Race Differences in Ethnocentrism
“Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself.”
Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it’s easy to forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher, author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton’s At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People by What They Look Like (2018), J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018), and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers (2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered, in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant monographs I’ve read in years.
Dutton’s book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two questions “particularly salient during a period of mass migration”: ‘Why are some races more ethnocentric than others?’ and, most urgently of all, ‘Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?’ In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by everyone.
In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves “taking pride in your ethnic group or nation and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it.” Negative ethnocentrism, on the other hand, “refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups.” Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that “there exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent to which they are ethnocentric.” Dutton’s foundation is built on a deep reading of existing literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia’s Boris Bizumic. These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict. Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of ‘inclusive fitness,’ which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one’s genes.
Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called ‘Age of Discovery,’ Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill intruding foreigners, including an American missionary in November 2018. The Japanese appear throughout history to have combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European ‘Age of Discovery.’
In the second chapter, Dutton answers the question ‘What is ‘Race’?’ Although many of our readers will be familiar with most of the material presented in this chapter, it is nevertheless a very well-presented defense of the concept of race and its unabashed employment as a scientific system for categorizing and studying humans. In Dutton’s presentation, ‘race’ is employed to refer to what in the animal kingdom would be a subspecies: a breeding population separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group. After discussing the processes through which different races or subspecies evolve, Dutton offers a summary of historical taxonomies of race, before finally answering a number of criticisms of the concept of race. In the third chapter, and following much the same framework, Dutton sets out to answer the question, ‘What is Intelligence?’ Here Dutton answers a number of criticisms of the concept of intelligence, particularly as they relate to Blacks, before moving to a discussion of race differences in intelligence. The debt to Richard Lynn’s research is quite clear in this chapter, but Dutton presents past findings with style, conviction, and novel context, meaning that familiar elements such as Cold Winters Theory are worth getting to grips with once more.
The fascinating fourth chapter is where the study begins in earnest, and answers the question ‘What Are ‘Ethnocentrism’ and ‘Ethnicity’?’ It goes without saying that both terms have entered, if not dominated, the lexicon of White advocacy, and I found it very refreshing to become more familiar with the scientific basis for them. Dutton, referring to the work of Bizumic, notes that the term ‘ethnocentrism’ was coined by the Polish sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) before entering English with the work of the American economist William Sumner (1840–1910). In order to better explain the nature of ethnocentrism, Dutton lays out various lexical definitions of ethnicity and discusses competing schools of thought in relation to the origins of ethnicity. The division between scholars of ethnicity can be broadly discussed in terms of two camps: ‘Primordialists,’ and ‘Constructivists’ or ‘Subjectivists.’ Primordialists, representing an older school of thought, assert that ethnic groups are extremely ancient and are ultimately based around common ancestry. Supporting this position, Dutton, borrowing from Frank Salter, points out that genetic data shows that ethnic groups really are distinct genetic clusters. Constructivists, on the other hand, assert that ethnic identities are merely a product of culture and environment, and are therefore arbitrary and subject to change. The author spends a great deal of time dissecting the arguments of the Constructivists and, for me personally, one of the great pleasures of Race Differences in Ethnocentrismis reading as Dutton prods and teases and the manifold weaknesses in the Constructivist position.
The author closes the chapter with an extended discussion of the sociobiological origins of ethnic identity, before providing a summary of proffered causes for ethnocentrism. These include threat and conflict, psychodynamic theory as advanced by Freud, terror management (a variation on the theme of threat and conflict), self-aggrandizement theories (ethnocentrism boosts in-group self-esteem), Marxist theory (ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group), social dominance theory (ethnocentrism as a side-effect of certain types of personality), socialization explanations (children learn to be ethnocentric), and the sociobiological model (ethnocentrism is a product of evolution and adaptation). Dutton argues convincingly that only the sociobiological model offers answers which explain group behavior in both animals and humans, arguing that “ethnocentrism is most parsimoniously understood via a partly biological theory wherein the ethnic group is a kind of extended family.”
In the fifth chapter, Dutton surveys recent evidence for the sociobiological model of ethnocentrism and ethnicity. At the core of the chapter is J. Philippe Rushton’s ‘Genetic Similarity Theory,’ which is treated with respect but also caution by the author, who insists that “it does not fully explain all manifestations of ethnocentrism and, accordingly, it needs to be nuanced and carefully developed.” Put simply, ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ is the idea that animals will instinctively behave more pro-socially to those who share more of their genes, and that ethnic groups, which are essentially extended families, will demonstrate the same inclination towards the genetically similar in the form of ethnic nepotism. It is this inclination to support the genetically similar that paves the way for ‘inclusive fitness’ — indirectly passing on at least some of one’s genes by supporting kin — and thus provides some explanation for the origins of altruism. Rushton provided a great deal of research strongly indicating that humans very much tend to marry, befriend, and otherwise associate with those who are genetically similar to them, and this is succinctly explored. Some controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ is applicable to circles beyond genealogical kin, and Dutton explores the work of Frank Salter in support of the idea that it is indeed applicable. The only criticism of the concept that Dutton concedes is that ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ does not fully explain variations in ethnocentrism and therefore does not appear to attribute sufficient weight to environmental factors, especially external threats to the interests of the ethny—a factor that has demonstrably inflamed ethnocentrism throughout human history. Dutton also suggests that fluctuations in ethnocentrism may also be rooted in the dynamics of human personality, both as humans age, and as far as personality is influenced by ‘Life History Strategy.’
The sixth chapter, ‘Ethnocentrism, Personality Traits and Computer Modelling,’ focuses in detail on the issue of personality. Dutton explains that “we have to examine the concept of an ‘ethnocentric personality’ because … there are race differences in modal personality. So, if there is an ‘ethnocentric personality,’ then this would neatly explain why race differences in ethnocentrism exist.” Dutton ultimately dismisses the idea of an ‘ethnocentric personality,’ particularly the work of Adorno on prejudice, as having very little relevance to meaningful research on ethnocentrism. He concludes rather that it seems very likely that “ethnocentrism is not the by-product of a series of partly heritable personality traits.” Instead, “ethnocentrism is a human universal and is significantly genetic, in the sense that propensity to genetic similarity is partly genetic.” The chapter then moves to the concept of ‘group selection,’ during which is it explained and demonstrated that ethnocentric groups are more likely to win the battle of group selection. “The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of group selection. This would mean that, all else being equal, races that were compelled, by the nature of their environment, to combat other groups (by being internally cooperative by externally hostile) would be more ethnocentric.” Computer modelling of such battles has demonstrated conclusively that ethnocentric strategies will always triumph, leading Dutton to conclude that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy, “unable to sustain high levels of in-group cooperation.” Humanitarian groups invariably “waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return.”
In Chapter 7, one of the best and most provocative in the book, Dutton explores the genetics of ethnocentrism. Dutton takes as his starting point the high level of positive and negative ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians, and attempts to find candidate genes that may play a role in producing this situation. Building on research suggesting that oxytocin may contribute to in-group bias by motivating in-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group hostility, Dutton points to scholarly findings that Northeast Asians disproportionately possess (“much higher than Europeans”) genes identified with fear of social exclusion and higher oxytocin levels (A118G – OPRM1). Further research has indicated that the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) combines with environmental factors to shape in-group bias. Dutton cites studies showing that “70–80 percent of an East Asian sample carried the short form of this gene, that is to say the form that makes you more ethnocentric. Only 40–45 percent of Europeans in the sample carried the short form of the gene. Indeed, it was found that across twenty-nine nations, the more collectivist a culture was the more likely it was to have the short form as the prevalent allele in the population.” Dutton adds that his own work found such correlations to be weak, and he is reluctant to attribute ethnocentrism to small numbers of specific genes. He instead finishes the chapter with the suggestion that specific genes such as these may play a small role, but only in conjunction with Life History Theory—for example, he provides data suggesting that populations with Slow Life History strategies (typified by higher intelligence, delayed gratification, and higher investment in children) are likely to be higher in positive ethnocentrism.
In Chapter 8, Dutton presents data on race differences in ethnocentrism, and he then explores the impact of cousin marriage and religion on ethnocentrism. The chapter opens with a very interesting discussion of racial dating preferences derived from the OKCupid dating site. The data suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group. By contrast, most non-White groups seemed to have a preference for dating Whites. Dutton explains that this data cannot be meaningfully employed in the study of ethnocentrism because the fact non-Whites want to have sex with Whites merely means that “Whites have value.” He continues: “this does not, of course, mean that black people would be necessarily more inclined to lay down their lives for white people, show preference for white interests over those of their own race, vote for whites over members of their own race or any other behaviour of that kind that might be regarded as low in ethnocentrism.” Dutton instead utilizes the ‘World Values Survey’ as a more reliable indicator of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric populations. At this stage, the author returns to Genetic Similarity Theory, pointing out that the East Asian gene pool is much smaller than the European gene pool — in other words, two random Japanese men will be more closely related than two random English men. This is important because
any act of ethnic altruism by the Japanese man would have a greater payoff in terms of inclusive fitness than would precisely the same act by an Englishman. As such, we would expect higher levels of positive ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians than among Europeans. By the same token, were a Japanese person to be confronted by a foreigner, this would potentially damage his genetic interests to a greater extent than would be the case if a European, from a larger gene pool, was confronted by a foreigner.
Genetic Similarity Theory, as outlined above, is particularly salient in Dutton’s discussion of ethnocentrism among Arabs and South Asians, populations with high levels of cousin marriage. Arabs and South Asians are more ethnocentric than Europeans but, unlike East Asians, the nature of Arab and South Asian ethnocentrism tends more towards negative ethnocentrism — something Dutton links to relatively lower average intelligence. Consanguineous marriage, itself a response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning society in populations with Fast Life History strategies, will accelerate and deepen negative ethnocentrism.
