The Left's Blindness to Dire Consequences of Mass Poor-World Immigration

Mrs. Clinton’s Mixed Immigration Message

By the Editorial Board, Feb. 12 2016 (LINK to article)

"Mrs. Clinton has shown an unfortunate tendency to oscillate between harshness and compassion on immigration questions."

It's NOT "unfortunate", but inevitable when you face up to reality, which the "progressives" on the Editorial Board seem incapable of doing. Instead, they have to show "compassion", no matter what: even when the lifeboat they are in is being swamped my masses of drowning people, they insist on dragging ever more on  board. Never mind that the lifeboat itself will eventually sink, and everyone - even those who built and operate the lifeboat - will be in danger of drowning.

OK, so America is a BIG lifeboat and it is hard to imagine that it might eventually sink, but that is exactly how many on the "right" feel about "Spaceship Earth", assuming that because of its size - and past experience - it can take everything and anything we throw at it in our pursuit of economic growth and "progress".

They have no sense for its limited resources and carrying capacity. And it's the same with "progressives" when it comes to immigration.  They think that western states (and not just America) can take in an endless stream of poor-world immigrants with no dire consequences. But they are wrong. Just as those who believe in the limitless carrying capacity of our planet are.

What is blinding "progressives" to this reality? It is, I suggest, an ideology which began as an understandable OVERREACTION to Nazism and the Holocaust, but transmuted into something else, far less benign (see my blog on The West's Overreaction to Nazism).

Europe's Welfare States are Built on Sand

Livin’ Bernie Sanders’s Danish Dream

By David Brooks, Feb 12 2016 (LINK to article)

Bernie Sanders's Danish dream will not work in America, any more than it will continue to work for much longer in Europe, and this is why:

Britain's welfare state, which, as a British citizen, I know most about, was founded in the aftermath of WW2 when there was a very strong sense of national identity and social solidarity.

It follows that if the state represents a nation, its citizen SHARE with one another, rather than everyone simply seeking their own personal advantage. It was by sharing the costs, dangers and hardships of the total war against Nazi Germany that, once joined by two powerful allies, it was able to triumph.

We continue to live very much in the aftermath of that war and the overreaction* to Nazism, but the sense of shared national identity and social solidarity has all but disappeared, undermined by a socio-economic system and ethos that priorities personal advantage over social solidarity (thus the ever-increasing divide between rich and poor) and by mass poor-world immigration, which has destroyed the natural ethnic basis of national identity and genuine nationhood. This seems an odd thing for the state to do, but not in view of its true nature, since it serves its age-old strategy of divide and rule (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

Britain has revealed itself for what really is - and always was, of course - which is 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 and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients personal advantage, at the expense, and ultimate self-destruction, of society at large.

* The West's Overreaction to Nazism

Civilisation itself is Deeply Flawed

America Is Flint

By Nicholas Kristof Feb. 6, 2016 (LINK to article)

"Millions of children continue to suffer brain impairment because of the greed of the lead industry."

Funny how there is always someone else to blame, an individual (e.g. George Bush for the Iraq war), a company (e.g. Volkswagen for an emissions scandal), or a whole industry (e.g. the tobacco industry for delaying legislation restricting promotion of its harmful products).

What Mr Kristof overlooks is the bigger picture, which reveals the SYSTEM itself to be at fault, which ultimately - certainly in a democracy like America - we are all responsible and thus to blame for.  However, this would involve much introspection and self-criticism, which we are not good at. We are far better at and disposed towards blaming others.

It is what the ancient Greeks and Romans did as their civilisations were declining. It is, I believe, what caused the decline and demise of all past civilisations, and will soon result in the precipitous decline and demise of our own, western, civilisation.

However, we are not all equally to blame. Most of the responsibility rests with academics, whom the rest of us, including our political leaders, look to as authorities in their particular disciplines at understanding the system and providing knowledgeable and moral guidance.

They make a show of providing such guidance (as indeed they must, because it is their profession and expected of them), but to put it bluntly, it's crap, on a par with the kind of guidance that a Galenic doctor might have given to an ailing patient, before the advent of modern medicine.

Western civilisation is like a patient with a terminal illness, which modern medicine would have no difficulty curing, but which the Galenic understanding and medicine of present-day social and political science academics will only hasten to his grave (continued in following post).

If I were to go back in time and point out their failing to Galenic doctors they would simply laugh and dismiss me. They wouldn't stand for anyone - certainly not me - challenging their authority.

And so it is today with the social and political sciences, which are still stuck in a pre-Copernican, i.e. pre-Darwinian, dark age.

Yes, "pre-Darwinian". And stuck, because, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of applying Darwin's ideas to our own species, civilisation and situation.

The question is, can academics recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of civilisation, which results in a perpetual cycle of civilisational boom and bust, before the approaching bust of our own civilisation catches up with us?

The realistic answer is, probably not. But for my part, at least, I will keep on trying, in the same spirit, I like to imagine, that Britain continued facing up to Nazi Germany, even after the fall of France, when there was no realistic chance of victory.

