood (and nationalism) with those of socialism (and the Nazis were supreme propagandists). In the meantime, of course, both concepts have been thoroughly discredited and demonised; nationalism by the Left, which it equates with “racism”, and socialism by the Right, which it equates with statism. And because the Nazis combined the two, nationalism (racism) and socialism (statism), the concept of National Socialism is abhorred by all.

But the fact remains that the basis of viable socialism (by which I mean all the POSITIVE aspects of social services and welfare, which even the most callous libertarian wouldn't deny the value of) has to be a genuine nation.

The Nazis deserve to be abhorred, but the concept of “national socialism”, which they hijacked and dragged into the abyss with their nasty selves, needs to be recovered, cleansed of its evil Nazi associations, and re-examined.

It's going to be difficult and painful process, I know, because words and their associations (especially those surrounding “nationalism”, “socialism” and “national socialism”) can be extremely powerful and difficult to separate form each other, not just intellectually, but also emotionally. But we cannot allow the Nazis, so long after their demise, to continue their ownership of such a vitally important concept. An ownership which continues to be confirmed and reinforced even today by the political Left and Right, who have incorporated it, i.e. their opposition to it, into their own tribal identities.
Britain now being a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the concept we need to be looking at is “multi-national socialism”.

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Uncommon vs Common Sense & the "Insanities of Normality"

The most profound advances in human understanding have occurred when "common sense" was overturned by "uncommon sense". The Copernican revolution (the change from an Earth-centred to a Sun-centred view of the universe) is the most famous example (now simply taken for granted and generally unappreciated); other examples are the fact that a feather falls just as fast as a heavy hammer when there is no air resistance to prevent it, Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum theory.
"Common sense" is to a large extent the recognition of what is considered "normal " and socially acceptable. Evolution has programmed and society conditioned us to see things thus. Politicians love to appeal to people's common sense, because they want to retain the status quo which places them in a position of advantage and privilege. If the physical sciences were as bound by common sense as the social and political sciences still are, as little scientific and technologically progress would have been made as in the so-called social and political sciences.
Nowadays, for example, it is "common sense" for everyone who can afford it to own a car (or two, or more) and to fly away on holiday once or twice a year (or own a private plane). But as ever more of Earth's almost 7 billion inhabitants (and still increasing) can also afford these things, it places an increasingly unsustainable drain and strain on our planet's limited resources and carrying capacity. "Common sense" tells us not to worry about it, because it's "normal " and everyone does it; and besides, experience teaches us that things have always worked out in the past, and - thanks to man's ingenuity - will surely continue to do so in future.
"Uncommon sense ", on the other hand, is telling us that we are now in an entirely new situation, that our growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic lifestyles are fundamentally unsustainable, the consequences of which pose a dire threat, if not to ourselves (depending how old you are), certainly to our children and coming generations.
It is natural for us to see what is "normal " also as being correct, or at least, not too bad. We cannot help it, because we are hard-wired and conditioned by society to do so. It is the biological basis of morals and ethics, words which in their original tongues (Latin and Greek) simply referred to customary (i.e. normal and acceptable) behaviour.
To a far greater extent than we are prepared to admit (except in the nicely compartmentalised field of biology), man is an animal, a "prime ape" (if you will excuse the pun) - in fact, Earth's "Greatest Ape "- and although we have a good deal of social behaviour programmed into us, it evolved to serve the survival and advantage of individuals and their family groups, TRIBES, and under some circumstances, NATION – but NOT a wider humanity, and certainly not our species as a whole. This is why efforts to address even regional problems, let alone state (national), inter-state and global problems, which now threaten our very survival, have been and - without a radical change of awareness and behaviour - will continue to be so hopelessly inadequate.
In the past, rules of behaviour (morals) were passed down from generation to generation and generally contributed to the group's survival. An individual might question the validity of a rule prohibiting the eating of a particular mushroom, for example, but he was well advised to heed it. Natural selection soon eliminated those who didn't. Conforming to the norm and following authority and majority makes logical and practical sense (otherwise evolution would not have hard-wired us to do so). When scientists (renowned for their rationality) conduct an experiment which produces lots of data they will often disregard any that do not fit the general pattern, assuming them to be the result of experimental error. It is usually the sensible and correct thing to do.
Or imagine being in a building when a fire alarm sounds. You have no idea where to head and there are no signs to indicate it, but suddenly you see a large number of people all rushing in the same direction. What do you do? Most likely you assume that, unlike you, they know which direction to head in, and join them. It seems rational to suppose that they will not all to be mistaken. However, that assumes that they all came to their decision independently. In practice it may be that just one person thought - perhaps mistakenly - that he knew the right direction and started heading in it, and others simply followed, creating a chain reaction. They might all be rushing towards danger instead of away from it. By analogy, this also applies to the direction in which modern civilisation is heading, i.e. towards catastrophe; but because virtually everyone is moving in the same direction it is very difficult - psychologically and practically - to believe that this could be true.
Another example: when I see lots of people walking and skating on a frozen lake (as I often did when I lived in Germany), I'm inclined to assume that it is safe to join them. Good sense, however, will tell me to consider other factors as well - like how cold it has been and for how long, or actually to measure the thickness of the ice.
Thus, we are biologically programmed and socially conditioned to conform to the norm. Not that everyone always does, of course, but in general we do. In the modern world things are confused by contact with and knowledge of foreign cultures, and the fact that someone who appears to be courageously non-conformist, may in fact simply be conforming to other, unfamiliar norms, such as those of a street gang, for example, or of a religious sect.
In unfamiliar social situations, where we are unsure how to behave, we all usually look to see how others are behaving, in order to fit in with them.
Conforming to social norms is an essential characteristic of human behaviour, inherited from our animal forebears, which has served our survival and advancement. However, recent developments - the exponential increase in human numbers and their impact, hugely increased through the application of modern technology, on our planet - have led to a fundamental change (in fact, a reversal) in such behaviour's survival value.
In the modern world it is perfectly normal for lots of people to make extensive use of a car and fly off on holiday once or twice a year. Our biological programming and social conditioning thus respond by telling us that it must be okay for us to do so as well. On the other hand, our recently acquired, more enlightened, human nature (e.g. our intellect, in its literal sense) tells us that what may be of little consequence for our planet when just a few (million) people do it, is likely to have catastrophic consequences if 100's or 1000's of millions of people do the same thing.
In the past, playing safe for the best chances of survival, meant following the norm and doing what most other people did. But that has now changed. In the modern world, such behaviour has become a threat to our survival.
We all like to think that we see the world with our own, unimpaired eyes, but in fact each of us sees it through a unique pair of very strong glasses, the highly complex, distorting lenses of which we have acquired from our parents, peers, books, the media, and society at large. Although I believe that I see some very important things more clearly than most (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this), my glasses are not uniformly less distorting that those of others. The lenses are very complex. Some things, I'm sure, I see more distorted than others. 
Many years ago I saw a demonstration on TV, in which a man's perception of his environment was remarkably altered through posthypnotic suggestionfollowing which, when light balls were thrown at him, he ignored them completely, as if they did not exist. When questioned about his behaviour, which had been influenced by the balls, he rationalised it - just as we all rationalise our irrational behaviour to prevent ourselves from becoming fully conscious of what we are doing to our planet.
Among my parents' and grandparents' generations it was common to hear it said that they wanted their children to have it better than they did. Most of us certainly got what they wanted for us, and I for one am very thankful. The question now is, what do WE want for OUR children and grandchildren? For my part, I would like them to have it as good as I have. But they won't, not the way things are going, unless we break out of the trance we are under and come out of denial about what we are doing to our planet.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

