The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
Are Liberals and Conservatives Differently Wired?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Are liberals and conservatives differently wired? It would seem so. When brain MRIs were done on 90 young adults from University College London, it was found that self-described liberals tended to have more grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas self-described conservatives tended to have a larger right amygdala. These results were replicated in a second sample of young adults (Kanai et al., 2011).

The amygdala is used to recognize fearful facial expressions, whereas the anterior cingulate cortex serves to monitor uncertainty and conflict (Adolphs et al., 1995; Botvinick et al., 1999; Critchley et al., 2001; Kennerley et al., 2006). Perhaps unsurprisingly, these findings were changed somewhat in the popular press. “Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds,” ran a headline in Psychology Today. The same article assured its readers that the anterior cingulate cortex “helps people cope with complexity” (Barber, 2011).

A study on 82 young American adults came to a similar conclusion. Republicans showed more activity in the right amygdala, and Democrats more activity in the left insula. Unlike the English study, the anterior cingulate cortex didn’t differ between the two groups (Schreiber et al., 2013).

It would seem, then, that conservatives and liberals are neurologically different. Perhaps certain political beliefs will alter your mental makeup. Or perhaps your mental makeup will lead you to certain political beliefs. But how can that be when conservatism and liberalism have changed so much in recent times, not only ideologically but also electorate-wise? A century ago, English “conservatives” came from the upper class, the middle class, and outlying rural areas. Today, Britain’s leading “conservative” party, the UKIP, is drawing more and more of its members from the urban working class—the sort of folks who routinely voted Labour not so long ago. Similar changes have taken place in the U.S. Until the 1950s, white southerners were overwhelmingly Democrats. Now, they’re overwhelmingly Republicans.

Of course, the above studies are only a few years old. When we use terms like “conservative” and “liberal” we refer to what they mean today. Increasingly, both terms have an implicitly ethnic meaning. The UKIP is becoming the native British party, in opposition to a growing Afro-Asian population that votes en bloc for Labour. Meanwhile, the Republicans are becoming the party of White Americans, particularly old-stock ones, in opposition to a Democrat coalition of African, Hispanic, and Asian Americans, plus a dwindling core of ethnic whites.

So are these brain differences really ethnic differences? Neither study touches the question. The English study assures us that the participants were homogeneous:

We deliberately used a homogenous sample of the UCL student population to minimize differences in social and educational environment. The UK Higher Education Statistics Agency reports that 21.1% of UCL students come from a working-class background. This rate is relatively low compared to the national average of 34.8%. This suggests that the UCL students from which we recruited our participants disproportionately have a middle-class to upper-class background. (Kanai et al., 2011)

Yes, the students were largely middle-class, but how did they break down ethnically? Wikipedia provides a partial answer:

In 2013/14, 12,330 UCL students were from outside the UK (43% of the total number of students in that year), of whom 5,504 were from Asia, 3,679 from the European Union ex. the United Kingdom, 1,195 from North America, 516 from the Middle East, 398 from Africa, 254 from Central and South America, and 166 from Australasia(University College London, 2014)

These figures were for citizenship only. We should remember that many of the UK students would have been of non-European origin.

We know more about the participants in the American study. They came from the University of California, San Diego, whose student body at the time was 44% Asian, 26% Caucasian, 10% Mexican American, 10% unknown, 4% Filipino, 3% Latino/Other Spanish, and 2% African American (Anon, 2010). This ethnic breakdown mirrors the party breakdown of the participants: 60 Democrats (72.5%) and 22 Republicans (27.5%).

Affective empathy and ethnicity

In my last post, I cited a study showing that the amygdala is larger in extraordinary altruists—people who have donated one of their kidneys to a stranger. In that study, we were told that a larger amygdala is associated with greater responsiveness to fearful facial expressions, i.e., a greater willingness to help people in distress. Conversely, psychopaths have a smaller amygdala and are less responsive to fearful faces (Marsh et al., 2014).

Hmm … That’s a tad different from the spin in Psychology Today. Are liberals the ones who don’t care about others? Are they … psychopaths?

It would be more accurate to say that “liberals” come from populations whose capacity for affective empathy is lower on average and who tend to view any stranger as a potential enemy. That’s most people in this world, and that’s how most of the world works. I suspect the greater ability to monitor uncertainty and conflict reflects adaptation to an environment that has long been socially fragmented into clans, castes, religions, etc. This may explain why a larger anterior cingulate cortex correlated with “liberalism” in the British study (high proportion of South Asian students) but not in the American study (high proportion of East Asian students).

As for “conservatives,” they largely come from Northwest Europe, where a greater capacity for affective empathy seems to reflect an environment of relatively high individualism, relatively weak kinship, and relatively frequent interactions with nonkin. This environment has prevailed west of the Hajnal Line since at least the 12th century, as shown by the longstanding characteristics of the Western European Marriage Pattern: late age of marriage for both sexes; high rate of celibacy; strong tendency of children to form new households; and high circulation of non-kin among families. This zone of weaker kinship, with greater reliance on internal means of behavior control, may also explain why Northwest Europeans are more predisposed to guilt than to shame, whereas the reverse is generally the case elsewhere in the world (Frost, 2014).

All of this may sound counterintuitive. Doesn’t the political left currently stand for autonomy theory and individualism? Doesn’t it reject traditional values like kinship? In theory it does. The reality is a bit different, though. When Muslims vote Labour, it’s not because they want gay marriage and teaching of gender theory in the schools. They expect something else.

The same goes for the political right. When former Labourites vote UKIP, it’s not because they want lower taxes for the rich and offshoring of manufacturing jobs. They expect something else. Are they being delusional? Perhaps. But, then, are the Muslims being delusional?

Perhaps neither group is. Perhaps both understand what politics is really about.

References

Adolphs, R., D. Tranel, H. Damasio, and A.R. Damasio. (1995). Fear and the human amygdala, The Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 5879-5891.
http://www.emotion.caltech.edu/papers/AdolphsTranel1995Fear.pdf

Anon (2010). Racial breakdown of the largest California public colleges, The Huffington Post, May 4
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/racial-breakdown-of-the-l_n_485577.html

Barber, N. (2011). Conservatives big on fear, study finds, Psychology Today, April 19
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L.E., Fissell, K., Carter, C.S., and Cohen, J.D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex, Nature, 402, 179-181.

Critchley, H.D., Mathias, C.J., and Dolan, R.J. (2001). Neural activity in the human brain relating to uncertainty and arousal during anticipation, Neuron, 29, 537-545.

Frost, P. (2014). We are not equally empathic, Evo and Proud, November 15
http://www.evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2014/11/we-are-not-equally-empathic.html

Kanai, R., T. Feilden, C. Firth, and G. Rees. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults,Current Biology, 21, 677 – 680.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

Kennerley, S.W., Walton, M.E., Behrens, T.E., Buckley, M.J., and Rushworth, M.F. (2006). Optimal decision making and the anterior cingulate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 940-947.

Marsh, A.A., S.A. Stoycos, K.M. Brethel-Haurwitz, P. Robinson, J.W. VanMeter, and E.M. Cardinale. (2014). Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 15036-15041.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15036.short

Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A.N., Dawes, C.T., Flagan, T., et al. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PLoS ONE 8(2): e52970.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970

University College London. (2014). Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London#Student_body

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 61 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jason says:

    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    Examples:

    IQ: Most of the liberals were in the soft sciences like sociology, political “science”, etc. where IQ’s are lower. Most of the students in engineering and math had higher IQ’s were more logical and considered “conservative.” Many of the liberals on campus were just sheep who had never thought about things.

    Low Morals: Most of the Demogangsters are crooks and criminals. Example: Sexual predator Bill Clinton, Harry Reid the election thief, illegal alien crook Obama, and a 1000 others.

    Most of the Demogangsters are just crooks and criminals. They just tell lies, such as pretend to love aliens, telling lies like they will be “united with family” “land of immigrants” and tell a 1000 other lies to their sheep liberals, but their real intention in the alien invasion is to low IQ garbage that will vote for them. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.
     
    You have to look at each race separately. Somehow, I seriously doubt that's true within race.

    I'd argue that liberals are going to be significantly less psychopathic than conservatives.
    , @Rex
    Is lib-barbarians meant to be a slur on libertarians? If you open ur other eye u may see Republicans are just as bad/immoral/corrupt as Democrats too. Here in Australia the ruling Liberal party is the conservative party. They are challenging in court the small libertarian Liberal Democrats to change their name as it's too similar! Anyway, what does "liberal" mean? Freedom for corporations, people, aliens, smokers, non-smokers etc. Free from euthanasia or free to euthanise?
    , @Max Payne
    Have you ever read Ted Kaczynski and his "Industrial Society and its Future"?

    He is more (in)famously known as the Unabomber and his writing as the Unabomber manifesto.

    I'm not trolling but your comment bares a striking resemblance to Kaczynski's theory on the liberal left... especially about telling lies (albeit for reasons of empowerment as opposed to monetary or political gain).

    I wonder why no one ever talks about that mans manifesto anymore considering its relevance to a lot of issues today......
    , @Icarus Green
    Your comment is quite ironic. I almost think you're a liberal troll masquerading as a typical Tea Party member. Arguing that liberals have lower IQs and then posting something a hormonal teenager would write has a comedic quality. Perhaps if you took the Glenn Beck official dildo merchandise from your ass you would be a bit more rational.

    IQ data surveys from Flynn show that liberals overrepresent not just the humanities and social sciences (80-90%) but also the physical sciences and Math (60-70%). The only academic area that seems to have more conservatives is business and to a lesser extent economics. Flynn has to mawkishly pretend the physical sciences are more 'moderate' (I guess in relation to other academic fields, yes) despite the data showing a still large over representation of liberals relative to the general population.

    This coincides with several polls showing atheists, PhD holders, academics, scientists and Silicon Valley workers being almost totally liberal. Likewise, the Jewish and Chinese communities in Western countries usually vote to the left.

    At the other end of the scale 'bro' jobs like sales, some wall street jobs, military and police are usually quite conservative. Ironically 3 of those categories are government guaranteed occupations.

    More generally on the neuroscience research I've seen, it seems to indicate liberals don't rely on the amygdala as much which is associated with instinctive decisions and is an 'older' part of the brain.

    This survey above is stupid in that it points out the northwestern europeans are more predisposed to conservativism and yet the most liberal countries in the world are all white countries, with the exception of Latin America. And in fact, liberalism in both its classical and modern form started in northwestern europe.

    Basket cases in the middle East, Africa and Central and South Asia associated with conservativism is where you'll find people of the same brain chemistry and structure as you Jason. You should go visit them and tell them what a good job they're doing running their countries. Tell them I said hi.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Pat Boyle says:

    Yes. They are wired differently. How could it possibly be otherwise?

    It’s all right there in Private Willis’ song. “Nature does provide — either a little liberal or else a little conservative.” If it had been Nurture rather than Nature, surely it would have been noticed long ago. For example It could’ve been some nutrient like Vitamin C. Too little fresh citrus and you voted Whig or Tory. But no such connection has ever been noticed. Nor has there been and connection between sunlight or air pollution or anything else been established.

    The only reliable correlate with political affiliation has been age or maturity. Young people are often liberal while many of these young libs mature into older conservatives. But many don’t.

    Nature seems to maintain a balance between leftists and rightists. This has long suggested to me a genetic mechanism that inclines roughly half the newborns to be liberals and the other half to be conservatives. If such were shown to exist it should be seen also in primitive pre-modern tribes. Jared Diamond might fruitfully occupy his next trip to New Guinea with a political survey of his noble savages.

    Political tilt strikes me as obviously adaptive. If I have a species that exists in tiny groups and which makes group decisions that effect the tribe’s survival, how should they be wired? If they were all leftists or all rightists then sooner or later they would all make the wrong decision simultaneously. But if there were a mixture of decision making styles some groups would be guaranteed of survival.

    Nature’s pattern seems to be – genetic diversity as a strategy for dealing with unforeseeable changes in the environment. This explain disease resistance. I think it also explains political divisiveness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    It’s all right there in Private Willis’ song. “Nature does provide — either a little liberal or else a little conservative.” If it had been Nurture rather than Nature, surely it would have been noticed long ago. For example It could’ve been some nutrient like Vitamin C. Too little fresh citrus and you voted Whig or Tory. But no such connection has ever been noticed. Nor has there been and connection between sunlight or air pollution or anything else been established.
     
    Or, more poignantly, we wouldn't find significant heritability in twin studies... ;)

    Nature seems to maintain a balance between leftists and rightists. This has long suggested to me a genetic mechanism that inclines roughly half the newborns to be liberals and the other half to be conservatives.
     
    You think so? You think there's equal proportions of liberals and conservatives in Sweden as well as in Kentucky?

    Or do you mean relative to the overall political orientation of the locale?

    Political tilt strikes me as obviously adaptive. If I have a species that exists in tiny groups and which makes group decisions that effect the tribe’s survival, how should they be wired? If they were all leftists or all rightists then sooner or later they would all make the wrong decision simultaneously. But if there were a mixture of decision making styles some groups would be guaranteed of survival.
     
    Oh that's an E. O. Wilson-esque group-selectiony type explanation. You shouldn't use those.

    The only reliable correlate with political affiliation has been age or maturity. Young people are often liberal while many of these young libs mature into older conservatives. But many don’t.
     
    There's little by way of longitudinal studies that show a shift in political attitudes with age.

    Nature’s pattern seems to be – genetic diversity as a strategy for dealing with unforeseeable changes in the environment. This explain disease resistance. I think it also explains political divisiveness.
     
    Or, more likely, each strategy is roughly equally adaptive (historically) individually within environments where they occur together.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Vendetta says:

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/09/either_conservatives_are_cowar.html

    Last Psychiatrist covered these kinds of studies years ago. It’s all nonsense. People are afraid on all sides. Terrorism, crime, immigrants, PC gone rampant, black gangsters, and leftist tyranny on the right, but also racial and sexual oppression, police brutality, global warming climate catastrophe, white rapists, and corporate fascist tyranny on the left.

    And we’re all afraid about the economy.

