Altruism and the question of group selection continue to generate heated debate among biologists. Because there are so many misunderstandings of these issues, it’s worthwhile discussing how they relate to my writing on group evolutionary strategies. A recent paper, by Sam Bowles, “Altruism’s Bloody Roots“, argues that group selection could have evolved among humans as a result of between-group competition. Bowle’s paper is based on data showing high rates of violence and genetic variation in Stone Age groups. A computer simulation showed that selfless groups eventually predominated over groups composed of selfish individuals. (Another recent paper, co-authored by E. O. Wilson, rejects the now traditional idea that kin selection is the root of eusociality—social forms in which animals like bees and humans have division of labor and altruism [see here]. This is compatible with Bowles’ results, but goes quite a bit further in its rejection of kin selection and is not necessary for the following discussion.)
Bowles’ model is explicitly compatible with cultural group selection. The theory of group competition presented in the first chapter of A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy is phrased in terms of cultural group selection. That is, the theory does not depend on genetic tendencies toward altruism, but rather on the ability of humans to monitor and punish free-riders and defectors. This is not merely theoretical. For example, traditional Jewish groups had strong internal controls that enforced group-oriented economic behavior (e.g., not competing with monopolies controlled by other Jews; Ch. 6 of PTSDA) and punished “informers”—the practice of Mesirah which prohibited informing on other Jews to the non-Jewish authorities. Mesirah continues to operate in the contemporary world, particularly among Orthodox and Haredi groups—a recurrent theme on TOO.
Bowles maintains that there must have been genetic selection for altruism because fear of punishment itself implies altruism: “I might hope that someone would punish you, but why should I do it? You might hit back. The idea that I can exert order on you presupposes the idea that someone is altruistic.”
But this misrepresents the costs of punishing cheaters in altruistic groups. The cost of punishment of free-loaders and defectors in human groups is quite low because it need not be done by individuals. Because of the human ability coordinate actions and assess others’ reputations via uniquely human explicit processing (see here, p. 11), we are able to develop posse-like groups able to impose penalties on cheaters at little cost to any individual. The costs are spread to pretty much the entire group. This dramatically lowers the barriers to creating groups that can get rid of free loaders and informers; it eases the path to group selection, but only for humans.
Reputation is a social, not an idiosyncratic, phenomenon. That is, reputation consists of explicit representations of the past history of others that are held by a significant group of people. The costs of transmitting reputation are minimal, but reputation raises the cost of defection because it makes it unlikely that a defector will receive indirect reciprocity in the future (Semmann, Krambeck, and Milinski, 2005). In effect, the non-cooperator is ostracized in future interactions, not only with the people with whom he has had direct dealings, but also with those among whom his reputation as a non-cooperator has become known.Reputation is also likely to lower the cost of punishing because the behavior of defectors can be quickly and widely known at minimal cost, thereby facilitating measures that spread the costs of punishment among the cooperators. “Posse”–type coalitions of punishers are able to inflict punishment on defectors while sharing the costs. Indeed, the ethnographic record shows that people readily band together to prevent despotic domination and free-riding. Human hunter-gatherer groups exhibit an “egalitarian ethic” in which people band together to circumscribe the power of leaders and punish free-riders(Boehm, 1997, 1999; see also Smith, 2003). Low-cost forms of social control, such as gossip and withholding social benefits, are usually sufficient to control would-be dominators, but more costly measures, such as ostracism and execution, are recorded in the ethnographic literature.Similarly, social controls operating within historically important groups are able to punish free-riders and enforce high levels of within-group charity (MacDonald, 1994 [A People that Shall Dwell Alone; D. S. Wilson, 2002; Darwin's Cathedral]). For example, among Calvinists in 16th-century Geneva, those who violated religious norms were subjected to an escalating set of penalties ranging from private “brotherly admonitions” from the pastor, to public forms of shaming, and finally to excommunication which would mean expulsion from the city (D. S. Wilson, 2002).In modern states, the police and the judicial system are empowered to punish non-cooperators. The costs for these enforcement institutions are not borne by individual punishers but are widely shared as a result of tax collection systems that are enabled by explicit processing. That is, the system depends on prospective defectors making explicit calculations of the possible costs (e.g., likelihood of a prison sentence) and benefits (e.g., likelihood of financial gain) to their actions in a situation with a host of features that were not recurrent over evolutionary time (e.g., electronic surveillance methods, legal mechanisms to enforce payment of taxes, etc.) (MacDonald, 2008).(See “Evolution, psychology, and culture,” pp. 218-219)
Kin selection is not necessary in this model, but groups of kin would certainly have lower thresholds for altruism and higher thresholds for defection. (As critics of Wilson’s recent argument against kin selection have noted [e.g., here], the fact that altruism is possible without kin selection doesn’t mean that kin selection is not in fact important in at least some cases of real world cases of altruism. Indeed, it would astonishing if it wasn’t important.) The argument, then, for the evolution of individualism typical of the West (see here, p. 21ff) is that kinship is relatively less important than reputation in cementing cohesive, altruistic groups—hence the deadly effect of threats to reputation that plays such a huge role in motivating White guilt. Whites are being shamed into extinction. To oppose multiculturalism as a model for the West is to remove oneself from the moral universe created by the culture of critique and facilitated by the unique reputation-based eusociality of the West and its commitment to moral universalism. Not coincidentally, all the movements analysed in The Culture of Critique were essentially moral indictments of the West.
