The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
Clannishness – the Series: A Finer-Grained Look at How It Happened

In my earlier entry (Clannishness – The Series: How It Happened), we saw that the thing that made the difference between WEIRD Northwestern Europeans and their more clannish neighbors was the selective pressures that each underwent during their histories – particularly since the fall of Rome until the present. This era in time established the conditions in which different sort of individuals survived and reproduced, eventually leading to the modern world as we know it.

As before, it is to be understood that these differences have a genetic basis. That is, they are heritable. This means that genetic differences between different peoples lead to differences in their behavioral traits, which, collectively, manifests as cultural differences. We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each. As John Derbyshire put it, “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.”. See my Behavioral Genetics Page for more. The rest of this entry proceeds assuming an understanding of this reality.

To recap, in Northwestern Europe it was bipartite manorialism that selected for a certain type of people not seen elsewhere in the world.

 

 

 

 

In Eastern and Southern Europe, and much everywhere else in the world, it the selective factor was the various forms of “viscous” societies, where heavy dependence on relatives for social life selected for individuals who were “particularist” (as opposed to universalist NW Euros) and distrustful of outsiders. As HBD Chick put it:

part of william hamilton‘s theory of inclusive fitness/kin selection, which explains how altruism ever could’ve arisen at all (altruism here having a very specific definition), is that it should be possible for genes for altruism to be selected for if close kin interact regularly. kin don’t need to recognize one another for altruism to be selected for. as long as closely related individuals don’t move far from one another — that is, if a population is viscous — selection for altruism might happen.

i can’t see why this couldn’t also apply to lesser forms of altruism, not just the kind where you sacrifice your life for two brothers or eight cousins. you know what i mean. like: reciprocal altruism or nepotistic altruism. or just pro-social behaviors. whatever you want to call them. seems to me that nepotistic behaviors ought to be selected for more easily in viscous populations (if they increase fitness, of course).

and some populations are more viscous than others

But beyond this, there are great differences between different NW European countries, along with great differences between different clannish societies. Why is this? No doubt, part of the answer is the precise selective pressures each experienced. Let us try to take a look at what those may have been.

This entry will also be a sequel to my earlier post, More on Farming and Inheritance Systems – Part I: IQ – consider this Part II to that post. There I discussed the IQ differences across Europe, and how they could come about. I will return to that topic and expand on it a bit here.

The differences among peoples of Europe proceeds on a sort of gradient, which is visible when you look at the World Values Survey data:

Indeed, as HBD Chick’s modifications (from the one where i draw squiggly lines all over the welzel-inglehart cultural map | hbd chick) make it clear:

The left image are the countries within the Hajnal line, while the right are countries that have practiced father’s brother’s daughter marriage.

Across these regions, many social indices proceed along this broad gradient. WEIRDness peaks in the areas bordering the North Sea (England, the Netherlands, northern France, southern Scandinavia) and diminishes in all directions from there. This area is also the area of peak human accomplishment (see Clannishness – The Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain and “core europe” and human accomplish-ment | hbd chick), which likewise roughly diminishes in all directions from there.

WVS axes

Why is this? I’d argue that two main selective factors are involved, at least with respect to HBD Chick’s theory. (I will also discuss two other important selective pressures not directly related to HBD Chick’s theory below).

One was simply the length of time under the manorial system. The longer a selective pressure is (consistently) applied, the stronger the evolutionary change that occurs. The manor first appeared in Austrasia (roughly northern France) and spread outward from there.

The second factor is the farming and inheritance systems that arose – in part due to geography and climate, in part due to the characteristics of the people who adopted them:
Todd's family system map Rings

 

We see that the farming and inheritance systems form roughly concentric rings outward from the North Sea. One could imagine that the social systems of each became steadily more “viscous” as you moved away from the North Sea.

Indeed, by the time you reach Eastern Europe, you find that there was a period of actual communal living. In Russia, farming peasants (the bulk of the population) lived in communes, the Obshchina, an arrangement that persisted into the 20th century. Wikipedia has this to say about these (emphasis added):

ORDER IT NOW

The organization of the peasant mode of production is the primary cause for the type of social structure found in the Obshchina. The relationship between the individual peasant, the family, and the community leads to a specific social structure categorized by the creation of familial alliances to apportion risks between members of the community. In the Obshchina alliances were formed primarily through marriage and common descent of kin. Usually the eldest members of the household made up the Mir to govern the redistribution of land. The families came together to form a community that depended on making taxes more equitable and the concept of mutual help. Jovan E. Howe writes, “The economic relations so established are essentially distributive: through various categories of exchanges of both products and labor, temporary imbalances such as those occasioned by insufficient labor power of a newly-established family unit or a catastrophic loss, which places one unit at an unfair reproductive disadvantage in relation to its allies, are evened out.[2] In addition the alliance system had residual communal rights, sharing exchanges during shortages as well as certain distributive exchanges. Furthermore the structure defined by these alliances and risk-sharing measures were regulated by scheduling and the ritualization of time. Howe writes, “the traditional calendar of the Russian peasants was a guide for day-to-day living. The names attached to calendar dates, the calendrical periods into which they were grouped, the day on the week on which each fell, and the sayings connected with them encoded information about when to undertake tasks, but also about when not to work, when it was necessary to perform symbolic actions, take part in rituals and compulsory celebrations”.[3]

Peasants (i.e. three-quarters of the population of Russia) formed a class apart,[4] largely excepted from the incidence of the ordinary law, and governed in accordance with their local customs. The mir itself, with its customs, is of immemorial antiquity; it was not, however, until the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 that the village community was withdrawn from the patrimonial jurisdiction of the landowning nobility and endowed with self-government. The assembly of the mir consists of all the peasant householders of the village.[5] These elect a Village Elder (starosta) and a collector of taxes, who was responsible, at least until the ukaz of October 1906, which abolished communal responsibility for the payment of taxes, for the repartition among individuals of the taxes imposed on the commune. A number of mirs are united into a volost, which has an assembly consisting of elected delegates from the mirs.

This is a quintessential viscous society, and vastly different from the corporate, more atomized ways of Northwestern Europeans at the time. (See also M.G.’s post on the matter: Those Who Can See: The Tsar is Far).

Whereas the circum-North Sea peoples depended on free movement of people and impressing themselves among non-relatives, the inhabitants in the more peripheral European areas had to rely on family or distinct structured alliances with particular people. Democracy flourishes in Northwestern Europe (for better or worse) and is distinctly weaker to the south, east, and in the Celtic fringe – where particularism and strategic social alliances reign.

It should be said here for those that don’t notice that the gradient along the WEIRDO-clannish dimension exists within various European countries.

Great Britain:

UK-origins31.17136

Ireland:

France:

From Differences Between the North and South of France – As Told By Dana

French people all over are wonderfully nice (I was even published about it!). However, I find people in the north to be friendlier and less superficial than people in the south. Although people in the north may tend to be a bit more initially reserved, they quickly become so friendly when you get to know them! On the other hand, southerners are upfront quite nice, but it is often only surface level.

I am cat-called and harassed on the street a billion times more in the south than I ever was in the north.

Life’s pace in the south, especially when it comes to work, is much slower and more leisurely.

This may be contrary to the “leisurely lifestyle” but many French people here in the south (as well as Paris) drive like absolute maniacs!

The styles of houses are very different. Houses in the south, specifically in the Côte d’Azur, are very colorful … In the north of France, houses are built with wood or stone, but in a very different Nomadic or Germanic style.

(Indeed, many of these differences within France sound like the broad difference between Northern and Southern Europe.)

This map of the results of the 2012 French presidential election (from Wikipedia):

French 2012 election key

Spain (from Comparing PISA With GDP Per Capita In Spain And Italy | A Reluctant Apostate):

GDP per capita left, 2009 PISA scores right.

Italy:

Also from Comparing PISA With GDP Per Capita In Spain And Italy | A Reluctant Apostate, GDP per capita left, 2009 PISA scores right:

See also Those Who Can See: Chalk and cheese

Germany:

See also my earlier entry Germania’s Seed?

Scandinavia:

All of these differences exist in the direction of the gradient of clannishness radiating from the North Sea.

Of course, by the time you reach the Middle East and the Maghreb, you have life in actual clans, with high levels of inbreeding even up to the present day: (image sources here and here):

Inclusive fitness and highly viscous societies select for the highly nepotistic and incredibly corrupt societies we see there. See Those Who Can See: Why Re-Colonization? Commonweal Orientation and The Clannish World of Organized Crime | Staffan’s Personality Blog for more.

The key fact is that the fine details of the selective pressures explain the traits of the people, which in turn explains the society they create. (Which of course goes on to shape selective pressures, and hence the traits and hence societies of future people – gene-culture co-evolution).

Geography and climate is a big factor in social organization, as discussed before at More on Farming and Inheritance Systems – Part I: IQ:

The left is a map of the average minimum winter temperatures across Europe; the right is a map of average annual precipitation. While Europe has experienced several climatic swings throughout the Middle Ages, a general pattern can be seen here. While Eastern Europe is in general colder and drier than Western Europe, the Northeast is much colder than the Southeast, leading to the infamously brutal Russian winters.

Farming systems were in large part influenced by climate, which in turn affected social and inheritance systems. Indeed, as noted about France here: Differences Between the North and South of France – As Told By Dana:

because the weather in the south is so much better, people naturally spend more time outside, and therefore consequently meet and interact with more people on a daily basis. However, it’s sometimes hard to spend quality time with so many people, so the relationships are not always as deep. In the north on the other hand, people spend much more time inside because the weather is not so good during the winter, and as a consequence they spend time with fewer people. However, the people they do spend time with they are very close to. So, although it takes a much longer time to meet people in the north, once you’re friends, you’re friends for life, and you’ll tend to have long, meaningful relationships.

Introversion is more common in colder areas generally, as discussed in my earlier post Predictions on the Worldwide Distribution of Personality.

