Eugenics, Euthanasia, Race and National Socialism

[rogerhicks]

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.

[PatrickC]

You make an interesting and compelling point Roger about how evolution may have shaped our views about race within an historic tribal setting. They would have been viewed as a potential threat, not to ones race (which is just an identifying characteristic), but to ones tribe.

 

As I see it the modern state, in it's infancy in order to garner power for itself would use ethnicity as a powerful symbol of togetherness for those citizens, as a means to getting them to comply with state power. If I were to use Stefan's analogy of nations being farms. The cattle needed to identify with the farm as their tribe, so they wouldn't attempt to escape or disrupt the farm.

 

It's interesting to note that multiculturalism only took hold here in Europe in the 70's, with smaller trickles dating from the mid 50's and onwards. This being a period when state power (mainly from the left) had manifestly started to uproot all the great sources of production. The rise of the welfare state. The nationalising of major industry. The larger debasement of currency values, as most nations slipped off the gold standard. Immigrants were seen as a new source of income and given the standards of these immigrants previous farms, they understandably saw it as an opportunity for a better life.

 

However, since the state had been indoctrinating generations before this influx of new residents about nation pride based on our ethnicity, was it any wonder people didn't get along. I say this from a european perspective, because it was quite a different situation in the US I think. The accusation of racist, particularly to a white person had to have severe consequences, as a means to facilitating this new state modification to the farm. I do essentially see racism as an irrational view these days, but I can understand how the state has played the race card itself for generations for its own betterment.

 

"It is high time that we challenged the state on this issue, facing down its predictable, power-political, but nonsensical accusations of “racism”: but peacefully and with respect for the law and for others, especially when they are of different race or ethnicity to ourselves."

 

I was curious about how we challenge this today. To me this just seems to be an inevitable consequence of state power. Which is why this forum is an anarchist one. We reject state power at its very core. Whilst we might abide by laws, we do not respect them either. Any attempt to change the political system by reasoning with it, makes little sense to many folk here of course.

[rogerhicks]

You make an interesting and compelling point Roger about how evolution may have shaped our views about race within an historic tribal setting. They would have been viewed as a potential threat, not to ones race (which is just an identifying characteristic), but to ones tribe.

 

As I see it the modern state, in it's infancy in order to garner power for itself would use ethnicity as a powerful symbol of togetherness for those citizens, as a means to getting them to comply with state power. If I were to use Stefan's analogy of nations being farms. The cattle needed to identify with the farm as their tribe, so they wouldn't attempt to escape or disrupt the farm.

 

It's interesting to note that multiculturalism only took hold here in Europe in the 70's, with smaller trickles dating from the mid 50's and onwards. This being a period when state power (mainly from the left) had manifestly started to uproot all the great sources of production. The rise of the welfare state. The nationalising of major industry. The larger debasement of currency values, as most nations slipped off the gold standard. Immigrants were seen as a new source of income and given the standards of these immigrants previous farms, they understandably saw it as an opportunity for a better life.

 

However, since the state had been indoctrinating generations before this influx of new residents about nation pride based on our ethnicity, was it any wonder people didn't get along. I say this from a european perspective, because it was quite a different situation in the US I think. The accusation of racist, particularly to a white person had to have severe consequences, as a means to facilitating this new state modification to the farm. I do essentially see racism as an irrational view these days, but I can understand how the state has played the race card itself for generations for its own betterment.

 

"It is high time that we challenged the state on this issue, facing down its predictable, power-political, but nonsensical accusations of “racism”: but peacefully and with respect for the law and for others, especially when they are of different race or ethnicity to ourselves."

 

I was curious about how we challenge this today. To me this just seems to be an inevitable consequence of state power. Which is why this forum is an anarchist one. We reject state power at its very core. Whilst we might abide by laws, we do not respect them either. Any attempt to change the political system by reasoning with it, makes little sense to many folk here of course.

 

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".

[PatrickC]

 

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.

 

I certainly see no reason to kick you out for having this view. You've been respectful and you have made some salient points I think. I also agree that to take on an anarchist perspective is quite a leap for most people. I continually remind myself that my perspective is unlikely to have any traction within my life time, so I see finding solutions to my personal life all the more productive and efficient these days.

