This article briefly describes Lynn’s view on what makes modern populations rise and fall. It then provides a demographic analysis of what happens to modern sub-fertile high-IQ Western populations when Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (IRDS) combines with External Relaxation (ERDS, in the form of super-fertile low-IQ non-Western immigration) into Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (DRDS). The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differentials may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance. [My emphasis.]Nyborg estimates that in Denmark, ethnic Danes will be outnumbered by those of foreign origin by 2085, that this will lead to a dramatic decline in the average national IQ. The results for Denmark can be extended, says Nyborg, to all of Western Europe.
Why were early dysgenic warnings neglected and the messengers demonized? Because too many leading scientists, politicians and intellectuals (Nyborg, 2003; in press) ignored Darwinian principles and started a historically hitherto unheard of voluntary, humanistic, democratic and financed replacement policy, whereby dwindling genetically weakened (Lynn, Harvey, & Nyborg, 2009) sub-fertile Western European populations will rapidly be replaced by more fertile low-IQ non-European immigrants.The Left is the real bastion of creationism; by denying virtually all systematic human differences except superficial traits - and some even appear to deny that when they speak of the social construction of race - they leave no room for natural selection. Anyone who speaks about these things is vilified a la Watson or Summers or any number of others. Only a few academics, such as Nyborg, Lynn, Jensen, and Rushton, largely ignored by the public and deliberately ignored by the science media, discuss these things amongst themselves.
Furthermore, although we are constantly reminded of the need for smart, talented people, who strangely enough almost always seem to come from abroad, there's little recognition that a modern, industrial society is generally dependent on a certain level of average IQ, as opposed to specific industries. The message of IQ and the Wealth of Nations has not reached the public sphere and shows no sign of doing so.
Can anything be done at this point about the grim European (and American) future predicted by Nyborg? Well, as he says, this "may lead to Western submission or civil resistance"? I'll hazard a guess that the economic crisis may turn out to be the thing that turns this around. So much of Western displacement depends on money, make-work jobs, welfare. Already there are some (few) signs that Europeans are waking up, which would have remained on the slow burner absent the financial crisis.
So much of Western displacement depends on money, make-work jobs, welfare.
ReplyDeleteOf course in the West when you talk immigration you're talking 'diversity', and regarding Europe (more specifically the UK) I like to post this link now and then:
Revealed: the diversity that defines a nation
One in three Muslim homes have dependent children but no working adults.
The article is a few years old, but I imagine the data in it is still mostly accurate.
(And BTW, many thanks to you Dennis for changing your commenting format/policy to do away with moderation.)
Hm, well, it is the smart people who run the show these days. It's not 90 IQ types who run government, media, academia, and the like.
ReplyDeleteSo while there is this attempt to praise IQ, and of course it is an important factor, it is also crystal clear that most of the smart people who get to positions of power and have high IQ fundamentally disagree with focusing on European racial and cultural survival. This applies to both "the Left" and Right. It's certainly not just the Left.
High IQ types also largely choose to forego preserving their heritage or ethnic groups. The two factors correlate so tightly it's almost ridiculous.
Why is that? And why is it that this proven correlation of high IQ and disregard of ethnocultural preservation so oddly leads to pro-European people promoting more high IQ? This is a form of severe avoidance of reality.
There is also very clearly a correlation between high IQ and propagation. It's not a positive one. So, natural selection in all Her wisdom is doing a cull. How can supporters of evolution and natural selection argue with this?
It is no solution to say we need more high IQ when that same high IQ clearly leads to not caring about high IQ, European heritage, or propagation.
Lastly, the fact that we have to wait for a crash to wake anyone up is quite a damning indictment of that same high IQ. If this side, the AltRight side, were so much smarter then presumably they/we would do something more effective than withdrawing from politics waiting for a collapse to save us.
It all comes down to the urge to signal openness and magnanimity. These get you status these days. When they start to carry in your face costs (choose between pension for gradma and goodies for coethnics or funding the muslims)they wont carry the same social benefit and will be cast aside.
ReplyDeleteI live in Sweden. My friends will slander the anti immigration party in public but after 1 beer will gladly admit their disgust with muslims.
If what should happen happens, there wont be any NATO to stop the conflict ala Yugoslavia in the 90s.
I agree with what Lockeford said about the (still nominally white) governing elite; elites are universalistic because that is what comes naturally to them. It's like the genetic propensity for intelligent people to be short sighted.
ReplyDeleteAnd he is right to talk about a "collapse" rather than an 'economic crisis'. Before realism could prevail the elite would have to lose control of the population; that would require something cataclysmic.
However, there is no reason to believe that an 'effective' solution is possible. As Conor Cruise O'Brien said about Ulster it's not a problem it's a conflict and conflicts have outcomes not solutions.
People are persistently underrating the costs of allowing anyone to come, underrating the cost of substituting for the public institutions and general high quality of environment from the status quo (particularly via overrating the quality and trainability of immigrants) and are underrating the pleasures of having children and their ease of raising, while overrating the economic benefits of allowing anyone to come (particularly the substitutability of immigrants) and overrating the importance of signalling a lack of xenophobia.
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that if we rated these things appropriately, none of this would have to happen, and we'd be better off, and even the Third and Second Worlders might be better off.
The problem is that it's the high IQ *sociopaths* that rise to the top. There is NO solution to this problem. Evil will always have the upper hand because evil will not self-limit (i.e. will not be "reasonable", or play by the "rules").
ReplyDelete> Only a few academics
ReplyDeleteStill, over and over I hear about one I'd never heard of, even after countless hours of reading dissident right materials. But I've forgotten most of the names.
Things will only start to really change when a critical mass of whites can't escape the suffering that comes with the non-white influx by moving away.
ReplyDeleteThe great majority of whites today live in areas away from significant non-white populations. So the price of the non-white influx isn't apparent except economically, and that influence is too diluted and at a distance to strongly associate it with the presence of so many non-whites. Even if whites work in bad areas, they can commute to homes in safer areas.
Whites, to my knowledge, have never lived in subjugation to brown people anywhere, ever (until recently in South Africa, and we see how that's turned out for the whites). So in my opinion, whites WILL say "enough" and get separation between themselves and non-whites in one way or another, at some point. But because it is human nature to put off unpleasantness as long as possible, it won't happen until there is just no safe place to live for a critical mass of whites. People won't tolerate their children being sacrificed for the ideal of "diversity". Unfortunately we still have a long way to go because it is still possible, and will be for a long time yet, for whites to move away from non-whites.
Thanks to Lockeford for his depressing but absolutely correct analysis of our predicament. Murray recently reported that American whites display two profiles: the top 20% are stable, happy, and rich, with two competent parents per household. The bottom 40% are very shaky because the negative effects of post Sixties liberalism plus the economic downturn. Most household are single parent-a recipe for disaster.
ReplyDeleteHigh IQ parents tend to have fewer children for complex reasons that include less religiosity, economic concerns, and the new need for self-fulfillment first advertised by the psychologist A. Maselow in the turbulent Sixties.Of course free sex in America can only cause the single parent variety to explode, greatly aggravating our problems. Alas, high IQ types are perfect stooges for the meme we at Mangans easily identify as egalitarian insanity, but if group selection was based on widespread altruism among hunter-gatherers, its victory by natural selection would explain the ease with which smart people buy into the meme.Thus, we HBD'ers are party poopers whose eye for diversity amidst the landscape of equality clashes directly with the utopian dreams of those egalitarians hanging tough to their residual evolutionary morality. On moral grounds I agree with them, but on factual, genetic grounds the human brain displays a diversity that is quite dramatic. It is the very process of natural selection that produced both universal altruism and the subtle but real racial differences in brain function that makes the egalitarian generalization true in part but wrong in its application to functions like Jensen's "g," a painful truth that will hopefully demolish their dystopic fantasies.
"One in three Muslim homes have dependent children but no working adults.
ReplyDeleteThe article is a few years old, but I imagine the data in it is still mostly accurate."
This illustrates why it's more than just IQ. What's actually happening in they're working in the illegal economy while claiming welfare.
If you think of the archetypal morality of the clannish latitudes: me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, all of us against the world, there is no room for public goods. There's no room for the commonweal. This is fundamental to the inevitable economic decline. People from those latitudes do everything they can to avoid tax and they do everything they can to take as much as possible from the welfare system.
Among their extended family they can be 100% honest and 100% generous but their morality doesn't naturally extend past those limits. As always there are exceptions but in my experience that's the general case.
Someday
ReplyDelete"And he is right to talk about a "collapse" rather than an 'economic crisis'. Before realism could prevail the elite would have to lose control of the population; that would require something cataclysmic."
I'm not sure about that. There are two levers of control, brute force and consent. The consent part can be taken away without a cataclysm.
More than that i'd say you don't even need a crisis. You just need an inevitable crisis to become visible enough in the distance to enough people.
This disaster didn't happen by accident. Hasn't the entire EU project been an attempt to destroy self-government of the European people? The enlightened rent-seeking "elite" (sociopath) class often brags about how all this wonderful "progress" would never have taken place if the wretched voters ever had a say. The perpetual mendacity of the establishment, the bait-and-switch tactics, and complete contempt for the people's wishes are part of a grand plan. The EU is the USSR 2.0.
ReplyDeleteHere's a Daily Express article that reports Britain is now allowing immigrants to collect unemployment benefits as soon as they enter the country (at a time of budget cuts.) The government predicts 100,000 immigrants will come from Eastern Europe to collect benefits. Britain was compelled to do this in order to comply with EU standards.
Anon
ReplyDelete"The problem is that it's the high IQ *sociopaths* that rise to the top."
I think that's true.
" There is NO solution to this problem."
There are institutional and structural solutions to the problem. That's the idea of checks and balances. Obviously the sociopaths will always find the flaw eventually in the same way hackers will always find the weak spot in software but then - if you survive - you patch the hole next time.
(Plus of course there's always the possibility of developing a test for that personality and barring people with it from certain positions.)
(I think the US constitution was the best attempt so far. It's biggest weakness - apart from the lack of genetic / HBD related stuff - was the idea that the law would be apolitical and therefore didn't need democratic checks. If the supreme court appointments were elected for life things would have been harder for the wreckers.)
.
It's difficult to predict the future, but I would guess that Denmark will eventually turn the demographic corner just like Israel did in 2003, and for basically the same reason.
ReplyDeleteI will repeat my claim that the West is currently in such an advanced state of decline that a collapse of sorts simply can no longer be avoided. The established momentum is just too great, and the ruling oligarchs are not even trying to hit the breaks. A collapse will happen. It is only a question of how we deal with this, and whether we manage to carve out a good-sized new homeland for us.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the French writer Guillaume Faye, for the first time humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to begin between 2010 and 2020 – a crisis provoked by degradation of the ecosystems and geopolitical contests for scarce resources like agricultural land, oil and above all water, by the fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and the massive indebtedness of democratic states, by the return of epidemics, the rise of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, the growing aggressiveness of Islam’s world offense and the dramatic ageing of European populations, whose below replacement-level birth rates are confronted with rapidly growing masses of young people in the dysfunctional countries of the global South, coupled with mass migrations to the North.
This convergence of catastrophes will mark the transition from one era to another. The USA will most likely cease to be the leading world power by mid-century, and perhaps cease to exist at all in its present form. The strongest power will probably be China or what Faye calls “Euro-Siberia” – a federated alliance between the peoples of Europe plus Russia. He doesn’t think this is literally the end of the world, merely the end of the world as we know it. Something new may arise from this: Europe is a civilization of metamorphosis, after all.
ReplyDeleteHe believes that a rebirth of European civilization in a different form is possible, but not inevitable. Whether or not this transformation takes place depends upon how they manage to restore healthy societies while drawing upon our historical memory, rather than having Islamic values imposed upon them. Faye thinks they should adopt a policy of Europe First. Everybody else takes care of his own problems first and foremost. Whites must learn to do the same. It is their future existence that is now under threat, not that of Africans or Pakistanis:
“The twenty-first century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall MacLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilization directed by a universal state. It will be a century of competing peoples and ethnic identities. And paradoxically, the victorious peoples will be those that remain faithful to, or return to, ancestral values and realities – which are biological, cultural, ethical, social, and spiritual – and that at the same time will master technoscience. The twenty-first century will be the one in which European civilization, Promethean and tragic but eminently fragile, will undergo a metamorphosis or enter its irremediable twilight.”
American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis from the 1990s has been accused of simplification, but he should be credited with placing the significance of ethno-cultural blocs on the radar of global politics. He is also right in pointing out that this era is characterized by a West with declining influence. The tectonic plates of global power are shifting in ways they haven’t done for a very long time. Maybe future historians will label this age “the retreat of the Western world order.” These massive changes and the perceived weakness of a European civilization that has been dominant globally for centuries could very well ignite a new world war. Multiculturalism and the inability or unwillingness of Western nations to uphold their borders from foreign infiltration is viewed by others as an invitation for attack and a signal that the West is weak and ripe for conquest.