On the other hand, kinship clearly plays a very large role the theory of collectivist groups—pretty much the rest of the world. Traditional Jewish groups are a paradigm of kinship-based eusociality (see here, p. 229ff).
In any case, it’s clear that a tightly organized group able to rid itself of free riders and informers would also get rid of selfish genotypes and evolve in the direction of a group whose altruism would have a genetic basis. The process would have the same logic as Cochran and Harpending’s example where the Chinese got rid of genes for non-conformity by doing away with non-conformists. As Cochran and Harpending note, these selective processes have happened very quickly, certainly within the last 10,000 years.
The co-evolution between human explicit processing and changing the gene pool by getting rid of free-riders would be an example of gene-culture co-evolution. In the case of the Jews, a result of these selective processes is the ethnocentric fanatics of the West Bank settler movement and their supporters in the Diaspora who increasingly dominate the Jewish community—the logical endpoint of selection for kin-based eusociality. In the case of the West and its reputation-based eusociality, we have ethnomasochistic Whites flagellating themselves into extinction for fear of being called a “racist” (definitely bad for one’s reputation). So it goes.
In the battle between kinship-based eusociality and reputation-based eusociality, right now the kinship-based strategy is winning hands down. The West is allowing itself to be overrun by other peoples—many of them with cultures pre-disposed to kinship-based eusociality, such as the Muslim cultures taking root in Europe. And facilitated by a hostile Jewish elite that is the paradigm for kinship-based eusociality.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
White ethnomasochism is the result of intentional ideological programming by liberal White renegades and the anti-White elements that dominate the West.
I agree. The point, however, is that this feeds into a specific White weakness–a hyper-concern with reputation and being an upstanding member of a moral community. Non-Whites (think Jews, Blacks, etc.) are relatively immune from this.
KM,
So would it not be accurate to suggest that a type of White has evolved who has a fatal flaw, per your remarks. That although ALL Whites in USA have been exposed to the same propaganda over the years, NOT all have been susceptible to that brainwashing. It is as if there were a GENE that inoculated those Whites against the wiles and cunning of the Self-Chosen. This is a fascinating idea and should be examined more closely.
Look at the state of our economy, yet almost 100 years ago the NS program, PRE-WAR, got Germany, in a worse state, back into a prosperity and one that was freindly to the average person. I can commend The Good Society, a talk given by Matt Koehl on 11 January 2005. Whatever else one might think of NS Germany it FIXED the economic catastrophe and demonstrated a concern and care for its people which Washington, D.C. does not.
Another implication of this is that it’s more dangerous for Whites than for other races to let members of another race control the means of praising and validating and blaming and shaming.
“Jews control Hollywood” is more dangerous for Whites than “Whites control radio programming in Bongo-bongo-land” would be (where “Bongo-bongo-land” is non-White), not only because of the nature of film and television, not only because of the nature of Jews (and the extraordinary virulence of the culture of critique) but because of the nature of Whites.
If Whites got the news on who is praiseworthy and who is blameworthy from Al Jazeera rather than from Jewish-dominated news sources we’d be on a slower path downhill. But we’d still be going downhill faster than any other race would if another race got hold of its mass media.
The only good side I can see to this is that if Whites did get control of our mass media again, and our courts, so that praise and blame, exoneration and condemnation were in our own hands, we’d draw more heart from it than any other people would, and we’d make a better recovery from our misfortunes than examples drawn from people of other races would lead one to expect.