This phenomenon is deepened further by high levels of religiosity, which, Dutton argues, has been demonstrated as boosting both positive and negative ethnocentrism. Among the aspects of religion that contribute to ethnocentrism and group selection, Dutton cites high levels of fertility, matrimony, physical punishment of children, bodily mutilation, honor killing, martyrdom, celibacy, and intense violence or enmity directed at non-believers. I found Dutton’s work here to be especially interesting, though I was left with some significant questions about the nature of modern Christianity, something disappointingly absent from Dutton’s text despite his rich background in the study of Christian fundamentalists. Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism? My own instinct is that it has something to do with the development and spread of the belief in a “personal Jesus,” a largely nineteenth-century American innovation, rather than the older belief in folding oneself into a community of believers under a more distant and overarching God of nations. But this would require an essay, or several, to fully articulate, rather than an aside in a book review. It should suffice to state here that more detail or illustration from Dutton in this regard would have been most welcome.
Dutton spends several pages discussing Jewish ethnocentrism, and is appreciative of the work of Kevin MacDonald in this area. Jews are clearly very high in positive ethnocentrism, as demonstrated by very high levels of in-group philanthropy, belief in themselves as members of a Chosen People with a special world-historical destiny, and the prolific production of self-congratulatory and apologetic literature about themselves that is frequently accompanied by a widespread refusal to make any concessions on negative aspects of the history of the ethnic group. Jews have also distinguished themselves throughout history with very high levels of negative ethnocentrism, including their genocides of other peoples (real or imagined) in their religious texts, very negative portrayals of non-Jews in their religious commentaries, frequent outbursts against Greek cultural influence in the Classical period, exploitative economic relationships with Europeans since at least the Carolingian dynasty, the preference for suicide over conversion in the Medieval period, high levels of culturally disruptive behaviors among host populations in the modern period, and most recently their extraordinarily hostile treatment of the Palestinians. This can be partly explained, as Dutton points out, by the highly consanguineous nature of the Jews. For example, “it has been found that the world’s 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400.” High levels of inbreeding have led to the noted prevalence of several genetic disorders among the Jews, including Tay-Sachs Disease, Gaucher’s Disease, and Riley-Day Syndrome. Dutton argues that Jews would have been more ethnocentric than Europeans from the earliest stages of their settlement in Europe, and that this ethnocentrism would have been deepened even further over historical time, in successive cycles, by their continued breeding within a small gene pool (intensifying the impact of Genetic Similarity Theory) and their presence in a high stress environment typified by periodic outbursts of reactive persecution (resulting in “harsh selection” for the most ethnocentric Jews). Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became “inconsolably upset.”
The author brings his eighth chapter to a close with a discussion of low ethnocentrism among Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. Low ethnocentrism among Africans is explained briefly via their very pronounced r-strategy, resulting in low rates of consanguineous marriage and a much broader gene pool and genetic diversity. On the other hand, Europeans, argues Dutton, occupy a ‘Goldilocks Zone’ of very low ethnocentrism because they are less K-selected than East Asians, have a larger gene pool, and their environment is less harsh, leading to lower levels of group selection. There appears to be a position on the r–K spectrum, lower than East Asian K strategies, where cousin marriage is selected for (boosting ethnocentrism) and this position is occupied by Arabs and South Asians rather than Whites, who instead occupy a position below East Asians but above Arabs and South Asians. The trade-off for this relatively weakened position of Europeans is that for a population with moderate-to-high intelligence, “low ethnocentrism would permit a greater ability to trade and pool resources and so, ultimately, the creation of an extremely large coalition with a very large gene pool. This group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses.”
Dutton thus argues that, in a sense, some level of selection took place for low ethnocentrism in Europeans — a “genius” group evolutionary strategy. Dutton argues that groups with high levels of genius but low levels of ethnocentrism will triumph over groups with high levels of ethnocentrism but low levels of genius so long as certain conditions are met. The most important condition is that the genius group should maintain a basic level of ethnocentrism. Should this base level decline or collapse, the genius strategy would fail and highly ethnocentric groups would eventually dominate. European ethnocentrism has clearly been stronger in the past than it is at present, a fact the author very capably discusses within the framework of broader fluctuations in ecology (especially the advent of the industrial revolution) and ongoing evolutions in race itself.
In Chapter 9, Dutton explores in detail several variables that may impact ethnocentrism at individual and group level. Highly stressful situations in which survival is at risk have been shown to boost ethnocentrism, and researchers have found that playing violent video games is even sufficient to increase aggression to perceived out-groups. Mortality salience, or the fear of death, has also been shown to lead people to believe in a way which is highly defensive of their in-group. Although Dutton does not explore the theme in any great depth, I was moved to reflect on how anti-stress Western civilization has become during the last 60 or so years, not only in terms of industrialization, radically lowered infant mortality, and medical advances (all of which Dutton explores), but also in the extraordinary emphasis placed by modern culture on individual transient pleasures and prolonging youth (and therefore delaying or avoiding confronting death). Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and ‘weaponized decadence’ therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism — a way of pushing a stronger “genius evolutionary strategist” into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into defeat and destruction. Other variables impacting upon levels of ethnocentrism, and discussed by Dutton, include age, gender, pregnancy, intelligence and education, and ethnic diversity.
I found the last of these the most salient. Dutton, following from Vanhanen and Salter, argues that multi-ethnic societies are much less capable of successfully defending themselves against incursion from outsiders. This is for three key interrelated reasons. The first is lower levels of trust, as sapped confidence in one’s group leads to radically fewer sacrifices on behalf of the group. The second is that a multi-ethnic society will be able to draw on significantly lower reserves of positive ethnocentrism. The third is that ethnic minorities will tend to support immigration, essentially acting as a fifth column; allies to the outsiders engaged in incursion. So much for the “diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.
In the penultimate chapter, Dutton makes the argument that the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for European ethnocentrism. Industrialization has significantly reduced human ecological stress in the West, and has accelerated the decline of European religion — one of the key supports for an already low level of European ethnocentrism. Advances in medicine and developments in the welfare state have led to wholesale dysgenic impacts such as the extraordinary rise in numbers of people with moderate to severe genetic disorders (26 percent increase in hemophilia, 22 percent increase in cystic fibrosis, and a 300 percent increase in phenylketonuria). The author posits that the increased proliferation of unhealthy mutations has further precipitated the decline of healthy instincts rooted in healthy genes that promoted survival (on a related note, it is interesting that those identified as ethnocentric score very highly in disgust sensitivity—a trait associated with disease avoidance). Dutton and some of his colleagues have come to describe such negative mutations as “spiteful mutations” which “cause people to act against their own genetic interests.” He continues:
If [carriers of ‘spiteful genes’] influence society, they can persuade even non-carriers of these ‘spiteful’ genes to act in self-destructive ways and they can undermine structures — such as religion — which help to promote group interests. Woodley of Menie et al. call this ‘social epistasis.’ As a consequence, modern (liberal) religion and ideology — far from being an indirect means of genetic preservation — would in fact reflect a sick society’s growing desire to destroy itself. An obvious example can be seen in the ideology of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness.
In Dutton’s reading of our present situation then, the worst of our traitors are in fact what perhaps Nietzsche was referring to when he condemned “the botched and the bungled” — malformed and maladapted offspring eager for self-destruction, and dragging the healthy down with them.
The final, brief, chapter of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism offers a neat summary of the findings and central arguments of the book before ending on a warning and offering some meagre light at the end of the tunnel. The warning is clear:
Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European people.
And yet this may be a night that is necessary before the dawn, as Europeans are once more plunged into a cleaning cauldron of harsh, selective conditions:
We are now living under these conditions. But it will be the collapse of [European] civilisation and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more ethnocentric once again.
It is the humbling, unenviable, and largely thankless task of websites like The Occidental Observer to convince European peoples, wherever they are, that ethnocentrism is an option that should be taken now, before catastrophe makes that choice for them. Edward Dutton’s remarkable book lends powerful support to that cause.
Oh, positive ethnocentrism is all well and good. It’s just that you have to ignore how rotten the actual individual members of your own group that you actually know are. Then, it’s pride all the way!
‘…By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind.’
It would be a cruder version of Israel, then.
‘…”The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of group selection…’”
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
At one extreme, consider the US from 1780 to about 1970. By very willingly accepting and incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly fifty-fold, and grew to be the most powerful state in the world. Our subsequent history demonstrates that it’s possible to have too much of a good thing, but…
At the other extreme, consider Jews — a group very assiduously devoted to preserving its group identity, and not at all interested in absorbing outsiders. Over the last century, roughly a third have been exterminated, another third are rapidly being assimilated in the US notwithstanding their efforts at self-preservation, and the last third have decided the course of wisdom is to pack themselves into a strip of semi-desert and attack all their neighbors without actually crushing any of them.
Whatever the failings of the strategy of the US, it’s far from demonstrated that the opposite course makes for an improvement.
Well, most of the article was pretty interesting. But I’m quite skeptical about this claim:
This doesn’t really make any sense. Until the last hundred years or so, I’d guess that something like 99% of Han Chinese had almost never even *seen* a non-Han during their entire lives, and that was also true for almost all of their ancestors for many, many centuries. Probably the same for Japanese and Koreans.
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn’t they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
In support of this theoretical framework, isn’t it an empirical fact that China has always been one of the most “absorptive” nations in the world, with some of the lowest barriers to ethnic intermarriage and assimilation? That’s why the Chinese have absorbed so many other groups over the millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
Moreover, there’s that famous dictate by Confucius that foreigners who come to China and act like Chinese should be considered Chinese. Indeed, I think you could make a reasonable case that China is the world’s oldest “Propositional Nation.”
‘…“it has been found that the world’s 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400.”…’
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German states in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable. Surely there were more than 350 Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe in 1400, and surely more than 350 of them contributed to the genes of the modern population of Ashkenazim. This leaves aside the visible resemblance of German Jews to Gentile Germans, of Polish Jews to Gentile Poles, etc — and the implications of that.
