Featured post

The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Western civilisation, especially in America, is to a large extent defined and shackled by its OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, some...

Friday, 27 May 2016

How "Progressives" Promote Hatred

The Nazi Tweets of ‘Trump God Emperor’

by Jonathan Weisman, May 26 2016 (LINK to article)

He doesn't realise it, of course, but the author is being rather hypocritical, demonising the tribal behaviour of others, as hateful, while being very tribal, and hateful (in HIS demonisation, as Nazis or racists, of others) himself.

It is no coincidence that we are culturalised from birth to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our inherent and intense tribal nature, so as to facilitate its manipulation and exploitation by the state, which deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation itself, in order legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

I suggest that Jonathan try rereading these tweets, not as expressions of hatred, but of tribalism.

Of course, tribalism can degenerate into hatred, but to assume this from the outset is self-fulfilling. Thinking badly of people encourages them to behave badly, while thinking well of them encourages good behaviour.

Jonathan assumes hatred on the part of his political opponents and spews hatred back, demonising them as Nazis and racists.

Like human sexuality, human tribalism is something we must study and understand, so that we can learn to direct and control it in more rational and civilised fashion, which we won't achieve by demonising it.

"Progressives" are the Extremists

What is German?

by Anna Sauerbrey, May 26 2016 (LINK to article)

The extremists in this debate about national identity are in the political mainstream, they are "progressives" like the author of this piece and like the NYT itself.

Race and culture are BOTH central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity, which "progressives" clearly don't want people to have, but to identify instead with the artificial, power-political construct of the state they are citizens of.

How to explain this "progressive" attitude towards national identity?

It began as an overreaction to the evil of Nazism, which took racial and cultural identity to criminally insane extremes. We have now gone to the exact opposite,  but equally insane extreme of denying the importance of race, ethnic origins and the cultural baggage which inevitably accompanies them, altogether.

A NYT editorial, The price of Fear, in response to the Paris terror attacks last November provides the following warning:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way”
This is exactly what has happened on a massive scale in the West's overreaction to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

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 is 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.

Saturday, 14 May 2016

Multiculturalism is Working - for Mehdi Hasan

Sadiq Khan and the Future of Europe

By Mehdi Hasan, May 13, 2016 (LINK to article)

According the Mr Hasan,
" [The British model of] multiculturalism does not demand that prior identities be relinquished, in order to build a national identity."
This is very much his own perspective as someone from an "immigrant community". From MY perspective as a Native Briton (the indigenous community?), I am required to give up my prior, ethnically rooted, British identity and embrace a globalised, multi-ethnic British identity in its place - which I refuse to do, not because I'm a bigoted and racist xenophobe, as Mr Hasan would have you believe, but because self-respect and reason will not allow me to have my sense of national identity dictated to me by a mercenary, "patron British state", which has deceitfully posed as my nation for long enough.

The madness of mass immigration into our already overpopulated country, and the post-racial multicultural society and ideology that came with it, was imposed on the British people by the British state and Parliament (not least through the propaganda organ of the BBC), which suppressed all opposition to it as "racist", thereby throwing an interesting light on the nature of our so-called "democracy", which I elaborate on in the blogs I link to below.

It took me a long time to recognise the method to this madness, which, alongside state and capital interest in cheap foreign labour, is the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, now supposedly "colour-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

Mr Hasan goes on to say that
"the problems Britain’s Muslims have likely have more to do with a history of racism than it does with an unwillingness to integrate."
Of course, it is the bigoted, racist and xenophobic natives who are to blame for any problems Muslims have in integrating into British society. It is always the other side that is to blame, especially when it is the white majority, whose leaders welcome the opportunity to assert their own moral authority in condemning such attitudes amongst their own "native community". White people are well known for their propensity to have such despicable attitudes and need to be kept on a tight lead by their moral superiors.

Finally, Mr Hasan says,
"Mr. Khan’s resounding victory [in becoming Mayor of London] was a stinging rebuke to the peddlers of prejudice."
Does he not recognise that EVERYONE is prejudiced about everyone and everything, that it is inherent to human nature. We are not capable of not being prejudiced. If Mr Hasan doesn't recognise his own prejudices (in favour of fellow Muslims and immigrants, and against Native Britons) he is seriously lacking self-awareness, and as a consequence is guilty of ruthlessly peddling his own form of prejudice.

We should be open and honest about our prejudices, instead of denying them in ourselves and seeking to demonise them in others

See BLOG in which I elaborate further on this important issue.