Category: evolution

Racial Proximity Theory

New paradigm.

To oppose HBD-Nordicist theories about “Hajnal lines” and “high trust northern hunter gatherers” (I suppose these days “steppe ancestry” is even more important to these types than is WHG), I suggest a new theoretical paradigm for intra-European differences in ethnocentrism – Racial Proximity Theory.

Consistent with my Occam’s Razor ideal that one should not over-complexify theories, and should instead aim for the most direct and simple ideas that have sufficient explanatory power (*), Racial Proximity Theory is indeed more simple than its competitors.

Thus, I suggest that European groups whose ethnogenesis took place farther away from non-Whites, i.e., a greater geographic distance from Afro-Asia, would tend to exhibit relatively less inter-racial hostility but relatively greater intra-racial hostility; in contrast, European groups whose ethnogenesis took place closer to, or at, the periphery of Europe, geographically close to Afro-Asia, would tend to exhibit greater inter-racial hostility than intra-racial hostility.

Thus, Northwest Europeans had an ethnogenesis relatively more isolated from contact with non-European groups and in their case hostile contact with outgroups were for the most part with other Europeans. Here, we would suppose that Northwest Europeans would tend to have a weakened negative response to non-White, non-European, peoples, since there has been little selective pressure and adaptive value in identifying and opposing radically different peoples. On the other hand, therehasbeen selective pressure in identifying and opposing peoples who are similar but distinct.

On the other hand, Southern and Eastern Europeans have been, historically, on the “front lines” in conflicts with Afro-Asia, and thus there has been selective pressure for identifying and opposing radically different peoples. There was also selective pressure for identifying and opposing similar but distinct peoples as well, since Southern and Eastern Europe had conflicts with other Europeans as well as with the Global South.  So, there may be relatively greater overall ethnocentrism in Southern and Eastern Europe, but with most of it targeted toward non-Whites.  In contrast, the relatively lesser ethnocentrism of Northwest Europeans is disproportionately targeted against other Europeans; hence in Northwest Europe we observe tearful welcomes for Afro-Asiatic migrant invaders coupled to sneering contempt for the “greasy wogs” of Europe’s South and East.

Thus, Racial Proximity Theory is asscoated with the relative amount of ethnocentric hostility toward racial (and sub-racial and ethnic) outgroups in nearest geographic and historical proximity. Another example would be the (“Outer Hajnal”) Irish, who seem relatively ethnocentric for Northwest Europeans, but who reserve their primary animus toward the English (and Scots-Irish) with whom they’ve feuded for centuries. Here, with Ireland in Europe’s extreme northwest, and with virtually no historic contact with non-Whites or even with many other more distant European groups, Irish hostility is primarily aimed at (“Inner Hajnal”) Northwest Europeans. The more isolated a group’s ethnogenesis, the more likely that their ethnocentrism is targeted to their closest immediate neighbors. The behavior of the (Irish) Kennedy family in America is instructive as well – “sticking it to the Anglos” with mass immigration, thus favoring non-Whites.

It is theoretically possible that the opposite is true – one could suggest that those evolving closer to more alien groups would be more “resistant” to them and would be less “triggered.” But that is not consistent with actual ethnic behavior. And we must distinguish between simple “fear/threat” responses (such as amygdala activation), and triggers of more complex and actualized ethnocentric responses (or the lack thereof).  It may well be that Northwest Europeans do have a larger “fear” trigger response to non-Whites than do Southern or Eastern Europeans, but if the former still exhibit xenophilia to non-Whites, then the “fear” response is not what we should be measuring here. We need to instead look more for markers of ingroup/outgroup identification, complex behavioral responses to outgroups, etc. We are therefore considering pathological altruism vs. ethnocentrism rather than “fear” triggers per se.

