31 July 2018

Widening Circle of Empathy: The Final Frontier

The town of Székesfehérvár, Hungary--a thousand-year-old city home to the original royal court--just applied for the coveted 'European Capital of Culture.' The video they submitted was turned down flat by the E.U. jury. The reason?

'There are too many happy white people and crosses, and not enough migrants.' … One of the European Union’s experts said with astonishment: 'This is the propaganda film for white Christian Europe; everyone is white, happy and dancing in the streets.'

Just a few months later, the soccer World Cup final pitted France against Croatia. Before the match, France's Anti-Defamation League posted:

'France's team, multi-colored, multi-ethnic, goes head to head with a Croatian team that's distressingly uniform.  Knowing Croatia's history, no surprise. Balkan-centric, nostalgic for an era which worshiped only brute strength, they play a soccer that is bland, colorless, flavorless
'France will win—she's already won! She unites, welcomes, understands. … Let's keep fighting so that our Republic's values stay on top, even if—against all odds—we lose.'

Hungary 'too white,' Croatia 'colorless'… Whence this race-obsessed rhetoric? 

Steven Pinker has written at length about the 'widening circle of empathy.'  We at TWCS believe that it has four phases, and that certain Western countries have now entered the fourth and terminal phase: the desire for self-replacement.

On what do we base this claim?

And if true, where does it come from? How do we know when it's approaching? Is there anything we can do to stop it?

I. Widening Empathy: First 3 Stages

Our research has led us to believe that out-group altruism goes through 4 phases:
  1. The clan: Enmity towards all outside one's clan.
  2. The ethny: Trust for all in one's own ethnic group.
  3. Multiculturalism: Trust for alien ethnic groups.  [Most Western countries are here.]
  4. Ethno-suicideWish for self-replacement by alien ethnic groups.

This fourth and final stage is what we shall look at today, as it seems to be hurtling towards us with astounding speed. 

But first, a quick reminder of the first three phases of out-group altruism.

1) Clan: We trust them only

[Current example: Andamanese Islanders.]

It cannot be stressed enough that out-group enmity is the historical norm in all populations.  We come from small hunter-gatherer groups; our oldest and deepest instincts are 'trust closest family; be ready to kill all others.' (RushtonDiamond)   As 
E.O. Wilson says, 'the selection pressures of hunter-gatherer existence have persisted for over 99% of human genetic evolution.' This is our common genetic heritage.

Hibbing et al., in their groundbreaking 'Predisposed' (on the difference between lefty and righty brains), had this to say:
Our best guess is that in the rough and tumble of the Pleistocene, individuals who tried new things, opened themselves up to members of other tribes, and had little to no negativity bias were rare—it simply seems a losing long-term strategy in the face of all the dangers swirling about.
… Selection pressures in such environments would likely favor individuals with higher degrees of negativity bias, who approached novel situations with caution, who were loyal to their group, and who were suspicious of the tribe over the hill. 
They warn that this old way of thinking could in fact come back:

Liberalism may thus be viewed as an evolutionary luxury afforded by negative stimuli becoming less prevalent and less deadly. If the environment shifted back to the threat-filled atmosphere of the Pleistocene, positive selection for conservative orientations would reappear and, with sufficient time, become as prevalent as it was then.

2) Ethny: We trust our whole ethnic group

[Current example: Japan]

The second phase: extending trust to groups outside our immediate clan.  This seems to have come about after our switch to farming, and to widely varying degrees across the world. (We looked at the data in-depth here.

See, for example, Francis Fukuyama on the Japanese: 
Consensus comes about relatively easily in Japan. ... Networks based on reciprocal moral obligation have ramified throughout the Japanese economy because the degree of generalized trust possible among unrelated people is extraordinarily high. ... Something in Japanese culture makes it very easy for one person to incur a reciprocal obligation to another and to maintain this sense of obligation over extended periods of time.

Or Salvador de Madariaga on the English (1929):

...the English sensitiveness to the 'laws of things'--the law of the road, the law of the sea, the law of the hunting field. ... the English are the teachers of the world, not merely in their quickness to perceive these natural laws, but in their cordial and sincere obedience to the restrictions which they impose upon each individual for the good of the whole. 

For one example of where it has not fully taken root, social anthropologist Roberto DaMatta sums up his country, Brazil:
If I am buying from or selling to a relative, I neither seek profit nor concern myself with money. The same can happen in a transaction with a friend. But, if I am dealing with a stranger, then there are no rules, other than the one of exploiting him to the utmost.
So how did we move from 'All outside our clan must die' to 'My whole ethnic group can be trusted'? No one is quite sure, but  HBD Chick, drawing on MitterauerToddClark, and others, has argued that the Germanic 'core' of Northern Europe underwent a series of unusual selection pressures (see her outstanding piece here, also JayMan and Peter Frost). Among them were Church-imposed outbreeding and manorialism, which seem to have fostered nuclear families and individualism, commonweal-orientation, civicness and less violence.

Examples of such high-trust societies would be the England, Germany, or Japan of the 19th / early 20th century—civicness and low interpersonal violence among members of society, but ruthless towards outsiders.

3) Multiculturalism: We trust alien groups

[Current example: Anglos, Scandinavians, Germanics.]

The third phase of the 'widening circle of empathy,' where much of the West has arrived today, is that of extending trust to alien out-groups—the more alien, the better. When did this change come about? 

We have in fact researched the question in-depth, in 'When Progressives Get [Multiculturalist] Religion,' but to give a quick snapshot, changing immigration policy tells the tale. At what point did we start opening our doors wide to groups so very unlike us?

a) The U.S.

America once let in Europeans only. In 1920, that was narrowed down to NW Euros only. Then the 1965 Immigration Act changed everything:

Image source 

Since the U.S. was then still in stage two, 'Ethno-centrism,' Ted Kennedy had to stand before the Congress and assure them that this law 'will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.' 


b) Australia

In Australia, the long-standing 'White Australia Policy' intended immigrants to be ethnically-Euro:

Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. ... As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world.
Until, in the 1980s, they began to open their doors to outsiders:

c) The U.K.

In the U.K., non-white immigration was very low until the 1990s: 
The change in the size of the foreign born population between 2001 and 2011 was absolutely without precedent in British history.

And who are all these 'foreign-born'? Non-whites lead the charge:
The 2.5 million increase in population over the last decade has been driven entirely by non-'white British' people migrating to the country and higher birth rates among ethnic minority groups, official figures have indicated.

d) Canada

Canada had once favored European immigration only, but this changed due to laws passed from 1967-1976:

Now Canadians can vaunt their openness to the Other:

e) Sweden

Even Sweden, open-doors country par excellence, didn't start ushering in the third world until the 1970s. Before that, its immigrants were largely other Scandinavians. 

It appears, then, that most Western countries stayed in the 'Ethno-centric' phase until quite late, around the 1960s-1980s. This period seems to be the turning point from 'Just us' to 'Outsiders welcome.'

Having seen phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 'widening circle of empathy,' then, it would seem that the third phase—Multiculturalism—is as far as one can go. Welcome in alien ethnies, eat lots of exotic food, and we all live happily ever after... n'est-ce pas?

But there is indeed a final frontier.

