Comparative behavioural observations were made in the home setting in order to analyze the ethology of the human-cat relationship. Factors postulated, and indeed, found to influence that relationship included marital status of the human (women living alone, with a partner or with a partner and children)…
Relevance to EGI? In Western nations, women have the right to vote (typically to the left of men), women can become political leaders (hello, Merkel), and thus “cat ladies” can determine the downward path of Western civilization, destroying our (and their own) genetic interests, and leaving a trail of ruin and lamentation in their wake.
The solution is not “game” – men groveling to female sexual power – but, instead, men retaking control of their nations and their civilization, enforcing traditional sex roles, and forcing the “cat ladies” out of politics and back into the shadows where their greatest decision would be what brand of cat food to buy for their feline “significant other(s).”
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.
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.
Odds and ends.
I’m not sure the conference “shrugged off” anything given that an attendee was assaulted and then, on top of it, got into legal trouble, but what they hey, right?
And Spencer is a big boy and all, and can do as he pleases, but I note he has completely ignored the advice of this blog to eschew the Alt Wrong, and instead speaks at a conference organized by those who threw him under the bus for Jewish interests, with fellow speakers including someone who engaged in bemused schadenfreude with a Jewish correspondent over the possibility of Spencer getting shot. I’m not very confident about the judgment of Alt Right leadership, but these guys are young; maybe they’ll mature with age.
This analysis was disappointing. Panhandling Brimelow and scum like Derbyshire are enjoyable? Derbyshire talks science?
One could of course take a “glass half full” approach and say that having more radical folk like Spencer and Friberg speak was maturation on the part of the Alt Wrong itself; but any conference that features the likes of Derbyshire as a speaker is inherently flawed at its deepest foundations.
One could also argue that both sides overcame personal issues to let Spencer (and Friberg) have a forum to promote the Alt Right (whether that’s a good thing is another question), and so all involved should be commended for putting “the good of the movement” above all else. Perhaps. But there are, as implied above, deeper issues at stake other than the merely personal. Loyalty and dependability, essential in a crisis – can people who so blithely “threw you under the bus” for something so inconsequential has “Hailgate” be trusted in the event of more serious occurrences? And how can the deep ideological divide be plastered over? What should hardcore WN supporters of the Alt right think about this dalliance with the Alt Wrong? Conversely, what will Jewish supporters of the Alt Wrong think about Spencer-Friberg speaking at Amren? In the end, do the Alt Right and Alt Wrong brands actually represent anything meaningful? Anything consistent? Anything that can be depended upon beyond the needs of the moment?
No surprise that Der Movement, including the ‘anti-immigration” alt Wrong sites, hasn’t had anything to say about this.
Question: will the good and great “alpha male” Trump, with his “unlimited pardoning power” do the right thing and pardon Arpaio? Or are we just getting to get more tweets attacking Sessions instead?
But, but, but…I thought we were all the same, race is only skin deep:
Current meta-analytical research suggests that different population groups have distinctive muscular adaptations…
An ethnonationalist response to EGI paradigm: “all our enemies are White, so we don’t care about racial solidarity.”
Putting aside the “who cares that we’ve all been ruined by two world wars, let’s indulge in more of the narrow, ethnonationalist retarded nonsense that caused our problems to begin with,” EGI can apply to the ethnic group as well as to the race, so what’s the point to the response? I mean, other than the obvious point that ethnonationalism, in the narrow sense exemplified by the above quote, is a curse on our race and must be unalterably opposed and, eventually, crushed into the dust.
Genetic variation and environment.
Of interest, re: genetics, culture, and race, I note this methodology paper:
Identifying interactions between genetics and the environment (GxE) remains challenging. We have developed EAGLE, a hierarchical Bayesian model for identifying GxE interactions based on associations between environmental variables and allele-specific expression. Combining whole-blood RNA-seq with extensive environmental annotations collected from 922 human individuals, we identified 35 GxE interactions, compared with only four using standard GxE interaction testing. EAGLE provides new opportunities for researchers to identify GxE interactions using functional genomic data.
Basic findings were that environmental risk factors (e.g., substance abuse, exercise, BMI) can interact with genetic variation and affect gene expression. But the effects were modest, these were not large influences compared to other possible (e.g., additive) effects, and may have been affected by confounding factors (a possible problem when probing interactions for which there can be many variables). In addition, some of the observed effects may have been in part epigenetic, presumably modifications due to environmental factors, rather than interactions between those factors and gene sequence variation itself.
