Race and King of the Hill

/9 Comments/in /by

King of the Hill was a popular animated sitcom series on Fox which ran from 1997 to 2010, created by former Simpsons writer Greg Daniels along with Mike Judge, the latter also known for comedy films like Idiocracy and Office Space. The show’s portrayal of race was conventional at the time, sometimes unflattering toward Whites, and even pro-immigration, but would be condemned as “racist” by the social justice mob of today. Not only was it not sufficiently flattering to non-Whites, but the series portrays small-town Whites in a relatively sympathetic way which would never be acceptable under contemporary rules of political correctness.

King of the Hill focuses on the Hill family, led by Hank, a proud salesman of propane and propane accessories. He and his wife Peggy, an incompetent substitute Spanish teacher, have a son named Bobby and have informally adopted their niece Luanne, both being generally good-natured but neither very bright.

Indeed, the ignorance and incompetence of many of the characters is a frequent subject of humor. Hank’s friend Bill, a dimwitted and divorced army barber, often beclowns himself. At one point he attempts to commit suicide, but is unsuccessful as he slams his head in a drawer, puts his head inside an electric stove, tries to drown himself in the toilet, and falls off the roof of a one-story building from which he meant to jump. He is even incompetent at stepping in front of traffic. Hank is more intelligent and less clownish than Bill, but still sometimes shows his naivete, such as when he unwittingly buys crack cocaine to use as fishing bait.

Bill is confused and saddened by Hank’s humor at his expense.

The show does not express the outright malice towards Whites which is becoming the norm today, but unfortunately is implicitly anti-White in some ways. The clearest such theme in the show involves Dale Gribble — a paranoid exterminator and one of Hank’s best friends — and his unfaithful wife. Nancy, a blonde White woman, has been having frequent sexual encounters for many years with John Redcorn, a Native American healer. In contrast with Dale, who is comically out of shape and cowardly, Redcorn is very muscular and stoic. At one point, Nancy is disgusted and ashamed by the fact that she has slept with Dale, rather than by her extramarital affair. A running joke in the series is that Dale, while often expressing paranoia about government conspiracies, never suspects the relationship between his wife and Redcorn. This is despite repeated hints, such as his “son” Joseph having strangely dark skin.

A White male character is thus portrayed as not only an undesirable mate but also a cuck at the hands of a non-White man, and too foolish to even be aware of it. Although no one explicitly makes an issue of Dale’s race, there is a general emasculation of White men in the series. None of the White male characters are as masculine as Redcorn, either physically or psychologically. Even Hank, though more authoritative than Dale, is emasculated; he is out of shape, horrified by any reference to sexuality, and had trouble conceiving due to his narrow urethra. At one point he even finds he has a low sperm count.

Outside of his adulterous relationship with Nancy, John Redcorn is portrayed as noble and wise. However, this is done in a way which would trigger censors to flag it as “racist stereotyping” today. He is always wearing Native American jewelry, and often when he speaks of his people’s traditions, it suddenly becomes windy so that his long hair is accentuated, while tribal music plays in the background.

John Redcorn is unmoved by Hank’s threat to “kick your ass” if he touches his wife inappropriately.

The other consistent racial theme in the series is the relationship between the Hills and their Southeast Asian immigrant neighbors. Kahn and Minh Souphanousinphone are from Laos, which as Kahn explains to Hank and friends’ bewilderment is neither China nor Japan, but a landlocked country between Thailand and Vietnam. Kahn often derides Hank and his family as “rednecks” or “hillbillies,” which is likely meant as a racial slur; he calls Hank “cracker” as well. The Hills, of course, being White and having conventional attitudes toward race, never attack the Souphanousinphones’ ancestry, but only express ignorance of their culture. Peggy at one point claims that according to their Buddhist faith, it does not much matter if their daughter dies because she will be reincarnated as “a grasshopper or a seahorse.”

The more conservative Hank does not like the boastful and manipulative Kahn, however, and at one point wishes he had never been let into the country. In one episode when the Hills are on a road trip to Mexico and they come to the fence at the border, Bobby asks if the Souphanousinphones came through the fence, and Hank responds that “Kahn applied the legal way; sometimes the system fails us.”

In the same episode, partly through Dale’s paranoia and incompetence, Hank is put in the position of sneaking back into the United States illegally. His White friend Dale abandons him after Hank helps him over the fence, but his Asian neighbor Kahn saves him by giving him his hand just as the border patrol is approaching, and the “camera” focuses on their clasped White and brown hands to emphasize their interracial cooperation. Kahn later taunts Hank, calling him the real immigrant and boasting of his own knowledge of the history of “my country,” meaning the US. The sequence seems to be designed not only to Americanize immigrants but even to romanticize illegal immigration.

Hank demonstrates a non-confrontational White response to his Asian neighbor’s obnoxious singing.

The Asian neighbors have named their daughter Kahn Jr., but she calls herself Connie. This and other facts point to her desire to assimilate into American culture. She briefly dates Bobby Hill, despite her parents’ desire that she date a particular high-status Asian boy.

Current-year pieties would suggest that Whites are particularly narcissistic and greedy, while other races are more noble. But the Souphanousinphones are more materialistic and status-seeking than the Hills, despite being nominally Buddhist. Along with both parents’ obsession with fitting in with other high-status Asians, Kahn boasts about how much money he makes and the luxuries he can afford. The more Westernized Connie, who born in the United States, is disgusted by this mindset.

The Laotian family would be considered an offensive caricature by producers today, and not only because of their unpleasant personality traits. Like Apu Nahasapeemapetilon in the Simpsons, who was recently cancelled for being a “racist” stereotype, the Souphanousinphones have an absurdly long surname. Kahn and Minh also have comically strong accents, despite living in the United States for at least 20 years according to Kahn. But one of the most interesting displays of their racial difference comes at the funeral of Buckley, Luanne’s boyfriend who died in an accidental explosion.

Few people are willing to speak about Buckley, as he was an unremarkable character. But Kahn decides to draw attention to himself by giving a speech in which he clownishly pretends to be very moved by Buckley’s death. In an even stronger accent than usual, he tells a Buddhist fable, which in contrast to the show’s usual animation is illustrated in the style of traditional East Asian paintings. The narrative follows a man being chased by a “ferocious tigah.” The man falls over a cliff, stops his fall by catching a protruding branch on the cliff face, but then sees a similar monster on the ground below. Knowing he is trapped and about to die, he reaches for a strawberry growing from the branch and finds it is “the most delicious strawberry he ever had.” This scene is cartoonishly exotic, like the caricatures of Asians in South Park. It would surely be considered “otherizing” and offensive stereotyping today.

A tiger menaces an Asian man in Kahn’s telling of a Buddhist parable.

Further emphasizing how unfamiliar the mindset of a supposedly assimilated immigrant is to native-born Americans, none of the Whites in the audience understand this parable about appreciating the small things in life, even in the presence of death. Hank initially misinterprets it as a joke and considers it inappropriate. He later repeats an Americanized version of it to Bobby, with Detroit Lions in place of tigers and Gatorade in place of the strawberry, but the younger Hill has a similar problem understanding the Asian wisdom, saying, “I get it — it’s funny.”

Bobby expresses what was then the standard attitude among Whites toward Asian culture; he is neither “xenophobic” nor a self-hating White who would distance himself from his own nation to identify with another. In one episode he becomes enamored with Taoism and quotes Lao Tzu, even getting Hank to accept the concept of wabi sabi, meaning the beauty of minor imperfections. In another episode, though, he affirms his attachment to a traditional American lifestyle. A group of Tibetan monks come to town, suspecting that Bobby is the reincarnation of their deceased master, Lama Sangluk. Their final test to confirm his status and grant him a new life as a monk is to show him a set of items and let him identify the one that belonged to Sangluk. Knowing that the monastic lifestyle does not allow girlfriends, he points to Connie’s reflection in a mirror, telling the Tibetans that he chooses her. Although the mirror belonged to Sangluk, the head monk interprets this as a choice for romance instead of a monk’s life, and Bobby continues as a regular White American rather than assimilating into Asian Buddhist culture.

On the other hand, Bobby expresses the common infatuation of White American youth with Black culture and has to be reminded of who he is. In one episode, Hank catches Bobby walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic while listening to rap music. Bobby explains that the artist is Pimp Franklin and that “he don’t need your respect, ’cause he don’t pay no man no mind.” Hank angrily rejects this cultural enrichment and takes Bobby to the record store to find more race-appropriate music.

In another episode he becomes a fan of a crude Black comedian named Booda Sack, who often mocks White people. As an aspiring comedian himself, Bobby tries to emulate him and proposes joking about how the police are always pulling him over. Mr. Sack has to explain to him that “you’re not Black,” and invites him to perform at a local comedy club as soon as he can make jokes more in line with his own perspective as a White male. This leads him to make “offensive” racial jokes based on material he finds on a White nationalist website. The audience boos him, but Mr. Sack, rather than calling for him to be blacklisted or for his father to be fired as would be customary today, defends his right to free speech as an American tradition.

Thankfully, although Mr. Sack is ultimately depicted as a loyal American, the episode does not romanticize Black culture or imply that he is just like a middle-class White man under the skin. He is depicted as exceptionally loud and obnoxious, and his humor is simply lowbrow personal insults. He even practices his comedy at work, where he is expected to be acting as a driving instructor, and gets fired for offending too many clients. He had previously experienced a downturn in his comedy career for similarly offending people with his performance on a Black sitcom. His dark-skinned audience at the comedy club is not depicted as particularly civilized either. They are clearly baffled when he defends the tradition of freedom of speech, even though he explains it using appropriately colorful terminology.

In one episode, King of the Hill actually mocks the hysteria around “racism.” Hank’s dog Ladybird attacks a Black repairman named Mack who has come to fix the water heater, and the man accuses the dog of being racist. Hank invites Mack to stay for lunch to show that neither he nor the dog are racist, but Ladybird attacks him again. He takes Ladybird to a dog trainer and nervously explains her apparent prejudice, but the contemptuous trainer, who boasts that he has a Black girlfriend, explains that it is impossible for a dog to have such feelings; she must instead be responding to cues from a racist owner. The other people in the room glare at Hank disapprovingly, and after he fails a questionable online racism test, the local church congregation soon joins in scorning Hank as “racist,” even praying on his lawn for his soul.

