The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Frost ArchiveBlogview
The Last Push-Back Against Liberalism
The fascist critique of liberalism influenced America's New Deal, which sought to reward stay-at-home mothers, at the expense of working women and single women
The fascist critique of liberalism influenced America's New Deal, which sought to reward stay-at-home mothers, at the expense of working women and single women
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

This week, I will turn to the third charge in the indictment against the First World War: the rise of fascism.

What was fascism?

The word itself is problematic. For many, especially those of a Marxist bent, it was an attempt to divert working people from the real cause of their problems. For other, it was a vehicle for anti-Semitism and conspiracy thinking in general. For others still, as George Orwell noted, it was, and still is, a crude insult: “something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class” (Orwell, 1944).

How did fascists define this word? For Benito Mussolini, it was a reaction to liberalism:

We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State. (Mussolini, 1933)

Fascism is defined here in opposition to liberalism, the belief that individuals should be free and self-determining. Beginning in the 18th century, liberalism had spread from Great Britain to continental Europe, first passively, through the diffusion of ideas, and then actively, through war and revolution. It reached its height at the end of WWI with the overthrow of the old autocratic order and the establishment of liberal regimes of one sort or another across the continent.

Already, however, a reaction was developing. Conservatives, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, were pointing out that liberalism would eventually destroy all traditional identities—the family, gender, kinship, ethnicity. Since these identities are nonconsensual, they violate liberal principles of personal freedom and individual choice. People do not get to choose their family, gender, kinfolk, or ethnic background. Thus, sooner or later, liberalism would cause these identities to dissolve away, under the influence of universal education, the increased mobility of people, and the ability of the market economy to offer more lucrative ways of organizing one’s life. Communists were seen as people who wanted to accelerate the process, by using the brute power of the State. This was “liberalism in a hurry”—the path initially taken by the Soviet Union, one of the new states to emerge after WWI.

If communists wanted to use the State to destroy traditional identities and speed up the emancipation of the individual, fascists saw the State as a means to reverse the process.

Fascism and the First World War

Was fascism caused by WWI? In part. Before the war, the continent was dominated by autocratic regimes that were slowly moving toward liberal democracy. At war’s end, liberalism reigned almost everywhere. Conservatism had become an ideology of opposition and was thus less hindered by ties to the establishment. Its leaders were freer to choose their own tactics and radicalize their ideology.

Nonetheless, much of the ideology was pre-war. The Catholic Church in particular had been attacking liberalism in encyclicals going back to Quanta cura (1864) and Rerum novarum (1891). When Mussolini took power in 1922, there was already a blueprint for an alternate model of society, a “corporatist” one where the State would defend and promote traditional values. This blueprint was adopted by other Catholic leaders during the interwar years, with the result that fascist or near-fascist regimes soon covered almost all of Catholic Europe: Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Dollfuss in Austria, Horthy in Hungary, Pilsudski in Poland, and Smetona in Lithuania. A broader definition would include non-Catholic regimes that nonetheless looked to Mussolini as a model: Hitler in Germany, Metaxas in Greece, and Tojo in Japan. Finally, the fascist critique of liberalism influenced policy making even in the liberal democracies and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

This may be seen in Catholic Europe’s main holdout, France, which nonetheless became aggressively pro-family in response to an alarmingly low fertility rate, well below replacement level. The Alliance nationale contre la dépopulation was the main arm of this propaganda war:

By its social measures—showing more social solidarity toward families, giving women the right to vote—the Alliance’s agenda seems progressive. [...] In other ways, it seems clearly conservative. Its morality described car sightseeing and movie going, alongside alcohol, smoking, and gambling, as superfluous or harmful expenses. It instead emphasized the cult of duty, obedience, and the spirit of sacrifice. It worried a lot about the impact of the birth rate on the supply of men for military service even though it denied wanting to make cannon fodder. It advocated stronger repression of abortion. Finally, it thought highly of the Nazi regime’s pro-natalist policy, even though it designated Germany as the main enemy. (Langlois, 2012)

A similar shift toward social conservatism took place across the Atlantic. Although Roosevelt’s America is today seen as a triumph of liberalism over fascism, its liberalism was willing to incorporate non-liberal and even anti-liberal policies. The Hays Code, introduced in 1930 and strengthened in 1934, imposed strict moral guidelines on movie making. Meanwhile, Frances Perkins, U.S. Secretary of Labor in the Roosevelt administration, pushed for policies that would encourage marriage, support large families, and promote population growth (Carlson, 2002). A key one was the ideal of the man as breadwinner and the wife as stay-at-home mother:

Maternalists would use the New Deal to reward the domestic woman and discourage the working mother. They expanded and nationalized existing state programs that protected mothers and created “new ones to deliver social benefits to the wives and widows of wage-earning men.” They “prescribed domesticity to unemployed women in vocational programs that trained [them] for housekeeping and parenting,” and they urged “counseling services for mothers tempted to work outside the home.” Linking truancy, incorrigibility, and emotional disorders among children to a “mother’s absence at her job,” the Maternalists mounted campaigns to bring working mothers home. (Carlson, 2002)

Similarly, the Soviet Union abandoned its initial liberalism and became increasingly conservative.

The October Revolution of 1917 brought to power a radical socialist government that denounced the family as a bourgeois institution, undermined the institution of marriage, and promised the liberation of women. [...] Yet by the 1930s, official Soviet culture endorsed strong families, glorified motherhood, and strove to raise the birthrate. The Soviet government also made divorce more difficult and outlawed abortion. The country that had embarked upon the great socialist experiment, reverted to a very traditional family model and an essentialized notion of women’s “natural role” as mothers. (Hoffmann, 2000)

This shift was partly based on bitter experience:

Following the Revolution, some men scorned marriage or married and divorced multiple times. As a result, many women were left raising children with no support from male partners. People began to complain of the large number of “unpleasant and unscrupulous divorces,” and call for “decisive and concrete measures … to once and for all put a stop to this outrage.” Soviet officials published exposes of “Red Don Juans” and condemned young men for reneging on promises to marry young women they had seduced, and for marrying and divorcing multiple times. One writer set forth as the Soviet ideal “a long marriage, based … on mutual trust and respect.” (Hoffman, 2000)

Liberal sexual morality had also produced many homeless children and a sharp decline in the birth rate. As a result, moves were taken to limit both contraception and abortion. Although contraceptives were not banned, no resources were allotted to make them. Abortion was outlawed in 1936 except for medical reasons. Other measures sought to encourage family formation and promote motherhood. (Hoffman, 2000).

The end of fascism

Fascism failed to make a lasting push-back against liberalism. One reason was that fascist regimes were just as likely to fight each other as their liberal and communist opponents. Within the social environment created by fascism, nationalism tended to radicalize, leading to idealization of the nation and desires to expand through military adventurism.

We think of WWII as a struggle between liberal democracy and fascism, yet it began as a war between two conservative authoritarian states: Germany and Poland, both of which had a record of repressing national minorities and grabbing land from weaker neighbors. When the war was over, fascism had perished not only on the Axis side but on the Allied side as well.

Would things have been different if WWII had never happened? We have only to look at the example of Spain. There, fascism survived the end of the war and died peacefully with Franco’s death in 1975. Today, Spain is one of Europe’s most liberal states.

Ironically, fascist policies survived longer in the liberal democracies. An argument can be made that the baby boom resulted from a conjugation of postwar prosperity with fascist-inspired family policy. Yet, here too, the fascist critique of liberalism failed to make a lasting push-back. By the 1970s, a new generation of liberals were condemning the New Deal for the compromises it had made with social conservatives, even to the point of putting the liberal project on hold. It was now time to finish the job.

Lessons for the future

In its effort to push back liberalism, fascism relied on two supports: nationalism and the Catholic Church. Both would prove to be problematic.

Nationalism

Today, the word “nationalist” is applied to parties like the Front National in France or the PVV in the Netherlands that are more properly called anti-globalist or perhaps anti-replacement, since their main goal is to halt the demographic replacement of native Europeans.

This was not the meaning of “nationalist” in the early 20th century and even less so in the 19th. Back then, nationalists had initially allied themselves with liberals in a common project to emancipate the individual from parochialism—emotional attachment to little regions that often had their own dialects, customs, and sense of belonging. The individual would henceforth identify with a much larger nation-state and be able to circulate over a much larger territory thanks to a common citizenship, a common language, and a common identity. Nationalism was thus the first step in a process that would lead to today’s globalism

This logic was carried over into the fascist movements of the early 20th century. The desire to create larger, more uniform nation-states led to repression of national minorities and moves to seize territory from other countries. By abolishing local and regional cultures, and by creating an ersatz national culture in their place, these movements helped to pave the way for the deracinated individualism that is now the norm in most Western societies.

The Catholic Church

In the past, particularly before the 1960s and Vatican II, the Catholic Church could provide a solid base for push-back against liberalism. Today, it no longer can, partly because it is a shadow of its former self, especially in Europe, and partly because it has become a vehicle for liberalism in its most radical form. When the pope goes to Lampedusa to greet African immigrants, it’s clear that he sees this immigration in a positive light. He wants to be “on the right side of history,” and that history will no longer be Christian or European.

Very little is left of social conservatism in the Catholic Church. Perhaps that will change, but not in the near future, and certainly not during the tenure of the current pope. For better or for worse, the next push-back against liberalism will have little to do with organized religion.

Conclusion

It would in any case be difficult to resurrect nationalism or traditional Catholicism within the time available. For now, it may be better to focus on measures to push back against the most serious and irreversible component of the liberal project, “The Great Replacement”:

- halt an immigration surge that is already spinning out of control. We’re in the early stages of a demographic tsunami, and the word is not too strong.

- create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

- preserve the genetic heritage of Europe not because we completely know what we’re trying to save, but because we often don’t know. The human genome is largely a black box, and we are only beginning to understand how human populations differ from each other. The burden of proof is on those who seek irreversible change.

- preserve the genetic heritage of Europe because of what we know we will lose: a unique schema of physical features whose purpose seems to be largely aesthetic. These features did not arise by chance, nor did they arise over a long period of time through weak selection. They arose over a relatively short period through intense selection pressures that acted primarily on women, most probably sexual selection.

References

Carlson, A.C. (2002). Sanctifying the traditional family: The New Deal and national solidarity, The Family in America, 16(5). http://profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1605.htm

Hoffmann, D.L. (2000). Mothers in the Motherland: Stalinist Pronatalism in Its Pan-European Context, Journal of Social History, 34, 35-54 http://www.otizvora.com/files2014/tihomir/draft/mothers_in_the_motherland_-_stalinist_pronatalism.pdf

Langlois, G. (2012). La propagande nataliste à la veille de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, Paratge, September 24 https://paratge.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/la-propagande-nataliste-de-lentre-deux-guerres/

Mussolini, B. (1933). “The Doctrine of Fascism” (“La dottrina del fascismo”) Enciclopedia Italiana quoted from: The Doctrine of Fascism, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism

Orwell, G. (1944). What is Fascism? Tribune, London. http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Fascism, Liberalism 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Peter – let me first commend you for a very interesting article.

    Regarding the weaknesses of the traditional Christian churches in Europe do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism. What do you think will be the effect of Islam in the long term on Europe? I tend to suspect that much of the Western European population will eventually convert to Islam. This will likely lead to bloody internal conflict in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Since most Muslim nations are hellholes, I think it is unlikely that most Europeans will convert to Islam.
    , @Ace
    I think it is unlikely that Islam will gain many converts. It appeals to malcontents and, while it delivers structure, it does not offer anything beautiful, kind, or rational for the long term. But for its pathetic enforcement device of death for apostasy, few converts would persist in their initial mistake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-last-push-back-against-liberalism/#comment-891531
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.

    Read More
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “The Last Push-back Against Liberalism”

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’. If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness. So, at best, what we have is the triumph of capital ‘L’ Liberalism that is hardly liberal.

    Also, what eventually prevailed is not the right of the individual(each of us) but the might of the Powerful Individuals(the oligarchs who control the government, Wall Street, media, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Ivy League colleges, etc) and the power of certain identity groups.

    Of the two kinds of ‘progressive’-isms, there was the power of communism that stressed collectivism and the power of capitalism that stressed individualism(as individuals needed property rights and rule of law to succeed in business). But both were marred in the long run because they were after abstract ideas. Collective action is all very good but in the name of what? World Revolution? Too abstract. Likewise, individual freedom is all very good, but ultimately in the name of what? Can man live on cake alone? Aren’t people tribal or spiritual by nature?

    Communism eventually settled on nationalism. Russian communist nationalism, Chinese communist nationalism, Vietnamese communist nationalism. Of course in the Third World, leftist-communism was almost synonymous with nationalism since it was used as a weapon against European imperialism(that was associated with capitalism). But communism failed economically, and so communist states veered toward free markets.

    As for individualism, well, it got lonely and crass. Yuppies made lots of money in the Reagan-8os but they needed to belong to some kind of ‘community’. People want to belong to something like an order or a tribe. So, individualism gave rise to a new kind of ersatz tribalism or search for new identities. Woodstock nation. The rise of identity politics with feminism stressing female unity, ‘gay rights’ stressing homosexual unity, black power calling for black identity and unity.

    So, where is true individualism in any of this? Also, the power of pop culture has undermined individuality and created a new world of neo-pagan-spirituality. What happens at a rock concert? You scream along. You dance along. You cheer along. Even if you don’t really like the music, you want to be part of the crowd, an unthinking mass of screaming dolts. Rock music initially seemed liberating, but it turned young people into herds of screaming un-thinking and anti-intellectual mobs. Look at Beatlemania. Look at everyone shaking and dancing the same way at rap concerts. Look at drug-addled drones at Rave concerts. They don’t foster critical mindset that is crucial to genuine individualism; a person who doesn’t carefully observe and ponder about things will never think independently; he will just go with the flow, follow the herd. And pop culture that is all about sensory overload, loudness, orgiastic excess, mindless pleasure, hipness, and celebrity worship is anti-individualist. Notice the tattoo craze. Is it individualistic or is it young people mindlessly imitating famous people to feel as part of the neo-tribe? Is it any wonder than pop-culture-addicted millennials have been won over so quickly to ‘gay marriage’ and illiberally attack anyone who won’t bend over to it? So much for individual conscience.

    Also, traditional political liberalism used to stress equality and the common man. As in Grapes of Wrath and a movie like Marty. Today’s so-called ‘Liberal Hollywood’ cranks out superhero movies with quasi-fascist imagery of ‘will to power’ men of power. Stuff like 50 SHADES OF GREY are big hits in books and movies. Mega-millionaire rappers are worshiped by young people. Oprah is worshiped by her sheeple minions. Urban Liberals might pretend to be ‘progressive’ and read stuff like Jacobin, but they are all about hanging around hip and rich parts of NY, San Fran, Chicago, Washington DC, and Seattle. It’s all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at ‘white trash’ in trailer parks. While NY rich support ‘stop and frisk’ against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

    End of History is not liberal democracy. It is fascist oligarchic democracy or globalist oligarchic democracy.

    The fascist democratic ideal are represented by Russia, Turkey, and China. If anything, Russians rightly view ‘liberal democracy’(from the West) not as forces of freedom but as a tool to turn Russia into a minority-elite ruled empire. The current Western War on Russia is not about ‘liberal democracy’. It is about the cynical invocation of ‘democratic principles’ to undermine Russia sovereignty. Turkey is rather like Russia.

    China is clearly not a democracy in the sense of having elections. But the system isn’t entirely unresponsive to the people. Also, in a way, it’s not much difference from LDP domination of Japanese in postwar yrs when Japan was, let’s face it, essentially a one-party dictatorship in practice if not principle.

    So, is it fascist democracies vs liberal democracies? Hardly. US and EU are not liberal democracies. Free speech is dead in the EU and dying in the US as colleges have brainwashed entire generations of millennial dolts into politically correct drones. Most of the institutions in America are controlled by a handful of oligarchs with powerful tribal, ethnic, or identity consciousness. Eric Holder was hardly impartial about race. And the likes of Tim Cook prohibit anyone who was for True/Traditional Marriage from working for Apple. Some ‘liberal democracy’.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/apple-culture-war-criminal-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-2/

    So, it’s not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.

    The main difference is this: Russia, Turkey, and China are ruled by majority elites. Russia is mostly Russians and ruled by Russians. Turkey is mostly Turks and ruled by Turks. China is mostly Chinese and ruled by Chinese.

    PS. If we broaden the definition of fascism, it is the triumphant ideology of the 2oth century.

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler’s big mistake was invading Russia. Had he maintained an alliance with Russia, he and his allies would have ruled Europe, and Stalin would have eventually come around to accepting the new order. And UK, unable to fight alone, would have made peace.
    Also, fascism got a bad rap because it lost the war and its association with the Holocaust. If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.
    Since Soviet communism would have made a pact with Nazism, the international left would have had only two choice: follow the Stalinist line that calls for peace, even friendship, with National Socialism OR reject communism altogether as an evil ideology along with Nazism. Thus, communism would have lost luster among Western intellectuals.
    Also, if Franco was an unimaginative type who just clung to tradition and the church, Mussolini and Hitler–like Ataturk–were men with some visionary power and will of iron. What they might have done with Europe might would have been bolder and more imaginative than what Franco did with Spain.
    Also, if Germany had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have attacked the US, and then history might have been very different.

    Anyway, WWII did happen and Nazism went kaput. It seemed as if the world was divided between democratic capitalism and communism.

    And yet, a new contest of ideas was happening in the Third World, especially in East Asia, and that’s where fascism won out over communism(though no one is willing to put it that way). The fact is South Korea under Park, Taiwan under Chiang, and Singapore under Lee were essentially fascist. And Hong Kong under British wasn’t exactly a democracy either. But they made economic progress whereas communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia didn’t.
    This would not have mattered much perhaps except for the fact that Deng decided to follow the East Asian fascist model. Of course, he didn’t call it fascism(and the ‘communist party’ was still in control politically), and since Western intellectuals are Liberal, they don’t want to associate ‘fascism’ with the rise of China either. But it was the fascist model–nationalism and limited economic freedom–that led to the rise of New China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists. The "liberal opposition" story that the Western press loves so much is entirely a fiction - it's like printing stories about America and equating the Green Party of the United States as THE opposition. Putin is all about Russia's imperial history and empires are multiethnic: ethnic nationalism of the core ethnicity needs to be suppressed or it all falls apart.

    Turkey is definitely not ruled by Turks and ethnic nationalism has been eroding under Erdogan who wants to dismantle Kemalist nationalism. He is of Georgian roots and the focus on Islamic identity instead of Turkishness comes with that. At the beginning of his Prime Ministership the President was a secularist nationalist Turk called who blocked a lot of Erdogan's party's moves; after a long power struggle he was replaced an Arab from the Islamic conservative party. What's happening in Turkey is a rejection of Turkishness and secular ethnic nationalism and a focus on Islam as the unifying factor - and a big part of this are renewed ambitions in the Middle East and empire nostalgia.

    Meanwhile, Western countries tend to actually be ruled by their core ethnicities. Swedish political parties only have token minorities who are given meaningless photo op jobs like Minister of Culture. Britain is 20 % non-British but it's almost entirely ruled by white British; in fact, British politics is going through an ethnic power struggle but it's a struggle between Scots and Englishmen. France, well, collecting the statistics is illegal but it's easy to see that the elite is really French with minorities mainly in token positions. Jews are really the only ethnic minority that seems to be able to get into power positions in Western countries without being promoted through tokenism and that's probably Holocaust embarrassment influence. Obama is the exception that proves the rule - there isn't going to be another black President any time soon, much less a black acting President.

    , @syonredux

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler’s big mistake was invading Russia.
     
    An unavoidable mistake.Hitler's great dream involved the destruction of the USSR and the creation of a German Empire in the East:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/
  4. - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

    Yes, people absolutely would jump at the opportunity, and they do without even consciously realizing it.

    However, one such example from my neck of the woods that illustrates some of the problems here was Mars Hill Church, led by the charismatic psychopath Mark Driscoll. Driscoll took advantage of the desire for community to implant a megachurch in left authoritarian Seattle, which was (and continues to be) filled with socially atomized young white people. He had enormous success until he alienated the male members of the congregation through intimidation, threats of physical violence, summary dismissals and ultimately cheating to sell books.

    Driscoll is an interesting study. Born and raised an Irish American Catholic, he rejected the Catholic Church for what appear to be sexual and financial reasons, choosing to become a Calvinist evangelical preacher instead. Perhaps the idea of being among the elect appealed to him.

    The man’s success in drawing together thousands of people with a pro-family message, as brutal as he sometimes was, demonstrates the real innate desire for these communities. But if they remain largely controlled by profit and power-oriented individuals, they will remain ephemeral phenomena.

    Without men inspired by a higher calling, and without some moral accountability – an ethical law of some kind – the people therein will be like sheep led by wolves.

    We need a philosophical basis for communities that can survive and thrive in the modern world. And religious, too, but that goes without saying. We can look back at the last century and clearly identify the failures, such as fascism, Christianity, communism, capitalism and the various New Age cults, and we often do, but it seems to me that precious few people these days are actually putting in the effort to find a solution to the ongoing destruction of community.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.

    Read More
  5. Brilliant analysis. There are a couple of points I would like to make .

    1) The Western countries would be wise to do everything they can to increase the prospects for people in their own homelands.

    interview texts were characterised by a general absence of celebration of, or aspiration to, heroic violent achievement. There were few references to iconic idolised soldiers or officers who sacrificed themselves and/or performed heroically on the front lines. Instead (as the quote at the beginning of this text reveals) the soldiers overwhelmingly spoke of administration – working behind a desk – as the ultimate desirable position. For them, the ideal soldier was intimately tied to the ideal notion of masculine ‘provider,’ and celebrated manhood was symbolised by the affluent, urban man working in an office, with a nice house and a car, surrounded by many women. The Rambo type in the bush seemed to hold little appeal, judging from its absence in their narratives [...] A successful, celebrated man, they explained, is a man with the financial and material resources to ‘keep’/‘support’/‘pay for’ many women. (Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2008)

    Paul Collier’s proposal is for selected people from the Third World to be brought over and given Western education. That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what. Very expensive, but it would give Western academics good jobs. And show we are not just giving up on the rest of humanity, by closing the doors or taking all the best people. It is the best people who can afford to leave(those boat people have paid a what is a small fortune in their country to be taken to Europe) . Moreover, we probably need to admit that, yes immigrants do bring benefits to their countries, but us taking the most enterprising people from their countries will turn them into hell holes. Our tsami is their brain drain. As Collier says aid can’t keep qualified people like nurses or doctors in Malawi. We can it is a win-win. The biggest problem with restricting immigration is it is being characterised as a playing a delusionary zero sum game. For istance:-

    THE swell in migration is the result of many global trends, including growing inequalities between nations, demand for labour in countries with a falling birth rate and a rise in the number of refugees and asylum seekers[...]. As a rule, members of socially dominant groups tend to believe that their group is superior and hence entitled to resources and privileges. To maintain their dominance, they must fend off “invading” groups who are seen as competing with them for finite resources including jobs, political power and cultural and religious influence. This can occur irrespective of whether there are indeed limited resources and actual competition over them.

    2)

    They arose over a relatively short period through intense selection pressures that acted primarily on women, most probably sexual selection

    That is actually part of the problem. The marriage systems and selection for sons means by and large the migrating populations are always going to have an excess of males, who have not been subjected to relaxed sexual selection.

    Read More
  6. One has to respect the research and pure mental intellect that it takes to put together such a chronicle and interpretation of the world geopolitical environment over recent centuries. In many aspects, I concur with your assessments, however, when it comes to fascism, I see it in a much different light. Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business. Hitler was buttressed by the Brownshirts and later the Gestapo as he imposed or seduced the public into excusing or ignoring his greater and growing bestialities. He bought off major unions and big industry by initiation of major public works spending at the same time he seduced the armaments industry by negating the WW1 Armistice Agreement and secretly expanding weapons production. He relied heavily on the Brownshirts and the Gestapo to assure complete intimidation of the more recalcitrant members of German society, including the Catholic Church where his organization murdered some 1200 priest.

    In the end, Fascism is not a political philosophy so much as it is little more than a brutal dictatorship, buttressed by an equally bestial police and defended and subsidized by major economic institutions. Franco’s police state was not much different but then he did not have the economic infrastructure to be compared to Hitler’s colossal but short lived dictatorship.

    The USA is currently building its police state as well as its major “insecurity” agencies which are daily looking over our shoulders. In addition, major business “now considered to be an individual’ by the Supreme Court is slowly being conditioned to dominate the federal picture through the power of buying our legislators with big bucks. The armaments industry will be first in line to “buy out” legislative “peaceniks!”

    Read More
  7. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    May I point out an observation on Fascism?

    The first is that Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.

    https://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/when-fascism-was-on-the-left/

    Read More
  8. - halt an immigration surge that is already spinning out of control.

    - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other.

    - preserve the genetic heritage of Europe.

    Well, when I read those recipes, I remember one of the first meetings in my first job, more than twenty years ago. Someone said:

    Problem X has an easy solution, which is Y. The problem is that the ones that can do Y, don’t want to do Y. So X has no solution

    And he was right. X was never solved.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not. They benefit too much with the current system. Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.

    When the Roman Empire became decadent, a bunch of reformers tried to revert the trends. For example, Augustus (about Roman birthrate) or Diocletian. They couldn’t stop history and go back to the values that made Roman great. There were solutions but people didn’t want to implement them. The decadence was more attractive and comfortable to them. In fact, without an ideology that forces oneself to give up one’s selfish interest (religion, nationalism, etc) to pursue the kind of solutions you propose, the decadence is unavoidable.

    In short, civilization decadence is a mental attitude, which is the result of centuries and cannot be easily changed. You say you can’t go back to the Catholic church or nationalism (and I agree, although I am an European Catholic and kind of nationalistic). But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization since the V century (when the Catholic church forbade cousin marriage). When a culture is done, it is done and the most sensible solutions will be disregarded.

    Read More
  9. @Jim
    Peter - let me first commend you for a very interesting article.

    Regarding the weaknesses of the traditional Christian churches in Europe do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn't seem sympathetic to liberalism. What do you think will be the effect of Islam in the long term on Europe? I tend to suspect that much of the Western European population will eventually convert to Islam. This will likely lead to bloody internal conflict in Europe.

    Since most Muslim nations are hellholes, I think it is unlikely that most Europeans will convert to Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Converting to Islam doesn't mean they have to move to Yemen.
    , @JustJeff
    Muslims countries are hell holes because of their people, not because of Islam. Islam is currently the only force pushing back against liberalism while White right wingers are busy LARPing and arguing with each other over the Internet. There's no reason why Europeans couldn't adopt Islam and still survive, like the Bosnians and Albanians have already done. Christianity is dead. The left has done a very good job of deconstructing it and there's no way in hell Europeans are going to reconvert en masse to what is essentially a superannuated religion that is actively working to replace them. Besides, humanism and liberalism are by products of Christianity, which is a weak, passive, and feminine religion, the embodiment of Nietzsche's slave morality. Oswald Spengler was rigt when he said Christian theology was the godmother of Bolshevism. How could things have turned out differently when Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek and held up poverty, weakness, and suffering as virtues? We only think Islam is cruel because prosperity has made us weak. It may just be a sad fact of life that society ultimately needs some way to weed out subversives and undesirables.
  10. I’m curious about the last reason you give for opposing the “Great Replacement”. It’s couched in cautious and ambiguous academic-sounding language, but basically you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features. I actually don’t have a problem with that, but is that what you’re saying?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The last two reasons in the post can't be separated. I think you will find that black African women find their own men particularly attractive. It follows (because sexual selection only works in one direction) that Black African men are more handsome, and European men, but not women, could benefit from having African genes. Of course Europeans of both sexes may pay a big price for African male attributes, in other departments.
  11. Frances Perkins happens to be a heroine of mine. She was largely responsible for bringing much of what we think of as the New Deal to Roosevelt and hence to the nation (extracted a promise from him, one of the few he ever kept, in the form of an itemized list before she would join the administration): workmen’s comp., workplace safety, end of child labor, eight hour day and 40 hour week, unemployment insurance. Of these the end of child labor and eight-hour day and five-day-week (with weekends!) were the most family friendly. She was a tremendous raconteur and her oral history is available online via Columbia University. She was basically a saint, probably the greatest woman in American history.

    Read More
  12. do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It’s a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.

    You seem to be arguing that history is determined by great events, like WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Why, then, did fascism arise in Italy well before the Depression? Why did it arise in Spain, which was largely unaffected by the Depression? I don’t want to minimize the role of the Depression in discrediting liberal or liberal/socialist regimes (like in Germany and France), but there was disillusionment with liberalism even before the Wall Street Crash.

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’.

    I cringe when I hear the word “we.” It’s like the doctor who asks me how “we” are feeling.

    Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists — and not by hostile outsiders. Liberals believe in a world where individuals are free and self-determining. There is some debate among liberals about individuals who voluntarily refuse to be free and self-determining: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, bigoted whites, etc. “Active liberals” believe that the State should intervene to make these people free and self-determining. “Passive liberals” believe that time should be allowed to run its course. In time, these hold-outs will see the light, abandon their voluntary collectivism, and become like the rest of us.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.

    I disagree. Intellectual discussion is necessary; otherwise, time will be wasted doing stupid things.

    I’m not an American, but as a friendly outsider I would offer the following suggestions:

    - disengage from the Republican Party. Its cultural conservatism is 100% phoney and simply a means to mobilize the party base. It has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by wealthy corporate donors.

    - try to form a third party on the basis of existing lawmakers like Jeff Sessions. Avoid using words like “right-wing” and “conservative” so that you can appeal to disaffected Democrats. When presenting arguments to people, try to look and sound normal, and not like a manic-obsessive.

    - meet up with people as much as possible. It is not enough to win people over through argument. Beliefs have to be validated through face-to-face interaction.

    That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what.

    It would be hard to enforce. There is really no reason why people cannot be trained in their home communities. This is the approach we’re taking with the Inuit in the Arctic. Training is most effective when it’s done in one’s home community, and this is increasingly possible thanks to the Internet.

    Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business.

    This is the Marxist critique of fascism. If we take the example of Spain, big business was ambivalent about fascism and played a big role in its eventual liquidation: business wanted to reap the benefits of going global, whereas the Spanish state under Franco wanted to keep Spain as autarkic as possible. Fascist insistence on autarky was a general source of friction with the business community in all fascist or near-fascist countries.

    If we take the example of Japan, rightwing nationalists were hostile to the business community and assassinated prominent Japanese businessmen (zaibatsu). We today think of Japanese capitalism as being in partnership with the labor movement, but this was not the case in the 1920s. Japanese business was every bit as predatory as American business was at that time. In both countries, the threat from the right and the left forced the business community to make peace with organized labor.

    Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.

    Before the 19th century, the State was weak almost everywhere. It was historically strongest in France, where centralization had been firmly in place since before the Revolution. Yet, even in France, there was a very strong fascist movement. By the late 1930s, France was close to civil war between the liberal-socialist government and opposition fascists.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not.

    I agree. The current globalist elites will have to lose power. That’s not pie in the sky. There are peaceful and not-so-peaceful precedents for that sort of thing.

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.

    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization

    I’m not saying we should go back to the past. We can learn from our mistakes and create a future that is both modern and viable. It can be done.

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It’s easy to be a defeatist. That way you don’t have to do anything, and you won’t feel guilty.

    you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features.

    Most of the physical traits that make Europeans look European (a diverse palette of hair and eye colors, unusually white skin, a generally feminine face shape) seem to have resulted from a selection pressure that acted primarily on ancestral European women and then spilled over on to ancestral European men. Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I’ve argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age. In such an environment, polygyny is limited by high provisioning requirements for women and their children, since almost all food is secured through male hunting. Meanwhile, death rates are much higher in men than in women because of the hunting-related mortality associated with pursuit of wandering herbivores (generally reindeer) over long distances. The result is a chronic surplus of unmated women, and an intensification of sexual selection among women.

    This is an ongoing research interest for me, and I hope to have more to say in the near future. You ask me whether I think European women are more beautiful than non-European women. It doesn’t really matter what I think. Nor does it matter what you think. This is not a question of personal opinion. European women are a product of what ancestral European men thought about beauty.

    Notions of beauty are due to learned beliefs and innate predispositions, so I won’t call anyone a liar who says that African women are more beautiful than European women. They may indeed believe what they say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "I cringe when I hear the word “we.” It’s like the doctor who asks me how “we” are feeling."

    It depends on what we mean by 'we'.

    "Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists — and not by hostile outsiders."

    But the meaning of 'fascist' in western society has been defined by anti-fascists.
    And the word 'liberal' has undergone profound changes.
    Many 'Liberals' don't even use the term and prefer 'progressive'.
    , @Anonymous
    I would agree that history is dominated by great events. That is arguably what history is - the events and human actions that swamp the effects of trends derived from more mundane factors.

    Both Italy and Spain were relatively economically backward. Even before the Depression, there was discontent with liberalism due to economic reasons.
    , @Anonymous

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It’s a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.
     
    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European. And a religion that reintroduced patriarchal norms and restrictions on female sexual freedom presumably would better preserve genetic heritage.

    Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.
    , @Anonymous
    Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I’ve argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age.

    1) Well the problem is most Mesolithic europeans have shown to had a weird combo of dark hair, dark skin (probably the dark amazon amerindian range), freckles and light eyes. And the "Natural selection and ancient European DNA" study that you can find posted on dienekes.blogspot at March 15, 2015 basically pinpoints finally that european lighter skin, hair and eyes traits all started going towards its modern level from the late neolithic period onwards. This intense sexual selection of women with novel features may still be the main driving force behind all of this, but in the end it seem to all have started as a bronze age phenomenon and not an ice age one.

    2) Also the origins of most eurpeans traits didn't start of in europe at all. The facial phenotype of the average european (especially that of northern europeans in general) is in-between mix of both middleeastern & mesolithic-european traits, so this means white people are basically a type of racial hybrid for the lack of better word. the Origin of light skin and different hair colors both seen to be completely started out from middle-eastern also. SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 "light skin" allele are found both in near-east and central asia, the only difference being is that these non-europeans have high amount of SLC24A5 but then carry very lower amount of SLC45A2 in general. but in europeans both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 are fixed in very high rates in the general population, giving europeans a double shot of lightness it seems. Same also with blonde and red hair, they are found in the middleeast but only small amounts and even then its linked more so as a infantile trait that you grow out of.

  13. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It's a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.


    You seem to be arguing that history is determined by great events, like WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Why, then, did fascism arise in Italy well before the Depression? Why did it arise in Spain, which was largely unaffected by the Depression? I don't want to minimize the role of the Depression in discrediting liberal or liberal/socialist regimes (like in Germany and France), but there was disillusionment with liberalism even before the Wall Street Crash.

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’.

    I cringe when I hear the word "we." It's like the doctor who asks me how "we" are feeling.

    Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists -- and not by hostile outsiders. Liberals believe in a world where individuals are free and self-determining. There is some debate among liberals about individuals who voluntarily refuse to be free and self-determining: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, bigoted whites, etc. "Active liberals" believe that the State should intervene to make these people free and self-determining. "Passive liberals" believe that time should be allowed to run its course. In time, these hold-outs will see the light, abandon their voluntary collectivism, and become like the rest of us.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.


    I disagree. Intellectual discussion is necessary; otherwise, time will be wasted doing stupid things.

    I'm not an American, but as a friendly outsider I would offer the following suggestions:

    - disengage from the Republican Party. Its cultural conservatism is 100% phoney and simply a means to mobilize the party base. It has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by wealthy corporate donors.

    - try to form a third party on the basis of existing lawmakers like Jeff Sessions. Avoid using words like "right-wing" and "conservative" so that you can appeal to disaffected Democrats. When presenting arguments to people, try to look and sound normal, and not like a manic-obsessive.

    - meet up with people as much as possible. It is not enough to win people over through argument. Beliefs have to be validated through face-to-face interaction.

    That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what.


    It would be hard to enforce. There is really no reason why people cannot be trained in their home communities. This is the approach we're taking with the Inuit in the Arctic. Training is most effective when it's done in one's home community, and this is increasingly possible thanks to the Internet.

    Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business.

    This is the Marxist critique of fascism. If we take the example of Spain, big business was ambivalent about fascism and played a big role in its eventual liquidation: business wanted to reap the benefits of going global, whereas the Spanish state under Franco wanted to keep Spain as autarkic as possible. Fascist insistence on autarky was a general source of friction with the business community in all fascist or near-fascist countries.

    If we take the example of Japan, rightwing nationalists were hostile to the business community and assassinated prominent Japanese businessmen (zaibatsu). We today think of Japanese capitalism as being in partnership with the labor movement, but this was not the case in the 1920s. Japanese business was every bit as predatory as American business was at that time. In both countries, the threat from the right and the left forced the business community to make peace with organized labor.

    Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.


