The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why We Westerners Are WEIRD
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Some guys in human evolutionary biology and economics write-up HBD Chick’s main theory. From PsyArXiv Preprints:

The Origins of WEIRD Psychology

Jonathan Schulz, Duman Bahrami-Rad, Jonathan Beauchamp, and Joseph Henrich

Abstract

Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD). We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds.

The medieval Catholic Church was against Catholics marrying even moderately distant cousins and other kin, which HBD Chick has long argued is a key reason why Westerners are the way they are (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic: WEIRD).

A growing body of research suggests that populations around the globe vary substantially along several important psychological dimensions, and that people from societies characterized as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) are particularly unusual (1–6).

Often at the extremes of global distributions, people from WEIRD populations tend to be more individualistic, independent, analytically-minded and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting strangers) while revealing less conformity, obedience, in-group loyalty and nepotism (3, 5–13).

While these patterns are now well documented, efforts to explain this variation from a cultural evolutionary and historical perspective have just begun (13–20). Here, we develop and test a cultural evolutionary theory that aims to explain a substantial portion of this psychological variation, both within and across nations. Not only does our approach contribute to explaining global variation and address why WEIRD societies so often occupy the tail ends of global distributions, but it also helps explain the psychological variation within Europe—among countries, across regions within countries and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds within the same country and region.

Our approach integrates three insights. The first, drawing on anthropology, reveals that the institutions built around kinship and marriage vary greatly across societies (21–23) and that much of this variation developed as societies scaled up in size and complexity, especially after the origins of food production 12,000 years ago (22, 24–29). In forging the tightly-knit communities needed to defend agricultural fields and pastures, cultural evolution gradually wove together social norms governing marriage, post-marital residence and in-group identity (descent), leading to a diversity of kin-based institutions, including the organizational forms known as clans, lineages and kindreds (21, 27, 30).

The second insight, based on work in psychology, is that people’s motivations, emotions, perceptions, thinking styles and other aspects of cognition are heavily influenced by the social norms, social networks, technologies and linguistic worlds they encounter while growing up (31–38).

In particular, with intensive kin-based institutions, people’s psychological processes adapt to the collectivistic demands and the dense social networks that they interweave (39–43). Intensive kinship norms reward greater conformity, obedience, holistic/relational awareness and in-group loyalty but discourage individualism, independence and analytical thinking (41, 44). Since the sociality of intensive kinship is based on people’s interpersonal embeddedness, adapting to these institutions tends to reduce people’s inclinations towards impartiality, universal (non-relational) moral principles and impersonal trust, fairness and cooperation.

Finally, based on historical evidence, the third insight suggests that the branch of Western Christianity that eventually evolved into the Roman Catholic Church—hereafter, ‘the Western Church’ or simply ‘the Church’—systematically undermined the intensive kin-based institutions of Europe during the Middle Ages (45–52). The Church’s marriage policies and prohibitions, which we will call the Marriage and Family Program (MFP), meant that by 1500 CE, and likely centuries earlier in some regions, Europe lacked strong kin-based institutions, and was instead dominated by relatively weak, independent and isolated nuclear or stem families (49–51, 53–56).

This is one of the great forgotten achievements of history: the Dark Age Catholic Church’s detribalizing the militant tribes that overturned the Roman Empire. In England, nobody worries about Angles and Saxons being at each other’s throats, whereas in much of the rest of the world, the tribes of 600 AD are more or less the tribes of 2018 AD.

On the other hand, there are probably cultural remnants left over from old tribes. For example, the WEIRDest of the WEIRD places in Europe with what are called the “absolute nuclear family” structure tends to be the old Anglo-Saxon regions.

The most nuclear of family structures was found around the North Sea in England, especially Eastern England, parts of the Netherlands, Denmark, and other places associated with the Anglo Saxon invasions of England during the Dark Ages. (Although judging by Beowulf, Anglo-Saxons had not yet developed their intensely nuclear family structures yet. But subsequent evidence suggests this tendency had emerged by 1200 AD or earlier.) British Tory MP David Willetts wrote:

“Instead, think of England as being like this for at least 750 years. We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. … Our parents expect us to leave home for paid work …You try to save up some money from your wages so that you can afford to get married. … You can choose your spouse … It takes a long time to build up some savings from your work and find the right person with whom to settle down, so marriage comes quite lately, possibly in your late twenties. ”

Protestants tended to see bans on cousin marriage as Papist superstition. But there wasn’t much cultural momentum for cousin marriage, so it remained fairly rare in post-Catholic Protestant areas.

On the other hand, the upper ranks of society had more property to conserve, so the advantages of inbreeding in terms of property concentration appealed to them.

Also, I have the suspicion that the British propertied intellectual class was in-marrying fairly early. Thus Charles Darwin married his first cousin Emma Darwin.

The sickliness of Darwin’s inbred children raised Darwin’s concerns, and he delegated to one of his ten kids to investigate. But the son reported back: nothing to worry about, Pater.

Also, cousin marriage tended to be more common higher up in European society, especially among royalty, so it was subversive to the social order to cast doubt on the pracctice.

Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton had some concerns about inheritance of infertility. Galton’s American followers, the eugenicists, began to investigate the downside of inbreeding and helped bring about the intense American aversion toward cousin marriage, which ties in to American anti-royal republicanism.

So far, the American aversion toward inbreeding, which has been confirmed over and over by recent data, has not been tarred with the eugenics brush, but that seems like only a matter of time.

The return of cousin marriage to northwest Europe with mass immigration poses not just health but cultural/social challenges.

By the way, here is HBD Chick’s latest working theory:

viscous populations and the selection for altruistic behaviors

03/02/2016 //

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Andy says:

    I have tended to be skeptical about this idea that nuclear families in Europe came about because of the opposition of the Catholic Church to extended families as a ploy to get a lot of land from inheritances…if only because it is in traditionally Catholic Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal) where until a few decades ago large, extended families were far more common than in traditionally protestant Northern Europe

  2. Tipsy says:

    Cue the map of the consanguinity rate around the world…

  3. A not uncommon question on VisaJourney is whether one can get a US spouse or fiancé visa for a first cousin. Usually the people asking are from Pakistan or the Middle East but the other day I saw it asked by a Vietnamese. The answer is that it depends on whether first cousin marriage is legal in the state you’re moving to – so No you can’t get that visa in Texas for example but in California you’re ok.

  4. Ivy says:

    So far, the American aversion toward inbreeding, which has been confirmed over and over by recent data, has not been tarred with the eugenics brush, but that seems like only a matter of time.

    That prospect is chilling, and would represent a significant escalation in the war on America. if it happens here, look to England, too. Imagine the new struggle sessions. :/ Those would make the Starbucks classes seem quaint by comparison. Happy Hour will be retitled tonight.

  5. “Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton had some concerns about inheritance of infertility.”

    As well he might. If your parents are infertile, you are likely to be infertile too.

    • LOL: Highlander
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @midtown
  6. Mishra says:
    @Anonymous

    Same ting happen here in de ol’ ghetto, where ebby body be gettin wit they own half-bros and sisstas ‘coz no one no who dey baby daddy is. Den we gets a whole mess of dem tiny ducks who’s so angry.

  7. Mishra says:
    @Tipsy

    I zoomed in on America’s grand old inner cities and they all showed as “Unknown”.

  8. Anon[953] • Disclaimer says:

    From Nuclear Family to Quark Family.

  9. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Galton noted that the richest heiresses tended to be the only child of only children of only children. Not surprisingly, they tended to have a below average number of children.

  10. Clyde says:

    How much inbreeding among Eskimos? Sleeping arrangements are cramped inside their igloos. When one rolls over they all must roll over. Stuff happens.

    • Replies: @Corn
  11. utu says:
    @Andy

    Here is Catholic Church justification:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
    The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (City of God XV.16) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II.154.9; St. Augustine, City of God XV.10).

    Examples:

    Gregory I (590-604), if the letter in question be truly his, granted to the newly converted Anglo-Saxons restriction of the impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity (c. 20, C. 35, qq. 2, 3); Paul III restricted it to the second degree for American Indians (Zitelli, Apparat. Jur. Eccl., 405), and also for natives of the Philippines.

    We then meet with the canon (c. 16, C. 55, q. 2), attributed to various popes and embodied in a letter of Gregory III (732), which forbids marriage among the Germans to the seventh degree of consanguinity. Wernz (Jus Decretal., IV, p. 624), says that at this date so severe a prohibition cannot be based on the canonical computation, but rather on that of the Roman law;

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Jack D
  12. Luke Lea says:

    Has there been any work identifying the genetic effects of centuries of outbreeding that distinguish Europeans who were subject to it? In addition to the avoidance of the deleterious effects of inbreeding I mean. Gene/culture co-evolution — how important is it?

