General

Lipton Matthews Interviews Gregory Hood

Babylon Bee: Man Who Agrees With Every Single Corporation Thinks He’s Part Of The Resistance

Michelle Malkin on the War on Whites

Sometimes it takes a non-White to discuss these issues. Some very telling examples.

https://www.mediamatters.org/michelle-malkin/newsmax-host-says-

Understanding Western Uniqueness

A rather long critical review of Joseph Henrich’s recent The WEIRDest People in the World, based on my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Understanding Western Uniqueness: A Comment on Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
Mankind Quarterly 61
, no. 3 (2021): 723–766.

Abstract

Despite its many strengths, Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2020) has several weaknesses: 1.) It conceptualizes the uniqueness of the West as solely the result of cultural evolution set in motion by the medieval Church, thereby ignoring the strong tendencies toward individualism in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity, the Indo-European groups that conquered the continent in pre-historic times, and the primordial northern European hunter-gatherers. 2.) It conceptualizes analytic thinking and representative government typical of the West as resulting from the cultural shift brought about by the medieval Church, whereas analytic thinking can be found in the ancient world, particularly among the Greeks, and representative government can be found in ancient Greece and Rome, and in pre-Christian Germanic and Scandinavian cultures. 3.) Henrich’s portrayal of Westerners as non-conformists is overdrawn. Although Westerners are more likely to dissent from a group consensus compared to kinship-based cultures, moral communities based on a variety of psychological mechanisms are a powerful force for conformity in individualistic Western societies, with dissenters subject to guilt, ostracism, and altruistic punishment. 4.) Henrich analyzes the accomplishments of the West solely in terms of social learning and culturally constructed personality variation in traits related to conscientiousness, thereby ignoring data on the biological basis and adaptive significance of variation in personality and general intelligence.


 Conclusion

I agree with Henrich that there has been a strong role for culture in human adaptation. However, the psychological origins of individualism and the psychological systems related to individualism, as well as intelligence and personality, lie far more in the biological realm than Henrich is willing to grant. The unique individualism of the West can be traced to the hunter-gatherer cultures of northwestern Europe as well as to the Indo-European cultures of ancient Greece and Rome and the Germanic peoples that dominated Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church adopted policies similar to some aspects of Greek and Roman culture (non-kinship-based identities, monogamy, and exogamy), thus reinforcing individualism in Western Europe. Despite important differences between different culture areas of Western Europe noted here, the traditional view that the uniqueness of the West originated in the ancient world remains true. Western culture is “of a piece.”

Although the West came to dominate the collectivist cultures of the rest of the world, Western cultures are proving highly vulnerable to collectivist groups that have been welcomed into Western societies. Ultimately these groups are welcomed because Westerners are relatively trusting of strangers and more prone to seeing others as individuals rather than as members of competing groups — phenomena that are now occurring within a cultural context in which the West is widely despised for its history of conquest and slavery and thus the appropriate target of altruistic punishment by Westerners themselves. As Henrich notes, people whose roots lie in collectivist cultures remain untrusting of strangers and are less individualistic-independent and more conformist-obedient even long after immigrating to the West. Such people are prone to acting in their collective self-interest, and they are slated to become majorities throughout the West in coming decades. If that happens, it is likely that the institutions of Western individualism based on the long tradition of individual freedom, representative government, and reproductive egalitarianism will not survive and that Westerners who are genetically and culturally inclined toward individualism will become a diminishing, powerless minority in a world of competing identity groups. Indeed, science, perhaps the crowning achievement of the West, is increasingly deferring to group interests in the publication process (Nature Communications, 2020).

Western individualism is a fragile flower in a world where kinship and tribal loyalties remain strong and are likely to remain so into the foreseeable future.

Lipton Matthews interviews Prof. Ricardo Duchesne

New Publisher: Clemens and Blair

A new publisher, Clemens and Blair, offers a wide range of books relevant to contemporary issues as well as historical topics, including many books that will be of particular interest to readers of TOO. Have a look!

 

By Way of Deception

Jewish history is replete with examples of deception, including the Old  Testament:

The Biblical stories of sojourning by the patriarchs among foreigners are very prominently featured in Genesis. Typically there is an emphasis on deception and exploitation of the host population, after which the Jews leave a despoiled host population, having increased their own wealth and reproductive success. Indeed, immediately after the creation story and the genealogy of Abraham, Genesis presents an account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt. Abraham goes to Egypt to escape a famine with his barren wife Sarah, and they agree to deceive the pharaoh into thinking that Sarah is his sister, so that the pharaoh takes her as a concubine. As a result of this transaction, Abraham receives great wealth (while his wife does not actually conceive a child by the pharaoh). But disasters afflict Egypt as a result of the immorality of the arrangement, and the pharaoh confronts Abraham with his deception. Abraham is allowed to leave with his wife and the possessions obtained as

A similar sequence occurs during the sojourn of Abraham and Sarah with King Abimelech and on the part of Isaac during his sojourn in Gerar. Both eventually leave with great riches. (APTSDA, Chap. 8)   