I would look at the information monopoly (ies)- thought control- first before looking at inborn traits. The real central problem of ALL humanity is loans made up from nothing. Two monopolies- information and money. Both jewish, via government.
Curious about this point by KM in a comment:
this feeds into a specific White weakness–a hyper-concern with reputation and being an upstanding member of a moral community. Non-Whites (think Jews, Blacks, etc.) are relatively immune from this.
Would the same be true for Asians? They have a reputation for conformity and an extreme dread of offending the morals of their community. Also, when it comes to Jews, don’t they have a hyper-concern for reputation within their own moral community? Is it that Jews are able to “privilege” their own group above other groups, more than Whites? Or is it that non-Whites simply don’t worry themselves about the reputation they have outside their own ethnic group (as opposed to Whites)?
Conversely, perhaps a group genetic trait (via the ability to attract a mate) could develop that created a predisposition (for example, among Jews except when it served their interests) against empathy toward those outside (for example, Palestinians in the occupied territories) the group.
This is interesting both for the theory and its implications. On the theory, a lot of us start from the idea of rational economic man and utility maximisation that our commercial culture and education system exposes us too. This certainly has some plausibility, but clearly needs to be supplemented by a Darwinian understanding that our perceived well-being involves participation in a community across the generations. I think people like Aristotle and Burke had some idea of this. The need for “posse like groups” suggests the tension between these ideological layers of the mind.
The practical lesson seems to be to wrest control of culture towards a more Burkean position, which would involve creating media pressure groups to counter the usual rent-a-quote radical egalitarian “anti-racist” voices. It would also involve questioning the journalist guidelines that require them to phone around the radical Left grouplets for comments to bulk out their articles. In the UK, we are still living with a situation where the Labour Party created a sect of leftist journalists by funding “community newspapers” to train them. All the same, the times are changing for journalism and there must be scope for new institutions to emerge.
I think it would take only one mainstream source to get on our side explicitly and we would see a massive sea-change in White attitudes. That being said, you would still have a near majority of Whites who advocate for their own extinction. There is a disease in the White mind, that’s for sure.
It is not enough to say that Whites have a greater sense of morality than other groups (and thus are more susceptible to blaming and shaming) and that this is their greatest weakness in inter-ethnic competition.We should also add that their moral system is a universal one,as contrasted with all other groups.All other groups are ethnocentric and have an ethnocentric moral system (“is this good for our people?”).Whites have a universal moral system(“is this good for humanity?”).Jews surpass all other groups in ethnocentrism,not only in having evolved an own religion that promotes their ethnocentrism but also in having created an elaborate system of double standards (“strengthen the Jews, but weaken the goyim”),deceptively couched in pseudo-universalistic terms.
This combination of a universal moral system with a higher sense of morality makes Whites uniquely vulnerable to intrusive ethnocentric groups, even to the extent of racial suicide.It will be clear that the hyper-ethnocentric Jews constitute the greatest danger in this respect,which is only confirmed by history and by the present.
The only solution for Whites is of course to abandon universalism and to return to tribalism,but even the suggestion of that will evoke a deep moral indignation in many Whites.How curious that the most evolved race on the planet has also the greatest inclination for self-destruction!
I wonder if Dr MacDonald has used game theory in his research on group cohesion, free-riders etc.
@Geiseric: I have wondered about that. It seems to me group cohesion (for example, mesirah) could be a way of solving the problem of the prisoner’s dilemma.
The question we all have is can this be overcome, or will it eventually drag us under. Will whites of the left and the right eventually rise up against the hostile ethnic groups? there was some of this in the Wallstreet (left) shinannigans, naming the ‘jew’ so to speak, but it was quickly put down. but it was the LEFT that made the connection, the right is still osmotically enthralled with Israel, and Judo-Christianity construct, -Osmotically because after the Cold war ended, by Osmosis Conservative Christianity became a love struck buffalo with the cow that is judiasm and merged into a single, (one sided) blind love sick bovine creature.
The Pope has recently endorsed a ‘One world bank’- proving a recent article here about (laughable) jewish influence in the vatican. Not so funny. Its everywhere, we are owned. The tea party and wallstreet movements are 2 of the same, just the left and the right not quite getting it. But it is a start, or a predictable symptom (‘civil’ white uprising). Its not enough. If it gets to be too much, then a national ‘happening’ can be arranged to ‘unify’ america against a ‘common enemy’ once again, and divert from the ongoing social catastrophy. This will not be winnable, given the total power control they have. Its absolute.
