The Evolution of Civilizations and Odds and Ends

In der news.

Important: Western Destiny Book Review – Quigley’s The Evolution of Civilizations.

Following up on this. The Norwegian case bears further analysis. I know any extremely ethnocentric WNs who of course do not like non-Whites, but none of them advocate persecuting mixed-race children and putting them in mental institutions because of their ancestry, like what the altruistic individualists of Norway did to Norwegian-German hybrids (despite the fact that Germans are relatively ethnically close to Norwegians).

If the Norwegians didn’t want those children around, they could have simply deported them all to Germany; it’s not like the Germans at that time were in any position to refuse.

But, no. The Norwegians were so enraged by the mothers violating collective social norms by consorting with the Germans that they became filled with malicious hatred toward the innocent children, who they viciously punished.

That does not sound like altruistic individualism to me.

Pierre de Craonsays:

July 27, 2022 at 10:28 am

Whatever “constructive criticism” there has been in this exchange has come from one side only: that of this site’s host. Thanks to Ted Sallis, mutuality has been notable solely by its absence.

Moreover, KM’s characterization of some of Sallis’s remarks as “noncollegial” stretches the true scholar’s gentlemanly decorum—specifically, in sparing no effort to see his critic’s comments, however intemperate, as springing from impartiality and motivated by a quest for truth—to its limits.

Fuck you, asshole. How’s that for non-collegiality, you retarded nitwit?

You know, I was going to state my usual boilerplate that my criticism of MacDonald’s work is business and not personal (which is of course true). However, after reading the snide comments of the superficial midwit Pierre de Craon my attitude is thus adjusted. The restrained, conciliatory, and friendly attitude manifested in my Riposte to KMacD post is now replaced by a more robust and combative approach.

No Nordicism at TOO of course:

Captainchaossays:

July 27, 2022 at 3:31 pm

Ted Swarthis is a greaseball of Eye-talian descent who has openly stated that he wishes to see racially superior Northern Europeans mongrelized by Southern Europeans. Nordicism needs to be promoted to protect Nordic ethnic genetic interests against such an outcome.

That is of course at outright lie, like everything else Nordicists say. Please point out anything in my work that says that I wish to see “Northern Europeans mongrelized by Southern Europeans.”

Who wants to miscegenate who?  Let’s see:

• 1. The Feller separation plan, once endorsed by Duke, placed Southern Italians and Greeks with Puerto Ricans in “Minoria.”
• 2. McCulloch’s original separation plan had Southern Europeans together with various forms of non-Whites.
• 3. Who collaborated with the Jews to racially integrate White ethnic neighborhoods and their schools, and who has been enabling illegal Afro-Asiatic immigration into Italy?
• 4. Who lives in other people’s nations as “expats” – mating with native women?

The Nordicist cries out in pain as he strikes you.

I present facts; they can only reply with childish insults. All of their claims of superiority are compensation for the fact that they are mere pale shadows of their ancestors.

Just like what happened to the Meds after the Fall of Rome, the Nords are now well into their dysgenic phase. It is unfortunate since I agree with Thiriart that we need all Europeans, but now we are all degenerate, you and we together.

I have just begun the struggle against MacDonald. The old carefree and friendly Sallis is over.

…an argument in Sallis’s writing…

Have you noticed that certain retired American professors do not know the proper convention for using apostrophes in English language writing?

I suppose that the Herrenvolk write as they damn please. Rules and conventions are for lesser beings!

I oppose mass vaccination with the dangerous mRNA genetic slurry…

Challenge to Jeelvy – without doing any further research, based only on the information and knowledge you had when you wrote that, please explain to us what you think it is how those vaccines work.

Counter-Currents’ pet antivaxx lunatic Stronza:

Standard issue vaccines are also bad for everyone, all of the time. There has been an anti-vaccine crusade for over 100 years. I find it tragic that people who won’t take the corona 19 mRNA shot still make sure their little darlings get their 72 doses by the time they’ve finished school. Yes, you read that right. There are several good books explaining why inoculations are bad news.

If Der Movement wins, it’ll be worse than it is now. They’ll set up their Bring Out Your Dead ethnostate at a 14th century level of technology, which will last as long as the Chinese want to keep it around as a zoological exhibit to illustrate how stupid and primitive Whites are. Der Movement is worse than the System, since with then System there is still hope that real racial nationalists can win and build a better society.  With Der Movement, racial nationalism will be co-opted to build the Bring Out Your Dead hobbit hole state of no hope and no future.