I’m not up on the latest genetic research, but it does sound a little garbled…
From what I recall seeing a decade or so ago, almost European Jews are descended from the offspring of a few hundred Middle Eastern males and Northern Italian females who lived around 500-800 AD (the date was disputed and it’s also fuzzy in my memory).
However, by the time the Jews established themselves in Eastern Europe, perhaps around 1000 AD or later, there were probably some tens of thousands of them.
So maybe new scientific findings have updated the history or (more likely) the writer is getting the two different foundation events mixed up.
Glorifying other groups doesn’t help to purify your own group, either. Humans are “all too human,” as the man said. Where is BatMan when you need him? He is enjoying himself in Gotham & Gomorra.
Ignoring that is harder for some groups who are lousy with rotten members (nearly everyone). Other groups merely have to deal with an unavoidable standard deviation that is part of the human condition. Those groups invented advanced prison systems, long ago, along with the rest of advanced civilization.
Ethnocentrism is about two things: psychological health and political protection.
That humans require identity and belonging, things that by definition require barriers, isn’t debatable in terms of their salubrious effects on the individual’s mental health.
Humans require political protection from other groups. Humans without political or other protection that arises from the in-group traditionally had de facto or actual slave status in the presence of other groups. The same is true today.
Slavers, with slaver religions, push for an end to out-group ethnocentrism for their desired slaves because it eradicates that group’s ability to politically or physically defend themselves in an effective manner. Due to lack of effective in-group cooperation.
Those resisting slavery should always work to build a deep and single ethnic culture and the genetic in-group that it incubates over time.
Once this is formed, political power will follow via the deep in-group cooperation that this genetically and culturally deeply linked group encourages.
Self-protection, independence, and self determination are all attainable thereafter. All which are correctly seen as fundamental Human Rights.
Those that fail to cooperate effectively enough, even when allowed their ethnocentrism, will continue to be controlled by out-groups.
Colin Wright—Haaretz carried the story in 2014:
How would one go about ranking contemporary nations by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
How would one go about ranking groups, organizations, individuals, social networks and publications by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
Could one use automated methods to produce and update these rankings in real time by tracking and mining social media and all media in general?
One obvious approach: count up the number of times an agent mentions its ethnic identity, issues, problems, enemies, etc. in its communications.
Questions that would be interesting to answer: which are the most ethnocentric groups in contemporary American politics? In contemporary European politics? In contemporary global politics?
Which are the most significant and strategic ethnic conflicts in contemporary global politics?
Here is the underlying paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5835
One issue here is that the effective population size may be (much) less than the census population size at any given time. This page gives some reasons for that:
For some perspective, 10,000 is commonly quoted as the effective population size for modern humans based on https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0016672310000558
(with most of that variation coming from Africa).
This more recent paper gives a range of 622 to 10,437: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21450133
It would be good to hear from a real population geneticist about this. This graphic from the first link above seems to indicate much larger effective population sizes than the other two links. Note that AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish and FL = Flemish.
‘Colin Wright—Haaretz carried the story in 2014:
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today’s Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today’s sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews—there are more than 10 million around the world—derived from just 350 people or so.’
Then either (a) Haaretz inaccurately reported the results of the research, or (b) the research itself was flawed.
Enough historical data exists so that we effectively know all Ashkenazim were not descended solely from 350 ancestors living between 600 and 800 years ago.
If I announced that a genetic study showed that all whites currently living in America were descended from four hundred Irishmen present in New York City in 1860, would you believe it?
…since most of us don’t clearly understand genetics or how research into it is conducted, there’s a tendency to accept any stated result as certain truth, handed down at Mount Sinai.
Actually, I suspect — and some of the results proferred imply — it’s no more certain than anything else.
” consider Jews … Over the last century, roughly a third have been exterminated”
Complete Zionist horseshit that has not, cannot be proven.
Jews have been lying about ‘6,000,000 dead Jews’ since the early 19th century.
No wonder that it’s called The Big Lie.
See Colin Wright & his curious fantasies demolished in the comments here:
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
Eh, it’s the superiority-cuckery cycle
A bunch of dumbasses start being punished for their idiocy, forcing them to adapt and become smart. Then they strut around the world like they own the place, but then relax, become cucked and then regress to the start. At that point another group is on it’s rise, or it’s a dark age until the same group starts over
By the way, a very good review &, as far as I can tell, an intriguing book.
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin. It’s like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It’s qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different from you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater. There is no reason to assume that North East Asians are on par with Northern Europeans in their low ethnocentrism, though it is likely lower than many assume since intermarriage rate with Whites is quite high (but only really with Whites. Whereas Whites mix with a lot of groups).
All races, except for brainwashed-by-Jews, unorganized whites are extremely ethnocentric.
I don’t think I buy this theory about low European ethnocentricity at all. I think it’s all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for the “decline” in ethnocentricity.
The rich degenerates think that being rich is their ethnicity – and the only one worth defending – not some genetic similarity with the great unwashed whom they despise.
That’s why they invented that most humane of all altruisms – multiculturalism – because it defends their ethnicity based on money, to hell with genetically based ethnicity.
I think that ordinary Europeans are as ethnocentric as they always were, someone else is expanding their ethnic acceptance against their will in order to preserve their financial ethnocentricity.
And first of all why blame the Europeans – like they were the ones who invented multiculturalism? If European civilization is going to collapse – it’s not going to happen in Europe first – it’s going to happen in the birthplace of multiculturalism.
At least with regard to China, I just don’t think that’s correct…
As far as I know, Westerners who’ve moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and Chinese customs have been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
And here’s a notable historical example. For various reasons, Jews have traditionally been exceptionally resistant to absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct group sometimes after thousands of years of living within a particular host population. But China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that easily comes to mind.
So many Unzers BTFO here
Aren’t you mistaken in attributing multiculturalism to the rich? Certainly they don’t participate in it as perhaps you imply when you say that being rich is their ethnicity. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are perhaps typical , and, I would suggest, not people of different cultures but from one which is not that of the rich but of the upper middle class educated. Perhaps you are suggesting that people like that underrate the importance of differences in culture that isn’t actually part of their experience and therefore rather softheadedly say “each to his own” in libertarian style without understanding what they are thereby encouraging amongst the lower classes. Could you spell out your case please?
Ashkenazi Jews appear to be 40-50% Italian according to DNA tests on the female side.
Which means at some point following the diaspora from Judea in Roman times there was a massive degree of intermarriage between Jewish men and Roman women prior to the fall of Rome.
Also, considering that Jews trace their origins through their mothers, one would think that they would all consider themselves Italians.
So they Jews had to absorb non-Jews into their gene pool at some point.
As for Westerners assimilating into Chinese culture, this is relatively commonplace. A small number of Portuguese live in Macau and of course there are more recent examples.
I have hardly even a vague knowledge of China’s absorption of Jews (and haven’t, I confess, asked Google an obvious, let alone probing, question). But what you say raises the question of how much more impressed with Chinese culture, custom and governance the Jews in China were than the Jews elsewhere. Dark Ages Europe (and the ME) with Christian mobs destroying ancient art and learning may not have looked good compared with Tang or Sung dynasty China (though I invite someone to tell me about differences within China in those times). Alternatively one might ask whether the Jews in Europe were only clinging to Judaism through desperately strict reliance on the/a Talmud which helped maintain separation whereas the Jews in China may have been free of that limiting influence. Compare indeed the rapidity with which Jews in America, not least, I believe, the poor of Eastern Europe, began to assimilate at least in so far as intermarriage implies assimilation. To that plenty of grouches would no doubt point to Jewish corruption of what the grouches would like to think of as the culture they were assimilating with (whereas I am more a “Jewish Century” interpreter) but my emphasis would tend to be rather on the division and, for a time, arrested development, of American Jewry by the creation of Israel and its drawing on people’s need for tribalism and at least equal need to have an object or ideal beyond themselves. (Isn’t being a good American enough? Well, hardly, when you are a prosperous part of the one superpower….). I suspect assimilation is going to win.
Dutton’s book has NO science. It is a fabricated lie that relies on racism and prejudice. Multicultural societies are the opposite of monocluturals; they are rich in diversity and culture. Just like monoagriculture, monocultural societies are empty of all the organic ingredients.
What percentage are they of the total population? 0.01%? Hardly relevant as an example.
Jews in China were always an extremely small minority, several orders of magnitudes lower than in leading Western countries as a percentage of the population. Harder to build buffers in such an environment. Also, I would take issue with your characterisation of Jews as unable to assimilate. Non-Orthodox Jews in the US have an intermarriage rate of 72%. The rabbis are constantly reminding us of the ‘silent holocaust’.
50+ years of sustained media attack.
the only defense against television is a television station of your own.
with Jews very concentrated in urban areas i would have thought the Black Death could have caused a bottleneck like that (as the plague didn’t reach Poland for some reason).
map of spread of black death
note big gap in Poland
the simulations used to study this set a level playing field so it won’t be true in all real world situations.
Ron, the claim, when correctly understood, is correct also concerning China. Chinese are especially negative towards Blacks, anybody with dark skin color. (They think Blacks smell bad.) They appreciate white skin color. They avoid tanning and use whitening creams. Yes, they absorb Whites, including Jews, but they are ethnocentric towards other peoples.
I have this kind of a small theory why this is so. Consider a trait, like intelligence, being not a product of additive gene alleles, but by a combination of favorable alleles of several genes. We can assume the combinations are mostly two gene combinations. Assume a population has two alleles of each two genes (A,a and B,b) with A,a and B,b being each of 50% frequency, and one combination AB raises the trait. Thus, 1/4 of the population has AB. Mixing this population with a population with two other alleles for these genes, D,d and E,e, produces a population where the trait increasing combinations, AB and DE, occur in 1/8 of the population. Thus, the average of the trait decreases from mixing.