  13. Daniel H says:
    @Andy

    >>if only because it is in traditionally Catholic Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal) where until a few decades ago large, extended families were far more common than in traditionally protestant Northern Europe<<

    You forgot Ireland, but I think you err. Ireland, southern Italy, Sicily, southern Iberia, though all nominally Catholic, were outside the Hajnal line. For different historical reasons, the Catholic church was not as influential in these areas, as it was in the European heartland. You assume that what was traditionally Catholic 1-6 decades ago were the areas that were most Catholic 200-800 years ago. Traditionally Catholic areas of Europe 700-1,000 years ago would have been the European heartland of France, Northern Italy, Germany, Poland, Netherland, Scandinavia, England. Furthermore, the aristocracy (major, minor) were the standard bearers of the faith, and that matters.

    In the case of Ireland, fervid Irish Catholicism was a fairly recent phenomenon, brought on by the withdrawing of Britain from political and civic leadership in the 19th century, and by the adoption of Catholicism by the new Irish republic as a defining cultural marker. And fervid Irish Catholicism appears to have been a fleeting dalliance, Ireland having recently pretty much rejected the Catholic church, defying some of it's most fundamental tenets on family and sexual matters. Consider also, polygamy and cousin marriage were common in Ireland from medieval times up to early modern times, cousin marriage in Sicily was quite common up until very recently. I have Brazilian friends – Portuguese ancestors – who come from many generations of cousin marriage.

    Within-Hajnal line peoples are different. And within-Hajnal people have had a positive influence on their extra-Hajnal European brethren, encouraging them to discard their barbarous ways. I am certain that cousin marriage is much less common today in Ireland (probably extinct), Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Latin America…. than in the past and this is due to the positive, shaming influence of the success of within-Hajnal peoples.

  14. BB753 says:
    @Tipsy

    So, we don’t know what happens South of Sudan and Nigeria?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  15. @utu

    This is one of the great forgotten achievements of history: the Dark Age Catholic Church’s detribalizing the militant tribes that overturned the Roman Empire. In England, nobody worries about Angles and Saxons being at each other’s throats, whereas in much of the rest of the world, the tribes of 600 AD are more or less the tribes of 2018 AD.

  16. Corn says:
    @Clyde

    Take this with a grain of salt since I’ve never been to Alaska, but I suspect a bit more than the norm.
    The Eskimo villages can be very isolated, with no roads you know.

    Plus I remember a long long time ago an iSteve reader commented that when an Eskimo village in the far north received a male visitor he often received more attention than he knew what to do with.

    Not saying Eskimos inbreed as much as middle easterners, but I bet it happens.

  17. Luke Lea says:

    From the article, the authors are agnostic on the subject of gene/culture co-evolution:

    “It is also possible that stable institutions may favor particular genetic variants that promote success within these institutional environments (120). Our empirical findings are largely agnostic regarding the relevance of these different mechanisms. However, the fact that we can detect the influence of historical kin-based institutions on psychology even decades after those institutions—as practiced on the ground—have disappeared suggests a role for inheritance, either cultural or genetic. But the fact that we can relate psychological differences among European populations to relatively recent
    historical events like the MFP, suggests a central role for cultural transmission.”

    How would one identify alleles that favor (or are favored by) WEIRD cultural practices and institutions? Would it be like with intelligence, involving the appearance large numbers of genetic variations with small effects? Or would it just be the gradual disappearance of alleles favored in clan-based, tribal societies, the way fish in caves lose their eyesight? Anybody know anything about this subject?

  18. istevefan says:

    The return of cousin marriage to northwest Europe with mass immigration poses not just health but cultural/social challenges.

    I often hear environmentalists warn us that we are destroying certain places, plants or species before we fully understand their role in nature. We are also at risk of losing certain plants that may contain medical cures because we are not able to research these plants as fast as their habitats are being plowed over.

    I think there is merit to what they say. But I think this also applies to human societies. We are destroying mainly European nations before we truly understand what made them so special to begin with. For example, we all know the English New World Nations (Can, USA, Aus, Oz) are more desirable than the Spanish and Portuguese ones. But most on the other side chalk it up to dumb luck, better real estate or racism. Wouldn’t it be better to actually understand why these English derived nations are so successful so that maybe their concepts might be copied by others? We are at risk of destroying these successful nations before we even fully understand what made them so great.

  19. @istevefan

    A country is a product of its people. Here’s a ‘white pill’ for Brits in light of the surging Muslim population in our home country: there are literally hundreds of millions of people around the world, from the States to Canada to Australia to Argentina to random places like Bermuda, who have exclusively if not mostly English ancestry. They can’t get rid of us that quickly.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
  20. @Daniel H

    I am certain that cousin marriage is much less common today in Ireland (probably extinct)

    Yes its extinct in the general population, with the exception of Travellers (Pavees) and of course the growing Muslim population, Irish leftists are hell bent on having the same problems as the UK/US, because when people who notice the problems complain, the leftists can call us the usual names, it makes them feel superior

  21. @istevefan

    God and Gold:Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World by Walter Russell Meade explains it fairly well.

  22. @Luke Lea

    Outbreeding could lead to a decline in suspiciousness of non-family members.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Hibernian
  23. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:

    So this was originally a Roman thing? Why did the Romans dislike inbreeding? Did the ancient Greeks hold similar views?

  24. in traditionally Catholic Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal) where until a few decades ago large, extended families were far more common than in traditionally protestant Northern Europe

    The Catholic Church was opposed to in-bred extended families, not extended families per se. The fomer is biologically bad (homozygosity), the latter sociologically good (social solidarity), unless it leads to nepotism. The more liberal nations of Northern Europe did embrace individualism in both religion (Protestsntism) and family structure (nuclear). This has economic benefits (entrepreneurship) but social costs (anomie).

    The Catholic Church also encouraged monogamy, which, mathematically speaking, will tend to encourage out-breeding (heterozygosity). Polygamy, by definition, encourages the degree of genetic inter-relatedness in subsequent generations as most families will be composed of half-siblings who will marry half-siblings from other families which increases the chances of children having matching alleles due to the higher ratio of shared Y-chromosomes.

    The Churchs promotion of bnoth contra-sanguinity and monogamy increased both genetic diversity and sociological robustness. Very good to not have all your eggs in one basket.

  25. Jack D says:
    @utu

    Something strange going on their – the 7th degree means 6th cousins – this is almost impossible to enforce. In a small country almost everyone is at least 6th cousins with each other. Jesus would not have agreed with this, nor the Romans. Prohibiting marriage between 1st cousins seems right as a gut feeling but beyond that it’s hard to understand, certainly not out at the level of 6th cousins. All these public policy reasons don’t seem convincing as to what they were REALLY thinking when they did this.

  26. @Tipsy

    I’d like to know whether other institutions played a role similar to the Catholic Church in making East Asians EEIRD.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  27. @Jack D

    Probably just escalation (if prohibiting 2nd cousins is good, then prohibiting 3rd cousins is better!) and applied only to royalty (who did keep- or at least pretend to- records of their ancestry as far back as possible).

  28. utu says:
    @Jack D

    The sixth degree of kinship includes

    Second cousins
    First cousins twice removed

    The seventh degree of kinship includes

    Second cousins once removed
    First cousins three times removed

  29. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “The medieval Catholic Church was against Catholics marrying even moderately distant cousins and other kin, which HBD Chick has long argued is a key reason why Westerners are the way they are (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic: WEIRD).”

    Actually, the Catholic Church burned human beings alive, persecuted scientists, waged crusades that bankrupted several medieval kingdoms, and stunted all artistic pursuits that weren’t somehow related to the religious themes of Christianity. The Catholic Church was the direct culprit for the Dark Ages lasting for a whole millenia. Europe only started to progress when they got rid of the power of the clergy, and started to separate church and state. Stating that the Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination for that matter, was responsible for the West being as rich and advanced as it is now is *outrageous* . Exactly the opposite is true. Of course, you are both a conservative and a Catholic, although I assume not a very practicing one, so it is expected that you would say these things. You are blinded by your own biases. Also, rules against inbreeding were not invented by Christianity. The ancient Hellenes and Romans had already strong taboos against inbreeding.

    “This is one of the great forgotten achievements of history: the Dark Age Catholic Church’s detribalizing the militant tribes that overturned the Roman Empire. In England, nobody worries about Angles and Saxons being at each other’s throats, whereas in much of the rest of the world, the tribes of 600 AD are more or less the tribes of 2018 AD.”