Ultimately a White repairman comes to his house, and Ladybird attacks him as well. Hank realizes that the dog does not hate Blacks, but only repairmen, as he himself does. The episode ends with him laughing joyfully at the realization that he is not racist, unconcerned by the dog’s ongoing violence toward the repairman. Whether intentional or not, this is a fitting mockery of how the popular obsession with appearing “non-racist” takes precedence over addressing real-world problems such as violence.

Hank Hill and his neighbors Bill, Dale and Boomhauer drink beer by the side of the road.

Despite every White character being laughable to some degree, King of the Hill implies too much sympathy for the wrong people to fit with current-year social justice sensibilities. Even the lowest elements of White society are portrayed sympathetically. Luanne Platter, Hank and Peggy’s niece, is the product of the teen pregnancy of a violent and manipulative alcoholic named Leanne, and previously lived in a trailer. But Luanne herself is more wholesome than her mother, despite being dimwitted. She never displays any criminal tendencies beyond minor mischief, never abuses the Hills, and takes great pride in putting on a Christian puppet show.

The Hills are often shown to have wholesome family relationships, as when Bobby says to Hank at the end of one episode, “this is the best birthday ever, and you’re the best dad ever!” They also display an admirable ability to take joy in small things; when Bobby sees a new dryer which he misinterprets as his birthday present, he is so pleased that he literally embraces it.

The main characters in King of the Hill are ordinary gun-owning Whites in a red state who express vaguely conservative attitudes such as a general suspicion of government. As such, if they had existed in 2016, they might have voted for Trump. But they are never portrayed as the monsters such people would be in present-day entertainment media. We can only hope that during our lifetimes, anti-White trends in the mass media and wider culture will be reversed and it will again become normal to portray such people in a sympathetic light.

The German Aristocracy and National Socialism

/26 Comments/in /by

Those who are acquainted with the many books and films produced recently about the 20 July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler led by Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg may have the impression that the plot was a result of the aversion of the German aristocracy to the political ambitions of a commoner like Hitler. In fact, Stauffenberg’s failed attempt was only the last of a series of attempts to assassinate Hitler that originated from General Ludwig Beck (1880–1944). Beck was not an aristocrat but belonged to the officer class and resigned his post as Chief of Staff of the German Army in August 1938 mainly on account of his disagreement with Hitler’s aggressive foreign political aims.

The German aristocracy itself was incorporated into the National Socialist movement from the twenties on without much difficulty, even though some of the aristocratic National Socialists had to tolerate the contempt of peers who were opposed to the socialist aspects of Hitler’s government. According to Stephan Malinowski,[1] in all, about 300 noble families of the lower aristocracy based in Prussia contributed about 3,600 members to the National Socialist Party, and the number of adherents from the upper ruling families rose from 70 in the thirties to around 270 by 1945. Most of these were Prussian and Protestant rather than Bavarian and Catholic, since the Bavarian Catholic aristocrats were dedicated to the House of Wittelsbach, whose crown prince, Rupert of Bavaria, was firmly opposed to Hitler and was exiled in December 1939 to Italy while other members of his family were interned for some years in concentration camps.

It is true that Stauffenberg and some of his fellow conspirators in the 20 July plot were shocked by Hitler’s extreme persecution of the Jews, but it cannot be clearly said that all of the conspirators were impelled by philo-Semitic sentiments since the German aristocracy was, in general, anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist like Hitler himself. Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (whose 1934 essay is presented here) was in fact a vigorous anti-Semite in the thirties[2] and may even have played a part in the organisation of the Kristallnach riots, though he eventually joined the conspirators led by Stauffenberg. That all the aristocratic National Socialists did not revolt against Hitler is also clear from the fact that the editor of the collection of essays here presented, Prince Friedrich-Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe, remained a proud National Socialist even after the war.

The following three extracts from the collection of nine essays by aristocratic National Socialists that was edited by Prince Friedrich-Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe, Wo war der Adel? (Where was the aristocracy?, Berlin: Zentralverlag, 1934), show that many of the aristocrats indeed welcomed the opportunity given to them by the National Socialist movement to renew their own aristocratic estate after it had been destroyed alongside the German monarchy in 1918. In turn, the elevated codes of conduct of the aristocrats as traditional rulers of the German domains helped to strengthen the chivalrous image that is often associated with the German military of the Third Reich. It is true, however, that the SS as developed by Himmler from 1929 came to represent the real elite formation of the Third Reich since it was originally created as a bodyguard for Hitler and expressed more directly the dedication to the Führer that was the hallmark of the entire Third Reich. The members of the old aristocracy were absorbed into the SS, as well as into the earlier SA, without much strain since the old and the new elites had in common a desire to renew Germany after its devastating defeat in World War I. One feature that may have been novel, however, about the involvement of the aristocrats in the National Socialist movement is the more socialist conception of themselves that they now manifested, no longer as superior leaders of an anonymous population of subjects but as close collaborators with the latter in the task of building a new German empire.

*   *   *

Count Bernhard von Solms-Laubach [1900–1938]
Director of the National Theatre,
Standartenführer[3]

The Aristocracy is dead – Long live the Aristocracy!

We do not wish to be sentimental, we admit openly that which everybody, however, already knows. That there is no aristocracy any longer in Germany that in its entirety is still capable of representing a clear ideal. The aristocracy is dead because it has killed itself. We stand before a sad remnant, before a burial mound that has been raised up with effort but without jewels, and unlamented, to which one has given the impressive name ‘German aristocratic society’.

And there was once a time when all the names had a strong resonance and an inner significance, when all the families had a calling in the nation, all the names and all the families  as they are neatly recorded today in peerage lists and Gotha pocketbooks[4] as though for museum purposes. There was a time when the German aristocracy was a living fact, when there was bound with the aristocratic name a sacred responsibility towards the people, when the German aristocracy was the bearer of a quite definite worldview, an idealistic worldview in which one’s own advantage could have no meaning compared to the duty to serve to the utmost the people, the country, the state and its representatives. Then the aristocrat stood naturally at the very front, as a spearhead, for the affairs of his people, ready to give up and sacrifice not only his life but also his possessions, if that might help. Everywhere in the Empire they were based in their residences and castles like the conscience of the people, watchmen and preachers, but always fighters for the existence of the Holy Roman Empire,  each alone for himself, bound to one another only through the common goal – and one who did not acknowledge this goal through fighting and sacrificing and made it his own was considered a traitor, an apostate. Germany owes its life to this aristocracy.

But if Germany had depended on the present-day aristocracy it would have died along with it. The aristocrats still dwell everywhere in the Reich in their residences and castles, but it is only due to the people that they are recognised as their conscience. They no longer watch over or preach and, if they fight, then it is in defence of their property or their vanity. Every aristocrat no longer stands by himself, today they are organised, but their organisation lacks any goal that rises beyond their selfish aims.  Anyone of them that acknowledges  the goal of his nation in fighting and sacrificing and internalises this is today a traitor, a renegade.

This all of us who, members of the German aristocracy based on our origin, were able to be incorporated into the National Socialist movement during the battle period must have experienced in a personal way to a sufficient degree. One should not today expunge the fact that we took up the fight in the movement under the express disapproval of our so-called peers, that we were fought and laughed at. If we felt it as obvious to fight when our nation is in the process of fighting for its life — perhaps because we were conscious of the responsibility and the duties transmitted to us from ancient times by our name, that is, because we belonged to the German aristocracy — the opinion of our aristocratic colleagues was the opposite, namely, that we became National Socialists in spite of belonging to the aristocracy. We were, considered from the intellectual viewpoint of the German aristocratic society, actually the traitors, the renegades, and would have been condemnable if we had not been granted extenuating circumstances on account of our idiocy. Besides, it was not in good taste. Politically one had to be a German nationalist, but that one was not a monarchist was an absurd thought. For the further pursuits of the really energetic there was available, besides, the Gentlemen’s Club and, for the others, country riding clubs and — one may perhaps add — leadership positions in the Stahlhelm.[5]

To express it briefly: the German aristocracy disgraced itself to death. It pathetically missed the last chance to prove its raison d’être. Here too exceptions confirm the rule. The question is hard and clear which the people today pose to you: Where were you aristocratic gentlemen when Germany perished? What did you do when the adversity became ever more unbearable? Where did you fight and what did you sacrifice? You thought of yourselves and how you could save yourselves! You thought of yourself and the welfare of your family and perhaps regretted the misery of the people, perhaps even found it depressing, but did nothing! Did nothing! And you dare to raise a claim even today to leadership?

The people have known you for long. I shall never be able to forget with what suspicion I was accepted into the National Socialist movement and in the SA on account of my name. With what mistrust the workers stood against me at first because they attributed to such a person everything bad rather than an honest National Socialist disposition. Remarkable how this mistrust, this suspicion accorded with the attitude of the aristocratic society members! National Socialist even though one is aristocratic. This contradiction signifies the self-esteem of the aristocracy and at the same time indicates its estimation among the people. Exclusivity, which arose from the obscurantism that was inclined to rest comfortably on the laurels of one’s ancestors and to skim off the cream of history as a traditionally born leader, the self-willed isolation, detached the aristocracy from the people and killed its instinct. The result: a great yesterday, a petty today and no tomorrow at all.

The people have become mature. The leaders and saviours have emerged from the people. Adolf Hitler arose from the soul of the people. You, aristocratic gentlemen, may bristle because that insults your vanity, because each of you in your opinion must be the leader, you might agitate and stir up trouble, as you still do today, but the aristocracy is dead, because you have killed it by your behaviour, your attitude, your selfishness. Besides, your inveighing too will cease. The aristocracy is dead and already there arises from the people a new aristocracy filled with the sacred duty of building up Germany. New names have once again a strong resonance and inner significance. A new elite has a new calling among the people. A new aristocracy rises again as the bearers of the idealistic worldview in which one’s own advantage cannot mean anything compared to the duty to serve the people, the country, the state and its representatives to the utmost. One who stands at the very front is the aristocrat!

The aristocracy is dead, long live the aristocracy!  We thank our Führer that, when the old failed, he gave and trained for the people his new aristocracy, for which it is no longer a matter of names and external appearances but which simply exists and fights.

*   *   *

Dr. Achim von Arnim [1881–1940],
Professor of Military Science, Technical University of Berlin,
SA Oberführer[6]

The German aristocracy belongs to Adolf Hitler

One can grow to be a National Socialist, but the disposition must indeed be inborn. Forms that are once internally imprinted begin to develop no matter how hard one tries to disperse them. As the son of a Prussian officer and a mother from Alsace, a certain dichotomy of temperament was allotted to me. Along with Prussian sobriety I possess enough imaginativeness and sprightliness to have a quick sympathetic understanding of new things.

