Thomas Huxley on Group Competition and Ethics — Part 1 of 2

Brenton Sanderson


The nineteenth century English biologist Thomas Huxley is today best known as a leading early supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution. His eloquent defense of Darwin during his famous 1860 debate with Samuel Wilberforce led to the wider acceptance of evolution. Huxley’s polemical support for Darwin’s theory (which earned him the title of “Darwin’s Bulldog”) has, however, overshadowed his status as a man who was an acute thinker in his own right. Particularly worthy of greater attention is his essay “Evolution and Ethics” (1894) where he argues that ethics are a by-product of natural selection, and particularly of the struggle for existence between groups.

Huxley starts his essay by distinguishing between what he calls the “cosmic process” and the “ethical process.” The cosmic process is, for Huxley, the process that governs the universe (or more specifically and to the purpose of Huxley’s essay, all of the “forms of life which tenant the world”).[i] He notes that “one of the most salient features of this cosmic process is the struggle for existence, the competition of each with all, the result of which is selection, that is to say, the survival of those forms which, on the whole, are best adapted to the conditions which at any period obtain; and which are, therefore, in that respect, and only in that respect, the fittest.”[ii] Like Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin before him, Huxley saw all living things as locked in a life and death struggle for existence – and human beings, like other living things, are fully implicated in this struggle which “tends to eliminate those less fitted to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their existence.”[iii] In “Evolution and Ethics,” Huxley observes that:

With all their enormous differences in natural endowment, men agree in one thing, and that is their desire… to do nothing but that which pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society in which they are born. That is their inheritance (the reality at the bottom of the doctrine of original sin) from the long series of ancestors, human and semi-human and brutal, in whom the strength of this innate tendency to self-assertion was the condition of victory in the struggle for existence. (Emphasis added.)[iv]


Here Huxley, the man who gave us the term ‘agnostic’, offers us a thoroughly scientific and Darwinian interpretation of St. Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin.” Our original sin, according to Huxley, is not that we are born as humans, but rather that we are born (at least psychologically) as primates for whom self-interest — even accompanied by brutality — was paramount. Unlike the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin which requires us to believe in a fable about talking serpents and forbidden fruit, Huxley’s version of the doctrine rests on a simple acceptance of the law of natural selection, the characteristic feature of which “is the intense and unceasing competition of the struggle for existence.”[v]

Huxley book

If our original sin is to be born as mental primates, then, for Huxley, the only cure is for us to be made to feel ashamed of our primate nature. In identifying the biological reality at the bottom of the theological doctrine of original sin, Huxley recognized that any human group, if it hoped to cooperate and thereby survive as a group, had, of necessity, to develop internal defense mechanisms that could check the human animal’s “innate tendency to self-assertion.” Thus, in the interests of group survival, within any group “the cosmic struggle for existence, as between man and man, would be rigorously suppressed.”[vi] It is clear that, for Huxley, the only viable societal mechanism that could perform this task of suppressing human self-assertion was the socialization of children based on shame – emotionally wrenching and physiologically manifested shame.

Huxley observes that “every child, born into the world will still bring with him the instinct of unlimited self-assertion. He will have to learn the lesson of self-restraint and renunciation.”[vii] Children, from a very young age, had to be taught to be ashamed of their inborn animal desire “to do nothing but that which pleases them to do.” Reason, for Huxley, could not perform this service, because the instilling of shame had to occur long before the age of reason was reached; indeed, unless you first taught children to be ashamed of unreasonable behavior, you would have a hard time ever being able to reason with them at all. In short, without inculcating a shaming code in all members of a group, the group would merely be an agglomeration of different individuals, each of whom sought only “to do nothing but that which pleases them to do, without the least reference to the welfare of the society in which they were born.” For Huxley, shame was such a vital element in the ethical progress of mankind for reasons that relate directly to natural selection. In essence, it was shame that led to cooperation, and cooperation to group survival.

Social organization for the purposes of group survival is certainly not peculiar to man and Huxley notes that: “Other societies, such as those constituted by bees and ants, have also arisen out of the advantage of cooperation in the struggle for existence.”[viii] He points out that: “Wolves could not hunt in packs except for the real, though unexpressed, understanding that they should not attack one another during the chase.”[ix] For Huxley, it was axiomatic that, all things being equal, an individual who was part of a larger group increased his chances of survival due to the protection offered him by the size of the group. In the struggle for survival, loners are losers. Huxley posits that the most basic form of human social organization – the family – came about for precisely this reason, noting that “it is easy to see that every increase in the duration of the family ties, with the resulting cooperation of a larger and larger number of descendants for protection and defense, would give the families in which such modification took place a distinct advantage over the others. And, as in the [bee] hive, the progressive limitation of the struggle for existence between members of the family would involve increased efficiency as regards outside competition.”[x]


Thomas Huxley

But if the survival of the individual depends on the group, then the group that can be relied on the most will give its members an evolutionary advantage over those weaker groups that lack the same cohesiveness. If you are a member of a weak group, all the members of which scatter upon encountering a band of enemies, what advantage does your membership in it give you? It is always more adaptive to be a member of a strong group, and a strong group can be defined as one in which all members are united by a strong collective shaming code felt at a visceral (i.e., emotional) level. Aside from the ethnocentrism stemming from their phenotypic similarity, it is this which will make the members of the group feel as one. They are disgusted, angered, delighted, and shamed by the same things. Huxley notes that human socialization, involving the inculcation of a group-centered shaming code (the embryo of all human ethical systems), is greatly facilitated by the mutual affection of parent and offspring during the long human infancy, and, most importantly, by

the tendency, so strongly developed in man, to reproduce in himself actions and feelings similar to, or correlated with, those of other men. … It is needful to look around us, to see that the greatest restrainer of the anti-social tendencies of men is fear not of the law, but of the opinion of their fellows. The conventions of honor bind men who break legal, moral and religious bonds; and, while people endure the extremity of physical pain rather than part with life, shame drives the weakest to suicide. … We judge the acts of others by our own sympathies, and we judge our own acts by the sympathies of others, every day and all day long, from childhood upwards, until associations, as indissoluble as those of language, are formed between certain acts and the feelings of approbation or disapprobation. It becomes impossible to imagine some acts without disapprobation, or others without approbation of the actor, whether he be one’s self, or anyone else. We come to think in the acquired dialect of morals.[xi]

This acquired dialect of morals is what provides a group with a powerful sense of collective identity: it makes members of a group think and feel as a tribal community. This shared visceral code, when pushed to the extreme, makes it almost impossible for the individual to feel himself as an individual. This negation of the individual – so characteristic of almost all cultures besides Western culture – served an important collective purpose: it kept all the members of the tribe feeling viscerally in sync with one another, and prevented the emergence of groups within the tribe who might break down its solidarity. According to Huxley, this solidarity gave an enormous evolutionary advantage to those who had obtained it, which would explain why the tribe would react ferociously to any threat to it. It would act, in a sense, like the human immune system: the moment it detected a foreign agent that threatened the entire organism, it would not ask questions, but would promptly attack to eliminate the intruder as quickly as possible before it had a chance to reproduce and spread.