    And yet, you are a nationalist, which is just the modern version of a tribalist. I agree with your statement that we would all be better off without tribes, and all variations on the theme, like modern nations. We would all be better off with a World where everyone is treated as an individual and not a member a tribe, where the values of the Enlightenment have become universal. A World without tribes/nations would be great, indeed. It’s too bad that the irony of your last quote is lost on you.

    Also, the Catholic Church didn’t detribalize those barbarian invaders completely: they just made smaller tribes unify into bigger tribes, or smaller tribes submit to stronger tribes. For instance, the reason why France is called that is because of the Franks, the largest and most powerful tribe in that territory at the time. The old Celtic tribes of the Gauls, like the Arvernii, and Parisii, were subjugated by the new Germanic invaders, like the Normans and Franks. So the Catholic Church just decreased the number of tribes and did not eliminate them.

  30. @Daniel H

    Hi Daniel, allow me to say that you’re a fucking retard.

    “Within-Hajnal line peoples are different. And within-Hajnal people have had a positive influence on their extra-Hajnal European brethren, encouraging them to discard their barbarous ways. I am certain that cousin marriage is much less common today in Ireland (probably extinct), Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Latin America…. than in the past and this is due to the positive, shaming influence of the success of within-Hajnal peoples.”.

    Where I’m from (Hercegovina, Dalmatian Highlands) our Franciscan Priests for centuries forbade marriage up to and including 6th cousins. This holds true for anywhere Franciscans or Dominicans held great influence.

    Many of these areas were tribal until somewhat recently (17th century) with the exception of the North Albanian Catholic and Muslim tribes of North Albania, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Yet they all have had for centuries and centuries bans on cousin marriages that came from the Catholic Church during an era which they were under Ottoman rule. Those that converted to Islam held to these rules even as they were no longer Christian.

    “You forgot Ireland, but I think you err. Ireland, southern Italy, Sicily, southern Iberia, though all nominally Catholic, were outside the Hajnal line.”

    “Nominally”.

    One of the most important rules of the internet is that whenever a person trots out the concept of the Hajnal Line that person really knows fuck all about history, particularly in those regions just outside of it.

  31. The German Merkel-government just recently decided to allow the “the extended family” of asylum seekers into Germany – and even subsidize transport for that reason.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @nebulafox
  32. @istevefan

    There’ll be plenty of time for understanding after the looting. Get, while the gettin’ is good.

  33. Given that individualist and analytical folk may be less likely to adhere to any organized, hierarchical religion, I wonder if the Church used its observation of extant individualist, analytical, relatively peaceful societies in Europe to draft a template for its consanguineous policy.

  34. @Daniel H

    On the map posted by Tipsy immediately below your comment, Ireland seems to have a lower consanguinity rate than many of the countries you mention. Interesting, that. Furthermore, the notion that the Irish were not “fervid” Catholics until the 19th century is… to be nice, it’s not true.

    However, breeding practices and many other aspects of social life were more difficult for the Church to regulate in Ireland for a number of reasons, among them overpopulation (pre-famine) and very little infrastructure outside urban areas for many centuries.

    The modern Irish population is pretty well seeded with DNA from various countries within the Hajnal line, most notably Britain. This is why we are not still eating each other or whatever else one might expect (outside of Limerick and North Dublin anyway, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_feud)

  35. On the other hand, the upper ranks of society had more property to conserve, so the advantages of inbreeding in terms of property concentration appealed to them.

    Also, cousin marriage tended to be more common higher up in European society, especially among royalty, so it wa

    Aristocratic consanguinity had obvious benefits for property accumulation – yesterdays Mergers & Acquisitions – but also for diplomatic coaltion building. But the degree of genetic interelatedness at second cousin range is probably too weak to create congenital defects or weak disease resistance.

  36. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Hmmm, I’m agnostic on this one.

    Basically the Scots are pretty much genetically indistinguishable from the English, as are the Irish, a fact laid out to us by modern genetic science. Quite frankly, it’s time to ‘lay the ghost’ about all this talk of Celts, Britons, Picts, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, Normans etc etc. One salient recent revealed fact is that the so-called ‘Bell Beaker folk’ – hailing originally, it is claimed from central and eastern Europe – were responsible for a 90% + genetic turnover in the Isles as compared to the previous iron/bronze age groups that inhabited Britain.

    Anyway, my point is that until quite recently – well into Christianized times in fact – the Scots and the Irish, cousins to the English despite what you might hear, were pretty much ‘clan’ based societies, in the true sense of the word.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  37. Brabantian says: • Website

    It is a remarkable irony, but the west-of-Hajnal characteristics of Europe, are a positive by-product of early ‘poz’, the gay mafia hiding beneath the structures of the Roman Catholic church

    For thousands of years, a gay mafia have served rulers around the world under the veneer of ‘religious celibacy’ and ‘being monks’

    That mafia in Vatican Christianity, sought to enrich itself via church ‘inheritances’, not just out of greed, but also in order to break up family and clan wealth which could finance opposition to the powers that be

    The gay mafia also sought to deter the best potential leading figures from having children at all … but those who did have children in Europe, were encouraged by the gay mafia to be atomised nuclear families, the west-of-Hajnalians we know thru HBD Chick etc

    The core of ‘religious priests and monks’ are increasingly understood to have been gay, from ancient times to the present, as gay historians themselves are celebrating … but neglecting to admit that it has been a gay gang covertly serving rulers and imposing authority ‘in the name of God’, gay guys pretending to be ‘celibate’ and ‘holy’

    This religious ideology duped a large crew of heteros, with claims that celibacy is the ‘highest calling’, the ‘noblest vocation’ etc … leading some of the best and brightest to become priests and monks, to not have families, to not reproduce, and live under their gay overlords

    The priest-monk game, was a complementary strategy to having a bunch of wars which killed the bravest and best men, often before they could have children … win-win for rulers seeking to exterminate dissidents, even before they are born, stopping dissident family formation either by killing the fathers or routing them into a no-hetero-sex ‘religious life’ under gays

    There is much discussion today of the JQ the ‘Jewish Question’, essentially about how a certain class of Jews are the prime mafia for today’s oligarchy, which is the basis for ‘Jewish power’, given that the Jewish mafia, as notably in the USA, serves an even more powerful class of billionaires who are non-Jewish

    But the gay mafia of ‘priests and monks’ is perhaps the original and older mafia of this type for ruling oligarchies … Via today’s ‘poz’ pro-gay-and-tranny etc agenda, the oligarchs are likely preparing to have a gay mafia be dominant once again, as a complement or substitute given that the Jewish mafia seems to be of diminishing utility now that increasingly ‘the goyim know’

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  38. jack ruby says:

    here’s the thing

    western elites hate their domestic individualistic nuclear non-kin white mass labor force and working hard 2 replace them with extended family hispanics and cousin marrying africans and muslims., which by the way is being helped along by WEIRD late marriage , infertility, despair anomie dirven drug abuse- relative iomass charts look like an extinction event.

    so catholic morals destroyed the kin clan reproductive health of the west and doomed it to incipient rapid decline?

    wouldn’t u call that dysgenic ?

  39. jack ruby says:
    @istevefan

    the anglos were the most violent colonialists and slave traders on the planet , well equipped for maritime terror against coastal settlements, and din’t breed with their vassals hence preservative of the parasite -host equation 4 centuries rather than decades.

    B4 the new world opportunities, they were nothing, had nothing, neither clean water, sewage systems fine arts “china” , etc.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  40. @Dieter Kief

    Merkel, the Ephialtes of our time.

    Remember the movie 300? or The 300 Spartans if you’re a boomer? We all recall the name of Leonidas, the General who commanded the gallant Spartans who died defending the pass when the Persians under Xerses invaded Greece, but how many remember the name of Ephialtes who…

    “betrayed his homeland, in hope of receiving some kind of reward from the Persians, by showing the Persian forces a path [the route was a mountainous goat path, known only to locals] around the allied Greek position at the pass of Thermopylae, which helped them win the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.”

    “Ephialtes is also used in Greek as a synonym for traitor, in a comparable fashion to the usage of the words Quisling or Judas, or Benedict Arnold in the US. However, the direct translation from Greek, means nightmare.”

    from Wiki

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  41. wow, just wow.

    The elites of Germany are truly determined to ruin their country.

  42. In this paper the authors stress repeatedly that these large observed differences between Europeans and other ancestries must be due to “cultural evolution” rather than genetic evolution. This despite the fact that the evidence, objectively considered, points strongly toward combined cultural and genetic evolution as the correct model. It remains politically incorrect to acknowledge human biodiversity in an academic journal even as the evidence mounts in support of HBD. It is a shameful (but common) deceit that requires social scientists uncovering evidence for HBD to hide behind this “cultural evolution” myth due to political pressures on research.