@Wiggy: You said : Will whites of the left and the right eventually rise up against the hostile ethnic groups?
I never run into a left winger these days who isn’t anti-White. Even if they are a bit anti-Jewish (or anti-Zionist more often), it is not from a perspective that is useful – they just hate them like they hate all “Whites”. All the serious Lefties I see are preoccupied with hating “White privilege”.
Of course, the Right is not much better, at least in it’s official form – the Rush, Hannity variety – but among the rank-and-file there is probably more race realism (note how the populist Right hates illegal immigration).
@Junghans: So what is the first step in UNDOING this “intentional ideological programming”?
I agree with what Dr. MacDonald said near the end of the article: “… Whites flagellating themselves into extinction for fear of being called a ‘racist’.” We’ve all felt that sting, and usually self-censor to avoid that sting. But what do we do to DISABLE the effectiveness of this programming?
Wouldn’t you agree that DISABLING this is a necessary first step? We cannot stop an anti-White from deploying the “racist” word, but we can reply with …
In your OPINION I’m a (quote-unquote) “racist”.
You’re just saying that because I’m white.
OK, ya’ll know where THAT came from! Matt Parrott, don’t zap this!
Look at just those two lines and see how they do several things at once. First, the slur-term “racist” is relativized into a mere OPINION, and then the verbalization of “quote-unquote” calls into question whether the term even has a legitimate meaning.
These two aspects of the first line are a quickie way to assert “plausible deniability” by way of degrading the attack word into something that’s open to question.
The second line is a sneaky passive-aggressive way of saying the person calling you a name is doing it because of your color/race/ethnicity. That “flips” the culpability for “racism” back onto the attacker without explicitly calling him “racist”. It says “you hate white people so you slur only whites” in a very passive, yet aggressive manner.
Now, what happens AFTER you respond with that two-liner ??? Will your attacker be instantly consigned to the 9th level of anti-White hell? Probably not, but you HAVE just parried the dreaded “R” word, and you’ve turned it’s sting into a barb stuck in your anti-White attackers craw.
@Gregor: Typo:
These two aspects of the first line are a quickie way to assert “plausible deniability” by way of degrading the attack word into something that’s open to question AND MERELY AN OPINION of the attacker.
Dear Prof. Macdonald,
This was a really enlightening and helpful piece, so thank you very much for that. One of the areas that I am – as part of my fledgling contribution – researching involves ways and methods of first identifying on the Internet (in terms of their social haunts even if they use anonymous identities) and then converting people from specific professions or other influential positions in society.
This does bring me into contact with evolutionary psychologists, although in my current view this particular field is far too corrupted by collectives and vested interests. I’m sure you’ve experienced the irony/hilarity more cogently than me, how in a better world the field of evolutionary psychology as it currently is in this world, would make such a fascinating and illuminating study ….. for the field of evolutionary psychology.
But I give some time to it for other reasons….for insights I suppose. What you’ve clarified about the causality/components/roots of group strategies, has really straightened my head out on the matter. I get it. I think that on some inarticulate symbolic level I probably already got it just as you say, but you said it for me. You nailed it and put it into words…a communicable form.
This will help me a lot.
A great story here
http://www.westernrevival.org/wonderful_race.htm
Is reputation really the right word? Reputation seems to mean shame rather than guilt, where guilt is based on an internal moral compass.
That internal moral compass inclines one to do what one believes to be right in spite of praise and blame from others. We love the man who speaks the truth in spite of adversity. The extreme example of this is the martyr. We love our martyrs. They show us that our own sacrifices for what we believe to be right are really not so great. Thus there is an upside to this principle of honor.
Beyond truth, we also need to give some attention to the traditional virtue of loyalty. Meine Ehre heisst Treue is a motto that makes group-solidarity itself a matter of honor (or “reputation”).
The notion of self-sacrifice as a virtue in itself has been under attack from American conservatives for decades now, and that attack seems to have made a considerable impression. What we need is the reasoned middle position between the extreme views that self-sacrifice in itself is either inherently good or inherently bad. This might be accomplished through a more careful consideration of the consequences of altruism. We have to rehabilitate that word discrimination. There is no glory or honor in being indiscriminate, which implies foolish. It is to our advantage to emphasize this.