My parents lived in various garrisons of the Imperial Guard and, like every officer’s son, I attended the high school. It was the nineties of the last century, in which the memory of the victorious wars of 1866[7] and 1870/1[8] was still alive. It seems to me that the German nation was brought too quickly to life through the success of Bismarckian politics. Wealth and splendour had fallen suddenly into the lap of our people, who had hitherto been modest and sober.  It thereby lost its spiritual equanimity.  The German, distinguished by his depth and his rich world of feeling, developed in the last 20 years of the century into a man of rational understanding and a materialist. The school offered no counterpoise. The teachers were not aware that they had to  conserve in the best sense the  tradition of German Humanism and the idealistic tendency of German Classicism. Of course there were among them men rich in ideas and pedagogically skilled, whose instruction I still remember with gladness.

In general, however, a  too copious information was transmitted to us and, specifically, without any political influence. I can especially not forget that, during my schooldays, no explanation of the political development of our nation was given to us. We learnt nothing about social and economic development, nothing  about the significance of the battles that began with the French Revolution, of the opposition to Liberalism at the beginning of the  previous century, of the dissemination of the mercantile spirit and of capitalism. To be sure, one occasionally heard frightful things about the  Social Democrats[9] — at the elections one was frightened by the increasing percentages of their mandate. I went to school for many years in Spandau, there there was a strong population of workers with whom  there was no connection at all. We high school students met only with our peers, and I always had the feeling that the boys of the  public school were  particularly rough  and uncouth.

But a slightly better insight was then given by my entry into the army.  In just a few months — and that is too short a time,  the prospective cadet was, when he left school,  consigned to the squads. I served in the First Regiment of the Imperial Guard and this had the best reserve troop from all of Prussia, tall blond men from the healthiest families of our nation. I had imagined the time in the ‘barrack room’ as something very unpleasant, as being  in the company of a number of coarse, immature and boorish fellows and still remember my surprise that this image did not correspond at all to the reality.  On the contrary, the  young soldiers with whom one lived  — 20 in a room — were actually, in their  moral constitution and habits, cleaner and more modest than the higher society with which I later socialised. It was also not difficult to find the right tone in communication, one just could not act like something better — and indeed one was not, for, as a scholar, one was not so familiar with the practical matters of life as the young soldiers. I then had similar good experiences as a young corporal. This first period as a soldier, which lasted only a short time, was a period of learning, perhaps not for the prospective officer but for the growing man. Nowadays, the young men, and even the women, come into contact more often, through the German Youth,[10] the  German Girls’ League,[11] the Hitler Youth and  community service, with all strata of the  working people. Thereby they develop a stable judgement and learn to have the necessary consideration in dealings with  men of different backgrounds.

The pre-war officer corps, which I entered a year and a half later, did not at all correspond to the caricature that was made of it at that time in the Liberal satirical papers and in the bourgeois world. There was alive, especially still in the older generations, the  sincerity and  loyalty of the  older generation that had fought the wars for unification. Fastidiousness in service, conscientiousness,  the  consciousness that one had to set an example through personal commitment, the feeling of responsibility for subordinates and even one of the necessity of a comradely relationship with them was totally alive.

But I became aware early of one thing, that this officer corps, not only in my regiment but everywhere else, represented an exceptional class that was, to a certain extent, separated by a glass wall from the life, activity and  feeling of the rest of the nation.  In it there lived on a portion of the eighteenth century. The officer was obligated to the warlord and felt himself bound only to him,  and, because reverence for the monarchy and devotion to its sustenance was his political morality, the officer believed that he did not need to worry about other political questions. It was the time when Germany stood at its absolute peak economically.  Everywhere great fortunes arose. One did not  know of any unemployment.  Every worker could hope that he could, through  his own industriousness and  economising, conduct his children to a higher profession. There existed therefore the total possibility that the upper strata would continually supplement itself from the people.

In reality, however, that took place only to a small degree. The institution of the ‘one-year service’[12] formed an absolute class border.  One who had taken this test — he did not even have to have served for a year —  belonged to the cultivated and higher strata, everybody else was a subaltern and belonged to the people. If we look back retrospectively at this period with Liberal eyes, we must ask ourselves how it was possible that Social Democracy rose so powerfully in a period  when everybody had a good income. From a materialistic standpoint there is no answer to that. But from the idealistic standpoint, it is a  question of the longing of a great part of our people who had reached adulthood in the course of the century for a national community, for a spiritual rapprochement with the so-called higher strata. Not all of us overlooked the role of the Jews in that period. But one who spoke of a Jewish danger was laughed at as a fantasist. If as a young man I had been invited to become a Freemason I would have accepted the invitation in the belief that one may find a rich spiritual life in this order. But this spiritual  life and this  understanding were lacking precisely in those classes with whom we officers socialised. The bureaucrats, owners of large landed properties and other highly placed persons with whom we socialised were duty-conscious and industrious but matter-of-fact men careful of their careers.  Only seldom did one find intellectually open-minded and  artistically inspired personalities.  The attitude to the  people was benevolent but derived from a feeling of  an obvious inborn social superiority. Manual work was considered as inferior compared to intellectual work, which we supposedly performed.

We would have been able to obtain stronger impressions  of the life and feeling of the people if there had existed the possibility of being instructed on worldview, political and social questions.  But who would give this instruction?  We officers were considered educators of the youth entrusted to us and doubtless did our best. Indeed, in the education for the soldier’s profession and war, performance was at an optimum. But the worldview education which we had to impart through our instruction had to be a failure because we ourselves lacked the necessary knowledge. It was indeed so, as the Führer said: before the period of service nobody cared about the young man, and after his service period neither.  One knew hardly anything about the Marxist organisations and the trade unions.  Their intensive propaganda work was hidden from us.

Then there came the war and very close contact with all strata of the population on the front in cohabitation, for weeks, in damp trenches and in basic accommodation. I definitely believe that not only I but all the older officers of the front felt that we had a close sense of bonding with comrades of all service grades and that in moments of danger it did not matter if one wore the epaulets of an officer or a corporal’s cross or a lance-corporal’s button. To all those who felt in this way the Revolution,[13] with the sudden revolt of the soldiers against the officers, was then a bitter disappointment. One recognised soon that it was not the good elements of our squad that became mutineers and deserters but young elements that had been poisoned in their hometowns and were inexperienced, who had to suffer the bitter deprivations of the wartime in the last years and had perceived the affliction in their homeland. With no defenses, they were exposed to the influence of Red propaganda. The revolution period separated the men. The major part of the officer corps and the members of the former higher classes were starkly against the revolution and its manifestations. These men saw only the ugly external images and wished to hide from the knowledge that here a people who had been misguided strove for a better social status through a semi-conscious longing. They should not at that time have separated themselves in this way from the people but followed the path that Adolf Hitler did, attempting from the start to give the people what it strove for and to combat what was pernicious.

While most of the officers, also demoralised, had to take up the difficult battle for survival and persevered in their rejection of the social questions, I remained for a while vacillating and searching. Finally ,thrown in the country, I found myself one day, in 1925, a District Leader of the Stahlhelm. One had heard something of Adolf Hitler and his movement in Munich only through the Putsch. It is astonishing and hardly believable today how little one knew, here in the country in the east, of the National Socialists. I saw my duty as saving the small town workers, and especially the rural workers, in my district, filled with estates and small cities, from Marxism. These were strata of the population into which the Red organisation had not yet penetrated fully. The Stahlhelm had inscribed on its shield the spirit of the soldiers of the front, that is, the community of the comrades in the trenches. With lorries and bands we drove through the country, held speeches in every village — whereby there was also a ‘beer movement’ — and founded everywhere local groups of the Stahlhelm. Even the landowners and — what was not always very easy — the agricultural bureaucrats were won over to our ideas and, in this way, we succeeded in the beginning in achieving something that was of course not even closely as well-thought out, but similarly felt, as what Adolf Hitler strove for.

If later, after a seven-year activity as Stahlhelm leader, I turned my back on the organisation, I must give the reasons for that without wishing to hurt the former comrades of the Stahlhelm who had been won over to our cause. There had entered a certain torpidity in my feelings on account of the faltering politics of the federal leadership, which had to wriggle through with difficulty between a more conservative and military orientation and a social orientation, and, in the meantime, National Socialism had arisen among us. In all villages and small towns there were Brown departments, and the Stahlhelm people were the proof that these were really more active, that, in neighbouring Berlin, hard battles for rule were fought in the Red quarters, that a strong atmosphere of intellectual tension emanated from the Hitler movement and that a good and clearly orientated press helped the movement to move forward. The Stahlhelm found itself at a dead end since it did not want to fight in a parliamentary way and did not have the power to rise to power with arms. Finally the social question also seemed to me to fade somewhat. The workers won over by me and bound to me for a long time expressed many doubts about the goals of the Stahlhelm. They seemed to them as if they were all about a movement in favour of the old ruling classes.

So finally there was a certain discord because I freely acknowledged my view which favoured National Socialism, and that led to my exit from the organisation, which made some sensation at that time, when the SA was prohibited. There followed a period of bitter hostilities on the part of former friends and comrades. But I can only say that I have not regretted my step one day and have seen during my career in the SA so much that was elevating and invigorating that it seems to me a good fortune to be able to continue to experience the present times. If the Prussian aristocracy for the most part showed at first little understanding of the way that I took that must be explained by its strong adherence to the Prussian tradition. The feeling of rulership cultivated through the generations, especially of the rural aristocracy, perhaps made it difficult to find a way to our people the way we in the SA did. But I think that the conviction must seize some earlier, others later, but hopefully all one day, that another way than the one that our Führer has taken is not passable for our German people. If we wish to come through victoriously in the tremendous fight for survival that we must still undertake in order to sustain our nation, given our unfortunate international situation and our unequal mixture of races, it will happen only if all the strata of our sorely tested people march together with complete trust, and that is possible only in National Socialism.

Berlin, 15 January ,1934.

*   *   *

Count Wolf-Heinrich von Helldorf [1896–1944]
Police Commissioner of Potsdam
Gruppenführer[14]

The Aristocracy and National Socialism

The entire public and private life in Germany today is influenced in a decisive manner by National Socialism. Everything that was ready and willing to cooperate in the building up of the nation is gathered under the sign of the swastika. We have to regretfully acknowledge that the bearers of old aristocratic names are involved to an extremely small degree in authoritative positions in this work of construction within the movement and in the state. This fact is especially surprising considering that the NSDAP has declared not once but many times that it would reach out its hand for the purpose of cooperative work to anybody who would place himself at its disposal unconditionally. The reasons that led to this superior aloofness of the aristocracy should be investigated here, and I think that we will reach a conclusion most easily if we review once again the political development in our nation during and after the war and, in this way, examine the attitude of the aristocracy to the National Socialist idea.

