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.' 

Reality: 



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.


Previously:


53 comments:

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...

EvolutionistX--

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.

https://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2011/05/exceptions.html

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,
HH

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!

Insanity...

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.

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.

Anonymous said...

"'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.'"

Was never said. Right wing propaganda lie circulated by Breitbart and the internet echo chamber.

M.G. said...

Sorry, but I had to delete Yankee Imperialist's posts. He's a very nice young man who has been asked to refrain from commenting here, but insists on doing so anyway. I wish him well on his journey.

M.G. said...

Deter Naturalist--

Fascinating comments and I agree with your thoughts and analysis.

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.

Exactly. Whether the U.S. disintegrates into smaller countries, enforces mass deportations, or a little of both, Euro-Americans will not give up this continent. It simply won't happen. The percentage of 'ethno-suicidal' white Americans is not that big, they're just very loud. When push comes to shove their fashionable opinions won't matter.

We all know that the population estimates from the UN are not remotely possible. What specifically gives will be interesting to note...

This is an understatement! Of those billion or so Africans, a very large number are alive purely due to Westerners' charity; when that ends, what happens on the African continent will be apocalyptic. I do not wish that on anyone, but it seems inevitable that their coming population crash will be brutal.

If anything seems certain, it's that we are entering what the Chinese refer to in their classic curse as 'interesting times.' Our grandchildren's world will be different from ours in ways we probably can't imagine.

M.G. said...

Anonymous--

Was never said. Right wing propaganda lie circulated by Breitbart and the internet echo chamber.

Those remarks by the E.U. jury come from a Hungarian news article translated by 'CrossWare' at the Gates of Vienna blog. The original Hungarian-language article can be found at the site 888.hu.

Do you take issue with his translation of the article? If so, I'd like to let Gates of Vienna know, as I've found their volunteer translation team (German, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, Hungarian, Polish) to be excellent. Thanks.

Mr. Rational said...

when that ends, what happens on the African continent will be apocalyptic.

Bill Gates was financing work on a vaccine against pregnancy; it's rumored that it has been incorporated into Gardasil.  A vaccine which seriously limits fertility to something like 1.0 children per woman could get the African population curve headed downward in fairly short order (and would be ideal for cases like Haiti and each and every favela and shantytown around the world).  Problem is, the only people willing to use such a thing wholesale are the Chinese.

Deter Naturalist said...

Mr. Rational,

Perhaps you're right. I tend to think the notion of "rational, collective decision-making" is fanciful, believing as I do that while an individual may use reason to decide action, groups of people never do.

Examining my own and other's behavior, I have concluded that humans have basically two tracks for cognition: rational and impulsive. We see (through the indulgence in vice) individuals engage in seemingly irrational, predictably self-destructive behavior over and over again. There has to be an explanation.

We see ourselves (some of us, anyway) get stuck in mental loops, saddened or enraged by the same old memories for months, years, even decades, our brains seemingly stuck in a "can't learn, can't move on" circle. We have disagreements with others where both sides revert to citing "old news" as "proof" of our assertions. There has to be an explanation.

We see groups of people clamor for things we can safely forecast will bring about moral hazard, unintended (but obvious) consequences and other unpleasantness, yet the members of that mob are as glassy-eyed as any zombie in a George Romero movie. There has to be an explanation.

We see history repeat with enough similarity for the wag to note, "What do we learn from history? That people don't learn from it." There has to be an explanation.

My explanation is the rational vs impulsive mind, Dr. Jekyll vs Mr. Hyde. We tell ourselves the self-flattering lie that "we" are always Dr. Jekyll, and our adversaries are all Hyde. They tell themselves the same lie. In both cases it is the rational mind giving the ego the rationalization necessary to self-protect from the truth, which is that in many areas of our lives we are flying on auto-pilot and it is the impulsive mind, whose brain structures are shared with the seat of emotion and the sense of self, that was "the decider" and the actions already instituted before the rational mind even was consulted. We are all both Jekyll and Hyde.

As with emotions, the impulsive mind doesn't learn. To our impulsive mind, there is no such thing as time; everything occurs in the Perpetual Now. People behaving in impulsive ways cannot learn from the pain of past error and cannot forecast the consequences of their (pre-consciously decided) actions because again, the future does not exist, only the NOW. This is how all vices seize hold, where the momentary enjoyment of rolling the dice, snorting the line of coke, popping the pill, shacking up with the hot-crazy person, etc., is all that matters because the catastrophe that awaits afterward simply isn't part of the calculation. Vice is the individual impulsive mind's playground; social self-destruction is that of the collective version, which is where fad, fashion, pop culture, virtue-signaling and all other collective folly is decided. This is where an individual, submerged in a fog of collective herding behavior, might cover his (or her) face with tattoos or obtain surgical services to emulate the face of a cat.

Right or wrong, this model, this metaphor provides what to me is an extraordinary window into the "WHY?" It does not offer a map on "fixing" things because as I see it, this model describes a human spectrum that is as natural as is bipedal movement. It is simply part of who we are, and cannot be excised from humanity any more than can conjoined twins who share a hemisphere of their brain be separated.