But, as we’ve seen before, one thing that varies across Europe, particularly in a roughly north-south gradient is average IQ. HBD Chick’s theory alone doesn’t completely explain the IQ differences that exist, which brings me to another key force, Clark-Unz selection.

As Gregory Clark discussed in his book A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World – and as Ron Unz posited in How Social Darwinism Made Modern China | The American Conservative, in medieval times, the wealthiest, most intelligent (see also Tollnek & Baten 2012) individuals had more surviving offspring in Europe and in Northeast Asia (see also Peter Frost Does the Clark-Unz model apply to Japan and Korea?). Over time, this led to the evolution of of increased average IQ in these areas, leading to their modern levels.

However, average IQ is significantly lower in south. Why? One factor is that without harsh winter conditions, Clark-Unz selection is less efficient. Poorer and less intelligent individuals also survived and reproduced in sufficient numbers.

Finally, an important selective factor in shaping the modern world, in addition to HBD Chick’s selection and Clark-Unz selection, is state pacification, Frost-Harpending selection:

BydoE2BIgAA43cP.jpg large

As Peter Frost writes:

While war has always been with us, personal violence has been declining in Western societies over the last millennium.

Courts imposed the death penalty more and more often and, by the late Middle Ages, were condemning to death between 0.5 and 1.0% of all men of each generation, with perhaps just as many offenders dying at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. Meanwhile, the homicide rate plummeted from the 14th century to the 20th, decreasing forty-fold. The pool of violent men dried up until most murders occurred under conditions of jealousy, intoxication, or extreme stress.

The immediate causes were legal and cultural: harsher punishment and a shift in popular attitudes toward the violent male—who went from hero to zero. This new social environment, however, also tended to favor the survival and reproduction of individuals who would less easily resort to violence on their own initiative. Given that aggressive behavior is moderately to highly heritable, as shown by twin studies, is it possible that the high rate of capital punishment gradually removed propensities for violence from the gene pool? This hypothesis is modeled by Frost and Harpending, who conclude that such natural selection could explain a little over half of the reduction in the homicide rate. The rest of the decline may have partly resulted from violent men being increasingly marginalized in society and on the marriage market.

We see a steep decline in rates of violence across Europe:

pinker-fig-3-3

HBD Chick had noted that the timing of this pattern follows the Hajnal line (see historic european homicide rates … and the hajnal line | hbd chick):

pinker-eisner-reduction-of-homicide-in-europe-over-time-02

Frost and Hapending 2015 analyze the effects of historic executions and rates of violence across Europe. (This process likely also occurred across much of Northeast Asia.) They themselves note that the selective coefficient they devised explains much of what we see, but it insufficient to explain all of the decline.

I posit that it is the combination of all three of these forces, “HBD Chick selection” (bipartite manorialism and subsequent atomized/corporate societies), Clark-Unz selection (tendency for the wealthiest and brightest to have more surviving offspring), and Frost-Harpending selection (execution of violent individuals) acted in concert in a synergistic arrangement to produce the NW Europeans we know today. The precise combination of all these forces (along with basic geographic, climatic, and food production factors) produced the varying degree of traits we see across Eurasia and North Africa today.

Indeed, beyond evolution by natural selection itself, it is amazing that there are other general trends. But geographic realities (as well as simple proximity) served to create a geographic pattern to selective pressures, and hence the societies we see today. For better or worse, these explain the features of these societies, and the consequences of such.

Of course, if you like my work, please do feel free to support it. You can donate via PayPal (accepting Visa and Mastercard) via the button below or to the right:

donate_paypal

I am also accepting Bitcoins for those who prefer to use this route. My Bitcoin address is: 1DjjhBGxoRVfdjYo2QgSteMYLuXNVg3DiJ

index

Also you can pledge a recurring donation per publication through Patreon:

tumblr_ntgbmfWOoH1qeu1kfo2_5001 Thank you very much for your donations!

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. “We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each.”

    Does that mean assimilation of disparate cultural groups is a pipe dream?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Does that mean assimilation of disparate cultural groups is a pipe dream?
     
    It is (More Maps of the American Nations ).

    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/729757514863157248

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jman/clannishness-the-series-a-finer-grained-look-at-how-it-happened/#comment-1730086
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @Luke Lea
    "We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each."

    Does that mean assimilation of disparate cultural groups is a pipe dream?

    Does that mean assimilation of disparate cultural groups is a pipe dream?

    It is (More Maps of the American Nations ).

    Read More
  3. JayMan would you please explain why John Derbyshire’s proposition which you quote approvongly is correct. I refer to *if dimensions of the human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of individual personalities”. Does that not ignore the possibility that there are interactions between personality characteristics or their genetic causes which weaken, strengthen or alter the expression of ersonality traits? If not how would such complexity work out consistent with his statement?

    I also have a quibble of some potential importance. Your first visual has India right in the middle and in a very small area (coloured brown). Is not the small area with just one label: “India”, completely implausible ln at least two grounda. One is the known huge variety of everything in India. The other is the caste system which cannot have selected for the same qualities in Dalits as in Brahmins (just to make the point very simply).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I refer to *if dimensions of the human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of individual personalities”. Does that not ignore the possibility that there are interactions between personality characteristics or their genetic causes which weaken, strengthen or alter the expression of ersonality traits? If not how would such complexity work out consistent with his statement?
     
    Have you ever taken linear algebra or vector calculus? ;)

    I also have a quibble of some potential importance. Your first visual has India right in the middle and in a very small area (coloured brown). Is not the small area with just one label: “India”, completely implausible ln at least two grounda. One is the known huge variety of everything in India. The other is the caste system which cannot have selected for the same qualities in Dalits as in Brahmins (just to make the point very simply).
     
    To be sure. But the WVS datapoint is for the country as a whole. Obviously there would be regional and caste differences if they broke them out separately.
  4. @Wizard of Oz
    JayMan would you please explain why John Derbyshire's proposition which you quote approvongly is correct. I refer to *if dimensions of the human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of individual personalities". Does that not ignore the possibility that there are interactions between personality characteristics or their genetic causes which weaken, strengthen or alter the expression of ersonality traits? If not how would such complexity work out consistent with his statement?

    I also have a quibble of some potential importance. Your first visual has India right in the middle and in a very small area (coloured brown). Is not the small area with just one label: "India", completely implausible ln at least two grounda. One is the known huge variety of everything in India. The other is the caste system which cannot have selected for the same qualities in Dalits as in Brahmins (just to make the point very simply).

    I refer to *if dimensions of the human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of individual personalities”. Does that not ignore the possibility that there are interactions between personality characteristics or their genetic causes which weaken, strengthen or alter the expression of ersonality traits? If not how would such complexity work out consistent with his statement?

    Have you ever taken linear algebra or vector calculus? ;)

    I also have a quibble of some potential importance. Your first visual has India right in the middle and in a very small area (coloured brown). Is not the small area with just one label: “India”, completely implausible ln at least two grounda. One is the known huge variety of everything in India. The other is the caste system which cannot have selected for the same qualities in Dalits as in Brahmins (just to make the point very simply).

    To be sure. But the WVS datapoint is for the country as a whole. Obviously there would be regional and caste differences if they broke them out separately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. Now a question prompted by my shamefully recent introduction to the name and very-much-potted version of the ideas of Benedict Anderson who died in Decmber 2015. "Imagined Communities" (1983) seems to have been very influential in contemporary thinking about nationalism. I am not aware of its even touching on the biology of clannishness. Nor do I know that it specifically refers to ideas from psychology (evolutionary or otherwisel).

    It does deal though with nationalism as a binding force which can cause people to die for that nation of people they have to imagine because they are too numerous to know. It also explores causal elements like the spread of ideas through the capitalist press and the overturnog of the idea of autocratic rule in which ethnicity was not key but the illiterate peasant simply looked socially up to see to whom he belonged.

    I would be interested to know if you can meld the different approaches.

  5. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Yeat another fascist crappy article. You should travel to Denmark and Belgium to see who is inbred and then to Finnland and Baltic states to see who is slow and how these ‘self-express’. Concerning self-expression in arts, protestantism and being English have very little to offer to humanity.
    It appears that author has built himself a kind of fascist hierarchy of nations and now tries to attach some fantasy theories. The pattern of a nation depends on its history. E.g. secularity of “Catholic” nation of Czechs is a result of German Imperial, feudal and Papal enslavement resulting in religious purges, Hussite wars, later with 30-years war, the Austrian yoke and so on. Go visit Prague to find primary early medieval Orthodox church scriptures on the wood in central cathedral.
    Next obvious fault – that author voluntarily aggregates some nations in formations like ‘Protestant Europe’ e.g. with Finland and Sweden together, while Finland is genetically like Estonia and was exploited by Swedish nobility for centuries.
    Obschina in Russia was not an inherently specific pattern, but a trait resulting from relative freedom and lack of exploitation. In Western Europe, locals were forcibly enslaved and exploited by feudals of foreign barbarian origins, e.g. by Normans in Britain and Northern France, Germanic and Goth warlords in Gaul and Spain, etc. – i.e., by institutionalized alien criminals, living by their own gangster laws (courtier culture treating serfs like cattle) inside fortified mansions. Compare with mafia ‘lying on the matress’, weapons ready. The same applies to good share of Germany – where Slavic nations were exploited, catholicized and gradually germanized starting from Charlemagne.
    In Russia, locals were governed by local princes or nobility that was peacefully summoned to govern. There were no ‘margraves’ and ‘barons’ in Russia with inhumane feudal rights, no one erected castles to rob the locals and then find a safe retreat there. People gathered in communities to farm in harsh conditions, to protect themselves from barbarian horde, later to pay taxes and provide recruits for government.
    You should grow up from your anti-Slavic, anti-Orthodox prejudices.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @JayMan

    It appears that author has built himself a kind of fascist hierarchy of nations and now tries to attach some fantasy theories.
     