II. The Final Frontier—Self-replacement

Multiculturalism, we have thus seen, is a welcoming in of alien ethnic groups (truly alien—not Danes into Sweden, but Somalis into Sweden).

But where is the line between Multiculturalism and Self-replacement? 

It seems there is a slow evolution. First, we welcome in alien groups. Then, we start to offer them perks that we do not offer our own group. Lastly, in the terminal phase, we call on them to replace us.

As Robert Merry puts it,
When in history have we seen a civilization turn on itself with such savagery as we see in the West today? What civilizations of the past or present have repudiated themselves and their cultural foundations with such focused intent, then invited in masses of others who don’t share the heritage?

Or Anthony Brown in The Guardian:

One demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'

Even still, the charge that certain Western peoples are actively trying to commit ethno-suicide sounds, on its face, rather far-fetched. What is the evidence?

1) We're encouraged to replace ourselves with immigrants

One clear sign is that our leaders--those who are meant to show us the way forward--are calling for the effacement our native populations. To wit:

 Years ago Bill Clinton years ago celebrated the coming white displacement:

To Clinton, an America without a white majority is a worthy destiny. As he put it a year ago to a small gathering of black columnists, “Along with our founding, which was an act of genius, and the freeing of slaves in the Civil War and the long civil rights movement, this will arguably be the third great revolution of America, if we can prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture.

Twenty years later, vice president Joe Biden happily reports:

"By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Biden added that that’s “not a bad thing, that’s a good thing.”

French president Nicolas Sarkozy (conservative) has said,
'The goal is to meet the challenge of multiculturalism which the 21st century presents us. It's not a choice, it's an obligation. We can't do otherwise…We have to change, so we will change.' 
'The new France will be a France where the expression "native Frenchman" has disappeared.' 

Angela Merkl's Finance Minister made the surprising claim that Germans marrying one another is somehow 'inbreeding':

Wolfgang Schäuble said closing Germany’s borders would ‘ruin’ the country. ... In an interview with weekly paper Die Zeit, Mr Schäuble rejected the idea Europe could close its borders to immigrants, and said: “Isolation is what would ruin us – it would lead us into inbreeding.”

  E.U. Immigration Commissioner for Migration lays out Brussels' doctrine:

“It’s time to face the truth. We cannot and will never be able to stop migration,” writes EU Commissioner for Migration Dimitris Avramopoulo. 
He also praised a series of Politico articles which accuse the EU of being “too white”, in which the bloc was urged to bring in measures which would encourage replacing native Europeans with “people of colour” in Brussels jobs.

And at the truly ethno-masochistic end of the spectrum: 

'Everywhere you saw nothing but this superb brown color that only the loveliest human beings have. ... Personally, I don't want to be Western. I don't want to be a white Catholic; I'd rather be a black atheist.'
--French presidential candidate (and white Catholic) Jean-Luc Melenchon, describing a political rally full of immigrants

'Look at all the beautiful colours the women here are wearing. Within ten years this is what it is going to look like all over Europe. Back home it’s so bleak and dreary,the colours are devoid of life. ...'   
--Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg on a state visit to Lagos, Nigeria

Political leaders everywhere have turned fretting about being 'too white' into a near-obsession:

Spot the fake

From the top of society, self-replacementism has percolated into the media, such as HuffPo Germany in their piece, 'Re-people us! Why the German people should be abolished':

Black, brown, yellow, white, Asians and Arabs, Africans, you people from America, India, people of all faiths – come and help us! Stream in and re-people us, but thoroughly! ... A little more genetic and cultural seed-scattering here and a little more self-abolition through reproduction fatigue there – that, as Deniz Yücel once called it, would be the “most beautiful side of the perishing of a people”.

2) We're encouraged to out-marry

One interesting aspect of plain old multiculturalism was the quite forceful propagandizing required to make people accept it. Not that we use the word as a pejorative--anti-smoking propaganda in the U.S. from the 1970s on, for example, has been hugely successful at stopping this harmful habit.

Nonetheless the images used in diversity campaigns have greatly evolved. In the past they were often of, say, a multi-racial group of friends, or a black family interacting with a white family.

The new diversity images are altogether different. We now have advertisers, TV shows, etc. spurring on Euro-descended people to marry outside their group.

In a country where the 'one-drop rule' still reigns, in a mixed-race couple, the black parent's children will still be considered black/Afro, while the white parent's children will no longer be considered white/Euro. In this sense, the Euro parent, but not the Afro one, is erasing his ethnic heritage.

Whether erasing the Euro ethny is a good thing or not is, of course, up for debate. One finds it hard to imagine, however, a campaign urging Thais to stop giving birth to Thais, or Persians to stop giving birth to Persians, or Igbos to stop giving birth to Igbos.  

In any case in the West, by far advertisers' favorite couple is white woman, black man:

Far less popular, but still common: black woman, white man:

The U.K. has gone all in, as each Christmas season brings a slew of holiday ads encouraging out-marriage; see this impressive 22-minute compilation:

Hollywood has jumped on this bandwagon full force as well:

Something New, Get Out, The Handmaid's Tale, Boiler Room

National Geographic tells us that by 2050, all Americans will be some shade of brown:

Scientists assure us that mixed-race kids end up taller and smarter:

As well as just plain better:

If we are not able to create a non-Euro baby of our own, there's always Plan B--adopting children as racially different from ourselves as possible (Hollywood setting the example):

Top left to bottom right: Madonna; actresses Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, and Mariska Hartigay, celeb fitness guru Jillian Michaels; actresses Kristin Davis, Sandra Bullock, and Mary Louise Parker; Mitt Romney (grandchild), Steven Spielberg, Jane Fonda

Extremely proud of her melanin-enhanced brood, Angelina Jolie even confessed:

All this boosterism has not been without effect. Public attitudes on interracial marriage have taken a sharp U-turn in the U.S.:

(Nevertheless, lab studies have shown that this may be a case of simply telling pollsters what they want to hear.)

3) We're told to feel contempt for our own ethnic group

We all remember 'Black is Beautiful.' The slogan for our brave new world seems to be 'White is Ugly.' This desire for self-replacement seems born partly from a campaign to make white people hate their own skin color due, presumably, to its link to atrocities past.

It is a fascinating development. This ardent desire to see one's own ethnic group weaken or vanish in order to bring about peace on earth may be unprecedented in human history.  What was once limited to fringe academics...

...is now the subject of mainstream press headlines:

Our leaders seem convinced that Whiteness = Doom:
A school-wide questionnaire at Western Washington University asked the community “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?’”  
“Every year, from this stage and at this time, you have heard me say that, if in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university,” [President Bruce] Shepard said in the 2012 speech. “In the decades ahead, should we be as white as we are today, we will be relentlessly driven toward mediocrity; or, become a sad shadow of our current self,” he wrote.

North Carolina lawmaker Craig Meyer:
'My own capacity for leadership perpetuates the whiteness within me, beckoning a return trip to look in the mirror. Perhaps I can’t fully suppress all the whiteness within me, and maybe that’s for the better. The process is the task, the journey has no end, and I will always be white.'

