Skip to content

Review: Bradley “The Iceman Inheritance”

May 7, 2017

The Iceman Inheritance Micael Bradley
©1978 Michael Bradley; originally published by Dorset Publishing, Inc.; reading 1991 Kayode Publications (New York) 1st printing

Figured I should finally read this and review it, since I have thought of and mentioned its premise a lot over the years. I first saw this IIRC in the 90’s. My family had it, and my father was talking about it, IIRC. It was a printing I can’t find now, where the cover showed an actual man made of ice, displaying a very aggressive looking expression.

The premise was that the rough environment of Ice Age Europe is what led “Western” civilizations to be overall “aggressive”, leading to their conquest of much of the world. The very first words; the “contention” (also the title of Part One), “This book is racist!” The irony being that the race being critiqued (“I will attempt to show that racism is a predisposition of but once race of Mankind…”) is the white race, and and by a white Canadian author!
Already hearing so much of what’s now called “dog whistling” rhetoric for over a decade back then, which extolled the virtues of the White Western Christian civilization, contrasted with the “laziness” of the black race (now encoded as “Western/American exceptionalism”), and developing a presentation of the Gospel as teaching all men are equal (made in God’s image), but “fallen” into being “sinful” (though in different manifestations often), it made sense as an a great proof of the Bible teaching.

But when I glanced at it, I found it full of discussion of prehistory and particularly evolutionary theory, such as frequent mention of the “Neanderthals”. While I was never a solid [young earth] “Creationist”, I at that point did not know what to make of either theory, and while opposing the conspiratorial rhetoric and rigid literalism of the more fundamentalistic creationists; I still was not ready to really deal with taking the problem as far back as neanderthals (pre-homosapiens or “mankind” proper; think: “cavemen” who are seemingly half-ape). I wanted something that placed man’s problems with “the Fall” into sin, that occurred in our current homo-sapiens state.
So I basically put it aside, and eventually gave the book away.

My mother later is given another one; the copy I have now, with the standard cover showing a hand smashing something with a rock. (This could also be found on Afrocentric book tables on the street). One time, later, when she was giving away books, including this one, I this time decided to keep it. So it sat on my shelf for years.

Forward to today’s political climate, where the more radical racists are coming out into the open, dubbed the “alt-right” (even to the point of denouncing the old dog-whistlers for their indirect language, which they call “cuckery”), and boldly pitching white supremacy in contrast to black “pathology”. They dress down all of our “problems”, and put together patterns of bad character, as I have cited in Makers-Takers and think nothing of how they could happen to end up in the “good” group. It’s just “fact” and “truth”, supported by statistics. As far back as the old writings on the Right Wing, I had cited the premise of the book, and pointed out that what is being pointed at in the black community is basically the same effect on a smaller scale. The rough environments we’ve been placed in have made us more aggressive; hence all the much touted “crime” in the cities. So we’re proven to be essentially all the same, just like the Gospel teaches!

This is basically the liberal response to everything, from crime, to even the genetic “bell curve” hypothesis, which had actually reared its head again in that mid 90’s period. But the alt-right just dismisses this, and focuses on what’s seen now, in the statistics, deeming the blacks “insoluble”, and going as far as to criticize the nation and its founders for bringing us here in the first place, and even dismissing the Constitution. (So the other conservatives who uphold those things are seen as betraying the race in favor of country, hence the likening it to “cuckolding”!)

Meanwhile, life seems to be getting rougher and rougher (for the average person), both economically, and organizationally (like how litigiousness causes agencies like mine to pile more and more rules and harsher penalties for breaking them), with those on the top (in power) gaining more and more, exponentially!
And all of this is justified with the rhetoric of “rugged individualism”, where this is just the way “nature” is; basically Darwinism’s “natural selection” being true socio-economically, (even to the staunch Creationists who blamed “Darwinism” for the fall of the nation!) and the poor and weak are always to blame for not “pulling their bootstraps”. Those who make it to the top are uncritically assumed to have an almost blameless character (and thus, the only ones who have “earned” their “freedom”, and thus should have almost no regulation in how they rule over others).

I kept finding myself more and more saying how they are creating a practical “Ice Age”, where it’s “dog eat dog” and survival of the fittest. This came to mind especially when watching Zeitgeist, with its discussion of the illusion of “scarcity” presented while there’s really an “abundance” being hoarded away. This is basically the survival instinct of an environment like a frozen wilderness, where you have to keep taking, storing, taking, storing… etc.; not because you necessarily really need all of it right now, but just in case you run out and can’t get any more. That is how the corporate world is geared, and passing it down to everyone else. And the aggression used to acquire stuff, and the “rugged individualism” used to justify it all, are just apart of the mindset.

All of this, in total irony given the right’s claim of how “exceptional” this society is. (Or, when they acknowledge what they think is wrong with it, it’s always other groups’ fault; whether the blacks, the Jews, or just the compromising “cucks” of either left or right. This, in the same breath of accusing blacks of “never accepting responsibility for anything”).

So this had me thinking more and more about this premise, and I figured I should finally sit down and read it, to see what it really says. Whether evolutionary or not, there must be something to it.

The 1990 foreword mentions an unpublished manuscript by Sigmund Freud (published as “A Phylogenetic Fantasy”) that suggested that Western man’s psychosexual aggressions were produced by glacial evolution during the last European Ice Age, as Bradley had first argued seven years earlier.
The introduction, by John Henrik Clarke of Hunter College summarizes the history of race. “There was no Europe in ancient times. The geographical area that would later be called Europe was not a functioning entity in world affairs when early civilizations were being developed in the Nile Valley and other river valleys in Africa and later in Western Asia (now mistakenly called the Middle East) and in mainland Asia in countries like India, China and later, Japan”. The first real show of European literacy began around 1250BC, with Homer’s Odyssey and the Iliad. They then “soon made a glaring discovery – Europe could not furnish them with enough food to properly feed them or enough material to properly clothe them. They began to look with covetous eyes at the more developed parts of the world”. What followed were the invasions of parts of Africa and Asia by the Greeks, Assyrians and Iranians (Persians).

The racism that plagues us today would have its origins in the 15th and 16th centuries, when Europe was stricken by poverty and established the slave trade to begin its economic recovery. The “official rationale of the Atlantic slave trade” started with a papal-sanctioned authorization of Spain and Portugal to reduce to servitude “infidels”, who had held Europe at bay since the age of the Crusades. While Europeans did enslave other Europeans for a much longer time than they enslaved Africans, this did not give birth to racism, but did lay the basis for feudalism.
They also at the time began colonization of the world, and what they call “colonization” of the Bible and the image of God. This created a contradiction, where they portrayed God as loving mankind and “no respecter” of men, but also who favored them over other people. Meanwhile, “The Europeans who were successful in Europe generally stayed in Europe”, so the New World became established by “a large number of people who were failures at home”. So, “Many of these Europeans felt called upon to make non-Europeans feel inferior so they they could convince themselves that they were a superior people”.
In the 20th century, with the rise of the “Yellow Peril” of Japan, this was when pseudoscientific racism began, and the propagation of the Teutonic origin theory.

Chapter 1 is on the “Greek gift” of Western technology and discusses medicine, nuclear war and the affect on the climate (greenhouse gas, etc), done in the name of “progress”, the “grain of truth” which “we” brought to “them“.
Chapter 2 is the “Greek gifts” of Western psychology and philosophy.
“Paradoxes” become “conflicts” (struggle between the spiritual and material, “free world” vs communism etc). “This weakness is alienation“, either from one truth of the paradox, or the other. We have to separate things.”
(Within Western religion, “paradox” is only used as a last resort to cover up incoherencies in doctrine, to silence questions when they have no further explanations. Examples are many arguments for the Trinity, God’s “love” versus “hatred”, free will vs election, and salvation or “sanctification” by “grace” (and imparted “power”) versus our own efforts. So in practice, they have become “conflicts” that have done what else, but cause “alienation” and division in the Church, into hundreds of denominations, many loudly denouncing others for “rejecting truth”, that to them is embodied in these “paradoxes” that they see as only becoming “conflicts” because of their opponents’ obstinance).

He then introduces the concept of “The Cronos Complex“; the title of his earlier book. That is that we differ from other species by our conception of time as a “territory”. Animals of course have “territories” that are spatial. I define space as a set of coordinates that are randomly accessible. You can go back and forth from one point to another. Time is sequential; about causation, and where we can’t go back to already passed points. This, animals can’t comprehend. So if you think of it, they really do not think in terms of time. They, with their “instincts” are totally in the “here and now”. Something happens, and they instinctively react. They do have memory, including things learned through stimulus-response. But they do not have the ability to preserve the past or plan for the future. Man has institutions like burial and religion, which is “past-present communication”, where writing is a “present-future communication”.
So just like with spatial territory, “we brought with us into the new dimension means of asserting and defending our territory” (p.16). This right away reminds me of conservative Christians’ polemics on the downfall of America, or even the West or white race in general. Clearly, they are defending “territory” (from the past) they see as being taken from them (in the present and future). So this territorialism actually ends up holding back further “progress”, where we feel threatened by the future. (p17f). So, “Man is a biological creature attempting to inhabit an environment that is non-biological. This is the paradox of human existence.” (p.18-9).