The whole point of an effective tribal shaming code is to make the person who has internalized it feel that it is entirely natural and obvious. It is instilled in us from infancy, and certainly before we have sufficient rational judgment of the world, or knowledge of ourselves, to voluntarily accept it.  We could not have chosen it for ourselves – rather it was chosen for us. That is why so many people find it virtually impossible to stop being ashamed of those things that they were taught were shameful from infancy. Even when we later become aware of it, and are able to offer rational criticism of it, we are nevertheless still subject to it at a visceral level – shameful conduct will automatically trigger physiological symptoms of panic and anxiety – we will blush, break out into a sweat, have trouble breathing, feel nausea, and so forth. The pre-emptive physiological judgment passed by the shaming code is not a product of moral reflection – it is a reflex reaction, but one that has been instilled by the society, rather than endowed by nature.

huxley shaming

In his essay Huxley emphasizes the survival value of the tribal mind in a world ruled by the cosmic process, (i.e., the law of the jungle). A tribe that shares a powerful visceral code that inhibits the natural tendency of the individual to self-assertion will present a united front against its enemies. It will stick together and not fragment and dissolve under stress in the face of conflict. In a strong group, when an individual is given a chance to desert his fellows in order to save his own skin, he will be inhibited from this act of selfish betrayal by an unbearable visceral shame. What will keep him loyal to the group are not his higher faculties of reflection and cogitation – all of which may be screaming to him, “Run for your life, you fool!” Rather, it is the physiological reactions that have been programmed into him from an early age through the process of shaming. It is his nervous system, his sweat glands, his bowels that force him to stand and fight with his group rather than to flee at the first opportunity. One is reminded of the fanatical, indeed suicidal, resistance of the Japanese and German armed forces in the closing months of World War II.

While this can also be dubbed a code of honor, Huxley would say that a code of honor is just the conscious psychological assent to the rightness of the physiological responses his culture has implanted in him. A warrior, for example, is first made to feel deep shame at betraying his comrades in battle; it is only after having been programmed to feel this shame under even the most dire circumstances that the warrior can come to take pride in the training and discipline that made him incapable of acting in his own self-interest.

The socialization of German children under National Socialism offers a compelling illustration of the use of a shaming code to engender intense group cohesion and promote selfless behavior. A constant refrain of the literature of the Hitler Youth was the idea of the individual sacrificing himself for his leader, where the basic idea was

of a group of heroes inseparably tied to one another by an oath of faithfulness who, surrounded by physically and numerically superior foes, stand their ground. … Either the band of heroes is reduced to the last man, who is the leader himself defending the corpses of his followers – the grand finale of the Nibelungenlied – or through its unparalleled heroism brings about some favorable change in fortune. [xii]

The socialization of the Hitler Youth emphasized group cohesion, selflessness, and hostility to the outgroup

The socialization of the Hitler Youth emphasized group cohesion, selflessness, and hostility to the outgroup

Huxley identified the flaw in any political ethic that like that of Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) which was is based on enlightened self-interest alone: a rationally derived self-interest — even the most enlightened —  would not result in people willing to die for the group. If human beings had to wait until they were reasonable enough to see the advantage of entering into Hobbes’s celebrated social contract, they would long since have become slaves or the defenceless prey of the those groups whose social unity was based on a primordial and visceral sense of loyalty – a cohesion so intensely felt that it did not need rational arguments to create it.

In other words, those groups animated by a high degree of ethnocentrism and group cohesion would eliminate those whose fragile solidarity was merely based on reason and the social contract. Cohesive groups invariably out-compete individualist strategies. As Roger Scruton points out: “The error of individualism lies in the attempt to found a vision of society on the idea of rational choice alone – on an ‘abstract’ notion, as Hegel put it, of practical reason, which makes no reference to history, community, and the flesh.”[xiii]

Huxley’s Ethics and Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Huxley’s explanation for the emergence of human ethics ties in neatly with Kevin MacDonald’s theory of group evolutionary strategies that operate through the construction of culture. A key feature of any effective group evolutionary strategy will be the construction of an effective societal shaming code designed to reinforce group cohesion and solidarity. Jews are the prime example of a biological community with a powerful shaming code imposed by a set of practices aimed at socializing individuals into identifying strongly and exclusively with the ingroup. MacDonald notes that the defining feature of Jewish history has been that group interests, rather than individual interests, have been of primary importance.

Of the hundreds of human groups in the ancient world, only Judaism avoided the powerful tendencies toward cultural and genetic assimilation. Judaism as a group strategy depends on the development of social controls reinforcing group identity and preventing high levels of genetic admixture from surrounding groups. … As with all collectivist cultures Judaism depends on inculcating a very powerful sense of group identification. Socialization in collectivist cultures stresses group harmony, obedient submission to hierarchical authority, the honoring of parents and elders, in-group loyalty, and trust and cooperation within the in-group. … There has been a very conscious attempt on the part of the Jewish community to inculcate a sense of group belongingness among all Jews. One aspect of these socialization influences is to continually place group members in situations where group activities involve very positive experiences, but there is also socialization for developing feelings of separateness from gentile culture. [xiv]     

Charles Murray notes that “traditional Jewish culture is not all that different from Confucianism or Islamic culture in the way that it embeds individual moral agency in family and community. Orthodox Jewish culture is effective in fostering human capital through its emphasis on education and indirectly through its effects on mating patterns, but duty takes precedence over vocation, and the interests of the family and community takes precedence over self-fulfillment.”[xv] Given the potential for post-Enlightenment Western social structure (based on individualism and moral universalism) to break down Jewish cohesiveness, the socialization of Jewish children took on, post-Emancipation, even greater importance as a way of maintaining the group identification and commitment of Diaspora Jews.

Orthodox Jewish “habits of mind” are inculcated from an early age

Orthodox Jewish “habits of mind” are inculcated from an early age

The incredible strength of group identification engendered by the traditional Jewish shaming code is revealed by the fact that, in post-emancipation Germany of the nineteenth century, assimilation did not occur at any level of the Jewish community. MacDonald notes that: “In addition to a very visible group of Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe, Reform Jews generally opposed intermarriage, and secular Jews developed a wide range of institutions that effectively cut them off from socializing with gentiles.”[xvi] In accounting for the overwhelming tendency of Jews to resist assimilation into German society, Jacob Katz asserts that: “What secular Jews remained attached to was not easy to define, but neither, for the Jews involved, was it easy to let go of: there were family ties, economic interests, and perhaps above all sentiments and habits of mind which could not be measured and could not be eradicated.”[xvii] These “sentiments and habits of mind” were the desired product of many centuries of eugenic practices which reinforced Jewish ethnocentrism, in conjunction with a virulently strong tribal shaming code which inculcated a fanatical devotion and commitment to the tribe and an equally fanatical intolerance and hatred of the outgroup. Like Jews, Muslim immigrants to the West have, by and large, not shown any inclination to assimilate themselves. Instead, like Jews, when they move to the West, they quickly begin to demand that the local culture start to transform itself to accommodate them.

Multiculturalism, as a Jewish intellectual and political movement, is just the latest attempt by Jews to erect a rigid barrier against the individualistic Western social structure that threatens to undermine Jewish cohesiveness through undermining and weakening the psychological grip of the traditional shaming code of Judaism. MacDonald observes that multiculturalism, like neo-Orthodoxy and Zionism, is simply another Jewish response “to the Enlightenment’s corrosive effects on Judaism” which involves the creation of a “defensive structure erected against the destructive influence of European civilization.”[xviii] It is an attempt to resolve the “fundamental and irresolvable friction between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure.”[xix]

Jewish history clearly indicates that the tribal mind and in-group fanaticism are functional adaptations to a world ruled by Huxley’s cosmic process (i.e. the law of the jungle) – functional in the sense that they increase the odds of survival. In his History of the Hebrew People the nineteenth century French historian and philosopher Ernst Renan maintained, like Huxley, that tribal fanaticism has played a dialectically necessary role in human ethical progress. The Jews were undoubtedly tribal fanatics, Renan observed; yet without their fanaticism they would not have preserved the cultural practices necessary for group survival. The essence of fanaticism is to follow blindly the collective mind without question or criticism. It is the negation of individual thinking that pays off in terms of the capacity of a group to survive in competition with other groups. The fanatic is the person who is willing to follow blindly, and to trust implicitly, and never to doubt or to question the authority of the group customs and traditions.