    Before the 19th century, the State was weak almost everywhere. It was historically strongest in France, where centralization had been firmly in place since before the Revolution. Yet, even in France, there was a very strong fascist movement. By the late 1930s, France was close to civil war between the liberal-socialist government and opposition fascists.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not.

    I agree. The current globalist elites will have to lose power. That's not pie in the sky. There are peaceful and not-so-peaceful precedents for that sort of thing.

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.


    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization

    I'm not saying we should go back to the past. We can learn from our mistakes and create a future that is both modern and viable. It can be done.

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It's easy to be a defeatist. That way you don't have to do anything, and you won't feel guilty.

    you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features.


    Most of the physical traits that make Europeans look European (a diverse palette of hair and eye colors, unusually white skin, a generally feminine face shape) seem to have resulted from a selection pressure that acted primarily on ancestral European women and then spilled over on to ancestral European men. Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I've argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age. In such an environment, polygyny is limited by high provisioning requirements for women and their children, since almost all food is secured through male hunting. Meanwhile, death rates are much higher in men than in women because of the hunting-related mortality associated with pursuit of wandering herbivores (generally reindeer) over long distances. The result is a chronic surplus of unmated women, and an intensification of sexual selection among women.

    This is an ongoing research interest for me, and I hope to have more to say in the near future. You ask me whether I think European women are more beautiful than non-European women. It doesn't really matter what I think. Nor does it matter what you think. This is not a question of personal opinion. European women are a product of what ancestral European men thought about beauty.

    Notions of beauty are due to learned beliefs and innate predispositions, so I won't call anyone a liar who says that African women are more beautiful than European women. They may indeed believe what they say.

    “I cringe when I hear the word “we.” It’s like the doctor who asks me how “we” are feeling.”

    It depends on what we mean by ‘we’.

    “Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists — and not by hostile outsiders.”

    But the meaning of ‘fascist’ in western society has been defined by anti-fascists.
    And the word ‘liberal’ has undergone profound changes.
    Many ‘Liberals’ don’t even use the term and prefer ‘progressive’.

    Read More
  14. do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future?

    It’s already happening. If an increasing number of people feel entirely disconnected from what their own culture has become they’ll look for alternatives. Islam as the only viable force opposing modernism will look more and more attractive.

    If Christianity still existed in Europe it would probably be making a strong comeback now. But since the Christian churches have effectively abandoned Christianity they’re out of the picture.

    Read More
  15. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

    Presumably you don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    This isn’t a solution because it doesn’t address the problem, which is government restriction on free association. People already tend to associate in general along ethnic or racial lines. But government restriction on free association prevents exclusive communities from being established. Even if there are no explicit strictures, the effects and “disparate impact” are considered by the government as indicating de facto explicit strictures.

    Read More
  16. 5 words: constitutional convention of the states (for the USA, of course).

    For Europe, end the EU.

    Read More
  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It's a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.


    You seem to be arguing that history is determined by great events, like WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Why, then, did fascism arise in Italy well before the Depression? Why did it arise in Spain, which was largely unaffected by the Depression? I don't want to minimize the role of the Depression in discrediting liberal or liberal/socialist regimes (like in Germany and France), but there was disillusionment with liberalism even before the Wall Street Crash.

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’.

    I cringe when I hear the word "we." It's like the doctor who asks me how "we" are feeling.

    Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists -- and not by hostile outsiders. Liberals believe in a world where individuals are free and self-determining. There is some debate among liberals about individuals who voluntarily refuse to be free and self-determining: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, bigoted whites, etc. "Active liberals" believe that the State should intervene to make these people free and self-determining. "Passive liberals" believe that time should be allowed to run its course. In time, these hold-outs will see the light, abandon their voluntary collectivism, and become like the rest of us.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.


    I disagree. Intellectual discussion is necessary; otherwise, time will be wasted doing stupid things.

    I'm not an American, but as a friendly outsider I would offer the following suggestions:

    - disengage from the Republican Party. Its cultural conservatism is 100% phoney and simply a means to mobilize the party base. It has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by wealthy corporate donors.

    - try to form a third party on the basis of existing lawmakers like Jeff Sessions. Avoid using words like "right-wing" and "conservative" so that you can appeal to disaffected Democrats. When presenting arguments to people, try to look and sound normal, and not like a manic-obsessive.

    - meet up with people as much as possible. It is not enough to win people over through argument. Beliefs have to be validated through face-to-face interaction.

    That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what.


    It would be hard to enforce. There is really no reason why people cannot be trained in their home communities. This is the approach we're taking with the Inuit in the Arctic. Training is most effective when it's done in one's home community, and this is increasingly possible thanks to the Internet.

    Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business.

    This is the Marxist critique of fascism. If we take the example of Spain, big business was ambivalent about fascism and played a big role in its eventual liquidation: business wanted to reap the benefits of going global, whereas the Spanish state under Franco wanted to keep Spain as autarkic as possible. Fascist insistence on autarky was a general source of friction with the business community in all fascist or near-fascist countries.

    If we take the example of Japan, rightwing nationalists were hostile to the business community and assassinated prominent Japanese businessmen (zaibatsu). We today think of Japanese capitalism as being in partnership with the labor movement, but this was not the case in the 1920s. Japanese business was every bit as predatory as American business was at that time. In both countries, the threat from the right and the left forced the business community to make peace with organized labor.

    Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.


    Before the 19th century, the State was weak almost everywhere. It was historically strongest in France, where centralization had been firmly in place since before the Revolution. Yet, even in France, there was a very strong fascist movement. By the late 1930s, France was close to civil war between the liberal-socialist government and opposition fascists.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not.

    I agree. The current globalist elites will have to lose power. That's not pie in the sky. There are peaceful and not-so-peaceful precedents for that sort of thing.

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.


    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization

    I'm not saying we should go back to the past. We can learn from our mistakes and create a future that is both modern and viable. It can be done.

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It's easy to be a defeatist. That way you don't have to do anything, and you won't feel guilty.

    you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features.


    Most of the physical traits that make Europeans look European (a diverse palette of hair and eye colors, unusually white skin, a generally feminine face shape) seem to have resulted from a selection pressure that acted primarily on ancestral European women and then spilled over on to ancestral European men. Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I've argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age. In such an environment, polygyny is limited by high provisioning requirements for women and their children, since almost all food is secured through male hunting. Meanwhile, death rates are much higher in men than in women because of the hunting-related mortality associated with pursuit of wandering herbivores (generally reindeer) over long distances. The result is a chronic surplus of unmated women, and an intensification of sexual selection among women.

    This is an ongoing research interest for me, and I hope to have more to say in the near future. You ask me whether I think European women are more beautiful than non-European women. It doesn't really matter what I think. Nor does it matter what you think. This is not a question of personal opinion. European women are a product of what ancestral European men thought about beauty.

    Notions of beauty are due to learned beliefs and innate predispositions, so I won't call anyone a liar who says that African women are more beautiful than European women. They may indeed believe what they say.

    I would agree that history is dominated by great events. That is arguably what history is – the events and human actions that swamp the effects of trends derived from more mundane factors.

    Both Italy and Spain were relatively economically backward. Even before the Depression, there was discontent with liberalism due to economic reasons.

    Read More
  18. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It's a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.


    You seem to be arguing that history is determined by great events, like WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Why, then, did fascism arise in Italy well before the Depression? Why did it arise in Spain, which was largely unaffected by the Depression? I don't want to minimize the role of the Depression in discrediting liberal or liberal/socialist regimes (like in Germany and France), but there was disillusionment with liberalism even before the Wall Street Crash.

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’.

    I cringe when I hear the word "we." It's like the doctor who asks me how "we" are feeling.

    Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists -- and not by hostile outsiders. Liberals believe in a world where individuals are free and self-determining. There is some debate among liberals about individuals who voluntarily refuse to be free and self-determining: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, bigoted whites, etc. "Active liberals" believe that the State should intervene to make these people free and self-determining. "Passive liberals" believe that time should be allowed to run its course. In time, these hold-outs will see the light, abandon their voluntary collectivism, and become like the rest of us.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.


    I disagree. Intellectual discussion is necessary; otherwise, time will be wasted doing stupid things.

    I'm not an American, but as a friendly outsider I would offer the following suggestions:

    - disengage from the Republican Party. Its cultural conservatism is 100% phoney and simply a means to mobilize the party base. It has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by wealthy corporate donors.

    - try to form a third party on the basis of existing lawmakers like Jeff Sessions. Avoid using words like "right-wing" and "conservative" so that you can appeal to disaffected Democrats. When presenting arguments to people, try to look and sound normal, and not like a manic-obsessive.

    - meet up with people as much as possible. It is not enough to win people over through argument. Beliefs have to be validated through face-to-face interaction.

    That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what.


    It would be hard to enforce. There is really no reason why people cannot be trained in their home communities. This is the approach we're taking with the Inuit in the Arctic. Training is most effective when it's done in one's home community, and this is increasingly possible thanks to the Internet.

    Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business.

    This is the Marxist critique of fascism. If we take the example of Spain, big business was ambivalent about fascism and played a big role in its eventual liquidation: business wanted to reap the benefits of going global, whereas the Spanish state under Franco wanted to keep Spain as autarkic as possible. Fascist insistence on autarky was a general source of friction with the business community in all fascist or near-fascist countries.

    If we take the example of Japan, rightwing nationalists were hostile to the business community and assassinated prominent Japanese businessmen (zaibatsu). We today think of Japanese capitalism as being in partnership with the labor movement, but this was not the case in the 1920s. Japanese business was every bit as predatory as American business was at that time. In both countries, the threat from the right and the left forced the business community to make peace with organized labor.

    Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.


    Before the 19th century, the State was weak almost everywhere. It was historically strongest in France, where centralization had been firmly in place since before the Revolution. Yet, even in France, there was a very strong fascist movement. By the late 1930s, France was close to civil war between the liberal-socialist government and opposition fascists.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not.

    I agree. The current globalist elites will have to lose power. That's not pie in the sky. There are peaceful and not-so-peaceful precedents for that sort of thing.

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.


    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization

    I'm not saying we should go back to the past. We can learn from our mistakes and create a future that is both modern and viable. It can be done.

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It's easy to be a defeatist. That way you don't have to do anything, and you won't feel guilty.

    you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features.


    Most of the physical traits that make Europeans look European (a diverse palette of hair and eye colors, unusually white skin, a generally feminine face shape) seem to have resulted from a selection pressure that acted primarily on ancestral European women and then spilled over on to ancestral European men. Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I've argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age. In such an environment, polygyny is limited by high provisioning requirements for women and their children, since almost all food is secured through male hunting. Meanwhile, death rates are much higher in men than in women because of the hunting-related mortality associated with pursuit of wandering herbivores (generally reindeer) over long distances. The result is a chronic surplus of unmated women, and an intensification of sexual selection among women.

    This is an ongoing research interest for me, and I hope to have more to say in the near future. You ask me whether I think European women are more beautiful than non-European women. It doesn't really matter what I think. Nor does it matter what you think. This is not a question of personal opinion. European women are a product of what ancestral European men thought about beauty.

    Notions of beauty are due to learned beliefs and innate predispositions, so I won't call anyone a liar who says that African women are more beautiful than European women. They may indeed believe what they say.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It’s a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European. And a religion that reintroduced patriarchal norms and restrictions on female sexual freedom presumably would better preserve genetic heritage.

    Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Within a century of Islamization Europe will resemble Iraq. It will be a backward cesspit run by two bit theocrats. That's what happened when they overran the Greek Levant, Sassind Persia and Roman North Africa, Byzantine Greek Anatolia. The so-called Islamic Golden Age was merely the last gasps of the native intellects before Islam silenced them forever.

    Islam isn't just a religion, it's way of life, politics and culture. It literally places a shotgun at the back of the head of intellectuals, should they go too far then it's death for them. Innovation is not permitted in Islam.
  19. @Priss Factor
    "The Last Push-back Against Liberalism"

    Well, it depends on what we mean by 'liberalism'. If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness. So, at best, what we have is the triumph of capital 'L' Liberalism that is hardly liberal.

    Also, what eventually prevailed is not the right of the individual(each of us) but the might of the Powerful Individuals(the oligarchs who control the government, Wall Street, media, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Ivy League colleges, etc) and the power of certain identity groups.

    Of the two kinds of 'progressive'-isms, there was the power of communism that stressed collectivism and the power of capitalism that stressed individualism(as individuals needed property rights and rule of law to succeed in business). But both were marred in the long run because they were after abstract ideas. Collective action is all very good but in the name of what? World Revolution? Too abstract. Likewise, individual freedom is all very good, but ultimately in the name of what? Can man live on cake alone? Aren't people tribal or spiritual by nature?

    Communism eventually settled on nationalism. Russian communist nationalism, Chinese communist nationalism, Vietnamese communist nationalism. Of course in the Third World, leftist-communism was almost synonymous with nationalism since it was used as a weapon against European imperialism(that was associated with capitalism). But communism failed economically, and so communist states veered toward free markets.

    As for individualism, well, it got lonely and crass. Yuppies made lots of money in the Reagan-8os but they needed to belong to some kind of 'community'. People want to belong to something like an order or a tribe. So, individualism gave rise to a new kind of ersatz tribalism or search for new identities. Woodstock nation. The rise of identity politics with feminism stressing female unity, 'gay rights' stressing homosexual unity, black power calling for black identity and unity.

    So, where is true individualism in any of this? Also, the power of pop culture has undermined individuality and created a new world of neo-pagan-spirituality. What happens at a rock concert? You scream along. You dance along. You cheer along. Even if you don't really like the music, you want to be part of the crowd, an unthinking mass of screaming dolts. Rock music initially seemed liberating, but it turned young people into herds of screaming un-thinking and anti-intellectual mobs. Look at Beatlemania. Look at everyone shaking and dancing the same way at rap concerts. Look at drug-addled drones at Rave concerts. They don't foster critical mindset that is crucial to genuine individualism; a person who doesn't carefully observe and ponder about things will never think independently; he will just go with the flow, follow the herd. And pop culture that is all about sensory overload, loudness, orgiastic excess, mindless pleasure, hipness, and celebrity worship is anti-individualist. Notice the tattoo craze. Is it individualistic or is it young people mindlessly imitating famous people to feel as part of the neo-tribe? Is it any wonder than pop-culture-addicted millennials have been won over so quickly to 'gay marriage' and illiberally attack anyone who won't bend over to it? So much for individual conscience.

    Also, traditional political liberalism used to stress equality and the common man. As in Grapes of Wrath and a movie like Marty. Today's so-called 'Liberal Hollywood' cranks out superhero movies with quasi-fascist imagery of 'will to power' men of power. Stuff like 50 SHADES OF GREY are big hits in books and movies. Mega-millionaire rappers are worshiped by young people. Oprah is worshiped by her sheeple minions. Urban Liberals might pretend to be 'progressive' and read stuff like Jacobin, but they are all about hanging around hip and rich parts of NY, San Fran, Chicago, Washington DC, and Seattle. It's all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at 'white trash' in trailer parks. While NY rich support 'stop and frisk' against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

    End of History is not liberal democracy. It is fascist oligarchic democracy or globalist oligarchic democracy.

    The fascist democratic ideal are represented by Russia, Turkey, and China. If anything, Russians rightly view 'liberal democracy'(from the West) not as forces of freedom but as a tool to turn Russia into a minority-elite ruled empire. The current Western War on Russia is not about 'liberal democracy'. It is about the cynical invocation of 'democratic principles' to undermine Russia sovereignty. Turkey is rather like Russia.

    China is clearly not a democracy in the sense of having elections. But the system isn't entirely unresponsive to the people. Also, in a way, it's not much difference from LDP domination of Japanese in postwar yrs when Japan was, let's face it, essentially a one-party dictatorship in practice if not principle.

    So, is it fascist democracies vs liberal democracies? Hardly. US and EU are not liberal democracies. Free speech is dead in the EU and dying in the US as colleges have brainwashed entire generations of millennial dolts into politically correct drones. Most of the institutions in America are controlled by a handful of oligarchs with powerful tribal, ethnic, or identity consciousness. Eric Holder was hardly impartial about race. And the likes of Tim Cook prohibit anyone who was for True/Traditional Marriage from working for Apple. Some 'liberal democracy'.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/apple-culture-war-criminal-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-2/

    So, it's not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.

    The main difference is this: Russia, Turkey, and China are ruled by majority elites. Russia is mostly Russians and ruled by Russians. Turkey is mostly Turks and ruled by Turks. China is mostly Chinese and ruled by Chinese.

    PS. If we broaden the definition of fascism, it is the triumphant ideology of the 2oth century.

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia. Had he maintained an alliance with Russia, he and his allies would have ruled Europe, and Stalin would have eventually come around to accepting the new order. And UK, unable to fight alone, would have made peace.
    Also, fascism got a bad rap because it lost the war and its association with the Holocaust. If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.
    Since Soviet communism would have made a pact with Nazism, the international left would have had only two choice: follow the Stalinist line that calls for peace, even friendship, with National Socialism OR reject communism altogether as an evil ideology along with Nazism. Thus, communism would have lost luster among Western intellectuals.
    Also, if Franco was an unimaginative type who just clung to tradition and the church, Mussolini and Hitler--like Ataturk--were men with some visionary power and will of iron. What they might have done with Europe might would have been bolder and more imaginative than what Franco did with Spain.
    Also, if Germany had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have attacked the US, and then history might have been very different.

    Anyway, WWII did happen and Nazism went kaput. It seemed as if the world was divided between democratic capitalism and communism.

    And yet, a new contest of ideas was happening in the Third World, especially in East Asia, and that's where fascism won out over communism(though no one is willing to put it that way). The fact is South Korea under Park, Taiwan under Chiang, and Singapore under Lee were essentially fascist. And Hong Kong under British wasn't exactly a democracy either. But they made economic progress whereas communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia didn't.
    This would not have mattered much perhaps except for the fact that Deng decided to follow the East Asian fascist model. Of course, he didn't call it fascism(and the 'communist party' was still in control politically), and since Western intellectuals are Liberal, they don't want to associate 'fascism' with the rise of China either. But it was the fascist model--nationalism and limited economic freedom--that led to the rise of New China.

    I don’t understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists. The “liberal opposition” story that the Western press loves so much is entirely a fiction – it’s like printing stories about America and equating the Green Party of the United States as THE opposition. Putin is all about Russia’s imperial history and empires are multiethnic: ethnic nationalism of the core ethnicity needs to be suppressed or it all falls apart.

    Turkey is definitely not ruled by Turks and ethnic nationalism has been eroding under Erdogan who wants to dismantle Kemalist nationalism. He is of Georgian roots and the focus on Islamic identity instead of Turkishness comes with that. At the beginning of his Prime Ministership the President was a secularist nationalist Turk called who blocked a lot of Erdogan’s party’s moves; after a long power struggle he was replaced an Arab from the Islamic conservative party. What’s happening in Turkey is a rejection of Turkishness and secular ethnic nationalism and a focus on Islam as the unifying factor – and a big part of this are renewed ambitions in the Middle East and empire nostalgia.

    Meanwhile, Western countries tend to actually be ruled by their core ethnicities. Swedish political parties only have token minorities who are given meaningless photo op jobs like Minister of Culture. Britain is 20 % non-British but it’s almost entirely ruled by white British; in fact, British politics is going through an ethnic power struggle but it’s a struggle between Scots and Englishmen. France, well, collecting the statistics is illegal but it’s easy to see that the elite is really French with minorities mainly in token positions. Jews are really the only ethnic minority that seems to be able to get into power positions in Western countries without being promoted through tokenism and that’s probably Holocaust embarrassment influence. Obama is the exception that proves the rule – there isn’t going to be another black President any time soon, much less a black acting President.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "I don’t understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists."

    You make a good point in terms of raw politics. But I would still say Russia is still ruled by what might be called Russianism. (Stalin, though a Georgian, was also something of a Russian-ist, especially in contrast to Jewish Bolsheviks who were more internationalist).

    Putin has been for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church, the remembrance of Russian sacrifice and glory, for increasing birthrates among Russian whites, opposing the globlalist-homo-proxy-imperialist-agenda, and etc.
    So, even though there are many non-Russian oligarchs around Putin, Putin and his cohorts are motivated by Russian nationalism and promote such an outlook among the populace.
    It's not perfect but when we consider that Western Europe's official policy is to be anti-white, anti-European, anti-nationalist, and anti-traditionalist, then Russia stands in stark contrast.

    Putin works with oligarchs who are non-Russian, but he wants to see a Russia where more Russians gain in power, talent, and prosperity.
    So, thematically at least, Russia is run by Russianism if not exactly by Russians.

    What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general.
    The Orthodox Church traditionally emphasized submission and obedience through the ages. The German Protestant churches emphasized work ethic, individual conscience, and responsibility, all of which were crucial in the development of the hardworking and conscientious German character.
    Russians just learned to be obedient and lazy.

    Russia must turn into big Prussia. And then it will grow into a genuine great power.
    Under Stalin, it was the whip that drove people to work hard. But externally applied work ethic evaporates once the whip is removed. In contrast, internally generated work ethic continues even without the whip because one sincerely believes in the worth of work and diligence.
    Russians haven't developed such mindset.
  20. […] 1, 2, 3, 4. Some relevant contributions from Jim, Milton (+), and — coincidentally? — Frost. Vaguely associated ideological chaos. Then there’s this excellent […]

    Read More
  21. When one uses the word “sheeple” it indicates a lack of concern and respect for the great mass of people. We are, in fact, sheep. It is human nature to be a follower. If you put your efforts into changing human nature, you will fail. The problem is not the sheep. We will always be here. The problem is with the “shepherds”. If you can see that the leadership is the problem and not the followers, you will be on the road to sorting through the ideas that present themselves as the way to change the trajectory.

    Read More
  22. Good work, Peter. You work seriously, and I like people who do serious work. May I enquire as to who you consider your main intellectual role models or influences?

    Read More
  23. Peter Frost does not do a bad job identifying the dominant characteristics of interwar fascism, and I speak en cause de connaissance, having just completed a three-hundred page monograph on the subject. Nationalism (and national revolutions), Latin Catholic economic concepts, and an extended critique of the centrifugal force of liberalism (what we are now forced to call liberal democracy) were all constituent elements of fascist movements (or what I call generic fascism). Peter is also correct that unless one looks at interwar Europe, one cannot understand the political culture from whence fascism came. The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism. Franco was a man of the authoritarian Right and someone who was temporarily allied with Spanish fascists before divesting his Falangist allies of power under his later rule. Moreover, fascist anti-liberalism was for the most part theoretical. In Italian fascism (which may be the only example of generic fascism in practice known to scholars), economic arrangements were left almost entirely untouched. Until the Nazis took over Italy in 1943, fascist rule was not particularly brutal or murderous. And in 1943 the Italian constitutional monarch dismissed Mussolini as his prime minister. It took German intervention to put the fascist head back into his former post, albeit as a German puppet

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Mr. Gottfried,

    Will the facts in your monograph rise to this level of silliness:

    “One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms”?
  24. preserve the genetic heritage of Europe because of what we know we will lose: a unique schema of physical features whose purpose seems to be largely aesthetic.

    If your goals are aesthetic, couldn’t you just support more breeding of the best looking people as the best strategy? It’s like IQ. Groups may differ, but there’s a lot of overlap, and you might as well advocate for the trait you care about. I think with genetic engineering more and more people will look like the Nordic ideal regardless.

    Read More
  25. Mr. Frost is using terms liberalism and individualism in somewhat confusing way. It seems that to him individualism is synonymous with some sort of moral degradation and left-wing ideas. I can hardly see how this idiosyncratic interpretation refers to liberalism of Burke, Tocqueville, Mises or Rothbard, all kinds anarcho-capitalist social Darwinists and liberal nationalists of 19th century, reactionary Nietzschean individualism, Anglo-Saxon traditions, so-called traditional Germanic individualism, American fundamentalist protestantism, libertarian conservative constitutionalism etc. There are all kinds of liberal traditions and individualist lines of thinking: American social-democratic liberalism and right-wing classical liberalism, then there are different rationalist-progressive and skeptical-conservative currents among classical liberals etc. Also, since most progressives are collectivists – and authoritarian in their own twisted way – things become even more confusing.

    Sure, you can argue that any kind of individualism and freedom necessarily leads to moral and social decay. But you can argue that collectivism and authoritarianism lead to the same end too. History gives a lot of examples of that kind. Most authoritarian and collectivist societies – old fascist states, South American dictatorships, socialist and post-socialist societies of Eastern Europe – end up as cynical kleptocracies with collapsing economy and social disarray. Questions of opposition between liberalism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism are way too complex and I think that focusing on them misses the point in the case Mr. Frost is trying to make. Another problem with simple political definitions and classifications is the example of Sweden. Sweden has a somewhat above average demographic statistics and all kinds of social assistance to mothers and families. At the same time extramarital births and divorce rates are quite above average in Sweden and huge proportion of children don’t live with both biological parents. Obviously states can give all kinds of welfare and keep their demographic statistics in order – but it has nothing to do with conservatism. Women give births but there is no traditional family. And what’s the point of conservatism in the end – just improving birthrate statistics by any means, or living your life according to a certain set of values?

    Also, this political-historical approach is very similar to traditional cultural determinism of social pseudo-scientists. From sociobiological perspective wouldn’t it be more logical to say that some people are just attracted to marriage and family and some aren’t, that some are wired to find members of their own race more attractive and some aren’t? If we accept the idea that tropical and subtropical races are more prone to large number of offspring, why shouldn’t we follow the same sociobiological line of thinking when analyzing sexual behavior of white races and Western social classes? Before modern times many people were married and had families simply because they had to. Their marriages were miserable and their children were idiots. Now they aren’t forced to marry by economic conditions or religious authorities and they are simply behaving in a more open way according to their nature. I don’t believe that economic policies or moral propaganda can change individual genotypes and natural inclinations. They just create nice social illusions which are bound to be destroyed sooner or later by crude forces of nature. Many social phenomena are simply natural processes. Trying to change them is the same as trying to turn gays into heterosexuals, or to create geniuses out of idiots. It just doesn’t work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Mr. Frost is using terms liberalism and individualism in somewhat confusing way. It seems that to him individualism is synonymous with some sort of moral degradation and left-wing ideas."

    Liberalism has gone from consensual-ism to consensus-ism. It went from arguing that two homosexuals who wanna do 'sex' on another is okay to arguing that ALL OF US must agree that homosexuality is wonderful or else be branded as a 'homophobe'.

    In our PC Liberal order, EVEN IF YOU ARE FOR 'GAY MARRIAGE', you will be hounded, destroyed, and blacklisted in elite institutions and industries if you say, as a free individual, that you personally think homosexuality is ewwww and gross.

    Liberalism used to argue for right of creed and conscience. So, Liberals used to say that even communists and Stalinists were deserving of their civil liberties and should not be fired or blacklisted on the basis of their creed. Even though communists were anti-freedom, anti-elections, anti-property, and anti-constitution, they should have enjoy the rights of all other Americans. As American citizens, their rights should be protected by the Constitution EVEN IF their creed went against democratic principles. But these same Liberals now say that anyone who's known to espouse 'racist', 'homophobic', or 'antisemitic' creeds(even outside of work and purely in a personal manner) should be hounded, destroyed, and fired.
  26. @Joe Walker
    Since most Muslim nations are hellholes, I think it is unlikely that most Europeans will convert to Islam.

    Converting to Islam doesn’t mean they have to move to Yemen.

    Read More
  27. “Already, however, a reaction was developing. Conservatives, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, were pointing out that liberalism would eventually destroy all traditional identities—the family, gender, kinship, ethnicity. Since these identities are nonconsensual, they violate liberal principles of personal freedom and individual choice. People do not get to choose their family, gender, kinfolk, or ethnic background.”

    The author has already caved into liberalism, as evidenced by his acceptance of the word “gender”.

    The word for the concept you wish to describe is not “gender” – it’s “sex”. “Gender” – used as a substitute for “sex” – is an invention of cultural marxists, who use it to imply that the underlying concept is arbitrary and socially constructed.

    The word is “sex”. Use it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Absolutely agree.

    Gender is a term that prior to the Liberal perversion (and their use of Liberal is a perversion) was purely related to grammar: the declension of nouns.
  28. Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.

    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    I think there’s no evidence about that. I don’t know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example? Or any study that shows that this is possible? Any kind of evidence? Because I would love to know.

    By contrast, I see all the evidence going against this hypothesis. The European masses abandoning any kind of structure between the individual and the State. Abandoning Church and local religious communities, abandoning political groups (except when they want to take individualistic and short-term advantage of them) so revolutions such as the ones during the XIX century are no longer possible.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment. Marriage rates falling because people don’t want to be “yoked” so they prefer cohabitation. Are these people the ones that are going to voluntarily submit to a kin-based structure? When they are not willing to submit to the nuclear family, which is the most basic, easy and natural kin-based structure? I don’t think so. But I can be mistaken and I would love to know arguments against that.

    ———–

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It’s easy to be a defeatist. That way you don’t have to do anything, and you won’t feel guilty.

    Peter, I intellectually admire you a lot and I have followed you for years (on the “Evo and proud” blog). I have learned a lot from you and I have transmitted some of your information to my students.

    Having said that, I think this answer is unworthy of you.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives. If my arguments are wrong and you argue this with convincing reasons (or simply a link with these reasons), I am very open to reconsider. I don’t think I am beyond mistake.

    But putting me a label (“defeatist”) and questioning my motives only to dismiss my arguments is the cheapest trick in the world. It is not different that someone who tells you:

    Peter, it’s easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don’t have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter? Isn’t it an ad-hominem attack, such as the one you did to me?

    Look, Peter, I don’t want this to be a fight with you. I guess you answered this way because you were in a hurry and you didn’t think through. But I had to say that. Best regards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe - it is innately anti-family, anti-Christian(but pro Muslim), pro drug use, anti-free speech, etc. Basically all the elements that made Europe strong are being eradicated.

    In it's place are atomized individuals. Which is the cold death of a people.

    Plop such a system down anywhere and the cultural bonds, sense of community, family will die out.

    That's what happened to blacks when the Great Society program was enacted, their family structure broke apart within a few decades and now is a joke. Same is now happening to whites who get on the dole.
  29. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists. The "liberal opposition" story that the Western press loves so much is entirely a fiction - it's like printing stories about America and equating the Green Party of the United States as THE opposition. Putin is all about Russia's imperial history and empires are multiethnic: ethnic nationalism of the core ethnicity needs to be suppressed or it all falls apart.

    Turkey is definitely not ruled by Turks and ethnic nationalism has been eroding under Erdogan who wants to dismantle Kemalist nationalism. He is of Georgian roots and the focus on Islamic identity instead of Turkishness comes with that. At the beginning of his Prime Ministership the President was a secularist nationalist Turk called who blocked a lot of Erdogan's party's moves; after a long power struggle he was replaced an Arab from the Islamic conservative party. What's happening in Turkey is a rejection of Turkishness and secular ethnic nationalism and a focus on Islam as the unifying factor - and a big part of this are renewed ambitions in the Middle East and empire nostalgia.

    Meanwhile, Western countries tend to actually be ruled by their core ethnicities. Swedish political parties only have token minorities who are given meaningless photo op jobs like Minister of Culture. Britain is 20 % non-British but it's almost entirely ruled by white British; in fact, British politics is going through an ethnic power struggle but it's a struggle between Scots and Englishmen. France, well, collecting the statistics is illegal but it's easy to see that the elite is really French with minorities mainly in token positions. Jews are really the only ethnic minority that seems to be able to get into power positions in Western countries without being promoted through tokenism and that's probably Holocaust embarrassment influence. Obama is the exception that proves the rule - there isn't going to be another black President any time soon, much less a black acting President.

    “I don’t understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists.”

    You make a good point in terms of raw politics. But I would still say Russia is still ruled by what might be called Russianism. (Stalin, though a Georgian, was also something of a Russian-ist, especially in contrast to Jewish Bolsheviks who were more internationalist).

    Putin has been for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church, the remembrance of Russian sacrifice and glory, for increasing birthrates among Russian whites, opposing the globlalist-homo-proxy-imperialist-agenda, and etc.
    So, even though there are many non-Russian oligarchs around Putin, Putin and his cohorts are motivated by Russian nationalism and promote such an outlook among the populace.
    It’s not perfect but when we consider that Western Europe’s official policy is to be anti-white, anti-European, anti-nationalist, and anti-traditionalist, then Russia stands in stark contrast.

    Putin works with oligarchs who are non-Russian, but he wants to see a Russia where more Russians gain in power, talent, and prosperity.
    So, thematically at least, Russia is run by Russianism if not exactly by Russians.

    What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general.
    The Orthodox Church traditionally emphasized submission and obedience through the ages. The German Protestant churches emphasized work ethic, individual conscience, and responsibility, all of which were crucial in the development of the hardworking and conscientious German character.
    Russians just learned to be obedient and lazy.

    Russia must turn into big Prussia. And then it will grow into a genuine great power.
    Under Stalin, it was the whip that drove people to work hard. But externally applied work ethic evaporates once the whip is removed. In contrast, internally generated work ethic continues even without the whip because one sincerely believes in the worth of work and diligence.
    Russians haven’t developed such mindset.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    And America is ruled by Americans and some sort of non-ethnic "Americanism", yet that seems to leave white ethnic desires unsatisfied. Russia is not ruled by anti-internationalists, it is ruled by internationalists of a different breed who want Moscow to be the center of the world. They disapprove of the kind of Russian nationalism that would just want to work on a Russian state.

    The Russian Orthodox Church and patriotism was "revived" during World War II when Stalin panicked about whether Russians would really fight for communism. It is a completely Sovietized monstrosity that is ruled by chekists and effectively considers Stalin one of its saints; whether Stalin should be literally canonized is actually debated. Nothing about this has changed since the 1940s and Putin's interest in the revival of the church reflects his interest in the revival of Stalinism which the church champions.

    You can see this development most clearly in the parts of the Russian Orthodox Church that ended up outside of Russia after the revolution and World War II. The Finnish Orthodox Church, for example, split from the Russian Orthodox Church after the revolution and putting the churches back together has not happened because you hop over the border and you'll see communist leaders hanging as icons in the walls...

    http://www.studiolum.com/wang/russian/holyiosif/005.jpg

    ...while the FOC is mostly made up of descendants of refugees of the revolution and Stalinist mass deportations, in fact it used to be a bigger share of the population but in World War II the territorial losses hit the eastern parts (where the Orthodox villages were) and a lot of people who had been kicked out of their homes by Stalin converted out when they saw the Russian Orthodox Church glorifying Stalin as a de facto saint.

    Russian birth rates are nothing special, they're about European average and still lower than for example in actually conservative Western Ukraine where the churches aren't Stalinist...

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fertilityrate2011ua.PNG

    ...while the Russian areas are incredibly low. People who talk about the amazing Russian conservative values really must not have traveled in Russia much. It is all very disappointing for a Finn considering that Tsarist Russia was mostly good for us (and certainly conservative which in the end doomed it). All of my ancestors fought for our Whites and I would have hoped that the end of communism would have brought some sort of a White counter-revolution but there is nothing there but a nation ruined by Reds attempting to sell Stalinism to Westerners as "conservative values".
    , @Jeff Albertson
    "What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general."

    I'm pretty confident that this will not happen, by Putin or anyone else. Whether or not your assertion is true, I lack the intellectual chops to debate, but the Orthodox take their religion seriously to an extent that westerners can't really understand. They are very prickly about it and talk of things that happened a thousand years ago like it was yesterday.

    I first went to the Saker blog to try to understand what the hell (almost literally) was going on in Ukraine, but stayed, fascinated by a window on a really complicated social and historical environment forged by hundreds of of years tribal warfare and hatreds, but I was most surprised by his really strong views on, and support for his Church. Americans can't really grasp this, I think. Many of us that even consider ourselves religious don't approach this level of seriousness and generally view other, or even non- religions quite tolerantly. We are wide and shallow with respect to beliefs, comparatively (and to our advantage, until recently, in my opinion).

    Their faith is most likely why there even is still a Russia in existence and why it will probably continue after America becomes Brazil. We would do well to follow their example in some respects, and if our story ever gets even as fractionally horrendous, I hope we can.

  30. “Maternalists would use the New Deal to reward the domestic woman and discourage the working mother.”

    I just skimmed the Carlson link. But Doesn’t Social Security pay women even if they do not have children? So I am not understanding the Maternalist stuff when Social Security seems to be neutral on the issue of a woman having children or being married. How exactly was the New Deal and Social Security a ‘Maternalist’ policy?

    Read More
  31. @jtgw
    I'm curious about the last reason you give for opposing the "Great Replacement". It's couched in cautious and ambiguous academic-sounding language, but basically you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don't want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features. I actually don't have a problem with that, but is that what you're saying?

    The last two reasons in the post can’t be separated. I think you will find that black African women find their own men particularly attractive. It follows (because sexual selection only works in one direction) that Black African men are more handsome, and European men, but not women, could benefit from having African genes. Of course Europeans of both sexes may pay a big price for African male attributes, in other departments.