    The amygdala is not a single function “fear gland”. And a writeup like this is worthless unless it covers the methodologies used within the studies. I’ll be back after I’ve read through them myself to see what there is to say about that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Vendetta says:

    Study #1, Kanai et al

    Reported no data on the number of test subjects who classified themselves into each category (very liberal, liberal, middle-of-the-road, conservative, very conservative), save that none in their study claimed to be very conservative.

    Thus no way for an outside party to determine whether the significant difference they reported between the “very liberals” and “conservatives” was the result of outliers in a very small sample size (I imagine most would have chosen ‘liberal’ or ‘middle-of-the-road’).

    http://www.cell.com/action/showImagesData?pii=S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2

    A look at their graphs shows that the ‘conservative’ group is the odd one out compared with the other three in both categories – a finding that makes me very suspicious of a small sample size weighted with one or two weirdos.

    Study further clearly qualified this as a finding in young adults, specifically in college students, which popular reports of its findings are then generalizing across all ages.

    Study #2, Schreiber et al.

    Compared a sample of 60 Democrats, average age 22, with 22 Republicans, average age 28. The thought comes to my mind of those new studies indicating brain development reaches full maturity around age 25. That of course might just be more pop junk science, so I’ll let it slide. The sample sizes, however, remain disproportionate.

    Furthermore, this the researchers’ idea of a test for “risky behavior”

    “For the Risky-Gains task [26], participants were presented with three numbers in ascending order (20, 40, and 80) in each trial. If the participant pressed a button when the number was shown on the screen, he/she received the number of cents shown on the screen (+20, +40, or +80). The participants were informed that if they pressed the button while the 20 was on the screen, they would always receive 20 cents (safe decision). However, if they waited for the 40 or 80 to appear on the screen, there was a chance the number would appear in red, signaling the loss of 40 or 80 cents, respectively (risky decision). Thus, although the participant may have gained more points per trial by waiting until a 40 or 80 appears on the screen, there was also a risk of losing 40 or 80 points. Participants received feedback (stimulus on the screen and auditory sound) indicating the gain or loss of cents immediately after selecting a response. The probabilities of presenting a negative 40 or 80 are such that a participant’s final score would be identical were they to consistently select 20, 40, or 80. Thus, there was no inherent advantage to select the risky response (40 or 80) over the safe response [37]. Each trial lasted 3.5 s irrespective of the participants’ choice. Three trial types were presented in a pseudo-randomized order: non-punished (+20, +40, +80, n = 54), punished 40 (−40, n = 24), and punished 80 (−80, n = 18), along with six null trials that lasted 3.5 s each. Loss of reward only occurred during punished trials, when participants did not respond to the previous numbers on that trial (i.e., did not respond to the 20 on punished 40 trials or did not respond to the 20 or 40 on punished 80 trials).”

    Which strikes me as complete bollocks. This is “risk” only in the most abstract (liberal?) definition of the word. This methodology has utterly nothing to do with either fear or social interactions, both of which its results are being used to make statements on.

    “No significant differences were observed in the entorhinal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex. All attempts to use behavior to distinguish Republicans from Democrats were unsuccessful (Fig. 2), suggesting that different neural mechanisms may underlie apparently similar patterns of behavior [29].”

    Study #3, On Extraordinary Altruism

    I question the strength of the experimental design. First of all, it would have been useful to have made a comparison between those who donated a kidney to a stranger to those people who have donated a kidney to a loved one.

    Second, while I commend anyone who’d give a kidney to someone they don’t know, I question whether this is the best representative example that could be found of an extraordinary altruist. Extraordinary altruism, as they define it, involves the altruist’s actions on behalf of another’s welfare significantly reducing their own. Kidney donors do not impair themselves in a significant way – that’s part of the argument for donating your kidneys. You can get by just fine with one.

    Compare, on the other hand, with someone who donated a lung to a stranger, and will be feeling the impact of that decision for their rest of their life, and will know that beforehand.

    I don’t question the kindness or heroism of altruistic kidney donors – but they are not a fit for the artificially defined category of ‘extraordinary altruists’ in that they do not suffer long-term impairment as a result of their act of kindness on a stranger’s behalf.

    I am also skeptical in general of these facial emotion recognition tests on several levels. It is first of all deprived of body language cues, tone of voice, or any situational context – meaning those slow to recognize a facial expression flashed at them on a screen may be just fine at it in a realistic situation in which they have other information to work with.

    Second, it seems to me these tests fail to account for the impact of attention span and boredom – those with a short attention span will start to lag and lose focus over the course of being battered with 150 of these in a row.

    And third, freeze-frames are not a natural way in which one recognizes a facial expression because people in real social situations do not have frame-frozen faces – they have animated expressions. Distinguishing fear from surprise, and anger from disgust in single photographs is throwing darts at a board half the time, while it’s bloody obvious if you watch it unfold on a moving face for a couple of seconds.

    In summary, yes, there may well be (and Hell, there probably is) a genetic difference – but studies like these are not constructed to find it properly, and press coverage of any findings in these fields inevitably distorts what was found and takes these claims at face value without evaluating the methodology of the experiments and the spin the scientists themselves tend to put on them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Vendetta's criticisms strike me as sensible: too small sample size, over-simplification, over-interpretation, etc..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Mr Frost,

    sorry for asking, but I’d be interested, how would you describe your own political orientation? You’ve written you aren’t a white nationalist, but it’s clear from your articles you regard non-Western mass immigration as harmful to Western nations (as do I). Where do you stand politically and can you discern any realistic solutions for the problems you’re alluding to in your blog posts here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    "What to do? First, stop being a passive supporter of antiracism. Don’t succumb to ritual denunciations of “racism.” Say nothing. Don’t say, “You’re calling me a racist? You’re the real racist!” Don’t let antiracism define what is acceptable and what is not."

    If I can find my decoder ring I will send it along to you, German reader. BTW I am a half-assed English reader and I don't know what f** he is saying, thus the search for the decoder ring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Cato says:

    As always, very interesting, and so unlike what I usually hear from anthropologists. Resonates with what the psychologist Jonathan Haidt said, in a book a few years ago:

    Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Struck by those signs;

    “Immigrants are welcome here”. This is Scotland where there are very few immigrants. Let’s see her live in England which has been overrun with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ..the Afro-Asian group that votes En Bloc for the Labour party”.

    Which is why the treasonous Labour party let them in in the first place. The Labour party has dissolved the British people and elected a new one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. roulade says:

    Sorry, people who donate organs are outliers in my universe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Harry says:

    All of this may sound counterintuitive.

    Yes, a movement of bleeding heart psychopaths sounds counterintuitive. But of course, leftist rhethoric is not an internal monologue. In practical terms, the most important recipients of bleeding heart rhethoric are the white, big-amygdala middle-to-upper class people who pay the bills

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. If this study didn’t control for race, it’s worthless. Certainly the reports seem to assume it was controlled for race and contrasting SWPL Democrats with redneck Republicans.

    But I would expect most student Conservatives at UCL to be white upper middle class, with a few upper class (most of the upper class seem to prefer St Andrews), so you may well be right that they merely identified a racial or ethnic difference under the guise of a political difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Quercus says:

    Sample sizes of 90 and 82 in the studies cited, and from that you can extrapolate some of these very wild claims you are making, Mr Frost? You must be joking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. JayMan says: • Website

    (Cross posted from your other blog for the benefits of readers here)

    A couple of key points.

    I’ve wondered if these studies claiming to show brain differences according to personality or views were racially confounded. This appears to be the case here.

    Nonetheless, it’s worth noting this, via Neuroskeptic:

    Failed Replications: A Reality Check for Neuroscience? – Neuroskeptic

    As for “conservatives,” they largely come from Northwest Europe, where a greater capacity for affective empathy seems to reflect an environment of relatively high individualism, relatively weak kinship, and relatively frequent interactions with nonkin.

    It’s important to distinguish social conservatives from economic conservatives. Clannish groups in NW Euro countries (both White and non-White) side with liberal parties for self-interested reasons: namely, because they are beneficiaries of redistribution from wealthier groups. These clannish groups typically aren’t very socially liberal and often care little for traditionally socially liberal causes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. JayMan says: • Website
    @Jason
    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    Examples:

    IQ: Most of the liberals were in the soft sciences like sociology, political “science”, etc. where IQ’s are lower. Most of the students in engineering and math had higher IQ’s were more logical and considered “conservative.” Many of the liberals on campus were just sheep who had never thought about things.

    Low Morals: Most of the Demogangsters are crooks and criminals. Example: Sexual predator Bill Clinton, Harry Reid the election thief, illegal alien crook Obama, and a 1000 others.

    Most of the Demogangsters are just crooks and criminals. They just tell lies, such as pretend to love aliens, telling lies like they will be “united with family” “land of immigrants” and tell a 1000 other lies to their sheep liberals, but their real intention in the alien invasion is to low IQ garbage that will vote for them. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    You have to look at each race separately. Somehow, I seriously doubt that’s true within race.

    I’d argue that liberals are going to be significantly less psychopathic than conservatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Not really considering the liberal/socialist track record - Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China racked up a body count that makes the last two thousand years of Christianity and Islamic wars look like a girl scout bake sale.

    White Liberals for the most part are uptopians and with that comes a whole host very ugly sociopathic attributes that includes destroying societies and people outright in the name of progress and perfection. Not to mention a totalitarian mentality- if you deviate from the group mind that is white liberalism you are a heretic or the enemy. This is why they get along so well with radical Islamists - the guys who kill you for disagreeing with them. Outside of one group being militantly secular and the other theocratic to the bone, they think the same. Oh yeah both are hive minded as well.

    White Conservatives as opposed to republicans(who are for big government as much as any liberal) know people aren't perfectible but quite fallible and know big government can't fix that. Government can do certain things but socially engineering people and societies in the name of progress shouldn't be one of them. Yes, to a socialist the conservative looks like a wolf because he won't spend all his money to help a Somali thug starving to death or give room and board along with health care to any self-destructive crack addict or paroled child molester.

    Non-whites are a different kettle of fish. Being tribal to the core, their people come first and foremost. They will naturally side with any Western political party that promises a life time of welfare, housing, free medical care and special privileges for their group. That means the Democratic party in the U.S. the party of Santa Claus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Leftists are incredibly dogmatic and carry a chip on the shoulder.

    They are rarely sensitive to the emotions of others in my experience. Conservatives tend to have a surprising ability to read emotions. Though process them late on through a sort to heroic romanticism.

    A liberal is more likely to tell a crying person to stop the pity party…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. What this study suggests is a group evolutionary strategy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. JayMan says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle
    Yes. They are wired differently. How could it possibly be otherwise?

    It's all right there in Private Willis' song. "Nature does provide --- either a little liberal or else a little conservative." If it had been Nurture rather than Nature, surely it would have been noticed long ago. For example It could've been some nutrient like Vitamin C. Too little fresh citrus and you voted Whig or Tory. But no such connection has ever been noticed. Nor has there been and connection between sunlight or air pollution or anything else been established.

    The only reliable correlate with political affiliation has been age or maturity. Young people are often liberal while many of these young libs mature into older conservatives. But many don't.

    Nature seems to maintain a balance between leftists and rightists. This has long suggested to me a genetic mechanism that inclines roughly half the newborns to be liberals and the other half to be conservatives. If such were shown to exist it should be seen also in primitive pre-modern tribes. Jared Diamond might fruitfully occupy his next trip to New Guinea with a political survey of his noble savages.

    Political tilt strikes me as obviously adaptive. If I have a species that exists in tiny groups and which makes group decisions that effect the tribe's survival, how should they be wired? If they were all leftists or all rightists then sooner or later they would all make the wrong decision simultaneously. But if there were a mixture of decision making styles some groups would be guaranteed of survival.

    Nature's pattern seems to be - genetic diversity as a strategy for dealing with unforeseeable changes in the environment. This explain disease resistance. I think it also explains political divisiveness.

    It’s all right there in Private Willis’ song. “Nature does provide — either a little liberal or else a little conservative.” If it had been Nurture rather than Nature, surely it would have been noticed long ago. For example It could’ve been some nutrient like Vitamin C. Too little fresh citrus and you voted Whig or Tory. But no such connection has ever been noticed. Nor has there been and connection between sunlight or air pollution or anything else been established.

    Or, more poignantly, we wouldn’t find significant heritability in twin studies… ;)

    Nature seems to maintain a balance between leftists and rightists. This has long suggested to me a genetic mechanism that inclines roughly half the newborns to be liberals and the other half to be conservatives.

    You think so? You think there’s equal proportions of liberals and conservatives in Sweden as well as in Kentucky?

    Or do you mean relative to the overall political orientation of the locale?

    Political tilt strikes me as obviously adaptive. If I have a species that exists in tiny groups and which makes group decisions that effect the tribe’s survival, how should they be wired? If they were all leftists or all rightists then sooner or later they would all make the wrong decision simultaneously. But if there were a mixture of decision making styles some groups would be guaranteed of survival.

    Oh that’s an E. O. Wilson-esque group-selectiony type explanation. You shouldn’t use those.

    The only reliable correlate with political affiliation has been age or maturity. Young people are often liberal while many of these young libs mature into older conservatives. But many don’t.

    There’s little by way of longitudinal studies that show a shift in political attitudes with age.

    Nature’s pattern seems to be – genetic diversity as a strategy for dealing with unforeseeable changes in the environment. This explain disease resistance. I think it also explains political divisiveness.

    Or, more likely, each strategy is roughly equally adaptive (historically) individually within environments where they occur together.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. iffen says:

    NWE people have a lethal dose of affective empathy and individualism. Non-NWE people have almost non-existent affective empathy and are very much group oriented. Mix them together and the NWE are toast. They can’t even see groups; only individuals. Painted yourself into a deadly corner there Mr. NWE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Spot on.

    However whites used to have a group identity and solidarity but it's been eradicated for the most part by corporations, the intelligentsia and the governments of the West over many decades. The fact is governments and businesses didn't like groups of whites having loyalty to their group/culture or country of origin and worked very hard to get rid of any vestiges of this.

    Here's the thing, if you want to control people and turn them into nice little consumers and cube drones, you cripple the family unit(which is the main cultural and ethical transmitter) and group identity. It's far easier to control atomized individuals verses a cohesive group who have their own views on things.