But he still got the sense that the Cronos complex didn’t tell the whole story; there was a second level of understanding, which was racial. This leads to chapter 3, “Child of Fire and Ice”. He starts off going into different mythologies, such as the Nazis’ “fourth cycle” the legend of Niord, the first hunter, who defeated the Worm Oroubourous by the use of fire, and deep in the earth, he became encased in ice, and Neitzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, about the Persian prophet trying to keep the Iranian religion pure in the Caucasus and other middle eastern mountains. So most European peoples preserved some memory of coming from the east and originating in the Caucasus-Pamir chain of mountains.

Basically, it was during the “ice age”, called Würm I, where we had the cave fires amidst all the ice. Hence, “fire and ice”.
So (p.26), it is right away pointed out that out of this geological backdrop, “Not intelligence, nor morality, not ‘spirit’, but aggression, is responsible for the white man’s superiority. Aggression is responsible for the expansion of Caucasoids, both geographically and culturally, at the expense of other races.” As far as psychosexual matters, “We have a low frustration level because glacial adaptation robbed us of sufficiently effective sexual displacement activities. Our philosophical and religious conflicts are the result of a glacial distortion of primate behavior-patterns”.
This would explain the sexual repression in historic Christianity, where sexual mores were so meticulous and obsessively focused on and the “morality” of nations, and “holiness” of individuals were primarily judged based on, while other evils were OK if not championed. The one the most notable to me, being racism.

He then points out there is nothing innate or external about “superiority”, for in an earlier epoch, the ape-tending pongids were “superior” to hominids in adapting to the forests covering much of the earth. But it was the change of the earth’s climate, from Miocene to Pliocene, where the earth entered a drought millions of years long, “hominid liabilities in the Miocene became assets during the Pliocene”. The failure to adapt to the forests left adaptational options open for the new environmental conditions. Neither the pongids nor the hominids had the least responsibility for this. It was basically “fate”, or the matter of timing, even over talent and temperament. This is something today’s “rugged individualists” refuse to comprehend.

Not intelligence, morality, nor ‘spirit’, but aggression, is responsible for the white man’s “superiority”, meaning their expansion at the expense of other races. There is nothing innate or external about this

Part Two is where we get into the Neanderthal-Caucasoids.
Chapter 4 “The Concept of Race” starts off discussing the viewpoints of two writers, Lother Tirala, a Nazi proponent of “Race”, and Ashley Montagu, an liberal proponent of “non-race”. Linnaeus (1785) was an early includer of man in the animal world, recognizing only one species, divided along the continental masses, into “europaeus”, “asiaticus”, “americanus” and “afer”. Buffon (1749) introduced the term “race” to mean “variety”.
Montagu had shown that modern racism stems from two separate fonts: a justification of slave economics, and inherent ans erroneous assumptions in systems of classification in evolutionary constructs. So, “It is ironic that both religion and Darwinism were used to justify racism, since each system vehemently opposed the other” (p.34). Both have used it against each other, down to the present. (I remember being so irritated to see racism mentioned in creationist Henry Morris’ Revelation Record; the first time I had ever seen it addressed in a fundamentalist apologetic work; but only to be blamed on evolution —along with every other evil in the world! What about all the Genesis-believing Christians who [erroneously] said that God cursed “Ham”, the supposed father of the black race?)

At this point is introduced another name used frequently, C.S. Coon, who divided the blacks between the “Congoids” or contemporary black “negroes”, and the “Capoids”, who were the Bushmen and Hottentots, who differed from the [Congoid] Bantu they were enslaved by. This became one instance of race-based slavery the medieval world would know about. So, “what the blacks imposed on the Capoids was soon to be imposed upon the blacks by white Europeans”. (Coon’s full racial classification consists of “Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid”, “Australoid”, “Congoid” and “Capoid”. I believe the official system now narrows it down to Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid).

Yet, the natives of Africa and the Americas would actually be described by explorers (such as Vasco da Gama and Columbus) as superior in some ways (especially morally) to Europe’s peasants! Yet only a century later was when they would suddenly be characterized as “filthy, lazy pagans, of bestial morals, no better than dogs, and only fit for slavery” (which is what we are more familiar with in our history today). This was because medieval Europe considered slavery a circumstance rather than a mark of moral inferiority, and so, enslavement would be justified purely by the technological ability to do so. But it was the Church that aimed to provide a rationale for the circumstances, which was, regardless of how moral and intelligent they were, they were not yet Christians, and so slavery offered an opportunity for their conversion and the saving of their souls! (We see here how the Gospel was changed into purely a political tool, and no longer had anything to do with scripture. And the Christian world would later wonder why so many people reject it as “irrelevant”. What’s not covered, and you don’t really hear about anymore, is the earlier period of slavery, where they tried to forbid the converting of slaves. This probably connected with them not being seen as human. Eventually, of course, conversion became a handy tool to dominate over them).
So we see the origins of the debate that rages on today, as to whether the poor (and the minority “community” in general) are suffering from a series of bad circumstances, or their own moral inferiority.

There was also a division in both Europe and America, between North and South, where in both cases, the North was the first to oppose slavery. The north, because of the climate, became more industrial (through steam power), where the south remained more agricultural, and the large numbers of Africans and Amerinds were easy to exploit (p.37).
Where “Generations of slavery and lack of social and educational opportunities for black and Amerind fulfillment had inevitably resulted in poor development of these people and their offspring in comparison with the whites”, nature began to be appealed to as creating this inferiority, and by extension, “the order that God established”, and on the other front, notions of “less evolved” races, perhaps held by Darwin. He surmises the “sobering thought” that if Origin of Species had been published a decade earlier, the US might still be afflicted by slavery today! (p.40).

Basically, from here, much of the book gets into the origins of all men, rather than just the Caucasoids, especially when comparing Coon’s and the other anthropologists’ theories. He says he agrees with Coon’s theories of the races having different pre-human (Homo-erectus) ancestors, the Australoid-Pithecanthropus and Mongoloid-Sinoanthropus lines who crossed the ‘sapiens threshold’ separately (p47ff); but questions his objectivity in certain areas of the origins of races, where they lend to racist doctrines; like the Caucasoid and Mongoloid passing the sapiens threshold the earliest and thus being the most highly evolved, some Australoids straddling the threshold, and the Congoids being the newest and “mysterious”. Africa was the cradle of civilization, but only in the sense of being a “kindergarten”; “Europe and Asia were our principal schools”.
So ironically, I’ve seen where the alt-right, also accepting Neanderthal origins, uses it as more evidence of their supremacy, rather than any maladaptation. This would probably represent the strain of Coon’s theory.

P52-3 is a discussion and illustration of how all the major continents are cone shaped, narrowing toward the south, and so southern groups of people, such as the Bushmen (Capoids) and Australoids, were trapped, and easily conquered, or having to flee the continent (as in the case of the Australoids).

Chapter 5 is now on the Neanderthal-Caucasoids, which starts off on the “Heidelberg jaw” and other fossils. Coon tries to argue for a 300,000 or 400,000 year antiquity of sapience in Europe, against the disagreement of other experts.

The “Neanderthals” were named after Joachim Neander, originally “Neumann”; both meaning “new man”, which then was used by Dr. H. Schaaffhausen for a skull found in Neander’s Valley two centuries later.
The last glacial period; Würm, began 100,000 years ago, deepened into intense cold which then moderated 40,000 years ago in what’s called the Göttweig Interstadial, and then became savagely cold again until 8-10,000 BC with the last retreat of the glaciers. The Neanderthals died out with the warmer weather of the Göttweig Interstadial, when more modern men migrated to Europe. So the last Würmian cold snap was endured by modern men who were the ancestors of modern Europeans today.
I would have thought these peoples’ maladaptation to that climate would be the premise, but it seems this book focuses more on the Neanderthals. Mentioned (p.70) is that some scientists are divided in their opinion of the Neanderthals, and that they may have moved to Eurasia from elsewhere as the advancing Würmian glaciers drove more modern men out (so they were from the European-Caucasoid stock mixing with the Sinanthropus-Mongoloid), but there is some evidence some Neanderthal traits developed in Europe itself.
We next get into descriptions of the Neanderthals, beginning from the skull of LaChapelle aux Saints. They had the low broad skulls, with foreheads sloping back from large brow ridges and the prognathous jaw. You know, the typical “caveman” image. Eventually, Cro-Magnon was discovered and upheld, while Neanderthal came to be despised. Neanderthal did have some culture (awareness of the “past-present-future” continuum) though, with evidences of burial and religious sophistication.