    Look, I'm getting tired of these utterly innane comments and commenters I get to my pieces here.

    The data on the performance and behavioral indices of these various countries was assembled here and in the preceding parts in this series. The data speak for themselves. I didn't make them way they are. Don't be upset with me for that.


    The pattern of a nation depends on its history.
     
    No shit.

    E.g. secularity of “Catholic” nation of Czechs is a result of German Imperial, feudal and Papal enslavement resulting in religious purges, Hussite wars, later with 30-years war, the Austrian yoke and so on.
     
    In a way, I suppose I need to blame modern education, because the way history is taught is basically one giant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. What you really know is that a sequence of events took place. You don't know why they happened or what caused what. The possibilities that historical events are:

    1. Not accidental
    2. Perhaps common expressions of the people

    ...not considered.


    while Finland is genetically like Estonia and was exploited by Swedish nobility for centuries.
     
    And each of those countries experienced different selective pressures over the past few centuries (not to mention that Estonians have absorbed much more Baltic ancestry than their Finnish cousins), which was a key point of this entry.

    You should grow up from your anti-Slavic, anti-Orthodox prejudices.
     
    In my experience, "anti-X" means "reciting unflattering facts about X". The facts are the facts nonetheless. NW Euros have their own set of unflattering characteristists. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Please let this comment serve as a warning to all future commenters in this vain. I will simply refer you back to this comment, because I'm getting tired of making this argument over and over.

  6. @JayMan

    I refer to *if dimensions of the human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of individual personalities”. Does that not ignore the possibility that there are interactions between personality characteristics or their genetic causes which weaken, strengthen or alter the expression of ersonality traits? If not how would such complexity work out consistent with his statement?
     
    Have you ever taken linear algebra or vector calculus? ;)

    I also have a quibble of some potential importance. Your first visual has India right in the middle and in a very small area (coloured brown). Is not the small area with just one label: “India”, completely implausible ln at least two grounda. One is the known huge variety of everything in India. The other is the caste system which cannot have selected for the same qualities in Dalits as in Brahmins (just to make the point very simply).
     
    To be sure. But the WVS datapoint is for the country as a whole. Obviously there would be regional and caste differences if they broke them out separately.

    Thanks. Now a question prompted by my shamefully recent introduction to the name and very-much-potted version of the ideas of Benedict Anderson who died in Decmber 2015. “Imagined Communities” (1983) seems to have been very influential in contemporary thinking about nationalism. I am not aware of its even touching on the biology of clannishness. Nor do I know that it specifically refers to ideas from psychology (evolutionary or otherwisel).

    It does deal though with nationalism as a binding force which can cause people to die for that nation of people they have to imagine because they are too numerous to know. It also explores causal elements like the spread of ideas through the capitalist press and the overturnog of the idea of autocratic rule in which ethnicity was not key but the illiterate peasant simply looked socially up to see to whom he belonged.

    I would be interested to know if you can meld the different approaches.

    Read More
  7. HBDChick or you should have written a book on this. Now Joseph Heinrich published much of this stuff in his book The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating our Species, and Making us Smarter (2016)

    Read More
  8. @Anon
    Yeat another fascist crappy article. You should travel to Denmark and Belgium to see who is inbred and then to Finnland and Baltic states to see who is slow and how these 'self-express'. Concerning self-expression in arts, protestantism and being English have very little to offer to humanity.
    It appears that author has built himself a kind of fascist hierarchy of nations and now tries to attach some fantasy theories. The pattern of a nation depends on its history. E.g. secularity of "Catholic" nation of Czechs is a result of German Imperial, feudal and Papal enslavement resulting in religious purges, Hussite wars, later with 30-years war, the Austrian yoke and so on. Go visit Prague to find primary early medieval Orthodox church scriptures on the wood in central cathedral.
    Next obvious fault - that author voluntarily aggregates some nations in formations like 'Protestant Europe' e.g. with Finland and Sweden together, while Finland is genetically like Estonia and was exploited by Swedish nobility for centuries.
    Obschina in Russia was not an inherently specific pattern, but a trait resulting from relative freedom and lack of exploitation. In Western Europe, locals were forcibly enslaved and exploited by feudals of foreign barbarian origins, e.g. by Normans in Britain and Northern France, Germanic and Goth warlords in Gaul and Spain, etc. - i.e., by institutionalized alien criminals, living by their own gangster laws (courtier culture treating serfs like cattle) inside fortified mansions. Compare with mafia 'lying on the matress', weapons ready. The same applies to good share of Germany - where Slavic nations were exploited, catholicized and gradually germanized starting from Charlemagne.
    In Russia, locals were governed by local princes or nobility that was peacefully summoned to govern. There were no 'margraves' and 'barons' in Russia with inhumane feudal rights, no one erected castles to rob the locals and then find a safe retreat there. People gathered in communities to farm in harsh conditions, to protect themselves from barbarian horde, later to pay taxes and provide recruits for government.
    You should grow up from your anti-Slavic, anti-Orthodox prejudices.

    It appears that author has built himself a kind of fascist hierarchy of nations and now tries to attach some fantasy theories.

    Look, I’m getting tired of these utterly innane comments and commenters I get to my pieces here.

    The data on the performance and behavioral indices of these various countries was assembled here and in the preceding parts in this series. The data speak for themselves. I didn’t make them way they are. Don’t be upset with me for that.

    The pattern of a nation depends on its history.

    No shit.

    E.g. secularity of “Catholic” nation of Czechs is a result of German Imperial, feudal and Papal enslavement resulting in religious purges, Hussite wars, later with 30-years war, the Austrian yoke and so on.

    In a way, I suppose I need to blame modern education, because the way history is taught is basically one giant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. What you really know is that a sequence of events took place. You don’t know why they happened or what caused what. The possibilities that historical events are:

    1. Not accidental
    2. Perhaps common expressions of the people

    …not considered.

    while Finland is genetically like Estonia and was exploited by Swedish nobility for centuries.

    And each of those countries experienced different selective pressures over the past few centuries (not to mention that Estonians have absorbed much more Baltic ancestry than their Finnish cousins), which was a key point of this entry.

    You should grow up from your anti-Slavic, anti-Orthodox prejudices.

    In my experience, “anti-X” means “reciting unflattering facts about X”. The facts are the facts nonetheless. NW Euros have their own set of unflattering characteristists. It’s just the nature of the beast.

    Please let this comment serve as a warning to all future commenters in this vain. I will simply refer you back to this comment, because I’m getting tired of making this argument over and over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Do you mind if I point out that you misspelled 'vein' in the last paragraph?
  9. 1731985

    Jeff interviews Avatar Master Adam Williams, topics include:

    This better not be spam. I didn’t watch this yet. I’ll let this one through, but don’t post it again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    It's fetching up everywhere that doesn't have a good janitor.
    Even on the Venerable Pilgee's plate.
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-issue-is-not-trump-it-is-us/#comment-1731954

    It is, I fear, a notoriously unappetising canned pink luncheon meat. So much of it is gibberish it might even be a bot. Or an acid casualty (with a strange pointy nose).
  10. Jayman, what do you think of the large Germanic Catholic population? A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.

    How would you sort Belgians, much of the Northern Netherlands, Luxembourg A decent chunk of Northwestern Germany including Rhinelanders, Westphalians, some parts of Lower Saxony, etc.?

    Not to mention Catholic Bavarians, Austrians, Swabians, German Swiss, and many more. Some of these people are far away from non-germanic peoples, yet are still majority catholic. In addition, in some of these countries the Catholics are more wealthy and have higher human development than the protestants!

    This is especially true in Germany. In Germany, the wealthiest, highest human development, and many of the most liberal, tolerant areas are catholics. This is even true for the non-communist protestant areas of Germany, the Capitalist Protestants are still less wealthy, have lower scores, etc. than the catholic german areas! How do you explain this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Jayman, what do you think of the large Germanic Catholic population? A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.
     
    For one, I never said religion was the thing. Religiosity and indeed specific religious inklings are all heritable. That said, the patterns you mention show that the it is the traits of the people that matter, not the religion.
    , @anon

    A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.
     
    1) I think you need to look at this as layers of influence.

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn't support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate - unsuitable regions were affected less.

    So if you imagine a set of transparent layers with the first layer being farming conditions: terrain, climate etc and then on top of that place the hajnal layer radiating out from somewhere in NW France or W Germany then it's the places where the hajnal layer map overlaps farming conditions most suitable to manorialism.

    So for example hillier regions would have less need of and be less suited to manorialism.

    (If correct the more Catholic parts of Germany should be the hillier parts.)

    http://ontheworldmap.com/germany/germany-physical-map.jpg

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7404/7404.jpg

    That's the first step.

    2) I don't think religion *caused* what happened; i think religious rebellion was an *effect* of the hajnal stuff so the earliest regions to be effected and thus the earliest to become Protestant would be the regions that most overlapped in the two layer model described above. However these regions were also the first to be effected by the counter reformation so places like Poland and Bohemia who were early adopters got smushed.

    In a lot of ways places like England were initially on the periphery of all this but as early adopters got pushed NW by the counter reformation the epicenter moved NW also.

    3) I'm not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.

    4) It's all relative. The least WEIRD parts of Germany, Belgium etc might still be more so than the average for India.
  11. “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.”
    This is totally incorrect. People have highly synergistic effects on each other and in fact someone’s contribution to this “vector sum” is entirely dependent on social context.

    A simple thought experiment is through Granovetter’s “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” People are extremely susceptible to peer pressure in both pro-social and anti-social directions.

    It’s not a question that people’s genetics are different, and people may even have different dispositions, but their behavior changes abruptly dependent on their social context. Someone who litters in filthy NYC probably would not litter in spotless Tokyo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    A simple thought experiment is through Granovetter’s “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” People are extremely susceptible to peer pressure in both pro-social and anti-social directions.
     
