Review of Ed Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism

Race Differences in Ethnocentrism
Edward Dutton
Arktos, 2019.

“Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself.”
Ed Dutton

Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it’s easy to forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher, author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton’s Race Differences in Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton’s At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People by What They Look Like (2018),  J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018),  and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers (2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered, in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant monographs I’ve read in years.

Dutton’s book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two questions “particularly salient during a period of mass migration”: ‘Why are some races more ethnocentric than others?’ and, most urgently of all, ‘Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?’ In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by everyone.

In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves “taking pride in your ethnic group or nation and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it.” Negative ethnocentrism, on the other hand, “refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups.” Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that “there exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent to which they are ethnocentric.” Dutton’s foundation is built on a deep reading of existing literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia’s Boris Bizumic. These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict. Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of ‘inclusive fitness,’ which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one’s genes.

Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called ‘Age of Discovery,’ Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill intruding foreigners, including an American missionary in November 2018. The Japanese appear throughout history to have combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European ‘Age of Discovery.’

In the second chapter, Dutton answers the question ‘What is ‘Race’?’ Although many of our readers will be familiar with most of the material presented in this chapter, it is nevertheless a very well-presented defense of the concept of race and its unabashed employment as a scientific system for categorizing and studying humans. In Dutton’s presentation, ‘race’ is employed to refer to what in the animal kingdom would be a subspecies: a breeding population separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group. After discussing the processes through which different races or subspecies evolve, Dutton offers a summary of historical taxonomies of race, before finally answering a number of criticisms of the concept of race. In the third chapter, and following much the same framework, Dutton sets out to answer the question, ‘What is Intelligence?’ Here Dutton answers a number of criticisms of the concept of intelligence, particularly as they relate to Blacks, before moving to a discussion of race differences in intelligence. The debt to Richard Lynn’s research is quite clear in this chapter, but Dutton presents past findings with style, conviction, and novel context, meaning that familiar elements such as Cold Winters Theory are worth getting to grips with once more.

The fascinating fourth chapter is where the study begins in earnest, and answers the question ‘What Are ‘Ethnocentrism’ and ‘Ethnicity’?’ It goes without saying that both terms have entered, if not dominated, the lexicon of White advocacy, and I found it very refreshing to become more familiar with the scientific basis for them. Dutton, referring to the work of Bizumic, notes that the term ‘ethnocentrism’ was coined by the Polish sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838–1909) before entering English with the work of the American economist William Sumner (1840–1910). In order to better explain the nature of ethnocentrism, Dutton lays out various lexical definitions of ethnicity and discusses competing schools of thought in relation to the origins of ethnicity. The division between scholars of ethnicity can be broadly discussed in terms of two camps: ‘Primordialists,’ and ‘Constructivists’ or ‘Subjectivists.’ Primordialists, representing an older school of thought, assert that ethnic groups are extremely ancient and are ultimately based around common ancestry. Supporting this position, Dutton, borrowing from Frank Salter, points out that genetic data shows that ethnic groups really are distinct genetic clusters. Constructivists, on the other hand, assert that ethnic identities are merely a product of culture and environment, and are therefore arbitrary and subject to change. The author spends a great deal of time dissecting the arguments of the Constructivists and, for me personally, one of the great pleasures of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism is reading as Dutton prods and teases and the manifold weaknesses in the Constructivist position.

The author closes the chapter with an extended discussion of the sociobiological origins of ethnic identity, before providing a summary of proffered causes for ethnocentrism. These include threat and conflict, psychodynamic theory as advanced by Freud, terror management (a variation on the theme of threat and conflict), self-aggrandizement theories (ethnocentrism boosts in-group self-esteem), Marxist theory (ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group), social dominance theory (ethnocentrism as a side-effect of certain types of personality), socialization explanations (children learn to be ethnocentric), and the sociobiological model (ethnocentrism is a product of evolution and adaptation). Dutton argues convincingly that only the sociobiological model offers answers which explain group behavior in both animals and humans, arguing that “ethnocentrism is most parsimoniously understood via a partly biological theory wherein the ethnic group is a kind of extended family.”

In the fifth chapter, Dutton surveys recent evidence for the sociobiological model of ethnocentrism and ethnicity. At the core of the chapter is J. Philippe Rushton’s ‘Genetic Similarity Theory,’ which is treated with respect but also caution by the author, who insists that “it does not fully explain all manifestations of ethnocentrism and, accordingly, it needs to be nuanced and carefully developed.” Put simply, ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ is the idea that animals will instinctively behave more pro-socially to those who share more of their genes, and that ethnic groups, which are essentially extended families, will demonstrate the same inclination towards the genetically similar in the form of ethnic nepotism. It is this inclination to support the genetically similar that paves the way for ‘inclusive fitness’ — indirectly passing on at least some of one’s genes by supporting kin — and thus provides some explanation for the origins of altruism. Rushton provided a great deal of research strongly indicating that humans very much tend to marry, befriend, and otherwise associate with those who are genetically similar to them, and this is succinctly explored. Some controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ is applicable to circles beyond genealogical kin, and Dutton explores the work of Frank Salter in support of the idea that it is indeed applicable. The only criticism of the concept that Dutton concedes is that ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ does not fully explain variations in ethnocentrism and therefore does not appear to attribute sufficient weight to environmental factors, especially external threats to the interests of the ethny—a factor that has demonstrably inflamed ethnocentrism throughout human history. Dutton also suggests that fluctuations in ethnocentrism may also be rooted in the dynamics of human personality, both as humans age, and as far as personality is influenced by ‘Life History Strategy.’

