Thursday, February 09, 2012

Losing Our Religion

Marat-Sade

A good friend of this blog has found himself unable to publish a lengthy piece of writing because it touches on a certain taboo topic that even conservative web outlets are reluctant to discuss.

No matter how disappointing their behavior, such fastidiousness on the part of online magazines cannot in any way be considered “censorship”. No law restrains our friend from publishing his views. If he is unable to find another publisher, he is quite free to amass the necessary capital and start his own publishing house or website, from which platform he could write and publish whatever he wished.

Yet, although they lack the force of law, our cultural taboos are nonetheless quite real. They make it all but impossible to engage in public discussion of forbidden topics, which means that such debate is confined to the lunatic fringe, where it may be safely ignored by the broad mainstream of political thought, both liberal and conservative. The unwillingness to broach these subjects — which are backed by scientific data and reliable sociological statistics — is itself a sign of collective lunacy on the part of the “mainstream”.

In other words, we are living in an era of mass insanity.

What other explanation can be adduced for the seemingly suicidal urges that drive Western Civilization towards its imminent destruction?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The forbidden topic is, of course, race, along with a constellation of related issues.

The primal horror evoked in the minds of urban literati by the dread word “racism” is enough to strangle any discussion of these ideas before it can begin. To broach the topic in polite society is to risk an ostracism fiercer than was once directed at serial adulterers and public atheists — back when both behaviors still evoked strong public disapproval.

One can’t say certain things. Everyone knows it, and few people are willing to break the taboo, regardless of what the law ostensibly allows. Anyone who values his job, his pension, and the approval of his peers simply avoids the issue.

Yet everybody also understands the nature of the official lies about race. No one believes that “affirmative action” mandates that more Norwegian men be placed on the first string of major basketball teams. None of us thinks that Jewish women are under-represented as housekeepers, or that there are too many men of Chinese descent earning PhDs in particle physics.

No, the issue is about sticking it to the white man. Everyone knows it, but almost no one is willing to discuss it.

The conceit is that Europeans and their descendants, in creating Western Civilization, have somehow attained an unfair dominance over other races. The doctrine further maintains that the European ascendancy was made possible only through the “racism” of white people.

These assertions are the cornerstone of what is generally referred to as Politically Correct Multiculturalism. They are assumed as premises, yet they do not admit of any testing to establish their accuracy. The basis of the reigning PCMC doctrine thus becomes unassailable and unquestionable. It possesses an absolute truth that can only be conferred by rigid orthodoxy.

Yet other reasonable and scientifically sound explanations exist for the success of the white race. We already accept genetically based distinctions between groups of people involving any number of characteristics, including the capacity to digest certain foods, resistance to or predisposition towards common diseases, and the ability to withstand extreme cold.

We are even willing to examine differences that correlate with what is commonly known as “race”. The descendants of West Africans make better sprinters. Peruvian Indians are genetically adapted to low-oxygen conditions at high altitudes. Central Asians possess a gene that enables them to survive and flourish on a diet that consists almost entirely of milk products. And so on.

Yet the overwhelming evidence that human intelligence has a significant genetic component is disregarded. We are required to ignore the fact that variation in IQ strongly correlates with the distribution of physical characteristics that are generally associated with “race”. Anyone who wishes to discuss these facts — and their implications for public policy — is shunned. This is true even in “conservative” venues, as our friend discovered. Unless one is willing to keep company with dedicated Jew-haters, it’s virtually impossible to write of these matters and expect to be read by a significant audience.

This blind devotion to multicultural doctrine is understandable, in a way.

To admit that “racism” does not explain differences in group achievement is to declare that fifty years of public policy have been in error.

Reversing course would require an acknowledgement that hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted in an attempt to remedy something irremediable.

It would mean that all the enormous bureaucracies dedicated to fighting “discrimination” should be dismantled.

It would force us to accept that racial parity in most fields can never be achieved through public policy.

Official attempts to achieve an equality of outcomes can only lead to further dishonesty, distortion, coercion, and eventual totalitarian governance — towards which we are rapidly heading, especially in Western Europe.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The brittle and unsustainable nature of the PCMC premise is made obvious by the hysterical, irrational, and sometimes violent responses by its adherents to those who question it. Dissidents who refute the dominant paradigm risk their livelihoods and personal safety by doing so. Being intellectually honest in public these days may require adding a bulletproof vest to one’s standard wardrobe.

What could possibly explain such deranged and violent reactions to the questioning of the dominant paradigm?

It has become obvious to many people — including ordinary folk of common sense, and not just cranks — that our current trajectory leads inexorably towards societal destruction. To hang on to the PCMC dream is insane and foolish. Why, then, are so many people in thrall to what is essentially suicidal madness?

The answer is obvious: Politically Correct Multiculturalism is a religion.

PCMC is devious and deceitful, because it claims not to be a religion. It recognizes no supreme being or supernatural moral force. It assumes the mantle of “science”, but its dogma is actually that of Scientism, which elevates certain allegedly scientific premises to the status of unquestionable orthodoxy.

The Western world is now entering what may be a terminal decline, and its self-destruction is driven by a form of religious mania. Zealous disciples of PCMC orthodoxy are so frenzied in their devotion that they are willing to die for it — they would literally prefer their own deaths, and the death of their entire civilization, than to be perceived as “racist”. Fjordman has catalogued a number of specific examples of individuals in thrall to the PC death-wish.

Why fight so viciously on behalf of such a dangerous and destructive ideology?

People who are comfortable and secure in their faith are unlikely to respond violently to those who hold other beliefs. A vicious reaction to the questioning of one’s religion is an indication that the believer is deeply afraid.

Why this fear? If he truly examined the premises of his faith, what might he discover?

What if he were in fact wrong about all that he had previously held to be true?

The need to guard against this dreaded outcome requires the projection of violent tendencies on all those who question orthodoxy. Thus, in the eyes of those who believe in it, the only alternative to accepting the Multicultural lie is to promote a race war. Referring to inherent differences among the races inevitably prompts the invocation of Hitler. At the very least, according to PC disciples, the acceptance of racial differences must lead to renewed oppression and “discrimination”.

In fact, to affirm a person’s inherent individually-held capabilities, regardless of any genetic category to which he might belong, is the opposite of “racial discrimination”. To acknowledge that whites will always be statistically over-represented among accomplished mathematicians, and that blacks will always be statistically over-represented among great athletes, is not inherently discriminatory. People simply differ in their abilities, and those abilities are at least partially based in their genetic makeup.

The Ranting ManI am an American of European descent. When I learn that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians are more intelligent on average than people of my race, it doesn’t make me feel inferior. My self-esteem is not harmed. These differences are statistical and not individual; why should anyone object to that?

It’s crucial to remember that statistics do not mandate any special treatment, good or bad, of a particular individual. They simply state certain facts about humans in the aggregate, which is where measurable group differences can be detected.

No individual need be punished or rewarded for the statistical characteristics of the genetic group he happens to belong to. Everyone deserves the same chance at life based on his own abilities.

Why is that notion so radical here in the second decade of the 21st century? Fifty years ago it was the commonly-accepted norm.

Today, however, the priests of Political Correctness shout down anyone who voices such sentiments. Their doctrine requires equality of outcome at any cost. Equality of opportunity is not good enough, because then all races would not be proportionally represented among lawyers or neurosurgeons.

This is the orthodoxy that must be defended to the death.

And not just the death of those who believe in it, but yours and mine as well.

It’s time to put aside this death-cult. The first step on the road back to sanity is losing our religion.

100 comments:

Dymphna said...

Heretical, Baron.

And you know what they do to heretics.

A bullet-proof vest, you say? How about growing an asbestos shell real quick? Please?

I mean if you're not here, who will laugh at my jokes?

joe six-pack said...

Good points. And you are correct. Nobody talks about this even though this is playing a part in the decline of our country and civilization.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, yes! And this is where faith in something other than man and his laws comes into play. When man's laws fail then who shall be our authority? A person can seek justification in something else, they can become a zealot for the PC cause or they can go about in silence and fear, proclaiming themselves "independent" of uncomfortable political issues and in denial that these issues affect them and their offspring, until the PC orthodoxy snowballs inevitably into blatant genocide. They'll call us "racists" even as they're loading us on the trains to "White Auschwitz". As they slam the cargo door shut on us they'll say "You're just being paranoid!" That's what the whites are waiting for. They are waiting for the moment when it will become politically-correct to defend themselves and we think that somehow we have to wait until everything is in shambles on the brink of annihilation, as they are loading us onto the train, before we can act. Man repeats this pattern of procrastination over and over again. He waits until its too late to do anything about it (collectively). Then he finally admits openly that he should have taken action sooner, but by then, of course, it's too late. The only effective remedy is reliance on and faith in something greater than either yourself or your fellow man and his perverted laws -- that, by the way, don't protect you anyway. RoR

Lawrence said...

White Guilt, Black Stigma, And the fact that humans are all one single race.

We just have different amounts of melanin affecting our skin color as a consequence of selective breeding among populations of people with similar melanin content.

If we could just get everyone to be the same, measure by the same amount of melanin, with respect to domiant and recessive gene combinations...

... nothing would change. We'd find some other means of distingusing and characterizing people in order to manipulate and control.

Anonymous said...

Obsession with racism is only an irrational and frequently hysterical fear found in
non-melanistic races when dealing
with melanistic Afros.This fear
is so strong that it turns the
sufferer against any individual or group perceived to be weaker or less dominant than the [threatening]group
of melanistic Afros.So you mainly see blatant anti-white racism
from whites who suffer from this condition.Unfortunately there are an increasing number of these
rather sad people and they somehow frequently manage to install themselves in positions of minor power where they can snipe away at all the evil terrible racists.In other words it is a displacement reaction.

Anonymous said...

Cowardice in face of social taboos is a normal human trait. The question is why the taboo in this matter in particular. This is a key issue confounding America and the rest of the Anglosphere too. The roots of modern “Progressivism” are in fact in 19th century England and New England. I don’t know why the Anglos and the Nordics are particularly vulnerable to voluntary self-dhimmification (with or without the Islamic component), but that’s an empirical truism.

The connection that the Progressives (including 99% of the GOP “Right”) make between “racism,” “bigotry” etc. and statistical facts based on comparative group studies related to the contemporary identity shibboleths of race, culture, gender and sexual orientation harbors a quadruple lie. As such, it’s a damned lie leading to hell and damnation (to use Biblical terms) for the entire Progressive-postmodern West.

First, our society has bought from the Progressives the notion that the people are racist who engage in the study or even discussion of group differences. But it’s not the people who are racist but the facts. The statistical facts show incontrovertible differences.