    There's actually not a lot of evidence for that.

    In any case, the concept of a "vector sum" does take into account interaction between people.


    Someone who litters in filthy NYC probably would not litter in spotless Tokyo.
     
    Are you sure?
    , @anon

    People have highly synergistic effects on each other
     
    vector sum != sum

    vectors have a magnitude and direction so it's a pretty good analogy imo at least in determining what behaviors are punished/rewarded by that collective society and how severely - thus affecting observed behavior if not the underlying genetics
  12. @BowieCapitalist
    Jayman, what do you think of the large Germanic Catholic population? A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.

    How would you sort Belgians, much of the Northern Netherlands, Luxembourg A decent chunk of Northwestern Germany including Rhinelanders, Westphalians, some parts of Lower Saxony, etc.?

    Not to mention Catholic Bavarians, Austrians, Swabians, German Swiss, and many more. Some of these people are far away from non-germanic peoples, yet are still majority catholic. In addition, in some of these countries the Catholics are more wealthy and have higher human development than the protestants!

    This is especially true in Germany. In Germany, the wealthiest, highest human development, and many of the most liberal, tolerant areas are catholics. This is even true for the non-communist protestant areas of Germany, the Capitalist Protestants are still less wealthy, have lower scores, etc. than the catholic german areas! How do you explain this?

    Jayman, what do you think of the large Germanic Catholic population? A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.

    For one, I never said religion was the thing. Religiosity and indeed specific religious inklings are all heritable. That said, the patterns you mention show that the it is the traits of the people that matter, not the religion.

    Read More
  13. @DavidVsGoliath
    "if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities."
    This is totally incorrect. People have highly synergistic effects on each other and in fact someone's contribution to this "vector sum" is entirely dependent on social context.

    A simple thought experiment is through Granovetter's "Threshold Models of Collective Behavior." People are extremely susceptible to peer pressure in both pro-social and anti-social directions.

    It's not a question that people's genetics are different, and people may even have different dispositions, but their behavior changes abruptly dependent on their social context. Someone who litters in filthy NYC probably would not litter in spotless Tokyo.

    A simple thought experiment is through Granovetter’s “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” People are extremely susceptible to peer pressure in both pro-social and anti-social directions.

    There’s actually not a lot of evidence for that.

    In any case, the concept of a “vector sum” does take into account interaction between people.

    Someone who litters in filthy NYC probably would not litter in spotless Tokyo.

    Are you sure?

    Read More
  14. @JayMan

    Jeff interviews Avatar Master Adam Williams, topics include:
     
    This better not be spam. I didn't watch this yet. I'll let this one through, but don't post it again.

    It’s fetching up everywhere that doesn’t have a good janitor.
    Even on the Venerable Pilgee’s plate.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-issue-is-not-trump-it-is-us/#comment-1731954

    It is, I fear, a notoriously unappetising canned pink luncheon meat. So much of it is gibberish it might even be a bot. Or an acid casualty (with a strange pointy nose).

    Read More
  15. Across these regions, many social indices proceed along this broad gradient. WEIRDness peaks in the areas bordering the North Sea (England, the Netherlands, northern France, southern Scandinavia) and diminishes in all directions from there.

    Drink milk and prosper.

    Lactose intolerance by country

    The lactose tolerance zones of Europe mirror the general Northwest – Southeast IQ gradient, and, to a lesser extent, the average height by nation. You could even add the average incidence of blondism and blue-eyedism.

    The nations clustering around the North Sea and Western Baltic (and their overseas offshoots) lead the world in all kinds of positive characteristics, and also some extremely negative ones, like pathological altruism.

    Could their milk-heavy diet have helped NW Euros, on average, grow taller, smarter, lighter-complected, and possibly even more trusting/gullible than their less milky southern and eastern neighbours?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Could their milk-heavy diet have helped NW Euros, on average, grow taller, smarter, lighter-complected, and possibly even more trusting/gullible than their less milky southern and eastern neighbours?
     
    The thing about correlations is that when there is an underlying causal entity, you'll find a million correlations. And many will be claiming that their favorite correlation is "it."

    Good find. No, milk isn't the cause.

  16. @JayMan

    It appears that author has built himself a kind of fascist hierarchy of nations and now tries to attach some fantasy theories.
     
    Look, I'm getting tired of these utterly innane comments and commenters I get to my pieces here.

    The data on the performance and behavioral indices of these various countries was assembled here and in the preceding parts in this series. The data speak for themselves. I didn't make them way they are. Don't be upset with me for that.


    The pattern of a nation depends on its history.
     
    No shit.

    E.g. secularity of “Catholic” nation of Czechs is a result of German Imperial, feudal and Papal enslavement resulting in religious purges, Hussite wars, later with 30-years war, the Austrian yoke and so on.
     
    In a way, I suppose I need to blame modern education, because the way history is taught is basically one giant post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. What you really know is that a sequence of events took place. You don't know why they happened or what caused what. The possibilities that historical events are:

    1. Not accidental
    2. Perhaps common expressions of the people

    ...not considered.


    while Finland is genetically like Estonia and was exploited by Swedish nobility for centuries.
     
    And each of those countries experienced different selective pressures over the past few centuries (not to mention that Estonians have absorbed much more Baltic ancestry than their Finnish cousins), which was a key point of this entry.

    You should grow up from your anti-Slavic, anti-Orthodox prejudices.
     
    In my experience, "anti-X" means "reciting unflattering facts about X". The facts are the facts nonetheless. NW Euros have their own set of unflattering characteristists. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Please let this comment serve as a warning to all future commenters in this vain. I will simply refer you back to this comment, because I'm getting tired of making this argument over and over.

    Do you mind if I point out that you misspelled ‘vein’ in the last paragraph?

    Read More
  17. Random thoughts.

    1. There has to be some level of altruism because they co-operate with kin.
    2. There has to be some machinery in the brain that determines who to co-operate with
    3. There are people on the internet who I have co-operated with in the creation of quite a lot of useful software who I have never met. Many of them are of NW Euro descent, possibly as many as 90%. That is an interesting new phenomena where large numbers of people who have never met are co-operating to produce new and useful things, like the Defense Distributed stuff … and other stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    It struck me that my last point represents a very low-cost form of co-operation. If someone reneges all you have lost is time.

    In a normal social setting co-operating with a stranger could lead to your death or (in the case of a wayward sexual partner) reduce your reproductive success to zero.
  18. @jeppo
    Across these regions, many social indices proceed along this broad gradient. WEIRDness peaks in the areas bordering the North Sea (England, the Netherlands, northern France, southern Scandinavia) and diminishes in all directions from there.

    Drink milk and prosper.

    http://i.imgur.com/gFi2San.gif

    The lactose tolerance zones of Europe mirror the general Northwest - Southeast IQ gradient, and, to a lesser extent, the average height by nation. You could even add the average incidence of blondism and blue-eyedism.

    The nations clustering around the North Sea and Western Baltic (and their overseas offshoots) lead the world in all kinds of positive characteristics, and also some extremely negative ones, like pathological altruism.

    Could their milk-heavy diet have helped NW Euros, on average, grow taller, smarter, lighter-complected, and possibly even more trusting/gullible than their less milky southern and eastern neighbours?

    Could their milk-heavy diet have helped NW Euros, on average, grow taller, smarter, lighter-complected, and possibly even more trusting/gullible than their less milky southern and eastern neighbours?

    The thing about correlations is that when there is an underlying causal entity, you’ll find a million correlations. And many will be claiming that their favorite correlation is “it.”

    Good find. No, milk isn’t the cause.

    Read More
  19. @JayMan

    Could their milk-heavy diet have helped NW Euros, on average, grow taller, smarter, lighter-complected, and possibly even more trusting/gullible than their less milky southern and eastern neighbours?
     
    The thing about correlations is that when there is an underlying causal entity, you'll find a million correlations. And many will be claiming that their favorite correlation is "it."

    Good find. No, milk isn't the cause.

    JayMan:

    Why isn’t milk the cause?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Ireland.

    (milk is great but it's not the cause of WEIRD traits imo - if anything i'd say pastoralism favors clannishness so milk tolerance was more likely a factor in the other direction)

    (assuming milk tolerance originally came about as a result of crop farming being less productive along the atlantic coast due to heavy rainfall then the resulting reliance on pastoralism along the Atlantic coast would be why those areas remained outside the hajnal line)
  20. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The nations clustering around the North Sea and Western Baltic (and their overseas offshoots) lead the world in all kinds of positive characteristics..

    The blondest (and probably most blue eyed) populations are in the Eastern Baltic – Finland, Estonia, central part of Sweden and central part of Norway near the North sea. It also has some of the tallest people, these days at least. It might also be true that this area is much less diverse in racial characteristics than the North Western European area where not only blondism is common, but also red hair and black hair with blue or green eyes which is very uncommon in the Eastern Baltic.

    Platinum blondism is probably a Finnic characteristic.

    Read More
  21. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Dan Hayes
    JayMan:

    Why isn't milk the cause?

    Ireland.

    (milk is great but it’s not the cause of WEIRD traits imo – if anything i’d say pastoralism favors clannishness so milk tolerance was more likely a factor in the other direction)

    (assuming milk tolerance originally came about as a result of crop farming being less productive along the atlantic coast due to heavy rainfall then the resulting reliance on pastoralism along the Atlantic coast would be why those areas remained outside the hajnal line)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    if anything i’d say pastoralism favors clannishness
     
    This seems likely to me in so far as pastoralism likely involved genetic differences to support that 'lifestyle'.

    A lack of clannishness on the part of those people would likely lead to their destruction.

    However, allowing a certain amount of 'boiling-off' would help them.
  22. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @DavidVsGoliath
    "if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities."
    This is totally incorrect. People have highly synergistic effects on each other and in fact someone's contribution to this "vector sum" is entirely dependent on social context.