It's not a problem with a solution. It's a predicament in search of acceptance and accommodation. As M.G. notes, the "interesting times" quotient of life seems likely to rise significantly in coming years. I think the past and present dictate the future, and that we're lucky if we can think rationally about topics that incite fear.

Santoculto said...

Great majority of people have SYMPATHY and less EMPATHY. Two different things

Empathy is put in the place of others. Sympathy goes before empathy. Sympathy is about detect stuff we like, we are indifferent and or we dislike/we hate or have fear. It's about the capacity to detect contrasts of reality based our own subjective refference. It's easier put in the place of those we like than those we dislike so empathy is firstly defined by sympathy.

Sympathy is significantly more instinctive, inborn than empathy, even empathy is in the end defined by sympathy.

Anonymous said...

Good article describing what is happening but it doesnt talk about the WHO made this happen. It didnt happen by magic and in/outgroup altruism only has small piece to do with it. There are decades of systematic propaganda via the media and academia that have caused this.Till the WHO is identified this trend will continue unabated until violence erupts. And it will erupt sooner or later. Its not if but when.

Das Enuffa Dat said...

The premise of this article is wrong, because mass immigration by non-whites was IMPOSED on white nations by their elites, despite strong popular objections and consistent majorities in opinion polls against immigration (and particularly Muslim immigration). For example, Enoch Powell became the most popular politician in the UK when he spoke out against non-white immigration in the 1960s. The wishes of the majority were ignored. Trump won against the odds because he identified and adopted the concerns of the white majority about immigration. Why did it take so long for a GOP candidate to adopt such a vote-winning platform? Jeb Bush and other so-called conservatives would certainly never have done it.

So the question is not why white nations have first welcomed outsiders and then become suicidal, but: Why have the elites imposed mass immigration on unwilling majorities in so many white nations? To answer this, you have to look at the composition of the elites and at the organizations responsible for all the anti-hate laws and censorship that have facilitated the immigration. One group is conspicuously absent from your analysis. I won't name it, but I will note, à propos of nothing, that the nation of Israel has neither opened its borders to the Third World nor developed an ethnic death-wish. Why not?

Deter Naturalist said...

Enuffa dat and anonymous highlight a place where I diverge from "alternate" opinion.

There is reality and there is fantasy (belief in magic.) We all debate the gray area between them (which often involves theology, if not epistemology.)

To me, everything humans do must be somehow coded by our DNA. Behavior, individual or social, doesn't fall from the sky, and we're not Gods, we do not create our own any more than do bees, mice or any other social animal. We (people) simply have a very complicated set of instructions, with seemingly (!) endless loops, eddies and (above all) DEAD ENDS. These last are Nature's way of eliminating what doesn't work from the genome of people in particular places. [That's "What Doesn't Work" from Nature's viewpoint, not ours. An organism that overruns its ecological niche due to being "too successful" is a problem for Nature.]

This means that if there exist some "grand conspiracies" and "top-down propaganda programs," they too are just another part of the Matrix.

I currently wrestle with an unanswerable question:

I believe neurobiology shows that human cognition occurs in two different processes which amount to Rational and Impulsive. I also believe that individual humans are born to a segment within the full spectrum of every human attribute (intelligence, personality traits, athleticism, etc., including the person's individual propensity for Reasoned, vs Impulsive cognition and thus behavior.) We can fiddle with our performance along our segment, but we can't radically alter what our DNA utterly determines.

This means that to me, for example, a person who is born to a segment on the higher side of the spectrum of Impulsive cognition will be "high spectrum" for interest in fashion, and/or indulgence in vice (the former is social impulsivity, the latter is individual impulsivity.) We KNOW that propensity to addiction is heritable. This would help explain it.
(end part one of two, apologies.)

Deter Naturalist said...


(begin part two of two.)

Volkmar Weiss has a nice 2007 paper on The Population Cycle wherein he argues that Nature culls for higher intelligence and capability until the now-smarter populace tames Nature's culling, after which the "smarter, more capable" people have fewer kids and are eventually drowned in a wave of "less capable, more stupid" but (released from Nature's culling) fecund people, leading to the collapse of civilizations. [This is a massive paraphrase.]

I find this dissatisfying given that the demographic catastrophe is so clearly visible half a century or more in advance. People should know better, but they [an entire society of the most civilized people] insist on fantasy instead of reality.

I posit two explanations:
A. After five or ten generations without serious culling/hardship, people who are high-spectrum for Impulsive cognition (who normally would be SLAUGHTERED by Nature) proliferate among the otherwise "more capable, more intelligent" peoples, leading to the ultimate collective Impulsive fad, Leftism (a theology of Equalism and Altruism.) Leftist theology eventually becomes Pathological Altruism leading to population collapse due to low reproduction and utter suicidal surrender to alien populations.
B. The balance between Rational and Impulsive cognition is the subject of an epigenetic switch, such that in periods of perceived unlimited resources, Impulsive cognition is grossly amplified, producing the same apparent catastrophes as Explanation A until "Plenitude" is replaced by hardship, at which time the epigenetic switch is set back toward Reasoned cognition and Leftist Theology is largely discarded.