Jewish tribal fanaticism is highly adaptive

Jewish tribal fanaticism is highly adaptive

By sharp contrast, Western history has been punctuated by numerous instances where White people have appealed to their own conscience to condemn the behavior of members of their own biological community. During the Boer War, for instance, there were many in England who through the English were acting unjustly toward the Afrikaners, and who were particularly outraged by Lord Kitchener’s policy of interning Boer women and children in disease-ridden “concentration camps.” The tribal actor, on the other hand, cannot take a moral stance outside the perspective of his tribe. For the tribal actor, the highest ethical idea is: “My tribe, right or wrong.” The mere idea that his tribe could be wrong is unthinkable for the tribal actor, since he defines as right whatever the tribe deems right, and wrong as whatever the tribe deems wrong.

Go to Part 2.



[i] Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics, 2.

[ii] Ibid., 2.

[iii] Ibid., 24.

[iv] Ibid., 8.

[v] Ibid., 4.

[vi] Ibid., 6.

[vii] Ibid., 13.

[viii] Ibid., 7.

[ix] Ibid., 17.

[x] Ibid., 8.

[xi] Ibid., 9.

[xii] Quoted in: Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1st Books Library, 2004), 162.

[xiii] Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy (New York: Penguin, 1996), 436.

[xiv] Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy with Diaspora Peoples (Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2002; originally published in 1994 by Praeger [Westport, CT]), c.

[xv] Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment (New York: Perennial, 2004), 404.

[xvi] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 166.

[xvii] Quoted in: Ibid.

[xviii] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 316.

[xix] Ibid., 320.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

78 Comments to "Thomas Huxley on Group Competition and Ethics — Part 1 of 2"

  1. jeff's Gravatar jeff
    January 7, 2013 - 5:34 am | Permalink

    this is the proverbial, “blood is thicker than water” argument. i for one, do not agree with the tenants. that it is historically accurate for many groups may be true; but it does not have to be true for all groups. as americans, we have proved from our earliest days that it is possible to be a self-thinker, and yet “fight to the death” for the greater good of the community. i do not see that the 2 are exclusive EXCEPT for those people who are not capable of truly objective thought, and are merely right-brain(emotional) thinkers; they must be herded to tune that “they will eat us all if we dont kill them all !!”
    i am 1 of the most objective and calculated thinking people that i know, and i have no problem risking my life for “higher causes” inclusive of the better group, should it really be better. in fact, american generals have in the past said that american soldiers are not the most disciplined, but yet that they would fight as fiercely as any other when they were once convinced that their cause was the right one.
    i know people personally that strictly follow the “blood is thicker than water” creed in their personal families, and i have never witnessed this bearing anything out but stupidity compared with families that hold their members to a higher standard equally towards others(such as inlaws, neighbors, etc). our founders make a good example, as usual, because many of them, as franklin, split and fought against their own families, this was again true in the civil war; where high principles guided the south, and “reflexive stupid” guided the north; and had all other things been equal, the south would have crushed the north in short order due to the very fact that they held in their hearts a very carefully and independently coherent understanding of the realities of the conflict on principle and not on mere pillars of power or group victory; which gave them a truly fearless aggression. granted that this was not in every soldier, but it was clearly represented nearly completely in the ranks of the officers and the political leadership. in fact, their higher morals still exist today and the presidential vote split bore that independent mindset out as of late. in fact, our revolution proved much the same, where our always outgunned army often wreaked havoc on the best equipped european armies, case in point, the battle of bunker hill with dr/general joseph warren leading in the front trench, where he gave up his life readily while laying waste to the kings best shock troops and officers corps.
    so perhaps for savages to be successful, this evolutionary group inculcation might be mandatory, but not for the better of the civilized men of the western order; who can understand the difference between personal thought and liberty, and the con-comitant connection to supreme values which are necessary to support independence of mind in a free society.

  2. jeff's Gravatar jeff
    January 7, 2013 - 6:13 am | Permalink

    and secondly brenton, since its a different point,

    i couldnt quite tell your personal view on evolution(presumably athiest) vis a vis creation, but it appeared by referring to the bible as a “fable” that you must weigh in on the evolution side.
    i recently debated a biology phd professor on this on a simple “face of the matter” premise from a point of the simplest of logic.
    that is, EVERY founder of the united states believed in a sovereign God that created the universe, the vast majority belived in Jesus Christ being the Son of that God, with a tiny minority not certain of Christas deity but perfectly convinced of His philosophy being the greatest ever, with only thomas paine as the sole guy that while agreeing in all this still ranted against organized religion by his lonesome.
    that said, against these great and accomplished intellects, and we could even narrow it down to one or 2 of the ones not sure of Christs deity, like franklin and jefferson, how do the accomplishments or genius of franklin and/or jefferson compare to huxley or darwin ??
    i would say that their known successes and intellects FAR SURPASS these 2 evolutionists. so as a matter of american philosophy, i cannot take darwin seriously. on its face, it is foolish to give this observer of the obvious the floor of education over and above the genius of all of our founders in unison without darwin having “repeatable evidence”(ie absolute proof), which is supposed to be the threshold in science.
    i believe that jefferson, franklin, washington, henry, the adams cousins, etc all noticed that apes resemble people, and that dogs, cats, birds, and fish all have blood etc.
    so to toss their combined reasoning for the existence of a Creator(basically the great and grand order of the universe and life itself) in the proverbial dumpster because some european wasted a bunch of time sailing around the world writing down what everyone else already noticed about animals and people, hardly gives the proper support for scrapping our founding philosophy that our rights come from a sovereign God who is the Creator of the universe and therefore of mankind, and not from government.
    of course, there are plenty of “hot shots” that shared/share the view of our founders, such as isaac newton and dr francis collins(head of the human genome project, who also wrote “the language of God”; where he explains his journey from atheism to a belief in God and Christianity).
    so i am very wary of waddling into the philosophical company of huxley on a matter of so great a weight in these united states as the very premise of the rights of mankind and the therefore quite likely drawn nexus here that our blood should be thicker than our water. ie that our race can do no better than to forage like a beast from our innate carnivorous instincts, instead of CHOOSING higher moral ground based on fundmental truth and reason, and then following a philosophy derived thereby with a passion that can far surpass any evolutionary feardriven grunt and charge.
    i sat that we can, AND HAVE, done far better; and that we just need to reaquire our bearings from our best and brightest both past and present.

  3. jeff's Gravatar jeff
    January 7, 2013 - 6:14 am | Permalink

    not a comment moderators, i just forgot to hit the notify boxes below. sorry and thanks !!

  4. Richard Pierce's Gravatar Richard Pierce
    January 7, 2013 - 7:23 am | Permalink

    Excellent, one of the best scientific articles on TOO in recent memory.

    Particularly interesting was the note on shame inducing stress, presumably at a level “lower” than the frontal cortex, at the “hind brain” or even the spinal/neurological system.

    It is his nervous system, his sweat glands, his bowels

    The relation to Oriental cultures described as “conformist” and based on an “honor code” is obvious; a typical example would be the Japanese stereotype of suicide over dishonor. But wouldn’t Western “individualistic” “appeals to reason” just be a more highly developed version of the same thing? The shame being induced when you break some universalistic moral rule? (as in the English vs. Boer situation above?)

  5. January 7, 2013 - 7:44 am | Permalink

    During the Boer War,…many in England.. through (sic) the English were acting unjustly toward the Afrikaners, and .. were.. outraged by Lord Kitchener’s policy of interning Boer women and children in disease-ridden “concentration camps.” The tribal actor, on the other hand,… the highest ethical idea is: “My tribe, right or wrong.”

    In hindsight, the British did not foresee a time when Europe will need to be united to compete with Browns, Blacks and Asians.

    The Jews certainly used divide and rule to ravage Europe.