The sixth chapter, ‘Ethnocentrism, Personality Traits and Computer Modelling,’ focuses in detail on the issue of personality. Dutton explains that “we have to examine the concept of an ‘ethnocentric personality’ because … there are race differences in modal personality. So, if there is an ‘ethnocentric personality,’ then this would neatly explain why race differences in ethnocentrism exist.” Dutton ultimately dismisses the idea of an ‘ethnocentric personality,’ particularly the work of Adorno on prejudice, as having very little relevance to meaningful research on ethnocentrism. He concludes rather that it seems very likely that “ethnocentrism is not the by-product of a series of partly heritable personality traits.” Instead, “ethnocentrism is a human universal and is significantly genetic, in the sense that propensity to genetic similarity is partly genetic.” The chapter then moves to the concept of ‘group selection,’ during which is it explained and demonstrated that ethnocentric groups are more likely to win the battle of group selection. “The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of group selection. This would mean that, all else being equal, races that were compelled, by the nature of their environment, to combat other groups (by being internally cooperative by externally hostile) would be more ethnocentric.” Computer modelling of such battles has demonstrated conclusively that ethnocentric strategies will always triumph, leading Dutton to conclude that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy, “unable to sustain high levels of in-group cooperation.” Humanitarian groups invariably “waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return.”

In Chapter 7, one of the best and most provocative in the book, Dutton explores the genetics of ethnocentrism. Dutton takes as his starting point the high level of positive and negative ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians, and attempts to find candidate genes that may play a role in producing this situation. Building on research suggesting that oxytocin may contribute to in-group bias by motivating in-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group hostility, Dutton points to scholarly findings that Northeast Asians disproportionately possess (“much higher than Europeans”) genes identified with fear of social exclusion and higher oxytocin levels (A118G – OPRM1). Further research has indicated that the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) combines with environmental factors to shape in-group bias. Dutton cites studies showing that “70–80 percent of an East Asian sample carried the short form of this gene, that is to say the form that makes you more ethnocentric. Only 40–45 percent of Europeans in the sample carried the short form of the gene. Indeed, it was found that across twenty-nine nations, the more collectivist a culture was the more likely it was to have the short form as the prevalent allele in the population.” Dutton adds that his own work found such correlations to be weak, and he is reluctant to attribute ethnocentrism to small numbers of specific genes. He instead finishes the chapter with the suggestion that specific genes such as these may play a small role, but only in conjunction with Life History Theory—for example, he provides data suggesting that populations with Slow Life History strategies (typified by higher intelligence, delayed gratification, and higher investment in children) are likely to be higher in positive ethnocentrism.

In Chapter 8, Dutton presents data on race differences in ethnocentrism, and he then explores the impact of cousin marriage and religion on ethnocentrism. The chapter opens with a very interesting discussion of racial dating preferences derived from the OKCupid dating site. The data suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group. By contrast, most non-White groups seemed to have a preference for dating Whites. Dutton explains that this data cannot be meaningfully employed in the study of ethnocentrism because the fact non-Whites want to have sex with Whites merely means that “Whites have value.” He continues: “this does not, of course, mean that black people would be necessarily more inclined to lay down their lives for white people, show preference for white interests over those of their own race, vote for whites over members of their own race or any other behaviour of that kind that might be regarded as low in ethnocentrism.” Dutton instead utilizes the ‘World Values Survey’ as a more reliable indicator of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric populations. At this stage, the author returns to Genetic Similarity Theory, pointing out that the East Asian gene pool is much smaller than the European gene pool — in other words, two random Japanese men will be more closely related than two random English men. This is important because

any act of ethnic altruism by the Japanese man would have a greater payoff in terms of inclusive fitness than would precisely the same act by an Englishman. As such, we would expect higher levels of positive ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians than among Europeans. By the same token, were a Japanese person to be confronted by a foreigner, this would potentially damage his genetic interests to a greater extent than would be the case if a European, from a larger gene pool, was confronted by a foreigner.

Genetic Similarity Theory, as outlined above, is particularly salient in Dutton’s discussion of ethnocentrism among Arabs and South Asians, populations with high levels of cousin marriage. Arabs and South Asians are more ethnocentric than Europeans but, unlike East Asians, the nature of Arab and South Asian ethnocentrism tends more towards negative ethnocentrism — something Dutton links to relatively lower average intelligence. Consanguineous marriage, itself a response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning society in populations with Fast Life History strategies, will accelerate and deepen negative ethnocentrism.