    I could point to a dozen policies and agendas both parties are hostile to the perpetuation of the white middle-class.

    That said, yes, non-NWE people have almost non-existent empathy and very tribal oriented. I've yet to see a black or Hispanic conservationist, or a non-NWE who can treat their pets decently. I've seen plenty of blacks and Hispanics treat dogs as disposable items but that's it. Most can't be bothered to even participate in their child's education - instead they farm it out to their old kids. This is also seen in our public education system where minorities expect the school to feed and educate their kid while they do nothing.

    In terms of violence, non-NWE's have no real issue when they are preyed upon by their own kind. They accept it as a matter of fact. But if a cop shoots one of their gang banger kids, the whole community goes nuts.

    And again yes, most whites don't see groups they see individuals. They are blind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Peter Frost says: • Website

    I get the impression that some of my readers went no further than the first paragraph. Strangely, this seems to be partly true for Vendetta (who put much thought and energy into a long comment).

    In the past, “liberalism” and “conservatism” referred to different ideologies and well defined political programs. That, sadly, is no longer the case. It’s now about ethnicity. It’s about ethnic groups forming coalitions to take power. And power means just that. Sorry to break the news to you.

    Ventura,

    Those young adults are the future. There was a time when many people transitioned from socialism to conservatism over the course of their lifetime. That’s less and less true. “Liberal” and “conservative” are increasingly euphemisms for ethnic affiliation.

    I didn’t discuss the risk-taking part of the Schreiber et al. study. As you note (in bold characters) the results were mixed. The patterns of behavior were similar even though different neural mechanisms were involved. So what’s your point? Or are you trying to make a point?

    The amygdala seems to process images of fearful facial expressions. This is a robust finding that has been found with different methodologies and by different research teams.

    Kidney donation is a good example of extraordinary altruism. Most donations are made to close friends or relatives. Donations to strangers are atypical.

    Ventura and Quercus,

    A sample size of 90 is more than sufficient to eliminate most stochastic variation. It won’t eliminate sampling bias, but you can get sampling bias even with a sample of 9,000 or 90,000. Sample size has nothing to do with that problem.

    German reader,

    Immigration, or rather population replacement, is one issue where most of the political class is brain-dead, as well as a large portion of the general population. We’ve allowed a situation to develop where antiracism has gradually mutated into an ideology that seeks to destroy the entire European world. Antiracism is the communism of the 21st century.

    What to do? First, stop being a passive supporter of antiracism. Don’t succumb to ritual denunciations of “racism.” Say nothing. Don’t say, “You’re calling me a racist? You’re the real racist!” Don’t let antiracism define what is acceptable and what is not.

    Second, don’t be a clown. There are serious political parties, particularly in Europe. If you live in France, support the Front National. If you live in Britain, support the UKIP. If you live in the Netherlands, support the Party for Freedom. If you live in Germany, support Alternative for Germany.

    The political situation is worse in North America because the “first past the post” system leads to duopoly. Also, corporate donors push heavily for immigration, as they do for globalization in general. There is hope mainly in the regional subcultures of the American South and French-speaking Canada.

    I don’t wish to advocate a single line of action because it’s difficult to say exactly which line of action will work. There is a lot of momentum behind the project to “deconstruct” the European world, and only a mix of strategies will bring it to a halt. But it will come to a halt, one way or another. I just hope it will happen peacefully.

    Simon,

    Worthless? Far from it. Some of the most worthwhile findings have been unintentional. We now know where to look for evidence of ethnic differences in brain structure, particularly with respect to affective empathy and altruistic behavior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "Simon,

    Worthless? Far from it. Some of the most worthwhile findings have been unintentional. We now know where to look for evidence of ethnic differences in brain structure, particularly with respect to affective empathy and altruistic behavior."

    Well, maybe, if we actually knew the race of the UCL students in the study. I was over at UCL recently, and most of the students looked pretty white to me. The girl who handed me a Socialist Workers Party flier was very white!
    , @SmartAss Willie
    Interesting. I've suspected for years liberals deserved their own DSM-IV (now DSM-V). Your article is partial proof that my suspicions have at least a measure of validity.

    One only has to observe liberals' tortured attempts to rationalize the irrational, and follow their convoluted trails of illogical theories, used to justify social policies that shred the very fabric of the societies of any demographic group they illogically view as an oppressor, to see common sense truth in your writings.

    To me, having watched the American society go from the best on the planet in the early 6o's, to the miserable mess it is today because of irrational liberal thought is the only proof I need to declare the entire lot as crazy as bedbugs.

    The goal now is to turn the ship around.... (Back to Lurking Status) SAW
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Clear away the scholarly dissimulation and you find the author making two basic points:

    #1. Non-Whites are biologically programmed sub-humans; they lack individuality (i.e. having a hive mind, like insects), incapable of feeling guilt (collective endemic psychopathy, the cause of which is, of course, genetic) , personal autonomy (like pieces of rock).

    #2. Whites are biologically programmed super-humans; they have individuality (each and every single one of them is a unique person. And guess what? It’s all because of a peculiar arrangement of DNA base pairs, that is found exclusively in Whites!!!), they are capable of feeling guilt (that unique feature of the White Man is both inclusive (all Whites have them) and exclusive (only Whites and no non-Whites do), and needless to say, guilt is also a manifestation of biochemical inheritance), personal autonomy (Yup comrade, Whites are the only ones in the cosmos that think, feel, reflect, deliberate, conclude etc.. Non-Whites could never do THAT because their allelomorphs don’t permit it)

    If you say, that the author’s statements are an Orwellian revolutionary act in the Age of PC, then I should remind you that, we are in the midst of a permanent revolution that the author’s co-ethnics have been waging unrelentingly against us half-children half-devils for the past 500+ years.

    They were huckstering their “empathy” while collecting “body parts from fresh native corpses“.

    Peter Frost, with his intellectual camouflage is promoting the exact same thing that Jack London said about Orientals or Christian Identity says about non-Whites: that we are species without a soul.

    God save us from the White Man…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. thanks for the answer, I appreciate the way you’re interacting with your readers on this site. I’ve already done some of the things you suggested (like voting for the Alternative for Germany, or minor things such as demonstratively refusing to clap for an annoying professor from Cameroon who filled his lecture with the usual postcolonial whining about “racism” and “fortress Europe”). But it’s difficult, given the way the media and the political establishment demonize dissent, and of course one has to take care to distance oneself from the Nazi fringe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. rod1963 says:
    @iffen
    NWE people have a lethal dose of affective empathy and individualism. Non-NWE people have almost non-existent affective empathy and are very much group oriented. Mix them together and the NWE are toast. They can’t even see groups; only individuals. Painted yourself into a deadly corner there Mr. NWE.

    Spot on.

    However whites used to have a group identity and solidarity but it’s been eradicated for the most part by corporations, the intelligentsia and the governments of the West over many decades. The fact is governments and businesses didn’t like groups of whites having loyalty to their group/culture or country of origin and worked very hard to get rid of any vestiges of this.

    Here’s the thing, if you want to control people and turn them into nice little consumers and cube drones, you cripple the family unit(which is the main cultural and ethical transmitter) and group identity. It’s far easier to control atomized individuals verses a cohesive group who have their own views on things.

    I could point to a dozen policies and agendas both parties are hostile to the perpetuation of the white middle-class.

    That said, yes, non-NWE people have almost non-existent empathy and very tribal oriented. I’ve yet to see a black or Hispanic conservationist, or a non-NWE who can treat their pets decently. I’ve seen plenty of blacks and Hispanics treat dogs as disposable items but that’s it. Most can’t be bothered to even participate in their child’s education – instead they farm it out to their old kids. This is also seen in our public education system where minorities expect the school to feed and educate their kid while they do nothing.

    In terms of violence, non-NWE’s have no real issue when they are preyed upon by their own kind. They accept it as a matter of fact. But if a cop shoots one of their gang banger kids, the whole community goes nuts.

    And again yes, most whites don’t see groups they see individuals. They are blind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for the response.

    Lots of analyses around. Lots of people seeing the same problems. No feasible solutions being offered up.

    It is perplexing to me. Our ancestors created Western Civilization. We have gone into a dead end maze and for the first time in thousands of years nobody knows the way out. We are like deer in the headlights.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. rod1963 says:
    @JayMan

    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.
     
    You have to look at each race separately. Somehow, I seriously doubt that's true within race.

    I'd argue that liberals are going to be significantly less psychopathic than conservatives.

    Not really considering the liberal/socialist track record – Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China racked up a body count that makes the last two thousand years of Christianity and Islamic wars look like a girl scout bake sale.

    White Liberals for the most part are uptopians and with that comes a whole host very ugly sociopathic attributes that includes destroying societies and people outright in the name of progress and perfection. Not to mention a totalitarian mentality- if you deviate from the group mind that is white liberalism you are a heretic or the enemy. This is why they get along so well with radical Islamists – the guys who kill you for disagreeing with them. Outside of one group being militantly secular and the other theocratic to the bone, they think the same. Oh yeah both are hive minded as well.

    White Conservatives as opposed to republicans(who are for big government as much as any liberal) know people aren’t perfectible but quite fallible and know big government can’t fix that. Government can do certain things but socially engineering people and societies in the name of progress shouldn’t be one of them. Yes, to a socialist the conservative looks like a wolf because he won’t spend all his money to help a Somali thug starving to death or give room and board along with health care to any self-destructive crack addict or paroled child molester.

    Non-whites are a different kettle of fish. Being tribal to the core, their people come first and foremost. They will naturally side with any Western political party that promises a life time of welfare, housing, free medical care and special privileges for their group. That means the Democratic party in the U.S. the party of Santa Claus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A hideous Paki witch with turd skin and a face I first assumed was a Halloween mask taught me this. The thin nosed, frizzy haired old hag in question is Yasmin Alibiah Brown. She won a quiz and donated the money to some Paki woman’s shelter. The White audiemce applauded her like lunatics. I can’t imagine a White celeb fonating their prize money to a specifically White charity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    Mr Frost,

    sorry for asking, but I'd be interested, how would you describe your own political orientation? You've written you aren't a white nationalist, but it's clear from your articles you regard non-Western mass immigration as harmful to Western nations (as do I). Where do you stand politically and can you discern any realistic solutions for the problems you're alluding to in your blog posts here?

    “What to do? First, stop being a passive supporter of antiracism. Don’t succumb to ritual denunciations of “racism.” Say nothing. Don’t say, “You’re calling me a racist? You’re the real racist!” Don’t let antiracism define what is acceptable and what is not.”

    If I can find my decoder ring I will send it along to you, German reader. BTW I am a half-assed English reader and I don’t know what f** he is saying, thus the search for the decoder ring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Peter Frost
    I get the impression that some of my readers went no further than the first paragraph. Strangely, this seems to be partly true for Vendetta (who put much thought and energy into a long comment).

    In the past, "liberalism" and "conservatism" referred to different ideologies and well defined political programs. That, sadly, is no longer the case. It's now about ethnicity. It's about ethnic groups forming coalitions to take power. And power means just that. Sorry to break the news to you.

    Ventura,

    Those young adults are the future. There was a time when many people transitioned from socialism to conservatism over the course of their lifetime. That's less and less true. "Liberal" and "conservative" are increasingly euphemisms for ethnic affiliation.

    I didn't discuss the risk-taking part of the Schreiber et al. study. As you note (in bold characters) the results were mixed. The patterns of behavior were similar even though different neural mechanisms were involved. So what's your point? Or are you trying to make a point?

    The amygdala seems to process images of fearful facial expressions. This is a robust finding that has been found with different methodologies and by different research teams.

    Kidney donation is a good example of extraordinary altruism. Most donations are made to close friends or relatives. Donations to strangers are atypical.

    Ventura and Quercus,

    A sample size of 90 is more than sufficient to eliminate most stochastic variation. It won't eliminate sampling bias, but you can get sampling bias even with a sample of 9,000 or 90,000. Sample size has nothing to do with that problem.

    German reader,

    Immigration, or rather population replacement, is one issue where most of the political class is brain-dead, as well as a large portion of the general population. We've allowed a situation to develop where antiracism has gradually mutated into an ideology that seeks to destroy the entire European world. Antiracism is the communism of the 21st century.

    What to do? First, stop being a passive supporter of antiracism. Don't succumb to ritual denunciations of "racism." Say nothing. Don't say, "You're calling me a racist? You're the real racist!" Don't let antiracism define what is acceptable and what is not.

    Second, don't be a clown. There are serious political parties, particularly in Europe. If you live in France, support the Front National. If you live in Britain, support the UKIP. If you live in the Netherlands, support the Party for Freedom. If you live in Germany, support Alternative for Germany.

    The political situation is worse in North America because the "first past the post" system leads to duopoly. Also, corporate donors push heavily for immigration, as they do for globalization in general. There is hope mainly in the regional subcultures of the American South and French-speaking Canada.

    I don't wish to advocate a single line of action because it's difficult to say exactly which line of action will work. There is a lot of momentum behind the project to "deconstruct" the European world, and only a mix of strategies will bring it to a halt. But it will come to a halt, one way or another. I just hope it will happen peacefully.

    Simon,

    Worthless? Far from it. Some of the most worthwhile findings have been unintentional. We now know where to look for evidence of ethnic differences in brain structure, particularly with respect to affective empathy and altruistic behavior.

    “Simon,

    Worthless? Far from it. Some of the most worthwhile findings have been unintentional. We now know where to look for evidence of ethnic differences in brain structure, particularly with respect to affective empathy and altruistic behavior.”

    Well, maybe, if we actually knew the race of the UCL students in the study. I was over at UCL recently, and most of the students looked pretty white to me. The girl who handed me a Socialist Workers Party flier was very white!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. iffen says:
    @rod1963
    Spot on.

    However whites used to have a group identity and solidarity but it's been eradicated for the most part by corporations, the intelligentsia and the governments of the West over many decades. The fact is governments and businesses didn't like groups of whites having loyalty to their group/culture or country of origin and worked very hard to get rid of any vestiges of this.