    Read More
  32. “He wants to be “on the right side of history,” and that history will no longer be Christian or European.”

    South America and Africa are becoming Christianized at ridiculous rates, Christianity is still the world’s largest and fastest growing religion. Perhaps Cheistianity’s power is dissipating, but the future is still surely Christian. This is a primary reason why the Pope is so liberal…. It’s even been growing in China and India.

    Read More
  33. @Priss Factor
    "The Last Push-back Against Liberalism"

    Well, it depends on what we mean by 'liberalism'. If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness. So, at best, what we have is the triumph of capital 'L' Liberalism that is hardly liberal.

    Also, what eventually prevailed is not the right of the individual(each of us) but the might of the Powerful Individuals(the oligarchs who control the government, Wall Street, media, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Ivy League colleges, etc) and the power of certain identity groups.

    Of the two kinds of 'progressive'-isms, there was the power of communism that stressed collectivism and the power of capitalism that stressed individualism(as individuals needed property rights and rule of law to succeed in business). But both were marred in the long run because they were after abstract ideas. Collective action is all very good but in the name of what? World Revolution? Too abstract. Likewise, individual freedom is all very good, but ultimately in the name of what? Can man live on cake alone? Aren't people tribal or spiritual by nature?

    Communism eventually settled on nationalism. Russian communist nationalism, Chinese communist nationalism, Vietnamese communist nationalism. Of course in the Third World, leftist-communism was almost synonymous with nationalism since it was used as a weapon against European imperialism(that was associated with capitalism). But communism failed economically, and so communist states veered toward free markets.

    As for individualism, well, it got lonely and crass. Yuppies made lots of money in the Reagan-8os but they needed to belong to some kind of 'community'. People want to belong to something like an order or a tribe. So, individualism gave rise to a new kind of ersatz tribalism or search for new identities. Woodstock nation. The rise of identity politics with feminism stressing female unity, 'gay rights' stressing homosexual unity, black power calling for black identity and unity.

    So, where is true individualism in any of this? Also, the power of pop culture has undermined individuality and created a new world of neo-pagan-spirituality. What happens at a rock concert? You scream along. You dance along. You cheer along. Even if you don't really like the music, you want to be part of the crowd, an unthinking mass of screaming dolts. Rock music initially seemed liberating, but it turned young people into herds of screaming un-thinking and anti-intellectual mobs. Look at Beatlemania. Look at everyone shaking and dancing the same way at rap concerts. Look at drug-addled drones at Rave concerts. They don't foster critical mindset that is crucial to genuine individualism; a person who doesn't carefully observe and ponder about things will never think independently; he will just go with the flow, follow the herd. And pop culture that is all about sensory overload, loudness, orgiastic excess, mindless pleasure, hipness, and celebrity worship is anti-individualist. Notice the tattoo craze. Is it individualistic or is it young people mindlessly imitating famous people to feel as part of the neo-tribe? Is it any wonder than pop-culture-addicted millennials have been won over so quickly to 'gay marriage' and illiberally attack anyone who won't bend over to it? So much for individual conscience.

    Also, traditional political liberalism used to stress equality and the common man. As in Grapes of Wrath and a movie like Marty. Today's so-called 'Liberal Hollywood' cranks out superhero movies with quasi-fascist imagery of 'will to power' men of power. Stuff like 50 SHADES OF GREY are big hits in books and movies. Mega-millionaire rappers are worshiped by young people. Oprah is worshiped by her sheeple minions. Urban Liberals might pretend to be 'progressive' and read stuff like Jacobin, but they are all about hanging around hip and rich parts of NY, San Fran, Chicago, Washington DC, and Seattle. It's all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at 'white trash' in trailer parks. While NY rich support 'stop and frisk' against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

    End of History is not liberal democracy. It is fascist oligarchic democracy or globalist oligarchic democracy.

    The fascist democratic ideal are represented by Russia, Turkey, and China. If anything, Russians rightly view 'liberal democracy'(from the West) not as forces of freedom but as a tool to turn Russia into a minority-elite ruled empire. The current Western War on Russia is not about 'liberal democracy'. It is about the cynical invocation of 'democratic principles' to undermine Russia sovereignty. Turkey is rather like Russia.

    China is clearly not a democracy in the sense of having elections. But the system isn't entirely unresponsive to the people. Also, in a way, it's not much difference from LDP domination of Japanese in postwar yrs when Japan was, let's face it, essentially a one-party dictatorship in practice if not principle.

    So, is it fascist democracies vs liberal democracies? Hardly. US and EU are not liberal democracies. Free speech is dead in the EU and dying in the US as colleges have brainwashed entire generations of millennial dolts into politically correct drones. Most of the institutions in America are controlled by a handful of oligarchs with powerful tribal, ethnic, or identity consciousness. Eric Holder was hardly impartial about race. And the likes of Tim Cook prohibit anyone who was for True/Traditional Marriage from working for Apple. Some 'liberal democracy'.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/apple-culture-war-criminal-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-2/

    So, it's not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.

    The main difference is this: Russia, Turkey, and China are ruled by majority elites. Russia is mostly Russians and ruled by Russians. Turkey is mostly Turks and ruled by Turks. China is mostly Chinese and ruled by Chinese.

    PS. If we broaden the definition of fascism, it is the triumphant ideology of the 2oth century.

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia. Had he maintained an alliance with Russia, he and his allies would have ruled Europe, and Stalin would have eventually come around to accepting the new order. And UK, unable to fight alone, would have made peace.
    Also, fascism got a bad rap because it lost the war and its association with the Holocaust. If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.
    Since Soviet communism would have made a pact with Nazism, the international left would have had only two choice: follow the Stalinist line that calls for peace, even friendship, with National Socialism OR reject communism altogether as an evil ideology along with Nazism. Thus, communism would have lost luster among Western intellectuals.
    Also, if Franco was an unimaginative type who just clung to tradition and the church, Mussolini and Hitler--like Ataturk--were men with some visionary power and will of iron. What they might have done with Europe might would have been bolder and more imaginative than what Franco did with Spain.
    Also, if Germany had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have attacked the US, and then history might have been very different.

    Anyway, WWII did happen and Nazism went kaput. It seemed as if the world was divided between democratic capitalism and communism.

    And yet, a new contest of ideas was happening in the Third World, especially in East Asia, and that's where fascism won out over communism(though no one is willing to put it that way). The fact is South Korea under Park, Taiwan under Chiang, and Singapore under Lee were essentially fascist. And Hong Kong under British wasn't exactly a democracy either. But they made economic progress whereas communist China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia didn't.
    This would not have mattered much perhaps except for the fact that Deng decided to follow the East Asian fascist model. Of course, he didn't call it fascism(and the 'communist party' was still in control politically), and since Western intellectuals are Liberal, they don't want to associate 'fascism' with the rise of China either. But it was the fascist model--nationalism and limited economic freedom--that led to the rise of New China.

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler’s big mistake was invading Russia.

    An unavoidable mistake.Hitler’s great dream involved the destruction of the USSR and the creation of a German Empire in the East:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    21 years ago, the NYRB also published a famous "exposé" on "the tainted sources of The Bell Curve."

    John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end. In Nov. 1940, Hitler met with Molotov in Berlin and tried to get the USSR to formally join the Axis. The proposed alliance didn't come about because of allegedly extravagant territorial demands by Stalin. When AH did attack Russia, early successes inspired grandiose plans.
  34. @paul gottfried
    Peter Frost does not do a bad job identifying the dominant characteristics of interwar fascism, and I speak en cause de connaissance, having just completed a three-hundred page monograph on the subject. Nationalism (and national revolutions), Latin Catholic economic concepts, and an extended critique of the centrifugal force of liberalism (what we are now forced to call liberal democracy) were all constituent elements of fascist movements (or what I call generic fascism). Peter is also correct that unless one looks at interwar Europe, one cannot understand the political culture from whence fascism came. The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism. Franco was a man of the authoritarian Right and someone who was temporarily allied with Spanish fascists before divesting his Falangist allies of power under his later rule. Moreover, fascist anti-liberalism was for the most part theoretical. In Italian fascism (which may be the only example of generic fascism in practice known to scholars), economic arrangements were left almost entirely untouched. Until the Nazis took over Italy in 1943, fascist rule was not particularly brutal or murderous. And in 1943 the Italian constitutional monarch dismissed Mussolini as his prime minister. It took German intervention to put the fascist head back into his former post, albeit as a German puppet

    Mr. Gottfried,

    Will the facts in your monograph rise to this level of silliness:

    “One can also bring up the willingness of Southern leaders to free blacks and even to put them in grey uniforms”?

    Read More
  35. @Priss Factor
    "I don’t understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists."

    You make a good point in terms of raw politics. But I would still say Russia is still ruled by what might be called Russianism. (Stalin, though a Georgian, was also something of a Russian-ist, especially in contrast to Jewish Bolsheviks who were more internationalist).

    Putin has been for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church, the remembrance of Russian sacrifice and glory, for increasing birthrates among Russian whites, opposing the globlalist-homo-proxy-imperialist-agenda, and etc.
    So, even though there are many non-Russian oligarchs around Putin, Putin and his cohorts are motivated by Russian nationalism and promote such an outlook among the populace.
    It's not perfect but when we consider that Western Europe's official policy is to be anti-white, anti-European, anti-nationalist, and anti-traditionalist, then Russia stands in stark contrast.

    Putin works with oligarchs who are non-Russian, but he wants to see a Russia where more Russians gain in power, talent, and prosperity.
    So, thematically at least, Russia is run by Russianism if not exactly by Russians.

    What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general.
    The Orthodox Church traditionally emphasized submission and obedience through the ages. The German Protestant churches emphasized work ethic, individual conscience, and responsibility, all of which were crucial in the development of the hardworking and conscientious German character.
    Russians just learned to be obedient and lazy.

    Russia must turn into big Prussia. And then it will grow into a genuine great power.
    Under Stalin, it was the whip that drove people to work hard. But externally applied work ethic evaporates once the whip is removed. In contrast, internally generated work ethic continues even without the whip because one sincerely believes in the worth of work and diligence.
    Russians haven't developed such mindset.

    And America is ruled by Americans and some sort of non-ethnic “Americanism”, yet that seems to leave white ethnic desires unsatisfied. Russia is not ruled by anti-internationalists, it is ruled by internationalists of a different breed who want Moscow to be the center of the world. They disapprove of the kind of Russian nationalism that would just want to work on a Russian state.

    The Russian Orthodox Church and patriotism was “revived” during World War II when Stalin panicked about whether Russians would really fight for communism. It is a completely Sovietized monstrosity that is ruled by chekists and effectively considers Stalin one of its saints; whether Stalin should be literally canonized is actually debated. Nothing about this has changed since the 1940s and Putin’s interest in the revival of the church reflects his interest in the revival of Stalinism which the church champions.

    You can see this development most clearly in the parts of the Russian Orthodox Church that ended up outside of Russia after the revolution and World War II. The Finnish Orthodox Church, for example, split from the Russian Orthodox Church after the revolution and putting the churches back together has not happened because you hop over the border and you’ll see communist leaders hanging as icons in the walls…

    http://www.studiolum.com/wang/russian/holyiosif/005.jpg

    …while the FOC is mostly made up of descendants of refugees of the revolution and Stalinist mass deportations, in fact it used to be a bigger share of the population but in World War II the territorial losses hit the eastern parts (where the Orthodox villages were) and a lot of people who had been kicked out of their homes by Stalin converted out when they saw the Russian Orthodox Church glorifying Stalin as a de facto saint.

    Russian birth rates are nothing special, they’re about European average and still lower than for example in actually conservative Western Ukraine where the churches aren’t Stalinist…

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fertilityrate2011ua.PNG

    …while the Russian areas are incredibly low. People who talk about the amazing Russian conservative values really must not have traveled in Russia much. It is all very disappointing for a Finn considering that Tsarist Russia was mostly good for us (and certainly conservative which in the end doomed it). All of my ancestors fought for our Whites and I would have hoped that the end of communism would have brought some sort of a White counter-revolution but there is nothing there but a nation ruined by Reds attempting to sell Stalinism to Westerners as “conservative values”.

    Read More
  36. Tsunami or wildfire, there will be great devastation. If we were speaking about a forest there would be more concern and tears. From my house I can see Bronze Age burial mounds, 12th century churches. Five hundred metres away there are rune stones. Thousands of years of history. Who knows what will be left after the surge.

    Read More
  37. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tomi
    Mr. Frost is using terms liberalism and individualism in somewhat confusing way. It seems that to him individualism is synonymous with some sort of moral degradation and left-wing ideas. I can hardly see how this idiosyncratic interpretation refers to liberalism of Burke, Tocqueville, Mises or Rothbard, all kinds anarcho-capitalist social Darwinists and liberal nationalists of 19th century, reactionary Nietzschean individualism, Anglo-Saxon traditions, so-called traditional Germanic individualism, American fundamentalist protestantism, libertarian conservative constitutionalism etc. There are all kinds of liberal traditions and individualist lines of thinking: American social-democratic liberalism and right-wing classical liberalism, then there are different rationalist-progressive and skeptical-conservative currents among classical liberals etc. Also, since most progressives are collectivists - and authoritarian in their own twisted way - things become even more confusing.

    Sure, you can argue that any kind of individualism and freedom necessarily leads to moral and social decay. But you can argue that collectivism and authoritarianism lead to the same end too. History gives a lot of examples of that kind. Most authoritarian and collectivist societies - old fascist states, South American dictatorships, socialist and post-socialist societies of Eastern Europe - end up as cynical kleptocracies with collapsing economy and social disarray. Questions of opposition between liberalism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism are way too complex and I think that focusing on them misses the point in the case Mr. Frost is trying to make. Another problem with simple political definitions and classifications is the example of Sweden. Sweden has a somewhat above average demographic statistics and all kinds of social assistance to mothers and families. At the same time extramarital births and divorce rates are quite above average in Sweden and huge proportion of children don't live with both biological parents. Obviously states can give all kinds of welfare and keep their demographic statistics in order - but it has nothing to do with conservatism. Women give births but there is no traditional family. And what's the point of conservatism in the end - just improving birthrate statistics by any means, or living your life according to a certain set of values?

    Also, this political-historical approach is very similar to traditional cultural determinism of social pseudo-scientists. From sociobiological perspective wouldn't it be more logical to say that some people are just attracted to marriage and family and some aren't, that some are wired to find members of their own race more attractive and some aren't? If we accept the idea that tropical and subtropical races are more prone to large number of offspring, why shouldn't we follow the same sociobiological line of thinking when analyzing sexual behavior of white races and Western social classes? Before modern times many people were married and had families simply because they had to. Their marriages were miserable and their children were idiots. Now they aren't forced to marry by economic conditions or religious authorities and they are simply behaving in a more open way according to their nature. I don't believe that economic policies or moral propaganda can change individual genotypes and natural inclinations. They just create nice social illusions which are bound to be destroyed sooner or later by crude forces of nature. Many social phenomena are simply natural processes. Trying to change them is the same as trying to turn gays into heterosexuals, or to create geniuses out of idiots. It just doesn't work.

    “Mr. Frost is using terms liberalism and individualism in somewhat confusing way. It seems that to him individualism is synonymous with some sort of moral degradation and left-wing ideas.”

    Liberalism has gone from consensual-ism to consensus-ism. It went from arguing that two homosexuals who wanna do ‘sex’ on another is okay to arguing that ALL OF US must agree that homosexuality is wonderful or else be branded as a ‘homophobe’.

    In our PC Liberal order, EVEN IF YOU ARE FOR ‘GAY MARRIAGE’, you will be hounded, destroyed, and blacklisted in elite institutions and industries if you say, as a free individual, that you personally think homosexuality is ewwww and gross.

    Liberalism used to argue for right of creed and conscience. So, Liberals used to say that even communists and Stalinists were deserving of their civil liberties and should not be fired or blacklisted on the basis of their creed. Even though communists were anti-freedom, anti-elections, anti-property, and anti-constitution, they should have enjoy the rights of all other Americans. As American citizens, their rights should be protected by the Constitution EVEN IF their creed went against democratic principles. But these same Liberals now say that anyone who’s known to espouse ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘antisemitic’ creeds(even outside of work and purely in a personal manner) should be hounded, destroyed, and fired.

    Read More
  38. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    We now live in a world order where so-called ‘western liberal democracies’ are actually undermining genuine possibility of liberalism in other nations.

    I would like to see the growth of more personal and individual freedoms all over the world, but every nation should have the right of self-determination and develop its own version of democracy and freedom. After all, the US and European nations did just that.

    But US now uses its immense financial, cultural, intellectual, political, and military capital to push its own version of ‘liberal democracy’ on other nations.

    Imagine if Mexico tried to force its brand of democracy on Israel or Turkey. Israelis and Turks wouldn’t like it. Why would Israelis and Turks like it if Mexican oligarchs used tremendous amount of money, media power, and NGO’s to subvert Israel’s and Turkey’s national institutions and spread the kind of ideas and ‘values’ that undermined Israeli national pride and Turkish patriotism(while serving the interests of Mexican elites)?

    This is why US has undermined democracy in Russia. It’s true that Putin is an autocrat, but unless he keeps ruling as one, Russia will fall into the hands of aggressive globalist oligarchs in US and UK. And why should Russians do that? At the very least, Putin is a Russian patriot who cares about Russia.

    Russia should develop into a more liberal society, but it has to do so on its own terms. But whenever Russia allows more freedom, foreign agents enter and collude with Russian fifth columnists to hand Russia on a silver platter to globalist oligarchs. Thus, so-called globalist ‘liberal democracy’ undermines the hopes of liberalism and democracy in other nations. Yeltsin trusted the US, and look what happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The words "liberal democracy" and "neoliberalism" became a cover for a concept of neo-feudalism.
  39. @imnobody00
    @Peter Frost

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.

    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.
     

    I think there's no evidence about that. I don't know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example? Or any study that shows that this is possible? Any kind of evidence? Because I would love to know.

    By contrast, I see all the evidence going against this hypothesis. The European masses abandoning any kind of structure between the individual and the State. Abandoning Church and local religious communities, abandoning political groups (except when they want to take individualistic and short-term advantage of them) so revolutions such as the ones during the XIX century are no longer possible.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment. Marriage rates falling because people don't want to be "yoked" so they prefer cohabitation. Are these people the ones that are going to voluntarily submit to a kin-based structure? When they are not willing to submit to the nuclear family, which is the most basic, easy and natural kin-based structure? I don't think so. But I can be mistaken and I would love to know arguments against that.

    -----------

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It’s easy to be a defeatist. That way you don’t have to do anything, and you won’t feel guilty.

     

    Peter, I intellectually admire you a lot and I have followed you for years (on the "Evo and proud" blog). I have learned a lot from you and I have transmitted some of your information to my students.

    Having said that, I think this answer is unworthy of you.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives. If my arguments are wrong and you argue this with convincing reasons (or simply a link with these reasons), I am very open to reconsider. I don't think I am beyond mistake.

    But putting me a label ("defeatist") and questioning my motives only to dismiss my arguments is the cheapest trick in the world. It is not different that someone who tells you:

    Peter, it's easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don't have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter? Isn't it an ad-hominem attack, such as the one you did to me?

    Look, Peter, I don't want this to be a fight with you. I guess you answered this way because you were in a hurry and you didn't think through. But I had to say that. Best regards.

    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe – it is innately anti-family, anti-Christian(but pro Muslim), pro drug use, anti-free speech, etc. Basically all the elements that made Europe strong are being eradicated.

    In it’s place are atomized individuals. Which is the cold death of a people.

    Plop such a system down anywhere and the cultural bonds, sense of community, family will die out.

    That’s what happened to blacks when the Great Society program was enacted, their family structure broke apart within a few decades and now is a joke. Same is now happening to whites who get on the dole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The establishing of state's help for poor and weak was a great achievement of western civilization, on the same plane with the Bill of Rights. The dismantling of the safety net has been happening in the context of the diminished accountability of the "deciders," legalized lawlessness of mega-banks, and gradual elimination of meritocracy and equality before the law. This destruction of the societal order is due to the ability of big money to buy both government and legislature.
    The quantitative easing, war profiteering, and illegal wars (that are responsible for the rise of militant fundamentalism), all reflect on the lack of democracy. One only needs to compare the cost of wars and mega-banks for the society with an investment into education. You are right that the US is anti-family. There are no affordable childcare, no paid parental leave, no universal health-care in the country that spends hundreds of billions of dollars on the ruinous wars abroad and on propping the too-big-to-fail banks. That the big crooks are too-wealthy-to-jail is not a good example for the young generation. Even worse is the spectacle of US Congress prostrating for a dignitary from a small country that the US taxpayers support to the tune of $3 billion per/year (plus other "subsidies"), because certain wealthy donors "keep" the congresspeople.
  40. @Anonymous

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It’s a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.
     
    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European. And a religion that reintroduced patriarchal norms and restrictions on female sexual freedom presumably would better preserve genetic heritage.

    Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.

    Within a century of Islamization Europe will resemble Iraq. It will be a backward cesspit run by two bit theocrats. That’s what happened when they overran the Greek Levant, Sassind Persia and Roman North Africa, Byzantine Greek Anatolia. The so-called Islamic Golden Age was merely the last gasps of the native intellects before Islam silenced them forever.

    Islam isn’t just a religion, it’s way of life, politics and culture. It literally places a shotgun at the back of the head of intellectuals, should they go too far then it’s death for them. Innovation is not permitted in Islam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'm not advocating it or suggesting that it's good or desirable. I'm simply looking at it from the point of view of preservation of genetic heritage. Which assumes conversion, not population replacement.
  41. @Priss Factor
    "I don’t understand where people get the idea that Russia is ruled by Russians. The oligarchy and government is full of Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other high achieving minorities and the main opposition to Putin is from actually Slavic Russian nationalists."

    You make a good point in terms of raw politics. But I would still say Russia is still ruled by what might be called Russianism. (Stalin, though a Georgian, was also something of a Russian-ist, especially in contrast to Jewish Bolsheviks who were more internationalist).

    Putin has been for the restoration of the Russian Orthodox Church, the remembrance of Russian sacrifice and glory, for increasing birthrates among Russian whites, opposing the globlalist-homo-proxy-imperialist-agenda, and etc.
    So, even though there are many non-Russian oligarchs around Putin, Putin and his cohorts are motivated by Russian nationalism and promote such an outlook among the populace.
    It's not perfect but when we consider that Western Europe's official policy is to be anti-white, anti-European, anti-nationalist, and anti-traditionalist, then Russia stands in stark contrast.

    Putin works with oligarchs who are non-Russian, but he wants to see a Russia where more Russians gain in power, talent, and prosperity.
    So, thematically at least, Russia is run by Russianism if not exactly by Russians.

    What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general.
    The Orthodox Church traditionally emphasized submission and obedience through the ages. The German Protestant churches emphasized work ethic, individual conscience, and responsibility, all of which were crucial in the development of the hardworking and conscientious German character.
    Russians just learned to be obedient and lazy.

    Russia must turn into big Prussia. And then it will grow into a genuine great power.
    Under Stalin, it was the whip that drove people to work hard. But externally applied work ethic evaporates once the whip is removed. In contrast, internally generated work ethic continues even without the whip because one sincerely believes in the worth of work and diligence.
    Russians haven't developed such mindset.

    “What Putin really needs to do is to Prussianize and Protestantize the Russian Orthodox Church and culture in general.”

    I’m pretty confident that this will not happen, by Putin or anyone else. Whether or not your assertion is true, I lack the intellectual chops to debate, but the Orthodox take their religion seriously to an extent that westerners can’t really understand. They are very prickly about it and talk of things that happened a thousand years ago like it was yesterday.

    I first went to the Saker blog to try to understand what the hell (almost literally) was going on in Ukraine, but stayed, fascinated by a window on a really complicated social and historical environment forged by hundreds of of years tribal warfare and hatreds, but I was most surprised by his really strong views on, and support for his Church. Americans can’t really grasp this, I think. Many of us that even consider ourselves religious don’t approach this level of seriousness and generally view other, or even non- religions quite tolerantly. We are wide and shallow with respect to beliefs, comparatively (and to our advantage, until recently, in my opinion).

    Their faith is most likely why there even is still a Russia in existence and why it will probably continue after America becomes Brazil. We would do well to follow their example in some respects, and if our story ever gets even as fractionally horrendous, I hope we can.

    Read More
  42. In terms of escaping the liberal trend and it’s consequences, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for Europeans(whites). only an economic collapse may reverse this trend but Probably not. Not only must Europeans combat their Individualistic nature. They will go against elites that hate them. Ultimately once social taboos are broken it is very hard to go back to them, especially when there is no social pressure to do so and there is encouragement to loosen self control. this is clearly the case when it comes to marriage for example, once adultery is common and sex is relatively cheap, the value of marriage for males drops and with that comes many social ills and problems.

    The thing that I remember most when I first visited Europe as a child was the goths. For me it was a depressing sight that demonstrated to me that people there in sense had no stake in each other.

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @rod1963
    Within a century of Islamization Europe will resemble Iraq. It will be a backward cesspit run by two bit theocrats. That's what happened when they overran the Greek Levant, Sassind Persia and Roman North Africa, Byzantine Greek Anatolia. The so-called Islamic Golden Age was merely the last gasps of the native intellects before Islam silenced them forever.

    Islam isn't just a religion, it's way of life, politics and culture. It literally places a shotgun at the back of the head of intellectuals, should they go too far then it's death for them. Innovation is not permitted in Islam.

    I’m not advocating it or suggesting that it’s good or desirable. I’m simply looking at it from the point of view of preservation of genetic heritage. Which assumes conversion, not population replacement.

    Read More
  44. @Priss Factor
    We now live in a world order where so-called 'western liberal democracies' are actually undermining genuine possibility of liberalism in other nations.

    I would like to see the growth of more personal and individual freedoms all over the world, but every nation should have the right of self-determination and develop its own version of democracy and freedom. After all, the US and European nations did just that.

    But US now uses its immense financial, cultural, intellectual, political, and military capital to push its own version of 'liberal democracy' on other nations.

    Imagine if Mexico tried to force its brand of democracy on Israel or Turkey. Israelis and Turks wouldn't like it. Why would Israelis and Turks like it if Mexican oligarchs used tremendous amount of money, media power, and NGO's to subvert Israel's and Turkey's national institutions and spread the kind of ideas and 'values' that undermined Israeli national pride and Turkish patriotism(while serving the interests of Mexican elites)?

    This is why US has undermined democracy in Russia. It's true that Putin is an autocrat, but unless he keeps ruling as one, Russia will fall into the hands of aggressive globalist oligarchs in US and UK. And why should Russians do that? At the very least, Putin is a Russian patriot who cares about Russia.

    Russia should develop into a more liberal society, but it has to do so on its own terms. But whenever Russia allows more freedom, foreign agents enter and collude with Russian fifth columnists to hand Russia on a silver platter to globalist oligarchs. Thus, so-called globalist 'liberal democracy' undermines the hopes of liberalism and democracy in other nations. Yeltsin trusted the US, and look what happened.

    The words “liberal democracy” and “neoliberalism” became a cover for a concept of neo-feudalism.

    Read More
  45. @rod1963
    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe - it is innately anti-family, anti-Christian(but pro Muslim), pro drug use, anti-free speech, etc. Basically all the elements that made Europe strong are being eradicated.

    In it's place are atomized individuals. Which is the cold death of a people.

    Plop such a system down anywhere and the cultural bonds, sense of community, family will die out.

    That's what happened to blacks when the Great Society program was enacted, their family structure broke apart within a few decades and now is a joke. Same is now happening to whites who get on the dole.

    The establishing of state’s help for poor and weak was a great achievement of western civilization, on the same plane with the Bill of Rights. The dismantling of the safety net has been happening in the context of the diminished accountability of the “deciders,” legalized lawlessness of mega-banks, and gradual elimination of meritocracy and equality before the law. This destruction of the societal order is due to the ability of big money to buy both government and legislature.
    The quantitative easing, war profiteering, and illegal wars (that are responsible for the rise of militant fundamentalism), all reflect on the lack of democracy. One only needs to compare the cost of wars and mega-banks for the society with an investment into education. You are right that the US is anti-family. There are no affordable childcare, no paid parental leave, no universal health-care in the country that spends hundreds of billions of dollars on the ruinous wars abroad and on propping the too-big-to-fail banks. That the big crooks are too-wealthy-to-jail is not a good example for the young generation. Even worse is the spectacle of US Congress prostrating for a dignitary from a small country that the US taxpayers support to the tune of $3 billion per/year (plus other “subsidies”), because certain wealthy donors “keep” the congresspeople.

    Read More
  46. Presumably you don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    When I say kin-based, I mean you would be unable to move into a community unless you had a direct kinship tie to an existing resident. Otherwise, you would have to submit your candidacy to the community council. Each community would be free to set its own admission criteria, and there would always be the option of having no criteria at all, i.e., anyone and everyone could move in.

    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European.

    Such a person would become oriented toward the Muslim world, which is located overwhelmingly in Africa and Asia.

    May I enquire as to who you consider your main intellectual role models or influences?

    As an anthropology student, I was most influenced by Maurice Godelier and Pierre van den Berghe. I was not a full-fledged Marxist but I was strongly influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist writers. To be honest, I don’t feel I have changed that much intellectually since that time. The world around me has changed a lot more. Back in the 1980s, I joined an
    antiracist organization partly because I was an anthropology student and partly because I was concerned about globalization. I felt that globalization would lead to a rollback of working conditions and workers’ rights, so I thought it important to promote international worker
    solidarity.

    Today, the left has gone globalist and is more interested in defending tranny rights than workers’ rights. Who has changed, me or them? The only real change I have undergone is a growing realization that white folks now deserve the same kind of anthropological concern that has previously been felt for the Tibetans and for native peoples in the Americas.

    The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism.

    Franco limited the power of the Falangists initially because he was afraid they would drag Spain into WWII– a war that he knew the Axis powers could never win, especially with the entry of the U.S. After the war, there was much talk among the allies of “finishing the job,” and this further pushed Franco to marginalize the Falangists and de-emphasize the fascist nature of his regime.

    Ideologically, his regime was fascist in the sense that it rejected liberal democracy and drew heavily on the anti-liberal discourse of the Catholic Church. When I discuss this point with other people, I find that the main source of disagreement is the pejorative meaning of the word “fascist” in present-day English. “Fascist” is double-plus ungood. If one has any sympathy for poor old Franco, it’s better to find another word for his ideology.

    Your second point is valid. There were elements in fascism, particularly its futurism and fascination with science and technology, that would have pushed it farther and father away from the traditional world view of the Catholic Church. Even if fascism had survived the war, it would have become less and less fascist over time as a result of ideological cooling down, increasing influence by technocrats and business lobbyists, etc.

    I don’t know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example?

    I know of some small-scale attempts. In Quebec, many rural communities are now trying to repatriate young couples from the big city by offering them cash inducements. I’ve heard of similar programs in France but I don’t know much about them. Such measures would probably not survive a legal challenge in the U.S. because they create a distinction between “native families” and other people.

    That’s probably the main problem. It’s not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It’s the legal environment.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment.

    I see both kinds of people. Maybe you need to get out more.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives.

    I was describing your motives, not questioning them. If a person believes that the situation is hopeless, isn’t such a person a defeatist? What word would you prefer?

    It is not different than someone who tells you:

    Peter, it’s easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don’t have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter?

    It’s not valid because it’s incoherent. It’s like saying: “Why are you worried about the whales while doing nothing about climate change?” Since most people are apathetic and do nothing about either, it’s silly to criticize the relatively small number of whale lovers for not doing enough about climate change.

    FWIW, I am concerned about all human populations that are marginalized and in danger of extinction, not just white folks.

    But Doesn’t Social Security pay women even if they do not have children? So I am not understanding the Maternalist stuff when Social Security seems to be neutral on the issue of a woman having children or being married.

    If a woman wasn’t married to her boyfriend, she wouldn’t get a dime of social security if he died. That’s the difference. Also, a woman without children would get far less money than a woman with children.

    South America and Africa are becoming Christianized at ridiculous rates

    Actually, you’re wrong. In South America, there is a shift away from Catholicism and toward certain Protestant sects, generally Pentecostals. In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a general weakening of mainstream Christianity, with some people moving towards various new or syncretic sects.

    If we’re talking about what people are actually doing with their lives, Christianity is losing its hold on popular culture in both areas, especially among younger urban people. They’re into a rap/hip-hop scene much like that of “youths” in Europe.

    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe

    I used to feel the same way before I went to Russia, where the welfare state is very rudimentary. The penetration of liberalism during the Yeltsin years was disastrous — high rates of divorce, childlessness, etc. There’s more than just the welfare state at fault, and frankly I question the motives of people who peddle that line. Let’s get rid of the social safety net, and everything will be much, much better. Yeah sure.

    In terms of escaping the liberal trend and it’s consequences, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for Europeans(whites). only an economic collapse may reverse this trend

    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    Is that a comment on White Nationalism itself, or White Nationalists? To my mind, what you call Anti-Replacement is nearly the same thing as WN. If white countries had their pre-1968 demographics and immigration policy, WN would not exist. And by definition, neither would Anti-Replacementism.

    I would like to hear more about why WN-ists suck, and how one might determine the difference between a WN and an AR-ist before commenting further.
    , @David
    I think you're poo-pooing unfairly the countless harmful effects of the welfare state. Not to tell you anything you don't know, but it seems to me that social institutions grow up around social needs. Take away the need, kill the institution. Just one example, it's sad to me that in rural Vermont there is a federal program to pay for winter fuel. If that didn't exist, rural Vermonters would mobilize to share that task. We would see the care that is dormant in this community at least. Freeloaders would have to make eye contact with those they burden.
    , @Anonymous
    Contemporary secular society is already oriented towards Africa and Asia, and from the standpoint of preserving genetic heritage, arguably more so than Islam since Islam institutes patriarchal norms and restrictions on female sexual freedom that enable groups of males to restrict introgression.
  47. “Rock music initially seemed liberating, but it turned young people into herds of screaming un-thinking and anti-intellectual mobs. Look at Beatlemania. Look at everyone shaking and dancing the same way at rap concerts. Look at drug-addled drones at Rave concerts.”

    In the 70s there were various attempts to make rock music more political or intellectual/spiritual.

    The prog rock/ folk rock bands weren’t afraid to be elitist and encouraged audiences to sit down and think about what they were listening to. The later punk and industrial bands focused on small no thrills concerts and encouraged audiences to get angry and express their political angst.

    However, both approaches quickly ran out of steam creatively speaking, and were unsuited to the MTV-era based around sex, dance and raunch culture.

    Read More
  48. Alongside Steve Sailer, I find Peter Frost to be easily one of the most interesting and insightful writers on this site. This is a great article.

    Read More
  49. - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

    Sure, but kinship is hardly the only thing, or even the primary thing people look for when choosing a community. Otherwise places like Silicon Valley (and really, any urban settlement) would never have come into being. Nerds, and people of scientific/technical bent, enjoy the company of each other and have high trust in each other regardless of ethnicity.

    As a corollary, if most people do choose to retreat into kinship-based communities, I predict it will lead to a rollback from our modern science-based world into a medieval world. Technical and scientific progress will slow down to a snail’s pace as was the case until a few centuries ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    There was plenty of scientific progress before the immigration tsunami began. In fact, the majority of modern science began in white countries. Thus, there is no reason to think any freely associating white community will be an unscientific, medieval community.
  50. I am neither European, nor am I ”white” . I’m just saying that it is seems hopeless for you people for the reasons that I gave. that’s why only a collapse might reverse these trends but probably not.

    Read More
  51. @syonredux

    True, Nazism was destroyed in WWII and along with it went Fascist Italy. Hitler’s big mistake was invading Russia.
     
    An unavoidable mistake.Hitler's great dream involved the destruction of the USSR and the creation of a German Empire in the East:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    21 years ago, the NYRB also published a famous “exposé” on “the tainted sources of The Bell Curve.”

    John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end. In Nov. 1940, Hitler met with Molotov in Berlin and tried to get the USSR to formally join the Axis. The proposed alliance didn’t come about because of allegedly extravagant territorial demands by Stalin. When AH did attack Russia, early successes inspired grandiose plans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end."

    But why was it so important for Hitler to end the war with Great Britain? Because the UK threatened the existence of Nazi Empire?
    Or because Hitler admired the Anglos and wanted a long-term alliance with them than with Russians?

    UK could not defeat German-dominated Europe. Germany could have played for time, which was on its side as long as it kept USSR as an ally providing raw materials.

    But Hitler decided to attack the USSR because he racially preferred the Anglos over the Slavs.