Maine state senator Richard Fochtmann:

A former candidate for the Maine State Senate was caught on video at an event hosted by the state Democratic Party celebrating the increasing rate of white male suicide — to massive cheers and laughter from the crowd. 
“You know, today I saw a thing that said a lot of men — white men — are committing suicide,” Fochtmann stated, “and I almost said yeah! Great!” As soon as Fochtmann finished his statement, the crowd began laughing.

The sentiment of self-loathing has dripped down the cultural ladder to the hoi polloi (images courtesy of the late great Baked Alaska):

Just for a laugh, internet humorist 'Uncle Chang' has taken us on a swing through the looking-glass:

The amiable Steve Sailer may have put it the most succinctly of all:

When indeed...

4) We're erasing ourselves from our own history

Another area where we can clearly see the shift to auto-erasure is our own history: we're being called to remove ourselves from it.

One of the most intense cases may be Sweden:
Western European politicians and bureaucrats tend to be postmodern multiculturalists – in Sweden, fanatically so. They feel a contempt for their own civilization and they regard this contempt as a mark of sophistication and virtue. 
They are especially fond of cultures that share their own contempt for the West, and hence there is no culture for which they show more deference than that of Islam.

a) Culture and Religion

No doubt the Euro group the most far gone down the path of ethno-suicide, Swedes are eradicating their culture as fast as they can:
Every major event and holiday in Sweden — Christmas, Easter and Midsummer — is greeted with mocking newspaper articles and television programs informing Swedes that these traditional celebrations aren’t Swedish at all but foreign imports, and the cultureless Swedes don’t really have anything they can call their own. 
According to Fredrik Reinfeldt, ex-prime minister, “The original Swedish identity was just barbarism, and since then all progress has come from the outside.”

Alice Bah Kuhnke, the daughter of an immigrant from Gambia, recently appointed the Pakistani immigrant Qaisar Mahmood as chief of Sweden’s Cultural Heritage Archive. Mahmood has said he has never studied archeology or culture. [...] 
The soil of Sweden is full of Viking artifacts, and building projects have often provided a rich source of objects for museums, but ... In the new, modern and multicultural Sweden, Viking amulets, bracelets and other historical objects are not considered worth preserving, so they are sent to metal reclamation centers and melted down as scrap.

European countries are even doing all they can to de-Christianize Christmas so as not to 'offend' the newcomers.
In Denmark, a primary school in Graested cancelled a traditional church service marking the beginning of Christmas in order not to offend Muslim pupils. … In Germany, a school in Lüneburg postponed a Christmas party after a Muslim student complained that the singing of Christmas carols during school was incompatible with Islam. In Bolzano, Italy, a cardboard Christmas tree was ordered to be removed from the town hall because "it could have offended the sensibilities" of Muslims.
We wish you a merry burka 
In Spain, the Madrid City Council replaced Christmas festivities in the capital with a neo-Pagan "International Fair of the Cultures." … In Scotland, the regional government was accused of "undermining" Britain's Christian heritage by promoting "winter festivals" for ethnic minorities while ignoring Christmas.

b) Education

Great Britain is just as enthusiastically hara kiri-ing its own history via the  school system:

Mr Denson said he disliked using the term 'fundamental British values' in his classroom when many of his pupils had ancestry in countries which had encountered British colonialism. He said: 'The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable. …  it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities.'

Rural England has become taboo at British universities:
A university has ditched a degree course on rural Britain because it says black and ethnic minority students are ‘less likely’ to visit the English countryside. Academics feared their teaching ‘normalised white experiences’, while ‘disadvantaged’ undergraduates from other backgrounds struggled to grasp concepts such as the ‘rural idyll’ – so scored lower grades. Kingston University is the latest institution to try to boost ‘diversity’ while ‘decolonising’ their degrees amid criticism they are too white and Western.

As for America, her founders and seminal figures--too pale, stale, and male—are all slated to be swept away. UC Berkeley's 'Occupy the Syllabus' has proclaimed:
We have major concerns about social theory courses in which white men are the only authors assigned. These courses pretend that a minuscule fraction of humanity are the only people to produce valid knowledge about the world. This is absurd. …  
Furthermore, the classroom environment felt so hostile to women, people of color, queer folks and other marginalized subjects that it was difficult for us to focus on the course material. Sometimes, we were so uncomfortable that we had to leave the classroom in the middle of lecture. … We must dismantle the tyranny of the white male syllabus.

Others have claimed to be so traumatized by studying dead white men that they can't graduate Princeton on time, or that the classics should come with trigger warnings for the sensitive. 

c) Statues and Symbols

Not  just culture and education, but also symbols, portraits, and even names are being erased to keep up with the ethno-masochistic zeitgeist.

Paris is frantically re-naming streets in order that they 'ring with the history of migration.' Pale, stale, male portraits are being torn down at Oxford University,  Harvard University, and King's College London:
Harvard Medical School has removed 31 portraits of its former department heads from a lecture hall because all of the individuals are men, and 30 of them are white. Dr. Betsy Nabel, the hospital’s president, said she has been considering the move for several years, concerned that the lack of diversity might upset women and minorities who are training to become doctors.

Not just portraits but names are on the chopping block: Yale's Calhoun College, Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, Georgetown's Mulledy and McSherry Halls are all up for re-naming, due to these men's connections with slavery. The name of Lebanon Valley College's Lynch Hall has to go too, since it gives black students cold sweats—despite no connection whatsoever to the practice of lynching (it is named for a beloved ex-president).

After a White Nationalist rally in Virginia last year turned deadly, statues of Confederate heroes across the nation fell like dominoes. But soon the statue-toppling mania took a sharp left turn, targeting icons like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Christopher Columbus, and even Shakespeare, as well as the founders of Halifax, CanadaBroward County, Florida; and Austin, Texas.

Even national symbols have come under attack: U.S. high school students forbidden from wearing the American flag, a town in England refusing to celebrate St. George's Day because it's 'too English', and some towns in Australia banning 'Australia Day' celebrations, comparing them to the Holocaust.

Having taken a tour d'horizon of the state of ethno-masochistic discourse in the West, one might well ask oneself: How did we get here?

III. Where Did it Come From?

As it happens, we at TWCS have delved into the origins question before. Rather than repeat our findings here, we kindly direct interested readers to our recent investigation:

The factors we explore in the piece are many, but to give a lightning-fast bullet list, they include cold winters in prehistory, taking up farming, not being mountain people, not being herders, outbreeding, manorialism, the printing press, urbanization, prosperity, feminism, Protestantism, not being Communist, academia, Jewish influence, and plain old hard-wired leftism.

Phew. (Do take a look if you have the time).

Which brings us to the final question…

IV. Where Will it End?

We've seen some compelling evidence that multiculturalism in the West is metastasizing into a kind of ethnic self-death wish. Have we seen this before? And where could it end?

1) Yesterday: Has such a thing happened before?

Naked conquest is, of course, as old as homo sapiens sapiens. But what about inviting in one's own replacements? Are there any precedents?

Various leaders and peoples throughout history have, in fact, invited in outsiders in mass numbers. Who?

a) Refugees

Rome, for example, is famous for inviting in the Germanics who would one day overthrow them. From Gibbons' Decline and Fall:
Valens was informed, that the North was agitated by a furious tempest; that the irruption of the Huns, an unknown and monstrous race of savages, had subverted the power of the Goths; and that the suppliant multitudes of that warlike nation, whose pride was now humbled in the dust, covered a space of many miles along the banks of the river.