This phenomenon is deepened further by high levels of religiosity, which, Dutton argues, has been demonstrated as boosting both positive and negative ethnocentrism. Among the aspects of religion that contribute to ethnocentrism and group selection, Dutton cites high levels of fertility, matrimony, physical punishment of children, bodily mutilation, honor killing, martyrdom, celibacy, and intense violence or enmity directed at non-believers. I found Dutton’s work here to be especially interesting, though I was left with some significant questions about the nature of modern Christianity, something disappointingly absent from Dutton’s text despite his rich background in the study of Christian fundamentalists. Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism? My own instinct is that it has something to do with the development and spread of the belief in a “personal Jesus,” a largely nineteenth-century American innovation, rather than the older belief in folding oneself into a community of believers under a more distant and overarching God of nations. But this would require an essay, or several, to fully articulate, rather than an aside in a book review. It should suffice to state here that more detail or illustration from Dutton in this regard would have been most welcome.

Dutton spends several pages discussing Jewish ethnocentrism, and is appreciative of the work of Kevin MacDonald in this area. Jews are clearly very high in positive ethnocentrism, as demonstrated by very high levels of in-group philanthropy, belief in themselves as members of a Chosen People with a special world-historical destiny, and the prolific production of self-congratulatory and apologetic literature about themselves that is frequently accompanied by a widespread refusal to make any concessions on negative aspects of the history of the ethnic group. Jews have also distinguished themselves throughout history with very high levels of negative ethnocentrism, including their genocides of other peoples (real or imagined) in their religious texts, very negative portrayals of non-Jews in their religious commentaries, frequent outbursts against Greek cultural influence in the Classical period, exploitative economic relationships with Europeans since at least the Carolingian dynasty, the preference for suicide over conversion in the Medieval period, high levels of culturally disruptive behaviors among host populations in the modern period, and most recently their extraordinarily hostile treatment of the Palestinians. This can be partly explained, as Dutton points out, by the highly consanguineous nature of the Jews. For example, “it has been found that the world’s 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400.” High levels of inbreeding have led to the noted prevalence of several genetic disorders among the Jews, including Tay-Sachs Disease, Gaucher’s Disease, and Riley-Day Syndrome. Dutton argues that Jews would have been more ethnocentric than Europeans from the earliest stages of their settlement in Europe, and that this ethnocentrism would have been deepened even further over historical time, in successive cycles, by their continued breeding within a small gene pool (intensifying the impact of Genetic Similarity Theory) and their presence in a high stress environment typified by periodic outbursts of reactive persecution (resulting in “harsh selection” for the most ethnocentric Jews). Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became “inconsolably upset.”

The author brings his eighth chapter to a close with a discussion of low ethnocentrism among Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. Low ethnocentrism among Africans is explained briefly via their very pronounced r-strategy, resulting in low rates of consanguineous marriage and a much broader gene pool and genetic diversity. On the other hand, Europeans, argues Dutton, occupy a ‘Goldilocks Zone’ of very low ethnocentrism because they are less K-selected than East Asians, have a larger gene pool, and their environment is less harsh, leading to lower levels of group selection. There appears to be a position on the rK spectrum, lower than East Asian K strategies, where cousin marriage is selected for (boosting ethnocentrism) and this position is occupied by Arabs and South Asians rather than Whites, who instead occupy a position below East Asians but above Arabs and South Asians. The trade-off for this relatively weakened position of Europeans is that for a population with moderate-to-high intelligence, “low ethnocentrism would permit a greater ability to trade and pool resources and so, ultimately, the creation of an extremely large coalition with a very large gene pool. This group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses.”

Dutton thus argues that, in a sense, some level of selection took place for low ethnocentrism in Europeans — a “genius” group evolutionary strategy. Dutton argues that groups with high levels of genius but low levels of ethnocentrism will triumph over groups with high levels of ethnocentrism but low levels of genius so long as certain conditions are met. The most important condition is that the genius group should maintain a basic level of ethnocentrism. Should this base level decline or collapse, the genius strategy would fail and highly ethnocentric groups would eventually dominate. European ethnocentrism has clearly been stronger in the past than it is at present, a fact the author very capably discusses within the framework of broader fluctuations in ecology (especially the advent of the industrial revolution) and ongoing evolutions in race itself.

In Chapter 9, Dutton explores in detail several variables that may impact ethnocentrism at individual and group level. Highly stressful situations in which survival is at risk have been shown to boost ethnocentrism, and researchers have found that playing violent video games is even sufficient to increase aggression to perceived out-groups. Mortality salience, or the fear of death, has also been shown to lead people to believe in a way which is highly defensive of their in-group. Although Dutton does not explore the theme in any great depth, I was moved to reflect on how anti-stress Western civilization has become during the last 60 or so years, not only in terms of industrialization, radically lowered infant mortality, and medical advances (all of which Dutton explores), but also in the extraordinary emphasis placed by modern culture on individual transient pleasures and prolonging youth (and therefore delaying or avoiding confronting death). Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and ‘weaponized decadence’ therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism — a way of pushing a stronger “genius evolutionary strategist” into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into defeat and destruction. Other variables impacting upon levels of ethnocentrism, and discussed by Dutton, include age, gender, pregnancy, intelligence and education, and ethnic diversity.

