The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Alan Macfarlane"
 All Comments / On "Alan Macfarlane"
    In a recent post, Fred Reed asks: The short answer is that any killing, for whatever reason, increases the likelihood of killing for other reasons. One exception is self-defence, but that's not done for pleasure. Another exception is capital punishment, but that, too, is not done for pleasure. More to the point, no single citizen...
  • @Shmiggen
    First off, I thought Fred's question was dumb. What he probably wants to ask is, how do we know mass Hispanic immigration is bad? That's cutting to the chase of it.

    If we don't know who "we" are, and we don't know what we want, and we don't know where we're going, we can't answer the question.

    Why can't we ask this, rather than going the long winded curcuitous route of Evo-speak?

    Personally, I think mass Hispanic immigration is good. Why? Because their Catholic and their traditions are western and they will assimilate just as the Italians did. They will drive our trucks, cook our food and cut our lawns for us, and their taxes will support our retirement.

    We should be happy. I live in the real world and all I have to do is look at Europe to see how lucky we are. Mass Muslim immigration is a death wish. It will have bloody results. But we here in the USA are sitting pretty. Hector and Juan will be good for America; Mohammed and Achmed will reign down bloody murder on Europe.

    Shmigg, concur. Question for you, since you see the threat; Can you see our Hispanic influx one day battling Obama’s Muslim influx for control of the U.S., post-White-European society? Say, 50-80 years hence? Perhaps a new American civil war? It happened in South-Central L.A. Blacks hardly have a place to hang their hats anymore.

    Obama’s people are the Syrians, the Muslims. He was happy to use Hispanics to his own ends, but is not the undertow of Africans from Libya, Syria, Iraq and the rest not Obama’s challenge to the Hispanics? My wonder is that Hispanics and Blacks in America are not protesting the Muslim undertow into the United States. Hispanics and Blacks will inherit the United States, yet they utter not one peep about the new competition being introduced.

    Thoughts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Election poster from the 1930s for Sweden’s Social Democratic Party (source). Is the welfare state more workable if the population is more predisposed to obey moral norms? Do we differ genetically in our ability, or willingness, to comply with moral norms? Please note: I'm talking about compliance. The norms themselves can vary greatly from one...
  • […] that this evolutionary change has gone the farthest in Europeans north and west of the Hajnal Line (Frost, 2014a). In these populations, kinship has been a weaker force in organizing social relations, at least […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In a previous post, I discussed why the capacity for affective empathy varies not only between individuals but also between populations. First, its heritability is high: 68% (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013). So natural selection has had something to grab hold of. Second, its usefulness varies from one culture to another. It matters less where kinship...
  • @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Dangerous? That’s hilarious.

    Altruism needs to be more and more extreme….

    What? Why? What are you talking about?

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.

    They did not live in the 19th century and could not have engaged in “the empire building of the 19th century”, so they are irrelevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    And that would be you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    nutzi, you are a bit like Mike "the Situation" yourself

    Sorrentino was offered a "substantial" sum of money by fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch not to wear the company's clothes. A spokesman for the company explained that "Mr Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.
     
    You are a liability to your people's brand image.

    'Other countries stopped Germany' Er, why WW1 (heard of it) then ? Jewish influence in Germany before WW1 was great. Ballin the shipping tycoon who was a close friend of the Kaiser and some say responsible the Dreadnaught building competition that Germany got into with Britain was Jewish. So was Walter Rathenau, Germany's industry maestro in WW1. Unfortunately Germany had a divided system for WW1 the Weimar constitution after 1919 made Germany far more able to exert its strength. See here

    Hitler's action against Jews did not create the German strategic dilemma or the strength that enabled them to almost break out of it. Germany's strength stems from the fact that Germany is a country of superior organisation because it is more empathetic. In the dictator game Japanese and US children proposed a split with 80% for themselves . German children gave away half. See here

    I made simple factual points, and for some reason you responded in an emotionally charged tone and with insults.

    I’ve noticed that you’re a prolific commenter who feels comfortable making all sorts of claims and comments about every other racial or ethnic group in the world and tolerates them when made by other commenters. But when someone makes basic factual observations and comments about one particular ethnicity, you seem to get worked up and respond with emotional invectives.

    I was responding to your comment that “Germany turned on the Jews”, which happened in the interwar period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • nutzi, you are a bit like Mike “the Situation” yourself

    Sorrentino was offered a “substantial” sum of money by fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch not to wear the company’s clothes. A spokesman for the company explained that “Mr Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image.

    You are a liability to your people’s brand image.

    ‘Other countries stopped Germany’ Er, why WW1 (heard of it) then ? Jewish influence in Germany before WW1 was great. Ballin the shipping tycoon who was a close friend of the Kaiser and some say responsible the Dreadnaught building competition that Germany got into with Britain was Jewish. So was Walter Rathenau, Germany’s industry maestro in WW1. Unfortunately Germany had a divided system for WW1 the Weimar constitution after 1919 made Germany far more able to exert its strength. See here

    Hitler’s action against Jews did not create the German strategic dilemma or the strength that enabled them to almost break out of it. Germany’s strength stems from the fact that Germany is a country of superior organisation because it is more empathetic. In the dictator game Japanese and US children proposed a split with 80% for themselves . German children gave away half. See here

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I made simple factual points, and for some reason you responded in an emotionally charged tone and with insults.

    I've noticed that you're a prolific commenter who feels comfortable making all sorts of claims and comments about every other racial or ethnic group in the world and tolerates them when made by other commenters. But when someone makes basic factual observations and comments about one particular ethnicity, you seem to get worked up and respond with emotional invectives.

    I was responding to your comment that "Germany turned on the Jews", which happened in the interwar period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    Jews weren’t helpless to stop Germany. Other countries stopped Germany, and there were many Jews in other countries.

    The New Imperialism of the British Empire which saw the incorporation of India and incursions into Afghanistan and Africa were under Disraeli.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Michael Paul “The Situation” Sorrentino appeared in a PETA ad campaign promoting the spaying and neutering of pets. Think about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean says:
    @ben tillman

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.
     
    This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

    First, you begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

    Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that appears to require racial suicide.

    Third, the actual problem has eluded you. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive in some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

    Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn’t happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn’t always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one’s own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one’s reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can’t make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It’s social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jews weren't helpless to stop Germany. Other countries stopped Germany, and there were many Jews in other countries.

    The New Imperialism of the British Empire which saw the incorporation of India and incursions into Afghanistan and Africa were under Disraeli.
    , @ben tillman

    (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).
     
    And that would be you.
    , @ben tillman

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.
     
    Dangerous? That's hilarious.

    Altruism needs to be more and more extreme....
     
    What? Why? What are you talking about?

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain’s empire building.
     
    They did not live in the 19th century and could not have engaged in "the empire building of the 19th century", so they are irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined “moral community” and only when the “morally worthless” are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.

    And don’t blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century.

    This is empirically and theoretically untenable.

    First, you begs the question: “By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant.” But the question was whether we did it, whether someone else did it, or whether we and someone else did it together.

    Second, it’s not true that our moral system has been expanded (note the passive voice) to encompass the whole world; it hasn’t. If it had been, then non-White races would be held to the same standard that the White race is, a standard that appears to require racial suicide.

    Third, the actual problem has eluded you. It’s not that we’re too inclusive; it’s not that we fail to discriminate against nonself. It’s that our moral code is inverted. Instead of a racial immune system that discriminates in favor of the self, we have an immune system that discriminates against the self. Unlike the propensity and capacity to build large societies involving high trust and cooperation among strangers (which has both advantages and disadvantages and which may be adaptive in some circumstances and maladaptive under others), an inverted immune system is entirely disadvantageous and could not have evolved. Theoretically it must be the result of outside influence.

    Fourth, and anticlimactically, the empire building of the 19th century was largely a Jewish project. Disraeli? Rothschild? Reuters? Oppenheimer? Sassoon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    First, it is a fact that Germany U- turned on the Jews and they were helpless to stop that happening. Elsewhere it didn't happen. Unless Germans are assumed to be inherently different to Britishers , the particular situation of Germany was a crucial factor. There are many factors in any event, and what you are talking about may be one of them, but it isn't always one of the big ones. (And someone needs to bone up on what begging the question actually means).

    Second, moral positions are not a so much a system to be applied worldwide to foreigners as well , they are about reputation within one's own community. Darwin understood that. Altruism needs to be more and more extreme and has been expanded to include animals. Animal charities are very good for burnishing one's reputation, and many celebrities support animal charities. Inuit can't make a living hunting seals now. Look at the top charities an animal ones are right up there in the top ones. It's social suicide to seem less altruistic than the next person and in evolutionary time social was biological suicide. Theoretically we ought to expect ever increasing altruism.

    Third, we do discriminate against nonself because those who are defectors to from the community of altruism are excluded from influence. And that is why comments like yours are so dangerous.

    Fourth, Elizabeth I and Cromwell started Britain's empire building.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Regarding the Marsh study, I was disappointed that the researchers stopped short of causal explanations. I think that it would have been within the scope of the study had the researchers continued on to examine what may have happened in the subjects’ lives to possibly cause their neurobiological and psychological attributes.

    An accompanying PNAS commentary from a Harvard researcher made some interesting points. However, the author showed his biases that the thinking brain rules human behavior with an out-of-left-field question at the end of a paragraph in which he developed specious reasoning.

    He was completely off base when he stated: “Could it be that extraordinary altruists such as Maupin [a study participant] and the 19 individuals studied by Marsh et al. [the researchers] are special, not only because of how they feel when they see people in distress, but because of how they think?” I don’t imagine that the brilliant commentator’s attempt to upstage the study’s subjects and get the spotlight on himself for some brilliant idea was much appreciated by anyone involved.

    The amygdala is the central hub of a person’s feeling brain. The study’s findings had very little to say about the subjects’ thinking brains.

    To postulate that the researchers missed that there was something different about the subjects’ thinking brains was out of touch with the realities of both the researchers’ scientific bases and the subjects. It’s another example of the current research mindset/social meme of thinking brain dominance.

    http://surfaceyourrealself.com/2015/05/14/a-larger-amygdala-in-people-who-donated-a-kidney-to-strangers-surfaceyourrealself/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Last year, around this time, friends and acquaintances offered me all sorts of religiously neutral salutations: Seasons Greetings! Happy Holidays! Joyeuses fêtes! Meilleurs vœux! Only two people wished me Merry Christmas. One was Muslim, the other was Jewish. They meant well. After all, isn't that the culturally correct greeting? In theory, yes. In practice, most...
  • […] who have replaced the WASPs in  America’s elite institutions – Yale now is less than 20% WASP). In fact, the New Elite seem overwhelmingly to support open borders, as evidenced by George Soros, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Merry Christmas Peter, happy to say that people quite openly wish each other a Merry Christmas here in New Zealand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I was reminded of this article and the comments here at Unz.com when I found this little goldmine: http://www.readbookonline.net/books/Brooke/339/

    It’s a collection of essays Rupert Brooke sent back to England giving his impressions of Canada and the US as he travelled the two countries in 1913. Lots of insights and sharp commentary on the various ethnic groups and places.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Keith Vaz [AKA "datqunn sawyer"] says:

    China is doomed. Blacks are like rats- they get everywhere and destroy everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I agree. China is more similar to the West in this respect than outsiders may think. There is a growing inflow of low-wage labor into China, mainly from southeast Asia, but also from Africa. Guangzhou now has an African community that numbers around 200,000. It will be difficult for China to stop this inflow because China is heavily dependent on these countries, particularly in Africa, for raw materials.

    -Peter Frost

    Wow, I didn’t know there were that many Africans in the provinces. When I lived in Beijing I stayed in a neighborhood where a lot of foreigners were allowed to live in relatively inexpensive housing while authorities looked the other way. Chinese restricted foreigners’ access to housing until just a few years ago, forcing most to pay exorbitant rents that were about four times the going rate.

    Anyway, because it was cheap, there were a lot of African “students” around as my neighbors. I made friends with some of the Liberians. Because they speak a form of English similar to black American English, we had some cultural affinity. One of them incidentally made a prediction that I blew off but came true nevertheless. He said that America would soon have an African president. My response was polite skepticism and inward incredulity, but his prediction proved correct within ten years!

    What surprised me was the extent to which Chinese peasants freely interbred with the Africans, most of whom were male. In the couple years I stayed, I saw the emergence of a mixed African Chinese community in the neighborhood, replete with curly-haired little half African-half Chinese babies and toddlers crawling and running to and fro amidst the chickens and hemp bushes in the courtyards.

    Most of the migrant labor was not African (of course not), but rather people from the far and wide countryside, who were all manner of folks jabbering in various tongues, many of which sounded nothing at all like Chinese. On one occasion, one of them let loose with something that sounded like it was straight out of a Star Wars scene while addressing a native Beijing resident who, confounded, turned to me of all people and asked in Beijing Mandarin whether I understood what the hell she was talking about.

    “Chinese,” it appears, is a pretty loose concept; it encompasses multitudes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • OT:
    LBJ sought increased power for Black Americans so liberals would gain a vote advantage over conservatives:

    King pointed out that giving African-Americans unimpeded access to the ballot box in the Deep South would expand Johnson’s electoral base.

    LBJ: “That’s exactly right. I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders, and you yourself, taking very simple examples of discrimination . . . If you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina–well, I think one of the worst I ever heard of was the president of a school at Tuskegee, or head of the Government department there or something, being denied the right to cast a vote. If you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, get it on television, get in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it every place you can; pretty soon, the fellow that didn’t do anything but drive a tractor will say, “that’s not right, that’s not fair.” And then, that’ll help us in what we’re going to shove [legislation] through in the end. And if we do that, we’ll break through–it’ll be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting the ’64 Act . . . because it’ll do things even that ’64 Act couldn’t do.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Sometimes reality is not what is commonly believed. WASPs are not at all privileged. In fact, they have been largely pushed aside in a country that was once theirs.”

    WASPs are not privileged in the sense that they do not get special treatment like Hispanics and African Americans in the form of affirmative action. And WASPs are not privileged because they are not protected under hate crime laws unless they are Homosexual.

