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...

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

Sociopolitical Sciences Stuck in Pre-Darwinian Dark Age

The Age of Post-Truth Politics

By Prof. William Davies, August 24 2016 (LINK to article)

As a professor of political economy, the author of this piece expects others to believe, as he does himself, of course, that he has an expert grasp of social and political reality - but does he?

I don't believe that he, or any of his academic colleagues have any better grasp of social and political reality than medieval academics had of the material world, be they Ptolemaic astronomers, alchemists, Galenic Doctors, Aristotelian physicists, or whatever.

The social and political sciences are, in my view, still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age, because of the taboo a previous generation of academics made of viewing their own species from the same evolutionary perspective they view every other species.

This taboo began as an overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused for their own evil purposes the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism. It should have been recognised and corrected by now, but hasn't been because a whole ideology has been built around it, on which academic and state authority now rests, just as it once did on church ideology.

When mainstream interpretation of social and political reality is so deeply flawed, it is hardly surprising that other interpretations are now gaining ground, some just, if not even more flawed than the mainstream, but others - if one can but recognise them - more realistic.

Here's a LINK to my own efforts.

This comment was approved and posted by the NYT, but I thought I'd post it here anyway.

Tuesday, 23 August 2016

The Collective Trauma of Nazism & the Holocaust

Putting the Power of Self-Knowledge to Work

By David Bernstein, August 23, 2016 (LINK to article)

This article relates to how childhood trauma can be a major factor in an array of social ills. However, it is not just individuals who can suffer such trauma. Western civilisation itself, I believe, suffered collective psychological trauma in the form of Nazism and the Holocaust, which is widely overlooked but having a hugely negative affect on modern western society.

In an editorial response to the Islamist terror attacks in Paris last November (LINK), the NYT offered these wise words of warning:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”
Western civilisation has indeed lost its way, but because our leaders - in politics the media and, especially, academia - would have to take responsibility for it (despite a previous generation bearing personal responsibility), they are loath to admit it, even to themselves.

There is also the problem of so many personal, professional and political self-interests now being bound up with it, which something I elaborate on in other BLOGS.

Because the Nazis made a huge and very ugly issue of race, there was an overreaction to the opposite extreme of denying its importance, even its very existence, altogether.

Race is not the "social construct" we are taught to believe it is (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. genuine national, identity. This explains why the state, which deceitfully poses as a nation itself, is so keen to suppress its importance.

America, and increasingly Europe, will never solve their race problems by denying the importance of race, but quite the contrary.

Jews were especially traumatised by Nazism and the Holocaust, and thus find it especially hard to face up to. Perhaps this is why they seem to play such a prominent role in the west's extreme overreaction to it.

Would Some Jews Have Made Good Nazis, if . . ?

My Parents’ Mixed Messages on the Holocaust

By Jason Stanley, August 20, 2016 (LINK to article)
"Jews were hated. But this, [my mother] explained, was the fate of Jews. Anti-Semitism was a permanent feature of the world, not special to the Holocaust. My father [in contrast] . . argued powerfully against the stance of the victim. It was morally dangerous [he said, and] was scornful when he saw signs that I was taking the Holocaust to mean that Jews were special. 'If the Germans had chosen someone else,” he often said, 'we would have been the very best Nazis.'”
Prof. Stanley, I'm very much on your father's side, who, I think, takes the more rational, objective, and self-critical view - of himself and his own Jewish tribe.

It is not just victims who pose a danger, because of their understandable lack of objectivity, but the "moral supremacists" who exploit their own or others' victimhood as a source of supposed moral authority: if you are, or identify with, the victim, you are automatically against the perpetrator (in the case of the Holocaust, the Nazis) and thus a "good guy", who others will attribute high social status to, which confers huge personal, professional and/or political advantage.

The Nazis being the very embodiment of evil, their victims are ideal for moral supremacists to identity with, making them the very best of goodies.

The problem is, there is a moral supremacist in all of us, often difficult to distinguish from just wanting to be moral - inherently moral animal that we are.

Moral supremacists, who have always had immense power within society (formally as priests, now more influentially as academics, politicians and journalists), exploited the understandable overreaction to Nazism, incorporating it into the state’s age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic, elite and the morally inferior, naturally (human nature being what it is) less virtuous, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors" (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

The above is an edited and very slightly longer version of the comment I submitted to the NYT, but wasn't approved.