    So, even if Hitler did have in mind to end the war with UK by attacking the USSR, it was about racial ideology. By defeating the USSR, Hitler would finally convince the Anglos to side with him and join forces with him in ruling the world.
  52. @Peter Frost
    Presumably you don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    When I say kin-based, I mean you would be unable to move into a community unless you had a direct kinship tie to an existing resident. Otherwise, you would have to submit your candidacy to the community council. Each community would be free to set its own admission criteria, and there would always be the option of having no criteria at all, i.e., anyone and everyone could move in.

    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European.

    Such a person would become oriented toward the Muslim world, which is located overwhelmingly in Africa and Asia.

    May I enquire as to who you consider your main intellectual role models or influences?

    As an anthropology student, I was most influenced by Maurice Godelier and Pierre van den Berghe. I was not a full-fledged Marxist but I was strongly influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist writers. To be honest, I don't feel I have changed that much intellectually since that time. The world around me has changed a lot more. Back in the 1980s, I joined an
    antiracist organization partly because I was an anthropology student and partly because I was concerned about globalization. I felt that globalization would lead to a rollback of working conditions and workers' rights, so I thought it important to promote international worker
    solidarity.

    Today, the left has gone globalist and is more interested in defending tranny rights than workers' rights. Who has changed, me or them? The only real change I have undergone is a growing realization that white folks now deserve the same kind of anthropological concern that has previously been felt for the Tibetans and for native peoples in the Americas.

    The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism.

    Franco limited the power of the Falangists initially because he was afraid they would drag Spain into WWII-- a war that he knew the Axis powers could never win, especially with the entry of the U.S. After the war, there was much talk among the allies of "finishing the job," and this further pushed Franco to marginalize the Falangists and de-emphasize the fascist nature of his regime.

    Ideologically, his regime was fascist in the sense that it rejected liberal democracy and drew heavily on the anti-liberal discourse of the Catholic Church. When I discuss this point with other people, I find that the main source of disagreement is the pejorative meaning of the word "fascist" in present-day English. "Fascist" is double-plus ungood. If one has any sympathy for poor old Franco, it's better to find another word for his ideology.

    Your second point is valid. There were elements in fascism, particularly its futurism and fascination with science and technology, that would have pushed it farther and father away from the traditional world view of the Catholic Church. Even if fascism had survived the war, it would have become less and less fascist over time as a result of ideological cooling down, increasing influence by technocrats and business lobbyists, etc.

    I don’t know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example?

    I know of some small-scale attempts. In Quebec, many rural communities are now trying to repatriate young couples from the big city by offering them cash inducements. I've heard of similar programs in France but I don't know much about them. Such measures would probably not survive a legal challenge in the U.S. because they create a distinction between "native families" and other people.

    That's probably the main problem. It's not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It's the legal environment.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment.

    I see both kinds of people. Maybe you need to get out more.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives.

    I was describing your motives, not questioning them. If a person believes that the situation is hopeless, isn't such a person a defeatist? What word would you prefer?

    It is not different than someone who tells you:

    Peter, it’s easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don’t have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter?

    It's not valid because it's incoherent. It's like saying: "Why are you worried about the whales while doing nothing about climate change?" Since most people are apathetic and do nothing about either, it's silly to criticize the relatively small number of whale lovers for not doing enough about climate change.

    FWIW, I am concerned about all human populations that are marginalized and in danger of extinction, not just white folks.

    But Doesn’t Social Security pay women even if they do not have children? So I am not understanding the Maternalist stuff when Social Security seems to be neutral on the issue of a woman having children or being married.

    If a woman wasn't married to her boyfriend, she wouldn't get a dime of social security if he died. That's the difference. Also, a woman without children would get far less money than a woman with children.

    South America and Africa are becoming Christianized at ridiculous rates

    Actually, you're wrong. In South America, there is a shift away from Catholicism and toward certain Protestant sects, generally Pentecostals. In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a general weakening of mainstream Christianity, with some people moving towards various new or syncretic sects.

    If we're talking about what people are actually doing with their lives, Christianity is losing its hold on popular culture in both areas, especially among younger urban people. They're into a rap/hip-hop scene much like that of "youths" in Europe.

    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe

    I used to feel the same way before I went to Russia, where the welfare state is very rudimentary. The penetration of liberalism during the Yeltsin years was disastrous -- high rates of divorce, childlessness, etc. There's more than just the welfare state at fault, and frankly I question the motives of people who peddle that line. Let's get rid of the social safety net, and everything will be much, much better. Yeah sure.

    In terms of escaping the liberal trend and it’s consequences, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for Europeans(whites). only an economic collapse may reverse this trend

    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    Is that a comment on White Nationalism itself, or White Nationalists? To my mind, what you call Anti-Replacement is nearly the same thing as WN. If white countries had their pre-1968 demographics and immigration policy, WN would not exist. And by definition, neither would Anti-Replacementism.

    I would like to hear more about why WN-ists suck, and how one might determine the difference between a WN and an AR-ist before commenting further.

    Read More
  53. @Peter Frost
    Presumably you don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    When I say kin-based, I mean you would be unable to move into a community unless you had a direct kinship tie to an existing resident. Otherwise, you would have to submit your candidacy to the community council. Each community would be free to set its own admission criteria, and there would always be the option of having no criteria at all, i.e., anyone and everyone could move in.

    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European.

    Such a person would become oriented toward the Muslim world, which is located overwhelmingly in Africa and Asia.

    May I enquire as to who you consider your main intellectual role models or influences?

    As an anthropology student, I was most influenced by Maurice Godelier and Pierre van den Berghe. I was not a full-fledged Marxist but I was strongly influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist writers. To be honest, I don't feel I have changed that much intellectually since that time. The world around me has changed a lot more. Back in the 1980s, I joined an
    antiracist organization partly because I was an anthropology student and partly because I was concerned about globalization. I felt that globalization would lead to a rollback of working conditions and workers' rights, so I thought it important to promote international worker
    solidarity.

    Today, the left has gone globalist and is more interested in defending tranny rights than workers' rights. Who has changed, me or them? The only real change I have undergone is a growing realization that white folks now deserve the same kind of anthropological concern that has previously been felt for the Tibetans and for native peoples in the Americas.

    The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism.

    Franco limited the power of the Falangists initially because he was afraid they would drag Spain into WWII-- a war that he knew the Axis powers could never win, especially with the entry of the U.S. After the war, there was much talk among the allies of "finishing the job," and this further pushed Franco to marginalize the Falangists and de-emphasize the fascist nature of his regime.

    Ideologically, his regime was fascist in the sense that it rejected liberal democracy and drew heavily on the anti-liberal discourse of the Catholic Church. When I discuss this point with other people, I find that the main source of disagreement is the pejorative meaning of the word "fascist" in present-day English. "Fascist" is double-plus ungood. If one has any sympathy for poor old Franco, it's better to find another word for his ideology.

    Your second point is valid. There were elements in fascism, particularly its futurism and fascination with science and technology, that would have pushed it farther and father away from the traditional world view of the Catholic Church. Even if fascism had survived the war, it would have become less and less fascist over time as a result of ideological cooling down, increasing influence by technocrats and business lobbyists, etc.

    I don’t know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example?

    I know of some small-scale attempts. In Quebec, many rural communities are now trying to repatriate young couples from the big city by offering them cash inducements. I've heard of similar programs in France but I don't know much about them. Such measures would probably not survive a legal challenge in the U.S. because they create a distinction between "native families" and other people.

    That's probably the main problem. It's not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It's the legal environment.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment.

    I see both kinds of people. Maybe you need to get out more.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives.

    I was describing your motives, not questioning them. If a person believes that the situation is hopeless, isn't such a person a defeatist? What word would you prefer?

    It is not different than someone who tells you:

    Peter, it’s easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don’t have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter?

    It's not valid because it's incoherent. It's like saying: "Why are you worried about the whales while doing nothing about climate change?" Since most people are apathetic and do nothing about either, it's silly to criticize the relatively small number of whale lovers for not doing enough about climate change.

    FWIW, I am concerned about all human populations that are marginalized and in danger of extinction, not just white folks.

    But Doesn’t Social Security pay women even if they do not have children? So I am not understanding the Maternalist stuff when Social Security seems to be neutral on the issue of a woman having children or being married.

    If a woman wasn't married to her boyfriend, she wouldn't get a dime of social security if he died. That's the difference. Also, a woman without children would get far less money than a woman with children.

    South America and Africa are becoming Christianized at ridiculous rates

    Actually, you're wrong. In South America, there is a shift away from Catholicism and toward certain Protestant sects, generally Pentecostals. In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a general weakening of mainstream Christianity, with some people moving towards various new or syncretic sects.

    If we're talking about what people are actually doing with their lives, Christianity is losing its hold on popular culture in both areas, especially among younger urban people. They're into a rap/hip-hop scene much like that of "youths" in Europe.

    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe

    I used to feel the same way before I went to Russia, where the welfare state is very rudimentary. The penetration of liberalism during the Yeltsin years was disastrous -- high rates of divorce, childlessness, etc. There's more than just the welfare state at fault, and frankly I question the motives of people who peddle that line. Let's get rid of the social safety net, and everything will be much, much better. Yeah sure.

    In terms of escaping the liberal trend and it’s consequences, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for Europeans(whites). only an economic collapse may reverse this trend

    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    I think you’re poo-pooing unfairly the countless harmful effects of the welfare state. Not to tell you anything you don’t know, but it seems to me that social institutions grow up around social needs. Take away the need, kill the institution. Just one example, it’s sad to me that in rural Vermont there is a federal program to pay for winter fuel. If that didn’t exist, rural Vermonters would mobilize to share that task. We would see the care that is dormant in this community at least. Freeloaders would have to make eye contact with those they burden.

    Read More
  54. That’s probably the main problem. It’s not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It’s the legal environment.

    In the US you can get around it with freedom of religion. Freedom of association isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, so it was easier to dispense with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.
  55. The welfare state worked well in high trust homogeneous societies. There was a sense that you were supporting your own and most people did not exploit the system. But those times have finished in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Note that much of the postwar welfare states have been subsidized by US defense.
  56. @Numinous

    - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.
     
    Sure, but kinship is hardly the only thing, or even the primary thing people look for when choosing a community. Otherwise places like Silicon Valley (and really, any urban settlement) would never have come into being. Nerds, and people of scientific/technical bent, enjoy the company of each other and have high trust in each other regardless of ethnicity.

    As a corollary, if most people do choose to retreat into kinship-based communities, I predict it will lead to a rollback from our modern science-based world into a medieval world. Technical and scientific progress will slow down to a snail's pace as was the case until a few centuries ago.

    There was plenty of scientific progress before the immigration tsunami began. In fact, the majority of modern science began in white countries. Thus, there is no reason to think any freely associating white community will be an unscientific, medieval community.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous
    I am not saying that such kinship-based communities will "lose" whatever science we possess now, but that there won't be any innovation (or such innovation will proceed at a snail's pace.) One does not need to have a scientific worldview and deep scientific understanding to keep all our modern systems running as they currently are; most technicians and mechanics follow basic thumb rules that can be passed down through the generations, just like medieval guilds did. My point was that if communities were to be solely built around kinship, then the community becomes preoccupied with the maintenance of kinship networks and the exclusion of non-kin; innovation that might change society is frowned upon. (The castes of my country, India, are a testament to this process.)

    As for scientific progress in white countries, it was triggered precisely at the time when individuals felt themselves free to associate with like-minded people instead of being tied down within kin-based communities. For all the damage that the Communists did to Russian society and family, pretty much all scientific output from Russia came after the Bolshevik revolution. On the flip side, the Amish have not been known to make any contributions to science or technology.
  57. @Bill P

    That’s probably the main problem. It’s not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It’s the legal environment.
     
    In the US you can get around it with freedom of religion. Freedom of association isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, so it was easier to dispense with it.

    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.
     
    Well, arguably it is a fundamental human right, and countries that deny it, like the US does, are behaving in a totalitarian manner.

    But the legal barrier erected by the Civil Rights bill is too steep and too entrenched. We have only what is provided in the Bill of Rights, so we have to work with that. And even there, homosexual activists are working overtime to overturn religious freedom. I wonder sometimes whether the big push for gay rights isn't a cynical ploy to undermine the 1st amendment, because it's certainly being used that way.

    I guess the only problem with using religious freedom is that it leaves atheists out, but religion and kin-based communities tend to go hand in hand. Honestly, I think one without the other is doomed to failure. If you think about the human concept of the divine, it's almost always based to some extent on the family. Heavenly father, Mary Mother of God, Children of Israel, Greek Pantheon, etc.

    The problem today, as I see it, is that our main religions are obsolete and need an update. Perhaps not wholesale replacement, but some changes that reflect our contemporary understanding of the world. Although it annoys me when people make crude jokes about the irrational nature of religious beliefs, I have to admit they have a point. But what they don't seem to grasp is that in their time, religious beliefs reflected as sophisticated an understanding of the world as any that existed. For a long, long time - perhaps a thousand years - Christians had a better understanding of the natural world than secular folks, and certainly a more sophisticated one than the Northern European pagans who preceded them.

    So it isn't religion that is a barrier to knowledge, but rather obsolete religion and philosophy, such as fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. And if we're going to be honest here, orthodox forms of Christianity have been obsolete for hundreds of years.
    , @Anonymous
    Islamic schools and Asian restaurants aren't examples of the sort of free association we're talking about here, which involves explicitly excluding specific categories of people. Islamic schools and Asian restaurants aren't legally permitted to exclude specific categories of people. Just as NASCAR events aren't.
  58. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @fnn
    21 years ago, the NYRB also published a famous "exposé" on "the tainted sources of The Bell Curve."

    John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end. In Nov. 1940, Hitler met with Molotov in Berlin and tried to get the USSR to formally join the Axis. The proposed alliance didn't come about because of allegedly extravagant territorial demands by Stalin. When AH did attack Russia, early successes inspired grandiose plans.

    “John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end.”

    But why was it so important for Hitler to end the war with Great Britain? Because the UK threatened the existence of Nazi Empire?
    Or because Hitler admired the Anglos and wanted a long-term alliance with them than with Russians?

    UK could not defeat German-dominated Europe. Germany could have played for time, which was on its side as long as it kept USSR as an ally providing raw materials.

    But Hitler decided to attack the USSR because he racially preferred the Anglos over the Slavs.

    So, even if Hitler did have in mind to end the war with UK by attacking the USSR, it was about racial ideology. By defeating the USSR, Hitler would finally convince the Anglos to side with him and join forces with him in ruling the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Tooze said that it was obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war on the side of the Brits and the resources of the USSR were needed to give the Axis a chance to win the war. The Axis at that time had nothing remotely comparable to the Midwestern Breadbasket or the Texas oilfields. Lukacs said that Hitler knew that the Sovs were negotiating with the Brits behind his back-he expected the Reds to switch sides at the opportune moment. The outrageous demands-according to Hitler-that Molotov made at the Nov. 1940 convinced him that they would turn on him when they thought they could get away with it.
  59. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Tacitus2016
    The welfare state worked well in high trust homogeneous societies. There was a sense that you were supporting your own and most people did not exploit the system. But those times have finished in the West.

    Note that much of the postwar welfare states have been subsidized by US defense.

    Read More
  60. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Though Jonah Goldberg is a shallow thinker, his book “Liberal Fascism” did make some interesting points.

    There was considerable overlap between fascism and Liberalism during the 1930s and 1940s. And in terms of social control, the Liberal Elite have turned more toward fascist-style control of the populace.

    Fascists and National Socialists believed in appealing to the ‘irrational’ nature of the people: the high emotions, powerful passions, wild sentiments, power of imagery and music. In other words, over-ride the mind and senses with sensory overload of pageantry, spectacle, rallies, and will-to-power displays.

    The ideal of traditional liberalism has been to foster the free-thinking individual who is critical, skeptical, rational, empirical, and logical. In order to create such individuals, it requires patience, diligence, discipline, and commitment. After all, people have to learn to think critically, logically, and empirically. One cannot be Enlightened just by following one’s passions or relying on hysteria, emotions, and ecstasy. One has to control the emotions and rely on one’s own critical faculty.

    But as it turned out, most people were dummies and could not be trained to think as free individuals with critical acumen and integrity for truth and logic. If we use reason, facts, and logic, we would realize that much of PC is bogus. Therefore, the New Liberalism no longer stresses logic, empirical facts, reason, and individual conscience. It promotes the kind of consensus-building hysteria and maniacal passions seen in fascist rallies and communist pageantry. (Also, capitalism profits from using mania and hysteria to sell stuff to people. Hollywood and music industry would suffer if people had better tastes in the arts and culture. They need to spread infantile emotions that scream for more candy and soma.) The homo parades in the US aren’t much different from North Korean or Cuban commie parades. They rely on hysteria, mania, and rapture. Consider how homosexuality has been associated with the ‘rainbow’. Via the Pavlovian trick of sensory-association, most people associate homosexuality with ‘rainbow’ colors. Not very rational, is it?

    Even though Liberals say the “debate is over on ‘gay marriage’”, the fact is there was never a real debate as anyone who disagreed was destroyed by the media, government, academia, and etc. They were hounded as mentally sick ‘homophobes’, which is like how Communists in the USSR used to ‘diagnose’ anti-Marxists as mentally sick since Revolutionary ‘Reason’ and ‘Logic’ cannot possibly disagree with the truth of ‘materialist science’ of Marxism. Instead of a debate, there’s been a massive campaign to spread the ‘gay’ agenda as a heaven-sent gift and to smear anyone who opposes the ‘gay agenda’ as ‘anti-gay homophobic’ degenerate who is LESS EVOLVED(subhuman) to boot. Yes, the Liberal media designate those who disagree with ‘gay marriage’ as ‘less evolved’. Though Liberals contend to be secular and atheist, they have no compunction about taking over churches and associating Jesus with ‘gay marriage’ too. So, even religion and spirituality are cool as long as they are for Wars for Israel(among Neocons) and Victory for homos(among Liberals). Just like there was no real debate over the Iraq War, there was no real debate over ‘gay marriage’. The powers-that-be rammed it through, and American Conservative establishment was either bribed or threatened into muted submission. Some liberal democracy. And the US tried to use this issue to start a new cold war with Russia. Today, the ‘rainbow’ flag is the victory flag of US neo-imperialism all around the world.

    So, even though its goes by the name of ‘Liberalism’, its tactics and tools are hardly different from that of Soviet Communists and National Socialists. The New Liberalism isn’t about logic, truth, reason, or facts. It’s about Power and Control through controlling minds through the hysteria, spectacle, pageantry, mania, and debauchery — all of which undermine critical functions, logic, reason, and sense — through TV, movies, education(that is more about indoctrination than debate and discussion), and government. Take Cass Sunstein who is less interested in making people consciously aware of right and wrong than manipulating them by ‘nudging’ their ‘irrational’ impulses. He looks upon humanity more as guinea pigs or children to manipulate and steer than as sentient thinking beings who can be trained and trusted to think on their own.

    So, in a way, we are indeed living in a Liberal Fascist order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    Though Liberals contend to be secular and atheist, they have no compunction about taking over churches and associating Jesus with ‘gay marriage’ too.
     
    Yeah, when they had the gay marriage vote in Washington state, the pro-gay side was funded by all these local billionaires and had something like a 10-1 financial advantage. So they used all this campaign money to buy ads that featured "Christians" extolling the virtues of gay marriage. If I weren't so jaded, it would have made me angry, but I already knew these people are liars without any honor or principles.

    Even with their huge financial advantage and probable vote fraud in King County, they still barely squeaked by, winning by only about 1% in hard-left Washington state.
  61. @Anonym
    There was plenty of scientific progress before the immigration tsunami began. In fact, the majority of modern science began in white countries. Thus, there is no reason to think any freely associating white community will be an unscientific, medieval community.

    I am not saying that such kinship-based communities will “lose” whatever science we possess now, but that there won’t be any innovation (or such innovation will proceed at a snail’s pace.) One does not need to have a scientific worldview and deep scientific understanding to keep all our modern systems running as they currently are; most technicians and mechanics follow basic thumb rules that can be passed down through the generations, just like medieval guilds did. My point was that if communities were to be solely built around kinship, then the community becomes preoccupied with the maintenance of kinship networks and the exclusion of non-kin; innovation that might change society is frowned upon. (The castes of my country, India, are a testament to this process.)

    As for scientific progress in white countries, it was triggered precisely at the time when individuals felt themselves free to associate with like-minded people instead of being tied down within kin-based communities. For all the damage that the Communists did to Russian society and family, pretty much all scientific output from Russia came after the Bolshevik revolution. On the flip side, the Amish have not been known to make any contributions to science or technology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    "There was considerable overlap between fascism and Liberalism during the 1930s and 1940s. And in terms of social control, the Liberal Elite have turned more toward fascist-style control of the populace."

    Not just during the 1930s and 1940s - in the 50s, 60s and 70s corporatist economics was the dominant form of economic organisation in most western and East Asian countries.

    In many ways this era blended the best aspects of post-fascist corporatism and liberalism, with government's striving to balance the interests of successful or cultured individuals with those of the majority. For example, public broadcasting focused on high culture and gentlemanly debate, while economic policy was geared towards full employment and moderating economic inequality between classes.

    A pervasive feature of modern neo-liberal economics is a large number of semi-privatised organisations which have been given a mandate to operate in their own interest. For example, today we have large numbers of underemployed university graduates because the universities have to make a profit and no longer have a responsibility to ensure that student intake for law, teaching, nursing etc is regulated according to government and private sector demand.

  62. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    Presumably you don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    When I say kin-based, I mean you would be unable to move into a community unless you had a direct kinship tie to an existing resident. Otherwise, you would have to submit your candidacy to the community council. Each community would be free to set its own admission criteria, and there would always be the option of having no criteria at all, i.e., anyone and everyone could move in.

    If the goal is to preserve the genetic heritage of Europe, then a European converting or adopting different values would not cease to be European.

    Such a person would become oriented toward the Muslim world, which is located overwhelmingly in Africa and Asia.

    May I enquire as to who you consider your main intellectual role models or influences?

    As an anthropology student, I was most influenced by Maurice Godelier and Pierre van den Berghe. I was not a full-fledged Marxist but I was strongly influenced by Marxist and neo-Marxist writers. To be honest, I don't feel I have changed that much intellectually since that time. The world around me has changed a lot more. Back in the 1980s, I joined an
    antiracist organization partly because I was an anthropology student and partly because I was concerned about globalization. I felt that globalization would lead to a rollback of working conditions and workers' rights, so I thought it important to promote international worker
    solidarity.

    Today, the left has gone globalist and is more interested in defending tranny rights than workers' rights. Who has changed, me or them? The only real change I have undergone is a growing realization that white folks now deserve the same kind of anthropological concern that has previously been felt for the Tibetans and for native peoples in the Americas.

    The only things in his characterization that I would correct are the identification of General Franco as a fascist and an exaggerated emphasis on the anti-liberal aspects of generic fascism.

    Franco limited the power of the Falangists initially because he was afraid they would drag Spain into WWII-- a war that he knew the Axis powers could never win, especially with the entry of the U.S. After the war, there was much talk among the allies of "finishing the job," and this further pushed Franco to marginalize the Falangists and de-emphasize the fascist nature of his regime.

    Ideologically, his regime was fascist in the sense that it rejected liberal democracy and drew heavily on the anti-liberal discourse of the Catholic Church. When I discuss this point with other people, I find that the main source of disagreement is the pejorative meaning of the word "fascist" in present-day English. "Fascist" is double-plus ungood. If one has any sympathy for poor old Franco, it's better to find another word for his ideology.

    Your second point is valid. There were elements in fascism, particularly its futurism and fascination with science and technology, that would have pushed it farther and father away from the traditional world view of the Catholic Church. Even if fascism had survived the war, it would have become less and less fascist over time as a result of ideological cooling down, increasing influence by technocrats and business lobbyists, etc.

    I don’t know of any attempt to build stable kin-based communities that has succeeded between the European masses. Do you know any example?

    I know of some small-scale attempts. In Quebec, many rural communities are now trying to repatriate young couples from the big city by offering them cash inducements. I've heard of similar programs in France but I don't know much about them. Such measures would probably not survive a legal challenge in the U.S. because they create a distinction between "native families" and other people.

    That's probably the main problem. It's not the presumed decadence of young people nowadays. It's the legal environment.

    I see the European masses losing contact with extended family, destroying their nuclear family (divorce) to pursue individualistic fulfillment.

    I see both kinds of people. Maybe you need to get out more.

    We are talking about societal trends and you start questioning my personal motives.

    I was describing your motives, not questioning them. If a person believes that the situation is hopeless, isn't such a person a defeatist? What word would you prefer?

    It is not different than someone who tells you:

    Peter, it’s easy to be racist and complain about population replacement when you are white. This way, you don’t have to do nothing to end discrimination against non-whites and can happily enjoy your privilege.

    Does this seem a valid argument to you, Peter?

    It's not valid because it's incoherent. It's like saying: "Why are you worried about the whales while doing nothing about climate change?" Since most people are apathetic and do nothing about either, it's silly to criticize the relatively small number of whale lovers for not doing enough about climate change.

    FWIW, I am concerned about all human populations that are marginalized and in danger of extinction, not just white folks.

    But Doesn’t Social Security pay women even if they do not have children? So I am not understanding the Maternalist stuff when Social Security seems to be neutral on the issue of a woman having children or being married.

    If a woman wasn't married to her boyfriend, she wouldn't get a dime of social security if he died. That's the difference. Also, a woman without children would get far less money than a woman with children.

    South America and Africa are becoming Christianized at ridiculous rates

    Actually, you're wrong. In South America, there is a shift away from Catholicism and toward certain Protestant sects, generally Pentecostals. In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a general weakening of mainstream Christianity, with some people moving towards various new or syncretic sects.

    If we're talking about what people are actually doing with their lives, Christianity is losing its hold on popular culture in both areas, especially among younger urban people. They're into a rap/hip-hop scene much like that of "youths" in Europe.

    The European masses are losing their culture and everything else because of the corrosive nature of the welfare state that defines Europe

    I used to feel the same way before I went to Russia, where the welfare state is very rudimentary. The penetration of liberalism during the Yeltsin years was disastrous -- high rates of divorce, childlessness, etc. There's more than just the welfare state at fault, and frankly I question the motives of people who peddle that line. Let's get rid of the social safety net, and everything will be much, much better. Yeah sure.

    In terms of escaping the liberal trend and it’s consequences, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for Europeans(whites). only an economic collapse may reverse this trend

    This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    Contemporary secular society is already oriented towards Africa and Asia, and from the standpoint of preserving genetic heritage, arguably more so than Islam since Islam institutes patriarchal norms and restrictions on female sexual freedom that enable groups of males to restrict introgression.

    Read More
  63. “This is why White Nationalists suck. Instead of doing real things in the real world, they seek refuge in fantasism.

    Is that a comment on White Nationalism itself, or White Nationalists? To my mind, what you call Anti-Replacement is nearly the same thing as WN. If white countries had their pre-1968 demographics and immigration policy, WN would not exist. And by definition, neither would Anti-Replacementism.”

    Thanks Anonym. The word “suck”, while I am not opposed to using pop phrases sometimes as I do it myself, “suck” is one that I never use mostly because it suggests vaguely…sex, and probably less vaguely, that there is a vacuum , as in absence of sense.

    White Nationalism is anything but devoid of substance. Its substance may be questioned, and should be, like anything else, but ‘suck’ here for Mr. Frost sounds like an evasion.

    Couple of comments:

    1. the historical contexts remarked by Mr. Frost are good, but maybe not an A, just a B or B+.

    2. He states: “Similarly, the Soviet Union abandoned its initial liberalism a..” I disagree that the October Revolution was in any way Liberal. Kerensky was a liberal and he and his liberal cohort were purged. (He died in Palo Alto, as I recall a decade or so back.)

    Communism was such a decisive break with the Second International kind of tame Socialism, that it has to be seen as something quite New, although not without the old Jacobinism of 1789 and for that matter, with what is going on now with the Neocons. Milk and Water socialism was the still liberal Second Socialist International.

    The main reason for the Communist break with the old socialism was that the old socialism had ‘sold out’ and settled for what we call social democracy today. Democratic Socialism like the Fabians was still Liberal. Communism has not a liberal bone in its body, and certainly never asserted Individualism. In fact, its collectivism was, psychologically an appeal to the WE that Fascism more directly asserted. And, Liberalism and Communism thus split Modernism between them, that is they both appealed to System and Rationality, but radically differing in their view of System and Rationality.

    3. And this may be just a continuation of #2, Mussolini and his father had been lifelong socialists. Mussolini was embittered by the breakdown of Socialist Solidarity when the war started. He therefore began his search for another politics, and became what we would probably agree: a nationalist and ultra conservative with regard to what we I think can all agree was the mushrooming modernism of the Old Liberalism….the decay into the Cash Nexus.

    4. I note Mr. Frost’s left-wing sympathies as a youth, similar to mine as a youth. This testifies to High Altruism. I wonder if he still carries enough of that surplus altruism to refuse going the whole hog on Darwinism/Evolution. That is, to recognize extreme inequality, and the consequent result politically: that socially we can have Harmonious Hierarchy within a single racial cohort, as well as political structure reflective of that social reality. What I have in mind is a political structure akin to the Catholic Church’s governance.

    5. WN may or may not ‘suck’ but it lays it on the line pretty much, and is not coy about talking about a reconstructed political as well as social regime/reality/architecture.

    5a. How to retain as much democracy as possible, and most importantly, how to get Whites in loving relationship to one-another. This love is respect and community, not go0-goo Brook Farm and utopian socialist , extreme liberal, psychology.

    5b. The rock on which liberalism has been wrecked is High Abstractions without empirical bases.
    Love is not abstract.

    5c. Then, the crazy feelings of today’s extreme liberalism are the result of very unrealistic expectations, and a desperation, probably related to the failure of religious Faith, and based on feelings of hopelessness. Dreams die hard department. All of the above are in some large part, a result of personal alienation from personal relationships…family, love life, neighborhood instability, and (Marx’s ) “All that is Solid, Melts into the air.”

    5d. hence postmodernism and its anarchy. Hence post-post Modernism…and that is us. The Return to Conservatism based not on Money but on solid personal relations, children, family, community, and race.

    Feelings not Reason…is that fascist?

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  64. @Anonym
    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.

    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.

    Well, arguably it is a fundamental human right, and countries that deny it, like the US does, are behaving in a totalitarian manner.

    But the legal barrier erected by the Civil Rights bill is too steep and too entrenched. We have only what is provided in the Bill of Rights, so we have to work with that. And even there, homosexual activists are working overtime to overturn religious freedom. I wonder sometimes whether the big push for gay rights isn’t a cynical ploy to undermine the 1st amendment, because it’s certainly being used that way.

    I guess the only problem with using religious freedom is that it leaves atheists out, but religion and kin-based communities tend to go hand in hand. Honestly, I think one without the other is doomed to failure. If you think about the human concept of the divine, it’s almost always based to some extent on the family. Heavenly father, Mary Mother of God, Children of Israel, Greek Pantheon, etc.

    The problem today, as I see it, is that our main religions are obsolete and need an update. Perhaps not wholesale replacement, but some changes that reflect our contemporary understanding of the world. Although it annoys me when people make crude jokes about the irrational nature of religious beliefs, I have to admit they have a point. But what they don’t seem to grasp is that in their time, religious beliefs reflected as sophisticated an understanding of the world as any that existed. For a long, long time – perhaps a thousand years – Christians had a better understanding of the natural world than secular folks, and certainly a more sophisticated one than the Northern European pagans who preceded them.

    So it isn’t religion that is a barrier to knowledge, but rather obsolete religion and philosophy, such as fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. And if we’re going to be honest here, orthodox forms of Christianity have been obsolete for hundreds of years.

    Read More
  65. @Priss Factor
    Though Jonah Goldberg is a shallow thinker, his book "Liberal Fascism" did make some interesting points.

    There was considerable overlap between fascism and Liberalism during the 1930s and 1940s. And in terms of social control, the Liberal Elite have turned more toward fascist-style control of the populace.

    Fascists and National Socialists believed in appealing to the 'irrational' nature of the people: the high emotions, powerful passions, wild sentiments, power of imagery and music. In other words, over-ride the mind and senses with sensory overload of pageantry, spectacle, rallies, and will-to-power displays.

    The ideal of traditional liberalism has been to foster the free-thinking individual who is critical, skeptical, rational, empirical, and logical. In order to create such individuals, it requires patience, diligence, discipline, and commitment. After all, people have to learn to think critically, logically, and empirically. One cannot be Enlightened just by following one's passions or relying on hysteria, emotions, and ecstasy. One has to control the emotions and rely on one's own critical faculty.

    But as it turned out, most people were dummies and could not be trained to think as free individuals with critical acumen and integrity for truth and logic. If we use reason, facts, and logic, we would realize that much of PC is bogus. Therefore, the New Liberalism no longer stresses logic, empirical facts, reason, and individual conscience. It promotes the kind of consensus-building hysteria and maniacal passions seen in fascist rallies and communist pageantry. (Also, capitalism profits from using mania and hysteria to sell stuff to people. Hollywood and music industry would suffer if people had better tastes in the arts and culture. They need to spread infantile emotions that scream for more candy and soma.) The homo parades in the US aren't much different from North Korean or Cuban commie parades. They rely on hysteria, mania, and rapture. Consider how homosexuality has been associated with the 'rainbow'. Via the Pavlovian trick of sensory-association, most people associate homosexuality with 'rainbow' colors. Not very rational, is it?

    Even though Liberals say the "debate is over on 'gay marriage'", the fact is there was never a real debate as anyone who disagreed was destroyed by the media, government, academia, and etc. They were hounded as mentally sick 'homophobes', which is like how Communists in the USSR used to 'diagnose' anti-Marxists as mentally sick since Revolutionary 'Reason' and 'Logic' cannot possibly disagree with the truth of 'materialist science' of Marxism. Instead of a debate, there's been a massive campaign to spread the 'gay' agenda as a heaven-sent gift and to smear anyone who opposes the 'gay agenda' as 'anti-gay homophobic' degenerate who is LESS EVOLVED(subhuman) to boot. Yes, the Liberal media designate those who disagree with 'gay marriage' as 'less evolved'. Though Liberals contend to be secular and atheist, they have no compunction about taking over churches and associating Jesus with 'gay marriage' too. So, even religion and spirituality are cool as long as they are for Wars for Israel(among Neocons) and Victory for homos(among Liberals). Just like there was no real debate over the Iraq War, there was no real debate over 'gay marriage'. The powers-that-be rammed it through, and American Conservative establishment was either bribed or threatened into muted submission. Some liberal democracy. And the US tried to use this issue to start a new cold war with Russia. Today, the 'rainbow' flag is the victory flag of US neo-imperialism all around the world.

    So, even though its goes by the name of 'Liberalism', its tactics and tools are hardly different from that of Soviet Communists and National Socialists. The New Liberalism isn't about logic, truth, reason, or facts. It's about Power and Control through controlling minds through the hysteria, spectacle, pageantry, mania, and debauchery --- all of which undermine critical functions, logic, reason, and sense --- through TV, movies, education(that is more about indoctrination than debate and discussion), and government. Take Cass Sunstein who is less interested in making people consciously aware of right and wrong than manipulating them by 'nudging' their 'irrational' impulses. He looks upon humanity more as guinea pigs or children to manipulate and steer than as sentient thinking beings who can be trained and trusted to think on their own.

    So, in a way, we are indeed living in a Liberal Fascist order.

    Though Liberals contend to be secular and atheist, they have no compunction about taking over churches and associating Jesus with ‘gay marriage’ too.

    Yeah, when they had the gay marriage vote in Washington state, the pro-gay side was funded by all these local billionaires and had something like a 10-1 financial advantage. So they used all this campaign money to buy ads that featured “Christians” extolling the virtues of gay marriage. If I weren’t so jaded, it would have made me angry, but I already knew these people are liars without any honor or principles.

    Even with their huge financial advantage and probable vote fraud in King County, they still barely squeaked by, winning by only about 1% in hard-left Washington state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-charles-hardie/gays-are-gods-protecting-lgbt_b_6748868.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
  66. it just occurred to me that Mr. Frost may have been, in referencing the Russian Revolution’s abandonment of liberalism, that he meant Kerensky, not Lenin (in brief).

    So apologies if so. However, that the Russian Revolution in its fundamental essence, as in forget Kerensky, ever had a liberal element, that is not true.

    One could argue that things could have been different if the Bolsheviks had not seized power.

    But…so the Russian Revolution was Bolshevik, and the world has not been the same since.

    Also, any genuine understanding of its excesses, shall we say, is lost on the current batch of Jacobins on a Mission from Whatever. Arguably, of course, this rebellion can be argued as just genetic, and therefore bound to recur forever, regardless of history.

    Grand Inquisitor : Men are slaves of course, but rebellious by nature.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  67. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    A nation can be thematically fascist even if not politically fascist.

    Suppose there’s a democracy where most people are very nationalistic, into blood-and-soil, proud of their heritage, have a sacred sense of connection to the land, and militant in defending their identity and interests.