    But one way in which WASPs are privileged is that WASPs as an ethnic group have a lower poverty rate than Hispanics and African Americans. But this privilege is not due to racism, it’s because of a strong work ethic and high ambitions of doing everything in their power not to become part of the poor underclass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “What was it about the 1930s that caused the civil rights movement to gain momentum?”

    In the 1920s to 1940s, and even after, the civil rights movement had an overwhelmingly white leadership, initially WASP and then increasingly Jewish. Read the Wiki page on the NAACP.

    “The powers of multiculturalism and diversity may seem modest at the moment in China, but did anyone in 1965 think that Whites in the USA would go from 90% to 65% of the population in 40 years?”

    I agree. China is more similar to the West in this respect than outsiders may think. There is a growing inflow of low-wage labor into China, mainly from southeast Asia, but also from Africa. Guangzhou now has an African community that numbers around 200,000. It will be difficult for China to stop this inflow because China is heavily dependent on these countries, particularly in Africa, for raw materials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “In 1900 roughly half of all Americans had blue eye. Today, only one out of six.”

    Only 16 percent of Americans have blue eyes, but people with blue eyes are vastly overrepresented in American media. Notice how there are A LOT of blue eyed actors and actresses in Hollywood. If Hollywood was it’s own country, the percentage of people with blue eyes would definitely be a lot higher than 16 percent. What is it about the arts that attracts a lot of blue eyed people ?

    Also if you include Americans who have green eyes and hazel eyes, than the percentage of Americans with light eyes is even higher than 16 percent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rudolphus James
    "I live in China and I am fairly familiar with the culture. American style multiculturalism has invaded China."

    Really? They seem to be doing a pretty good job of swamping Xinjiang and Tibet with Han monoculturalism. In fact, their history is one of swamping their invaders with Han culture, the reverse of what is going on currently in the US

    Good point and counter examples, but I said “invaded” not “conquered.” There is no question that there are still very strong forces of mono- cultural nationalism in China, but Western style multiculturalism and diversity has arrived.

    How well these new forces will do in the future is debatable. It is still early in the process of the ” modernization” of Chinese culture, in which Western ideas are being discussed and often embraced by the Chinese.

    Other examples of this process, which are sometimes mentioned in Chinese newspapers, include increasing single childless unmarried career women, increasing two income no children families, and increasing levels of divorce taking places in the large Chinese cites such as Beijing and Shanghai which have more Westerners and are more exposed to Western ideas. These are all trends in China that Chinese identify with Westernization. On the other hand, sexual mores in most parts of the country are still very traditional with couples not engaging in intercourse until marriage, and with many people marrying their first love. Sounds like the USA in the 1950′s, no?
    However, when the most popular TV shows in China with the young are Big Bang Theory, Two Broke Girls, and Modern Family change is on the way and inevitable.

    In fact, some of my Chinese colleagues who have lived abroad have suggested that culturally China is somewhat like the USA was in the 1950′s or early 1960′s before America’s own Sex and Cultural Revolution.

    Not sure if that is an apt analogy, but it is undergoing changes both economically and culturally as a result of opening itself up to the West including beginning to embrace the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity or at least paying more lip service to these ideas.

    This is true despite the Chinese government actions in Xinjiang and Tibet. Often antagonistic currents exist side by side until one goes into eclipse or becomes a permanently weakened countervailing force.

    The powers of multiculturalism and diversity may seem modest at the moment in China, but did anyone in 1965 think that Whites in the USA would go from 90% to 65% of the population in 40 years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “In 1900 roughly half of all Americans had blue eye. Today, only one out of six.”

    I find that hard to believe, unless green and hazel colors are being lumped in with blue. I live in a part of the U.S in which the whites are still overwhelmingly of British descent, and I’d estimate only about 25-30 percent of them have blue eyes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think “cleverness” rather than “merit” is the correct word. There is no link I am aware of between being clever and being good. People can be clever for good or ill. “The best and the brightest” is a non-sequitor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Southfarthing
    The Hispanic proportion of the US rose from 0.5% in 1850 to 2.1% in 1950 to 3.2% in 1960 to 4.4% in 1970 to 6.4% in 1980.

    The 1965 immigration act wasn't an acceleration. The proportion of Hispanics was increasing by ~50% per decade both before and after. Efforts like Operation Wetback in 1954 don't seem to have had a large effect, with Hispanic proportion increasing from 2.1% to 3.2% in 1950-1960.

    The 1965 Immigration act gets treated as the cause, but it was a reflection of underlying trends that came before it. The real story is the underlying trends:
    1. Capitalists want reduced labor cost and a growing domestic market.
    2. Politicians want a growing GDP so it looks like they're doing something right, and in order to prop up promises to older voters.
    3. It takes a large effort to keep out immigrants from a neighboring poorer country, and nations will tend to not do it when the cost of doing nothing doesn't seem large at the time.

    The destructiveness of WW2 might have created the sense that the world needs humanism not fascism. But even in 1938, people like Eleanor Roosevelt were upsetting the order of people like Bull Connor. And the history of the concept of "White privilege" goes back to mixed-race W. E. B. Dubois in 1935.

    Civil rights and the Hispanicization of the US were based on macro trends. Academics saying Whites aren't biologically superior were used to rationalize and accelerate macro trends, but those trends were happening regardless.

    What was it about the 1930s that caused the civil rights movement to gain momentum?

    Slaves were freed in 1865. A 55 year delay to 1930 is reasonable for Black Americans to move from being enslaved to articulating new ideas regarding their narrative and place in society.

    Women gained suffrage in 1920. That momentum must have inspired in the 1930s that first generation of Black Americans born free and their allies like Eleanor Roosevelt.

    The civil rights movement was not driven by academics’ opinions about race and IQ. We’re being autistic when we imply that. Likwise, Nazism pushed the West to the left, but that was an incidental accelerant rather than a driving component to the civil rights movement.

    For normal Whites, this is all common sense, but in our part of the web it’s a revelation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “I live in China and I am fairly familiar with the culture. American style multiculturalism has invaded China.”

    Really? They seem to be doing a pretty good job of swamping Xinjiang and Tibet with Han monoculturalism. In fact, their history is one of swamping their invaders with Han culture, the reverse of what is going on currently in the US

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seneca
    Good point and counter examples, but I said "invaded" not "conquered." There is no question that there are still very strong forces of mono- cultural nationalism in China, but Western style multiculturalism and diversity has arrived.

    How well these new forces will do in the future is debatable. It is still early in the process of the " modernization" of Chinese culture, in which Western ideas are being discussed and often embraced by the Chinese.

    Other examples of this process, which are sometimes mentioned in Chinese newspapers, include increasing single childless unmarried career women, increasing two income no children families, and increasing levels of divorce taking places in the large Chinese cites such as Beijing and Shanghai which have more Westerners and are more exposed to Western ideas. These are all trends in China that Chinese identify with Westernization. On the other hand, sexual mores in most parts of the country are still very traditional with couples not engaging in intercourse until marriage, and with many people marrying their first love. Sounds like the USA in the 1950's, no?
    However, when the most popular TV shows in China with the young are Big Bang Theory, Two Broke Girls, and Modern Family change is on the way and inevitable.

    In fact, some of my Chinese colleagues who have lived abroad have suggested that culturally China is somewhat like the USA was in the 1950's or early 1960's before America's own Sex and Cultural Revolution.

    Not sure if that is an apt analogy, but it is undergoing changes both economically and culturally as a result of opening itself up to the West including beginning to embrace the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity or at least paying more lip service to these ideas.

    This is true despite the Chinese government actions in Xinjiang and Tibet. Often antagonistic currents exist side by side until one goes into eclipse or becomes a permanently weakened countervailing force.

    The powers of multiculturalism and diversity may seem modest at the moment in China, but did anyone in 1965 think that Whites in the USA would go from 90% to 65% of the population in 40 years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The Hispanic proportion of the US rose from 0.5% in 1850 to 2.1% in 1950 to 3.2% in 1960 to 4.4% in 1970 to 6.4% in 1980.

    The 1965 immigration act wasn’t an acceleration. The proportion of Hispanics was increasing by ~50% per decade both before and after. Efforts like Operation Wetback in 1954 don’t seem to have had a large effect, with Hispanic proportion increasing from 2.1% to 3.2% in 1950-1960.

    The 1965 Immigration act gets treated as the cause, but it was a reflection of underlying trends that came before it. The real story is the underlying trends:
    1. Capitalists want reduced labor cost and a growing domestic market.
    2. Politicians want a growing GDP so it looks like they’re doing something right, and in order to prop up promises to older voters.
    3. It takes a large effort to keep out immigrants from a neighboring poorer country, and nations will tend to not do it when the cost of doing nothing doesn’t seem large at the time.

    The destructiveness of WW2 might have created the sense that the world needs humanism not fascism. But even in 1938, people like Eleanor Roosevelt were upsetting the order of people like Bull Connor. And the history of the concept of “White privilege” goes back to mixed-race W. E. B. Dubois in 1935.

    Civil rights and the Hispanicization of the US were based on macro trends. Academics saying Whites aren’t biologically superior were used to rationalize and accelerate macro trends, but those trends were happening regardless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What was it about the 1930s that caused the civil rights movement to gain momentum?

    Slaves were freed in 1865. A 55 year delay to 1930 is reasonable for Black Americans to move from being enslaved to articulating new ideas regarding their narrative and place in society.

    Women gained suffrage in 1920. That momentum must have inspired in the 1930s that first generation of Black Americans born free and their allies like Eleanor Roosevelt.

    The civil rights movement was not driven by academics' opinions about race and IQ. We're being autistic when we imply that. Likwise, Nazism pushed the West to the left, but that was an incidental accelerant rather than a driving component to the civil rights movement.

    For normal Whites, this is all common sense, but in our part of the web it's a revelation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Was Franz Boas a leftist Jewish academic? This is what he said in a 1908 speech on "Race problems in America":

    "I do not believe that the negro is, in his physical and mental make-up, the same as the European. The anatomical differences are so great that corresponding mental differences are plausible. There may exist differences in character and in the direction of specific aptitudes."

    Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 328-329

    Was Leon Trotsky a leftist Jewish academic? This is what he wrote in 1924 on eugenics:

    "Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution."

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm

    I could provide other interesting quotes. Before Hitler's rise to power, many Jewish scholars believed in the existence of innate mental differences between individuals and between human populations, even to the point of advocating eugenics. From my reading of the literature, particularly what we now refer to as antiracist literature, the major turning point was the early to mid 1930s. It's really at that point in time that we see calls for a fight against all forms of "racism" -- a word that scarcely existed only a few years previously.

    Yes, Boas and Trotsky were leftists. This is not in dispute.

    Karl Marx also said things that would be regarded as racist today. That doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t a leftist.

    Leftists back then did not hold the same exact views as leftists today. Classical economic Marxism and the promise of the USSR and international communist revolution were their primary interests. And while they may have held more hereditarian views relative to contemporary leftist orthodoxy, they did have a relatively more non-hereditarian and malleable view of human nature and society, per Marxist doctrine, compared to non-Marxist rightists of the time.

    The major turning point was the abandonment of classical Marxism and the development of Cultural Marxism in the 1950s

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Addendum to previous comment:

    If we look at antiracist literature from the 1930s, it tends to focus on (a) anti-Semitism in Germany and (b) segregation in the American South. There are few mentions, if any, of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union because there was still no consensus that anti-Semitism existed in that country. The conflict between Stalin and Trotsky was seen as an ideological conflict, and many of Stalin’s associates continued to be Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Was Franz Boas a leftist Jewish academic? This is what he said in a 1908 speech on “Race problems in America”:

    “I do not believe that the negro is, in his physical and mental make-up, the same as the European. The anatomical differences are so great that corresponding mental differences are plausible. There may exist differences in character and in the direction of specific aptitudes.”

    Boas, F. (1974). A Franz Boas Reader. The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 328-329

    Was Leon Trotsky a leftist Jewish academic? This is what he wrote in 1924 on eugenics:

    “Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution.”

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm

    I could provide other interesting quotes. Before Hitler’s rise to power, many Jewish scholars believed in the existence of innate mental differences between individuals and between human populations, even to the point of advocating eugenics. From my reading of the literature, particularly what we now refer to as antiracist literature, the major turning point was the early to mid 1930s. It’s really at that point in time that we see calls for a fight against all forms of “racism” — a word that scarcely existed only a few years previously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, Boas and Trotsky were leftists. This is not in dispute.

    Karl Marx also said things that would be regarded as racist today. That doesn't mean Marx wasn't a leftist.

    Leftists back then did not hold the same exact views as leftists today. Classical economic Marxism and the promise of the USSR and international communist revolution were their primary interests. And while they may have held more hereditarian views relative to contemporary leftist orthodoxy, they did have a relatively more non-hereditarian and malleable view of human nature and society, per Marxist doctrine, compared to non-Marxist rightists of the time.

    The major turning point was the abandonment of classical Marxism and the development of Cultural Marxism in the 1950s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    "Give me a break with the feigned ignorance of the proverbial gorilla in the room."

    I have no problem with discussing Jewish involvement in antiracism and in the current trend toward demographic replacement, not only in North America but also in Europe. I do have a problem with people who exaggerate this factor and who don't try to understand the reasons behind it.

    Until 1933, there was no antiracist consensus among Jewish academics, i.e., blank-slatism, rejection of biological influences on human behavior, rejection of the idea that mental makeup differs statistically among human populations, etc. There was a trend toward blank-slatism, but it was no stronger among Jews than among non-Jews. In fact, its two main proponents -- Ivan Pavlov and John Watson -- were non-Jews. Jewish opinion was all over the board. There were even Jewish eugenicists at that time.

    All of this changed with Hitler's rise to power. A sense of collective urgency, bordering on panic, set in among Jewish scholars, causing many fence-sitters, like Franz Boas, to take a harder line against biological determinism. It was at this time that the word "racism" (originally a synonym for Nazism) began to take on its current broader meaning. A consensus developed that the struggle against Nazism required a broader struggle against all forms of "racism."