From this one can conclude that populations with a large number of alleles increasing the trait has a lower average on the trait, like IQ in Sub Saharan Africa. In SSA genetic diversity is high and thus there are many alleles of all genes. While in East Asia genetic diversity is lower than in Europe and the IQ trait is higher. Indeed, if we plot genetic diversity against average IQ we should get more or less a Piffer plot, a straight line. This would come from a PGS being not additive but a combination of pairs of two (or more) IQ genes. To support this idea, notice that additive positive alleles should make a sweep and become fixed and the variance at the both ends of the trait should be small because the distribution converges to normal. But this is not so, we do not have populations with average IQ of 150, while we have very tall or very short dog races produced by selection. It indicates that the height trait is additive but IQ is not additive.
From this idea it follows that ethnocentrism is higher in populations with low genetic diversity, average values of traits are higher in populations with low genetic diversity (as natural selection cannot act if diversity is high: descendants too seldom inherit the trait of the parents). It would follow that East Asians are ethnocentric, have a higher IQ and low diversity. They would still like to mix with people possessing the trait they admire (white skin), so it is not a contradiction.
Good point. As libertarians point out the US grew 30-fold with relatively open borders then tripled that with variations of the current more restrictive but open to extended family/high achievers (Have a close relative, great invention or a million bucks to invest in the US? To the head of the line! Otherwise take a number, BTW the waiting list is 100 years long–good luck!)…still pretty open compared to most countries. By 1970 is was near a 100-fold, not 50-fold, growth, so your case is even better.
Didn’t Capt.Cook get killed and eaten by those “friendly,” natives of Hawaii?
There are lots of apocryphal data saying many things about the Chinese over history.
Of course, in the US of 330 million people at least 46.6 million are foreign born (by far the highest number of any country, according to Wikipedia).
China has a population of a billion or so, but less than a million foreign born. This despite the dramatic improvement in their culture and economics.
So over 14% of the US population are foreign born vs 0.1% of Chinese. One can argue as to the basis for this difference, but almost all nations are restrictive on accepting immigrants, unless they provide value.
Would seem the Chinese are similar to the Japanese (who are now absorbing more foreigners due to a shortage of young workers), who will not tolerate big changes in their society or mores unless brought about internally.
Andrew Joyce are you back on Twitter?
While coming from a similarly ancient civilization I suspect Jews found less ability to trade or profit in China than Europe which is why less of them gravitated there than to Europe.
Jews did not really make much of an impact in India either.
I suspect that because money-lending was never a crime in China or India, there was not much of living in either of those countries for Jews compared to Europe where they thrived.
Jews in America arrived as Edison was inventing the film camera and industrialization required many lawyers, bankers and so on. China never needed these.
I tend to agree with Unz, that Chinese are quite open to mixing with and/or assimilating other ethnic groups. Apart from the well-known examples of Manchus and Mongols, a large community of Jews migrated to China during the Middle Ages and settled in Kaifeng, China where they gradually and non-violently assimilated. If one observes the behavior of Chinese-Americans in the U.S., a large plurality if not a majority marry Caucasians within one or two generations, usually with little opposition from their families.
For a literary work that touches on of this Chinese cultural trait, I refer readers to James McKenna’s excellent novel, “The Sandpebbles”, which was based on his experience in the U.S. Navy in China in the 1920s. At that time was not unusual for retiring navy enlisted men to settle down in China, often with a Chinese woman. To paraphrase a line from the novel, ‘For the Chinese, it’s quite natural for a foreigner to become a Chinese’.
Ethnocentrism is not a directly selected for thing – it is unfortunate that HBD promoters no longer understand second-order effects.
To HBD people, every trait is a simplistic directly selected for thing, not a second or third order effect of some other trait.
This is a sign of the declining intelligence of our times, this inability to think complexly.
Anyways, ethnocentrism is a second order effect of egoism – you love yourself, you love your group. Your group is just a version of yourself.
An ethnocentric society is also a highly competitive and stratified by status one internally, because it is a society with a high level of egoism – when whites were ethnocentric, it was the same way with them. And it’s the same way in other ethnocentric societies like China.
The reason whites went from being an intensely ethnocentric group to not being one in the space of less than a century has nothing to do with genetics, of course, but because they lost the egocentric perspective – partly as a result of loss of religion, which inculcated positive self image (one is in a relationship with God), and partly as a result of the so called objectivity and neutrality required by science, which makes you lose touch with your natural self love.
If whites ever become ethnocentric again, there will have to be a general rise in competitiveness also.
Of course, the picture is not one dimensional, and is balanced out by warmth, camaraderie, and brotherhood. Israelis are fiercely competitive with each other but also extremely brotherly and helpful to anyone in need.
And whites will be the same way if they become ethnocentric again – but let there be no illusions about the bad side as well.
It all depends if the other group is thought to be *higher* or *lower*, higher and lower meaning what they quite universally mean in human business.
See how well a vast number of races are absorbed in China 😉
(Corollary 1: a group seeing itself as *above* all others will avoid intermixing with every other group).
I don’t venture into saying this is wrong this is right these are better those are worse. Behind the surface, everyone agrees to the rules of the game.
Individual Jewish communities, especially in extremely remote locations without connections to the rest of the world, have disappeared. That’s not at all unusual. And Jews have been assimilating into gentile populations throughout history.
Plus, the Jews of Kaifeng have not entirely disappeared.
But I agree with your point that Chinese can and do assimilate racial outsiders – all ethnocentric groups do. There are Chinese and Indian looking Jews in Israel, and of course conversion to Judaism is a very real thing.
I cannot think of any ethnocentric group that isn’t prepared to assimilate racial outsiders in the right numbers, provided they demonstrate commitment to the culture – skin in the game – and aren’t numerous enough to rapidly alter the racial character.
We do see a detente in politics. Jews and Irish-Americans initially distrusted and disliked one another. Southern Democrats, who produced Clinton and Carter, obviously harbored anti-Jewish feelings (The word anti-Semite refers more to Arabs).
However, Irish-Americans and Jews and Southerners worked together in the Democrat party. Without the Jewish vote, Clinton would never have been elected (He was undone by his involvement with one, however).
In this sense, ethnocentrism was replaced by politics.
As for the white identity in America, it was always based upon a value system. Whites were from all corners of Europe and never bound by blood but by a sense of political and moral identity.
Once this was gone, whites had no cultural anchor. Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Italian-Americans to a lesser extent always had a cultural anchor of sorts. White Americans, for whatever reason, did not seem to. When drugs swept through America, encouraged by Jews (As well as by Irish-Americans like Timothy Leary and Charles Manson of course) they ravaged whites and not Jews. BEASTIE BOYS were the first “whiggers” but Jews never sought to imitate them. Ron Jeremy and Sarah Silverman and Al Goldstein all espoused sexual freedom and promiscuity but the out-of-wedlock birth rate never soared among Jews.
Similarly, Asians-Americans and Hindus and Muslims have not really be affected by the media like whites.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism and passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans.
In a number of societies Jews did not particularly thrive. For example, in Calcutta the Iraqi Jews failed completely and most moved to Israel simply in order to survive economically (Not due to persecution).
I knew Jews in Kerala personally and they had fared slightly better by intermarrying with Brahmin women to become the so-called St. Thomas Christians.
But Jews have come and gone from several major civilizations without making a great impact.
European Jews were, you remember, just that. Sometime after the Diaspora they intermarried with Roman women at a time when Rome was in the late stages of its glory and the Askenazi Jews as a race began and subsequently found themselves in the Rhineland as this rose in prominence.
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in Europe. Why?
This is debatable.
Most of the increase was due to high birth rate among old stock Americans, which was in turn due to affordable family formation (low land prices / high wages).
The highest % increases ever recorded in the decennial census occurred 1790-1830, during a period of very low immigration levels.
America would have become the world’s greatest economic and military power, even if the total number of immigrants from 1780 to 1970 had been precisely 0.
Read Culture of Critique.
American (aka real American, aka un-hyphenated American, aka old-stock American, aka White American) ethnocentrism was deliberately attacked and destroyed by a series of Jewish intellectual and political movements, with the intention of facilitating the group interests of Jews.
The education system, news media and entertainment industry are all viscerally hostile to American ethnocentrism, but supportive of the ethnocentrism of diaspora peoples living among the Americans, especially the Jews.
It may be pedantically logical to say so, but I think what you are effectually doing is to deny significance to what Ron said by saying there weren’t really very many of them (because of lack of opportunity for exercosing their particular skills).
As to your last paragraph, what bearing do you think it has on the assimilation, past, present and future, in America. It could be said that the value added by lawyers and bankers in industrialising America was very different from the activities in Eastern Europe which, with or without justice, aroused antagonism.
I’m not sure about that. I believe the Iraqi Jews who traded in India were very successful, and Iraqi Jews in Israel have a good reputation. I believe the extremely wealthy British Sasoon family were Iraqi Jews who made their fortune in the India trade.
Interestingly, Iraqi Jews took over many Indian dishes like curry and mango chutney (known as amba in Israel, and put on schwarma).
The Syrian and Persian Jewish community were also very successful, and Jews had a Golden Age in Spain.
You are correct though that nowhere did the Jews achieve the same level of prominence as in post 18th century Europe – and the reason is obviously the European Enlightenment, which enshrined the rule of Reason and destroyed healthy traditions that allowed Europeans to compete against Jews.
Before this period, Jewish success in Europe was on par with their performance in Syria or Persia – successful, but nothing amazing.
And yes, Ashkenazi Jews are indeed actually 50% European (90% and up on the mothers side), Italian, to be specific, with northern European admixture.