    It may be a political democracy but it would be a thematically fascist society.

    There’s no guarantee that democracy will serve liberalism.

    In Israel, democracy seems to be moving toward more fascist themes of race, culture, heritage, identity, and blood and soil.

    Also, there’s what might be called sub-fascism even in Liberal Democracies.

    Take Scandinavian nations that are officially and politically Liberal.
    But can the success of Scandinavian societies really be explained by its ‘liberal democratism’? If so, why aren’t Greece and Southern Italy doing as well when they too are ‘liberal democracies’? Or what about Latin American nations, most of which have also adopted ‘liberal democratic’ model? And how come Japanese liberal democracy produced a bigger economy than the democracy of Philippines and Indonesia? Indeed, how come some autocratic nations have produced a bigger economy than some liberal democratic nations?

    Why is Scandinavia really successful? Scans might like to point to their democracy and social welfare system, but would such work in Africa? Don’t fascists have a better explanation as to the success of Scandinavian nations?

    Homogeneity, talented race of high IQ achievers, culture of work ethic/discipline/diligence/thoroughness, culture of community and cooperation, culture of national and ethnic trust, temperament of Northern Europeans that are controlled and even than that of hotblooded Arabs and wild black Africans, and etc? (And the virtues of Scandinavian national character were developed and formed BEFORE the coming of democracy and social-welfare system.)

    Today’s Scandinavians may publicly and officially scoff at such values, but aren’t those virtues and values — much prized by fascists — the real reason for the success of Scandinavia? After all, even good social-democratic governance depends on the national character of the populace, and national character almost always preceded the development of liberal democracy. The national character of Japanese/Germans is likely to make a more productive use of democracy and free enterprise than the national characters of Kenyans or Malaysians. After all, Chinese in Malaysia, due to reasons of cultural character and higher IQ, seem to be doing much better than native Malaysians.

    So, even if a nation isn’t politically fascist, its success may owe to subfascist themes of homogeneity, racial characteristics, unity, discipline, work ethic, cohesiveness, and etc.

    I would wager that even if Sweden were taken over by an autocratic ruler who promoted nationalism and race-ism, it will do fine economically(as long as the economic model isn’t communist) and even better than it is doing now.
    But if we were to export and graft the Scandinavian system on most nations around the world that are too diverse, lacking in positive national character, and etc, the result will be mass theft, chaos, and stupidity.

    It’s like what Steve Sailer wrote about Wisconsin’s ‘social-democratic’ system. It worked fine for German-Americans who believe in work and in paying into the system as well as taking out of it. But it didn’t work for blacks who came to Wisconsin just to take and take and take.

    This is where fascism is smarter than social-democracy. Social-democracy can work but it’s based on the naive notion that all races are the same, culture doesn’t matter, and that it’s all about economic policies and materialist considerations.
    No, the mind and soul matters, and different cultures and races have produced different kinds of minds and souls that affect the functioning of the body.

    This is why fascist-socialism emphasizes not only the state’s obligation to the people but also the people’s moral and spiritual obligation to the community, culture, and nation. This is why Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has been careful not to spread the kind of welfare socialism that prevailed in the UK that just spoiled the underclasses with cult of victimhood and encouraged them to act like louts and never take any responsibility for their behavior that became ever more infantile and dependent as time passed.

    If you’re gonna have socialism, it’s better to have fascist-socialism that uplifts the spirit and not only provides basic services but pushes the people, especially the poor, to lead responsible lives and love the nation, show loyalty to one’s fellow countrymen, and feel a sacred/reverential connection to one’s community. And this was the positive side of National Socialism and the New Deal. If the state is to provide for the people, the people of the nation must love the nation, defend the nation, and lead the kind of lives that ‘spiritually’ pay tribute to heritage and identity. Otherwise, socialism just becomes a materialist means to get free stuff in exchange for nothing. Scandinavian social-democracy has worked so far because the Scandinavian ‘national character’ was forged through centuries of spiritual, moral, and social discipline. Also, Scandinavia were racially homogeneous people of relatively high IQ.

    If Scandinavians ignore all that and think their success is owed to latest fads in Political Correctness that is a radically demented corruption of Protestant reform tradition, they will lose it all.

    Read More
  68. […] great hope of liberalism in both its classical form and certainly even more so in its modern form was to unlock human […]

    Read More
  69. @Priss Factor
    "John Lukacs and Adam Tooze have written that AH attacked the SU as a last resort because Britain refused to bring the war to an end."

    But why was it so important for Hitler to end the war with Great Britain? Because the UK threatened the existence of Nazi Empire?
    Or because Hitler admired the Anglos and wanted a long-term alliance with them than with Russians?

    UK could not defeat German-dominated Europe. Germany could have played for time, which was on its side as long as it kept USSR as an ally providing raw materials.

    But Hitler decided to attack the USSR because he racially preferred the Anglos over the Slavs.

    So, even if Hitler did have in mind to end the war with UK by attacking the USSR, it was about racial ideology. By defeating the USSR, Hitler would finally convince the Anglos to side with him and join forces with him in ruling the world.

    Tooze said that it was obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war on the side of the Brits and the resources of the USSR were needed to give the Axis a chance to win the war. The Axis at that time had nothing remotely comparable to the Midwestern Breadbasket or the Texas oilfields. Lukacs said that Hitler knew that the Sovs were negotiating with the Brits behind his back-he expected the Reds to switch sides at the opportune moment. The outrageous demands-according to Hitler-that Molotov made at the Nov. 1940 convinced him that they would turn on him when they thought they could get away with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Tooze said that it was obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war on the side of the Brits and the resources of the USSR were needed to give the Axis a chance to win the war. The Axis at that time had nothing remotely comparable to the Midwestern Breadbasket or the Texas oilfields. Lukacs said that Hitler knew that the Sovs were negotiating with the Brits behind his back-he expected the Reds to switch sides at the opportune moment. The outrageous demands-according to Hitler-that Molotov made at the Nov. 1940 convinced him that they would turn on him when they thought they could get away with it."

    I think Tooze is depending too much on hindsight.

    For one thing, with the fall of France, all of Europe was either on the side of Hitler or neutral. There was no way UK could defeat Germany. Also, US needed a reason to enter the war, and as long as Germany or Japan didn't attack the US, US would not have entered the war. (Besides, given that US and UK took time(1944!) to invade Normandy and take on the Germans in a substantive way, it's obvious that neither wanted a major continental confrontation with Germany. If Germans hadn't been engaged with the Russians, it's doubtful that UK and US would have defeated Germany. Or it would have cost them dearly. After all, it took millions of Russians to fight off and defend the Germans). It was because Germans were bled in Russia that the Western allies had a relatively easier time pushing from West and South.

    Also, while Stalin was deviously trying to play both sides, he really didn't trust the Brits. Also, the fact that he trusted Hitler so much(up to the Blitzkrieg that took him totally by surprise) suggests that Stalin rather liked Hitler and was flattered to be his ally. Stalin was convinced that Britain's trick was to instigate a war between Germany and Russia so that the two totalitarian powers would destroy one another while the Anglo empires of UK and US would gain in world power. He saw it as a trap and wasn't about to fall for it.

    Besides, Stalin must have known that if he turned against Hitler, he could trigger a war between Germany and Russia. Even if USSR might eventually win, it would be badly bloodied by it. And why would Stalin have wanted that?

    If Hitler had kept the peace with USSR in 1941, there would have been no reason for US to enter the war. And UK would have realized soon enough that it simply cannot defeat Germany all on its own. The result would have been a Germany-dominated Western Europe and Soviet Union as the great continental powers. UK would have made an uneasy peace with Germany. And US would have had to live with it.

    Americans were too anti-war in 1941 prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Indeed, the great majority of Americans were anti-war even after the German attack on Russia. If not for the attack on Pearl Harbor, American public opinion would not have supported US entering the war.
  70. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @fnn
    Tooze said that it was obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war on the side of the Brits and the resources of the USSR were needed to give the Axis a chance to win the war. The Axis at that time had nothing remotely comparable to the Midwestern Breadbasket or the Texas oilfields. Lukacs said that Hitler knew that the Sovs were negotiating with the Brits behind his back-he expected the Reds to switch sides at the opportune moment. The outrageous demands-according to Hitler-that Molotov made at the Nov. 1940 convinced him that they would turn on him when they thought they could get away with it.

    “Tooze said that it was obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war on the side of the Brits and the resources of the USSR were needed to give the Axis a chance to win the war. The Axis at that time had nothing remotely comparable to the Midwestern Breadbasket or the Texas oilfields. Lukacs said that Hitler knew that the Sovs were negotiating with the Brits behind his back-he expected the Reds to switch sides at the opportune moment. The outrageous demands-according to Hitler-that Molotov made at the Nov. 1940 convinced him that they would turn on him when they thought they could get away with it.”

    I think Tooze is depending too much on hindsight.

    For one thing, with the fall of France, all of Europe was either on the side of Hitler or neutral. There was no way UK could defeat Germany. Also, US needed a reason to enter the war, and as long as Germany or Japan didn’t attack the US, US would not have entered the war. (Besides, given that US and UK took time(1944!) to invade Normandy and take on the Germans in a substantive way, it’s obvious that neither wanted a major continental confrontation with Germany. If Germans hadn’t been engaged with the Russians, it’s doubtful that UK and US would have defeated Germany. Or it would have cost them dearly. After all, it took millions of Russians to fight off and defend the Germans). It was because Germans were bled in Russia that the Western allies had a relatively easier time pushing from West and South.

    Also, while Stalin was deviously trying to play both sides, he really didn’t trust the Brits. Also, the fact that he trusted Hitler so much(up to the Blitzkrieg that took him totally by surprise) suggests that Stalin rather liked Hitler and was flattered to be his ally. Stalin was convinced that Britain’s trick was to instigate a war between Germany and Russia so that the two totalitarian powers would destroy one another while the Anglo empires of UK and US would gain in world power. He saw it as a trap and wasn’t about to fall for it.

    Besides, Stalin must have known that if he turned against Hitler, he could trigger a war between Germany and Russia. Even if USSR might eventually win, it would be badly bloodied by it. And why would Stalin have wanted that?

    If Hitler had kept the peace with USSR in 1941, there would have been no reason for US to enter the war. And UK would have realized soon enough that it simply cannot defeat Germany all on its own. The result would have been a Germany-dominated Western Europe and Soviet Union as the great continental powers. UK would have made an uneasy peace with Germany. And US would have had to live with it.

    Americans were too anti-war in 1941 prior to the Pearl Harbor attack. Indeed, the great majority of Americans were anti-war even after the German attack on Russia. If not for the attack on Pearl Harbor, American public opinion would not have supported US entering the war.

    Read More
  71. @Joe Walker
    Since most Muslim nations are hellholes, I think it is unlikely that most Europeans will convert to Islam.

    Muslims countries are hell holes because of their people, not because of Islam. Islam is currently the only force pushing back against liberalism while White right wingers are busy LARPing and arguing with each other over the Internet. There’s no reason why Europeans couldn’t adopt Islam and still survive, like the Bosnians and Albanians have already done. Christianity is dead. The left has done a very good job of deconstructing it and there’s no way in hell Europeans are going to reconvert en masse to what is essentially a superannuated religion that is actively working to replace them. Besides, humanism and liberalism are by products of Christianity, which is a weak, passive, and feminine religion, the embodiment of Nietzsche’s slave morality. Oswald Spengler was rigt when he said Christian theology was the godmother of Bolshevism. How could things have turned out differently when Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek and held up poverty, weakness, and suffering as virtues? We only think Islam is cruel because prosperity has made us weak. It may just be a sad fact of life that society ultimately needs some way to weed out subversives and undesirables.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Muslims countries are hell holes because of their people, not because of Islam. Islam is currently the only force pushing back against liberalism while White right wingers are busy LARPing and arguing with each other over the Internet. There’s no reason why Europeans couldn’t adopt Islam and still survive, like the Bosnians and Albanians have already done. Christianity is dead.
     
    If Christianity is dead, Islam is a shambling zombie, stumbling ever onward to consume its next victim.
  72. if most people do choose to retreat into kinship-based communities, I predict it will lead to a rollback from our modern science-based world into a medieval world. Technical and scientific progress will slow down to a snail’s pace as was the case until a few centuries ago.

    In theory, “diverse” neighborhoods are said to be a rich source of intellectual and artistic vibrancy, thanks to cross-pollination of different lifestyles and cultures. In reality, nothing of the sort happens. I’ve lived in both multicultural and monocultural neighborhoods, and the possibilities for interaction are much greater in the latter. In a multicultural situation, I have to watch my tongue, for fear of saying something that may seem offensive. Conversation is often reduced to banalities, or to nothing at all. (A surprising number of immigrants have only a minimal ability to converse in English or French).

    In Canada, monoculture was overwhelmingly the norm until the postwar era and largely the norm into the 1960s. That’s not “several centuries ago.”

    I am neither European, nor am I ”white” . I’m just saying that it is seems hopeless for you people for the reasons that I gave.

    Whoops! You talk so much like a WN I assumed you were one.

    “Hopeless” is a strange word to use for something that is not an act of God. We’re talking about policies, and policies can be changed.

    In the mid-1980s, most people assumed that the Cold War would last into the next century. The East German government even had plans to build a new “high tech” Berlin wall with infrared sensors and the latest in computer technology. A few years later, that wall came down. A similar process may play out over the next few years.

    I would like to hear more about why WN-ists suck, and how one might determine the difference between a WN and an AR-ist before commenting further.

    “White nationalism” is almost exclusively a North American phenomenon. The term is not normally used in Europe, where each country has its own nationalist party. If we compare white nationalism with European nationalist movements, we can see several differences:

    1. Across Western Europe, nationalists have been elected to most legislatures. In Denmark, they are part of the ruling coalition. In the U.S. and Canada, no white nationalists have ever been elected to public office, at least not in recent years. Nor is there a white nationalist party that can field a full slate of candidates.

    2. In the popular vote, nationalist parties are now in the double digits across most of Western Europe. In France, the Front National now has between one quarter and one third of the popular vote. In the U.S., the white nationalist share of the popular vote is infinitesimal.

    3. In Western Europe, nationalists organize mass demonstrations, processions, and the like. The Lega Nord was able to rally 40,000 of its supporters in Milan for a demonstration against immigration. In North America, WN demonstrations are rare and involve only small groups of people. It is really only in the American South where we see well organized nationalist demos, like the recent ones against Tyson Foods and other poultry plants (which have been bringing in low-wage migrant labor despite high levels of unemployment). Such nationalists, however, eschew the term “white nationalist.”

    4. Nationalist activity in North America is largely confined to the American South and Quebec. In both areas, nationalism is rooted in a regional culture and cannot truly be called “white nationalism.”

    5. Despite or because of the freer legal environment in the United States, white nationalism is overwhelmingly an Internet phenomenon that engages in very little real world action. This is in contrast to the situation in Western Europe, where the Internet plays a more secondary role.

    6. Obsessive anti-Semitism is much more common among WNs than among European nationalists. This is only partly because of differences in legal environment. In Western Europe, nationalists concentrate on fighting demographic replacement, and are willing to accept Jewish members into their ranks. In North America, anti-Semitism crowds out discourse on other topics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Numinous

    In theory, “diverse” neighborhoods are said to be a rich source of intellectual and artistic vibrancy, thanks to cross-pollination of different lifestyles and cultures. In reality, nothing of the sort happens.
     
    I wasn't referring to that at all. Your observations about having to watch one's mouth for fear of offending others strike me as being on the money when it comes to a completely random mix of peoples. I was specifically referring to a mix of people who already share a lot in common, except for ethnicity. Like people who have specific skills and expertise, as in the scientific/technical arena. Or even in sports; the standard of any sport eventually reaches a plateau when restricted to a single country. When players of different countries interact and play with each other on a continuous basis, the sporting standards of the entire world increases. (European soccer leagues are one example of this.) Given the option to move, there are a lot of people who gravitate towards those with whom they share interests and endeavors, without regard for ethnicity.

    What I am saying is that your vision of communities based purely on kinship could have a lot of takers, but it won't be stable. There will be a lot of people who would want to break away to join people of different ethnicities based on shared interests.

    , @Anonym
    Thanks Peter.

    Whiteness as a basis for political organizing makes sense in the Anglo colonies, of which there are a few - USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa. Most have seen general European immigration for a number of decades long enough ago that "White" is now about as defined as you can get. The European nationalist strategy will not work very well in the colonies for that reason. And since, in the last 20 years especially, citizenship is basically a passport, appealing to the nationalism of the colony is not as effective as it once was. That is not to say that anti-replacement efforts are not cloaked in the national flags. They often are.

    Point 2. As Webb says, this is probably as much an issue of FPTP voting as anything else. If you look to the comments sections of unrestricted news articles, it is obvious that the mind-share of HBD/AR/iSteve-o-sphere/WN has grown immensely over the last 10-15 years. As the trendy people say these days, it's now "a thing". Obviously you realize this and the latent power in this exponential expansion of mind-share, which is why you make mention of the Berlin Wall phenomenon to another poster. We may not yet have much political representation but we are an intelligentsia that is beginning our own long march through the institutions.

    Point 6. I see this changing, especially as some Jews wake up to the fact that living in white areas is better than living in multi-racial areas. However, the fact that the USA has basically the same population of Jews as Israel, and makes up ~2% of the US population has a big influence on US WN. It is also hard to deny that Jews have been instrumental in the changing demographics and the soft-power enforcement of PC through Hollywood. Maybe WN as a word is tainted in this regard, though anti-immigration sentiment is growing and I think as more Jews find themselves on the anti-immigration side, the anti-Semitism will lessen.

    The key issue here is that replacement is a bad thing and needs to stop. If Jews help stop it, well then what is the problem? It is fairly obvious from reading the iSteve comments, there are a lot of Jews and partial Jews on there who genuine and not anti-racist sock puppets. This is a good thing.
  73. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JustJeff
    Muslims countries are hell holes because of their people, not because of Islam. Islam is currently the only force pushing back against liberalism while White right wingers are busy LARPing and arguing with each other over the Internet. There's no reason why Europeans couldn't adopt Islam and still survive, like the Bosnians and Albanians have already done. Christianity is dead. The left has done a very good job of deconstructing it and there's no way in hell Europeans are going to reconvert en masse to what is essentially a superannuated religion that is actively working to replace them. Besides, humanism and liberalism are by products of Christianity, which is a weak, passive, and feminine religion, the embodiment of Nietzsche's slave morality. Oswald Spengler was rigt when he said Christian theology was the godmother of Bolshevism. How could things have turned out differently when Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek and held up poverty, weakness, and suffering as virtues? We only think Islam is cruel because prosperity has made us weak. It may just be a sad fact of life that society ultimately needs some way to weed out subversives and undesirables.

    Muslims countries are hell holes because of their people, not because of Islam. Islam is currently the only force pushing back against liberalism while White right wingers are busy LARPing and arguing with each other over the Internet. There’s no reason why Europeans couldn’t adopt Islam and still survive, like the Bosnians and Albanians have already done. Christianity is dead.

    If Christianity is dead, Islam is a shambling zombie, stumbling ever onward to consume its next victim.

    Read More
  74. good analysis of differences in Europe vs. the US Mr. Frost.

    with regard to #6, you are correct largely, except for American Renaissance.

    The European equivalents of US White Nationalism, are much more fearful of overt Racialism, and thus have advanced Identity as opposed to race. They are also more Philosophically oriented and thus vulnerable to post-modernist nonsense which in one instance, allows them to assert a right to Difference for Whites since Others are doing so. (I think this is ridiculous, and so much for Philosophy.) Yet some argue that there is some “intellectual respectability” in this. Perhaps, but in the US Philosophy does not carry much water. The anti-intellectuality of the US might turn out to be a plus…in the longer term.

    You neglected to mention PR, which allows small parties a chance to get on the ballot as well as to receive some public funds with which to campaign. Thus proportionality is not only a given in the legal sense in Europe, but its very existence tends to make small parties more respectable in the first place. There is legitimacy of sorts, in other words, if you get enough votes to get onto the ballot. This is what has hastened the counter-revolution in Europe.

    Plus, the very radical Otherness of muzzles is much more pronounced than our Mexicans. And it is New. Our Mexicans have also been around for quite a long time, and, despite their gangsters, mostly are deferential, polite, and, willing to work…even if they also collect welfare. So Europe has been blind-sided in a way that the US has not.

    In the US, we have been long used to Blacks, despite their current apparent extreme despair since after a half-century of Programs and lots of affirmative action doles that still don’t make enough difference to cool them out….and they are starting to recognize their Failure, and just want to scapegoat Whitey now, so it may be that things get much worse, but anyway, we are used to them.

    Thus the situation in Europe is more grave, more stark, more threatening, more dramatic, in one word. This is probably the fundamental reason why Europe is apparently ahead of us in the US, with our ‘softer’ problems with Mexicans, and our hard problems with Blacks, but again, we are used to them….and then there is the Guilt dynamic, which while diminishing, is still there .
    ———–
    A couple of us have asked you how Any anti-replacement type movement can practically be theorized and a real start be fostered in practical politics. You have not responded to this query, except to heavily criticize the WN that is present.

    It may be that nothing can be done right now except to observe the racial polarization, the polarization of the two political parties, the racialization of the two parties, and the increasing desperation/recrimination of both sides.

    It is a truism that our two-party system prevents more radical change, but thereby it contributes to more dangerous politics, a politics without the safety-valve of PR. Arguably PR would allow for more movement in terms of realignment, and lower the temperature in what is becoming a pressure-cooker : our current two-party system.

    I am not pushing Peace and Moderation, I am advocating more freedom of discussion and a chance of movement instead of the log-jamb we presently have…whose potential for the obvious is building.

    The only political force that I can imagine which will advance the conflicts toward some form of resolution in a democratic/elections manner, is a new Populism. Third Party? Both political parties appear to be stuck. Identity might be a useful approach since there is so much magic in various words that we commonly use. I dunno.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I was surprised by the political success of the Tea Party.

    It could happen again.

  75. “Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists — and not by hostile outsiders.”

    Furthermore, left liberalism is best defined by left-liberals and not libertarians with some conservatives characteristics. I’m sick of seeing hearing people on the mainstream right say that the liberal left isn’t about individual autonomy, when the liberal left constantly talks about personal autonomy, particular the mantra that things that can’t be self-chosen like race, nationality or gender should be made not to matter.

    Read More
  76. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Bill P

    Though Liberals contend to be secular and atheist, they have no compunction about taking over churches and associating Jesus with ‘gay marriage’ too.
     
    Yeah, when they had the gay marriage vote in Washington state, the pro-gay side was funded by all these local billionaires and had something like a 10-1 financial advantage. So they used all this campaign money to buy ads that featured "Christians" extolling the virtues of gay marriage. If I weren't so jaded, it would have made me angry, but I already knew these people are liars without any honor or principles.

    Even with their huge financial advantage and probable vote fraud in King County, they still barely squeaked by, winning by only about 1% in hard-left Washington state.
    Read More
  77. @Jim
    Peter - let me first commend you for a very interesting article.

    Regarding the weaknesses of the traditional Christian churches in Europe do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn't seem sympathetic to liberalism. What do you think will be the effect of Islam in the long term on Europe? I tend to suspect that much of the Western European population will eventually convert to Islam. This will likely lead to bloody internal conflict in Europe.

    I think it is unlikely that Islam will gain many converts. It appeals to malcontents and, while it delivers structure, it does not offer anything beautiful, kind, or rational for the long term. But for its pathetic enforcement device of death for apostasy, few converts would persist in their initial mistake.

    Read More
  78. This is why you can’t really sell white nationalism to Europeans. National identities already exist and they guarantee some solidarity within the nations and provide resistance to demographic changes. White solidarity and resistance to demographic changes in America is non-existent so “whiteness” as a basis of nationalism is clearly a failure compared to Frenchness, Hungarianness, Italianness etc. Who would switch a partly working idea for an idea that clearly doesn’t work at all?

    As for anti-Semitism, Jews tend to be on the list of suspects of European nationalists (even though most won’t admit it publically now) but they’re not necessarily very high on that list so they don’t come across as anti-Semitic obsessives. Right now the average Greek is much more likely to rant about greedy German bankers than Jewish bankers. That’s another thing that feels really suspicious about “white nationalism” – the list of enemies is far too short!

    Not all European nationalists worry about Jews, either, since some countries really never had a Jewish minority. Finnish nationalism, for example, developed in the 19th century when we were finding a place inside the Russian empire and Jews were mostly seen as potential allies in looking for minority rights. There is no old form of anti-Semitic nationalism here.

    Read More
  79. @Peter Frost
    if most people do choose to retreat into kinship-based communities, I predict it will lead to a rollback from our modern science-based world into a medieval world. Technical and scientific progress will slow down to a snail’s pace as was the case until a few centuries ago.

    In theory, "diverse" neighborhoods are said to be a rich source of intellectual and artistic vibrancy, thanks to cross-pollination of different lifestyles and cultures. In reality, nothing of the sort happens. I've lived in both multicultural and monocultural neighborhoods, and the possibilities for interaction are much greater in the latter. In a multicultural situation, I have to watch my tongue, for fear of saying something that may seem offensive. Conversation is often reduced to banalities, or to nothing at all. (A surprising number of immigrants have only a minimal ability to converse in English or French).

    In Canada, monoculture was overwhelmingly the norm until the postwar era and largely the norm into the 1960s. That's not "several centuries ago."

    I am neither European, nor am I ”white” . I’m just saying that it is seems hopeless for you people for the reasons that I gave.


    Whoops! You talk so much like a WN I assumed you were one.

    "Hopeless" is a strange word to use for something that is not an act of God. We're talking about policies, and policies can be changed.

    In the mid-1980s, most people assumed that the Cold War would last into the next century. The East German government even had plans to build a new "high tech" Berlin wall with infrared sensors and the latest in computer technology. A few years later, that wall came down. A similar process may play out over the next few years.

    I would like to hear more about why WN-ists suck, and how one might determine the difference between a WN and an AR-ist before commenting further.


    "White nationalism" is almost exclusively a North American phenomenon. The term is not normally used in Europe, where each country has its own nationalist party. If we compare white nationalism with European nationalist movements, we can see several differences:

    1. Across Western Europe, nationalists have been elected to most legislatures. In Denmark, they are part of the ruling coalition. In the U.S. and Canada, no white nationalists have ever been elected to public office, at least not in recent years. Nor is there a white nationalist party that can field a full slate of candidates.

    2. In the popular vote, nationalist parties are now in the double digits across most of Western Europe. In France, the Front National now has between one quarter and one third of the popular vote. In the U.S., the white nationalist share of the popular vote is infinitesimal.

    3. In Western Europe, nationalists organize mass demonstrations, processions, and the like. The Lega Nord was able to rally 40,000 of its supporters in Milan for a demonstration against immigration. In North America, WN demonstrations are rare and involve only small groups of people. It is really only in the American South where we see well organized nationalist demos, like the recent ones against Tyson Foods and other poultry plants (which have been bringing in low-wage migrant labor despite high levels of unemployment). Such nationalists, however, eschew the term "white nationalist."

    4. Nationalist activity in North America is largely confined to the American South and Quebec. In both areas, nationalism is rooted in a regional culture and cannot truly be called "white nationalism."

    5. Despite or because of the freer legal environment in the United States, white nationalism is overwhelmingly an Internet phenomenon that engages in very little real world action. This is in contrast to the situation in Western Europe, where the Internet plays a more secondary role.

    6. Obsessive anti-Semitism is much more common among WNs than among European nationalists. This is only partly because of differences in legal environment. In Western Europe, nationalists concentrate on fighting demographic replacement, and are willing to accept Jewish members into their ranks. In North America, anti-Semitism crowds out discourse on other topics.

    In theory, “diverse” neighborhoods are said to be a rich source of intellectual and artistic vibrancy, thanks to cross-pollination of different lifestyles and cultures. In reality, nothing of the sort happens.

    I wasn’t referring to that at all. Your observations about having to watch one’s mouth for fear of offending others strike me as being on the money when it comes to a completely random mix of peoples. I was specifically referring to a mix of people who already share a lot in common, except for ethnicity. Like people who have specific skills and expertise, as in the scientific/technical arena. Or even in sports; the standard of any sport eventually reaches a plateau when restricted to a single country. When players of different countries interact and play with each other on a continuous basis, the sporting standards of the entire world increases. (European soccer leagues are one example of this.) Given the option to move, there are a lot of people who gravitate towards those with whom they share interests and endeavors, without regard for ethnicity.

    What I am saying is that your vision of communities based purely on kinship could have a lot of takers, but it won’t be stable. There will be a lot of people who would want to break away to join people of different ethnicities based on shared interests.

    Read More
  80. @joe webb
    good analysis of differences in Europe vs. the US Mr. Frost.

    with regard to #6, you are correct largely, except for American Renaissance.

    The European equivalents of US White Nationalism, are much more fearful of overt Racialism, and thus have advanced Identity as opposed to race. They are also more Philosophically oriented and thus vulnerable to post-modernist nonsense which in one instance, allows them to assert a right to Difference for Whites since Others are doing so. (I think this is ridiculous, and so much for Philosophy.) Yet some argue that there is some "intellectual respectability" in this. Perhaps, but in the US Philosophy does not carry much water. The anti-intellectuality of the US might turn out to be a plus...in the longer term.

    You neglected to mention PR, which allows small parties a chance to get on the ballot as well as to receive some public funds with which to campaign. Thus proportionality is not only a given in the legal sense in Europe, but its very existence tends to make small parties more respectable in the first place. There is legitimacy of sorts, in other words, if you get enough votes to get onto the ballot. This is what has hastened the counter-revolution in Europe.

    Plus, the very radical Otherness of muzzles is much more pronounced than our Mexicans. And it is New. Our Mexicans have also been around for quite a long time, and, despite their gangsters, mostly are deferential, polite, and, willing to work...even if they also collect welfare. So Europe has been blind-sided in a way that the US has not.

    In the US, we have been long used to Blacks, despite their current apparent extreme despair since after a half-century of Programs and lots of affirmative action doles that still don't make enough difference to cool them out....and they are starting to recognize their Failure, and just want to scapegoat Whitey now, so it may be that things get much worse, but anyway, we are used to them.

    Thus the situation in Europe is more grave, more stark, more threatening, more dramatic, in one word. This is probably the fundamental reason why Europe is apparently ahead of us in the US, with our 'softer' problems with Mexicans, and our hard problems with Blacks, but again, we are used to them....and then there is the Guilt dynamic, which while diminishing, is still there .
    -----------
    A couple of us have asked you how Any anti-replacement type movement can practically be theorized and a real start be fostered in practical politics. You have not responded to this query, except to heavily criticize the WN that is present.

    It may be that nothing can be done right now except to observe the racial polarization, the polarization of the two political parties, the racialization of the two parties, and the increasing desperation/recrimination of both sides.

    It is a truism that our two-party system prevents more radical change, but thereby it contributes to more dangerous politics, a politics without the safety-valve of PR. Arguably PR would allow for more movement in terms of realignment, and lower the temperature in what is becoming a pressure-cooker : our current two-party system.

    I am not pushing Peace and Moderation, I am advocating more freedom of discussion and a chance of movement instead of the log-jamb we presently have...whose potential for the obvious is building.

    The only political force that I can imagine which will advance the conflicts toward some form of resolution in a democratic/elections manner, is a new Populism. Third Party? Both political parties appear to be stuck. Identity might be a useful approach since there is so much magic in various words that we commonly use. I dunno.

    Joe Webb

    I was surprised by the political success of the Tea Party.

    It could happen again.

    Read More
  81. @Peter Frost
    if most people do choose to retreat into kinship-based communities, I predict it will lead to a rollback from our modern science-based world into a medieval world. Technical and scientific progress will slow down to a snail’s pace as was the case until a few centuries ago.

    In theory, "diverse" neighborhoods are said to be a rich source of intellectual and artistic vibrancy, thanks to cross-pollination of different lifestyles and cultures. In reality, nothing of the sort happens. I've lived in both multicultural and monocultural neighborhoods, and the possibilities for interaction are much greater in the latter. In a multicultural situation, I have to watch my tongue, for fear of saying something that may seem offensive. Conversation is often reduced to banalities, or to nothing at all. (A surprising number of immigrants have only a minimal ability to converse in English or French).

    In Canada, monoculture was overwhelmingly the norm until the postwar era and largely the norm into the 1960s. That's not "several centuries ago."

    I am neither European, nor am I ”white” . I’m just saying that it is seems hopeless for you people for the reasons that I gave.


    Whoops! You talk so much like a WN I assumed you were one.

    "Hopeless" is a strange word to use for something that is not an act of God. We're talking about policies, and policies can be changed.

    In the mid-1980s, most people assumed that the Cold War would last into the next century. The East German government even had plans to build a new "high tech" Berlin wall with infrared sensors and the latest in computer technology. A few years later, that wall came down. A similar process may play out over the next few years.

    I would like to hear more about why WN-ists suck, and how one might determine the difference between a WN and an AR-ist before commenting further.


    "White nationalism" is almost exclusively a North American phenomenon. The term is not normally used in Europe, where each country has its own nationalist party. If we compare white nationalism with European nationalist movements, we can see several differences:

    1. Across Western Europe, nationalists have been elected to most legislatures. In Denmark, they are part of the ruling coalition. In the U.S. and Canada, no white nationalists have ever been elected to public office, at least not in recent years. Nor is there a white nationalist party that can field a full slate of candidates.

    2. In the popular vote, nationalist parties are now in the double digits across most of Western Europe. In France, the Front National now has between one quarter and one third of the popular vote. In the U.S., the white nationalist share of the popular vote is infinitesimal.

    3. In Western Europe, nationalists organize mass demonstrations, processions, and the like. The Lega Nord was able to rally 40,000 of its supporters in Milan for a demonstration against immigration. In North America, WN demonstrations are rare and involve only small groups of people. It is really only in the American South where we see well organized nationalist demos, like the recent ones against Tyson Foods and other poultry plants (which have been bringing in low-wage migrant labor despite high levels of unemployment). Such nationalists, however, eschew the term "white nationalist."

    4. Nationalist activity in North America is largely confined to the American South and Quebec. In both areas, nationalism is rooted in a regional culture and cannot truly be called "white nationalism."

    5. Despite or because of the freer legal environment in the United States, white nationalism is overwhelmingly an Internet phenomenon that engages in very little real world action. This is in contrast to the situation in Western Europe, where the Internet plays a more secondary role.

    6. Obsessive anti-Semitism is much more common among WNs than among European nationalists. This is only partly because of differences in legal environment. In Western Europe, nationalists concentrate on fighting demographic replacement, and are willing to accept Jewish members into their ranks. In North America, anti-Semitism crowds out discourse on other topics.

    Thanks Peter.

    Whiteness as a basis for political organizing makes sense in the Anglo colonies, of which there are a few – USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa. Most have seen general European immigration for a number of decades long enough ago that “White” is now about as defined as you can get. The European nationalist strategy will not work very well in the colonies for that reason. And since, in the last 20 years especially, citizenship is basically a passport, appealing to the nationalism of the colony is not as effective as it once was. That is not to say that anti-replacement efforts are not cloaked in the national flags. They often are.

    Point 2. As Webb says, this is probably as much an issue of FPTP voting as anything else. If you look to the comments sections of unrestricted news articles, it is obvious that the mind-share of HBD/AR/iSteve-o-sphere/WN has grown immensely over the last 10-15 years. As the trendy people say these days, it’s now “a thing”. Obviously you realize this and the latent power in this exponential expansion of mind-share, which is why you make mention of the Berlin Wall phenomenon to another poster. We may not yet have much political representation but we are an intelligentsia that is beginning our own long march through the institutions.

    Point 6. I see this changing, especially as some Jews wake up to the fact that living in white areas is better than living in multi-racial areas. However, the fact that the USA has basically the same population of Jews as Israel, and makes up ~2% of the US population has a big influence on US WN. It is also hard to deny that Jews have been instrumental in the changing demographics and the soft-power enforcement of PC through Hollywood. Maybe WN as a word is tainted in this regard, though anti-immigration sentiment is growing and I think as more Jews find themselves on the anti-immigration side, the anti-Semitism will lessen.

    The key issue here is that replacement is a bad thing and needs to stop. If Jews help stop it, well then what is the problem? It is fairly obvious from reading the iSteve comments, there are a lot of Jews and partial Jews on there who genuine and not anti-racist sock puppets. This is a good thing.

    Read More
  82. An excellent article by Mr. Frost (as usual). I always learn something new from him.
    Some commenters take exception with Mr. Frost’s characterization of liberals as “individualistic.” I think a better word to use (to avoid confusion) is “autonomous.” They seem to believe that men should be free to define themselves by their choices as long as they don’t infringe on the autonomy of others.
    I would also add that contemporary liberalism has a strong dose of equality. So it’s something like “everyone should be equally free to self-define based on personal choices that don’t interfere with others’ autonomy.” Institutions (state, church, university, etc.) are used to help guarantee this “equally free” aspect.
    Since it’s obvious that people aren’t yet equal, they pursue an oppressor/victim narrative to explain why things are the way they are. This is the source of “political correctness” that someone above mentioned seems to be in conflict with individualism. Some people (I’ve heard Murray Rothbard was the first) use the phrase “left-liberal” to describe this hybrid ideology.
    That’s how I understand things.