  43. Lee Wang says:
    @Jack D

    It’s really simple of course, the Church did not primarily impose these rules out of altruistic reasons. If someone left no issue and had no surviving family members their property would fall to the Church; imposing onerous marriage restrictions – though obviously, these rather stringent conditions were hard to enforce- led to many more estates going to the Church. It was an epoch long inheritance tax scheme. Never underestimate the Catholic Church…

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  44. nebulafox says:
    @Dieter Kief

    My interpretation: she knows she’s doomed at the next election. So she’s doubling down.

    If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.

    • Agree: julius caesar
    • Replies: @julius caesar
  45. @Lee Wang

    Well – you’re giving a practicl reason, why the church acted like it did concerning the cousin-marriage taboo. And this reason you give is is for sure not wrong. But it is part of hundreds, if not thousands of such reasons (that’s what history is about basically: To understand, that there never (never) is just one clean reason).

    Very interesting by-product of your argument is, that the church, in acting as you describe, helped establish a (broadly accepted!) tax system – which is true up until today – and which for sure is another one of those thousand reasons I mentioned above.

    Except for that – the broad picture is: Europe is known for (having, at least…) flourished. And that flourishing is the point, and the important role, the church played in that societal flourishing. – Just think of it: European universities were in the beginningn enterprsies of the catholic church! Paris, Cologne, Venice, Straßbourg, … (and that, too, is only one example…).

  46. @ThreeCranes

    “Ephialtes is also used in Greek as a synonym for traitor, in a comparable fashion to the usage of the words Quisling or Judas, or Benedict Arnold in the US. However, the direct translation from Greek, means nightmare.”

    Thing is – betrayal as such seems to be beyond Angela Merkel’s mindset. She’s close to our host, in that regard (that thought has never occured to me before – but now, as I have written it down and happen to think about it…).

    The problem is indeed, that betryal is part of the real world.

    (My mother grew up in the (now) Czech mountains, she spent five years in school – she mentioned this fact lots of times, when she spoke about politics: That she had the impression, that betrayal was widely underestimated. (In her later years, she developped an interest in Schopenhauer. He knew lots about the darker parts of our consciousness, and was very much aware how important betrayal is in human interactions)).

  47. @nebulafox

    Or, electing a new people who will support her agenda in future. In 3-5 years most of migrants and their families, especially those who have been granted asylum, would be eligible for citizenship. A permanent vote bank of Merkel & friends.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  48. Pericles says:
    @jack ruby

    A fine example of the American edcwayyne syssem. PhD in post-colonialism, if I may take a guess?

  49. @Nick Diaz

    “The Catholic Church was the direct culprit for the Dark Ages lasting for a whole millenia.”

    Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  50. midtown says:
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    If your parents are infertile, you are likely to not exist, no?

  51. Rosie says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Outbreeding could lead to a decline in suspiciousness of non-family members.

    When certain people accuse Whites of endemic fascism, they are not wrong. The ethnic nation-state is the natural focus of loyalty and attachment for a detribalized society of nuclear families, and it is an inevitability dangerous place for outgroups with kin-based or tribal affinities.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  52. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    So, we should all be, or at least support, Catholic globalists (i.e., the immigration-pushing SJW’s)? Or, Catholic globalists are right, all non-SJW Catholics are heretics? I thought I was at unz.com, not #realpopefrancis.

  53. Thea says:

    Werner Von Braun married a first cousin

  54. Anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m confused too. What about all that guff about “neither Jew nor Greek” or “all men are brothers” or “love they neighbor” that the no-borders fanatics are always spouting? Does that mean, since all men are brothers, I can marry my actual brother too? Or does it mean I shouldn’t marry anyone? The latter would seem more in tune with the whole Catholic thing.

    BTW, speaking of which, weren’t these the same guys who took the smartest males and insistent they be celibate? How’d that affect Western development?

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  55. snorlax says:
    @julius caesar

    Merkel leads the ostensibly “conservative” party in Germany, and the leftist parties are if you can believe it even more insane on immigration, so not even that.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @Dieter Kief
  56. snorlax says:
    @snorlax

    Merkel’s the ¡Jeb! of Germany.

  57. @Brabantian

    Well that’s an interesting hypothesis, but as you indirectly acknowledge,

    “as gay historians themselves are celebrating,”

    the historiography is pretty suspect.

    An observation: up until very recently–in other words, during the couple of millennia when Catholicism really mattered–examples of homosexual clergy revealed by transgressing their vows were very rare, while examples of heterosexual clergy revealed by transgressing their vows were very common. Now that the Roman Catholic Church is largely a spent force, the former are common while the latter are rare. So it is hard to credit the notion that the old RCC was a hotbed of homos.

    A question: if the Roman Catholic Church was actually a secret gay conspiracy to undermine hetero civilization, are we supposed to understand that Western civilization became world leading just as an unintended by-product of this conspiracy? If so, why has the effect gone into reverse now?

    A proposal: the more plausible explanation is the one that the Church itself gave and modern research confirms: overthrowing intra-clan marriage unified nominal Christians as Christians, and increased their allegiance to the Church, while also increasing adherence to Christian morality (if your relatives are not your future sex partners, they are less likely to be your current sex partners when young.)

    Finally, if you enjoy conspiracy theorizing, it has been observed that the Catholic Church’s harvesting the “best and brightest” (your term) to its nominally celibate ranks insured that those best and brightest’s loyalties and services would not be distracted or divided by legitimating personal dynasties, while the prohibition against contraception among everyone else ensured that the source of those best and brightest continued to produce. So the Church harvested the choicest blooms from the garden while making sure the garden still yields. Few institutions have had the longevity of the Church.

    If these “historians” (they sound more like apologists for sodomy) believe religious celibacy is implausible, that is more a reflection on their belief than anything else. Another observation: in traditional society, people had more willpower than we spoiled moderns do today.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Ian M.
  58. Hibernian says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Or an increase, if you acquire a particularly obnoxious in-law.

  59. Hibernian says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Without the Church, the barbarism would have been worse, and people would all have been too busy keeping themselves alive to discover, rediscover, or invent anything.

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  60. @Luke Lea

    What was Shakespeare the result of?

  61. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous

    Many Irish-Americans including full blooded ones are very Nordic in appearance.

  62. res says:
    @Tipsy

    The lack of data for sub-Saharan Africa is notable, but genetic data suggests they might not have much of a problem with inbreeding. A big question in my mind is how representative are the population samples though.

    Figure 2 from: Consanguinity around the world: what do the genomic data of the HGDP-CEPH diversity panel tell us?

    Caption: Inference of mating-type preferences. (a) Population mating-type frequencies α. (b) Parental mating-type probabilities P for each individual within the population. Matings between unrelated individuals are in white; second cousin, first cousin, double first cousin and avuncular matings are in increasing shades of grey.

    Figure 1 provides another way of looking at the data:

    Caption: F estimates for each individual by population sample and geographical region. Closed circles represent the median values over 100 (LD minimal) maps. Dots represent Fm estimates for each map m.

    Larger versions of the figures available at the paper link.

  63. Hibernian says:
    @Almost Missouri

    I think the practice of the Eastern Church, ordaining married priests, with a few monk-priests from whom are drawn the bishops, is the best practice. There is no doctrinal reason for the RCC not to adopt it; only an unfortunately deeply rooted disciplinary rule. Limited exceptions to the celibacy rule are already made: Eastern Rite Catholic priests who worship in the Eastern way while loyal to the Papacy (only in their home countries) and some Anglican converts to Catholicism.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    , @Anon
  64. res says:
    @Jack D

    the 7th degree means 6th cousins

    Where do you get this? See utu’s comment and also note that third cousins are 8th degree.

    A table from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity

    See the table and figures at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity#Genetic_definitions for what this translates into for genetic relatedness. For example, second cousins (6th degree) are 3.13% related genetically.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  65. Jack D says:
    @res

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

    Canon law followed civil law until the early ninth century, when the Western Church increased the number of prohibited degrees from four to seven.[3] The method of calculation was also changed to simply count the number of generations back to the common ancestor.[4] This meant that marriage to anyone up to and including a sixth cousin was prohibited.

    • Replies: @res
  66. @Nick Diaz

    Given that you’re one of the loonier commenters here, I hesitate to trouble myself to reply, but then I recall reading a Nick Diaz comment so rational and levelheaded that many of us readers here were shocked and awed. So, here goes…

    “Actually, the Catholic Church burned human beings alive, persecuted scientists,”

    Rarely, and less than their competitors in the theology game.