 

However, if you are struggling with the concept of a 'no state' solution, then you might want to give Stefan's books Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy a swing. They are fairly concise and easy to digest. At the very least you might begin to understand the arguments and positions anarchists take to its intellectual opposition.

 

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#ea

[HasMat]

Anarchy, as a PR handle, should be discarded.

 

If opponents can control the debate to focus on mischaracterized lawlessness they have won. NAP isnt lawlessness, its just a different kind (moral vs political). Anarchy, the connotation, is lawlessness.

[cab21]

how is race real?

how does one catagories people into separate, and objective, racial catagories?

 

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

"Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above."

 

what catagory does " all of the above" get? do they get a legit claim in each catagory?

if all of the above, i don't think 1 person= 1 catagory only

[PatrickC]

how is race real?

how does one catagories people into separate, and objective, racial catagories?

 

The real question is 'why does race matter'. Saying it's not real is similar to how some people consider gender an anachronism. Saying it doesn't exist because human DNA is inseperable from one race to another is too miss the objective truth that people can look significantly different to each other and very similar to others.

[LuckyNumber23]

It is important to keep in mind that genotype (aka DNA) and phenotype (how you look) are different. You can have the same features like your neighbour, but your DNA may be totally different from him. The term race itself is of no use in biology. You have species, and when certain animals of these species cannot produce children, they are separeted into subspecies.

[PatrickC]

It is important to keep in mind that genotype (aka DNA) and phenotype (how you look) are different. You can have the same features like your neighbour, but your DNA may be totally different from him. The term race itself is of no use in biology. You have species, and when certain animals of these species cannot produce children, they are separeted into subspecies.

 

Whilst that's all well and good, it still doesn't answer the essential question, 'why does it matter'. These scientific theories seek to evade the question by suggesting the question as irrelevant.

 

Race is seemingly an issue for a lot of people. I think it's reasonable to ask them why, rather than getting bogged down in what pheno or genotypes we are. Clearly it's about looks for most people I imagine. Race just happens to be a definition that has been used to categorise those looks.

[rogerhicks]

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.

[PatrickC]

So Roger, I'm curious, I assume you agree that we cannot return to a tribal state. My point being, aren't those ancient (tribal) identifiers mostly redundant these days. With some obvious exceptions of course, haven't races mostly assimilated enough with each other to be much less of a threat today. I only say that, because in my particular part of West London I don't feel threatened, despite being a minority in my own neck of the woods, so too speak.

[cab21]

since eugenics is about breeding and such.

 

if Serena Williams and usain bolt  have a baby, what nation? american/jamacian

if serena williams and tiger woods have a baby, what nation? american?

if serena williams and peyton manning have a baby, what nation? american?

if serena williams and Mariusz Pudzianowski have a baby, what nation? american/polish

 

how is nation determined, as far as eugenics go?

[rogerhicks]

So Roger, I'm curious, I assume you agree that we cannot return to a tribal state. My point being, aren't those ancient (tribal) identifiers mostly redundant these days. With some obvious exceptions of course, haven't races mostly assimilated enough with each other to be much less of a threat today. I only say that, because in my particular part of West London I don't feel threatened, despite being a minority in my own neck of the woods, so too speak.

 

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.  

[rogerhicks]

since eugenics is about breeding and such.

 

if Serena Williams and usain bolt  have a baby, what nation? american/jamacian

if serena williams and tiger woods have a baby, what nation? american?

if serena williams and peyton manning have a baby, what nation? american?

if serena williams and Mariusz Pudzianowski have a baby, what nation? american/polish

 

how is nation determined, as far as eugenics go?

 

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.

[LuckyNumber23]

Nations should be determined and defined by those individuals who comprise them

 

 

This has never happened. 'Traditional' England consists of People, from a Celtic, Roman, Scandinavian, German, French, Irish, Scottish, and Spanish background. None of the original populations was ever asked if it was a good idea to have an influx of new people. 

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.

 

Unfavourable random mutations are sorted out by nature already. Either in the uterus, since embryos with defects will be killed by the mother's immune system, or later when the defect is so grave as to prevent procreation. 

Or if they choose to allow their population to degenerate, I guess they have the right to do so.

 

What does it mean being degenerate? 

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.