Now I want to respond to what you said about being a "white Jewish-American [whose] sons and wife are black Americans", and your concerns about "a thoroughly unjustifiable racism directed against [them]".

It was natural, but mistaken, I believe, to blame the Holocaust  on "racial prejudice" against Jews, i.e. anti-Semitism, as a consequence of which racial prejudice, of any sort and towards anyone, was demonised and suppressed. It was an understandable overreaction, which should have long been recognised and corrected, but hasn't been, because of its incorporation in state ideology and its strategy of divide and rule.

The truth is that human beings are prejudiced about everyone and everything, including race; in fact, especially race, given our inherent tribal nature. To demonise and suppress this is madness, which, however, there is power-political method to.

Understandably, you don't want people to be prejudiced against your wife or children, because of their colour, i.e. race, but people are and always will be prejudiced, so long as they are human.

Racial prejudice is a problem that has to be dealt with in multi-racial society, but demonising and suppressing it (as "racist", i.e. evil) is NOT the best way to go about it. In fact, it is the worst, being an overreaction to Nazi racism, which involved a lot more than just racial prejudice. Ironically, far from reducing the chances of another Holocaust, demonising and suppressing racial prejudices is a sure way of paving the way for the next one.

The demonisation of racial prejudice serves the modern, democratic state as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did. It has taken the place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority), which only submission to priestly/academic/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes, nativists or racists.

Demonising racial preferences and prejudices is no different, if you think about it, from demonising sexual preferences and prejudices, which, of course, until very recently, the state also did.

Demonisation and criminalisation are major sources of state authority and power. Clearly, there are certain behaviours which need to be criminalised, but demonising them, and what causes them, is an obstacle to understanding both, which is what we need to do, if we are to learn the live with our prejudices in as rational and civilised a fashion as possible, which is the only alternative to living in oppressive, Orwellian kind of society, which we are well on our way to at the moment.

Before we can deal with the issue of race and racial prejudice (rather than just demonising and suppressing it) we have to deal with the nature and purpose of the state itself, which is very different from what we are taught by academics, most of whom are themselves employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

Monday, 8 August 2016

The Darwinian Nature of Human Situation

The World Loves Refugees, When They’re Olympians

By Roger Cohen, August 8 2016 (LINK to article)
"There is talk of making the United States great again — read making the United States white again." 
America was founded as a "white nation", by people (the founding fathers) who, were they to return from the grave, would be horrified at Roger's contempt for his own race.

Why such racial self-contempt? they would ask. And I would explain to them that it is an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust.

What Roger fails to understand is that the Holocaust itself was an expression of white racial self-hatred, which he, in effect, with his own racial self-denial and self-contempt, is perpetuating.
"Nobody wants refugees."
 In Europe, everyone with any sense does not want large numbers of refugees of different race or ethnicity from our own settling here, because that would be inviting ethnic tensions and conflict for decades, if not centuries, to come. We have enough people of our OWN and enough problems without adding to them.

What Roger and his "progressive" colleagues also fail to understand is the Darwinian nature of our situation, a previous generation of academics having made a taboo of it, again in overreaction to the Nazis, this time for having hijacked the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism and abused them for their own evil purposes.

There is a natural rivalry between different human races, as the full title of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species indicates. One does not have to use this as a justification for racial supremacism, let alone for genocide, as the Nazis did, but going to the opposite extreme of denying its existence, along with that of race itself, is an extremely dumb thing to do.

Roger provides a classic example of good intentions (along with the moral supremacism that often accompanies them) paving the way to hell.

See BLOG in which I elaborate further.

Why Would Muslims Want to Settle in the West?

And why would western governments encourage them to do so?

This is an expanded version of the comment I submitted to the NYT in response to the article, "Raising American Muslim Kids in the Age of Trump" by Wajahat Ali, August 6 2016 (LINK to article)

I can't help asking myself why a Muslim with ancestral, cultural, religious and historical roots in a distant continent would want live in America, or any other western, essentially European, country, populated and ruled by people with quite different ancestral, cultural, religious and historical roots?

The obvious answer is that the West is materially so much richer and offers so much more freedom and opportunity than any Muslim country does, other than to their wealthy elites.