I found the last of these the most salient. Dutton, following from Vanhanen and Salter, argues that multi-ethnic societies are much less capable of successfully defending themselves against incursion from outsiders. This is for three key interrelated reasons. The first is lower levels of trust, as sapped confidence in one’s group leads to radically fewer sacrifices on behalf of the group. The second is that a multi-ethnic society will be able to draw on significantly lower reserves of positive ethnocentrism. The third is that ethnic minorities will tend to support immigration, essentially acting as a fifth column; allies to the outsiders engaged in incursion. So much for the “diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

In the penultimate chapter, Dutton makes the argument that the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for European ethnocentrism. Industrialization has significantly reduced human ecological stress in the West, and has accelerated the decline of European religion — one of the key supports for an already low level of European ethnocentrism. Advances in medicine and developments in the welfare state have led to wholesale dysgenic impacts such as the extraordinary rise in numbers of people with moderate to severe genetic disorders (26 percent increase in hemophilia, 22 percent increase in cystic fibrosis, and a 300 percent increase in phenylketonuria). The author posits that the increased proliferation of unhealthy mutations has further precipitated the decline of healthy instincts rooted in healthy genes that promoted survival (on a related note, it is interesting that those identified as ethnocentric score very highly in disgust sensitivity—a trait associated with disease avoidance). Dutton and some of his colleagues have come to describe such negative mutations as “spiteful mutations” which “cause people to act against their own genetic interests.” He continues:

If [carriers of ‘spiteful genes’] influence society, they can persuade even non-carriers of these ‘spiteful’ genes to act in self-destructive ways and they can undermine structures — such as religion — which help to promote group interests. Woodley of Menie et al. call this ‘social epistasis.’ As a consequence, modern (liberal) religion and ideology — far from being an indirect means of genetic preservation — would in fact reflect a sick society’s growing desire to destroy itself. An obvious example can be seen in the ideology of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness.

In Dutton’s reading of our present situation then, the worst of our traitors are in fact what perhaps Nietzsche was referring to when he condemned “the botched and the bungled” — malformed and maladapted offspring eager for self-destruction, and dragging the healthy down with them.

The final, brief, chapter of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism offers a neat summary of the findings and central arguments of the book before ending on a warning and offering some meagre light at the end of the tunnel. The warning is clear:

Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European people.

And yet this may be a night that is necessary before the dawn, as Europeans are once more plunged into a cleaning cauldron of harsh, selective conditions:

We are now living under these conditions. But it will be the collapse of [European] civilisation and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more ethnocentric once again.

It is the humbling, unenviable, and largely thankless task of websites like The Occidental Observer to convince European peoples, wherever they are, that ethnocentrism is an option that should be taken now, before catastrophe makes that choice for them. Edward Dutton’s remarkable book lends powerful support to that cause.

35 replies
  1. Pat Etheridge
    Pat Etheridge says:

    So….European peoples will presumably become more ethnocentric once a lack of ethnocentrism results in their displacement.

    Be that as it may, they will not resume their previous positions of power and influence, because there will be no way for them to reassert themselves. There will just be the ruins of what once was, occupied by the alien peoples who did the displacing.

  2. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    After WW2 the Americans forced the UK to admit W.Indians so they would not go to the USA.
    Because of NATO the Germans were forced to admit Turks
    Americans forced the Europeans out of their empires
    Europe is doomed because the East Europeans who call themselves Jews will not allow the Yankee to go home
    Neville Chamberlain was forced to declare war by “Jews” and Americans, according to his diary.
    When will the Americans (redacted) Maduro and (redacted) the oil?

  3. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    I think it would be more accurate to place group-loyalty, group-devotion and group-love before group-pride as sources of positive ethnocentrism. If the ethnic group is to be seen as an extended family then loyalty, devotion and love would be more central and important than pride, which is often peripheral or even absent. Someone might have little or no pride in their family or ethnic group and still love it, be loyal and devoted to it, and identify it and its interests with themselves and their own interests.

    The Marxist theory that “ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group” usefully explains the doctrinaire insistence by leftists to equate white ethnocentrism of any form or degree with “white supremacism.” It is baked into the ideological foundations of their world view and they are incapable of seeing it in any other light.

    The linking of negative ethnocentrism to lower average intelligence helps to explain the stubborn persistence of “hatred” as the most characteristic and natural form of racial expression within some circles or factions of the white racialist movement.

    The linking of low group ethnocentrism with genius reminds me of my linking of it with increased objectivity (a characteristic of genius and science) in my 1986 book “Destiny of Angels.” I argued that we had risen above other races into a dangerous intermediate zone of objectivity, and rather then sink back into a lower level of objectivity to protect ourselves we had to rise to a higher level to appreciate our position and defend our interests.

  4. JRM
    JRM says:

    Thanks for a really excellent view of this book. My belief in determinism is certainly strengthened.