Another possible objection to this theory is that ingroup vs. outgroup is more “digital” and discrete than “analog” and continuous, more of an “all or nothing” response. This objection would assert that Northwest Europeans are simply less ethnocentric in general and that the identity of the outgroup doesn’t matter. This, however, doesn’t match actual ethnic behavior – the welcoming attitude of Northwest Europeans to the Global South contrasted to their sneering hostility toward other Europeans.  One could, for example, contrast German hyper-xenophilia for Afro-Asiatic migrants, Turks, etc. with their contemptuous hostility toward, e.g., Greeks during the debt crisis. That is just one example of many. There is a very strong “narcissism of small differences” behavioral pattern among ethnies that enthusiastically welcome the most alien of peoples but who at the same time shun fellow Europeans. “Polish plumbers” led to Brexit, but Rotherham leads to more Commonwealth immigration. The enthusiasm of some Nordicists for Asians may fit this pattern as well.

If we assume that this is an inborn trait and not merely cultural, one could evaluate differences in behavior and/or brain activity in psychometric testing scenarios exposing persons (including children) of different ethnies to various outgroup “threat” subjects.  But the details of actual testing of the theory is beyond the scope of this post (a post that is theoretical in nature) and it is not my area of expertise. Others would be better suited to devise legitimate tests of the hypothesis.

*This is where clueless critics of Occam’s Razor go wrong when they complain that “the simplest ideas are not always correct” – implying that Occam’s Razor is about always going for the simplest theory in every possible context. No, it is instead about not multiplying entities beyond necessity – emphasis on the word necessityIf theory A is more complex than theory B, but A effectively describes the phenomenon and B does not, then obviously we should go with A.  But if A and C both explain the phenomenon, but C is much more complex than A, with all sorts of superfluous add-ons, then this suggests that A is more likely (not definitively, but more likely) to be the better explanation. The more parsimonious explanation that can explain the phenomenon is more likely to be true compared to one that is unnecessarily complex.  

Innate Tendencies

Food for thought.

I remember reading a comment at some “movement” site (maybe it was Counter-Currents, I don’t recall) in which a commentator was making a point about different environmental archetypes associated with various population groups. To paraphrase, it was something like “Northern Europeans have the archetype of the forest, Southern Europeans have the rocky shore, MENA peoples have the desert, etc.”

Let us consider together. There is at least some superficial plausibility here. Let us assume it has validity. That such preferences can have a cultural basis is fairly straightforward. But does it go deeper?  My impression is that the person writing the comment implied innate (genetic) tendencies, inborn heritable preferences of population groups toward environments that they find congenial to their authentic selves, possibly associated with the concept of racial memory. This could be related to the concept of a “racial soul” that I discussed here, with suggestions of possible biological mechanisms underlying the phenomenon.

This may not be as far-fetched as it may initially appear (especially as it may initially appear to people marinated in the “blank slate” doctrines of the Left). Spring affords ample opportunities to observe animal life in the routines unfolding for them in their new year of life (that is, when they are not dodging Stronza’s “bullets flying everywhere”); these are for the most part activities driven by instinct, by patterns encoded in the brains, the neural networks, of these animals.  The bird and the nest, the spider and the web, the field rodent and its burrow – that is not conscious thought but genetically encoded instinct.

By analogy, can certain environmental preferences be encoded within the human brain, in the minds of varied ethnies, due to the characteristics of the environments in which ethnogenesis of each group occurred? Thus, the Celts and Germanics prefer the forest, the Latins and Greeks prefer the shore and the beckoning sea, the Slavs prefer the steppes and plains and fields, the Semites prefer the desert, TROPICAL peoples such as sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians prefer jungles and rice paddies, and so forth.

That this is not merely culture and not merely childhood exposure to certain environments is suggested by the observation that these preferences seem to continue over the generations even under the novel environmental context of America.  One can consider also where groups tend to settle in the Diaspora – although that can complicate matters (for example, if people tend to settle in American environments that most closely resemble their preferences, then it will be difficult to detangle genetic and environmental factors, since each generation is being exposed from birth to the pre-selected environment. Thus we observe gene-culture co-evolution). One can test results of inter-group admixture and how this affects preferences, and whether where someone lives is influenced by, and/or influences, these preferences.