With outstretched arms, and pathetic lamentations, they loudly deplored their past misfortunes and their present danger; acknowledged that their only hope of safety was in the clemency of the Roman government; and most solemnly protested, that if the gracious liberality of the emperor would permit them to cultivate the waste lands of Thrace, they should ever hold themselves bound, by the strongest obligations of duty and gratitude, to obey the laws, and to guard the limits, of the republic.

The rest, of course, is history.

b) Workers

Inviting in foreign populations to do work—manual or intellectual—is a tradition old as time.

Slavic nobles, for example, invited Germanics to settle their lands during the great medieval Ostsiedlung.

Once slavery was outlawed, colonial powers very often called on alien groups to do grunt work, such as the Indians to Uganda, South Africa, or the Caribbean; Chinese to Malaysia or Indonesia; or Japanese to Hawaii and California. We're all familiar with the post-WW2 decision of Germany to invite in Turks and the French to invite North Africans—decisions they would live to regret.

Not just dirty work but brainy work was a motive for bringing in alien groups. German and English nobles invited in the well-heeled Huguenots expelled from France in the 1500s and 1600s.

Jews were often invited in by medieval monarchs for moneylending (forbidden to Christians), or as merchants or administrators, such as by the King of Poland in 1264. In the East, the Chinese filled similar roles, as with Thai King Taksin who invited Chinese merchants to come settle in Thailand in large numbers in the late 1700s.

c) Rulers

Some groups have even invited in alien kings to rule over them. The Slavic and Finnish tribes of Novgorod couldn't stop making war on each other, so they called on the Viking Varangians (Rus) to come sort them out:
They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to the Law." They accordingly went overseas to the Varangian Rus'. … The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Ves then said to the Rus', "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule and reign over us". They thus selected three brothers with their kinfolk, who took with them all the Rus' and migrated. 

The Primary Chronicle

…and Russia was born.

The much-hated English incursion into Ireland began similarly, with an internal squabble between Irish kings. Diarmait, hoping to get back his crown, called upon some muscle—namely Anglo-Norman knights:

Within a year Diarmait had his throne back in Dublin. But he also now had an army of Anglo-Normans who weren't about to go away now that the job was done.  … [Anglo-Norman] Robert fitzStephen was quite right when he told his followers that Diarmait 'loves our race; he is encouraging our race to come here and has decided to settle them in this island and give them permanent roots...'.

d) Melding with the conquerors

In certain cases, an invaded people has adopted their conqueror's culture and intermarried to such an extent that they themselves disappear. Chris Roberts shares the example of the Opata Indians, in this excerpt from 'The Apaches: Eagles of the Southwest':

Jesuit missionaries, headed by Padre Kino, entered Pimeria Alta [New Spain, near Arizona] during the 1680s. The Piman peoples and Opatas welcomed them and quickly accepted Christianity. . . . Of all the tribes the Spaniards encountered in North America none adopted the Spanish way of life more readily or more successfully than the Opatas. They and the Pimas soon assumed major roles in the Sonora settlements.
Opatas, because of their special relationship with the Spaniards, were called “the spoiled children of the Spanish crown” and “the most valiant, most noble and most loyal among all friendly tribes”—the Tlascaltecas of the interior land. They intermarried with Spaniards and later with Mexicans to the extent that they disappeared as a distinct tribe, and their language was ultimately replaced by Spanish.

But none of these invitations—be they for workers, leaders, or refugees--was, as far as we can tell, with the express intention of replacing one's own group.

2) Tomorrow: Blueprint for a euro-minority future?

So here we are: Replacement rhetoric is today reaching fever pitch, with actions not far behind. What does it mean for the future? 

There are two schools of thought.

One is that all the above is just talk. John McWhorter asserts that multiculturalism has become a 'secular religion' and as such, the pious mouth the right platitudes in order to be seen as virtuous by their peers. In that case, the winds of ideological fashion could quickly change. Thus, we have nothing to fear.

The other is that far from just a passing fancy, pathological out-group altruism is something we've in fact bred into us.  In this case, there's no going back. We're going to replace ourselves come hell or high water, because our genes are telling us to.

Or some combination of the two.

So what is next?

Since this current self-replacement mania is without historical precedent, it is hard to say where it will lead. Some ideas:

a) The Brazil Model

Some suggest the U.S. will slowly become 'Brazil North'--a small white upper class, an enormous brown mixed middle, with Amerindians and Blacks at the bottom.  A rise in violent crime to the point where all middle-class people live in gated (15-foot barbed wire with armed guards) communities, while the poor masses subsist in giant slums of corrugated tin shacks.  Still a dynamic economy, but far higher levels of corruption and crime than we know now.  Possible?

Maybe. But the white class in Brazil is not made of exactly the same stuff as its U.S. counterpart. The former is a mix of Portuguese, N. Italian, German, Levantine, Japanese, and others, and its culture reflects that.  So in a future 'Brazil North,' there's no reason to believe the white remnant left in America would behave exactly the same as its South American neighbor's.

b) The Balkans Model

As Euros become a minority in their own lands, some predict a Balkans (or 'break-up') model, mirroring that of the former Yugoslavia or the partition of India.

White Americans have enthusiastically invited the poorest 20% of Mexico to replace them in the Southwest.  The latter are very keen to 'take back' their lands... 

So much so that Euro-Americans may find themselves driven to mass flight. How close are we?

Could one imagine a future where the entire U.S. Southwest breaks off as 'Mexico Norte'?

But there are other separatisms brewing. Of course the South seceded in the 19th century, but even today, the ethno-replacement in progress could end up with entire regions or even states breaking off. 

A variety of separatist movements are simmering here and there, including in Western MarylandNorthern Colorado, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan ('Superior'), Northern California and Southern Oregon ('Jefferson'),  or the wholesale secession efforts of AlaskaTexasVermont, and now California:

At the urban level, ethnic cleansing of Whites seems to already be leading to a 'breaking-off' into racially divided municipalities. Atlanta, GA:
Beginning in 2005, many communities [in Atlanta] began the process of incorporating into cities. Thus far, Milton, Sandy Springs, Brookhaven, Dunwoody, Chattahoochee Hills and Johns Creek have done so. 
These cities, after breaking away politically from urban Atlanta, have become so successful that ... the Economist has applauded [them] for solving the problem of unfunded government pension liability and avoiding the bankruptcy that looms over some urban areas. The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit in 2011 to dissolve the new cities, claiming they were a “super-white majority” and diluting the voting power of minorities.
Similar movements are underway in Baton Rouge, LA; Charlotte, NC; and Memphis, TN.

c) The Lebanon Model

Looking at a map of North Africa, the Levant, and Turkey, it is easy to forget that these lands were once Christian:

Europe today, in her zeal for self-replacement, is facing an existential threat wholly unlike that of the U.S. She has been welcoming in millions of Muslims these last decades, and as their own leaders proclaim openly, they have no intention of assimilating. To wit:

He’s Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian Palestinian academic currently living in the U.K., where he sought political asylum. Describing himself as an “orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless says there’s a “genuine problem with Muslims in Europe” and calls the current wave of migrants entering the continent “the soft Islamic conquest of the West.”

