Turku Castle

Editor’s note: This is a talk given at the Awakening Conference in Turku, Finland, April 6, 2019. 

There are obviously many challenges for White people in the West, starting with the fact that throughout the West the media and academic culture are absolutely dedicated to importing new peoples into lands traditionally dominated by people of European descent. In every case, this transformation has been a top-down phenomenon, as described mainly for the United States in my book The Culture of Critique, in the UK by Andrew Joyce, in Australia by Brenton Sanderson, and in Sweden by .M. Eckehart. By this, I mean that there was never a popular movement demanding more immigration anywhere in the West. In general, these changes occurred as a result of activism by specific groups—my view is that Jewish groups were critical in every case. These activists have had ties to elite institutions in the media, the academic world, powerful institutions like the EU, and the political process. The policies they advocated aimed at changing government policy in a context where there was no public discussion of the long-term effects this would have on native populations. And in every case, the mainstream media has had a record of promoting immigration and preventing discussion of the negative consequences, either now or in the future, to native populations. This is because, quite obviously, these changes do not benefit native populations. It’s one thing to import temporary workers for real economic needs.  It’s quite another thing to make them voting citizens, particularly when they typically have quite different interests in public policy on immigration and on the economic policies related to the availability of public goods like free healthcare, education, and welfare benefits. Most want free stuff. In the U.S., 63% of non-citizens and 50% of naturalized immigrants (i.e., the ones who become citizens) access welfare programs. The great majority of non-European immigrants have come from countries with lower IQ—a trait that is not easily influenced by changed environments. I would be interested in seeing a similar analysis for Finland.

The result of these shifts is that in most Western countries the traditionally dominant populations will be replaced within the lifetimes of many of the people who are alive today. In the United States, maybe even an old guy like me, White Americans are projected to become a minority at least by 2040 and likely sooner. Moreover, we are already at a tipping point because the Democrat Party, which is entirely in favour of replacing the White population, gets around 45% of its votes from non-Whites, so that even though many Whites have deserted the party in recent years, the growth of the non-White population combined with a still-significant number of Whites voting Democrat means that it will be impossible for Republicans to win national elections in the near future—indeed, as early as 2020. Add to that the fact that many Republicans favor high levels of immigration and because Pres. Trump has been unable or unwilling to fulfil his campaign promises; far too many Republicans are agents of big business and want to import cheap labor—and they are deathly afraid of being called a racist if they resist immigration. Illegal aliens now residing in the US have a huge incentive to have children because of birthright citizenship—people born here are citizens, so their parents can claim welfare and other financial support; again 63% are on welfare. It’s not surprising that they don’t want to leave. Read more

Cognitive Dissonance theory might be more important in explaining the Left’s mindset than we appreciate. Although frequently invoked by mainstream conservatives to superficially skewer liberals’ incoherence and hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance should be applied more broadly and explored more deeply. According to psychologists, the dissonance produced in the mind when holding mutually exclusive beliefs is actually nothing short of a form of mental trauma. Facts and opinions which challenge, for instance, one’s self-identity or long-held conventional wisdom can, say experts, result in agony for the afflicted, producing a feeling of desperation akin to starvation or intense thirst. Unsurprisingly then, the resulting discomfort can push the sufferer to great lengths of irrational and extreme behavior in order to obtain relief[1] (Margaret Heffernan, Willful Blindness, pdf here).Understanding cognitive dissonance, therefore, may go far in explaining our opponents’ aggressiveness and, given the growing unreality of today’s society, their increasingly toxic and desperate behavior.

A basic theme in cognitive dissonance literature is that the brain cannot stand conflict. So hard does the brain work towards resolving it, it’s neural circuitry will actually employ faulty reasoning in order to shut down distress.[2] When presented with contradictory positions, it will, in effect, blind itself to them, for instance, by eliminating the new conflicting belief and clinging to the challenged one. Referring to this characteristic of the mind as our “totalitarian ego”, Psychologist Anthony Greenwald says, much like the thought-control and propaganda devices depicted in George Orwell’s 1984, the mind’s biases are firmly enslaved to the ego’s greater central design (for instance, one’s self-image as a humanitarian and morally righteous person, etc.).[3] This would explain much of liberals’ hyper-defensive reaction to evidence regarding racial differences, for instance, and their aggression toward purveyors of such evidence.

Political psychology professor Drew Weston has found that the brain circuits activating biased reasoning are actually the same ones activated in drug-addicts when getting a fix. Like drug-addicts, the cognitively conflicted will do anything to return to a state of comfort and euphoria.[4] The minds of the conflicted can employ numerous stress responses when, for instance, one’s long-held belief or self-image is challenged, such as avoiding the conflicting evidence in question (and any possible sources of such evidence); resorting to self-denial and magical-thinking[5]; even intentionally misremembering or suppressing past experiences i.e. previous episodes of ethnic tension, etc.[6] And when confronted by ideological opponents, the afflicted can resort to convoluted, fantastical arguments as well as hostile or nakedly diversionary ones, such as making dismissive, personal attacks on the opponent’s motives.[7] No doubt many readers have experienced such episodes from liberals before, even to the point of visible neurosis, hysterical anger, or even threatened or actual violence.[8] As Cognitive Dissonance expert Margaret Heffernan says, “we are prepared to pay a very high price to preserve our most cherished ideas.”[9] Read more

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: Penguin, 2004 [reprint of second edition, London: John Murray, 1879]).

Western intellectual life today is characterized by a marked schizophrenia. On the one hand, virtually everyone accepts the scientific theory of Charles Darwin concerning the emergence and evolution of the various species in the world, including humanity, through the process natural selection. The only exceptions to this rule are a few Creationist hold-outs. On the other hand, our culture denies the biological reality of race and the relevance of hereditarian thinking to human societies. Our egalitarian culture rejects heredity’s implications in toto — both the descriptive (in-born human differences between individuals and races) and prescriptive (e.g. eugenics). Given how taboo racialist thinking still is, it is then useful — in order to think freely — to go back to the roots of evolutionary thinking by looking at what Darwin himself had to say about human evolution and racial differences.

The concept of race or lineage is central to Darwin’s evolutionary thinking. His classic The Origin of Species is indeed subtitled By Means of Natural Selection of the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In one place, Darwin defines a race as the “successive generations” of a particular population (102). Darwin’s model for evolutionary change is simple and powerful: every species will tend to bear too many offspring, leading to overpopulation, a huge percentage of these will die before reaching maturity or in competition with others (whether of the same species or not), those who survive this struggle will be those with the traits best suited for their particular environment. The constant generation and culling of “races,” that is to say new of populations with different traits, is then central to his system, which also applies to human evolution.

The foundation of Darwin’s entire system is the reality of heredity — that the offspring of plants, animals, and humans tend to inherit the physical and/or mental characteristics of their parents. Concerning humans, Darwin follows the observations of the ancient philosophers in asserting that man’s specificity is in being both a social and rational creature.[1] This, along with his free hands, have enabled humanity’s remarkable conquest of the Earth: our intelligence and dexterity allowed our prehistoric forbears to fashion tools, our social instincts enabled us to work together to bring down much larger animals, and the combination gave us a unique ability to adapt to the most varied environments. Darwin says concerning intelligence and sociability: “The supreme importance of these characters has been proved by the final arbitrament of the battle for life” (68). Our hands and brains were incidentally developed at considerable cost: we are awkward bipeds and the tension between enormous heads and narrow hips means that childbirth is quite dangerous to our women. Read more