    “waged crusades”

    Crusades can be a good thing. I know you agree because most of your comments exhibit a crusading mindset.

    “that bankrupted several medieval kingdoms”

    If the cause is sufficient, bankruptcy may be worth it.

    “and stunted all artistic pursuits that weren’t somehow related to the religious themes of Christianity.”

    They certainly financed a lot of Christian art, but then all high art is religious/spiritual in nature, so what’s your point? They should have been financing their competitors?

    “The Catholic Church was the direct culprit for the Dark Ages lasting for a whole millenia.”

    Right. Remember when Catholics disguised as pagans invaded the Roman world from the north while Catholics disguised as Saracens invaded from the south? Oh wait!

    “Europe only started to progress when they got rid of the power of the clergy, and started to separate church and state.”

    So after the pagan/Saracen collapse, the long climb to the High Middle Ages was an illusion? Even into modern times, the church and state are entwined in the West. The English Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in Parliament. Secular Germany still collect religious taxes. Wittingly or not, modern western thought is still bible-based. Etc.

    “Stating that the Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination for that matter, was responsible for the West being as rich and advanced as it is now is *outrageous*.”

    That the reason that Christian-origin societies have done so well might be Christianity is *outrageous* I tell you!

    “Of course, you are both a conservative and a Catholic, although I assume not a very practicing one, so it is expected that you would say these things.”

    I don’t think Steve is Catholic, non-practicing or otherwise.

    “You are blinded by your own biases.”

    Hmmmm.

    “Also, rules against inbreeding were not invented by Christianity. The ancient Hellenes and Romans had already strong taboos against inbreeding.”

    Yup, that’s why the interrelated aristocracies of classical antiquity never inter-married. Oh wait! Lol. (To be fair, they may have cousin-married less than their classical neighbors, which might be why they were more receptive to the Catholic admonitions against inbreeding.)

    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
  67. @European-American

    The “forbidden marriage” policy on people bearing the same last name happened the Zhou Dynasty to guarantee a clear hierarchy and order of inheritence. People of the same clan and surname were prohibited from getting marriage, especially royalty.

    The taboo against close marriages existed much earlier, though, possibly as far back as the late Neolithic where it was a seemly marriage to marry between social classes. IIRC group marriages were much more normalized then, so that a man married all sisters from a family of lower social class. This gradually went away, so Jacobs did not have to tolerate a Leah to also have his Rachael.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  68. @Hibernian

    “Limited exceptions”

    I think there have also been widowed laymen with children who take up vows?

    Okay, this is more of a past-is-past thing than a real exception.

  69. @Andy

    It’s important to remember that, for more than half a millenium, the traditional area of Catholic hegemony was France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, and Northern Italy – that’s where the Church was strong, and whence came most of the important churchmen of that time.

    Spain and Portugal spent a long time under Muslim domination, and then under Muslim cultural influence (inevitable due to proximity) until the end of the middle ages. A similar thing happened to Sicilly (possessed by the Muslims for ~100 years, threatened frequently by invasions) and Southern Italy (frequently in contact with the East and North Africa).

    So if we are looking for positive effects of the medieval Church, it’s fair to look at the post-Catholic countries (plus France and Northern Italy).

  70. @Daniel Chieh

    When and why do you think polygamy died out in China?

    Or does it live on in a kind of soft-polygamy form? I keep hearing about mistresses of Party officials warehoused in expat condos.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @3g4me
  71. @TheMediumIsTheMassage

    They are doing the same to us here in Canada. Nobody is exempt from the insane immigration push.

    The difference is that other European cultures are pushing back, but the Anglo Saxons seem to have something preventing them from doing so.

  72. res says:
    @Jack D

    Interesting. Thanks. Probably best to be clear about the changing meaning of “degree of kinship/consanguinity” over time.

    Here is a link to the reference supporting that change (reference 4, DOI is at libgen): https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2846935

    Given that, I echo your original question. From the paper:

    The reasons for these changes have been debated at length but are not fully understood (Germanic concepts of family relationships may have been the chief factor); whatever their origin, the new methods of computing consanguinity deeply affected the medieval choice of
    spouse. These changes in the number of forbidden degrees and the method of calculating them meant that the number of unions considered incestuous increased exponentially; for every increase of one forbidden degree, the number of ancestors a potential couple might share more than doubled. (The Roman and medieval methods of computing consanguinity are shown in Figure 1.) The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals of the ninth century declared that marriages were incestuous if contracted between the children of one person, or his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on to his great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren. Siegfried of Gorze and Peter Damian, in the mid-eleventh century,and Ivo of Chartres, around the year 1100, also called illicit marriages in which there were less than seven generations back to the common ancestor.5

    Once consanguinity was thus understood, it was only a matter of time before everyone in a small group, such as the early medieval nobility, became too closely related to intermarry. Throughout the period from the ninth through the eleventh century, the clergy fulminated against the wickedness of incest and attempted to forbid or dissolve unions they considered incestuous

  73. @Almost Missouri

    Polygamy was never really that common, it was legal but it was always expensive. I come from mandarins, the most I’ve ever heard was three wives, so as the cost of living increased so the opportunities for polygamy probably plummeted. Obviously different for the Emperor, but there’s only Emperor of China.

    And yes, in a soft form, it continues. Mistresses are called “xiao san” for “little third one.”

    Good way to get scalped in a society with male-tilted gender imbalance.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anon
    , @Almost Missouri
  74. istevefan says:

    …populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD).

    I wonder who came up with that. Couldn’t they have chosen some other words that would have led to a more flattering acronym? You will notice this too when they talk about the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) of Europe. It’s almost like they are deliberately trying to insult Europeans.

    Do you think if they were trying to link a group of African or non-European nations by some common theme that they would have come up with something as insulting? With all the nations in Africa it wouldn’t be too hard to come up with a harsh acronym that would accurately describe certain nations. Yet I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  75. TheJester says:

    When certain people accuse Whites of endemic fascism, they are not wrong. The ethnic nation-state is the natural focus of loyalty and attachment for a detribalized society of nuclear families, and it is an inevitability dangerous place for outgroups with kin-based or tribal affinities.

    Excellent point! Kin or tribal-based peoples who immigrate into high trust detribalized societies of nuclear families are in an excellent position to systematically break the rules and exploit the high trust populations. At some point, the high trust populations no longer trust them. They’re considered a threat to society and are dealt with accordingly.

    I’m reminded of an article on the relationship between kin-based immigration to Germany and crime. It seems that kin-based immigrants have a lock on organized crime — Turks, Roma, Romanians, clans from MENA, etc. The authorities are helpless against them because they can’t break into the networks. They are hermetically sealed to outsiders (and the police) due to kin relationships. Everyone in the crime syndicate knows everyone else. They’re family … always someone’s brother, uncle, or cousin.

    Kin-based relationships and loyalties also make terrorist groups hard to crack.

  76. ATBOTL says:

    “Protestants tended to see bans on cousin marriage as Papist superstition.”

    I have a larger theory that many aspects of Protestant culture are reflections of pre-Christian pagan and tribal culture.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  77. 3g4me says:
    @Almost Missouri

    @64 Almost Missouri: “When and why do you think polygamy died out in China? . . . Or does it live on in a kind of soft-polygamy form?”

    FWIW, my husband had a large number of dealings with a wealthy Singaporean businessman (ethnic Han), during our years there, who had 3 “wives.” I think only the first was his legal/official spouse, but they all resided in a large home with his children by all 3 women. He was not an exception. Even my Han maid’s estranged but legal husband was living with his mistress/2nd “wife” while I was over there.

  78. anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:

    The medieval Catholic Church was against Catholics marrying even moderately distant cousins and other kin,

    LOL!

    Nobody finds it hilarious that the essay seems to somehow imply that it was the very Christian church which was so smart as to shine a light on the ill effects of cousin marriage… all while the clergy within those churches were busy boinking little children, who then go on to lead damaged lives.

  79. I think people really, probably intentionally, underestimate the practice of consanguinity in America. First cousin marriage was common among the WASPs and Jews, who also practiced niece marriage like their semetic cousins. Off-hand I know for sure that FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were cousins as were FDR’s parents and no doubt Eleanor’s parents were as well, it was that common a practice among Protestants. The stereotype of WASPs as inbreds from movies like Deliverance is grounded in reality.