Gaston from Gab writes:

The criticism of MacDonald can boils down to three points imo:

1) As it has been already pointed out, it doesn’t make absolutely no sense his definition of “individualism” as basically “social conformism and cohesion based on individual merits instead of family kinship”, since the latter is just, well, social conformism and cohesion based on individual merits.

2) Has he shown any good evidence that his form of “individualism” evolved in hunter gatherers from the far north? Speaking logically, it makes more sense that hunter gatherers would evolve to favour social cohesion based on familiar kinship (under the hypothesis that this behaviour has some genetic basis), since their “societies” basically revolved around extended families, whereas it makes logical sense that social cohesion based on individual merits would have been selected for in settled, agriculturalist groups since for them in order to work they need much larger societal structures that vastly exceed the boundaries of one’s family/clan, so people resorting to the family kinship would not be able to mantain an agriculturalist society. I do not claim that I have exhausted all the possibilities but in my opinion the hunter-gatherer hypothesis would favour the other kind of social conformism and cohesion MacDonald has in mind

3) As it has already been pointed out, the family structures in south and east Europe aren’t as strong as implied by MacDonald but are actually “egalitarian”, and I might add that also the “familiar amoralism” in south Italy (since he takes it as an example) is very limitedly concerned with actual family members but has more to do with “family” intended as one’s personal circle, and such circles often work in the same manner he depicts nordic egalitarianism to work, that is social cohesion and conformism based on individual merits- which is basically how every informal spontaneous group functions

I agree.

More Gaston:

I think the first point can be expanded: MacDonald doesn’t define precisely what he means by “egalitarianism” and “collectivism”, so his theory comes out muddled up, but my impression is that by equating partially “egalitarianism” with “individualism” while speaking of hunter gatherers MacDonald means that this egalitarianism is born out of the desire not to be dominated, so out of an individualistic attitude, and one can conceptually make sense of the idea of individualists acting collectivistic in a manner that doesn’t clash with their individualism, that is when each member by his own will agrees to be bound by the group or a pact, but with each of these two concepts social conformism runs counter any individualistic attitude, since social conformism entails to be dominated by social conventions (up to a point) and enforces cohesion out of external sanctions (counting social anxiety as an external sanction as well) rather than out of “internal” free choice.

Furthermore, hunter gatherer groups are typically based on kinship, I can’t grasp how MacDonald inferred that hunter gatherers in the north evolved to ground their societal ties in individual merits instead of kinship, and indeed I propose another view: hunter gatherer “societies” are often egalitarian but settled hunter gatherer groups tend to display less egalitarian social structures, so it simply seems that higher population density(as it happens in settled communities) leads to more complex social structures so a kinship based mechanism for social ties can’t work and a more “impersonal” one is required, and I think that both social conformism and what we can call “hierarchical respect” (that sort of social cohesion based on individual merits MacDonald talks about) as societal mechanisms

to ensure that larger groups do not dismember into smaller ones (let’s say that smaller groups are self-standing instead of being sub-units of a larger one when they do not cooperate to pursue common goals).

Hierarchical respect is more compatible with hunter gatherer’s egalitarianism and individualism than social conformism, which runs counter to it, and it may well be that such a tendency is tied to higher frequency of (more recent) hunter gatherer genes, at least it makes conceptually sense, and it can be that other human groups/races evolved during the neolithic stressing more one mechanism instead of the other (east asians stressing social conformity for example), though it’s clear that both are contemporaneously present in all human populations, though in different proportions, but MacDonald’s failed to show how southern and eastern Europeans are more social conformist rather than “aristocratic egalitarian” than north Europeans (indeed the “aristocratic egalitarianism” MacDonald puts as central to Western civilization originated in SE Europe, Greece specifically, at least as a civilizational paradigm, so to speak)

Laugh at this.  Yes, the small area of Northern Europe that is centered upon Central Europe, extends down to Naples, and excludes most of Scandinavia.

Clowns.

anonymsays:

July 28, 2022 at 6:41 am

Sounds like simple envy. Accusing germanic and scandinavian people of being nordicists is laughable. What else should we be? His hysteria about disrespect for southern Europeans is imagined (even though there would be a lot of reason for it, considering how the European Union is more or less is a wealth transfer organization, redistributing money from Germany and Scandinavia to Italy, Spain and Greece.)

Yes, to the extent that Europe’s south really gets wealth transfer from the north, that’s not good and taking handouts results in contempt towards you (but see this from Catiline; see this from Gaston – note Italy). But the issue is complex. I am hearing Balkanoids complain that their countries are not only being deindustrialized, but the agricultural base is also being strip-mined, because “EU rules” (i.e., German-French dictates) tell the Balkanoids that they cannot produce X,Y, and Z and must instead import the items from Western Europe. So, if you wreck people’s economies, then don’t complain when they have no money. How the hell are the Balkanoids going to pay for the imports, much less fund their own social infrastructure, if they are not allowed to produce and sell anything?

In truth, the EU is a genetic interests and territory transfer organization, redistributing the EGI and carrying capacity of Europe to Afro-Asiatic invaders, and if we agree with MacDonald’s thesis – and I assume this scum “anonym” does – then Nordics are to blame for it.

Which is it? Have Nordics wrecked the West with their pathological altruism OR is MacDonald wrong? You can’t have it both ways, Herrenvolk.

And don’t be hysterical about disrespect, you runty penned up chicken Morlocks, you low IQ North African Negroid Moops! Now run along and watch True Romance (mentioned by Der Movement every five minutes) and get over your insane paranoid hysteria, you Eye-talian greaseballs of Pure Black ancestry.

Laugh hysterically at this exchange (emphasis added):

Alfredsays:

July 27, 2022 at 7:36 pm

“highly individualistic but also as highly conformist—what I regard as a paradox in need of explanation”

If we consider an “individualist” to be a rambunctious type unafraid to speak his mind, it’s a paradox. But if by “individualist” you mean someone who is not very attached to his family, never calls his mom, it’s not a paradox. There’s no reason to suppose that this kind of person would be a meek, let’s not the rock the boat type of person. The only paradox is between “individualist” and “collective.”

Reply

Kevin MacDonald

Kevin MacDonaldsays:

July 28, 2022 at 7:25 am

Exactly.

So the TOO definition of “individualism” – which MacDonald supports with “Exactly” – is “someone who is not very attached to his family, never calls his mom.”  

At this point, I am seriously entertaining the idea that the Mossad kidnapped the real Kevin MacDonald and replaced him with a surgically-modified “double” whose purpose is to delegitimize MacDonald’s legacy so as to discredit his work about the Jews. How is it possible that the same person who wrote The Trilogy now agrees that an “individualist” is defined as someone who never calls their mother? Am I the only one who thinks that is absolutely ludicrous?

More MacDonald silliness I forgot to correct in my main riposte:

…the settlement patterns of the three groups that populated pre-historic Western Europe—the Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, the Indo-Europeans (mainly north-central Europe and northern Italy), and the Early Farmers from Anatolia (mainly in the southern part of Western Europe).

Err…the “Scandinavian hunter-gatherers” were a mix of WHG and EHG; hunter-gatherers were not unique to Scandinavia. Indo-Europeans were not unique (I don’t know how to interpret “mainly) in the areas designated, and Neolithic farmer ancestry is found throughout all of Europe and is very high in the southern part of Eastern Europe as well, certainly not just Southwestern Europe. Further, Europeans are a mix of these three groups to different extents (granted, some may have very little of one, but still…), it is not like we have three completely distinct racial populations in Europe going back thousands of years. If ignorance is bliss, then the TOO crowd must be a bunch of very happy campers indeed.

And so the curtain falls on The Occidental Observer, the music fades away, and the saddened audience shuffles away to call their mothers on the phone, thus revealing themselves as diehard collectivists.

Ted Swarthis an Eye-talian greaseball? No, no, a thousand times, no! I am actually a seven foot tall ultra-Nordic Swede, who makes Dolph Lundgren look like Danny DeVito by comparison. Now, excuse me, I have to cater to the group of Nigerian migrants I am hosting in my Stockholm apartment – they need to be well fed before I ship them off to Italy. And, no, I am not going to call my mother on the phone. I am, after all, an individualist.

More than anything else, HBD Nordicism is actually bad for Nordics; see this comment. HBD has been a curse on pro-White activism for decades; when is this HBD pseudoscientific nightmare going to end?

Cultural PCA

Cultural PCA.

We are aware of principal components analysis (PCA) in population genetics (in my opinion a tool that is both grossly over-rated, and, not surprisingly, misunderstood and misused by the sweaty fetishists of Der Movement).

One can use PCA to analyze structure in variation in other metrics than genetics. What about culture – what Yockey would call High Culture or what Huntington would term Civilization?

Genetically, the first split in Europe is North/South with East/West being secondary; thus, in population genetics PCA the first axis is North/South and the second is East/West. I propose that as regards High Culture, as regards civilization, it is opposite, the first split, the first axis, is East/West and the second is North/South. Genetically, a Limey is more similar to a Russki or Hunkie than to an Afropwop or Dago; but culturally, the opposite would be the case.

For example, Yockey considered the part of Europe (Eastern Europe) that was the Warsaw Pact to be foreign to the West; to him only Western Europe (and its overseas diaspora) was the High Culture of the West   Huntington was a bit more liberal in his consideration of the West, but essentially we can contrast a Catholic/Protestant Celto-Germanic and Latin Western Europe, with a distinct civilizational history starting with the (Western) Roman Empire and the interactions between Romans (and the other peoples of Italy), Germans, Celts, Iberians, etc. and also profoundly influenced by the Renaissance and the Reformation vs. Counter-Reformation with an Orthodox/Catholic Eastern Europe, more lightly affected, or not affected at all, by those civilizational currents, and being heavily Slavic rather than Celto-Germanic and Latin, etc.  Thus, the top principal component axes of a High Culture PCA (or Cultural PCA or Civilizational PCA) for Europe are oriented different than the genetic.ones. 

Of course, just like genetic PCA, there are distances and clusters even within points on an axis; thus there are East/West differences within the North/South ends of the genetic PCA and of course North/South differences within the East/West ends of the cultural PCA (and vice versa in each case).  But that’s part and parcel of breaking down variation into principal components, the important word is principal.  Thus, the differences within each axis are the principal component in the other axis. This is of course obvious and I wouldn’t even bother mentioning it except to answer in advance the shrill protests of sweaty fetishists who’ll accuse me of stating the Limey and Afrowop cultures are equivalent.  No, they are not, but they are more similar than either is to that of say, Russkis.

Of course, from a continental, global level, these intra-European difference, both genetic and cultural, are small compared to the broader, racial differences.

One could combine various metrics and create an overall PCA plot of Identity, incorporating the various ultimate and proximate interests that constitute that Identity.  What would merge, on a global level, is a clear distinction of all Europeans from others.  Intra-European differences would of course exist, but the much greater inter-racial vs. intra-racial gulf would be clear.

Rosit on the Penman Hypothesis

Biohistorical speculations.

Read here.

I really don’t have much to add to Rosit’s fine analysis, except to note that culture is a proximate interest, albeit the most important proximate interest, and one that – as I have written about extensively – affects our ultimate (genetic) interests.  But, any complete analysis of the decline of the West must put EGI first and foremost.  That would, as a matter of necessity, bring forth, directly, the race issue, the inability to deal with fully and honestly being, as Rosit suggests, a flaw in Penman’s hypothesis. Also, while epigenetic modifications are may in particular contexts be important, there are many, on both the Right and the Left, with an axe to grind against “genetic determinism” that overrate the importance of epigenetics with regards to the final phenotype.  

A reasonable analogy would be that the body is the hardware (computer), the genes are the software, and epigenetics may in part determine whether a particular software program is turned on or off.  That’s important, no doubt, but without the underlying software, there’s nothing to tun on or off, without the software, the hardware is merely a paperweight, and  – and this is crucial – not all computers are running the same software.  If one computer has a particularly powerful program and the other does not, all the “turning on or off” in the world won’t make up the difference.  Epigenetics has become an over-rated meme.

Penman’s grim prognosis is more or less correct, and having the pathetic “movement” as the major vehicle for preventing the racial-cultural disaster that is unfolding is part of the problem.

We need to start rebuilding now, before the collapse, and Der Movement is hardly capable of doing so.

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.

I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics.  In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.

Read here.

There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…

Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests.  Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument.  That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.

…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.

Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests.  Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.

However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.

Yes, very good.  But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.”  Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban?  The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point.  It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?  

Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions.  But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).

Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe? 

That’s the ultimate existential question.  It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.

This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.

Looking ahead, unlike most politicians.  When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction. 

Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration. 

No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue.  It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate.  We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either.  We do not want them at all.

The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.

That’s true even if integration were to be successful.  “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement.  The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples.  The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”

Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.

If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.

I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.

Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does.  How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture?  I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.

Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.

Again, it is better that it does not succeed.  Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes.  There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language.  Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”

…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.

Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?

A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:

1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same

2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights

3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans

Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.