ReplyDeleteThis century may well be dominated by a resurgence of ethno-cultural blocs. Europeans need to break with the “presentism” in which they are currently sunk and learn to see themselves again (as do many others) as a “long-living people,” bearers of a great past and hopefully a great future, too. The mental revolution needed to bring about this change in European attitudes is only possible through a gigantic crisis, a violent shock, which is now on its way. The present system is founded on a belief in miracles and a myth of indefinite progress. It is bound to collapse, but we should remember that history is open-ended and presents many unexpected twists and turns. Opportunities will arise. We need to be able to grasp them.
Faye predicts two possibilities for European civilization over the coming century: regeneration based on a resurgence of ancestral values, or else disappearance. Europe, especially the western half of the Continent, is currently being invaded. This is coupled with an incredible masochism on the part of Europeans themselves. Only a terrifying crisis can awaken them, and war is the most merciless of selective forces; a people that abandons its will to power inevitably perishes. A “mental AIDS,” a virus of nihilism, has severely weakened their natural defenses. Consequently, Europeans have succumbed to self-extinction. The primary symptom of this is “xenophilia,” a systematic preference for the Other over the Self.
ReplyDeleteThe current advanced state of decadence owes much to the secularization of Christian charity and its modern egalitarian offshoot, human rights. In the widest possible sense it was the same civilizational genius that gave the world the concepts of universal gravitation and universal human rights. After the unprecedented successes of the Scientific Revolution, post-Enlightenment Europeans fell so much in love with the power of their own ideas that they ultimately came to define their very existence as one big idea, hence the “idea nation” or “proposition nation” concept was born. The leaders of this were the Americans and the French, whose Revolutions in the late 1700s came to view their countries as universal republics. This ideal was not and could not be implemented at that time, but two centuries later, coupled with the rise of global communications, it won out over ethnic identification.
Faye believes that Europe now faces a danger unparalleled in its history and refuses to see it. It’s been colonized by peoples from the South. This non-European invasion began in the 1960s and was largely self-engendered, by politicians contaminated with Marxist ideas, by an employer class greedy for cheap labor, and by Utopian humanitarian ideals or misplaced post-colonial guilt. Illegal immigrants/foreign colonizers are very rarely repatriated, but receive lavish social welfare benefits handed out to them by anti-white forces in control of the state:
ReplyDelete“A race war is foreseeable now in several European countries, a subterranean war that will be far more destructive than ‘terrorism.’ The White population is being displaced, a sort of genocide is being carried out against it with the complicity or the abstention of the ruling class, the media, and the politicians, for the ideology these collaborating elites uphold is infused with a pathological hatred of their own people and a morbid passion for miscegenation. The state’s utopian plan for ‘republican integration’ has nevertheless failed because it assumed peaceful coexistence between foreigners and natives, non-Whites and Whites, was possible in a single territory. Our rulers haven’t read Aristotle, who taught that no city can possibly be democratic and orderly if it isn’t ethnically homogenous… European societies today are devolving into an unmanageable ethnic chaos.”
The elites are slave drivers. They're not interested in the fundamentally and genuinely progressive notion of the modern, industrial society which requires, depends on, and serves a broad, intelligent, well-educated middle class. They want centralized power and control. They don't care if the vast majority of the people are drooling idiots leading miserable lives.
ReplyDeleteWhether this post-catastrophic culture will be a revived version of Western civilization or an entirely new version of European civilization I do not know, but I tend to suspect the latter. It is hard to predict such things, but I believe that we have to break with the mentality of "progress" towards "equality," since a toxic combination of these two concepts is now burying us under unsustainable egalitarian ideals.
ReplyDeleteA perfect example, Auster today posted this item: Britain expecting huge immigrant flood from Europe as restrictions on benefits for immigrants are eliminated.
ReplyDeleteNice post.
ReplyDeleteEugenics is the answer. It leads to a better world.
I think you will like this article by Richard Hoste:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/the-coming-chinese-superstate-richard-lynns-eugenics/
A trifle, but I wanted to make a point of it: I'm happy to see Dennis calling out liberals/race idealists as being right on par with Creationists. I've long enjoyed pointing this out--always in a very friendly way, of course--to anyone who calls me racist whenever I broach the subject of race and IQ. Just a brief review of some Evolution 101, and invariably my smug and self-righteous contester finds he has no recourse against the logic of the evolutionary basis for IQ differences by race, and gets flummoxed over realizing he can't summon either evidence or cogent rationale for why he is NOT similar to Creationists--whom he (also invariably) despises.
ReplyDeletePointing out the stark similarities between race idealists and the Christian fundamentalists for whom they hold nothing but contempt is one of my few pleasures.
If Mr. Fjordman's presentation of Faye is correct, then the only possibility is organizing resistance along the lines of the Poles in WWII.
ReplyDeleteGehlen said that would be the model for Germany if it was to carry on during an occupation.
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteThis is probably off-topic, but I just wanted to let you know about a recent happening that might interest you and your readers...
Finland seems to be one country that's reversing the multiculturalist trend. I'm not sure if you've heard about the recent parliamentary elections that took place here: An anti-immigration party called Perussuomalaiset ("True Finns") got a huge landslide victory. They became the 3rd largest party after increasing their number of seats from 5 to 39 (their share of the votes was only 1.4%-points behind the "winner"). Nearly everyone else lost seats.
This happened despite a huge smear campaign against them by the media and opposing parties. One of True Finns who got elected is Jussi Halla-aho (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho). He's the most high-profile immigration critic in Finland and a very interesting phenomenon. A linguist (PhD) by profession, he rose to popularity through his highly popular and controversial blog. He got the 6th biggest number of votes in the whole country (the country is divided into 15 different voting districts) and raised an all-time record amount of campaign money. Today we got news that he's going to be the head of the parliamentary committee that's in charge of immigration! The other big parties have already begun changing their stances on immigration (which have for the last 10 years been very pro-immigration and multiculturalist).
Combined with the fact that Finland has historically had one of the lowest numbers of non-Western immigration, things look good in Finland in this regard.
Fjordman: "The USA will most likely cease to be the leading power by mid-century"
ReplyDeleteReplace "mid-century" with 2016
vneko
ReplyDelete"If Mr. Fjordman's presentation of Faye is correct, then the only possibility is organizing resistance along the lines of the Poles in WWII."
We may be (are imo) heading to an economic collapse if things carry on exactly as they are but as it gets closer the more obvious it becomes and the more people begin to react and the first stage in that is the crisis of confidence in the current elite.
An underground culture of critique directed at the components of the ruling elite that segues into an above ground White civil rights type movement is achievable. The civil rights type movement would then be the nucleus for whatever comes next.
.
Teemu
"Finland seems to be one country that's reversing the multiculturalist trend."
Yes, the recent election in Finland is a good example of why to not simply extrapolate current trends. Progress anywhere can lead to progress somewhere else.
.
"But because it is human nature to put off unpleasantness as long as possible, it won't happen until there is just no safe place to live for a critical mass of whites."
ReplyDeleteA country where many whites can no longer run is Britain. It's now increasingly difficult for Britons to emigrate, so whites in Britain may start to swing to the right quite dramatically over the decade or so.
Another issue is peak oil, if oil prices continue to increase then whites will find it increasingly difficult to distance themselves from other groups.
IQ is important for the masses.
ReplyDeleteBut lets look at the biggest reason for decline of America and the West: Failure of White leadership to protect and lead America and the West into a positive and prosperous future. They sold us out as ALL ruling elite have done in every civilization for their own personal gain, because they were not afraid of the people or the consequences of their leadership.
It was not lack of IQ in our leadership that undermined Christian West; it was our White leadership in the churches and the government.
It was not the lack of IQ that destroyed manufacturing and future technology leadership in America and the West, it was our White leadership in Global companies and government.
It was not the lack of IQ or the high IQ of Chinese, Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans that caused the decline of our our borders, education, and cultural norms; it was White Leadership in government and large corporations.
For thousands of years, leaders have made decisions in the interest of the group they lead based upon the amount of fear they felt from their group. Nothing else matters.
When our White leadership is afraid of the consequences from the decisions they make, THEN they will make decisions that benefit White Americans and the West.
The White Ruling Elite rollover everyday to the demands of those they fear the most: those who make the most noise!
Sherwood Smith
Fjordman: "The USA will most likely cease to be the leading power by mid-century"
ReplyDeleteReplace "mid-century" with 2016
-----
Please note that the tea may not be greener on the Mandarin side of the fence...
Fjordman,
ReplyDeleteAre Europeans arming themselves? I know that most if not all European countries have unjust gun laws, but are people preparing? Just curious. People here (at least where I am) buy ammo and firearms like crazy. This includes white libtards in Volvo station wagons.
IQ is a function of intelligence and motivation?
ReplyDelete"Fjordman: "The USA will most likely cease to be the leading power by mid-century"
ReplyDeleteReplace "mid-century" with 2016
"
It will be a while before we cease being a world power due to inertia, but that day will inevitably come. China though has her own problems, so I wouldn't be particularly worried about them.
Finally we are talking directly about the key issue of our day. The article referenced and its core ideas seem to be extraordinarily important. Also, certainly our elite sold us out; I don’t think anyone disputes that. But the obsession a few of us have with essentially declaring game over and cowering in front of the elites as they are currently constituted is silly and obviously counterproductive. As mentioned, as the parasites bled their host white we are seeing an awaking of sorts (and I expect we will see a larger awakening). The real key questions revolve around whether it’s too late and whether learning is possible and/or evolution kicks in again for the human races? The perversity of our fueling our own demise is the key and must be stopped anywhere and as fast as possible. The current economic situation is that wakeup call; but, again, is it too late? Maybe for the U.K. (as they will probably get even more parasites as other parts of Europe wake up and they flee there, i.e., until their collapse), but for example, Finland, Hungary, etc. seem to be lurching in fits and starts back to sanity (even with the elite controlled media ridiculing them at each step of the way). In short, given current circumstances it’s hard to be optimistic but let’s hope the fight has just begun, and let’s do what each of us can do. To the extent it’s a motivator, natural evolution is on our side; and what were once healthy economies are crashing for a reason (an evil reason but a reason nevertheless; i.e., you are supposed to just die and be replaced by a whole family of economic and cultural parasites who are not related to you and show appreciation for it).
ReplyDeleteFinally, regarding one or more overpopulated hellholes taking away the mantle of largest economy on planet earth, that is a silly meme of the elites. Bottom line, would you rather live in place where 200 million of only you and your kin lived and each person earned 100 currency units or in a place where 1,300 million or so lived in hellish conditions in about the same space and earned 20 currency units but claimed to be the ‘largest economy’ on earth? Give me the former and fight the good fight. In the end it is per capita and not absolute values that should matter (i.e., assuming the elites don’t suck most or all of the wealth up; but that’s possibly a discussion for another post).
If Clark's theory is to be believed civilization arose from wantonness, violence and idleness because thrift, prudence and diligence produced a reproductive differential. The group with these traits produced children who were more likely to survive to produce more children. Socialization of the industrial process (welfare etc.) then equalized and or shifted the reproductive differential to individuals that displayed the earlier traits. Thus while a collapse of the current social structure will be profoundly Malthusian, it will also, if you believe Clark's theory, provide fertile ground for shifting the reproductive differential back to the prudent.
ReplyDeleteKevin Myer, of the Irish Times, hinted at this when he wrote that Africa is “almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside (European)world.” The Irish famine decreased that population by 30% whilst the population of Ethiopia, through various famines increased from 33.5 million to 78 million today.
If you think of the archetypal morality of the clannish latitudes: me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my cousins, all of us against the world, there is no room for public goods.
ReplyDelete(@Wandrin)
This is a well-attested phenomenon, but it's a curious one to me. It would seem that in the distant past this same clannish mentality must have prevailed in the northern latitudes as well, no? What has changed to transform them into the social-contract-respecting Swedes, English, Dutch, etc. of today?
And is such a change conceivable in an Arab country? The human capital is decent, we're not talking about Angolans here.
But the broader point stands: Northern Europe's welfare systems worked based on ethnic solidarity and trust. The new arrivals don't give a hang for the 'common good,' they milk the system dry while the Swedes, etc. tut and wring their hands and watch the system collapse, naively wondering how such a thing could happen.
A country where many whites can no longer run is Britain. It's now increasingly difficult for Britons to emigrate
ReplyDeleteHow/why is this happening?
That's a terrifying prospect: slave on the tax farm. Everybody can come in; nobody can leave.
Lots of thoughtful comments here. Just reading them gives me (a little) hope.
ReplyDeleteWandrin @ 6:15 uses the expression "White civil rights." Some people must have combined those words before, but the phrase is new to me. Many of us aren't sure about the idea of white nationalism, but can easily get on board with White civil rights.
It's perfect for discussions with people outside the HBD circle. The beauty of it is that "civil rights" has become almost a sacred phrase. We can turn it back on the multi-culturalists, ju-jitsu style.
@MnMark:
ReplyDelete, whites WILL say "enough" and get separation between themselves and non-whites [when] there is just no safe place to live for a critical mass of whites
But, as you mention yourself, this is not happening in South Africa. If whites there decided they wanted to be in charge on Friday, then they would be again in charge on Monday. I think actual physical genocide is a possibility (though not a likelihood and not soon) in the US.