The Straw(s) that Broke the Camel's Back

Everyone has heard about the straw that broke the camel's back - and perhaps wondered, whose straw was to blame?
Paradoxically the answer is no one's and everyone's.
But that is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.
Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we can be sure that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.
Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent economy and multi-billion dollar credit and advertising industries.
This constitutes what I call the Insanity of Normality, which is difficult to recognise (except in flashes, which we are quickly distracted from and forget about), because we are all so familiar with and dependent on it.

The Race Does/Doesn’t Matter Paradox

Which has been ruthlessly exploited by the state to impose the MADNESS of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on us.
At the level of personal encounters and relationships, race and ethnic difference matter little, because it is natural for those involved to ignore or play down any differences (and not just racial) that might cause offence, disharmony or conflict, because usually we want to get on with others and avoid anything that might prevent that. Also, once you get to know someone, it’s their individual character that predominates over any ethnic perceptions, which, if you like them, disappear into the background.
Character, it seems, is not determined by race. I only know from experience with my own race that there are some extremely nice individuals, and some extremely nasty ones, and a whole spectrum of characters in between. And I presume it’s the same with all races. Whereby every individual has nice and nasty sides to them, which manifest according to circumstances and the level of control the individual has over them.
I agree with Martin Luther King, when he said that an individual should not be judged by the colour of their skin (race or ethnicity), but by the content of their character.
But how many people can we know as “individuals”? Not many. The vast majority of people will always be strangers to us. And the first things we notice about a stranger are their age, gender, able-bodiedness, and ethnicity.
Why ethnicity? Because it provides an immediate indication of whether they belong to one’s own or a related TRIBE, and can be expected to be friendly, or are from an unrelated tribe, and thus a potential enemy.
Thus, the dictum of not judging an individual by the colour of their skin (ethnicity), while coming relatively naturally to us at the personal level, does not do so when dealing with strangers, when it is a natural criterion for judging, not their character, but whether they belong to one’s own tribe or nation; “ethnicity” being derived from Greek, ETHNOS, meaning a PEOPLE or a NATION (Martin Luther King was well served by the American STATE, and thus not inclined to question it's claim to nationhood).
Because of the state’s claim to nationhood and authority over all its citizens, it has to insist that they all belong, effectively, to the same TRIBE, and suppress their natural inclination to notice and react to ethnic differences. The state does this by demonising it as “racism”.
The state has always laid claim to its subjects/citizens’ tribal loyalties, of course, in order to facilitate their exploitation as a human resource, only in the past there were no blatant racial differences to be ignored, suppressed or exploited, only linguistic, cultural or religious ones. Now the state is having a heyday, suppressing, manipulating and exploiting the ethnic differences of its citizens.
It’s time we cottoned on to what’s going on and learned to deal with the STATE, instead of allowing it, as it has always done, to deal with us.