Another study based on NSDUH reports (2005-2008), conducted by Dan G. Blazer PhD, Jeng-Jong Pan PhD and Chongming Yang PhD, from Duke University shows that White adolescents aged 12 to 17 are more addicted to drugs or alcohol than the non-Whites in the same age group. The study was based on confidential federal surveys of more than 72,000 adolescents in all 50 states.
About 37 percent of American Indian teens reported using alcohol in the past year, followed by 35 percent of whites and 32 percent of Hispanics, 31 percent of mixed race, 25 percent of blacks and 19 percent of Asians.
In the past year, 31 percent of Native American teenagers got high off drugs; 23 percent of mixed race kids; 20 percent of whites; 19 percent, Blacks; 18 percent for Hispanics, and just 12, Asians.
Liberalism is a product of White middle class. Heavy Judeo influence, but its still majority White middle class. therefore, they have a set value system to defend, if it can be recognized that ‘Liberalism’ is purely a ‘White-European’ construct. Of course, all the leaders, Abby Hoffman, Lenny Bruce, Alen Ginsburg (first guy to say *uck on the radio) Larry Flint? etc, all of the counter culture is judeo run. but without a huge white base, it goes away. Only the very few far far lefties are for open white genocide. Political Correctness insulates them from debate at the moment. Whether this is overcome or not within the next generation or 2 is the key.
U.S. government tells citizens along the southern border not to worry about the border violence. Click on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45440385/ns/nightly_news
Wiggy
Liberalism is a product of White middle class. Heavy Judeo influence, but its still majority White middle class. therefore, they have a set value system to defend, if it can be recognized that ‘Liberalism’ is purely a ‘White-European’ construct. …Whether this is overcome or not within the next generation or 2 is the key.”
—————
The ideology that is the problem today isn’t “Liberalism” but “Neo-Liberalism” – the Finance Capital determined free movement of every f…in’ thing. The Far Left in toto have embraced that. If they opposed it – in the interest of the American working people – including the now deeply displaced Negro – they’d be big today instead of the snotty, poky, little Jew outfits that they are. But they couldn’t because they are middle class conformist cowards and Jew-dominated. And the historically cosmopolitan Jews tend to “follow the leader” like ALL the middle class, even of real nations, the European genocidal WW1 and WW2 being adequate testimony to that fact.
There is NOTHING in Marxist materialist analysis which forces that stand on them, but it’s the enormous pressure from Big Jew-dominated Finance Capital / Transnational Corporations (owned by the former) and its Media that drive them to it. I challenge anyone here to disprove this.
In the end, when it is too late, if that point hasn’t already arrived, the stinking Liberals and Far Left who pushed this sh*t on the West, will – if they are still there – take NO responsibility. That is the “way of the times”: no bastard takes ANY responsibility any more, just collects the fat pension and “moves away from it all”, likely with living costs determined by “Third World Rates”. If I’ve seen it once: I’ve seen it a dozen times. Failure to to fight for, to have, a kind of ethno-collective existence leads – for those who are able – the pensioned-off middle class, to individual-cosmopolitanism. They go off to a quiet part of “Mexico” – with “good cheap help”.
Excellent article. I think it’s critical as many people as possible get to understand this.
“The only solution for Whites is of course to abandon universalism and to return to tribalism”
The best solution is to understand our nature scientifically as the Professor is doing and then work with it. The White reliance on group cohesion through culture rather than blood-ties alone is also a strength because it means we can organize on a much larger scale *if* the culture we agree opon to rule us is created by ourselves for the greater good and not a culture created by a hostile elite and designed to destroy us.
Almost every white person on the planet could be drawn into an at least temporary co-operation on that basis. Jews can do the same but only by careful in-breeding and staying few in numbers. Most other groups lose loyalty and trust very rapidly once you go past the extended family and thus have problems co-operating beyond a certain scale. This is why western power is so overwhelming at the large scale but so weak at the small scale.
power = mass x cohesion, and cohesion through blood-ties alone might be stronger but it limits the maximum mass.
the white “weakness” is actually an evolutionary strength for that reason but only if we have a more or less homogenous living space and complete control of our culture.
@Daybreaker:
Believe it or not, a massive revisionist work by Herbert Hoover on FDR, WW II, and the FDR administration is just NOW being published:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/bookman/article/herbert-hoover-revisionist/
@icr:
I repeated FDR when I meant to include “Communism.”