In this sense, it may be understandable that some types foam at the mouth over Tolkien and “being snug in your hobbit hole in the forest,” while others view that as insipid stupidity. Innate preferences. To each his own I suppose.  One must be careful though not to confuse specific innate preferences with political and metapolitical themes appropriate for all White people.

Defamation and Evolution

A two part post.

First, defamation:

Relevant to thissee this (emphasis added):

What is defamatory?
Defamation is all about reputation, and in particular about statements which damage others’ reputations. The English courts have not settled upon a single test for determining whether a statement is defamatory. Examples of the formulations used to define a “defamatory imputation” include:
an imputation which is likely to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking
people;
an imputation which injures a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt
or ridicule;
an imputation which tends to make a person be shunned or avoided.
A statement that a person is an adulterer, a gold-digger or a drunkard may be defamatory, as may an allegation of corruption, racism, disease, insanity or insolvency

Therefore, injuring “a person’s reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule” by an imputation of “insanity” can be considered defamation – assuming that the person in question is not deemed clinically insane.

Also, see footnote 149 here (emphasis added):

Social Aversion. A communication may be defamatory of another although it has no tendency to affect adversely the other’s personal or financial reputation. Thus the imputation of certain physical and mental attributes such as disease or insanity are defamatory because they tend to deter third persons from associating with the person so characterized.

By the way, calling someone “insane” is not the same as calling them “fucking crazy,” which has been deemed not to be defamation as it is an opinion expressed as “slang.” Insanity on the other hand is a legal and medical term indicating a disorder associated with diminished behavioral responsibility, and hence is not merely an opinion when expressed as a fact.  

Thus, calling me “crazy and bitter” is not defamation. Calling me “fucking crazy” or a “lunatic” or any other “slang” pejorative is also not defamation (as has been legally established by precedent), since it is understood that the accuser is not talking literally using medical or legal terms. “Insane” and “insanity” are medical and legal terms with a specific meaning.  Calling someone “insane” as a statement of fact, in the absence of supporting evidence, is therefore defamation and is legally actionable.

Based on the above, there seems to be at least some legal theory supporting the contention that Johnson’s tweet is legally actionable defamation.

Rank-and-file activists should carefully consider the judgment of a “leader” who would expose themselves to liability via reckless, defamatory tweets.

Second, evolution:

The “Majority Rightization” of Counter-Currents continues apace (perhaps it is therefore appropriate that “Silver” rears its head again). One of the characteristics of Majority Right’s rapid decline phase was the long, turgid, barely comprehensible essays of Daniel S that took thousands of words to express an opinion that could have been more effectively and efficiently summarized in one short paragraph. We are getting newer “writers” at Counter-Currents who mimic this style, hiding intellectual vacuity behind unnecessarily dense and wordy prose (good ideas are instead typically associated with clarity and elegant expression). The main point of one such pseudo-intellectual vomiting is thus (emphasis added):

The value system of this narrative seems to subordinate peoples of European descent to their technologically progressive destiny. Indeed, the main focus of attention appears to be the relentless drive to the beyond, a self-justified virtue, which just happens to be contained within a vehicle we call “white people.” Articulating this telos demonstrates the similarities between the “march of the Titans” narrative in the Dissident Right and the maligned “conservative” value set typified by American Baby Boomers. Both views of historical meaning hold technological progress, which is to say, the manipulation of natural forces, above the preservation (or at least recognizable continuity) of European descended peoples. The two views seem to differ only in their preferred time frames. This observation invites a disturbing question. What is the difference between a future in which European-descended peoples have converged and transcended themselves to the inevitable point of unrecognizability, and the new post-ethnic man at the end of the Left’s mission to converge all humanity through their ideology of cosmopolitan progress?