    A simple thought experiment is through Granovetter's "Threshold Models of Collective Behavior." People are extremely susceptible to peer pressure in both pro-social and anti-social directions.

    It's not a question that people's genetics are different, and people may even have different dispositions, but their behavior changes abruptly dependent on their social context. Someone who litters in filthy NYC probably would not litter in spotless Tokyo.

    People have highly synergistic effects on each other

    vector sum != sum

    vectors have a magnitude and direction so it’s a pretty good analogy imo at least in determining what behaviors are punished/rewarded by that collective society and how severely – thus affecting observed behavior if not the underlying genetics

    Read More
  23. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @BowieCapitalist
    Jayman, what do you think of the large Germanic Catholic population? A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.

    How would you sort Belgians, much of the Northern Netherlands, Luxembourg A decent chunk of Northwestern Germany including Rhinelanders, Westphalians, some parts of Lower Saxony, etc.?

    Not to mention Catholic Bavarians, Austrians, Swabians, German Swiss, and many more. Some of these people are far away from non-germanic peoples, yet are still majority catholic. In addition, in some of these countries the Catholics are more wealthy and have higher human development than the protestants!

    This is especially true in Germany. In Germany, the wealthiest, highest human development, and many of the most liberal, tolerant areas are catholics. This is even true for the non-communist protestant areas of Germany, the Capitalist Protestants are still less wealthy, have lower scores, etc. than the catholic german areas! How do you explain this?

    A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.

    1) I think you need to look at this as layers of influence.

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn’t support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate – unsuitable regions were affected less.

    So if you imagine a set of transparent layers with the first layer being farming conditions: terrain, climate etc and then on top of that place the hajnal layer radiating out from somewhere in NW France or W Germany then it’s the places where the hajnal layer map overlaps farming conditions most suitable to manorialism.

    So for example hillier regions would have less need of and be less suited to manorialism.

    (If correct the more Catholic parts of Germany should be the hillier parts.)

    http://ontheworldmap.com/germany/germany-physical-map.jpg

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7404/7404.jpg

    That’s the first step.

    2) I don’t think religion *caused* what happened; i think religious rebellion was an *effect* of the hajnal stuff so the earliest regions to be effected and thus the earliest to become Protestant would be the regions that most overlapped in the two layer model described above. However these regions were also the first to be effected by the counter reformation so places like Poland and Bohemia who were early adopters got smushed.

    In a lot of ways places like England were initially on the periphery of all this but as early adopters got pushed NW by the counter reformation the epicenter moved NW also.

    3) I’m not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.

    4) It’s all relative. The least WEIRD parts of Germany, Belgium etc might still be more so than the average for India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn’t support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate – unsuitable regions were affected less.
     
    Thanks for refreshingly good and on point comments!
    , @anon

    3) I’m not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.
     
    An alternative view which might tie in with the overall model is...

    say the simplest version of this is balanced selection on xenophobia vs xenophilia (where "xeno" starts just beyond 1st cousin) measured as the percentage of total concern for relatives over strangers and that measure is related to ability to cooperate.

    Say at one extreme the divide is:

    100% concern for relatives vs 0% concern for strangers

    and say that's the human default so a little village somewhere is capable of all the cooperation it needs but are reluctant to cooperate with non close kin unless forced.

    Then say something like the Hajnal thing creates an environment where a population have to cooperate with non close kin and that creates a selection pressure which pushes them along the relative vs stranger spectrum to say:

    80% concern for relatives vs 20% concern for strangers

    and say a population at this point on the spectrum is capable of higher level cooperation which leads to them becoming richer.

    Then...

    (like i say i think the religion part is more an effect than a cause and not clearly delineated but just for the sake of argument in the context of this answer...)

    say the Protestant regions of Germany were the ones that moved to the 80/20 spot on the spectrum first while the Catholic parts were still at 100/0 and as a result the Protestant regions became wealthier.

    However then say, what if the process has continued since that time so the Protestant regions became:

    50% concern for relatives vs 50% concern for strangers

    and the Catholic areas

    80% concern for relatives vs 20% concern for strangers

    then maybe the Protestant regions off-shoring their wealth producing industries is actually part of the same Hajnal thing.

    In other words maybe WEIRDness can go too far and although the Protestant regions got to the optimal spot earlier they have now moved past it while the Catholic/Orthodox regions are now in or closer to the sweet spot.

    (I suggest this for those who are tempted by the theory but rankle at the Protestant aspect. The earliest regions to become WEIRD may have become too WEIRD* while the slower regions are now the ones with the right mixture.)

    (*too WEIRD for the current state of the world - if everyone was WEIRD it wouldn't matter)
  24. @anon

    A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.
     
    1) I think you need to look at this as layers of influence.

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn't support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate - unsuitable regions were affected less.

    So if you imagine a set of transparent layers with the first layer being farming conditions: terrain, climate etc and then on top of that place the hajnal layer radiating out from somewhere in NW France or W Germany then it's the places where the hajnal layer map overlaps farming conditions most suitable to manorialism.

    So for example hillier regions would have less need of and be less suited to manorialism.

    (If correct the more Catholic parts of Germany should be the hillier parts.)

    http://ontheworldmap.com/germany/germany-physical-map.jpg

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7404/7404.jpg

    That's the first step.

    2) I don't think religion *caused* what happened; i think religious rebellion was an *effect* of the hajnal stuff so the earliest regions to be effected and thus the earliest to become Protestant would be the regions that most overlapped in the two layer model described above. However these regions were also the first to be effected by the counter reformation so places like Poland and Bohemia who were early adopters got smushed.

    In a lot of ways places like England were initially on the periphery of all this but as early adopters got pushed NW by the counter reformation the epicenter moved NW also.

    3) I'm not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.

    4) It's all relative. The least WEIRD parts of Germany, Belgium etc might still be more so than the average for India.

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn’t support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate – unsuitable regions were affected less.

    Thanks for refreshingly good and on point comments!

    Read More
  25. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn’t support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate – unsuitable regions were affected less.
     
    Thanks for refreshingly good and on point comments!

    Welcome.

    Read More
  26. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @anon

    A lot of people mention how Southern and parts of Eastern Europe are Catholic, and Northwest Europe is Protestant. While this is largely true, there are also large amounts of Northwestern and Germanic Catholics.
     
    1) I think you need to look at this as layers of influence.

    For example if manorialism was a side effect of heavy soils in northern Europe needing the heavy plow and the heavy plow needed lots of oxen and an individual farmer couldn't support that many oxen then the influence of manorialism vary by terrain and climate - unsuitable regions were affected less.

    So if you imagine a set of transparent layers with the first layer being farming conditions: terrain, climate etc and then on top of that place the hajnal layer radiating out from somewhere in NW France or W Germany then it's the places where the hajnal layer map overlaps farming conditions most suitable to manorialism.

    So for example hillier regions would have less need of and be less suited to manorialism.

    (If correct the more Catholic parts of Germany should be the hillier parts.)

    http://ontheworldmap.com/germany/germany-physical-map.jpg

    http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7404/7404.jpg

    That's the first step.

    2) I don't think religion *caused* what happened; i think religious rebellion was an *effect* of the hajnal stuff so the earliest regions to be effected and thus the earliest to become Protestant would be the regions that most overlapped in the two layer model described above. However these regions were also the first to be effected by the counter reformation so places like Poland and Bohemia who were early adopters got smushed.

    In a lot of ways places like England were initially on the periphery of all this but as early adopters got pushed NW by the counter reformation the epicenter moved NW also.

    3) I'm not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.

    4) It's all relative. The least WEIRD parts of Germany, Belgium etc might still be more so than the average for India.

    3) I’m not sure the point about current prosperity stands as the industrial regions that used to be the richest were decimated by off-shoring since the 1980s.

    An alternative view which might tie in with the overall model is…

    say the simplest version of this is balanced selection on xenophobia vs xenophilia (where “xeno” starts just beyond 1st cousin) measured as the percentage of total concern for relatives over strangers and that measure is related to ability to cooperate.

    Say at one extreme the divide is:

    100% concern for relatives vs 0% concern for strangers

    and say that’s the human default so a little village somewhere is capable of all the cooperation it needs but are reluctant to cooperate with non close kin unless forced.

    Then say something like the Hajnal thing creates an environment where a population have to cooperate with non close kin and that creates a selection pressure which pushes them along the relative vs stranger spectrum to say:

    80% concern for relatives vs 20% concern for strangers

    and say a population at this point on the spectrum is capable of higher level cooperation which leads to them becoming richer.

    Then…

    (like i say i think the religion part is more an effect than a cause and not clearly delineated but just for the sake of argument in the context of this answer…)

    say the Protestant regions of Germany were the ones that moved to the 80/20 spot on the spectrum first while the Catholic parts were still at 100/0 and as a result the Protestant regions became wealthier.

    However then say, what if the process has continued since that time so the Protestant regions became:

    50% concern for relatives vs 50% concern for strangers

    and the Catholic areas

    80% concern for relatives vs 20% concern for strangers

    then maybe the Protestant regions off-shoring their wealth producing industries is actually part of the same Hajnal thing.

    In other words maybe WEIRDness can go too far and although the Protestant regions got to the optimal spot earlier they have now moved past it while the Catholic/Orthodox regions are now in or closer to the sweet spot.

    (I suggest this for those who are tempted by the theory but rankle at the Protestant aspect. The earliest regions to become WEIRD may have become too WEIRD* while the slower regions are now the ones with the right mixture.)

    (*too WEIRD for the current state of the world – if everyone was WEIRD it wouldn’t matter)

    Read More
  27. @Peripatetic commenter
    Random thoughts.

    1. There has to be some level of altruism because they co-operate with kin.
    2. There has to be some machinery in the brain that determines who to co-operate with
    3. There are people on the internet who I have co-operated with in the creation of quite a lot of useful software who I have never met. Many of them are of NW Euro descent, possibly as many as 90%. That is an interesting new phenomena where large numbers of people who have never met are co-operating to produce new and useful things, like the Defense Distributed stuff ... and other stuff.