@M.G. Miles
This is a well-attested phenomenon, but it's a curious one to me. It would seem that in the distant past this same clannish mentality must have prevailed in the northern latitudes as well, no? What has changed to transform them into the social-contract-respecting Swedes, English, Dutch, etc. of today?
The Catholic Church. Specifically, the ban on consanguineous marriage. With no cousin marriage, you are just not all that related to the people in your extended family. And, you are more related to people not in your extended family.
Observe also, that this ban was de facto not enforced on the upper nobility. Consequently, they continued to act clannishly.
How long before the ban on cousin marriage and then on sibling marriage falls in the post-West? Twenty years? Ten years? Less?
"may lead to Western submission or civil resistance"
ReplyDeleteOr Westerners will move in the direction of total depravity, neither submitting or resisting. This will almost certainly be a Darwinian dead end for Western civilization. Check out the crowd and participants at a recent "festival" in San Francisco:
Christians mock gays at shocking Easter service
Notice that they are almost exclusively white.
Good call and spot AngloAmerikan. Note though that the author of that post and blog, Zombie, is not pointing out the depravity and obvious hatred from these pillow biters towards Christianity but merely the hypocrisy that they would not allow such a thing to go unchallenged in reverse.
ReplyDelete...what bothers me is the double standard. In San Francisco ...it’s perfectly acceptable to mock Christians. But to turn the tables and mock gays in a similar way is considered totally beyond the pale; a hate crime; bullying; bigotry and oppression of the worst kind.
But otherwise ...you might think, considering how I started this report, that I’m opposed to the Hunky Jesus contest and everything it stands for. But you couldn’t be more wrong.
I actually like Hunky Jesus;...
Pyjamas Media is a neo-con publication being a conglomeration of all the pro-Bush "invade the world, invite the world" idiots who came out of their burrows in support of the Iraq war in this wankfest that is Pyjamas Media. Our own #1 el supremo, "I can get enough of all that is Judeo", the neo-cons neo-con journo Tim Blair links Zombie and other Pyjamas reacharounders at his own News Ltd blog in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.
The post pretty much sums up our would be allies from the MSM "right" or "conservative" sphere:
As Zombie says But the real low point was spotting one of my fellow photographers proudly sporting an anti-Israel message. Yeah, just try having a Hunky Isa contest in Gaza or the West Bank, and see how long you survive. Jerk!
That's the "real low point" for a neo-con. A small troubling moment for Zombie was noting that children were present in large number: Kids, I say? Isn’t this event a little too outré for kids? Well, not in San Francisco...
Ah, neo-cons, don't ya just luv 'em? Not that different from the left just that they stand by Israel as a nation, and don't like being thin skinned about things. That's about it really. Otherwise "let's go boys!"
Pat Hannagan
m4monologue
(Blogger is demanding you sign up to Gmail to post with "Name/URL" option. The apt word verification for this comment is "pricks". I kid you not.)
First off, I would not blame "neocons" with mysterious mind-rays or "evil leaders" who somehow force things down people's throats (when they could not keep for example segregation the law of the land despite massive force, etc.)
ReplyDeleteThe answer is White women. A sexual marketplace exists and has **ALWAYS** existed between men and women. What telecommunication, cheap travel, and globalization (global outsourcing of manufacturing) did was put the marketplace disparity between White men non-White men into play.
White men from the 19th Century onwards were (ugly wars notwithstanding) rapidly moved from the Culloden model of behavior (Claymores at the ready, daggers in the socks) to the factory/office model of cooperation. Cooperation is not sexy.
Meanwhile non-White men are darker (Steve Sailer notes the universal female preference for darker men), far less cooperative (i.e. Culloden model, more sexy by more confrontational) and more socially dominant. This fed on itself as White Women THEMSELVES demanded groveling subservience to non-White men by White men.
Western Society is built upon the principal of maximizing "sexy men" available to White women. Which means a few Alpha Aholes among White men (Charlie Sheen, Brad Pitt, George Clooney) and non-Whites (50 Cent, Barack Obama).
White women exhibit decisive market and political power because they live longer, vote the same way throughout most of their lives, do most of the purchasing decisions, and make up the vast majority of entertainment audiences. Western culture has been shifted to provide maximum sexiness in available men for White women.
The only place this has not happened is Japan and South Korea, which remain closed to immigrants (male sexual competitors) because women have a far limited role.
The West's greatest strength has been the independence of its Women, far better treatment of them, with the result that the old, closed-to-global competition among men model, men competed for provider status for most women (those not born aristocrats or living as prostitutes) and most men worked for the betterment of their families on their own accord in a cooperative model. From Culloden to the Crystal Palace in about 100 years. That was the West's greatest strength and with the influx of global communication, travel, and commodity technology, its greatest weakness.
Why would any White woman value some White nerdy engineer who say created a better infant incubator than a welfare-recipient dominant Pakistani or Yemeni? She's got her own money, and the nerdy engineer can never be as individually violent, cruel, and dominant as the non-White immigrant. He'll never be as sexy.
@AngloAmerikan
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to say thanks for the link.
THIS HAS BEEN A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY DOUBLE-STANDARD SYSTEM
Which I found hilarious.
"I would not blame "neocons" with mysterious mind-rays ... The answer is White women"
ReplyDeleteWhite women have been part of Western civilization since the beginning, and yet, every negative trend that we are now experiencing started after 1960's when Jews overthrew the old WASP guard in the US and took over the construction of culture in the West.
MG Miles
ReplyDelete"It would seem that in the distant past this same clannish mentality must have prevailed in the northern latitudes as well, no? What has changed to transform them into the social-contract-respecting Swedes, English, Dutch, etc. of today?"
Yes, if we assume there was original tropical morality and that was then extended or changed somewhat when people moved to the clannish latitudes then when some of those people moved further north again they would originally have taken that morality with them.
I assume the mechanism was over-written so it's still there underneath?
"Blogger is demanding you sign up to Gmail to post with "Name/URL" option"
ReplyDeleteTesting this.
Nope.
ReplyDeleteI _did_ see something like this but it was when trying to post a followup comment in a years-old thread. I assume they have a timer on it - after some arbitrary time, they assume anybody still interested must be a spammer, or dedicated enough to jump through whatever hoops they want.
Blogger suxxor.
Rollory, it was earlier today but everything is cleared up now.
ReplyDeleteIn all sincerity, I really enjoyed the royal wedding tonight. It's given me a new hope for the world.
Royalty is a eugenic concept.
ReplyDeleteDon't lie Hannagan, you watched the football didn't you?
ReplyDeleteHow so?
ReplyDeleteWell, I wanted to watch the football but Channel Nein refused. So I joined the gang and - was - a tad - overcome with emotion.
ReplyDeleteI wishe (Old English there) William and Katherine many years of faithful love, service and children. Let's hope it sparks a consuming fire in the long, seemingly dead, English soul.
I even stood for "God Save the Queen". Feeling a bit woozy now...might pass out...
How is it eugenic? Well, what else is it? Royalty is the best of us. In a well-functioning society, we respect and honor those of a higher social class because they deserve that respect - because they have the class from earning it and deserving it, both from their own hard work and by being "well-bred" - inheriting good qualities from their parents. We aspire to the qualities that they represent. The King is the pinnacle of the system, the symbol and symbolic father of the nation. Respect for such a person is only possible if you actually believe that there IS something different and a bit better about him - or at the very least that he symbolizes the aspiration to be better. Would you have the same respect for an ordinary blue-collar guy who spends most evenings with his beer buddies and whose wife has some kids from her previous guy? No. He may not be a bad person, he may have plenty of good qualities, but he's not "better" than you. The point of a King is the belief that it IS possible to have some human beings be better than others, and that he is the best of us.
ReplyDeleteLeftists and blank slaters are very anti-monarchical.
Hmmm, well I was thinking about hierarchy as I watched it and how much I love and accept it, as a natural expression of our way.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to think about what you say Rollory as I cannot connect eugenics with hierarchy.
Much as you stand when Obama enters the room: no matter how much you may disrespect the man, you respect the office. Because the office represents not the man but all that is you, your kin and what you aspire to and believe in. The man becomes the office. A man can disgrace the office, but the office cannot disgrace the man.
I equate eugenics with gene selection, that is selecting *the best* genes, and so cannot see how this extends to royalty given that these people are not chosen for being *the best* but who they are and what they represent.
These people are more symbol than a genetic demonstration of the best. There is a connection though in that they are English. If I saw a Pakistani marrying William then I would have quite easily concluded that England was dead and have flicked to the footy. So genes are important, I agree with you there.
I'm a fan of royalty myself, but anyone who has looked at the history of the Spanish Habsburgs will be quickly disabused of any notion that royalty is eugenic. Symbolically, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteEugenics is inherently hierarchical. It's about improving the quality - health, intelligence, morals, beauty - of the population. Dysgenics denatures the quality of the population. So paying single mothers additional money per kid without any conditions is bad - it encourages people with no forethought or investment in their children to have lots, while penalizing those that are provident. Meanwhile giving child-related tax breaks to two-parent households with no debt that own their own house free and clear is good; you're encouraging people who have good sense and plan for the future and are moral to increase their numbers. You have a two-tier hierarchy right there: good and bad. Having defined two, one can define more. In modern society of course they are not clear at all - everything has mixed up so much over the past hundred years or more, being of a certain class is as much a matter of luck as anything else. In a more stable society, things filter out to different levels.
ReplyDeleteGalton's _Hereditary Genius_ has a lot more on this - basically the argument is that the noble class of Europe produced a significantly higher proportion of capable individuals in a variety of fields - including national leadership - than would have been expected from simple statistical extrapolation from the broader population.
Royalty being the de facto result of eugenics is the natural culmination of such an observation. The gene selection pressure there is twofold: first of all, all the most capable people will be drawn to marry into the noble families, simply because it is the societal standard, and by a sort of genetic Brownian motion over the course of generations improve the noble-specific gene pool and thus the baseline for any arbitrary match within that class, and second, there is a certain "you win or you die" factor in times of crisis. Royalty that is _not_ capable disappears from the scene.
A cynic might see Whiskey's white male / white female conflict as either related to personal history or a variant of Yanshenian divide and rule however there may be an element of truth in it but not for the reasons he suggests. What if part of the White difference in group morality relates to empathy and therefore displays in women more?
ReplyDeletePart 1
According to MacDonald human psychology has both implicit and explicit processing. The implicit processing is automatic, instinctive and very fast while the explicit processing takes conscious effort.
I think the base layer of human morality is implicit processing based purely on the recognition of genetic difference. At this level "good" and "bad" are entirely based on what's good or bad at a genetic level constrained only by fear of retaliation. If we define morality as meaning reducing harm to the group coming from within the group then this first layer of morality would break down quite quickly beyond first cousins.
So given the scale limitation created by implicitly processed genetic morality humans would need explicitly processed layers on top of the implicit layer to constrain genetic morality if human groups were to successfully expand beyond the size of an extended family.
One early candidate for this explicitly processed layer to partially control genetic morality is social identity. Social identity would be things like tribal markings, head-dress, common rituals etc i.e a way of trying to create an artificial family identity to prevent internal violence among the group and promote group cohesion for mutual defence. (It would be interesting to know if extended family clans had this or if it only came about when groups of clans formed into a larger tribe.) Assuming tribes came about as multiple clans combined for self-defense there would still be a lot of internal conflict between the clan groups if there were no constraints on genetic distance morality. If early tribes / clans exterminated each other then the benefits of tribe might outweigh the disbenefits of clan vendettas within the tribe but even so there would be selection pressure to reduce the disbenefit. Armies have uniforms for battlefield recognition and if tribal warfare was more or less a continuous state one obvious cultural evolutionary mechanism would be the tribal chief saying everyone in the component clans should wear their hair a certain way for the purposes of instant recognition. Once the mechanism was put in place and there was a benefit for conforming to that social identity then traits that supported social identity would be selected for.
(Social identity effectively trades reduced internal conflict for increased external conflict.)
Both these things exist at the tropical latitudes so they must have evolved early.
.
"Spanish Habsburgs will be quickly disabused of any notion that royalty is eugenic"
ReplyDeleteAs with everything biological, it's not precise. The Spanish Hapsbugs - and the last French kings - were the tail end of a noble class that had gotten its start over a thousand years earlier. I am not going to complain about a human system breaking down after a thousand years - as a system, it certainly can stand improvements, but it wasn't a bad first approximation.
Royalty is a social identity mechanism as well.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with you Rollory. You put the case well: "Respect for such a person is only possible if you actually believe that there IS something different and a bit better about him - or at the very least that he symbolizes the aspiration to be better."
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty is though that royalty is not selected on merit, in which case it cannot be eugenic in that these people are not selected as being the best or an improvement on the common man.
Their right by way of succession has granted them their entitlement, not their merit. And this will continue so long as all agree that it should remain so as Cromwell demonstrated.
"vote the same way throughout most of their lives"
ReplyDeleteFalse. Steve Sailer clearly demonstrated, when women marry (particularly after the 2nd kid and house purchase) they start voting like their husbands.
I agree, Pat.
