Sunday, 29 November 2009

The Darwinian purpose of the state and universalist ideologies

The state and universalist ideologies (political, economic or religious) all appeal, amongst other things, to man's tribal nature, in order to create the illusion of us all belonging to the same super-tribe, which then serves as a socioeconomic environment and human resource, organized primarily by the state and capital to facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of those in power, wealth and privilege, which nowadays in western democracies, to a greater or lesser extent, includes most of us, especially academics, whose independence and objectivity, without them being aware of it, is severely compromised, rendering them incapable of recognising the true (Darwinian) nature a socioeconomic order so favourable to their own advantage and success.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

The spurious "moral high ground " on which so-called liberal democracies are based

Our political and religious leaders, in claiming a spurious "moral high ground" for themselves, which they need to occupy the positions they do, refuse to recognise, or even contemplate, the Darwinian nature of society, i.e. its social, political and economic power structures.

As a consequence, hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of people are going to die in the decades ahead, as the individual's primordial struggle for survival, advantage and "success" intensifies, due to an increasing human population placing ever greater demands on Earth's finite and diminishing natural resources and carrying capacity. Basically it is what happens to a population of any organism (from bacteria upwards) when its demand on available resources (usually just nutrients) and its environmental impact (e.g. environmental pollution and degradation) exceeds sustainable levels.

In order to retain their own, personal (and immediate family) advantage, our political and religious leaders will go on insisting (and believing themselves, no doubt, since I'm not suggesting that they do this with intent) that it is wrong and deeply immoral to take a Darwinian view of society (because that, they say, is what wicked Social Darwinists and evil Nazis did), thereby preventing the rest of us (academics, especially evolutionary biologists, at the fore) from doing so and developing a real understanding of our situation, in contrast to the illusions and self-deception which dominates at the moment, which we could then use, if not to avoid the approaching catastrophe entirely (for which it is now almost certainly too late), at least to greatly reduce its scale and impact, and vastly improve our children's chances of survival and recovery.

There is another spurious claim to the "moral high ground", which our political and religious leaders are compelled to embrace and then to impose on everyone else, which rivals and is related to the first: denial of the personal, social and political importance of race and ethnicity (because of its central role in determining a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group identity). Again, Social Darwinism and Nazism are held up as examples of the "moral low ground", which, they insist, is the only alternative to their "moral high ground" of "colourblindness", of "indifference to ethnic difference", of "race doesn't matter" (i.e. is of no social or political importance except to evil "racists" like the Nazis).

Sunday, 15 November 2009

The pernicious dependency of the media on advertising

LINK to Observer editorial, The readers' editor on… a new era at the Observer, by Stephen Pritchard
The soul of any paper is found in its Comment pages, [while] advertising [is] the lifeblood of all media organisations . .
Media dependency on advertising is a Faustian pact, if ever there was one, which, notwithstanding all - I'm sure, mainly sincere - assurances to the contrary and calls for "progressive" reform, binds and blinds those dependent on it to the politico-socioeconomic status quo which is driving our civilization (not least, through advertising) towards its end.

If "the soul of any paper is found in its Comment pages" then the soul of a genuine society, of people committed to each other's well-being by a deep sense of shared identity and NATIONHOOD (as opposed to the superficial and opportunistic STATEHOOD of being "British"), must surely be intimately and democratically bound to the media organisation(s) which serve(s) it.

The soul of the society and NATION I long to belong to, which I see no reflection of in the British STATE, I would not want owned by capital (directly and/or indirectly through advertising) or by the STATE (the BBC), which has its own agenda, but by the PEOPLE who actually identify with it, and are thus prepared to pay - whatever the cost, because it is vital to their soul - for it.

If the Guardian/Observer were prepared to develop into such a media organization, serving the different NATIONS that would naturally emerge - peacefully and grassroots-democractically - if the perverse and unsustainable compulsion to equate STATE and NATION, which has been imposed on us, by the state, ever since it arose, were lifted, I would be prepared to contibute as much as I can afford (at least several hundred pounds a year) towards it. And I don't need a paper version. As far as I'm concerned, it can be entirely online - which would save a lot of costs.

For my money and committment (which would be from my soul and heart-felt), however, I would expect "unmoderated" freedom to express my own views in the Comment pages, i.e. in the threads attached to them.

Well, Stephen, what about it . . ?

Saturday, 14 November 2009

The human brain evolved to INTERPRET reality to its own (perverted) Darwinian advantage

LINK to Guardian article, Decoding the decade, by Joe Moran
[The past has] nothing to teach us except how much more enlightened we are today.
This was the only bit in the article that I could really relate to, because it is so true. I remember believing it myself, or something very similar, for most of my life.