Let’s for the sake of argument agree that these are the two possible outcomes of an anti-traditionalist “progressive” view.  What’s the difference?  The first (consistent with Pierce’s cosmotheism, by the way) is a higher path, an upper path, European man on the road to godhood, achieving an understanding of the universe and actualizing opportunities for creative activity on a level analogous to that separating modern man from an insect.  The second path is a downward path of devolution, an end not a beginning, The Last Man, a mongrel creature capable of nothing except mere existence, with all avenues of higher evolution, of higher creative activity, of higher understanding, closed off. True enough, both outcomes would diminish current EGI and both would by necessity negatively affect the value system of strict preservationists who fetishize certain phenotypes.  

But obviously there are other paths. If we accept that populations of evolved organisms will not be static in any case (because of genetic drift if for no other reason, but there will always be selective pressures, although if undirected by racialist concerns we certainly would not like the outcome), we can use science, and our understanding of ultimate and proximate interests, to direct an upward path while at the same time preserving as much of our current fundamental essence as possible for as long as possible.  We need to understand that there is no pure static preservationism in evolution. If change is inevitable, it is incumbent upon us to direct that change in a manner that is optimized to our ultimate and proximate interests, to our culture, and to our aesthetic sensibilities.

The Birth of HBD

Behold the cult.

Building upon this, let’s mimic HBD’s “just so” stories to build a hypothetical chronology of East Asian evolution and how this ties into the birth of the anti-White HBD cult.

1. East Asians evolved in a warm, humid TROPICAL environment; they are, fundamentally, a “sun people,” an anti-Arctic, COLORED, TROPICAL people akin to sub-Saharan Africans.

2. At some point, East Asia became more temperate and, most importantly, China became a centralized state with a requirement for a comprehensive, integrated civil service system.  

3. Thus, there was a relaxation of tropical selection, and a strong selection for a more intelligent form of Asiatic, and an even stronger selection for “domestication”- a conformist, unimaginative, collectivist, and insect-like automaton.

4. It is known that domestication causes an increase in neotenic physical and behavioral traits. It is also known that female hominids are more neotenic than males. Obviously as well, sexual dimorphism is going to be suppressed in juvenile-like neotenic forms – compare, e.g., White children to White adults as an analogy.

5. Thus, the domestication of the East Asian, centered on China, resulted in a neotenic race, with suppressed sexual dimorphism, more body fat, less body hair, a larger head-to-body ratio, under-developed musculature, more child-like behavior, and “males” more feminine (note the association of femaleness and neotenic traits – while any trend toward femininity in Asian “females” being suppressed by inhibited sexual dimorphism [note that increased “male” femininity would converge “males” and “females” and thus decrease sexual dimorphism, exactly as predicted]). These Chinese trends were duplicated throughout East Asia, in part from dissemination of Chinese genes, and in part by convergent evolution of similar peoples in similar environments in similar collectivist, conformist, domesticated cultures. However, Asian “females” retain the female preference for more masculine men.  

6. In multiracial societies, Asian “females” can act upon that preference with men of other races, while scorning Asian “males” for their greater neotenic, feminine traits. In addition, Asian “females” prefer Whites over Negroes, as the Whites are more intelligent, more accomplished, better-looking, more capable, and less violent, etc.

7. Dysgenic trends among White populations have created a fraction of “awkward squad,” semi-autistic, loser omega males who cannot attract females of their own race, and therefore must go with the aforementioned Asian “females.” Because these White males have a degree of self-loathing and self-disgust over their deficiencies, and because they are behaviorally warped, they express their sexuality via extreme masochism and “measured groveling” toward Asian “females.” This psycho-sexual mechanism becomes an ideology of White subservience to Asians; hence, the birth of HBD.

Extra notes:


How’s Sweden and its “minimal mitigation” doing?  I also suppose that the HBDers will say that all of the dead in Sweden are migrants and other non-natives, since, according to the HBD heroes, Northern Europeans, as well as Blacks (see America, right?), are relatively immune.  Retards.


Hmm…are the monsters trying to mimic human behavior?