Palestinian-Belgian jihad expert Montasser AlDe’emeh has issued a serious warning to Europe. In Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf”, he states that Europe is essentially importing a civil war by admitting refugees. AlDe’emeh believes that Europe’s politicians are naïve when it comes to mass-immigration, Islam and failed integration. He advises halting the influx of refugees, stating that Western Europe is “importing a civil war.”

Bassam Tibi, Syrian scholar living in Germany:

'What conclusions can be drawn from the 'Eurabia' discussion? The fact is that the Islamic share of the European population will continue to rise without integration. The fact is that the EU has no policy to deal with this phenomenon that threatens its existence. ... [If nothing is done,] parallel societies will emerge, which in the long term will help transform Europe into Eurabia.'

The 'Lebanon Model,' needless to say, would be a future in which Muslims were the majority but peaceful power-sharing existed. In the case of total conquest and subjugation of the native Christian population, we would be in the realm of an 'Egypt Model.'

*     *     *

We have seen, then, the four steps in the 'widening circle of empathy.' From enmity to anyone outside the clan, to trust for one's whole ethnic group, to trust for alien groups, to the final and most extreme stage—the wish to be replaced by outsiders.

A slightly different cycle is described by 14th century scholar Ibn Khaldun, courtesy of Timothy Furnish:
Ibn Khaldun, based on his study of ancient, Islamic and Christian history, ascertained a cyclical pattern of rise-and-fall among what he termed “dynasties” which, mutatis mutandis, is applicable to our culture as well.  All of them go through three phases:
(1) The first is the one which establishes the society: “its members are used to privation and to sharing their glory with each other; they are brave….sharp and greatly feared.  People submit to them.” 

(2) Following that is the stage in which the society moves “from privation to luxury and plenty” and “the vigour of group feeling is broken…. the people “live in hope that the conditions that existed in the first generation may come back, or they live under the illusion that those conditions still exist.” 

(3) The final generation “has completely forgotten the period of…toughness, as if it had never existed…. because they are so much given to a life of prosperity and ease.  They…are like women and children who need to be defended. Group feeling disappears completely….. When someone comes and demands something from them, they cannot repel him.”

It seems to us, at first glance, that any people which arrives at 'Multiculturalism' seems to inevitably pass on to 'Self-replacement.' An old but prescient warning from Charles de Gaulle (1959):
'It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion. […] Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird.

'Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques.'

Or the much-maligned 1968 warning from the UK's Enoch Powell:

He said: "We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

As the self-replacement rhetoric continues to ramp up, the future of ethnic NW Euros seems uncertain. Will some Euro groups simply allow themselves to be reduced to a minority in their own lands?

Or will there be a backlash, as some have claimed to see in the votes on Brexit, Donald Trump, and the new Italian government?

It is hard to say. The idea of inviting in aliens to replace us out of a sense of guilt over our ancestors' actions may well be without historical precedent.  Writing on Euro self-hatred 35 years ago in The Tears of the White Man, Pascal Bruckner warned:

Hatred of the West is really a hatred of all cultures concentrated on a single one. In the beginning, one finds nothing loveable in oneself, but in the end, one loses the ability to love others. … Let us become our own friends first, so that we can become the friends of others again. … Every self-destructive wish carries with it a generalized negativity that envisions the end of the world.

Today, we appear to be terra incognita. Is this excessive out-group altruism a trait bred into us by natural selection? Or is it just an ideological flight of fancy, a fashionable new religion, that will blow out just as quickly as it blew in?

Only time will tell.

Thank you for reading.



Ivan .M said...

The agitprop for demographic self-immolation is just getting started.

I see this escalating in the United States as Euro-American millennials flee the Democratic Party in droves (Generation Z is reported to be even more right-leaning.) Simultaneously, their remaining co-ethnics on the Left grow exponentially more shrill and vicious in condemning right-wing Euros.

A story of evolutionary psychology: non-Euro immigration is causing a decline in out-group trust among Euro-Americans with ancestral origins outside or on the periphery of the Hajnal Zone; Euros descended from "interior Hajnal" populations respond to this with altruistic punishment; continued non-Euro immigration further depresses out-group trust among the other Euros and increases antipathy or indifference toward altruistic punishment; the universalist Euros cannot help but respond with yet more altruistic punishment; non-Euro immigration continues...

'Round and 'round we go, faster and harder.

My guess is that the prevailing mood within President Trump's core base is moderate kin-altruism environmentally expressed as a vague sense of national identity. Just as this differs from the more clannish kin-altruism in Appalachia, though, non-kin altruism also seems to differ across NW European peoples throughout the world, with a loud minority of Anglosphere intellectuals exhibiting reciprocal altruism so strictly as to view social relations in hyper-libertarian, purely transactional terms. Meanwhile, some Continental Euros in Central Europe and Scandinavia appear hardwired for competitive altruism, hence the more extreme virtue signalling observed there.

On an unrelated note, the section and ensuing discussion in your previous article regarding Afro family formation and sexual behaviors got me thinking. Did the fat concentration in the buttocks, hips, and thighs of West and Central African women evolve simply from adaptation to their tropical climate, with no sexual selection? Or did the preferences of the men have some effect? Afro men love big butts, and it would make sense that this highly masculine population of males with exaggerated physical traits would be attracted to women with similarly exaggerated physical traits.

Great post! I had to catch up after returning from a vacation in Colombia. It was refreshing to visit my politically incorrect relatives, Andean Mestizos the lot of them. Railing against Germany's refugee policy is a sport in that house.

M.G. said...

Ivan M--

Good to see you! Hope you had a good vacation.

as Euro-American millennials flee the Democratic Party in droves (Generation Z is reported to be even more right-leaning.)

It really does seem like the Dems are destined to become the 'party of non-whites'... I never imagined seeing this happen in my lifetime.

continued non-Euro immigration further depresses out-group trust among the other Euros and increases antipathy or indifference toward altruistic punishment...

Indeed, there is a definite vicious cycle at work here, where does it end...

non-kin altruism also seems to differ across NW European peoples throughout the world

Good point about different NW Euro groups and their radically different visions of 'in-group' and 'out-group'. It's just those clannish Appalachians who give me hope that Euro-America won't completely sign off on its own demise. It is, as you say, the Germanics and Scandis (Minneapolis-cum-Mogadishu) who risk virtue-signalling us into extinction.

Did the fat concentration in the buttocks, hips, and thighs of West and Central African women evolve simply from adaptation to their tropical climate, with no sexual selection? Or did the preferences of the men have some effect?

Peter Frost's theory is that men competing with men for women is the tropical norm (so men there become more 'hyper-masculine'), while women competing with women for men is the cold-climate norm (so women there become more 'hyper-feminine').