My question is, between these two explanations, is it all A, all B, is it a combination and if so, which predominates? This is as far as I've gotten in this inquiry.

In any case, Etienne de la Boetie showed us 500 years ago that all polities exist only under popular consent. If some cabal or parasitic subpopulation is manipulating the impulsive cognition of Western populations, it's only because Western populations are content to play along, even if it predictably leads to cataclysm.

Deter Naturalist said...

Santoculto, please stop with your cultural appropriation by using a keyboard, the Internet and a device that uses pretty much 40 years of technological innovation your tribe (assuming you're not of Anglo-Saxon or NW European ancestry) was historically unlikely to discover.

I concur, many of my fellows are fools. Perhaps we're on our way to removing our DNA from the human gene pool.

If that is so, do you want to explain to me what life for your descendants (assuming you have any) will be like? For all the "warts" of "white" countries, why is it that people the world over FLOCK to them?

About the only major advance in innovation during the last 1000 years my ancestors DIDN'T create was gunpowder, and we figured out how to put it to much better use. If you don't like us so much, maybe it's because without us, you'd still be living under conditions common in 1100 AD. Perhaps you should let us go our way, you go yours, and stop riding our wave like a parasitic worm.

Sorry if I got riled up. I just tire of the insults, it's like being insulted for being tall by a bunch of midgets, even as they demand I reach something on a high shelf for them. (Apologies, I think the current term is "Little People.")

Oh, and thanks for regurgitating all the boilerplate insults. Doesn't that HURT?! I mean, I'm a big guy but for me to reach up and work you like a sock-puppet spouting Leftist dogma I'd be bicep deep...and my bicep has a 15 inch circumference. OUCH! Talk about Preparation H!

Deter Naturalist said...

M.G., your blog is the apogee of thoughtful presentation. Most of the comments from those who can see are offered in the form of courteous dialogue. Best wishes and as always I sincerely anticipate your next posting.

Mr. Rational said...

because it was europeans who started the globalization like it or not

It was Arabs who traded black slaves from the west coast of Africa to Arabia and as far east as India for almost 1000 years before the first Africans debarked on an American pier, so don't give me this crap of who "started globalization".  Slaves were trafficed everywhere that slavers went, no matter who they were.  The very word "slave" shares a root with "slav", which is a EUROPEAN word; before Europeans even knew of sub-Saharan Africans, there were Europeans held as slaves.  Further, while the "victim" populations practiced slavery themselves they had no business complaining.  It was the insistence of one Anthony Johnson, an African man, that HIS cultural norms gave him lifetime ownership of John Casor which brought full chattel slavery to the colony of Virginia.

Again, you invaded, colonized, imposed, built your archicteture and culture in all places

And one of those "impositions" was the abolition of slavery.  We even got Saudi Arabia to stop the (overt) sale of African slaves... about a century after the US civil war.

For this you affix BLAME, not credit.  Go bugger yourself with rusty hacksaw blades.

your responsibility become BIG... can understand this

You have a gross double standard.  You only allow debits to the ledger, not credits.  Since your whole system comes down to "White people must pay" my standard is "fuck you and the hos you rolled in with."

I know many black individuals who have more humankind

Stop right there, you stupid SOB.  If you do not assign at least equal blame to Anthony Johnson and his African ancestors for practicing lifetime slavery and suing to bring the institution to the English colonies, it doesn't matter HOW much "humankind" their descendants have.  If living White people bear ANY blame for that history, they bear more.  How many of THEIR relations fought and died to abolish slavery in the USA?  Very few.  Those who gave blood to free them deserve their deference and veneration, and so do all their living relations direct and indirect.  All you have is demands and hate.

Don't understand this.

You don't have the brainpower.  If you are in the USA, you have to go back.  You have no business being in our space, either physical or cybernetic.

Deter Naturalist said...

Hey Mr. Rational, I finally figured out that this clown is addicted to pissing people off. It's his/her schtick. I've seen it in children...so desperate to attract attention that they become habituated to aggravating others (because, as we all know, the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.) I have realized it really is an addiction, complete with dopamine release at getting replies. I'd like to see Santo-baby starved for his/her fix.

I always told my sons, if it's not work killing over, it's probably not worth fighting over. This is worthy of neither your time nor mine.

Mr. Rational said...

I finally figured out that this clown is addicted to pissing people off.

He didn't piss me off.  He made himself a useful foil for refuting the claims of CultMarx.  I decided to spar with him to get a wee bit of rhetorical exercise, and hopefully provide better-honed arguments to repulse and defeat the cultural attacks emanating therefrom.

How many people don't know that Arab slave raids/purchases from W. Africa date from about 650 AD?  Too many... but anyone who reads my words and bothers to look it up is going to have scales drop from their eyes.  And that is the sort of enlightenment that is going to defeat the lies of CultMarx.