    Read More
  83. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    preserve the genetic heritage of Europe not because we completely know what we’re trying to save, but because we often don’t know. The human genome is largely a black box, and we are only beginning to understand how human populations differ from each other. The burden of proof is on those who seek irreversible change.

    Ok I have no clue what you are trying to say. Could you please quantify this in some way?
    Are you saying that intermarriage between populations with an Fst over a threshold is a ‘loss’? Like intermarriage between an Italian and a Palestinian is ok, but not between a Swede and a Syrian.
    Gene flow between populations is normal.

    Also, Middle Easterners and even Central Asians are pretty white and do have blonde hair and light eyes.

    Read More
  84. And the substantial dose of “equality” is what separates left-liberalism from classical liberalism/libertarianism. For this reason, I think we should call average Democrats” leftists” or “left-liberals” and not “liberals.” Libertarians are liberals.

    Read More
  85. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonym
    Perhaps the right to freely associate is at the core of what we should be pushing for. There are ample cases of permitted free association for everyone but white people. Islamic schools, Asian restaurants, etc. White people respond well to arguments based on fairness and equality.

    Islamic schools and Asian restaurants aren’t examples of the sort of free association we’re talking about here, which involves explicitly excluding specific categories of people. Islamic schools and Asian restaurants aren’t legally permitted to exclude specific categories of people. Just as NASCAR events aren’t.

    Read More
  86. The anti-intellectuality of the US might turn out to be a plus

    I’m not so sure. Anti-intellectuals tend to ignore the substance of an argument and focus on the person delivering the argument. If that person has the right appearance, demeanor, and way of a talking, he or she must be “one of us.”

    Unfortunately, it ain’t necessarily so. A lot of people have mastered the art of sounding like a patriot or a social conservative by using the right words and by talking about “God”, “country” and the like. I can’t do it because I hate being phoney. But a lot of people out there enjoy being phoney. It comes natural to them.

    You neglected to mention PR

    France doesn’t have PR (with a few exceptions) and yet its nationalist party is the strongest one in Europe.

    Thus the situation in Europe is more grave

    Not really.

    I was specifically referring to a mix of people who already share a lot in common, except for ethnicity. Like people who have specific skills and expertise, as in the scientific/technical arena. Or even in sports

    I have no problem with that. Each residential community should be free to set its own admission criteria, including no criteria at all. This is not such a radical idea. In both Canada and the U.S., there already are faith-based communities and even faith-based towns—Amish, Hassidic Jewish, Mennonite, Hutterite, etc. They are allowed to exist because the majority culture interprets “religion” as something that is disembedded from ethnicity. In reality, these are ethnic communities.

    If you look to the comments sections of unrestricted news articles, it is obvious that the mind-share of HBD/AR/iSteve-o-sphere/WN has grown immensely over the last 10-15 years.

    I’d like to believe you, and you may be right. It’s like that article in The New York Times. Parts of it seemed to have been lifted directly from by column (and not from the study I was describing).

    Are you saying that intermarriage between populations with an Fst over a threshold is a ‘loss’?

    Fst is misleading. Genetic variation within a population is qualitatively different from genetic variation between populations. The first kind cannot be ironed out by similar selection pressures and thus tends to involve genes of little selective value. The second kind occurs across population boundaries, which tend to separate different ecosystems, different vegetation zones, different ways of life … and different selection pressures. So the genes matter a lot more.

    Humans have entered a very wide range of natural and cultural environments over a relatively short time span. So there has been a lot of differentiation at genes with high selective value. If you look at genes with low selective value, the picture is a lot fuzzier. This is what led Lewontin to conclude that genes vary much more within human populations than between them. He was right only because the comparison is an apples and oranges one.

    For this reason, I think we should call average Democrats” leftists” or “left-liberals” and not “liberals.” Libertarians are liberals.

    A libertarian is a conservative who hopes to salvage social conservatism by talking like a social liberal.

    Read More
  87. It’s simply is not true that immigrants are being brought into Western countries because they have specific skills and expertise in the scientific/technical arena. They are cheaper labour (because they don’t have to be trained) and stop wage inflation.

    It is interesting how much anticlericalism there was in Europe and around the 1900s. Especially in France. In Mexico there was a armed uprising against the revolutionary government’s anti Catholic policy.

    The politicians who unified Italy were suspicious of the Church. Bismarck had his Kulturkampf. Now any traditional or particularistic allegiance is targeted; it’s the antisemitism of the powers that be. Someone was pointing out the money being thrown at gay marriage, and Bruce said ‘They seem to believe that men should be free to define themselves by their choices as long as they don’t infringe on the autonomy of others’ But in practice the business community are the ‘liberals’ and in the driving seat of Western states now. Having defeated organised labour the wealthy are extremely suspicious of any kind of popular grassroots issue that might coalesce into a movement they can’t control with their ‘individualist’ owned mass media resources. And might them to start paying their taxes and restricting profit for the greater good! So they crush everything that looks like it might give the population any funny ideas. And most people today are atomised, being outward directed

    The billionaires want atomised populations of individuals wasting time on mass entertainment, between watching political advertisments telling them abandon all traditional alliegences; in that kind of society money is key and they big business can buy out the system.

    Silicon Valley University So, who should count in our moral community? Perhaps the best answer is everyone; we cannot avoid considering the moral claims made on us by any other inhabitant of the earth, including those who are yet to be born. But we must weigh those claims against each other, considering the resources we have to respond and the duty we owe to those who call on us.

    This is why I think Paul Collier’s proposal is worth considering. It is moral to enforce, because while the immigrants (and business) get a massive gift from immigrating, the losers from immigration are those the immigrants left behind in their homeland, which is most of the population. If selected people were admitted to the West for a limited time they would absorb ideas on how things can be in a well governed state (you can’t get life insurance in Nigeria, too easy to get a doctor to fake your death) and take those ideas about trust and responsibility back to their homeland. Creaming off the capable people from the third world is not moral and will destroy small poor countries. Justice in charity should mean helping the country to improve and raise the living standards of all its citizens.

    Philosopher Peter Singer formulated the principle, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” He states that this principle takes “no account of proximity or distance. It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child 10 yards away from me or a Bengali, whose name I shall never know, 10,000 miles away.”

    The poor in countries like India (which has a space program) don’t get to the West, and are not helped in any way by people leaving for the West. But those countries have a motive to encourage dissatisfied people to leave, because it provides a safety valve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's kind of bizarre how some self-professed "HBDers", "race realists", and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis. When it comes to certain topics, they seem to stop entertaining more ethno, racial, genetic based hypotheses and retreat to the safety of Marxist style economic explanations.
  88. using the right words

    A libertarian is a conservative who hopes to salvage social conservatism by talking like a social liberal.

    Don’t sell yourself short Mr. Frost. Keep coming up with stuff like this and you may sway more people than you expect.

    Read More
  89. @Mr. Anon
    "Already, however, a reaction was developing. Conservatives, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, were pointing out that liberalism would eventually destroy all traditional identities—the family, gender, kinship, ethnicity. Since these identities are nonconsensual, they violate liberal principles of personal freedom and individual choice. People do not get to choose their family, gender, kinfolk, or ethnic background."

    The author has already caved into liberalism, as evidenced by his acceptance of the word "gender".

    The word for the concept you wish to describe is not "gender" - it's "sex". "Gender" - used as a substitute for "sex" - is an invention of cultural marxists, who use it to imply that the underlying concept is arbitrary and socially constructed.

    The word is "sex". Use it.

    Absolutely agree.

    Gender is a term that prior to the Liberal perversion (and their use of Liberal is a perversion) was purely related to grammar: the declension of nouns.

    Read More
  90. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean
    It's simply is not true that immigrants are being brought into Western countries because they have specific skills and expertise in the scientific/technical arena. They are cheaper labour (because they don't have to be trained) and stop wage inflation.

    It is interesting how much anticlericalism there was in Europe and around the 1900s. Especially in France. In Mexico there was a armed uprising against the revolutionary government's anti Catholic policy.

    The politicians who unified Italy were suspicious of the Church. Bismarck had his Kulturkampf. Now any traditional or particularistic allegiance is targeted; it's the antisemitism of the powers that be. Someone was pointing out the money being thrown at gay marriage, and Bruce said 'They seem to believe that men should be free to define themselves by their choices as long as they don't infringe on the autonomy of others' But in practice the business community are the 'liberals' and in the driving seat of Western states now. Having defeated organised labour the wealthy are extremely suspicious of any kind of popular grassroots issue that might coalesce into a movement they can't control with their 'individualist' owned mass media resources. And might them to start paying their taxes and restricting profit for the greater good! So they crush everything that looks like it might give the population any funny ideas. And most people today are atomised, being outward directed

    The billionaires want atomised populations of individuals wasting time on mass entertainment, between watching political advertisments telling them abandon all traditional alliegences; in that kind of society money is key and they big business can buy out the system.


    Silicon Valley University So, who should count in our moral community? Perhaps the best answer is everyone; we cannot avoid considering the moral claims made on us by any other inhabitant of the earth, including those who are yet to be born. But we must weigh those claims against each other, considering the resources we have to respond and the duty we owe to those who call on us.
     
    This is why I think Paul Collier's proposal is worth considering. It is moral to enforce, because while the immigrants (and business) get a massive gift from immigrating, the losers from immigration are those the immigrants left behind in their homeland, which is most of the population. If selected people were admitted to the West for a limited time they would absorb ideas on how things can be in a well governed state (you can't get life insurance in Nigeria, too easy to get a doctor to fake your death) and take those ideas about trust and responsibility back to their homeland. Creaming off the capable people from the third world is not moral and will destroy small poor countries. Justice in charity should mean helping the country to improve and raise the living standards of all its citizens.

    Philosopher Peter Singer formulated the principle, "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." He states that this principle takes "no account of proximity or distance. It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child 10 yards away from me or a Bengali, whose name I shall never know, 10,000 miles away."
     
    The poor in countries like India (which has a space program) don't get to the West, and are not helped in any way by people leaving for the West. But those countries have a motive to encourage dissatisfied people to leave, because it provides a safety valve.

    It’s kind of bizarre how some self-professed “HBDers”, “race realists”, and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis. When it comes to certain topics, they seem to stop entertaining more ethno, racial, genetic based hypotheses and retreat to the safety of Marxist style economic explanations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Staler than you know as Adam Smith said it hundreds of years ago

    It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interests has been so carefully attended to; and among this later class our merchants and manufactures have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to;and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.
     
    Adam Smith
    , @iffen
    Is there some kind of cardinal rule than a person who thinks HBD is factual and that gene-culture evolution is accelerating cannot be a doctrinaire Marxist?
  91. @Anonymous
    It's kind of bizarre how some self-professed "HBDers", "race realists", and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis. When it comes to certain topics, they seem to stop entertaining more ethno, racial, genetic based hypotheses and retreat to the safety of Marxist style economic explanations.

    Staler than you know as Adam Smith said it hundreds of years ago

    It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interests has been so carefully attended to; and among this later class our merchants and manufactures have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to;and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.

    Adam Smith

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Note that Smith is talking specifically about manufacturers colluding. The US economy is not dominated by manufacturers nor does industrial policy have any sort of significant influence today on American political economy. Low skilled immigrants to the US today do not go into manufacturing employment, nor could they if they wanted to because they're too unskilled and not competent enough. Higher skilled immigrants to the US today don't go into manufacturing employment either. They go into professional occupations and the like. Manufacturing employment in the US has been steadily declining.

    The notion that Gilded Age style big business industrialists have any influence on the US today is absurd.
  92. Gender is a term that prior to the Liberal perversion (and their use of Liberal is a perversion) was purely related to grammar: the declension of nouns.

    Liberals are more interested in ends, not means. They’ve always wanted a society of free, self-determining individuals, and many will fight for that goal even if it means forcing people to be self-determining.

    The distinction between “gender” and “sex” is useful, at least for me. “Sex” refers to innate, biologically programmed differences between men and women. “Gender” refers to social and cultural conventions, like male and female garments, etc. If you don’t like “gender” what other word can I use?

    It’s kind of bizarre how some self-professed “HBDers”, “race realists”, and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis

    My intellectual evolution was almost the reverse. I started off being strongly influenced by neo-Marxist authors, like Maurice Godelier and Immanuel Wallerstein. When I first encountered the idea of gene-culture co-evolution, I tended to be dismissive, for the usual reasons (cultural evolution has taken over from genetic evolution, behavioral traits are too complex to evolve over short spans of time, etc.). It was really only when Cavalli-Sforza became interested in gene-culture co-evolution among the Inuit that I began to take the idea seriously.

    I still believe that culture matters. In many ways I haven’t changed that much since my undergraduate days in anthropology.

    the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.

    It’s interesting to note that Adam Smith felt that the greatest threat to the market economy comes from the rich. They can use their money not only to create a better product but also to rig the system in their favor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    My intellectual evolution was almost the reverse. I started off being strongly influenced by neo-Marxist authors, like Maurice Godelier and Immanuel Wallerstein. When I first encountered the idea of gene-culture co-evolution, I tended to be dismissive, for the usual reasons (cultural evolution has taken over from genetic evolution, behavioral traits are too complex to evolve over short spans of time, etc.). It was really only when Cavalli-Sforza became interested in gene-culture co-evolution among the Inuit that I began to take the idea seriously.
     
    Having come of age in a very multicultural enironment, perhaps I had a unique perspective. The idea that culture influences genes seemed self-evident to me from an early age. Some of my friends lived in the "ghetto," and the welfare incentives that caused certain people to have a lot of kids were crystal clear.

    I remember working in a Thanksgiving food drive while in middle school and delivering food to the poor. It must have been in '86 or '87. I still don't know why middle school kids from a private school were recruited to do this, because I was just about the only one involved who had any experience with these people, and I doubt the others learned anything from it. I remember the unbelieving looks on the faces of the wealthy kids as they brought canned cranberries, pumpkin and turkey into these squalid apartments with crack-addicted mothers with a half-dozen kids.

    Because I had friends who lived in these projects, I knew that each child increased AFDC for the mother, and the consequences were obvious. By the time I was of college age, there was no doubt in my mind that certain programs (i.e. culture) could influence the quality of a population.

    Perhaps the cultural distance from the realities of the inner city allowed right-thinking whites to remain ignorant of cultural effects on reproduction amongst various elements of society. I think even today anthropologists may be in denial about how rapidly culture can influence population genetics.

    One region they could to focus on to study these effects is China, where fertility is greatest in the least functional classes, such as destitute peasants and migrant laborers. It's a disaster waiting to happen, or happening already to be honest.
  93. The sex ratio in traditional communities might be a problem. The song Cracklin Rose was inspired by Neil Diamond reading about an Amerindian reservation with no women.

    About being defeatist. Reverses to the international standing of the state would make a western country change course. Despite the liberal ideal of everyone in the world living without considerations of ethnicity or culture; the crucial and actual main argument of Western government immigration proponents is there must be immigration of capable energetic qualified people willing to work, in order to a maintain the country’s international competitiveness. The policies (in Canada for instance) are explicitly designed allow immigration of better workers, supposedly for vacancies that purportedly cannot be filled. This is the business lobby; yes, but immigration also has national competitiveness constantly cited for it.

    The current policy of western nations may seem to flow from liberal rhetoric, but the immigration policy is actually justified with maintaining or increasing the state’s relative international position. A combination of immigration and a low birth rate can increase a state’s power in a certain time frame. And competition between states selects for what is immediately useful. As with natural selection, states are operating on immediate advantage, not the long term danger (and they genuinely don’t believe HBD replacement will have a big effect). So it is not just propensities for empathy, guilt, morality and individualist values, pushing current western countries’ policies. It is not even big business greed.

    Read More
  94. @Anonymous
    It's kind of bizarre how some self-professed "HBDers", "race realists", and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis. When it comes to certain topics, they seem to stop entertaining more ethno, racial, genetic based hypotheses and retreat to the safety of Marxist style economic explanations.

    Is there some kind of cardinal rule than a person who thinks HBD is factual and that gene-culture evolution is accelerating cannot be a doctrinaire Marxist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The economic materialism of Marxism contradicts sociobiology.
  95. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sean
    Staler than you know as Adam Smith said it hundreds of years ago

    It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interests has been so carefully attended to; and among this later class our merchants and manufactures have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to;and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.
     
    Adam Smith

    Note that Smith is talking specifically about manufacturers colluding. The US economy is not dominated by manufacturers nor does industrial policy have any sort of significant influence today on American political economy. Low skilled immigrants to the US today do not go into manufacturing employment, nor could they if they wanted to because they’re too unskilled and not competent enough. Higher skilled immigrants to the US today don’t go into manufacturing employment either. They go into professional occupations and the like. Manufacturing employment in the US has been steadily declining.

    The notion that Gilded Age style big business industrialists have any influence on the US today is absurd.

    Read More
  96. @Peter Frost
    Gender is a term that prior to the Liberal perversion (and their use of Liberal is a perversion) was purely related to grammar: the declension of nouns.

    Liberals are more interested in ends, not means. They've always wanted a society of free, self-determining individuals, and many will fight for that goal even if it means forcing people to be self-determining.

    The distinction between "gender" and "sex" is useful, at least for me. "Sex" refers to innate, biologically programmed differences between men and women. "Gender" refers to social and cultural conventions, like male and female garments, etc. If you don't like "gender" what other word can I use?

    It’s kind of bizarre how some self-professed “HBDers”, “race realists”, and the like turn into doctrinaire Marxists and try to explain certain things with stale class analysis

    My intellectual evolution was almost the reverse. I started off being strongly influenced by neo-Marxist authors, like Maurice Godelier and Immanuel Wallerstein. When I first encountered the idea of gene-culture co-evolution, I tended to be dismissive, for the usual reasons (cultural evolution has taken over from genetic evolution, behavioral traits are too complex to evolve over short spans of time, etc.). It was really only when Cavalli-Sforza became interested in gene-culture co-evolution among the Inuit that I began to take the idea seriously.

    I still believe that culture matters. In many ways I haven't changed that much since my undergraduate days in anthropology.

    the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.

    It's interesting to note that Adam Smith felt that the greatest threat to the market economy comes from the rich. They can use their money not only to create a better product but also to rig the system in their favor.

    My intellectual evolution was almost the reverse. I started off being strongly influenced by neo-Marxist authors, like Maurice Godelier and Immanuel Wallerstein. When I first encountered the idea of gene-culture co-evolution, I tended to be dismissive, for the usual reasons (cultural evolution has taken over from genetic evolution, behavioral traits are too complex to evolve over short spans of time, etc.). It was really only when Cavalli-Sforza became interested in gene-culture co-evolution among the Inuit that I began to take the idea seriously.

    Having come of age in a very multicultural enironment, perhaps I had a unique perspective. The idea that culture influences genes seemed self-evident to me from an early age. Some of my friends lived in the “ghetto,” and the welfare incentives that caused certain people to have a lot of kids were crystal clear.

    I remember working in a Thanksgiving food drive while in middle school and delivering food to the poor. It must have been in ’86 or ’87. I still don’t know why middle school kids from a private school were recruited to do this, because I was just about the only one involved who had any experience with these people, and I doubt the others learned anything from it. I remember the unbelieving looks on the faces of the wealthy kids as they brought canned cranberries, pumpkin and turkey into these squalid apartments with crack-addicted mothers with a half-dozen kids.

    Because I had friends who lived in these projects, I knew that each child increased AFDC for the mother, and the consequences were obvious. By the time I was of college age, there was no doubt in my mind that certain programs (i.e. culture) could influence the quality of a population.

    Perhaps the cultural distance from the realities of the inner city allowed right-thinking whites to remain ignorant of cultural effects on reproduction amongst various elements of society. I think even today anthropologists may be in denial about how rapidly culture can influence population genetics.

    One region they could to focus on to study these effects is China, where fertility is greatest in the least functional classes, such as destitute peasants and migrant laborers. It’s a disaster waiting to happen, or happening already to be honest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    "Perhaps the cultural distance from the realities of the inner city allowed right-thinking whites to remain ignorant of cultural effects on reproduction amongst various elements of society."

    Bill P, I assume your are talking about lousy habits, too much bonking and not enough learning. If you are indeed talking about culture influencing fundamental intelligence, you are completely wrong. And are you talking abut the Culture of Whites (well-off) or the Culture of Blacks? Culture, culture, culture, when I hear the word culture I take out my genes.



    And, "population genetics" is a sufficiently vague term to allow one to enough elision to go around a battleship.

    Again, if you are just referring to sex without birth control, and consequent tickets to Free Money from Whites, please say so.

    Gene-Culture Co-evolution is another almost Orwellian term. Please let us speak the King's English. If one means that the genes are amended by culture, that is not true. That is the old Lysenko and what's his name stuff. If you mean that culture allows degradation of society in our mass (no longer aristocratic) 'culture' then I would appreciate word-clarity on the subject at hand .

    We already deal with the word "population" to evade the word "race." Let us try to call a spade a spade, even with its risks to jobholders.

    In plain English, African Blacks' primary recreation is sexual. Ditto, here. I recall a NYT story a couple years ago about a middle-aged black African male who was feeling much better after a drug course to combat his AIDS. He said he was feeling much better and looked forward to getting back to sex. I am not making this up. Also, US blacks have very high rates of STDs, way more than Whites, double and triple.

    No amount of Programs will make any difference in anything, including birth control. That is what the Planned Parenthood Clinics (read abortion) are for, with a realistic understanding of Black sexual habits...low investment parenting, etc.

    "....Cultural effects on reproduction..." please. I would only add that any stupid person, of any race, tends toward sexual recreation much more than smart people of any race. That is cuz they are too stupid to perceive interesting things around them and maybe crack a book, or pursue a hobby, etc.

    Joe Webb
  97. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Fascism, National Socialism delivered, they were very innovative solutions to the survival of peoples , nations and economies. Once the American dystopic, dysgenic culture crumbles these forms of governance will resurge.

    Read More
  98. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    Is there some kind of cardinal rule than a person who thinks HBD is factual and that gene-culture evolution is accelerating cannot be a doctrinaire Marxist?

    The economic materialism of Marxism contradicts sociobiology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Some people say capital is to blame
    Some say it is our own damn fault
  99. @Bill P

    My intellectual evolution was almost the reverse. I started off being strongly influenced by neo-Marxist authors, like Maurice Godelier and Immanuel Wallerstein. When I first encountered the idea of gene-culture co-evolution, I tended to be dismissive, for the usual reasons (cultural evolution has taken over from genetic evolution, behavioral traits are too complex to evolve over short spans of time, etc.). It was really only when Cavalli-Sforza became interested in gene-culture co-evolution among the Inuit that I began to take the idea seriously.
     
    Having come of age in a very multicultural enironment, perhaps I had a unique perspective. The idea that culture influences genes seemed self-evident to me from an early age. Some of my friends lived in the "ghetto," and the welfare incentives that caused certain people to have a lot of kids were crystal clear.

    I remember working in a Thanksgiving food drive while in middle school and delivering food to the poor. It must have been in '86 or '87. I still don't know why middle school kids from a private school were recruited to do this, because I was just about the only one involved who had any experience with these people, and I doubt the others learned anything from it. I remember the unbelieving looks on the faces of the wealthy kids as they brought canned cranberries, pumpkin and turkey into these squalid apartments with crack-addicted mothers with a half-dozen kids.

    Because I had friends who lived in these projects, I knew that each child increased AFDC for the mother, and the consequences were obvious. By the time I was of college age, there was no doubt in my mind that certain programs (i.e. culture) could influence the quality of a population.

    Perhaps the cultural distance from the realities of the inner city allowed right-thinking whites to remain ignorant of cultural effects on reproduction amongst various elements of society. I think even today anthropologists may be in denial about how rapidly culture can influence population genetics.

    One region they could to focus on to study these effects is China, where fertility is greatest in the least functional classes, such as destitute peasants and migrant laborers. It's a disaster waiting to happen, or happening already to be honest.

    “Perhaps the cultural distance from the realities of the inner city allowed right-thinking whites to remain ignorant of cultural effects on reproduction amongst various elements of society.”

    Bill P, I assume your are talking about lousy habits, too much bonking and not enough learning. If you are indeed talking about culture influencing fundamental intelligence, you are completely wrong. And are you talking abut the Culture of Whites (well-off) or the Culture of Blacks? Culture, culture, culture, when I hear the word culture I take out my genes.

    And, “population genetics” is a sufficiently vague term to allow one to enough elision to go around a battleship.

    Again, if you are just referring to sex without birth control, and consequent tickets to Free Money from Whites, please say so.

    Gene-Culture Co-evolution is another almost Orwellian term. Please let us speak the King’s English. If one means that the genes are amended by culture, that is not true. That is the old Lysenko and what’s his name stuff. If you mean that culture allows degradation of society in our mass (no longer aristocratic) ‘culture’ then I would appreciate word-clarity on the subject at hand .

    We already deal with the word “population” to evade the word “race.” Let us try to call a spade a spade, even with its risks to jobholders.

    In plain English, African Blacks’ primary recreation is sexual. Ditto, here. I recall a NYT story a couple years ago about a middle-aged black African male who was feeling much better after a drug course to combat his AIDS. He said he was feeling much better and looked forward to getting back to sex. I am not making this up. Also, US blacks have very high rates of STDs, way more than Whites, double and triple.

    No amount of Programs will make any difference in anything, including birth control. That is what the Planned Parenthood Clinics (read abortion) are for, with a realistic understanding of Black sexual habits…low investment parenting, etc.

    “….Cultural effects on reproduction…” please. I would only add that any stupid person, of any race, tends toward sexual recreation much more than smart people of any race. That is cuz they are too stupid to perceive interesting things around them and maybe crack a book, or pursue a hobby, etc.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  100. Bill P…I guess you do think, self-evidently that “The idea that culture influences genes seemed self-evident to me from an early age.”

    At least my excuse for being out of it for quite a long time ,was both my pathological altruism, and the fact that genetics was not even around in the 50s , 60s, at least where i would have heard about it. When I did start to hear about it, I was hard at work and family life, and as a milk and water Leftie I thought that maybe we could muddle thru whatever unpleasant news was to be heard in The Bell Curve, etc. Yes, psychologically resisted it, but I did not go berserk like the lefties are doing today, even long after the academic wars have been pretty much won by socio-biologists/evolutionary psychologists ( the latter the preferred term to avoid the wrath of the haters).

    Of course that Belief that was self-evident to you at a very young age, brilliant of course, turns on what “influence” means.

    In my biologism, what with twin studies as the simplest way to get at this stuff which anybody can understand, even myself, I completely reject any claim of “influence” on the genes themselves. Only in the very long term …thousands of years….does the physical environment favor one or another mutation, unless of course certain folks are denied procreation , as in the Asian rice agriculture’s demands, or by political systematic murder, or by an economy demanding , for example, nerds today to do what they are told and not make trouble, and consequent screening out of swash-bucklers, loudmouths, and hyper-individualists, etc.

    Which gets me to a defense of White fighting crimes. At least we have the genes to fight. That will help us survive racially, as long as we are not all working for Apple, etc.

    The latest evasion to come down the pike, is Epigenetics. As I am agnostic on things that one cannot prove, let me remain agnostic on Epigenetics. However, there is zero proof of anything so far in these studies, but it provides useful work for die-hard Believers in Equality.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  101. @Numinous
    I am not saying that such kinship-based communities will "lose" whatever science we possess now, but that there won't be any innovation (or such innovation will proceed at a snail's pace.) One does not need to have a scientific worldview and deep scientific understanding to keep all our modern systems running as they currently are; most technicians and mechanics follow basic thumb rules that can be passed down through the generations, just like medieval guilds did. My point was that if communities were to be solely built around kinship, then the community becomes preoccupied with the maintenance of kinship networks and the exclusion of non-kin; innovation that might change society is frowned upon. (The castes of my country, India, are a testament to this process.)

    As for scientific progress in white countries, it was triggered precisely at the time when individuals felt themselves free to associate with like-minded people instead of being tied down within kin-based communities. For all the damage that the Communists did to Russian society and family, pretty much all scientific output from Russia came after the Bolshevik revolution. On the flip side, the Amish have not been known to make any contributions to science or technology.

    “There was considerable overlap between fascism and Liberalism during the 1930s and 1940s. And in terms of social control, the Liberal Elite have turned more toward fascist-style control of the populace.”

    Not just during the 1930s and 1940s – in the 50s, 60s and 70s corporatist economics was the dominant form of economic organisation in most western and East Asian countries.

    In many ways this era blended the best aspects of post-fascist corporatism and liberalism, with government’s striving to balance the interests of successful or cultured individuals with those of the majority. For example, public broadcasting focused on high culture and gentlemanly debate, while economic policy was geared towards full employment and moderating economic inequality between classes.

    A pervasive feature of modern neo-liberal economics is a large number of semi-privatised organisations which have been given a mandate to operate in their own interest. For example, today we have large numbers of underemployed university graduates because the universities have to make a profit and no longer have a responsibility to ensure that student intake for law, teaching, nursing etc is regulated according to government and private sector demand.

    Read More
  102. Peter Frost, this refers to another interest of yours.

    In-case you haven’t heard it terns out Mesolithic Russians and Swedes already had hair color diversity, along with eye color diversity, and *known* markers for light skin. This was discovered with new and updated genomes from Mesolithic Motala Sweden, Samara Russia, and Karelia Russia.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anthrogenica.com%2Fshowthread.php%3F3975-Surprising-Pale-pigmentation-in-Mesolithic-Motala-HGs&ei=pxwBVcKLKordggSvqoHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEDgfV2pQA64ukOqcH069XtZIkoNA&sig2=fwlxjKrbY14mEidBi_-yMw&bvm=bv.87920726,d.eXY

    The main Near Eastern ancestors of Euros(EEF) also had hair-eye color diversity and markers for light skin, and the same is true for modern west Asians(to a much smaller extent). There is no one source. Although the markers had pretty much always been there, ancient DNA suggests they didn’t reach modern frequencies till recently.

    I’m starting to think Mesolithic eastern and Baltic people made a big impact on modern phenotype.

    Read More
  103. the crucial and actual main argument of Western government immigration proponents is there must be immigration of capable energetic qualified people willing to work, in order to a maintain the country’s international competitiveness.

    That’s one of the talking points. There are three others:

    1. We need immigration to rejuvenate the population, so that we have enough young working people to pay pension benefits to retiring baby boomers.

    2. We need immigration to stimulate population growth and thereby stimulate economic growth.

    3. We need immigration to fill labor shortages.

    All three are dubious. Immigrants are actually only slightly younger on average than non-immigrants. This is largely because young immigrants tend to bring their parents and grandparents. An often overlooked factor in this argument is that immigrants of working age are much more likely to be tax consumers than tax payers, so immigration actually worsens the problem it is supposed to solve.

    As for the argument of population growth, we should be aiming to raise GDP per capita and not simply GDP.

    Finally, most “labor shortages” are nonexistent. If an industry is suffering from a genuine labor shortage, mean incomes should be rising in that industry at a faster rate than in other industries. In most cases, this is not happening and often the reverse is happening.

    Fascism, National Socialism delivered

    Fascism and National Socialism delivered a world war that killed tens of millions of people. The main failing of these ideologies is that they led to (1) excessive nationalism and (2) fantasism and delusional thinking. Even without the Soviet Union as an adversary, the Axis powers would have never been able to win a war against the British Empire and the United States. This was pointed out by military planners before the war began. The British and the Americans had a much greater capacity for war production than the Germans, and this capacity lay well beyond the reach of long-range bombers. The German capacity for war production was continually vulnerable to air attack.

    In-case you haven’t heard it terns out Mesolithic Russians and Swedes already had hair color diversity, along with eye color diversity, and *known* markers for light skin.

    Yes, I was aware of some of those findings, but not all of them. They provide support for the following points:

    1. The unusual color traits of Europeans — a diverse palette of hair and eye colors and white skin — developed before the transition to farming. So they were not a result of selection pressures created by the farming lifestyle (self-domestication, increased need for vitamin D because of a meat-poor diet, etc.).

    2. It looks like these color traits developed in the north and east of Europe and then diffused outward. It also looks like the diversification of hair and eye color preceded the extreme whitening of the skin. This could explain why Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Spain had a strange combination of non-brown eyes and dark skin.

    The main Near Eastern ancestors of Euros(EEF) also had hair-eye color diversity and markers for light skin, and the same is true for modern west Asians(to a much smaller extent). There is no one source.

    That is theoretically unlikely. We are not looking at phenotypically similar alleles. We are looking at identical alleles. It is more likely that Near Eastern farmers were themselves the product of a demographic expansion out of Europe near the end of the ice age. This expansion replaced an earlier African-like population:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-new-european-phenotype-expansion/

    ancient DNA suggests they didn’t reach modern frequencies till recently.

    You are probably referring to the study by Wilde et al. which showed that the inhabitants north of the Black Sea became white-skinned over the past 5,000 years. This probably reflects an ethnic change, i.e., the replacement of darker-skinned nomadic peoples of Central Asian origin by white-skinned Europeans (generally Slavic peoples). The authors rule out this explanation because the genetic distance between the two groups is not consistent with a genetic distance between Europeans and non-Europeans. The authors forget two things, however: (1) because we are looking farther back in time, the genetic distances between Europeans and Central Asians would have been smaller and (2) we may be looking at a dark-skinned European or near-European population that is now extinct. The whitening of European populations appears to have begun within one portion of Europe and then spread outward. The notion that all Europeans are white is a present-oriented judgment.

    See:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/did-europeans-become-white-in-historic/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    That’s one of the talking points. There are three others:
     
    Another talking point is restaurants.

    I think you remarked before how Scarborough, Ontario has gotten worse with immigration. Tyler Cowen, a popular libertarian and pro-immigration economist, blogger, and foodie, says that Scarborough is the "dining capital of the world":

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/scarborough-ontario.html
  104. K. Arujo says:
    If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness.

    Dubious on some counts. While there has been SOME PC abuse by the Left, the right also has ITS own version of “conservative correctness” which is deployed to dismiss and censor debate. Rather than address concerns about the harassment of women online for example, their complaints can be dismissed as “political correctness” without addressing the issue in detail. The same “PC dismissal tool” is also deployed in many other contexts, including faux claims of “persecution” when assorted conservative claims are challenged. The tactic avoids detailed, and indeed open debate by allowing for quick dismissal of the issue and associated data. And “open debate” is not an automatic pass for filthy language or crude, disrespectful behavior. It is ironic that some conservatives talk about “civility” and lament its “decline”, but quickly dismiss problems such as the rude, hateful, systematic harassment of women online (see “Gamergate” fiasco on Google) as mere “PC”, and thus unworthy of attention or addressing.

    It’s all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at ‘white trash’ in trailer parks. While NY rich support ‘stop and frisk’ against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

    Indeed. Some white liberalism, like some “conservative correctness” is itself fraught with hypocrisy.

    So, it’s not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.
    Agreed.

    If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.

    Not necessarily. Who says there would not have been a large scale Holocaust if the Nazi-Soviet Pact held? There may have been a SMALLER large-scale one than that which actually occurred, but while the actual murder squads did not FULLY deploy until late 1941, there were already moves afoot in the German section of Poland in 1941 to begin the “final solution.” The first Jews to be “cleansed” for example were German Jews dispatched to Warthegau, in Poland, in 1941. By the end of 1940, 325,000 Poles and Jews from the Wartheland and the Polish Corridor were expelled to General Government, often forced to abandon most of their belongings. The mass murder machinery did not crank up full steam until the latter half of 1941, but the gears were already in motion. Even if the Pact had held, Jews in the occupied areas were still doomed by the fascists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness."

    "Dubious on some counts. While there has been SOME PC abuse by the Left, the right also has ITS own version of “conservative correctness” which is deployed to dismiss and censor debate. Rather than address concerns about the harassment of women online for example, their complaints can be dismissed as “political correctness” without addressing the issue in detail. The same “PC dismissal tool” is also deployed in many other contexts, including faux claims of “persecution” when assorted conservative claims are challenged. The tactic avoids detailed, and indeed open debate by allowing for quick dismissal of the issue and associated data. And “open debate” is not an automatic pass for filthy language or crude, disrespectful behavior. It is ironic that some conservatives talk about “civility” and lament its “decline”, but quickly dismiss problems such as the rude, hateful, systematic harassment of women online (see “Gamergate” fiasco on Google) as mere “PC”, and thus unworthy of attention or addressing."

