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.

I think that the state having a monopoly over force is a good thing, because it greatly reduces the amount of violence characteristic of tribal society. It's true that the state attracts sociopaths (Hitler, Stalin and Mao being modern examples), but the democratic state, notwithstanding all its faults, provides a framework in which we can work towards non-violent change. The problem with the democratic state, and the reason it is always extending its power, is because it poses as something it is not: a "patron state" posing as a "nation state". As I've already pointed out, the state deceitfully poses as our nation, in order to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients (academics being especially important in this regard, because they are the "authorities" who rationalise and defend the role and ideology of the state, which more often than not is their employer). We need to change the function of the state, so that it facilitates the coexistence and cooperation of the nations (yet to organise and establish themselves) which comprise it.

Under the right conditions, I would agree with you. But such conditions have to be created, and in order to create them we have or organise ourselves and agree to some kind of constitution. That's the challenge we face. Many people also have a propensity to seek their own advantage at the expense of others, which inevitably leads to conflict. We must learn how to deal with this. Stevan is very much in favour of property rights, but it is through property rights, more than anything else, that man has always exploited his fellow man.

Nations should be determined and defined by those individuals who comprise them, and each nation will have to develop an attitude towards eugenics, in order to prevent their population degenerating from the accumulation of unfavourable random mutations. Or if they choose to allow their population to degenerate, I guess they have the right to do so. Only, they have no right to expect other nations to support them as their increasing degeneracy makes them less and less able to support themselves, which is what the moral supremacist state would have us do. We must put an end to the state posing as our nation, which is terribly confusing, because it conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved and is thus adapted to. Eugenics shouldn't be about producing a "superior race", but about maintaining a healthy one. It is something we already practice, of course, but don't call it by the proper name of eugenics, because of its Nazi associations.

Clearly, we can't return to the kind of tribal society human nature evolved in, there being far too many of us. Also, I don't think race would have been a significant tribal marker for the simple reason that our tribal nature is presumably much older than the racial distinctions which have arisen in just the past 100,000 years or so, as a consequence of distant human populations being more or less isolated from each other. Only in modern times has contact and interaction between different races become commonplace. Language, culture and different "histories" were the most important tribal markers amongst peoples of essentially the same race, e.g. Europeans. The vast majority of wars, injustice and acts of inhumanity have been intra- rather than inter-racial. The injustice and inhumanity Europeans have inflicted on Africans, which "moral supremacists" (mainly white) now use to morally intimidate and control white societies**, is as nothing compared to the intra-racial injustice and inhumanity that Europeans have, over the centuries, inflicted on each other. ** Adapted to our more secular times, "racism" (= racial prejudice = the natural human inclination to identity with members of one's own tribe, i.e. race or ethnic group) is the new "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". Since the dawn of civilisation, our tribal nature has been manipulated, suppressed and exploited by those seeking to lead and control society. Something which became institutionalised in the power structures of the state, the original and still primary purpose of which is to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its ruling/political elite and their favoured clients, and which I refer to as its "perverted Darwinian nature", because that's what it is. Self-exploitation must always result ultimately in self-destruction. Anarchists have always recognised the inherent evil of the state, but thus far have had no remedy for it. Society has to be organised and regulated, which above the small community level has always been done by the state, the primary purpose of which, as already stated, has aways been to facilitate its self-exploitation, because always organised from the top down, even in democracies like our own. The only solution I can envisage is for us to use the freedoms that democracy gives us (but for how much longer?) to organise OURSELVES, peacefully, legally and grassroots-democratically from the bottom up. Given the freedom to do so, most people, I'm sure, will tend to organise along ethnic lines, because it is the most natural, and provided we do so peacefully, respectfully and within rule of law, why not? Those who do not wish to organise along ethnic lines, but want to remain with the melting pot of multi-ethnic society currently being imposed on us by the state (as a demonstration of its spurious "moral authority" and power), should, of course, be free to do so. Although, after a few generation of intermarriage, such a society will also become mono-ethnic. Thus my contention that race and ethnicity are the natural basis of national identity and nationhood. Those of us who are serious about our love of human diversity, will resist the state imposed melting pot, which is the destroyer of human diversity.

As I said in my original post, "race matters" because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity. This, of course, brings race into conflict with the modern, multi-racial state, which deceitfully seeks to legitimise itself, its political elite and the immense power they wield, by posing as our nation. Thus, its denial, demonisation and suppression of the importance of race - at least so far as the ethnic majority is concerned - as "racist". And notwithstanding the paradox of race not mattering at the personal level, where character is far more important, but still mattering a great deal at the impersonal level when it comes to identifying with strangers, with millions of them when it comes to forming a shared sense of nationhood (see the blog I link to in my initial post). Far more important than understanding the exact nature of race (other than its huge importance in respect to both personal and group identify for such a self-conscious and inherently tribal animal as ourselves) is understanding the true (perverted Darwinian) nature of the state, which I have also published a blog on and link to in my blog on the Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter.

I hope that I can say this without getting thrown out of this forum, but I don't reject the power of the state out of hand - because I depend on it too much, primarily to enforce the rule of law and non-violence, which, no matter how unjust and in favour our ruling elites, is still infinitely preferable to the chaos and violence that would otherwise ensue as different gangs and warlords vied for power. You only have to look at stateless countries in Africa to realise that any kind of order and law enforcement is better than none. And "democratic" states like our own, at least allow us the freedom to criticise them, as we are doing here, and plot their downfall - provide we do so peacefully and within the law. The problem with the state, is its perverted Darwinian nature, the way it poses deceitfully as our nation, in order to facilitate society's self-exploitation to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients. You can't reason with the state, because we ALL, without exception, have our own vested interests in it, which makes it impossible to be objective about it. We all see things from own particular, self-interested, perspective, which is also massively influenced by how we have been indoctrinated and self-indoctorinated, i.e. the particular ideologies we embrace. Trying to discuss race, for example, with many people, especially on the Left, is like trying to discuss God with a Jehovah's Witness; although they, of course, would see it round the other way, with them being the ones who deny the existence (and thus importance) of race (God), while I take the opposite view. The only way that we can achieve any degree of objectivity, is by understanding evolved human nature, along with our own and other's self-interested subjectivity from a Darwinian perspective. I agree very much with Stefan's view, expressed in his blog on the Origins of the State, of how the aristocracy (providing the muscle and power of the sword) in coalition with the priesthood/clergy (providing the brains and power of the Word, i.e. moral authority) created and shaped the state in the first place, from what had previously been a tribal society, in order to exploit to their own advantage its "human resources". Christian ideology was perfect, with its notion of "original sin", which only submission to church/state authority could save the individual (irrespective of social status) from eternal damnation for. Adapted to our more secular times, it is now the notion of "racism" (= racial prejudice = the natural human inclination to identity with members of one's own tribe, i.e. race or ethnic group), which only submission to state (post-racial multicultural) ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

These four ideas are all demonised and rejected out of hand, because of their association with the Nazis, but it seems to me that they are all in fact VERY important - far too important to be allowed to remain under taboo and Nazi occupation as they currently are. The fact that they are all still under Nazi occupation, and taboo, is a very interesting phenomenon in itself. It is as if Nazism has become a secular moral authority, only in reverse, in place of religious authority, which too many people no longer accept. If the Nazis embraced anything then by definition it must be evil, and it is currently impossible to talk sensibly about any of these subjects. It is also very interesting to note how the ideas of "nationalism" and "socialism" are also demonised separately (together everyone demonises them, because the Nazis incorporated them in the very name of their party), the Left having succeeded in equating the former with Nazi-style racism and elevating it to state ideology (in the form of post-racial multiculturalism), which denies, demonises and suppresses as "racist" the natural ethnic basis of national identity and nationhood, while the Right concentrates on demonising socialism, the failings of which the Left are always trying to excuse or explain away, so that they can rehabilitate it. Contrary to state ideology, race clearly matters a great deal. Not in the way that genuine racists believe it does, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group, i.e. national, identity. This undermines the legitimacy of the state, of course, which itself claims to represent our nation. Thus the ferocity with which it condemns as "racist" anyone challenging its racial ideology. Being privileged clients of the state, academics have agreed to dismiss race as a mere "social construct", when in truth, it is not race (our ethnic origins) which is a social construct, but their employer, the state itself, or perhaps "political construct" is a better word. Race, in contrast, is real. I've written a blog on The Paradox of Race Does and Doesn't Matter (http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/paradox-of-race-doesdoesnt-matter.html ) for anyone who is interested. I hope that this might provide some food for thought and discussion.

Surely, we need "labels", i.e. to name things, in order to think about them and relate to them. We label ourselves in order to form a particular identity, which distinguishes us from others and influences how we relate to them. Homo sapiens is nothing if not an inherently and intensely tribal animal. One's identity within the tribe is extremely important, as is knowing which tribe, or group of tribes one belongs to, which is a real problem in modern, mass and multi-ethnic society.

I'm wondering why the smily . I guess there would have been proto-states, before what we now recognise as actual states appeared, and these would have taken different forms (if any form at all) in different parts of the world. I assume that for most of the time that human nature was evolving into what it still is, we lived in relatively small tribes or communities, in which everyone would have know everyone else, so that the kind alienation and anonymity which occurs in proto-state and state societies, and facilitates exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment), would have been unknown. We don't like the state knowing too much about us, because we know that we can't trust it, and because of the patron/client relationship that exists between us. But as individuals, we do need to know who we can and cannot trust to have our best interests at heart. Thus, I envisage an "open society", facilitated by modern technology, which would effectively recreate the situation we were in in primitive tribal society. Does that answer your questions?