The ruling and state-governing classes in the Bismarckian empire were the officer and bureaucratic classes. Aristocratic officers and bureaucrats stood here in a preferred and leading position. When Germany decided in 1914 on the fateful four-year long armed conflict and the Prussian German army marched in the glow of its centuries-old military culture to the defence of the homeland and carried the war to hostile countries, the Prussian German aristocracy, following the old tradition, occupied a leading position within this national army. This army fought and won in the battlefields of the whole world and, at its head, fought and bled the German aristocracy. Once again, before the great collapse of the monarchy and the aristocracy, those fit for military service from the aristocratic families were conscious of their proudest privilege sanctified by tradition: they died a heroic death in a natural fulfilment of duty.

If, later, people repeatedly and rightly pointed to the total inaction of individual families and members of the German aristocracy, one must, on the other hand, rightly acknowledge and ascertain that no class in Germany took part in this four-year long conflict with such an enormous sacrifice of blood and death as the aristocracy and declare that the best of us have fallen.

In the political leadership of the German nation in the pre-war and war years the aristocracy did not live up to its duties. The aristocracy and the people no longer understood each other. The aristocracy no longer spoke the language of the people and thus it failed, detached and separated from the people, both in internal and in external politics. In the foreign policy of that time, which was especially strongly influenced by the aristocracy and unfortunately also by Jewry, there was no politician or statesman who rose even a little above the average level. After the enormous blood sacrifice of the international conflict, the aristocracy seemed to have exhausted its last strength, which had been kindled in its old families even during the war. Only a few of us confronted the mutineers of 1918 vigorously. The throne and altar were abandoned, the Kaiser empire crumbled, and with it the aristocracy.

The history of the revolution is at the same time the history of the collapse and disintegration of the German aristocracy. The heroes of yesterday, the pillars of support of throne and altar, soon became spineless servants of a state that could be created only after the strongest supports of this state had bowed down before traitors and mutineers. When the red flags of the revolt fluttered and the mobs raged in the streets, they of course complained and protested but they forgot to fight, and found the required justifications for everything that they did and were not sparing in declarations dripping with patriotism. The majority of the aristocracy accepted the situation as it was. The majority of the aristocracy came to terms with the Weimar Republic. For the majority of the aristocracy and especially for the older generation it was still only a matter of a lesser evil that one had to put up with, in order not to lose everything. On major patriotic festival days the uniforms of the old regiment were brought out now and then to keep up tradition, one gave pleasant speeches at war associations and expressed the hope that God would indeed grant us better times once again. None of us wanted battle itself. Indeed it was much more convenient to be promised peace and order from the Weimar Republic and, for that reason, to change one’s attitude a little. It is worth mentioning that, in this period, Jewish families with and without noble surnames played the principal role in the aristocracy. Everything pressed round the golden calf and one was able to note, for example, with trembling fear, in Berlin society in the years 1924–1925, that degenerate aristocrats were tolerated guests in rich Jewish families, that all the so-called good houses were open to a notorious criminal like, for example, the Jewish state secretary Weismann.[15] In general, one who disseminated propaganda for the ‘Realpolitik’ of the ‘statesman’ Gustav Stresemann,[16] eulogising with many fine speeches in cities and the state, was valued as a specially intelligent aristocratic comrade. One put up with everything, even the worst phenomena of the time, and even the German aristocratic association, as a socio-economic organisation of the aristocracy, was in no way directive but satisfied itself merely with transferring external forms of the past to the republican present.

The aristocracy organised itself after 1918 chiefly in the German National People’s Party[17] and the Stahlhelm and, in the battle years, both groups virtuously did everything that was in their power to make life bitter for us few National Socialists from the aristocracy and to mock and denigrate us and our battle for the German nation. The first great election assembly will always remain in my mind in which I was to appear in Halle for the first time in my life, in 1924, as a speaker for the National Socialist Freedom Party. In front of an overflowing assembly that absorbed with enthusiasm the programmatic representation of the National Socialist battle goals there spoke, after me, as a respondent, the party secretary of the German National People’s Party, and also the Stahlhelm leader in Halle, Senior Lieutenant Düsterberg,[18] and a war-blinded Communist. While the performances of the latter were completely moderate, Mr. Düsterberg, who, as is well-known, is Jewish, used the opportunity to oppose the young freedom movement in the harshest way.  Even at that time I was amazed by the blind hatred that filled this man but did not know that the formerly active officer of the military staff was Jewish.

Therewith I come to the saddest chapter in the history of the German aristocracy of the present. We stand before the shocking fact that that part of the population that, according to blood, race and a centuries-long tradition, was called and, as we believe, is still called to present to its people statesmen and soldierly fighters in the great freedom fight that the National Socialist movement had conducted for 14 years stood aside without any understanding of the great changes that had occurred in the German national soul, retreated into a completely misunderstood aristocracy and, often not without justification, invited upon itself the hatred and the contempt of large masses of the people.

The aristocracy took part only to an extremely small degree in the powerful battle within the country under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. It must indeed be said clearly that the aristocracy, and especially the post-war generation, succumbed frightfully quickly to the influences of liberalism and democracy. The smaller part of it encapsulated itself in the seclusion of conservative or nationalist clubs and in professional associations conducted in a parliamentary political manner. The German national Stahlhelm leaders in the aristocracy laughed at us ‘reckless and immature young people’ when we stated clearly in public that we love our German people and hate its enemies. They thought it was not ‘chic’ to get into close discussions in national assemblies with KPD[19] and Reichsbanner[20] people. If we fought in national assemblies and in the street with fellow Germans filled with hatred they spoke of us as hooligan elements that had unfortunately not learnt to behave according to their ‘class’.

Even if one accepts and understands — for the reasons that I have presented at the beginning of this essay  — that the aristocracy in 1918 did not oppose any decisive resistance to Ebert,[21] Scheidemann[22] and Noske[23] with their mutineering hordes, the meagre participation of the aristocracy in the political battle of Adolf Hitler will always remain incomprehensible. It cannot be explained or excused by anything that a class that presented to the people through the centuries leaders, and not the worst, refused adherence to the man who set about, after the collapse of the old leadership in Germany, to educate new young leaders, who however demanded even from these young leaders that they had to prove their suitability and set for each of us strong endurance tests before the title ‘leader’ was granted to us.

After the aristocracy had been unable through its own strength to change the fate of its people, we must, in retrospect, regretfully state that, even in the last part of the development of German history, which stood under the sign of victorious National Socialism, it did not understand to put a stop to its inner disintegration and cooperate in the new formation of affairs with all its forces. This failure of a valuable and, insofar as it is a question of the landed aristocracy, racially superior and healthy section of the population, is so much more regretful in that the National Socialist movement built and conducted on aristocratic principles had to correspond completely to the inner constitution of the aristocracy. Just as among the ancient Germans the best person in terms of family, clan and tribe was the heir-apparent and became the leader, so also in the National Socialist movement the best person in terms of performance and blood is the leader. People may say of the aristocracy that it is in the process of committing serious mistakes that can never be remedied, both to itself and to coming generations. There is no doubt there is forming in National Socialism a new ruling class of the German nation.  If the aristocracy stands aside from this great aristocratic national movement, destiny will pass over it and then it would be better if it decided to discard its aristocratic titles which have becomes worthless.

The aristocracy stands at the turning point of its history. It is up to it to demonstrate, through its conduct in relation to National Socialism, that race and blood can overcome darkness and class conflict. If the aristocratic principle of the NSDAP according to which only one who fulfills special duties may claim special rights for himself penetrates the aristocracy of today, and if the aristocracy incorporates itself wholly and unconditionally in the great national community of Adolf Hitler, then the possibility will be offered to it even today of recovering its position in the German nation which has been strongly shaken by the events of the last 14 years. And then the proudest privilege of the aristocracy will remain that of offering its sons to the fatherland.

[1] Stephan Malinowski, Vom König zum Führer. Sozialer Niedergang und politische Radikalisierung im deutschen Adel zwischen Kaiserreich und NS-Staat, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003.

[2] See, for example, Elke Fröhlich, Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, I, iii, p.470.

[3] The rank of an SS Standartenführer was equivalent to that of a colonel.

[4] The Almanach de Gotha was a standard directory of European nobility published from 1763 to 1944.

[5] The Stahlhelm was a league of ex-servicemen of the First World War that acted as a paramilitary force of the monarchist German National People’s Party (DNVP) from 1918 to 1935.

[6] A rank between colonel and brigadier-general.

[7] The Austro-Prussian war fought between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia.

[8] The Franco-Prussian war fought between the French Second Empire and the North German Confederation led by Prussia.

[9] The Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) was established in 1863 and Friedrich Ebert of the SPD became the first president of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933).

[10] The ‘Deutsches Jungvolk’ was the junior division of the ‘Hitler Jugend’, for boys aged 10 to 14.

[11] The ‘Bund Deutscher Mädel’ was the female youth organisation of the National Socialist party.

[12] A reference to the ‘Einjährig-Freiwillger’ volunteers of the Prussian army who, after a year’s service as volunteers, were made reserve officers.

[13] The German Revolution, or November Revolution, of 1918 was a mutiny of German sailors in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel that led to prolonged civil unrest in Germany that ended with the establishment of the parliamentary constitution of the Weimar Republic in August 1919.

[14] Section Commander.

[15] Robert Weismann (1869-1942) was state secretary for Prussia during the Weimar Republic.

[16] Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929) was a politician of the Weimar Republic who served as Foreign Minister and, briefly, Chancellor.

[17] The Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP) was a nationalist and monarchist conservative party of the Weimar period which rejected the Weimar Constitution and the Treaty of Versailles.

[18] Theodor Duesterberg (1875-1950) was a staunchly anti-Semitic leader of the Stahlhelm who was discovered in 1932 to have partly Jewish ancestry. He consequently resigned from the Stahlhelm in 1933.

[19] The Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, founded by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, was a major political party of the Weimar Republic. It was banned in West Germany in 1956.

[20] The Reichsbanner was an organisation of the Weimar Republic devoted to upholding parliamentary democracy in Germany.

[21] Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) was a member of the SPD and first president of the Weimar Republic.