There is a surprising number of Hasidic Jews who look Aryan – tall, blond, and blue eyed. And if you stroll through the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn you will see lots of blond kids with blue eyes and pale skin. But there are lots of darker Med types as well.
The truth is that each Jewish community mixed heavily with the local population – very heavily – and Jews are anything but a pure ethnic group.
There is an ethnic core, to be sure – but what really shapes them and unites them is the culture and religion. That’s what it takes to make a people and nation.
This isn’t quite true. I grew up in the modern orthodox community in Brooklyn in the 90s, and heavy drug use was extremely widespread even among kippa wearing religious Jews, and indeed all sorts of dysfunction including wild parties and sex. It was truly wild times – today’s kids are so much tamer all across America.
Perhaps it wasn’t as bad as in the white community today, and the drugs were different but not always, but Jews are not magically insulated from social trends.
However, most of these guys that I knew are married with kids and jobs today – Jewish culture, with its traditions, social cohesiveness, and general rejection of abstract Enlightenment culture, provided a level of protection and resilience that deracinated and de-culturalized whites do not have, tragically.
This really key to understanding what’s going on with whites, and you understand this because you live in Asia, and can see a more organic culture first hand.
The solution is simple but very daring and bold – simply relax the role of rational and abstract thought in life, and an organic culture based on intuition and different ways of engaging with the world will begin to spontaneously regenerate itself among whites.
Simply acknowledge human powerlessness and dependence on God.
But this is extremely difficult to do for people addicted to ego and control, and probably a real collapse is needed before they are willing to accept the help of a higher power.
I listened closely to several of Dutton’s videos — he’s gifted and highly knowledgeable; it would be great to see Dutton & E Michael Jones at a grand conference, UNZpac USA.
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
Among other things, he argues that
a. it takes intelligence to migrate
b. the Potato famine induced massive migration; — the best Irishmen left Ireland
At the same time, I’m trying to get some work done on a house, and in my region, only Hispanics/Latinos do this work. I’d hire an English-speaking tradesman if I could find same, but I can’t.
The painter, electrician and wannabe carpenters working on my property do not speak English and understand only rudimentary English; they neither read nor write — preparing a prioritized list for their use is pointless. They possess a certain group canniness — the painter suggests the electrician, etc., and they are diligent about their work. But Honduras is not experiencing a brain-drain based on these men.
So I wonder if Dutton got it wrong in some fundamental way: Was the Potato famine pursued and prolonged by the British precisely to drive cheap labor to Anglo-America, and / or to pursue the Talmudic dictum, Kill all the best gentiles?
That is pretty close to what we are slowly slowly discovering happened to the German (and Italian — thanks, Guido Preparata) people and nation.
Presumably, those Israeli children are seeing racially similar people. So the response was not to different race people, but to strangers.
Secondly, Israeli culture is no doubt quite different, closely at war with a neighboring people and subject to periodic terrorist attacks, and infants are conditioned differently at an early age.
This does not say anything about genetic differences.
nepotism is one aspect of ethnocentrism.
if group A is more nepotistic than group B then they gain an advantage in small scale competition (e.g. business) .
Jews in India/China etc hit a wall cos their competitors was the same as them – this is the thing, Jewish nepotism isn’t unusual, most peoples are like that, WEIRD peoples are the odd ones out.
(this is why they’re starting to get out-competed in the US particularly by Indians)
nb ethnocentrism operates at different scales – in peacetime most “ethnic” competition is very small scale i.e. two extended families competing over a business opportunity.
But most people across the world lived like this, so the whole genetic ethnocentrism or non ethnocentrism thing seems like it doesn’t really make sense. Most Swedish people probably never saw a non European, and most Anatolian Turks probably never saw a non Turk, and most Omani Arabs likewise.
Only a very few groups would have had the chance, for relatively short periods, to live in cosmopolitan cities are areas with clear racial fault lines.
Ethmocentrism is surely a second-order effect and an acquired cultural trait. It also doesn’t make sense that Europeans went from being intensely ethnocentric to very little in the space of a century.
It is not a race/ethnicity specific thing; it is an in-group thing. It is also very much tied to cultural unity.
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism?
Europeans lost faith in Christianity after WW2. In 1945, Europe was in ruins with millions dead, after having fought yet another war that supposedly nobody ever wanted. People turned inwards and reflected on the past 500 years of European history. There were numerous wars between Christian states and between Christians and non-Christians. There was the age of exploration, slavery, colonialism, conquistadors, etc. Christianity itself was not necessarily blamed, but it didn’t need to be; it was just enough that it was associated with the entire time period. And in 1945, whether rightly or wrongly, these associations were overwhelmingly negative. Christianity has remained in Europe, of course, but these days certain aspects are emphasized (“love thy neighbor”, “turn the other cheek”) over others. Even secular Europeans still retain certain Christian values which are then conveniently incorporated into their acceptance of mass immigration.
In comparison, Christianity in the US still retains an aspect of being a force for local unity in a way that has been lost in Europe. Recent American conflicts have usually been subtly framed as being a triumph of Christian America over atheist commies or Muslims. Of course, I am sure that it is just a coincidence that this exists to the benefit of a certain tribe.
my understanding of ethnocentricity is although it’s always there, unless people are under a direct threat it is a relatively weak force except at the scale where people are most related e.g. extended family, clan etc and to be a big factor at higher scales it needs cultural reinforcement.
in the past western elites promoted that cultural reinforcement whereas now they do the opposite.
so i think euros did gradually get less ethnocentric but it was disguised because the elites compensated for it artificially with patriotic cultural reinforcement and then when the elites suddenly stopped (from WW1 onwards) the underlying low ethnocentricity remained.
based on personal experience i both believe and disbelieve this data.
one of the things you notice if you ever work in areas with lots of blue collar immigrants is the kids are taller and smarter than the parents even if they’re marrying other immigrants from the same place.
i worked construction (a long time ago) with people from rural Ireland so yeah i can see where the 93 figure comes from but at the same time I worked with the kids or grand kids of same and they were “normal” so i think there’s a rural inbreeding effect which is being missed – not inbreeding in the sense of actively marrying close cousins but a long term effect of people in the same valley marrying each other for so many centuries they’re all effectively close cousins and all it takes to get rid of negative homozygous effects is marrying someone from the next valley.
i think there’s potentially big jumps in average IQ between rural and urban for this reason and differences in average IQ between genetically similar populations may often be the result of differences in the ratio of urban : rural : mountain rural.
“a language is a dialect with an army and navy”
“a shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey aum yam – flot
Eine Sprache ist ein Dialekt mit einer Armee und einer Marine
A comparison of three Germanic languages; where’s the supposed Slavic?
Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism – in order to avoid it. They even borrowed the main mantra from socialism – “We are all equal”.
Socialism is about equality, not capitalism. When you hear capitalist talk about equality you have to know that there is some kind of scam involved.
The whole idea of multiculturalism stinks of Nazi Germany influence. They were the first to use the term “socialism” for propaganda purposes and the same thing is with the multiculturalism – it was created for purely propaganda purposes to portray the west as progressive and liberal – in order to prevent demand for social improvements.
What makes things funnier is that both the Nazis and present day “democracies” were sworn enemies of socialism – as being the “evil” system, yet when they want to fake humanization of their system, they borrow elements from socialism. Is than irony or what?
They are obviously lying about socialism being the “evil” system, because with their actions they admit that the only way capitalism can progress – is toward socialism. Now, I am not advocating conversion towards total socialism – that has been tried – it didn’t quite work out. But the improvements that need to be made in capitalism have to be borrowed from socialism – the only other option is to borrow from feudalism and that’s not going to work either.
“Real” socialism advocated equality among nations and among people within a nation – provided they stayed where they are. The modern Frankenstein of socialism that they created in the West with chopped up body parts of socialism, misaligned them and breathed into the monster the holy spirit of capitalism and they expected it to work.
How can you achieve “equality” by bringing hordes from the 3rd world when you haven’t achieved equality among the original, native born population? But that’s the whole point – isn’t it – to pretend that you are striving for some kind of equality, because you don’t want the native born population to move one inch closer to being equal with the rich elites.
i think people are assuming the “ethno” part of ethnocentricity developed at and for the ethnic group scale whereas i think it mostly came into being at the clan or extended family level.
those evolved traits can then be culturally reinforced to operate at the ethnic group level depending on various factors
– inclination of elites to promote that cultural reinforcement
– how actually related the group is at the group level
– peace or war
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize pow-wows? Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which is now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then you’ll find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
But I guess “democracy” was only designed to let you choose which clown from the deep state you want to entertain you in the next 4 years. You were never asked for opinion on things that really matter.
Every western country should organize “Brexit” style referendum on such a crucial issue which threatens the survival of the state – immigration.
the multicult was invented cos slavery was abolished and Emma Lazarus’ family needed a new source of cheap labor.
That is the general area where The Pale of Settlement was established hundred of years later by the Jews
the elites used to actively promote patriotism to reinforce ethnocentricity but now they promote anti-nationalism.
they’re still strong in south and east Europe but less so in NW Europe.
yes partly that but also partly an anti-nationalist reaction to the world wars because Europeans developed technology that made war dysgenic even for the winners.
imo the level of overt ethocentricity displayed by a population will be a combination of
– baseline level
– the level of elite reinforcement (or not)
– the level of external threat
so yes even with a low baseline and the elites actively suppressing the normal reaction to being replaced in your own homeland, being replaced is clearly enough of a threat to get people to vote against it in a referendum but so far not enough to force politicians to put it to a referendum.
so far all most people do is move away. this may change when there’s nowhere left to run.
7The trials by NY Jewish lawyers of Alt Right protesters in Charlottesville COULD serve as a referendum if a few, or better yet, a group or Law School summoned the cajones to argue on the side of American heritage.
It’s Thomas Jefferson’s city, fer chrissake, that is being reduced to “remember Munich” status.
No mere happenstance.