In that piece, he talks about sex selection in Africa vs. Europe on loads of traits, like hair length, hair color, eye color, skin color... but not butt size! He does include this, though, on highly polygamous societies in Africa:

Vilakazi (1962) states: “The traditional Zulu does not make physical beauty a first priority or even an important qualification in a wife; and the skin colour of the woman is of little importance.” In a rating study, Dixson et al. (2006) examined mate-choice criteria among subsistence farmers in Bakossiland, Cameroon, including the preferred skin color of a potential female partner. No consistent preference emerged. This ambivalence was noted by Ardener (1954) among the Ibo of Nigeria:

"In the choice of a wife, yellow-skinned girls are regarded as beauties, and, other things being equal, they command higher bride prices. On the other hand it is generally held, especially by dark-complexioned persons, that yellow-skinned people are not as strong as the dark and do not live as long. A ‘black’ girl is said to be a harder worker. … A Mission headmaster was of the opinion that the preference for yellow girls was greater nowadays than in his youth. He thought that the reason for this was that people formerly looked for strength rather than beauty and tended to marry black girls. He claimed that black people had greater powers of endurance, and he cited his own village where, he said, of the oldest six or seven people, only one was yellow."

So I don't know if the big-butt preference is simply wanting a stronger, more robust wife because she's the one working and supporting the kids, or if it was indeed considered sexually attractive first. Maybe someone more knowledgeable on this will come along.

It was refreshing to visit my politically incorrect relatives, Andean Mestizos the lot of them.

LOL, the average GoodWhite has no idea how realtalking most other groups on planet earth are. Ignorance is bliss.

Mr. Rational said...

Thanks for the spam removal, M.G.

EvolutionistX said...

It seems to me there is a logical progression at work:

1. "We shouldn't be racist." "Oh, okay." "Therefore, we should open up our immigration policies to welcome everyone equally." "Oh, okay."

2. Recognition that the number of non-whites is increasing faster than the number of whites, a logical outcome of an immigration policy that accepts people equally on a globe where whites are a minority.

3. Choice: either Go Back to step 1 and change the immigration policy, which requires "being a racist," or Leave the immigration policy as it is, declaring "current policy is good because it is not racist."

4. Codification of "Being replaced is good because it is not racist; wanting to avoid being replaced is racist."

M.G. said...


Indeed, and the beginning premise is the strangest one of all--'We shouldn't be racist.' Strange because 'keeping our racial stock as it always has been' used to be the default position everywhere in the West. People honestly used to distinguish between being 'bigoted' ('racist' didn't even exist as a term) from simply wanting to live among one's own. These were two different things; the former bad, the latter good.

I guess that's really what I'm getting at with the 'widening circle of empathy'--wanting to live among one's own has moved from 'totally normal' to 'racist', and the why and how of it are quite fascinating to study.

M.G. said...

Mr. Rational--

Sorry for the slow housekeeping, when I'm racing against the clock to publish a piece, I tend to lose track of the comments section. Mea culpa.

Heterodox Heretic said...

I absolutely love your blog. However, I am a bit curious as to who you really are. You obviously aim to stay anonymous. But I wonder what race you are. My curiosity was recently piqued when I read one of your older entries from 2011 about exceptions.


There was a line that said when people of your group predominate, the society becomes the type that people want to escape, not move into. What group is that? What is your race? Or were you merely using the first person as a rhetorical device?

Best regards,

M.G. said...

Heterodox Heretic--

Thank you for your kind words.

The quote from the piece you mention was:

My group can't cut it. If we were running things, as some wag has gently put it, the human race "would never have left the cave."

It was a reference to Camille Paglia, though I botched the quote. She in fact said 'If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.' (Oops.)

So the group I was referring to is women! I think the evidence speaks for itself here, as any country which becomes excessively feminized starts to go down the tubes, with Sweden being the stand-out example.

For a taste of true female-only civilization (and a good laugh), here's an anecdote about the Dutch version of 'Survivor', which tried an all-male island and an all-female island. Suffice it to say that on Girl Island, they never even got to the 'grass hut' stage at all...

Ethnically, I'm a standard Euro-American mix, mostly German, English, and Irish. Hope that clears things up.

Bastion Harm said...

Another excellent piece, as usual.

I just shake my head.

It's really beyond insanity at this point. Almost leaves one speechless.

Have the people who push the "diversity is our greatest strength" thought through any of this?

Of course not...it's a religion for them.

But, still...how do they expect 3rd-worlders to maintain 1st World Nations when the native whites are replaced? Consider that, right now for example, whites are the ones paying the taxes to prop all this up, and non-whites are largely a tax drain already.

So..by all means, lets have millions more non-whites!!

What could go wrong?!?

Apparently, not only will our 1st world formerly white nations somehow remain prosperous 1st world nations when whites are replaced...our lands will become a veritable utopia, with unicorns, rainbows, and non-whites standing arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, in peace and harmony forever!


M.G. said...

Bastion Harm--

But, still...how do they expect 3rd-worlders to maintain 1st World Nations when the native whites are replaced?

What's funny is that they have so many real-world examples to look to, but they just refuse to see them. South Africa traded in white rule for black rule 25 years ago, and its current downward spiral is astounding (though there's a total press black-out on this in the West).

In the U.S., Whites have of course fled certain cities and the ensuing black rule has led to generalized chaos and dysfunction (Detroit, East St. Louis, Birmingham). Or as we saw in this piece, the heavy corruption in newly-hispanicized cities around Los Angeles. Tower Hamlets in London is another example.

So there's no real excuse for not seeing where all this is leading, but die-hard multicult religious belief can do that to a person.

Thanks for your comment.

Deter Naturalist said...

In my view: Leftism isn't politics, it's theology. It is the Gnostic Heresy as political wish-fulfillment, with the ideal encapsulated by John Lennon's "Imagine." In this guise, politics is a teleological process of rendering mankind Perfect, one magical incantation inscribed on parchment (AKA statute legislation) at a time.

In its current form, it is the human equivalent of mouse behavior late in the Mouse Utopia ecological experiments popular in the 1970's. It is characterized by behaviors that directly undermine propagation of one's genes into succeeding generations. From abortion-on-demand to encouraging young women to pursue economic independence, above all, during their most fertile years of life, plus the constant promotion of homophilia and marriage-destroying hedonism, not to mention proliferation of individual vices across the board, the behavioral norms most actively promoted render people less likely to have kids and less able to raise those they have into successful mothers and fathers themselves.

Along with this is a social behavior characterized by Pathological Collective Trust. This is seen in finance, where people herded into the creation of a veritable Krakatoa of accumulated IOU's, pension promises and assorted dreams of future cash flows. It is seen in trusting electronic gizmos that stripped every person of privacy [imagine what your ISP knows about you (permanently)...not to mention the permanent record of everywhere you took your phone.] It is seen in trusting the shuffling together of disparate peoples, and of immigrant invasions.

I still subscribe to a theory called socionomics, that posits that the rise and fall of social mood is a patterned fractal and endogenously regulated. If this is the case, then we are in a "blow off rally" akin to when the price of a commodity enters a vertical rise, zooming higher and higher even as rationalizations for continued rise appear and multiply, just prior to a massive reversal (think the price of oil, zooming higher in 2008 past $147/bbl, as people discussed "Peak Oil" and $10/gal gas, when the denouement was in fact the fastest collapse in the price of a commodity in history.)