The human brain, I then came to realise, prevents us, not completely, but to a very large extent, from recognizing our OWN follies, because it evolved to "interpret" reality, i.e. its environment, to its own, very narrowly perceived (basically Darwinian) advantage, in a natural environment VERY different from the essentially artificial environment, of human civilization, it must deal with, i.e. interpret to its own advantage, today.

The main advantage it is programmed to look for, blinding it to other aspects of reality, or greatly distorting them, is POWER, in its multifarious forms (including money, the moral high ground, social and professional status, etc), which potentially will greatly enhance the individual's chances of survival and reproductive success.

This (the pursuit and exercise of POWER) is what prevents our political, religious and business leaders, in particular (but ourselves as well, of course, especially in the media) from forming a more realistic interpretation of our situation, and is the root cause of our mounting social, political, economic and environmental problems. It is driving us towards human and ecological catastrophe on an unimaginable scale.

Friday, 13 November 2009

Tribalists vs statists and universalists or Contrapot vs (the melting) Pot

Statists and universalists (i.e. apologists for the state and universalist religions or ideologies) seek to demonize and suppress tribal and ethnic loyalties (now condemned as "racist") in favour of loyalty to the state and/or a universalist religion or ideology, which usually includes "colourblindness" or "one-human-race-ism", in order to create a social and political ENVIRONMENT in which they can lay claim to the "moral high ground" for themselves and the advantages which go with it.

They will argue, of course, that this is the only way to control man's tribal nature, which would otherwise lead to tribal conflict and war, as it apparently did in prehistoric times, but this really is just a pretext for continued domination by the state and capital.

Man's social behaviour is tied, I believe, not exclusively, but to a very large extent, to his tribal nature and behaviour. Thus, if we want to create a genuine society, people must be free to form, peacefully and grassroots-democratically, genuine NATIONS, the natural extension of our original TRIBE, in contrast to the STATE, which has always been imposed from above in order to facilitate society's self-exploitation, as an environment and human resource, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

Monday, 2 November 2009

Recognising the true nature of the STATE

The individual citizen's relationship with the state is one of very unequal dependency. Essentially, the state has taken the place of our original tribe, which we evolved to feel some of our strongest emotions towards, of identity, commitment and loyalty.

Like most people, I grew up to identify with and be proud of my state, because that is what we are all behaviourally programmed and conditioned to do, it having taken the place, forcibly, of our original tribe, thereby laying false claim to the legitimacy of NATIONHOOD. 

Typical of family, most of us develop a love/hate relationship with the state, as some of us do with our parents. Unsurprisingly, since in many ways the relationship, especially in respect to power and unequal dependency, is very similar. Only the power of a parent is usually mediated by genuine love for their child and concern for its well-being, now and in the future.

The state, however, as a human-evolutionary perspective reveals, is not our natural (biological) parent, as it were, the legitimate heir of our original tribe, but an abusive imposter who doesn't really love or care for us at all, whose purpose has always been to facilitate society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of power and privilege. It just pretends to care for us (has created a whole mythology for the purpose), in pursuit of its hidden agenda. Elsewhere I've compared this with the love of a shepherd for his flock (notwithstanding any sincere concern he may have for a lost or injured lamb), which is not for the flock's sake, but for his own, and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged for money (the most versatile form of power) at market.

Most people love and identify with their state, just as a child loves and identifies with a parent, even an abusive one, not just because of their dependency (material and emotional), but also because they assume that the parent still loves and wants the best for them, which is usually true enough, added to which there is the natural, biological connection. As analogous as the relationships are, this does not, however, apply to the state, whose inherent primary concern is to facilitate its citizens' self-exploitation (not least, through capital and property rights). We owe it no love or loyalty whatsoever. Quite the contrary, the state uses our misplaced love and loyalty to facilitate our self-exploitation and ruin.

Some of his children he spoils, at the expense of the others, thus encouraging and exploiting sibling rivalry and dividing us amongst ourselves.

If we were not so (self)-deceived and divided, we could, over time, guided by self-love, wisdom and respect for others, make ourselves independent of this unnatural and abusive parent (or
Auntie), and finally rid ourselves of them, along with the root cause of the existential problems (such as nuclear proliferation and unsustainable economic growth), which will otherwise soon put an end to our civilization.

Non-violent and grassroots-democratic

Rather than trying to overthrow or reform the existing order (of state and economy), we must create alternatives (plural, since we will never all agree on just one) WITHIN it, which in western democracies, at least, we currently have the freedom to do, provided that we proceed peacefully and within the law. For the kind of society that I envisage, we also have to proceed grassroots-democratically and in accordance with certain principals (constitutions) which will differ somewhat from alternative to alternative. The state's monopoly of force, will need to remain, at least for the time being, so as to ensure the rule of law and non-violence, should the alternatives fail to do so (we don't want to risk a return to tribal warfare).

The alternatives need to germinate and develop within the existing socioeconomic order on which we all currently depend. As they grow and develop it will be possible for the willing, when they are ready and at their own pace, to gradually transfer their activities and dependencies from the old order to the new. For this to work we need the spirit, and practice, of an Open Source philosophy.

The STATE and its apologists (which to some extent we all are, because of our dependency on and tendency to identify with it), will oppose the development of alternatives to it, condemning those which choose to define themselves along ethnic lines - as many, of course, when free to do so, will - as "racist".

It is perfectly natural, however, to identify with one's own ethnic group (in fact, it is a state-induced perversion not to), about which there need be nothing racist (although, of course, there can be, as the Nazis provided the most ugly example of). Condemning it as racist is simply the state's way of asserting its authority and power over the whole population, irrespective of their ethnic origins.

The existing socioeconomic order and establishment EXPLOIT man's evolved social and tribal, i.e. Darwinian, nature, embodying, as they do, the power structures which facilitate society's self-exploitation. The alternatives must recognise and develop an understanding of our Darwinian nature, instead of denying it (i.e. its massive social relevance), as we do now, in order to direct it along more enlightened, humane and rational lines.

Otherwise, as population continues to increase (unnecessarily and quite insanely, in western Europe, thanks to stupid, power-seeking politicians allowing mass immigration into our already, natively, overpopulated countries) and the struggle (essentially Darwinian, no matter how fervently some may deny it) for resources and advantage intensifies, there will inevitably be conflict on a terrible scale, which only a totalitarian state will be capable of containing.

We have to get our alternative, open-source societies up and running before that happens, and strong enough, collectively, to prevent it happening, since this window of opportunity will not last much longer.

Saturday, 24 October 2009


In my other BLOGS I take a radical and very critical view of existing society, which, because rooted in man's (largely subconscious) Darwinian nature, I recognise as being inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable. In this blog I want to express and develop my ideas on a radical alternative, which I call Open Source Society.

Open Source? Because I believe the spirit of Open Source (of honesty, cooperation, sharing, mutual respect, friendly competitiveness) is what our socioeconomic order as a whole needs to be based on and permeated by. In contrast to the dishonesty, (self)-deception, greed and cut-throat competitiveness which, because of its perverted Darwinian nature, characterizes the existing political and economic order.

When I initially started to develop these ideas a few years ago I called it
nonymous society, which was meant to contrast with the anonymity of existing society. Onymous society would have been linguistically more correct, I believe, but that sounded a bit ominous. Then I learned about the spirit of Open Source (as applied to the development of software), which struck me as being exactly the adjective I was looking for.

My starting point for thinking about an alternative society is the realization that the existing political and socioeconomic order (of state and economy) is very much a product of man's (largely subconscious, rationalized and thus unrecognized) Darwinian nature (see other BLOG), which it developed over the centuries to both serve and exploit, to the advantage of those in positions of power and influence, of course. It is not the "society" we have all been taught to believe it is (a kind of extension of our original tribe, our evolved feelings of loyalty and commitment to which the state now claims for itself), but rather, an ENVIRONMENT, shaped, maintained and managed to the advantage of those in positions of power and privilege.

In the past a state ruler (e.g. king) only had to worry about keeping his vassals (fellow nobles, local rulers and priests) behind him, through a regime of class (family and interest group) solidarity, backed up by rewards, favours and the possible threat of punishment, which is no different to the way that we train and control dogs, and is an illustration of man's self-domestication.

Just as humans domesticated animals to exploit them to their own advantage, so too we domesticated ourselves for the purpose of self-exploitation, in the artificial environment of civilization.

While Greek democracy, which we look to as the antecedent of our own, depended on the ruthless exploitation of slaves, modern democracy depends on the ruthless exploitation of itself (e.g. on wage slaves), and of course, that of the natural environment, to the extent that it is now rapidly degrading and disrupting the very basis of its own existence.

A major obstacle to recognising the above - causing us to rationalize it from sight - is that it requires the concomitant recognition of our own hitherto blindness (which we have very little, if any, conscious control over), including that of those we admire and look to for wisdom and guidance, and of the fact that we are not the "rational" and "conscious" animal we hold ourselves to be, and derive such comfort from. This is because our brains evolved not to grasp reality itself (i.e. its environment), but to interpret it, to serve its own perceived (mainly subconscious and Darwinian) advantage, which includes seeing it the way that authority and majority do. Once you do recognise it, however, in the light of man's evolutionary origins, it is pretty obvious and readily understood.

It follows from this that our civilization, as a consequence of its own ruthless self-exploitation, is doomed. We have the choice between creating a sustainable (and, while we are about it, just and humane) alternative, or perishing with it.