Second, those differences have profound social implications. A society that deems statistical facts “racist,” “sexist,” “Islamophobic” etc. will treat the disparate social features and outcomes for different groups as inequalities induced by human wickedness and therefore needing redress by the enlightened state. But it’s that effort at equalizing outcomes that leads to catastrophic long-term consequences, such as the seeding of incompetents in position of power and responsibility based on their melanin quotient, or putting women in combat, or Muslim ethnics as military and intelligence officers in post-Christian countries, etc.

Third, even if the people were racist who write about these differences or study them (e.g. J.P. Rushton, Linda Gottfredson), the allegation of statistical group differences does not amount to an allegation of difference – i.e. “inferiority” or “superiority” – across the entire spectrum of distribution. I can make a casual observation that the Chinese are shorter than the Dutch. But if you ask me who are the tallest men in the world I will tell you that of the three tallest ones, two are Chinese. Both statements are true and mutually congruent. Yet our society has made the first kind of true statement, at least with respect to blacks, women, Islam etc. into a proscribed taboo, while lying about its nonexclusivity with respect to the second kind of true statement.

Fourth, the whole “anti-racist” (and anti-sexist, anti Islamophobic etc) paradigm is based on a monstrous philosophical fallacy: that of collective (i.e. “social”) justice and collective (i.e. white male) guilt. But justice and guilt have no meaning in the collective sense. They are always a function of individual choice and personal merit or wrongdoing. No one should ever win the just deserts of another, or be accountable for another’s wrongdoing.

For dessert, I would like to serve these billboards placed in Duluth Minnesota with the support of its Mayor, whom I would diagnose as clinically insane.
Takuan Seiyo

rui said...

Was it just me (don't think so) who noticed? How many other websites out there would allow us to even engage in the debating of these ideas? What a breath of freedom and sanity is our beloved GoV!

A few weeks ago, I got into a dispute about german politics and the return of anti-semitism as du jour to european politics... OK, I was debating in a website completely off topic (it was a miniature painting site!), but the administrators there knocked out all of my replies that explained the point of view that Germany may be heading to Weimar 2.0. The administrators responded like the soviet comissars that they are and deleted my posts without warning, advice or any feedback.

In here, these ideas are not only entertained but defended and substantiated. Sanity rules over here. This site helps us maintaining sanity daily.

I usually say to my friends and family that hell is being on the brink of madness but remaining sane. I think this is how a lot of us go about nowadays. I know I do.

Anonymous said...

As far as I understand, science is currently unable to attribute IQ differences to genetic factors as opposed to cultural/environmental factors. IQ tests show quite significant differences between "races", however these disappear within one generation when moving to (Western) environments with good opportunities (education, health, wealth, etc.). We should also be careful when focusing on intelligence as measured by IQ tests. Very intelligent people can be absolute monsters. High intelligence + bad "philosophy" = hell (see nazis, some islamists...). Average intelligence + a decent philosophy = much better.
I think that the "white" culture has evolved thanks to its self-criticism. Now that it has opened its doors to people from other shores (a bit too fast, too wide), perhaps it is time it teaches these cultures to do the same. It seems that Islam is particularly bad at it.

Jewel said...

The enforced silence goes to homosexuality and it's vile practices, as well. I have been having an online debate with some young folks who are learning in school that only whites are racists, that there is an unwritten policy of 'white privilege' that minorities can never overcome, and that hatred of whites because they are white isn't racism, because of 'white privilege'.
Tired of arguing the insanity of such notions, I just now agree with them, cutting to the chase and explain why we have to kill all the white people, starting with the white supporters of this doctrine first.
Needless to say, they don't like the sarcasm, but I'm not being sarcastic, just taking the poisonous idea to full bloom for them.

Hal K said...

This is a time of universal deceit, as far as race is concerned, and that means telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Consider the suppression of race in crime reporting, for starters. Next, the connection between IQ and race is dismissed, but its study is effectively prohibited. Our children are taught by the education system that race doesn't exist, but racial preferences are still reserved for nonwhites. Liberals dispute the existence of IQ, except when they want to gloat over their supposed superior intelligence. Indigenous people are said to deserve protection, except when it is the indigenous people of Europe.

As for "losing our religion," you can't beat something with nothing. If PCMC is ultimately about elevating nonwhites at the expense of whites, then the way to counter it is to become openly pro-white.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

You seem to express good faith opinions, but have not taken the time to acquire enough knowledge related to those opinions. First, it has been established irrefutably (e.g. twin studies) that at least 50% of intelligence is heritable, and some studies go as high as 80%. Second, the Flynn effect has decreasing marginal utility. In other words, blacks' IQ for instance has risen, but so has that of whites. The same disparity remains. Third, no one sane alleges that IQ equals morality. But a preponderant and valid correlation has been established between IQ and success in life, IQ and educability, IQ and national or personal income, IQ and criminality, IQ and the ability to choose deferred gratification, even IQ and health. You might start from the two names mentioned in my previous comment, but there are at least a dozen major others.

Takuan Seiyo

Dymphna said...

Shoot, why won't the anons take the trouble to identify their own fine selves so we can reply. I will call this particular Anonymous "fellow-who-hasn't-been-keeping-up-with-genetic-findings".

I know he's been answered earlier, but I'll repeat it...there may be some Norwegians reading our comment section and they need to helped to the truth...

-------------------

FWHBKUWGF sez:

As far as I understand, science is currently unable to attribute IQ differences to genetic factors as opposed to cultural or environmental factors.

Just for starters, FWHBKUWGF, read up on the twins-separated-at-birth phenomenon. Identical twins, I mean. That will get you in the mood to explore even more dangerous waters.

Those who report the fact of racial differences are stigmatized by those who are afraid of the truth of those racial differences.

The hierarchy of intellectual intelligence is by now well-established: black->white->asian->Ashkenazi Jews.

The fourth one, that little quirk (proving the cosmic sense of humor we are forced to contend with) doesn't make AJs any more virtuous than the rest of us.

Don't bet the farm (unless your mortgage is underwater) on seeing large numbers of AJs on pro basketball teams...or blacks flocking to graduate studies in astrophysics...

Remember, FWHBKUWGF, this is about statistical reality. It is not about individual experience. And neither of these realities is the "best" truth.

Any more than subatomic reality with all those dancing atoms makes these computer keys feel in their everyday reality as they appear down there in Quarkland.

Thus, the best pediatric neurosurgeon in the world is black. He's smart enough to have changed the world of pediatric brain surgery. And guess what: he lives up to his stereotype because he's got great hands, see...everybody knows blacks are good with their hands, right? Right??

My two favorite American economists are black. Not only is their economic philosophy sound, but they each have personal qualities that make them outstanding. These are qualities that often accompany intelligence, but not always.

Oh, and GoV is a nasty little racist blog that needs to be shamed, shunned, etc. - because it suits the political aims of those who so label us to marginalize our voices. And those who go along to get along don't mind adding their voices to the chorus.

I'm with (what was attributed to)Galileo: the truth will out, no matter how endlessly those terrified despots try to kill it a borning.

Think of the struggle as Galileo vs. Herod. Lots of innocents got slaughtered so Herod could sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

read this and ask yourself how successful the baha'i have been since they created the idea of Progressivism..
http://info.bahai.org/article-1-7-5-1.html

Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.
-Shoghi Effendi, 1936

=================

think 'spiritual communism'... universalists are the totalitarian mirror image of atheists..

oh.. you don't like that I have identified 'victims' as perpetrators? TFB

VANGRUNGY

Papa Whiskey said...

The malign race ideology of the contemporary left is less a religion (a way, however warped, of relating to Our Creator) than a cult (a mass adherence to a delusion). Examples of the latter are the cargo cults of the Pacific islanders who imagined that performing rituals was going to make the American aircraft that disgorged cargos of food and supplies throughout the war with Japan return after the Japs were beaten, and the people who believed that bumping themselves off was going to enable them to levitate up to their celestial comrades in the Hale-Bopp comet. The left-liberal race cult is all about the worship of "blackness," as witness Barry Hussein's Chicago church, and "brownness," as witness the Southwestern phenomenon of "Chicanismo.". If it were merely a goofy cult it would be toxic enough, but unfortunately it has also become an industry upon which many depend for their social status, temporal power, and livelihoods. The measures that will be required for the removal of so entrenched a belief system are fearful to contemplate. It is to hope that someday it will die out with its adherents, as did the cult of Stalinism in Russia. But inasmuch as the cult has developed ways of perpetuating itself through indoctrination and coercion, such a hope is probably vain.

Anonymous said...

Sticking it to the White man(especially the religious variant) is what the Left has been about for a long time.

In it's most blatant form one only has to look at the campaign in Duluth as pointed out by a previous poster. Here's a link to one of their disgusting posters.

http://unfaircampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Un-Fair_Poster_8x11-1.pdf

BTW if this was done to a Muslim or other minority, the entire MSM would go nuts and demand that the perps be drawn and quartered.

Yet it's OK to demonize Whites. I swear the white Lefties and their minority associates want to incite a race war. Because this sort of evil agit-prop will be considered by some groups as a open declaration thereof.

Sadly I suspect we will be seeing more of this as the U.S. lurches into Dante's inferno.

hbd chick said...

@takuan seiyo - "I don’t know why the Anglos and the Nordics are particularly vulnerable to voluntary self-dhimmification (with or without the Islamic component), but that’s an empirical truism."

i strongly suspect that northwest europeans are so enamored of political correctness in the way that they are due to a curious set of circumstances which resulted in extreme outbreeding amongst these populations which then led to the selection of a unique set of "genes for altruism" in these populations.

most human populations are inbred to some extent or another, and tend to have altruistic drives that are family or extended-family (or clan or tribe) oriented. (ya'll know, i think, which populations are the most inbred nowadays.) northwest europeans, on the other hand, have been outbreeding for so long (thanks to the church), that i think that more "reciprocal altruism" genes have been selected for in our populations.

it is easy to imagine how exogamous mating and the resultant "genes for reciprocal altruism" could lead to a morality which was universalistic rather than familial, which is what political correctness is partly about. when you loosen the genetic ties within a population (which is what extensive outbreeding does), people feel more connected to the wider population than to just their own extended families or clan or tribes. northwest europeans are so outbred that they extend their altruistic feelings to pretty much anybody on planet earth.

Sagunto said...

When it comes to understanding the Cult of PCMC, I'm really fond of the writings produced by Paul Gottfried. In his book "Muliticulturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy", Gottfried really manages to analyse the cultish nature of PCMC and the way it has always functioned in perfect accord with a wider progressivist agenda, without falling for the temptation to engage in a loosing battle with these cultists, by adopting their way of framing key issues. One typical mode of progressivist discourse is that which combines group-think (collectivism) with public policy recommendations, without any mention of the dubious role historically played by the state-sponsored social sciences in the grand social engineering schemes of the 20th century.
The mixture of three elements that are particularly indicative of the progressivist lingo here: (1) "settled science"; (2) public policy; (3) group characteristics (e.g., IQ-collectivism) used in a way that sees scientific notions quickly shade into the contours of a political construct, without proper scientific skepsis.