[22] Philipp Scheidemann (1865-1939) was a member of the SPD who served as Chancellor of the Weimar Republic between February and June 1919.

[23] Gustav Noske (1868-1946), of the SPD, was Minister of Defence of the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1920.

Kevin MacDonald: Is The Family Cut-Off From Kinship The Basis of Western Individualism as well as Liberalism? Chapter 4 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition4

/17 Comments/in /by

Have you spent countless hours searching for the origins of individualism in the philosophical treatises of the Western Canon? Reading Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition may make you think this was wasted time: the origins of individualism lie in the pedestrian world of family life. Individualism is not an idea, a concept, or a philosophical insight, but, as explained in Part 3 of my extended review of MacDonald’s book, its essence lies in “the cutting off” of the Western family “from the wider kinship group”. And this cutting off was started by illiterate northern European hunter gatherers during the last glacial age in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. In chapter four, the subject of this article, MacDonald continues his analysis of the “familial basis of European individualism” in response to those who argue that this family was a by-product of individual family ownership in the Middle Ages.

In what follows I will bring out the salient features of MacDonald’s argument, how incredibly different was the Western family, while raising questions about the degree to which we can reduce the essence of Western individualism to family patterns. I will use MacDonald’s argument that Sweden stands as the most extreme case of the Western individualist family to suggest that there are other key principles of individualism which are actually absent in current Sweden. A key principle of the liberal ideal is the realization of the variety of individual personalities, along with institutions that encourage such variety, unpopular opinions and the freedom to advocate them openly without reprisals. By this criteria, it is hard to identify Sweden as a liberal nation notwithstanding its individualist family patterns.

Individualistic Families in the Middle Ages

There has long been “a consensus among historians of the family that the family structure of northwest Europe is unique.” The consensus is no longer, as MacDonald notes, that this family was a by-product of modern capitalism; it is that Europe’s peculiar family patterns were already observable in medieval times. We have seen in Part 3 of my analysis of MacDonald’s book that he goes “back to prehistory” to  explain the primordial “evolutionary/biological” basis of this family. In chapter four, which we are currently examining, he attempts to refute the consensus argument that the Western individualist family sprang out of the manorial system of northwest Europe where land ownership was centered on singular family holdings rather than on kinship groups.

Without getting into MacDonald’s careful argument against the manorial thesis, his counter-argument is that “there were already strong tendencies toward individualism” among north-western hunter-gatherer-derived Europeans and Indo-European-derived cultures. Since there is no direct evidence of genetic selection in prehistoric times of these family patterns, MacDonald accentuates instead how the genetic findings he adumbrated in chapters one to three (regarding strong individualist tendencies among northwest hunter-gatherer Europeans and Indo-Europeans) parallel the well attested existence in Europe of “extreme individualist” families in the northwest, “moderate individualist” families in north-central Europe, and “moderate collectivist” families in the south where more collectivist Anatolian farmers settled.
In other words, the areas in Europe with “extreme individualist” families tend to be the ones that came under the heavy influence of the “egalitarian individualism” of northwest hunter-gatherers (Scandinavia). The ones with “moderate individualism” tend to be the ones heavily influenced by the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans, along with some Nordic egalitarianism influences, namely, France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland. The ones with “moderate collectivism,” where kinship ties remained relatively strong in family patterns, tend to be the ones heavily influenced by collectivist Anatolian farmers, namely Italy, Greece, and Spain, though MacDonald observes a moderate collectivism in eastern Europe and Russia as well.
The protypical “extreme individualist” family is characterized by seven key characteristics:
  • monogamous marriages
  • marriages at a relatively older age than the married teenage girls we see in non-western world
  • similar age of husbands and wives
  • a relatively high proportion of unmarried individuals (women in particular)
  • household settlement independently of parents and extended families
  • rather than marrying a close kin or cousin, exogamy prevailed
  • marriage based on individual choice and romance rather than arranged
While I was aware of the consensus literature contrasting Western and Eastern family patterns, MacDonald’s thesis goes well beyond in its evolutionary/biological perspective and its persistent focus on how this family was cut off from extended family kinship networks, and how this separation is the foundational basis of Western individualism. Individualism is not a theory but a deeply seated behavioral inclination among Whites. This counters the naive conservative supposition that individualism can be exported to the rest of the world and assimilated by cousin-marrying Muslims in Europe.

Because MacDonald presses this incredible contrast between Western and non-Western family patterns, he sometimes uses expressions which may give the misleading impression that, for him, the Western family was “cut-off” altogether from kinship networks. But his point is that there were substantial differences in degree of kinship connections, and that these differences existed within Europe as well. It is not a matter of absence or presence of kinship networks. This becomes clearer in the next chapter, as we will see, when he acknowledges in full the additional, and indispensable, “cultural” role of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in breaking down to a higher degree extended kinship networks and thus reinforcing the individualist tendencies already present.

It may come as a surprise, and it is a big contrast between the West and the Rest, that the choosing of marriage partners in the West, more so than elsewhere, was based on “warmth and affection, and physical appearance”. “Close relationships based on affection and love…became universally seen [by the 18th century] as the appropriate basis for monogamous marriage in all social classes” including the aristocracy. I am sure there is a strong correlation between these family patterns and the fact that Europeans were responsible for the best romance novels ever written. Only in the West do we find such novels as Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, E.M. Forster’s A Room with a View, Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Marguerite Duval’s The Lover, D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther.

Is Contemporary Sweden “Individualist” and “Liberal”?

Who is more individualistic and liberal, the feminist or the nationalist?
In a closing section, “State-Supported Extreme Individualism in Scandinavia”, MacDonald addresses the paradoxical convergence in Sweden of a socialist state “supporting egalitarianism…as necessary precisely for achieving individualist autonomy”. It would misleading, he observes, to describe Sweden as a communitarian culture since the function of its socialist state is “precisely” intended to afford greater equality of opportunity to the greatest number of individuals by giving them access to health, education, high wages, and good jobs. Nordic societies generally score very high in “emancipatory self-expression” because the socialist state has afforded the greatest number of individuals the economic wherewithal for self-creation, the ability to develop educationally and physically. Likewise the state has solidified the ability of Swedes to have the most individualistic family patterns by freeing parents from child rearing tasks — not by  discouraging high investment on children, but by helping families with child care and thereby giving couples more time to express themselves creatively as individuals rather than being burdened too many hours with mothering roles.
This freeing of Swedes from all the remaining collective components of the family has indeed entailed a questioning of the notion that there are “fathers” and “mothers”. Families are “voluntary associations” or contracts between private individuals that may come in multiple forms. There are no deep biological differences between boys and girls. Swedes are “free” to decide which gender (among a growing number of possibilities) they prefer to be identified with, rather than being boxed, as feminists like to say, into a “male-female binary.” MacDonald does not get too much into the downside of individualism at this point in his book other than to mention Sweden’s high levels of divorce, lack of filial attachments, sexual promiscuity and drugs — alongside a political culture that discourages any strong attachment to Sweden’s ethnic identity.
As insightful as MacDonald’s emphasis on family patterns is to our understanding of the nature and dynamics of Western individualism, I wonder whether he is pushing too far the argument that Sweden today is “on the extreme end of individualism” based primarily on the criteria that this nation has exhibited, and continues to exhibit, “the most individualist family patterns in all of Europe”. I wonder whether Sweden can be classified as an individualist society given the extremely conformist culture it has engendered. We call Nordics “radical liberals” but they are not liberals anymore, since very little independent thinking and dissent is permitted against politically correct values enforced by the state without dialogue.

It is not as if MacDonald does not recognize the presence of moral communities which regulate the beliefs of its members and limit dissent in the West. As we will see later, this is a key component of MacDonald’s thesis: the very same cultures that minimized in-group kinship ties engendered powerful moral communities to sustain their individual egalitarian behaviors in opprobrium to individuals who did not play by these rules. But if we agree that there is more to liberalism than individualistic families, and that allowing for the realization of the variety of individual personalities and freedom of expression are essential traits, it may be a stretch to call Western societies today, the same ones that prohibit any criticism of diversity, liberal. Expression of one’s inner potentialities and highest talents, in competition with others and against pre-reflective norms, is central to the liberal ideal of freedom.

Although some socialistic measures such as equality of opportunity are consistent with liberal thinking, the egalitarian ideal is not. The fundamental drawback of socialism is that it opposes human variety and divisions, the reality of human conflict and disagreement. Socialism seeks harmonious, well-satisfied citizens well-attended by a nanny state within an ordered whole in a state of happy coexistence. But a cardinal principle of Western liberal thought has been that variety, the right to think for yourself, and to strive in a state of competition with others, is good, for it awakens human talents, allows for individual creativity, and discourages indolence and passivity. Sweden however is striving for egalitarian conformity and uniformity of thought.

While equality before the law, equality of individual rights, including the socialization of education and health care, is consistent with liberal thinking, there is an internal logic within the egalitarian ideal that runs against individualism. The end of egalitarianism is to make all individuals as alike as possible in their attainments, their thoughts, and their standing in society. As John Stuart Mill said, the chief goal of a free society should be the expansion of the expression of individuality, which requires competition of ideas, liberty of opinion, a free press, right of free assembly — the very same traits that are being denied in Sweden and the West at large. Just because we are witnessing in the West indulgent self-expression, disdain for marriage, narcissistic behaviors, breakdown of family patterns for the sake of personal greed and narcissism, it does not mean that Sweden has not become an authoritarian state that is anti-liberal and anti-individualistic.

The West may well be in the worst of all possible worlds, a very weak ethnic identity, breakdown of family relations, confused gender identities, regulated by a nanny state with everyone behaving increasingly alike in their conformity to diversity and lack of individual daring and originality against PC controls.

A Muslim Politician Thinks There Are Too Many Scots in Scotland

/23 Comments/in /by

One of the most famous lines from Robbie Burns, Scotland’s greatest poet in the (kind of) English language goes thus: “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as ithers see us!” Or,  “Oh would some Power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.”  Well Scotland had this wish granted by one Humza Yousaf, the SNP’s spokesman on Justice. And he’s not happy with his adopted land despite – cue toe-curling embarrassment – occasionally decking himself out in a kilt or a Glasgow Celtic shirt. In a recent speech to Parliament he went through a list of Scotland’s most powerful personages and after each one venomously spat out the word ‘White!’.  He ended the tirade by directly addressing the people who elected him “As people of colour, we don’t need your gestures. Don’t just tweet Black Lives Matter. Don’t just post a hashtag. Don’t just take the knee. Don’t just tell us how you’re not a racist – I take that as a bare minimum. You must be anti-racist.”  So now you know.