On its own, Britain was, of course, in a hopeless situation, but fate, in the form of Hitler himself declaring war, first on the Soviet Union and then on America, provided Britain with two powerful allies, who between them were able to defeat him. I can't help suspecting that at a subconscious level Hitler wanted to be defeated and to take as many fellow Germans and Europeans (including European Jews) with him as possible.

I'm in an analogous position to Britain in 1940, hoping that fate (or Providence) will intervene and that soon I will have some powerful allies in academia.

Here's a primer (not brilliant, but the best I have to offer) on what they need to understand: LINK

Xenophobia & Prejudice Are Human

Europe's Huddled Masses

By Roger Cohen, Feb. 4 2016 (LINK to article)

"Xenophobic rightist parties thrive at the margins from Sweden to Greece."

Xenophobia is just one side of single coin, on the other side of which is "familophilia", love of the familiar, so why is it demonised as some form of evil?

It's the same with "prejudice". Human beings are inherently prejudiced about everyone and everything, especially race, given our inherent and intense tribal nature, and yet it is demonised as some terrible evil. Why?

It seems to me that both xenophobia and racial prejudice have taken the place of "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority and thus also a perfectly healthy aspect of human nature) as part of the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, whereby society is divided into a morally superior, supposedly neither xenophobic nor prejudiced, i.e. "color-blind", elite and the morally inferior, naturally less colour-blind, masses, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

This new form of original sin is embedded in the ideology of DIVERSITY and post-racial multiculturalism, which now serves the state and statists as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control, just as medieval church ideology once did.

Of course, our xenophobia and prejudices must be controlled in a civilised fashion, just as our sexuality or disobedience of authority must be - but not demonised.

It is surely no coincidence that we are brought up to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our inherent tribal nature, rather than give it the serious attention and study it deserves.

 I elaborate further in this BLOG.

Religion, Moral Authority & Power

How Politics Has Poisoned Islam

By Mustafa Akyol Feb. 3, 2016 (LINK to article)

Until modern times, religion, i.e. its priesthood, served the state as a source of knowledgeable and moral authority. William the Bastard of Normandy made sure he had the Pope's approval, before embarking on his invasion and subjugation of the English in 1066. In return, he massively supported the Church, so it was a good deal for both parties, but not so much for the English, who suffered under the Norman yoke for centuries, one might even argue, to this day.

The state has to legitimise itself and it was to the moral authority of religion that it turned. This is still the case, it seems, in the Muslim world, although brute force clearly also continues to play a big role.

In the West, brute force and the authority of priests are no longer considered acceptable. The state looks instead to a secular priesthood of academics, who base their authority not on sacred scripture, as in the past, but on their claim to possess objective facts, reason and rationality. Only, their facts, reason and rationality are not nearly as sound or objective as they would have us - and themselves, no doubt - believe they are.

This is because, largely in overreaction to Nazism, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species, society and civilisation from a human-evolutionary perspective, which is the only way to develop a realistic understanding of these things and of our own situation. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

The Demonisation & Exploitation of Human Tribalism

What O.J. Simpson Taught Me About Being Black

By By John McWhorter Feb. 3, 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . what I saw was [black] people ignoring the facts in favor of a kind of tribalism."

Tribalism is also responsible for racial prejudice and, to some extent, I'm sure, for white police brutality towards blacks, but it is no good simply demonising it; it is far to much and deep a part of human nature.

We are an inherently and intensely tribal animal, whose original tribal environment (in which human nature evolved long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it) was done away with by the state, which now deceitfully poses as our tribe or nation itself (intra and inter-tribal environment), while at the same time facilitating society's SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large.

The "nation state" demonises, suppresses, manipulates and exploits its citizens' tribal nature, patronising blacks and demonising "white racism", i.e. tribalism, as part of its 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".

We need to understand our tribal nature and work with it, instead of allowing the state and capital to manipulate and exploit it for their own power-political and commercial purposes. See BLOG in which elaborate on human tribal nature and what is preventing academics from giving it the serious attention and study it deserves.

A Novel Approach to Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel

By Ban Ki-Moon Jan. 31, 2016 (LINK to article)

I would like to suggest a novel approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which entails questioning long-held assumptions about the very nature of the state itself. In this instance the state of Israel and the proposed Palestinian state, but principally all states.

The principal assumption we make about the state is that, as the modern counterpart of our original tribe or nation (thus the notion of the "nation state" and appeals to citizens' tribal loyalty), its purpose is to serve society at large.

This assumption, however, is wrong, but suits the state's ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients. The primary purpose of the state, even the democratic state, is what it has always been, ever since the very first states emerged form a tribal society long ago, which is to facilitate that society's SELF-exploitation, to the personal advantage of these ruling elites and favoured clients, at the expense and ultimate self-destruction of society at large. This is why all past states and civilisations have declined and disappeared, as will ours, unless we quickly recognise the cause and correct it.

This insight is the social and political science equivalent of the Copernican world view, which replaced the Ptolemaic view. It may not seem that important at first, but in fact changes everything. It is certainly not a quick fix, but will set a revolution in motion, putting us on the road to long-term solutions not just to existential political problems in the Middle East, but around the world.

Recognising the true nature of the state demands a human-evolutionary perspective: see BLOG.