In recent times examples of deception range from Jewish communists altering their names to obscure their Jewish origins to the Kosher industry. Another example is the Mossad, as described in Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer (1990), the theme of which was the Israeli use of deception in carrying out its operations, including against its main “ally,” the United States:

It is an insider’s account of Mossad tactics and exploits. In chilling detail, Ostrovsky asserts that the Mossad refused to share critical knowledge of a planned suicide mission in Beirut, leading to the death of hundreds of U.S. Marines and French troops. He tells how they tracked Yasser Arafat by recruiting his driver and bodyguard; how they withheld information on the whereabouts of American hostages, paving the way for the Iran-Contra scandal; and how their intervention into secret UN negotiations led to the sudden resignation of ambassador Andrew Young and the downfall of his career. By Way of Deception describes the shocking scope and depth of the Mossad’s influence, disclosing how Jewish communities in the U.S., Europe, and South America are armed and trained by the organization in secret “self-defense” units, and how Mossad agents facilitate the drug trade in order to pay the enormous costs of its far-flung, clandestine operation.

So I wasn’t too surprised to read “Leaked Memo Details ADL’s Annexation Response,” in Jewish Currents (June 26, 2020). Pretty clearly, there is nothing at all that Israel could do that would prevent the ADL from supporting it. 

AS THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT prepares to annex parts of the West Bank, Jewish establishment organizations are strategizing how best to shield Israel from political consequences. In the same week that Jason Isaacson, the American Jewish Committee’s chief policy and political affairs officer, explicitly stated that, whatever tactical objections to annexation there might be, the AJC will “defend annexation if needed,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) appears to be formulating its own response. A leaked ADL strategy memo obtained by Jewish Currents sheds light on how the nominal civil rights organization is preparing to address annexation’s critics.
The “stakeholders analysis memo,” which was issued by the ADL’s Government Relations, Advocacy, and Community Engagement department and marked as a draft, warns that the group will need to find a way to defend Israel from criticism without alienating other civil rights organizations, elected officials of color, and Black Lives Matter activists and supporters. The memo suggests that the group hopes to avoid appearing openly hostile to public criticism of annexation while it works to block legislation that harshly censures Israel or leads to material consequences, such as conditioning United States military support. The ADL did not respond to requests for comment on the memo by press time.
The memo lists “eight top political and community engagement implications” annexation could have, among them: “complicate ADL’s relationship with the Tri-Caucus (the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus) and the Progressive caucus”; “pit ADL on the wrong side of the black lives matter movement”; “be used to label Israel as an occupier, racist and apartheid state”; and “challenge relationships between ADL and many civil rights organizations and coalitions.”
Of particular concern to the ADL, according to the memo, is that the group will have to find a way to credibly defend Israel from accusations that it has formalized a system of discrimination and subjugation on the basis of ethnonational identity. “The reference to apartheid or ‘separate but equal’ systems to describe Israel will be a major political flashpoint,” the memo states. “As an organization, how ADL responds to these attacks will be critical.” The memo proposes as “next steps” that the ADL’s communications team and executive office “game out how to respond to accusations of Israel being racist and an apartheid system and when to respond in public and when to respond in private.”…
In a sign of the growing significance of the ongoing nationwide Black-led uprising, the memo repeatedly stresses that similarities between Israel’s techniques of occupation and institutionalized racism in the US will lead to intensified criticism of Israel. “At this moment in our country, when we are collectively going through a moment of racial reckoning, Israel will be painted as akin to an ethno-nationalist country which continues to oppress and subjugate Palestinians,” the memo states. “If violence erupts, the Middle East will be looked at from the prism of the George Floyd domestic movement.”
The memo makes clear that the ADL does not want to be seen publicly as defending annexation, even as it hopes to mollify annexation’s critics. “ADL must provide a space for local and national leaders to express their criticism of Israel’s decision,” the memo advises. “Do not give the impression that ADL is an ally of PM Netanyahu and a supporter of annexation.” …
If the memo is any indication, the ADL’s goal, in responding to criticisms of annexation, is to superficially allow rhetorical rebukes while working to neutralize what it calls “anti-Israel legislative proposals, e.g. condemning and singling out its human rights record and conditioning its military aid.” As an example of strategies that the ADL should support, the memo cites a “measured, appropriate, and unifying” letter on annexation circulated by Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Ted Deutsch, and others that includes moderate criticism of Israel, which the ADL hopes will “discourage the far left from signing something more extreme on the annexation issue.” While the memo states the ADL plans to seek out “engagement with progressive groups” such as J Street, Bend the Arc, and the NY Jewish Agenda, it states that it will “coordinate ADL’s policy response” with AIPAC, which has publicly announced that annexation will not alter its approach to “the US-Israel strategic relationship.”
The leaked ADL memo illustrates the position in which some establishment Jewish groups now find themselves. The ADL appears to recognize that annexation would violate Palestinians’ basic human rights, enforcing a codified regime of nationality-based discrimination subjugation—and that, as a group ostensibly concerned with civil rights, this is in tension with its stated values. Yet despite the seeming contradiction, the ADL has long devoted substantial time and energy to chilling criticism of Israeli policies and shielding the Israeli government from consequences. Annexation, it seems, won’t change that.