    Here's the thing, if you want to control people and turn them into nice little consumers and cube drones, you cripple the family unit(which is the main cultural and ethical transmitter) and group identity. It's far easier to control atomized individuals verses a cohesive group who have their own views on things.

    I could point to a dozen policies and agendas both parties are hostile to the perpetuation of the white middle-class.

    That said, yes, non-NWE people have almost non-existent empathy and very tribal oriented. I've yet to see a black or Hispanic conservationist, or a non-NWE who can treat their pets decently. I've seen plenty of blacks and Hispanics treat dogs as disposable items but that's it. Most can't be bothered to even participate in their child's education - instead they farm it out to their old kids. This is also seen in our public education system where minorities expect the school to feed and educate their kid while they do nothing.

    In terms of violence, non-NWE's have no real issue when they are preyed upon by their own kind. They accept it as a matter of fact. But if a cop shoots one of their gang banger kids, the whole community goes nuts.

    And again yes, most whites don't see groups they see individuals. They are blind.

    Thanks for the response.

    Lots of analyses around. Lots of people seeing the same problems. No feasible solutions being offered up.

    It is perplexing to me. Our ancestors created Western Civilization. We have gone into a dead end maze and for the first time in thousands of years nobody knows the way out. We are like deer in the headlights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Stone Garden,

    Human populations differ statistically for a wide range of mental traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical; they’re apparent only when one compares large numbers of people. But even those differences play a key role in cultural evolution and the development of human societies.

    One of those mental traits is our capacity for affective empathy. I don’t know how much Northwest Europeans differ from other humans in this respect, but I’m convinced that they differ. Most likely this capacity declines gradually as one goes farther east and south.

    Affective empathy is not unconditional. It can be turned off. If a person is considered to be morally worthless, he or she will be ostracized or even killed. In the past, this happened to blasphemers, murderers, and the like. Now it happens to “racists.”

    In a sense, your comment strengthens my argument. The marketplace of ideas is a product of an individualistic culture where adherence to “fair play” matters more than bonds of ethnicity and kinship. As Northwest Europeans decline in number, this marketplace will decline and perhaps collapse. Ideas will no longer be judged on their merit. They will be judged in terms of Who? Whom?

    Yes, I know about the war crimes committed against the Herero of Namibia. But the very concept of “war crime” first developed in Western societies and then spread elsewhere. Do you think Tamurlane or Attila the Hun would have understood that concept?

    Cracker,

    Life is becoming interesting when a German understands my pedantic English but a native English-speaker doesn’t.

    Simon,

    About 20% of its student body comes from Asia and Africa. There surely must be some students from Britain’s Afro-Asian community, so the overall proportion of Afro-Asian minorities must be around 25-30%

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I understand the theme of all your posts regardless of the subject.

    NWE good. Not NWE bad.
    , @Anonymous
    The Herero genocide wasn't recognized as a genocide until the 80s. The concept of genocide itself was first developed in the 40s by Raphael Lemkin, who was of Jewish descent, not Northwestern European.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. iffen says:
    @Peter Frost
    Stone Garden,

    Human populations differ statistically for a wide range of mental traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical; they're apparent only when one compares large numbers of people. But even those differences play a key role in cultural evolution and the development of human societies.

    One of those mental traits is our capacity for affective empathy. I don't know how much Northwest Europeans differ from other humans in this respect, but I'm convinced that they differ. Most likely this capacity declines gradually as one goes farther east and south.

    Affective empathy is not unconditional. It can be turned off. If a person is considered to be morally worthless, he or she will be ostracized or even killed. In the past, this happened to blasphemers, murderers, and the like. Now it happens to "racists."

    In a sense, your comment strengthens my argument. The marketplace of ideas is a product of an individualistic culture where adherence to "fair play" matters more than bonds of ethnicity and kinship. As Northwest Europeans decline in number, this marketplace will decline and perhaps collapse. Ideas will no longer be judged on their merit. They will be judged in terms of Who? Whom?

    Yes, I know about the war crimes committed against the Herero of Namibia. But the very concept of "war crime" first developed in Western societies and then spread elsewhere. Do you think Tamurlane or Attila the Hun would have understood that concept?

    Cracker,

    Life is becoming interesting when a German understands my pedantic English but a native English-speaker doesn't.

    Simon,

    About 20% of its student body comes from Asia and Africa. There surely must be some students from Britain's Afro-Asian community, so the overall proportion of Afro-Asian minorities must be around 25-30%

    I understand the theme of all your posts regardless of the subject.

    NWE good. Not NWE bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Luke Lea says:
    @Vendetta
    Study #1, Kanai et al

    Reported no data on the number of test subjects who classified themselves into each category (very liberal, liberal, middle-of-the-road, conservative, very conservative), save that none in their study claimed to be very conservative.

    Thus no way for an outside party to determine whether the significant difference they reported between the "very liberals" and "conservatives" was the result of outliers in a very small sample size (I imagine most would have chosen 'liberal' or 'middle-of-the-road').

    http://www.cell.com/action/showImagesData?pii=S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2
    A look at their graphs shows that the 'conservative' group is the odd one out compared with the other three in both categories - a finding that makes me very suspicious of a small sample size weighted with one or two weirdos.

    Study further clearly qualified this as a finding in young adults, specifically in college students, which popular reports of its findings are then generalizing across all ages.

    Study #2, Schreiber et al.

    Compared a sample of 60 Democrats, average age 22, with 22 Republicans, average age 28. The thought comes to my mind of those new studies indicating brain development reaches full maturity around age 25. That of course might just be more pop junk science, so I'll let it slide. The sample sizes, however, remain disproportionate.

    Furthermore, this the researchers' idea of a test for "risky behavior"

    "For the Risky-Gains task [26], participants were presented with three numbers in ascending order (20, 40, and 80) in each trial. If the participant pressed a button when the number was shown on the screen, he/she received the number of cents shown on the screen (+20, +40, or +80). The participants were informed that if they pressed the button while the 20 was on the screen, they would always receive 20 cents (safe decision). However, if they waited for the 40 or 80 to appear on the screen, there was a chance the number would appear in red, signaling the loss of 40 or 80 cents, respectively (risky decision). Thus, although the participant may have gained more points per trial by waiting until a 40 or 80 appears on the screen, there was also a risk of losing 40 or 80 points. Participants received feedback (stimulus on the screen and auditory sound) indicating the gain or loss of cents immediately after selecting a response. The probabilities of presenting a negative 40 or 80 are such that a participant's final score would be identical were they to consistently select 20, 40, or 80. Thus, there was no inherent advantage to select the risky response (40 or 80) over the safe response [37]. Each trial lasted 3.5 s irrespective of the participants’ choice. Three trial types were presented in a pseudo-randomized order: non-punished (+20, +40, +80, n = 54), punished 40 (−40, n = 24), and punished 80 (−80, n = 18), along with six null trials that lasted 3.5 s each. Loss of reward only occurred during punished trials, when participants did not respond to the previous numbers on that trial (i.e., did not respond to the 20 on punished 40 trials or did not respond to the 20 or 40 on punished 80 trials)."

    Which strikes me as complete bollocks. This is "risk" only in the most abstract (liberal?) definition of the word. This methodology has utterly nothing to do with either fear or social interactions, both of which its results are being used to make statements on.

    "No significant differences were observed in the entorhinal cortex or anterior cingulate cortex. All attempts to use behavior to distinguish Republicans from Democrats were unsuccessful (Fig. 2), suggesting that different neural mechanisms may underlie apparently similar patterns of behavior [29]."


    Study #3, On Extraordinary Altruism

    I question the strength of the experimental design. First of all, it would have been useful to have made a comparison between those who donated a kidney to a stranger to those people who have donated a kidney to a loved one.

    Second, while I commend anyone who'd give a kidney to someone they don't know, I question whether this is the best representative example that could be found of an extraordinary altruist. Extraordinary altruism, as they define it, involves the altruist's actions on behalf of another's welfare significantly reducing their own. Kidney donors do not impair themselves in a significant way - that's part of the argument for donating your kidneys. You can get by just fine with one.

    Compare, on the other hand, with someone who donated a lung to a stranger, and will be feeling the impact of that decision for their rest of their life, and will know that beforehand.

    I don't question the kindness or heroism of altruistic kidney donors - but they are not a fit for the artificially defined category of 'extraordinary altruists' in that they do not suffer long-term impairment as a result of their act of kindness on a stranger's behalf.


    I am also skeptical in general of these facial emotion recognition tests on several levels. It is first of all deprived of body language cues, tone of voice, or any situational context - meaning those slow to recognize a facial expression flashed at them on a screen may be just fine at it in a realistic situation in which they have other information to work with.

    Second, it seems to me these tests fail to account for the impact of attention span and boredom - those with a short attention span will start to lag and lose focus over the course of being battered with 150 of these in a row.

    And third, freeze-frames are not a natural way in which one recognizes a facial expression because people in real social situations do not have frame-frozen faces - they have animated expressions. Distinguishing fear from surprise, and anger from disgust in single photographs is throwing darts at a board half the time, while it's bloody obvious if you watch it unfold on a moving face for a couple of seconds.

    In summary, yes, there may well be (and Hell, there probably is) a genetic difference - but studies like these are not constructed to find it properly, and press coverage of any findings in these fields inevitably distorts what was found and takes these claims at face value without evaluating the methodology of the experiments and the spin the scientists themselves tend to put on them.

    Vendetta’s criticisms strike me as sensible: too small sample size, over-simplification, over-interpretation, etc..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Immigration, or rather population replacement, is one issue where most of the political class is brain-dead, as well as a large portion of the general population. We’ve allowed a situation to develop where antiracism has gradually mutated into an ideology that seeks to destroy the entire European world. Antiracism is the communism of the 21st century.

    Lots of analyses around. Lots of people seeing the same problems. No feasible solutions being offered up.

    Mr. Frost,

    There is a group, acronym BUGS, that works to develop a counter-culture to “antiracism” by spreading memes.

    The most popular one is “anti-racist is code for anti-white”. The term “anti-white” is getting record levels of media hits, due entirely to the efforts of this group. Fighting “anti-whiteism” squares the circle of creating a moral ideology to rally around that is also self-preserving.

    Another popular one is “diversity is white genocide”. That’s a tough sell to media. I’ve seen it repeated, perhaps not by BUGS affiliates themselves, with softer finishes like “targeted race replacement”, “white-only race replacement”, “anti-white ethnic cleansing”, and such.

    A softer diversity meme is “diversity means chasing down the last white person”. This covers all three necessary bases:

    Diversity targets only white people
    “Last” means reduced to eliminated demographically
    “Chasing down” means its involuntary

    So we have an undemocratic ideology targeting only one group of people based on their race, ethnically cleansing them in their historic homelands. These simple memes rightfully expose feel-good buzzwords as something sinister.

    BUGS also develops memes to counter common anti-white rebuttals like “America belongs to the Indians”.

    In terms of countering “antiracism” and “diversity”, the BUGS meme strategy of exposing the sinister meaning behind those terms is the most effective strategy I’ve seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    So we have an undemocratic ideology targeting only one group of people based on their race, ethnically cleansing them in their historic homelands. These simple memes rightfully expose feel-good buzzwords as something sinister.

    BUGS also develops memes to counter common anti-white rebuttals like “America belongs to the Indians”.
     

    The ideology doesn't just target one group. It also targets Indians since it doesn't really support returning the historic homelands of the Indians and rather supports the continued ethnic cleansing of them. And you agree with the ideology here since you support the ethnic cleansing of Indians from their historic homelands. You don't have a problem with ethnic cleansing in general or in principle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Stone Garden,

    Human populations differ statistically for a wide range of mental traits. Most of these differences are weakly statistical; they're apparent only when one compares large numbers of people. But even those differences play a key role in cultural evolution and the development of human societies.

    One of those mental traits is our capacity for affective empathy. I don't know how much Northwest Europeans differ from other humans in this respect, but I'm convinced that they differ. Most likely this capacity declines gradually as one goes farther east and south.

    Affective empathy is not unconditional. It can be turned off. If a person is considered to be morally worthless, he or she will be ostracized or even killed. In the past, this happened to blasphemers, murderers, and the like. Now it happens to "racists."

    In a sense, your comment strengthens my argument. The marketplace of ideas is a product of an individualistic culture where adherence to "fair play" matters more than bonds of ethnicity and kinship. As Northwest Europeans decline in number, this marketplace will decline and perhaps collapse. Ideas will no longer be judged on their merit. They will be judged in terms of Who? Whom?

    Yes, I know about the war crimes committed against the Herero of Namibia. But the very concept of "war crime" first developed in Western societies and then spread elsewhere. Do you think Tamurlane or Attila the Hun would have understood that concept?

    Cracker,

    Life is becoming interesting when a German understands my pedantic English but a native English-speaker doesn't.

    Simon,

    About 20% of its student body comes from Asia and Africa. There surely must be some students from Britain's Afro-Asian community, so the overall proportion of Afro-Asian minorities must be around 25-30%

    The Herero genocide wasn’t recognized as a genocide until the 80s. The concept of genocide itself was first developed in the 40s by Raphael Lemkin, who was of Jewish descent, not Northwestern European.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not just the concept of genocide, but many of the other important and indeed foundational moral, religious, theological concepts of the West were originated by Jewish and other Mediterranean personages, not Northwestern Europeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Rex says:
    @Jason
    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    Examples:

    IQ: Most of the liberals were in the soft sciences like sociology, political “science”, etc. where IQ’s are lower. Most of the students in engineering and math had higher IQ’s were more logical and considered “conservative.” Many of the liberals on campus were just sheep who had never thought about things.

    Low Morals: Most of the Demogangsters are crooks and criminals. Example: Sexual predator Bill Clinton, Harry Reid the election thief, illegal alien crook Obama, and a 1000 others.