M.G. said...

I've deleted some comments that fall into the 'incomprehensible word soup,' 'futile slapfight,' or 'from a banned commenter' categories.

This comment section is and always has been draconianly limited to (1) race realists who (2) can express themselves in a clear, non gratuitiously insulting way.

Sorry about the lack of housekeeping, I'm hard at work on the next piece and hadn't stopped by. Thanks to all the constructive commenters for your thoughtful contributions.

M.G. said...

Anon 22/8/18--

Sorry, I missed your comment.

Good article describing what is happening but it doesnt talk about the WHO made this happen. It didnt happen by magic and in/outgroup altruism only has small piece to do with it.

Das Enuffa Dat echoes this sentiment:

One group is conspicuously absent from your analysis. I won't name it, but I will note, à propos of nothing, that the nation of Israel has neither opened its borders to the Third World nor developed an ethnic death-wish.

In Part III of this piece, we ask the question 'Where does all this come from?', and link to an earlier article exploring that very question: 'Why Do Progressives Get [Multiculturalist] Religion?'

In that article we looked at 15 different possible source factors, one of which was 'Jewish Influence.' I'll quote it:

e) Jews

Though today the notion has become dangerously unfashionable, one cannot deny the outsized influence the Jewish diaspora has had on multiculturalism in the West. Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald:

'Studies in Prejudice and, especially, The Authoritarian Personality attempt to show that gentile group affiliations, and particularly membership in Christian religious sects, gentile nationalism, and close family relationships, are an indication of psychiatric disorder. At a deep level the work of the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing gentile group affiliations.

'A consistent theme of The Authoritarian Personality is the idea that gentile participation in cohesive groups with high levels of social conformity is pathological, whereas similar behavior of Jews … is ignored.

'A common component of anti-Semitism among academics during the Weimar period was a perception that Jews attempted to undermine patriotic commitment and social cohesion of society. (8)'


(Also included were this image and
this image.)

There's no question Jews have had an outsized influence on the mass media in the West, and their group strategy--perhapy unconscious--is ethno-nationalism for we, open borders for thee. But just as 'there are none so taken in by flattery as the proud,' there are none so taken in by multicultist propaganda as those who are naturally already disposed to believe it.

So I stand by my position that Jewish media influence, while powerful, is only one of a multitude of factors contributing to ethno-masochism in the West.

Thanks for your comments.

Mr. Rational said...

MG, thanks again for all the fine scholarship you put in on HBD issues.

M.G. said...

Santoculto--

Please refrain from commenting here in the future. Thank you for your consideration, and all the best to you on your journey.

Deter Naturalist said...

M.G., I concur completely with your assertion:
So I stand by my position that Jewish media influence, while powerful, is only one of a multitude of factors contributing to ethno-masochism in the West.

As my screen name implies, I look for explanations in Nature, as in Human Nature, specifically human neurobiology and genetics. Metaphysics and epistemology are fun subjects, but my preference is to believe that nothing people can do or think is outside of the programming of genetics (and in part determined by extant conditions.)

We are surrounded by dupes because being duped is the fashion in place at this time. Pathological Altruism is an addiction, same as is heroin. Angelo Codevilla's paper on Political Correctness highlights Leftism writ large as an addiction (addiction to a specific theology, I aver.)

I strongly believe that after a very long period of rising living standards and surrounded by the Star-Trek gizmos produced by combining openness, social trust and innovation among our brightest group members, people are delusional, intoxicated in every sense of the word by what amounts to being surrounded by MAGIC. (**)

I remain convinced that this intoxication has collectively the same effect as drunk driving. Disaster is assured.

The Ashkenazim play their (biologically) assigned role. People of Anglo-Saxon & NW European ancestry are playing theirs. Those of mainly African, Asian (East, Central or South) and Native American ancestry are playing theirs. History is a helix.

No one is outside the Matrix.

(**) Leonard Reed's I, Pencil proved about 50 years ago that no man or discrete group of men had all the knowledge to make a simple No.2 lead pencil. A pencil! The hubris of our neighbors who think they can prescribe how to run an ECONOMY is simply stunning, a perfect illustration of how deep and wide is human folly and how phenomenally taken-for-granted are the modern marvels that surround us.

M.G. said...

Deter Nationalist--

Sorry, I missed this from earlier:

After five or ten generations without serious culling/hardship, people who are high-spectrum for Impulsive cognition (who normally would be SLAUGHTERED by Nature) proliferate among the otherwise "more capable, more intelligent" peoples, leading to the ultimate collective Impulsive fad, Leftism (a theology of Equalism and Altruism.)

I'm not sure I follow--are you saying that highly-impulsive, low-intelligence people tend to be more leftist? My experience has skewed more the other way--the upper strata seem more out-group altruistic / equalitarian, with the lower classes more clannish (I'm talking ethnic Euros only here).

I strongly believe that after a very long period of rising living standards and surrounded by the Star-Trek gizmos produced by combining openness, social trust and innovation among our brightest group members, people are delusional, intoxicated in every sense of the word by what amounts to being surrounded by MAGIC.