    It struck me that my last point represents a very low-cost form of co-operation. If someone reneges all you have lost is time.

    In a normal social setting co-operating with a stranger could lead to your death or (in the case of a wayward sexual partner) reduce your reproductive success to zero.

    Read More
  28. @anon
    Ireland.

    (milk is great but it's not the cause of WEIRD traits imo - if anything i'd say pastoralism favors clannishness so milk tolerance was more likely a factor in the other direction)

    (assuming milk tolerance originally came about as a result of crop farming being less productive along the atlantic coast due to heavy rainfall then the resulting reliance on pastoralism along the Atlantic coast would be why those areas remained outside the hajnal line)

    if anything i’d say pastoralism favors clannishness

    This seems likely to me in so far as pastoralism likely involved genetic differences to support that ‘lifestyle’.

    A lack of clannishness on the part of those people would likely lead to their destruction.

    However, allowing a certain amount of ‘boiling-off’ would help them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    yes - it exists for a reason.

    from a risk minimizing point of view why trust anyone outside your close kin if you don't need to
  29. Translation: Nordic whites like myself are inferior to the rest of humanity and doomed to die out because we’re supposedly more individualistic at a genetic level.

    Nevertheless, to ensure Nordics don’t switch back to a clannish orientation, we’re told that individualism makes us “superior”. Embrace what kills you! Those who resist extinction are simply low IQ.

    And this works. This recipe is exterminating my race like no other.

    Classical liberalism and individualism in general are in a sense AIDS. And socialism/third world invasion are the common cold.

    Survival requires that we expunge the “Nordics are genetically individualistic and thus superior” mythos. Otherwise, we’re destined for a “superior” extinction. And no one is to blame but ourselves. It’s extinction by group suicide.

    Read More
  30. The altruism and individualism is in part the result of Christianity and the Nordic’s stronger sense of faith and morality.

    The problem is the quasi-religious belief in Nordic man’s supposed superiority which led to the Industrial Revolution.

    It’s feared that if Nordic man admits he’s actually more religious, more moral, and that his universal actions are within this religious spirit, not “individualistic and rational”, then Nordic man will have to admit he’s not truly superior.

    And then he’ll need to come to terms with just why he’s speeding ahead towards extinction. That’s a painful problem to face! It’s much easier to declare superiority and ignore reality.

    The greatest threat to Nordic man’s survival is this mythos of individualism and “reason”/progress. If there’s strength left, well to start with if there are any here who are truly of northwest European descent, then they should attempt to break free from the groupthink. Escape the death cult of “Reason”, and its insane pursuit of relative “progress” (which comes to be a pursuit of mere change).

    We should return to what our blood dictates: Kin-orientation. And we should heed the experience of Christian civilisation (Thomas Aquinas) that kin care for themselves better than they do strangers. And no, Beowulf doesn’t sound entirely individualistic to me. It’s time we return to our blood and faith. Only those who are kin oriented matter, because only they will survive over time. Others are but dust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    The altruism and individualism is in part the result of Christianity and the Nordic’s stronger sense of faith and morality.
     
    Perhaps over the very long term, through selection. Religion as we see it today is largely an effect, not a cause.

    We should return to what our blood dictates: Kin-orientation.
     
    We, NW Euro "blood" (or genes as it is) doesn't dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That's the thing.
  31. @Weaver
    The altruism and individualism is in part the result of Christianity and the Nordic's stronger sense of faith and morality.

    The problem is the quasi-religious belief in Nordic man's supposed superiority which led to the Industrial Revolution.

    It's feared that if Nordic man admits he's actually more religious, more moral, and that his universal actions are within this religious spirit, not "individualistic and rational", then Nordic man will have to admit he's not truly superior.

    And then he'll need to come to terms with just why he's speeding ahead towards extinction. That's a painful problem to face! It's much easier to declare superiority and ignore reality.

    The greatest threat to Nordic man's survival is this mythos of individualism and "reason"/progress. If there's strength left, well to start with if there are any here who are truly of northwest European descent, then they should attempt to break free from the groupthink. Escape the death cult of "Reason", and its insane pursuit of relative "progress" (which comes to be a pursuit of mere change).

    We should return to what our blood dictates: Kin-orientation. And we should heed the experience of Christian civilisation (Thomas Aquinas) that kin care for themselves better than they do strangers. And no, Beowulf doesn't sound entirely individualistic to me. It's time we return to our blood and faith. Only those who are kin oriented matter, because only they will survive over time. Others are but dust.

    The altruism and individualism is in part the result of Christianity and the Nordic’s stronger sense of faith and morality.

    Perhaps over the very long term, through selection. Religion as we see it today is largely an effect, not a cause.

    We should return to what our blood dictates: Kin-orientation.

    We, NW Euro “blood” (or genes as it is) doesn’t dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That’s the thing.

    Read More
  32. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peripatetic commenter

    if anything i’d say pastoralism favors clannishness
     
    This seems likely to me in so far as pastoralism likely involved genetic differences to support that 'lifestyle'.

    A lack of clannishness on the part of those people would likely lead to their destruction.

    However, allowing a certain amount of 'boiling-off' would help them.

    yes – it exists for a reason.

    from a risk minimizing point of view why trust anyone outside your close kin if you don’t need to

    Read More
  33. Jayman,

    I appreciate the reply. It is my belief that your “scientific fact” stated here:

    “We, NW Euro “blood” (or genes as it is) doesn’t dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That’s the thing.”

    It is my belief that “fact” is wrong and indeed a quasi religious belief of your own. Furthermore, that faith is the primary cause of our race facing extinction.

    -

    On the self-labeled “Right”, we tend to attribute genetics to behaviour. On the present self-labeled Left, somewhat ironically, culture (which would be more right-wing) and environment are attributed to behaviour.

    In truth, both influence behaviour. And in truth, it is easy to misunderstand true cause.

    HBD Chick wrote here how the Church encouraged outbreeding: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/thomas-aquinas-on-too-much-outbreeding/

    And we learned how it created problems.

    -

    I live in the US South. We have here whites and blacks, and increasingly many outsiders. The supposedly “group oriented” blacks can almost never find leaders who serve their group. Blacks readily blame whites, blacks readily group together against whites; but blacks do not readily help their own. Corruption is a major problem among blacks, they have many children, and the fathers can’t bother to stick around to even raise their own children.

    And yet, whites believe these same blacks are “group oriented”.

    Steve Sailer has noted how those lower on the respectability curve tend to speak more openly about race, because they have less to lose. This is due not only to respectability but also employment prospects. Since blacks tend to be lower in skills and wealth, they more readily speak out about race. Also, our society currently encourages the speaking out against supposed white oppression.

    -

    I conclude that your error is a serious one, because it is the primary cause of white genocide. The error is within the Right. We are dying by voluntary suicide.

    True nationalism though is as (ironically) Dr. Fleming and others have noted: Particular love, as a mother loves her child as her own, even if not “best”. Whites have fallen for the belief that we must be the absolute greatest race to be worthy of love.

    And this is related with the pop “white nationalist” belief that whites are a naturally more modern race and naturally pursue progress and that we therefore are destined to pursue technological advance.

    If we simply rejected the delusion of “superiority”, which falls to relativity outside some religious foundation to define it, and instead returned to true nationalism, we’d then be saved.

    We have a split in the Right between the Progress Worshipers and the True Nationalists. I would like at least for that split to be acknowledged. Too often the two are fuzzed together. It would be best for whites to choose their own destinies rather than muddling into it. This is related and an inherent component, at least for nationalists like myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    “We, NW Euro “blood” (or genes as it is) doesn’t dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That’s the thing.”

    It is my belief that “fact” is wrong and indeed a quasi religious belief of your own. Furthermore, that faith is the primary cause of our race facing extinction.
     

    In-group favoritism exists.

    On the self-labeled “Right”, we tend to attribute genetics to behaviour. On the present self-labeled Left, somewhat ironically, culture (which would be more right-wing) and environment are attributed to behaviour.

    In truth, both influence behaviour. And in truth, it is easy to misunderstand true cause.
     

    Culture is not to be understood as a cause of behavior that is somehow an alternative to heredity. There is a simple reason for this: where does culture come from?

    HBD Chick wrote here how the Church encouraged outbreeding: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/thomas-aquinas-on-too-much-outbreeding/

    And we learned how it created problems.
     

    She's talking about how the Church affected the selective pressures which then in turn eventually affected the nature of the people.

    I conclude that your error is a serious one, because it is the primary cause of white genocide. The error is within the Right. We are dying by voluntary suicide.

    True nationalism though is as (ironically) Dr. Fleming and others have noted: Particular love, as a mother loves her child as her own, even if not “best”. Whites have fallen for the belief that we must be the absolute greatest race to be worthy of love.
     

    If you're talking ethnic genetic interests, note that they don't exist. There is no innate kin-based race altruism.

    There are multiple causes behind white individualism. The cult-like belief that genetics drives everything is irrational and harmful – needs to be rooted out. Genetics matter, but they are only one of multiple influences.
     
    I never said that genetics drives everything. The problem is that talk about those other influences are able to produce evidence for what they are or how they work.
  34. One addition: Solzhenitsyn said in his Harvard Commencement Address (1978):

    “Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.”

    And that’s partly why whites behave as we do today: We’re too well off.

    There are multiple causes behind white individualism. The cult-like belief that genetics drives everything is irrational and harmful – needs to be rooted out. Genetics matter, but they are only one of multiple influences.

    Read More
  35. @Weaver
    Jayman,

    I appreciate the reply. It is my belief that your "scientific fact" stated here:

    "We, NW Euro “blood” (or genes as it is) doesn’t dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That’s the thing."

    It is my belief that "fact" is wrong and indeed a quasi religious belief of your own. Furthermore, that faith is the primary cause of our race facing extinction.