Why? Because White women are slaves to fashion. If beautiful, high-status Kate makes lots of babies, maybe it will inspire many 20-something career women to change course, marry and have lots and lots of babies, which is what the White race needs.
Part 2
ReplyDeletePeople with this original tropical morality eventually moved north to the clannish latitudes. What changed? If IQ is related to the ability to plan ahead and the move north into winter latitudes selected for the ability to plan ahead then that would lead to an increase in IQ. If the move north led to a jump in IQ what effect would that have on morality?
In nomadic or semi-nomadic areas where population density was kept low it doesn't seem like much changed at all. The higher IQ may have made the existing primitive mechanisms more efficient but i haven't read of any fundamentally different mechanisms between a low-density Arab tribe and a low-density African one.
However in the areas where primitive agriculture was possible the increase in IQ removed the block on developing large-scale agriculture which in turn eventually caused much larger population densities. In these cases there'd still be kin-morality (and the associated non-kin amorality) and the artificial family of social identity acting as both a moral reinforcer and a moral constraint but would that be enough for the greater population density? I don't think so. I think there'd be a great deal of inter-clan conflict in those early proto cities.
I can imagine some more cultural evolutionary selection responses at this stage. One would be rulers aiming to strengthen social identity through extending tribal identification to a national one (not neccessarily a replacement but an extension e.g Roman elections were divided into tribes). Religion could be used the same way, most ancient cities had a single patron deity chosen from among their pantheon of gods. An exclusive tribal religion would take it a step further. If there were benefits to those with above-average predisposition to strong social identity then those traits would be selected for whatever those traits might be - conformity?
Another brute force method of selection could simply have been extreme punishments for crimes. If you have a group of people who originally have tropical morality and their average IQ increases due to moving north and with that comes agriculture and with that comes larger scale settlements then those larger scale settlements might initially have been a lot more like modern Soweto than ancient Damascus. An extensive use of the death penalty in law would over time have a strong selective pressure on those traits that lead to internal harm e.g impulse control, stupidity, psychopathy.
I agree with you too JSM, I have noticed that about women. And they are also moved, when pointed out to them, that that Cathedral, that ceremony, the songs, the words and all those faces are White. They came from no one else and they will be maintained by no one else. That was our heritage we saw tonight.
ReplyDeleteYou will now listen to my voice. My voice will help you and guide you still deeper into Europa. Every time you hear my voice, with every word and every number, you will enter into a still deeper layer, open, relaxed and receptive. I shall now count from one to ten. On the count of ten, you will be in Europa. I say: one. And as your focus and attention are entirely on my voice, you will slowly begin to relax. Two, your hands and your fingers are getting warmer and heavier. Three, the warmth is spreading through your arms, to your shoulders and your neck. Four, your feet and your legs get heavier. Five, the warmth is spreading to the whole of your body. On six, I want you to go deeper. I say: six. And the whole of your relaxed body is slowly beginning to sink. Seven, you go deeper and deeper and deeper. Eight, on every breath you take, you go deeper. Nine, you are floating. On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten.
To everyone here who watched the Royal Wedding: gay, so very gay.
ReplyDelete"most capable people will be drawn to marry into the noble families, simply because it is the societal standard" Really, most? "Royalty" are parasites whose families obtained and maintained power pretty much the way Al Capone did in Chicago, if it involves some sort of superior abilities, those abilities are of a very crude sort. Royalty is a barrier to maintain wealth and power and as such by its very nature it must remain small and keep out the vast majority of the talented, or cease to have any advantage. A certain degree of churning is necessary if the ruling class is not to calcify, and to relieve pressure on them from below. The primary entrance to the peerage is wealth, at best a very rough guide of intelligence and talent. Royalty in many, if not nearly all, places in the West looked down on any form of wealth not derived from land and serfs precisely as a defense against mere talent. It generally took two or three generations for a wealthy family to buy its way into the ruling class (and as we know it's often "clogs to clogs in three generations", muting the alleged advantages of such selections. Think of the Bush or Kennedy clans, for example.) The advantage of land wealth is that once you have it wealth pretty much flows from it automatically as it does from oil wells, barring the occasional drought or environmental shift and what have you. It requires no real talent, no special breed, to keep it going. The bottom line is that royalty stifles merit, there's is no evidence that this system produces "superior breeding."
How is royalty eugenic?
ReplyDeleteEusocial species have "kings" and "queens".
Is moving towards eusociality "eugenic"?
"Because White women are slaves to fashion. If beautiful, high-status Kate makes lots of babies, maybe it will inspire many 20-something career women to change course, marry and have lots and lots of babies, which is what the White race needs."
ReplyDeleteKate Middleton is already 29. I'll be a little surprised if she and William have more then two kids/pregnancies. Three at the most.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteSo re-iterating morality as mechanisms for reducing harm to the group that comes from within the group and trying to figure out the precise selectable elements that go into those mechanisms what goes into what i'm calling genetic morality. Is it that people are in neutral by default and switch to aggressive with people they recognize as not-kin and to friendly with kin or is their default state simply a bundle of selfish impulses applied universally which are then partially constrained by kinship. The second seems simpler. If at base people are simply a bundle of selfish impulses - food, warmth, lust etc then constraining this would require the evolution of the ability to tell genetic distance (implicit processing) and one or more mechanisms to prevent or reduce harmful behaviour to near kin.
One of these might be empathy. Say empathy originally evolved as a mother-child thing but spread to all (although with females always having more than males on average). Say empathy existed along a bell curve above a horizontal scale that went from psychopathy to near-kin empathy to distant-kin empathy all the way out to non-kin empathy. If the benefit to being on the left edge of the bell curve was greater than the benefit of being on the right edge the bell curve would drift left and vice versa if reversed. When it was balanced the center point would be at the optimal point for that environment (on average).
Now in a very primitive and violent clan-based environment traits like psychopathy and low empathy generally might have significant benefits whereas empathy towards any but the closest relatives would have no benefits at all. In this kind of environment the bell curve would be jammed to the left edge of the sociopath-altruist scale. Also the male-female split wouldn't be a problem.
Now if the same group is moved north they might need to evolve higher IQ to deal with the winter but apart from that would overall survival be enhanced by increased empathy? It might do if surviving winter required more co-operativeness beyond clan level but otherwise life might be just as primitive and violent as in the tropics with the same selection pressures.
However if the group moved to a area suited to agriculture and a more densely settled population there might be selection pressures for the empathy bell curve to move to the right. Increased specialization might require increased co-operativeness beyond clan level. If co-operativeness was a benefit then people on the right edge of the tropical empathy bell curve would benefit. Assuming denser populations were originally like Soweto and gave rise to law courts doling out death penalties for pretty much every crime those on the left edge of the original african empathy bell curve would have a major disbenefit also. Between them the two forces might shift the bell curve from being centred between sociopathy and near-kin (clan genetic distance) to being centered between near-kin and far-kin (tribe genetic distance) with a drop in the percentage of sociopaths on the far-left edge and an increase in the number of irrational altruists at the far-right edge.
A limiting factor in this process would be cities getting wealthier and kinder up till the point where they got slaughtered by sociopathic desert raiders.
.
Run out of steam now. You start thinking about this stuff and it goes on and on so jump to conclusion...
ReplyDeleteWhat i was originally leading up to saying was average empathy being shifted to the right on the sociopathy-altruist scale was adaptive on average in certain environments with females having more than males (on average). A side-effect of the whole bell curve shifting to the right would be an increase in the percentage of altruists and irrational altruists on the far-right edge of the curve, especially among women. I think that empathy shift would be selected for in high density complex urban environments with a lot of executions. If you combine that empathy shift with a pre-existing collectivist male-dominated society and the female empathy surplus is restricted to children and family then the female surplus has no effect but if a more egalitarian individualist culture where women have more say develops the empathy shift then that extra empathy may make a significant impact.
Whiskey
ReplyDelete"Why would any White woman value some White nerdy engineer who say created a better infant incubator than a welfare-recipient dominant Pakistani or Yemeni?"
If i understand it right.
Say a person has six genes and a white person shares
1 with a black person,
2 with a brown person,
3 with a white person,
then, assuming a 50% chance of passing on a non-shared gene and a 100% chance of passing on a shared gene then a white person having a child with each of the above would pass on (on average)
3.5 of their genes,
4 of their genes,
4.5 of their genes,
so that would be why. The only reason not to do that is if longer-term survival and reproductive chances over multiple generations were somehow in the balance also.
.
(@ Wandrin)
ReplyDeleteQuite a lot to chew on there, and I thank you for taking the time to post it.
An extensive use of the death penalty in law would over time have a strong selective pressure on those traits that lead to internal harm e.g impulse control, stupidity, psychopathy.
What precisely do you think caused the transition from wergeld to the death penalty in northern climes and thus the removal of the most sociopathic from the gene pool?
However if the group moved to a area suited to agriculture and a more densely settled population there might be selection pressures for the empathy bell curve to move to the right.
Are the historically unprecedented levels of urbanization in the developed world since the industrial revolution perhaps responsible for too-high levels of out-group empathy today in the West, or can it be purely attributed to female suffrage (also historically unprecedented)? Or did the first lead to the second?
Nyborg, Lynn, and others are really courageous as they try to affect public opinion via their splendid publications. This minority is slowly cracking the great wall of liberalism. Of course, reversing such erroneous policies will take far more than a few publications because this meme appeals to our egalitarian "genetic morality."
ReplyDeleteYou, Wandrin, are not wandrin far from the truth. Your speculative scheme may not be the last word, but it makes good sense. Phenotypically speaking, one sees indeed a range of empathy that is gender differentiated yet essentially universal. The initial small troups of humans "wandrin" out of Africa 50,000 years ago carried with them the "basic" but fairly complete set of genes related to crude egalitarianism. They were moral animals even then.
Spreading out across vast continents, these tribes ultimately evolved mechanisms for suppressing deviant behavior. As the struggle between within-group selection and between group selection went on, broad between group selection accelerated under the prssures of continual warfare.Groups that cooperated fully were able to overcome those of lesser altruism. Human moral systems are exactly the devices used for suppression of bad behavior.
The economist Samuel Bowles has developed mathematical models that demonstrate the effectiveness of warfare in affecting evolutionary direction. Apparently altruism and war coevolved. If altruistic traits serve warring populations, then altruism cannot be separated from aggression.As various groups diverged and evolved under different geographic conditions, they would see the "other" as strange and dangerous. Warfare was as natural as hunting food.
Today's Africans demonstrate how dance and other rhythmic activities produce intense emotional bonding.Religious behavior surely evolved from dsuch group cohesion. We know that serotonin greatly facilitates emotional bonding-even seen in the effects of "ecstacy" on teen brains. The moral system included both devices for neurochemical orchestration and devices for shutting down limbic excesses. Clearly, the tribes of Northern Europe were beneficiaries of greater self-control that the black Africans discovered by the likes of Joseph Conrad. African history is replete with brutal killing and genocide. Albinoes and gays are often killed for sport. Such barbarism demonstrates brains with rather ineffective executive planning (prefrontal) and poor control of processes in the amygdala. Brains, in other words, evolved far beyond Africa and your ideas seem reasonable indeed.Pychopathy is widespread in Africa, as well, which one might expect if selection pressures failed to raise IQ and within-group self-control.
M. G. Miles
ReplyDeleteI'm still largely thinking aloud but i think i'm getting closer.
I think the four main groups
- tropicals,
- clannish,
- white,
- ne asian
are psychologically very distinct at a biological level. i don't think it's one trait i think it's two or three in different combinations e.g
tropicals: low iq, low empathy, collectivist
clannish: medium iq, medium empathy (in towns), collectivist
ne asian: high iq, high empathy, collectivist
white: high iq, high empathy, individualist
.
"What precisely do you think caused the transition from wergeld to the death penalty in northern climes and thus the removal of the most sociopathic from the gene pool?"
Urbanization. I think the same thing happened elsewhere earlier but with collectivist cultures.
If you look at the clannish latitudes you often have situations where there's a compound shared by a group of brothers and their families. They may be quite violent towards outsiders but they are not living cheek by jowl with other clans and violent conflict inside is restrained by genetic morality. If you took 100 of those family groups and suddenly put them together in a proto Babylon i think there'd be a lot of friction and bloodshed which would be lead to a very bloody legal code.
.
"Are the historically unprecedented levels of urbanization in the developed world since the industrial revolution perhaps responsible for too-high levels of out-group empathy today in the West,"
That's my theory (today). I think the mid point of the bell curve is in the optimal place to maximize internal co-operativeness and willingness to contribute to public goods *if* we were living in an homogenous country. However the main reason we're not living in an homogenous country is because either a) we have too many altruists on the far-right of our bell curve or b) we have a lot of altruists but not too many if our altruism wasn't also being deliberately manipulated.
.
"or can it be purely attributed to female suffrage (also historically unprecedented)? Or did the first lead to the second?"
I think it would be high anyway. The extra female component just increases the effect.
I think female suffrage is partly related to being an individualist culture, females always had more rights than elsewhere, and partly as you say a function of male extended empathy so even if true then problematic or not in this particular context i'd still see female suffrage as a more or less automatic extension of white evolution so something to be worked around.