Indeed, and I'd also say they're comfortable. One thing I picked up from John Hibbing's Predisposed (and that you allude to) is that in all eras prior to our own, a conservative outlook was selected for brutally. Conformity to tradition, out-group suspicion, etc. were the only way to survive on the razor-edge of existence. This wonderland we live in today, not only gizmos and gadgets but every possible bodily need taken care of from cradle to grave--is it selecting for more careless, out-group-loving people? 'Hothouse flowers'?

If some cabal or parasitic subpopulation is manipulating the impulsive cognition of Western populations, it's only because Western populations are content to play along, even if it predictably leads to cataclysm.

I missed this too, and yes this sums up my thoughts exactly.

Davorin Piljic said...

Bog I Hrvati!!! God and the Croats!! France cheated by diving for the first goal, there was no contact on the foul. Altered the flow of game. Relied on video replay for the second. Croatia was dominant and if you play that game over ten times, Croatia wins seven!

Deter Naturalist said...

M.G., I fully understand why you found that comment paragraph confusing.

I, too, find that smarter people are simply better skilled at providing brilliant-sounding rationalizations for what their impulsive minds already decided.

Splitting as I do cognition between the impulsive and the rational/reasoned, I have yet to find anyone provide data on the relationship between impulsivity and intelligence. Yes, dull-witted people appear overwhelmingly impulsive (the "special ed" students at my kids' high school who, while attending a dance simply began to have sex on the dance floor comes to mind), I submit that this might simply be an artifact of how we generally perceive impulsive actions. "Smart people" seem very impulsive to me when it comes to embracing the Intellectual Fad of the Week.

This is where I see the link between Leftism (as a herd-level impulsive outcome) and intelligence. Let's face it, Leftists (Theocrats from antiquity onward) created entire cities-in-the-sky rationalizations for their shared fantasies. The smarter the Leftist, the more sublime the rationalization, the more occult his or her sweeping of reason under the rug.

Each and every Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of Crowds existed amidst pervasive, nay universal rationalization. Today's 40-50 year march down Monetary Insanity Boulevard is surrounded by textbooks and tenured economics dept chairmen telling us how borrowing a dollar, spending it and issuing a dollar IOU creates two dollars in wealth for each crank of the wheel. The people involved in this are clearly not stupid, nor do I imagine that they're simply demons engaging in malice.

I was (theoretically still am) a member of a group whose entry threshold is an IQ (measured directly or via an accepted surrogate test) of 140. The loudest "mouths" among the members were connected to truly rabid leftists who were 100% on board with open immigration, special "transgender" rights, homophilia propaganda, criminalizing of "deviant" views, in other words the whole Leftist Lunatic Catechism. These people were bloodthirsty supporters of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, utterly blind to the library of open criminality in that woman's closet. To say that I "learned something" from my interaction with them was a colossal understatement. These were people whose rational minds didn't even come on-line until all their emotions and their deeply-held beliefs/biases/premises had already determined policy. Attempting a rational discussion with them was akin to reasoning with someone who is completely given over to uncontrollable rage. (Actually, I think the cognitive pathways involved are closely related.)

It is my belief that the dominance of this impulsive cognition in a Pathological Altruistic, co-dependent over-empathic direction exists only because either those passing these genes along are surviving to reproduce amidst Plentude (and would be culled mercilessly in deprivation) or because the genes for this behavior set preexist and are simply switched on in times of Plenitude. I have no means of differentiating between these two possible explanations.

Belief in the palpably unreal could be pro-survival in some cases, but for the most part I think existing in a fantasy world would be mostly contrary to survival. The theocracy in which we live posits a world that does not exist, and they've burned productive capital at a fantastic rate in order to force the real world to conform to their idealistic fantasies.

At some point they'll run out of seed corn and breeder stock. Then will come winter. That's my guess, anyway.

Are we selecting for Hothouse Flowers? I think so, economically, industrially, and most frightening to me of all, biologically. I fear for my descendants...that my protecting them from Nature's culling (what father would do otherwise?!) simply makes each successive generation more vulnerable for when Nature comes back on line with her blunt scythe.

Deter Naturalist said...

Predisposed looks interesting; does it delve into the neurobiology involved?

I'm reading Cold-Blooded Kindness by Barbara Oakley specifically because she suggested it as appealing to someone who is interested in the cognitive pathway questions I raise.

We who appreciate your blog know that science (the real McCoy) is pulling back the curtains on genetics and human biodiversity. We also know what is revealed is a far greater threat to the Leftist Theocracy than anything Galileo ever published or discussed was to the Christian Church. Leftism's dogma is meant to be taken utterly literally. It cannot coexist as some sort of metaphor the way the Christian's New Testament can coexist with astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology.

Reality is coming...as a rogue wave.

helena said...