Chapter 6 returns to the theme of “Fire and Ice: Psychobiology”, which basically continues the previous chapter with physical and cultural descriptions (Neanderthal faces were twice the size of modern ones and their heads an inch bigger in every direction but up, and also their short, stocky bodies likely “absurdly” round). Here, he discusses the Venus figurines and makes the odd suggestion of their wide hips or “hippiness” (larger than the norm for other races), being “typical” of European women (p.93, 107), and thus a holdover from the Neanderthals. That would make sense for them, but among today’s people, the Caucasians are usually slimmer, and blacks and other warm-climate women have the stereotypical “child-bearing hips”. So I’m not sure what this claim is about.
We also get a drawing of their huge feet and the insinuation that surviving remnants may have been the “abominable snowmen” of central Asia north of the Caucasus chain! (p.96, But for some reason, not the “Yeti” of the Himalayas).

In quotes from Montagu and Ivan T. Sanderson (respectively, below), debunked is the myth that Caucasoids are the most refined race, and Negroids are the most primitive; but rather closer to the opposite: “If racists would take the trouble to visit their local zoo and for a moment drop their air of superiority and take a dispassionate look at one of the apes, they would find the hair of these creatures lank, and that their lips are thin, and that their bodies are profusely covered with hair. In these characters the white man stands nearer the apes…”. I remember the Ansaars; the one time Brooklyn-based pseudo-Islamic sect that used to sell all the oils in the subway, had in one of their books a crude illustration making this point. People apparently associate Africans with apes because of the brown color, but for African people it’s their actual skin color. For apes, the color is mostly the fur, and under the fur, as the Ansaar booklet pointed out, is pinkish skin!
“The Negro so-called ‘race’ is apparently the newest and is the least pongid-like of all” (Ironically, Coon had tried to use the Negroes being newer as proof they were more primitive!) Sanderson then points to the same points regarding the lips and hair, as Montagu, and adds that the Mongoloids are very different from both. These primitive characteristics are inherited from the Neanderthal.
Next, he goes back into the cronos complex and territorialism, including through religion, and comparisons of the Congoid and Capoid and sexual dimorphism.

Part Three takes simply the title of the book. We think, finally, he’s going to get more to the central point. Chapter 7 is on “Love and Expression”. “Love is the middle ground between aggression and the ability to reproduce. A pair-bond, ‘love’, is displaced aggression. It is aggression ‘shoved aside’, literally, so that the partners can reproduce without threat.” (p130) “Lovers’ quarrels” and “playful fighting” are examples of this displaced aggression. While all peoples have similar courtship antics, only the West is said here to have a fully developed concept of “love”, as seen in the church-approved ‘courtly love’. A distinction is made between “eros” and “agape” (representing all other forms of love. It ignores the further distinctions, as found in scripture, of “philos“; and also “storge“, which is familial). “Just as the ‘love’ we call eros allows us to reproduce in the face of threat and aggression, so the ‘love’ we call agape allows us to live in the material world while yearning for the relationships awaiting us in eternity. Agape is that place where the needs of material survival are met while the realization of a past-present-future continuity is preserved.” He eventually gets into subjects such as female orgasm in western society and religious groups such as the Catharism/Albigensianism that produced the Troubadours of Provençal (langue-d’oc) fame and were destroyed by the prevailing Catholicism.
(Ironically, the Cathars/Albigenses are appealed to by some Baptists and various sects, in what’s called the “Trail of Blood” theory, where they try to trace their denominational lineage back to the original apostolic church via this persecuted group and others, seen as representing “the true Church through the ages”, in contrast to the powerful Catholics. Most of these modern sects have a heavy pietistic strain, and would probably reject the “romanticism” of the Troubadours as “sensual”, so they really do not know what they are talking about in identifying with this associated religious group, but then some try to say our knowledge of all of them is distorted by the persecutors.)

He along the way points out that the ancient Egyptian civilization was not a Western, Caucasoid achievement, but rather a multi-racial achievement. By 1500BC,
they began to record the invasions of the “sea peoples”. (p141) Rather than them swamping the Egyptian cultural influence (their numbers weren’t yet sufficient enough), they themselves were “Egyptianized”. (Mentioned is George Gurdjieff, a mystic who also created the “Enneagram of personality” concept discussed increasingly it seems, in typology circles. He was influenced by central Asian literacy and regarded Western fiction as “irrelevant”). Our “novels” focus on themes such as “love conquers all”, “love lost”, “love searched for”, or conflicts between eros and agape.

Chapter 8 is “Psychobiology in History and Society”. This discusses man’s control over nature, and defining “progress” in terms of increasing materialism. It then quickly goes back into the history of the different groups, and holds up ancient Egypt and China before the coming of maritime Europeans. Both incorporated progress, but neither were threatened by it, and should be emulated by Caucasoid civilization. Also is a discussion on how these civilizations differed in war. Being a soldier was not something romanticized as a glorious occupation in Egypt or China, and ships were designed differently, with Europeans having multiple levels in order to have more manpower, while Chinese and Egyptians simply made the one deck longer if needed, until materials limitations halted the size. This gets into the Western “frustration with nature”, leading to the urge to control it, through the desire to increase power and output.
Spending so much time on ship design, “we will not have to spend so much time on other progressive achievements which have more relevance to our crises”, so briefly mentioned are affects on health such as acupuncture, color and music (which Gurdjieff claimed the Egyptians used to stimulate plant growth). The orientation of pyramids affected the decomposition of organic substances! Where Westerners turned away from the “excess of sensation of technology and materialism”, then the cure must be the “asceticism” of some eastern philosophies. But the civilizations of China, Egypt and pre-Caucasoid India were not stable (and perhaps more fulfilling) because of asceticism, they were balanced, being highly erotic as well. (All three societies being “obsessed with fashion and cosmetics and jewelry), and had erotic art, yet both men and women were sex objects, rather than just women). So this then goes into western sexual maladaptation (and its resultant aggression) compared to those societies. So “our sexual-sensual behavior is not typical of civilized society but more resembles the sexual-sensual behavior of ‘primitive’ cultures retarded by adverse environmental conditions” (p184). This then uses as examples the dresses that overemphasize (distort) the hips or buttocks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the demand for differentiation in sex, like parents’ complaints not long before the book, of boys wearing long hair.

Chapter 9 is “Ouroubouros Unfettered”

This mainly discusses the possible future outcomes of “the Iceman inheritance” on the world:

1) Western man will destroy all of visible life off of the planet

2) Western man will destroy its own culture and industrialism and the rest of mankind will establish something similar to the ancient Egyptians and Chinese, with perhaps some vestiges of Western technology

3) Extra-terrestial intervention which might impose some new pattern upon us

4) Western Man, through self-examination, can overcome his problem and modify his behavior

5) Western man and the rest of the world can continue to “progress” along the lines already established by contemporary culture and technology

The first and last are right away eliminated as “vanities of power”, as human life is too resilient and adaptable to be destroyed by Western folly, but yet, the environment is too limited and delicate for things to go on as they are. (I’m surprised he didn’t mention the danger of us destroying all human life and possibly all life together, with our nuclear technology).

That leaves the other three. The one he believes is most likely, based on the pattern of history, is Western Civilization collapse on itself. (Looks that way to me as well).
He still then addresses the other two scenarios. So then we get several pages on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life (including UFO sightings, scientific evidence, with Carl Sagan and others mentioned). I myself too have wished, or thought this might be our only hope. Technically, God would fall into this category, hence my believing in a “Second Coming” of Christ when I saw that this was the key message of the Bible. However, since it seems that was something already fulfilled by the events shortly after the scripture canon was closed, it’s back to square one on that front. So likewise, even after all of this, intervention still appears unlikely and that “we will be left alone to solve our own problems”.

So he ends on the final possibility, of consciously changing our behavior. Hope-offering examples are provided of Neanderthal-Caucasians being able to live in relatively gentle and non-expansive communities (with the Celtic-Cathars/Albigenses as the main one), in addition to the other cultures. Drawing upon Cyrano de Bergerac, our main adversary is our vanity. “Instead of denying the existence of biological determinates in our behavior, we must somehow find the courage to look them straight in the mirror. If we can only find the courage that Cyrano lacked, we may yet live. And if we do not find love, we may at least discover compassion for ourselves ad others”.

It is the (often unnecessary) aggression based upon the notion of cultural-religious-moral racial rightness that makes Western behavior unique, over the “comparative aggression” of others. No other people has shared this justification for aggression and expansion

The appendix is “Objections, Counter-arguments and Retorts”. The main one being the complaint we’ve heard a lot in today’s racially charged rhetorical environment, of non-White societies being made into paradise, when they were really full of “Comparative aggression”. When writing Makers-Takers, I ran across a South African White Nationalist site where in the same breath as blacks being portrayed as subhuman monsters, but rebuffing criticism of the white race and western civilization, a commenter asks, incredulously, that according to the “liberals”, “How could one civilization [i.e. whites] be so bad?” (Shouldn’t the question be, how could they think blacks could be so bad, or whites could be so good? If it’s possible for one group to be so bad, then it’s possible for the other one as well).
Now, while just finishing this, someone posts some new video of some cowboy looking person challenging an Indian telling him to get off his land with the “fact” that that Indian’s tribe had moved in and killed off a previous tribe. The point, if it was OK when you did it, then it’s OK for us to do the same to your land. Commenters give their usual tripe about “the losers whining after centuries” and “that’s life, get over it”. Of course, this ignores that those same people, the descendants of the conquerors, are now whining, or no, screaming more than anyone else, that they are being “conquered”, or even destroyed (by the very people they are giving all of this tough talk to; whether the minorities, illegal immigrants, the godless liberals giving everything away to them, etc.) Why is that any different?