Is there no one left in Charlottesville with enough pride to snatch up and raise high the American flag rather than the blue 6-star?
given the education system only went fully anti-white c. 10 years ago the people who understand what is happening and have (or will have) the skills to fight back in the courts are probably still in college or only recently left.
Chinese have lived in Southeast Asia since the 1800’s, yet in virtually all SEA countries, they remain distinct as an ethnic group, rarely intermarry with non-Chinese. Growing up as an ethnic Chinese minority in Malaysia, I was taught to believe that the Chinese were the superior race, compared to the lazy, low IQ Malays or Indians.
Since immigrating to the US in my teens in the 80’s, I have watched with alarm how much immigration from mainland China has grown in the US in the last 2 decades. My mixed race kids tell me the Chinese kids in school tell them their mainland Chinese parents always tell them “China #1!”, and they wonder why their parents moved to the US (the answer: because they are all corrupt and need to get out with their ill gotten gains before they get thrown in jail). Chinese ethnocentrism is real and it is ugly.
However, as with all generalization, there are always exceptions and I am one such. I’ve grown to despise my own tribe over the last 4 decades. I see how the Chinese behave the world over, whether they are the majority or minority, they are greedy, selfish, dishonest, rude, loud, clannish and have excessive ethnic pride, which causes many to completely lack introspection. They are also a filthy tribe who does not take care of their environment, their yard, and lack any kind of civic mindedness. The Cantonese are an especially obnoxious tribe among the Chinese, absolutely abominable.
I think fewer Chinese is a good thing for the world. My tribe needs to die out, either through childlessness or intermarriage. The world will be a better place.
“Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself.”
Bullshit.inbreeding leads to retardation and genetic diseases
gerund or present participle: inbreeding
breed from closely related people or animals, especially over many generations.
“persistent inbreeding has produced an unusually high frequency of sufferers from this disease”
I doubt the Chinese, or Asians in general are quick to assimilate by marriage. How many mixed couples, i.e. Asian/White, Asian/Black, do we see. Not many and closer to none, even here in liberal metro LA. I was at a party in Palos Verdes, Ca. the other day. There were a number of Asian couples present, but not 1 mixed.
Lack of ethnocentrism in whites is almost entirely caused by the last 5 decades of relentless Jewish brainwashing and browbeating through their control of the media and the education establishment. Jews have beaten white guilts into the white psyche to the point where whites are either afraid to express their true feelings or are completely brainwashed into believing in their own evilness. It’s a real shame as Northern Europeans especially from Germany and Scandinavia are probably the best race: intelligent, industrious, and quite possibly the only truly honest people on earth.
European countries are the most beautiful places on earth not because they are the richest — many Europeans actually live quite modestly by American standards, they live in small apartments or homes and don’t make that much money compared to many upper middle class professionals in the US, but they take care of their environments. They build beautiful homes, grow beautiful gardens and yards, keep their environments clean and tidy, and obey the law. It makes their societies look rich by comparison.
People in other parts of the world need to take a page from the Northern Europeans and take better care of their environments. Beautiful places put people in better moods, and make them want to be better people, e.g. more honest and law abiding.
I agree, therefore all Jews should be forced to interbreed exclusively with Nigerians to solve their severe inbreeding problem.
Throughout ancient Europe, Jews were not allowed to own land and were often despised as the money lenders throughout the diaspora. I don’t know how hard it would’ve been for the Jews to ditch Judaism, adopt Christianity, intermarry and completely assimilate with the native Europeans, but at least the Spaniards had tried to get them to do that, to no avail. I can only surmise that the Jewish religion is a very strong religion that keeps the Jews believing out of fear or a strong sense of kinship.
However, many Jews in the US have become secular, yet continue to identify as Jews. Perhaps this is because membership has its privileges, Jews help out other Jews in business, academia, politics etc. But lately I’m thinking it has a lot to do with Israel. There seems to be more and more “Holocaust Museums” being built all over the west. Who is building them? Nearly 80m died in WWII, yet all we ever hear about are the 6m. Israel depends on support from the diaspora to survive, esp. those in the US, both financially and politically, so they continue to fan up the Holocaust to keep Jews loyal to the tribe, even as the influence of Judaism wanes. As such, as long as Israel is still around, Jews will never fully assimilate to whichever country they live in, because Israel wouldn’t let them.
Multicultural societies are all failed societies, dysfunctional, chaotic, dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, everybody hates everybody. Just look at Malaysia or Brazil.
The US is turning into Brazil x 10, with nukes.
You’re such an idiot, Obi Wan. I don’t mind the leftist/antiracist bent, but you’re making such poor arguments. What is your connection here? You getting paid?
Here we go about the Jews again. Can we leave them out of at least one conversation? Ethnocentrism is “losing strength” today because it’s actively suppressed by the elites. They do this by equating ethnocentrism with racism and accusing only the deplorables of being racists, while they – the rich degenerates are so above it.
The elites implemented multiculturalism because it’s the cheapest form of “socialism”. Cheapest for them – it didn’t cost them a penny, in the long run Multiculturalism is going to be the most expensive and destructive form of phony socialism for each country that embraced it.
Jews did well in Europe because the native Europeans are honest and easy to rip off. The dishonest always make the honest look stupid by comparison.
But the Spaniards, Indians, Chinese, Persians are as dishonest and unscrupulous as the Jews, so they have no advantage over these groups.
Yep, the (((elites))) wanted multiculturalism. When every group is an outgroup, (((they))) will no longer stick out as the only outgroup and be easily called out for all their treacheries.
Jewish-designed, intended and enforced brain washing — they, themselves, call it psychological warfare, is an historical fact and a present reality.
There may be other groups or causal factors responsible for breakdown of ethnocentricism, but Jewish ideology and praxis ranks at or near the top of the list.
It’s foolish and self-destructive to ignore an accurate diagnosis out of fear of ‘offending the Jew.’ That is a Jewish defense mechanism. A soldier does not refrain from dispatching an adversary just because the adversary calls him names.
We should recognise that within Europe there is significant disparities in levels of ethno-centrism. For example, the Greek belief in the superiority of its culture compared to others (somewhat of a proxy of ethno-centrism) is through the roof compared to northern and western Europe.
Greeks also show high values for anti-diversity and anti-immigrant views.
Despite being one of history’s most important trading people, being in a part of the world which is not isolated and also having been colonised by Muslim Turks for 400 or so years, Greeks have retained remarkable consistency in their genetic composition with only relatively small intrusions of Slavic ancestry primarily in Macedonia and some Levantine intrusions in Cyprus.
The key to ethnocentricity, which is not addressed by many, is a strong and stable family structure as ethnicity is largely passed on by genes and family education. Of course, state education is also critical. And Greeks again show some of the healthiest signs in the developed world on this front. Children born out of wedlock in the two Hellenic states of Greece and Cyprus are very low.
Also, divorces rates are very low; particularly, in Greece.
Of course, even the Greek family is not immune to modern lifestyle-related diseases as witnessed by the low birthrate.
As for state education, although the Greek state has sometimes been disorganised, wherever Greeks go, they establish two things first: a church and school often with the support of the Greek state. Both institutions are key vehicles for the perpetuation of ethno-centric values
And Greeks have been ranked with the highest in Europe anti-Semitism index by ADL.
Similarly Chinese cannot get over on Koreans or Japanese like they can on Southeast Asians. Why? Because they have the same characteristics as Chinese.
Makes sense the Jews fared less well in Southern Europe getting over on wary and shrewd Sicilians or Spanish.
How do you explain the Jewish Golden Age in Spain, which was almost comparable to later Jewish prominence in Northern Europe?
But I agree with your general point – Jewish dominance after the Enlightenment is only because northern Europeans made themselves vulnerable to group competition.
This is undoubtedly correct.
Jews had their Abbie Hoffmans (A real charmer who once doled out advice on how crash Bar Mitzvah’s in STEAL THIS BOOK) and their whiggers (BEASTIE BOYS made EMINEM look positively sophisticated) and their sexual degenerates (Goldstein, Ron Jeremy, Sarah Silverman).
But Jews never regarded these people as examples of any kind. They merely regarded them as degenerates who HAPPENED to be Jewish.
Similarly, crack cocaine’s popularity affected Jews in the boroughs of New York as well. But statistically less.
As for wild teenage behavior among whites or Jews, this seemed to reach a peak in the post-70’s period of FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH and by 1983 dissipated during the Reagan Revolution.
When one watches the original KARATE KID today their first thought is “where are the police? Where’s the principal?”
I have always despised the Beastie Boys, I can tell you that. Utterly talentless, vulgar, hacks.
Spain is ostensibly easy to explain. There was less animosity between Muslims and Jews at that time than between Muslims and Catholics, provided the Jews paid their taxes. Same as the Maghreb. Which the Catholics were aware of and so expelled the Jews along with the Muslims.
In addition to the Enlightenment is the European class system, from which Jews were relatively free.
Whereas in Southern Europe, trade had existed in Rome for a long time. There was also the issue of usury.
My opinion of Joyce which was once high is now low. Terrible review of an awful book. This reads like the worst of Rushton positively reviewed in the worst of Amren. Pure garbage.
I lived in Philippines and was surprised how quickly Chinese-Filipinos were to tell Westerners what they thought of Malays (I’m referring to the race, not the nationality).
Unlike the Brahmin who found a way to hide their superiority behind a religion, or behind nationalism through media and political pervasiveness like the Jews, Chinese were the most upfront arrogant and alien market-dominant elite on earth.
With the Brahmin and Jews there was a certain unctuous obfuscation but with Chinese in SEA it was simply cold hostility.
Northern Europe had no middle class when, for instance, the King of Poland invited the Jews in. Someone was going to get a bad rep for being a merchant in societies consisting of peasants and noblemen.
And of course, noblemen always needed to borrow money so of course the Jews got a bad rep for usury.