The Moral Basis of Liberal-Fascism

Love of others; control and contempt of one’s own.
Moral basis of the authoritarian-fascist (Nazi) state:
Hatred of others, idealisation and control of one’s own
The moral basis of a genuine NATION, in contrast, is, or would be if it existed, love of one’s own, respect for others.

Guardian Advocates Europe’s Islamification

The following is quoted from an article by Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian, "If this is young Arabs’ 1989, Europe must be ready with a bold response":
As their homelands modernise, young Arabs – and nearly one third of the population of the north African littoral is between the age of 15 and 30 – will circulate across the Mediterranean, contributing to European economies, and to paying the pensions of rapidly ageing European societies.”
I find it hard to imagine that the author, who sometimes expresses quite sensible opinions, really wants to promote the Islamification and de-Europeanisation (globalisation) of Europe, so why is he encouraging it?
Presumably, he naively believes that in Europe, Arabs will become liberal-minded Europeans like himself. No doubt, some will. But as we now know from experience (those of us not blinded by economic interests or liberal-statist ideology), many won’t. Understandably (if you see them ashuman beings rather than just a human resource,to be manipulated and exploited by state and capital), they will remain true to their Islamic roots, and seek to change Europe accordingly.

A Tough Year for Households

In response to David Cameron’s warning of “tough year” for households:
Thanks for the warning David, but even on just half your PM’s salary (£142,000, and notwithstanding your other sources of income), I can manage very nicely – thank you!
Your warning may be of more relevance to those on just half my income, although that still puts them well above the average, and of more relevance still to those on an average income or less.
It will be most relevant, I image, to someone on the minimum wage, which is less than half the average wage (or 1/12 of your PM’s salary).
Although, I guess that you personally must feel undervalued and underpaid when mingling amongst banker friends, CEOs and others with 10 time or more your salary. You’re to them, what someone on the minimum wage is to you: ein armes Schwein!
But, I’m forgetting that we are a NATION, a Big Society, and all in this TOGETHER . . .
P.S. The reference to my own salary, I regret to say, is just a literary device and wishful thinking.

Monarchy – A Darwinian Perspective

In response to a piece in today’s Telegraph, “Even the Aussies want to bend the knee to the Queen”,by London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, in support of the British monarchy, from which the following is quoted:
. . family transitions are, of course, outrageous to democracy, but they reflect a weird superstition, a prehistoric yearning that still exists in our species.”
. . people all over the country will recognise that Prince William’s wedding is an event in the life of the nation . . “
Time for a reality check, I think. Not just in respect to the monarchy, but in respect to the STATE itself, which has posed as our NATION for long enough!
Boris is right about monarchy and the family transitions associated with it reflecting a prehistoric yearning, although there is nothing weird of superstitious about it. From the perspective of evolutionary psychology it is perfectly understandable. We evolved over millions of years as a tribal animal with tribal leaders.
With the advent of civilisation, the STATE usurped our original tribes, thereby laying claim to our tribal loyalties for itself, effectively coercing us into a super-tribe, or pseudo-nation (a genuine nation being a product not of coercion, but of freely associating tribes), which it then clothed in the garb of genuine nationhood, with accompanying narratives, which eventually everyone, whatever their social status, believed in, not least, because as dependent on the state as on their (our) original tribe, which our brains evolved to identify with, because more important than the individual in ensuring the propagation of our genes.
Unlike our original tribes and the nations they sometimes formed (when confronted with a common foe, as the Greek tribes, or city states, did against the Persians), the STATE is not a natural and healthy product of our Darwinian nature, but a perversion of it, having developed to facilitate “society’s” self-exploitation, as an artificial ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”.
The STATE does serve society, of course, and we are all dependent on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock, which isn’t primarily for the flock’s sake (notwithstanding genuine concern for a lost or injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer’s sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be sold at market for MONEY.