Recently, calling this out on a similar FB post, I’m given the whole rationale. Life doesn’t give past losers the right to complain, but it does give people currently under “attack” the right to “defend themselves”. So this means, they can tell others to “stop whining” and to be “thankful” for all the goodness of this society, but they can whine about being destroyed (when others simply oppose them for their aggression), or this nation “no longer” being “great, and thus themselves not be thankful for anything. In other words, they have “rights” to demand better things in life, but not others. It basically corresponds to this division they’ve made between “rights” and “entitlements”, with those criticizing others for “entitlements” being the ones who truly have the “rights”, —based simply on who’s in power now. It’s “Might makes right”, pure and simple. (Some of them, perhaps in the back of their mind realize that the same “nature” or God that allowed them to rise to power can one day allow someone to usurp it from them, but part of their “self-defense” is the blaming of what they fear will happen in the future on those seen as making them weak and giving the birthright away to others; so they can hypothetically lose some day, but it will be the fault of “the forces of evil”, like liberals and moderates, and so they can do all they can to try to prevent this now by vigorously fighting these enemy “others”).

That’s what explains this huge attribution shift; why both can do the same things (Romans 2), but only one is right. Who determined this (i.e. who has the “right” to complain, or what is a “right” or an “entitlement”), we don’t know. (But since there are so many Christians in this movement, then the idea that “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” still condemns their attitude, since it means they might be fighting God’s will. Also, from this, and even a nontheistic perspective; the neurotic focus on survival of the “race” or “culture”, especially as many of these people, Christian or not, claim to be “post-racial”). It’s “extended ego”, not any concern for the laws of either God or nature, and so the whole premise is mired in pure deceit.

So Bradley denies, saying that examples of non-Western aggression had been offered. “I have not intended to suggest that Neanderthal-Caucasoids have always proved more aggressive than anyone else… but merely that this major group of Mankind has a tendency toward higher aggression and that this has, in the aggregate, affected the pattern of history in obvious ways.
On the other hand, some examples given for exceptional non-Caucasoid aggression do seem to evaporate under closer scrutiny, especially with the quality of the aggression manifested.”

For the Mexican-Indians, he connects their aggression, especially connected to their religion, to Old World ideas and behavior, and hence, “yet another iceman inheritance imposed upon non-Western peoples”. (The Spaniards, for instance, found many religious parallels between Europe and Mexico. The suggestion, apparently, is that some of this had been brought over the Bering Strait by their ancestors). Until more data is analyzed, “the religious wars of Middle America’s populations cannot be used as an argument against this thesis.”
For the Mongol expansions, it’s about the quality of the aggression, meaning it was “normal” aggression, motivated by overpopulation (environmental necessity) rather than psychological motivation. The West has expanded even when unnecessary…in order to impose Western culture and religion on others. Or from the motivation of sheer greed, or from all these motivations combined in a mutually supportive justification structure. It is this expansion and aggression based upon the notion of cultural-religious-moral racial rightness and intolerance that makes Western behavior unique. I submit that no other people has shared this justification for aggression and expansion…certainly not the Mongols.”
He also presents argument regarding Japan, the Eskimos, and the Capoid and Australoid extinction at the hand of non-Caucasoid people.

This of course ties into the whole “Scriptural” component of the justification. Scripture really condemns the means of “expansion” and also condemns self-justification; we are supposed to admit our own sin and then show the same mercy we believe we have received, toward others. But scripture instead was taken out of context, where conquests or judgments seen in the Old Testament were taken as commands for “Christian” nations thousands of years later who did not receive the actual commands recorded there.
This is part of what Western “Christian” civilization has been held up to, and their validity dismissed for (Romans 2:24). But all conservative defenders can do is point to others; “what about them“? (Even though they know this would never fly, before God; but they are so sure they are right with God, and again, they criticize others as “never accepting responsibility”!) But those “others” are the ones you consider to be “godless heathens”, and yourselves the faithful Christians. You’re supposed to set the example of godliness, as the “light to the nations”, not appeal to them as justification of your own ungodliness in the same breath as condemning their ungodliness! This is why it seems popular culture is so against traditional Western and Christian “values”. (See also, Eph.4:27, John 9:41, Luke 12:48).

So the book does make and support its point, but it goes off into so much other details, it seems more like a general study of anthropology. So it doesn’t seem really hard-hitting enough. (I of course am looking for something that will be a good counter to both mainstream Right “dog whistling”, and alt-Right “supremacy”). It’s too easy to get lost in all the details about human evolution in general. What I had hoped to see was more specific connections with modern behavior and beliefs.

What I find as a cause for concern is the direction the author has seemed to go in the nearly 40 years since publishing the book, and as I saw in researching him for this project, it is possibly anti-semitism. Jews were barely mentioned in the old printing, but this newer publication promotional: is subtitled “A frightening publication history of Jewish media suppression”. It’s compared to the Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.
So on the page, he covers his history promoting the original publication.

Then, in early 1981, someone figured out the implications for Jews in the book’s presentation of evidence…

I had never considered this myself because it had been a long time since I had taken my own Jewish origins into any account. I had never even thought about any “Jewish implications” of the book. Neither did the Jewish publisher of the original Canadian edition, Larry Goldstein. And, obviously, Dr. Judith Posner had not thought about any “Jewish implications” either when she wrote an Introduction for The Iceman Inheritance – unless, of course, courageous Judy Posner simply had more affinity with all of humanity than with her own ethnic group. Jews were blandly mentioned on half a page in the 226-page book.

After 1981, some bookstores that had formerly carried the book were threatened with boycott and fire-bombing by Jewish pressure groups.

This eventually leads into something called the Khazar theory. I had recently been hearing this, probably from some FB “friends” with some radical “libertarian” or paleo-con leanings (who post things that may ultimately tie into the alt-right). It basically says the common “white” Jews (particularly the Ashkenazis) were actually descended from a Caucasian tribe from the Russian steppe. They “converted en-masse to Judaism about AD 740 in order to avoid religious, cultural and political control by either Moslems in Persia or by Christians in Byzantium. These ‘Jewish’ Khazars, along with Alans, Bulgars, Magyars and other minor steppe tribes, were subsequently dispersed all over Central and Eastern Europe about 500 years later by the Mongol invasion of AD 1218.”
He even points to the common physical traits, such as the faces of people like Barbara Streisand and Julia Roberts. (BTW, Donald Fagen would be a textbook example of that as well).

On one hand, this view was enticing, because I’ve always held the position that the original Israelites of the Bible were people of color, like the modern Palestinians and others, and even some current day Israelis. But it seems when you look at most people called “Jews” today, they are pure “white”, many even with blonde hair and blue eyes. Even though “white supremacists” reject them as part of their race, when growing up, they were always called “white” and identified themselves as such. The Census even considers them “Caucasian”.
So it is so easy to assume, as apparently the entire Church did, that these were what the people of the Bible looked like. Sure enough, nearly every Sunday-school and Bible illustration of Moses, Joseph, Judah, David, all the prophets, and Jesus and the apostles, are all white. It’s then further assumed the Israelites were the original racial stock, so the whiteness is then further projected back to Abraham, Shem (even though most will acknowledge the true Caucasian race as stemming from Japheth along with the Mongoloids), Noah, and the first humans, Adam and Eve.

This went right along with the racism of the Western Church. Whites, whether Israelite or not, were the “chosen” race. Blacks were “cursed” Ham.
(Hislop’s Two Babylons clearly identified Nimrod as “black”. Herbert Armstrong, who I entered the faith through, drawing upon Hislop in Mystery of the Ages, then proclaims all the “chosen” figures, from Adam to Noah and his sons, to “God’s chosen nation Israel”, to Jesus, as “white”, of course taking care to add “not that the white race is in any way superior” ⦅these people, including today’s “dog whistlers”, refuse to understand how innuendo works⦆, and admitting “God does not reveal in the Bible the precise origin of the different races”, but with what Wikipedia would call “weasel words”: “it is evident”, “happened to be”, prefaced with “undoubtedly”, with no evidence!
The point, the main sin in the pre-flood era and the Tower of Babel afterward was intermixing of races, which God had “separated”; and a desire “still inherent in human nature today”, with talk of the “unblemished, perfect lineage”, and an analogy to animal “thoroughbred or pedigreed stock”! (p148. The eternal “Wonderful World of Tommorrow” he concludes the book on, will continue these “boundaries” God has set!)