I see no hope for "fixing" the march of Leftist Theology, if it is in fact the suicide switch Nature uses to cut down a species grown too successful for ecological health. Those who are selecting themselves to be cut from the future human gene pool should do so and be encouraged. Just because the Black Death isn't culling people naturally doesn't mean Nature lacks a means of culling entirely.

On the other hand, I still imagine we might see a reversal of this Pathological Collective Trust, and it will come amidst the eruption of The Debt Krakatoa, the Icelandic Katla of immigration and the Mt. Vesuvius of our self-imposed imprisonment in the Electronic Panopticon. If this is so, then the popularity of the Zombie Apocalypse genre in fiction will prove to be the grandest iteration of foreshadowing EVER.

K. O. said...

wonder when Pinker will finally hora on down to the nearest el al terminal and aliyah his carcass to his OTHER COUNTRY?

M.G. said...

Deter Naturalist--

Leftism isn't politics, it's theology.

Very much agreed.

it is the human equivalent of mouse behavior late in the Mouse Utopia ecological experiments popular in the 1970's.

Here's a link for any who aren't familiar:

[As the mice became too numerous] Calhoun started to notice interesting behavior changes in the mice. More and more males became what he called “the beautiful ones.” These effete males would make no attempt to fight or copulate with females. They simply spend their time washing each other and eating.

By contrast, female behavior became increasingly aggressive: they would attack males, throw their offspring out of the nest too young, attack their young, and actively avoid sex. ...no new-born mice survived beyond weaning, because their mothers weren’t looking after them properly. ... In May 1973, 1720 days after colonization, all of the mice were dead.

The parallels are, as you note, striking.

Along with this is a social behavior characterized by Pathological Collective Trust.

Which is the central theme of this blog post, but again, how much of that is something we've evolved and how much is just fashionable ideology? This is the big question.

I still subscribe to a theory called socionomics

It's an interesting concept, here's a link for those who aren't familiar:

Socionomics, which was pioneered by stock analyst Robert R. Prechter — who popularized the Elliot Wave Principle in the 1970s — turns mainstream economics on its head. Conventional economists think that events affect social mood and move the financial markets, as people continually revalue stocks rationally. Thus, rising markets make investors optimistic. Socionomics, on the other hand, would have us believe that the mood of investors alone determines the economic cycle and causes recessions. Thus, optimistic investors cause markets to rise.

Just because the Black Death isn't culling people naturally doesn't mean Nature lacks a means of culling entirely.

This is an interesting idea; others have posited that '[far] leftism is a self-correcting problem' because so few of them are having kids these days. But in a broader sense, I'm sanguine about falling birthrates across the first world--the island of Japan isn't getting any bigger, how many people can it reasonably hold? 500 million? A billion? We're instinctively having fewer kids cuz like Calhoun's mice, we sense that it's getting too crowded for comfort.

I still imagine we might see a reversal of this Pathological Collective Trust

The Debt Krakatoa seems to be something we're willing to push off onto our children and grandchildren ad infinitum; I'm not sure that will be the trigger. The Electronic Panopticon, if anything, will prolong the reckoning, as we're all too engrossed in our screens to notice what's happening. If anything it's the immigration explosion which will, I believe, cause things to blow. The backlash is already well underway in some places (Italy most recently, the Visegrad Four's resistance, Trump's victory, Brexit victory which was really a referendum on immigration).

This isn't a widely shared opinion, but I believe that in our lifetimes we will see mass deportations from Western countries at a level not seen since WW2. The sheer amount of brutality and social breakdown caused by these newcomers will not be put up with by the host populations forever.

In any case thanks for your thought-provoking comments.

Deter Naturalist said...

Timing...that's the real question, isn't it?

If these trends last long enough the frog is too weak to object to its being boiled. Heaven knows that my local Sam's Club (shopping center) looks almost as Mestizo/Mayan now as did the one I visited a few years back in the city of Cancun, Mexico.

Notwithstanding my abysmal success in forecasting these past 23 years, I cling to the notion that rationalization's fuel was the bond bull market begun in 1981 in the USA. For 35 straight years holding someone else's long term IOU was a guaranteed income producer. This evolved into the economists-approved Borrow-to-Spend cycle, where entire industries grew by 100's of percents because for every dollar borrowed and spent on them, at least a second dollar in wealth, a RECEIVABLE, was put on the Collective Balance Sheet as an asset. This was a predictable side-effect of the notion that under a full fiat system, debt really is money, but that model becomes non-linear when the size of the Volcano of Debt grows to the mass of Neptune.

The bull market for debt ran its course (35 years is typical) and the love affair with debt is heading inexorably for divorce court. Unfortunately, the leverage by which existing debt grew in capital value while rates fell applies equally to the now FAR MORE MASSIVE amount of existing debt as rates rise. At some point an inflection point seems likely, and this 50 year game of musical chairs will finally encounter silence. Only time will tell. If my dwindling peers in the Middle Class find their savings suddenly gone and their visions of sugarplums (promises of future cash flows) turned to nightmares, tolerance for the exotic (and its highly profitable NGO amen choir) seems unlikely to last. In the USA, almost all of the decent jobs that remain are in industries grown fat under the artificial stimulus of borrowed demand. What happens when borrowing gets choked off? (Rhetorical, of course.)

I do concur with you regarding social breakdown. Reading about mayhem on the other side of town (the largely black ghetto) is all well and good, until shootouts between cars begin to occur where I shop. People crave order. I do not think the Leftist Theocracy will be able to maintain the level of cognitive dissonance required to "unnotice" such things. I do not imagine too many of my neighbors opting to wear Level 2A body armor on a routine basis (waaay too hot for the climate here.)

PS: WRT falling birth rates, oh how short are memories. I vividly recall in the 1970's massive hand-wringing about trash, landfills filling up, agricultural runoff, and running out of space (while paving farmland and woodlands.) That was when the USA's population was 1/3rd smaller. Visiting a National Park now is a major hassle due to overcrowding. When I see UN population estimates for 2050 putting the USA at ~450 million I want to line up the promoters and exterminate them for what they propose to do to my children and grandchildren.

This is the legacy to our descendants. The debts won't matter, they'll be repudiated along with the cash flows they promised. It won't be the kids who pay, it will be the stupid old people who relied on the system and reached too old an age to survive on their own (hopefully not including me.) No, the cost to my kids and grandkids will be measured in the subject of your column here. My kids never experienced the USA I knew as a kid. It sickens me to see the same evil befall their children...even as so much of it is predictable in a biological science kind of way. We must make the best of it, living as we do in a time of decline. My ancestors by definition survived the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the brutal thousand years that ensued (regardless of their geographic location at the time.) I must hope that my descendants can hurtle over Nature's bar when she resumes culling humanity's "less fit" (whatever "fitness" means when the cusps arise.)

Deter Naturalist said...

One last thought (hopefully.)

To me, the USA (and the state, and the city) where I live is home. I was born here, I have no 2nd passport, I speak no other language. If I can't live here, I'm an outsider everywhere else (which is why I laugh at the notion of fleeing to another country...what a silly notion.) Given I have a growing extended family of descendants I will fight in real terms to the last round. The demographic question is an existential one for us.