  6. 21st Century Heretic's Gravatar 21st Century Heretic
    January 7, 2013 - 8:24 am | Permalink

    Thanks for this article , quite enlightening . I think you might have gone a little bit easy on the Jewish communities tactics for destroying the host population ; really by hook or crook .
    What I see with all the scams and lies of international Jewry throughout the 20th century is the most incredible opportunism when attacking the Western Peoples . The Holyhoax being the greatest example of this opportunistic attack . But the same goes for Jewish psychologists , philosophers , financiers , public servants , educators ,philanthropists and do gooders and civil rights activists .One tactic always stands out : wherever there is a weakness in the out group enemy-us , in goes the wedge . And they just bang away at that wedge until the Goyem start to believe that its the truth .
    It is quite tragic to see the West committing suicide under Jewish tutelage and Masonic instruction–miscegenation that is . I digress , but what is this NWO really going to look like ? Humanity stripped of their culture, tuned into animals that the Overlords despise .

  7. Free Thinker's Gravatar Free Thinker
    January 7, 2013 - 8:37 am | Permalink

    Also this link is somewhat relevant , if you scroll down the page to the Me Culture . Which is breaking out all over the West . I can testify that beauacratic rot is well progressed in Australia . So I wonder how much groups are really controlled by sham teaching and how much they are controlled by socialized norms . Or is it just that the Western peoples no longer have any real sham , as opposed to acting when caught .

  8. ben tillman's Gravatar ben tillman
    January 7, 2013 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    During the Boer War, for instance, there were many in England who through the English were acting unjustly toward the Afrikaners, and who were particularly outraged by Lord Kitchener’s policy of interning Boer women and children in disease-ridden “concentration camps.”

    This may not be the best example, since the Boer War was fought at the behest of South African Jewish business interests. Britons who spoke up for the Afrikaners may, in fact, have been speaking up for their own tribe.

  9. ben tillman's Gravatar ben tillman
    January 7, 2013 - 10:17 am | Permalink

    Charles Murray notes that “traditional Jewish culture is not all that different from Confucianism or Islamic culture in the way that it embeds individual moral agency in family and community.

    Similarly, as explained by Salo Wittmayer Baron (1895–1989), a preeminent scholar who revolutionized the study of Jewish history during his lengthy tenure at Columbia University:

    To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.

    [From page 10 of Baron's "A social and Religious History of the Jews", published by Columbia University Press, 1957
    ISBN 0231088388, 9780231088381.]

  10. Mike's Gravatar Mike
    January 7, 2013 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    The idea that self-restraint matters; that cooperation strengthens the family, tribe and nation makes sense. This ties with the idea that Europeans are better people than blacks as suggested by the headline:-
    Over Half Of Rapes In Rome Committed By Immigrants, It’s More In Milan

  11. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 7, 2013 - 1:34 pm | Permalink

    @ben tillman: It’s quite depressing to compare popular sentiment for the boers during that war to the shameless betrayal of white South Africans by the US and UK during Apartheid less than a century later.

  12. Tomás's Gravatar Tomás
    January 7, 2013 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Bloody brilliant.

  13. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    January 7, 2013 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Another great contribution from Brenton Sanderson. Fascinating.

  14. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 7, 2013 - 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Interesting article, thanks. I suspect that it will turn some off because of the damage done to the very concept of shame by the pop psychologists. They have never grasped that simply because something feels terrible it does not follow that it is terrible. We have, in fact, become a culture without shame. May I commend the series at Art of Manliness on Honor? Well worth the read.

  15. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 7, 2013 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    In other words, those groups animated by a “high degree of ethnocentricm and group cohesion”(quotes mine) would eliminate those whos fragile solidarity was merely based on reason and the social contract.”

    A sentence that should be read at least a hundred times till it sinks in, because I’m sure it comes as no surprise at all, to the readers of this site.

  16. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 7, 2013 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby: P.S. Yes, I was being sarcastic, although I should have written, “some of the readers of this site”.

  17. Fatboy's Gravatar Fatboy
    January 7, 2013 - 6:09 pm | Permalink

    @ben tillman: Yeah, really. I feel the Boer War was insane in the same class as the American Civil War. White killing white, allegedly, at least, for the betterment of a separate racial group.

  18. Fatboy's Gravatar Fatboy
    January 7, 2013 - 6:10 pm | Permalink

    I found this article quite interesting. I seems Huxley was creating an early for of sociobiology. Nothing new under the sun.

  19. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    January 7, 2013 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    It’s not that most White people in the West are now “shameless” (though some are); it’s more that by losing control of our culture to the Jews we have lost control of the shaming code instilled into White children. White children are now taught to be ashamed of beliefs and behaviour that used to be normal (and highly adaptive) like favouring one’s own race; and to not be ashamed of beliefs and behaviour that are harmful to White interests. The shame is still there – but it’s no longer adaptive for White group interests. I go into this in Part 2.

  20. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 7, 2013 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

    @Fatboy: Northern whites wouldn’t have gone to war for negroes outside of a very small minority of fervent abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison.

  21. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 7, 2013 - 9:54 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me that Huxley prefers the metaphysical route to the rationalist in explaining the tendency for social cooperation. Supposing that humans differ, and that they are conscious of these differences, then it follows that there can be a profitable exchange between the parties, where higher productivity flows from each concentrating on his strengths. Huxley should have been aware of the Law of Association (Torrens/Mill/Ricardo), and how material benefits flow from the division of labour. Unlike animals, where cooperation is reflexive, humans have the mental wherewithal to conceive the advantages of peaceful cooperation and commerce even as they have the free will to reject it.

    The mutual benefits of cooperation prevail even when one party enjoys absolute, not just comparative advantage. And even if the parties were identically proficient in every skill, specializing and trading would still be more productive by dint of economies of scale. Friendship or empathy are not necessary that two parties come together under division of labour.

    Hobbes’ jungle story of socialization is deficient, too, for what it’s worth.

  22. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 7, 2013 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

    The Jews’ highly cohesive social structure and their high in-group, low out-group trust tends to work against broad division of labour, a central pillar of wealth creation.
    Life is not a series of one-shot prisoner’s dilemmas; people were well aware of the risks of getting the goyim treatment (one bitten, twice shy), and would have priced those risks into their bargains with Jews. Except for the fact that the State has provided for franchises in most fields, and Jews have capitalized on this to monopolize various trades. In many instances there is no way to opt out of truck with the Jews.

  23. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 7, 2013 - 11:30 pm | Permalink

    @Brenton Sanderson:
    I hope and pray that we have not fallen as low as that. Do young people truly feel the intense, physical sense of shame when or if they area accused of racism or do they merely acknowledge the reining social taboos? I look forward to part two.

    As a parent I often envied my mother’s freedom to justify seemingly arbitrary rules by saying ‘because that is one of the things which distinguish us from lessor folk’

  24. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    January 7, 2013 - 11:32 pm | Permalink

    @Richard Pierce:

    Those big round fur hats are bizzare.

  25. Desmond Jones's Gravatar Desmond Jones
    January 7, 2013 - 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Darwin wrote extensively, in the Descent of Man,of approbation and disapprobation, so it is unclear that this is an original thought of Huxley’s.

    We judge the acts of others by our own sympathies, and we judge our own acts by the sympathies of others, every day and all day long, from childhood upwards, until associations, as indissoluble as those of language, are formed between certain acts and the feelings of approbation or disapprobation.

    If as a result of our sympathies, we save a fellow tribesman from drowning, how is our sympathy stemmed when we see a stranger drowning even if he is of another tribe? Our sympathy is not invoked because he is one of us, but because we can relate, through the struggle for survival, how horrible drowning might be.

  26. Pendrake's Gravatar Pendrake
    January 8, 2013 - 12:08 am | Permalink

    The existence of unshameable psychopaths among us suggests that the ability to be shamed is itself a (presumably naturally selected) biological trait, contradicting Huxley’s picture of shaming as a purely social phenomenon acting against naturally selected selfishness.