    PC as it is mostly employed in the West is almost entirely 'progressive' or 'Liberal'--with a capital 'L', as true liberalism should be for free speech. I wouldn't even call current 'progressives' the Left. Leftism, as far I can tell, is dead. Marxism is dead, communism is dead, working class politics is dead. Today's Liberals are more about creating safe and prosperous spaces for themselves in gentrified cities than in caring about the People. So, where is the Left? 'Gay marriage' isn't leftist. It was pushed, promoted, and funded by the oligarchs of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc from day one. Most homosexual activists sought an alliance mainly with rich, powerful, and influential elites. They disdained most of the unwashed masses. The cult of narcissism has always been a hallmark of 'gay' sensibility. Though there were homosexual Marxists and leftists in the past, the trajectory of homosexual activism was bound to be elitist since 'gay sensibility' is about stuff like fancy design and the arts and fame and glamour.

    True, there is a culture of correctness on the 'right' as well. We only need to look at theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. We only need to look at some Southern communities that wanna ban the teaching of Evolution. They wanna teach Creationism in the name of something like 'science equality'.

    So, all forms of power tries to silence others. This is why, if liberalism is to have real value, it must be for free speech for all sides no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless one is for free speech, one cannot be said to be truly liberal. Traditionally, liberals were better on free speech and civil liberties than conservatives were. Conservatives usually sought to suppress overt freedom and liberty in the name of community values, taboos, patriotism, etc. In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw how censorious the American Right could be.

    But things are more dangerous today because it's now the Liberals who are more censorious than the conservatives. Of course, conservatives are not more pro-free-speech due to principle but because their speech is more likely to be threatened by political correctness in today's climate in which most media, academia, government, and courts are dominated by Liberals. Look how the government is forcing 'gay marriage' ---but not incest marriage and polygamy(so much for 'marriage equality')---on all fifty states and even forcing cake shops out of business for refusing to catering to 'gay weddings'. These cakeshops will sell to homosexuals, but they will not go along with 'gay marriage' that totally desecrates the true meaning of marriage by associating the bio-moral institution of marriage with the dubious 'sexual' behavior of homosexuals.

    Since conservatives are, by nature, not good on free speech, it really hinges on liberals to stand up for free speech. But many of today's Liberals are hostile to free speech, the first amendment, and etc. Many Liberals want to shut down certain speech as 'hate speech'. They are more into their own moral narcissism and self-righteousness than liberty and freedom. So, in a world where conservatives haven't been good on free speech and where Liberals are not for free speech either, we are facing some dangerous times. There are Libertarians to be sure, but they aren't very powerful, and they happen to be poorly organized.

    Another thing. While it's true that some Conservatives want to end a certain debate by calling something 'politically correct', they are still not saying that there should be a law or rule that forbids the discussion itself. They are saying that they, as individuals, don't care to discuss it and don't want to take part in it. So, if you bring up the issue of sexual harassment, some conservatives might say, "we've all heard it before, it's the same old PC crap, and I'm through talking about this." They might not engage with you, but they are not saying there should be a rule that bans you from discussing it openly or with others. They, as individuals, just don't want to hear about it or discuss it any further.

    In contrast, Liberals now use political correctness to pass laws and to enforce rules and codes that FORBID people from saying something anywhere and anytime. Instead of saying, "I personally don't wanna talk about it anymore", they use the full force of the system--government, schools, workplace, etc--to silence people by threatening them with firing, blacklisting, demotion, and being dragged to sensitivity classes for espousing certain views at any time and any place.

    For example, suppose you're for 'gay marriage' and I'm not. We may argue, but I might get tired and say 'enough is enough' and walk away from the discussion. But that doesn't mean that I think you shouldn't have the right to talk about whatever you wanna talk about. It doesn't mean that I want you to lose your job or be blacklisted for having views that I find loathsome.

    In contrast, I'll bet you're the type who believes that people who oppose 'gay marriage' should be fired, blacklisted, silenced, and even fined by the force of the law and institutional power.

    That makes all the difference.

    I may want to end an debate with you personally but I would not want to end your right to debate or discuss certain matters. But I'll bet you're the kind who not only wants to personally end a debate(with a certain individual) but wants to make sure that no one says anything that might offend you. You want the power of the law to fire, blacklist, and punish those who, according to current PC, has abhorrent views. I'll bet you're like the anti-communist demagogues in the 1950s who not only wanted to smoke out communist spies in the US government but wanted to blacklist and destroy anyone who suspected of harboring leftist/radical views even though there's no evidence that they betrayed the US government.

    As for filthy, crude, and uncivil behavior, the best thing is to ignore people without manners. But that's pretty difficult in a culture(dominated by Liberals)that promote stuff like rap music, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, stand up comics who say 'fuc*' all the time, mainstreaming of porn, Bill Maher, and etc.

    I don't like overt vulgarity and crude boorishness, but then, I don't think there should be a law that fines or sends people to jail for it, especially when the rules tend to be so hypocritical. Don Imus lost his gig by imitating ghetto talk('nappy headed hos'), but Stephen Colbert is hardly touched by his 'ching chong' joke.
  105. Bill P says:
    We need a philosophical basis for communities that can survive and thrive in the modern world. And religious, too, but that goes without saying. We can look back at the last century and clearly identify the failures, such as fascism, Christianity, communism, capitalism and the various New Age cults, and we often do, but it seems to me that precious few people these days are actually putting in the effort to find a solution to the ongoing destruction of community.

    Your post may be contradictory on some points You note that the Christian guy in Seattle succeeded in building community save for his own personal peccadilloes, greed, power-hunger etc. And you note the need for moral principles to be foremost, and even say that the religious angle “goes without saying.” How then do you say that Christianity has been a failure, when it has provided a strong sense of community, DESPITE the failures of various individuals? Even the flawed Catholic Church has provided community in numerous areas, despite its deceptions and authoritarianism. Would you not say that Christianity provides the “philosophical basis for communities that can survive and thrive in the modern world”? Indeed, are not certain religious minorities thriving in the modern era with their own tightly knit communities? The Sikhs are but one example.

    Sean says:
    Paul Collier’s proposal is for selected people from the Third World to be brought over and given Western education. That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what. Very expensive, but it would give Western academics good jobs.

    It would not necessarily give Western academics good jobs because forone thing the US may WANT the selected people to STAY and thus help overcome critical skill shortages in the US itself. This has already happened with several fields from medicine, to engineering, to nursing, and even to teaching as the recruitment of conservative, hard-nosed Caribbean teachers by New York some years ago demonstrates. And some of the people staying or being recruited themselves may become academics.

    Moreover, we probably need to admit that, yes immigrants do bring benefits to their countries, but us taking the most enterprising people from their countries will turn them into hell holes.

    Not really, because in some cases the countries in question have merely stepped up training to not only overcome the “brain drain” but to produce a “surplus” of skilled workers for “export” to the US. Philipino nurses are one example- heavily recruited by health care organizations in the US, and the Philipines continues to crank out more and more. And some of the brain drain immigrants do return to their home countries also.

    The marriage systems and selection for sons means by and large the migrating populations are always going to have an excess of males, who have not been subjected to relaxed sexual selection.
    It may have little to do with “sexual selection” involving women. An excess of males relates in part to the labor being sought. Hard, difficult manual labor will initially mean that mostly younger stronger males will migrate, as happened to some groups in the US and elsewhere. Males are also able to handle the dangers of migration better than females in many circumstances. Females who migrated to America unescorted in migrant ships were sometimes assaulted or molested for example. AFTER the males are established, then more females start coming along.

    Read More
  106. Peter Frost says:
    – halt an immigration surge that is already spinning out of control. We’re in the early stages of a demographic tsunami, and the word is not too strong.

    - create stable kin-based communities where people can develop high levels of trust in each other. There would be no need to impose such a way of life. Many people would jump at the opportunity.

    - preserve the genetic heritage of Europe not because we completely know what we’re trying to save, but because we often don’t know.

    These propositions are reasonable in terms of looking after the interests of white people. But I believe Frost could have added one more thing, namely that whites are not sufficiently replacing themselves demographically/genetically. Different writers give a variety of reasons- the increasing embrace of homosexuality including “gay” marriage, a more feminist or female friendly culture in which women have emerged as significant breadwinners, and thus reducing the traditional male provider role, and reducing male workforce participation.

    Another reason is increasing behavior patterns that hinder sustaining stable family relationships (the white out of wedlock rate now for example exceeds that of blacks in early years of the 1960s, and non-college white women in the US are posting OOW rates up to 50% (NY Times 2010). Increasing white acceptance of and use of abortion is another area. The nation with the highest rate of abortion in the world is white Russia for example, which kills 2 white babies for each live white birth. There has also been a rise in the preference of co-habitation among whites which makes for less stable family relationships overall. Given these trends among whites, the easy solution many embrace (cutting the numbers of Mexicans at the border) will slow, but not halt the inevitable.

    Some racialist fire-breathers blame intermarriage and garner much propaganda attention, but in reality, intermarriage is a small potatoes trend with minor impact on the white population as a whole. Black-white intermarriages for example are LESS than 1% of all marriages, a laughable chump change amount, despite their visibility. Hispanic -Asian-White pairings are a bit more but again, these, in terms of overall population numbers, are minor players. The emotional huffing and puffing in some quarters over mixed race couples makes for a lot of drama, but such mixes are small potatoes compared to the central problem of increasing white failure to reproduce at replacement level.

    Read More
  107. Anon 701 says:
    Presumably you [Frost] don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    This isn’t a solution because it doesn’t address the problem, which is government restriction on free association. People already tend to associate in general along ethnic or racial lines. But government restriction on free association prevents exclusive communities from being established. Even if there are no explicit strictures, the effects and “disparate impact” are considered by the government as indicating de facto explicit strictures.

    “Free association” restrictions have not prevented ethnic groups from mingling according to ethnic or racial lines. Most US whites for example, outside certain right wingers and white libertarians, have shed few tears over the end of so called “restrictions” like forbidding blacks to eat in certain restaurants, or renting a hotel room. They have no interest in ,and reject assorted conservative or libertarian “freedom of association” arguments along these lines. Who needs that negative racial hassle which continually besmirched the US image throughout the world in the 1950, and 1960s?

    Eisenhower for example had to invite African diplomats denied service in US restaurants to the White House for example to demonstrate that the US was not the racist totalitarian state depicted by the Soviets and other detractors. Kennedy had to urge Maryland realtors to hold down racist practices that were creating ugly incidents when non-white diplomats attempted to do normal business in the erstwhile leader of the “Free World.” The success of the Civil Rights Movement removed a great deal of embarrassment for white people along these lines, particularly as they sought to negotiate for more control over or access to Third World resources.

    In fact general same-ethnicity association has already been secured by a variety of more subtle “non racial” measures, ranging from zoning restrictions that suppress the supply of housing (meaning less minorities in suburban hood and in schools), or use of pricing for products and services that again, mean less minorities since they, on the average have less wealth or income, or access. Racially segregated “freedom of association” ski-slopes for example are not necessary, because, aside from cultural preferences in recreation, more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.

    White people have already figured all this out, and don’t need, or want to establish any OFFICIAL legal barriers to create “exclusive” white enclaves, as in the past. In fact to have too OPEN a barrier EXPOSES the subtle web of exclusionary measures (deliberately or inadvertently) already put in place by whites. The trick these days is not to be too OPEN about it.

    Anon 753 says:
    Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.

    Yes, certain aspects of contemporary white society effectively create the behavior patterns you mention. But these may not necessarily be “new” white trends. In the 1850s, in Sweden’s biggest city, Stockholm, for example, the illegitimacy rate was close to 50%. As Burns and Scott (1994) show, by the mid 19th century when reliable cross-national figures are widely available, it was found than in illegitimacy, (Stockholm (with a 46% rate in the 1850s) was second only to Vienna (49%) among European capitals. Indeed this trend was a continuation since the early 1800s. Nor was this solely a pattern for mid century 1800s. In ultra-white Sweden at the start of the 20th century, barely half of Swedish women married and around one-sixth of children were born out of wedlock. Nor was this solely an urban Stockholm phenomenon. High illegitimacy rates and declining marriage rates were also found in rural areas as well (A companion to nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, By Stefan Berger, Wiley 2006.)

    By contrast, as late as 1950 the US black illegitimacy rate stood at 17%, well below that of the white Swedish models above, and for 50 years, black marriage rates were higher than that of US whites (Sowell 2004- Black Rednecks, White Liberals), and better than the Swedish pattern over several decades. The black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was STILL lower than the 28% posted by US whites in 2000.

    Closer into the 20th century, white Nordics are no paragons of virtue: By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in Nordic Sweden had reached 53% of all births- a steep rise from a mere 10% illegitimacy rate in mid century. ([i]A population history of the United States By Herbert S. Klein, Cambridge University Press. 2004. p. 216)[/i] Nor are supposedly more virtuous white people of other “Nordic” nations any better. In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark.
    (Report on Immigrant populations and demographic development in the member states of the Council of Europe. Rinus Penninx, Council of Europe. 1984 )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    White people have already figured all this out, and don’t need, or want to establish any OFFICIAL legal barriers to create “exclusive” white enclaves, as in the past. In fact to have too OPEN a barrier EXPOSES the subtle web of exclusionary measures (deliberately or inadvertently) already put in place by whites. The trick these days is not to be too OPEN about it.
     
    Oh give me a break, Enrique.

    Your "White People" have had exclusionary measures in place since before colored people entered the picture.

    I went to school with a lot of rich people, about two-thirds white gentile and one-third white Jewish, and the people they were most interested in excluding were other white people. Coming from a middle/working class family, I was socially excluded myself, so I ended up with mainly ethnic Jewish and Asian friends at that school until I left against my parents' wishes (they thought the rich people pixie dust would rub off on me, but it was pretty clear to me that this was not going to happen).

    Ironically, today these "exclusionary" whites would probably prefer you to some white kid from a broken family whose father fixed pipes for a living. From my perspective, it just looks like privileged colored people rubbing it in and piling on less fortunate whites along with their plutocrat white allies.

    I distinctly remember one incident at public high school where I was outside smoking on the sidewalk where the white kids gathered (we were about 50% of the student body, and excluded from most of the school by black violence). I was a senior and had no class that period because I'd already finished almost all my requirements for graduation, and the black security guard came out and berated me for smoking. I said I wasn't on school property and didn't have a class that period so he should leave me alone. He looked me in the eye and said "white trash," then haughtily moved along.

    Sometimes I think the whining about white privilege is just colored people who want the privilege of the richest stratum of white society, so they can rub it in white kids' faces themselves and strut around with a sense of superiority.
  108. @Anonymous
    The economic materialism of Marxism contradicts sociobiology.

    Some people say capital is to blame
    Some say it is our own damn fault

    Read More
  109. I believe Frost could have added one more thing, namely that whites are not sufficiently replacing themselves demographically/genetically.

    The Black Death killed off one third of all Europeans, yet they eventually recovered their numbers. I agree that the fertility rate is too low, especially in the southern tier of Europe, but any increase in the fertility rate will take time. A mix of policies will probably be needed:

    - affordable housing and schools for young families
    - secure neighborhoods for young families (which ties in with the first point)
    - encouragement to start family formation at a younger age. Right now it is difficult to enter a stable, well-paying job until you are in your late 20s or early 30s. This is partly due to employers demanding a university degree for jobs that clearly don’t require a university degree. We need to rethink the idea of having to complete one’s education before starting a family.
    - marriage should be delegalized. There should be a separate kind of contract for people who wish to reproduce. Such a “reproductive contract” could not be dissolved unilaterally by either party.

    The nation with the highest rate of abortion in the world is white Russia for example, which kills 2 white babies for each live white birth.

    This isn’t a pro-life/anti-abortion site. If a 2-month fetus is a “baby,” we could probably define many full-grown adults as “babies.” In any case, it is doubtful whether restricting access to abortion would do much to raise the fertility rate. When Romania tried that strategy (under Ceaușescu), there was a sharp rise in the fertility rate followed by a decline. Moreover, much of the rise was among people who were in no position to assume family responsibilities and had to consign their children to orphanages.

    Black-white intermarriages for example are LESS than 1% of all marriages

    What is the picture when we look at common-law relationships? (which are now just as numerous). I’m not really arguing with you. I’m just curious.

    Presumably you [Frost] don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    Please call me “Peter.” And that isn’t what I was presuming. I’m saying that people should have an automatic right to move into a community only if they have a kinship tie to someone in that community. Otherwise, they would have to submit their candidacy to a community council, and each community would be free to set its own admission critieria. As you point out, many communities would choose to have no criteria at all. Others would choose criteria based on religion or lifestyle. For instance, there could be “gay-friendly” communities (which already exist).

    The aim would be to increase social capital by creating a social context where people are more willing to show interest in their communities and look out for each other.

    more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.

    You’re committing an error of logic. Yes, America’s elite is disproportionately white (and Asian) and, yes, they can afford to live wherever they want and send their children to whatever schools they want. It doesn’t follow, however, that the terms “elite” and “White Americans” are synonymous.

    By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in Nordic Sweden had reached 53% of all births- a steep rise from a mere 10% illegitimacy rate in mid century. [...] Nor are supposedly more virtuous white people of other “Nordic” nations any better. In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark.

    The same is true for Quebec (in some parts of Quebec, most births are illegitimate). These illegitimate children are, however, born to stable couples who jointly raise them. I know these people, and they tell me that “marriage” provides little real benefit while creating the possibility of sky-high alimony payments in the event of divorce. A lot of young men tell me that marriage is just not worth it for that reason alone.

    Read More
  110. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Enrique Cardova
    K. Arujo says:
    If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness.

    Dubious on some counts. While there has been SOME PC abuse by the Left, the right also has ITS own version of "conservative correctness" which is deployed to dismiss and censor debate. Rather than address concerns about the harassment of women online for example, their complaints can be dismissed as "political correctness" without addressing the issue in detail. The same "PC dismissal tool" is also deployed in many other contexts, including faux claims of "persecution" when assorted conservative claims are challenged. The tactic avoids detailed, and indeed open debate by allowing for quick dismissal of the issue and associated data. And "open debate" is not an automatic pass for filthy language or crude, disrespectful behavior. It is ironic that some conservatives talk about "civility" and lament its "decline", but quickly dismiss problems such as the rude, hateful, systematic harassment of women online (see "Gamergate" fiasco on Google) as mere "PC", and thus unworthy of attention or addressing.


    It’s all about money and power. Rich Liberals in big cities turn up their noses at ‘white trash’ in trailer parks. While NY rich support ‘stop and frisk’ against blacks in NY, they blame all the race problems on the whites of Ferguson.

    Indeed. Some white liberalism, like some "conservative correctness" is itself fraught with hypocrisy.

    So, it’s not fascist democracies vs liberal democracies but fascist oligarchic democracies vs tribal-identity oligarchic democracies.
    Agreed.

    If Germany had maintained an alliance with the USSR, war would have been limited. Also, there would have been no Holocaust, at least not on a large scale. Also, as Poland would have been occupied by Germans and Russians, they would have hidden their crimes. Nazi crimes were exposed because they lost the war.

    Not necessarily. Who says there would not have been a large scale Holocaust if the Nazi-Soviet Pact held? There may have been a SMALLER large-scale one than that which actually occurred, but while the actual murder squads did not FULLY deploy until late 1941, there were already moves afoot in the German section of Poland in 1941 to begin the "final solution." The first Jews to be "cleansed" for example were German Jews dispatched to Warthegau, in Poland, in 1941. By the end of 1940, 325,000 Poles and Jews from the Wartheland and the Polish Corridor were expelled to General Government, often forced to abandon most of their belongings. The mass murder machinery did not crank up full steam until the latter half of 1941, but the gears were already in motion. Even if the Pact had held, Jews in the occupied areas were still doomed by the fascists.

    “If liberalism means individual freedom, civil liberty, free speech, right of conscience, open debate on controversial issues, and etc, it has been defeated by political correctness.”

    “Dubious on some counts. While there has been SOME PC abuse by the Left, the right also has ITS own version of “conservative correctness” which is deployed to dismiss and censor debate. Rather than address concerns about the harassment of women online for example, their complaints can be dismissed as “political correctness” without addressing the issue in detail. The same “PC dismissal tool” is also deployed in many other contexts, including faux claims of “persecution” when assorted conservative claims are challenged. The tactic avoids detailed, and indeed open debate by allowing for quick dismissal of the issue and associated data. And “open debate” is not an automatic pass for filthy language or crude, disrespectful behavior. It is ironic that some conservatives talk about “civility” and lament its “decline”, but quickly dismiss problems such as the rude, hateful, systematic harassment of women online (see “Gamergate” fiasco on Google) as mere “PC”, and thus unworthy of attention or addressing.”

    PC as it is mostly employed in the West is almost entirely ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’–with a capital ‘L’, as true liberalism should be for free speech. I wouldn’t even call current ‘progressives’ the Left. Leftism, as far I can tell, is dead. Marxism is dead, communism is dead, working class politics is dead. Today’s Liberals are more about creating safe and prosperous spaces for themselves in gentrified cities than in caring about the People. So, where is the Left? ‘Gay marriage’ isn’t leftist. It was pushed, promoted, and funded by the oligarchs of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc from day one. Most homosexual activists sought an alliance mainly with rich, powerful, and influential elites. They disdained most of the unwashed masses. The cult of narcissism has always been a hallmark of ‘gay’ sensibility. Though there were homosexual Marxists and leftists in the past, the trajectory of homosexual activism was bound to be elitist since ‘gay sensibility’ is about stuff like fancy design and the arts and fame and glamour.

    True, there is a culture of correctness on the ‘right’ as well. We only need to look at theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. We only need to look at some Southern communities that wanna ban the teaching of Evolution. They wanna teach Creationism in the name of something like ‘science equality’.

    So, all forms of power tries to silence others. This is why, if liberalism is to have real value, it must be for free speech for all sides no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless one is for free speech, one cannot be said to be truly liberal. Traditionally, liberals were better on free speech and civil liberties than conservatives were. Conservatives usually sought to suppress overt freedom and liberty in the name of community values, taboos, patriotism, etc. In the aftermath of 9/11, we saw how censorious the American Right could be.

    But things are more dangerous today because it’s now the Liberals who are more censorious than the conservatives. Of course, conservatives are not more pro-free-speech due to principle but because their speech is more likely to be threatened by political correctness in today’s climate in which most media, academia, government, and courts are dominated by Liberals. Look how the government is forcing ‘gay marriage’ —but not incest marriage and polygamy(so much for ‘marriage equality’)—on all fifty states and even forcing cake shops out of business for refusing to catering to ‘gay weddings’. These cakeshops will sell to homosexuals, but they will not go along with ‘gay marriage’ that totally desecrates the true meaning of marriage by associating the bio-moral institution of marriage with the dubious ‘sexual’ behavior of homosexuals.

    Since conservatives are, by nature, not good on free speech, it really hinges on liberals to stand up for free speech. But many of today’s Liberals are hostile to free speech, the first amendment, and etc. Many Liberals want to shut down certain speech as ‘hate speech’. They are more into their own moral narcissism and self-righteousness than liberty and freedom. So, in a world where conservatives haven’t been good on free speech and where Liberals are not for free speech either, we are facing some dangerous times. There are Libertarians to be sure, but they aren’t very powerful, and they happen to be poorly organized.

    Another thing. While it’s true that some Conservatives want to end a certain debate by calling something ‘politically correct’, they are still not saying that there should be a law or rule that forbids the discussion itself. They are saying that they, as individuals, don’t care to discuss it and don’t want to take part in it. So, if you bring up the issue of sexual harassment, some conservatives might say, “we’ve all heard it before, it’s the same old PC crap, and I’m through talking about this.” They might not engage with you, but they are not saying there should be a rule that bans you from discussing it openly or with others. They, as individuals, just don’t want to hear about it or discuss it any further.

    In contrast, Liberals now use political correctness to pass laws and to enforce rules and codes that FORBID people from saying something anywhere and anytime. Instead of saying, “I personally don’t wanna talk about it anymore”, they use the full force of the system–government, schools, workplace, etc–to silence people by threatening them with firing, blacklisting, demotion, and being dragged to sensitivity classes for espousing certain views at any time and any place.

    For example, suppose you’re for ‘gay marriage’ and I’m not. We may argue, but I might get tired and say ‘enough is enough’ and walk away from the discussion. But that doesn’t mean that I think you shouldn’t have the right to talk about whatever you wanna talk about. It doesn’t mean that I want you to lose your job or be blacklisted for having views that I find loathsome.

    In contrast, I’ll bet you’re the type who believes that people who oppose ‘gay marriage’ should be fired, blacklisted, silenced, and even fined by the force of the law and institutional power.

    That makes all the difference.

    I may want to end an debate with you personally but I would not want to end your right to debate or discuss certain matters. But I’ll bet you’re the kind who not only wants to personally end a debate(with a certain individual) but wants to make sure that no one says anything that might offend you. You want the power of the law to fire, blacklist, and punish those who, according to current PC, has abhorrent views. I’ll bet you’re like the anti-communist demagogues in the 1950s who not only wanted to smoke out communist spies in the US government but wanted to blacklist and destroy anyone who suspected of harboring leftist/radical views even though there’s no evidence that they betrayed the US government.

    As for filthy, crude, and uncivil behavior, the best thing is to ignore people without manners. But that’s pretty difficult in a culture(dominated by Liberals)that promote stuff like rap music, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, stand up comics who say ‘fuc*’ all the time, mainstreaming of porn, Bill Maher, and etc.

    I don’t like overt vulgarity and crude boorishness, but then, I don’t think there should be a law that fines or sends people to jail for it, especially when the rules tend to be so hypocritical. Don Imus lost his gig by imitating ghetto talk(‘nappy headed hos’), but Stephen Colbert is hardly touched by his ‘ching chong’ joke.

    Read More
  111. @Enrique Cardova
    Anon 701 says:
    Presumably you [Frost] don’t actually mean kin but rather ethnically or racially based communities.

    This isn’t a solution because it doesn’t address the problem, which is government restriction on free association. People already tend to associate in general along ethnic or racial lines. But government restriction on free association prevents exclusive communities from being established. Even if there are no explicit strictures, the effects and “disparate impact” are considered by the government as indicating de facto explicit strictures.

    "Free association" restrictions have not prevented ethnic groups from mingling according to ethnic or racial lines. Most US whites for example, outside certain right wingers and white libertarians, have shed few tears over the end of so called "restrictions" like forbidding blacks to eat in certain restaurants, or renting a hotel room. They have no interest in ,and reject assorted conservative or libertarian "freedom of association" arguments along these lines. Who needs that negative racial hassle which continually besmirched the US image throughout the world in the 1950, and 1960s?

    Eisenhower for example had to invite African diplomats denied service in US restaurants to the White House for example to demonstrate that the US was not the racist totalitarian state depicted by the Soviets and other detractors. Kennedy had to urge Maryland realtors to hold down racist practices that were creating ugly incidents when non-white diplomats attempted to do normal business in the erstwhile leader of the "Free World." The success of the Civil Rights Movement removed a great deal of embarrassment for white people along these lines, particularly as they sought to negotiate for more control over or access to Third World resources.

    In fact general same-ethnicity association has already been secured by a variety of more subtle "non racial" measures, ranging from zoning restrictions that suppress the supply of housing (meaning less minorities in suburban hood and in schools), or use of pricing for products and services that again, mean less minorities since they, on the average have less wealth or income, or access. Racially segregated "freedom of association" ski-slopes for example are not necessary, because, aside from cultural preferences in recreation, more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.

    White people have already figured all this out, and don't need, or want to establish any OFFICIAL legal barriers to create "exclusive" white enclaves, as in the past. In fact to have too OPEN a barrier EXPOSES the subtle web of exclusionary measures (deliberately or inadvertently) already put in place by whites. The trick these days is not to be too OPEN about it.


    Anon 753 says:
    Islam places limits on polygamy of 4 wives and restricts fornication and adultery making it less polygamous in practice. Whereas contemporary secular society permits and even promotes fornication, promiscuity, female sexual freedom, adultery, divorce and remarriage, etc, making it much more polygynous in practice despite officially only allowing monogamy legally.

    Yes, certain aspects of contemporary white society effectively create the behavior patterns you mention. But these may not necessarily be "new" white trends. In the 1850s, in Sweden's biggest city, Stockholm, for example, the illegitimacy rate was close to 50%. As Burns and Scott (1994) show, by the mid 19th century when reliable cross-national figures are widely available, it was found than in illegitimacy, (Stockholm (with a 46% rate in the 1850s) was second only to Vienna (49%) among European capitals. Indeed this trend was a continuation since the early 1800s. Nor was this solely a pattern for mid century 1800s. In ultra-white Sweden at the start of the 20th century, barely half of Swedish women married and around one-sixth of children were born out of wedlock. Nor was this solely an urban Stockholm phenomenon. High illegitimacy rates and declining marriage rates were also found in rural areas as well (A companion to nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, By Stefan Berger, Wiley 2006.)

    By contrast, as late as 1950 the US black illegitimacy rate stood at 17%, well below that of the white Swedish models above, and for 50 years, black marriage rates were higher than that of US whites (Sowell 2004- Black Rednecks, White Liberals), and better than the Swedish pattern over several decades. The black illegitimacy rate in 1965 was STILL lower than the 28% posted by US whites in 2000.

    Closer into the 20th century, white Nordics are no paragons of virtue: By the year 2000, out of wedlock births in Nordic Sweden had reached 53% of all births- a steep rise from a mere 10% illegitimacy rate in mid century. ([i]A population history of the United States By Herbert S. Klein, Cambridge University Press. 2004. p. 216)[/i] Nor are supposedly more virtuous white people of other "Nordic" nations any better. In the early 1980s illegitimacy rates were on the order of 45% in Iceland and Sweden and 40% in Denmark.
    (Report on Immigrant populations and demographic development in the member states of the Council of Europe. Rinus Penninx, Council of Europe. 1984 )

    White people have already figured all this out, and don’t need, or want to establish any OFFICIAL legal barriers to create “exclusive” white enclaves, as in the past. In fact to have too OPEN a barrier EXPOSES the subtle web of exclusionary measures (deliberately or inadvertently) already put in place by whites. The trick these days is not to be too OPEN about it.

    Oh give me a break, Enrique.

    Your “White People” have had exclusionary measures in place since before colored people entered the picture.

    I went to school with a lot of rich people, about two-thirds white gentile and one-third white Jewish, and the people they were most interested in excluding were other white people. Coming from a middle/working class family, I was socially excluded myself, so I ended up with mainly ethnic Jewish and Asian friends at that school until I left against my parents’ wishes (they thought the rich people pixie dust would rub off on me, but it was pretty clear to me that this was not going to happen).

    Ironically, today these “exclusionary” whites would probably prefer you to some white kid from a broken family whose father fixed pipes for a living. From my perspective, it just looks like privileged colored people rubbing it in and piling on less fortunate whites along with their plutocrat white allies.

    I distinctly remember one incident at public high school where I was outside smoking on the sidewalk where the white kids gathered (we were about 50% of the student body, and excluded from most of the school by black violence). I was a senior and had no class that period because I’d already finished almost all my requirements for graduation, and the black security guard came out and berated me for smoking. I said I wasn’t on school property and didn’t have a class that period so he should leave me alone. He looked me in the eye and said “white trash,” then haughtily moved along.

    Sometimes I think the whining about white privilege is just colored people who want the privilege of the richest stratum of white society, so they can rub it in white kids’ faces themselves and strut around with a sense of superiority.

    Read More
  112. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    the crucial and actual main argument of Western government immigration proponents is there must be immigration of capable energetic qualified people willing to work, in order to a maintain the country’s international competitiveness.

    That's one of the talking points. There are three others:

    1. We need immigration to rejuvenate the population, so that we have enough young working people to pay pension benefits to retiring baby boomers.

    2. We need immigration to stimulate population growth and thereby stimulate economic growth.

    3. We need immigration to fill labor shortages.

    All three are dubious. Immigrants are actually only slightly younger on average than non-immigrants. This is largely because young immigrants tend to bring their parents and grandparents. An often overlooked factor in this argument is that immigrants of working age are much more likely to be tax consumers than tax payers, so immigration actually worsens the problem it is supposed to solve.

    As for the argument of population growth, we should be aiming to raise GDP per capita and not simply GDP.

    Finally, most "labor shortages" are nonexistent. If an industry is suffering from a genuine labor shortage, mean incomes should be rising in that industry at a faster rate than in other industries. In most cases, this is not happening and often the reverse is happening.

    Fascism, National Socialism delivered

    Fascism and National Socialism delivered a world war that killed tens of millions of people. The main failing of these ideologies is that they led to (1) excessive nationalism and (2) fantasism and delusional thinking. Even without the Soviet Union as an adversary, the Axis powers would have never been able to win a war against the British Empire and the United States. This was pointed out by military planners before the war began. The British and the Americans had a much greater capacity for war production than the Germans, and this capacity lay well beyond the reach of long-range bombers. The German capacity for war production was continually vulnerable to air attack.

    In-case you haven’t heard it terns out Mesolithic Russians and Swedes already had hair color diversity, along with eye color diversity, and *known* markers for light skin.

    Yes, I was aware of some of those findings, but not all of them. They provide support for the following points:

    1. The unusual color traits of Europeans -- a diverse palette of hair and eye colors and white skin -- developed before the transition to farming. So they were not a result of selection pressures created by the farming lifestyle (self-domestication, increased need for vitamin D because of a meat-poor diet, etc.).

    2. It looks like these color traits developed in the north and east of Europe and then diffused outward. It also looks like the diversification of hair and eye color preceded the extreme whitening of the skin. This could explain why Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Spain had a strange combination of non-brown eyes and dark skin.

    The main Near Eastern ancestors of Euros(EEF) also had hair-eye color diversity and markers for light skin, and the same is true for modern west Asians(to a much smaller extent). There is no one source.

    That is theoretically unlikely. We are not looking at phenotypically similar alleles. We are looking at identical alleles. It is more likely that Near Eastern farmers were themselves the product of a demographic expansion out of Europe near the end of the ice age. This expansion replaced an earlier African-like population:

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-new-european-phenotype-expansion/

    ancient DNA suggests they didn’t reach modern frequencies till recently.

    You are probably referring to the study by Wilde et al. which showed that the inhabitants north of the Black Sea became white-skinned over the past 5,000 years. This probably reflects an ethnic change, i.e., the replacement of darker-skinned nomadic peoples of Central Asian origin by white-skinned Europeans (generally Slavic peoples). The authors rule out this explanation because the genetic distance between the two groups is not consistent with a genetic distance between Europeans and non-Europeans. The authors forget two things, however: (1) because we are looking farther back in time, the genetic distances between Europeans and Central Asians would have been smaller and (2) we may be looking at a dark-skinned European or near-European population that is now extinct. The whitening of European populations appears to have begun within one portion of Europe and then spread outward. The notion that all Europeans are white is a present-oriented judgment.

    See:
    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/did-europeans-become-white-in-historic/

    That’s one of the talking points. There are three others:

    Another talking point is restaurants.

    I think you remarked before how Scarborough, Ontario has gotten worse with immigration. Tyler Cowen, a popular libertarian and pro-immigration economist, blogger, and foodie, says that Scarborough is the “dining capital of the world”:

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/scarborough-ontario.html

    Read More
  113. K Arujo said:
    PC as it is mostly employed in the West is almost entirely ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’–with a capital ‘L’, as true liberalism should be for free speech. I wouldn’t even call current ‘progressives’ the Left. Leftism, as far I can tell, is dead. Marxism is dead, communism is dead, working class politics is dead. Today’s Liberals are more about creating safe and prosperous spaces for themselves in gentrified cities than in caring about the People.

    A fair enough analysis on some counts although I would not characterize ALL liberals as such. And liberal PC also has its conservative counterpart.

    Gay marriage’ isn’t leftist. It was pushed, promoted, and funded by the oligarchs of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc from day one. Most homosexual activists sought an alliance mainly with rich, powerful, and influential elites. They disdained most of the unwashed masses. The cult of narcissism has always been a hallmark of ‘gay’ sensibility. Though there were homosexual Marxists and leftists in the past, the trajectory of homosexual activism was bound to be elitist since ‘gay sensibility’ is about stuff like fancy design and the arts and fame and glamour.

    OK, but don’t you think more than the oligarchs are involved? Hasn’t the “gay thing” has often been identified with leftist politics, with gay activists using leftist gains or forums to push their agenda onward? For example they have hijacked the black civil rights meme successfully, so that objections to said marriages are seen as tantamount to the bad old days of Jim Crow in some media and public quarters. And doesn’t the “fabulous” thing serve as a wedge that leftists can use to attack various traditional institutions- like churches for example- a favorite target of many leftists?

    This is why, if liberalism is to have real value, it must be for free speech for all sides no matter how much you disagree with them. Unless one is for free speech, one cannot be said to be truly liberal. Traditionally, liberals were better on free speech and civil liberties than conservatives were.
    Agreed.