Having read the Atlantic article about EO Wilson et al.’s new paper, I’m terrified. Even though Wilson vigorously battled against Gould, the implications of this theory would be Gould’s wet dream. Once the Jews understand what Wilson is saying, the paradigm will be this: Eusocliality (altruism) did not develop because it led to evolutionary success for kinship cohorts, but because eusocial behavior is in and of itself a superior survival mechanism. In other words, altruistic behavior inherently promotes survival of the species.
We all know how this will be interpreted. The only rational way to behave is to be altruistic–i.e., to ‘donate’ our blood, toil, and treasure to the state, the poor, the ‘world community,’ whatever the Jews decide to use as an instrumentality of control; and anyone who doesn’t behave in this manner is an enemy of all of humanity (and/or the planet earth for the environmentalists).
This will be marxism with in the language of evolutionary biology! We really need smart evolutionary biologists make sure that this interpretation doesn’t become dogma, because once the Jewish academic establishment stops fighting this, it could become a nightmare. I still have a lot of respect for EO Wilson, but to say that he has a ‘theory of everything’ seems more like the vain ramblings of a doddering old man.
Incidentally, I thought there were studies of vampire bats in the 90′s that DID support the mathematical models of kinship selection with respect to altruism. I wonder if the paper addressed those.
@anon:
You have given us an important insight …. “power = mass x cohesion, and cohesion through blood-ties alone might be stronger but it limits the maximum mass.”
I submit that as a FIRST STEP, and not the “end all and be all” of a “solution”, is to utilize the “common enemy” meme as a means of building that cohesion based on non-kinship “universal rules” we White Euros seem to be addicted to.
That meme will take the shape of awakening our people to the fact that damned near everyone else is participating in the anti-white narrative, and promoting it to our detriment.
This can be done many ways. Many have surfaced in the comments of late on this blog.
The key thing is to DO IT, and not confuse talking ABOUT it with actually getting out into the discourse fray and playing “whack-a-mole” with every anti-white idea, meme, or person who dares raise its head.
Our people have a sort of “fair play” gene. The DO NO LIKE IT if the “underdog” gets hurt. They just can’t yet see that who is getting hurt is THEM. Our job is to get this meme into their minds, and lodged where it will not only “stick”, but spread.
@Athanasius: I think your worst fears are already being spread in a meme, on a bumper sticker that says …
“Engage in random acts of kindness”
Translation: “Altruistically give away all your energy to anything that comes across your path. Do not discriminate between people, give it all away to strangers.” And then get that warm-fuzzy feeling that you are a “nice person”, and you’ve done your part to make the world a better place. You’ve “Repaired the World”. Gee, where have I heard THAT before? :)
@Gregor: There’s more …
We are not trying to wake our people up to the “jewish problem”, the “mexican problem”, the “black problem”, etc. We are trying to wake them up to the ANTI-WHITE PROBLEM.
Any attempt to parse the “problem” as some specific “other” demographic will always run afoul of our inner “fair-play” meme. We NATURALLY act like universal baby-sitters, and think we’re so cool to be taking care of the rest of the planet, at our own expense. The only problem: we CAN’T really do this, but our inner “white man” tells us it’s our “duty” to do it.
We can NOT really abandon our natural universalism, and re-train ourselves to become “tribal” in the manner other demographics are. It’s just not US. We must, as “anon” says above, work WITH our natural strengths, and parlay them ju-jitsu-like into something which leverages them against our inherent weaknesses (indiscriminate altruism and altruistic self-punishment) in order to regain dominance over things affecting our own people.
This all begins with a sound, the sound of words, words crafted into “repeaters”, “repeaters” that each and every White can use for passive-aggressive self defense … and to form that “group cohesion through culture” thing “anon” refers to above.
@Wiggy: @Athanasius: @Gregor:
Love your bovine metaphor, Wiggy. Very apt.
Thanks, Athanasius and Gregor, for your suggestions that the currently vaunted altruism is still another means the Tribe is using to blur all lines of race and culture. Do good and help everybody. This is the basis for “community service” and “volunteerism” being an explicit expectation on college applications, etc.
Whites are despairingly individualistic – until they are overtly attacked as a group. Once they realize this is happening, they will band together and fiercely oppose the attackers. Until then, many of them will remain gullible traitors to their race while thinking they are doing “good”.
@Athanasius:
That’s why it’s important that morality and science be forever separate. Science can be twisted to support whatever nonsense the people in charge want it to support.
Eugenics is the answer. It’s grounded in science and amoral; that is, it is concerned with wellbeing and breeding excellent humans as opposed to promiscuous altruism.
