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...

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

Don't Mention Darwin,

in a social or political context, except in jest.

Nostalgia for the Grace of George H.W. Bush

by Jon Meacham, Oct 15 2016 (LINK to article, which was approved & published)
"As Henry Adams once remarked of the movement from Washington to Grant, the journey from George H. W. Bush to Donald J. Trump disproves Darwin."
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Only, it's not that Darwin is disproved, so much as mentioned at all in a political context, which is, of course, only permissible as a joke, Darwin having been banned from all political thought in the aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust.

He was banned, because the Nazis hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

They may have been half-baked and largely misconceived, but they didn't deserve to be demonised the way they were, and still are.

Darwinian logic has a vital role to play in understanding ourselves, Homo sapiens, human societies and civilisation at large, and the fact that a taboo has been made of it is comparable to the Catholic Church once having made a taboo of the Copernican view of the universe, only much more serious. The taboo on Copernicus delayed our understanding of the universe by just a few decades, while the taboo on applying Darwin to our own species may delay our understanding of civilisation permanently, i.e. fatally.

The reason the world is in such a mess and heading towards an even bigger mess (civilisational breakdown, no less) is because of the complete lack of a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective in the social and political sciences.

I've made a start on correcting this HERE

Latest Batch of Unapproved Comments

Just Like Trump, I Avoided Paying Federal Taxes

by Bert Stratton, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

If America were a genuine nation, its citizens would be sharing with each other, instead of always being on the make, always seeking their own profit and advantage.

In this America is no different from any other country, of course, but why the deception and deceit of nationhood, when truthfulness is what we really need?

It is because the state legitimises itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse by deceitfully posing as a nation it is not.

This is a difficult, painful and frightening truth to recognise and face up to, but the truth it is, and if western civilisation is to have a future extending beyond the next few decades this is what we (especially academics) have to do (LINK).

My Syllabus, My Self

by Christy Wampole, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)
"We would be able to take a course [great thinkers] privately, separated by time but nonetheless plugged into their brains and hearts."
What separates us from past thinkers, is not just time, but also circumstance and world view. 

We live in very exceptional times and circumstances, which are changing at an unprecedented pace. Things changed in the past, of course, but rarely at a pace that people noticed. Now the rate of change is quite dizzying, which makes many of us sick (I've just read and commented on the editorial about the millions struggling with pain and missing from the labor market (LINK). But not the author of this piece, who has clearly found a secure and satisfying niche for herself in academia. As have most academics, who, at the centre of things are not subjected to the same centrifugal forces and insecurities that affect those on the periphery.

I hope the author will excuse my critical comment, but academics are the ones most people, including our leaders, look to as authorities in understanding the world, which I see hurtling towards oblivion, while they tinker with and delight in their syllabuses.


Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market

by Editorial Board, Oct. 16 2016 (LINK to article)
"Millions of American men are struggling with pain and missing from the labor market . . "
The principal, underlying cause, I suggest, is that we are dealing with people, who struggle with being treated as "human resources" and consumers, rather than as the human beings they actually are.

We are taught that state and economy exist to serve society and people (human beings) at large, but this is simply not true.

Then why do we believe it? Because we are naturally inclined to believe what we are taught by those in authority, who are well served by the state and the existing socio-economic order.

Everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence (including our teachers in academia) is well served by the state and status quo, which blinds them to their fundamental flaws. The system is working well for them, so they rationalise and defend it, something their above average intelligence makes them very good at.

This presents such a huge challenge that it is tempting to give up on it and simple to make the most of the current, favourable situation while we can, before the system breaks down, as it eventually must.

However, I think we owe it to our children and grandchildren, who are going to experience the fast approaching breakdown, to at least think about this challenge, even if it does seem insurmountable at the moment: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html

Their Dark Fantasies

by Paul Krugman, Oct. 17 2016 (LINK to article)
"the portrait of America Mr. Ryan painted last week was, in its own way, as out of touch with reality as the ranting of Donald Trump"
While Nobel Laureate and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, is fully in touch with reality, of course.

Being a reasonable man, I suspect that Prof. Krugman would not claim to have a perfect grasp of reality, but a pretty good grasp, nevertheless.

But then, who doesn't believe themselves to have a good grasp of reality? How can we not believe this without going mad?