    Perhaps it has been done, but if not it should be: a study of the dynamic effects of a supposed constant, e.g., Christianity. We tend to see a lot of comments in race-realist forums about Christian Tradition and the West. But while some blame the Church for high pathological-altruism, others call for a return to the religion that accompanied European man as he conquered much of the globe.

    When did Christianity become a liability, and what caused the transition? I might tentatively point to the US War Between the States, as much Christian rhetoric was expended in the interest of enslaved Negroes. But yes, the South also cited God and Scripture in defending their way of life. Yet looking at post-bellum American culture, it seems clear that something had shifted in critical cultural mass. The next hundred years showed the church leaning more towards liberal racial values.

    Enlightenment ideas are another area where initially positive developments like critical thinking, the decline of superstition, the rise of science and the codification of civilized societal rights was eventually taken too far for the culture to survive, e.g., the catastrophic extension of the voting franchise.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Enlightenment over circa 1800, replaced by anti-enlightenment [anti reason] Romanticism and transcendental idealism. Women got the vote 120 years after enlightenment over.

      American intellectuals went to Germany twice in the nineteenth century- early, and later. They returned with plenty of Idealism- more than enough to destroy civilization. Transcendental means- transcending common sense. . .the blame for women suffrage should be placed on these reality-evading idealisms, and not on the rational enlightenment.

      Please stop blaming the enlightenment for our predicaments.

      • JRM
        JRM says:

        To suggest that the Enlightenment was “over” by 1800 is real overreach. Yes, Romanticism arose as a reaction to the Enlightenment, but it by no means supplanted it, no more than hippie and alternative counter-cultures of the 1960’s supplanted the scientific basis of organized industrialism.

        Romanticism ran along side the later developments of the Enlightenment, partially as reaction to it, and partially as respite from it, and was expressed principally in the arts and letters. It in no wise slowed scientific advancement or populist insistence on political representation. In fact, the revolutions of 1848 could even be viewed as an amalgamation of Romantic and Enlightenment attitudes…

        No Enlightenment, no Women’s Vote, I don’t think you would ever have had (b) without (a).

        You close with a request that I stop blaming the Enlightenment for our current predicaments. But my whole original point was that many good things, like the old Christian Church *and* the Enlightenment, can transmogrify ultimately into bad things if considered in their isolated effects. In this case, I was viewing the Enlightenment as a product of White civilization that eventually, failing to be properly channeled and sensibly delimited, led us to liberal social policies that ended up harming the race.

        As an example, the Enlightenment rhetoric of the Founders, who certainly knew they weren’t talking about blacks when they used the word “men”, that same rhetoric has been used to bludgeon us a thousand times into accepting legislated equality for unequal types.

        Was the Civil Rights era a Romantic movement? Yes, in large part. There was certainly a lot of posturing going on. But the legislation arising therefrom was firmly a product of the Age of Reason. This is my whole point. When even noble achievements are turned around on us as weapons, we do indeed end up in “predicaments”.

  5. TJ
    TJ says:

    “. . .Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism. . .”

    Is “society as a whole” now a giant fount of philosophy?

    “Society as a whole” receives ideas, rather than vice versa.

    The question should be- from (((whence))) cometh the multi-culti ideas?

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “The question should be- from (((whence))) cometh the multi-culti ideas?”

      The question should be how are we going to defend ourselves from JESSICA.

      JEwiSh Supremacy Inc.’s Control of America.

  6. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    This analysis (I’m relying on Joyce) misses most of the Jewish modus operandi, which is that they distribute as a race among other countries. They network together remotely, and mimic locals, for example by being brought up by birth so their language is not very distinguishable from the hosts. And they co-operate up to a point with hosts, as e.g. Freemasons and other secret groups. It’s a completely different model from local peoples with their various racial attitudes. I suggest potential purchasers don’t buy this book; wait for an update. But you may have a long wait.

  7. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    On the 26th of this month, the results of the elections to the European Parliament will be known, including those for GB. Most of what this current article is concerned about will be determined or strongly influenced by this election in 28 national states.

    To give the reader here a good idea, as to ” how the hare will run “, I urgently recommend, that KM interview the expert columnist of Munich’s Dr. Frey’s National-Zeitung, Ulrich Wenck. He is a lay expert on German Constitutional Law as well as on that of the EU.

    In his last editorial he laid out the fundamentally opposed, entirely incompatible positions of both.

    We are familiar with the term ” K to 12 “. Will we have to familiarize ourselves with the term ” K to 28 “, where K stands for Kalergi ?

    { DNZ Munich: code for Europe, then +049 [ Germany from outside of Europe ], then 89 [ for Munich ] then 8960850 [ local ] }.

    Perhaps Wenck would agree to write here, since they are constantly in knee-deep feces with the Elite already.

  8. Eric Dondero
    Eric Dondero says:

    Just wanted to let you know we excerpted this most excellent review for We especially liked your description of subspecies which is EXACTLY our description at Subspecieist. Good job. And Cheers to Edward Dutton.