If people were properly educated about eugenics you can be sure that there would be no more Heidi Klums mating with silverback gorillas.
@fender: “If people were properly educated about eugenics you can be sure that there would be no more Heidi Klums mating with silverback gorillas.”
Not if they think their own race is evil and silverback gorillas are virtuous. (not to mention the fact that our current culture glamorizes (i.e., provides financial rewards) to brutish behavior and physical traits (cult of sports) associated with very high levels of testosterone.
@Athanasius:
The notion of racial evil would be demolished by accepting scientific realities instead of moral babbling. Women would be attracted to intelligent, good-looking European men because they know such a partnership would yield intelligent, good-looking European children.
Root of the problem is that masculinity, IE: Selfish male identity, is undermined by feminism. Males want one thing, females want another. Female behavior is left unchecked, males are restricted. Pretty simple. In the 50′s, racial awarness was just common sense.
Is it possible to go back to the 1950′s? Its really almost up to the left to figure out they will loose EVERYTHING when ‘conservative’ ethnic orientated minorities get power, well,- see what we have now. Now imagine its only going to get worse, yet better, as ‘white flight’ flings whites of all backgrounds together in a survival mode, when there is nowhere left to run. White Euro-Liberalism will die a slow death in favor of ‘civil-ization’. Its just a matter of time.
Heidi Klum is attracted to the high testosterone, yet childlike ‘innocence’ (behavior) of the black male. And there is no one saying ‘its wrong’. She does not recognise what pops out is a total abomination of what she represents. Also, Seal is a high performance black, he brings in $$$$$ at some level. Women are not designed to resist charasmatic behavior. blacks have lots of ‘charisma’. Its like female characteristics to males. They can’t help it. Its legal, its socially acceptable. Boom, one more white female, breeding for the muds.
@Hadding Scott: I mean, for the ethical cleansing of a gene-pool, obviously reputation is what is meant.
But then in the argument about how the White race is being driven to destruction through guilt (rather than shame), it should be noted that the internal moral compass can just as well function in opposition to such pressures.
I think it’s a matter of what values are taught and what values are invoked. Traditional values like truth, purity, and loyalty work very much in our favor.
To the extent that people have not internalized these values, they are likely to be more susceptible to the prevailing winds of opinion.
@fender:
Aesthetic ideals can be socially manipulated.
Furthermore, popular culture is used to disseminate the idea that blacks are more intelligent than they really are. Perhaps most importantly, there are women would would rather have a child who can sprint 40 yards in under 4.6 s than one who can become a doctor or a lawyer. And with affirmative action, any black can become a doctor or a lawyer, too!
How do we make society reflect the state of nature with respect to the races? We will never get back to that point. (i.e., where the level of success one race achieves is correlated with their actual ability–in such a world, the NBA would still be nearly all black, but there would be very few black doctors or lawyers, and almost none at top schools).
Never underestimate the potential for facts to be obfuscated.
@Hadding Scott: Also, truth-telling in our case is an act of altruism, no different than a baboon sacrificing himself to save the troop from a menacing lion.
@Athanasius
“the implications of this theory would be Gould’s wet dream. Once the Jews understand what Wilson is saying”
The Jews are adapted to us. They have been using this against us for centuries without needing to understand why it worked. It’s us who need to understand it.
@Athanasius: I worry about the group selection theory of EO Wilson too. Will it be used as “proof” that socialism/statism/communism are the proper form of social organization. However, his theory is definitely in the minority and this whole group selection thing was overturned long ago. Kin selection and the Selfish Gene are still the paradigm. However, perhaps some modification will come that includes a light version of group selection.
And it’s not like we don’t have massive amounts of evidence for the failure of communism.
@Gregor
“is to utilize the “common enemy” meme as a means of building that cohesion based on non-kinship “universal rules” we White Euros seem to be addicted to.”
Yep
“The key thing is to DO IT, and not confuse talking ABOUT it with actually getting out into the discourse fray and playing “whack-a-mole” with every anti-white idea, meme, or person who dares raise its head.”
Yep. We need to be getting into and winning at least one argument a day with an anti-white, preferably dozens of times a day.
@Hadding Scott: The Jews seem to recognize the charismatic power of the truth-telling martyr. When somebody tells an important truth that harms Jewish interests, the Jews will try to pin the opposite stereotype on him: that he is hubristic, self-interested, a bully, a sadist, perhaps making money from lying. I heard this kind of thing about Ernst Zundel, that he was hateful or that he was somehow getting rich by hurting the poor Jews’ feelings (involving himself in an endless series of trials that resulted in his deportation and imprisonment).
The ARA demonstrators on the street in front of Zundel’s house in 1996 seemed to believe that stuff. I think it’s probably a lot harder for Jews to pin that kind of caricature on their enemies now, when many have started to see Jews that way.
@Athanasius:
Aesthetic ideals can be manipulated, but only so far. They cannot be manipulated so much that a majority of White women would ever prefer Barack Obama over Brad Pitt. They can, however, be manipulated just enough to cause genetic and social damage in European society as a whole.
There’s a concept in evolutionary biology called the Sexy Son Hypothesis which says that human reproduction is based on the attractiveness of males. That is, females are better-off choosing men who are attractive and will in turn produce attractive sons that will have the best chance of passing on the female’s genes.
This model is especially beneficial for Whites because the other races envy us for our looks. If this evolutionary model were taught in our classrooms you can be sure that White women would be battling over White men instead of kinky-haired third worlders who have no aesthetic or intellectual appeal.
I think this hypothesis also fits in with two other important ideals as well: one, that truth and beauty are synonymous–that humans are supposed to treat themselves as works for art– and two, Nietzche’s idea of the will to power, which is centered on influencing the world as much as possible. Evolution, reproduction, and the continuation of genes is simply science’s answer to the will to power. This is why I’m a fan of the hypothesis, it just ties everything together so nicely.
Damn was that interesting! That pretty much just explained alot of what I see. You see that in the immigrants that come here. Loyalty to their family, and less loyalty to the more abstract concepts of Good.
There’s a word missing in this sentence “On the other hand, kinship clearly plays a very large role the theory of collectivist groups—pretty much the rest of the world.”
Also, what is eusocial?
@Gregor: Gregor says, “We can NOT really abandon our natural universalism.”
There is a cure for it, and that is the realization that we as a race are under attack from other races. Mistreatment by outsiders is what solidified the national consciousness of the Germans.
@Jason Speaks: Jason, I think it’s not a “dangerous” idea. First, there’s no such thing as a “dangerous” idea, that’s just totalitarian leftthink. Truth is what it is, cold facts are what they are, and we need to fully, totally, one hundred per cent understand truth, in order to be able to form strategies. As someone has already pointed out, our enemies have been using anything against us, so just having one more theory that could be used against us hardly changes anything. Second, the theory says that altruism can in fact evolve in the absence of kinship ties. I think it dovetails finely with another professor’s theory on white behavior. This other professor is called Kevin B. MacDonald, I don’t know if you’ve ever heard about him. His theory (available in his book “Cultural Insurrections” advertised below, you might even have read it) is that whites did have just exactly this: altruism without kinship ties. Whites had altruistic groups that were formed based on altruistic punishment with no or very little kinship ties. That’s what, actually, made us so great.
PS: I changed my moniker, but I think it’s not so difficult to guess my old one.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality
Group organisms like ants or humans.
@anon: Precisely. The benefits of individualistic, non-clannish traits are to be seen in the western legal tradition, which has allowed for increased division of labour, one of the foundations of wealth accumulation.
Jews have done well in small, incestuous trades like the diamond business (Antwerp), because trust through blood and acquaintance is more important than the external legal framework for enforcing contractual obligations. Large deals can be done on a handshake alone.
Relying on trust alone, however, limits the division of labour, and so it’s less likely that highly articulated and vast industries could be organized along clan lines. Only a legal system that protects contractual integrity can allow for this, and Western traits in particular give rise to such a framework.
@Lancashire lad: The concept of the “rational” economic man, a profit-maximizer to the exclusion of all else shows the very bankruptcy of neoclassical economics. Man indeed doesn’t live by bread alone; it’s a pity that only the Austrian School acknowledges this.
@Trenchant: Behavioral economics acknowledges that either. Actually that’s their main line of research.
@The Admiral On Horseback: Behavioural economics is psychology in drag. Economics has no need to understand why a subject behaves in a certain way, merely that he does. And my “rational” is your irrational; purely a value judgement.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
I find “White Victimology” a rather negative source for ethnic identity and solidarity.
Think threat, not victimhood (or “victimology”) necessarily. Threat and pride, but threat is the most pressing issue.
@The Admiral On Horseback: Good points. Yes, first off we have to stay true to whatever the truth is, even if only for our own good. I have not read Cultural Insurrections, I will put it on my list of things to do.