    This war on racism didn't end with the end of the Second World War. One reason was the fear of a third world conflict in which anti-Semitism might play a pivotal role. The main reason, however, was that antiracism had taken on a life of its own. particularly in the context of the Cold War and the attempts by both power blocs to win the hearts and minds of newly independent peoples in Asia and Africa.

    I used to think that the Jewish community would eventually adopt a more critical view of antiracism. There are signs of that here and there, but a stronger factor will be the steep demographic decline of the Jewish community. After a certain age, people don't change their minds. They just grow old and die.

    Would things have been different if history had played out differently? i.e., if Hitler had never come to power, if WWII had never happened, and if Jewish academics had played little or no role in the development of antiracism. Things would have been a bit different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. If WWII had never happened, decolonization would have taken longer to happen. The colonial powers would have done more to legitimize their empires, including giving citizenship to their colonial subjects. I'm not speculating here. That sort of proposal was being discussed, and it was actually carried out to varying degrees in the French and Portuguese empires.

    In this alternate world, it would have been much harder to restrict the current flow of immigrants to Europe from Africa. That would have been like the U.S. trying to restrict the flow of black Americans from the south to the north. Also, the economic logic of globalization would still exist. Businesses would be pressuring for outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries and insourcing of low-wage labor for jobs (in construction, services, etc.) that could not be outsourced.

    In short, we would still face most of the problems we currently face. I don't deny the Jewish role, but you seem to think that this role explains everything. It doesn't.

    Until 1933, there was no antiracist consensus among Jewish academics…All of this changed with Hitler’s rise to power.

    Not exactly.

    What really happened was that leftist Jewish academics and political activists were communists or had strong communist sympathies and placed their hopes with the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union and the international communist revolution more generally. Hitler’s rise to power obviously didn’t change this

    What changed it was Stalin’s persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union. And the general discrimination against Jews in the USSR that followed after Stalin. Furthermore Stalin introduced a more domestically oriented communism against Trosky’s more radical promotion of permanent international revolution, as well as reviving some elements of Russian nationalism and patriotism. As a result of the Soviet Union’s perceived turn in a more anti-Semitic and Russian national direction, many of these formerly sympathetic Jewish academics and political activists no longer placed their hopes in the Soviet Union or in orthodox economic communism. This is the background in which Cultural Marxism arose. Many of these Jewish academics came to believe that the proletariat of orthodox economic Marxism were an incorrigibly reactionary force and that a new Cultural Marxism, in which non-economic class groups such as cultural and social groups rather than the proletariat would be the revolutionaries, was necessary in order to implement leftist revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Give me a break with the feigned ignorance of the proverbial gorilla in the room.”

    I have no problem with discussing Jewish involvement in antiracism and in the current trend toward demographic replacement, not only in North America but also in Europe. I do have a problem with people who exaggerate this factor and who don’t try to understand the reasons behind it.

    Until 1933, there was no antiracist consensus among Jewish academics, i.e., blank-slatism, rejection of biological influences on human behavior, rejection of the idea that mental makeup differs statistically among human populations, etc. There was a trend toward blank-slatism, but it was no stronger among Jews than among non-Jews. In fact, its two main proponents — Ivan Pavlov and John Watson — were non-Jews. Jewish opinion was all over the board. There were even Jewish eugenicists at that time.

    All of this changed with Hitler’s rise to power. A sense of collective urgency, bordering on panic, set in among Jewish scholars, causing many fence-sitters, like Franz Boas, to take a harder line against biological determinism. It was at this time that the word “racism” (originally a synonym for Nazism) began to take on its current broader meaning. A consensus developed that the struggle against Nazism required a broader struggle against all forms of “racism.”

    This war on racism didn’t end with the end of the Second World War. One reason was the fear of a third world conflict in which anti-Semitism might play a pivotal role. The main reason, however, was that antiracism had taken on a life of its own. particularly in the context of the Cold War and the attempts by both power blocs to win the hearts and minds of newly independent peoples in Asia and Africa.

    I used to think that the Jewish community would eventually adopt a more critical view of antiracism. There are signs of that here and there, but a stronger factor will be the steep demographic decline of the Jewish community. After a certain age, people don’t change their minds. They just grow old and die.

    Would things have been different if history had played out differently? i.e., if Hitler had never come to power, if WWII had never happened, and if Jewish academics had played little or no role in the development of antiracism. Things would have been a bit different, in some ways better and in some ways worse. If WWII had never happened, decolonization would have taken longer to happen. The colonial powers would have done more to legitimize their empires, including giving citizenship to their colonial subjects. I’m not speculating here. That sort of proposal was being discussed, and it was actually carried out to varying degrees in the French and Portuguese empires.

    In this alternate world, it would have been much harder to restrict the current flow of immigrants to Europe from Africa. That would have been like the U.S. trying to restrict the flow of black Americans from the south to the north. Also, the economic logic of globalization would still exist. Businesses would be pressuring for outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries and insourcing of low-wage labor for jobs (in construction, services, etc.) that could not be outsourced.

    In short, we would still face most of the problems we currently face. I don’t deny the Jewish role, but you seem to think that this role explains everything. It doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Until 1933, there was no antiracist consensus among Jewish academics...All of this changed with Hitler’s rise to power.
     
    Not exactly.

    What really happened was that leftist Jewish academics and political activists were communists or had strong communist sympathies and placed their hopes with the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union and the international communist revolution more generally. Hitler's rise to power obviously didn't change this

    What changed it was Stalin's persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union. And the general discrimination against Jews in the USSR that followed after Stalin. Furthermore Stalin introduced a more domestically oriented communism against Trosky's more radical promotion of permanent international revolution, as well as reviving some elements of Russian nationalism and patriotism. As a result of the Soviet Union's perceived turn in a more anti-Semitic and Russian national direction, many of these formerly sympathetic Jewish academics and political activists no longer placed their hopes in the Soviet Union or in orthodox economic communism. This is the background in which Cultural Marxism arose. Many of these Jewish academics came to believe that the proletariat of orthodox economic Marxism were an incorrigibly reactionary force and that a new Cultural Marxism, in which non-economic class groups such as cultural and social groups rather than the proletariat would be the revolutionaries, was necessary in order to implement leftist revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What really gets me is the CHURCHES who avoid mentioning Christmas. here in Berkeley ( aka Crazytown), there is a Catholic Church with a big Happy Holidays sign. at my own (Episcopal) church, the Christmas charity drive has been called something else for two years running–Holiday Give-Away last year, and December Give-Away this year. anything but Christmas Give-Away, which of course is what it is and why it exists. this is a great example of why cultural Marxism is so effective. When you control the culture, you control people’s reflexive reactions…to the point where Christian institutions mindlessly repeat the official Newspeak terms even in their own internal communications. I complain, of course, but it makes no lasting difference. The zombies just keep staggering along, looking for more brains to eat. we are DOOMED.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • That’s funny, I went Christmas shopping today and heard “Merry Christmas” about a dozen times and “Happy Holidays” maybe once or twice.

    When you get to real America, the places colored red on an election results map, you see whites Protestants of Anglo-Saxon descent unafraid to show patriotism and religious and civic pride.

    The corporations are the biggest problem for me–it’s nauseating how hard they strain to avoid saying Christmas. Even Fox News is too PC, does O’Reilly have no influence over there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Anon and Cagey,

    Yes, WASP is an Americanism and is seldom used in Canada. It's also somewhat misleading even in the U.S. because the early British colonists intermarried with other colonists of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot origin. These are the "old stock" Americans who still make up close to 40% of the U.S. population.

    British settlement in Canada was more recent, and there are still large areas of Canada where most people are predominantly or even wholly of British origin, i.e., most of the Maritime provinces, rural southern Ontario. Even Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s. This is partly because the government overtly favored British immigrants, who legally weren't even immigrants. Until the Second World War, most English Canadians saw themselves as junior partners of the British Empire. Even the term "Canadian" was seldom used because it implied a rejection of British identity.

    All of this has changed, particularly since the 1970s. Most of the change is still confined to the big urban centers, but the change is considerable. As I said, Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s, and some parts of Metropolitan Toronto, like Scarborough, were overwhelmingly British. Today, less than one third of Scarborough's residents are of any European origin. I feel strange travelling through Scarborough today. The landscape is familiar and a few old neighborhoods remain unchanged, but elsewhere it's a completely different society.

    It's difficult to talk about this demographic replacement, even among "old stock" Canadians. In general, they don't affirm their identity, either because they feel ashamed of it or because they feel they have no identity. Either way, the process feeds on itself: the less you affirm your identity, the less identity you have to affirm.

    The taboo against saying "Merry Christmas" is only part of the problem, perhaps a tiny part. The main problem is the belief that it is illegitimate for people of British origin, or of any Christian European background, to have an identity. This belief has become a moral norm. Even when people understand the serious consequences of this belief, they are still reluctant to challenge it, partly because of rejection by their peers but also, strangely enough, because of self-rejection ... because of a feeling of moral uncleanliness.

    Thanks for the reply, Peter.

    Right, I was aware that Canadians didn’t refer to themselves as WASPs. WASPs in the US generally didn’t either. The term itself was coined relatively recently, and WASPs in the US referred to themselves as Americans.

    I was also aware that Canadians traditionally had a strong British identity and didn’t really have a distinct, independent Canadian identity until relatively recently.

    I suppose what I meant was whether or not Canada had been demographically more like the American “old stock” population, British and Protestant, until more recently than the US population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s also somewhat misleading even in the U.S. because the early British colonists intermarried with other colonists of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot origin. These are the “old stock” Americans who still make up close to 40% of the U.S. population.

    In the US the term does often connote those other early groups that assimilated into the English or British core to form the “old stock” or “founding stock” of the US.

    Here’s another excerpt from the Time Magazine article linked above by Anonymous:

    http://racehist.blogspot.fr/2009/01/white-anglo-saxon-protestant.html

    Exactly who it is that will take over the center is a problem of definition. Wasps are not so easily characterized as other ethnic groups. The term itself can be merely descriptive or mildly offensive, depending on the user and the hearer; at any rate, it has become part of the American idiom. In one sense, it is redundant: since all Anglo-Saxons are white, the word could be Asp. Purists like to confine Wasps to descendants of the British Isles; less exacting analysts are willing to throw in Scandinavians, Netherlanders and Germans. At the narrowest, Wasps form a select band of well-heeled, well-descended members of the Eastern Establishment; at the widest, they include Okies and Snopeses, “Holy Rollers” and hillbillies. Wasps range from Mc-George Bundy and Penelope Tree to William Sloane Coffin Jr. and Phyllis Diller. Generously defined, Wasps constitute about 55% of the U.S. population, and they have in common what Columnist Russell Baker calls a “case of majority inferiority.”

    A Quiet Retreat

    Sometimes Wasps are treated like a species under examination before it becomes extinct. At the convocation of intellectuals in Princeton last month, Edward Shils, professor of social thought at the University of Chicago, announced: “The Wasp has abdicated, and his place has been taken by ants and fleas. The Wasp is less rough and far more permissive. He lacks self-confidence and feels lost.” Other observers feel that the growing dissension in American life is a clear sign that the Wasp has lost his sting, that his culture no longer binds. The new radicals and protesters are not in rebellion against Wasp rule as such, but they deride the Wasp’s traditional values, including devotion to duty and hard work.

    Although it is possible to exaggerate the decline of the Wasp, who has never really left the center of U.S. power, he is indisputably in an historical retreat. The big change came with the waves of migration from Europe in the 19th century, when many of his citadels—the big cities—were wrested from his political control. In a quiet fallback, the Wasps founded gilded ghettos—schools and suburbs, country clubs and summer colonies.

    Lately, the non-Wasps have pursued them even there. A few years ago, Grosse Pointe, a Wasp suburb of Detroit, was notorious for rating prospective homeowners by a point system based on personal characteristics; Jews, Italians and “swarthy” persons almost invariably got so few points that they could not buy houses. Now all that has been abandoned, and Grosse Pointe has many Roman Catholic and Jewish residents. Downtown private clubs remain bastions of Wasp exclusiveness, but doors are opening. One recent example: Jews gained admission to the Kansas City Club in Kansas City, Mo., after an uproar over exclusionary policies; a rumor got out that the Atomic Energy Commission refused to locate a plant in the city because of private-club discrimination.

    Non-Wasp groups are far better represented in Ivy League schools than they used to be: Jews, for instance, constitute about 25% of the student bodies. So traditional an Episcopal prep school as Groton now includes some 25 Roman Catholics, a dozen Negroes and three Jews. Jews stand out sharply in the nation’s intellectual life, and Jewish novelists are beginning to overtake the fertile Wasp talent. Scarcely a single Wasp is a culture hero to today’s youth; more likely he is the bad guy on the TV program, where names like Jones and Brown have replaced the Giovannis and O’Shaughnessys. The banker who made Skull and Bones is no model for undergraduates, writes Sociologist Nathan Glazer in FORTUNE. “Indeed, often the snobberies run the other way—the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, generally from a small town or an older and duller suburb, is likely to envy the big-city and culturally sophisticated Jewish students.”

    Proper Wasps still rule in tight little enclaves of high society that are rarely cracked by newcomers. Yet anyone with a will—and money—can find a way to outflank Wasp society, which is often haunted by a sense of anachronism. Such is the hostility to the Veiled Prophet parade, an annual Wasp event in St. Louis, that the queen and her maids of honor last year had to be covered with a plastic sheet to protect them from missiles tossed from the crowd

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Anon and Cagey,

    Yes, WASP is an Americanism and is seldom used in Canada. It's also somewhat misleading even in the U.S. because the early British colonists intermarried with other colonists of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot origin. These are the "old stock" Americans who still make up close to 40% of the U.S. population.

    British settlement in Canada was more recent, and there are still large areas of Canada where most people are predominantly or even wholly of British origin, i.e., most of the Maritime provinces, rural southern Ontario. Even Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s. This is partly because the government overtly favored British immigrants, who legally weren't even immigrants. Until the Second World War, most English Canadians saw themselves as junior partners of the British Empire. Even the term "Canadian" was seldom used because it implied a rejection of British identity.