    Most of the Demogangsters are just crooks and criminals. They just tell lies, such as pretend to love aliens, telling lies like they will be “united with family” “land of immigrants” and tell a 1000 other lies to their sheep liberals, but their real intention in the alien invasion is to low IQ garbage that will vote for them. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    Is lib-barbarians meant to be a slur on libertarians? If you open ur other eye u may see Republicans are just as bad/immoral/corrupt as Democrats too. Here in Australia the ruling Liberal party is the conservative party. They are challenging in court the small libertarian Liberal Democrats to change their name as it’s too similar! Anyway, what does “liberal” mean? Freedom for corporations, people, aliens, smokers, non-smokers etc. Free from euthanasia or free to euthanise?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It's the other way around; it's a slur on barbarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    The Herero genocide wasn't recognized as a genocide until the 80s. The concept of genocide itself was first developed in the 40s by Raphael Lemkin, who was of Jewish descent, not Northwestern European.

    Not just the concept of genocide, but many of the other important and indeed foundational moral, religious, theological concepts of the West were originated by Jewish and other Mediterranean personages, not Northwestern Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. iffen says:
    @Rex
    Is lib-barbarians meant to be a slur on libertarians? If you open ur other eye u may see Republicans are just as bad/immoral/corrupt as Democrats too. Here in Australia the ruling Liberal party is the conservative party. They are challenging in court the small libertarian Liberal Democrats to change their name as it's too similar! Anyway, what does "liberal" mean? Freedom for corporations, people, aliens, smokers, non-smokers etc. Free from euthanasia or free to euthanise?

    It’s the other way around; it’s a slur on barbarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. jtgw says:

    @pfrost

    So I suppose you’d say that the kind of ethno-masochistic white liberals I know from college and grad school are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to determining what liberalism is. These are people who make a point of displaying hate and contempt for their own race and, in the case of men, sex (or “gender”), while simultaneously showing off their empathy for various “oppressed” races. It seems these people take altruism for strangers to the limit, much more than conservatives, which is what made your association between conservatism and extraordinary altruism surprising. But I take it that if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we’re left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?

    The next question is this: if “conservatives” are now just the “white party”, why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the “liberal party”? If whites are now voting in their own ethnic interests, what makes them more altruistic than other races doing likewise? I think this needs to be explored further.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, previously it seemed to be suggested that liberalism was the evidence for or indication of altruism.
    , @Anonymous
    The Democrats have always been the minority coalition party, like they are today. Up until the 60s/70s, it was a minority coalition that united the South, Catholics, Jews, white ethnics, northern cities against the small town, rural, suburban northern Protestant WASP majority which supported the Republicans.

    There was a realignment in the 60s/70s following desegregation and civil rights for blacks. The older minority coalition broke up as the Democrats couldn't include blacks and satisfy the other components of the coalition, such as the South and white ethnics, at the same time. Something had to give, and that was the South and many northern whites and ethnics. The Republicans of course recognized this and pursued these disaffected elements of the former Democratic coalition. This was the basis of Nixon's "Southern strategy". The South went Republican pretty quickly, and the northern white ethnics have been turning Republican quite steadily since.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Max Payne says:
    @Jason
    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    Examples:

    IQ: Most of the liberals were in the soft sciences like sociology, political “science”, etc. where IQ’s are lower. Most of the students in engineering and math had higher IQ’s were more logical and considered “conservative.” Many of the liberals on campus were just sheep who had never thought about things.

    Low Morals: Most of the Demogangsters are crooks and criminals. Example: Sexual predator Bill Clinton, Harry Reid the election thief, illegal alien crook Obama, and a 1000 others.

    Most of the Demogangsters are just crooks and criminals. They just tell lies, such as pretend to love aliens, telling lies like they will be “united with family” “land of immigrants” and tell a 1000 other lies to their sheep liberals, but their real intention in the alien invasion is to low IQ garbage that will vote for them. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    Have you ever read Ted Kaczynski and his “Industrial Society and its Future”?

    He is more (in)famously known as the Unabomber and his writing as the Unabomber manifesto.

    I’m not trolling but your comment bares a striking resemblance to Kaczynski’s theory on the liberal left… especially about telling lies (albeit for reasons of empowerment as opposed to monetary or political gain).

    I wonder why no one ever talks about that mans manifesto anymore considering its relevance to a lot of issues today……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Peter Frost
    I get the impression that some of my readers went no further than the first paragraph. Strangely, this seems to be partly true for Vendetta (who put much thought and energy into a long comment).

    In the past, "liberalism" and "conservatism" referred to different ideologies and well defined political programs. That, sadly, is no longer the case. It's now about ethnicity. It's about ethnic groups forming coalitions to take power. And power means just that. Sorry to break the news to you.

    Ventura,

    Those young adults are the future. There was a time when many people transitioned from socialism to conservatism over the course of their lifetime. That's less and less true. "Liberal" and "conservative" are increasingly euphemisms for ethnic affiliation.

    I didn't discuss the risk-taking part of the Schreiber et al. study. As you note (in bold characters) the results were mixed. The patterns of behavior were similar even though different neural mechanisms were involved. So what's your point? Or are you trying to make a point?

    The amygdala seems to process images of fearful facial expressions. This is a robust finding that has been found with different methodologies and by different research teams.

    Kidney donation is a good example of extraordinary altruism. Most donations are made to close friends or relatives. Donations to strangers are atypical.

    Ventura and Quercus,

    A sample size of 90 is more than sufficient to eliminate most stochastic variation. It won't eliminate sampling bias, but you can get sampling bias even with a sample of 9,000 or 90,000. Sample size has nothing to do with that problem.

    German reader,

    Immigration, or rather population replacement, is one issue where most of the political class is brain-dead, as well as a large portion of the general population. We've allowed a situation to develop where antiracism has gradually mutated into an ideology that seeks to destroy the entire European world. Antiracism is the communism of the 21st century.

    What to do? First, stop being a passive supporter of antiracism. Don't succumb to ritual denunciations of "racism." Say nothing. Don't say, "You're calling me a racist? You're the real racist!" Don't let antiracism define what is acceptable and what is not.

    Second, don't be a clown. There are serious political parties, particularly in Europe. If you live in France, support the Front National. If you live in Britain, support the UKIP. If you live in the Netherlands, support the Party for Freedom. If you live in Germany, support Alternative for Germany.

    The political situation is worse in North America because the "first past the post" system leads to duopoly. Also, corporate donors push heavily for immigration, as they do for globalization in general. There is hope mainly in the regional subcultures of the American South and French-speaking Canada.

    I don't wish to advocate a single line of action because it's difficult to say exactly which line of action will work. There is a lot of momentum behind the project to "deconstruct" the European world, and only a mix of strategies will bring it to a halt. But it will come to a halt, one way or another. I just hope it will happen peacefully.

    Simon,

    Worthless? Far from it. Some of the most worthwhile findings have been unintentional. We now know where to look for evidence of ethnic differences in brain structure, particularly with respect to affective empathy and altruistic behavior.

    Interesting. I’ve suspected for years liberals deserved their own DSM-IV (now DSM-V). Your article is partial proof that my suspicions have at least a measure of validity.

    One only has to observe liberals’ tortured attempts to rationalize the irrational, and follow their convoluted trails of illogical theories, used to justify social policies that shred the very fabric of the societies of any demographic group they illogically view as an oppressor, to see common sense truth in your writings.

    To me, having watched the American society go from the best on the planet in the early 6o’s, to the miserable mess it is today because of irrational liberal thought is the only proof I need to declare the entire lot as crazy as bedbugs.

    The goal now is to turn the ship around…. (Back to Lurking Status) SAW

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jtgw
    @pfrost

    So I suppose you'd say that the kind of ethno-masochistic white liberals I know from college and grad school are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to determining what liberalism is. These are people who make a point of displaying hate and contempt for their own race and, in the case of men, sex (or "gender"), while simultaneously showing off their empathy for various "oppressed" races. It seems these people take altruism for strangers to the limit, much more than conservatives, which is what made your association between conservatism and extraordinary altruism surprising. But I take it that if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we're left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?

    The next question is this: if "conservatives" are now just the "white party", why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the "liberal party"? If whites are now voting in their own ethnic interests, what makes them more altruistic than other races doing likewise? I think this needs to be explored further.

    Yes, previously it seemed to be suggested that liberalism was the evidence for or indication of altruism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Immigration, or rather population replacement, is one issue where most of the political class is brain-dead, as well as a large portion of the general population. We’ve allowed a situation to develop where antiracism has gradually mutated into an ideology that seeks to destroy the entire European world. Antiracism is the communism of the 21st century.
     

    Lots of analyses around. Lots of people seeing the same problems. No feasible solutions being offered up.
     
    Mr. Frost,

    There is a group, acronym BUGS, that works to develop a counter-culture to "antiracism" by spreading memes.

    The most popular one is "anti-racist is code for anti-white". The term "anti-white" is getting record levels of media hits, due entirely to the efforts of this group. Fighting "anti-whiteism" squares the circle of creating a moral ideology to rally around that is also self-preserving.

    Another popular one is "diversity is white genocide". That's a tough sell to media. I've seen it repeated, perhaps not by BUGS affiliates themselves, with softer finishes like "targeted race replacement", "white-only race replacement", "anti-white ethnic cleansing", and such.

    A softer diversity meme is "diversity means chasing down the last white person". This covers all three necessary bases:

    Diversity targets only white people
    "Last" means reduced to eliminated demographically
    "Chasing down" means its involuntary

    So we have an undemocratic ideology targeting only one group of people based on their race, ethnically cleansing them in their historic homelands. These simple memes rightfully expose feel-good buzzwords as something sinister.

    BUGS also develops memes to counter common anti-white rebuttals like "America belongs to the Indians".

    In terms of countering "antiracism" and "diversity", the BUGS meme strategy of exposing the sinister meaning behind those terms is the most effective strategy I've seen.

    So we have an undemocratic ideology targeting only one group of people based on their race, ethnically cleansing them in their historic homelands. These simple memes rightfully expose feel-good buzzwords as something sinister.

    BUGS also develops memes to counter common anti-white rebuttals like “America belongs to the Indians”.

    The ideology doesn’t just target one group. It also targets Indians since it doesn’t really support returning the historic homelands of the Indians and rather supports the continued ethnic cleansing of them. And you agree with the ideology here since you support the ethnic cleansing of Indians from their historic homelands. You don’t have a problem with ethnic cleansing in general or in principle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Twice I've submitted a post, and when trying to edit, I get a pop-up saying "comment marked as spam". At that point the posts disappeared, no longer "awaiting moderation". I don't know if they're reaching the moderator or not.

    I'll submit the second post again and try not editing it this time.

    Below is a BUGS-style response to anon's common "Indians" argument. The debate style is not academic, but academic writers like Taylor/Macdonald and co. have accomplished little. Wise, Alinsky and co. win through emotional attack words and verbal voodoo, not dispassionate facts.

    These three counters work in the field, emphasis on #1:

    #1) "So you're justifying (white-targeted population replacement, anti-whiteism, white genocide, whatever.)?"

    If you can establish (contents) to be something unjustifiable, then this reply alone is a winner, and you don't need argument-specific responses like #2) or #3).

    This is what our opponents have done: turn "racism" into such a horrible crime that no counter argument can be considered if it is "racist". We have to change the moral hierarchy to make something else a greater evil than "racism". Clearly, targeting a population for race and culture replacement or ethnic cleansing or whatever we call it, is far worse, and extremely "racist" in itself.

    #2) "If you think America belongs to the Indians and you live here, your First obligation is to give back Your "stolen property" to those You insist it belongs to. "

    #3) "How does inviting More people to this "stolen land" help the Indians? Do you care? No, you're just anti-white."

    Establishing a strong #1) is the most effective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Luke,

    A larger amygdala was significantly associated with “conservatism” in three separate samples: two in Britain and one in the U.S. That’s a robust finding.

    Anon,

    Raphael Lemkin’s ethnicity is irrelevant. What matters is the ethnicity of his audience. He moved to the United States, where the majority culture was already predisposed to individualism and moral universalism. It was an ideal audience. But suppose he had moved to Turkey. Would he have been able to condemn the Armenian genocide in that kind of society? I suspect not.

    Yes, Northwest Europeans owe a lot to the Jews, particularly via Christianity. But that Christian heritage evolved in many ways as its centre of gravity moved northward and westward, away from the eastern Mediterranean. I’ve discussed this point in previous posts.

    jtgw,

    “if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we’re left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?”

    We’re moving in that direction. The “left”/”right” split is increasingly becoming an ethnic one, and this ethnic polarization will feed on itself. As the “left” becomes more and more Afro-Asian, its policy making will reflect that reality, and its dwindling white membership will feel less and less at home. They will leave.

    A similar process will take place on the political right. A complicating factor is that European people in general are more individualistic and prefer to frame their concerns in universalistic terms.

    “if “conservatives” are now just the “white party”, why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the “liberal party”?”

    Because Northwest Europeans have a long history of individualism and moral universalism. That can’t change overnight. For one thing, as I’ve argued in this post, there has been a process of gene-culture co-evolution. Psychologically, Northwest Europeans have become less oriented toward kinship and more oriented toward internal means of behavior control, e.g., empathy, guilt. So those predispositions will remain regardless of any political or ideological changes.

    Anon,

    Yes, globalization is a threat to many human societies, and not simply European-descended ones. But resistance to globalization, if it is to succeed, must shun delusional thinking. I detect traces of the latter in your call for “returning the historic homelands of the Indians.” I have been a proponent of First Nation rights, but that sort of demand isn’t on the table. We have all we can do to defend the existing homelands of native peoples.

    I tend to be pedantic, so let me speak plainly: Don’t be a clown!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Mr.Frost,

    I regret publishing the earlier rude comment.
    , @Anonymous
    Lemkin's ethnicity does not seem irrelevent here. The concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans. This is curious and cannot simply be handwaived away. It was a member of a very small minority significantly outnumbered by Northwestern Europeans that conceived of the concept of genocide. Why didn't any of the millions of Northwestern Europeans come up with the concept? This is history; these are the actual facts of the matter. Being an "ideal audience", a recipient of something is not identical.

    Suppose Lemkin had moved to Germany in the early 40s. Do you suspect Germany would have listened to Lemkin and his concept of genocide? What about if Turkey was fire-bombed and beaten into submission? Do you suspect the reception might be different in the aftermath of those circumstances?