    Like many Catholics my family had assimilated to the WASP norm of not paying any attention to the world outside of our immediate family and the people on the other side of the world. While our parents and grandparents might have known their extended family, my generation didn’t know much beyond our first cousins. Some older relatives put together a book about my maternal grandmother’s family that I got to read through post high school and found out I had at least five second or third cousins I had gone to high school with (my high school was in the regional large town not in the original area/town of this family where I there would have been even more cousins). I had only known about two of them, a second cousin, and one who had been described as a fifth or sixth cousin but was in fact a second cousin once removed. Three of these cousins were girls and I would have loved to have “consanguined” with two of them if I could have and would have been willing to do the third as well. My bigger point is that most Americans don’t know who their cousins are beyond their first cousins and there are likely to be a lot of people who are horrified by the idea of consanguinity yet are blissfully unaware they are married to or have had sexual relations outside of marriage with nearly related cousins.

    As for the Catholic Church being against consanguinity, that is no longer the case, at least in practice, in the post Vatican II church. One of my first cousins is married to one of our second cousins from the family mentioned above. They got married in the late 1970s, well after Vatican II, and when they went through the formal interview for the marriage they were asked if they were related and got a “look” when they said they were but when they explained how they were second cousins that was considered fine.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  80. @Nick Diaz

    Actually, the Catholic Church burned human beings alive, persecuted scientists, waged crusades that bankrupted several medieval kingdoms, and stunted all artistic pursuits that weren’t somehow related to the religious themes of Christianity. The Catholic Church was the direct culprit for the Dark Ages lasting for a whole millenia

    God bless your innocence, if you think what happened was the worst. Any of the *viable* alternatives in that context (murderous paganism or murderous Islam) were much worse. How were the Middle East and faring that time?

  81. Polymath says:

    Should be WEIRDO not WEIRD, “outbred” should be added to the list

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  82. foulkes says:

    Jews are as inbred as anyone. eg Einstein, the Rothschilds . and they are very successful people

    Icelanders must be the most inbred of any nation/region and they are a competent people. They live on a volcanic island that has no natural resources on the Arctic Circle and yet have a high standard of living and qualified for the World Cup

  83. @Luke Lea

    In addition to the avoidance of the deleterious effects of inbreeding I mean. Gene/culture co-evolution — how important is it?

    How important is it? Gene/culture co-evolution is hugely important.

    Gene/culture co-evolution is the most important driver of human evolution and certainly of the differentiation among various branches of humanity. (It’s why say the English who showed up in Australia were quite different in appearance, thought and behavior from the Aboriginals.)

    We–orders of magnitude more than any other species–actually create the selective environment that we evolve in. It’s what differentiates us. It’s “who we are”.

    • Agree: Peter Johnson
  84. @istevefan

    Couldn’t they have chosen some other words that would have led to a more flattering acronym?

    You can bitch about it, but it is really apt.

    Western European white gentiles really are “weird”–quite weird. Call it “unique” if you like, but it’s super important to understand precisely that.

    Our traits, our high trust–our high IQ, high affective empathy, high cooperation with high invidivualism–are absolutely *not* shared by any othe races. (The Japanese have a very high-trust society but it comes from some other route–that i don’t claim to understand–with way more conformity and way less empathy.)

    A constant in modern debates is leftist propagated confusion–whether out of ignorance or malice–that everyone is really just like a modern white progressive under the skin, and just needs a little tutelage–”education”, plus welfare, “love and understanding” and, of course, oppressing “racists!” who think otherwise–and viola, their true “humanity” (i.e. inner white person) will pop out. But the reality, is this is just utter ahistorical, abiological nonsense.

    What actually happens–the crisis we face–is white people, white nations with our WEIRD traits are easy to exploit when we allow, non-”WEIRD”, more clannish, more tribal peoples into our midst.

    It’s critical for white gentiles to understand that we actually are “WEIRD”–special and unique–with a bunch of traits which are *not* shared by the rest of the world. Understanding that is the path toward being able to raise our defenses and save ourselves.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  85. @Daniel H

    Given that large parts of Britain (and Europe for that matter) were re-converted from Ireland, your comment is unintentionally hilarious. Of course the catholic church in Ireland, hundreds of years older than the re-introduced church in England, may have had different traditions vis-a-vis consanguinity.

  86. @BB753

    So, we don’t know what happens South of Sudan and Nigeria?

    Do we ever?

  87. @Andy

    A list of consanguinity studies Steve directed me to years ago included one that showed that inbreeding among Moslem Palestinians was almost at twice the rate as among Christians, 29% vs 16%.

    And that’s probably low for Islam and high for Christianity.

  88. Nick Diaz says:
    @Hibernian

    This is a blanket statement with no evidence to back it up. Even if true, does this excuse the crimes of the Church? How about tens of thousands of human beings burned alive for heresy? Is that barbaric enough for you?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @HA
    , @Highlander
  89. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Mr. C, I have a question for you. Pardon my ignorance, but is there any parallel in Chinese history for the French Revolution? I’m not talking about the blood and guts, but rather the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity taken together as the basic values of society?

    I am ever more convinced that the mixed national-socialist economy creates the most liveable societies, and further that it’s philosophical roots are found in that upheaval, despite widespread Right-wing antipathy to it.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  90. Nick Diaz says:
    @Almost Missouri

    “Given that you’re one of the loonier commenters here, I hesitate to trouble myself to reply, but then I recall reading a Nick Diaz comment so rational and levelheaded that many of us readers here were shocked and awed. So, here goes…”

    Compared to you, I am, to use the expression of Trump “a mentally balanced genius”. I literally chuckle at you calling me anything negative. I have read your posts, and they do not reveal great intelligence, knowledge or worldliness.

    “Rarely, and less than their competitors in the theology game.”

    It wasn’t rare at all. Obviously, scientists are rarer than common people, so the total number of scientists killed won’t number in the millions or hundreds of thousands. But they killed a lot. And they killed less than others in the “theology game”? Really? Does this even matter? I think that even one unjustified homicide is pretty bad enough. How many would you consider bad enough? 100? 1,000? How about 100,000? Where do you draw the line?

    “Crusades can be a good thing. I know you agree because most of your comments exhibit a crusading mindset.”

    Except that my crusades are metaphorical, using a keyboard and words and not murdering people. The real crusades involved hundreds of thousands of people getting butchered over what religion was right in their way of worship of their non-existent spook in the sky. If you think that was “good”, then you are either a loony or a psychopath. So who is the loony one again?

    “If the cause is sufficient, bankruptcy may be worth it.”

    So it was worth going bankrupt to take worthless land in the middle east just because those lands had “sacred” religious monuments and temples? Thank goodness you are not the FED president or secretary of the treasury with this mindset.

    “They certainly financed a lot of Christian art, but then all high art is religious/spiritual in nature, so what’s your point? They should have been financing their competitors?”

    No, not all art is religious or spiritual. Modern art has nothing to do with religion. The Mona Lisa, the greatest oil painting ever, does not have religious conotations. Also, while a lot of the art produced by the ancient Hellenes and Romans did have religious conotations, it was pagan. If you had read carefully what I wrote, I said that they only allowed art with *Christian* themes. I wasn’t talking about religion in general. Also, this has nothing to do with “financing”. The Church flat out *forbade* art that didn’t have Christianity as a theme. Big difference.

    “Right. Remember when Catholics disguised as pagans invaded the Roman world from the north while Catholics disguised as Saracens invaded from the south? Oh wait!”

    I said “lasted” as long. I didn’t say that the Catholic Church was responsible for the Dark Ages. They definitely made the Dark Ages last much longer than they otherwise would by suffocating all scientific pursuits. And it is debateable if Christianity didn’t actually cause the Roman Empire to fall. Christianity sapped the decisiveness and ruthlessness of the Romans by making them feel bad about killing their enemies rather than loving them.

    “So after the pagan/Saracen collapse, the long climb to the High Middle Ages was an illusion? Even into modern times, the church and state are entwined in the West. The English Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in Parliament. Secular Germany still collect religious taxes. Wittingly or not, modern western thought is still bible-based. Etc.”

    Your sarcasm is ridiculous. The climb to the high middle ages was slow, and it happened only because scientists made concessions to the Church. From Gallileo to Newton, they all had to make concessions to the Church in order to be allowed to work. Point is, the Dark Ages would have been over much more quickly if there was no Church.

    No, separation of Church and state is a reality. The Queen of England has no actual power. She is a head of state, a puppet. The same goes for the Archbishop. *Complete* separation between Church and State has existed for over 200 years in the West now.