From an evolutionary perspective, our brains evolved a need to believe in the soundness of its sense of reality. Otherwise, it would not know how to respond to its environment, which would cause it distress. It is comforting to be sure of yourself and your view of reality, and have it confirmed by others, especially to the extent that Prof. Krugman has.

Prof. Krugman's view of reality, I believe, is deeply flawed, as is that of most, probably all, people.

My view of reality is also flawed, of course, but less flawed than most, because based on an evolutionary understanding of my species and its situation. An understanding that is blocked to Prof. Krugman, because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species from a evolutionary perspective, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism: http://unapprovedcomments.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-wests-overreaction-to-nazism.html

‘Only White People,’ Said the Little Girl

by Topher Sanders, Oct. 13 2016  (LINK to article)
"And what of the little girl? . . infected by racism before she can even spell the word."
And when it's a white kid being racially discriminated against, as also happens - is that "racial hatred" as well?  

The West's liberal elites - in politics, the media and, most authoritatively, academia - have, for decades, been teaching ordinary people that race is just a "social construct", only of importance to bigots and racists. The author has clearly also swallowed these misguided teachings.  

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, i.e. genuine national, identity.  

These liberal elites want everyone to identify with the state as their nation, so that they can lay claim to their tribal loyalty, and obedience. That is why they deny and suppress the reality and importance of race.  

It also serves the age-old strategy of “divide and rule”, dividing society into a morally superior, now supposedly unprejudiced, "colour-blind" and xenophilic elite, on the one hand, and the morally inferior, naturally (evolved human nature being what it is) prejudiced, not colour-blind, but xenophobically-inclined masses, on the other, who must submit to the authority of and domination by their "moral superiors".

The Wall Is a Fantasy

by (LINK to article)
"Public sympathy for immigrants . .  has been curdled by terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris and Nice."
Wrong! It's been curdled by the SCALE of immigration and demographic change. No one likes being reduced to an ethnic minority, where traditionally they have been the majority. Naturally, it makes them very unhappy and angry.

But what to do with their anger? At the moment state authority forces them to suppress it, by demonising it as racism and xenophobia, but increasingly people are realising that this is nonsense. Many of Donald Trump's white supports, I suggest, are directing their anger at those responsible for the madness of policies that will soon make them an ethnic minority in the country their forebears founded, namely America's liberal elites, embodied in the Clintons.
"With the rise of Mr. Trump, America’s sense of itself is suddenly less sure."
Wrong again! The rise of Mr. Trump is a consequence of mass poor-world immigration undermining many Americans sense of what it means to be an American. There used to be white America, which was overwhelmingly dominant, alongside black America and a number of other less numerous ethnic minorities. America has now gone global, a mishmash of all humanity, with white Americans on course to become just another ethnic minority, and in which Orwellian newspeak and doublethink is all that holds the country together - but for how long? (LINK)

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Delusions of Nationhood

Can the U.S. Win This Election?

By Thomas Friedman, Oct. 12 2016 (LINK to article)
"it won’t just be emotionally depressing, we’ll really start to decline as a nation."
America (nor any other country) can not begin to tackle its problems, which are now existential, until it recognises its OWN true nature as 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, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival.

States have been deceitfully posing as nations since the end of the Middle Ages, supported by their academic elites, as they always are, because of their massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending their state employer, its role, self-image (as a "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

And it is not just academics, of course, who have a massive personal self-interest in rationalising and defending the state and status quo, but everyone who is anyone in society, with any power or influence.

Why would they want to question the state and status quo which serve them personally so well?

I can think of only one reason: state and status quo are leading us towards disaster, which they are. But first they have to recognise THIS.

Sunday, 2 October 2016

Two More Comments on Articles Demonising Donald Trump

When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 7

By Nicholas Kristof, Oct. 1 2016 (LINK to article)
"only 39 percent of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was born in the United States."
This, I suggest, is an example of Freudian displacement behaviour. Not allowed to admit publicly, or perhaps even to themselves, that they have difficultly accepting a black president, they invent other grounds for rejecting him.

In the land of the free, people are not free to say what they really think or how they really feel in regard to race, because if they do they will be demonised as "racist".