    Look how the government is forcing ‘gay marriage’ —but not incest marriage and polygamy(so much for ‘marriage equality’)—on all fifty states and even forcing cake shops out of business for refusing to catering to ‘gay weddings’. These cakeshops will sell to homosexuals, but they will not go along with ‘gay marriage’ that totally desecrates the true meaning of marriage by associating the bio-moral institution of marriage with the dubious ‘sexual’ behavior of homosexuals.

    The hijacking of the civil rights meme is a key success in this process. But based on what I have read, (Randall Kennedy ‘s Interracial Intimacies, etc), blacks initially arrived on US soil as time-limited indentured servants with the right to LEGALLY marry whom they wished and LEGAL B-W unions are recorded way back since the 1600s. These were later suppressed and banned as colonial governments sought to expand and protect slavery. Court rulings in the 1960s “legalizing” such unions were hailed as a progressive step but the rulings were just giving back what was legal before- in that rights people already had, were taken away by governments. All the court rulings did was restore the rights people had previously enjoyed. By contrast gays never had any legal right to marry either in the US or elsewhere in the West. But of course you will not here much about this in various debates.

    While it’s true that some Conservatives want to end a certain debate by calling something ‘politically correct’, they are still not saying that there should be a law or rule that forbids the discussion itself. They are saying that they, as individuals, don’t care to discuss it and don’t want to take part in it. So, if you bring up the issue of sexual harassment, some conservatives might say, “we’ve all heard it before, it’s the same old PC crap, and I’m through talking about this.” They might not engage with you, but they are not saying there should be a rule that bans you from discussing it openly or with others. They, as individuals, just don’t want to hear about it or discuss it any further. In contrast, Liberals now use political correctness to pass laws and to enforce rules and codes that FORBID people from saying something anywhere and anytime.

    A solid assessment of the difference, that is the reality on some campuses. I would have to agree.

    Read More
  114. Peter says:
    What is the picture when we look at common-law relationships? (which are now just as numerous). I’m not really arguing with you. I’m just curious.
    I got my stats from an article referencing 2008 Us Census figures. I would not be surprised if co-habitation/common law arrangements are equal or more, a trend increasingly seen among whites. Common law may swell the numbers beyond the official marriage stats, though numbers remain small however, and are likely to have a much bigger impact among blacks than whites. About 14.4 percent of black men and 6.5 percent of black women are currently in such mixed marriages, due to higher educational attainment, a more racially integrated military and a rising black middle class that provides more interaction with other races.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/02/marriage?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/forricher

    ————————————————————————————-

    - “more expensive winter sports, lodgings etc will price more minorities out of the market- meaning less minority bodies in particular venues.”

    You’re committing an error of logic. Yes, America’s elite is disproportionately white (and Asian) and, yes, they can afford to live wherever they want and send their children to whatever schools they want. It doesn’t follow, however, that the terms “elite” and “White Americans” are synonymous.

    Wasnt saying that at all, but pointing out to the poster that lamented a decline in racial freedom of associations, that such racial association can still be indirectly achieved by various mechanisms, without the need for OPEN racial segregation laws.

    ————————————————-

    - affordable housing and schools for young families
    - secure neighborhoods for young families (which ties in with the first point)
    - encouragement to start family formation at a younger age. Right now it is difficult to enter a stable, well-paying job until you are in your late 20s or early 30s. This is partly due to employers demanding a university degree for jobs that clearly don’t require a university degree. We need to rethink the idea of having to complete one’s education before starting a family.
    - marriage should be delegalized. There should be a separate kind of contract for people who wish to reproduce. Such a “reproductive contract” could not be dissolved unilaterally by either party.

    I think these are reasonable proposition that can apply across the board, regardless of race. Rampant “credentialism” for example has locked many out of decent jobs when too often the jobs in question do not require a college degree, and may even have been made simpler by automation and outsourcing. Do people who book rental cars on site for travelers need college degrees for example? Or airline counter personnel? Many employers are just using credentialism as a cheap screening device to cut their personnel recruitment workload. And since women are doing better than men educationally, regardless of race, credentialism increasingly means men will be slipping behind in the labor market, meaning the marriage market for men on the short end will get harder, as women tend to want to “marry up.”

    There really needs to be a well organized vocational/technical educational system like Germany has for those not on a college track, that can match youth with increasingly skilled jobs without needing to sit 4 years on campus. the drive to provide cheap higher education turns out to be not so cheap.

    Can you expand on “de-legalization” of marriage? Are you talking private contracts replacing government sanctioned licenses and such? And doesn’t this mean some sort of legal process, enforced in court would have to control in case of breach of contract?

    Read More
  115. BillP says:
    Your “White People” have had exclusionary measures in place since before colored people entered the picture.
    I went to school with a lot of rich people, about two-thirds white gentile and one-third white Jewish, and the people they were most interested in excluding were other white people. Coming from a middle/working class family, I was socially excluded myself, so I ended up with mainly ethnic Jewish and Asian friends at that school until I left against my parents’ wishes (they thought the rich people pixie dust would rub off on me, but it was pretty clear to me that this was not going to happen).

    ^^Of course, I agree Bill, and this was never/is not at issue. The point is that white people have numerous exclusionary measures in place, more so for the culluds than other white people. This is American History 101. Your white Jewish friends for example never had to face mobs attacking and burning down their houses in America, because they happened to move in next to some gentiles. They usually had the great advantage of being seen as white, and could avoid all that, to a much greater extent than any black people could ever do.

    And the second point to the poster who laments the end of racial “freedom of association” is that government has not implemented any terrible civil liberty crushing “freedom of association.” The lament is shaky. Freedom of association has always had limits- nothing new. Government limits certain accociations across the board, but that does not mean no one has freedom. Semi-naked adult men for example cannot freely associate with juveniles in public toilets (at least not yet in most jurisdictions- though I am sure liberals somewhere are working on it). Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows private discrimination as perfectly legal. If you have a private club, you can legally discriminate to your heart’s content. Its only if you are offering goods and services to the general public that you have to follow the same rules for ALL the public- black, white or green. Some white people have made excellent use of this exemption in everything from private schools, to private clubs. And white people have long used outwardly “neutral” seeming measures to accomplish the same racial exclusions.

    In fact white liberals are among the foremost practitioners. While lecturing the rest about “diversity”, white liberals have often erected a vast and effective web of exclusion in many ways. Carefully crafted housing and zoning ordinances for example in many places hinder construction or development or use of middle to lower cost housing that more minorities might afford. The result is less minorities in their neighborhoods, all the while condemning conservatives for “lack of diversity.” Likewise “progressive” white unions have dropped OPEN racist job barriers, but have implemented numerous “under the table” barriers that accomplish the same end- such as dual seniority lists, or the need for “recommendations” by other union members (mostly white to begin with- ha hah) in order to get a union card to work, or advertising only the lowest paid job openings while ensuring that only “word of mouth” (white guy to white guy) tells about better available jobs, and so on. Numerous academic studies, court cases and EEOC filings have revealed these shenanigans by white liberals and so-called “progressives.”

    the black security guard came out and berated me for smoking. I said I wasn’t on school property and didn’t have a class that period so he should leave me alone. He looked me in the eye and said “white trash,” then haughtily moved along.
    Maybe he done you wrong, but another equally valid scenario is that it was probably against school policy for unknown persons or persons not in an established class from being on campus, and smoking to boot. If you were not on school property, how come you were on campus smoking, so that a guard had to intervene? The story does not add up, and some may say that rather than following school policy, you are unfairly blaming the black guard for being “unfair” when caught.

    Ironically, today these “exclusionary” whites would probably prefer you to some white kid from a broken family whose father fixed pipes for a living. From my perspective, it just looks like privileged colored people rubbing it in and piling on less fortunate whites along with their plutocrat white allies.

    Doubtful. The reality is, as detailed above, that white people have mobilized and used every advantage for themselves, and will continue to do so. Even the Civil Rights victories served white interests by:

    (a) Removing the embarrassment America suffered internationally over its flawed democracy and racial policies

    (b) Allowed white people to pawn off or dump unwanted or lower value resources on the coloreds- such as unloading lower end housing stock in already declining/low growth neighborhoods,

    (c) Got numerous white people paid as administrators and miscellaneous processors of paper for government programs to help the poor, which of course included the white poor

    (d) Enabled some white people to feed profitably from the tide of government spending that began in the 1960s to help the less fortunate. White school districts for example, fired almost 30,000 black teachers and closed numerous thriving black schools, while snapping up the cash Washington sent down to help the black poor get better educations. Most of the cash was redirected for overall white benefit- no surprise there.

    I am not disputing that “class” may be a more potent variable these days than race in some cases, though class may have a racial aspect. Eventually class identification may trump race. A recent study from the Pew Research Centre looking at the demography and economics of intermarriage reported that marriages between a white spouse and an Asian spouse had the highest combined average annual earnings ($70,952).

    But a $3 question- are such affluent people, indeed, even affluent whites voting against their own interests by voting Democrat as some allege? Or are both parties the same- making no difference to the bottom line of the affluent?

    Read More
  116. Wasnt saying that at all, but pointing out to the poster that lamented a decline in racial freedom of associations, that such racial association can still be indirectly achieved by various mechanisms, without the need for OPEN racial segregation laws.

    The point you’re making is true but banal. If you have enough money, you can choose to live in whatever neighborhood you want and send your kids to whatever school you want. But that takes a lot of money. We’re no longer talking about the middle class. We’re talking about the top 10% (and increasingly the top 1%).

    You’re making the same error of logic that I see among many people who call themselves “leftist” today. They equate white Americans in general with America’s elite. Since the elite is disproportionately white and privileged, whites in general are privileged. Non sequitur.

    Common law may swell the numbers beyond the official marriage stats, though numbers remain small however

    According to a poll of 1,000 Americans aged 18 to 34, conducted this year, 54% had dated outside their racial group. I agree that dating is not the same thing as a common-law relationship, but I would be very surprised if the numbers were a lot smaller for people living together. I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that’s a case of false memory syndrome.

    http://www.dailyillini.com/lifeandculture/article_dae287a6-b18b-11e4-9896-4b85a5c1c10e.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that’s a case of false memory syndrome.
     
    The Centre for Disease Control's VitalStats database contains racial data on births. In 2013 non-hispanic white mothers gave birth to 2,129,126 children. By my calculations 80% of these were recorded as being to non-hispanic white fathers.

    The true proportion is potentially greater than 80% since there were some 190,000 births to white mothers for whom the father's race was recorded as 'Not Stated.' In the unlikely event that all 190,000 of these fathers were white, that would put a ceiling of 89% on the proportion of white fathers to births by white mothers in 2013.

    It's reasonable to suppose that the true proportion falls somewhere between the 'floor' and the 'ceiling.' If births to 'Not Stated' fathers are apportioned among racial groups according to each racial group's proportion of recorded fathers (eg in the above case 80% of 'Not Stated' fathers would be apportioned to non-hispanic whites) then this figure would be closer to the ceiling than the floor.

    The corresponding figures for selected states in 2013 were:

    California 75% (floor) and 79% (ceiling)
    Colorado 81%, 86%
    Florida 74%, 86%
    Illinois 84%, 90%
    Massachusetts 86%, 88%
    Michigan 86%, 92%
    New York 84%, 90.5%
    Texas 74%, 83%

    For the United States as a whole the figures in 1990 were 87% and 95%, which demonstrates a trend towards greater racial mixing. If these trends continue - as seems likely - then white mothers can be expected to give birth to ever declining proportions of white children. An increase in the fertility of white women may not therefore result in an increase in white births.

    Over the very long run it must be assumed that, genocide or natural disasters aside, racial intermixture will become the mechanism of white racial extinction, since it's entirely possible for the proportion of births to white mothers by non-white fathers to rise to 100%. Even if a proportion of 100% is never attained, births by non-white fathers could rise to such an overwhelming proportion of births to white mothers that it would render whites effectively (rather than actually) extinct. Certainly whites under such circumstances should be considered racially dispossessed. Hopes for securing racial existence must therefore take such realities into account.

  117. Can you expand on “de-legalization” of marriage? Are you talking private contracts replacing government sanctioned licenses and such? And doesn’t this mean some sort of legal process, enforced in court would have to control in case of breach of contract?

    The marriage contract is already dead. Any contract that can be unilaterally repudiated by either party is no longer a contract. It’s simply unnecessary paperwork.

    If you have no wish to reproduce, there’s no need for a marriage contract anyway. Just have your $30,000 wedding and tell people you’re “married”

    If you wish to reproduce, there should be some kind of court-enforceable contract that could be unilaterally dissolved only if the other party changes his/her mind about reproduction. Such a contract would ensure that both parties jointly work together to start a family and raise the children to adulthood. This “reproductive pact” could still be dissolved by either party but there would be penalties.

    Read More
  118. You’re making the same error of logic that I see among many people who call themselves “leftist” today. They equate white Americans in general with America’s elite. Since the elite is disproportionately white and privileged, whites in general are privileged. Non sequitur.

    I think you are missing the thrust of that point. It is not whether whites are seen as America’s elite. Some may make this argument, as whites firmly control most economic, political and cultural levers. But that wasn’t at all the point to the lamenting poster. It was whether government action has totally taken away freedom of racial association- a standard complaint among some right wingers, HBD and libertarian types lamenting that a black guy has freedom to eat his hamburger 2 tables down. In fact some of these types call for a rollback of civil rights laws to banish the black guy if so desired by the restaurant owner- such as convicted felon an right wing pundit Dinesh Dsouza in his book, “The End of Racism.” Good luck with that.

    Whatever these laments for the alleged golden age of racial exclusivitism, government has not “taken away” freedom of racial association, as can be seen in the detailed examples and academic studies on the topic. White people can discriminate and associate exclusively, or primarily with one another legally using private entities, or creating and manipulating various governmental and non-governmental process, seemingly neutral on the surface.

    I would be very surprised if the numbers were a lot smaller for people living together. I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that’s a case of false memory syndrome.

    Far as I remember reading, co-hab was the same or more, or a rising trend, like the trendline among whites as well. The 25% figure has got to be false memory, or they are calculating “hidden” non-European ancestry in whites, including those “passing.” or they are throwing in Hispanics classifying themselves as “white” or biracial types. Though IR unions increased much in the 1990s, the increase looked impressive I think because of the low starting base. In the last decade they have actually gone down among Asians and Hispanics, as new waves of immigration from Latino/Asian sources provide more same-ethnic partner options for these groups. IR unions thus are a long, long way from having significant impact on the white population. Even the millennials in your link article, though more likely for an IR hookup, still largely follow traditional marriage patterns based on race.

    Let me throw out a question here for you then Peter. Given these slow trends in actual IR marriages or co-habs, what do you think of the argument some make as to a “mestizoization” happening in the US, making it somewhat like Brazil or the South American countries? Under the “mestizo” formula, white remains on top, but becomes a more amorphous category, as numerous biracials and others reclassify themselves as “white.” This is already so partially with Hispanics like Cubans, some Puerto Ricans and various other Latinos, some of whom who may look like a brown-skinned illegal fresh off the Mexican border but still classify themselves as “white.” Likewise assorted “Middle Eastern” types like Arabs. The neat American “racial check box” categories it is argued would no longer apply, though racial hierarchism, would remain. Under this argument, “white” people would, technically, not be declining statistically, but increasing, as more people were incorporated into a more nebulous category. This happened with the Irish, and swarthy Italians in the US for example- once considered outside the pale of “proper” WASP whiteness.

    If you wish to reproduce, there should be some kind of court-enforceable contract that could be unilaterally dissolved only if the other party changes his/her mind about reproduction. Such a contract would ensure that both parties jointly work together to start a family and raise the children to adulthood. This “reproductive pact” could still be dissolved by either party but there would be penalties.

    But I would say a penalty is already the case with marriage now. To get out of a marriage in most states is expensive- its gonna cost you several thousand dollars in most cases. Its cheaper if both parties are single and kept their assets separate, but often this is not the case, and the presence of children and joint property to divide, increases the expense even more. Throw in child support and alimony costs, getting into a marriage creates what can be a painful exit penalty.

    Read More
  119. White people can discriminate and associate exclusively, or primarily with one another legally using private entities, or creating and manipulating various governmental and non-governmental process, seemingly neutral on the surface.

    You gave three examples:

    1. White people can afford to live in exclusive neighborhoods that are financially beyond the reach of minorities.

    2. White people can use zoning by-laws to keep out minorities (by restricting construction of high-density low-cost housing).

    3. White people can form unions, which discriminate against minorities through seniority and “closed shop” provisions.

    I dealt with the first point. As for the second point, zoning by-laws exist in all advanced countries. They exist for a good reason: housing generates third-party costs that are not picked up by builders. Most municipalities have had bitter experience with builders who stick them with the bill for infrastructure (schools, sewers, roads, etc.). In many cases, limits to the water supply and the need to preserve good farmland impose upper limits on how much housing should be built.

    And the third point? Let me ignore your argument that union membership is a “privilege” and not a “right.” How many Americans are actually unionized? In 2013, only 11.3% of all American workers belonged to a union, down from 20.1% in 1983. And most of those workers are in the public sector, which has an equitable representation of minority groups. In fact, African Americans are overrepresented.

    You’re partly right when you argue that unionized workers with seniority are “whiter” than either unionized workers without seniority or non-unionized workers. This is partly a reflection of broader demographic changes: America as a whole is becoming less white. It also reflects the fact that it’s becoming harder to unionize workers, particularly with the shift from manufacturing to services. If you’re unhappy with that trend, then let’s make it easier for workers to unionize!

    Unions have a place as a counterweight to the top 1%. During the boom of the 1920s, too much of the GDP went to the top 1% and not enough to working people. When the speculative bubble burst in 1920, there simply wasn’t enough demand elsewhere in the economy to pick up the slack. The rest was “history.” Literally.

    To get out of a marriage in most states is expensive

    The problem is that the cost of divorce does not necessarily fall on the person who unilaterally wants to break the marriage contract. In fact, there is a tendency for people to initiate divorce when it is financially advantageous for them to do so. I’m not saying this is always the case, but this is a major reason why many young men are reluctant to marry.

    Read More
  120. @Peter Frost
    Wasnt saying that at all, but pointing out to the poster that lamented a decline in racial freedom of associations, that such racial association can still be indirectly achieved by various mechanisms, without the need for OPEN racial segregation laws.

    The point you're making is true but banal. If you have enough money, you can choose to live in whatever neighborhood you want and send your kids to whatever school you want. But that takes a lot of money. We're no longer talking about the middle class. We're talking about the top 10% (and increasingly the top 1%).

    You're making the same error of logic that I see among many people who call themselves "leftist" today. They equate white Americans in general with America's elite. Since the elite is disproportionately white and privileged, whites in general are privileged. Non sequitur.

    Common law may swell the numbers beyond the official marriage stats, though numbers remain small however

    According to a poll of 1,000 Americans aged 18 to 34, conducted this year, 54% had dated outside their racial group. I agree that dating is not the same thing as a common-law relationship, but I would be very surprised if the numbers were a lot smaller for people living together. I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that's a case of false memory syndrome.

    http://www.dailyillini.com/lifeandculture/article_dae287a6-b18b-11e4-9896-4b85a5c1c10e.html

    I remember seeing a study that claimed that 25% of the children born to white American mothers have a father from another racial group. Maybe that’s a case of false memory syndrome.

    The Centre for Disease Control’s VitalStats database contains racial data on births. In 2013 non-hispanic white mothers gave birth to 2,129,126 children. By my calculations 80% of these were recorded as being to non-hispanic white fathers.

    The true proportion is potentially greater than 80% since there were some 190,000 births to white mothers for whom the father’s race was recorded as ‘Not Stated.’ In the unlikely event that all 190,000 of these fathers were white, that would put a ceiling of 89% on the proportion of white fathers to births by white mothers in 2013.

    It’s reasonable to suppose that the true proportion falls somewhere between the ‘floor’ and the ‘ceiling.’ If births to ‘Not Stated’ fathers are apportioned among racial groups according to each racial group’s proportion of recorded fathers (eg in the above case 80% of ‘Not Stated’ fathers would be apportioned to non-hispanic whites) then this figure would be closer to the ceiling than the floor.

    The corresponding figures for selected states in 2013 were:

    California 75% (floor) and 79% (ceiling)
    Colorado 81%, 86%
    Florida 74%, 86%
    Illinois 84%, 90%
    Massachusetts 86%, 88%
    Michigan 86%, 92%
    New York 84%, 90.5%
    Texas 74%, 83%

    For the United States as a whole the figures in 1990 were 87% and 95%, which demonstrates a trend towards greater racial mixing. If these trends continue – as seems likely – then white mothers can be expected to give birth to ever declining proportions of white children. An increase in the fertility of white women may not therefore result in an increase in white births.

    Over the very long run it must be assumed that, genocide or natural disasters aside, racial intermixture will become the mechanism of white racial extinction, since it’s entirely possible for the proportion of births to white mothers by non-white fathers to rise to 100%. Even if a proportion of 100% is never attained, births by non-white fathers could rise to such an overwhelming proportion of births to white mothers that it would render whites effectively (rather than actually) extinct. Certainly whites under such circumstances should be considered racially dispossessed. Hopes for securing racial existence must therefore take such realities into account.

    Read More
  121. As for the second point, zoning by-laws exist in all advanced countries. They exist for a good reason: housing generates third-party costs that are not picked up by builders. Most municipalities have had bitter experience with builders who stick them with the bill for infrastructure (schools, sewers, roads, etc.). In many cases, limits to the water supply and the need to preserve good farmland impose upper limits on how much housing should be built.

    Agreed zoning laws have a valid place, but it is also documented that they have been used specifically for discriminatory purposes, or as Thomas Sowell shows, are subtly used to produce a byproduct that is roughly the same as the old explicit Jim Crow laws of old.

    Let me ignore your argument that union membership is a “privilege” and not a “right.” How many Americans are actually unionized? In 2013, only 11.3% of all American workers belonged to a union, down from 20.1% in 1983. And most of those workers are in the public sector, which has an equitable representation of minority groups. In fact, African Americans are overrepresented.

    Never said union membership is a privilege, or a right, but that white unions have a long history of deliberate discrimination based on race, using explicit and non-explicit, seemingly more neutral measures, like “union card” requirements or manipulated seniority lists. And the recent drop in union memberships doesn’t change the discriminatory history and pattern of unions. Well into the 1990s there were plenty of court cases or EEOC filings related to just that.

    Re public employment blacks are not significantly overrepresented in government employment compared to some others whites- they make up around 13% of the population and weigh in at around the same proportion of the state and local workforce, while constituting about 11% of the overall labor pool. As for the federal government their proportion is about 18%. Employment in government is nothing special compared to other white groups. The white Irish have often heavily used public employment- in some decades the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans (Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York Irish, p. 313), well above current or past African-American percentages.

    You’re partly right when you argue that unionized workers with seniority are “whiter” than either unionized workers without seniority or non-unionized workers. This is partly a reflection of broader demographic changes
    True, but also partly a reflection of long-standing patterns of union discrimination based on race, which have not disappeared by any means. See the Cato Institute’s “Unions and Discrimination” 2010.

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/1/cj30n1-4.pdf

    Unions have a place as a counterweight to the top 1%. During the boom of the 1920s, too much of the GDP went to the top 1% and not enough to working people. When the speculative bubble burst in 1920, there simply wasn’t enough demand elsewhere in the economy to pick up the slack. The rest was “history.” Literally.
    Sure unions are a counterweight, and needed to keep the corporate hegemons honest. But as conservatives have often pointed out, unions have sometimes become bulwarks of the same leftist or socialist elements negatively impacting free markets. No doubt union supporters would argue differently.

    The problem is that the cost of divorce does not necessarily fall on the person who unilaterally wants to break the marriage contract. In fact, there is a tendency for people to initiate divorce when it is financially advantageous for them to do so. I’m not saying this is always the case, but this is a major reason why many young men are reluctant to marry.
    I would have to agree with what you say here. The thing is how then can demographic declines be reversed given the more wary attitude many white young men these days have towards marriage? Perhaps your contractural alternative might equalize costs a bit, but still we have a contract with penalties attached. Perhaps one alternative is to still keep marriage but step up use of “pre-nup” agreements.

    Read More
  122. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Peter Frost
    do you think that many Europeans will be attracted to Islam in the future? Islam certainly doesn’t seem sympathetic to liberalism.

    Some but not many. Traditional Muslim values are different from traditional European values. For one thing, the notion of companionate marriage is much weaker in Islam, and there is a greater social distance between a man and his wife. There is also the issue of polygamy. For another thing, Islam is not simply a religion. It's a civilization, a geopolitical bloc. A European who converts to Islam ceases to be European. He or she becomes part of a largely Afro-Asian world.

    What about economics? There was the Great Depression, and the fascists promised material prosperity.


    You seem to be arguing that history is determined by great events, like WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc. Why, then, did fascism arise in Italy well before the Depression? Why did it arise in Spain, which was largely unaffected by the Depression? I don't want to minimize the role of the Depression in discrediting liberal or liberal/socialist regimes (like in Germany and France), but there was disillusionment with liberalism even before the Wall Street Crash.

    Well, it depends on what we mean by ‘liberalism’.

    I cringe when I hear the word "we." It's like the doctor who asks me how "we" are feeling.

    Liberalism is best defined by liberals, just as fascism is best defined by fascists -- and not by hostile outsiders. Liberals believe in a world where individuals are free and self-determining. There is some debate among liberals about individuals who voluntarily refuse to be free and self-determining: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, bigoted whites, etc. "Active liberals" believe that the State should intervene to make these people free and self-determining. "Passive liberals" believe that time should be allowed to run its course. In time, these hold-outs will see the light, abandon their voluntary collectivism, and become like the rest of us.

    A solution is badly needed, and as much as I like the academic and intellectually stimulating discussions on sites like this one, I sometimes see them as a distraction from what a lot of readers would likely agree is a critically important issue.


    I disagree. Intellectual discussion is necessary; otherwise, time will be wasted doing stupid things.

    I'm not an American, but as a friendly outsider I would offer the following suggestions:

    - disengage from the Republican Party. Its cultural conservatism is 100% phoney and simply a means to mobilize the party base. It has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by wealthy corporate donors.

    - try to form a third party on the basis of existing lawmakers like Jeff Sessions. Avoid using words like "right-wing" and "conservative" so that you can appeal to disaffected Democrats. When presenting arguments to people, try to look and sound normal, and not like a manic-obsessive.

    - meet up with people as much as possible. It is not enough to win people over through argument. Beliefs have to be validated through face-to-face interaction.

    That would involve capable people coming to the West to be trained with an obligation to return after training was completed, no matter what.


    It would be hard to enforce. There is really no reason why people cannot be trained in their home communities. This is the approach we're taking with the Inuit in the Arctic. Training is most effective when it's done in one's home community, and this is increasingly possible thanks to the Internet.

    Fascism, I believe, results from a coalition of a police state with large unions and big business.

    This is the Marxist critique of fascism. If we take the example of Spain, big business was ambivalent about fascism and played a big role in its eventual liquidation: business wanted to reap the benefits of going global, whereas the Spanish state under Franco wanted to keep Spain as autarkic as possible. Fascist insistence on autarky was a general source of friction with the business community in all fascist or near-fascist countries.

    If we take the example of Japan, rightwing nationalists were hostile to the business community and assassinated prominent Japanese businessmen (zaibatsu). We today think of Japanese capitalism as being in partnership with the labor movement, but this was not the case in the 1920s. Japanese business was every bit as predatory as American business was at that time. In both countries, the threat from the right and the left forced the business community to make peace with organized labor.

    Germany, Italy and Japan were all historically decentralised until rude awakening in the 19th century. Thus their conceptions of the state and the individual were different and may have facilitated the willingness of far-left & far-right elements to fuse together.


    Before the 19th century, the State was weak almost everywhere. It was historically strongest in France, where centralization had been firmly in place since before the Revolution. Yet, even in France, there was a very strong fascist movement. By the late 1930s, France was close to civil war between the liberal-socialist government and opposition fascists.

    The same with these solutions you propose. Who is going to implement them? The elites? Of course not.

    I agree. The current globalist elites will have to lose power. That's not pie in the sky. There are peaceful and not-so-peaceful precedents for that sort of thing.

    Who is going to build the stable kin-based communities. The individualistic European masses? I don’t think so.


    I think so. A lot of people would jump at the chance.

    But you can’t go back to kin-based communities and undo the progress of Western civilization

    I'm not saying we should go back to the past. We can learn from our mistakes and create a future that is both modern and viable. It can be done.

    When a culture is done, it is done

    It's easy to be a defeatist. That way you don't have to do anything, and you won't feel guilty.

    you seem to be saying that European women are better-looking and you don’t want their fine features corrupted or replaced by African or Middle Eastern features.


    Most of the physical traits that make Europeans look European (a diverse palette of hair and eye colors, unusually white skin, a generally feminine face shape) seem to have resulted from a selection pressure that acted primarily on ancestral European women and then spilled over on to ancestral European men. Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I've argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age. In such an environment, polygyny is limited by high provisioning requirements for women and their children, since almost all food is secured through male hunting. Meanwhile, death rates are much higher in men than in women because of the hunting-related mortality associated with pursuit of wandering herbivores (generally reindeer) over long distances. The result is a chronic surplus of unmated women, and an intensification of sexual selection among women.

    This is an ongoing research interest for me, and I hope to have more to say in the near future. You ask me whether I think European women are more beautiful than non-European women. It doesn't really matter what I think. Nor does it matter what you think. This is not a question of personal opinion. European women are a product of what ancestral European men thought about beauty.

    Notions of beauty are due to learned beliefs and innate predispositions, so I won't call anyone a liar who says that African women are more beautiful than European women. They may indeed believe what they say.

    Moreover, if we look at the hair and eye colors that are specific to Europeans, they seem to have been favored for their visual characteristics, particularly brightness and novelty. Finally, these color traits arose over a relatively short span of time long after the entry of modern humans into Europe.

    I’ve argued that these highly visible color traits are the result of intense sexual selection of women, particularly on the low-latitude tundra plains that covered much of Europe during the last ice age.

    1) Well the problem is most Mesolithic europeans have shown to had a weird combo of dark hair, dark skin (probably the dark amazon amerindian range), freckles and light eyes. And the “Natural selection and ancient European DNA” study that you can find posted on dienekes.blogspot at March 15, 2015 basically pinpoints finally that european lighter skin, hair and eyes traits all started going towards its modern level from the late neolithic period onwards. This intense sexual selection of women with novel features may still be the main driving force behind all of this, but in the end it seem to all have started as a bronze age phenomenon and not an ice age one.

    2) Also the origins of most eurpeans traits didn’t start of in europe at all. The facial phenotype of the average european (especially that of northern europeans in general) is in-between mix of both middleeastern & mesolithic-european traits, so this means white people are basically a type of racial hybrid for the lack of better word. the Origin of light skin and different hair colors both seen to be completely started out from middle-eastern also. SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 “light skin” allele are found both in near-east and central asia, the only difference being is that these non-europeans have high amount of SLC24A5 but then carry very lower amount of SLC45A2 in general. but in europeans both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 are fixed in very high rates in the general population, giving europeans a double shot of lightness it seems. Same also with blonde and red hair, they are found in the middleeast but only small amounts and even then its linked more so as a infantile trait that you grow out of.

    Read More
  123. At the end of the day, nature never gives a damn which ideology is correct. The more effort is needed to keep up an ideology, the faster it will fail. The law of nature.

    Read More
  124. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477 Scandinavian hunter-gatherers had the strong light-skin allele, SLC24A5. Scandinavian hunter-gatherers came from the European plain at end of the ice age when the steppe tundra hunters of the European plain followed the herds of reindeer north to Scandinavia as the glaciers retreated. The origin of the strong light-skin allele, SLC24A5 was probably on the European plain in the ice age.

    Reindeer are the most mobile animals on earth and after the herds disappeared some of those those who hunted them probably wandered off in another direction and ended up as an apparent origin point in Iran ect.

    Read More
  125. Enrique I have read through your comments on this and other pages and I would like to make some observations. Firstly the post is the thing you ought to be commenting on, and these line by line rejoinders of everything mentioned by other commenters is just plain boring. Can’t you consolidate your arguments and not digress in the manner of Tristram Shandy?

    As I read it, you are taking the line that racism and greed collectively motivate white society. But you provide no compelling evidence that this supposed motivation of whites is collectively held by them or any important subset of them. In truth and in in fact no white in any position of responsibility or influence articulates the motives you attribute to whites, quite the opposite.
    Nor is anything that could reasonably be mistaken for a polite version of white power the way for to get other whites’ support. Politicians don’t say those things and politician will say anything that gets people to vote for them. The films that are made about the civil rights like Selma are made for whites.

    So It seems to me that you are implicitly positing subliminal racist values in white people, who delude themselves that they are moral. Thinking that other people don’t understand their own motives is a very convoluted way of thinking about the world.
    It is not self-evident that the socio economic status of one’s parents has nothing to do one’s particular DNA. Socio economic status of parents has been found to correlate rather well with biological factors such as the size of the brain cortex in African-American of age one month.

    You seem to start from an assumption that proper training and education can turn anyone into a highly qualified professional. But most of those with expertise in science do not believe that. The majority of people in the field are of the opinion that only a limited proportion of any country’s population have the IQ to be a doctor or engineer. You don’t hear much about that because it is radioactive, being not something white people particularly want to hear . Nonetheless, there is no reason to think that proportion of people capable of being a doctor or engineer is the same for groups that are adapted to different selection pressures. If you don’t like that being mentioned I would suggest you stop calling white people and only white people evil.

    Read More
  126. “By abolishing local and regional cultures, and by creating an ersatz national culture in their place, these movements helped to pave the way for the deracinated individualism that is now the norm in most Western societies.”

    Not convincing at all. Japan had strong local and regional cultures (Kyushu, south Honshu, kanto, north Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku), identities, well until 19th cen. But wider political consolidation did not lead to deracinated individualism.

    Japan is still very cohesive, intensely conscious of its uniqueness. 2nd only to Jews, the gold standard of nationalism and cohesion.

    I tend to think that europeans are innately prone to atomistic individualism. And the spectacular rise of the Jewish emasculation of white identity did the rest.

    2000 years of christianity reinforced these turn the other cheek, dont rock the boat, mind your hedonistic business, individúalistic tendencies and hardened them. Calcified them.

    Gradually Germanic vitality, that had rejuvenated a spent Europe under christianized Rome, succumbed to christianity, which is nothing but atomistic mutant of Judaism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    "I tend to think that Europeans are innately prone to atomistic individualism. And the spectacular rise of the Jewish emasculation of white identity did the rest."

    Especially people from north-west Europe, with the maritime nations of Britain, Holland and Sweden being the worst offenders. The US was settled by radical British individualists, and so has taken atomistic individualism to its ultimate conclusion.

    It's noticeable that the rump of intellectual, political and cultural resistance to political correctness tends to be concentrated in central-western Europe, from Hungary, through to Austria and Switzerland, and including Northern Italy, Bavaria and parts of France and Belgium. Hence, this central region is basically the cornerstone on which white resistance to the extremes of liberalism is dependent.
  127. @Andy
    "By abolishing local and regional cultures, and by creating an ersatz national culture in their place, these movements helped to pave the way for the deracinated individualism that is now the norm in most Western societies."

    Not convincing at all. Japan had strong local and regional cultures (Kyushu, south Honshu, kanto, north Honshu, Hokkaido, Shikoku), identities, well until 19th cen. But wider political consolidation did not lead to deracinated individualism.

    Japan is still very cohesive, intensely conscious of its uniqueness. 2nd only to Jews, the gold standard of nationalism and cohesion.

    I tend to think that europeans are innately prone to atomistic individualism. And the spectacular rise of the Jewish emasculation of white identity did the rest.

    2000 years of christianity reinforced these turn the other cheek, dont rock the boat, mind your hedonistic business, individúalistic tendencies and hardened them. Calcified them.

    Gradually Germanic vitality, that had rejuvenated a spent Europe under christianized Rome, succumbed to christianity, which is nothing but atomistic mutant of Judaism.

    “I tend to think that Europeans are innately prone to atomistic individualism. And the spectacular rise of the Jewish emasculation of white identity did the rest.”

    Especially people from north-west Europe, with the maritime nations of Britain, Holland and Sweden being the worst offenders. The US was settled by radical British individualists, and so has taken atomistic individualism to its ultimate conclusion.

    It’s noticeable that the rump of intellectual, political and cultural resistance to political correctness tends to be concentrated in central-western Europe, from Hungary, through to Austria and Switzerland, and including Northern Italy, Bavaria and parts of France and Belgium. Hence, this central region is basically the cornerstone on which white resistance to the extremes of liberalism is dependent.

    Read More
  128. […] This disparity isn’t new. What is new is its extent, for both legal and common-law marriages. An idea may be gleaned from statistics on children born to White American women, specifically the proportion fathered by a non-White partner. For the U.S. as a whole the proportion in 2013 was between 11% and 20% (the uncertainty is due to 190,000 births for which the father’s race was not stated). By comparison, the proportion in 1990 was between 5% and 13% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; see also Silviosilver, 2015). […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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


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