    Given the fact that a small, significantly outnumbered minority was highly overrepresented in devising these concepts, it's not apparent that they would have been developed endogenously. An ideal or receptive audience is not quite the same thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. iffen says:
    @Peter Frost
    Luke,

    A larger amygdala was significantly associated with "conservatism" in three separate samples: two in Britain and one in the U.S. That's a robust finding.

    Anon,

    Raphael Lemkin's ethnicity is irrelevant. What matters is the ethnicity of his audience. He moved to the United States, where the majority culture was already predisposed to individualism and moral universalism. It was an ideal audience. But suppose he had moved to Turkey. Would he have been able to condemn the Armenian genocide in that kind of society? I suspect not.

    Yes, Northwest Europeans owe a lot to the Jews, particularly via Christianity. But that Christian heritage evolved in many ways as its centre of gravity moved northward and westward, away from the eastern Mediterranean. I've discussed this point in previous posts.

    jtgw,

    "if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we’re left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?"

    We're moving in that direction. The "left"/"right" split is increasingly becoming an ethnic one, and this ethnic polarization will feed on itself. As the "left" becomes more and more Afro-Asian, its policy making will reflect that reality, and its dwindling white membership will feel less and less at home. They will leave.

    A similar process will take place on the political right. A complicating factor is that European people in general are more individualistic and prefer to frame their concerns in universalistic terms.

    "if “conservatives” are now just the “white party”, why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the “liberal party”?"

    Because Northwest Europeans have a long history of individualism and moral universalism. That can't change overnight. For one thing, as I've argued in this post, there has been a process of gene-culture co-evolution. Psychologically, Northwest Europeans have become less oriented toward kinship and more oriented toward internal means of behavior control, e.g., empathy, guilt. So those predispositions will remain regardless of any political or ideological changes.

    Anon,

    Yes, globalization is a threat to many human societies, and not simply European-descended ones. But resistance to globalization, if it is to succeed, must shun delusional thinking. I detect traces of the latter in your call for "returning the historic homelands of the Indians." I have been a proponent of First Nation rights, but that sort of demand isn't on the table. We have all we can do to defend the existing homelands of native peoples.

    I tend to be pedantic, so let me speak plainly: Don't be a clown!

    Mr.Frost,

    I regret publishing the earlier rude comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. jtgw says:

    I agree that it will be hard to overcome the tendency to extraordinary altruism. I think another problem is how much contact you have with other races and what particular groups you’re exposed to. For instance, I read in the news about black misbehavior against whites and how the media plays it down, and I am outraged, and I’m sure some of that outrage is visceral, grounded in the feeling that “we” are being attacked by “them”. But I also actually know some blacks personally, and I think of them as decent people, so I have to acknowledge that any retribution I mete out towards blacks in general would necessarily target those whom I consider my friends. I’m sure I would feel differently if I were exposed to less well-socialized or lower class blacks.

    Are you insinuating, by any chance, that blacks would be less susceptible to changing their ethnocentric views if they got to know whites personally? Would they more inclined to hate us indiscriminately even if they counted whites among their friends, or to put it another way, are they less able to make friends among other races than we are?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    Luke,

    A larger amygdala was significantly associated with "conservatism" in three separate samples: two in Britain and one in the U.S. That's a robust finding.

    Anon,

    Raphael Lemkin's ethnicity is irrelevant. What matters is the ethnicity of his audience. He moved to the United States, where the majority culture was already predisposed to individualism and moral universalism. It was an ideal audience. But suppose he had moved to Turkey. Would he have been able to condemn the Armenian genocide in that kind of society? I suspect not.

    Yes, Northwest Europeans owe a lot to the Jews, particularly via Christianity. But that Christian heritage evolved in many ways as its centre of gravity moved northward and westward, away from the eastern Mediterranean. I've discussed this point in previous posts.

    jtgw,

    "if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we’re left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?"

    We're moving in that direction. The "left"/"right" split is increasingly becoming an ethnic one, and this ethnic polarization will feed on itself. As the "left" becomes more and more Afro-Asian, its policy making will reflect that reality, and its dwindling white membership will feel less and less at home. They will leave.

    A similar process will take place on the political right. A complicating factor is that European people in general are more individualistic and prefer to frame their concerns in universalistic terms.

    "if “conservatives” are now just the “white party”, why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the “liberal party”?"

    Because Northwest Europeans have a long history of individualism and moral universalism. That can't change overnight. For one thing, as I've argued in this post, there has been a process of gene-culture co-evolution. Psychologically, Northwest Europeans have become less oriented toward kinship and more oriented toward internal means of behavior control, e.g., empathy, guilt. So those predispositions will remain regardless of any political or ideological changes.

    Anon,

    Yes, globalization is a threat to many human societies, and not simply European-descended ones. But resistance to globalization, if it is to succeed, must shun delusional thinking. I detect traces of the latter in your call for "returning the historic homelands of the Indians." I have been a proponent of First Nation rights, but that sort of demand isn't on the table. We have all we can do to defend the existing homelands of native peoples.

    I tend to be pedantic, so let me speak plainly: Don't be a clown!

    Lemkin’s ethnicity does not seem irrelevent here. The concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans. This is curious and cannot simply be handwaived away. It was a member of a very small minority significantly outnumbered by Northwestern Europeans that conceived of the concept of genocide. Why didn’t any of the millions of Northwestern Europeans come up with the concept? This is history; these are the actual facts of the matter. Being an “ideal audience”, a recipient of something is not identical.

    Suppose Lemkin had moved to Germany in the early 40s. Do you suspect Germany would have listened to Lemkin and his concept of genocide? What about if Turkey was fire-bombed and beaten into submission? Do you suspect the reception might be different in the aftermath of those circumstances?

    Given the fact that a small, significantly outnumbered minority was highly overrepresented in devising these concepts, it’s not apparent that they would have been developed endogenously. An ideal or receptive audience is not quite the same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stone Garden
    "Many Germans feel guilty about the war. But they don't explain the real guilt we share – that we lost"

    - Hanna Reitsch (source)

    That pretty much nails it.

    I must say, Mr. Frost' NWEs DO feel "empathy" and "guilt" in a way we, the children of a lesser God, don't.

    But when they say "empathy" and "guilt", they mean something VERY different than when we say "empathy" and "guilt".

    Kinda like what "the Founding Fathers" meant by "men" when they proclaimed "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
    , @SolontoCroesus
    oh dear.

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person or persons were significant leaders in the genoci-- er, starvation of Ukrainians and Russians even before Hitler was appointed chancellor?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person -- Georgi Zhukov -- achieved the military success that he did by killing the men he was leading?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person -- Ilya Ehrenbourg -- wrote compelling tracts urging Russian soldiers to rape German women?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person -- Erich Mendelsohn -- made significant contributions to the efficacy of the firebombing campaign that incinerated 600,000 German civilians, destroy 75% of German civilian infrastructure and left over 7 million Germans homeless -- "unhoused," to use "Bomber" Harris's term. Mendelsohn wrote early in 1942 of the need to

    " reeducate the people at large, beautiful per se, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice."

    Before Mendelsohn could rebuild Europe in his image and likeness, it had to be destroyed, and he volunteered to assist in that destruction.
    ---

    I don't buy the narrative of the intentional, industrialized genocide of Jewish people, nor do I believe the narrative of Jews as having endured thousands of years of persecution; on this latter point I am not alone: David Biale explains the implausibility of the persecution narrative in "Cultures of the Jews."

    ---
    When Churchill and Stalin contemplated the ethnic cleansing of Germans from lands where they had lived for millennia, and recognized that many Germans -- "one or two million" would die, Churchill waved aside Stalin's consternation -- "We have killed six or seven million Germans and will likely kill more before it's over,"* Churchill explained. What's another few millions? They're just Germans.

    (*Ian Buruma in "Zero Year")

    The one-sided demands to praise and pity Jews, paired with sanctions -- even criminal enforcement against telling inconvenient truths about the evil acts of Jewish persons -- has gone far enough. It is time to rebalance the world's perception of Jewish leaders who did evil things, and German leaders who have been demonized so thoroughly that nothing that is written about them is in any way believable -- A J P Taylor and R H S Stolfi, at least, had the gumption to write that Hitler was not a monster, he was a man who did good things and bad, in contexts that were not of their choosing. Similarly American leaders did evil under the guise of virtue, and British leaders did evil out of purely self-serving, but rhetorically well-concealed motives.

    It's important to bring such unpleasant truths, and to debunk without sympathy or sentimentality narratives of exceptional suffering, particularly in light of current events: the other day, Benj. Netanyahu appointed Maj. Gen. Eisenkot, author of the Dahiya doctrine, to be the next IDF chief of staff.

    The Dahiya doctrine, in Eisenkot's own words, holds that:

    "IDF would launch indiscriminate attacks on Lebanese civilian targets in order to deter Hezbollah. . . .We will wield disproportionate power against [them] and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. […] This isn’t a suggestion. It’s a plan that has already been authorized. […] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah. . . .Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes…Israel…will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm"

    ---

    That is precisely the same rationale behind the carpet bombing of German cities: as Jorg Friedrich explained, "Who suffers death cannot capitulate." The goal was not to kill Hitler, nor was IDF successful in killing Nasrallah when they dropped a 25 000 pound bomb on his headquarters; the goal was, in Germany then and in Palestine today, to torture the civilian population until the leader capitulated out of concern for his people.

    The actions were war crimes and collective punishment in Germany, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and today.

    If you seek to claim special status for Jewish persons for the outsized contributions of some Jewish persons, you must also own the outsized evil acts of some Jewish persons, that persist to this day.

    What rice-brains and wheat-brains have in common is that they are attached to human persons, capable of extraordinary good and extraordinary evil. So are we all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jtgw
    @pfrost

    So I suppose you'd say that the kind of ethno-masochistic white liberals I know from college and grad school are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to determining what liberalism is. These are people who make a point of displaying hate and contempt for their own race and, in the case of men, sex (or "gender"), while simultaneously showing off their empathy for various "oppressed" races. It seems these people take altruism for strangers to the limit, much more than conservatives, which is what made your association between conservatism and extraordinary altruism surprising. But I take it that if we leave out these strange outliers on the scale of extraordinary altruism, we're left with a more straightforward association of tribalists in the liberal camp and altruists in the conservative camp. Have I got this right?

    The next question is this: if "conservatives" are now just the "white party", why would we expect them to be more altruistic than blacks or Asians voting for the "liberal party"? If whites are now voting in their own ethnic interests, what makes them more altruistic than other races doing likewise? I think this needs to be explored further.

    The Democrats have always been the minority coalition party, like they are today. Up until the 60s/70s, it was a minority coalition that united the South, Catholics, Jews, white ethnics, northern cities against the small town, rural, suburban northern Protestant WASP majority which supported the Republicans.

    There was a realignment in the 60s/70s following desegregation and civil rights for blacks. The older minority coalition broke up as the Democrats couldn’t include blacks and satisfy the other components of the coalition, such as the South and white ethnics, at the same time. Something had to give, and that was the South and many northern whites and ethnics. The Republicans of course recognized this and pursued these disaffected elements of the former Democratic coalition. This was the basis of Nixon’s “Southern strategy”. The South went Republican pretty quickly, and the northern white ethnics have been turning Republican quite steadily since.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anonymous
    Lemkin's ethnicity does not seem irrelevent here. The concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans. This is curious and cannot simply be handwaived away. It was a member of a very small minority significantly outnumbered by Northwestern Europeans that conceived of the concept of genocide. Why didn't any of the millions of Northwestern Europeans come up with the concept? This is history; these are the actual facts of the matter. Being an "ideal audience", a recipient of something is not identical.

    Suppose Lemkin had moved to Germany in the early 40s. Do you suspect Germany would have listened to Lemkin and his concept of genocide? What about if Turkey was fire-bombed and beaten into submission? Do you suspect the reception might be different in the aftermath of those circumstances?

    Given the fact that a small, significantly outnumbered minority was highly overrepresented in devising these concepts, it's not apparent that they would have been developed endogenously. An ideal or receptive audience is not quite the same thing.

    “Many Germans feel guilty about the war. But they don’t explain the real guilt we share – that we lost”

    - Hanna Reitsch (source)

    That pretty much nails it.

    I must say, Mr. Frost’ NWEs DO feel “empathy” and “guilt” in a way we, the children of a lesser God, don’t.

    But when they say “empathy” and “guilt”, they mean something VERY different than when we say “empathy” and “guilt”.

    Kinda like what “the Founding Fathers” meant by “men” when they proclaimed “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stone Garden
    I haven't finished yet; I wish to set something straight.

    I have NEVER claimed that us un-men are all angels while men (read White men) are all devils.

    History of men (read White men) and un-men (us) are filled with violence and cruelty and indecency, ever and everywhere.

    What I do not, did not and will not tolerate, is the extreme boundless vomit-inducing mind-numbing hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness that is characteristic of Nordicists/White supremacists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Stone Garden
    "Many Germans feel guilty about the war. But they don't explain the real guilt we share – that we lost"

    - Hanna Reitsch (source)

    That pretty much nails it.

    I must say, Mr. Frost' NWEs DO feel "empathy" and "guilt" in a way we, the children of a lesser God, don't.

    But when they say "empathy" and "guilt", they mean something VERY different than when we say "empathy" and "guilt".

    Kinda like what "the Founding Fathers" meant by "men" when they proclaimed "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

    I haven’t finished yet; I wish to set something straight.

    I have NEVER claimed that us un-men are all angels while men (read White men) are all devils.

    History of men (read White men) and un-men (us) are filled with violence and cruelty and indecency, ever and everywhere.

    What I do not, did not and will not tolerate, is the extreme boundless vomit-inducing mind-numbing hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness that is characteristic of Nordicists/White supremacists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. szopen says:


    Sure, Lemkin was Jewish, and Pawel Włodkowic (you know, the medieval Polish lawyer who argued that it is immoral to attack pogans, that convertion by force is immoral etc) was not germanic. But you miss the point.

