To:
Guardian CiF Re: State and economic interest in national and global miscegenation Date: Sunday 15 July 07 |
|
|
|
In
response to the article, ". . . a possible future in which
there is only one race"
by Timothy Garton Ash. Link to article and thread at The Guardian. |
In the past it was largely geography which determined where a person belonged, and everyone was subject - whether they liked it or not - to the "law (including customs and traditions) of the land" they lived in, and had generally been born in, like their ancestors before them.
The power structures that arose (for the primary purpose of "exploiting" society, as an artificial socio-economic replacement of the natural environment, to the Darwinian, dumb-animal, advantage of its ruling elites) developed into the world's modern nation states, which now everyone is totally dependent on and eager to exploit to their own personal advantage. No amount of emphasizing how much the state SERVES society can change the fact that its principal purpose is still to exploit it.
The ruling and privileged elites have changed and been greatly broadened, so that in theory, at least, in the West, everyone is now "free" to exploit society as originally only the aristocracy and clergy were. TGA is doing very well for himself, but would be horrified, I suspect, at the suggestion that primarily, from an evolutionary and anthropological perspective, he is simply "exploiting" the "socio-economic environment" to his own advantage, as of course evolution adapted human nature and behaviour to do, only (but of monumental significance) in the natural environment, which the former has effectively replaced.
What I'm getting at here is that TGA, like all academics, belongs to a privileged elite with an even greater interest than most in the power structures of the nation state - which essentially and implicitly is what he is defending in the above article (i.e. the Brazilian state).
The power structures of the state take precedence over race (thus the state's interest in eliminating it through miscegenation), despite race being a far more natural social grouping, less (far less, I suggest) prone to exploitation.
2nd Post
[RationalCitizen]: "sorry mate, but your post is not even rubbish, it's vacuous."
Perhaps you are right, or perhaps (which I think more likely) you haven't understood me.
3rd Post
[AntiAnyNationalism] " . . . . not sure that replacing nationalism with racism is gonna do anyone much good."
I couldn't agree more. That is certainly not what I have in mind.
I don't think that people should be "grouped", by anyone other than themselves. It is the nation state which has always presumed the right to do this. I think it is time, now we have the freedom and the means, to simply start identifying, grouping and self-organizing ourselves.
Not everyone, of course, but most people, I think you will find, feel a natural affinity for their own race (not necessarily as individuals, but as a group, which after all includes your family and ancestors going back for millennia). I know for a fact that many black people do, and no one would dream of calling that "racism". And just because Hitler abused the concept of race in his insane and abhorrent racial doctrines, does not mean to say that Europeans cannot also handle race in a humane and civilized fashion as well. Denying its existence or importance (for individual and group identity), as some on this thread do, is just nonsense - certainly for most people, if not for themselves.
[RationalCitizen]: "You must forgive me. We academics are a bit slow, you see."
Not when it comes to knowing which side your bread is buttered . . . ;-).
4th Post
[nilpferd], I wouldn't call nationhood an "evil". Like Christianity, it's an integral (and probably very necessary) part of the history of evolving European society. But both are based on lies (myths, if you prefer) and have served primarily as instruments of exploitation - notwithstanding their secondary roles as "service providers", without which we could not have progressed to where we are now (materially or "spiritually"). And we remain dependent on them - certainly on those of the state.
As with all animals, individual human nature and behaviour evolved to exploit the environment, which back then was in an extended family group exploiting the natural environment, which included other, rival, groups of humans. This is very important to keep in mind, since the nation state has combined and confounded these two very distinct environments: the family group, with which we naturally identified and practiced mutuality, and the natural environment (including humans which did not belong to our own family group) which we were inclined to exploit, not enter into mutuality with.
Trade developed as a safer alternative to taking things by force, and thus, from a behavioural perspective, is also a form of exploitation; but as I say, the nation state (now in collusion with free-market capitalism) has confounded matters: the inclination to fairness and mutuality (now with our country and company) on the one hand, and to (even ruthless) exploitation (of members of our own country and company) on the other.
The essential point is that the nation state and free-market capitalism are both deeply rooted in our dumb-animal nature and behaviour, which they developed specifically to serve and exploit (unsurprisingly, in view of our origins, although largely we are in denial of it), having harnessed our natural responses to two very different (no longer extant) environments.