I also ask myself why western governments have allowed so many Muslims (and other poor-world immigrants) to settle in their countries, given that many, certainly in Europe, are already overpopulated and that ethnic differences (whether racial, cultural or both) have always been a source of social tensions and conflict?

It took me a long time to work out what I believe to be the full answer to this question. An obvious reason, widely recognised, is the interest of state and capital in cheap and compliant foreign labour, people to do the jobs that white people (the native or founding and still dominant race in all western countries) are often not prepared to do for low wages. A less obvious reason, one that took me quite a while to recognise, because so contrary to our understanding of the "democratic nation state", is its role in facilitating the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule.

In a multi-ethnic society, not only can its ruling elites play the different ethnic groups off one against the other (especially minority ethnic groups against the ethnic white majority), but also elevate themselves above the rest of society as a morally superior, i.e. unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic, elite. The masses, of course, human nature being what it is, tend to be prejudiced towards other ethnic groups and inclined to xenophobia, but must submit, as also naturally inclined to do, to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors". 

As a Native Briton and European I identify strongly with European Americans, because I share so much with them in the way of ancestors, culture, religion, history, and even prehistory.

The West's ruling elites are imposing the madness of mass poor-world immigration the oxymoronic absurdity of "multi-ethic nationhood" on their populations by demonising and dismissing anyone who objects as a bigot, xenophobe or racist, thereby asserting their claim to moral authority and POWER.

George Orwell might well have incorporated this into his dystopian novel, 1984, had he been capable of imagining what to him at the time would have been quite unimaginable.

The sooner our elites recognise this madness for what it is the better, so that we can put an end to it in a civilised fashion, before it puts an end to our civilisation, as it otherwise will.

First, however, we must recognise and develop an understanding of how we got ourselves into this civilisational mess: In part it was due to an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this and appended BLOGS.

Friday, 5 August 2016

White America's Sense of Betrayal is Justified

The Perils of Writing Off Mr. Trump

By the Editorial Board, August 5 2016 (LINK to editorial)
"[Trump] is speaking to people who detest a Washington they think has betrayed them . .  This is Mrs. Clinton’s chance to present herself . . as a morally serious leader determined to address the country’s real problems."
This betray is REAL and the Clintons are very much a part of it.

Germans were also betrayed by their mainstream politicians, who had accepted and were implementing the unjust and humiliating Treaty of Versailles, which caused many of them to turn to the Nazis, who then betrayed them to an even greater extent.

Would Trump betray white America to an even greater extent than its current ruling elites are? No one knows. All that many whites know, or sense, even if they don't clearly see or understand it, is that they are being betrayed, reduced to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded; and to add insult to injury, they are expect to "celebrate" their own ethnic decline and ultimate demise.

Why would America's white elites betray their own race, condemning it to oblivion in the melting pot of globalisation?

As usual, ideology is the root cause of this racial self-betrayal, which blinds those beholden to it. White "progressives" believe themselves to be, so, err, "progressive" in denying and despising their own racial identity (an extreme overreaction to the extraordinary evils of Nazism and the Holocaust), but they are not, although most of them mean well, I'm sure, just as most who embraced communism did.

This overreaction produced an ideology which is the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology, an ideology which denies the importance, even the very existence, of race altogether. Thus, white "progressives" don't see themselves as betraying their own race, because they don't believe that it exists, but make a great moral virtue of denying its existence, dismissing it as a mere "social construct".

Misguided progressive ideology and self-righteousness is driving millions into the hands of Donald Trump - not that he seems likely to win the presidency. I don't think "progressives" need worry too much on that account. They should, however, be worried about the ideology of racial self-denial and self-contempt they are beholden to, blinding them to reality, and opposition to which is bound to grow.

See blog: The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Thursday, 4 August 2016

In Defence of Human Tribalism

Trump Reflects White Male Fragility

By Charles M Blow, August 4 2016 (LINK to article)
"For as long as racism [i.e. racial prejudice] and tribalism and xenophobia exist in this country, Trump’s foibles will not signal his ultimate failure. . . .  Trump is an unfiltered primal scream of the fragility and fear consuming white male America."
I have news for Mr. Blow and his "progressive" friends, who dominate America: racial prejudice, tribalism and xenophobia will always exist, in America and in every other country, because inherent to human nature, which is very tribal.