    All of this has changed, particularly since the 1970s. Most of the change is still confined to the big urban centers, but the change is considerable. As I said, Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s, and some parts of Metropolitan Toronto, like Scarborough, were overwhelmingly British. Today, less than one third of Scarborough's residents are of any European origin. I feel strange travelling through Scarborough today. The landscape is familiar and a few old neighborhoods remain unchanged, but elsewhere it's a completely different society.

    It's difficult to talk about this demographic replacement, even among "old stock" Canadians. In general, they don't affirm their identity, either because they feel ashamed of it or because they feel they have no identity. Either way, the process feeds on itself: the less you affirm your identity, the less identity you have to affirm.

    The taboo against saying "Merry Christmas" is only part of the problem, perhaps a tiny part. The main problem is the belief that it is illegitimate for people of British origin, or of any Christian European background, to have an identity. This belief has become a moral norm. Even when people understand the serious consequences of this belief, they are still reluctant to challenge it, partly because of rejection by their peers but also, strangely enough, because of self-rejection ... because of a feeling of moral uncleanliness.

    The taboo against saying “Merry Christmas” is only part of the problem, perhaps a tiny part. The main problem is the belief that it is illegitimate for people of British origin, or of any Christian European background, to have an identity. This belief has become a moral norm. Even when people understand the serious consequences of this belief, they are still reluctant to challenge it, partly because of rejection by their peers but also, strangely enough, because of self-rejection … because of a feeling of moral uncleanliness.

    This is all too true. Such people seem to be the overwhelming majority of the educated classes in Anglo Canada. They seem to enjoy their cultural inheritance but can be counted on to be worse than useless when it comes to preserving it. Anyone who knows the CBC Radio culture should have a look at the staff on its flagship news show: http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/world_report

    These are the people who can’t seem to get enough globalism, multiculturalism, post-Christianity, rape hysteria, stories about “our First Nations peoples’, etc and so on. Notice how few of their surnames would have sounded out of place in Canada around the time of Confederation. Even so, they seem to fall over themselves in the rush to make us proud members of the global village. This is typical and I doubt it will ever change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @FirkinRidiculous

    In 1900 roughly half of all Americans had blue eye. Today, only one out of six.
     
    Really? Your source?

    Relatively speaking, having blond hair and blue eyes is extremely rare.
     
    Yes, even amongst North Europeans.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • True story: young Baptist from the South and compliant wife get university educations and convert to . . . Judaism. They are then offended by postage stamps at Christmas portraying the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AG
    "Guess who wins."

    You can not predict that. Neither do I.

    No preformed ideology can produce predictable result either.

    But one thing is certain. The best alleles and best combination for the specific environment will win like a poker game. A poker game is most result of luck, not much strategy. This poker game of nature has been played for long time. It will continue to play the same way in the future.

    However, best alleles and combination is also relative to the particular environment. In ice age, best cards and combination is neanderthal. In today environment, it happened to be homo sapiens. In future, the best alleles and combination will be different. Try to save dated cards from neanderthal for today's world is fighting against time, no matter how wonderful they were in your view. Besides, homo erectus might not extincted at all. They just evolved into homo sapiens through this continuous poker games which are constantly picking d up new cards and shedding bad cards.

    My own speculation is the group or culture which can pick any advantage alleles (usually melting pot culture, no prejudice against interracial mating) and merciless against its own loser (no problem letting their loser from their own kind perish) will win in the game of alleles evolution. One such culture actually has been around for thousand years, which is Han culture. Han culture is meritocratic with imperial exam system which has no affirmative action for any ethnic groups. In imperial China, ethnic minorities can hold all kinds of important position all the way to prime minister according to this meritocratic system. Han culture never care for ethnic purity, only care for ability. If you think Chinese culture is clannish, you are deadly wrong. If you are familiar with jared diamond guns germs and steel, you know this makes sense. If you have large pool of alleles to derive from, a system efficiently eliminate loser (individual with worst alleles and combination due to back luck), this system will outperform others in the long rong. It is because such culture can evolve with time and environment.

    Nature has its own way.

    My own speculation is the group or culture which can pick any advantage alleles (usually melting pot culture, no prejudice against interracial mating) and merciless against its own loser (no problem letting their loser from their own kind perish) will win in the game of alleles evolution. One such culture actually has been around for thousand years, which is Han culture. Han culture is meritocratic with imperial exam system which has no affirmative action for any ethnic groups.

    I live in China and I am fairly familiar with the culture. American style multiculturalism has invaded China. It is part of the global progressive agenda.

    Although Han make up about 90% of the Chinese population, the ethnic minorities (56 of them) have not been and are not subject to the one child policy and are given preferential treatment in college admission and jobs. As a result their portion of the population is said to be increasing relative to the the Han. The situation is so bad that you have a “flight from Han” just like you have a “flight from White” in the U.S.A. as college students search for distant ancestors who might not be Han so they can get some affirmative action preferential treatment (non Han students can be admitted to the same schools with much lower test scores than Han students and are more frequently given scholarships it is claimed). This flight from Han or gaming the system is a well known fact that is even discussed in the local Chinese newspaper.

    Yes the Han are still 90% of the population, but so were Whites in the USA 30 years ago. No country in my opinion seems to have “total immunity” (just relatively different degrees of resistance it seems) from the multicultural globalist virus. That could change I suppose if the current globalist Zeitgeist changes to one favoring nationalism over multiculturalism. There seems to be some modest minor signs of this (resistance to multiculturalism) beginning to happen in Europe , but it is hard to say if it will amount to anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon and Cagey,

    Yes, WASP is an Americanism and is seldom used in Canada. It’s also somewhat misleading even in the U.S. because the early British colonists intermarried with other colonists of German, Dutch, and French Huguenot origin. These are the “old stock” Americans who still make up close to 40% of the U.S. population.

    British settlement in Canada was more recent, and there are still large areas of Canada where most people are predominantly or even wholly of British origin, i.e., most of the Maritime provinces, rural southern Ontario. Even Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s. This is partly because the government overtly favored British immigrants, who legally weren’t even immigrants. Until the Second World War, most English Canadians saw themselves as junior partners of the British Empire. Even the term “Canadian” was seldom used because it implied a rejection of British identity.

    All of this has changed, particularly since the 1970s. Most of the change is still confined to the big urban centers, but the change is considerable. As I said, Toronto had a British majority until the early 1970s, and some parts of Metropolitan Toronto, like Scarborough, were overwhelmingly British. Today, less than one third of Scarborough’s residents are of any European origin. I feel strange travelling through Scarborough today. The landscape is familiar and a few old neighborhoods remain unchanged, but elsewhere it’s a completely different society.

    It’s difficult to talk about this demographic replacement, even among “old stock” Canadians. In general, they don’t affirm their identity, either because they feel ashamed of it or because they feel they have no identity. Either way, the process feeds on itself: the less you affirm your identity, the less identity you have to affirm.

    The taboo against saying “Merry Christmas” is only part of the problem, perhaps a tiny part. The main problem is the belief that it is illegitimate for people of British origin, or of any Christian European background, to have an identity. This belief has become a moral norm. Even when people understand the serious consequences of this belief, they are still reluctant to challenge it, partly because of rejection by their peers but also, strangely enough, because of self-rejection … because of a feeling of moral uncleanliness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    The taboo against saying “Merry Christmas” is only part of the problem, perhaps a tiny part. The main problem is the belief that it is illegitimate for people of British origin, or of any Christian European background, to have an identity. This belief has become a moral norm. Even when people understand the serious consequences of this belief, they are still reluctant to challenge it, partly because of rejection by their peers but also, strangely enough, because of self-rejection … because of a feeling of moral uncleanliness.

    This is all too true. Such people seem to be the overwhelming majority of the educated classes in Anglo Canada. They seem to enjoy their cultural inheritance but can be counted on to be worse than useless when it comes to preserving it. Anyone who knows the CBC Radio culture should have a look at the staff on its flagship news show: http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/world_report

    These are the people who can't seem to get enough globalism, multiculturalism, post-Christianity, rape hysteria, stories about "our First Nations peoples', etc and so on. Notice how few of their surnames would have sounded out of place in Canada around the time of Confederation. Even so, they seem to fall over themselves in the rush to make us proud members of the global village. This is typical and I doubt it will ever change.

    , @Anonymous
    Thanks for the reply, Peter.

    Right, I was aware that Canadians didn't refer to themselves as WASPs. WASPs in the US generally didn't either. The term itself was coined relatively recently, and WASPs in the US referred to themselves as Americans.

    I was also aware that Canadians traditionally had a strong British identity and didn't really have a distinct, independent Canadian identity until relatively recently.

    I suppose what I meant was whether or not Canada had been demographically more like the American "old stock" population, British and Protestant, until more recently than the US population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    From Time Magazine in 1969:

    “ARE THE WASPS COMING BACK? HAVE THEY EVER BEEN AWAY?”

    http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838862-4,00.html

    IT is a low-key intuition, not spiteful or malicious, but pervasive: in the minds of most Americans the incoming Nixon Administration seems to represent the comeback of the Wasp: the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. True enough, the new President’s Cabinet, with three Roman Catholics, is statistically no more Waspish than most in recent decades, even though it stirred comment for including no Negro or Jew. But people sense about Nixon’s appointments, and his style, a tone of reassuring Wasp respectability and good manners. The forces that elected Nixon—those who most avidlv supported him—are Wasp…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cagey Beast
    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.

    Would Richard Nixon have described himself as a WASP? Didn't he strongly resent them?

    I'm starting to think "WASP" is almost as useless a term as "White" in some corners of the internet. There's always someone who insists Finnish socialist loggers in northern Ontario were WASPs or Burmese mountain people are White somehow. I give up.

    WASPs like Nixon generally described themselves as Americans. Nixon resented the “Eastern establishment”, which was no longer WASP dominated by Nixon’s time. People like Nixon often used terms like “Eastern establishment” or “liberal” as euphemisms for Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I'm using "WASP" in the ethnic sense, not simply to mean "haute bourgeoisie" as some people use it.

    Most WASPs historically were middle class, rather than upper middle or upper class. There were lower class rural WASPs who were referred to as "swamp Yankees":

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

    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.

    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.

    Would Richard Nixon have described himself as a WASP? Didn’t he strongly resent them?

    I’m starting to think “WASP” is almost as useless a term as “White” in some corners of the internet. There’s always someone who insists Finnish socialist loggers in northern Ontario were WASPs or Burmese mountain people are White somehow. I give up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    WASPs like Nixon generally described themselves as Americans. Nixon resented the "Eastern establishment", which was no longer WASP dominated by Nixon's time. People like Nixon often used terms like "Eastern establishment" or "liberal" as euphemisms for Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In 1900 roughly half of all Americans had blue eye. Today, only one out of six.

    Really? Your source?

    Relatively speaking, having blond hair and blue eyes is extremely rare.

    Yes, even amongst North Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Threecranes
    My source?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html?_r=0

    for one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This year I’ve been most bothered by the Stella Artois commercial that begins “it was the night before” [end of sentence] and tells the story of how their product was created for Christmas without ever bringing Christmas up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Guess who wins.”

    You can not predict that. Neither do I.

    No preformed ideology can produce predictable result either.

    But one thing is certain. The best alleles and best combination for the specific environment will win like a poker game. A poker game is most result of luck, not much strategy. This poker game of nature has been played for long time. It will continue to play the same way in the future.

    However, best alleles and combination is also relative to the particular environment. In ice age, best cards and combination is neanderthal. In today environment, it happened to be homo sapiens. In future, the best alleles and combination will be different. Try to save dated cards from neanderthal for today’s world is fighting against time, no matter how wonderful they were in your view. Besides, homo erectus might not extincted at all. They just evolved into homo sapiens through this continuous poker games which are constantly picking d up new cards and shedding bad cards.

    My own speculation is the group or culture which can pick any advantage alleles (usually melting pot culture, no prejudice against interracial mating) and merciless against its own loser (no problem letting their loser from their own kind perish) will win in the game of alleles evolution. One such culture actually has been around for thousand years, which is Han culture. Han culture is meritocratic with imperial exam system which has no affirmative action for any ethnic groups. In imperial China, ethnic minorities can hold all kinds of important position all the way to prime minister according to this meritocratic system. Han culture never care for ethnic purity, only care for ability. If you think Chinese culture is clannish, you are deadly wrong. If you are familiar with jared diamond guns germs and steel, you know this makes sense. If you have large pool of alleles to derive from, a system efficiently eliminate loser (individual with worst alleles and combination due to back luck), this system will outperform others in the long rong. It is because such culture can evolve with time and environment.

    Nature has its own way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seneca

    My own speculation is the group or culture which can pick any advantage alleles (usually melting pot culture, no prejudice against interracial mating) and merciless against its own loser (no problem letting their loser from their own kind perish) will win in the game of alleles evolution. One such culture actually has been around for thousand years, which is Han culture. Han culture is meritocratic with imperial exam system which has no affirmative action for any ethnic groups.
     
    I live in China and I am fairly familiar with the culture. American style multiculturalism has invaded China. It is part of the global progressive agenda.

    Although Han make up about 90% of the Chinese population, the ethnic minorities (56 of them) have not been and are not subject to the one child policy and are given preferential treatment in college admission and jobs. As a result their portion of the population is said to be increasing relative to the the Han. The situation is so bad that you have a "flight from Han" just like you have a "flight from White" in the U.S.A. as college students search for distant ancestors who might not be Han so they can get some affirmative action preferential treatment (non Han students can be admitted to the same schools with much lower test scores than Han students and are more frequently given scholarships it is claimed). This flight from Han or gaming the system is a well known fact that is even discussed in the local Chinese newspaper.

    Yes the Han are still 90% of the population, but so were Whites in the USA 30 years ago. No country in my opinion seems to have "total immunity" (just relatively different degrees of resistance it seems) from the multicultural globalist virus. That could change I suppose if the current globalist Zeitgeist changes to one favoring nationalism over multiculturalism. There seems to be some modest minor signs of this (resistance to multiculturalism) beginning to happen in Europe , but it is hard to say if it will amount to anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Give me a break with the feigned ignorance of the proverbial gorilla in the room.