Because we are totally immersed in and dependent on the situation (the political and socio-economic order) as it is, we use our large brains to rationalize and justify it all, thus blinding ourselves to reality and the possibility of changing it to our mutual, long-term, enlightened (instead of to our short-sighted, dumb-animal) advantage.
The problem is not just the inherent unjustness and inhumanity of our socio-economic order (we've managed to live with these for centuries), but its inherent non-sustainability on our finite and vulnerable planet, the limits of whose long (even medium)-term carrying capacity we have probably already exceeded, but insanely continue to press on, because (blinded by our own rationalizations of the status quo) we are unable to envisage an alternative.
Excuse the digression, but it is essential to realize that we HAVE to make rapid and radical (i.e. revolutionary) changes to our political and socio-economic order in order to survive. Otherwise, a ruthless Mother Nature (who is already "warming up" for the job) will do it for us.
It is not a matter of "state" vs. "race", but of individuals taking responsibility and deciding for themselves - instead of effectively being forced or manipulated by government, business and the media (all dominated by our dumb-animal nature) - where they belong and how things should be organized.
We have the freedom, and now also the technology (especially the Internet and biometrics) to identify and organize ourselves, grass-roots democratically. Race is important (certainly for most people), but is not the only thing that will influence our free choice of the particular society and communities we wish to belong to, and which I envisage - in great number, themselves self-organizing - gradually replacing the nation state.
Although, I hasten to add, I haven't yet quite got all the details worked out . . . .
5th Post
[cunningrunt]: "If only I fancied unattractive, obese women with beautiful minds - my life would be a lot easier!"
An new generation, the same old problems. I know exactly how you feel.
[cunningrunt]: "Has anyone else noticed that around 50% of Children's TV presenters seem to be 'non-white' these days? Hardly representative of current UK demographics, now is it? You'd almost think the BBC was trying to promote a form of social engineering..but they wouldn't do anything like that, now would they?"
With that you hit about 20 nails (with bells attached) squarely and simultaneously on the head - and the resounding silence which followed is astonishing . . . .
For a long while, the BBC, along with other liberal/leftwing media establishments (all very beholden to the state, of course), has been purposefully pursuing a programme of encouraging and normalizing the "melting pot" of multiracial/multicultural society and the process of national miscegenation, which eventually and inevitably will lead to an entirely (certainly predominantly) mixed-race population - very different to the one which has occupied these islands for the past few thousand years. And anyone expressing reservations (let alone criticism or opposition), up until now at least, has simply been dismissed (and essentially eliminated) as a "racist".
The individual and social psychology and politics behind all this is barely recognized behind a cloak of "progressive" moral self-righteousness (and an ideology which is the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazism's insane and abhorrent racial ideology). Believe it or not, it is part of the continuing (subconscious), dumb-animal, struggle for survival and advantage in our "socio-economic environment".
Unless we want to continue down this path (the only alternative to which is NOT , as we have been forced to believe, RACISM), and evolutionary cul-de-sac, we need to understand what's going on - something I am attempting to do (however inadequately) in a section of my website on the MADNESS of mass immigration (into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country) and the "melting pot" of multi-mass society: http://www.spaceship-earth.org/Letters/Editor/Index-non-pc.htm.
As I've already pointed out, the nation state and free-market capitalism (i.e. our entire socio-economic order), although they serve us too and we depend on them, developed first and foremost to exploit society. This (predominantly exploitative, but sold as the opposite) development continues with globalization, mass migration and the creation of national "multi-mass societies".
It is time we started discussing and preparing for the grass-roots (non-violent) REVOLUTION which is all that can save us.
[nilpferd]: ". . . . . maybe there are enough problems in the world without trying to change the basic structures of human relationship."
You've hit an important nail on the head there. The reason, I think you will find, that all past attempts to change society for the better have failed (often catastrophically), or had just very limited and temporary success, was because the "basic structures of human relationship" were not known or understood. This is where I believe that I have made some progress, with my "evolutionary/anthropological" model of society. It hasn't caught on yet, although the model explains THAT as well, notwithstanding that it may have more to do with the fact that I haven't yet presented (published) it in a very coherent or convincing fashion.
You are right, I am "striving to define an alternative" (socio-economic order to the nation state and free-market capitalism), based, needless to say this model of society I'm still developing, and on what I consider to be man's more enlightened, human nature, instead of his exploitative, dumb-animal nature, as the existing one is. Although, I envisage a multiplicity of alternative societies, self-organized grass-roots democratically, of which my own will be just one (hopefully!), whereby citizenship of more than one society will perhaps be the rule rather than the exception. These self-organizing and self-defining societies will themselves self-organize, initially and necessarily within the existing framework (and power structures) of the nation state, and possibly the EU.