Clearly, we need to control our prejudices, tribalism and xenophobia in a civilised fashion, just as we do our sexuality, and if we fail to comply with acceptable standards the law is there enforce them, but why this demonisation and suppression?

It is interesting to consider that human (especially female, homo- and trans-) sexuality also used to be demonised and suppressed by the state, just as racial prejudice, tribalism and xenophobia are now, suggesting to me that they serve, or served, the same purpose of intimidation and control of society by the state.

The modern state controls society by posing as a nation. Only, it is not a genuine nation at all, but a mercenary "patron state" deceitfully posing as a nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large.

Why has this not been recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state?

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics are themselves privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Post-racial multiculturalism is, in effect, a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology, whereby "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was misguidedly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), which only submission to priestly/academic /state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes or racists.

So there you have it, Mr Blow. Like all "progressives" and advocates of mass immigration, DIVERSITY and post-racial multicultural society, you believe yourself to have God, truth and reason on your side, but you are mistaken, just as the Catholic Church was, and still is.

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Progressives Driving us Towards Civil War

Mr. Trump and Spineless Republicans

By the Editorial Board, August 2 2016 (LINK to editorial)

So long as Democrats and "progressives" remain beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, Trump will continue to find support amongst European Americans, as well as amongst more enlightened non-whites, who realise that such an ideology is self-destructive, not just for whites, but for society at large.

On most matters I agree with Democrats and liberals far more than I do with Republicans and conservatives, but not when it comes to the left's denial of and contempt for their own white race, which they dismiss as a "social construct" only of importance to "bigots" and "racists" like myself.

Race is NOT a "social construct" (except when you try dividing closely related peoples from the same subcontinent into different races, as the Nazis insanely did), but REAL and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, identity.

If you liberals insist on the white race being assimilated into the melting pot a globalised humanity, millions are going to vote for Trump, or ANYONE, who seems to offer an alternative. And if voting doesn't work, there will be civil war further down the line.

Is that what you liberals want, another Civil War? Of course not, but that is where the overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust, embodied in your ideology of white racial self-contempt, is driving us (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

Monday, 1 August 2016

Why Do White Progressives Deny & Despise Own Race?

Worthy of Our Contempt

By Paul Krugman, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)
"the great majority of these not-crazy Republicans are still supporting Mr. Trump for president. And we have a right to ask why."
 I can only speculate, of course, but I suspect it has a lot to do with a semi-conscious rejection of "progressive" ideology, which is premised on white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

I say "semi-conscious", because I don't think they are fully aware of what it is they reject, anymore than the "progressives" who embrace it are. If they were, they would reject it too, I'm sure.

Modern neuroscience (see Why You Don’t Know Your Own Mind by Alex Rosenberg) has demonstrated that we are largely motivated by the subconscious, which rationalises our behaviour without us understanding it.

Why are America's still largely white elites making a moral virtue and imperative of reducing their own race to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded? Can you imagine any other race or ethnic group doing the same? Of course not. Because it is not a virtue, but madness. Total madness.

Donald Trump clearly has his faults, but at least he doesn't deny and despise his own race, the way his "progressive" opponents do.

Mainstream academic and political ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt demands an explanation, which I believe I can provide.  It began as an understandable overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which quickly became part of the state's age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, which I elaborate on HERE.

Academics a Self-Interested Class

How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump

By Max Boot, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)
"Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars."
 "Serious scholars" haven't had their jobs outsourced to China, but belong to a global "community" (self-interest group) of academics; thus their dislike of "nativists".

The biggest threat to humanity is from academics pursuing their own personal self-interests, while pretending - not just to others, but to themselves as well - that they are serving humanity at large.

They are modern, secular counterparts of the medieval clergy, a priestly class, which, in coalition with a warrior class (the aristocracy) lorded it, as a dual elite, over society at large. The "nobility" provided the muscle and power of the sword, the priests the brains and power of the Word, i.e. moral authority.

Man is an inherently tribal AND moral animal, and between them these two elites knew how to manipulate and exploit both to their mutual advantage.

Academics are no more trustworthy than the Catholic clergy were (or are), which, however, doesn't mean they are not trustworthy at all.  Many mean well, I'm sure.

I'm not inclined to trust Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but at least Trump speaks out against the betrayal of white Americans to the madness of mass immigration, which is reducing them to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded, while the mainstream is beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt - a self-destructive overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.