On the one hand, the effects, being modest, cannot plausibly be invoked by anti-genetic determinists to prop up environment as the primary factor affecting gene expression (and, hence, eventual phenotype). On the other hand, effects were observed, and these cannot be dismissed. Of interest would be effects and interactions due to environmental factors other than those cited above.
Can culture, through its many manifestations, shaping the environment, interact with genetic variation to affect gene expression and, thus, phenotypic outcomes? Would different ethnic and racial groups, characterized by group-specific genetic variation, exhibit variable gene expression when immersed in the same cultural environment? Conversely, would genetically similar individuals and groups exhibit altered gene expression when placed in radically different cultural environments?
And this goes beyond the more fundamental observation that genes affect culture (through the different phenotypes of culture creators, maintainers, or destroyers) and, conversely, culture can actually affect genetic variation itself (rather than just interact with it) by exerting selective pressure favoring one genotype over another. Gene-culture cross-talk, if you will. See this old TOQ paper I wrote some time ago for more on that topic. Also, epigenetic effects, mentioned above, are another way in which culture can affect gene expression, but not to the extent, or in the manner, than the anti-determinists fervently hope. The basic foundation for all of this is genetic variation; there is no evading that inconvenient (for some people) truth.
In summary, all of this bolsters the importance of genetic variation and, hence, genetic interests. It also shows how reckless the globalists are in their indiscriminate mixing of genes and cultures (in Western nations).
While I had some disagreements with Polignano in the past about his interpretations of On Genetic Interests and Salter’s EGI theory, in general I see him as a positive influence, and his return to Counter-Currents constitutes one of the best pieces of “movement” news I’ve read in quite some time.
That doesn’t mean I may not disagree with him on issues in the future, and if I do it will be outlined here in my typically discreet and humble style.
But those are details. Hopefully now Counter-Currents will move forward away from Alt Right feuding and start to concentrate on producing quality intellectual material.
Calibrate your arguments.
With respect to introducing EGI to political discourse, I am sure the attitude will be: “most people will not be convinced by rational, scientific arguments; instead they will be influenced by emotional arguments instead. No one will care about EGI.”
This is truth to that – but I also do not believe that ”most people” are going to be influenced by cartoon frogs or screams of “Hail Kek!”– but I’ve never said that “most people” should be addressed by discussions of gene frequencies or of “Hamilton’s Rule.”
Obviously, if you are addressing who Pierce would call “Joe and Jill Sixpack” then you are not going to be invoking “genetic kinship” and explaining the fine points of On Genetic Interests. You could, however, invoke the language of family and tribe, stoke the “us vs. them” divide and equate face and family to stimulate protective instincts for the group against those threatening it.
So, no, I’m not arguing that one should go to a local town hall with charts of Fst values or what have you, but the fundamental principles can be put forth in language understandable to the target audience, even if one must use analogies and rhetorical proxies for some major points. In past “Political EGI” posts I gave some examples of calibrated arguments: I’m no politician or speechwriter, and I’m sure those that are can do an even better job of formulating EGI-based arguments that can resonate to even Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack.
One can also argue – and it’s likely correct – that the less intellectual Whites, the Sixpacks, are more inherently tribal and will require less prompting to unleash their instincts in that regard. They just need guidance so as to direct that unleashing in the proper political direction (not to GOP cucks or Trumpain frauds, for example) and they need to be inoculated against “we are all the same” leftist rhetoric that, while they may not believe it “in their bones,” may still confuse them.
On the other hand, it are the more intellectually advanced “professionals” among Whites who lead rarefied lives apart from tribal instincts so it are precisely they – the ones best as understanding EGI concepts – would be benefit from more explicit, albeit still carefully calibrated, appeals to more rationalized EGI arguments.
So in that sense it works out well: those Whites least capable of understanding the more explicit EGI arguments are in the least need of them and those Whites most capable of understanding have the most need.
At this point someone will say I’ve missed the original point, which was one of emotion trumping logic, not one of understanding or not. That’s true, but consider that the “lower class” Whites tend to be more emotional/irrational and the “upper class” Whites are relatively more rational, and hence rationality and understanding go hand-in-hand. In addition, remember I’m still advocating calibration even for the upper classes; likely pure EGI is suitable for the highest intellectual groups, academics, top intellectual activists, etc. Some “irrational” arguments may need to be made to the rank-and-file upper class, but these would need to be calibrated differently than those used for the Sixpacks. Perhaps less raw tribalism and more Universal Nationalism? This post is not the place to evaluate this at that level of detail, but to point out that those with rhetorical skills can make EGI-style arguments palatable to specific target audiences. It’s more a matter of will – wanting to do it – rather than the rhetorical technics.