America's Founding Ethno-Nationalism

Looking On the Bright Side of Trump

By Ross Douthan, Feb. 24 2016 (LINK to article)

" . . the [Republican] party’s donors and consultants don’t want to work for a party trending toward ethno-nationalism . . ."

America's founding fathers took the new country's "ethno-nationalism" for granted: The American nation was originally white, i.e. ethnic European, like the country it split from. All other races, specifically African and Native Americans were totally marginalised and effectively ignored in regard to America's national identity.

The Civil War was primarily about maintaining the Union, i.e. the POWER of the ruling white elite in the federal government, rather than ending slavery, which would have ended soon enough anyway, as it did everywhere else, without the need of bloody civil war. America might also have won its independence from Britain, had its leaders been a little more patience with their brethren across the ocean, as all Britain's other colonies eventually did, without resorting to violence.

The more recent history of western civilisation would have been very different if America, i.e. its ruling white elites, hadn't been so quick to resort to force and violence in defending and projecting their power.

The American melting pot worked extremely well for everyone who passed for white, for the simple reason that race and ethnic origins form the NATURAL basis of national identity and genuine nationhood, which "progressive" ideology now denies and suppresses, of course.

The reason for this denial and suppress of the natural ethnic basis of national identity is the state's need to pose as a single nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

What we have is a classic case of Orwellian "doublethink", whereby the American state claims to represent a single nation and people, when clearly it does not, the very notion of "multi-ethnic nationhood" being an oxymoronic absurdity.

So long as whites formed the overwhelmingly dominant majority, this absurdity could be maintained, but not for much longer, as whites increasingly lose their dominance, not least thanks to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which began as an understandable OVERREACTION to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust (as well as those of Jim Crow and Apartheid), before being hijacked and incorporated into the state's age-old strategy of divide and rule, whereby American society is divided into a morally superior, 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".

See BLOG in which I elaborate further.

Academic Blindness to Cause of Social Injustice

The Crisis of Minority Unemployment

by the Editorial Board, Feb. 20 2016 (LINK to article)

This editorial deals with the problem of high unemployment amongst blacks and Hispanics, compared to whites, but makes no mention of Asians, presumably because that would contradict the "liberal" narrative of "white privilege".

The real problem, however, lies in the nature of the state and society itself, which sees people not primarily as human beings, but as human resources, consumers, customers or clients/voters.

The problem is so fundamental that it is not recognised, even by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society, the state and civilisation. The point being that for academics, as for everyone who is anyone in society, and thus has any power or influence, the system works fine the way it is. Why question it fundamentally?

However, anyone who is serious about wanting a more just, humane and, now above all, sustainable society MUST question it fundamentally.

The fact is that society has always been organised to serve the personal self-interests of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and priestly/academic) clients, at the expense of the rest of society.

Being favoured clients, if not actual employees, of the state themselves, academics have been blinded to this truth by their own self-interest in maintaining the status quo.

These are radical ideas with the potential to revolutionise the social and political sciences. I get them from viewing society from a human-evolutionary perspective, which a previous generation of academics made a taboo of doing, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism. See first of series of BLOGS in which I elaborate.

Without Our Tribe We Become Narcissistic

Narcissism Is Increasing. So You’re Not So Special

By Arthur C. Brooks, Feb. 13 2016 (LINK to article)

The fact is that the world does appear to revolve around ME, and it is my pain and pleasures which I experience directly. Those of others pass me by almost completely. It is the rare exception when they don't, when it is some one I feel close to and empathise with, and even then, its hardly the same. One may be distraught at a loved-one's pain, but you still can't actually feel it.

It is also a fact that we evolved as a member of a tribe, whose well-being and survival was more important than the individual, which resulted in us evolving to experience more profound pleasure from serving our tribe than just ourselves.

Then along came the state and did away with our original tribes, with the modern, "nation state" deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation itself, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, not for the benefit of society at large, as they claim, but to facilitate its SELF-exploitation to their own, personal advantage and that of favoured (especially wealthy and academic) clients, at the expense (and ultimate self-destruction) of society at large.

Why is this not recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society, the state and civilisation?

Because the deceit works for them, as it does for everyone who is anyone in society, thus binding us to a tragic cycle of civilisational boom and bust.

As western civilisation approaches the bust phase of this cycle, the question is, can we put an end to it, BEFORE it puts an end to us?  We have the potential, I am sure, but do we have the will? Time will tell.

Fixing OUR Problems Requires Knowing Who WE Are

Fixing Our Broken Water Systems

By the Editorial Board (LINK to editorial)

"Fixing Our Broken Water Systems"

"Our" water systems. "Our" children. "Our" country, "Our" history. "Our" values. "Our . . .

This "our" is a lie and deceit, and the root cause of America's intractable social and political problems, as it is of all other societies, organised by mercenary "patron states" deceitfully posing as nations, in order to legitimise themselves, their ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse.

Until we recognise and develop an understanding of this fundamental truth, "we" are a lost cause.

Every American has his or her OWN idea of what it means to be an American, of who "we", "us" and "our" relates to. If America's wealthiest one percent felt the urgent need to "fix our broken water systems", it would be done in a jiffy. But clearly, they don't. They have - for them - for important things to do, like maintaining their private yachts and planes.

Why does the Editorial Board not recognise this, but persist with the deceit of American nationhood?

Like the academics they look to as authorities in understanding society and the state, they are themselves well served by the state and status quo, and thus have a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as a "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and ethical), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

America, know thy self! What you are, and what you are not.

See BLOGS in which I elaborate on these ideas.

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