People overlook the fact that Jews were the first bourgeois in Northern Europe. And the bourgeois has more exposure to teeming masses of peasants than land-rich noblemen.
Remember that the wealthy and titled in Europe hid behind religion, but Jews lacked this option.
Italians and Jews have always been cousins. For lack of a better description. Go into any East Coast prison and you’d find that Jews mostly associate with “Wiseguys” as oppose to bikers or Aryan prison gangs.
Even in the US, we associate Jews and Italians with the same population centers. Physically, they are more or less indistinguishable with Jewish actors like Caan or Winkler verving it up as Paisans while Pacino played Jews.
I can believe it. I’ve only visited SEA twice since the 80’s. The last time I visited Malaysia, which was years ago, the Chinese there complained incessantly about affirmative action. They were aghast when I told them they needed to assimilate or GTFO, emigrate to Singapore, HK, Taiwan or China, if their Chinese heritage is that important to them. I say the same to the Chinese in the US. If they want to speak Chinese and talk about Chinese pride, GTFO, go back to China. Why the F are they here?
At least in the US, blacks have to be the most overtly ethnocentric group. Almost 40% of universities now have blacks only graduation, incl. all of the Ivy League. About as many have blacks only orientation, blacks only dining hall, blacks only student center, dorms, special counseling and remedial classes. Many colleges also have separate clubs and services for Latinos, Asians, Indians, Jews, LGBTQ, Women only, black women, latina etc. But not a single campus is allowed to have a whites only anything. That is just wrong.
Blacks blame whites for segregation when whites moved out, but when whites want to move into a black neighborhood, blacks protest about “gentrification”. Where the heck are whites supposed to live?
Read Michael Lewis’ Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World (2011) and you wouldn’t think so highly of the Greeks. Endemic and pervasive corruption has destroyed Greek society at every level, nobody trusts anybody and everybody hates everybody. The Greeks today have no connection to the Greek civilization of 400BC, yet they take far too much ethnic pride in their past which prevents them from moving forward.
I have reached a point where I believe history is more of a burden than a boon. We need to completely do away with the study of history if we are to move forward as one world, one human race.
Why are they there? Money. Malaysia could have been the moon for all the Chinese cared.
Its a zero-sum game to the Chinese Overseas Merchants.
Unless the demographic majority like Filipinos are homeless squatters paid a pittance by Chinese and meth labs bubble on every corner while Chinese produce more billionaires than any other country in the world despite the Philippines being desperately poor well…they are unsatisfied.
Jews fared pretty well in Spain from the invasion of the Saracens until the late 1400s. Christian Spain took their country back and persecuted Muslims and Jews.
In my experience, ordinary Japanese are much more honest and rule abiding than the Chinese or the Koreans. That is not to say that they are at the same level of honesty as Protestants though. The yakuza in Japan is known for running a huge black market economy from gambling to drugs, prostitution, counterfeiting, extortion etc. just like the triads in Taiwan, jopok in SKorea, mafia in Italy.
Jews don’t do as well in Catholic countries because the Catholics are not known for their honesty. All Catholic run countries are known for corruption, from Southern Europe to Latin America to the Philippines. They’re not as trusting and gullible as the Protestants.
You make an excellent point. Assimilation-absorption across ethniclines is one thing. Across racial lines is a whole different story altogether.
Who are the whites most completely PWND by (Media, money) in the US? Not the Italian-Americans or other Catholic East Coast ethnic whites (Greeks, Cubans in Miami).
Nope, it is the Protestant Evangelicals of Northern European descent. Japanese-Americans, too, have managed to avoid being completely PWND.
Koreans in Los Angeles, for example, lived and worked in black ghettos during the entire crack epidemic but few members of the Korean merchant community became crackheads.
So I have to agree with you. Immigrants from low-trust societies cannot be completely PWND. If you don’t care about Hollywood or the news and the only language you speak is money then you are better off than people who put all their faith in the constitution.
You are getting off-topic as the point was not whether the Greeks are good or not but whether they are ethnocentric. However, Michael Lewis, a person educated as a lawyer and then making a career writing paperback books on finance (and not a Greek-speaker) is hardly an authority on Greece. Unfortunately, this is how most Americans learn about the world. Also, his comically poor survey of Greece was at the beginning of the crisis. Hardly, during a time of normalised conditions. Interpersonal trust levels in Greece are generally at the middle to lower end of the developed world (a peculiar feature of Greek life) but trust in institutions like the military are at the higher end – which is a sign of health. As for connection to Antiquity, links on genetics were provided previously. As for cultural links, I can read Xenophon’s Anabasis without too much strain.
‘with Jews very concentrated in urban areas i would have thought the Black Death could have caused a bottleneck like that (as the plague didn’t reach Poland for some reason).’
I doubt it would have. The Black Death certainly caused widespread and massive mortality — but generally in the range of 25-50% 0r thereabouts. There was nothing that would have reduced the total Jewish population to the point where there would have been only 350 survivors left to reproduce.
“Ashkenazi Jews appear to be 40-50% Italian according to DNA tests on the female side.”
Please present the source for that claim.
It’s rather obvious that so many “Italians” of recent history are not the same, real Italians of earlier history.
Jared Taylor wrote an interesting article about this on Amren entitled “Origin of the Jews” that cited a variety of DNA sources.
But this is all well-known and established. Ashkenazi came about when migrant males from Judea intermarried with Roman women.
Saracen Arabs left a fairly sizable imprint in Southern Italy and all but bred the Italian out of Maltese people who were descended from Sicilian settlers.
The further South you go, the more Arab Italian DNA becomes until finally when you are in Malta the people are essentially Christian Arabs.
Laws of kashrut.
There should be a Nobel Prize for such a nation whose masses are aware enough to reject the demands of its oppressors.
Are more Jews in America choosing intermarriage now because postwar cognitive sorting in university and career selection has given them access to certified high-IQ gentiles worthy of their centuries-isolated elite DNA? This, in addition to the general societal decline in religious belief and rabbinical authority?
Regardless, the intermarriage rate among ultra-Orthodox is low and their fertility rate is high. Perhaps this period is one of the times like before in historic cultural challenges when the Jews lose their least committed before returning to an emphasis on separation of their people, as described by Kevin MacDonald.
When discussing the demographics of the Colonial period and the early decades of the United States, I don’t see how one can avoid the elephant in the room, which is the easy availability of land. Not absolute, not total, but a major factor. And a protected, expanded economy.
(Worth quoting to get more views.)
I wonder what the author means by this.
The Internet tells me the Carolingian dynasty began in AD 714 and ended in 1124. Mathematically, the midpoint of those years is 919, or — remarkably — exactly one-thousand years before Hitler began his political activities in Germany.
(Finding historical-era midpoints can yield some great coincidences and/or insights. (See also proposed dating for the European “Middle Ages” and midpoint.)
The author also quotes Dutton as suggesting that the Ashkenazi-Jewish ethnic group only coalesced in presently-recognizable form by “1400 AD,” which seems implausibly late. Ron Unz, above, says the ethnogenesis period is actually 500 to 1000 AD, which seems more reasonable. Either way, if this Carolingian dynasty remark (blockquoted above) is correct, and (unless only the very late Carolingian dynasty is meant), it means that Jewish-EuropeanChristian conflict, roughly recognizable as that we know today, predates even the final Ashkenazi ethnogenesis.
We will leave the West. However we will stay in SEA forever. It is the native FUBAR Austronesians who need to get lost. Just like white demographic displacement of Amerinds, abos etc our displacement of SEAs in Taiwan, Singapore, Hawaii etc have good effects. Do you want the Philippines to be another Taiwan? Then allow us to displace the natives.
You can stay, just in small numbers.
A reasonable amount of you people is good and healthy.
Also, there has to be places in the world where people take life in a lighthearted easy going fashion, like the Philippines.
That too is good, and must exist.
However unlike white people and white culture that are objectively great SEA cultures aren’t worth preserving. Taiwanization of shitholes will be objectively great.
A hypothetical Taiwan that had never been racially NE Asianized would have been the Philippines 2.0, a shithole dependent on perpetual white aid. On the other hand a hypothetical racially NE Asianized Philippines would have been another Taiwan. Manila would have been a lovely and safe metropolis enjoyed by both natives and white tourists. Think about that. If Thailand were NE Asianized there should be almost no HIV there..
Nah. The very existence of shitholes such as the Philippines is a shame of humanity.
When we found the West a lot more developed than us we felt deeply ashamed. We tried very hard to improve so that we don’t degenerate into subhumans. This worked. Now we are at least in the white range on all aspects (i.e. at least we do better than Albanians on almost everything and are comparable to Meds or northern Slavs according to most criteria including innovation.)
Why shall we stay in a place that is becoming groidified shithole? What can you guys give us if descendants of you guys are becoming mulattos and mestizos? Many Japanese Brazilians actually assimilated into and intermarried with the light mulatto population (i.e. Brazilian “whites”). They got genetically and memetically polluted by the groid & Amerind portions as a result. If NE Asian people assimilate into the increasingly groidified and Amerind population that is still white for now in the West the effects will be the same.
Tribes worth joining (i.e. Nordics) are usually almost impossible to join.
Tribes easy to join are usually not worth joining.
Spanish made Philippines worse. You have to factor that in. They introduced staggering corruption and today a Spanish-blooded land-owning elite controls politics.
If Taiwan had continued to be ruled by the Dutch, they would have eventually left and the place would have reverted to a third world country because they were not interested in settling or intermarrying with the Taiwanese.
Well, I’m not saying you should stay. Just that it’s fine if some of you do, just as its fine if sone whites stay in japan or China, but not too many.
Its all in the numbers.
And whites in America will be fine – things will be very different in the future, but they are an extremely talented and capable people who will reorganize themselves in some fashion.
Don’t mistake temporary troubles for permanent collapse.