    -

    On the self-labeled "Right", we tend to attribute genetics to behaviour. On the present self-labeled Left, somewhat ironically, culture (which would be more right-wing) and environment are attributed to behaviour.

    In truth, both influence behaviour. And in truth, it is easy to misunderstand true cause.

    HBD Chick wrote here how the Church encouraged outbreeding: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/thomas-aquinas-on-too-much-outbreeding/

    And we learned how it created problems.

    -

    I live in the US South. We have here whites and blacks, and increasingly many outsiders. The supposedly "group oriented" blacks can almost never find leaders who serve their group. Blacks readily blame whites, blacks readily group together against whites; but blacks do not readily help their own. Corruption is a major problem among blacks, they have many children, and the fathers can't bother to stick around to even raise their own children.

    And yet, whites believe these same blacks are "group oriented".

    Steve Sailer has noted how those lower on the respectability curve tend to speak more openly about race, because they have less to lose. This is due not only to respectability but also employment prospects. Since blacks tend to be lower in skills and wealth, they more readily speak out about race. Also, our society currently encourages the speaking out against supposed white oppression.

    -

    I conclude that your error is a serious one, because it is the primary cause of white genocide. The error is within the Right. We are dying by voluntary suicide.

    True nationalism though is as (ironically) Dr. Fleming and others have noted: Particular love, as a mother loves her child as her own, even if not "best". Whites have fallen for the belief that we must be the absolute greatest race to be worthy of love.

    And this is related with the pop "white nationalist" belief that whites are a naturally more modern race and naturally pursue progress and that we therefore are destined to pursue technological advance.

    If we simply rejected the delusion of "superiority", which falls to relativity outside some religious foundation to define it, and instead returned to true nationalism, we'd then be saved.

    We have a split in the Right between the Progress Worshipers and the True Nationalists. I would like at least for that split to be acknowledged. Too often the two are fuzzed together. It would be best for whites to choose their own destinies rather than muddling into it. This is related and an inherent component, at least for nationalists like myself.

    “We, NW Euro “blood” (or genes as it is) doesn’t dictate that; or at least it does less so than other peoples of the world. That’s the thing.”

    It is my belief that “fact” is wrong and indeed a quasi religious belief of your own. Furthermore, that faith is the primary cause of our race facing extinction.

    In-group favoritism exists.

    On the self-labeled “Right”, we tend to attribute genetics to behaviour. On the present self-labeled Left, somewhat ironically, culture (which would be more right-wing) and environment are attributed to behaviour.

    In truth, both influence behaviour. And in truth, it is easy to misunderstand true cause.

    Culture is not to be understood as a cause of behavior that is somehow an alternative to heredity. There is a simple reason for this: where does culture come from?

    HBD Chick wrote here how the Church encouraged outbreeding: https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/thomas-aquinas-on-too-much-outbreeding/

    And we learned how it created problems.

    She’s talking about how the Church affected the selective pressures which then in turn eventually affected the nature of the people.

    I conclude that your error is a serious one, because it is the primary cause of white genocide. The error is within the Right. We are dying by voluntary suicide.

    True nationalism though is as (ironically) Dr. Fleming and others have noted: Particular love, as a mother loves her child as her own, even if not “best”. Whites have fallen for the belief that we must be the absolute greatest race to be worthy of love.

    If you’re talking ethnic genetic interests, note that they don’t exist. There is no innate kin-based race altruism.

    There are multiple causes behind white individualism. The cult-like belief that genetics drives everything is irrational and harmful – needs to be rooted out. Genetics matter, but they are only one of multiple influences.

    I never said that genetics drives everything. The problem is that talk about those other influences are able to produce evidence for what they are or how they work.

    Read More
  36. Some related points to add for completion:

    *Europeans historically gave dowries to support their daughters, rather than selling them like property. Elsewhere in the world, the reverse transaction is more likely. This shows care for kin.

    *The welfare state encourages dependence upon the state (and on underfunded private pension plans), replacing dependence on the extended family. Without state welfare, we’d return more to kin reliance.

    *Post-Industrial Revolution, small businesses and plantation owners lobbied for less government which can give the appearance of individualism. However, this pressure from the bourgeoisie is similar to how nobles historically lobbied against the central governments of many societies.

    *Due to the power the Industrial Revolution granted us, we’ve embraced it and declared it part of our nature. Also, the Darwinism vs. Lysenkoism battle has driven the “Right” to an overembrace of genetic explanation for behaviour. Also, this has helped encourage more to embrace Darwinism since bad guys (Communists) had opposed it.

    *Interestingly, the Jewish religion and also their more secular (but still Jewish) texts have (in modern society) empowered Jews to dominate European Protestants who lack such distinct tradition. Jews are able to pass down a separate wisdom and to group-orient, while Europeans rely more on mass society, which encourages man to be a good worker, not to group-orient.

    *Continuing with the previous point, to put it bluntly, we white Protestants make good slaves in modern society. But this is due to our missing cultural heritage. When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, he did so in part to give the English a mythology. Because we’d lost ours in the transition to Christianity and in the Reformation. This is not due to our suffering from a genetic predisposition towards individualism and thus slavery though.

    *True individualists can be found in Latinos, who are among the most mixed of “races” in all the world. In the US South, we’ve largely resisted intermarrying with blacks. Poorer whites have been more so inclined, and mixing seems to occur everywhere two populations come into contact. Also, mixes appear black and so are overlooked, but I think we have mixed less here than did the Spanish, suggesting we English Southerners are less likely to miscegenate than are Spaniards, though the latter are said to be less individualistic within popular racial circles.

    *Immigrants are more likely to identify as a separate ethnic group or at least as separate from society whereas natives are likely to trust in societal structures, to identify with them. When under similar circumstances as Europeans are under today, other races show similar tendencies. South Korea today accepts in foreign immigrants, and we can expect eventually Japan too will eventually cave unless Trump inspires a wave of nationalism in the world. However, these Asian races might have stronger ethnic traditions which might enable them to resist amalgamation better than have we white Protestants.

    *Also, it has served centralisation to rally against “racism”. And so, in European polities we see a rally against largely fictional white racism. In the US it is acceptable to have nonwhite identity but not white identity. This is the result of elite forces and of undirected (not elite driven) societal forces towards dissolving white America, not genetics. It will be interesting to see if a similar strategy is used in atomising Asian races.

    *Continuing with the previous point: Managerial society as well as capitalism in general encourage individualism. Both want interchangeable cogs, view workers as material “human resources”. As society expands, managers are increasingly distant from those they manage. This is a trend resulting from technology, not the nature of any particular race.

    *The push today for mixing is to turn all the peoples of the world into individualists like the Latinos, who lack ethnic tradition and so can be moulded and manipulated by the cultural, academic, news, entertainment arms of mass society. And our fate is almost certainly to mix into such servitude. Only nationalism could resist such. Nationalism, reduced migration of people (even a diverse society could reduce immigration), tradition, and smallness/decentralisation (meaning community-oriented smallness not libertarianism) then is freedom. These are the things that can resist the forces of managerialism/capitalism/socialism/globalism. All of those terms have to be mentioned due to how different people have interpreted similar trends within different ideological frameworks. Also, it highlights how capitalism & socialism are both linked rather than opposing forces.

    In Europe, we abandoned longer-term strength deriving from our monastic heritage (monasteries guarded national heritage not only things related to the Church) to instead put resources over to immediate productive use. This was partly a move by those who desired to be wealthy. And it was partly a political conflict with Catholicism. Also, Nordics haven’t been quite as Catholic as those more Romanized. And we see this partly today in how Greek and Roman mythology is seen as acceptable while Norse is perceived as dangerous. This separateness is partly due to how we are somewhat genetically distinct and how we know it. Also, of course, it’s a separate cultural tradition. What is Roman is seen more as Christianised while other paganism is seen more as foreign, dangerous.

    In conclusion,

    most any political group today tends to oversimplify European behaviour, focusing overmuch on one segment or another. The truth is more complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    There is a whole series here discussing this stuff (which is loaded with tons of data) for a reason. I would suggest looking at it some time:

    The welfare state encourages dependence upon the state (and on underfunded private pension plans), replacing dependence on the extended family. Without state welfare, we’d return more to kin reliance.
     
    NW Euro individualism long precedes the modern welfare state.

    Post-Industrial Revolution, small businesses and plantation owners lobbied for less government which can give the appearance of individualism.
     
    And what about the Industrial Revolution itself? Where did it occur and when? Democratic traditions preceded it in the usual places.

    Also, see this. This is today.

    https://twitter.com/BeautifulMaps/status/613711183770746881

    Due to the power the Industrial Revolution granted us, we’ve embraced it and declared it part of our nature.
     
    See above.

    True individualists can be found in Latinos, who are among the most mixed of “races” in all the world. In the US South, we’ve largely resisted intermarrying with blacks
     
    Different groups are more prone to intermixing than others. This is true within race (see the Irish).

    Spaniards, though the latter are said to be less individualistic within popular racial circles.
     
    See above. And watch Fools Rush In.

    The push today for mixing is to turn all the peoples of the world into individualists like the Latinos, who lack ethnic tradition and so can be moulded and manipulated by the cultural, academic, news, entertainment arms of mass society.
     
    The group that embraces universalism the most is clear:

    The Rise of Universalism

    most any political group today tends to oversimplify European behaviour, focusing overmuch on one segment or another. The truth is more complicated.
     
    Complexity doesn't preclude the existence of broad patterns. Knowing facts can elucidate such.
    , @Philip Owen
    King Arthur.
  37. @Weaver
    Some related points to add for completion:

    *Europeans historically gave dowries to support their daughters, rather than selling them like property. Elsewhere in the world, the reverse transaction is more likely. This shows care for kin.

    *The welfare state encourages dependence upon the state (and on underfunded private pension plans), replacing dependence on the extended family. Without state welfare, we'd return more to kin reliance.