Also, some white supremacists held black skin as the “Mark of Cain”. Though all of Cain’s descendants were supposed to have perished in the Flood. They’ll probably say Ham’s wife had the genes; just as Armstrong says Eve had the “yellow” and “black” genes, passed through Noah’s son’s wives, though without ever connecting this to Cain.
Armstrong also held to “Anglo-Israelism”, which says that the US and Britain are two of the lost ten tribes of Israel, with other northern European nations being the other tribes. One of the conclusions from this is that all of the conquest and slavery that benefited these nations were fulfillment of the “promise” made to Abraham! He also took the prophecy of Amos 9:9, about the exiled nation “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth” as proving the race is totally “pure”. They never mixed with any other group; not one single person apparently, so all the “Israelites” you see today: Jews, Anglos, Nordics, etc., are the same exact pure “race” we read about in the Bible!

Anglo-Israelism is one of the main “heresies” evangelical apologetics condemns Armstrongism for, but you really wonder why they would even bother on that point, when it is compatible with, and in actuality, the logical extension of, much of traditional American evangelical preaching on politics and morality! Think, “God is taking away his blessings on our nation and cursing us because of all the sin today!”, as if we are breaking a specific national-divine covenant like the one made with Biblical Israel. Only Armstrongism is fully consistent in that.
Of course, to white supremacists, “Judah” rejected her Messiah, so then it’s their racial “cousins”, the other “chosen” people, the white “Christian” nations, whether linked lineally to Israel or not, who now inherit the “birthright” as the new “chosen” nations!)

So this “Khazar” theory would totally debunk that whole premise, and explain why Jews appear to be Caucasian (aside from trying to argue that it’s purely from mixing). So Bradley is tying it in with his Neanderthal “Iceman” premise, and now claiming they are trying to suppress the theory because of it. You can see more of this here.
So looking up the Khazar theory, I see it is lumped in with “antisemitism”, and also (as it would figure) held by alt-right groups. It’s claimed to have been refuted, as no real genetic evidence connects Jews to this eastern group. So I’m not messing with that theory. (At least not until there is some more solid verification of it, and agreement that it is not simply antisemitic propaganda). There may have been some mixing with that group, but I just don’t trust anything alt-righters say. (Of course, they claim everyone is suppressing their “truths”, and it ultimately becomes more pre-supposed, biased conjecture than anything else).

Interestingly enough, those other “Russian steppe” groups mentioned above are the ones associated with the “Gypsies”, who were already, historically despised by Westerns. So it figures antisemites would benefit by tagging the Jews in with those peoples.
However, the initial basis of antisemitism, that they were the “murderers of Christ”, would then fall flat, as the gentile Khazars, being hundreds of miles away, had nothing to do with the Crucifixion. The modern advocates of this theory don’t seem to be thinking of that.

Of course, alt-righters are also against blacks, while this guy’s original premise seemed to be to admit the error of racism, explaining it anthropologically. So I’m really not sure where he’s coming from. (Him being part Jewish doesn’t necessarily help. Hitler himself apparently was as well. There are self-hating Jews, just as there are self-hating blacks). As mentioned before, some alt-righters even hold the Neanderthal origin theory as proving superiority.

Still, I think there is something to the basic premise, regarding “aggression” (whether it goes all the way back to Neanderthals, or the “modern people” who suffered similar conditions later). This is essentially what’s being held up in the Right as the very “character” others, especially the blacks, lack, and particularly in the whole “rugged individualism” premise of modern politics and economics (drawing upon their heavily romanticized “American frontier” roots).
Again, it feels like this society is becoming a virtual Ice Age, not literally, but politically and economically. They insist it is “exceptional”, but then they appeal to raw “nature” (including, again, the Christians; who largely voted for the unscrupulous Trump), and everything is being run like a frozen cave in the middle of Würm. Everyone just covers themselves and passes the buck to the less powerful, and no one cares. Again, dog-eat-dog; survival of the fittest, in the name of the “market” as justification for unbridled “nature”. Yet, we’re so much above the animals, and other people!

So with the alt-right on the warpath today, with the utter gall to be boldly wielding their views as infallible “truth” as if God shouted it down from Heaven, and never thinking in the least, that it might be “too good to be true” that they are so superior, or having no sense of any negative side to their achievements, this is something they should be checked with, especially since they hold to a central part of the premise, regarding the Neanderthals. Aggression is not really “superiority”. Perhaps in a survivalistic sense, but definitely not in a moral sense! For every “good”, there is a shadow of “bad”, so what is “exceptional” with technology and even religion has also been exceptionally “bad”, in some of what has been done with it. So this is something they should constantly be made aware of. And it’s certainly better than other theories, such as the ones of black “Muslim” and “Hebrew” groups that explain these things by “demonizing” the race, quite literally!

  1. With Columbus day approaching, that debate of course will now surface more:

    Columbus and our common civilization
    screen shot

    I agree they’re going a bit too far now, but the detractors to the criticism of the West need to realize that people tend to be harder on the West because the of the very fact that the West so loudly claims to be “exceptional”.
    What we see here is what’s now coming to be called “whataboutism”. Named after a common Trump rhetorical tactic: “what about” someone else (which is also what a child always does when caught doing something wrong. The flipside is “what about all the good I’ve done; doesn’t it outweigh the bad?”). So with Columbus (And other colonists, it’s “what about the brutality of those tribes to each other” (addressed in the OP above. Just like “what about black on black crime?” in instances of complaints against police violence against blacks).
    The only way we can prove we are “better” is by the sins of others, and then we throw in our rightness, thus reaffirming our superiority yet again in the process! It never stops!

    Some people I debate with then point out “war, etc. is a part of human history”, but then how does the West do the same things, say “everyone else is doing it” (hence, “whataboutism”), but then claim to be better?
    (Even if you appeal to technology, laws, etc. Every world power that arose appeared to have a command on those things, and yet they still fell. We are trying to be different, but we aren’t).

    That is what makes it seem like they are “responsible for all that ails the world” as people complain. Because they have gained power over much of it, but justified all the means, split off the evils involved to everyone else (including the conquered people themselves, or certain “rouge” politicians, usually the 20th century Democrats), so when others point back at the negative side of it from the beginning, it sounds like everyone is picking on the West (or “romanticizing” the conquered people, which is not the case at all). No, they’ve made themselves the biggest targets by wielding so much power over others, claiming some moral high ground on top of it, and refusing to see the negative side of it.

    But if we claim to be so much “better” than those tribes (which was often used as the justification for subjugating them to begin with), then we will be held up to it (so to answer the question, it’s our own standard we are being held up to which was supposedly based on Scripture, which doesn’t change (which conservatives always loudly emphasized), even if they did compromise those standards back in Columbus’ day), and the point is, as the Gospel teaches, that all are sinful, none are “exceptional”, they only sin in different ways, and made more significant with whatever power they have in the world.

  2. Why It’s Impossible For Western Civilization To Be White
    Many in both political camps apparently agree that because Western civilization developed largely among light-skinned Anglo-Europeans, Western identity is reducible to whiteness.

    Criticizes both the “alt-right bigots” and also “leftist elites”, which would be referring to liberals who push back against “Western Civilization” because of the racism and other bigotry done in it’s name. So it’s like they are granting it to the racists as being associated with whiteness, and then of course push for multiculturalism instead.

    I think the article starts off good, but is ultimately defining “the West” in terms of IDEALS, and of course, Christianity, but ignore how both have often been CO-OPTED by a racial agenda, so that defending the ideals becomes defending the race (which is what the alt-right does, but the mainstream conservatives go along with it as well); as the ideals are taken as proof of “cultural” superiority of the race, and all of this as part of the argument against any remediation of the injustices done against other races which are seen as unfairly exacting from the dominant race.

  3. The opening point, above, about the type of people who fled Europe to come to America, is made by Tm Wise, in light of Trump’s shocking statement about Africa and Haiti (in contrast to Norway):


    The Anglos, being an instrumental, transactional culture — people who prioritize money over relationships, power over respect, fear over love — have always worshipped the deal.

    You see, we Anglos have a problem. We cannot coexist. We must reign supreme. And that trait is what lies at the roots of the Anglo world’s collapse. Because the 21st century requires all the “co” stuff — cooperation, commitment, partnership. But we do not know to do that — because we are empire builders, gunslingers, sword-swingers. We are not equipped mentally for this century, my friends. We are obsolete — because all we really want is supremacy, not prosperity. Let me explain.

    This fetishization of the “deal” has deep roots in Anglo history. Feudalism was a long series of deals. Pledge your fealty to me, and I will protect you. Arise, I dub thee Sir Ownalot — these lands are all yours, and these peasants are all yours to have. This was the model Anglo nations developed — an attitude of what we might call supremacy. It blossomed later, of course, when other races were encountered, into white supremacy. But see the point: it was always about who was on top, who had the most power, who owned whom. Who was that? Inevitably, the one who could do the most violence. From Macbeth to Dubya — what marks the Anglo leader out is his propensity for extreme violence. How else to get the best “deal”? You can hardly have it as an equal.