    Just admit it, the attack on WASPs and other white gentiles is driven by Jews and their Jewish supremacist dominated media and ‘academia’. By targeting WASPs and other gentile whites, thereby designating them as the go-to scapegoats, Jews have managed to suck in blacks, browns, & some yellows to run interference, to shill for the interests of Jews.

    Jews generally do not like the competition that WASPs and other gentile whites provide.
    I suggest a look at Kevin MacDonald’s work: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books.htm

    The Jew’s general insistence on massive non-WASP, non-white immigration into the US & Europe while vigorously resisting any non-Jew immigration into their apartheid Israel gives away the game.

    An enormous factor here is the ‘holocaust’ narrative. While by far the most easily debunked storyline ever contrived, when anyone mans-up and actually digs in, it still works as blunt instrument in discouraging WASPs and other white gentiles from retaining a sense of ethnic cohesion. That is one of it’s intended purposes, of course. You know the absurd line, ‘whites must have diversity to prevent another holocaust’. Not to mention the massive finances garnered by Jews through the scam, or the social deference to Jews, or the political power to Jews, and the creation of “that shitty little country” & the massive freebies it receives.

    Then we have the canard of a ‘rape epidemic by WASPs and other whites’, when in fact the statistics make it clear that it’s blacks who do the real raping, by far. Take note who the ‘reporters’ of these stories are, their backgrounds. Which publications promote and publish this lie, who are they and what are their backgrounds. Same story.

    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress
    Who owns the White House?
    Who markets the dumb & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who dominates ‘academia’?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions.
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard.
    Who is it the demands the US shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
    Who are the biggest racists on the planet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Cagey Beast
    I'm not Peter but I am Canadian so I'll give a try to answering your question.

    Firstly, "WASP" is really an American term best suited for describing the haute bourgeoisie centred in the US Northeast but with cultural colonies as distant as Hawaii and San Francisco. WASP-ness, to me, is too closely tied to Americanism, liberalism, republicanism and Nonconformist Protestantism to be used to describe English-speaking Canadians. For example, Toronto before multiculturalism wasn't a WASP city, it was an Orange city, a British city, a city of Scotsmen and militantly Orange Irish Protestants. It was also the second city after Montreal, where the English-English would have been fourth in influence after the French, Scots and Irish.

    ... non-WASP culture and identity was confined to a separate province in Quebec, many European Catholic immigrants such as the Irish and Italians immigrated to Montreal and Quebec instead, etc.

    It's odd in Canadian terms to lump the Irish and Italians together simply because there's about a 200yr gap between when the Irish starting making a mark on Canada and when the Italians did. The Irish were active and making decisions in Quebec in the 1770s while the Italians would have to wait for Bruno Gerussi to appear on The Beachcombers in the 1970s. Even then he played a Greek.

    All that being said, English-speaking Canada's educated class is now so completely in the Rockefeller Foundation, London School of Economics, New York Times, Harvard basket that you might as well just call them WASPs. They belong to that same bunch of Atlanticist, post-Judeo-Christian human tofu that govern everywhere else in the Anglosphere and who pray facing Harvard, for all the good it does.

    I’m using “WASP” in the ethnic sense, not simply to mean “haute bourgeoisie” as some people use it.

    Most WASPs historically were middle class, rather than upper middle or upper class. There were lower class rural WASPs who were referred to as “swamp Yankees”:

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

    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.

    Would Richard Nixon have described himself as a WASP? Didn't he strongly resent them?

    I'm starting to think "WASP" is almost as useless a term as "White" in some corners of the internet. There's always someone who insists Finnish socialist loggers in northern Ontario were WASPs or Burmese mountain people are White somehow. I give up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Peter,

    I've heard that Canada remained more WASP for much longer than the US did. Of course Canada today has instituted multiculturalism and has high immigration, but I've heard that WASP demographic and elite dominance persisted in Canada much longer than in the US because Canada had relatively less immigration until recently, non-WASP culture and identity was confined to a separate province in Quebec, many European Catholic immigrants such as the Irish and Italians immigrated to Montreal and Quebec instead, etc. Though I've also heard that there was significant Ukrainian immigration to the Canadian prairie, presumably this was relatively removed from the heartland of English Canada in Ontario.

    Toronto today of course is a "multicultural" city, but you hear it described as late as the 70s as being a "stuffy WASP" town or bastion, described pejoratively as "stuffy" by non-WASP, white ethnic writers in the US. By that time, major American cities had not been WASP dominated for decades. I believe Boston no longer had a WASP majority as early as the 1870s.

    Is this impression accurate in your estimation?

    I’m not Peter but I am Canadian so I’ll give a try to answering your question.

    Firstly, “WASP” is really an American term best suited for describing the haute bourgeoisie centred in the US Northeast but with cultural colonies as distant as Hawaii and San Francisco. WASP-ness, to me, is too closely tied to Americanism, liberalism, republicanism and Nonconformist Protestantism to be used to describe English-speaking Canadians. For example, Toronto before multiculturalism wasn’t a WASP city, it was an Orange city, a British city, a city of Scotsmen and militantly Orange Irish Protestants. It was also the second city after Montreal, where the English-English would have been fourth in influence after the French, Scots and Irish.

    … non-WASP culture and identity was confined to a separate province in Quebec, many European Catholic immigrants such as the Irish and Italians immigrated to Montreal and Quebec instead, etc.

    It’s odd in Canadian terms to lump the Irish and Italians together simply because there’s about a 200yr gap between when the Irish starting making a mark on Canada and when the Italians did. The Irish were active and making decisions in Quebec in the 1770s while the Italians would have to wait for Bruno Gerussi to appear on The Beachcombers in the 1970s. Even then he played a Greek.

    All that being said, English-speaking Canada’s educated class is now so completely in the Rockefeller Foundation, London School of Economics, New York Times, Harvard basket that you might as well just call them WASPs. They belong to that same bunch of Atlanticist, post-Judeo-Christian human tofu that govern everywhere else in the Anglosphere and who pray facing Harvard, for all the good it does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm using "WASP" in the ethnic sense, not simply to mean "haute bourgeoisie" as some people use it.

    Most WASPs historically were middle class, rather than upper middle or upper class. There were lower class rural WASPs who were referred to as "swamp Yankees":

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

    Richard Nixon was a middle class WASP of Quaker background and had Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. He grew up relatively poor in a farming family in southern California.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Peter,

    I’ve heard that Canada remained more WASP for much longer than the US did. Of course Canada today has instituted multiculturalism and has high immigration, but I’ve heard that WASP demographic and elite dominance persisted in Canada much longer than in the US because Canada had relatively less immigration until recently, non-WASP culture and identity was confined to a separate province in Quebec, many European Catholic immigrants such as the Irish and Italians immigrated to Montreal and Quebec instead, etc. Though I’ve also heard that there was significant Ukrainian immigration to the Canadian prairie, presumably this was relatively removed from the heartland of English Canada in Ontario.

    Toronto today of course is a “multicultural” city, but you hear it described as late as the 70s as being a “stuffy WASP” town or bastion, described pejoratively as “stuffy” by non-WASP, white ethnic writers in the US. By that time, major American cities had not been WASP dominated for decades. I believe Boston no longer had a WASP majority as early as the 1870s.

    Is this impression accurate in your estimation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'm not Peter but I am Canadian so I'll give a try to answering your question.

    Firstly, "WASP" is really an American term best suited for describing the haute bourgeoisie centred in the US Northeast but with cultural colonies as distant as Hawaii and San Francisco. WASP-ness, to me, is too closely tied to Americanism, liberalism, republicanism and Nonconformist Protestantism to be used to describe English-speaking Canadians. For example, Toronto before multiculturalism wasn't a WASP city, it was an Orange city, a British city, a city of Scotsmen and militantly Orange Irish Protestants. It was also the second city after Montreal, where the English-English would have been fourth in influence after the French, Scots and Irish.

    ... non-WASP culture and identity was confined to a separate province in Quebec, many European Catholic immigrants such as the Irish and Italians immigrated to Montreal and Quebec instead, etc.

    It's odd in Canadian terms to lump the Irish and Italians together simply because there's about a 200yr gap between when the Irish starting making a mark on Canada and when the Italians did. The Irish were active and making decisions in Quebec in the 1770s while the Italians would have to wait for Bruno Gerussi to appear on The Beachcombers in the 1970s. Even then he played a Greek.

    All that being said, English-speaking Canada's educated class is now so completely in the Rockefeller Foundation, London School of Economics, New York Times, Harvard basket that you might as well just call them WASPs. They belong to that same bunch of Atlanticist, post-Judeo-Christian human tofu that govern everywhere else in the Anglosphere and who pray facing Harvard, for all the good it does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheJester
    I support Peter Frost's observation that WASPs are being left behind in multicultural America, and it is going to get much worse. It is not just about raw numbers. It is about wealth and control over national institutions.

    WASPs once populated an expansive, rural, and wealthy country. Their descendants still live in those rural towns and villages. The new immigrants flock to the cities and urban clusters where there is wealth, technology, and political power. The future is in the cities and urban clusters. The rural villages and towns are increasingly economic and cultural disaster zones.

    My wife and I take day trips into the countryside. We collectively call it "Shacksville" due to the substandard housing. It is not only the housing. A preponderance of the cars are also old and weathered. It is noticeable ... it is sad ... and it is a national phenomenon. In another generation, we'll discover that it is the WASPs in rural America that constitute an increasingly poverty -stricken and politically powerless minority.

    Brownskins flock to cities because most are by nature urban dwellers and want to get on the dole and free housing that comes with being a brown skin in the U.S. They know the Democrats will take care of them as long as they vote Democratic and the economy doesn’t blow up.

    Look they wouldn’t even be here let alone thrive except for two reasons. The 1965 Immigration act and the Great Society programs that provide near unlimited free resources for life to so-called minorities at the expense of whites.

    Now we have upwards of 5 generations that have never known work or want and they are as dumb as rocks and violent as pissed off rattlers. The Hispanics that are pouring in will remain Hispanics and will never even have to learn English or be literate in their own language for that matter. Uncle Sam will coddle them until the day they die.

    Those shackvilles as you call them are a direct result of the government and businesses punishing white people for being productive. Business and government rewarded them by off-shoring industry and importing foreign workers to replace them over the last 20 years.

    And declining white population. Well if you work and are white, having kids is hard. Whereas if you are a minority, it’s easy. You get money and free food from the government for every bambino you pump out. Plus free medical and education for the little urchin.

    The U.S. is great if you’re a minority or white and part of the professional class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’m an atheist with Jewish and Christian roots

    I say Merry Christmas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Too much WASP talk. WASP is an invented term to describe the mass assimilation that occurred after WWI and was concrete by WWII. Was George Washington a WASP? If so someone should have told him. An example of WASP assimilation is General Eisenhower whose Mennonite German and Jehovah’s Witness background does not qualify him as a WASP, but who cares, he was willing to go along to get along, so why bring it up. Barack Hussein Obama probably has better WASP credentials than Ike.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In 1900 roughly half of all Americans had blue eye. Today, only one out of six.

    Relatively speaking, having blond hair and blue eyes is extremely rare. The great majority of the world’s people have black hair and brown eyes. WASPs have always been a small minority and they have always suffered persecution because of that. Being the oppressed minority has forced them to become more creative in their use of their environment simply to survive. Their success in this is labeled “exploitation” and “expropriation” by their angry, perplexed enemies who will not rest until this stranger, this outlier, is hounded from the face of the planet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I support Peter Frost’s observation that WASPs are being left behind in multicultural America, and it is going to get much worse. It is not just about raw numbers. It is about wealth and control over national institutions.

    WASPs once populated an expansive, rural, and wealthy country. Their descendants still live in those rural towns and villages. The new immigrants flock to the cities and urban clusters where there is wealth, technology, and political power. The future is in the cities and urban clusters. The rural villages and towns are increasingly economic and cultural disaster zones.

    My wife and I take day trips into the countryside. We collectively call it “Shacksville” due to the substandard housing. It is not only the housing. A preponderance of the cars are also old and weathered. It is noticeable … it is sad … and it is a national phenomenon. In another generation, we’ll discover that it is the WASPs in rural America that constitute an increasingly poverty -stricken and politically powerless minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Brownskins flock to cities because most are by nature urban dwellers and want to get on the dole and free housing that comes with being a brown skin in the U.S. They know the Democrats will take care of them as long as they vote Democratic and the economy doesn't blow up.

    Look they wouldn't even be here let alone thrive except for two reasons. The 1965 Immigration act and the Great Society programs that provide near unlimited free resources for life to so-called minorities at the expense of whites.

    Now we have upwards of 5 generations that have never known work or want and they are as dumb as rocks and violent as pissed off rattlers. The Hispanics that are pouring in will remain Hispanics and will never even have to learn English or be literate in their own language for that matter. Uncle Sam will coddle them until the day they die.

    Those shackvilles as you call them are a direct result of the government and businesses punishing white people for being productive. Business and government rewarded them by off-shoring industry and importing foreign workers to replace them over the last 20 years.

    And declining white population. Well if you work and are white, having kids is hard. Whereas if you are a minority, it's easy. You get money and free food from the government for every bambino you pump out. Plus free medical and education for the little urchin.

    The U.S. is great if you're a minority or white and part of the professional class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • But the WASPs. Oh, the WASPs! With them, those two words are a faux pas. The response is usually polite but firm: “And a very happy holiday season to you!”

    I’m still not convinced. Yes, WASPs did create the institutions of Anglo-America, but their influence in them is now nominal at best. The U.S. Supreme Court used to be a very WASPy place. Now, there’s not a single White Protestant on it. That’s a huge underrepresentation for a group that is still close to 40% of the population. We see the same thing at the Ivy League universities, which originally trained Protestant clergy for the English colonists. Today, how many of their students have a Christian European background of any sort? The proportions are estimated to be 20% at Harvard, 22% at Yale, and 15% at Columbia (Unz, 2012).

    Well, I’d argue that not all WASPs are created equal:

    American Nations Series | JayMan’s Blog

    Indeed, some of them, particularly the ones in the red areas of the map are the vehement fighters for saying “Merry Christmas.”