 

 

The Nazis killed all the Jews they could find, but in addition they conducted a proper Eugenics. They rated people on their ability to go to war or to war. Those who could do some work, but were not very productive were rated T4, and sterilized. This included people with disabilities such as deaf or blind people. People who could not work at all were killed instantly. What kind of approach do you prefer?

[PatrickC]

Blimey, quite a lot to digest, but thanks for the time.

 

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.

 

I will get to the other points you raised. But I just wanted to clear up the above notion. Anarchists do have some idea of the remedy. Not least but they understand the propensity for most people to be peacefull and non aggressive. However, inherently understanding that if you give one institution the monopoly on force, that you will attract the smaller minority of degenerates and sociopaths to that institution. Added to that, anarchists have some theories about how a society free of the state could run things. Check Stefan's book Practical Anarchy.

[rogerhicks]

. . . the propensity for most people to be peaceful and non aggressive.

 

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. 

[PatrickC]

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.

 

Yes, but you didn't address my point about how anarchists see the granting of an institution with the monopoly on violence actually encourages these sociopaths to it. Remove the monopoly and they have no where to go.

However, as an aside point. I do think Stefan makes a good case for peaceful parenting as a means to reducing the degeneracy and sociopathy. Not entirely I grant you, but perhaps enough for people to take stronger measures against them.

[cab21]

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.

 

 

what makes a nation different from a nation state?

the state is made up of the individuals which comprises the state

is there a collective vote on breeding, or do individuals choose who to breed with in these nations?

individuals choosing who to create families with, as anarcho capitalism has it, allows for individual choice, and not a collective vote.

 

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.

 

it is confusing, as nation sounds just as collective as state, and the lines defined for me would help me understand the viewpoint.

 

 

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.

 

eugenics was done before the nazi's, the nazi's got ideas from america for instance.

state laws about breeding and sterilization, rather than a more free market selection proccess are what is being protested. the collective decision making of who to sterilize, vs the individual choice of who to breed with and support.

[rogerhicks]

you didn't address my point about how anarchists see the granting of an institution with the monopoly on violence actually encourages these sociopaths to it. 

 

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.

[PatrickC]

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.

 

Well, you'll probably not get much traction here with such ideas. Anarchists are anti state by definition. Which I suppose makes us anti nation, because i don't quite see the difference. Certainly anarchism isn't anti community, which you could call a nation. But they are generaly smaller and more manageable voluntary collectives. The problem as anarchists see it, is that they have no wish to be forced into any kind of collectives, without their express permission and choice, individually.

[rogerhicks]

Anarchists are anti state by definition. Which I suppose makes us anti nation, because i don't quite see the difference . . .  anarchists have no wish to be forced into any kind of collectives, without their express permission and choice, individually.

 

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.

[PatrickC]

Actually you make a rather good case for what the state does, in terms of taking advantage of tribal loyalties. That makes a lot of sense to me. The trouble as I see it, is that you're suggesting a nation is the answer. These aren't facetious questions, but what does that nation look like? And would everyone want to be a part of it? I think things are so disparate in that regard these days, that it would be impossible to manage everyone's desires and needs under one umbrella called a nation.

 

Regarding social order. There is a very good case how this can happen spontaneously. Recalling how law and order broke down in Egypt. Yet you had herds of men patrolling and protecting their neighbourhood. The same was true of the Sikh community in West London during the riots. This works from a bottom up authority. Whereby a group of people express a need (protection). And they all work together to achieve it. Top down authority is where a privileged few have the power to enforce their desires on everyone else. Which ends up being the opposite of protection. Of course this is where we differ perhaps. But given that the sociopaths are relatively few in number, compared to most people who are fine with leaving each other alone. The challenge is to build institutions that protect those freedoms from the bottom up. If it's not too diversionary, but mutual associations were an excellent example of that in Britain during the industrial revolution. How to similarly provide protection through voluntary means is the challenge I think.

 

I've enjoyed your analogies of tribal culture and state degeneracy, they make a lot of sense. It's also nice to have an opposing (British? I think) view that isn't leftist either. At least you understand their is a problem with the state as it is now.

[Adam_Min_Hayeshuv]

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.

 

 

 

It is surprsing to encounter an endorser of nationalism and/or socialism

let alone their unholy mixture

at a libertarian forum.