Grooming is a crime in the UK, for individuals. At the cultural level, advertising, branding, PR, marketing, seem to be considered worthwhile! Plus, the transition from numerate to hermeneutic in the social sciences has released many cohorts of relativists into society - ideally suited to absorbing soundbite-type messages. Added to which, the adulation and blatantly selective use of statistics, by self-appointed commentators, blinds the under-educated - no less than quotations from Latin scriptures once did.

Whoever is behind the 'Multiculturialise the West' social engineering project (Big Money probably), the naivety and generosity of most Europeans would dissipate fairly rapidly if a few basic frequencies were unveiled, such as % of ssafrican, european, east Asian, indian, MENA populations in the world. Minoritarianism only works at national level. At local level, diasporas exist. At global level, Europeans are a smaller minority than populations that are protected at national level. In a global internet and mobile connected world, the very premise of minoritarianism is false.

If ethnosuicide were taking place, voters would be aware of the likely effects of 'liberal' borders-policies. But if those likely effects are simply not discussed in public, ie via news-makers, then awareness amongst the population is low.


Linton Herbert's No-Babies.Net shows a very persuasive sigmoid curve demonstrating built-in senescence to cultures. Nevertheless, there is a rising tide of dissent despite many stringent legal restrictions on dissent. Some Europeans look set to defend their territory. Whether that territory becomes a dwindling patch similar to the Afrikaners' depends greatly on how 'society' views those patches. Perhaps there could be greater tolerance for Olde Europeans having their own zones, along side designated multicultural zones. It needn't be a source of conflict but the current Left/Lib dominant ideology makes it conflictual by simplistically labelling the idea as evil.

Keep up the great work - would love to attend a terrestrial lecture by you. Maybe one day!

Das Enuffa Dat said...

Thanks for your reply.

So I stand by my position that Jewish media influence, while powerful, is only one of a multitude of factors contributing to ethno-masochism in the West.

I agree with you. But "only one" doesn't capture how important JMI is. I think the Jewish role was necessary (if not sufficient). And the Jewish role isn't simply media influence: look at who funds political parties and has disproportionate representation at the top of political parties. Trump told American Jews that he did not need their money. Is it a coincidence that Trump also rejected the standard Jewish line on mass immigration (America is a Land of Immigrants, immigration is wonderful -- can't have too much of it, Emma Lazarus's schmaltzy poem supersedes the Constitution, etc)

As for ethno-masochism: the majority in every Western nation have always wanted less immigration. And they never got what they wanted. But Barbara Lerner Specter and her folks got what they wanted. Western nations are not democratic on the most important of all political questions: race-replacement.

And need I mention Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and all the others who have provided "scientific" support for mass immigration? According to them (and if you can't trust Jewish Marxists, who can you trust?), race doesn't exist. So why should any Western nation object to enrichment by Somalis? They'll be winning Nobel prizes in no time, once we've crushed the scourge of white racism. And the ADL and SPLC can tell us exactly how to do that.

M.G. said...

Deter Naturalist--

I have yet to find anyone provide data on the relationship between impulsivity and intelligence.

We did a whole piece about that very subject: Why Re-Colonization? Future Orientation

In Part I, Number 2, We looked at the research on links between gratification delay, future orientation, and intelligence. There are strong signs pointing to real correlation there.

"Smart people" seem very impulsive to me when it comes to embracing the Intellectual Fad of the Week.

OK, I wasn't defining 'impulsivity' that way at all, but rather as poor impulse control in a general sense. I'd attriubte the high-IQs' embrace of silly fads more to intellectual laziness than to impulsivity.

It is my belief that the dominance of this impulsive cognition in a Pathological Altruistic, co-dependent over-empathic direction exists only because either those passing these genes along are surviving to reproduce amidst Plentude (and would be culled mercilessly in deprivation) or because the genes for this behavior set preexist and are simply switched on in times of Plenitude.

Yes, this is very much how I see things as well.

Belief in the palpably unreal could be pro-survival in some cases, but for the most part I think existing in a fantasy world would be mostly contrary to survival.

Perhaps, but then how do you account for religious belief seeming to be very old and selected for just about everywhere on the planet? Belief in the supernatural seems to have given us an enormous survival advantage, or why would it be so universal? I feel like Multicultists are just post-Christians who are feeling the 'God-shaped hole' and are filling it with utopian universalist pap because that's where their wiring leads them.

Predisposed looks interesting; does it delve into the neurobiology involved?

Very much so, their theory is that much of our political orientation comes from our brain wiring, with a great deal of that being inherited. It's a terrific and quick read but data-heavy, just up my alley.

I'm reading Cold-Blooded Kindness by Barbara Oakley

Sounds interesting, I'll check that out.

...science (the real McCoy) is pulling back the curtains on genetics and human biodiversitys

Indeed, and I think that's why we're seeing all these increasingly nervous thinkpieces trying to shush everyone from even whispering about racial differences in intelligence, because it is starting to seep into the mainstream (Robert Reich's or Nicholas Wade's latest books). A reckoning is coming, and yes, blank-slatists will suffer just as the Scopes monkey trial types once did. It won't be pretty.

M.G. said...

helena--

Grooming is a crime in the UK, for individuals. At the cultural level, advertising, branding, PR, marketing, seem to be considered worthwhile!