    *Post-Industrial Revolution, small businesses and plantation owners lobbied for less government which can give the appearance of individualism. However, this pressure from the bourgeoisie is similar to how nobles historically lobbied against the central governments of many societies.

    *Due to the power the Industrial Revolution granted us, we've embraced it and declared it part of our nature. Also, the Darwinism vs. Lysenkoism battle has driven the "Right" to an overembrace of genetic explanation for behaviour. Also, this has helped encourage more to embrace Darwinism since bad guys (Communists) had opposed it.

    *Interestingly, the Jewish religion and also their more secular (but still Jewish) texts have (in modern society) empowered Jews to dominate European Protestants who lack such distinct tradition. Jews are able to pass down a separate wisdom and to group-orient, while Europeans rely more on mass society, which encourages man to be a good worker, not to group-orient.

    *Continuing with the previous point, to put it bluntly, we white Protestants make good slaves in modern society. But this is due to our missing cultural heritage. When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, he did so in part to give the English a mythology. Because we'd lost ours in the transition to Christianity and in the Reformation. This is not due to our suffering from a genetic predisposition towards individualism and thus slavery though.

    *True individualists can be found in Latinos, who are among the most mixed of "races" in all the world. In the US South, we've largely resisted intermarrying with blacks. Poorer whites have been more so inclined, and mixing seems to occur everywhere two populations come into contact. Also, mixes appear black and so are overlooked, but I think we have mixed less here than did the Spanish, suggesting we English Southerners are less likely to miscegenate than are Spaniards, though the latter are said to be less individualistic within popular racial circles.

    *Immigrants are more likely to identify as a separate ethnic group or at least as separate from society whereas natives are likely to trust in societal structures, to identify with them. When under similar circumstances as Europeans are under today, other races show similar tendencies. South Korea today accepts in foreign immigrants, and we can expect eventually Japan too will eventually cave unless Trump inspires a wave of nationalism in the world. However, these Asian races might have stronger ethnic traditions which might enable them to resist amalgamation better than have we white Protestants.

    *Also, it has served centralisation to rally against "racism". And so, in European polities we see a rally against largely fictional white racism. In the US it is acceptable to have nonwhite identity but not white identity. This is the result of elite forces and of undirected (not elite driven) societal forces towards dissolving white America, not genetics. It will be interesting to see if a similar strategy is used in atomising Asian races.

    *Continuing with the previous point: Managerial society as well as capitalism in general encourage individualism. Both want interchangeable cogs, view workers as material "human resources". As society expands, managers are increasingly distant from those they manage. This is a trend resulting from technology, not the nature of any particular race.

    *The push today for mixing is to turn all the peoples of the world into individualists like the Latinos, who lack ethnic tradition and so can be moulded and manipulated by the cultural, academic, news, entertainment arms of mass society. And our fate is almost certainly to mix into such servitude. Only nationalism could resist such. Nationalism, reduced migration of people (even a diverse society could reduce immigration), tradition, and smallness/decentralisation (meaning community-oriented smallness not libertarianism) then is freedom. These are the things that can resist the forces of managerialism/capitalism/socialism/globalism. All of those terms have to be mentioned due to how different people have interpreted similar trends within different ideological frameworks. Also, it highlights how capitalism & socialism are both linked rather than opposing forces.


    ---

    In Europe, we abandoned longer-term strength deriving from our monastic heritage (monasteries guarded national heritage not only things related to the Church) to instead put resources over to immediate productive use. This was partly a move by those who desired to be wealthy. And it was partly a political conflict with Catholicism. Also, Nordics haven't been quite as Catholic as those more Romanized. And we see this partly today in how Greek and Roman mythology is seen as acceptable while Norse is perceived as dangerous. This separateness is partly due to how we are somewhat genetically distinct and how we know it. Also, of course, it's a separate cultural tradition. What is Roman is seen more as Christianised while other paganism is seen more as foreign, dangerous.

    ---

    In conclusion,

    most any political group today tends to oversimplify European behaviour, focusing overmuch on one segment or another. The truth is more complicated.

    There is a whole series here discussing this stuff (which is loaded with tons of data) for a reason. I would suggest looking at it some time:

    The welfare state encourages dependence upon the state (and on underfunded private pension plans), replacing dependence on the extended family. Without state welfare, we’d return more to kin reliance.

    NW Euro individualism long precedes the modern welfare state.

    Post-Industrial Revolution, small businesses and plantation owners lobbied for less government which can give the appearance of individualism.

    And what about the Industrial Revolution itself? Where did it occur and when? Democratic traditions preceded it in the usual places.

    Also, see this. This is today.

    Due to the power the Industrial Revolution granted us, we’ve embraced it and declared it part of our nature.

    See above.

    True individualists can be found in Latinos, who are among the most mixed of “races” in all the world. In the US South, we’ve largely resisted intermarrying with blacks

    Different groups are more prone to intermixing than others. This is true within race (see the Irish).

    Spaniards, though the latter are said to be less individualistic within popular racial circles.

    See above. And watch Fools Rush In.

    The push today for mixing is to turn all the peoples of the world into individualists like the Latinos, who lack ethnic tradition and so can be moulded and manipulated by the cultural, academic, news, entertainment arms of mass society.

    The group that embraces universalism the most is clear:

    The Rise of Universalism

    most any political group today tends to oversimplify European behaviour, focusing overmuch on one segment or another. The truth is more complicated.

    Complexity doesn’t preclude the existence of broad patterns. Knowing facts can elucidate such.

    Read More
  38. @Weaver
    Some related points to add for completion:

    *Europeans historically gave dowries to support their daughters, rather than selling them like property. Elsewhere in the world, the reverse transaction is more likely. This shows care for kin.

    *The welfare state encourages dependence upon the state (and on underfunded private pension plans), replacing dependence on the extended family. Without state welfare, we'd return more to kin reliance.

    *Post-Industrial Revolution, small businesses and plantation owners lobbied for less government which can give the appearance of individualism. However, this pressure from the bourgeoisie is similar to how nobles historically lobbied against the central governments of many societies.

    *Due to the power the Industrial Revolution granted us, we've embraced it and declared it part of our nature. Also, the Darwinism vs. Lysenkoism battle has driven the "Right" to an overembrace of genetic explanation for behaviour. Also, this has helped encourage more to embrace Darwinism since bad guys (Communists) had opposed it.

    *Interestingly, the Jewish religion and also their more secular (but still Jewish) texts have (in modern society) empowered Jews to dominate European Protestants who lack such distinct tradition. Jews are able to pass down a separate wisdom and to group-orient, while Europeans rely more on mass society, which encourages man to be a good worker, not to group-orient.

    *Continuing with the previous point, to put it bluntly, we white Protestants make good slaves in modern society. But this is due to our missing cultural heritage. When Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, he did so in part to give the English a mythology. Because we'd lost ours in the transition to Christianity and in the Reformation. This is not due to our suffering from a genetic predisposition towards individualism and thus slavery though.

    *True individualists can be found in Latinos, who are among the most mixed of "races" in all the world. In the US South, we've largely resisted intermarrying with blacks. Poorer whites have been more so inclined, and mixing seems to occur everywhere two populations come into contact. Also, mixes appear black and so are overlooked, but I think we have mixed less here than did the Spanish, suggesting we English Southerners are less likely to miscegenate than are Spaniards, though the latter are said to be less individualistic within popular racial circles.

    *Immigrants are more likely to identify as a separate ethnic group or at least as separate from society whereas natives are likely to trust in societal structures, to identify with them. When under similar circumstances as Europeans are under today, other races show similar tendencies. South Korea today accepts in foreign immigrants, and we can expect eventually Japan too will eventually cave unless Trump inspires a wave of nationalism in the world. However, these Asian races might have stronger ethnic traditions which might enable them to resist amalgamation better than have we white Protestants.

    *Also, it has served centralisation to rally against "racism". And so, in European polities we see a rally against largely fictional white racism. In the US it is acceptable to have nonwhite identity but not white identity. This is the result of elite forces and of undirected (not elite driven) societal forces towards dissolving white America, not genetics. It will be interesting to see if a similar strategy is used in atomising Asian races.

    *Continuing with the previous point: Managerial society as well as capitalism in general encourage individualism. Both want interchangeable cogs, view workers as material "human resources". As society expands, managers are increasingly distant from those they manage. This is a trend resulting from technology, not the nature of any particular race.

    *The push today for mixing is to turn all the peoples of the world into individualists like the Latinos, who lack ethnic tradition and so can be moulded and manipulated by the cultural, academic, news, entertainment arms of mass society. And our fate is almost certainly to mix into such servitude. Only nationalism could resist such. Nationalism, reduced migration of people (even a diverse society could reduce immigration), tradition, and smallness/decentralisation (meaning community-oriented smallness not libertarianism) then is freedom. These are the things that can resist the forces of managerialism/capitalism/socialism/globalism. All of those terms have to be mentioned due to how different people have interpreted similar trends within different ideological frameworks. Also, it highlights how capitalism & socialism are both linked rather than opposing forces.


    ---

    In Europe, we abandoned longer-term strength deriving from our monastic heritage (monasteries guarded national heritage not only things related to the Church) to instead put resources over to immediate productive use. This was partly a move by those who desired to be wealthy. And it was partly a political conflict with Catholicism. Also, Nordics haven't been quite as Catholic as those more Romanized. And we see this partly today in how Greek and Roman mythology is seen as acceptable while Norse is perceived as dangerous. This separateness is partly due to how we are somewhat genetically distinct and how we know it. Also, of course, it's a separate cultural tradition. What is Roman is seen more as Christianised while other paganism is seen more as foreign, dangerous.

    ---

    In conclusion,

    most any political group today tends to oversimplify European behaviour, focusing overmuch on one segment or another. The truth is more complicated.

    King Arthur.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS