Worte als Waffen: Asymmetrie und Vorteil im sprachlichen Wettstreit

Was haben Schach und Pfauenfedern gemeinsam? In der Geschichte der Menschheit gab es  auf eine derartige Frage lange Zeit keine vernünftige Antwort. Heute können wir antworten: „Sie können beide mit Hilfe eines Zweigs der Mathematik, nämlich die Spieltheorie, analysiert werden. Bei Spielen wie Schach geht es um Wettbewerb, um Strategien für mehr Erfolg und zur Vermeidung von Fehlschlägen.

Tarnen und Täuschen

Die Pfauenfedern sind ein gutes Beispiel fortgeschrittener Evolution. Man kann sie nicht verstehen, ohne zugleich die Augen und das Gehirn des Weibchens zu berücksichtigen, deren Paarungsvorliebe über Jahrtausende hinweg zur Selektion eines zunehmend schillernden männlichen Gefieders geführt hat. Männchen senden Signale aus, Weibchen entschlüsseln sie. Entsprechend kann man nicht Blumen verstehen, ohne das Nervensystem der Insekten zu berücksichtigen. Die Blumen senden Signale aus, die Insekten entschlüsseln sie – oder mißverstehen sie, denn biologische Signale können irreführend sein.

Lunar Hornet Moth (Sesia bembeciformis) by Ian Kimber

Falsches Signal:  der große Weiden-Glasflügler (Sesia bembeciformis),
ein Schmetterling, tarnt sich als Wespe

Manche Orchideenarten überlisten männliche Bienen mit Blüten, die das Aussehen oder den Geruch weiblicher Bienen nachahmen. Die männlichen Bienen bestäuben die Orchideen, indem sie versuchen, sich mit den Blüten zu paaren. Falsche Signale können auch abschrecken oder verbergen: manche harmlosen Insekten ahmen Wespen nach, andere imitieren Blätter oder Stengel. Wie den Parasitismus, so findet man auch das Tarnen und Täuschen überall in der Natur. Diese drei biologischen Aspekte können auch ein Licht auf das menschliche Verhalten werfen.

Barrieren durch Worte

Denn schließlich stehen Menschen auch im Wettbewerb miteinander. Wie die [anderen] Tiere senden und empfangen wir Signale, aber wir haben eine zusätzliche Form Signale entwickelt: wir sind die einzige Spezies, die eine vollausgebildete Sprache hat. Tatsächlich definiert uns die Sprache als eine Spezies und sie steht im Mittelpunkt allen Sozialverhaltens. Aber sie kann dabei auch in einem negativen Sinn wirken, indem sie Fremde ausschließt. Es gibt eine faszinierende Theorie, daß die Sprachenvielfalt – die Anzahl unterschiedlicher Sprachen, die in einer bestimmten Region gesprochen wird – von der Vielfalt der Parasiten dieser Region gefördert wird. Das würde erklären, warum  die Sprachen in den Tropen  am vielfältigsten und unterschiedlichsten sind. Je mehr Parasiten es gibt, umso wichtiger ist es für einen Stamm, eventuell infizierte Fremde fernzuhalten. Ob nun Parasiten die sprachliche Vielfalt ankurbeln oder nicht, auf jeden Fall stellen unterschiedliche Sprachen vorzügliche Barrieren dar – nicht nur gegen Infektionen, sondern auch gegen Schmarotzer.

Die Sprache kann aber auch eine Hilfe für Schmarotzertum und andere Formen der Ausbeutung sein. Überall in der Welt findet man Gaunersprachen und Slang: sie stärken die Bindung innerhalb der Gruppe und schirmen die Tätigkeit der Gruppe gegen prüfende Blicke von außen ab. Wenn aber Kriminelle fern ihrer Heimat operieren, brauchen sie keine neue Sprache zu erfinden. Das dümmliche liberale Motto “Vielfalt ist unsere Stärke“ kann falscher nicht sein, denn die Bekämpfung der Krimi­nalität wird weit schwieriger, wenn die Kriminellen Dutzende verschiedener Sprachen benutzen. In London oder New York muß sich die Polizei Informationen in allen möglichen Sprachen verschaffen – von Albanisch und Russisch bis Türkisch und Arabisch. Außerdem können fremde Kriminelle den Gang der Justiz verschleppen und erschweren, indem sie bei der Verhaftung oder Verurteilung vorgeben, kein Englisch zu können (siehe meinen Hinweis in “When with Roma”) Read more

Aristotle on Immigration, Diversity, and Democracy

Aristotle (trans. Ernest Barker and R. F. Stalley), Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)

One measure of the intellectual and moral degeneration of the West over the last decades is the now near-total ignorance of the founding Classics of Western civilization, even among the so-called educated class. Those who remain in ignorance of what superior minds have thought before them are condemned to remain as children, at best reinventing the wheel, rather than standing upon the shoulders of giants.

While the Classics were clearly written for a time and place very different from our own, their concerns often speak to us very directly. Aristotle’s Politics, his main political treatise, is replete with comments concerning the dangers of diversity and egalitarianism. Aristotle’s political thought does not soar to the eugenic and spiritual heights of Plato’s utopia. However, Aristotle’s moderate and pragmatic brand of politics is much more palatable to someone raised in modern liberalism, while at the same time being a better introduction to the communitarian and aristocratic political ethics of the ancient Greeks.

Aristotle is greatly concerned with the preservation of civil peace in the city-state. One of the most common causes of “faction” and civil war, he says, was the unhappy consequences of unassimilated immigration and the consequent diversity. Aristotle’s prose is perfectly clear:

Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted. (1303A13)

Thus, immigration of different peoples was a common source of conflict, often leading to civil war and concluding with the ethnic cleansing of either the native peoples or the invaders. Read more

TEAM Westport: A Case Study in anti-White Activism

“This is an exciting moment to be working on this. There are more non-white kids being born now than white kids.” TEAM Westport, October 7 2014.

“We should continue working with the Board of Education here in Westport to prepare students for the world from a multicultural point of view.” TEAM Westport, May 3 2011.

Introduction

Westport, Connecticut is a pleasant coastal town with a population of 26,000 that boasts above-average incomes and is 92.6% White. It has a busy library, a number of successful and respected schools, several pristine public squares, an observatory, a natural history museum, and a number of independent news outlets. Unfortunately, since 1994 the town has also been home to a rather innocuously named organization called TEAM Westport. Its purpose is anything but innocuous. TEAM is an acronym for: Together Effectively Achieving Multiculturalism, and for over 20 years this group has been insidiously poisoning the socio-cultural well of its surroundings with a persistence that is as remarkable as it is sickening. For more than 20 years its efforts have attracted little attention beyond the precincts of the town. This changed a few weeks ago when one TEAM project caused the briefest of blips on the national radar, which in turn brought it to my attention.

The project in question was TEAM’s annual essay contest, now in its fourth year. Although TEAM is not an official part of the school district, or indeed the school system, its network of influence has allowed the essay contests to be promoted among children via the schools and other educational avenues. The annual contest has always engaged in race-baiting among the young. However, this year’s contest was presumably a step too far, or too soon, for those behind it. The prompt, unveiled in January, reads:

In 1,000 words or less, describe how you understand the term ‘white privilege’. To what extent do you think this privilege exists? What impact do you think it has had in your life — whatever your racial or ethnic identity — and in our society more broadly?

The subversive nature of the question wasn’t lost on the growing number of Whites who, in the Trump era, are becoming increasingly sensitive to such manoeuvres, and less hesitant in expressing their opposition. In its predictably biased reporting of reactions to this year’s essay contest, the New York Times reported that “merely mentioning white privilege seems to have struck a nerve, with much of the criticism coming from out of town.” This was presumably in response to comments appearing on TEAM’s Facebook page, which included the astute observation: “This is nothing more than race baiting. You are a joke.” The New York Times, like TEAM Westport representatives, dismissed such reactions as “hand-wringing among adults,” while focussing on the more susceptible and intellectually and ideologically vulnerable children, who, in the words of the New York Times, “appear to have greeted the essay contest and the resulting uproar with a shrug.” Journalistic investigation into the history and activities of TEAM Westport both began and ended at this single essay contest, and the story appears to have been mentioned only in order to sneer at those who objected to the concept of “White guilt.”

I found this slanted and superficial coverage profoundly dissatisfying, and resolved to conduct my own investigation into the deeper roots of this affair. As a White ethno-nationalist, I have certain beliefs about multiculturalism and its advance in recent decades. In particular, it is my belief that multiculturalism is both an ideology and a deliberate process. By the latter, I mean that multiculturalism is not something that occurs “naturally,” but is rather a process advanced with programmatic design.  Although I have tested and confirmed these beliefs many times previously, the career of TEAM Westport would provide an opportunity to test these beliefs once more in the form of a case study. In light of my pre-existing understanding of multiculturalism, a number of questions presented themselves immediately: Who are the members of TEAM Westport, and what is their ideological and cultural background? Is there any evidence of Jewish influence in and around this organization? How and why has the group been given extensive access to the local educational establishment? Where does this group get its funding, and what does it use this funding for? What does the group mean by “achieving multiculturalism,” and what are the chief methods by which this group seeks to achieve it? What role, if any, does pathological altruism play in the activities of the organization? Read more

The Alt-Right and the Election of Trump: the End of the Dominant Ideology?

The following is a translation of an interview given to the French daily Présent. Présent,  a magazine dealing with culture, politics and art, is popular among traditional Catholics and identitarians, and is also sympathetic to France’s National Front.           

On January 18, Libération  lashed out at the American Alt-Right, of which you are considered to be one of its leading intellectuals, along with your book Homo americanus; rejeton de l’ère postmoderne  (published in France by the publishing house  Akribeia, 2010 and soon to be reissued in the USA). Could you tell us more about this movement, launched a few years ago by Richard Spencer, who is viewed by the far left as very dangerous, and who on January 20, during a television interview, was violently assaulted, without there being any voice of outrage? 

The term “Alt-Right” is a bit vague, lending itself perfectly to various usages by various opposition movements within the Euro-American right-wing, including those that have nothing in common with Spencer’s version of the Alt-Right. The System-friendly media, in this case Libération in France, the FAZ in Germany, or The New York Times across the Atlantic, are currently in the process of forging demonological guilt-by-association memes to portray Spencer and his version of the Alt-Right.  Read more

English Translation of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together”

There is a project to publish (long-overdue) translations of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together. So far, they have posted Chapters 2, 3, 6, and 7, with more on the way. The website is: https://twohundredyearstogether.wordpress.com/ The translation reads very smoothly and seems quite professional.

 

Überlegungen zur Einheirat von Juden in die alteingesessene Elite

 „Ich möchte meiner jüdischen Tochter danken. Ich habe eine jüdische Tochter. Das war nicht geplant, aber ich bin sehr froh, daß dies geschah.
Donald Trump, im Februar 2015.

In der Debatte über die Kandidatur von Donald Trump ist mir nicht entgangen, daß die Sachwalter der Interessen der Weißen dabei als häufigsten Kritik­punkt Trumps enge Verbindungen mit den Juden anführen, insbesondere seine familiären Bande.  Das geschieht mit gutem Grund.

Trumps Tochter Ivanka hat die jüdische Religion angenommen und ist seit 2009 mit einem jüdischen Immo­bilien-Spekulanten, Jared Kushner, verheiratet. Beide Enkelkinder von Donald Trump sind Juden. Als ich mich näher mit der Sache befaßte, schlug mich die Entdeckung in Bann, daß Ivanka schon früher zwei länger­währen­de Beziehungen mit Juden hatte, nämlich mit  Greg Hirsch und James Gubelmann. Außerdem ist Ivankas sehr enge Freundschaft mit Chelsea Clinton bemerkenswert, einem weiteren Sprößling der amerikanischen Macht­elite, die 2010 den jüdischen Finanzier Marc Mezvinsky heiratete. Die Situation der Trumps und der Clintons ist ein ausgezeichnetes Beispiel für die jahrhundertealte Anwendung der jüdischen Strategie, in die alteingesessene Elite einzuheiraten. Dieses Phänomen verdient es daher, einmal näher unter die Lupe genommen zu werden.

Die jüdische Einheirat in nicht-jüdische Machteliten ist ein wichtiger, aber zu wenig untersuchter Aspekt der jüdischen Strategien zur Erhaltung und Ausweitung ihres Einflusses. Auf den ersten Blick erscheint das natürlich paradox. Ein wesentlicher Zug der Evolutionsstrategie der Juden als Gruppe ist darauf gerichtet, ihren Genpool abzusondern und eine größere Beimischung aus den umgebenden Gruppen zu verhindern. Das Judentum zeigt in seiner Geschichte eine Fülle sozialer und kultureller Kontrollmechanismen, um den Kontakt mit Nichtjuden zu minimieren, und verhindert damit weitgehend einen Gen-Zufluß. Außerdem werden im Judentum Konvertiten in einer Weise abgeschreckt und verachtet, für die es keine Parallele in irgend einer anderen Religion gibt. Trotzdem ist eine Konversion und ein Zufluß zulässig und wird sogar eifrig angestrebt, sofern, wie Kevin MacDonald in „Der jüdische Sonderweg. Der Judaismus als Evolutionäre Gruppenstrategie“ (engl. Original A People That Shall Dwell Alone , 2002, im Folgenden PTSDA ) schreibt, ein solcher Gen-Zufluß von geringem Ausmaß blieb und einen signifikanten Netto-Nutzen für die Gruppe bot. In vergleichbarer Weise zeigt sich auch am entgegengesetzten Pol der jüdischen Ghetto-Strategie, daß die Kontrolle alles andere als undurchlässig war: diejenigen jüdischen Abtrünnigen, die am aufrichtigsten das Christentum annahmen, waren überwiegend arm und unbedeutend, und ihre Gemeinde trauerte ihnen im wesentlichen kaum nach. Der eugenische Nutzen, eine solchen Strategie zu verfolgen, ist offensichtlich. Read more

The Dark Side of the Civil Rights Movement

The dominant narrative of the civil rights movement is a story about selfless Whites fighting Southern injustice. Usually the movement is presented as made up of devout Christians and freedom fighters, struggling against the prejudices of ignorant Southern Whites. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the civil rights movement was plagued by the same forces that plague any setting where Whites and Blacks intermingle: violence, theft, criminality, resentment, and sexual dominance.

White civil rights workers who left the North to organize resistance to Southern segregation approached their jobs with religious fervor. One White woman captures this spirit: “There is no doubt in my mind this is worth dying for. … This love is growing every day and will continue to expand and expand until it defeats all hate all over the world” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 133). Please note the woman’s messianic mentality: she wants to defeat hate “all over the world.”

White civil rights workers were shocked to discover that local Blacks in Mississippi resented and resisted White domination of the civil rights movement. Grassroots Blacks wanted local, Black control of civil right organizations and sought to ensure White men and women were in a subordinated, powerless position (Rothschild, 1982, p. 132). Blacks believed Whites were smug and acted superior to Blacks (Watson, 2010, p. 267). On the other hand, White civil rights workers came to view Blacks as essentially lazy and stupid (Watson, 2010, p. 267). White volunteers were greeted with suspicion and mistrust. Read more