  27. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    January 8, 2013 - 1:15 am | Permalink

    Lobby PETA for a synthetic version.

  28. 21St Century Heretic's Gravatar 21St Century Heretic
    January 8, 2013 - 1:21 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: Alice , You say something critical or ridiculing about Jews (say financial crooks ) and you watch the panicing confused expression on the white middle class face. Is this shame or the fear of the Stocks ? I’m not sure but the response is very common . This is the effect of wall to wall propaganda . Big brother is watching you…..

  29. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    January 8, 2013 - 1:33 am | Permalink


    I think you’re conflating a social process (shaming) with a psychological predisposition (the capacity to be shamed). Huxley is saying that selfishness, a trait that was highly adaptive at an earlier stage of evolution, becomes maladaptive at a later stage of evolution based on human group competition. As a result, this now maladaptive selfishness needs to be suppressed by social controls (shaming). These social controls, if effective in suppressing selfishness and promoting group survival, would, over time, have the eugenic effect of selecting for increased “shameability.” In this context, psychopaths could be regarded throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution.

  30. jeff's Gravatar jeff
    January 8, 2013 - 1:35 am | Permalink

    to bobby,
    the “the group cohesion” concept, as you call it, can bind on grounds philosophical, religious, or other; it is not necessarily racial only. this was my point above. this is not to say that we should not have a racial cohesion as well; as i FULLY SUPPORT THAT. however, i wouldnt necessarily want to be lumped into a group of all white right-brain thinking(emotional) liberals just because they are white.
    my view is that there should be more depth than simply whiteness when it comes to what we aspire to and that we shouldnt casually dump the power of choice we have in reason all in favor of a pack mindset.
    again however, that is not to say that i dont think that the pack mindset should not also be catered to and the race protected; i am merely saying that i believe that it may be possible to defend the race more effectively with a call to higher reason and not only to animal instinct and terror tactics(shame factor).

  31. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 8, 2013 - 6:40 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    I think most people – not just young – respond pretty badly to be called a racist. From at least about 55 and under. The younger you go, the more intense it gets. Yes, for people over 65, I would say it is more about “lip service”. They don’t really feel it.

    Now, how much of it is actually shame – authentically felt – and how much of it is fear of the social consequences, is the question I have. Being known as a racist is pretty much a career killer in many lines of work. Big corporations are N*zis about enforcing political correctness. So, if the KGB points a finger at you and calls you an enemy of the state, is that feeling you get cold fear or shame? I suspect for many it is a combination.

    But, I would say among younger White females, the feeling appears to be shame in many cases. It’s been drilled into them from Kindergarten that racism is THE ultimate evil. They are taught that it is something that only hideous disgusting people think. And later they were made to write essays on Anne Frank when they were in 6th grade and to watch Holocaust movies. So, it is easy to feel that if you are “being a racist”, you have become a N*ziwhowantstokill6millionjews. You are branded something around the same moral circle as a pedophile. That’s not an exaggeration as far as the intent of the education. But how much of it actually sticks, I am not sure.

    Obviously, many White kids (and others) know they are being manipulated as well. And many resent it.

  32. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 8, 2013 - 6:45 am | Permalink

    By the way, I was promised a hyper-inflationary Crash that would utterly destroy the current system about 2 years ago. I was told it was coming in 6 months, maybe a year at the most.

    Where is my Apocalyptic Super Crash!

    I know, I know … any day now … any day now …

  33. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 8, 2013 - 7:12 am | Permalink

    @21St Century Heretic: @Jason Speaks:
    I do not doubt that people are uneasy when social taboos are broken. Nor doubt I doubt that there are negative emotions when accused of being an anti-semite or racist. The feelings can range from fear to nervousness to indignation. Are those responses really the same as sincerely felt shame?

    I admit to being reared by people who held the rock solid conviction that “we” were the undeniable best the world had ever produced. Shame was a by product of failing to live up to our heritage or behaving in any way which would cast doubt on that conviction. This included a keen sense of responsibility to be sensitive to the feelings of others who had no control over their heritage. Irrational perhaps but very useful.

  34. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 8, 2013 - 8:25 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    Patience Jason, patience. It is as inevitable as the housing crisis. It may not be a dramatic crash, simply worth less and less everyday. Suffice it to say I am looking at my Grandmother’s silver with an entirely new appreciation.

  35. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 8, 2013 - 8:43 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    I’ve been hearing The Collapse was coming as long as I’ve been alive. Howard Ruff made a fortune saying an epic financial crisis was just around the corner. He was writing those books in the early 1970s! I am sure we will have trouble ahead, and certainly Greece level problems.

    But I hate to see us pin all our hopes on a Total Breakdown, the kind that people get dreamy over. That just isn’t very likely. Nothing wrong with being prepared, but I just don’t want people saying, in effect, we will wait until the Complete Collapse of all government comes, and THEN, by golly, we’ll do something.

    A part of being prepared is dealing with a possibly boring, stagnant future as well.

  36. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 8, 2013 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    I wish I knew how many really FEEL shame over being called a “racist”. I know for a fact that Whites used to feel proud of being White. But – and I want to emphasize this point – previous generations let their kids down.

    Let me say that again: Previous generations let their kids down. They betrayed their own children. They were oblivious to what was happening to the institutions and culture that acculturated their children. I dare say many didn’t want to know.

    I remember the bizarre scene of grown middle aged parents acting all shocked that their 9 year olds were saying things about race and their country that they found blasphemous. What is odd is that the parents wanted to blame the children!!

    They acted like the kids had somehow come up with these ideas on their own. As if pre-teens developed their own ideas about race, culture, etc. Obviously, the kids were being indoctrinated in school and the media. But once again – and I want to emphasize this – the parents didn’t have the gumption to investigate further as to the source of this change.

    Yes, some did, of course. But the vast majority chose to believe their 6th graders became little Cultural Marxists on their own. We need to understand what happened. We need to assign some responsibility to previous generations for that particular fault … why? So it never happens again.

  37. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 8, 2013 - 9:14 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    I will be the last to dispute that we have failed our young in many ways. A real cause for shame. As to money, it has been diminishing in value for decades. I am not proud of my math skills but I am reasonable certain that cannot continue forever? I certainly wish I had purchased gold a couple of decades ago.

    The collapse as an excuse to postpone all action now is another issue. Any excuse will do as long as life is still relatively pleasant.

  38. January 8, 2013 - 9:56 am | Permalink

    @jason speaks – well-worded. I’ve noticed in chatrooms that some women seem to show an ultimate horror about ‘racism’; I’m guessing they’re the same types as would have been horrified about ‘atheism’ or for that matter ‘sex before marriage’.

    May I draw attention to the highly probably hypothesis that the true inventor of evolution (from vast numbers of ancestors by selection from variant forms) was Alfred Russel Wallace, not Darwin. Wallace’s works deserve reconsideration, too.

  39. January 8, 2013 - 11:03 am | Permalink

    There’s an approach to evolution which imho is of great importance, though hardly anyone discusses it. All animals etc evolve, and human beings are exceptional in being able to communicate at least with geographically similar people, and being able to try to deal with ideas, including inventions, cooking, properties of materials… Monkey bands, wolf packs, prides of lions, penguin colonies etc are obviously well enough adapted. But the extra capacities of people extend the capacities of evolution. And incidentally they are more-or-less invisible, or ‘cryptic’. This must presumably be what marks the difference between people and other creatures. Monkey bands exist, at least with social monkeys, so there doesn’t seem to be any special ideas, theories, training or whatever needed. It’s surely the extension to multiple bands, the possibilities of conquest or combination, the trials with tools or shelter, that are the specifically human thing. ‘Memes’ is some wide sense drive or influence human evolution. Don’t they?