Mind you he’s doing ok despite that. He’s been a Minister or spokesman for the SNP since he was in his mid-twenties despite his time as an apprentice mechanic being the highlight of his career up to then. But Scotland must do more. He sees his appointed roles as providing a platform to berate his unappreciative hosts. Mastering his brief straggles far behind. This from the Express: “NICOLA Sturgeon’s collapsing government is facing yet another shambles as calls are made for one of her closest aides to be sacked. ‘Humza Yousaf, the prolific twitter using Transport Minister, recently admitted he knew nothing about his brief as he tried to defend the Scottish Government’s failures.’ He had more urgent things in mind. Like tweeting “To our shame [don’t you just love the ‘our’] there are no Black Members of the Scottish Parliament. There was no Black voice in today’s debate on anti-racism, so I wanted to make sure the last words in the debate were the last words uttered by George Floyd – never forget them.”

Maybe, just maybe, the proliferation of whites faces (or being Scotland, a fetching shade of grey) is due to the fact that the country is – allegedly – 96% White. It’s really rather simple.

Now if I were a rude person I’d encourage this ungrateful interloper to find a nice brown country to fuck off to. But I’m not a rude person. And there are no nice brown countries. Take the Indian sub-continent whence Yousef and Ireland’s erstwhile PM Varadker (who also thinks there are too many Irish in Ireland) emerged. Here you have more than a billion people shitting on the ground, turds everywhere you step, rivers filled with raw sewage interspersed with bathing humans, millions dying of starvation and disease every year, dead bodies floating in rivers while mangy dogs feast on corpses.
So here’s a thought guys. Maybe your (well-hidden) talents would have greater opportunity to flourish back home given these conditions?
A couple of final observations. The acronym SNP stands for Scottish National Party. You know, the one that wants independence for Scotland, no more of these damn foreigners telling them how to run things. And they parachute this guy into a top position. Same with Ireland’s Sinn Fein Party — aka as the IRA’s political wing. Sinn Fein means ‘ourselves only’ in English. Yet their enthusiasm to get Brits out is exceeded only by a corresponding enthusiasm to flood Ireland with unlimited hordes of Third World parasites.
Reposted from The Irish Savant, with permission.

The Egalitarian Individualism of HG Nordic Europeans and the Origins of WEIRD Whites: Chapter 3 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

/14 Comments/in /by

The essence of liberalism is individualism, and the primordial evolutionary fact of individualism is the “the cutting off from the wider kinship group”, and the origins of this cutting off can be traced back to northern hunter gatherers in Europe during the last glacial age in the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods. This argument becomes transparent in chapter three of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, which is the subject of Part 3 of my analysis of this book. Here are Parts 1 and 2.

The furthest back historians have gone to explain the origins of Western liberal civilization is Ancient Greece. I traced the uniqueness of this civilization back to the prehistorical Indo-Europeans during the period between 4500 BC to 2500 BC. It makes sense for MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, to go back in time as early as possible to determine when Europeans may have been selected for those traits he considers to be crucial for the evolution of Western uniqueness. He argues that “egalitarian individualism” has been a crucial characteristic of the West along with the aristocratic individualism of Indo-Europeans, which “dovetailed significantly” with the egalitarianism of the H-Gs they “encountered in northwest Europe” from about 2500 BC.

MacDonald observes that, as members of the same Homo sapiens species, all humans have common biological adaptations, but they do “differ in degree in adaptations” depending on environments, and these differences can generate “major differences” between cultures. Under the “harsh evolutionary pressures of the Ice Age,”  there would have been more pressures to live in small groups and in relative social isolation, rather than to form “extended kinship networks and collectivist groups” competing in close proximity for resources. There were selective pressures for males to provision simple households or nuclear families characterized by monogamy, exogamy, and bilateral kinship, because the ecology and availability of resources could not have selected for large polygynous families. This was in contrast to Near Eastern regions with their long fertile rivers supporting “large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations”. The strategy pursuit by northern Europeans was quite successful, enabling them to develop complex hunting gathering cultures during the Mesolithic era for a long time, 15,000 to 5,000, delaying the advance of farming which was slowly spreading into central and north Europe after Anatolian farmers settled in various parts of southern Europe starting 8000ybp.

Mesolithic cultures in Europe did consist of larger bands of hunter-gatherers due to their more efficient exploitation of resources and improved stone age tools, but  lacking any “stable resource” that could be controlled by an extended lineage group, their residences remained seasonally occupied by relatively small families living in a state of egalitarian monogamy and without one extended family superimposing itself over the others by controlling fertile and stable land areas. In northern Europe, families “were periodically forced to split up into smaller, more family-based groups”. These smaller groups were forced to interact both with related families and with “non-kin and strangers” also moving around from season to season. These interactions were not regulated by kinship norms but instead led to emphasis on “trust and maintaining a good reputation within the larger non-kinship based  group”.

These evolutionary selected behaviors characterized by small families, exogamous and monogamous marriages, and relations based on trust with outsiders, were the primordial ground out of which Western individualism emerged.

In the Near East complex hunting gathering societies soon evolved into agrarian villages controlled by lineage groups in charge of stable resources. I would add, as Jared Diamond observed, that most of the animals and plants susceptible to domestication were found in the Near East, which encouraged or made it easier to develop farming villages with plentiful resources controlled by the stronger kinship groups. Whereas monogamy and exogamy persisted in the West, in the East the tendency was for marrying relatives, even first cousins.

The European practice of marrying outside the extended family meant that marriage was more likely “based on personal attraction”, which meant that there was selection for physical attractiveness, strength, health and personality, in contrast to the East where marriage was arranged within the extended family. Love and intimacy between wife and husband, including greater affection and nurturance of children, MacDonald observes, were a salient trait of Europeans. Whites invented romance, in contrast, for example, to Semitic marriages where marriages were intended to solidify kinship ties, arranged by elders, with love and romance having a far lesser role.

Joseph Henrich on WEIRD Europeans

In the last pages of this chapter, MacDonald shows in quick succession how his evolutionary perspective can effectively explain the origins of the WEIRD traits Joseph Henrich and his colleagues detected among Western individuals. I should explain a bit Henrich’s argument since MacDonald assumes prior knowledge. For Henrich, humans do not have the same cognitive apparatus, the Western mind is more analytic, it separates things from each other, it focuses on what makes objects different rather than seeing objects only in relation to what’s around it. We can’t talk about “the human mind” as such, “human nature” and “human psychology,” because the Western mind is structured differently and perceives reality differently, thinks differently about fairness, cooperation, and judges what is right and wrong differently.

Henrich does not express himself in these blunt terms, but for the sake of immediate clarity, his basic argument about WEIRD people is that they see themselves as individuals rather than as members of collective ingroups. Their individualism is the difference that underlies all the other differences. It is the difference that explains why WEIRD people are less attached to extended families, tribal units, religious groups and even nation states. Because WEIRD people judge others as individuals, they are willing to extend their trust to outsiders, to people from other ethnic backgrounds and nationalities. They are more inclined to be fair to outsiders, judging them on the basis of impersonal standards rather than standards that only serve the interests of their ingroup. WEIRD people are less conformist, more reliant on their own individual judgments and capacities, willing to reason about issues without following the prescribed norms and answers mandated from collective authorities. In the non-Western world, trust is circumscribed within one’s ingroup rather than extended to individuals from outgroups.

The key to the individualism of WEIRD people is their lack of kinship ties. The most important norms and institutions humans have developed to regulate their social behavior revolve around kin groups, which are networks of individuals connected by blood ties, extended families and clans. Humans are born into these kin groups; their survival, identity, status and obligations within society, as well as their sense of right and wrong, who and when they should marry, where they should live, who owns the land and how property should be inherited, are determined by the norms of the kin group.

Given the importance of kinship networks in determining whether people are “normal” or WEIRD, Henrich set out to find what factors may have led to the breakdown of kinship networks in the West. His conclusion was that the Catholic Church was responsible for the “demolition” of kinship networks and the rise of WEIRD people.

The Catholic Church, he says, promoted individualism through the prohibition of cousin marriages, polygyny by powerful males (which weakened kinship households consisting of closely related families) coupled with the Church’s promotion of monogamy and nuclear families. This encouraged the rise of many voluntary associations in the West outside kinship ties, guilds, universities, monasteries, chartered towns. This creating competition for members between voluntary associations combined with rising impersonal markets in which individuals interacted with strangers and learned how to trust each other in the conduct of business ventures.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the traits Henrich identifies as WEIRD have been highlighted by past sociologists and historians. Emile Durkheim, Herbert Spencer, Ferdinand Tönnies, along with “modernization theorists” in the 1950s and 1960s, all drew clear contrasts, in varying ways, between i) traditional communities (including Europe before the modern era) with their kinship, rigid sanctions, ascription, collectivism, low mobility, obedience, loyalty, and ii) modern (Western) societies with their voluntary contracts, autonomy of private organizations, achievement orientation, inventiveness, free markets. Nevertheless, Henrich should be appreciated for his excellent research, which “synthesizes experimental and analytical tools drawn from behavioral economics and psychology with in-depth quantitative ethnography”.

Although some may argue that MacDonald does not have direct genetic evidence demonstrating that crucial elements of these WEIRD traits were selected in hunting and gathering times, we will see in our examination of Chapter 4 that he does bring up solid findings on the family structure of Europe showing a gradation in family relations, very early on in its history, from an “extreme individualism” in the northwest Europe, where the family was cut off from extended kinship networks, to a “moderate individualism” in central Europe, to a “moderate collectivism” in south and eastern Europe. It stands to reason that an evolutionary psychologist would want to dig far back in time to identify possible environmental conditions that may have selected for individualism, in light of the fact that these traits tend to be exhibited so early in Europe’s history, rather than assume, as Henrich seems to do, that the psychology of human across the planet was identical before individualistic traits made their entry into history with the “demolition” of kinship networks in the medieval era by the Catholic Church.

Henrich likes to insist that his arguments emphasize the “co-evolution” of biological and sociological factors — both natural and cultural selection of genes, not just how people learn and transmit culture but, in his words, “how culture shaped our species genetic evolution, including our physiology, anatomy and psychology”. But if he really is interested in “co-evolution,” why does he avoid thinking about the possibility of deeper psychological-genetic changes among Europeans, rather arguing that the Catholic Church imposed new norms on a psychological profile that was identical across the world? How can the “fundamental aspects” of the “psychology, motivation, and behavior” of Europeans were transformed suddenly in the Middle Ages without any prior genetic dispositions?