[rogerhicks]

I think .  .  it would be impossible to manage everyone's desires and needs under one umbrella called a nation.

 

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.

[rogerhicks]

It is surprsing to encounter an endorser of nationalism and/or socialism

let alone their unholy mixture

at a libertarian forum.

 

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.

[cab21]

why are tribes separate when we all share the same common ancestors?

[rogerhicks]

why are tribes separate when we all share the same common ancestors?

 

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. 

[PatrickC]

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. 

 

It's interesting, this might sound rather trite coming from an anarchist, but I'm willing to accept that I have no idea what the future holds. I tend to focus on my own life and those dearest to me and the near future. Having said that, It certainly sounds like the principles are similar. So I'm willing to accept that something could shape out this way in time. Interesting.

 

I will say however, although perhaps it's a definition thing (on my part), I do hope socialism gets decided by the market rather than from leaders. We've had enough bloodshed this past century frankly.

[rogerhicks]

I have no idea what the future holds.

 

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.

[aeonicentity]

I think that racism is merely a subset of a larger human programming: The fear of The Other.The Other is pretty much anything that we percieve as not ourselves, or similar enough to us to pass as not The Other. This is why humans fundamentally try to seek out social groups, and adopt practices and behaviors to blend in. We hate The Other, and don't like to be around them. This is seen both in our immediate social structures, and in larger more societial ones. In our personal social lives this is exhibited as the outcast. The Other is usually someone not of your familily or close friend group. Usually The Other is treated differently because he lies outside of the rules of the social group.

 

Inside larger societal constructs this is usually exhibited as shunning, against people who lack the same philosophical/religious/moral views as the rest of the group, or against people who obviously come from different cultures or social backgrounds. This is exhibited often as Zenophobia, and its cousin, racism.Fear of The Other however is a fundamental part of being human. Its actually one of our best safety mechanisms. Imagine if you were naturally and blindly trusting of everything everyone said! Or if you got into the van for some candy! We use fear of The Other as a tool in our society to teach caution, and judgement to children because its one of our most powerful evolutionary tools. As odd as it may sound, the human race is united in its hatred of non-humans. Fundamentally, this is what keeps us safe from predatory behavior. Unfortunately like all aspects of the human mind it has a downside at its extremes. People who ignore the fear of The Other in favor of tollerance often loose the fact that some times, people really ARE out to get you. Conversely, people who fall too far down the rabit hole of fear of The Other are called paranoid. Most of us exist somewhere on a spectrum in between.

 

Now, racism is a tough one, since we've now proven that there is fundamentally no difference between the 'races' of humanity, its fair to say that the color of one's skin hardly determines anything about them. Indeed, poverty is what defines most blacks, not their skin color. The problem comes in our tendency to anthropmorphize a thing which doesn't have a physical face to it. For example, its much easier for a black man to say "I'm opressed because I'm black" then it is for him to tell the truth: "I'm opressed because of my socioeconomic status." this is because you can't easily put a color to a thing which doesn't physically exist. You can't make it part of a person to demonize, or sympathize. To think of racism as an evolutionary artifact is over simplification of the problem. The problem is that it is hard for us to understand complex problems, and the way our brain works to understand complex problems is to visualize them as related to something similar to what we already know. A new born child doesn't have the understanding to know about money, and economics, however it MUST process discrimination somehow. Skin color is an easy way to process this as it is a characteristic shared by all of the people important to you in early life, and seems as good of a fit as any for the problem of discrimination, even if its not the real cause of the discrimination. 

[rogerhicks]

I think that racism is merely a subset of a larger human programming: The fear of The Other.

 

"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".

[JamesP]

Nationalism and socialism were and are violently inflicted on people.

 

That would indicate that it is NOT human nature.

[rogerhicks]

Nationalism and socialism were and are violently inflicted on people.

 

That would indicate that it is NOT human nature.

 

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.

[JamesP]

You need to be far more rigorous than appealing to your perspective if you are going to advocate social systems for people to follow.

 

It also does not matter if you think that the ideals were hijacked. The fact is that people in power violently inflicted these systems on the populace with devastating effects.

 

If I did not agree to be subjected to your system, what would happen to me?