The problem with the democratic nation state (and why it is inherently unsustainable) is that it tries to please everyone - although still especially those in the most influential and privileged positions, of course. This was hardly satisfactory even when we were an ethnically and culturally pretty homogenous society. Now that we are a multiracial/multicultural society, it's just a joke - or would be if it were not such a serious issue.
The state is driven by its own (i.e. our animal) nature to serve (and shape!) society for the principal purpose of exploiting it. Obviously we do not do this consciously, which is why it is so difficult, even for the experts, to grasp.
Because we are all completely dependent on the existing socio-economic order pretty much as it is, the resistance to change grows exponentially as everyone seeks to protect their own particular interests in it. Thus, the only way of effecting the rapid and radical (i.e. revolutionary) changes necessary for our survival, is not by trying to change it, but by creating clearly distinguishable alternatives to it within it, which, as they grow and develop, we can transfer our activities, dependencies and vested interests to, when we are ready and at our own pace (and without coercion - which would be counterproductive).
I say alternatives (plural), because that way we don't tie ourselves in knots arguing about which alternative it should be; if there are enough to choose from, one is bound to be to our liking, and if not, we can create a new one.
We shouldn't see the nation state as our enemy, either. We needed it to get us this far, and still depend on it. It's purpose now is not to try and preserve itself (although some, no doubt, will unwisely do just that), but to give birth to the next major stage in European social evolution: a socio-economic order rooted, grass-roots democratically, in our more enlightened, human nature.
The Internet and biometrics will play a central role in facilitating the development of these alternative societies, which will need protection from the identity deception essential to those still only or mainly interested in exploiting them.
[Reimer], We seem to see things similarly. How do you find the model of society I'm always banging on about for explaining your observations too?
[followyourheart]: "There already is only one race. It is called humanity."
If this is true, what do we spend so much time discussing and arguing about? What is the CRE about? What are all those boxes we have to select from on the census and many other forms asking for our ethnicity about? Why to do I, like most people, identify more readily with members of my own race than with members of other races?
Or are you, [followyourheart], just stating a belief: like, "There is only one God. He is called Yahweh, Allah, or whatever", so that all other "true believers" know that you are one of them, and that the rest of us are just ("racist") scum and damned to hellfire?
It seems to me that human racial diversity, like biodiversity, is something to be valued and cultivated, rather than us willfully destroying it in the melting pot of general miscegenation and the interests of the nation state and global free-market capitalism.
[cunningrunt], it's interesting that you bring up the matter of race (i.e. racial) and sexual attraction, which, I'm inclined to think, have much in common. I mean, is it acceptable for a man to discriminate against a woman simply on account of physical attributes? Are not all women human beings who should be treated absolutely equally?
On a slightly more serious note: it is not just my emotional response to the physical attractiveness of women that I observe, and the role that race plays in it (for me too, black women do not usually show up on the radar), but to children as well, which, if you think about it, is hardly surprising, them being a product of sexual attractiveness.
I tend to have a much warmer response towards children of my own race, certainly initially, before (if I ever do) get to know them, than to children of other races. One is not supposed to admit to such ("racist") feelings, of course, but I'm sure (and scientific research, I believe, confirms it) that most, if not all, people, whatever their race, if they are honest with themselves, feel much the same. It would be evolutionary nonsense not to.
Central to understanding this whole issue is the fact that if people can be made to feel guilty and ashamed of their natural feelings and inclinations, they are easier to control and manipulate as a society. In the middle ages the Church exploited this, not just, but especially in respect to sexual feelings. Today it is exploited by the state with the fervent support of liberal/leftwing ideology, which demands that we suppress natural feelings in respect to racial differences rather than to sex.
Sexual and racial feeling do have to be controlled, of course, along with others (in a civilized and humane society), but it should be the individual rather than the Church or the state that does it. Only that would rob the state of much of its power in controlling society, just as it did the church.
Are present-day militant "anti-racists" and "antifascists" not very reminiscent of those fanatical medieval Christians who hunted down (and sometimes burned) non-believers and heretics, while keeping everyone else (including themselves, no doubt) in mortal fear of their own, perfectly natural, sinful thoughts and feelings?
9th Post (not posted because thread closed)