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Rep. Ron Paul, 1997-2003
    US Military Veteran

  9. Ovidiu
    Ovidiu says:

    The modern world atomizes the society and isolates the individual. It is this disintegration of society, of the communities and the collective-oriented mindset, which accounts for much which passes as the ‘individualism’ and the lack of ethnocentrism (ethnic solidarity) of the Western-European. You can see similar developments (isolation, breaking down of family, demographic collapse, feminization of men) in the very developed countries of East Asia as Japan, South-Korea, and Singapore.

  10. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “This group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses.”

    This is the #1 reason why the hostile elite attacked the study of the Western Tradition, or curriculum, in our universities and colleges.

    It is literally the history of our genius in the form of geniuses.

    People went to universities to study geniuses. No one went to a university to study stupid people, so they could become stupid themselves. That’s a recent phenomenon and proof, if proof were needed, that theirs is a Pyrrhic victory.

    The study of genius and the development of the attributes of wisdom, such emotional detachment and intellectual insight is why European man built universities, a model now adopted the world over.

    Only problem is, the rest of the world is adopting our ideas and institutions without being able to adapt to them.

    And that is a process that began when the middle class took over Western Civilization. This started an internal process of Emancipation without Acculturation.

    The White middle class basically inherited something they didn’t really create and so, didn’t understand and appreaciate. So they didn’t think it worth preserving. But they wanted the money and prestige and would align with anyone who would help them get it, and support any down and out group that would help them feed their terrible addiction to mood-altering through self-righteousness. What today is called “virtue-signalling.”

    So the objective was to simply cut off the head of European man.

    That’s why we started to hear phrases beginning in the late 70’s of Dead European White Males, ie; our geniuses.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      The article mentions the disastrous consequences of the Industrial Revolution. But I would add two more that happened around the same time.

      The Population Explosion and The Communications Revolution.

      Quantity triumphed over Quality as a kind of Gresham’s Law took over where inferior culture drove out supreior culture. Hence the cries and shouts against “Elitism.”

      This led to the Philistine and, worse, the Cultural Philistine.

      The former were convinced there was no need for culture (as in being cultivated, knowledgeable of one’s culture, of an awareness of the importance the university as a place for developing the attributes of wisdom found in our culture – and only our culture) and the latter were convinced that they were culture’s representatives. Both were wrong. And both were thoroughly middle-class.

      Make no mistake about it.

      These were the Original Snowflakes.

      The 19th and early 20th century was filled with geniuses who saw what was coming. Hegel, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Flaubert, Arnold, Ruskin, Tennyson, Baudelaire, Wagner, Nietzsche, even The American Pragmatists.

      They said, in so many words, that once the middle class get their envy-prone, dirty little money-grubbing paws on Western Civlization then you can pretty much count the days.

      Who could possibly deny that they were right?

      The White middle-class, with its resentment of anything above it (“Elitism” “Dead European White Males”) and contempt for anything below it (“Deplorables” “White Trash”) with its obsession with money over everything else, and the prestige and power that goes with it, and its culture of over-conformity, fit perfectly with Jewish Supremacy’s fanatical ethnocentricism, and gifts for control via infiltration, subversion and destruction.

      The merger between The White middle-class (Left and Right) and Jewish Supremacy was the one, two punch that knocked Western Civilization out.

      But let no one from either of those groups congratulate themselves. They are both so self-engrossed that they can’t see that their own particular form of over-conformity is itself maladaptive.

      Just look at the dysfunctional world they’ve both created and ask yourself if it has any staying power?

      • Trembler
        Trembler says:

        ‘that once the middle class get their envy-prone, dirty little money-grubbing paws on Western Civlization then you can pretty much count the days.’

        There is another group of envy prone money grubbers I am more concerned with.

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          Agreed. But not at the expense of ignoring the one social-economic group of our own race who sold us all down the river for a mess of pottage.

          A contemporary example would be Jordan Peterson.

          But there are many, past and present.

  11. katana
    katana says:

    My first encounter with Dutton occurred one recent night of clicking on miscellaneous links, when finally, one link too many, I stumbled across Dr Dutton. For a few moments I thought it was some kind of Monty Python parody, what with this fruity non-ground floor class accent.

    It didn’t take long to see through his YouTube product placement imagery that he was a serious thinker. A few vids later, he’s also one with a good non-serious sense of humour thrown in.

    Andrew Joyce has now done a very good review of Dutton’s book here, including this cut-to-the-chase comment:

    “Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and ‘weaponized decadence’ therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism — a way of pushing a stronger “genius evolutionary strategist” into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into defeat and destruction.”

    Translated into plain English, it is essentially like this:

    “Because a widespread decadent hedonistic lifestyle destroys any sense of racial community, it is highly promoted by organized jewry to destroy us.”

    And for those who would like the cliff notes for The Occidental Observer in a few words, it is plainly this:

    “It’s organized jewry stupid! They are out to destroy us. Read the gory details here.”