    In fact, in those red areas, WASPs are still the overwhelming ethnic majority. No so in other places, especially the various blue areas (especially Yankeedom).

    Loss of numerical majority in the nation’s most powerful region may have something to do with all the effects you describe.

    As for the battle between NW Euro humanitarians and the ethnocentrism of everyone else, see this interesting paper:

    The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation

    Rather eerie, considering present situation, no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • THE P IN THE WASP IS THE PROBLEM.

    I understand that white anglo saxons are becoming a minority, but it their fault. They do not have children and keep voting for blacks like Obama and Judaists.

    But the P is the problem.

    That is because Jesus did not exist.

    The 100+ books on the Jesus myth keep growing.

    Here is one more nail in the coffin (or the cross) of the Jesus myth:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

    Here is one famous quote about Christianity:

    “This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found–I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,–I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race…” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ

    That is why whites must return to the religions of their ancestors, such as deism, or Odinism, etc. These middle-eastern african myths of Jesus (and Moses, i.e. Judaism) are the biggest curses on the white race and responsible for most its death and destruction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • JESUS NEVER EXISTED
    CONSTANTINE SIGNED THE DEATH WARRANT OF THE WHITE RACE WHEN HE IMPOSED THIS AFRICAN CULT ON EUROPE.

    First of all Jesus never existed. December 25 is the day the Sun is reborn every year, as it rises from the death of winter, as Dec. 22 is the shortest day, and 3 days later, the days start getting longer.

    Jesus is a fabrication based on the ancient Persian myth of Mithra.

    The name Jesus means Jew-sus—Jew, any Jew.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

    See http://www.Jesusneverexisted.com for a list of references.

    Over 100 books have been written exposing the Jesus myth.

    But if you still believe Jesus is Lord, look at his face. Scientists have reconstructed it.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

    Whites should not be worshiping a mythical Negro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • yes, we whites are suicidal, but the world will never see the likes of us again…and they’ll miss us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In a previous post, I discussed why the capacity for affective empathy varies not only between individuals but also between populations. First, its heritability is high: 68% (Chakrabarti and Baron-Cohen, 2013). So natural selection has had something to grab hold of. Second, its usefulness varies from one culture to another. It matters less where kinship...
  • Interesting how IQ scores always come up from these people who think that those from northern Europe are so superior to the rest of the population.

    We are all just a standard deviation from the mean. If a certain ethnic group has a higher average IQ than another, this should not give the whole population of that group a separate status. Each individual should be given equal opportunity.

    And if an IQ test for citizenry were to be given that would exclude a specific group to say disqualify 90 percent of that population, I would guess that those asking for the test the loudest would not make the cut either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    Should have put this in my 1st reply.

    “arguably one developing”

    I doubt that we will have time for this to play out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Cracker1 may be Hasbara. He keeps insisting,

    “…“act as one ethnic group”…does not exist and cannot be created…”

    Nonsense. White people have looked after each other first in the past and anything that has been can be again. It’s no big stretch to say,”We look after Whites first”. A simple look at the trajectory of our country and it would seem to be a fairly straightforward idea that this makes sense. Agreeing on anything else has nothing do with the simple statement above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”.

    What I mean is that it does not exist and cannot be created.

    It is a wasted effort to try and create one.

    Please read my comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cracker1
    “…you expect “white” people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?…”

    You may very well be right and no amount of pleading on my part will convince some Whites that mass immigration will eventually destroy the country. Someone brought up Brazil. I saw a story about a guy who helicoptered from work to home every day because the threat of blackmail was so high. I don’t want to live like this.

    What’s going on in Ferguson is an example of the problem of tribalism. No matter what Blacks do they support the Black person. Mind you I’m not particularly pro-police in their present beat everyone to death, ask questions later incarnation. There are areas in my town where I can’t go because I’m White but I’m expected to allow those from that side of town to freely move about my side of town. To extrapolate ver time my area that I can travel will get smaller and smaller.I see, reasonably in my opinion, that you can’t fight something with nothing. It’s also my believe that mass immigration is channeled long term plan by the Jews to fracture the country. Maybe I’m wrong but they’re the ones who paid for it. All the way back to putting the graffiti on the statue of liberty, “..Give me your tired, your poor…”. To hell with that. I’m tired and poor myself I don’t need any more. It’s a huge insult for the Jews to put propaganda on the statue of liberty which was given to us by the France people because of our constitution and had nothing to do with immigration.

    Is there a way. Yes. Take control of the House and Senate. Repeal all civil rights and other type laws. Pass laws so that intelligence tests can be a requirement for voting. Consolidate power. Pass constitutional amendment removing all Blacks and Jews. Deport them. Deport all Mexican illegal immigrants. hose that are caught in the country who wish to migrate as they say today. We’ll help them. Find an African tribe to take them at $100 a head and deport them to the Congo. Repeal the Regan amnesty. Deport all these people. Deport any one who came to the US and used any government program. We shouldn’t have to support them. That includes low interest loans which would nicely cover all the Indian and Pakistani shop owners.

    The real problem is the Northern States and California. For some reason even though the North beat the South and have been fairly well subjected by them all these years they just can can not seem to pass up the ability to poke the South in the eye every chance they get. It may be that if we get enough voes we could throw out the 16 States that consistently vote against Whites. It would be difficult. Let’s list the States that are anti-White
    Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Minnesota, New York, Delaware, New Hampshire, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, Illinois, Iowa and California.

    The problem being that you need 38 States to pass a constitutional amendment. One way to do this is get a pro White President and just not let these States vote on the amendment. Tell them they’re being thrown out and deport all the fore mentioned people into their territory. Maybe some of these could be picked off. The Northern States that are heavy Democratic party but White would never go along with deportation as they don’t have any minorities. Doesn’t cost them anything as they hold their nose up at everyone else. So another strategy is to capture enough of the House, Senate and the Presidency and move ALL section eight housing to their territory. We could mass produce buildings like the Chinese. Maybe that would at least get their attention. Maybe change their mind. They would be hard pressed, morally anyways, to argue that they don’t need diversity but everyone else does. May be enough to pass the other bills. This could be done but White people would have to decide they wish to live in a majority White country. I would also entertain the idea that older people could stay but if that got too complicated then it would be better for a clean break.

    People in the North and West and wherever could still hate the South all they want. So they could get their jollies but we wouldn’t have to see the country immigrated away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    ''involves no personal cost to liberal elites"

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don't have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.

    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”. In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn’t really a “white ethnic group” either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I’m not sure what you mean by “act as one ethnic group”.

    What I mean is that it does not exist and cannot be created.

    It is a wasted effort to try and create one.

    Please read my comments.
    , @iffen
    Should have put this in my 1st reply.

    "arguably one developing"

    I doubt that we will have time for this to play out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Marco Mobley is a rotten human being. May he find NO COMFORT when he is of old age!! If he has a black caretaker in a nursing home when he gets there, hope he refuses her help!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it's just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.

    Thank you for your kind words. Let us all keep learning more about the world, and let the dialogue continue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? ...The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package"

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). "To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them"

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don't want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the 'global ideal' available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can't help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups' rise and fall?

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    I completely agree with you.

    I am not entirely sure that what you state above is indeed happening in the prosperous (mostly Western) countries, at least in the US. It seems to me (based on my personal experiences, and some reading) that it’s not the tough-minded individuals from the unsuccessful groups who periodically try to defect to more successful groups (like the West), but rather the relatively more tender-minded people. Why would a predator want to leave his habitat, where he is guaranteed to be on top of the food chain? Taking Mexico as an example, it’s not the powerful drug lords or corrupt elite who are clamoring to emigrate to their successful northern neighbor; it’s the victimized middle and poor classes. And from countries that do not share land borders with the US, the source of immigrants are overwhelmingly likely to be from the middle/upper middle classes; lack of knowledge and travel expense is a deterrent to the poor people.

    Do these people retain tough-minded attitudes in their new host societies. Undoubtedly yes, for a while, but it wears off once they realize that there are few or no predators of the kind they encountered back home.

    None of the above should be construed as an argument for immigration though. There are indeed cultural and economic reasons to put barriers. I just don’t think that undue alarm is warranted though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Keith Vaz [AKA "Marco Mobley"] says:

    One of my only feminine traits is that I love kids and get on well with them. When I see White kids abused, hungry or orphaned I always have sympathy and feel an impulse to help. However, I see all those ads with starving black kids in Africa and I feel nothing but contempt. My main feeling is: ebola will be a net benefit for the civilized races. Now I know these ads work – else they wont show them – and I think it must be something to do with an exceptionally strong but unfocused maternal instinct in White women. I really don’t have sympathy for idiots like Kassig and Henning who go to paki lands and get beheaded; there are so many Whites you could have helped. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.

    ”involves no personal cost to liberal elites”

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don’t have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The people that these liberal elites by and large personally care about are white in the first place. If more of the costs of multiculturalism were borne directly by them and the people they personally care about, then I believe support for multiculturalism would decline among them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "act as one ethnic group". In Europe, there are various ethnic groups that are white. In America, there isn't really a "white ethnic group" either, although there is arguably one developing due to deracination, the decline of older ethnic and national identities, and greater mixing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.

    “They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc. ”

    I have heard that from a lot of well read people, Brazil is the country that is oft-cited for western elite whites having a well-founded expectation of their children being able to rule over an unwhite majority.

    Sure, individuals can behave in an apparently selfless fashion, while having ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation that boosts their social status . But you seem to be saying that whites elite individuals are behaving in that mercenary way and they are deluded about the consequences long term. I think they are clever enough as a group to know what is coming in the west and they are sincere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @ Peter Frost, Could you expand on your assertions below. We’ve all heard the NW Europeans empathy hypothesis before. Why do you save the interesting details for the comment section discussion? And why not provide sources?

    You say 68% of altruism is heritable. Source?

    “Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the “criminally minded”, i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.” Source?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    "Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long"

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn't.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that.

    If you’ve ever been in “liberal elite” circles, you’d know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The “liberal elites” ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it’s in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That’s because it’s only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the ‘commanding heights”, at least on an international or global level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "They don’t really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the “commanding heights” of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc. "

    I have heard that from a lot of well read people, Brazil is the country that is oft-cited for western elite whites having a well-founded expectation of their children being able to rule over an unwhite majority.

    Sure, individuals can behave in an apparently selfless fashion, while having ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation that boosts their social status . But you seem to be saying that whites elite individuals are behaving in that mercenary way and they are deluded about the consequences long term. I think they are clever enough as a group to know what is coming in the west and they are sincere.

    , @iffen
    ''involves no personal cost to liberal elites"

    I certainly agree. However, this attitude is not specific to the liberal elite; it would likely qualify as a human nature universal.

    Are you suggesting that if and when these elites have to personally pay the price for dysfunctional multiculturalism, then we can expect them to care about white people only rather than all people?

    I don't have any confidence that that is what would happen.

    They might just decide to take it out on a slice of the white group. Which brings me back to my point that whites are too diverse to act as one ethnic group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group.”

    This is not an accurate statement.

    I was not trying to prescribe or proscribe any particular white behavior.

    I was just saying that the idea that there could be some politically effective umbrella ethnic group called white people is not feasible.

    As a proof I offer your last sentence which writes me out of the white people group because I don’t share your opinion on empathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn't pull that off.

    I disagree. Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group. The real tribes are in non white countries like Nigeria, hence my point was that when whites animadvert other whites for some non-altruistic behaviour by calling them tribalistic, the connotation is that the other whites are not acting like white people ought to act. For polite white society, the essence of being white is to be instinctively empathetic..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long"

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn't.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn’t pull that off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I disagree. Whites do have a very well formed idea of whites as a group. The real tribes are in non white countries like Nigeria, hence my point was that when whites animadvert other whites for some non-altruistic behaviour by calling them tribalistic, the connotation is that the other whites are not acting like white people ought to act. For polite white society, the essence of being white is to be instinctively empathetic..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam J.
    @Cracker1

    "...However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems..."

    It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do. I'm completely done with this attitude. I want to know what other races are going to do. Whether this attitude is correct or not I'm not interested in debating any more. As far as I'm concerned all we have done has been to little avail. Doing for other races has been a complete waste of time and money.

    If all these "social and political problems" can not be solved by Whites that leads us to the idea that maybe we can't live in a "multi-racial country". Maybe you're aghast at the idea but after WWII what happened to the Germans? They were deported in mass. What happened to the Dutch in Indonesia? Deported. A country without a majority of Whites appears to be a huge failure for Whites. It is not necessary for this to be so.

    What would it be like if the country was 90% White again? People could walk in the parks again. Housing long abandoned could be rebuilt. I see some of those houses in Detroit and think what absolute treasures. Now they have trees growing through them. We're often abused for not having a good public transportation system but why should Whites pay for a system they will be attacked on if they ride it? We could have an excellent transportation system. With less population we each could have more room to live, less traffic and less pollution. We can choose our future. We're told that this is our lot now and we can't change things. I disagree. We can choose our future and we will one way or another.

    @Cracker1
    "...you seem to think that white people can be a tribe..."

    I don't care about that but I would like to see us support each other to the extent that we come first in our countries. We're very diverse and will never agree. Jews never agree but they do support each other first. We could learn a lot from the Jews if we pay attention.

    “It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do.”

    This is more or less true in that “whites” are responsible for the creation of the US.(With a little borrowing and stealing here and there.)

    Jews have a religion with sacred writings that go back for thousands of years. They have a language. They have territory from which they exclude non-Jews. They intermarry.

    “White people” have many religions, many sacred writings, many languages and many territories.

    I agree with most of what you have written here except for the part where you expect “white” people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group (tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long”

    I hope so. In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites. If whites have an openly avowable global identity it is that whites empathize about other people, and think there is something aberrant about a white person who doesn’t.

    Tribe is a pejorative word that has revealing connotations inasmuch as it gets its force from an association with nonEuropean primitiveness, and it seems to be an attribution of self-interested behaviour that carries the implication of non-whiteness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    OK I can stop using tribe if that is causing a problem.