    And that brings me to what the collapse of the Anglo world is really about. Supremacy. Anglos have always believed they are different, special, superior — entitled to own the world, to possess it like a promised land. It’s true that other societies, like India, had castes. It’s true that Europe tried to build empires. But mostly, it failed to rival those of Anglos — because supremacy was never really so much a linchpin of its identity, and it rejected it wholly and fiercely after the last war. It’s Anglos who have always been, and remain the most individualists, instrumental, transactional culture in the world — always looking for ways to maximize their advantage, selfishly, with whatever they can get away with. And that desperate, cloying need for supremacy, which is what made them slavers and colonialists yesterday, is precisely what is undoing them now.

    Anglo culture has always been driven by this belief: we must be the best. You can still see it today. I must live my best life, be my best self, do my best work. Then we will be a nation of the best. What other kind of nation is there worth being? Don’t only the best — the strongest — survive? I must be better than everyone else. In the whole world. They must admire and respect and fear and desire me. I must be the dominator. I must own them, or at least control them. I must have the most. I must be supreme. That is the Anglo mindset, my friends. It is all we do, really, in Anglo societies, if we are honest.

    But what happens when a culture whose deepest underlying belief is that they must reign supreme over the whole world finds, one day…they can’t? That the world doesn’t want aggressive, selfish, violent empire-builders anymore? Bang! Implosion does. And that is what this special moment in Anglo history is really about. The collision of this deep seated need for supremacy with the reality of a world in which Anglos are no longer supreme. No longer the best at…anything.

    The world’s best food comes from Europe. The best cars, Germany. The best democracy, maybe Switzerland. The best art and fashion, France and Italy. The best literature, maybe Japan and France. The best economies and societies, Scandinavia. What are Anglo societies best at anymore? Nothing, my friends. Nothing at all. But the more interesting question is what were they best at? The unfortunate answer is: violence. They conquered the world through violence. Through armies and navies and drones and bombs.

    The rise of the Anglo world has everything to do with violence. It is how they attained supremacy (and when I say supremacy, I don’t just mean “racial”, I mean “needing to dominate others and control them”, I mean superiority in all aspects.)

    So the primary need of Anglo culture, its social psychology, is supremacy, being above everyone else. And the only way we know how to get it, how to achieve it, when it can’t be had so easily, is through sudden explosions of violence. Think of the fake war in Iraq. Think of the long centuries of slavery and colonialism. Think of the strange histories we tell ourselves in America and Britain — that our rise had nothing to do with our violence, our cruelty, our weapons, but only with our kindness and ingenuity, even while we were the last slavers in all the world. Do you see how the lie reveals the truth?

    So now here we are — throwing a very special kind of tantrum. We cannot have what we need most anymore. To reign supreme over everyone else. To have the very best “deal” of all. Why won’t you give us a better deal, cry the Brits to the EU? We’re special! The EU laughs. I won’t open this government until I have a better “deal”, bellows Trump. I’m special. Nobody knows what to do. Aren’t we special, after all?

    In both cases — when we can’t reign supreme, we will throw a massive tantrum. We will build a wall. We will close our eyes tight as we can, to shut out a world in which we are not the rulers and masters anymore — just equal partners, if we would like to be. But we would not like to be equal, you see. To a mind which needs supremacy for validation, for self-worth, because it believes otherwise it is nothing at all, to be treated as an equal is the most horrific thing of all. I cannot be equal if I need to be supreme. Then I am the greatest failure of all — just like you. But you are my slave, my possession, nothing. The mindset of supremacy can never accept equality. The wall is the only thing defending us from this difficult truth — so what happens when we can’t even have that? Bang! Meltdown.

    So if we can’t have the wall, we cry, then we will simply burn it all down. We will let our societies run short of food and medicine. We will shut down the government. We will throw hundreds of thousands out of work. We will let everything fall apart. We will set fire to the house of democracy, to the pillars of democracy, to the rafters of history. Nothing will be left — but that is alright. At least we will have our wall to protect us. We need these foolish, foolish walls to defend us from the truth that Anglos can’t reign supreme anymore. That our identities are forged solely on supremacy. We need protection from the truth, my friends. We need it so badly, that we’ll burn our very own houses down just to have those walls.

    View at

    capitalism’s reach extends much further than its economic effects; it also shapes our ideology and how we perceive our place in the world. Modern-day capitalism, with its unshakable faith in deregulated markets, privatization of the public sphere, and austerity budgets, has of course contributed to our financial misery, leading to mass hopelessness and anxiety. But far from being confined to economic policy, contemporary capitalism (often called “neoliberalism”) also embodies a philosophical belief that self-interest and competition, not cooperation, should pervade every aspect of our lives. In short, our world is shaped in the image of the market. For those in distress, Margaret Thatcher’s oft-cited mantra, “There is no such thing as society,” sends the most disturbing possible message: “You’re on your own.”

    The psychological toll of this market-extremist thinking is ubiquitous and measurable. A long line of social science research has shown that unemployed people are much more likely to become depressed; after all, under the reigning ideology, our self-worth is measured by our economic output. Moreover, since the market is (we are told) a level playing field, with no single actor appearing as the obvious coordinator, those who happen to be losers in this global scramble ostensibly have no one to blame but themselves. In such a world, it is extremely dangerous to fall below average — to be deemed inadequate, too lazy or incapable of pulling one’s weight, dependent on government handouts, and ultimately a burden on society.

    • An excellent repeat of the points on the Anglo world!

      The Age of Collective Delusion
      Why Societies Unable to Cope With Reality are Retreating Into Fantasies Which Rip Them Apart

      When we say things like “the truth doesn’t matter anymore” or “our leaders are pathological liars” or “nobody can reason with those people”, we’re talking, really about collective delusions: a psychology which can’t distinguish what’s real from what’s imagined anymore. Doesn’t that line seem to have been crossed — that enough people can’t tell what’s real from what’s imagined — to plunge even rich, powerful societies like America and Britain into spectacular breakdowns, that the world’s jaws are dropped by…in just a few short years? That’s how powerful collective delusion are, my friends — and we ignore them, their growth and genesis, their existence and reality, at our peril.

      What is “Make America Great Again!” or “Brexit means Brexit!” but a delusion of grandeur, really? The technical definition is “a sense of over-inflated worth, power, or status” — or more accurately, the need for it. And that is exactly what we observe spreading around the globe — as the global economy stalls, societies are reverting to age old supremacies. Our tribe must be number one! Our nation is the best! Our destiny is not to be poor! We are the rulers of the world — everything belongs to us! This is the fundamental delusion behind the spreading wave of global neo-fascism — a return to the imperial politics of tribal warfare, the need to be superior to others, instead of coexisting as equals.

      Delusions of grandeur are afflicting the English-speaking world first and hardest because the English-speaking world has long had a fragile psychology of narcissism. Britain and then America built the world’s mightiest empires. They came to think the world revolved around them — and in a way, it did — but only by force, not through consent. Brexit and Trumpism are the shadows of these dead empires, the feelings of inadequacy and neglect that haven’t been “processed” yet, as an American psychologist might say. They are reflections of the need to be above, atop, beyond everyone else — and centered by them, too. But that world also requires a return to war, supremacy, hatred, and colonization — and that is why America and Britain are regressing now at lightspeed. Enough Americans and Brits genuinely believe they must be the most powerful and supreme people in the world to sacrifice their entire societies for that very cause — breaking up with neighbours, tearing up alliances, lashing out, putting kids in camps — which, of course, is a Pyrrhic victory for any modern society.

      The flipside of delusions of grandeur are persecution fantasies — and they often go hand in hand. If you are the best, the most superior, the most supreme — then why isn’t the world recognizing you? Because you are being persecuted by some malign, all-powerful monster. And if you could just get rid of them — why, then you would rise to attain your and rightful natural position of supremacy, emperor of the world.

      Again, because America and Britain have the fragile psychology of dying empires — an easily broken narcissism — they are prey to persecution fantasies, too. Who are the malign monsters keeping Britain from assuming its rightful position as ruler of the seas again? The EU — who is demonized and scapegoated for all Britain’s problems by Brexiters, from austerity to stagnation to a broken healthcare system. But none of these problems are the EU’s fault — they are Britain’s very own choices. Who are the malign monsters keeping America from “being great”? They are little immigrant and refugee children. Now, a little Salvadoran child cannot hurt a grown man — never mind: because they have supernatural to infect a whole society of the pure, with laziness, violence, and greed, they are to be put in camps, locked away, separated from their parents, put on show trial.

      Do you see the similarities here? You should. Both America and Britain have invented imaginary monsters to blame their problems on — and enough Americans and Brits believe that these monsters are persecuting them to destabilize their whole societies into teetering on the verge of the abyss. America is melting down into fascism — and British nationalism is about to blow up it’s economy like a suicide bomber. Both, though, are based on persecution fantasies, which are collective delusions.