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      I would argue that it’s “Humans are boring. Always will be boring. Liberals, pseudo-intellectuals, snowflakes, negros, jooz, muslims, asians, latrinos….are the most boring. They’re all a blip in geological time. I’m tired of hearing about their pettiness and insecurities. Humans are an unnecessary parasite on the surface of the fifth planet of a G classification star. Most of the parasites are more parasitic than others. That planet does not need these parasites but the parasites need that planet. Hopefully and eventually the planet wins and rids itself of the parasitic invasion.”

      • Rerevisionist
        Rerevisionist says:

        You think the planet is sentient? I’m amazed what rubbish this site allows. I’d like to say I’m amazed this site doesn’t address such vital issues as 9/11 and Jewish wars and the Holohoax, but I’m no longer amazed – I take it for granted.

        • Charlie
          Charlie says:

          Earth is a “planetary” system not just plants and birds and rocks and things. It’s a neural network and it feels it each time someone with a hook nose rapes it or a sloped head inferior race shuffles across its surface dropping empty Martel bottles and packaging from Black & Mild cigarellos (smuvest blag man).

  12. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I disagree with the concept of races being sub-species. In nature, sub-species are relatively rare. Races are species. Of the dozen or so species of zebras, most of us would be hard pressed to identify differences in half of them. Most tiger species have minor differences that lay people would have a difficult time identifying. Birds provide a wealth of examples of minor differences in species, mostly in plumage colour.
    When it comes to humans, obvious differences in hair, eye, and skin colour, are ignored. As are cranial and skeletal differences. The “There is only one race, the human race” mantra is, quite frankly, insulting to all humans, regardless of race. If that were really the case, then the Holocaust narrative would be ignored, because there would have been no attempt to exterminate Jews. The cries of “genocide” against Biafrans would have been ignored as would the more recent Tutsi “genocide”.
    The reparations for “African Americans” collapses, because they were just human slaves not Black/African slaves. Slavery had nothing to do with race, just humans.
    I have stated for decades, that I am proud of my genetic inheritance (White). If I were Black, I’d think Black was the greatest thing going, but I’m not, so I don’t.
    It’s time to accept what is natural. Races are species. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and is perfectly suited to its natural environment. The Northern Climes are not the natural environment for South Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. Multiculturalism is un-natural.

  13. Trembler
    Trembler says:

    To what extent has Jewish introgression into the White gene pool weakened White ethnocentrism?

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      It’s the same as “the guest” that leaves a big load in your toilet and purposely doesn’t flush the bowl.

  14. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “seem to have lost an important instinct towards group”

    The reason the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen by the US politicians was because they knew this event would trigger the group defensive behaviour in the citizens of the US, and this group behaviour once activated in this way would mean they were willing to join in the War.

    So the behaviour is always there and waiting to be triggered, but it can only be triggered if the leaders and media guide the people along this route.

    If the leaders and media right now in the US were properly right wing, they could easily trigger the group behaviour in such a way that within a month the deportations would begin. But this will not happen as the leaders and media do not wish to guide the people towards this kind of group behaviour. The potential for the people to eject foreigners who hate them is always there, it is just not activated, and instead it is suppressed. The leaders and media do everything then can to prevent this group behaviour from being activated.

    So the the lefty governments & MSM in the West today are very keen today that their indigenous populations do NOT have their group-preservation instincts activated.

    This is why Britain spends £9b a year monitoring internal jihadi plots and threats in order to prevent them, and the govt spends these sums not because they care if we get killed by muslims, but because they fear that internal terrorist attacks might awaken the group preservation instincts of the indigenous majority and turn them against 3rd world mass immigration, and this is the last thing the government want, as they wish to destroy the West by 3rd world immigration, and they do not want the people to start objecting to their own demise. The govt is succeeding as for now the majority in almost all the West continue to vote overwhelmingly for more and more mass 3rd world immigration even though it is clearly against their own interests to vote in this way for their own replacement.

    Here is a link about the government stage managing some muslims to give the impression they are friendly towards us following a terrorist attack:

    Bombshell Report Reveals British Govt Stages ‘Muslim’ Responses to Terrorist Attacks

    After 9/11 the Bush administration managed to quell the group-defensive behaviour that was almost activated. If the Republicans had really wanted to close the border to the 3rd world, this was their golden opportunity. Instead the media and govt persuaded the people to go back to sleep to such an extent that now there is a mosque being built near the 9/11 site.

    The reason the group protection instincts have been lost in the West is likely because the culture (TV and school and university) has taught white people over the decades that they should be anti-white/anti-self, and the reason they have accepted this is that they are slaves to the current culture, whatever it is, even if it is anti-self, and the reason they are slaves to culture is because people are wired to follow the dominant culture and not to think logically. This is so deeply part of our animal behaviour side that it can be observed already fully developed in 6 year olds, who will not refer to another child by their race in a classroom setting.

    • HK Wills
      HK Wills says:

      To throw off the Jewish tyranny that conditions Whites to acquiesce to racial and cultural dispossession requires the capture of the opinion molding institutions of society (OMI’S). Essentially news media, entertainment and academia. To capture the OMI’S requires the use of them in mobilizing whites to that purpose: hence the impasse. For now the best hope remains the internet and websites like TOO: they serve the same function as furtively circulated dogeared dissident manuscripts did in the Soviet Union. The truth will out.