MacDonald acknowledges that humans create cultures that select “for different mutations and ultimately for different traits”, which is why he takes seriously the unique culture created by northern European hunters and gatherers before he considers (as we will see in our examination of later chapters) the important role the Catholic Church played in reinforcing the breakdown of kinship networks.
MacDonald observes that, because northern Europeans evolved in the context of small families interacting with outsiders, they were selected to think morally beyond their own kin group about how best to cooperate with strangers, in which breach of trust was shunned and maintaining one’s reputation as honest was important for future dealings. In contrast, the larger kinship groups of the East restricted cooperation with outsiders, and thus felt less pressure to nurture moral principles that would extend beyond their group or that would involve altruistic attitudes towards outsiders. In the East, morality was defined mostly in terms of the needs of the in-group, but northern Europeans began a tradition of moral thinking that would apply to humans generally.
MacDonald hints that the northern environment resulted in the selection of traits for spatial and mechanical ability, a tendency toward analytical thinking, which involves “thinking of oneself as independent” in contrast to the East where thinking remained “linked to thinking of oneself as interdependent with other people”. I will return to this incredibly important point when MacDonald picks it up again in Chapter 9 when dealing with “individualism as a precursor of science”.

A fair criticism, which I am sure MacDonald would welcome, is that much research is still required in support of the thesis that northwestern European h-g cultures were characterized by a bilateral kinship system, nuclear families, exogamous and monogamous marriages, individual choice in marriage and a relatively high position of women. Our side barely has any scholars willing to study European uniqueness, and zero interest if such research is initiated by white identitarians. I think it is a very promising line of research. I wish there was research as well about how the peculiarities of the European environment — its incredible ecological diversity, numerous rivers of all sizes, mountains, variations in temperatures, the longest coastlines in the world, the most seas, the most beautiful landscapes — may have selected for higher analytical abilities and aesthetic sensibilities.

Andrew Joyce’s podcast: Talmud and Taboo

/35 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: No surprise, but Spreaker just terminated AJ’s podcast. Stay tuned.

Andrew Joyce has undertaken to do a podcast series, Talmud and Taboo. Enjoy!

https://www.spreaker.com/user/12735720/welcome-to-the-jq

A psicologia social é merda antibranca

/1 Comment/in /by

Para mim, a coisa mais assustadora no 1984, de George Orwell, não é aquele grupo de “homens de uniforme preto” que impiedosamente espanca Winston Smith num recinto do Ministério do Amor, usando os “pulsos”, “cacetetes”, “barras de metal” e “botas de ferradura”. Tampouco é a máquina silenciosa que o inquisidor O’Brien usa para fazer Winston “sentir dor” “a qualquer momento e na medida desejada pelo torturador”. Não é nada disso, trata-se de outra coisa, uma coisa que não faz Winston sentir nenhuma dor:

Duas macias almofadas, meio úmidas, foram fixadas sobre as têmporas de Winston. Ele tremeu. A dor estava para vir, mas de novo tipo. O’Brien pousou sua mão sobre a de Winston, de forma quase gentil, como que para encorajá-lo.

— Desta vez eu não vou machucar você — ele disse. — Fique olhando para os meus olhos.

Nesse momento houve uma devastadora explosão, ou alguma coisa parecida com uma explosão, embora fosse incerto que tivesse havido algum barulho. Ocorreu, sem dúvida, um lampejo ofuscante. Winston não foi ferido, apenas foi prostrado. Embora ele já estivesse em decúbito dorsal quando a coisa aconteceu, ele teve uma curiosa sensação de que fora forçado àquela posição. Um terrível golpe, mas sem dor, deixara-o completamente abatido. Também alguma coisa tinha acontecido dentro de sua cabeça. Enquanto seus olhos recuperavam a nitidez e ele se relembrava de quem era e de onde estava, reconheceu a face que a sua própria face confrontava; mas aqui ou ali havia um vazio, como se alguma parte tivesse sido extraída de seu cérebro. […]

O’Brien levantou os dedos da mão esquerda, escondendo o polegar.

— Estou mostrando cinco dedos para você. Você está vendo cinco dedos?

— Sim.

E ele os viu mesmo, rapidamente, antes que a configuração de sua mente mudasse. Ele viu cinco dedos, sem nenhuma distorção. Depois tudo voltou ao normal de novo, e o velho medo, o ódio e a confusão prevaleceram mais uma vez. Mas houve um momento — ele não sabia quanto havia durado, trinta segundos talvez — de luminosa certeza, quando cada nova sugestão de O’Brien preenchia completamente o vazio, fazendo-se de verdade total, e quando dois mais dois dava três ou, também facilmente, dava cinco, se assim fosse necessário.

— Você percebe agora — disse O’Brien, que de qualquer forma é possível.

— Sim — disse Winston. (1984, parte 3, cap. 2.)

Não era “um novo tipo de dor”, era um novo tipo de horror: a ideia de que o Estado possa penetrar sua cabeça e interferir diretamente na sua mente. Quando 1984 foi publicado pela primeira vez em 1949, essa ideia era só um pesadelo da literatura de ficção. Entretanto, a cada ano passado desde então, o pesadelo de Orwell vai ficando mais perto da realidade.

E que não haja dúvida quanto a isto: hoje existe gente totalitária nos países ocidentais que adoraria usar uma máquina de reorganização cognitiva contra os criminosos intelectuais como esses articulistas do The Occidental Observer. De fato, dia desses eu topei com um desses manipuladores mentais. Trata-se da psicóloga social chamada Amy R. Krosch, da Universidade de Cornell, recentemente “designada” “Rising Star” da Associação Americana de Psicologia (ASA).

O repugnante espírito da maldade branca

Krosch revela na sua rede social que ela é “legebete” e gosta dos pronomes “her ou they”. Também diz que se casou com  “uma mulher e um buldogue”. A psicologia americana percorreu longo caminho: de classificar o lesbianismo como tipo de desordem mental passou a atribuir o status de “Rising Star” a uma fanática lésbica.

E Krosch é mesmo fanática. Uma fanática antibranca, para ser preciso, e por isso mesmo a ASA orgulha-se tanto dessa sua criatura. Krosch não concorda com as famosas palavras atribuídas à rainha Elizabeth I da Inglaterra (1533–1603): “Eu não abriria janelas para a alma dos homens”. Amy Krosch quer abrir janelas na alma das pessoas. Mas só em se tratando das almas de pessoas brancas, e desde que aquilo a ser encontrado nessas almas sirva ao seu propósito de fomentar o ódio à raça branca:

A discriminação pode ocorrer tão rapidamente quanto um piscar de olhos, especialmente durante períodos de crise econômica, segundo revela um novo estudo da Universidade de Cornell. “A influência da escassez na mente pode de fato exacerbar a discriminação”, afirmou Amy Krosch, professora-assistente de Psicologia em Cornell. “Demonstramos que a mínima mudança na fisionomia de grupos minoritários sob condições de escassez resulta em aumento da discriminação.”

No primeiro experimento, 71 estudantes de graduação em Psicologia de uma universidade particular — nenhum dos quais identificado com negro ou afro-americano — foram solicitados a olhar para fotografias de homens brancos e negros expostas numa tela. Os estudantes, então, deveram premiar cada uma das pessoas representadas pelas faces com até US$ 10, conforme o merecimento de cada uma das figuras, de acordo com a “sutil percepção dos estudantes”.

Um grupo de controle foi informado de que cada face poderia receber US$ 10, no máximo. Mas os sujeitos do grupo experimental acreditavam haver recebido US$ 10 de forma aleatória de um total de US$ 100 de que disporiam para as premiações, o que suscitava neles um sentido de escassez.

Eletrodos colocados no couro cabeludo mensuraram o tempo que cada sujeito levou para perceber as figuras como distintas faces humanas. Este processo subconsciente liga-se à atividade cerebral do giro fusiforme e normalmente leva apenas 170 milissegundos, ou seja, menos do que dois décimos de segundo.

No grupo de controle, os sujeitos levaram o mesmo tempo para processar as faces de cada raça e para distribuir igualitariamente o dinário. Mas no grupo para o qual o recurso era escasso, a pesquisa mostrou que os participantes levaram em média “tempo significativamente mais longo” para processar as faces negras do que as faces brancas. Os pesquisadores também mostraram que essa detença perceptiva estava relacionada a preconceito antinegro, razão por que os sujeitos deram menos dinário para as faces negras.

“Eles levaram mais tempo para reconhecer uma face negra como uma face, e essa diferença dá a medida do quanto eles discriminam os indivíduos negros”, disse Krosch.

A equipe de Krosch realizou um segundo conjunto de experiências envolvendo imagens da atividade cerebral para confirmar se o processamento visual alterado das faces negras decorria da desestima dessas faces, ou seja, de comportamento preconceituoso.

O registro neuroimagiológico revelou atividade menos intensa no corpo estriado, região do cérebro responsável pelo processamento de avaliações e recompensas. Isso sugeriu que os sujeitos possam não ter visto as faces negras como faces ou, pelo menos, que as viram, como faces, num certo sentido, menos humanas. A menor atividade do giro fusiforme e do estriado estava correlacionada com a menor quantidade de dinário recebida pelas faces negras. Este estudo foi financiado pela National Science Foundation. (When money is scarce, biased behavior happens faster, ScienceDaily, 29th October 2019).

Essa foi a reportagem sobre o trabalho de Krosch intitulado Scarcity disrupts the neural encoding of Black faces: A socioperceptual pathway to discrimination” (escrito em colaboração com David M. Amodio, da Universidade de Nova Iorque). E esta é uma interessante passagem da reportagem: ”…estudantes de graduação em Psicologia de uma universidade particular — nenhum dos quais identificados como negro ou afro-americano…”. Krosch não quis correr o risco de que se lhe deparasse alguma coisa desagradável no cérebro de negros, assim ela os excluiu do estudo. Eu acho que a pesquisa dela era (e é) motivada pela hostilidade para com os brancos e sua intenção era (e é) a de gerar ainda mais hostilidade. Atente-se na frase “nenhum dos quais”, decerto ditada por Krosch ou alguém do pessoal dela. A frase deveria ser “nenhuma dessas pessoas”, porque os estudantes são seres humanos, não animais ou coisas. Será que a escolha de termos mais reificantes estaria a indicar que alguém da equipe de Krosch despreza os estudantes, vendo-os, “num certo sentido, como menos humanos”? É bem possível.