There are two kinds of people who vex me. The underclass, made up of blacks who are told their difficulties are my fault (and thus are a significant danger to me) and whites who are just annoying in their culture and behavior, and "newcomers" who are here to take advantage of a system they never could have "at home," but who inevitably will try to change my home to be identical to the cesspool from where they came.

The former are home. They're going nowhere. That's life. The latter, however, are not at home here. Their homes are in India, in China, in Africa or Central America or Mexico. I think that when push comes to shove, these latter will not stand and fight, willing to die in place or see victory. They will LEAVE. Me and mine can make that happen due to the asymmetry of attachment to HERE.

Regarding brutality, it is clear that the only thing that will keep the invaders out, once ejected, is some sort of bounty on their heads. To me, it's self-evident that anyone who is deported should be told, to prevent you from showing up again we'll do two things: 1st, we're placing a bounty on your head so that if someone calls your return to the attention of authority they'll be PAID (on a sliding scale, where especially if you were accused or convicted of a felony they will get a lot of money.) 2nd, once arrested you'll be deported again, this time dropped five miles off shore from your home nation. No boat. No life preserver. You can keep the handcuffs.

Every news story of some five-times-deported clown raping, murdering or simply drunk-driver-killing some innocent fellow citizen...well... I'll happily drop that clown in deep water and sleep like a baby that night.
Eventually the choice will be between acting as a direct agent of Nature (by adopting overtly eugenic policies) or by stepping aside and letting Nature do the hard work alone. I favor the latter (because empowering people to make such decisions is a fast trip to Killing Fields) but one way or another, Nature will have its due. Humans are OF nature, not apart from it. Dysgenic breeding applies to our species just as it must apply to birds, bees, dogs and cattle. There are way too many people alive now simply because most of them can't organize enough social capability to survive unassisted. Your blog reveals this in fine detail.

My guess is that some of both approaches will be tried in coming decades. We all know that the population estimates from the UN are not remotely possible. What specifically gives will be interesting to note, and I hope I live long enough to see how some of this turns out. History isn't cyclical, I think it's a helix...cyclical from the sides or top/bottom, a circle from back or front, but always moving in a way we don't see coming...or at least not with enough accuracy to know when to act.

Yankee Imperialist said...

"Culling of the less fit"? Really depends on how one defines "less fit" and the role that the human race plays in directing Mother Nature to harness her awesome power to eradicate inferiors. In the words from a position of compassion, Josiah Strong (1885), "Nothing can save the inferior race but a ready and pliant assimilation. Whether the feebler and more abject races are going to be regenerated and raised up, is already very much of a question. What if it should be God's plan to people the world with better and finer material?"

Every generation has bitterly complained about their children not experiencing the joy of living in the U.S. in a similar fashion when they themselves were young.

Elitists tend to be annoyed when they label their fellow brethren as being unsophisticated in how they behave culturally.

The entrenched will always look at newcomers with revulsion, and make grand assumptions they merely seek handouts and are gleeful to wreck their new homeland...without realizing their own ancestors endured similar attitudes when they arrived off the boat from the southern coast of Italy or from the Polish heartland.

There ought to be a volunteer force of strapping American men and women who will engage in the two actions as noted. Perhaps DN will take the lead here in this noble endeavor, as he expressed his titillation with helicopter porn.

Dysgenic breeding? Our youth MUST be educated on this vital concept. Picture books and graphic novels therefore need to be authored and shipped IMMEDIATELY. Castalia House is always begging for novel ideas to be directed to their doorstep.

Deter Naturalist said...

Yankee, you are too right.

Nature defines "less fit" in rather non-teleological terms; "more fit" could be a group of people who have a mean IQ of 70 and all carry the DDR4 two-repeat (i.e., highly violent tendencies) but share immunity to a particular pandemic. In that case, the savage and stupid would be "more fit." This is why I'm not particularly sanguine about my descendants' chances...because each and every one of us is genetically weaker than our distant ancestors who lived while "less fit" brothers and sisters met the grim reaper of Nature before germ theory, sanitation and such.

It is a paradox: by appearing to conquer a lot of Nature's normal means of culling the human population we insure that each generation of people harbors more weakness, both by surviving to reproduce when 200 years ago death due to childhood disease or a simple infected laceration would have cut them down and due to accumulating mutations that under "wild conditions" would result in early death. What do you think will happen in Africa if the UN population estimates are correct?

The problem is, most of the innovations responsible for all this are products of "whites" (mostly Anglo-Saxon and NW Europeans.) These innovations were simply handed to Earth's teeming multitudes, such that the population of the planet is now an incredible multiple of what it was 10,000 years ago. Humans lived and died for tens of thousands of years, occupying a rather narrow ecological niche and our numbers never really rose all that much before then. Agriculture was an inflection point, but the real ramp higher probably arrived with the advent of writing, which for the first time allowed cumulative innovation.

Deter Naturalist said...

You are also correct, Americans have complained about the loss of the land of their childhood for a long time, probably coinciding with mass immigration of people from outside the Hajnal Line. Let's face it, the Italians brought the Mafia and the Irish brought political criminality at rates vastly higher than seen prior to their arrival. Places run by blacks in the US, of course, make the Irish look like pikers.

Forgive me for a moment if I wax nostalgic that in the 1970's a boy could ride his bike to the hobby shop, plunk down a small price to buy Estes rocket engines and cannon fuse, then go to a field and launch them. Forgive me if the town where I spent my childhood was safe, where a 12 year old boy could carry a rifle or shotgun on the side of the road on his way to check traps, where kids could climb a fire escape and stand atop a downtown building to watch the Memorial Day Parade and the SWAT team (which didn't even exist) wasn't called.

If you think I shouldn't wish my sons could have lived in that condition, then just guess what I'm daydreaming about with regards to YOU.

As my screen name attests, I'm a naturalist (and might possibly have a larger body of knowledge about such things compared to you, but Dunning-Kruger may inform you otherwise.) The world goes by itself, and if my "tribe" is in self-immolation mode due to it being Nature's suicide switch to eliminate a too-successful organism that has overgrown its ecological niche, then there's nothing I can do about it.

If you can't see the promised future if me and mine go the way of the Dodo, I can't help you. Large numbers of people, I've learned, cannot model the future in their minds. Such people sing and dance and applaud as the breeding stock and seed corn of the farm is consumed in the party...only to be utterly shocked when six months later everyone is starving to death. If you don't know from where prosperity arose, you sure as hell are ignorant of what happens when those precursors are eliminated.

Leftism is Theology. Leftism is Collective Insanity. But it may well be that Leftism is simply the relief valve of the World Matrix, the means by which the processes that keep 7 billion people alive on Earth are destroyed, after which the population dies back to something more like what existed 3,000 years ago.

BTW, yes, I'd happily volunteer to man the processes I mentioned. I'd do it without pay, and I'd do it because I was defending my grandchildren. Once, defending my pet dog from a groundhog she had foolishly latched onto, I literally stomped the unfortunate rodent to death rather than have it bite her when she released her hold on it. What do you imagine I'd do to someone if I was convinced they threatened my grandchildren?

PS: You write as someone who either has no kids or is too submerged in Leftist Theological Dogma to actually care about them.