    Peter Frost, if I am understanding him correctly, does not try to convince you that NWE have some unique genes whcih cause them to be, each one of them, more altruistic. He claims, at least I think he claims, that there is difference in frequency of some alleles which occur naturally in all human populations. Imagine that some set of genes result in measurable “emphatic index”. This EI is at value 100 in human populations, which means that naturally some people are more emphatic that others, and say some 10% are above some threshold X, above which you are REALLY altruistic, and 1% is above some threshold Y above which you are PATHOLOGICALLY altruistic. In NWE the mean is, say, shifted to some higher value, which means some 25% are REALLY altruistic, and say 5% are PATHOLOGICALLY altruistic.

    Now, culture is created by people. People are raised in a culture, and their behavior is inflicted upon by their environment, which is created by other people. Culture created by people with 10% altruists will be radically different from culture in which you have 25% altruists. Which of course would result in some positive feedback, creating even more altruistic society.

    Mr Frost, am I right? Did I read you correctly?

    Think about this that way: imagine society in which 1% are pathological liars, and other, in which 5% are liars. Most of people are still NOT pathological liars. Yet the cultures will be radically different, will the 1st culture being more trusting and having higher social capital.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Sean says:

    The voting patterns can reflect underlying biological differences without parties representing their actual power base. Leaderships will construe the new realities as a political sea change, but they don’t have to sail into those waters. In France the people rejected the EU treaty in a referendum, but Sarkozy in effect just ignored them. There are a number of examples of such technocratic solutions being used by states for EU treaties.

    History shows that for some successful whites the need of the unfortunate (or unentitled) is an unanswerable argument compatible with offshoring of manufacturing jobs, and insourcing of service and construction jobs. They regard their co ethnics as inclined to be vicious. Within whites it seems to be the people who have not got much to lose by group power vs those doing so well already they will only lose by the less well off forming a powerful group. Edinburgh is rich, and it voted solidly against independence. It makes sense that those who have done well are suspicious of masses who have less to lose. Maybe intense guilt gives you the ability to get on so well in life that you transcend guilt in relation to those who are entitled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. jtgw,

    It’s not just blacks. Kinship matters a lot to most people. Northwest Europeans are the outliers, and they don’t realize it. They think that their weak sense of kinship is the norm and that everyone else will gravitate to that norm if given half a chance (i.e., with modernity, full employment, democracy, etc.).

    “Suppose Lemkin had moved to Germany in the early 40s. Do you suspect Germany would have listened to Lemkin and his concept of genocide?”

    Of course not. The German government controlled the flow of ideas, and it especially repressed those ideas that seemed antinationalist or too universalist. That doesn’t mean the German people were less susceptible to such ideas. Far from it. If you ban alcohol, does the resulting increase in sobriety prove there is no longer any potential for alcoholism?

    “What about if Turkey was fire-bombed and beaten into submission? Do you suspect the reception might be different in the aftermath of those circumstances?”

    Nope. Turkey was ruthlessly Westernized and secularized from the 1920s to the 1970s. Yet Turkey never became a truly secular Western society. If anything, with the end of this experiment in social engineering, the average Turk is now becoming less secular and less Western in outlook.

    “Culture created by people with 10% altruists will be radically different from culture in which you have 25% altruists. Which of course would result in some positive feedback, creating even more altruistic society.

    Mr Frost, am I right? Did I read you correctly?”

    Spot on. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    I had the same problem when I argued that Christianity became more guilt-oriented as it spread farther north and west, as seen in the doctrine of original sin. A commenter pointed out that this doctrine was first proposed by St. Augustine, who was a North African of Punic origin. Well, so what? What matters, here, is not the originator of a particular idea, but the ability of that idea to proliferate in a population. The populations of northern and western Europe loved the doctrine of original sin, and made it more and more radical. They were more vulnerable to that doctrine, even though they had not originated it.

    Sean,

    Yes, many “conservatives” are economic beneficiaries of globalization. So this factor will keep the political right from becoming anti-globalist or at least slow down the process.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Correctly formatted comment follows. Moderator can delete the previous one. Thank you.

    That doesn’t mean the German people were less susceptible to such ideas. Far from it. If you ban alcohol, does the resulting increase in sobriety prove there is no longer any potential for alcoholism?

    Susceptibility and potentiality are different. Human beings are highly susceptible to dying painfully if they catch the Ebola virus. There is a high potential that one will die painfully if one catches Ebola. If an Ebola patient vomited on you, and you subsequently got Ebola and died painfully, we would say that the vector, the Ebola patient, the patient’s vomit, the actual virus, etc., was the causal factor in your painful death.

    Nope. Turkey was ruthlessly Westernized and secularized from the 1920s to the 1970s. Yet Turkey never became a truly secular Western society.

    It’s completely reasonable to conclude that the probabilities change under different circumstances. That the probability of getting Turkey or any other place to do X is different when it is fire-bombed and beaten into submission vs. when it is not.

    If Turkey’s history cannot be ignored, then certainly the history of the concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts which were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans, cannot simply be handwaived away.

    A commenter pointed out that this doctrine was first proposed by St. Augustine, who was a North African of Punic origin. Well, so what? What matters, here, is not the originator of a particular idea, but the ability of that idea to proliferate in a population. The populations of northern and western Europe loved the doctrine of original sin, and made it more and more radical. They were more vulnerable to that doctrine, even though they had not originated it.

    So what? Of course it matters! Important moral concepts from original sin to genocide were not originated endogenously. If we look at Japan today, it’s an advanced industrial manufacturing country. The idea of industrial manufacturing proliferated very well among the Japanese. The Japanese were very vulnerable to the idea of industrial manufacturing. The Japanese are zealous industrial manufacturers. But they did not originate industrial manufacturing. Industrial manufacturing was invented in the West. This is of course a very important fact. We can’t conclude that Japan would have been an advanced industrial manufacturer without the West, regardless of its susceptibility, vulnerability, potential, zeal, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Germany is moral inasmuch as it is repentant about WW2 genocide, but it is also a very efficient country, and it always has been. Yet, Military failures stall German response to Ebola and Isil. Germany refused to recognise the border with Poland after WW1 and an American observer said at the time of the Dawes plan that the eastern border was obviously where the next war would start. After WW2 West Germany pointedly recognised its western but not eastern border. Eisenhower and then Kennedy began to give West Germany control of nuclear weapons, causing Khrushchev take insane risks (Cuba) to avert another German attack on the Soviet Union. .

    Germany in the cold war was still behaving like Germany of old (only in the honouring soldiers whom died in WW2 was there a change after 60's Auschwitz trials). Germany ought to be preparing a military build up to deal with Russia, which is the hereditary enemy of Germany. Putin is moving west, why is Germany doing so little that Russia has been been praising Merkel’s government . Moreover, Germany is implementing a natational nergy transition that in addition to going green is abandoning nuclear power (and hence the potential ability to make nuclear weapons), and cutting defence spending to only 1.3 per cent of GDP. Have the Germans changed because they have been brainwashed?

    States attempt to build up strength and exert it when prompted to by external threats. Turkey attempted to modernise because it was defeated in WW1. (Japan is somewhat different because being far from external enemies, for a while it took the option to reverse modernisation for the benefit of the samurai class). Its perfectly obvious, the Germans are still the Germans, but now Germany does not face any pressing threat, being cocooned within other EU states including Poland. If Germany was under serious threat the Germans would not be in effect disarming.

    It is ridiculous to claim that Germans or other north west Europeans did not think extrajudicial killing of noncombatants was wrong until the middle of the twentieth century. In the 17th century opinion was outraged by what was thought a war of extermination against protestant civilians in the United Provinces and Ulster. Cromwell felt he had to justify his actions at Drogheda even though it was not out of line with the rules of war at that time. The Bulgarian atrocities committed by the Turks outrage opinion in England. The most widely read English author Arthur Conan Doyle, wrote a book The Crime of the Congo in the 1900s that caused the Belgian administration of the Congo to be regarded as evil.

    Coining a term such as genocide not a radical conceptual innovation. The term was intended as moral critique, but such critique can only have force in a society that accepts the moral constraints on behaviour that are being appealed to. North west European societies are not just the most moral, they are the most successful, because the moral is a name given to the most effective social behaviour, and that makes for effective societies. That's biology, not magical memes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. “Human beings are highly susceptible to dying painfully if they catch the Ebola virus. ”

    To use your example, people vary a lot in their susceptibility to infectious pathogens. The elderly are regularly vaccinated for the flu, whereas younger people are not. Yet it’s the same flu virus.

    “That the probability of getting Turkey or any other place to do X is different when it is fire-bombed and beaten into submission vs. when it is not. ”

    We could argue this point indefinitely. Human cultures seem to be less affected by interventions of short duration than by interventions of long duration. The firebombing of Dresden, as horrible as it was, probably had less cultural impact than Germany’s postwar exposure to American culture.

    “We can’t conclude that Japan would have been an advanced industrial manufacturer without the West”

    I agree, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that the proliferation of ideas within a population (as opposed to their initial introduction) mainly reflects endogenous factors.

    Many other societies have been exposed to Western ideas over the past century, yet they have not shown the same progress. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    To use your example, people vary a lot in their susceptibility to infectious pathogens. The elderly are regularly vaccinated for the flu, whereas younger people are not. Yet it’s the same flu virus.
     
    Yet the vector, the infectious pathogen, is the actual causal factor. Without the vector, the probablity of infection, for young or old, regardless of susceptibility, is precisely zero.

    We could argue this point indefinitely. Human cultures seem to be less affected by interventions of short duration than by interventions of long duration. The firebombing of Dresden, as horrible as it was, probably had less cultural impact than Germany’s postwar exposure to American culture.
     
    I agree. When I speak of Germany being firebombed, I don't mean just the firebombing specifically, but the subjugation of Germany and the subsequent domination of Germany in the postwar context.

    My point was that the proliferation of ideas within a population (as opposed to their initial introduction) mainly reflects endogenous factors.

    Many other societies have been exposed to Western ideas over the past century, yet they have not shown the same progress. Why?
     
    My point is that the proliferation and the endogenous factors aren't identical to the ideas themselves and their exogenous origin.

    The progress of Japan relative to other non-Western societies is an interesting issue. But it's irrelevant to the exogenous origin of industry and other Western inventions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Sean says:
    @Anonymous
    Correctly formatted comment follows. Moderator can delete the previous one. Thank you.

    That doesn’t mean the German people were less susceptible to such ideas. Far from it. If you ban alcohol, does the resulting increase in sobriety prove there is no longer any potential for alcoholism?
     
    Susceptibility and potentiality are different. Human beings are highly susceptible to dying painfully if they catch the Ebola virus. There is a high potential that one will die painfully if one catches Ebola. If an Ebola patient vomited on you, and you subsequently got Ebola and died painfully, we would say that the vector, the Ebola patient, the patient's vomit, the actual virus, etc., was the causal factor in your painful death.

    Nope. Turkey was ruthlessly Westernized and secularized from the 1920s to the 1970s. Yet Turkey never became a truly secular Western society.
     
    It's completely reasonable to conclude that the probabilities change under different circumstances. That the probability of getting Turkey or any other place to do X is different when it is fire-bombed and beaten into submission vs. when it is not.

    If Turkey's history cannot be ignored, then certainly the history of the concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts which were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans, cannot simply be handwaived away.

    A commenter pointed out that this doctrine was first proposed by St. Augustine, who was a North African of Punic origin. Well, so what? What matters, here, is not the originator of a particular idea, but the ability of that idea to proliferate in a population. The populations of northern and western Europe loved the doctrine of original sin, and made it more and more radical. They were more vulnerable to that doctrine, even though they had not originated it.
     
    So what? Of course it matters! Important moral concepts from original sin to genocide were not originated endogenously. If we look at Japan today, it's an advanced industrial manufacturing country. The idea of industrial manufacturing proliferated very well among the Japanese. The Japanese were very vulnerable to the idea of industrial manufacturing. The Japanese are zealous industrial manufacturers. But they did not originate industrial manufacturing. Industrial manufacturing was invented in the West. This is of course a very important fact. We can't conclude that Japan would have been an advanced industrial manufacturer without the West, regardless of its susceptibility, vulnerability, potential, zeal, etc.

    Germany is moral inasmuch as it is repentant about WW2 genocide, but it is also a very efficient country, and it always has been. Yet, Military failures stall German response to Ebola and Isil. Germany refused to recognise the border with Poland after WW1 and an American observer said at the time of the Dawes plan that the eastern border was obviously where the next war would start. After WW2 West Germany pointedly recognised its western but not eastern border. Eisenhower and then Kennedy began to give West Germany control of nuclear weapons, causing Khrushchev take insane risks (Cuba) to avert another German attack on the Soviet Union. .

    Germany in the cold war was still behaving like Germany of old (only in the honouring soldiers whom died in WW2 was there a change after 60′s Auschwitz trials). Germany ought to be preparing a military build up to deal with Russia, which is the hereditary enemy of Germany. Putin is moving west, why is Germany doing so little that Russia has been been praising Merkel’s government . Moreover, Germany is implementing a natational nergy transition that in addition to going green is abandoning nuclear power (and hence the potential ability to make nuclear weapons), and cutting defence spending to only 1.3 per cent of GDP. Have the Germans changed because they have been brainwashed?

    States attempt to build up strength and exert it when prompted to by external threats. Turkey attempted to modernise because it was defeated in WW1. (Japan is somewhat different because being far from external enemies, for a while it took the option to reverse modernisation for the benefit of the samurai class). Its perfectly obvious, the Germans are still the Germans, but now Germany does not face any pressing threat, being cocooned within other EU states including Poland. If Germany was under serious threat the Germans would not be in effect disarming.

    It is ridiculous to claim that Germans or other north west Europeans did not think extrajudicial killing of noncombatants was wrong until the middle of the twentieth century. In the 17th century opinion was outraged by what was thought a war of extermination against protestant civilians in the United Provinces and Ulster. Cromwell felt he had to justify his actions at Drogheda even though it was not out of line with the rules of war at that time. The Bulgarian atrocities committed by the Turks outrage opinion in England. The most widely read English author Arthur Conan Doyle, wrote a book The Crime of the Congo in the 1900s that caused the Belgian administration of the Congo to be regarded as evil.