  40. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 8, 2013 - 11:48 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    lesser folk. Sadly typing and spelling were not among the talents stressed – a device designed to keep me humble, no doubt.

  41. Annis's Gravatar Annis
    January 8, 2013 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    From Harper’s Weekly

    The 113th United States Congress was sworn into office in Washington, D.C. The new Congress features the most women and racial minorities of any Congress in history, with 43 African Americans (8 percent of the total number of representatives), 32 Hispanics (6 percent), 12 Asian Americans (2 percent), and 101 women (19 percent), as well as the first Buddhist, the first Hindu, and the first openly bisexual legislator. The Democratic Party formed the first caucus in which white men were not the majority, and the Republican Party welcomed the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.

  42. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 8, 2013 - 2:12 pm | Permalink


    Please consider deleting this comment by Tom. It is patently obscene and insulting in the most personal way, and what is more, it came as a completely unprovoked response to an innocent, indeed impersonal, comment.

    It is one thing to disagree one another, even in harsh and crude terms, but it is quite another to speak in an insulting and degrading fashion of another man’s mother. It’s degrading to all of us to have to read a comment such as this.

  43. andrea's Gravatar andrea
    January 8, 2013 - 3:05 pm | Permalink

    What white people should be called…

    How about Pallastinians after Pallas Athena.

  44. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    January 8, 2013 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: There is a lot of shame.

    In Hungary it’s not yet as strong as it is in Western Europe or the US, which means that you don’t really have to pay lip service. When you meet with say six or eight friends and half of them are ‘racist’, you don’t really have to pay lip service. The fact that there are still committed anti-racists (anti-Whites) under such circumstances (or in the anonymous world of internet commenting) shows that at least for many people it’s more than lip service.

    Today FIFA announced that the Hungary-Romania football (soccer) match in Budapest this march will be behind closed doors, because of the anti-Semitic insults thrown at the Israeli team by groups of Hungarian fans. Since most Hungarian fans have a memory of them being insulted abroad (with no negative results for the opposing team or association), and it also means that Hungary’s chances of reaching the World Cup finals in Brazil get slimmer (the team has less chances when there are no teams to cheer for them), you might expect Hungarian football (soccer) fans to be united against FIFA etc. This is not the case: on Hungarian football (soccer) sites you can see a lot of fans commenting that “it is all our fault” or “it’s the fault of those anti-Semites” or “I’m ashamed of being a Hungarian” etc.

    I also used to be a leftist, and it was all internalized. So I would argue that the shame is real.

  45. The Admiral On Horseback's Gravatar The Admiral On Horseback
    January 8, 2013 - 3:23 pm | Permalink

    @The Admiral On Horseback: The match will be held this March, with a capital M.

  46. January 8, 2013 - 4:17 pm | Permalink

    @ben tillman:
    good point. the Jewish parasite may have been lurking behind the scenes.

    our own gullibility dooms us.

  47. January 8, 2013 - 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Why even bother to give the Huxley’s any legitimacy at all- or Darwin, for that matter? All either of them wanted was the adulteration of the White Race- one, for altruistic faux egalitarian reasons, the other for purely sexual perversion reasons. As I noted:

    “Lex orandi, lex credendi. Again, I quote myself:

    “…Huxley’s appropriation of Darwin’s theories for his (and his family’s) own perverse ends (I’ve mentioned before that Huxley and his two sons used Darwinian Evolution as a rationale for immorality – let me quote the late D. James Kennedy: “I remember exactly where I was sitting while watching [PBS television] and Huxley’s response, verbatim. The greatest living evolutionist in all of the world, Sir Julian Huxley, said, “We all jumped at the Origin because…”

    WHY? Let Dr. James Kennedy tell the rest of his story. He said Huxley’s response to the question “Why do you think evolution caught on so quickly? Why do you think the scientists leaped at The Origin of the Species?” was this:

    “[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual morés.”

    What Julian Huxley said is crystal clear, some forty years after the ‘swinging sixties’ – the early Darwinists jettisoned God becuase of the prohibitions Moses gave to the Church of the OT, who gave them, then, to the Church of the NT! Huxley wanted to bugger everything in sight, and Christendom was in the way!!! It (Evolution) had nothing to do with Science, and all to do with savagery.” – …/

  48. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 8, 2013 - 6:08 pm | Permalink

    This piece from Commentary is a brief, near-perfect example of the absurdity of permitting this people to cast shame on us. It begins with a claim to admire Ed Koch then exposes him as a liar and cheat who will do anything to provide a ‘Jewish voice’. My favorite is when Ed assures us that the problem with Jews is that they care too more about other people – they don’t look out for themselves. You can’t make this stuff up!

  49. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 8, 2013 - 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Do Jews (diaspora) really have such great cohesion today? They still vote nearly as a block, and are far-left on most issues, but it seems like Mideast issues are driving an ever deeper wedge into Jewry. On top of this there is the increasing trend of intermarriage with Gentiles (mainly white and asian, but there are some Afro-Jews running around now) that is seriously disturbing rabbis and other authorities.

  50. Jay's Gravatar Jay
    January 8, 2013 - 7:44 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    The economic crash isn’t coming. Sorry. In California, 2011, 1 in 10 homes were sold to Chinese nationals:

    On the other hand a physical cataclysmic event seems very likely in the not so distant future:

  51. LadyS's Gravatar LadyS
    January 8, 2013 - 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Pardon the interruption from a recent reader and first- time commenter.
    I can only hope that Pierre is the same R de C with whom I exchanged words on a widely-read blog in 2009-2010??? It’s been a long, strange trip indeed from there to here.
    The erudition and writing style lead me to conclude that Pierre is the man I stupidly questioned as to the (obvious now) superiority of the TLM.
    Friend to whom I owe an apology, is that you?

  52. Facio Libre's Gravatar Facio Libre
    January 8, 2013 - 9:08 pm | Permalink
  53. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 8, 2013 - 10:41 pm | Permalink

    @jeff: jeff, I would agree with you on this point provided European-Americans are considered first, which is obviously not the case in the present U.S. where they are considered LAST, DEAD LAST, to be more accurate.(anyone that arrives here yesterday provided they aren’t white, has more rights than a European-American).

    I once read an article over at Counter Currents I believe, in which the writer spoke of a racialism based on the spirit of the folks involved, suggesting that they need not all be white,etc. Whites, however, would call the shots and basically set the tone, as was once the case in AMERIKA.

  54. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    January 8, 2013 - 10:43 pm | Permalink

    @Fr. John+: I agree with you Fr. John+ as to the views of the various Huxleys, right down to the sixties.

  55. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    January 9, 2013 - 1:38 am | Permalink

    The Jews are making a transition. Soon enough, the strict commie/egalitarian left will turn against them (due to their status as an elite overclass) and once again Jews will align themselves with Whites. Sadly, most whites in these circles will rejoice at this but hey, that’s what Darwinian/Huxley ideology gets you.

  56. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 9, 2013 - 12:51 pm | Permalink


    Alas, dear lady, I fear I am not the person you disagreed with. I am pretty sure that I haven’t ever left blog comments anywhere under the present nom d’Internet—unless my short-term memory has really decayed in the past month. Nor was I aware of anyone else using this handle (thank God he’s well spoken!). Indeed, I can’t recall having a more or less serious quarrel regarding the TLM with anyone, under whatever pseudonym.*

    One thing I am quite certain of, however, is that your erstwhile antagonist would welcome you as warmly as I do to your present state of mind and heart. Please consider, too, reading this blog more regularly and perhaps commenting directly upon articles and other commenters’ remarks. Things get heated and unpleasant sometimes, here as elsewhere, but the hard-core Christophobes are few, and besides, what’s a rose without thorns?

    So welcome, LadyS, and many thanks for your gracious greeting.
    *Any chance I could get a hint of the blog you refer to? The only ones where I’ve commented more than twice have been the smells-and-bells site Rorate Caeli (it seldom posts my comments, whatever handle I use) and a low-gloss, hard-core Williamsonite Trad site called Cathinfo. Of course, as do millions of others, I leave the odd review and comment at Amazon, but none there do more than touch glancingly upon the political, social, or religious views of Pierre de Craon or other concerns of the real me.

  57. Sean's Gravatar Sean
    January 9, 2013 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    As a young person, unfortunately I think most people actually do feel intense shame, verging on panic, when they get called racist.

    It’s difficult to communicate exactly how much propaganda was shovelled down our throats from elementary school onwards. In Grade 4 we kicked things off with a presentation from a special team on how bad racism was. I can’t remember the details, but at the end we had to all write a statement against racism on a large poster. That backfired only slightly when one student indicated his preference for whites, in complete anonymity. Overt efforts like that didn’t make much impression on me even at the time, I never listened to everything I was told in class anyways, but I did love to read…

    I can’t count how many books we were given to read about the Holocaust or slavery. My earliestThe earliest one I remember was Number the Stars, which must have been in Grade 5, then there was When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, probably around the same time. The school libraries and recommended reading lists were full of the same. We couldn’t have been more than 12 when we were taken to see a play about a runaway slave.

    Children haven’t developed any kind of literary taste by the time they’re 7 or 8 years old. If they like to read, they’re going to read what’s given to them, and we were given literary junk food (some of it quite well written). And it’s not like most were getting anything better at home. My mother is not a hardcore liberal, but her favourite book is To Kill A Mockingbird.

    In high school we got down to the serious stuff. I read Elie Wiesel’s Night in Grade 10. We learned about the Hanna’s suitcase project at length either that year or the following.
    Being in French Immersion student, I got it in two languages. We read and watched Au Revoir les Enfants (N-zis snatching Jewish children from a boarding school), another movie about the French resistance and Occupation (whose name eludes me, but was essentially a more sophisticated Inglourious Basterds).

    Another Grade 10 course, the mandatory Civics class teaching us about our country and its government, was such an exercise in blatant propaganda it strains credibility: a selection of films we were shown included: John Q (poor black boy denied a heart transplant by evil white insurance company), The Pawnbroker (about a Holocaust survivor and a young Hispanic boy) , Mark Levin’s The Protocols of the Elders of Zion [no kidding] (vicious anti-Semitic Americans think Jews did 9/11), Bowling for Columbine, another Michael Moore movie I don’t recall. No prizes for guessing the teacher’s background. The following year I watched A Time to Kill (more southern racism) in Law class.

    Apart from that one class I don’t think my experience was anything but average, either. Some probably got it worse, my school (thankfully) wasn’t exactly a model of diversity. On the other hand, that lack of diversity (apart from a few affluent, almost entirely assimilated exceptions) also gave me nothing to compare with.

    Point being, the Pavlovian reaction all of the above engendered doesn’t just go away. I still find conversations about race, unless I know I have a sympathetic audience, extremely uncomfortable. Even when it goes well, I get an adrenaline rush like I’ve just looked over a cliff. If things get unpleasant, I flush, start sweating, basically go into fight or flight mode. That’s not at all the way I react to debate in any other circumstance. When I read Brenton’s line above: “That is why so many people find it virtually impossible to stop being ashamed of those things that they were taught were shameful from infancy. Even when we later become aware of it, and are able to offer rational criticism of it, we are nevertheless still subject to it at a visceral level – shameful conduct will automatically trigger physiological symptoms of panic and anxiety – we will blush, break out into a sweat, have trouble breathing, feel nausea, and so forth.” it described it perfectly. It’s something I need to work on, but I doubt most people my age are even aware of it.

    • January 9, 2013 - 2:57 pm | Permalink

      I would love it if you would write a TOO article on your experiences. Pseudonyms acceptable.

  58. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

    I can only apologize on behalf of my generation and echo Dr. Mac Donald’s sentiment that should should tell your story. It strikes me as a form of child abuse.

  59. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 9, 2013 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    @Sean: I had a similar experience (HS class of 06 and will be grad student shortly). We had Anne Frank in 6th grade, Elie Wiesel in 11th, To Kill a Mocking Bird in 8th (?). Movies like Remember the Titans and Schindler’s List. Liberal Arts college brought all manner of “diverse” writers with nothing to write about orher than their “experiences” as designated victims. I’m from the South, so I would be shocked at the “racist” attitudes of older people. When you’re primarily raised by biased academia and media you get this generational conflict (first seen in the 60s). Then I had the experience of living in a majority black area. Later I happened on some articles on Jewish involvement in communism, then Leftism in general, white collar crime, “multiculturalism,” and so forth. Now I’m the one who gets called racist! It’s still hard to broach racial subjects even with friends since you get such wild-eyed responses (most of the time) and even risk ostracization, it is indeed a very fearful prospect. Unfortunately I think over the top pro-white groups do drive away Europeans and Euro-Americans who may consider actively “taking our side.” I’m sure many of said groups are FBI fronts and it provides fodder for media guilt by association reinforcement.

  60. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    May I add, in defense of your mother, that no matter what evil use the book To Kill a Mockingbird has been put to, the book itself is an honest look at Southern life. I have not read it since it was first published. I recall it as an honest look at the people in the South which celebrated some of our finer qualities. Among them is the recognition that our best people are not leaders because of money, that even those among us who fall prey to the passions of the hour can be shamed into good behavior through good manners, that the accommodations we make with reality and expediency are always imperfect and never preclude evil. Most of all, that evil exists, among all people, and must be fought on an individual basis or innocents will be hurt. How ironic that this book should be used in the cause of hatred and group think.

  61. The Goy Chevalier's Gravatar The Goy Chevalier
    January 9, 2013 - 6:28 pm | Permalink

    [quote]This negation of the individual – so characteristic of almost all cultures besides Western culture – served an important collective purpose: it kept all the members of the tribe feeling viscerally in sync with one another, and prevented the emergence of groups within the tribe who might break down its solidarity. According to Huxley, this solidarity gave an enormous evolutionary advantage to those who had obtained it, which would explain why the tribe would react ferociously to any threat to it. It would act, in a sense, like the human immune system: the moment it detected a foreign agent that threatened the entire organism, it would not ask questions, but would promptly attack to eliminate the intruder as quickly as possible before it had a chance to reproduce and spread.[/quote]

    This is precisely why any sort of “White Nationalist” movement, at least in the West, is a laughable suggestion.

    It’s also why I — though at this point not specifically religious — am personally skeptical of anyone who is quick to disregard the importance of theology in facilitating the social process of shaming. On a broad scale, it’s an inextricable link.

    While “ethnocentrism based on phenotypical similarities” is mentioned in passing, I suggest that genetics also play a central role in defining the nature of any social shaming practices. I haven’t read part two yet, but I see that you (Brenton Sanderson) have made an allusion to this in one of your comments; for example, there is a theological (not just social) justification in Judaism for pedophilia and all sorts of sexual and social misconduct which is peculiar to Jewry, and absorbed by it, whether the subjects are atheistic or Orthodox.

    Individualism — the obvious occidental Achilles’ heel — was specifically targeted by Christianity to be reigned in, controlled, directed. Modern social contracts based on purely rational systems are as strong as the paper they are written on. While this point has been made, it’s all the more reason to call to question vociferous mouthing about “fairy-tales” and “fables.” These “fables” are precisely the result of our group’s development of a shaming system to facilitate adaptation. Even the pagan worldview necessarily includes non-rational mechanisms for introducing these features.

    Atheism, in the end, appears to be the direct result of the herniation of this primeval and unceasing desire of the individual to “do nothing but that which pleases it do.” The concept of Morality itself is an abstract notion that cannot be defined in a purely rational manner, despite Huxley’s explanation in terms of the individual’s fear of the opinion of other members of the group. Could we say then that the individual, in final analysis, still only feels “shame” to the extent that it acts as a personal preservation device, and coincidentally serves to form a strong group? The group necessarily defines the nature of shaming systems in whatever their form, and over time genetic homogeneity can produce individuals of an exceptional Moral or group-centered character, who in the end hold group preservation to be more important than their own life (protecting the dead bodies). Individuals are born with the capacity to be receptive to shaming, humility, Moral codes, etc., and this capacity extends far beyond emotions and self-consciousness in the face of an other. Moral concepts (emphasis on family, monogamy, honesty, etc.) are absolute. That’s intuitive. It’s always interesting to observe science grapple with material that must necessarily exist beyond its scope.

    Whites no longer possess a shaming mechanism peculiar to them. There now exists a virtually infinite number of shaming practices according to varying beliefs and ideologies. It’s truly a psychological and spiritual divide and conquer.

    Great article. Looking forward to Part II.

  62. Sean's Gravatar Sean
    January 9, 2013 - 6:37 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    Absolutely agree with you there, those are the exact reasons my mother loves the book, and I had a fairly good time reading it (once) as well. I wasn’t trying to bash Mockingbird, just pointing out it didn’t exactly broaden my perspective.

    I’m just starting into my final term, so I’m going to be fairly busy, but I will do my level best to get at least a short article composed in the near future.

  63. The Goy Chevalier's Gravatar The Goy Chevalier
    January 9, 2013 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    P.S. Highschool class of ’07. It might be a demographic thing, might be the pot, but I don’t think most of us really paid any attention to the generally propagandized nonsense, at least up through high school. If anything, the mechanisms become imbedded and have to be triggered at “the age of reason,” or university, college, etc.

    Also might be a demographic thing, but I know that some high school students with access to the internet, in at least some areas, aren’t as stupid as we might think.

    Because I can’t even remember reading the Anne Frank book, I appreciate the kids who were/are paying attention and who can name the books, courses and teachers that pushed the crap, and use them as a point of reference (or departure).

  64. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

    @The Goy Chevalier:
    I do remember reading Anne Frank with a complete sense of disbelief when all authorities insisted that as a young girl I ought to identify with Anne. I didn’t like her or anyone in her household. I could find no common ground other than age and gender. If anything it put me on my guard.

  65. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Indeed, you have caused me to do a lot of thinking. it is not simply the individual book (lookout banned book week) it is the use, repetition and context of instruction which many may not be aware of. I do hope that you can find the time, I suspect it will be a surprise to many.

  66. The Goy Chevalier's Gravatar The Goy Chevalier
    January 9, 2013 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    An interesting point about the backfiring of the propaganda machine. Next needs to be devised a system for capitalizing on errors of that sort.

    I didn’t even really know what a Jew was until about halfway through my collegiate career. Then I just went, “Ohhhhhhhhh.”

  67. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 7:21 pm | Permalink

    One need not be on the FBI payroll to do us harm. I suspect that some on these comment pages are simply taking advantage of the our hateful image to spew a little of their own. I hope you continue to keep honest.

  68. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 7:22 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    sorry – continue to keep us honest.

  69. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 9, 2013 - 7:41 pm | Permalink


    Thanks and a very excellent overview of what education for kids is actually like today. Those mirror my experiences, although it seems to have started a little younger with you. But I specifically remember being lectured on the evils of slavery in 3rd grade. And it is almost impossible to communicate how intense Holocaust education is to someone who has never been through it, especially when you are 12 or 13 and expected to demonstrate, in writing, that you have learned the proper lessons. People get emotional.

    This is why I have gotten impatient with those who say “aww heck, I don’t think anybody takes that ol’ Holocaust stuff seriously! Everyone is ready to laugh it off as a joke and a con”.

    And I wonder, what planet are they from? I think most of them went to school 30 years before real Holocaust education ever began. They are not aware that it is not just a matter of content; it is how it is taught. The child is vividly and emotionally brought into the scene. They are made to feel like they are sitting through a nightmare presided over by serial killers – and that is how they should view anyone who is a “racist” or denies the holocaust.

    The good news is some people do resent it later (and a few at the time). But it is a serious problem. And no, the masses are not ready to laugh off the holocaust as a hoax prompted by a few links somebody finds on the internet. It will take more work than that, sorry guys.

  70. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    January 9, 2013 - 8:01 pm | Permalink

    @The Goy Chevalier:
    The problem is it is our children who must cope. it seems to me that the fellow who did the documentary A Conversation About Race (many excerpts on you tube) put his finger on the problem – white parents do not discuss the issue with our children. In part this is s sensible recognition that race relations are not something children should be expected to deal with and an attempt to protect children from the abuse they will receive if they say the wrong thing. This article and the statements of the young have persuaded me that we must find a way to protect our kids from insults far deeper and more damaging.

  71. Marcus's Gravatar Marcus
    January 10, 2013 - 12:04 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: And it’s not just education: pop culture probably has even more of an impact these days. Look at who the villains are: rednecks, stuffy white men, Nazis (of course), Russians, white jocks, white “ice queens”, etc. The heroes: Jews, degenerate whites, blacks, “wiggers,” etc. Silly as it might seem, this has a huge impact on the developing worldview of youth.

  72. Sean's Gravatar Sean
    January 10, 2013 - 12:25 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    Now that I think about it, I remember building a board game for Black History month in Grade 3.

  73. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    January 11, 2013 - 6:41 am | Permalink


    Yes and I believe that even if a big economic downturn comes, it won’t be the Mad Max scenario that many on the Right have drooled over in anticipation for 60 years. Now, someday, we may have a widespread fall, when we become brown enough. But we aren’t there yet.

  74. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 11, 2013 - 11:58 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: Please keep saying this! The foundations of the economies of the judaized West may have been washed away decades ago in the social science version of a Hurricane Sandy, and their massive structures may now be held together with a cleverly camouflaged amalgam whose primary components are clarinet reeds and scotch tape, but it can hardly be denied that these two commodities have exhibited remarkable tensile strength!

  75. Jim Summers's Gravatar Jim Summers
    January 13, 2013 - 10:02 pm | Permalink


    During my entire childhood I hated White men with blond hair. Only when I reached about 20 years of age did I finally figure out that it was Hollywood’s endless parade of evil White blond men in films which had given me this view.

  76. LadyS's Gravatar LadyS
    January 13, 2013 - 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Dear Pierre, I thank you for the response. Be assured I’ve spent many hours reading this site’s archives over the last few weeks. There is a range of opinion here, obviously, and though rough comboxes don’t scare me much (I have 3 children under 12) it may be awhile before I jump into the whirlpool. Traditional Christianity is my greatest and foremost allegiance, and I have a great deal of thinking to do about many of the issues addressed here.
    In the meanwhile I’ll keep reading. The nom d’internet I thought I recognized in your style was that of Roland de Chanson, a traditionalist and perhaps sede Catholic from Rod Dreher’s blogs.
    All of you can know that, at the least, I share your desire to think clearly, shed The White Guilt Complex (Inc.) and teach my children how to do the same.

  77. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    January 14, 2013 - 1:35 pm | Permalink

    @LadyS: Ah, Dreher. He is a funny duck. Is he still associated with Eastern Orthodoxy? Or has he grown impatient with it, too, and moved on to fresh woods and pastures new?

    You are right to focus on being a good mother, of course. It will have rewards in this world and the other one, too.

1 Trackback to "Thomas Huxley on Group Competition and Ethics — Part 1 of 2"

  1. on January 9, 2013 at 3:43 am

Comments are closed.