  15. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Reams and volumes of data, evidence, and experience ineluctably command: sequester, establish, found an ethno state on the parallel model of East Asians-or perish. This is a certainty.

    The selection criteria should be Indo-European, which is the most precise and efficacious grouping.

  16. Heil Zündel
    Heil Zündel says:

    Q: “Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?”

    A: jews

    Obviously the jews’ idiotic holoshlock hoax is the main reason for the annihilation of ethnocentrism amongst White Europeans.

    If there is one thing we need to correct, it is allowing these filthy vermin to get away with this disgusting hoax and libel against White Europeans.

    What a sickening people jews are to perpetrate such a vile, criminal campaign!

  17. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “Consanguineous marriage, itself a response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning society in populations with”

    In fact this type of marriage is bad for those who practise it, as it results in a high level of offspring with disabilities. This is clearly bad for the family and the group (despite the theory of evolution predicting it will help them evolve by speeding up evolution – clearly there is a flaw in the theory)

    Different human populations do NOT arise due to nat sele gradually fine-tuning us all towards some ideal goal (nat sele cannot even remove genes that cause death in childbirth or bad eyesight or bad teeth). This is due to longevity of humans and the way humans gain their success not only from their own genes, but also from parental support or society support. Many who are worst of all for their own race as they actively strive to destroy their own people are the billionaires – the ones society favours the most in terms of resources.

    Different human populations arise when a sub-group who are like each other and closely related leave the main group and migrate. But this is like dealing a hand of cards, you might get a reasonable hand or a good hand or a bad hand – as long as the hand passes a certain level it is viable, let us say grade ‘C’ with grade ‘A’ being the best – as long as the hand passes this level, this group with their grade C or above hand can migrate and survive. But the group is to a large extent stuck with the hand it ‘chose’ when it migrated.

    The Indians were stuck with the corruption hand (ie a set of random cards, that unfortunately for them had a lot of cards for corruption/dishonesty/cheating included). They flourished to a certain extent, but were still stuck with the corruption/dishonesty, and they cannot get rid of it despite it being bad for the group. And in-breeding in Pakistan is their response to finding themselves living is a place where no-one trusts each other and everyone is trying to cheat each other, so you choose to marry your 1st cousin to minimise being cheated, as a stranger would likely just try and cheat you by using his own corrupt family to help him steal your family’s land. So inbreeding is a way to stop your family’s wealth being stolen by strangers.

    Consider two holes next to each other containing gold balls, a deep hole and a shallow hole. Gravity wants the golf balls to go to the lower hole, but it cannot get its way as there is a ridge – the balls have to go higher before lower so they cannot make it into the better hole.

    This is like natural selection and the bad trait of corruption/dishonesty – natural selection ‘would like to’ remove this bad trait but there is a ridge that cannot be surmounted.

    If the indians could remove the corruption/dishonesty gene, they could be as wealthy as the West, but they cannot remove it. Consider an honest family emerging and opening a shop. They would get cheated and taken advantage of, so their better genes are no advantage to them when they are outnumbered by the dishonest. This is why the Pakistanis remain corrupt and poor.

    However, when you move these people to an honest society, which happens today due to our own leaders inviting them over to the West, due to our leaders’ malice for their own people, those with genes for dishonesty thrive by parasiting on the honest host society.

    The dishonest from Pakistan immediately engage in mortage and welfare fraud and end up rich, as they have found an honest host that is a mug for being cheated by them. There are many immigrants from these countries living in the West with multiple properties all being rented out with the tenants claiming housing benefits, and everyone involved is related. So the cheating is making them very successful and rich whilst they are the minority living in an honest society. But this does not modify their genes for dishonesty, and their genes are not good for the host population, if they were ever to interbreed with us.

    The Jews are another group that flourish when others create a lot of wealth that they can live off, and without the host and just living amongst themselves they would be poorer.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      And some have claimed that the market is based on social darwinism. What if the market is based on the survival of the least fit? I refer to specialization and division of labor.

      Survival of fittest assumes that the fit will use their own production for their [or close relatives] own survival. But. . .who is receiving the output from Whitey’s machinery? How much goes to the inventor? Almost none. . .the output is spewed all over the world- perhaps more than half going to non-Whites. This makes non-White survival possible- this makes survival of the least fit possible.

      If the welfare state and paper money were removed, the problem would persist- now working blacks would still be subsidized by White machinery. It has been said that the market is based on self-reliance- horse-hockey. The fit, true enough, rely on self, but the less fit rely on the fit, rather than on their own devices. . .there is a form of non-governmental socialism in markets. . .White genius ends up subsidizing everyone else. . .the mediocre are radically over-compensated relative to their actual contributions. . .

      White genius is aiding and abetting the reversal of evolution. Markets are partially right and partially wrong Right in terms of being voluntary, wrong as outlined above. We [Whites] need a way TO KEEP WHITE WEALTH IN THE WHITE COMMUNITY. Perhaps a new money that can only be used by Whites. . .

Comments are closed.