European societies have always been ruled by a supposedly morally superior elite. It used to be the clergy, of course, with their religious ideology. Now its the clergy's modern heirs and counterparts in academia, politics and journalism, with a more secular, racial ideology (not coincidentally, the exact but equally extreme and insane opposite of Nazi racial ideology) who are the moral supremacists, telling others how they should and shouldn't feel.

Racial prejudice is the new original sin, which only submission to priestly/academic/state authority and ideology can save us from eternal damnation for, not as sinners, heathens or heretics, as in the past, but as bigots, xenophobes or racists.

No one with any self-respect allows themselves to be told how they should think or feel, which is why millions are turning to Donald Trump. He may be very imperfect, but at least he does not belong to America's moral supremacist, liberal elite.

How Could Anyone Vote for Trump?

By Gail Collins, Sept. 30 2016 (LINK to article)
"It’s possible Trump is just riding a swell of white-male alienation."
White males, for better and for worse, played a very dominant role in making not just America, but western civilisation at large , what they are.

Most recently, they both created and defeated fascism (militarily and intellectually) and put men (white men, of course) on the Moon, but for some reason they have turned against themselves, embracing an ideology white racial self-denial and self-contempt.

More subconsciously than consciously, support for Trump is, I think, a reaction to this.

One might wish for someone better than Trump, but beggars can't be choosers. It is either him or Hillary, and Hillary makes no secret of her contempt for her own race, in which regard, she is just a typical liberal, of course.

The NYT is a liberal newspaper, and there are many liberal values and attitudes that I agree with, but what I cannot accept is this ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, which is perverse, an overreaction, I believe to the evils of slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid and, above all, Nazism and the Holocaust, all of which white men were largely responsible for, but which white men also defeated.

I appeal to the NYT and its white liberal readers to look inside themselves and examine their attitude towards their own race, which has little to do with skin colour, but a great deal to do with ethnic origins, one's ancestors and cultural heritage.

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Trump, Clinton & White Identity

Trump? How Could We?

By Thomas Friedman, September 27 2016 (LINK to article)

"Electing such a man [as Donald Trump] would be insanity."  
I'm inclined to agree. But electing Clinton, who, like her husband and all so-called "progressives",  is committed to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, would also be insane - certainly for white America.

In overreaction to the evil of the white supremacism of Jim Crow, mainstream America (especially in academic circles) went to the opposite extreme of white self-denial and self-contempt.

It is exactly the kind of overreaction that the Editorial Board itself warned its readers about in response, The Price of Fear, to the Islamic terror attacks in Paris last November:
“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”
It wasn't just an overreaction to Jim Crow, but also, and probably more so, to the evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, which white people were also responsible for and Jewish academics (although white themselves) especially traumatised by.

This overreaction is understandable, but urgently needs to be recognised and understood, because it has caused, not just America, by western civilisation at large, to badly lose their way (see BLOG)

Not that we were on a good, sustainable course before hand. But it is preventing us from finding such a course, which I elaborate on HERE.

Sunday, 18 September 2016

Paving the Way to Hell with Good Intentions

Would You Hide a Jew From the Nazis?

By Nicholas Kristof, Sept. 17 2016 (LINK to article)

My response to Nicholas Kristof's self-righteous demand that the West (governments and people) should welcome an endless stream of poor-world refugees and immigrants into their already overpopulated countries.

We should indeed "think of Sousa Mendes’s heroism in today’s context", which is VERY different from that of more than 70 years ago, when global population was barely one third of what it is today. 

The West, certainly western Europe, is OVERPOPULATED already. The last thing we need is more people, and what we need even less is people of different race and culture from our own, because this invariably leads to ethnic tensions and conflict.

For posterity's sake, Nick, open your eyes!
" . . history eventually sides with those who help refugees, not with those who vilify them"
I'm not "vilifying" refugees, or poor-world immigrants, who understandably want to settle in the wealthy West, and I would ask you, Nick, and your "progressive" colleagues, to stop vilifying those of us who oppose you in wanting to allow an endless stream of refugees and immigrants into the West, which ultimately can only end in disaster, not just for those fleeing here, but also for the West's Native (still largely white) population.

Your good intentions are paving the way to hell, which you are unable to see, because a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species from an evolutionary perspective - an overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

Our situation is dire and the only way to understand it is from an evolutionary perspective (see BLOG in which I elaborate).

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.