That's a great comparison that I hadn't thought of. It is like a kind of grooming at the societal level, 'Come on ladies, snuff out your own ethnie, it's cool and fun and it feels good.'

the naivety and generosity of most Europeans would dissipate fairly rapidly if a few basic frequencies were unveiled, such as % of ssafrican, european, east Asian, indian, MENA populations in the world.

I wish I shared your optimism! Pascal Bruckner was talking about this 35 years ago in 'The Tears of the White Man', about how in the 1970s already Westerners were beating their breasts about the horrors of colonialism. Since then this 'white guilt' syndrome has truly ramped up to epic proportions. I fear some of the ethno-suicidalism is really sincere.

Linton Herbert's NoBabies.Net

Very interesting link, thank you.

Some Europeans look set to defend their territory. Whether that territory becomes a dwindling patch similar to the Afrikaners' depends greatly on how 'society' views those patches.

I think at a certain point the non-self-replacementists are going to get a violent upper hand over the self-replacementists, and there will be a brutal pendulum swing in Western Europe that sees mass deportations of non-Euros, even ones who've been there for generations. I do not look forward to this, because it will be ugly, but I think it is coming. The generation growing into men today is not, I think, going to accept the world their elders in Europe have bequeathed them. We shall see.

Keep up the great work - would love to attend a terrestrial lecture by you. Maybe one day!

Thank you for the kind words. When the time is right to publish under my own name, I sure hope to get out on the road too. Thanks for stopping by.

M.G. said...

Das Enuffa Dat--

And the Jewish role isn't simply media influence...

You're right, and I shouldn't have reduced it to that. In fact we have here at this blog published data on Jewish power in everything from politics and wealth to academia to the press to Hollywood. It's a multifaceted influence for sure.

...the majority in every Western nation have always wanted less immigration. And they never got what they wanted. But Barbara Lerner Specter and her folks got what they wanted.

Indeed, but don't forget who else got what they wanted--Big Business. They've been pushing hard for open borders for over a century, hoping to shove wages down via endless waves of low-skill newcomers. The 1921 Immigration Act was the fruit of decades of nativist activism, and one of its biggest counter-lobbies was Big Biz--just like today. The open-borders crowd has always been an unholy marriage between multicult leftists and greedy corporations. It can't all be laid at the feet of Jewish influence.

And need I mention Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and all the others who have provided "scientific" support for mass immigration?

I don't deny their influence, nor that of Boas or Adorno or Friedan, but again, it takes two to tango. Such seeds need to fall on fertile ground. There's been no group as seduced by this type of propaganda as ethnic NW Euros. I have to believe that there are real genetic or cultural reasons for Anglo-Germanics being bitten so hard by this bug--even if the Jews had never existed. I suppose that's where we part ways: You believe the Jewish role was necessary if not sufficient, whereas I believe it wasn't truly necessary--that we'd have gotten here sooner or later regardless.

I guess I'd just like to see some good hard data on the level of Jewish cultural influence in places like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands (all multicult true believers) before I'm willing to give this factor as much credit as you do. I'll admit it's not something I've looked into in great detail, so I'm agnostic and open to new data.

Thanks again for your comments.

Das Enuffa Dat said...

Thanks your open-mindedness. I was once in the same position as you. Then I had certain encounters with S.J. Gould's brethren (and sistren), read KMac and joined the Dark Side.

I suppose that's where we part ways: You believe the Jewish role was necessary if not sufficient, whereas I believe it wasn't truly necessary--that we'd have gotten here sooner or later regardless.

Do you agree that, if Darwin's "racism" in The Descent of Man had been built on properly, we would have arrived at a solid scientific consensus on racial (and sexual) differences long ago? If so, then you should also agree that the egalitarian nonsense used to justify mass immigration and attack white resistance would never have had a chance of fully infecting the body politic. And Darwin's work WAS being properly built on before WW2 and even more before WW1. Do you really believe that pie-in-the-sky egalitarianism would have defeated hard Darwinism without the massive support of a very cohesive, articulate and anti-white group within Western nations? How many decades of scientific progress have we lost because of Marx, Freud, Boas. Gould, et al? In the battle over sociobiology, there were clear ethnic patterns and the most effective liars, censors and propagandists came (and come) from one particular group.

don't forget who else got what they wanted--Big Business

Yes. Big Business. And which group is massively over-represented there? Under Tony Blair in the UK, there was a big scandal about the Labour fundraiser Lord Levy selling peerages to a select group of businessmen whose acquaintance he had made through the charity Jewish Care. The businessmen all got substantial returns on their investments in Labour (property developers found planning permission much easier, for example). Levy was seemingly set for trial and conviction, but the Crown Prosecution Service ruled some vital evidence inadmissable. Much to the relief of the Jewish community, which had raised an almighty stink about "anti-semitism" when Levy seemed to be heading for court. Not an isolated "scandal".

It can't all be laid at the feet of Jewish influence.