    Coining a term such as genocide not a radical conceptual innovation. The term was intended as moral critique, but such critique can only have force in a society that accepts the moral constraints on behaviour that are being appealed to. North west European societies are not just the most moral, they are the most successful, because the moral is a name given to the most effective social behaviour, and that makes for effective societies. That’s biology, not magical memes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    So we have an undemocratic ideology targeting only one group of people based on their race, ethnically cleansing them in their historic homelands. These simple memes rightfully expose feel-good buzzwords as something sinister.

    BUGS also develops memes to counter common anti-white rebuttals like “America belongs to the Indians”.
     

    The ideology doesn't just target one group. It also targets Indians since it doesn't really support returning the historic homelands of the Indians and rather supports the continued ethnic cleansing of them. And you agree with the ideology here since you support the ethnic cleansing of Indians from their historic homelands. You don't have a problem with ethnic cleansing in general or in principle.

    Twice I’ve submitted a post, and when trying to edit, I get a pop-up saying “comment marked as spam”. At that point the posts disappeared, no longer “awaiting moderation”. I don’t know if they’re reaching the moderator or not.

    I’ll submit the second post again and try not editing it this time.

    Below is a BUGS-style response to anon’s common “Indians” argument. The debate style is not academic, but academic writers like Taylor/Macdonald and co. have accomplished little. Wise, Alinsky and co. win through emotional attack words and verbal voodoo, not dispassionate facts.

    These three counters work in the field, emphasis on #1:

    #1) “So you’re justifying (white-targeted population replacement, anti-whiteism, white genocide, whatever.)?”

    If you can establish (contents) to be something unjustifiable, then this reply alone is a winner, and you don’t need argument-specific responses like #2) or #3).

    This is what our opponents have done: turn “racism” into such a horrible crime that no counter argument can be considered if it is “racist”. We have to change the moral hierarchy to make something else a greater evil than “racism”. Clearly, targeting a population for race and culture replacement or ethnic cleansing or whatever we call it, is far worse, and extremely “racist” in itself.

    #2) “If you think America belongs to the Indians and you live here, your First obligation is to give back Your “stolen property” to those You insist it belongs to. ”

    #3) “How does inviting More people to this “stolen land” help the Indians? Do you care? No, you’re just anti-white.”

    Establishing a strong #1) is the most effective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Anonymous
    Lemkin's ethnicity does not seem irrelevent here. The concept of genocide and many of the other important moral, religious, theological concepts were originated by Jews, not Northwestern Europeans. This is curious and cannot simply be handwaived away. It was a member of a very small minority significantly outnumbered by Northwestern Europeans that conceived of the concept of genocide. Why didn't any of the millions of Northwestern Europeans come up with the concept? This is history; these are the actual facts of the matter. Being an "ideal audience", a recipient of something is not identical.

    Suppose Lemkin had moved to Germany in the early 40s. Do you suspect Germany would have listened to Lemkin and his concept of genocide? What about if Turkey was fire-bombed and beaten into submission? Do you suspect the reception might be different in the aftermath of those circumstances?

    Given the fact that a small, significantly outnumbered minority was highly overrepresented in devising these concepts, it's not apparent that they would have been developed endogenously. An ideal or receptive audience is not quite the same thing.

    oh dear.

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person or persons were significant leaders in the genoci– er, starvation of Ukrainians and Russians even before Hitler was appointed chancellor?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person — Georgi Zhukov — achieved the military success that he did by killing the men he was leading?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person — Ilya Ehrenbourg — wrote compelling tracts urging Russian soldiers to rape German women?

    Is it equally not irrelevant that a Jewish person — Erich Mendelsohn — made significant contributions to the efficacy of the firebombing campaign that incinerated 600,000 German civilians, destroy 75% of German civilian infrastructure and left over 7 million Germans homeless — “unhoused,” to use “Bomber” Harris’s term. Mendelsohn wrote early in 1942 of the need to

    ” reeducate the people at large, beautiful per se, to that beautiful end, to rebuild their towns and dwellings—the visible expression, the broad acre of their social and civic consciousness—the people themselves must first experience the fight for existence, experience personal danger and common sacrifice, the turmoil of mechanized battles, the mental preparedness for being blotted out at a second’s notice.”

    Before Mendelsohn could rebuild Europe in his image and likeness, it had to be destroyed, and he volunteered to assist in that destruction.

    I don’t buy the narrative of the intentional, industrialized genocide of Jewish people, nor do I believe the narrative of Jews as having endured thousands of years of persecution; on this latter point I am not alone: David Biale explains the implausibility of the persecution narrative in “Cultures of the Jews.”


    When Churchill and Stalin contemplated the ethnic cleansing of Germans from lands where they had lived for millennia, and recognized that many Germans — “one or two million” would die, Churchill waved aside Stalin’s consternation — “We have killed six or seven million Germans and will likely kill more before it’s over,”* Churchill explained. What’s another few millions? They’re just Germans.

    (*Ian Buruma in “Zero Year”)

    The one-sided demands to praise and pity Jews, paired with sanctions — even criminal enforcement against telling inconvenient truths about the evil acts of Jewish persons — has gone far enough. It is time to rebalance the world’s perception of Jewish leaders who did evil things, and German leaders who have been demonized so thoroughly that nothing that is written about them is in any way believable — A J P Taylor and R H S Stolfi, at least, had the gumption to write that Hitler was not a monster, he was a man who did good things and bad, in contexts that were not of their choosing. Similarly American leaders did evil under the guise of virtue, and British leaders did evil out of purely self-serving, but rhetorically well-concealed motives.

    It’s important to bring such unpleasant truths, and to debunk without sympathy or sentimentality narratives of exceptional suffering, particularly in light of current events: the other day, Benj. Netanyahu appointed Maj. Gen. Eisenkot, author of the Dahiya doctrine, to be the next IDF chief of staff.

    The Dahiya doctrine, in Eisenkot’s own words, holds that:

    “IDF would launch indiscriminate attacks on Lebanese civilian targets in order to deter Hezbollah. . . .We will wield disproportionate power against [them] and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. […] This isn’t a suggestion. It’s a plan that has already been authorized. […] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah. . . .Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes…Israel…will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm”

    That is precisely the same rationale behind the carpet bombing of German cities: as Jorg Friedrich explained, “Who suffers death cannot capitulate.” The goal was not to kill Hitler, nor was IDF successful in killing Nasrallah when they dropped a 25 000 pound bomb on his headquarters; the goal was, in Germany then and in Palestine today, to torture the civilian population until the leader capitulated out of concern for his people.

    The actions were war crimes and collective punishment in Germany, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and today.

    If you seek to claim special status for Jewish persons for the outsized contributions of some Jewish persons, you must also own the outsized evil acts of some Jewish persons, that persist to this day.

    What rice-brains and wheat-brains have in common is that they are attached to human persons, capable of extraordinary good and extraordinary evil. So are we all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Frost
    "Human beings are highly susceptible to dying painfully if they catch the Ebola virus. "

    To use your example, people vary a lot in their susceptibility to infectious pathogens. The elderly are regularly vaccinated for the flu, whereas younger people are not. Yet it's the same flu virus.

    "That the probability of getting Turkey or any other place to do X is different when it is fire-bombed and beaten into submission vs. when it is not. "

    We could argue this point indefinitely. Human cultures seem to be less affected by interventions of short duration than by interventions of long duration. The firebombing of Dresden, as horrible as it was, probably had less cultural impact than Germany's postwar exposure to American culture.

    "We can’t conclude that Japan would have been an advanced industrial manufacturer without the West"

    I agree, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the proliferation of ideas within a population (as opposed to their initial introduction) mainly reflects endogenous factors.

    Many other societies have been exposed to Western ideas over the past century, yet they have not shown the same progress. Why?

    To use your example, people vary a lot in their susceptibility to infectious pathogens. The elderly are regularly vaccinated for the flu, whereas younger people are not. Yet it’s the same flu virus.

    Yet the vector, the infectious pathogen, is the actual causal factor. Without the vector, the probablity of infection, for young or old, regardless of susceptibility, is precisely zero.

    We could argue this point indefinitely. Human cultures seem to be less affected by interventions of short duration than by interventions of long duration. The firebombing of Dresden, as horrible as it was, probably had less cultural impact than Germany’s postwar exposure to American culture.

    I agree. When I speak of Germany being firebombed, I don’t mean just the firebombing specifically, but the subjugation of Germany and the subsequent domination of Germany in the postwar context.

    My point was that the proliferation of ideas within a population (as opposed to their initial introduction) mainly reflects endogenous factors.

    Many other societies have been exposed to Western ideas over the past century, yet they have not shown the same progress. Why?

    My point is that the proliferation and the endogenous factors aren’t identical to the ideas themselves and their exogenous origin.

    The progress of Japan relative to other non-Western societies is an interesting issue. But it’s irrelevant to the exogenous origin of industry and other Western inventions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Sean says:

    ” I don’t mean just the firebombing specifically, but the subjugation of Germany and the subsequent domination of Germany in the postwar context.”

    Crapola, if you bothered to read comment 53 you would known that Germany was not held down, it was close to getting nukes in the early sixties, and is disarming and going environmentally friendly due to internal German forces (basically Germany does not have to be assertive now it is surrounded by friendly countries). And the current demands for dismantling Google are 100% German.

    Peter, these commenters who keep cluttering up the old threads with Nutzi arguments need to be banned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is not even worth debating. Germany has been part of a postwar European order shaped and dominated by the US. Germany's attempt to get nukes wasn't about bucking NATO. It was because it was worried about NATO's deterrence being insufficient. Especially because the US and the UK were primarily concerned about restricting long range missiles while ignoring short range ones, which obviously meant Germany was relatively more vulnerable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean
    " I don’t mean just the firebombing specifically, but the subjugation of Germany and the subsequent domination of Germany in the postwar context."

    Crapola, if you bothered to read comment 53 you would known that Germany was not held down, it was close to getting nukes in the early sixties, and is disarming and going environmentally friendly due to internal German forces (basically Germany does not have to be assertive now it is surrounded by friendly countries). And the current demands for dismantling Google are 100% German.
    ---

    Peter, these commenters who keep cluttering up the old threads with Nutzi arguments need to be banned.

    This is not even worth debating. Germany has been part of a postwar European order shaped and dominated by the US. Germany’s attempt to get nukes wasn’t about bucking NATO. It was because it was worried about NATO’s deterrence being insufficient. Especially because the US and the UK were primarily concerned about restricting long range missiles while ignoring short range ones, which obviously meant Germany was relatively more vulnerable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Men also show more activation in the amygdala and women more in the acc. When making decisions

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Jason
    LIBERALS HAVE LOWER IQ’S; MOST OF THEM ARE PSYCHOPATHS TOO.

    Thanks for the interesting article. Thes studies are interesting but I think if we did another study, about their behavior, and intelligence, we will find that the lib-barbarians have lower IQ’s, low morals and are indeed psychopaths, devoid of culture and morality.

    Examples:

    IQ: Most of the liberals were in the soft sciences like sociology, political “science”, etc. where IQ’s are lower. Most of the students in engineering and math had higher IQ’s were more logical and considered “conservative.” Many of the liberals on campus were just sheep who had never thought about things.

    Low Morals: Most of the Demogangsters are crooks and criminals. Example: Sexual predator Bill Clinton, Harry Reid the election thief, illegal alien crook Obama, and a 1000 others.

    Most of the Demogangsters are just crooks and criminals. They just tell lies, such as pretend to love aliens, telling lies like they will be “united with family” “land of immigrants” and tell a 1000 other lies to their sheep liberals, but their real intention in the alien invasion is to low IQ garbage that will vote for them. They are so greedy and evil, they will sell their mother, so they have no qualms about selling their motherland.

    Your comment is quite ironic. I almost think you’re a liberal troll masquerading as a typical Tea Party member. Arguing that liberals have lower IQs and then posting something a hormonal teenager would write has a comedic quality. Perhaps if you took the Glenn Beck official dildo merchandise from your ass you would be a bit more rational.

    IQ data surveys from Flynn show that liberals overrepresent not just the humanities and social sciences (80-90%) but also the physical sciences and Math (60-70%). The only academic area that seems to have more conservatives is business and to a lesser extent economics. Flynn has to mawkishly pretend the physical sciences are more ‘moderate’ (I guess in relation to other academic fields, yes) despite the data showing a still large over representation of liberals relative to the general population.

    This coincides with several polls showing atheists, PhD holders, academics, scientists and Silicon Valley workers being almost totally liberal. Likewise, the Jewish and Chinese communities in Western countries usually vote to the left.

    At the other end of the scale ‘bro’ jobs like sales, some wall street jobs, military and police are usually quite conservative. Ironically 3 of those categories are government guaranteed occupations.

    More generally on the neuroscience research I’ve seen, it seems to indicate liberals don’t rely on the amygdala as much which is associated with instinctive decisions and is an ‘older’ part of the brain.

    This survey above is stupid in that it points out the northwestern europeans are more predisposed to conservativism and yet the most liberal countries in the world are all white countries, with the exception of Latin America. And in fact, liberalism in both its classical and modern form started in northwestern europe.

    Basket cases in the middle East, Africa and Central and South Asia associated with conservativism is where you’ll find people of the same brain chemistry and structure as you Jason. You should go visit them and tell them what a good job they’re doing running their countries. Tell them I said hi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Tregon says:

    @anonymous

    The Herero genocide wasn’t recognized as a genocide until the 80s. The concept of genocide itself was first developed in the 40s by Raphael Lemkin, who was of Jewish descent, not Northwestern European.

    The concept of genocide was developed by persons of Jewish descent much earlier than that:

    20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy)

    31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Book of Numbers)

    And in modern times:

    As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the “sacredness of human life”. We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order that crucifies him. And this problem can be solved only by iron and blood. — Leon Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism.

    “Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle”, i.e. NWE morality. Marx’s and Trotsky’s ideas led to genocides in which person of Jewish descent participated very enthusiastically. I’d suggest that Lemkin, like Stephen Jay Gould, was more interested in manipulating and guilt-tripping NWEs than in expressing the philanthropy, benevolence and universalism of his ethnic group. For proof of that, look at Israel’s attitude to mass immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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 Peter Frost Comments via RSS