rogerhicks

You are right, I am very interested in the truth. The truth about the true size of the Sun never ceases to amaze me; although it is the difference in size to the Earth that I normally think about, with more than 100 Earth diameters fitting into the diameter of the Sun, and the whole Earth/Moon system fitting within the volume of the Sun . . . The thought of it boggles my mind. And yet I've often seen the Sun close to the horizon looking no bigger than a beech ball, compared to the building, trees, cars, or whatever in the foreground . . . I went through a phase of reminding myself every time I watched a sunset or sunrise that it wasn't really the Sun setting or rising, but of the horizon doing the exact opposite. However, I quickly got back into the habit of seeing what I saw rather then what I knew to be true. What we experience isn't the truth, which we can only make imperfect models of, but I do not think that what we experience and feel is necessarily invalidated by it.

To be honest, I don't really understand your questions. I'm just stating how I FEEL, how I relate to race and place.

I feel pride and shame for those I identify with, which generally speaking is my own European race. Since Britain has become multi-ethnic, I no longer identify with it as my nation, because I no longer feel that it is. The very notion of "multi-ethnic nationhood" is, to my way of thinking and feeling, an oxymoronic absurdity, straight out of Orwell's 1984. "Celebrating diversity" is Orwellian newspeak for Native Britons to celebrate our own ethnic displacement (white flight), decline and ultimate demise. The British state has only ever deceitfully posed as a nation, in order to legitimise itself, its political elite and the immense power they wield. Since inviting half the third world to join our "pseudo nation" and embracing an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt, post-racial multiculturalism, which denies, demonises and suppress as "racist" the natural ethnic basis of national identity and nationhood, this is now plain for all, who are not ideologically blinkered, to see. I don't feel that I "own where I was born", i.e. my ancestral homeland, but that it kind of owns ME.

My ancestors have lived geographically in Northern Europe for thousands of years - since the end of the last ice age - so I would hardly call my birth here an "accident", any more than Native Americans are "accidentally" born in America. It is their ancestral homeland, where they BE-LONG. From your profile photo I would guess that Europe is your ancestral homeland, whose history you have good reason to feel proud (and ashamed) of. This is a sensitive issue, I know, but a very important one nevertheless, which needs to be taken very seriously, if we want to avoid the conflicts inherent in "globalisation". We have to deal, peacefully and legally, but nevertheless, with states deceitfully laying claim to our tribal loyalties. I view the British state with the same contempt that it views me and my fellow native Britons. Socialism, like nationalism, has been thoroughly discredited by those who hijacked and exploited their popular appeal, but I don't think we can replace them with other words. We need to scrape off all the shit and liberate them. They are much too important to simply discard. My hope is to establish a political movement of "grassroots multi-national socialism", which is a concept I really like. It will drive the unthinking Left (because of its nationalism), the unthinking Right (because of its socialism) and the unthinking in general (because of its national socialism) mad, of course, but that can't be helped. Hopefully it will attract thinking people from right across the political spectrum. The concept of national socialism, which the Nazis hijacked so long ago, has remained under Nazi occupation for far too long. I've watched the video you provided a link to, and which I thank you for. I found it very interesting, and quite inspiring. It reminded me of the grassroots socialism which arose spontaneously in 19th and early 20th Century Britain, before it was hijacked and imposed from the top down as social welfare, by our mercenary "patron state", deceitfully posing as a "nation state".

I think we need to be very cautious about "defining" a social system, because some then feel they have a right or duty to fit individuals into it. Can you define the social set up and relationships within your own (extended) family, or what is left of it? I suspect not, but if it is a good, healthy family, it will be a close approximation to how I envisage socialism to be. You don't exploit each other, but are inclined to share and have each other's best interests at heart. As extended families get bigger, difficulties arise because of the limited number of people we are able to relate to personally. Notwithstanding that we also want to relate to people outside of our extended family. This is a situation which evolution has not adapted human nature to adequately deal with; or rather, it has given us a big brain and a compassionate heart (some of us, at least), which, however, we have yet to learn how to use for this purpose. What has happened, is that as society has grown ever larger, particular individuals (and their families) has sought to exploit society (their super-extended family) as an environment, rather than still seeing it as their tribe. This is the perversion of our Darwinian nature, which is central to my thinking. We shouldn't be exploiting members of our own tribe (or other tribes, for that matter); but that is what we do. It is what the state itself was created and developed over the centuries to facilitate, society's self-exploitation, to the advantage of its ruling/political elite and their favoured clients, although we are told and tell ourselves a very different story. It is basically what Stephan refers to as the "farming of human livestock". The state and society conflate and confound very different aspects of our original tribal environment, which human nature was adapted to long before the advent of civilisation. Thus all the confusion, man's exploitation of his fellow man, injustice and inhumanity. And until we recognise this we are trapped, by our own dependency on the state, the primary function of which is to facilitate society's self-exploitation, in which we are ALL necessarily implicated - not just the big wealthy farmers. Sorry, if I've gone rambling on a bit. For me the ideal of socialism, is to create a society that, contrary to existing society, is not self-exploitative, in which we don't view or treat our fellow man as "livestock", but either as members of the same super-extended tribe, i.e. nation, or of other tribes and nations, which we respect and don't seek to exploit, and with whom we must negotiate the sharing of natural resources if we are to avoid coming into conflict with each other.

I'm sorry, I assume Homo sapiens' inherent and intense tribal and social nature as givens. We see and experience the evidence for it all around and within us all the time. Notwithstanding that we live in a culture which trivialises, ridicules, demonises and suppresses our tribal nature (not just, but especially as "racism"), in order to facilitate its exploitation by the state, which legitimises itself and its claim to our loyalty and obedience (to its laws) by deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation itself. I envisage it being a bit like a Zionist/socialist kibbutz, that, if you are a Jew and agree to comply with its constitution, you would be free to join, and leave again, if and when you so wish. Not that I have any personal experience of such a Kibbutz, which I would, however, expect to cultivate good, friendly relationships with Jewish and non-Jewish, e.g. Palestinian, neighbours, or at least be very respectful of and considerate towards them.

I'm not advocating a particular social system, but ideas relating to the perverted Darwinian nature of existing social systems and how they might be reformed in the direction of being more democratic, just, humane and sustainable. I think it VERY important to recognise the noble origins and original good intentions of both nationalism and socialism, and how they were hijacked and corrupted, so that we can work on their more wholesome reincarnation. As I've already said, they are deeply rooted in evolved human tribal and social nature. To dismiss them would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A baby that should be as valuable to atheists and anarchists as the baby Jesus is to Christians. The very essence of the system I envisage is that it should be grassroots democratic and not imposed on anyone. I envisage it growing within the existing system of liberal democracy, with individuals organising THEMSELVES, peacefully and legally, rather than leaving it to state and capital to do for them.

In my view, nationalism and socialism are both deeply rooted in evolved human tribal and social nature, which is what made them such appealing, powerful and popular ideas. The tragedy is that they were hijacked - perhaps inevitably - and exploited by political parties and ultimately the state itself for their own power-political purposes. What did/do a number of Israeli kibbutzim do, if not combine a strong sense of national Jewish identity (Zionism) with the ideals of socialism . . ? For obvious historical reasons, they would not dream of calling it "national socialism", although conceptually that is in fact what it is. We need to liberate the concept of "national socialism" from Nazi occupation, which it has been under for far too long, and perhaps rechristen it "grassroots-democratic multi-national socialism", which should make clear the fundamental difference to its Nazi incarnation.

"Racism" (= racial prejudice = the natural human inclination to identity with members of one's own tribe, i.e. race or ethnic group) I see as the modern, more secular replacement for "original sin", which only submission to state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists". Most people don't "hate the other". On the contrary, we spend billions on holidays to exotic places with exotic peoples for the very reason that they are so different from ourselves and what we are used to. Most people, including myself, genuinely love diversity - but in the right context! In order to appreciate the "other" we must feel secure in our OWN identity. The problem with the state (modern society) is that it conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation and the state, which now deceitfully poses as the modern equivalent of our original tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment), while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment) to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients. Xenophobia is just one side of a coin, essential to being human, on the other side of which is "familiaphilia" (love of the familiar). We need to understand and work with our inherent tribal nature, instead of denying, trivialising, ridiculing, demonising and suppressing it, so that state and capital can exploit it to their own power-political and pecuniary advantage. The state, of course, has a massive power-political self-interest in denying, demonising and suppressing as "racist" the existence and importance of race as the natural basis of national identity and nationhood, in order protect its own (deceitful) claim to nationhood. Race is not a "social construct", as the state and its privileged clients (usually employees) in academia would have us all believe, but REAL and important. Not in the way that genuine racists (racial supremacists) believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity. It is the STATE which is the real "social, i.e. political, construct".

I compare our situation to that of a child in a car driven by who I used to believe was my responsible, intelligent and caring father, but who I have come to realise is in fact a drunken madman, who is driving in such a way that it is clearly only a matter of time before we have a terrible smash. In that sense, I know what the future holds. I and others have been trying to tell this madman that he must slow down, so that we can reduce the danger and take stock of our situation, but he doesn't hear us, is in a world of his own. In his madness, he thinks he's a racing driver, competing in a "global race", which he has to win . . . What we need more than anything else is a far better understanding of society and how it works. Social scientists (sociologists, economists, etc.) believe that they already have a good grasp of social, political and economic reality, and politicians are only too eager to believe them, when in fact, they haven't a clue. They are like Galenic doctors, believing in theories that are simply wrong and little use in treating their patients, often doing more harm than good. Key to developing a better, more realistic understanding of society is recognising its perverted Darwinian nature; but this requires adopting a Darwinian, i.e. human-evolutionary, perspective, which academia itself has placed a taboo on doing (in response to initial attempts, now referred to collectively as "social Darwinism", which went horribly wrong), much as Galenic doctors initially made a taboo of William Harvey's ideas on blood circulation, because they contradicted their traditional understanding of the heart and blood, and thus their own authority. Harvey had to wait for a younger generation of doctors, not so set in their ways and prepared to consider his ideas, which, of course, were much closer to reality than those of Galen. By the way, I appreciate your openness to my ideas, and thank you for it.

The global European, i.e. white, population, whose development of science and technology made possible the huge increase in human numbers, is no longer growing, but declining. What isn't declining is the drain and strain whites are placing on our planet's finite resources and carrying capacity, locked as we are into a grossly materialistic, growth dependent economy and ways of life, and with the rest of the world following our bad, unhealthy and non-sustainable, example. Insanely, European governments - against the sensible protests of most citizens, who are silenced by accusations of "racism" - have allowed in millions of immigrants from the third world, to counteract the godsend of its declining native population. Native Britons, like myself, have already been reduced to an ethnic minority in our capital city and are predicted to become one in the country as a whole before today's children reach retirement age. But thus far, any attempt to address this madness is dismissed as "racism". Although, this situation is rapidly changing, not least, thanks to ordinary people now being able to express their views online. Public opinion is no longer just the opinion of newspaper editors or TV pundits, who, as favoured clients of our "patron state" are bound by its post-racial multicultural ideology, much as their medieval counterparts were by Church ideology, which is largely responsible for this madness.

Tribes aren't separate, anymore than individuals are, but relate to each other. And just as there are far too many individuals for us to be able to relate to everyone personally, so too there still far to many tribes for them to be able to relate to each other directly. I envisage society being built up, organically and grassroots democratically, from individuals, who will form tribes, tribes forming super tribes, and super tribes nations. And nations too will need to relate to each other, as states (pseudo nations) do now, but in a very different way, with individual free to choose which tribe and nation they wish to belong to; dependent, of course, on a particular tribe's or nation's willingness to accept them. It is important not to think too rigidly about how all this might work. I'm confident that if we follow the right principles (especially non-violence, respect for and non-exploitation of others) things will pretty much work themselves out. The ultimate goal is to create a world order of diverse human societies, whose individual members are free to live and do as they please within the constraints of it not being at the expense of others, whether of the present or of future generations.

That is a VERY interesting point you bring up. The 19th and 20th Centuries were dominated by two political ideas: nationalism and socialism. Why? Because both are deeply rooted in human nature, the former in our inherent tribal nature, the latter in our inherent social nature. This is why they were such popular and powerful ideas, motivating millions of people to dedicate and even sacrifice their lives to. Tragically, being such popular and powerful ideas, they were immediately hijacked by those seeking to exploit them to their own personal and/or power-political advantage. The Nazis, being masters of propaganda and social manipulation, combined the two and incorporated them into the very name of their party as "National Socialism", an extremely powerful concept which they exploited to their own evil ends, discredited and dragged into the abyss along with their nasty selves. It is a concept which has remained under Nazi occupation to this day, thanks largely to the misguided, and/or power-politically motivated, efforts of so-called "anti-fascists" and "anti-racists". It is interesting to note how, separately, the concepts of nationalism and socialism are approached very differently by the present day political Left and Right, the former having successfully demonised nationalism by equating it with Nazi-style racism, while still defending their socialist ideals. The Right, in contrast, have been forced, somewhat reluctantly, to accept the Left's demonisation of nationalism, while also vigorously demonising socialism. In my view, both nationalism and socialism, because of their deep roots in human nature, remain vitally important ideas, whose combination we need to liberate from Nazi occupation and reexamine. We need to create a social and political order which works with human social and tribal nature to the benefit of society at large, instead of allowing them to be manipulated and exploited by state and capital for their own power-political and pecuniary ends.

I agree. On the other hand, there is no escaping our tribal nature, which is as central to us being human as is our social nature. We have an emotional need to belong to a tribe, or nation, which currently the state suppresses, manipulates, harnesses and exploits for its own, mercenary purposes, itself deceitfully posing as our nation, i.e. "nation state", when in truth it is a mercenary "patron state", playing us off one against the other, both as individuals and as groups, classes, professions, races or whatever. Capital also exploits our tribal nature, getting us to identify with particular brands as tribe substitutes, whether it is some product, a football team, or whatever. Western states' recent deliberate creation of multi-racial and multicultural societies, via the madness of mass third world immigration into our already, natively, overpopulated countries, in place of what had been, certainly in Europe, essentially mono-racial and monocultural societies, has served to intensify the state's strategy of "divide and rule", with state ideology of post-racial multiculturalism having effectively replaced medieval church ideology as a more secular means of social and political intimidation and control, the general notion of "original sin"(man's inherent wickedness) having been replaced with the more specific evil of "racism" (= racial prejudice = the natural and inherent human inclination to identity with members of one's own tribe, i.e. race or ethnic group), which only submission to state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists". Clearly, as individuals, we need to form many different tribes, which will then self-organise into a smaller number of nations. It will then be for these nations to cooperate in creating a very different kind of state from the ones we have at the moment. The natural basis of nationhood is shared ethnic identity, which the mercenary state is keen to deny, demonise and suppress, because this truth undermines its own claim to nationhood and authority. Most people are naturally inclined to identify with members of their own race (not necessarily when relating to individuals, but certainly when relating to strangers, especially in large numbers). And those who choose to belong to a multi-racial nation, as many will (it is what we are having imposed on us at the moment by the state), will, after a few generations of intermarriage, find that their nation has also become mono-racial - just mixed-race, rather than of an original race. This won't be easy, but is something we must work at. Clearly, society cannot continue as it is, which should be motivation enough. The challenge is for us to self-organise (peacefully, legally and grassroots-democratically), as life itself does at a molecular level, into tribes and nations of our own free choice, without coming into conflict with each other, because as soon as we do, the state will have the excuse it needs to intervene and assert its own authority and power. We need the state of assert its power only when it is necessary to enforce the rule of law and non-violence between the developing tribes and nations.

We have all been brought up to equate state and nation, because this is how the modern state legitimises itself, its ruling/political elite and the immense power they wield. It is as how the state harnesses our inherent tribal nature, laying claim to our tribal loyalty. It is from its claim to nationhood that the state derives most of its power, with most of the rest coming from the tax revenues it raises from us by posing as our nation. Also, the fact that the state is so powerful and we so dependent on it, also strongly inclines us to identify with and love it, just as we do as children in respect to our parents. The big difference between our parents and the state, of course, is that former genuinely love us and have our best interests at heart, while the latter does not, but just pretends to. Unlike Stefan, I had the good fortune to have loving and caring parents, more concerned for my and my siblings welfare than they were for their own. I think this is true for the majority of parents (and its not just a human thing; many animals are the same). Stefan, from what I gather, was very unfortunate with his parents, and an exception to the rule. It is amazing that he managed to survive at all, let alone make such a success of his life. But his experiences as a child clearly, and understandably, very much colour his view of the world; as do my experiences colour mine. Human nature is adapted to serve our survival as a member of a tribe, tribes which have now effectively been replaced forcibly (rather than voluntarily) by the state, with its perverted Darwinian agenda of facilitating society's self-exploitation. Clearly, except in time of war, the state cannot satisfy the emotional needs our tribal nature craves, and the nuclear family is no substitute either, so countless substitutes have arisen, or we distract ourselves with addictions or obsessive-compulsive behaviours, many of which are collectively known as consumerism. Stefan himself strikes me as something of a workaholic, which many "successful" people are (it's what drives them), but that doesn't make it any less obsessive and compulsive and ultimately unhealthy . . . Something that I too have plenty of personal experience of. I agree entirely about not wanting to be forced into a collective against my will, but this is exactly what the state does, by virtue of its immense power. And it is an illusion to believe that having sufficient money frees us from our dependency on the state. Or rather, it frees some (those who have plenty of money) at the expense of others, who have too little. I suspect that this is where my views and Stefan's diverge, so it would be very interesting to clarify this point. I envisage us transforming society, peacefully, legally and grassroots-democratically, from the bottom up, by forming tribes and nations of our own free choice, with the state ceasing to pose as our nation itself and restricting its role to enforcing the rule of law and non-violence. Laws that would ultimately be agreed on by the different nations comprising a particular state. What I'm suggesting would turn society on its head, so it's a huge challenge. But if our civilisation is to survive it is a challenge we must rise to. My view of anarchism recognises the need for social order, but an order which arises from the grassroots for the good of society at large, rather then being imposed from the top down to the narrow and short-sighted advantage of society's elites.