But who claims it is all due to that? For me it's like STEM. White men haven't been responsible for all advances in STEM. But would nuclear physics or electronics or the moon landings have happened yet without them? I don't think so.

I don't deny their influence, nor that of Boas or Adorno or Friedan, but again, it takes two to tango. Such seeds need to fall on fertile ground.

Of course. It always takes two to tango in an interaction between manipulative parasite and manipulatable host. Toxoplasma can't prompt reptiles or birds towards suicide, as far as I'm aware.

I guess I'd just like to see some good hard data on the level of Jewish cultural influence in places like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands (all multicult true believers) before I'm willing to give this factor as much credit as you do. I'll admit it's not something I've looked into in great detail, so I'm agnostic and open to new data.

The Occidental Observer has some good pieces on Sweden, e.g.:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/

If you want to start research on Norway, this gentleman is a good place to start:

Norway is TOO WHITE! According to the President of the Jewish Community in Oslo

https://redice.tv/news/norway-is-too-white-according-to-the-president-of-the-jewish-community-in-oslo

I could say something about the Netherlands too, but that wouldn't be wise for me. As you know, these topics are dangerous and unfriendly eyes are always watching. Five of them, to be precise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

M.G. said...

Das Enuffa Dat--

OK, thanks for the links, I'll definitely take a look. As I said, I'm agnostic on this as on most things, and always looking for new data.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

Deter Naturalist said...

Belief in the palpably unreal could be pro-survival in some cases, but for the most part I think existing in a fantasy world would be mostly contrary to survival.

Perhaps, but then how do you account for religious belief seeming to be very old and selected for just about everywhere on the planet? Belief in the supernatural seems to have given us an enormous survival advantage, or why would it be so universal? I feel like Multicultists are just post-Christians who are feeling the 'God-shaped hole' and are filling it with utopian universalist pap because that's where their wiring leads them.

When it comes to genetics, I like the notion of features and bugs. A feature describes something that is pro-survival in one measure, contra-survival in another (too much or too little.) A bug is contra-survival at all times, and its existence is often due to exogenous cause, such as infectious disease. The poster child for this is toxoplasmosis, which apparently destroys the amygdala of afflicted persons (mostly cat ladies.) Some people believe homosexuality, esp. of men, has all or most of the attributes of being downstream of infectious disease. There's nothing whatsoever that Nature likes about men who have sex with men. CDC STD rates confirm quite the opposite (without antibiotics MSM would have very short life expectancies.)

I think belief in the palpably unreal (including religion) is a side effect of our cognitive processes. It is an unintended effect, not particularly pro-survival at all. But I do agree that in the Post-Christian time the Left simply replaced "the Kingdom of Heaven" with "Utopia" as described by John Lennon in "Imagine." God was replaced by "we" (as in "we" can eliminate want, unhappiness, etc. because "we" can rewrite Nature's laws.)

The aforementioned book by Oakley gets into a fair amount of the relatively recent science of cognition, e.g. the left-right hemisphere differences and the "System 1" and "System 2" cognitive systems posited in Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow." It is relatively easy to imagine how people with, for instance, left-brain dominance could be more likely to, as smart people are wont, fall in love with their ideas offered up by their "System 1" fast cognition (what I refer to as impulsive mindedness.)

It is this to which I refer when it comes to impulsive cognition. We all have it, it's the seat of emotion, of sense of self, of phobias and of herding behavior (the Limbic System of the brain.) Its neurons fire faster and with greater amplitude than do those in the cerebral cortex, so it literally drowns out rational mindedness. Kahneman apparently points to many examples where we don't even notice that this snap-decision system is controlling what we think.

This is the essence of why, to me, it's self-evident that belief comes first. These premises/biases/etc are held in the brain immediately above the brainstem, and they are the central control room for everything coming into the brain. Nothing will pass these filters. This is why it is essentially impossible to "change someone's mind" via persuasion. The filters have to fall first. If they don't, the person will simply go into "shoot the messenger mode."

I have Kahneman's book in my shopping cart and hope it lives up to its hype. I do realize that no one who values his or her ability to pay their bills and be invited to social outings will currently highlight where the Leftist Theocracy is sustained with impulsive "System 1" cognition. Too bad, though. Oakley gets close to some of this, but clearly realizes that professional suicide accompanies too much candor.

The King In Yellow said...

This is fascinating and enlightening information. Thank you for all the hard work and time you put into these pieces. You've earned a new reader.

Hmmpie said...

"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"

I just hate the repeat of this bullshit, especially from Americans, British and French, all of whom are muuuuch further down the road than Sweden is.

At least Sweden didn't until very recently have experience of Africans, the US and other countries have much longer experience, yet mass import Africans.

In France 40-50% of newborns are African, in the US it's near 50% non-white, etc etc. Sweden isn't close to this.

Besides, in northern Europe things are actually changing =P

Christopher Yeniver said...

I doubt Israel will complain when their genetic LEFTists are removed from the world, the ones that aren't at home anywhere including Israel. I'm all for a Holy War against the Muslims in Asia Minor.