Once understood these traits can be compensated for.
.
Cornelius Troost
ReplyDelete"they try to affect public opinion via their splendid publications"
That's the thing. I'm coming at this from a political direction looking to have a simplified framework i can draw political lines from that anyone can use.
IQ
Empathy
Social identity, military/national
Social identity, religious
Altruism
It all has to fit together neatly.
"Warfare was as natural as hunting food."
Yes.
(@ Wandrin)
ReplyDeleteWe have a lot of altruists but not too many if our altruism wasn't also being deliberately manipulated.
But if we are indeed so high-IQ, why are we letting our altruism be manipulated by out-groups? Are we bound to arrive at a critical mass/tipping point of dupage that will provoke a sudden and strong reaction?
Abrupt reactions of this sort have indeed happened, but their intensity has varied. One may think of America in 1924. One may also think of Germany in 1938. Where do you see us headed?
I'd still see female suffrage as a more or less automatic extension of white evolution so something to be worked around.
If I may, and I don't mean to exhaust you, but do you have any thoughts on the idea that Imperial Rome might have eventually ended up at some limited form of female suffrage? Latins are of course tricky, as they seem to fall somewhere between 'white' and 'clannish' on your scale. But there's a lot of whinging about 'women doing men's jobs' and 'women not having kids anymore' and so forth in the late imperial writings.
What was missing in that highly urbanized, wealthy, literate environment of the Roman upper classes (besides it being Latin not Nordic) for it not to happen at all? Or was it precisely the 'Latin-not-Nordic' factor?
Good posts by Fjordman, except for this:
ReplyDelete"...hence the “idea nation” or “proposition nation” concept was born. The leaders of this were the Americans and the French, whose Revolutions in the late 1700s came to view their countries as universal republics."
I cannot speak for the French, but the proposition nationhood idea is a post Civil War development in the United States. It was an evolving (devolving?) of the old 'melding pot' idea of the post Civil War immigrant wave. That America is now viewed as 'always' have been this way is nothing but a pretty little lie by historians with an agenda. Its disappointing to see Fjordman buying into this.
Here's another small bit of evidence in support of the latitude-dependent personality-trait model which Wandrin has been outlining...
ReplyDeleteI've always thought it was probably more than just a pure coincidence that to some extent the Northern Han/Southern Han divide in China mirrors the same personality pattern as that of the Nord/Med divide in Europe. Although both Southern Han and Northern Han are considered equally Chinese, I think Southerners tend to have a reputation for being much more talkative/entrepreneurial/wheeler-dealer/business-focused than Northerners, who also tend to be considerably taller. Since Southerners are actually genetically much closer to the various non-Han peoples of South-East Asia and were apparently assimilated into the Han race over the last couple of thousand years, I'd think any genetic component of the personality trait differences probably go back to those roots, though it's also possible that the climatic/agricultural differences between the region may also be an important factor.
On the other hand, I think thousands of years of living in a highly-organized Confucian state with enormous size and population has pretty much stamped out most clannish tendencies, at least in the ethnic/tribal sense, and most rebelliousness/non-conformity has also been filtered out the gene-pool.
Another interesting coincidence which springs to mind is that the two great civilizational peaks of the Eurasian landmass---Europe/Near East and China---arose at the exact opposite ends of the super-continent, though I'd say in this case the cause is probably Jared Diamond-type geographical factors, namely if you live anywhere in the middle you tend to get physically or culturally invaded on both sides and are also less likely to have a temperate coastal-type climate for inventing agriculture.
http://www.roy-stevenson.com/executions.html
ReplyDeleteI don't know how accurate this is, as it was just a quick google but just as an indication of the selective potential of urbanization and a resulting "bloody code."
"From the 10th Century to the 19th Century, London witnessed more than two hundred thousand executions of various types"
RKU,
ReplyDelete"I've always thought it was probably more than just a pure coincidence that to some extent the Northern Han/Southern Han divide in China mirrors the same personality pattern as that of the Nord/Med divide in Europe."
Yes. My current thinking is there's a mirror effect in both cases. The original line is the clannish limit and some of those people break off and head north - following the ice retreat or whatever. They get the second IQ bump and that's what gives them the edge in re-invading the south.
So you have population A. Part of it breaks off north and evolves into A++. Then the A++ come back as conquerors and interbreed creating A+. The conquest of the northern Han southwards may be similar to the expansion of the various northern european waves southwards. The known Celtic and Germanic waves (very) roughly 800 years apart and possibly other earlier ones.
I'm currently thinking the subsequent big divergence between the Chinese and the Europeans may simply have been the Yellow River.
Early agriculture required the optimal conditions and those were given by the Nile, Fertile Crescent, Indus / Ganges and Yellow / Yangtze rivers. Three of them were in the clannish latitudes and the Chinese got the last.
If so then the Chinese developed the brains but didn't develop the individualist culture because they jumped into high population density agriculture much sooner leading to sooner urbanization and the possible consequences of same - selecting out their overly aggressive population with an executioner's axe for a couple of thousand years longer (among other selective social identity pressures like the ones you mention).
.
To get back on track:
ReplyDelete"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark."
Shakespeare (or de Vere, if you prefer)....perceptive, as usual.
Anon.
M. G. Miles
ReplyDelete"But if we are indeed so high-IQ, why are we letting our altruism be manipulated by out-groups?"
There's a lot of possible elements to that answer. One is relative IQ. One is our altruists are helping. Another is the invention of television. However i think one of the biggest and maybe the biggest is related to something i'm still thinking about which is if the essence of an individualist culture is co-operating beyond ethnic lines then there must by neccessity be some kind of ethnic blindness.
.
"Are we bound to arrive at a critical mass/tipping point of dupage that will provoke a sudden and strong reaction?"
Yes, again i'm still thinking this through but i think one of the essences of an individualistic culture is it leads to concepts of the greater good. Now the media can hide a lot about what's really happening but another aspect of the individualist culture is the level of co-operativeness. That can't be replaced by swapping IQ for IQ and is a big part of why western countries are (or were) prosperous. So eventually it will become more obvious that the current paradigm does not provide for the greater good than the media can hide. It might be too late though.
.
"Abrupt reactions of this sort have indeed happened, but their intensity has varied. One may think of America in 1924. One may also think of Germany in 1938. Where do you see us headed?"
I think something like that will happen but possibly too late.
.
"do you have any thoughts on the idea that Imperial Rome might have eventually ended up at some limited form of female suffrage?"
I'm not sure. I was assuming it was more or less a symptom of an individualist culture once certain conditions were met, the conditions being political status no longer requiring physical presence on the battle field and child mortality reduced to the point where most of a woman's time was being wasted.
If the average fertile woman needs to have ten live births to provide two surviving adults then that's pretty much a full time occupation. Once that drops down to four or so then the traditional attitude to women's role starts to become very inefficient.
I don't know what child mortality was like in Rome but the Roman elite were still expected to physically fight so i think that would have told against it. Plus there's the individualistic culture but maybe that's more of a speed enhancer than a neccessary condition.
.
"Latins are of course tricky, as they seem to fall somewhere between 'white' and 'clannish' on your scale."
I think it probably went similar to the Han. Groups headed north from an original clannish population and evolved in a distinctive way then came back as conquerors and interbred. So group A splits in two and one group turns into B. B then returns and mixs with A producing AB.
.
anon,
ReplyDelete"To get back on track"
Apologies for hijacking the thread. I think it's worse than just IQ though.
The tropicals bring low iq, low empathy and no concept of the greater good.
The clannish bring average iq, average empathy and no concept of the greater good.
The conscientous bring high iq, high empathy AND a concept of the greater good but only WITHIN ethnic lines i.e 30% Koreans OR 30% Chinese OR 30% Japanese is completely different to 10% Korean AND 10% Japanese AND 10% Chinese.
.
However i think one of the biggest and maybe the biggest is related to something i'm still thinking about which is if the essence of an individualist culture is co-operating beyond ethnic lines then there must by neccessity be some kind of ethnic blindness.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It calls at once to my mind Plato's 'ideal society' (from The Republic), where he flat-out states that family attachments are detrimental to society, claiming these clannic impulses prevent us from contributing to the 'Res Publica' (don't know the Greek term). He prescribes a communistic system where couples don't raise their own children, they are rather raised by 'the group,' everyone eats communal meals, and so forth. (what pre-shadowing of France in the 1790s!)
Yes, again i'm still thinking this through but i think one of the essences of an individualistic culture is it leads to concepts of the greater good.
One wonders what precise link exists with religion, as universalist theologies started to replace the tribal pantheons. Also how universalist religions (such as Christianity) manifest themselves differently in different populations (tropical, clannic, etc.)
If the average fertile woman needs to have ten live births to provide two surviving adults then that's pretty much a full time occupation. Once that drops down to four or so then the traditional attitude to women's role starts to become very inefficient.
Perhaps, but what of the societies where, even in the presence of high infant mortality rates (that would be all of them before the I.R.), many women still controlled their family size through abortion and infanticide? The history of contraception/abortion is long and rich (and gruesome), and initially might seem to belie your hypothesis.
political status no longer requiring physical presence on the battle field
Excellent point, and could it be related to the complete flip-flop (spurred by technology?) by which war was once made exclusively by the elite, and is today made almost exclusively by the non-elite?
Fascinating points all, Wandrin, and thanks again for sharing them.
To get back on track:
ReplyDeleteI apologize for any thread hijacking.
But the Danish study, which does treat exclusively with IQ, could perhaps be enriched by the more nuanced type of character-trait hypotheses that Wandrin is considering.
Wandrin: The conscientous bring high iq, high empathy AND a concept of the greater good but only WITHIN ethnic lines i.e 30% Koreans OR 30% Chinese OR 30% Japanese is completely different to 10% Korean AND 10% Japanese AND 10% Chinese.
ReplyDeleteActually, here I might tend to disagree. For pretty obvious ev-bio reasons, I tend to doubt that the peoples of extremely racially-homogenous East Asian nations such as China, Japan, or Korea have strong innate ethnocentric tendencies, so once their children culturally-assimilate into mainstream American society, I doubt they see themselves in ingroup-outgroup terms.
Given the high unreliability of the MSM in these matters, assessing the empirical evidence is obviously a little tricky, but everything I see tends to support this theoretical hypothesis. The one slight exception might be that since East Asians tend to be very high on the social-conformist scale, perhaps a few get indoctrinated into Asian-centric ideology by Asian Studies departments at universities, but that's probably a tiny slice.
I think the larger difficulty of replacing high-intelligence Europeans with high-intelligence East Asians is that these social-conformist tendencies probably make them much less likely to radically innovate or otherwise dramatically challenge the status quo. For these reasons, East Asian innovations tend to be much more incremental and much less sweeping and revolutionary.
The loss of Europeans, and the European soul, would be an unmitigated disaster for the entire planet.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot be permitted.
Anon.
"I think the larger difficulty of replacing high-intelligence Europeans with high-intelligence East Asians is that these social-conformist tendencies probably make them much less likely to radically innovate or otherwise dramatically challenge the status quo. For these reasons, East Asian innovations tend to be much more incremental and much less sweeping and revolutionary."
ReplyDeleteSays RKU while white Americans are slowly being squeezed out of sci/tech even in their own country.
"every negative trend that we are now experiencing started after 1960's when Jews overthrew the old WASP guard in the US and took over the construction of culture in the West."
ReplyDeleteI respond to this myth in question in the second and third paragraphs of section 3 here:
http://fortaleza84.wordpress.com/answering-anti-semites/
M. G. Miles
ReplyDelete"Interesting. It calls at once to my mind Plato's 'ideal society' (from The Republic), where he flat-out states that family attachments are detrimental to society, claiming these clannic impulses prevent us from contributing to the 'Res Publica'"
That fits. Also
http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/History/
"In about 1100 BC, a people called the Dorians invaded from the north and spread down the west coast."
If the higher IQ evolving in northern latitudes theory is true then you should see lots of these northern invasions in waves over the centuries like the later Celtic and Germanic ones.
.
"One wonders what precise link exists with religion, as universalist theologies started to replace the tribal pantheons. Also how universalist religions (such as Christianity) manifest themselves differently in different populations (tropical, clannic, etc.)"
Yes. I wonder about that especially after a quote mentioned on here from a Chinese scholar saying htey believed Christianity was the key to European success whereas i wonder if Christianity was adopted because it was a neat fit with some of the components of individualist psychology in the same way Confucius was a neat fit in China.
In some places religion would just be magic and if you were conquered then the people would simply assume the conqueror's gods were stronger and adopt the outward form and symbols over the surface of the functional aspects of the original religion.
.
"Perhaps, but what of the societies where, even in the presence of high infant mortality rates...and initially might seem to belie your hypothesis."
Yes, need to think on that more
.
"Fascinating points all, Wandrin, and thanks again for sharing them."
Yes, it's interesting stuff.
.
"Early agriculture required the optimal conditions and those were given by the Nile, Fertile Crescent, Indus / Ganges and Yellow / Yangtze rivers. Three of them were in the clannish latitudes and the Chinese got the last."