      Now, if you shortchanged, disappointed, frustrated, angry, disillusioned — as many Americans and Brits do, by their systems, institutions, and leaders — what you likely to feel when a demagogue comes along and tells you something like this: you are rightfully one of the pure and true — the powerful and supreme — only you have been kept down by malign, mysterious monsters, who are persecuting you? You are likely to cheer and applaud, aren’t you? It’s not your fault you’ve voted for predators for years, which has only resulted in your own ruin. Not at all. It’s someone else’s fault. Now you don’t have to feel guilty, ashamed, stupid, foolish — bad. Instead, you have a target for that rage, that disappointment — you feel good, as that tension leaves you. But the price is that all those bad feelings are transformed into easy pleasures of hate. Whoosh! Instead of feeling bad at your own folly — you feel good, at demonizing and scapegoating and hunting and hating others (who have precisely nothing to do with the plight you’ve put yourself in).

      If you’re such a person — what do you feel for the demagogue who has taken your bad feelings, and turned them into good ones? Who has transformed the bitterness of your rage into the pleasure of hate? You feel a strong, almost unbreakable bond with such a person. They become your surrogate parent — they have protected you from harm, in an unsafe, insecure world. They will always look out for you. (They won’t, objectively — this is just what you feel.)

      This delusion is called erotomania — it is the feeling that someone must really, really love you. Must genuinely care for you, must be thinking about you, puts your first. When, in fact, such a person wants nothing to do with you — or worse, is only exploiting you for their own benefit. And yet this is precisely the bond we see between Trumpists and their surrogate daddy, or true believers in Brexit and the Brexiteers who are leading them off a cliff.

  5. Why “Greed is Good” is a Myth
    The Truth About Money, and What it Says About Greed, Democracy, and Us

    Capitalism’s Traumas and Fears are Becoming its Delusions and Psychoses
    Why Capitalism Implodes (Psychologically) Into Fascism

    When you’re busy hating that vaccine, or that Mexican baby — LOL, the billionaires laugh, because you’re going to get poorer, while they get richer. You’ll buy anything, pay anything for some form of safety now — and all they have to do is find something cheap enough to sell you by the dozen.

  6. The (Real) State of the Union is Captured, Broken, and Corroded
    The Three Forces that Collapsed American Democracy

    America was an apartheid state until 1971. At the precise moment that it’s middle class begin to shrink — instead of keep growing — which was around 2015 or so, a large number of Americans turned right back to racism, hatred, fascism as the ordering principle of society. If a more genuine democracy wasn’t working out for them — well, why not just go back to the old days, of apartheid, of segregation, of hatred? That’s the message inside Trumpism, and by now, if we don’t get it, we’re either blind, or we’re simpletons. But see the linkage — American fascism surfaced the very first time after segregation ended that its middle class began to shrink, at the precise moment it did.

    Is that just one of history’s biggest coincidences? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. It’s hardly a coincidence. It tells us the way in which American democracy is broken — not just in the sense that it doesn’t “represent people” — but in the sense that it never really had time to mature and grow and develop into truly democratic norms, values, and attitudes. Enough people — the 30% — were still not really believers in democracy, in its roots of equality, justice, and freedom for all — to give up on it the exact moment their lives began to decline just a little bit. Bang! Democracy backslid the moment the middle class began to shrink. Into what?

    Into, well, everything. Here’s one of the truly weird things about American collapse. Some countries implode into theocracy — Iran. Some, into authoritarianism — Turkey. Some, plutocracy and oligarchy — Russia. Some, into fascism — Germany. But American collapse is made of all these things. All these various poisons are contesting control of the body social — hence, there are various retrograde politicians representing each of these forces. American collapse isn’t simple — into one form of tyranny — it’s complex, imploding into many, into strange forms of tyranny we haven’t seen before, really. Theocratic-fascist-oligarchy? Authoritarian-capitalist-supremacy? All of these things are vying for power, for control — and all remain possible.

    The interesting question is: why? The answer, to my mind, goes something like this. Because America was segregated so long, it had to develop a whole alternative universe of thought. Hence, its economics, it social thinking, its psychology, its political thought, all diverged sharply from the rest of the rich world. Europe and Canada built great public institutions, like healthcare and retirement, by understanding the lessons of the 20th century. But how could America? It had to justify its own segregation, racism, the apartheid it was still built on. Hence, it developed schools of thought that led it precisely nowhere — that were as bizarre to the rest of the world as they proved to be backwards in practice.

    Like what? Like all of American economics, which has proven to be a catastrophic failure. Like the “libertarian” school of policy — which goes so far as to say there should be no public schools. Like most of American political thinking, which imagines America’s only job in the world is to start wars and be its policeman — no matter how badly Americans suffer. Like American psychology, too, which preaches “grit” and “resilience”, instead of helping understand how capitalism, supremacy, and racism traumatize the offender, too, not just the victim.

    The Predator’s Trap
    Why Humanity’s Paralyzed By its Own Collapse

    Climate change tells us that we have long been in the grip of a terrible hubris. A great arrogance. We have believed that we were the masters of the world — not its guardians, not its custodians, not its caretakers, and certainly not its servants. This arrogance says that the planet is a thing to be exploited, shredded, wrecked, burned down — turned into profit and power and control, essentially. We use it like monkeys — playing our little tribal games. Let’s burn down that forest so that we can have the trinkets we use to establish our dominance hierarchies. We are a tribe of monkeys with the tools to destroy the world. We are a tribe of little monkeys who believed, amazingly, that they were gods. The world is about to teach us a lesson, just as nemesis always teaches hubris what arrogance is.

    Thinking — Western thinking in particular — says that the human species is indeed one great predator, and that is exactly what it should be, because being the greatest predator is the worthiest thing of all. The brave and noble and just thing. To be anything other than a predator, this line of thinking says, is to be weak, to be infirm, to be unworthy, to deserve to die, more or less. Every single aspect of our culture today tells us to be predatory, to be greedy, to be selfish, to take advantage, to put ourselves first.

    Who began to think this way? After all, it certainly wasn’t Jesus or Moses. The correct answer is: in the modern era, who didn’t? This bleak, dismal line of thought was formalized by Nietzsche, in his ideas of the Uberman, who trampled the weak, by expressing his will to power. But in truth Nietzsche just expressed an idea that by then had come to permeate Western culture: the notions of slavery and racial supremacy. Those ideas then traveled right down to us now, by way of America’s bizarre thinking, which came to celebrate greed, selfishness, abusiveness, as genteel ways to lionize the predator. All of Western thought at this point is essentially a celebration of the predator. In fact, the very word “lionize” suggests just such a thing.

    This mistake — seeing ourselves as top predators, as predation and abuse and insatiableness and domination and control being our only just and right and desirable destiny — can easily be seen in centuries of supremacy, of slavery, of colonialism — which led right down to killing off life on the planet. You see, it’s a kind of fractal thing. Human beings imagined that being the fiercest predator was the best thing — hence, the West colonized and enslaved the East. But the fiercest predator isn’t just the one who enslaves his own. You can hardly call it a surprise when a species that celebrates predatory values, that lionizes itself as the greatest predators in history then…goes on then to kill off all other life on the planet.

  7. The Three Mistakes That Led to the Collapse of the English-Speaking World

    Where did all our wealth come from, us Anglos? The truth is that it came from exploitative sources. America wouldn’t have been rich without slaves to pick the cotton it sold to the world. Britain wouldn’t have grown rich without the colonies to make the rum and sugar and tea it sold to the world. Anglo riches are built upon a long, terrible history of exploitation.

    It’s true that later inventors and innovators did great and wonderful things. But see the point. Edison’s lightbulb wouldn’t have come to be without all those slaves toiling away in the fields, letting Edison be an inventor, instead of a cotton-picker. All that “capital” invested in the Edison company wouldn’t have existed at all without exploitation to generate those profits in the first place.

    Now, a wise society would have understood this terrible mistake. Do you see it yet? It would have said to itself: “Wait. If our riches are based on exploitation, what happens when we run out of stuff, people, to exploit? We had better find a better way to wealth than merely using and abusing people. One day, we ourselves will face a reckoning. When we run out of people and things to exploit easily — the only ones left to hurt will be us.”

    And that’s exactly what happened. Anglos never outgrew the exploitative mentality that defined their path to political economic prosperity. Once they were slave-owners and colonial masters, cracking the whip. That state of affairs, if we’re honest, existed until the late 20th century, when segregation finally ended, and Britain’s colonies were no more. But the mentality remained — and so when Anglos had no more slave and underlings and subhumans to easily exploit — bang! — they began to exploit one another. Their hedge funds raided their pensions. Their corporations worked them to death, and never gave them a raise. Their banks looted their life savings. And so on. Anglos were exploiting each other now — because they had never outgrown the mentality, the attitude, of exploitation in the first place.

    Why didn’t Anglo societies ever outgrow exploitation? Why is the only path to wealth that they knew? Because to American economics, slavery and segregation never existed at all. Wealth came from the magical notion of “comparative advantage” — a polite way to say “we’re better than you.” But if slavery and segregation and colonialism never existed to economics…then neither did exploitation. The idea was literally whitewashed away, disappeared in Anglo thought.