    Western thought is Bible-based? Really? Western thought is based on the Greek philosophers, mathematicians and scientists who were pagans. It is also based on modern scientists, some of who were Christian, true, but their contributions have no relation to the bible. Their contributions are based on the empirical method, and logical deduction. Conversely, the Bible is based on faifth. What exactly has Western Civilization gotten from the Bible? That you shouldn’t kill and commit adultery? Because the Greeks and Romans already had that in law, much before Christianity. And these are more-or-less universal values. The semitic tribes that wrote the Bible didn’t create anything special.

    “That the reason that Christian-origin societies have done so well might be Christianity is *outrageous* I tell you!”

    Idiotic sarcasm. The Greeks and Romans were the most advanced societies in the ancient World, and they weren’r Christians. Han China was extremely advanced and they weren’t Christians. The West became as rich as it is *despite* Christianity. What made the West rich and advanced were the principles of democracy, individual rights and the sccientific method, which has nothing to do with Christianity.

    “Hmmmm.”

    But you are…

    “Yup, that’s why the interrelated aristocracies of classical antiquity never inter-married. Oh wait! Lol. (To be fair, they may have cousin-married less than their classical neighbors, which might be why they were more receptive to the Catholic admonitions against inbreeding.)”

    No, the Romans did not intermarry with relatives. Period. They might have become inbred at the end because Romans nobles intermarried between the same 1,000 or so families. But *legally* you could not marry your brothers or even cousins in ancient Rome.

  91. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @ATBOTL

    Some of the more radical Protestants rejected monogamy as Papist superstition. They had a point. The ancient Jews were polygamous, and there’s no scriptural basis for the traditional Christian ban on polygamy. It was an innovation of the early church.

    If Christianity had remained a Jewish religion it then it would have become (like Islam) polygamous. Instead it became the religion of the monogamous Greeks and Romans, and so adopted their cultural attitudes on this issue as a matter of faith.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  92. Anonymous[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom Wilkes

    There are practical issues related to the restricted mobility of premodern peoples. This necessarily limited the breadth of the mating pool.

    I read somewhere (possibly here) that the invention of the bicycle and even moreso the car fundamentally changed the genetic makeup of the American people by allowing ordinary people a much wider choice of marriage partners.

    Presumably the same happened in Europe. European aristocrats in the olden days had the luxury of importing wives from remote places, but ordinary peasants usually married their relatives out of geographic necessity.

  93. Rosie says:
    @Nick Diaz

    This is a blanket statement with no evidence to back it up. Even if true, does this excuse the crimes of the Church? How about tens of thousands of human beings burned alive for heresy? Is that barbaric enough for you?

    Burning heretics was certainly barbaric, but it was a peculiarly White kind of barbarism. The point was to compel a recantation in order to spare the heretic an eternity in hellfire. I doubt the owners of those buried skulls were given any alternative.

    I don’t know if “tens of thousands” of heretics were burned alive, but if they were, that is a rather astonishing testament to the White obsession with Truth and personal integrity, is it not?

  94. HA says:
    @Nick Diaz

    “How about tens of thousands of human beings burned alive for heresy?”

    Oh, there will be crimes aplenty regardless of which system one goes with, and medieval Catholicism produced many. No one argues that.

    But given the (far more numerous) gruesomely dead heretics of one form or another in the gulags and concentration camps and cattle cars and tumbrils and execution squads, all of whom fell under the aegis of all those “new-and-improved” alternatives to medieval Catholicism, (not to mention the carnage and existential threats to Western civilization stemming from modernist assurances that Islam — not to mention Mayan human sacrifice and cannibalism — is no different, and probably better for us, than Christianity ever was), your pathetic and transparent attempts to play the Black Legend card to try and cover up the crimes committed in the name of progress (all the more unforgiveable in that they should have learned from the mistakes of the past) are not going to fool anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled.

    Thankfully, even some atheists are now taking to exception to Nick Diaz’s note-for-note replay of “the stupidest thing on the internet ever”.

  95. @Rosie

    No, not really.

    Chinese history and philosophy is long enough that you can find support for just about anything, but the main streams of governing thought generally placed the lowest unit of organization on the family, so the idea of an individual being equal to another would be pretty wild. One could speak of the rights of the family, of equality between families and harmony of families, but individuals were subunits of the family.

    For example, one wouldn’t talk about the equality of the liver and the heart, they are both important, but different: necessary for the body to exist.

    That said, the French Enlightenment thinkers often were sinophiles and as Sailers noted in an article, the Chinese were often associated with liberalism since the Chinese had a strong history of meritocracy. If men weren’t equal, then their measure must be found through testing rather than descent, and China essentially lacked what Europe would recognize as a feudalism by the Tang Dynasty. As far as I can tell, though, the French just talked about it. The Prussians, being more practical, actually adopted meritocratic reforms to their nobility which would help turn them into a major powerhouse. The English borrowed the notion of standardized examinations and would implement it in England, so you can thank(or rue) the Chinese for the existence of the SAT and so on.

    The closest that the Chinese seem to have implemented in terms of indigenous republics were the kongsai republics, which were Chinese colonies in Asia that had a voting system based on family unit and which the Dutch referred to as “democracies”. After the colonies were destroyed by the Dutch, their descendants would go on to found Singapore so arguably the values of limited democracy would find their expression there.

  96. Rosie says:

    That said, the French Enlightenment thinkers often were sinophiles and as Sailers noted in an article, the Chinese were often associated with liberalism since the Chinese had a strong history of meritocracy.

    Right. I wasn’t aware that SS had written about the subject. I think Voltaire et. al. had a point. French Republicanism gets a bad rap on the alt-Right IMO. The problem isn’t the Liberté or the égalité but rather the lack of fraternité, which the Anglosphere disgracefully exchanged for the “pursuit of happiness.” I do think that the ideal society according to the French Enlightenment thinkers and Confucians would share much in common despite the underlying philosophical differences, don’t you?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  97. @Rosie

    I think if French Revolution thinkers had a good grasp of human nature, they probably wouldn’t be murdering each other en masse in short order after gaining power.

    I love Voltaire(and relate significantly to him) but he essentially was a cynic to everything, to which convinced him of the importance of tolerance since if les hommes seront toujours fous; et ceux qui croient les guérir sont les plus fous de la bande(all men are mad, those who think they can be cured are the maddest), then it would be quite silly to be intolerant in a world of universal madness. His main love of Confucianism was that he was seeking an Deist religion with significant normative values and it proved to him that it was possible to have a religion that emphasized virtues without the supernatural and he was a strong believer in meritocracy and anti-hereditarian(Les mortels sont égaux; ce n’est pas la naissance, C’est la seule vertu qui fait la différence – “all mortals are equal, it is not birth but virtue that makes them different”).

    At the end of the day, he didn’t have any specific solutions for society, he just thought that things should be improved bits and pieces, with understanding and benevolence. I suppose he’d be a technocrat these days, but a witty one.

    I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: “O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!” God granted it.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  98. @Jack D

    Jesus would not have agreed with this, nor the Romans

    How do you know? If the RCC is just following Roman Civil Law your assertion does not hold. Are you denying the Roman proscription?

  99. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    OTish

    the most I’ve ever heard was three wives

    I did a double-take after reading this the first time as

    the most I’ve ever had was three wives

    Carry on, don’t mind me.

  100. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hibernian

    The common people generally seem to prefer priestly celibacy in Catholic societies– certainly in Protestantizing England, for example. The priests, on the other hand…

  101. @Daniel Chieh

    Thanks, but you reminded me of another question.

    I keep hearing about this gender imbalance (caused by sex-selective abortion?), but I haven’t yet heard of any of what I would expect to be its consequences, e.g., surging violence from unattached youths, or conversely weird incel cults. Neither have I observed the traditional solution of the authorities: regiment up the excess males and conquer a few neighbors (or at least even up the gender ratio trying). What gives?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  102. @Nick Diaz

    “Compared to you, I am, to use the expression of Trump “a mentally balanced genius”. I literally chuckle at you calling me anything negative. I have read your posts, and they do not reveal great intelligence, knowledge or worldliness.”

    Nick Diaz “a mentally balanced genius” according to Nick Diaz. Okay, checks out.

    “It wasn’t rare at all. Obviously, scientists are rarer than common people, so the total number of scientists killed won’t number in the millions or hundreds of thousands. But they killed a lot. And they killed less than others in the “theology game”? Really? Does this even matter? I think that even one unjustified homicide is pretty bad enough. How many would you consider bad enough? 100? 1,000? How about 100,000? Where do you draw the line?”

    Where do you draw your numbers from?

    “Except that my crusades are metaphorical, using a keyboard and words and not murdering people. The real crusades involved hundreds of thousands of people getting butchered over what religion was right in their way of worship of their non-existent spook in the sky. If you think that was “good”, then you are either a loony or a psychopath. So who is the loony one again?”