ReplyDeleteWandrin,
Because I've read you talking about this a few times on here and thought you might be interested:
This is sort of true, but it's important to remember that the early Neolithic package actually worked quite well in Northern and Central Europe. The earlier farmers in Europe dropped a lot of crops (which may have made them more vulnerable via a less diverse package), but it doesn't seem like they had much in the way of big problems growing what was left and living at high densities. Farming came late to Europe, true, but that was mainly because it expanded in a stepwise fashion from the Near East, with farmers expanding to seek new land and they wouldn't expand much to the North-Central areas until the more southerly areas were relatively full up, than because of any ill suitedness of the crop package.
Now, as to civilization, I think you are more or less correct here but to clarify remember that the first cultivation of agriculture was outside riverine valleys in the hilly flanks of South East Turkey and the Levant, not the large riverine valleys where the first civilizations were born (this is something I think Jared Diamond didn't know when he wrote his book, I don't blame anyone for not knowing this when the Western narrative of the birth of agriculture has been generally conflated with the birth of civilization).
The reasons we see civilization, but not agriculture, earliest in river valleys, and particularly river valleys in dry country and where rice agriculture is involved, is probably because they had relatively high densities and relative advantages relative to the surrounding country, not because they were the best places in absolute terms. Now having a high density and relative cultivation advantages relative to the surrounding country, what that does is prevents people leaving when an elite tries to take control - a combination of sedentism and hierachy seems to be what makes civilization happen.
This kind of river valley situation where exit is impossible doesn't seem like it occured in Europe, even though high density proto-civilization in Europe did exist, such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian in the Dnieper-Dniester-Danube region and was comparable to that elsewhere in the world at the contemporary period. These egalitarian cultures seem to have collapsed, possibly in the face of highly mobile Indo-European semi-pastoralists before giving rise to anything like civilization. Possibly the urge to exit, rather than "hunker down and submit" under despotism, is still more present in European descended populations than elsewhere (the urge to fight might be similar).
"I respond to this myth"
ReplyDeleteA large part of this "myth" could be short-circuited if we applied affirmative action to Jews to in the media. Why should people who make up only 2% of the population have so much say in our media, drowning out all other voices that make up this country? As long as the law is on the books Jews shouldn't be exempt, right? Let's have no job category in the media, from owner on down, where Jews make up more than, let's be generous here, 3% of that category. Since that would be a major blow to the "myth" you're all for it, aren't you?
While we're at it, let's see your synagogues full of black and brown and yellow faces, lots of them. That would be the end of "anti-semitism." It would go a long way toward ending the "myth" that Jews have made a religion out of racism.
> I respond to this myth in question in the second and third paragraphs of section 3 here
ReplyDeleteYour response is not convincing for me. Of course it was bad to let women vote, but you won't find any society with a spotless record. Most of the people who supported this were probably also eugenicists and half of them nativists. That was a very different kind of 'leftism' which basically amounted to a sort of 'left-ethnonationalism', or something pretty close.
As for Sweden it has 10 million people today and is overwhelmed by other European influences - and it always has been; right back to 1830 and probably beyond, Germany was the high-culture 'homeland' of the Norse/Finns, simply because they aren't numerous enough to have all that many geniuses. Queen Christina had to invite the handsome Rene Descartes to come up and clue her in on the new scientific ideas, warning him that Sweden was cold in winter. Kierkegaard is probably the one and only Norse artist or thinker that the intense young man in today's US or England 'must' take in. Sweden didn't create republicanism, but viola Sweden became a republic. Swedes created approximately zero of the political ideas current in Sweden today or in 1900. Kierkegaard's Copenhavn was an outpost of ~80,000 people, if a very fine one, so anyone dreaming of becoming a great artist would of course speak German at a subtle level and sojourn in Berlin, otherwise he would have little to read that was truly superior.
"A large part of this 'myth' could be short-circuited"
ReplyDelete"Your response is not convincing for me."
In an effort to prevent this thread from getting off-track, I am not going to respond to these comments. Feel free to respond to my blog post if you like.
RKU
ReplyDelete" For pretty obvious ev-bio reasons, I tend to doubt that the peoples of extremely racially-homogenous East Asian nations such as China, Japan, or Korea have strong innate ethnocentric tendencies, so once their children culturally-assimilate into mainstream American society, I doubt they see themselves in ingroup-outgroup terms."
Yes but mainstream American society will be collectivist once the Anglos are completely gone. NE Asians won't be conforming to an individualist culture anymore they'll be conforming to a newly collectivist one. Displacing Anglos means instead of a minority collectivist culture stealth competing internally with a majority individualist culture you end up with a mass of collectivist groups together in one big snake pit.
It's already happening with Asians jumping onto the affirmative action bandwagon.
California will be the test case. Once Anglos drop below a certain level of influence then i think you'll see very rapid balkanization with mostly Indian companies and mostly Korean companies and mostly Chinese companies etc.
The thought struck me the other day and i'm still thinking about it but i think the key metric is corruption. By that i don't mean corruption is the critical factor but corruption as a metric directly relates to this topic.
.
"I think the larger difficulty of replacing high-intelligence Europeans with high-intelligence East Asians is that these social-conformist tendencies probably make them much less likely to radically innovate or otherwise dramatically challenge the status quo."
Yes, i'm more inclined to thinking the root is the individulaist culture compared to the collectivist one. The difference on the surface is i think simply social identity mechanisms reaching the peak of their effectiveness with high iq collectivist cultures.
It comes to the same thing though.
.
Matt,
ReplyDelete"Because I've read you talking about this a few times on here and thought you might be interested:"
Yes, thank you.
.
"Farming came late to Europe, true, but that was mainly because it expanded in a stepwise fashion from the Near East, with farmers expanding to seek new land and they wouldn't expand much to the North-Central areas until the more southerly areas were relatively full up, than because of any ill suitedness of the crop package."
Yes, i think something unique happened in Europe during this time that might have happened in NE Asia also if they hadn't had the Yellow River and that *something* is the basis for the individualist nature which i think at root has a biological component.
.
"but to clarify remember that the first cultivation of agriculture was outside riverine valleys"
I didn't know that, thanks.
.
"Now having a high density and relative cultivation advantages relative to the surrounding country, what that does is prevents people leaving when an elite tries to take control"
Yes i think density is the trigger.
The only difference i'd have is i think the new density combined with the pre-existing clannishness would have meant lots of violence and not enough willingness to co-operate in public goods beyond the clan level.
(It certainly does in modern western cities with clannish immigrants all jumbled together.)
Therefore i can see elites forming more as a way of controlling the violence and encouraging cohesion. On the one hand a regal / military elite for brute force restraint and on the other a regal / religious elite to restrain via social identity mechanisms.
.
"such as the Cucuteni-Trypillian in the Dnieper-Dniester-Danube region"
Will have to read about them.
.
sabril
ReplyDelete"I respond to this myth in question in the second and third paragraphs of section 3 here:"
I'm not going to argue about it on this thread except to make three points to any neutral person reading.
1. Do Jews give any indication of having a motive for wanting to turn White Americans into a minority? (nb every mention of historical persecution, holocaust movies etc)
.
2. You can read Kevin MacDonald's books and make up your own mind. For a taster:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf
.
3. What behaviour would you expect to see if collectivist clannish minority were transplanted into a majority individualistic culture?
.
3a. If a collectivist clannish minority were transplanted into a majority individualistic culture what traits would be selected for and what selected against if the criterion for success was to survive and preferably thrive without assimilating?
IQ would obviously be one.
.
"I'm not going to argue about it on this thread"
ReplyDeleteMe neither, since too many threads which have nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism quickly devolve into blame-the-Jew fests.
Feel free to respond on my blog.
I must admit that the constant focus on Jews even when this has little to do with the subject at hand gets tiresome after a while. As long as right-wingers are stuck on this particular obsession their impact will remain limited.
ReplyDelete> 4 of their genes,
ReplyDelete4.5 of their genes,
so that would be why.
That's mistaken. There are other reasons for marrying within-ethny... but if both the man and the woman outmarry, and each have three kids, they transmit the same amount of genes as they would have in having three kids together.
Which particular genes they transmit to each kid doesn't matter; they transmit 50% of their genetic material in any case.
"That's mistaken. There are other reasons for marrying within-ethny... but if both the man and the woman outmarry, and each have three kids, they transmit the same amount of genes as they would have in having three kids together."
ReplyDeleteThe reason for marrying within-ethny is so the grandkids will get your genes.
Your 3 kids from outmarriage have 50% of your genes, true, but of the 50% that come from the other-race spouse, many are going to be dissimilar (heterozygous).
Whereas your kids from the within-race coupling will likely inherit from your spouse many more genes that are identical (homozygous) to your own.
So when your kid reproduces, those many genes that are homozygous -- because you reproduced within-race -- he WILL pass on your copy of that gene. (Impossible for him not to, since the gene from you and spouse are identical).
But for the offspring of outmarriage, for all the many heterozygous genes he carries, there is only a 50% chance of YOUR gene getting passed on to the grandkid. There's a 50% chance the grandkid will get the dissimilar gene of your other-race spouse.
So your grandkids from a within-race marriage will probably carry more of YOUR genes than if you'd outmarried.
"So your grandkids from a within-race marriage will probably carry more of YOUR genes than if you'd outmarried."
ReplyDeleteI think there's a connection here with the earlier discussion.
Unless i'm mistaken the argument for marrying within-ethny is the same for marrying even closer relatives. If passing on genes is the motive and incest passes on more genes then shouldn't close relatives be more attractive? However if incest has other negative consequences then something that stopped it would have been selected for.
In my schema the basic human blueprint is: eat, f**k, kill, with fear as the only initial restraint.
I think the earliest moral restraints would have been implicitly processed genetic distance restraints followed later by explicit social identity restraints.
If genetic distance restraint is simply near-kin empathy that if anything that would make close relations more attractive.
So there could initially have been no restraint on this until a later social identity mechanism i.e a religious ban that outweighed sexual impulses. However seeing that the consequences of incest are such that would make progressing to the level of social identity mechanisms less likely i'd have thought early humans developing some kind of biological incest block was more likely to have come first.
I read kibbutzs initially kept all the kids in one big dormitory but found that when they hit puberty they weren't attracted to each other. So i'm wondering if the early developed biological mechanism for blocking incest was related to smell somehow.
Humans could still develop genetic morality based on empathic love / attraction for those who were genetically similar but that attraction could be made purely platonic by a smell / pheromone block.
Just a theory.
.
Wandrin: Yes but mainstream American society will be collectivist once the Anglos are completely gone. NE Asians won't be conforming to an individualist culture anymore they'll be conforming to a newly collectivist one...California will be the test case. Once Anglos drop below a certain level of influence then i think you'll see very rapid balkanization with mostly Indian companies and mostly Korean companies and mostly Chinese companies etc.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that California is an excellent test case, but I think the evidence actually tends to confirm my hypothesis.
Over the last thirty-odd years, the Asian population of CA has roughly quadrupled to now being over 12% I think. And since Asians are disproportionately affluent and well-educated, while almost half the state's population consists of working-class/working-poor immigrant families from Mexico and other Third World countries, I'd guess that Asians represent at least about 1/3 of the state's elites. For example, I think that over half of the students at most of CA's large universities are Asian.
Yet despite this, I've never really seen any evidence of Asian-ethnic-blocks forming in the political or business sectors, or any other sort of "ethnic collectivist" tendencies. If anything, I think the trend lines have actually been in the other direction, as the older generations of foreign-born Asians are increasingly replaced by American-born and culturally-assimilated ones. For example, lots of the older Vietnamese, Chinese, and Taiwanese used to spend all their time focusing on the political conflicts back in the Old Country, while their American-born children pay much less attention.
I've also occasionally heard a little "chatter" here and there that Chinese working in Silicon Valley sometimes feel that their lack of networking skills, social aggressiveness, and cohesion has sometimes limited their ability to rise up the corporate ladder relative to their personal talent, and this seems plausible to me. I think most top Chinese executives tend to be running companies they personally founded, while other groups are much better at reaching the top of other peoples' companies.
The one major exception to this Asian pattern---an exception that proves the rule---is the case of South Asians, whose personality traits and skill profiles are almost completely different. And whereas the major East Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea are among the most homogenous places on earth, South Asia is probably about the most ethnically diverse, with many dozens or even hundreds of intermixed but separately endogamous "races" all constantly competing with each other, often in a very hostile manner. This would tend to have a huge impact on cultural and perhaps genetic tendencies.
Another small datapoint to consider would the case of Hawaii, which has been majority-Asian for several generations now. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be much ethnic-block activism there, with the one exception being the 10% or so of Native Hawaiians, who originally lived in a strongly tribal culture and also receive lots of special government benefits and privileges.
Wandrin: However seeing that the consequences of incest are such that would make progressing to the level of social identity mechanisms less likely i'd have thought early humans developing some kind of biological incest block was more likely to have come first.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly. In fact, the evidence for a strong innate human tendency toward incest-avoidance was one of the strongest points made by the early Sociobiologists 30-40 years ago. The evidence of the Israeli Kibbutzism was one example and the Taiwanese child-brides another. The negative genetic consequences of incest are so strong there would have been huge selective pressure for such negative-imprinting, though I don't know whether people believe the actual mechanism is based on smell/pheromones. I think the original theory behind this goes back to Westermarck in the late 19th Century, though it was all later pushed aside for decades by all the Freudian nonsense.
Interestingly enough, I've sometimes heard that when separately-adopted siblings encounter each other, they often experience considerable attraction, though whether this is due to some sort of genetic-detection effect or just because they share so many personality traits is difficult to say. I also think this explains the remarkably high rate of incest in certain royal families (e.g. Ptolemaic Egypt) since the children were all raised separately by armies of servants.
RKU
ReplyDelete"Yes, I agree that California is an excellent test case, but I think the evidence actually tends to confirm my hypothesis."
Could be, i need to do more reading either way. Most of my evidence comes from experience of multi-ethnic inner-city hell holes combined with a layman's reading of HBD material. That's all fitting together frighteningly well but i do have a bit of a hole in my experience with regard to North East Asians as you don't get that many in those environments. From what experience i do have i think they're a distinct category of their own so it may play out differently.
.
"The one major exception to this Asian pattern---an exception that proves the rule---is the case of South Asians"
I think we may have different experiences and definitions of Asian. In my experience most of Asia fits VERY much in the general clannish latitudes category and that includes most of South Asia with NE Asia standing out as a bloc exception.
High-caste north Indians DO stand out also both from the clannish majority and the NE Asians but i don't think they're representaive of Indians as a whole. This would no doubt annoy them but they always struck me as a white-asian hybrid.
.
"The negative genetic consequences of incest are so strong there would have been huge selective pressure for such negative-imprinting,"
Yes, that's what i was thinking. It would need to be something early and biological as the consequences are too serious to wait for the development of social identity mechanisms - assuming it wouldn't prevent developing that far in the first place. The social identity mechanisms kick in later for cousins.
.
"though I don't know whether people believe the actual mechanism is based on smell/pheromones."
That's just a guess.
.
Wandrin: I think we may have different experiences and definitions of Asian. In my experience most of Asia fits VERY much in the general clannish latitudes category and that includes most of South Asia with NE Asia standing out as a bloc exception.
ReplyDeleteYes, I'd agree that the vast majority of ethnic groups in Asia fall into the "clannish-oriented" category, with the South Asians being typical in that regard. But don't forget that in raw population-terms, the handful of big East Asian countries---China, Japan, the Koreas, and perhaps a few borderline cases in South-East Asia---number around 1.5B, meaning they represent 1/3 to 1/2 the Asians in the world (excluding Middle Easterners/Arabs). Also, something like 80% of Asians in America come from those places, and only 20% from South Asia. That's what I'd meant about South Asians being the exception.
Wandrin,
ReplyDeleteMost of my evidence comes from experience of multi-ethnic inner-city hell holes combined with a layman's reading of HBD material.
P.S. Given my impression of just how utterly hellish "inner-city hells" can be, and the total dishonesty of the American MSM in that regard for the last fifty-odd years, I can certainly understand your extreme caution when it comes to ethnic-diversity type issues. Obviously, different people have different life-experiences...
"I must admit that the constant focus on Jews even when this has little to do with the subject at hand gets tiresome after a while."
ReplyDeleteWhat is tiresome are people who denounce so-called 'anti-Semites' without ever addressing their points or debating them in good faith.
RKU
ReplyDelete"number around 1.5B"
Yes, fair point.
ReplyDeleteWhat is tiresome are people who denounce so-called 'anti-Semites' without ever addressing their points or debating them in good faith.
Hear hear, well said.
anon,
ReplyDelete"What is tiresome are people who denounce so-called 'anti-Semites' without ever addressing their points or debating them in good faith."
There's no common ground between individualist morality and clannish morality. They're not wired up to understand what you mean by "good faith" in this context. I know what you mean but they don't. They're simply wired up different.
Individualist morality is about trying to find a balance between two individuals or two groups of individuals. "Good" is minimizing unfairness. Clannish morality is simply "is it good for the clan?"
There's no point arguing with them because even if you "win" by our rules but it's not good for the clan then they won't accept it. For all i know it might even be physically impossible for them to see it. I know there's plenty of other groups who don't understand white logic at all and just look blank.
Argue with white people about fairness. Don't argue with clannish.
.
"I read kibbutzs initially kept all the kids in one big dormitory but found that when they hit puberty they weren't attracted to each other."
ReplyDeleteI heard it explained once, natural selection selects against incest because harmful mutations, which are recessive, are more likely to find their homozygous mates in first-degree relatives, so will be expressed, to the detriment of the fitness of the offspring.
I saw a theory once that, to avoid incest, there seems to be a natural mechanism such that people who lived together as small children together are not attracted to each other as adults.
It seems like the ideal compromise is something like 6th cousins. Close enough to have lots of genes in common but no so close as to have harmfully mutated genes in common.
"I must admit that the constant focus on Jews even when this has little to do with the subject at hand gets tiresome after a while."
ReplyDeleteYes I agree. In order to avoid joining these hijacks, I created a blog post entitled "Answering anti-Semites" I am happy to debate anyone who wishes on that page.
What's the appropriate punishment for an "anti-semite" Sabril?
ReplyDelete"What's the appropriate punishment for an 'anti-semite' Sabril?"
ReplyDeleteI am happy to answer that question if you ask on my blog.
But I am not answering here since I do not want to contribute to these sort of hijacks.
"I created a blog post entitled "Answering anti-Semites" I am happy to debate anyone who wishes on that page."
ReplyDeleteGood and congratulations.
This new blog means you'll be around here a lot less, right? Or are you going to advertise your blog everytime PH, svigor, Wandrin and other 'anti-Semites' post here?
"This new blog means you'll be around here a lot less, right? "
ReplyDeleteWhat I plan to do is post normally, except when somebody tries to bring Jewish stuff up in an unrelated thread. In that case I will note that I have addressed these issues in my blog post and am happy to debate them there.
"What I plan to do is post normally, except when somebody tries to bring Jewish stuff up in an unrelated thread. In that case I will note that I have addressed these issues in my blog post and am happy to debate them there."
ReplyDeleteMost of what you post here is in response to those who believe it is fair to criticize Jews (aka 'anti-Semites'). That is 'posting normally' for you.
It sounds like you'll still do that but, since you've appointed yourself hall monitor here, you'll just now tell the offending parties to go to the detention room (your blog) instead of your usual dissimulation.
" instead of your usual dissimulation."
ReplyDeleteBait declined.
Say you have two groups and both have ten units of concern.
ReplyDeleteSay with the clannish group those ten units are divided like
immediate family, 5 units
sibling's families, 3 units
cousin's families, 2 units
now with the other group say it's divided
immediate family, 3 units
sibling's families, 2 units
cousin's families, 1 units
public goods, 4 units
The result is less DIRECT concern for immediate family but the greater willingness to contribute to public goods that benefit everyone benefits family INDIRECTLY. The end result at the family level is therefore
immediate family, 3 + 4 public
sibling's families, 2 + 4 public
cousin's families, 1 + 4 public
So the 3/2/1/4 (combined to 7/6/5) commonweal form is more efficient than the 5/3/2/0 clannish form.
Commonweal cultures are much more efficient at creating internal surplus and at competing EXTERNALLY with clannish cultures
.
Now logically there are two ways to get from the 5/3/2/0 form to the 3/2/1/4 form. One is 3/2/1/4 people being directly selected for somehow because it is more efficient. The second is if a society gradually evolves that transfers units of concern through some form of coercion.
The second can be achieved through social identity mechanisms
- religion
- tribalism/nationalism
- combined forms
Social identity mechanisms are about creating an artificial family, an artificial extended clan to
- provide moral restraint beyond clan level
- group cohesion beyond clan level
- encourage contribution to public goods beyond clan level
(when you look at things this way you start to see Stonehenge and the pyramids as gigantic team bonding exercises)
Social identity mechanisms select for conscientousness (conforming to social identity) (c-ness) by providing benefits to those who conform to them and executing or banishing some of the more extreme non-conformers. They don't neccessarily change the underlying implicit clannish psychology they over-rule it explicitly.
The effectiveness of social identity mechanisms in selecting for c-ness will be related to a lot of factors: IQ, social complexity, density, proximity, time etc.
I think maximum c-ness would require thousands of years in a highly complex, densely populated, urbanized environment with a lot of executions at one end and with structured systems to maximize benefit for the c-ness trait at the other end. The Confucian exam system could be seen as the ultimate mechanism of selecting for c-ness.
So humans could get to a clannish commonweal over time through social identity mechanisms, usually a nation or a religion, combined with culturally selecting for c-ness.
This would cover the sequence tropical -> clannish -> clannish commonweal (n/asian).
.
However given that 3/2/1/4 is more efficient then logically there ought to be another way of getting to the same place directly and that is if the 5/3/2/0 genetic distance based morality (clannishness) is somehow directly selected against and the 3/2/1/4 form is directly selected for so that the actual underlying psychology is biologically shifted towards a more individual based morality.
It would require an environment where people who were inclined to treat non-kin in the same (or at least similar) way to kin were selected for and people who were too clannish were selected against.
An individual based morality would automatically tend towards rules that applied to all individuals (ie universal) and that would require a sense of justice based on balancing harm between individuals rather than "is it good for the clan" or "is it good for the extended social identity clan."
So that would be the second sequence tropical -> clannish -> individualist commonweal (white)
.
If that individualist commonweal culture urbanized at a later date the social identity c-ness mechanisms would be laid over the top.
.
Possible candidates for the differential mechanism between the sequences
ReplyDeletetropical -> clannish -> clannish commonweal
tropical -> clannish -> individualist commonweal
.
1) High-density SURPLUS agriculture e.g Nile. The density is important because it brings large numbers of clannish people together which in my experience is a recipe for lots of violence. However the agricultural surplus meant that elites could form who could use a mixture of brute force (law courts) or social identity mechanisms (religion, pharoah as god etc) to get people to conform to an extended clan identity. This process would center on riverine valleys going Nile, Fertile Crescent, Indus/Ganges, Yellow/Yangtze and spreading outwards from those centers. I'd also assume the efficiency of created social identity mechanisms would be proportional to IQ therefore reaching its maximum form in n/asia with Confucianism.
.
2) Matt earlier mentioned something i'd never heard of, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in the Dnieper-Dniester-Danube region
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Cucuteni%E2%80%93Trypillian_culture
This had high-density SUBSISTENCE agriculture
"Although this culture's settlements sometimes grew to become some of the largest on earth at the time (up to 15,000 people), there is no evidence yet discovered of labor specialization."
A high-density of clannish people would mean violence and conflict. If there's no surplus an elite can't form to contain it through brute force and social identity mechanisms. So you have a selective pressure to change the PEOPLE themselves from 5/3/2/0 to 3/2/1/4.
If true then high-density but subsistence agriculture in other parts of Europe (or the world) might have a similar effect but perhaps you need to develop the high IQ first (northern latitudes) to be able to have both high-density and subsistence at the same time.
.
Well this is a very interesting sociobiological demonstration we have going on here.
ReplyDeleteWhenever "somebody tries to bring Jewish stuff up" in what Sabril determines is "an unrelated thread" then by the power and authority vested in Sabril, he'll demand that the offending party, now declared an "anti-semite" by those very same powers that belong to Sabril alone, be summarily summonsed to his blog for a "debate". And all with no forewarning or foreknowledge imparted as to what the punishment is for being declared an "anti-semite".
This all sounds very ominous and scary indeed. And also very reminiscent of where White people find themselves positioned today.
Where does Sabril derive these powers to silence and admonish? Where is the outrage from usually outspoken others that Sabril should take such an un-Western attitude to public debate and demand that those he and his ilk oppose be silenced?
Why it seems to me that, to paraphrase the words of that *great man*, 'as long as right-wingers allow this particular ethno-religious obsession to dominate their own interests then their impact will remain limited.'
Or in the slightly rearranged words of that other *great man*:
Try to imagine the mental state of a white person who is toiling in the conflict you describe. He has negative thoughts about Jewish violence, Jewish job performance, Jewish racial preferences, Jewish anti-white racism, and so on, but he can never speak these thoughts aloud, and he can never even allow himself to think them clearly to himself. Even I, who have written a fair amount about the phenomenon of white guilt, cannot fully picture to myself what it's like to live day to day in such falsity, to be always maneuvering and negotiating inside one's own head between certain thoughts that one has and the absolute imperative not to speak or think those thoughts because they are evil.?
I'm sure you will agree that this subject is very relevant should we wish to get to the bottom of the Darwinian Double Whammy that we are faced with. Unless of course you don't really wish to resolve the matter but rather, direct it towards an outcome that suits your own particular purposes not wholly commensurate with *our* purposes.
Pat Hannagan,
ReplyDelete"Unless of course you don't really wish to resolve the matter but rather, direct it towards an outcome that suits your own particular purposes"
I think some understand the differences well enough to do that. I think some just don't get it at all and see any attack as an unwarranted attack.