    An ethnic group based solely on the principle of not black and not brown cannot be created. At least not in the near term. Hitler incarnate couldn't pull that off.
    , @Anonymous

    In the modern world the conglomerations of whites (the west) finds it ideologically indispensable to includes non-whites.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    If you've ever been in "liberal elite" circles, you'd know that including non-whites generally involves no personal cost to liberal elites themselves in terms of professional and occupational status or the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods. They don't really envision non-whites competing for their positions and presume that the "commanding heights" of society will be reserved for them, their children, and people like them ethnically, racially, culturally, etc.

    The "liberal elites" ultimately reserve their greatest ire for places like Russia and China, and it's in that context where you can get a glimpse of some implicitly racialist or ethnically conscious attitudes. That's because it's only placesl ike Russia or China that threaten their position at the 'commanding heights", at least on an international or global level.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cracker1

    “…However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems…”

    It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do. I’m completely done with this attitude. I want to know what other races are going to do. Whether this attitude is correct or not I’m not interested in debating any more. As far as I’m concerned all we have done has been to little avail. Doing for other races has been a complete waste of time and money.

    If all these “social and political problems” can not be solved by Whites that leads us to the idea that maybe we can’t live in a “multi-racial country”. Maybe you’re aghast at the idea but after WWII what happened to the Germans? They were deported in mass. What happened to the Dutch in Indonesia? Deported. A country without a majority of Whites appears to be a huge failure for Whites. It is not necessary for this to be so.

    What would it be like if the country was 90% White again? People could walk in the parks again. Housing long abandoned could be rebuilt. I see some of those houses in Detroit and think what absolute treasures. Now they have trees growing through them. We’re often abused for not having a good public transportation system but why should Whites pay for a system they will be attacked on if they ride it? We could have an excellent transportation system. With less population we each could have more room to live, less traffic and less pollution. We can choose our future. We’re told that this is our lot now and we can’t change things. I disagree. We can choose our future and we will one way or another.

    @Cracker1
    “…you seem to think that white people can be a tribe…”

    I don’t care about that but I would like to see us support each other to the extent that we come first in our countries. We’re very diverse and will never agree. Jews never agree but they do support each other first. We could learn a lot from the Jews if we pay attention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "It would appear to me that all problems in the US are somehow deemed a problem created by Whites or something Whites need to do."

    This is more or less true in that "whites" are responsible for the creation of the US.(With a little borrowing and stealing here and there.)

    Jews have a religion with sacred writings that go back for thousands of years. They have a language. They have territory from which they exclude non-Jews. They intermarry.

    "White people" have many religions, many sacred writings, many languages and many territories.

    I agree with most of what you have written here except for the part where you expect "white" people to come together on nothing more than whiteness. It will not work. Do you have a feasible plan for returning the country to 90% white?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Numinous "It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. [...] Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)?"


    They run run computer simulations in which various strategies compete. The implacably mean strategies get off to a flying start and quickly dominate, but they eventually take each other out, and 'tit for tat' wins. But the problem with a population all using tit for tat done with micro chip accuracy is that it does not allow for mistakes or what is called 'noise'. So (in the real world) someone might do something to offend you, you retaliate, but so will he. So you end up taking each other out. Yet what gets it started might be a mistake. Hence nasty types will tend to take each other out, and as I said above the altruistic strategies tend to predominate in the latter stages, but because nasty strategy wins against an extremely nice strategy, a nice strategy population often ends up getting wiped out by a nasty holdout or interloper.

    In real life people want to become part of a group (called a tribe if you want to be pejorative) when they are in need of help, whereby conflict makes for strong group allegiance. So, a feeling of group allegiance that was not based on individual self interest is a puzzle.

    It may be a puzzle for you but not for everyone.

    The groups that did not have sufficient numbers or strength of individuals who valued the group more than themselves are no longer with us.

    People not only want to be a part of a group; there are no people who are not in a group.

    Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group(tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Numinous “It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. [...] Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)?”

    They run run computer simulations in which various strategies compete. The implacably mean strategies get off to a flying start and quickly dominate, but they eventually take each other out, and ‘tit for tat’ wins. But the problem with a population all using tit for tat done with micro chip accuracy is that it does not allow for mistakes or what is called ‘noise’. So (in the real world) someone might do something to offend you, you retaliate, but so will he. So you end up taking each other out. Yet what gets it started might be a mistake. Hence nasty types will tend to take each other out, and as I said above the altruistic strategies tend to predominate in the latter stages, but because nasty strategy wins against an extremely nice strategy, a nice strategy population often ends up getting wiped out by a nasty holdout or interloper.

    In real life people want to become part of a group (called a tribe if you want to be pejorative) when they are in need of help, whereby conflict makes for strong group allegiance. So, a feeling of group allegiance that was not based on individual self interest is a puzzle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It may be a puzzle for you but not for everyone.

    The groups that did not have sufficient numbers or strength of individuals who valued the group more than themselves are no longer with us.

    People not only want to be a part of a group; there are no people who are not in a group.

    Recently, some people have decided to define white as a group(tribe). This will not work. At least not for very long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Skepticaldonkey’s comments are interesting. They bring to my mind my interactions with Scandinavians in particular.

    I think he’s still reaching as much as Frost and the other commenters are, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam J.
    @Numinous says:

    Cracker1 said,"...All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe...

    Numinous said,"...We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes..."

    I actually agree with you but if this mode of thought is used to disadvantage your people to the advantage of other tribes and it is not countered then this thinking is dysfunctional. They will not be reformed so there is great danger in betting all your cards on a hand that will probably never materialize.

    @Viewer says:"
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:
    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?"

    What exactly is wrong with being racist? If noticing that different people have different IQ's is racist and different IQ's exist, then why is this bad? If noticing that people have different behaviors and these are genetically related is racist, then what's wrong with that?

    This White guy wasn't racist and look what happened to him.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/11/07/white-liberal-beaten-and-chased-through-ferguson/

    Racist merely means, give me what I want, think what I say or I'll call you names. We should embrace racism. It's rational, correct and a functional way to live. The continuous cry of racism against Whites is nothing but anti-White sentiment.

    “What exactly is wrong with being racist? ”

    As far as I know it is not the 11th Commandment.

    However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems.

    Knowledge of racial differences is not racist; it is what one does with that information that determines whether one is racist.

    Numinous thinks the entire world can be one tribe and you seem to think that white people can be a tribe. IMHO you are both incorrect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • says:

    Cracker1 said,”…All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe…

    Numinous said,”…We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes…”

    I actually agree with you but if this mode of thought is used to disadvantage your people to the advantage of other tribes and it is not countered then this thinking is dysfunctional. They will not be reformed so there is great danger in betting all your cards on a hand that will probably never materialize.

    says:”
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:
    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?”

    What exactly is wrong with being racist? If noticing that different people have different IQ’s is racist and different IQ’s exist, then why is this bad? If noticing that people have different behaviors and these are genetically related is racist, then what’s wrong with that?

    This White guy wasn’t racist and look what happened to him.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2014/11/07/white-liberal-beaten-and-chased-through-ferguson/

    Racist merely means, give me what I want, think what I say or I’ll call you names. We should embrace racism. It’s rational, correct and a functional way to live. The continuous cry of racism against Whites is nothing but anti-White sentiment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "What exactly is wrong with being racist? "

    As far as I know it is not the 11th Commandment.

    However, in a multi-racial country racism makes it difficult to solve social and political problems.

    Knowledge of racial differences is not racist; it is what one does with that information that determines whether one is racist.

    Numinous thinks the entire world can be one tribe and you seem to think that white people can be a tribe. IMHO you are both incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Viewer
    Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:

    Who's more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?

    “Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?”

    Or a society in which whites’ extraordinary altruism is not acceptable unless it takes the form of ethnic masochism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Question to other viewers of this blog and a few others on this site:

    Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Who’s more messed up, the writers of the blog posts or the racist commentators?"

    Or a society in which whites' extraordinary altruism is not acceptable unless it takes the form of ethnic masochism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it’s just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    Thank you for your kind words. Let us all keep learning more about the world, and let the dialogue continue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @skepticaldonkey
    One more thing: a very common and in my opinion accurate stereotype about Americans (Anglos in general maybe) is that they have no sense of friendship and that friendship is superficial and rare in the US. Stereotypes like these should be studied to measure to what extent "empathy" is actually a major player in north and northwest Euro moral psychology.

    As an immigrant to the US myself (from a European but not NW European country) I can say that almost all my dealings with Anglo Americans (including Anglofied Jews, who are very different from Russian Jews) is that they have a very rigid moralism. In this sense they are indeed "upright" and "selfless" but also fundamentally untrustworthy as friends. They are ever-willing to sacrifice a friend to their sense of morality, and even in their dealings with you, while superficially "correct" and "upright," one senses they are being so because they are following moral rules or laws rather than out of any empathy or affect toward you as a friend. Personally I am not reassured to know that a friend isn't harming me because they are following universal moral rules rather than out of their strong emotional bond to me. That's also not what empathy means.

    In fact I've often found friendships with NW Euros (in the US) to be very short-lasting because they are even willing to betray or at least ignore your interests based on a technicality of moral casuistry (following the letter rather than the spirit of moral law, something usually Jews get accused of). This is impossible between friends. Overall such experiences have taught me that guilt doesn't really come into their moral and psychological life, at least not as the word is normally understood. The only thing that matters is if they feel they are a "good person," which they judge entirely by whether they have followed some pre-fab moral rules (moralism). This rule-following makes them feel "elect" (same impetus behind Calvinism). It is more accurate to say the Anglo feels a strong need to be a "good person," which is why there are books in America like "The Ethical Slut," which is inconceivable somewhere like France or Spain. There people don't need to justify their peccadiloes or pleasures with some universal morality, but it seems everything the Anglo-American/north/NW Euro does, must also work to make them feel like they're a "good and moral person." Whether it's eating or sex or anything else. This isn't "empathy" though, this kind of moralistic universalism and Kantianism is motivated by something else.

    You shouldn’t generalize for all of the US. In some subcultures in the US, loyalty and bonding still trump everything else. I know plenty of people who look to see which side their friend is on before deciding what the “facts” are. I have come to realize that I am this way and during my early years it was the wider culture that was sending the message that loyalty should give way to “morality”.

    See Peter DeScioli on the development of morality as a means to defeat this loyalty and bonding mechanism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    “Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? …The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package”

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). “To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them”

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don’t want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the ‘global ideal’ available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can’t help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups’ rise and fall?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .
     
    I completely agree with you.

    I am not entirely sure that what you state above is indeed happening in the prosperous (mostly Western) countries, at least in the US. It seems to me (based on my personal experiences, and some reading) that it's not the tough-minded individuals from the unsuccessful groups who periodically try to defect to more successful groups (like the West), but rather the relatively more tender-minded people. Why would a predator want to leave his habitat, where he is guaranteed to be on top of the food chain? Taking Mexico as an example, it's not the powerful drug lords or corrupt elite who are clamoring to emigrate to their successful northern neighbor; it's the victimized middle and poor classes. And from countries that do not share land borders with the US, the source of immigrants are overwhelmingly likely to be from the middle/upper middle classes; lack of knowledge and travel expense is a deterrent to the poor people.

    Do these people retain tough-minded attitudes in their new host societies. Undoubtedly yes, for a while, but it wears off once they realize that there are few or no predators of the kind they encountered back home.

    None of the above should be construed as an argument for immigration though. There are indeed cultural and economic reasons to put barriers. I just don't think that undue alarm is warranted though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen
    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last. A few hundred years will not trump millions of years. Chimps choose sides which tells me that our common ancestors chose sides. When it comes down to choosing, race and ethnicity are natural fault lines. In the end the choosing of sides will determine the future.

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.

    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and “scaling up” to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their “tribes”) will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    "Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time? ...The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mind-set can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behaviour and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package"

    Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). "To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them"

    Of course the problem is not what we think of Nigerians ect, it is that many many people in populous countries like Nigeria don't want to stay among their own kind and help each other in a poor country. The parts of the world with actual tribes are the same parts of the world where most people want to quit and migrate to the 'global ideal' available in the West. The tough-mindedness to bail out on your tribe if your tribe can't help you and not care about what happens to them, is what brings people to the west.

    A tough-minded person always does better within a group, but a group of tough-minded individuals does far worse that a group of tender-minded individuals. So the successful groups are always made up of tender minded individuals. And then success within the successful group begins to go to the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists), who inexorably become more common.

    Now when the inevitably tender-minded individuals of the successful group let the tough-minded individuals from unsuccessful groups defect into a successful tender-minded group, the tough-minded interloper will be very successful and the extremely tender minded individuals (extraordinary altruists) get bested every time .

    Is that proof that a global ideal of behaviour and character can be attained, or just part of the eternal story of groups' rise and fall?

    , @iffen
    Agree to disagree.

    The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset

    I just want to say that just because one thinks in terms of the unity of mankind we still have a tribal mindset; it's just that the whole world is the tribe.

    You should always put your 2 cents worth in; more if you can spare the change.

    I have read a lot of your comments and they are usually excellent. You seem to be one of the few people who can see the different bell curves and not get freaked out by it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    @numinous
    "It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation"
    It is not. This is not explanation at all. It simply avoids the question altogether by waving hand and saying "the culture makes people do it". HOW culture makes people do things? WHY cultures are different? WHY cultures change? HOW culture evolved in first place? E.g. your explanation "the culture makes some people more emphatic than the others". But then HOW this culture arised in the first place? HOW this culture acts?

    I cannot say anything that will convince you either way, but people have written books on these subjects (just like people have written books on innate/genetic differences among people and races). I know most people on forums like Unz has contempt for Jared Diamond, but he did present a plausible theory to explain why human societies have seen varied histories.

    Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what’s the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Numinous

    By extending our moral community to the entire world, we’ve signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn’t sustainable.
     
    You need to justify this. Why cannot good morals spread indefinitely by pulling in what you call "empathetic" people into the circle, and making membership of that circle something to aspire to? It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII, and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism.

    (By the way, my question is inspired by my skepticism of your theory that the ability for what you call "affective empathy" is hardwired in some human beings and not in others. I will believe it the day geneticists can produce a gene, or combination of genes, that infallibly determine who is empathetic and who is not. Until then, I'll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture.)