Festival de “punins”

E se o leitor desejar conhecer a equipe de Krosch, ofereço uma seleção de “punins” (no singular: “punim”, palavra iídiche significando“face” ) postada no Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory, ou, abreviadadmente, Krosch Lab :

Festival de punins: membros do Krosch Lab

A Sra. Krosch está na extrema direita (da fotografia, claro), mas seu punim merece registro mais de perto. Aqui está outra foto dessa fascinante acadêmica:


Amy Krosch, Rising Star da Associação Americana de Psicologia (com Greta Thunberg para comparação)

A ampla punim testosteronizada de Krosch é semelhante àquela da belatriz sueca da cruzada ecológica, a santa Greta Thunberg. Aliás, eu fui repreendido em comentários ao meu último artigo para o TOO por “chamar atenção para mínimas deficiências de beleza física” das jornalistas Stephen Daisley e Tanya Gold, mas não creio que a censura seja procedente. Como o grande Chateau Heartiste [blogue politicamente incorreto] tem ensinado frequentemente: “O fisionomismo é real.” A feiura do esquerdismo como ideologia corresponde, muitas vezes, à feiura do esquerdista enquanto pessoa. Eu também concordo com um artigo fascinante saído na National Vanguard argumentando que “Os judeus são repulsivos e, em geral, um povo feio” e que “Os judeus enquanto grupo opõem-se à beleza”. De fato, o Talmude aconselha os judeus a não considerar a beleza física como importante no casamento: “A graça é falsa e a beleza é vã. Tenha em conta a boa educação, pois a finalidade do casamento está na procriação”. (Tanit 26b e 31a).

Todo o espectro da diversidade humana

Amy Krosch é judia? Não tenho como provar que seja, mas vou adaptar ao caso dela o que eu disse a propósito da jornalista Stephen Daisley no “Jeremy’s Jackboots.” Uma coisa é certa: ela se comporta tal qual um judeu, por sua indefectível hostilidade antibranca e por sua convicção de que a culpa pelos fracassos dos não brancos é dos brancos. E a Sra. Krosch, obviamente, tem recrutado colaboradores para o Krosch Lab pelo critério do ódio. Os candidatos preferenciais são aqueles que mais ódio sentem da raça branca:

Nosso laboratório respeita e valoriza todo o espectro da diversidade humana quanto a raça, etnicidade, religião, identidade e expressão de gênero, orientação sexual, tipo físico, nível socioeconômico, idade, deficiência física e origem nacional. Defendemos a inclusão e a diversidade pela realização de todos em condições sustentáveis de excelência, mediante pesquisa, treinamento e campanhas de serviço e sensibilização em campo, a mais de atuarmos na promoção de pessoas sub-representadas na psicologia. Estimulamos estudantes de cor, mulheres, imigrantes e toda gente sub-representada a que se inscreva como candidato para trabalhar no Laboratório. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory / Krosch Lab, November 2019)

Mentira! O Krosch Lab não “respeita e valoriza todo o espectro da diversidade humana”, porque é claramente hostil aos brancos na pesquisa e hostil aos homens no recrutamento. Alguém pode olhar a foto do “time de Krosch” e achar que esses rostinhos bonitos [punins] pertencem a acadêmicos sãos e objetivos no trabalho isento de busca desinteressada da verdade? Espero que não, pois para mim eles não parecem ser nada objetivos nem ter o físico para o papel de perquisidores da verdade. Seus punins não indicam nenhum grau elevado de inteligência, mas isso não é de surpreender. A psicologia é essa coisa mesmo, afinal. Os observadores mais sensíveis já sabiam desde muito tempo antes da atual “crise da condição R & R” [Reprodutibilidade (da experiência) e Repetibilidade (dos resultados): condições do método científico para a determinação dos fenômenos objetivos] que grande parte da psicologia era só merda. A área da psicologia social em que Krosch atua está no coração da crise, mas a psicometria está notavelmente imune a ela.

Espoliação, não compreensão

Eu não sei a quanto chega a crosta merdácea no trabalho da Sra. Krosch, mas de qualquer modo há nele a crosta de Krosch. E ela está tentando melecar todos os brancos com essa sua secreção gosmenta. Eis o que diz o Krosch Lab sobra a sua missão científica:

O nosso objetivo consiste em entender a ampla e persistente desigualdade existente entre os grupos nos Estados Unidos. Nós investigamos os fatores sociais e econômicos que amplificam a discriminação, como também os processos sociocognitivos, perceptivos e emocionais mediante os quais os propósitos e motivações dos decisores influenciam o comportamento deles em relação aos membros de seu próprio grupo e de outros grupos. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory/Krosch Lab, November 2019)

De novo, não penso que o Krosch Lab tenha por escopo “entender a ampla e persistente desigualdade existente entre os grupos nos Estados Unidos”. Creio que a real intenção seja explorar a “desigualdade” para colocar a culpa toda nos brancos. Acredito também que o time de Krosch é recrutado, como diria Vox Day [pseudônimo de Theodore Robert Beale, escritor, editor, quadrinista, criador de videojogos e militante da resistência branca], entre “aqueles que nos odeiam, que odeiam os Estados Unidos, que odeiam o Ocidente e querem destruir tudo o que é bom, belo e verdadeiro”.

Como funciona a psicologia

O pessoal de Krosch nunca será capaz de produzir uma máquina mental de correção política do tipo daquela descrita no 1984, mas decerto aquela turma ficaria muito feliz se pudesse usar uma. Acho até que algumas pessoas daquele Laboratório iriam se deleitar operando a máquina de produzir dor descrita no mesmo 1984. Eu posso entender a psicologia que eles fazem à maneira antiga, só de olhar para a cara deles. Amy Krosch, é claro, prefere técnicas mais atualizadas. Ela emprega eletrodos cranianos para provar que no giro fusiforme e no corpo estriado do cérebro doentio dos goins ocorrem atividades correspondentes a estados mentais politicamente incorretos, os quais devem ser sanados.

A branca Cornell contra a vibrante e ricamente negra Nova Iorque

Bem, vamos adaptar as palavras de Jesus Cristo e dizer: “Psicólogo, conhece-te a ti mesmo!”. Amy Krosch mostra muita hostilidade contra brancos e provavelmente também contra cristãos. Gente do tipo dela dirigia e operava as câmaras de tortura, compondo também os esquadrões da morte dos regimes comunistas durante o século XX (cf. “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”, de Kevin MacDonald). Aliás, eu gostaria de saber o que os tais eletrodos poderiam revelar das atitudes dela a propósito dos brancos — e dos negros, também. Um estudo comparativo de judeus, negros e brancos quanto à reação ante judeus, negros e brancos seria dos mais interessantes — mas, evidentemente, nunca será realizado, por muitas razões, a principal é que os judeus teriam avaliação bem diferente da dos brancos, e essa seria uma diferença bem pouco lisonjeira.

Considere-se, por exemplo, o que Krosch disse sobre Cornell: “O que mais me agrada em Cornell é viver numa cidade pequena, tranquila, bonita, principalmente depois dos 10 anos que passei em Nova Iorque”. Ocorre que Nova Iorque é cidade com muito mais diversidade racial do que Ithaca, onde fica Cornell. Os brancos formam 84,14% da população de Ithaca, havendo lá apenas 2,93% de negros ou afro-americanos. A proporção em Nova Iorque é de 44% de brancos (33,3% de brancos não hispânicos) e 25,5% de negros, o que mostra que Amy Krosch segue o padrão de Tim Wise, Michael Moore e muitos outros esquerdistas antibrancos, que vivem criticando o racismo branco mas só moram em lugares de gente branca.

Depois que o porco do Stephen Daisley leu o meu “artigo calunioso” [no original: “hit piece”] contra ele no “Jeremy’s Jackboots”, ele se manifestou: “Eu não sei como é que a descrição que eles fazem de mim como um entusiasmado defensor de organizações muçulmanas tais qual a Tell Mama e do discurso de ódio que articulam possa ser compatível com a acusação de que ‘Ele só se preocupa com o bem-estar dos judeus’”. Ora, ora, ora… Eu explico, a coisa é muito simples. Acontece que elementos como Daisley apoiam tudo o que “é bom para os judeus”, segundo critério deles. Por isso defendem a imigração massiva de maometanos nas nações brancas. Por outro lado, eles odiariam que paquistaneses, somalis e marroquinos se internassem em Israel. E eles também não iriam tolerar que a Tell MAMA abrisse uma franquia em Telavive. Porque isso não seria “bom para os judeus”. Entretanto, todo o mundo da laia de Daisley pode ficar tranquilo: nada disso vai acontecer. Israel, embora nação altamente corrupta, sabe se defender e não busca sua própria destruição. O Estado Judeu não paga a psicólogos para demonizar a maioria judia. Mas as nações brancas, num contraste total, estão atualmente à procura de sua própria exterminação, as nações brancas pagam, sim, a psicólogos para que demonizem suas maiorias brancas.

O repugnante espírito da maldade branca (de novo)

A putativa judia Amy Krosch é só um exemplo. O mais certamente judeu Sheldon Solomon é outro. Este figuro recentemente apareceu no The Guardian explicando que os brancos sentem “medo da vida” e “medo da morte”, razão por que dariam apoio a Donald Trump e seriam contra “os imigrantes, sobretudo aqueles de religiões diferentes, como maometanos e judeus”. A pesquisa de Solomon revelou que os “cristãos” mais angustiados pela consciência da própria morte “tinham atitude mais positiva em relação a outros cristãos e atitude mais negativa em relação a judeus”.

A sábia punim de Sheldon Solomon

Cristãos malvados! Judeus inocentes! Isso é, no mínimo, o que o Professor Solomon of Skidmore University, quer que pensemos. Acho que ele é um propagandista antibranco, não um cientista imparcial. Milhares e milhares de seus colegas acadêmicos também fazem propaganda antibranca. Tudo isso mostra que a psicologia social não passa de mais uma das numerosas e corruptas disciplinas antibrancas que pululam nas universidades ocidentais. Mas se trata da mais perturbadora disciplina antibranca. Que ninguém tenha dúvida: o que Orwell descreveu no 1984 é o que figuras como Amy Krosch e Sheldon Solomon adorariam fazer. E é o que eles farão, se da nossa parte não houver reação.

Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Autor: Tobias Langdon. Título original: Social Psychology as Anti-Write Pseudoscience. Data de publicação: 29 de novembro de 2019. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.