    If your words never lead to action, why do you type them? To celebrate impotence? Yeah, strikes most as a little loony.

    “So it was worth going bankrupt to take worthless land in the middle east just because those lands had “sacred” religious monuments and temples? Thank goodness you are not the FED president or secretary of the treasury with this mindset.”

    Lol. The Fed is already bankrupt. But no worries, they’ll just print more.

    “No, not all art is religious or spiritual. Modern art has nothing to do with religion. The Mona Lisa, the greatest oil painting ever, does not have religious conotations.”

    It was the elevation of the everywoman to Madonna-status by virtue of her ineffable femininity. Sorry you missed it.

    “Also, while a lot of the art produced by the ancient Hellenes and Romans did have religious conotations, it was pagan. If you had read carefully what I wrote, I said that they only allowed art with *Christian* themes. I wasn’t talking about religion in general. Also, this has nothing to do with “financing”. The Church flat out *forbade* art that didn’t have Christianity as a theme. “

    Cite needed.

    “And it is debateable if Christianity didn’t actually cause the Roman Empire to fall. Christianity sapped the decisiveness and ruthlessness of the Romans by making them feel bad about killing their enemies rather than loving them.”

    Whoa there cowboy! I’m losing track of your spinning dichotomy of killing-is-bad-no-wait-now-killing-is-good. You’re in favor of killing if you don’t have to sully your hands doing it?

    “The climb to the high middle ages was slow, and it happened only because scientists made concessions to the Church. From Gallileo to Newton, they all had to make concessions to the Church in order to be allowed to work.”

    Gallileo and Newton were born long after the Dark Ages.

    “Point is, the Dark Ages would have been over much more quickly if there was no Church.”

    Right, because Pepin the Short’s investment in Dark Age Theranos was just about to pay off when the Church popped him for usury.

    “No, separation of Church and state is a reality. The Queen of England has no actual power. She is a head of state, a puppet. The same goes for the Archbishop. *Complete* separation between Church and State has existed for over 200 years in the West now.”

    Just as fish don’t know they’re wet, most people don’t know how their states come about. No matter, mass beaching imminent…

    “Western thought is Bible-based? Really? Western thought is based on the Greek philosophers, mathematicians and scientists who were pagans. It is also based on modern scientists, some of who were Christian, true, but their contributions have no relation to the bible. Their contributions are based on the empirical method, and logical deduction. Conversely, the Bible is based on faifth.”

    Western science depends on the presupposition (delineated in, but not original to, the Bible) that there is a Creator who brought order from chaos, and that order may be apprehended by the devoutly diligent.

    “What exactly has Western Civilization gotten from the Bible?”

    It’s tempting to insert here that Monty Python scene about “What have the Romans ever done for us?”, but I will forego it.

    “That you shouldn’t kill and commit adultery? Because the Greeks and Romans already had that in law, much before Christianity. And these are more-or-less universal values.”

    Sorta like the universal Aztecs?

    “The semitic tribes that wrote the Bible didn’t create anything special.”

    Have you told Jack D. & Co. about this?

    “What made the West rich and advanced were the principles of democracy, individual rights and the scientific method, which has nothing to do with Christianity.”

    Democracy and individual rights depend on the belief that all men are equal in God, an explicitly Christian belief. Science already covered.

    “No, the Romans did not intermarry with relatives. Period.”

    Open parenthesis. “Okay, this one time, at band camp” Ellipsis.

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

    • Replies: @Anon
  103. Highlander says: • Website
    @Nick Diaz

    Sounds as though you were a serial “crime” victim of the nuns who rapped you across your knuckles with a ruler every time you mouthed off in class.

  104. Highlander says: • Website
    @Nick Diaz

    The climb to the high middle ages was slow, and it happened only because scientists made concessions to the Church. From Gallileo (sic) to Newton, they all had to make concessions to the Church in order to be allowed to work.

    The High Middle Ages were the 11th and 12th Centuries numb-nuts.

  105. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Newton

    concessions to the Church

    WTF?

  106. @Almost Missouri

    The emasculation of men in society has proceeded far and wide; society has become very efficient at it as you can see by how men can literally be completely destroyed from having any hope of validation in love and family, yet do nothing about it. And Chinese men already are relatively low T.

    Naturally the feminists are going to argue it hasn’t gone far enough. You probably couldn’t even publish One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest these days.

    Burn the cities.

  107. Rapparee says:
    @Jack D

    “[T]his is almost impossible to enforce”

    They eventually figured that out, and relaxed the prohibition to the fourth degree:

    Hence in olden times marriage was forbidden even within the more remote degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources of a wider natural friendship; and this was reasonably extended to the seventh degree, both because beyond this it was difficult to have any recollection of the common stock, and because this was in keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  108. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon

    No marriage in heaven.

  109. Ian M. says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Dude, you’re laying it on a bit thick with the parody of the Whig history.

    Europe only started to progress when they got rid of the power of the clergy, and started to separate church and state.

    Medieval Europe did practice separation of church and state. How else could there have been the infamous medieval conflicts between church and state if the two were not separate?

    If you don’t want conflicts between church and state, you unify them rather than separate them.

  110. Ian M. says:

    FYI Steve, ‘AD’ should come before the year, not after it, e.g. ‘AD 600′, not ’600 AD’.

  111. Ian M. says:
    @Rosie

    The ethnic nation-state is the natural focus of loyalty and attachment for a detribalized society of nuclear families, and it is an inevitability dangerous place for outgroups with kin-based or tribal affinities.

    I would say that’s one possible focus of loyalty and attachment for a detribalized society of nuclear families, but not the only one and not necessarily the most natural one.

    For example, before the rise of the European nation-state but when Europe had already been largely detribalized, the focus of loyalty and attachment tended to be directed towards particular persons, i.e., the ruling monarch or prince, and this cut across ethnic lines. It can be easier for loyalty to be inspired when authority is located in a particular person.

    The other major focus of loyalty in detribalized Europe was of course, the Catholic Church.

    Nationalism was largely a manufactured phenomenon driven by European elites in the 19th century, and part of the project included undermining these traditional sources of loyalty among the populace in favor of the nation-state. See for example, Prussia and Bismarck and the Kulturkampf.

  112. Ian M. says:
    @Almost Missouri

    …in traditional society, people had more willpower than we spoiled moderns do today.

    Right, as an example of this, see the extremely low illegitimacy rates coupled with relatively late marriage ages in many parts of Europe in the late Middle Ages and early Modern Age.

  113. Jack D says:
    @Rapparee

    this was reasonably [1] extended to the seventh degree, …..because this was in keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost [2].

    1. This is begging the question – just because you say it is “reasonable” doesn’t make it so.

    2. Why not the threefold nature of the Trinity? This is just double-talk for the rubes. Somewhere there was a hard headed reason for doing this (maybe as someone said this would result in more property reverting to the Church). Whatever the real reasons were, you can be sure they had absolutely nothing to do with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost.

    • Replies: @res
  114. Ian M. says:
    @Anonymous

    … and there’s no scriptural basis for the traditional Christian ban on polygamy.

    Yes there is, it’s just not explicit.

    Mark 10:11: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”

    If polygamy were not wrong, it does not make sense that this would be adultery (abandonment maybe, but not adultery). For the sin to be adultery specifically implies that you are vowed to be exclusive to the first wife.

    This is also how the early Church understood the passage. For example, Socrates of Constantinople condemned Valentinian I for bigamy after the latter divorced his first wife and married a second.

  115. Ian M. says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I think if French Revolution thinkers had a good grasp of human nature, they probably wouldn’t be murdering each other en masse in short order after gaining power.

    In response to the famous but brain-dead saying of that villainous Communist Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”, Joseph de Maistre had this to say:

    How strange it is that sheep, who were born carnivorous, should nevertheless everywhere be nibbling grass.

  116. res says:
    @Jack D

    Somewhere there was a hard headed reason for doing this

    My guess would be to lessen the power of tight family linkages among European royalty (perhaps to break a specific alliance?). It is an interesting question that seems like it would make a good thesis topic.

    • Replies: @Anon
  117. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Somewhere there was a hard headed reason for doing this

    A more touching declaration of faith I have never seen.

  118. DMG says:

    There is a synergistic effect of the C Church’s effort to break down clan loyalties through extensive exogamy. Remember ‘it takes a village’? Raising those little hedonistic rugrats to be responsible adults is a lot of exhausting work. The Church also demanding that those lonely overworked nuclear couples raise a brood of them dictates a deficiency of parental supervision and correction. Thus it guarantees generations of sovereign individualists. No wonder the West has been so feisty.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.