It's like you can talk to inner-city "yout" and they'll talk about the bad stuff white people have done to black people as an excuse to do what they want. You can then talk about the bad stuff black have done to white and they'll either blink, shake their head a bit like they're throwing it out the other ear, then repeat what they first said, or get angry and repeat what they first said louder, or sulkily shrug and accept while you're there in front of them but be back to the first state as soon as you leave.
To take the scales analogy someone with the individualist morality arguing with someone with the clannish morality is like someone trying to balance the scales where the person on the other side is wired up to think their group's sins are ALWAYS set to zero or positive compared to the out-group.
There's a biological difference imo. I don't think white people can ever gain from allowing clannish people inside their terriotory. The only possible exception would be n/asians and only in such proportions that they'd conform to the individualist culture e.g 95% white, 5% n/asian or something.
I suppose also if the clannish group were ALL scientists and weren't allowed to be anything else.
.
"I suppose also if the clannish group were ALL scientists and weren't allowed to be anything else."
ReplyDeleteThis is the answer to the J.Q., imo.
Eustace Mullins pointed out, the Byzantine Empire lasted 1,000 years, and the Jews never took over.
HOW? Simple: They kept them out of banking, education, government.
**** We could do the same, but I'd add media.****
MULLINS
Non-violent formula for controlling the Jews
from NEW HISTORY of the JEWS by Eustace Mullins
In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.
It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome. This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.
Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.
Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.
It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.
No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.
It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.
From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.
"The answer to the Jewish problem is simple," he said.
"Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government."
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/history/zionism/news.php?q=1262376354
So, if Jews are allowed to, for instance, practice dentistry, have a shoe store, practice radiology, other occupations where they'll be denied excess, unchecked influence, they can live a nice life, while being prevented from destroying us Europeans of Christian Heritage.
JSM
ReplyDelete"This is the answer to the J.Q., imo."
Interesting. The media is partly educative and in a democracy partly the government also so that would fit.
FYI: I'm fairly certain that many of those Jews in the Byzantine Empire were involved in "white slavery" (pagan Slavs only, of course).
ReplyDeleteI hope you realize that article is full of nonsense, btw.
Wandrin is likely right to suppose that morality is quite varied among human races and therefore communication will be impeded by such built-in variations. Such variation seems true.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is based upon the universality of moral systems. All humans have what seems to be a biological mechanism for morality.Alas, as culture changes the expression of moral norms will indeed vary. Thus, just as all peoples have language, various groups cannot understand each orther as language evolves in different directions.Moral systems are the same as language and can create disparities over time.Having a universal moral grammar will, under fixed principles, constrain the potential range of moral systems because of the logical possibilities of the brain and historical inertia.Brains interact with a changing environment so moral systems are likely to vary around the world; yet all have moral systems.We are in fact owners of moral systems built upon genetics.We have abstract principles for deciding which altruistic, sexual, and violent acts are permissible.However, we seem unable to agree about a complex problem like abortion.
If the universal moral grammar is correct-and it is a hypothesis right now- it would require the guidance of religion for proper expression via acts of compassion,etc. An environment like " Jersey Shore" is corrosive and would greatly interfere with the development of a moral sytem.American society, caught in the grips of the liberal meme, declines because the meme of self-interest becomes almost inexorable in its effectness in an individualist culture. Collectivist counter-cultures cannot summon moral power to compete with the corrosive effects of liberalism.
"FYI: I'm fairly certain that many of those Jews in the Byzantine Empire were involved in "white slavery" (pagan Slavs only, of course)."
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point?
Are you implying, if American-Americans decided to correct the problem of excess Jewish influence upon our society by adopting the Byzantine solution of limiting the occupational options of Jews, that we'd allow Jews to engage in White slavery?
(headscratch)
Cornelius Troost,
ReplyDelete"An environment like " Jersey Shore" is corrosive and would greatly interfere with the development of a moral sytem."
The current dominant social identity mechanisms are corrosive instead of cohesive.
.
"it would require the guidance of religion for proper expression via acts of compassion,etc."
Especially so on those with the least natural restraint. In the worst places the difference between the dumb and irreligious and the dumb but religious in percentage terms would be in the order of 400% or so. It makes a HUGE difference because their baseline restraint is so low.
The loss of religion among those groups has been disastrous.
Worse still, they are de-evolving.
One of the benefits of monogamous marriage that doesn't get mentioned much is children know who their fathers are and by extension their siblings. Because the women in these new reverse evolution experiments have say three kids with three different men and over that time there may have been a dozen or so men in total they have no real idea who the fathers are and who their half-siblings or cousins are.
On top of that those environments have gangs for each little area which keeps the populations locked into small clumps which means they're basically all having children with cousins if not half-siblings.
It's slowly turning into Lord of the Flies.
.
I think one important point to keep in mind is that expressed human behavior, including "clannishness", is usually controlled by some complex mix of "hardware" (genetic tendencies) and "software" (cultural patterns), and it's sometimes a little tricky to disentangle them. After all, people walk around everywhere carrying a clumsy and very expensive CPU with them, so it certainly makes sense for them to use for as many things as possible.
ReplyDeleteI think the computer analogy is actually a very useful one. Most activities are controlled entirely by software, which is maximally flexible and easy to modify. But after a while, if a particular operation is being used very frequently and is extremely important, people sometimes go to the trouble of designing a custom chip to implement it in hardware, which can raise the efficiency by orders of magnitude. Similarly, most behavior patterns are implemented memetically in culture, but if they go on long enough and are subject to sufficient selective pressure, the genetic distribution gradually tends shift in their direction.
This certainly applies to the behaviors being discussed. For example, from everything I've always read when the Irish first arrived in America, centuries of ethnic struggle against their hated English overlords had led to a very distinct package of traits. The Irish were notorious for their extreme clannishness, their ethnic cohension, and their social and often violent group aggression. As a result, they always had huge conflicts with all their non-Irish neighbors, but still quickly managed to seize political control over most of America's major East Coast cities.
But that was a century or more ago, and after a couple of generations, the Irish seem to have assimilate culturally into mainstream American society, and their clannishness mostly dissipated. Except for a few odd places here and there like South Boston, my impression is that for the last generation or two, the Irish haven't been any more clannish than e.g. the founding stock of American WASPs. This sort of swift cultural transformation isn't too surprising since a couple of centuries of conflict during the English Occupation probably wouldn't have been long enough to shift Irish genetic tendencies very much.
Another good example is the case of the Chinese and Japanese. I'd say the Chinese, especially the Southern Chinese, are probably among the most naturally capitalistic people on earth, while the exceptionally strong conformism of the Japanese probably makes them more suited to Communism than just about any other people in the world. But as I always used to joke with my friends, the ideological stork somehow got the addresses mixed up, and it was China which became Communist and Japan Capitalist.
Now the Chinese are a very disciplined and obedient people, so when their government told them to follow Communism, they actually did a pretty fair job of it, all things considered (much more so than e.g. the Russians). But when their leaders changed their minds, and Old Deng told them to "become rich" instead, they quickly achieved the highest sustained economic growth rate in the entire history of the world, and will probably become the world's largest economy within just another handful of years. So the world's billion-plus most zealous Communists became the world's billion-plus most zealous Capitalists within just a couple of decades, demonstrating the speed of cultural change.
"then by the power and authority vested in Sabril"
ReplyDeleteHijack declined.
Sabril deserves some support. Jews in America have often made great contributions to our quality of life. I just received my May6 copy of The Economist and the Obituary refers to one Barry Blumberg, a highly individualistic microbiologist who became a master at Balliol Coillege, Oxford,but who spent his long career mostly at American universities. He won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the viral cause of chronic hepatitisB. He also made the first vaccine against hepatitis B.He saved millions of lives with his work and even spent time in the US navy. Surely such contributions like these have resulted from Jewish ambition and energy.Sabril has much truth on his side despite the Jewish tendency to fight for Leftist causes.
ReplyDeleteSabril does not have the truth on his side, and he does not deserve support. The reality that you point to is that there is a tradeoff between Jewish accomplishments and Jewish social warfare against Whites, but his line is that there are no major problems for Whites for which Jews are responsible.
ReplyDeleteI side with those who think that the costs and benefits of a Jewish elite come out heavily negative for Whites. We would be better off with our own elites. If you get replaced, nothing else matters. Our stake in a post-White world is nil.
But there is plenty of basis to talk up Jewish contributions.
In any case, the real discussion is about the trade-off. If you had to do without the benefits of the contributions of some really sharp minds being in elite positions where they could have maximum effect, but pressing that same button would also undo White flight and all the other evils that flowed from cultural Marxism, would you push that button? That's your real opinion of the trade-off.
Denying that there is a trade-off is not serious.
tropicals: low iq, low empathy, collectivist
ReplyDeleteclannish: medium iq, medium empathy (in towns), collectivist
ne asian: high iq, high empathy, collectivist
white: high iq, high empathy, individualist
I think collectivism runs yellow>white>black (a la Rushton), actually. Blacks strike me as more individualistic than whites, after you correct for IQ (I think low IQ, inferior minority status, and socialization (largely by whites and "whites") explains their striking cultural homogeneity). Blacks tend to be more sociopathic, and sociopaths have little regard for convention except insofar as it impacts self-interest.
In short, I think the default race-realist concept of blacks as more collectivist than whites is wrong. Did Katrina really show us a collectivist black population? Or a teeming mass of individualists who couldn't give less of a crap about the next fella?
Cornelius "whistle-past-the-graveyard" Troost's constant refrain about Jewish contributions is beside the point. China got the benefits of ole Barry's contributions without hosting his ethny's hostile presence.
ReplyDeleteSvigor: think collectivism runs yellow>white>black (a la Rushton), actually. Blacks strike me as more individualistic than whites...In short, I think the default race-realist concept of blacks as more collectivist than whites is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. Rushton's Rule may not always work, but here it does, and blacks are indeed less collectivist than whites or East Asians.
However, I'd also argue that although East Asians are certainly more collectivist than whites, they're not necessarily more "clannish," which is a somewhat different thing. Strange as it might sound, I think you could make a reasonable case that China is the original "propositional nation", which obviously requires lack of strong clannishness.
For example, I recall that Confucius famously stated that "those who wear Chinese clothes and act like Chinese people should be considered Chinese," and this seems to have been pretty much the general policy, as large numbers of different groups and individuals were historically assimilated and absorbed into the Chinese nation, certainly including Caucasian ones. In fact, modern genetics indicates that Southern Chinese are actually genetically closer to South-East Asians, indicating that a pretty sizable fraction of all Han today are actually non-Han who became Han mostly by cultural absorption over the last couple of thousand years.
And this lack of strong in-group/out-group psychological tendencies is exactly what we would expect evolutionarily from a people 99% of whose ancestors would have almost never have encountered a single "out-group" member any time in the last two thousand years.
David Wingrove's powerful future history from the 1990s, in which the collapse of the American Empire and the West in general lead to Chinese conquest of the world, is not so intrinsically implausible from this perspective. The Han and the Nords rule together in a sometimes uneasy sort of co-dominion, with the absolute top being Han, but with important sectors, such as the security forces and the large industrial companies, being overwhelmingly Sinicized Nords.
Svigor,
ReplyDeleteMissed this
"I think collectivism runs yellow>white>black"
I've changed that list now to try and make my view clearer.
1) tropicals: low iq, low c-ness, clannish
2) clannish: medium iq, medium c-ness(in towns) low elsewhere, clannish
3) n/asian: high iq, high c-ness in towns low elsewhere, clannish
4) white: high iq, medium c-ness, individual-based morality
I was getting a bit hung up on empathy. I now think it's the key to the clannish vs individual split rather than a separate thing.
I replace clannish with collectivist beacause what i want to get at is the limits of empathy or the limits of near-kin mechanisms.
c-ness is conscientousness which is willingness and ability to conform to social identity that creates cohesion past near-kin and replaces DIRECT near-kin benefits with INDIRECT near-kin benefits.
So, for me collectivist is broken into two things.
Morality. Extended family morality (clannishness) where morality is based on relatedness vs more individual-based morality.
This is black/brown/yellow vs white imo.
Then there is c-ness which is ability to conform to social identities which among other things might promote collective action for the benefit of the group.
This i'd say would go: black -> brown / white -> n/asian
(i think c-ness is largely a product of urbanization so white is relatively low because of late urbanization compared to the rest)
.
"Did Katrina really show us a collectivist black population?"
In my schema Katrina is natural
clannish behaviour (no moral restraint beyond near-kin) combined with low c-ness (social identity restraint).
Blacks are all about blacks as a group. They are just not very good at being collectivist.
.
"Or a teeming mass of individualists who couldn't give less of a crap about the next fella?"
I think the word individualist partially gives the wrong impression. I think it's more about individual based morality contrasted with clannish morality.
Clannish morality says my brother killing my cousin is better than my cousin killing my brother. Individual based morality says they're the same.
If you imagine an empathy bell curve with a horizontal scale ranging from sociopathy on the left through near-kin to far-kin to everybody to dolphins then i think individual based morality would naturally start to appear if for some reason the mid point of the empathy bell curve got shifted from being centered on near-kin to being centered on the wider group.