And easy going places are good – I’ve met many amiable Chinese tourists planning to settle down on SEA for the lifestyle 🙂
I personally would be sad to see all East Asians (see, I distinguished you guys as a particular group) disappear from America or the West.
I don’t want enough of you guys to change the national character, but you guys are cool.
I imagine the situation is not so different in China or Japan.
Why aren’t formerly Portugal-ruled Macao and Dutch-ruled…..Netherlands shitholes?
Of course long-term Dutch rule in Taiwan would have sucked..because they wouldn’t have bothered to displace Austronesians and make the land white or allow us to kick Austronesians out. In that scenario the word “Taiwanese” would have referred to mostly Austronesians which is why Taiwan would have sucked.
We will disappear precisely because the West is likely to become a dark and tropical shithole unsuitable for healthy human living unless WN rule takes place. When we disappear and WNs aren’t in power it will be a sign that your once great civilization will have become groidified. That’s it.
Oh and don’t give us a quadroon, octoroon or hexadecaroon husband or wife if your lack of racial hygiene will make you guys as poor as Mexico one day. No thanks.
Well, I will be sorry to see you go Kek…
But I suppose enjoy Singapore?
Be careful, some black guys I know have recently been talking about immigrating to Singaporre, apparently they already have visas and job offers…
These guys tell me the women are quite attractive there and very positive towards them…
Whites appear less ethnocentric, because they have a strong sense of morality. One of these studies described this as whites being less sociopathic. Genetically driven religiosity could also be part of it.
Regardless, I have very positive ethnocentricism but no negative ethnocentricism. I generally want to preserve the diversity of peoples and also nonhuman species. The above article suggests I won’t survive then.
If WWIII takes place I will go to Singapore within a day. I won’t be in either commie-occupied China that will draft me to be a starving cannon fodder who have to fight against the West with inferior weapons or an America that will put me in an internment camp (I have zero faith in anything. Internment camps will appear again, yes. Laws against that are just worthless pieces of paper. If you trust them you are a retard.)
Negros are a global problem that I don’t really even expect to be fully addressed ever. Humans are hellbent on self-destruction through groidification in order to appear moral.
However, what you don’t appreciate is that groids have barbarian vigor..
Like the German barbarians and the Japanese barbarians.
Raise their IQ, and might they not lead the human race forward one day?
Amy Chua, Chinese-American Yale law professor/Tiger Mother Balladeer, wrote “World on Fire” about market-dominant minorities. In the introduction she talks about how her Chinese grandmother was murdered in her mansion in the Philippines by her Filipino servants. Amy recounted discovering on an earlier visit how miserably the Filipino help lived there, with the chauffeur and kitchen servants sleeping on straw mats in the basement.
Amy herself married a Jewish professor to produce well-documented superbabies who were hounded towards excellence 24/7.
Stanley Ho looks pretty assimilated, since you never see himself say anything about jew or israel
Amy Chau was a lousy writer who tended to repeat the same point over and over again and her attempt to portray Americans as the planetary equivalent to Chinese in the Philippines is ludicrous considering the poverty and crime in the US.
However her emphasis on her Chinese identity despite generations in the Philippines underscores the degree to which Chinese hold the predominant Malay population in contempt and what happens when a group controlling an economy are hostile outsiders…as she is.
Nor is it a surprise she would marry an American with money and this American with money would happen to be Jewish. Filipino women tend to want to marry men with money.
Her grandmother did say that “Filipinos are not slaves and can go whenever they want.” This is a salient point.
She also goes on about her hatred of the PNP and if you were ever a Westerner who has been burglarized in the Philippines and faced grinning Filipino police you’d understand how Chau felt although she is a boring self-congratulatory lousy economist.
HOUNDED TO EXCELLENCE?
As oppose to many blacks or Hispanics or rednecks who chose to have a child at 17, choose to get hooked on a soul-death narcotic like Ice (Which Chinese make in the Philippines), choose to marry young with no qualifications, choose not acquire some degree or trade, choose to become alcoholics, choose their lives?
Jim Goad has written a book about his typical poor white childhood in Philly, but didn’t his parents CHOOSE this life for themselves and their children? Didn’t Jim Goad CHOOSE to start taking drugs in his early teens? Isn’t this all Jim Goad’s choice?
Take the book HILLBILLY ELEGY, which Amy Chau cited. Vance’s parents choose to bring a child into their screwed up lifestyle. Vance’s mother CHOSE to be an alcoholic. His father CHOSE to leave the family.
Jews and Chinese money elite, if you have noticed, chose NONE OF THESE THINGS. They manage not to get hooked on hard drugs in their teens. Their parents are rarely alcoholics. They acquire a degree before they start families. Their marriages manage to remain intact. They generally put their children’s welfare ahead of their own, unlike someone like Goad or Vance whose parents get drunk in front of them or kick them out of the house at 16. Chinese and Jews can do well academically because they are not avoiding MS-13 gangs in public school hallways.
The fact that Hindus, Cuban whites and Iranian Muslims in the US hold their own economically with Chinese and Jews illustrate the extent to which the poverty of poor whites that Goad or Vance write about is a lifestyle choice.
Why shall people from a higher-functional group assimilate into a lower-functional group? Why shall a higher-functional group allow lower-functional people from lower-functional groups to intermarry with and assimilate into them?
As I said before, any tribe worth joining is unlikely to be open to new members. Any tribe that can be joined is probably not worth joining. Well, that’s assuming that you are a member of a good tribe.
In general only children of subhumans benefit from intermarrying with members of other tribes. Any sufficiently good tribe is harmed by race mixing because it is almost impossible to be improved through mixing and that certain adaptations can be lost through it.
Now let’s see…the average Filipino Malay is a rabid methamphetamine addict and heavy drinker who tends to get violent when drunk and is wildly promiscuous (With other males as well as females) and a pathological liar/thief who has little money.
Now why wouldn’t Chinese-Filipino women want to marry them?
Filipino women are often semi-career prostitutes who have been street hookers all over the world and also often have methamphetamine habits and usually have at least one kid out-of-wedlock by 25.
I cannot imagine why Chinese-Filipinos would not intermarry with them.
Actually, Chinese-Filipinos rarely socialize with Filipinos. A Westerner is more likely to know Chinese-Filipinos than Filipinos themselves are.
Dr Dutton: Mixed Race Individuals
I certainly agree that discipline and choice is vital to success. However, Battle Hymm of the Tiger Mother reads like parody. There’s a happy medium, and the lack of moderation and appreciation of genuinely contemplative time and the creative space that it engenders is not healthy. Hyper-driven mercenary Asians who are ruthlessly competitive distort the system, though of course not as badly as URM-driven dumbing down and inversion of history and values.
What is “barbarian vigor”? Is it a way of saying “barbarian lack of Machiavellian social knowledge which causes them to be more pro-social”?
the painful adaptation did not lead to smarts at all..partial maybe but not smarts. if it did they would understand “the superiority-cuckery cycle” and factor for it..how to beat it, stay on top forever..or most importantly..to avoid regress
what they did to break the cycle would have been very interesting indeed..maybe a try at or with the Chinese absorption thingy.
This is Dr Dutton! I am supposed to look at this for half an hour of my life and time?
for what reason and purpose?
this nonsense! useless, pointless..is irrelevant to the millennia of experience humans have had with ethnic mixing. the actual experience comes first not this idiocy
we have the human species that is basic.. that has specialized into major differences we call ethnics who can breed with each other..and they do so excessively, when they meet…they literally merge.
for example and for millennia Europe and Africa ethnics have been mixing. we have the entire Arab group as a result..hundreds of millions of people.
we have all of Italy and France, Spain, Portugal as a result of ethnic mixing..and the USA itself, England all the way into the Royal family.
What about all of that then? it works, seems perfectly fine to me.
what is this nonsense then from a clearly insane man?
I looked for 5 minutes to make sure what it was – sense or non-sense..realized I was looking at nonsense, then turned it off
and as I was fooling around with a few friends a-while ago it came to me..that with the list I made above I had only just begun with the ‘race’ mixing.
the entire Indian sub-continent..India and Pakistan are both mixtures of Black and White. then there is the entire Latin American sub-continent and the Caribbean islands: some or most of the Pacific islands..ALLLLLLL! Absolutely mixed.
the fact is not a question of mixture or mixing, but who are not mixed among humans on planet Earth.
let Dr Dutton go search for them-the purebreds..an opportunity for him to use his time productively, get him away from his current insane focus
Dutton treats mixing as if its something new, the results of power manipulation etc. there is surely some manipulation going on to use mixed people for some nefarious purpose. but the mixing is old, very old indeed..and huge. almost all of us are mixed
Hey Jeff, been loving your writing/thoughts so I am slowly working my way through all your backlogged comments on the site. I’m also an SEA-based expat, a little bit younger than you (1979) but still of generational parity? Maybe I’m a year inside the Millennial bubble?
Either way, I haven’t spent much time in the Phils beyond some blackout-drunk nights in Manila in my 20s. Just curious if this stuff still holds true, or if you think Duterte has cleaned things up enough to make the Phillipines worthwhile as a place to live? Cebu? Somewhere else?
I’m at a weird stage where I want to avoid the 25 yr olds with drones making ‘content’ for Youtube in Bali or pretending to work at cafes in Chiang Mai, but I am also not interested in hanging with the 65+ sexpats in Pattaya (or wherever they are now).
“Jewish-designed, intended and enforced brain washing…”
OK, so who exactly are the culprits here? Specific names. What actual meetings took place where this Jewish plan was hatched and then executed? I assume you have documentary evidence at your disposal. Moreover, how are whites “brain washed” by Jews considering whites have high IQ’s and high time preferences? Would not whites be able to “sniff out” when they are being bamboozled? How are they easily manipulated as you claim? What makes you seemingly more aware of these matters compared to whites? How are you seemingly not impacted by this “brainwashing”?