In other words: old-style progressivist racism was a Cult, dressed up in "science", like the post WW-2 US Cult of "Diversity"(TM), or progressivist racism2.0 is. It's just the upgraded version backed by the managerial state. Fighting these cults with "conservative" forms of group-think, equally framed in scientifically sounding socio-political dress, is not the way to go.

Just my 2 (euro)cts,

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /,
Sag

Anonymous said...

@hbd chick
A plausible theory, except I am myself a product of that outbreeding, and so have been some of the most iconic old and new representatives and defenders of Western civilization e.g. Chopin, Pushkin, Dumas, Niels Bohr, Fred Astaire, Friedrich von Hayek, Mark Steyn and hundreds more. Christianity has much to do with it, but also a subconscious death wish after the mega-madness of WW1 and WW2.
Takuan Seiyo

Anonymous said...

There are some great comments on this page, however people need to understand the importance of keeping it simple.
Whether one race/group is more intelligent or less intelligent than another isnt terribly relevant. What is relevant is that anti-White racism is everywhere triumphant. Equally relevant is the fact that Whites will soon be minorities in what up until now have been White majority countries. There is a silent and creeping Genocide at work in all the Western countries. These little acknowleged "facts" are indisputable. They have nothing to do with whether or not one race/group is "better" or "worse" than any other. The internationally accepted definition of the crime of Genocide makes no mention of "superiority" or "inferiority".
Whites have a right to exist as majorities in the Western countries. Anyone who conspires to bring about the destruction of these Native White Peoples is guilty of genocide.
Please visit the InternationalRabbit page at youtube to familiarise yourself with the real issues associated with the White Genocide - and how to counter the seemingly unstoppable tide of anti-White racism. WhiteIGNITERS is another great youtube page

http://www.youtube.com/user/InternationalRabbit#p/f/4/jQf3rV2qA9A

Anonymous said...

l may have included the wrong link - here is the correct link. There are many WhiteRabbit tutorials but this will introduce you to 'practical politics' and get you started - and never forget only Whites are called racist and nine times out of ten what the accuser is really saying is they are ANTI WHITE. Racist is a code word for ANTI WHITE
http://www.youtube.com/user/InternationalRabbit#p/f/4/jQf3rV2qA9A

Anonymous said...

a.k.a. FWHBKUWGF a.k.a brigitte

To Dymphna and Takuan Seiyo

Thank you for responding to my comments. I know how average IQ scores currently pan out according to "race", and I know about separated-at-birth twins studies. I just feel that one should be careful before drawing definitive conclusions. I am not suggesting ignoring the topic altogether, but rather being aware when discussing it that there are many pieces to the puzzle and we may not see (or present) the full picture yet. History suggests that approaching the topic with caution reflects intelligence and common sense rather than denial of reality. A quick reading into the topic seems to confirm that science is VERY FAR from having reached a consensus on what causes this phenomenon (IQ racial discrepancies), let alone predict future trends or suggest appropriate policies.

I am inclined to believe the APA's current conclusions: 'while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, "there is certainly no [direct empirical] support for a genetic interpretation," and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available.'

Ultimately, what matters to me the most is moral intelligence. It is not measured by IQ tests, and I am not arguing it could nor should, but putting it on a par with other types of intelligence may ease many of our current problems. Anyway, your clarifications partly put my mind at ease. End of my participation on this topic which, for the time being, I see as a work in progress.

darrinh said...

Some interesting reading...

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

Anonymous said...

"[N]orthwest europeans are so outbred that they extend their altruistic feelings to pretty much anybody on planet earth."

A curious breed of altruism that exalts rapists over rape victims - that imports 'other than whites' at an alarming pace and proceeds to ignore the increase of white rape victims - that pays MORE in benefits to immigrant 'other than white' people than indigenous white people - that labels new immigrants rather than actual indigenous as ethnic countrymen - that allows 'ethnic' immigrants to threaten murder and mayhem against Jews and drive Jews out of entire cities with the anticipation of eventually driving white people out of the same cities.

Something far more sinister than altruism is at work here....

Egghead

Anonymous said...

ChristianInfidel says:

Cue the music: "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!"

Baron & Dymphna, you are now officially my heroes: for writing this essay, Baron; for your comments, Dymphna; and for publishing this, both of you.

To all the other commenters, with a special tip of the hat to Takuan Seiyo: Thank you!

This has been like cavorting in a tropical waterfall & idyllic pool after a long, hot, tropical cross-country trek. Ahhhhh.

Jolie Rouge said...

One puzzle despite the social conditioning, extreme pressure and criminalisation what makes the few individuals psychologically immune to the indoctrination onslaught of the PC herd?

Da Capo said...

To hang on to the PCMC dream is insane and foolish.

Still everybody does!

In other words, we are living in an era of mass insanity.

"What other explanation can be adduced for the seemingly suicidal urges that drive Western Civilization towards its imminent destruction?"

A phenomenon that might contribute to explain why the planet seems to unavoidably become a lunatic asylum is described as 'the Spiral of Silence'.

The theory of the Spiral of Silence was the influentic German public opinion scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's most notable contribution to the field of public opinion and political communication. She died on March 25 this year at the age of 93.


Congratulations, Baron, after initially like the hungry cat walking around a dish with hot porridge, you have reluctantly but praiseworthly forced yourself one bit at a tim to approach this hot subjekt: FUNCTIONAL STUPIDITY and DITTO IDIOCY -- simply: the GLOBAL IDIOCY. [Jag är aningen stolt över att ha varit den som kanske väckte ditt intresse för ämnet.]

Dymphna said...

Synchronicity from Diana West's column today:

... both history and news, history's so-called rough draft, are not written by the "victors" as much as they are censored, twisted and reconfigured by what I can best describe as "the mob."

I'm not referring to the Mafia. What I'm talking about is a moblike amalgam of sharp elbows and big mouths who dictate acceptable topics, their narrative flow and an approved range of opinion -- the consensus-makers. Defying consensus, breaking what amount to Mafialike vows of "omerta" -- silence -- and delving into the verboten, is the worst possible crime of anti-mobness, punishable by eternal hooting and marginalization.

Few transgress...


Yes. Silence. Loud. Incessant. Silence. As in "settled scientific consensus". Ain't that a big piece of duct tape for your mouth?

Why wasn't Obama slapped with contempt of court?

[That question is obviously rhetorical. The answer, though, is simple: "because he won and you didn't".]

archiver said...

LibLabCon plans to nerve gas opposition -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-may-sanction-nerveagent-use-on-rioters-scientists-fear-6612084.html

Chiu ChunLing said...

Ultimately, irrational belief systems are just that...irrational.

However, the idea of racism does pose a particularly tempting target for the collectivist mind. On the one hand, you have those that assert that excellent statistical performance by a given "race" justifies preferences and privileges for all persons assigned to that regardless of individual merits. On the other hand you have those that assert that excellent statistical performance by a given race is proof of that racial group acting to oppress other races, which justifies 'retributive' (or redistributive) 'corrective' action against the entire race regardless of individual actions.

It is anathema to both to suggest that race isn't a sufficiently reliable indicator of individual ability to assume anything about a person based on race. The lovely irony of the billboards proclaiming "Its hard to see racism...if you're white". Perhaps it really is hard for whites to see that message as hilariously racist. But I'd bet that it is collectivists of the PC/MC camp (white or not) who are the ones that have trouble seeing actual racism. Perhaps if they cast the beam out of their own eyes they would see better that those saying that there are statistical variations in distribution of genetically influenced ability aren't being racist, they're simply stating an observable fact.

I don't believe that these distances are permanent. Ashkenazi Jews maintain their relatively high IQ by being a community that values intelligence and insists on personal responsibility. The Chinese maintain theirs mostly by shuffling around their vast population so as to hide the fact that they are only testing the bright ones (and imposing conditions of life that require a certain quick adaptability to be alive to have one's IQ tested).

European slave-owners broke with the Mediterranean tradition of valuing slaves for their intelligence as much as their physical strength. The freed slaves have largely continued their oddly inverted attitude towards mental ability...the reasons are complex, but among them is the fear of acknowledging that deliberately breeding for stupidity is bad for the intelligence of later generations, which would force them to confront some rather unhappy facts about themselves.

Still, while breeding practices (either valuing or denigrating individual ability) can shift the statistical average of expression of a genetic trait in a population fairly significantly, real long-term genetic change takes thousands of years. If 'blacks' started being selective about their procreation in favor of intelligence rather than against it, it would only take a generation or two for the current statistical difference to become indistinguishable.

Particularly as the rest of the world is in a demographic crisis as many of the above-average women and men forgo having their own children. But that crisis is acute, not chronic. The collectivist institutions that have made it more economically feasible to depend on other's children rather than one's own can't be sustained for long enough to change the underlying genetic potential. And soon enough real, practical intelligence will be more than a trinket to flatter oneself in social settings.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

I look forward to reading Gottfried's "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt." Because I really think that the bulk of these liberals/leftists are well-meaning people who may feel guilty when they see a begger on the street and who feel that we should be our brother's keeper. They may be stingy with their own personal charity but they want to see the government provide lavish safety nets and other programs for those whom they consider to be disadvanted. These liberals/leftists think that if they don't promote such programs then they are bad people, heartless people.

The other part of the equation is that these liberals/leftists cannot dare to admit--even to themselves--that there are profound racial differences in, for example, measured intelligence. To admit this would be dangerous for them and they subconsiously know this--therefore they may become angry and vehement in their defense of PCMC (psychotherapists call this kind of behavior reaction formation).

To admit such group differences would be "racist" and they might lose their friends and social standing and even jeoparidze their livlihoods as has been discussed numbers of times here at GoV. But also, to admit this to themselves would be to tear apart their current view of the world and would present them with a worldview in which there can never be "social justice"--a worldview which they presume would automatically be racist or Nazi or fascist.

Why they instantly jump to such a conclusion is a question. It's quite a logical jump to move from a worldview in which some racial groups test better than others on IQ and some people are fated to do better than others and racial groups have differing talents (statistically)--it's quite a jump to move from this view to concluding that this view is racist/fascist/Nazi/colonialist, etc.

Their thinking is primitive. They see only two opposing categories.

This really is a secular religion.

They confuse the Western idea that all individuals are equal before God and should enjoy equal rights with the idea that all peoples or groups are inherently equal in all qualities and in everything that matters. To think differently is to be--in their view and on a very primitive level--a "bad" person.

"Social justice" is their heaven which they vehemently defend. Anything that doesn't automatically fit into the PC/MC/social justice paradigm is automatically consigned to be their hell.

And it is easy for them to absorb the socialist/communist propaganda which demonizes the "1%" or the "capitalists" or even "business." (Of course our country's revenue ultimately derives from the evil and derided "business," but these liberals/leftists are fuzzy thinkers at best).

So I think about this and wonder about how to address their primitive thought processes in ways that could make a difference.

On-my-own-in-Berkeley

Mary said...

How many other websites out there would allow us to even engage in the debating of these ideas? What a breath of freedom and sanity is our beloved GoV!(con't).... the administrators there (another website) knocked out all of my replies that explained the point of view that Germany may be heading to Weimar 2.0. The administrators responded like the soviet comissars that they are and deleted my posts without warning, advice or any feedback.

How ironic! For was it not Gates of Vienna and their darling Fjordmann who deleted and censored perfectly legitimate criticism of this sites refusal to allow ANY talk about what is commonly referred to as the "Jewish Question"? Instead such people are mischaracterized and smeared as "jew haters".

Despite agreeing and appreciating with a lot of what gets posted on GOV, it is clear that hypocrites live here, of that I am sure.

Anonymous said...

I think that the "white" culture has evolved thanks to its self-criticism.

"white" ?
WHITE!

Anonymous said...

"Unification of the whole of mankind is the hall-mark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.
-Shoghi Effendi, 1936"


alien.
disgusting.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I'm inclined to question what is meant by "unity". Obviously, there is the spatial unity of life on Earth all being on the same planet. But this is hardly a new situation, everyone that has ever lived on Earth has always been living on the same planet as everyone else who has lived on Earth, pretty much by definition.

Do we mean racial unity? How is this to be achieved? Are we to have forced marriages to break up any genetically distinctive pockets in the population? And who decides what constitutes being too genetically distinct? Or do we just enlarge the prohibition on marrying cousins to apply to a larger degree? But even though most people in Western society now prefer to marry persons to whom they cannot even trace their relationship, they overwhelmingly marry into their own "racial" identifications.

Do we mean cultural unification? This would seem to be the exact opposite of what the multiculturalists aim to achieve, with their continual protests against cultural assimilation and support of "cultural enrichment". I personally don't have a problem with eventually 'imposing' Western Civilization on the entire world and marginalizing all those who refuse to abide by it. Indeed, if they reject the concept of the Rule of Law and an impartial system of justice, then I'm all for treating them as outright criminals.

But there are certain objections to this...they vary enough that I wouldn't group absolutely all of them under one heading. And certainly I would have to object strenuously to the imposition of a global culture that denied the Rule of Law and didn't provide for an impartial system of justice (Islam is unsatisfactory in several other respects, but it's attitude towards jurisprudence and legal standards is atrocious).

To talk about "unity" as if simply all being agreed about our ultimate goals can itself be the ultimate goal ignores basic logic. Of course most people want to have everyone agree with them about what should be done...but this is not agreement unless they all have the same idea of what should be done by who to whom. Two men arguing for "yours truly" to be the leader are not agreeing with each other in any meaningful sense. They are both in favor of "unity", but that is actually the source of their disagreement rather than a point of conciliation.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sundancekid said...

Of course intelligence differs between the races. I increasingly think our (or rather our elites') refusal to acknowledge this is at the root of all our problems.

All the trends we see - massive third world immigration, vilification of Europeans and their heritage, forced equality etc. - quite logically follow from "we're all the same", since it means all visible inequality is a sign of exploitation or luck and ought to be redressed. So the Leftists are not stupid or evil (mostly), just going on different premises.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that, until the individual genes are mapped out and it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt, they will fight for their illusions to the death.

Anonymous said...

@Mary
Re: JQ

You are 100% wrong. GoV published two essays of mine severely critical of the outsize Jewish contributions to the utopian ideologies that are grinding us down. You will find them just to the left of this column, one about McDonald and the other called F Street. It has also reprinted some of my pieces from The Brussels Journal that contain critical Jewish-related references within wider relevant topics. In doing so, GoV showed considerable courage that no other anti-jihad or conservative website I can think of would be capable of. So it’s not ANY talk that GoV has proscribed, but unhinged talk by madmen. To share with you my own experience, trying to discuss the JQ with the Duke-MacDonald-Sunic acolyte crowd is like trying to discuss Islam with a Muslim. It’s like trying to empty with one’s fingers a basin full of water.

I have never even met the owners of this blog and am not privy to their editorial considerations. But if I were the editor of a mag (Web or DTO) focusing truthfully on the important issues of the day, I would have to ban crazed Judenrein cryptos too though I have some personal interest in the issue. To publish the truthful statements about the JQ that the more intelligent among this crowd can make entails refuting the lying and libelous statements that outweigh the true ones by about 3 to 1.

To leave the lies and libel standing means that the publication and the editor endorse them. No person of conscience can bear that. But to refute them sucks the time and energy of the conscientious publisher to such an extent that all other goals of the platform must be sacrificed. Life is too short, and the work to be done is very long.

The cryptos have many places to go to: all things called “Occidental,” “Alternative,” “Third way” etc. No one here has advocated that such venues of opinion be shut down.

Lastly, you’ll ask why JQ critical references have to be embedded in an article critical of MacDonald. It’s because you, the very group for which you speak, are the main obstacle to the possibility of discussing JQ in an open, rational forum and influencing public perceptions accordingly.

Takuan Seiyo

Dymphna said...

@ Mary (and thanks for giving us a name)...

I started to respond to you since I didn't think anyone else would, but I see Takuan Seiyo has just explained why we refuse to get sucked into the quagmire of this so-called "Jewish Question".

Your opinion is that our refusal to consider the subject anymore makes us hypocrites? So be it.

My opinion is that we gave it too much space to begin with. It's a trigger subject and not worth the trouble it causes. There are several other trigger subjects and those don't get any room either.

IMHO, we're not hypocrites, we're survivors of that particular experience is purported dialogue. We've decided not to permit new battles here because they're repetitious and eventually tedious to those of us who have no interest in participating. The wide, wide wonderful web gives you an infinite amount of room in which to have that discussion.

But not here. Not anymore. You believe this demonstrates our hypocrisy. I believe it shows our firm resolution to be good stewards of our limited time.

There is a great quote somewhere about paranoids being recognizable because they have a theory about the Jews, and a theory about money...but i can't remember the rest of the quote. Perhaps is was merely when you combine those two, the paranoid can't change the subject.

Anyway, the whole thing is OT. Just wanted to reiterate our reasons...not to have you agree with them, but to explain to newer readers the context of your accusation.

One thing's fer sure: we ain't ever gonna suit everyone.

hbd chick said...

@takuan seiyo - "A plausible theory, except I am myself a product of that outbreeding, and so have been some of the most iconic old and new representatives and defenders of Western civilization e.g. Chopin, Pushkin, Dumas, Niels Bohr, Fred Astaire, Friedrich von Hayek, Mark Steyn and hundreds more."

takuan, you wondered "why the Anglos and the Nordics are particularly vulnerable to voluntary self-dhimmification (with or without the Islamic component)."

northwest europeans, including the anglos and nordics, are the most outbred populations on the planet. they have been outbreeding since the early medieval period which, i theorize, has resulted in the evolution of rather unique altruistic traits in these populations, namely those related to ideas about morality being universal. that is why they are so vulnerable, as a group, to dhimmitude -- they feel it natural to apply their altruistic feelings across the board to everyone.

except for hayek, all of your examples, including yourself i think (you're polish, are you not?), come from more inbred populations (eastern europeans, european jews) which haven't gone down the same evolutionary trail with regard to universal altruistic traits since they are not so outbred.

that's not to discount the effects that wwi and wwii must've had, tho. the culling effect of the bravest of men, alone, could very well have resulted in subsequent generations being rather spineless.

hbd chick said...

@egghead - "A curious breed of altruism that exalts rapists over rape victims - that imports 'other than whites' at an alarming pace and proceeds to ignore the increase of white rape victims - that pays MORE in benefits to immigrant 'other than white' people than indigenous white people... [etc...]."

yes, it is very curious, indeed. you could call it a sense of universal morality -- that all peoples ought to be treated the same as your own people. western christianity is probably the only belief system that preaches this as western europeans are some of the only people who feel this way. they are certainly the first people to feel this way.

i think these sentiments are connected to the fact that, in northwest europeans, the genetic ties have been loosened to an extreme -- and have been loosening since the early medieval period. instead of feeling instinctly tied to their own peoples (very extended families), northwest europeans feel that EVERYbody is part of their very extended family. because they no longer have strong genetic ties with each other.

Angry White Dude said...

We talk about this very subject at www.angrywhitedude.com every day! Why do we, as conservatives, give liberals the PC weapon to use against us?

I don't care what the left thinks, says or does! I didn't get there overnight...but Americans must stand up for what is right or all will be lost!

AWD

Chiu ChunLing said...

I have to wonder about this "exogamy leads to altruism" theory. The Chinese are one of the most exogamous populations on the planet, in terms of strict genetic diversity. But there doesn't seem to be a high degree of ex-patriotic altruism among Chinese people or in the main cultural thrust of China.

Anonymous said...

hbd chick: Great article, BUT the West is treating everybody BETTER than their own family - without expecting any reciprocity!

Egghead

Anonymous said...

@HBD chick
I looked at your site and you have lots of data there but I remain confused by your hypothesis. It’s indeed in Eastern Europe and Central Europe where outbreeding has been longer and wider, voluntarily with Jews and involuntarily for wretched women caught in violent raids by Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks etc. But Anglos, Scots etc. knew no outbreeding until well into the 20th century, except for a few from the upper class marrying similarly situated individuals from other European ethnies. The Nordics had even less of that. So outbreeding seems to stand in inverse proportion to voluntary dhimmitude, but you say they have a positive correlation.
TS

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

Along with related subjects ...

What about the recent raising of marital age among Occidentals?

Along with parents, freedom thisty enough when they were young, whose Quenching of Teen Freedoms worsens the demographic problem?

Joseph said...

wow. so few people, so much that's wrong. "incontrovertible differences" really? but no mention of science to sustain the incontrovertible. actually, there's really not a lot of science.
of course there are differences. but any competent scientist will tell you that these statistical disparities have multiple explanations - some of which we don't clearly understand yet; e.g. we used to believe that IQ was fixed - turns out not so much. as to western values, ah quite different. an islamist movement to oppress people (it doesn't just oppress women) is an entirely worthwhile fight.
as long as we allow race to be an action item in our politics (from either side claiming "poor me"), we will spend valuable resources in non-productive ways.
oh, and "Whites have a right to exist as majorities in the Western countries" really? a right? when did we white folk get this right? did someone sign it over to us? a previous toltec or aryan regime? and here i thought the buddhists had something when i read that everyone suffers and working for the benefit of all sentient beings was a good plan.

Hal K said...

Joseph, there is no law of nature that says that all races must have equal cognitive potentials.

There is significant political and social pressure against studying the correlation between race and IQ. People lose their jobs over this, like James Watson. Those who say there is no connection simply are not to be believed and/or trusted.

The U.S. has spent untold billions of dollars trying to close the achievement gap to no avail. One idea after another comes up as to how to do this, but they never work. There are plenty of so-called experts who make a living promising that it is possible, but somehow they never deliver.

The gap between the races remains, even when average scores shift over time.

The simplest possible explanation for why sub-Saharan African countries and others like Haiti are they way they are is that the people just have a different inherent potential.

Your statement about whites having the right to exist as majorities is incomprehensible. Whites are the indigenous people of Europe. They can try to preserve their majority status there if they want to, and I certainly hope they start standing up for themselves.

Joseph said...

Hal K.--

why are we so interested in anyone's IQ? it's fairly useless as an indicator of social/emotional success - at best it offers a moderate correlation between results and individual outcomes.
and really, why do we care?
to prove a point? what is a significant purpose to establishing a more definitive and useful correlation?
as you stated, "people just have a different inherent potential"
let's move on to more productive studies.

as to, "Your statement about whites having the right to exist as majorities is incomprehensible."
i'll try to be a bit more comprehensible. first off - "indigenous people" is a term generally followed by a description of how the marauding invaders wiped them out. no outcome is preordained except for any people unwilling to fight for its existence must vanish.
and "white" isn't the operative dynamic at work here. it's western culture. anyone can join, the water's fine. the more exclusionary our practice and our politics become, the fewer there are on our side. and there are sides. the west against its own suicidal tendencies (first) and (second) the enemies that wait in the shadows: communism, islam, religious demagogues of all stripes. by creating admission requirements beyond a common belief in the decency and goodness of free men everywhere, we run the risk of losing by being short that one man who might have held the fort until reinforcements arrived

Hal K said...

Joseph:

Why bother considering IQ? Good grief, that was one of the main points of the article:

"To admit that “racism” does not explain differences in group achievement is to declare that fifty years of public policy have been in error."

It has some serious implications for the inadvisability of race mixing as well, but I don't think the owners of this blog would want to go there.

Your statement about majorities still does not make sense. You are trying to define away the right, while implying that it isn't necessary anyway. Who are you to make this determination? Generally your approach seems obfuscatory.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Well, I went ahead and posted a reply to this.

hbd chick said...

@chiu chunling - "I have to wonder about this 'exogamy leads to altruism' theory. The Chinese are one of the most exogamous populations on the planet, in terms of strict genetic diversity. But there doesn't seem to be a high degree of ex-patriotic altruism among Chinese people or in the main cultural thrust of China."

actually, the chinese have had one of the longest running traditions of inbreeding compared to any population on the planet going right back to at least the third century b.c. (with, possibly, a couple of breaks).

however, the chinese have traditionally practiced a particular form of cousin marriage which is less inbred than what the arabs do. the chinese make sure to breed out of the patrilineage, whereas the arabs marry into the patrilineage. (it's complicated.)

the cousin marriage rates have been slowing down in china since the mid-twentieth century, however. and it has been technically illegal to marry your first-cousin in the china since 1980s -- technically. (~_^)

hbd chick said...

@egghead - "BUT the West is treating everybody BETTER than their own family - without expecting any reciprocity!"

precisely! because northwest europeans have been soooo outbred for so long, genes for "sib-altruism" (being altruistic towards your extended family/clan/ethnic group) are probably comparatively few and far between in these populations -- unlike, say, in arab populations who have been inbreeding heavily since before mohammed's time.

i would argue that nw europeans ARE expecting reciprocity from non-westerners -- they just haven't quite caught on to the fact that that's not gonna happen. reciprocal altruism is the natural, innate way that nw europeans behave. it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to change that i think.

hbd chick said...

@takuan seiyo - "It’s indeed in Eastern Europe and Central Europe where outbreeding has been longer and wider, voluntarily with Jews and involuntarily for wretched women caught in violent raids by Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Turks etc. But Anglos, Scots etc. knew no outbreeding until well into the 20th century, except for a few from the upper class marrying similarly situated individuals from other European ethnies."

no, it is quite the opposite, in fact.

what you are talking about are the occasional introductions of some new genes into the gene pool. what i am talking about are mating patterns, i.e. whether you marry your cousins or not (consanguineous marriage), or endogamously or exogamously.

population geneticists have demonstrated that inbreeding makes the evolution of "sib-altruism" easier (sib-altruism meaning favoring family/extended-family/clan/tribe). conversely, outbreeding must do the opposite.

the least inbred populations in europe are the northwest europeans. in the 500s, the catholic church banned inbreeding, and by the 600s the franks and other germanic tribes had adopted the practice of out-marrying (probably in an uneven fashion, but still this is when the practice began in nw europe). the anglo-saxons soon followed, and the practice spread throughout the carolingian empire.

thus, the french, germanics, northern italians and anglos have been outbreeding for several hundreds of years starting ca. 1400 years ago. the scandis followed when they adopted christianity.

this region also saw the adoption of the manor system which, to make a long story short, also reinforced outbreeding by shuffling people around.

quite to the contrary, eastern europeans inbred for longer. some of the eastern europeans, like the rus, adopted christianity later (the 800s) and so did not adopt the out-marrying practices until after that point in time. in fact, many of them kept on marrying their cousins even after converting. crucially, they also never experienced living under the manorialism system and, so, remained in their natal villages marrying endogamously (i.e. within the lineage or clan).

cousin-marriage and endogamous mating was even more common amongst russian jews ... probably for a very long time since the population was relatively small until the nineteenth century.

Anonymous said...

hbd chick: Fascinating stuff. I would really need to read much more and think about it all more to fully understand - and quite possibly agree - with your ideas.

I did read your essay linked below on the reasons that honor killings are altruistic, and I found your essay utterly compelling! A must read for intellectually curious people!

inclusive inclusive fitness

Regarding the idea that Westerners are expecting reciprocity from non-Westerners, I am deeply and completely conflicted.

As far as that ubiquitous racism of which Westerners stand accused and convicted, it appears that many Westerners do indeed exhibit racism in their consideration of non-Westerners as the equivalent of human 'pets' to be supplied with any and all modern living needs without expectation that these human 'pets' will eventually become self-sufficient by means of their own un-Western-supported efforts and hard work in the West or abroad. Thus, affirmative action and foreign aid programs are the ultimate racism of low expectations - instead of true altruism.

Even the Western governments that import non-Westerners as 'workers' represented to support the ailing Western welfare states really just import non-Westerners for their own Western political purposes.

I wonder if you would address the following question: Much of the non-Western world (along with some of the Western world) sincerely believes that the United States is evil instead of altruistic. If the West, as led by the United States, is truly altruistic, why does the rest of the world view the United States so differently than we see ourselves?

Egghead

hbd chick said...

@egghead - "If the West, as led by the United States, is truly altruistic, why does the rest of the world view the United States so differently than we see ourselves?"

well, that's an awfully good question and if i -- or anyone! -- could answer that we'd surely be able to get rid of a lot of headaches in this world. =/

my guess off the top of my head is that, since all of life is competition -- we're all competing for resources, social/political positioning, etc. -- and because the west (and, maybe, japan) has been the most successful for so long, the rest of the world is simply envious.

humans are not rational (see robert trivers' latest book on deception and self-deception). i think that no matter how generous westerners are or could be, most third worlders just won't recognize or acknowledge that because it's not in their interests to do so. what is in their (short-term) interest is to milk the west for whatever they can get out of it, and they've learned they can do that by pressing our buttons and saying "you're not being nice to us!"

it's obviously not in their (or our!) interests for them to continue to do so over the long-term, 'cause if they bleed us dry, what are they going to do then?

(that was pretty harsh, wasn't it? =/ sorry 'bout that.)

glad you enjoyed the "inclusive inclusive fitness" post! it's one of my personal faves. (^_^) it's a bit twisted, but i think it's pretty right.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I take the point about prevalence of in-breeding as opposed to absolute degree of out-breeding, though the relevance of this point depends on the presence of specific genes for altruism towards specific genetic groups...which is an unproven and far from likely assertion, given that even heavily social insects like bees and ants can be 'fooled' into expressing their 'altruism' towards an unrelated member of their same species by artificial intervention. Without the trick of making a hive serve and protect a new queen bee (which they would ordinarily kill as an intruder) beekeeping could never have become remotely as sustainable as it is. Conversely, "evolution-defying" super colonies have evolved among a number of ant species as a result of attempts by humans to turn their social behavior against them (by using ant colonies to fight each other to the death, which doesn't always work).

However theoretical and potentially flawed with respect to the actual genetic mechanisms of 'altruistic' behavior, I think that the clarification about degree of exogamy preference (as opposed to simple degree of genetic variation in the population) may indeed provide some insight into the social mechanisms that support love of family over love of humanity in general (though it is entirely possible that cause and effect are reversed).

On the other hand, the preference for killing of one's own female children does not require appeal to altruism at all. This is simply male child preference, which is a distinctly counter-altruistic behavior with regard to the larger community. The key difference between males and females in evolutionary terms is the potential reproductivity of male children compared to female children. A "highly-successful" male child using a genetic broadcast mating strategy can potentially yield thousands of grandchildren (at the expense of other families which will be supporting these children without much contribution of resources and investment from the family of th male child). On the other hand, the most successful possible female child can only produce a couple dozen more grand-children than a child killed before reproducing, and the cost of raising those children will be heavily born by the female child's recognized relatives.

From a genetic perspective, this choice between the husbandry strategy and the wild-oats strategy is only available to women through their children. So a society that tends to encourage radical devaluation of female children relative to male children (to the point of killing/sterilizing more of the former than of the latter) is not practicing altruism at all, they are locked into a preference for genetic cheating via indiscriminate insemination reproductive strategies by male children at the expense of the daughters of other families.

Genetically, it is a fiercely competitive rather than cooperative reproductive strategy which makes raising daughters a costly proposition and drastically undermines the success of the population as a whole.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Hal K said...

Egghead, maybe you would be less conflicted if you recognized all of the instances of anti-whiteness and pro-non-whiteness in your thinking.

Some examples:
1. The inclination to accuse white liberals of being covert racists (viewing non-whites as pets) is another form of anti-whiteness.
2. The expression "soft bigotry of low expectations" is used by conservatives to show that liberals are the "real racists." In other words, they are fighting over who cares more about non-whites.
3. Seeing affirmative action as something other than anti-white discrimination.

Whites are conditioned to always look for a way to elevate non-whites at the expense of whites, and this includes reframing anti-whitenesss to make it seem discriminatory towards non-whites.

So why do non-whites go along with this delusion by continuing to accuse whites of racism? That is an interesting question, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are viewing the situation objectively.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: Your comment confuses me. I think you are projecting your own biases onto my comment.

Primarily, I am pro-God and pro-human; secondarily, I am pro-white.

First, I am definitely labeling the white liberal tendency to pander to various minorities as racist. When whites are giving preference to minorities over whites, then whites are racist against whites. If describing reality is anti-white, then so be it. Let's identify the anti-white situation and encourage whites and minorities to treat members of every race equally - rather then treat minorities preferentially.

Second, yes, I think that 'giving' minorities significant advantages over white people is a racist act by white people against white people. What's your point?

Third, I definitely see affirmative action and foreign aid as anti-white discrimination. In fact, the United Nations is about to institute a world tax on the internet that is simply an excuse to tax white people to give money to minorities - and bureaucrats' at the United Nations extensive graft and theft from everyone!

I guess the point is that white people can be and frequently are racist against white people - and identifying that fact is necessary in order to combat that suicidal reality.

It is pro-white to confront white racism against whites.

Egghead

Hal K said...

The following relates to the examples of anti-whiteness from my previous comment. Cognitive distortion may be a more apt term than delusion in describing this behavior.

The concept of the "death drive" was discussed recently on View from the Right. Here is another article that mentions an important feature, which is that the death drive may be directed inward or outward, and that these are two extremes of the same pendulum. When directed inward, the death drive causes negative cognitive distortions, such as self criticism. This may help to explain what is happening to whites collectively.

Hal K said...

Egghead,

"When whites are giving preference to minorities over whites, then whites are racist against whites. If describing reality is anti-white, then so be it."

This is inconsistent with what you wrote in your earlier comment:

"Thus, affirmative action and foreign aid programs are the ultimate racism of low expectations - instead of true altruism."

When I wrote that there was anti-whiteness in your comment, I was talking about how you turned white benevolence towards non-whites into "ultimate" racism towards non-whites via low expectations.

Affirmative action primarily helps non-whites at the expense of whites. It is a cognitive distortion to view this as example of white racism towards non-whites, in my opinion.

Chiu ChunLing said...

There is the question of whether "racism" in the sense of an ideological differentiation between different 'races' is absolutely inevitable.

I don't believe it is. The idea of 'race' is a relatively modern innovation that no doubt has roots in the human tendency to look for indications of degree of genetic relationship in assessing the potential for commonality of interests with others, but does not acknowledge the validity of this instinct to love one's own kin. Instead it tries to say that some races are better and/or more deserving than others, and that therefore preferences should be accorded to one race at the expense of another, regardless of a given individual's kinships.

Thus there need be nothing "anti-white" about accusing people of anti-white racism, regardless of their 'race'. I personally see no reason to make distinctions based on 'race' rather than permitting people to follow their natural instincts to prefer their own kin simply because those people are their kin. When I contribute various kinds of assistance towards my own relatives, it is not because I assert that they are intrinsically more deserving of assistance than anyone else in the world, but because they are my kin (and perhaps just a little bit because they are therefore more deserving than everyone else). When I accuse someone of betraying this natural love for their own kin, I am not denigrating their race but themselves as individuals.

Nor do I see anything contradictory about asserting that racism is destructive to the cultural of individual responsibility which is necessary to prosperity, regardless of whether you belong to a "privileged race" or a "denigrated race". Racism is inherently collectivist, it is utterly incompatible with the individualism that lies at the foundation of assertion of such values as personal responsibility and individual freedom. When I say that these values are good and collectivist values are bad, one might say that I am wrong but it is hard to see how I am contradicting myself.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: Thanks for explaining your point of view. I understand what you are saying.

In my opinion, the problem is that the taxation of Americans led to an ever-expanding welfare state that required reasons to justify its existence as a tax-enforcer and receiver.

Non-whites are caught in the same bad system as whites with all as victims of the self-perpetuating welfare state bureaucracy which was invented and run by whites.

I disagree that welfare state whites who pander to non-whites are exhibiting either benevolence or altruism, and I believe that three items support my thesis:

1) The results of the supposed white benevolence are uniformly bad for non-whites AND whites here through affirmative action and abroad through foreign aid.

Benevolence would produce positive results for non-whites and whites.

2) Non-whites and whites are forbidden upon pain of social ostracism, informal violence, and formal lawfare from discussing and debating the uniformly bad results of supposed white benevolence for non-whites and whites in most - if not all - political, economic, or educational forums in any country.

Benevolence would be easy to discuss and debate.

3) Non-whites themselves intuit and express the lack of white benevolence or altruism in their non-white societal forums.

Benevolence would be recognized by non-whites.

Non-whites instinctively understand Adam Smith's quotation, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

So, what perceived advantages do whites have to provide supposed white benevolence instead of real white benevolence?

1) A whole bunch of whites claim that non-whites have low IQ which enables whites to feel smart and provides an emotional advantage to whites.

2) A whole bunch of whites are employed by the vast benevolence industry which gives whites income and provides a financial advantage to whites.

It is these smug self-satisfied benevolence industry whites who forbid all discussion of the race issue.

If all of the white 'churches' that import non-white refugees into white towns had to PAY for the true cost of their supposed white benevolence WITHOUT any funding from the tax-supported welfare state, we would see less white benevolence.

If the welfare state were stopped from coercing taxes from the American taxpayer, we would see less white benevolence.

Supposed white benevolence simply serves to increase the power of the welfare state which quickly becomes a police state as people are forbidden to discuss the real reasons for coerced taxation - reasons that are anything but benevolent to non-whites and whites.

Egghead

Hal K said...

Well, Egghead, I can see that you have given this some thought and that your view on white benevolence is not just a knee-jerk response. I disagree that non-whites think that white benevolence does not benefit them, however. Blacks, for instance, vote Democratic because the Democrats represent black interests. Non-whites don’t mind benefitting from racial preferences.

Your statement about whites feeling smart in comparison to non-whites doesn’t make sense to me. You are saying that, after suppressing the connection between IQ and race, liberals are secretly glad to have low IQ people to look down on. This seems like contorted reasoning.

Your views are in line with the mainstream conservative strategy of saying that the liberals are the “real racists.” This view seems patronizing towards non-whites, as a matter of fact. Have you considered that possibility? My view is that in trying to portray white liberals as the “real racists” conservatives just tie themselves up in knots. They have bought into the anti-white zeitgeist, and reinforce it by trying to compete with liberals to see who cares more about non-whites.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Those who promote individualism and hence eschew all forms of collectivism (which unquestionably includes all forms of racism) have an indisputable right to denounce all collectivists that apply racial categorization as "real racists".

There is nothing convoluted about this at all, unless you are so utterly committed to collectivist thinking as to be incapable of understanding that there is an alternative to collectivist thought.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: Thanks for being considerate.

I think that race issues are very complicated.

Race relations face many problems:

1. Non-whites - and whites - are now propagandized from birth that whites are unconsciously and also consciously racist to non-whites. Such propaganda serves mainly the Marxist welfare state that uses societal division to increase power over individual groups. Divide and conquer.

2. Non-whites and whites do tend to show a natural affinity to people like them. This natural affinity is now termed group solidarity for non-whites - but racism for whites.

3. Non-whites view Western values as white values and thus refuse to fully engage with Western values. Put another way, why exactly would non-whites want to emulate Western values when Western propaganda vilifies whites?

4. Non-whites still desire the successful results produced by engaging with Western values.

5. Non-whites obtain short term hand-to-mouth benefits from supposed white benevolence.

6. Non-whites notice the short term hand-to-mouth benefits and hope for long term change (thus, Obama's effective slogan of hope and change) while fearing to abandon short term benefits of supposed white benevolence.

7. Part of the non-white fear to abandon short term benefits is due to whites effectively convincing non-whites that non-whites are incapable of long term success.

8. Part of the non-white fear to abandon short term benefits is due to the realization that non-whites will loose guaranteed short term benefits for only a chance to gain long term success.

9. Part of the non-white fear to abandon short term benefits is due to the realization that a lot of non-whites will NOT achieve short term or long term success due to a clearly evident lack of effective grounding in Western values.

10. Non-whites would rather earn their own way than benefit from supposed white benevolence - and resent supposed white benevolence which non-whites instinctively see as being truly patronizing to non-whites. In other words, whites have effectively convinced both whites and non-whites that supposed white benevolence is the only way that non-whites will succeed in Western society.

A black Supreme Court Justice and a part-black President 'admit' to having been helped into office by affirmative action. Neither is able to conceive their ascendency based on their own merit and hard work. Do you think that they are happy about that conclusion - or ultimately resentful? Does Obama seem like a grateful man to you?

11. Propaganda purposely offers the wrong conclusions for lack of non-white success. Namely, neither racism nor a lack of IQ comparative to whites inhibits non-whites. Rather, a lack of engagement with Western values is what inhibits non-whites in the West.

The inculcation of the inaccurate conclusions in the Western masses is purposeful on the part of evil Marxists who seek to devalue and destroy Western values.

Egghead

Sagunto said...

Chiu -

"Those who promote individualism and hence eschew all forms of collectivism (which unquestionably includes all forms of racism) have an indisputable right to denounce all collectivists that apply racial categorization as 'real racists'."

Second that, Chiu. Well said.

Cheers,
Sag

Hal K said...

Egghead:

"I think that race issues are very complicated."

They become less complicated when you realize that they are all driven by white guilt, and the complementary non-white resentment towards whites.

Chiu:

Individualism can be beneficial for a society. It is difficult to bring about uniform individualism in a heterogeneous society, however. Whenever there are groups practicing collectivism within the society, the individualists are put at a disadvantage. Insisting that the collectivists stop their behavior is ineffective, because at this stage the individualists are relying on the collectivists to stop what they are doing to resolve the issue. People have to advance their own interests. As long as some groups are collectivist, all groups have to be collectivist, or else the individualists are put at a disadvantage.

If you want to encourage individualism, start with the non-whites. Tell them to campaign against affirmative action and mass immigration. Tell them to give up all ethnic advocacy. I don't think this is possible. Individualism can only arise in homogeneous societies.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: Marxists main goal is to acquire assets for themselves by confiscating assets from wealthy people and assigning those assets to deserving people - which ends up being mostly Marxists! Kind of like Robin Hood where Robin Hood steals from the rich to give to the poor - but then Robin Hood manages the money for the poor - mainly by cutting their expenses to make up for the lack of assets acquired from diminishing amounts of non-Marxist wealthy people. Why do poor people need so much heat in the winter? Why should poor people get to choose the foods that their children eat?

To gain power, Marxism requires someone to fight and someone to serve.

Marxists assigned whites in the role of someone to fight because whites had more assets than anyone else. Marxists then propagandized the affluence of wealthy people as being the result of white racism directed at non-whites for which whites will bear eternal white guilt.

Marxists assigned non-whites in the role of someone to serve because non-whites had fewer assets than anyone else. Marxists propagandized infinite taxation as white benevolence for never-ending exculpation of eternal white guilt.

But, white guilt is as much of a fabrication as white benevolence.

If Marxists stopped propaganda and stopped serious threats of social ostracism, job loss, civil hate speech charges, and violence, then white guilt would evaporate.

If Marxists stopped extorting tax money from wealthy people, then white benevolence would disappear.

Non-white resentment is very real - especially when stoked by evil Marxists who preach dependence on the welfare state as the best end result of civilization.

Hal K: Your very correct idea that individuals cannot withstand collectives summarizes the Marxist plan which is to use collectives via the welfare state to destroy the West and Western values which center upon the elevation of individual rights over collective rights. In this plan, whites and non-whites are simply placeholders in the greater Marxist plan to achieve totalitarian power over the wealth of all peoples - which is WHY race means everything and nothing at the same time and is actually irrelevant. Marxists understand that race is just a means to an end that is good for Marxists and evil for everyone else. Capiche? :)

Egghead

P.S. My word verification is biast!

Chiu ChunLing said...

I hate having to appeal to Ayn Rand, but in point of fact it is always those willing to act as individuals that hold all the real power in society. The reason that this is an appeal to Ayn Rand rather than to individualism is because those individuals are not necessarily individualists, they are often elitists.

Elitists and individualists are different in that individualists recognize all humans as being individuals while elitists only recognize a select few as being individuals. You may have a point in that elitists are more common in a heterogeneous society, where the collision of different collectives produces a need to elevate champions of the collective cause.

But individualists have a tool that the elitists lack, because individualists can exhort the individuals who follow them to individual action. Elitists can't do this unless they become individualists to some degree. The thing about treating people as individuals is that it enables the full power of the human being to be actuated, while treating them as a collective deadens all but a few of their human abilities.

Indeed, collectives can only survive at all by dependence on their elitists for direction and purpose.

In a contest between a movement led by elitists and one led by individualists, the individualists always have an unlimited supply of powerful champions, while the elitists are dragged down by the uselessness of their collectives.

Which is why I, like many other individualists, refuse to be an elite of any collective. Particularly a racial collective.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Hal K said...

Egghead:

You say that Marxism is the cause behind white guilt and non-white resentment, but, invoking Occam’s Razor, I say that this is an unnecessary complicating assumption. It doesn’t seem to buy us anything to blame Marxism. How do we counter Marxism? Do well tell leftists to stop being such Marxists? Does blaming Marxism cause white guilt mongers to stop what they are doing? I don’t think so.

I see how blaming Marxism lets conservatives off the hook for indulging in the white guilt I was talking about earlier, but this complicates things. You yourself said that racial issues are complicated, but they become less complicated if one recognizes the ubiquitous underlying pattern of white guilt and non-white resentment.

I do agree that Marxists played a role in getting the white guilt / nonwhite resentment system started, but it has a life of its own now. We have to face this problem head-on through openly pro-white advocacy.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Fighting a strong and entrenched set of collectivist attitudes with a despised and marginal collectivism strikes me as a losing proposition.

Particularly when individualism is so universally loved that the main threat to it is of collectivists trying to appropriate the name for themselves.

hbd chick said...

@chu chungling - "the relevance of this point depends on the presence of specific genes for altruism towards specific genetic groups..."

no. genes "for" (kin-)altruism just have to be genes that enable you to favor your family over your non-family, they don't have to code specifically for "be altruistic towards group x or y." it's unlikely that any genes do that.

@chu chungling - "which is an unproven and far from likely assertion...."

oh, it's proven. even plants do it!

@chu chungling - "even heavily social insects like bees and ants can be 'fooled' into expressing their 'altruism' towards an unrelated member of their same species by artificial intervention"

just because one set of organisms manages to hack into the altruistic system of another set of organisms doesn't mean that genes for altruism don't exist. quite the contrary if you think about it.

@chu chungling - "On the other hand, the preference for killing of one's own female children does not require appeal to altruism at all."

no, it doesn't (maybe). but in the case of honor killings -- a very specific sub-set of the killing of women (mostly) -- i think it does.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: I think that it is important to understand that foreign Marxist countries invented PCMC and various mutations (white guilt and white benevolence) and infiltrated Western government, education, and media with the plan to disable and destroy the West.

The only way to undo the situation is to understand its Marxist roots and re-inject Western values into government, education, and media.

Egghead

Sagunto said...

Hall K (Eggy; Chiu) -

Mind if I chip in?

"We have to face this problem head-on through openly pro-white advocacy."

The machine behind all the resentment/guilt dialectic is the welfare state, both in the EUssr countries and the US. The managerial state redistributes wealth as well as "rights" (i.e. privileges) to favoured "minorities", while dumping unsustainable debt and guilt upon us, downtrodden whiteys.

Q: Would we suffer if there's no more goodies from government? And by the way, that would mean no more legalized theft (taxation, monetary inflation). Or would it primarily hurt those, to whom behaving as parasitical collectivists comes as a "second nature", so to speak, and who therefore aren't capable of generating any true wealth of their own, like our mass-imported Muslim friends for instance?

The obvious answer to all of this, i.m.o., is to restore individual Liberty & natural rights (instead of "human rights") and shut down Big Government (in its Liberal and "Conservative", "Santoriesque", appearance) and thus central banking, i.e. monetary fascism.

No worries for those who might think this won't ever come to pass. The ongoing global economic crisis will solve that problem for us. Won't do us any harm, though, to be prepared and rediscover true Liberty and the time-honoured Western tradition of self-ownership and genuinely free markets.

Kind regs from / Amsterdam (clip) /,
Sag

Hal K said...

This summarizes my argument:

The title of the article is “Losing Our Religion,” where the religion is politically correct multiculturalism (PCMC). This can be described as anti-white collectivism reinforced by white guilt and nonwhite resentment. In order to "lose" PCMC we have to replace it with something, and the question is whether that should be individualism or pro-whiteness.

There are two problems with focusing on promoting individualism. First, this can only succeed if nonwhites embrace individualism over anti-white collectivism. A strategy that is based on convincing someone else (in this case, nonwhites) to do something is always problematic. Second, this strategy works against white solidarity, which is the most practical approach to reducing white guilt. If we say that collectivism is bad, then we look hypocritical if we promote white solidarity. White individualism is not very effective against white guilt. Conservatives (small c) have been trying this for decades. It only leads to futile exhortations towards nonwhites to embrace individualism and to finger pointing towards white liberals as the "real racists."

White solidarity is the option that has not been tried, at least not since PCMC became ascendant. White guilt and nonwhite resentment go together, and by not standing up for ourselves as whites we encourage nonwhite resentment. Reflexive anti-whiteness permeates our society, and promoting a positive racial self-image in whites would help to neutralize this among whites. It would also discourage nonwhites from continuing to lean on collectivist resentment towards whites, since they would see that it no longer had the same effect on us.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The success of America as a nation never depended on anyone else accepting individualist values.

If non-whites refuse to accept individualist values and it is only whites who ascribe to them, then the whites will enjoy massive levels of upward social mobility and prosperity as a result, and everyone else will lose out. When the various collectivists (including the anti-white racists) come about begging for support for their causes, they will go unrequited by the individualists holding all the cards of social status and wealth.

This can happen, it has happened before, and it was reversed in America only by extraordinary efforts and an inexcusable lapse in the strong promotion of individualism.

You're right that individualism doesn't permit "white solidarity"...whites that can't make it on their individual merits (whether material or moral) don't deserve any special consideration. But if whites are so good, then they don't need any such consideration, they just need a restoration of the level playing field where no race gets special privileges.

If "white solidarity" is more important to you then individualism, then that is that. We know what you are, and want nothing to do with it.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Dymphna -

"My two favorite American economists are black."

Would this be one of them?

Good one!
Sag

Anonymous said...

Hi Sagunto: Yes! Just yes! :)

However, we must be very careful to avoid romanticizing the pain and suffering that total financial collapse is going to impose on everyone everywhere in the world.

I believe that the worldwide financial collapse is planned rather than unplanned. The Marxist plan is to create a crisis that requires martial law. Such a collapse will hurt white people - just like the collapse of Zimbabwe and South Africa have hurt white people.

Marxists seek to eliminate their competition for world rule, and Marxists have targeted Western white people with Western values as the main competition.

The world will be the same before and after the financial collapse: same people, same problems, same resources - just a different asset allocation assigning everything to Marxists. That asset reassignment will eventually change the world for the worse.

Marxists will encourage nonwhites to blame whites even more - and more violently - when the gravy train stops!

Desperate people are dangerous people, and nonwhites will be especially desperate.

One grace is that any disruption in the flow of illegal drugs would seem to benefit people who are NOT experiencing drug withdrawal in a simultaneous time frame with the general starvation that everyone will face. Ahem.

Egghead

Anonymous said...

Hal K. and Chiu: Perhaps you both describe the solution to the problem at different points in the process.

First, whites must band together to dismantle Marxism which hurts whites (in the role of producers) more than nonwhites (in the role of non-producers) at this point in time.

If it makes everyone feel better to say that producers must band together against non-producers, then say that. The problem is that a lot of people THINK that they are producers when they are actually non-producers. So, all of those 'hard-working' federal, state, and local government employees would be surprised to be labelled as non-producers based on the origin of their paycheck. The government CANNOT be a producer - just a non-producer or a consumer of the effort of producers. It bears noting that the government at all levels has turned into a make-work program for nonwhites.

After Marxism is abandoned, then whites must purse the ideal of individualism where individual performance leads to success and failure.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT promote democracy because the non-producers ALWAYS eventually vote to steal from producers to the detriment of all - causing crippling diminishing returns to the system.

The U.S. Constitution promotes a republic where producers control production via private ownership with the hope that producers can contain the greed of non-producers.

Egghead

Anonymous said...

Hal K: You are very lucid in explaining your point of view.

White solidarity will become more and more necessary as Marxists purposely inflame and employ nonwhite resentment to brutalize whites.

The problem is that Marxists have defined white solidarity as pure racism to be vigorously pursued and eliminated.

For example, the easiest way for whites to protect each other is to live together. But, the federal government is insisting that every housing area contain a statistical percentage of nonwhites. Even a very wealthy area of CA has been targeted for being 'too white' - and instructed to find a way to include nonwhites.

Egghead

Anonymous said...

Chiu: You, too, are lucid but you could be more charitable in tone.

The collectivists who come 'begging' with guns are impossible to refuse except via inaction. Individuals tired of getting robbed blind by collectivists simply 'go Galt' and stop producing. This leads to a worse world for everyone because 1) the Marxists will always get theirs even if theirs is the last bit, and 2) eventually, people forget HOW to produce.

Hal K said...

Egghead: Thanks for the compliment.

Chiu ChunLing said...

I will not make common cause with collectivists, ever.

Call that uncharitable if you will, but still I will not because I cannot.

It is possible for individualists to band together in the common interests that they share as individuals. And it may be possible for some individualists to make use of the efforts of certain collectivists. But I can only deal with humans as they are, and they are in fact individuals, not collectives. I would have an easier time dealing with a man that thought himself a plum-pudding than a man that thought of himself as part of a collective.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Sagunto said...

Chiu -

"I will not make common cause with collectivists, ever."

Second that.
Sag

Anonymous said...

We understand your point of view, Chiu.

But, Chinese and other orientals are NOT in imminent danger of genocide.

Whites ARE in danger of genocide, so whites as a group face a more acute danger than any individual Chinese or oriental.

It is NOT lost on anyone that the collective Chinese and orientals practice and promote the Marxism that so effectively disables and destroys the West and Western values - which are often seen as the values of the white Western collective.

When one black person criticizes another black person for 'acting too white,' the criticizing black is identifying Western values as white Western collective values.

Egghead

Chiu ChunLing said...

Then, for precisely that reason, shouldn't you try "acting white" rather than attempting further indulgence in the kinds of racist ideology that have brought your civilization to the brink?

Anonymous said...

Whites are now - and will be - completely overwhelmed if whites continue to be self-sacrificing while nonwhites assume all of the societal advantages for themselves.

For example, if whites always pick the most qualified white or nonwhite person for schools, scholarships, and jobs, while nonwhites always pick nonwhites for schools, scholarships, and jobs, then the general system MUST eventually exclude all whites for schools, scholarships, and jobs - especially when nonwhites greatly outnumber whites.

Thus, future whites will ASSUME the pitiful role of non-Muslim Coptic Christians in Muslim Egypt under this flawed plan - a plan that is fully compliant with Sharia Law.

Indeed, I would postulate that the ascendency of foreign Chinese and orientals in American college math and science programs beautifully illustrates my point - foreign nonwhites now virtually exclude indigenous whites from many math and science fields.

From my personal experience in an American Master's Degree program, foreign students were paid larger and longer stipends than American students - most of whom are still white.

If American students were paid larger and longer stipends, then American students would be able to pursue advanced education - and more advanced education would lead to better jobs.

Egghead

Chiu ChunLing said...

You seem persistently incapable of understanding the fundamental idea of individualism as distinct from collectivism.

As an individualist, I would not trust a collectivist to be the "most qualified" for anything, regardless of whether the collectivist was white or not. If an individual demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to make judgments based on the merits of an individual case, then they are not qualified for any position that would require such judgments.

Hal K said...

Egghead made a good point. It is Chiu who is incapable of understanding.

Anonymous said...

Hal K: Thanks! If you look at this problem as a math problem and assign the races as variables x, y, and z, it is clear that mathematically, we whites will be overwhelmed by nonwhites - whether collective or individual nonwhites.

It is clear to me - and clear to the traitorous Marxists who designed and implemented the modern immigration system of every Western country to achieve their desired result. It's too neat and complete a subversion of common sense to be accidental.

It took me a few years to catch on, but I have caught up recently.

Some other people have caught on, too. I had a white mother and daughter earnestly explain to me that they purposely tried to make the very-qualified girl seem like a nonwhite minority on her college applications when she was applying to colleges - because they knew that increased their chances for admission and scholarship money. How ridiculous is that?!

Egghead

Chiu ChunLing said...

Individualism provides an unshakable foundation for moral opposition to all such collectivist encroachments.

But your collectivist complaints will fall on deaf ears. The other collectivists and their leading elites have already decided that white collectivism is shameful. The more able and honest of them may yet be persuaded that all other collectivisms are equally shameful, because the truth is that all collectivism defies the simple reality that humans are individuals.

But you will never win the support of anyone worth having on your side as long as you cling to a collectivism that is already perceived for what all collectivisms inherently are.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Hal K said...

My suggestion is that you give this some more thought, Chiu. There are a number of flaws in your statement. You want humans to be only individuals, but this doesn't make it so. You don't have to tell us that our elites are against us. It is obvious. This is part of the problem facing whites.

Your ideology tells you that individualism is the wave of the future and that this gives whites an advantage, but that doesn't make it so. Individualism probably benefitted white nations in the past, but now that white countries are filling up with nonwhites it just puts white individuals at a disadvantage.

China could benefit from individualism. That is one area where they are lacking. Don't make it your mission to preach individualism to whites. We have been the world leaders in individualism for a long time. We don't need you to focus on us. We have other problems now that you seem to be blind or indifferent to. Focus on someone else (besides whites), please. We don't need your advice, and you don't understand our problem.

Chiu ChunLing said...

So, "whites" have no more need to be encouraged to embrace individualism. Only non-whites need more of it.

What a very telling response.

Well, if "whites" don't need individualism any longer, then I suppose that individualism no longer needs whites.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dymphna said...

i saved the content of that last comment in case the commenter - a valued voice - wants it and didn't keep a copy.

Ever since Breivik, I've discovered there's no such thing as "innocence" and when they come digging for evidence of GoV's passive acceptance of 'violence' that would be there.

Yes, I Do realize the commenter was describing and predicting. In no way were they advocating a violent outcome. But the elites aren't able to parse the differences in rhetorical speech -- e.g., that lack of education in rhetoric, the inability of the poobahs at Pajamas Media to parse ideas is what caused our summary dismissal from their ranks. Or at least that's what we were told.

And then came the Norwegians. The cult of consensus. Dumbed-down consensus at that. Thus, indicating rumors of war is the moral equivalent of advocating for bellicose behavior.

These are all nervous, blunted souls. But they are in positions of power and judgment. In this case, discretion is the better part of valor.

Email me if you need the comment sent, or if you have a copy, just repost without the war part.

Thanks.

The Cheerless Admin.

Hal K said...

A distinction should be made between collectivism, solidarity, and conformism.

Solidarity does not necessarily imply conformism. Whites can be supportive of whites collectively without being conformists or collectivists.

Conformism does not necessarily imply solidarity. An example of this is how whites uniformly shun white solidarity.

Collectivism is about social and economic control, and thus it does imply conformism. It also implies solidarity with the official collective, but it is incompatible with racial solidarity when the collective is racially heterogeneous.

Anonymous said...

Dymphna: I fully understand your worries. I have edited my comment for better readability. I hope that this version is better. :)

Chiu: "So, 'whites' have no more need to be encouraged to embrace individualism. Only non-whites need more of it."

I believe the point is that it is ALWAYS the majority that must take the lead in such matters, and we are clearly headed toward a one world government - under the oil baron OIC running the UN!

So, we look to the collective ummah, China, and India now to fulfill their world leadership role in promoting individualism as the most populated countries.

But, we're NOT holding our breath because we see how things are run in Islamist, Communist/Marxist, and caste-run countries.

And, we have seen all civilization disintegrate under nonwhite rule in Zimbabwe and South Africa - with genocide scheduled for whites.

Likewise, we witness civilization disintegrating under light brown rule in nearby Mexico - with utter lawlessness spilling across the border into the United States.

At home, we notice that black-run 'Democratic' cities are a total disaster despite VAST sums of money thrown at all too common problems.

Yes, white or nonwhite, I would personally rather take my chances in a white-run culture - as would YOU apparently since you live here rather than in China.

Let's see how well the world runs after Obama is finished rebranding the United States as an supposedly UNexceptional nation. When the formerly white-run America is no longer able or anxious to keep a lid on world violence, nonwhite countries are going to rush to fill the vacuum of power left by the white world superpower.

I greatly fear and absolutely grieve the prospect of a very long-running and very violent World War III fought by nonwhite cultures each seeking ascendency over the other - and any remaining white-run cultures.

Egghead

Chiu ChunLing said...

Why not choose solidarity with individualists?

Collectivism is about more than social and economic control (though it does tend to imply both in practice). It is the idea that the collective is more than the sum of its parts, that the interests take precedence over the interests of individuals. It is, ultimately, disbelief in the value and dignity of the individual.

I have no objection to individuals choosing to associate mostly with those they find attractive and comfortable. By the nature of organic life-forms (which humans certainly are), individual humans have different ideas of attractiveness that are heavily influenced by noticeable degree of genetic relationship. I don't want to forbid people from choosing to associate primarily with their kin groups any more than I want to force them to marry their siblings.

Either would be a gross violation of individual interests...on a large scale involving many individuals. But I have no care at all about the health of the collective transiently formed by the kinships of a given generation. I care not at all about the "white" community or any "non-white" community, only the individuals in the community.

An example might be in order. Currently, anthropological conservationists dictate that certain tribes of "uncontacted" indigenous peoples remain intact. Since communicating with these people about the modern world and the benefits it offers would certainly mean the rapid dissolution of their existing (exceedingly primitive) life-style, the people in these tribes are being effectively denied any chance to make an informed choice about the matter.

Now, I personally fail to see how this differs from the evils of imposing "civilization" on people who do not want or need it by rounding them up into "education" facilities surrounded by barbed wire. In the one case, you are keeping them ignorant of the alternative that has been denied them, but that is just a further injury that manifests as condemning them to short lives of extreme hardship and no hope of ever bettering their situation.

That doesn't mean that nobody should be allowed the choice to live such a life. Personal responsibility means letting people take the consequences of their own choices, for good or ill. But it is impossible without individual freedom, how can you seriously hold someone accountable for "their" actions when they were not permitted a choice? Whether by coercion, violence, or deception, people denied a choice cannot be considered responsible for the results of not making that choice.

Every form of collectivism inherently seeks to deny individuals the right and power to make their own choices. The choice is made for them, based on the category to which the collectivist assigns them. Their individuality is subordinated to their role in a collective. It is their group that is assigned rights, their collective that bears guilt.

If humans were, like ants and bees, essentially collective rather than individual, I would have no objection to this (indeed, I could not). But humans are individuals. Every system that treats them entirely as units of a collective fails miserably, all successful collectives are forced to recognize and constantly suppress and divert the innate tendency of all humans to act in their individual interests.

I will not abide such things.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Chiu: "Whether by coercion, violence, or deception, people denied a choice cannot be considered responsible for the results of not making that choice."

Jesus and early Christians faced coercion, violence, and deception - and still found a way to make the right choice.

All of the Founding Fathers faced coercion, violence, and deception - and still found a way to make the right choice.

When living under oppression, the WRONG choice is BLAMING personal sinful behavior on a governing system.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man 'marries' and rapes a little girl.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man is polygamous.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man rapes a little boy.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man participates in a temporary marriage with a minor.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man beats or stones a woman.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man commits an honor killing.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man kidnaps and rapes Christian girls.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man burns Christian businesses and homes.

It is a free will choice when an adult Muslim man tortures dogs and other animals.

There are victims of oppression - and there are Muslim men who use the system to their own benefit.

The problem with Islam is that it provides an acceptable baseline of perceived benefits for most Muslim men. Even those men who suffer under Islam simultaneously perceive that they benefit more under Islam than any other system.

It is the OBLIGATION of people living under tyranny to fight that tyranny through their own personal behavior - even IF that is their only outlet. Otherwise, those people also merely mini-tyrants under the rule of mega-tyrants - rather than victims.

Egghead

Chiu ChunLing said...

Exactly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl said...

You might enjoy Mc Whorter - a black who takes a stand against affirmative action.

As the family name indicates, he has some Scots (or possibly Irish or Ulster) heritage as well.