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last. A few hundred years will not trump millions of years. Chimps choose sides which tells me that our common ancestors chose sides. When it comes down to choosing, race and ethnicity are natural fault lines. In the end the choosing of sides will determine the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    All of history and what we know about pre-history informs us that we cannot all belong to the same tribe. We can go on for a time, perhaps longer than any other recorded empires and states, but it will not last.
     
    We must agree to disagree. It seems to me our world has progressed through precisely the opposite phenomenon; i.e., by people periodically expanding their circles and "scaling up" to do more than could possibly be done by individuals or small tribes. The explosion of scientific knowledge over the past couple of centuries is simply the result of more people getting educated, seeing themselves as civilized human beings (though they may look different, dress differently, eat different kinds of food), and producing more scientific output that creates a virtuous circle. The existence of something like the United Nations (corrupt and inefficient though it may be) is testament to this phenomenon. The parts of the world still stuck in a tribal mindset can be considered to be on their way to a global ideal of behavior and character, and not be beyond redemption because of their genetic package. It seems to me that such global convergence will naturally happen, whereas its opposite (keeping people in their "tribes") will happen only if tribal attitudes are assiduously nurtured.

    I know I am not going to convince anyone on this forum, but that was my 2 cents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    "There are no historical records to support that [theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic] aspect of my argument"

    The northern coast above the west European plain is where the ME farmers were stopped. It is also where even the Indo Europeans were considerably slowed down, even though the plain is absolutely perfect for invaders, especially highly mobile ones.

    "The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behaviour ."

    Why were the coastal people so formidable? I think one reason may have been was because the coastal peoples ( the western especially) were less inclined to run away when the chips were down. A weakness of non-hardwiring, that is, rewarding or punishing by using reputation in the community as a guide, is that people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community. In war, bullshitters would have been a big liability. The coastal peoples would have been more sincerely selfless people.

    That doesn’t seem to make much sense. Affective empathy presumably would have made them more vulnerable to the farmers and Indo-Europeans. Furthermore war would have bred out and decreased such “pro-social behavior”, even when successfully prosecuted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @numinous
    “It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation”
    It is not. This is not explanation at all. It simply avoids the question altogether by waving hand and saying “the culture makes people do it”. HOW culture makes people do things? WHY cultures are different? WHY cultures change? HOW culture evolved in first place? E.g. your explanation “the culture makes some people more emphatic than the others”. But then HOW this culture arised in the first place? HOW this culture acts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I cannot say anything that will convince you either way, but people have written books on these subjects (just like people have written books on innate/genetic differences among people and races). I know most people on forums like Unz has contempt for Jared Diamond, but he did present a plausible theory to explain why human societies have seen varied histories.

    Regarding empathy: look up examples of people that have lived on borderlands, or lands that were periodically invaded, plundered, and enslaved. Do we really need genes to explain why people may evolve a tribalistic, empathy-free culture (in other words, each man for himself)? After all, what's the point in maintaining a rule-bound cooperative society if invaders could destroy it at any given time?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    said,”…There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement…”

    If I’m a farmer and I look around and pig shit is everywhere then I don’t blame Elephants or Cows or Wildebeest or Kangaroos. I blame the pigs. If I look around at the decay that’s my country. The immigration policy, the WTC building #7 that fell as fast as a rock dropped in mid air even though it was not hit by a plane, the wars for Israel in the Middle East, the leveraged buy outs in the 80′s that concentrated huge portions of American industry into the hands of the Jews and bankers (redundant I know), the then movement of industry after takeovers to overseas, the choke and puke pornography in Hollywood, the crass anti-White hatred from Hollywood, the huge funding from Jews corrupting our legislative process, I could go on but I’ll stop here. Just what am I supposed to believe?

    Like the Jews caught on 9-11 filming the towers hit by planes as it happened, riding in a van that test positive for explosives told us,” We aren’t your problem, the Palestinians are your problem”. Maybe we should just believe everything the Jews say. Maybe it’s the Albanians or the Sami’s or the Andamanese but I don’t think so.

    Well excuse my simple farmer method of, if it’s pig shit, it’s pigs. This kind of Occam’s razor thinking must be out of date. Shows my lack of sophistication I guess. Maybe the latest phrase,”It’s more complicated than you posit” is more accurate.

    One thing I do know is in the past the Jews took over Russia and proceeded to kill the Russians, Ukrainians and everyone else in profligate numbers. They took over the banks, legislature and industrial production and attempted to kill off the Germans. There is a pattern.

    Jews have the same pattern over and over because it works. They go to another country. They say the last country oppressed them and they’ve always been oppressed because they love God and only serve him.

    They rise to the top of the country by these methods. They flatter the people who control the country, get them in their debt. Possibly black mail them. They take control of the information and media of the country. After this point the country goes down rapidly. Here’s where the psychopaths always mess up. They have no off switch. Have you ever watched a documentary on wolverines? They are just like wolverines. Wolverines are insatiable eaters. They will eat til they pass out. The Jews are they same. Anyone can get rich if all they do is pursue wealth constantly. This obsession is worse for the Jews as there is nothing they will not do. Psychopaths have no shame so they will do any crime or break any taboo to get money and power. Psychopaths think that the rest of are stupid and we deserve to get taken for being idiots. It’s not really a crime to con people because victims deserve what they get.

    Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking “surely they will reform or repent” like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don’t have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.

    Start over.

    The Jews may not be responsible for everything but they are at the root of corruption in the West. They support corrupt people to undermine societies. Over time this builds til the whole society is corrupt. Like a corruption amplifier they up the levels of dysfunction. Any trivial amount of study of what the Jews have promoted over the last fifty years or so will see that it promotes dysfunction. It doesn’t make sense that such a small amount of people could do such damage but if they are focused, have no morals and keep at it long enough over time they replace the half way decent rulers with the completely corrupt. Just a matter of money and priorities. Doesn’t hurt they control all of the major media sites.

    If you read about psychopaths and apply this information to Jews you will never be surprised.

    Voltaire on the Jews,
    ”They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race…”

    Are we there yet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @melpeexxx
    The Italian Mafia were not composed of mentally sick people but only the smartest of their culture. Also the Nazi death camp commandants were politically connected elitists who wanted the job. Cruel job holders are only opportunists and family men who love an easy buck. Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.

    Forget exploring the brain and admit the absolute of social factors.

    Where do “social factors” come from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Clarification : when I wrote “people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community”, I didn’t mean freeriding. I meant that without affective empathy an individual can behave prosocially in an apparently selfless fashion but do so with the ulterior motive of gaining the extremely valuable asset of a good reputation. In everyday life, dissimulating by putting oneself out through prosocial behaviour and work towards community objectives would pay off handsomely through the acquisition of a reputation as a self-sacrificing individual.

    However, in war where pro-social behaviour would mean risking life and limb for neighbours, the insincere dissimulating men would not find it worth it to come to the fore and take a genuinely active role in the fighting. The pay-off would be too likely a posthumous reputation. A group that had just a few calculating-the-odds dissimulators would be less likely to effectively to cohesively go at the the enemy as one man, and stand fast when things looked grim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "It seems to me that Westernization (as defined by consumerism, Hollywood, fast food, etc.) since the end of WWII and especially since the end of the Cold War, has spread through much of the world already through this mechanism."

    You forgot porn. And democracy. Yes, many Western values can be spread elsewhere through cultural transmission. But a Western value, even when successfully adopted, can have different impacts in different societies because other things are not so easily changed. The effects of Western fast food are more devastating in Amerindian communities because their physiology is more oriented to a "feast and famine" lifestyle. Their ancestors had to eat food whenever it became available ... because tomorrow there might be none.

    I'm not saying that everything is biologically determined. I'll hope you'll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    "Until then, I’ll attribute societal empathy differences entirely to culture"

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation? We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It's not a side-effect of something more general.

    But that's not good enough for you. I have to bring back the witch's broom. You want me to pinpoint the actual genes that lead to affective empathy. And if I show you those genes, what will be your response? Will you raise the bar higher still?

    Skepticaldonkey,

    No, pro-social behavior doesn't mean being "hot-blooded" or "passionate." It means being willing to help others in the hope that such help will be reciprocated. Yes, that looks like empathy but it's not. In fact, to some degree, there is a trade-off between the two.

    If most people around you have a low capacity for affective empathy, you'll have to invest more effort in being pro-social. You'll be more willing to offer compliments, make conversation, and tell jokes. You'll also offer presents and flatter people. You have to do this because you can't count on basic human kindness. Basic human kindness doesn't exist in most of the world.

    Conversely, if most people around you have a high capacity for affective empathy, you don't have to work so hard at being pro-social. You don't have to be so "warm."

    I’m not saying that everything is biologically determined. I’ll hope you’ll return the favor by conceding that not everything is culturally determined.

    If, by “everything”, you mean behavioral and cognitive characteristics, I do believe that there are differences among individuals that seem to be heritable. So, yes, I’ll concede your point. But the current state of evidence does not convince me that such differences in characteristics can be clearly mapped to racial groupings. I believe that the there is significant variability within races. The distribution functions (bell curves) overlap to large extents, except for the tails. I believe the non-overlap (or displacement) of tails is due to culture.

    Why should cultural determinism be the default explanation?

    It seems to be the most parsimonious explanation (to me at least). Within “culture”, I include historical experiences (e.g., persistent invasions can really mess up peoples’ psyches; empathy could go for a toss; yet no significant genetic mutations take place), social and political institutions, and religion. Move individuals (not large groups, mind you) from one culture to another; they seem to adapt to the norms of the host society.

    We know that affective empathy is 68% heritable. In other words, 68% of the variability you see around you is genetic, not cultural. We also know that affective empathy is a specific mental response. It’s not a side-effect of something more general.

    Peter, you are the expert and I’ll defer to your knowledge of the research in this field. Now, I may have a bias when I try to evaluate these results, as my background is in a scientific discipline where precision is not just valued, it is demanded. So figures like 32% seems rather large to me, and my brain immediately tries to list all possible variables that may not have been controlled and eliminated (like culture, history, etc.) This is a problem (or bias, or prejudice) I have with all social science (including economics), where theories are framed by correlating aggregate population characteristics with aggregate results. As Hayek said, one should always be wary of science turning into scientism. So my skeptical radar is turned on when I read articles on these topics.

    Now, with genes, we have something approaching natural science, whereby we can model human beings through their basic building blocks, which seem to have predictable behavior. So if and when conclusive genetic evidence emerges for the theories you outline (i.e., medical tests on large representative sets of people, not questionnaires), I will believe it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Skepticaldonkey,

    "Warmth" falls within the realm of pro-social behavior. It's a form of low-cost assistance, like friendly conversation, that is offered in the hope of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. It is superficially similar to affective empathy, but the underlying mental process is very different.

    And don't kid yourself. "Warm" people aren't necessarily the sort who help the weak and defenceless.

    Sam (and others),

    There always seems to be someone who wants to turn every discussion into a discussion about Jews.

    The problems we now face would largely exist with or without Jewish involvement. Our civilization is based on values of empathy and guilt that can do their job only within a well defined "moral community" and only when the "morally worthless" are expelled from that community. By extending our moral community to the entire world, we've signed our death warrant. That kind of system isn't sustainable.

    And don't blame the Jews. This globalist project has its roots in our quest for empire, particularly the empire building of the 19th century. With or without Jews, we would still be facing the dilemma that is facing us now.

    Dumpster,

    Don't assume that things have always been as they are now. For that matter, things now are not what you seem to assume. Since the 1970s, fertility has collapsed among the "criminally minded", i.e., people with weak impulse control, weak future orientation, and low paternal investment.

    Sean,

    A high capacity for affective empathy, like a high capacity for guilt (which seems to be a related mental trait), is key to the creation of high-trust societies, which in turn are key to the rise of the market economy. This is something that libertarians don't understand, or perhaps don't want to understand. For a long time, we had markets but no market economy. The market principle could not encompass an entire society because a suitable low-trust environment could exist only within small points in time and space -- marketplaces.

    If we destroy the high-trust environment that makes a market economy possible, we will revert to an earlier time when buyer and seller had to oversee each transaction in a place surrounded by armed guards.

    I didn't mention my theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic. There are no historical records to support that aspect of my argument, and there are many scholars who attribute the Western European Marriage Pattern to the spread of feudalism. At this point, it is enough to say that Western Europeans have displayed relatively weak kinship and strong individualism since at least the 12th century. That leaves sufficient time for natural selection to have some impact.

    Luke,

    Yes, now we have a "marker" for extraordinary altruism. We will probably have other markers as time goes on.

    Anon,

    Actually, no. It's less necessary to hardwire altruism in band societies because you're always interacting with the same small group of closely related people, and they can easily retaliate if you don't act morally. The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behavior.

    Hardwired altruism is a precarious adaptation that works only when you can ruthlessly expel the morally worthless. Today, that mechanism has been turned upon itself. The morally worthless are now those who believe that the moral community should be finite and that its boundaries should be defended.

    “There are no historical records to support that [theory that attributes this high capacity for affective empathy to the hunter/fisher/gatherers who lived along the North Sea and the Baltic in the late Mesolithic] aspect of my argument”

    The northern coast above the west European plain is where the ME farmers were stopped. It is also where even the Indo Europeans were considerably slowed down, even though the plain is absolutely perfect for invaders, especially highly mobile ones.

    “The problem arises when you live in a larger and more open social environment where kin retaliation is not enough to ensure moral behaviour .”

    Why were the coastal people so formidable? I think one reason may have been was because the coastal peoples ( the western especially) were less inclined to run away when the chips were down. A weakness of non-hardwiring, that is, rewarding or punishing by using reputation in the community as a guide, is that people can fake being a valuable and selfless member of the community. In war, bullshitters would have been a big liability. The coastal peoples would have been more sincerely selfless people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That doesn't seem to make much sense. Affective empathy presumably would have made them more vulnerable to the farmers and Indo-Europeans. Furthermore war would have bred out and decreased such "pro-social behavior", even when successfully prosecuted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.