    Hence, even today, Anglo economics argues that making people go without healthcare, retirement, savings, income, even safety for kids at school, is good for them. Just like once we might have said its good for our underlings to get a beating — it’ll toughen and shape them up. The ghost of exploitation haunts Anglo thinking — or the lack thereof — and means that Anglo mindsets, attitudes, ideas, haven’t progressed, really, in centuries.

    Anglo societies were the richest in history — and yet they squandered their wealth. They threw it away, literally letting their most predatory, foolish, selfish, and cruel hoard, loot, and raid it — meaning severe, chronic underinvestment in all the things people need most, whether education, healthcare, retirement. That all happened because Anglos never understood that exploitation doesn’t lead to enduring prosperity — it leads only to sudden collapse and implosion, when you run out of people and things to exploit, except yourself. And that’s because Anglos couldn’t bear to face the ugly truth of their historic path to wealth, that their rise had been based on exploitation. That’s a hard truth to face. So what happened instead?

    They — we — immersed ourselves in foolish, childish, triumphant fairy tales. We’re exceptional! Special! Manifest destiny! We’re the inheritors of Rome and Athens. The land of the free and the home of the brave! More like the land of greed and the home of the slave. If, that is, we’re honest. Anglos never had the courage or determination to face the truth of the sins of their history. So they could never learn from their mistakes. Hence, they kept making more and more mistakes — a mindset of exploitation led to throwing history’s greatest fortunes away. Until, finally, impoverished, broken, ruined, corrupted, their societies began to implode, like trees eroded at the roots.

  8. (How) American Collapse Resembles Soviet Collapse
    Six Ways America’s Collapse is Eerily Like the Soviet Union’s Last Days.

    One set of ideas is allowed in public discourse, and just one. Predatory capitalism. Everything else is “socialism.” The answer to everything is markets, profits, advantage — and self-interested “consumers” and corporate “people.” But these answers have failed catastrophically — just the same way that Soviet communism did. They have left people astoundingly worse off, especially compared to their peers in any other rich country. They have created a broken nation of powerless, impoverished people.

    And yet, still, nothing else is really allowed. Sure, AOC is famous for being a “socialist.” But how often are any of her ideas actually discussed — which aren’t hers at all, really, like the Green New Deal, but old European ones? Never. The most discussion that happens around these ideas is their “costs” — in other words, the capitalist perspective on public and social institutions (hey, what about the benefits?)

    American life is completely controlled by this set of idea — markets, profit, self-interest, advantage — to a degree that the rest of the world finds scary, funny, grotesque, and bizarre. Nobody else in any other rich country — probably even in any poor one — is so constantly encouraged to, told to, be so relentlessly individualistic, selfish, and greedy, no matter what, superficially pretty, empty on the inside.

  9. How Social Darwinism Destroyed America From the Inside
    Or, What Happens When the Average Person Believes in the Survival of the Fittest?

  10. Another summary of the “ice age” mentality:

    °Through the Reagan, Bush and now Trump eras, the rich were favored
    °Yet conservative pundits increasingly claimed programs for the lazy poor were draining the economy, and causing the rich to “take their money and jobs elsewhere”

    The superrich tell their followers that their problems are the poor and minorities’ fault.
    They scold the poor and minorities (or those standing up for them) as being “covetous”, on top of lazy and freeloading. “Wealth is only a few mouse clicks away”, they claim.

    So they portray themselves as innocent, and the poor and minorities as already getting everything that belongs to everyone else, and yet still wanting all that the rich have.

    When they are actually giving more to the “deserving” rich, and it still doesn’t “trickle down”, then they deny that the rich are being given anything, and continue saying the poor are getting everything. (“Grasshopper” analogy; rich=”hard working ants”, and are left in squalor along with EVERYONE else. You don’t see anyone in that story riding off with all the wealth; the grasshoppers simply fizzle it away into nothing, and there’s nothing left for anyone. This is supposed to be what happened in the Soviet Union and other leftist dictatorships; but that’s not true; there WERE people who prospered in those systems! It was the leaders who gained everything. (As “populist” rhetoric among conservatives will point out). This system only differs from that one in the leaders being “private” business, rather than the state.

    In real life if that were true, and the welfare recipients spent up all the money frivolously, that money would be going back into the economy. The conservatives are the ones to say “it’s not a pie; one having doesn’t mean there’s not enough for others”, but it clearly isn’t working that way).

    OR, the rich can’t help but hoard the wealth, because they are being “punished” to give to the undeserving poor.
    Or, again, it’s not a matter of hoarding; the poor are just too lazy to take all the opportunities available. Of course, this doesn’t address the struggling conservatives, who make up the base of those passing along this rhetoric. Some will actually be consistent, and at least subconsciously swallow the idea that they simply didn’t do enough to better themselves. Still, they will look with contempt at those beside them they see as getting something for nothing or not at least taking “responsibility” for themselves like they are. But it seems for most, their difficulties are the exception to the “personal responsibility” rule, and their plight is strictly the fault of the lazy poor.

    The dangers of moralism:

    Moralistic rhetoric is dangerous, because it can lead to all sorts of authoritarian actions, that the libertarian/populist conservatives today claim they would never do, and in fact, stand against. Particularly under the right circumstances
    Like, if you’re in debt, you’ve forfeited your “freedom”, because you were “irresponsible” enough to borrow something you couldn’t pay back. Never mind the necessity of certain things in light of impossible pricing. Like higher education. At this point, they’ll drag out their own supposed stories of working five jobs to afford it, and how today’s youth are just too lazy to do that. And that prices are so high to begin with, because of “liberal policies” aimed to give the “irresponsible” people the hard earned money of the “makers”.
    By leveling character judgments like that (and blaming it for the “ruin” of the nation), any “punishment” imaginable eventually becomes justified, in the name of “truth”, “justice”, and even “morality”.

  11. “Western Culture” is a Lie and a Sham
    View at

  12. Conotocarius permalink

    really enjoyed this read, an amazing deep-dive into the mind of a schizoid pseudointellectual

  13. Panic Over ‘Cancel Culture’ Is Another Example of Right-Wing Projection

    The nation’s most powerful CEOs declared the shareholder-or-bust era of capitalism is over. But is it?

    Friedman’s Dictum Is Finally Laid To Rest: So What’s The Function Of Companies Now?

    Knocking Down Trump Impeachment Excuses
    The 11 most common defenses and why they’re wrong

    No big deal, just some internet goofballs
    Trump didn’t cause the attack
    Some was preplanned, so Trump isn’t responsible
    But he said “peacefully”
    No one could get from Trump’s rally to the Capitol in time (Wrong. It’s less than 2 miles away).
    It was really Antifa and Black Lives Matter
    Trump’s no longer president, so it’s unconstitutional
    It’s not criminal incitement
    It was free speech
    It’s just partisanship
    You’ll have to hold other presidents who violate their oath of office accountable too
    Whatabout this other thing? (e.g. urban riots last year )
    My constituents don’t want me to
    If they can do this to him, what’ll they do to you?

    Parallels this meme I created!

    Speaking of an “ice age” mindset, look at what this mayor said:

    no one owes you

    Saw this here:

    Texas Proves We Live in a Culture of Toxic Individualism
    View at

    “Half the population jumps at the chance to blame everyone for their problems. They complain about victimhood until it suits them to play the victim.”

    “This is the entire point of government. Individuals contribute to a system that takes care of the group. We have a pretty big problem when elected officials are telling their own citizens to fend for themselves, mocking them as they literally freeze to death.”

    “This is how most conservatives think. They believe we should all pay a third of our incomes to them in taxes so they can take vacations in Cancun while everyone else fights for life in a sub-zero hell. When we demand anything in return, they’re taken aback. They call us lazy freeloaders and tell us we’re looking for handouts.

    These toxic individualists never practice what they preach. The minute something doesn’t go their way, they’re crying tears of rage. Not one of them could last a day in the extreme conditions they leave everyone else to deal with on their own. Worse, the people who elect them adopt the same mindset. According to them everyone should fend for themselves, until something awful and unexpected happens to them.
    That’s when their sense of collective responsibility kicks in. That’s when they make appeals to unity and empathy.
    When it serves them…”

  15. The Greatest Lie We Were Sold
    Capitalism has shaped the Western world through lies and guilt, and it is pushing humanity towards collective suicide.

    View at

    It’s Time for All The Highly Successful People to Come Clean
    True gratitude means admitting your privilege.
    View at

  16. Here’s Why You’re Broke, According to Wealthy Americans Who Skim My Articles
    The view from the top is judgmental.

    «Apparently, you complain too much.
    That’s the opinion of many wealthy Americans, those in the top ten percent who’ve managed to “work their way” into financial security. They believe the American dream is alive and well. They believe if you’re not a millionaire, or well on your way to becoming one, then it’s your fault. They think you made poor decisions, or that you’re lazy and entitled.

    They think you deserve poverty.»

    You should’ve started a business.
    You obviously sabotaged yourself. (“missed opportunities”)
    You just don’t want to work.
    You should’ve invested in the stock market.
    You want to own things. (i.e. “We should become a nation of renters”)

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Another excellent Progressive writer: Medium’s Umair Haque | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: