Category: group evolutionary strategies

Recent KMacD Controversy

On the Jews, MacDonald is correct.

Read this.

And this.

Contrary to the idea that I am always critical, I will point out that Quinn’s writing, re: the MacDonald vs. Cofnas issue shows maturity and reasonably good analysis.  That is similar to some of the things I was writing 10-15 years ago, when I was defending or opposing various “movement” memes.  These days, while I will still defend Salterism, given its importance and solid scientific legitimacy, and while I may occasionally still dive into certain debates, I’ve grown cynical over the utility of some of these online arguments.  For example, on the issue Quinn writes about, when all is said and done, and regardless of what arguments are made in both directions, the Far Right will still, by and large, support MacDonald, and the rest of the political spectrum will oppose MacDonald and support Cofnas and Peterson. People “choose their teams” on these issues for reasons based on subjective rational interests as well as irrational (yet wholly legitimate if they affect Identify and pursuit of interests) impulses; I have yet to see any significant “changing of teams” based on objective rational arguments. The same holds for, e.g., pan-Europeanism vs. Nordicism or pan-Europeanism vs. ethnonationalism.  I haven’t seen much movement in any of these directions based on arguments; people defend their ideas and that of their ideological “tribe,” and there really isn’t a big pool of third party observers to be swayed one way or the other.

That said, there is still some utility in speaking truth and defending truth (although Pilate would ask: “what is truth?”) and if a person early in their activist career, like Quinn, wants to “cut their teeth” on such topics, that’s fine as far as it goes.  However, he’s preaching to the choir at Counter-Currents (as MacDonald is at TOO), and no one is likely to be converted.  Of course, there is some value to have these refutations of Cofnas and Peterson online, just so they can be linked to, to deflate the claims of the Left (just don’t expect to convert many people, as I said).  People may of course change their mind on these issues, but they will most likely do so after either joining or leaving Der Movement for other reasons (mostly irrational, I suppose).

Obviously, I support the MacDonald view in these debates; Cofnas is a ludicrously non-objective “scholar” (and thus no better in his irrational and/or subjective interests as any “movement” activist) with a parcel of poor arguments; Peterson is a gravel-voiced over-rated bore, who pretends (LARPs to use Alt Right language) to be some sort of cutting-edge dissident, while actually being just another water boy for the System and for anti-White interests.

I read MacDonald’s Trilogy when it first came out, and although I have serious issues with the direction TOO has gone in the last few years, I nonetheless value MacDonald’s core contributions, his work on the Jews, and on diaspora peoples and on group evolutionary interests in general.

The best way to understand who is right or wrong in this debate is to ask: which view, which explanation, has predictive power?  If you follow MacDonald’s view, you will be able to predict, with reasonable accuracy and precision, general Jewish behavior (of course, there will always be outliers and exceptions); on the other hand, those who follow the Cofnas/Peterson direction, ignoring obvious patterns and the ethnic interests that underlie them, will be wrong more often than they will be right.  A default setting of “Jews as a group in general behave to defend their interests in an ethnocentric manner, typified by a dual morality, and they are very successful in doing so, and Jewish group interests are typically incompatible with those of European-descended people; hence, Jewish activism as a net outcome will be harmful to Europeans” will typically (not 100% of course, that’s not how the world works, but the vast majority of cases) lead you to the right prediction. Following the Cofnas/Peterson direction will make you as easy mark, as you’ll be unable to accurately and precisely predict and understand Jewish group behavior.

I’d like to point out it is safer for Whites to err on the side of caution; it is safer to be unfairly suspicious of Jews even in cases where Jews are ethnically disinterested and not hostile to White interests than it is to be childishly naïve and ignore those cases where Jews are being destructive.  False positives are safer than false negatives when core group interests are at stake.  Better safe than sorry.

Further, the argument can be made – and has been made by some activists over the years – that spotty Jewish “universalism” actually serves ethnocentric Jewish group interests by diversifying their ideological/sociopolitical portfolio.  Thus, the Jews are hedging their bets by not putting all their eggs in one basket, infiltrating intellectual movements in order to bend them to Jewish interests (look what happened to conservatism, or even look at the Alt Wrong in Der Movement), and obfuscating the destructive role of Jewish activism in order to fool the dumb goyim.  As regards the last, think about all the nitwits who agree with Cofnas and Peterson and who let scattered Jewish ideological outliers (who typically have little power to reverse the damage done by their more typical co-ethnics) fool the goyish latrine flies into thinking: “see, see – not all Jews are like that, Moshe Finkelstein is a conservative, he even reads Amren.”  

I’ll be checking out how Quinn completes his series.


Cultural Group Selection

Interesting paper. 

Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete, and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is “no,” then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence, including quantitative evidence, that the answer to all of the questions is “yes” and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies, then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

Of course, “non-relatives” is relative (no pun intended).  In an ethnoracially homogeneous society, and focused on that society to the exclusion of the outside world. One can view cooperative social structures as being among “non-relatives” since, in that monoethnic background, non-family = non-relatives.  However, in a demographically diverse state, or when considering the interactions of a monoethnic states with the rest of the world, genetic gradients become salient, and one can view the ethny among which group cooperation may work as a group of relatives.  If “kin selection” is invoked as one explanation for large cooperative societies, then the genetic gradients that exist between groups at levels greater than that of between families must be considered.  Further, as genes and culture exhibit bidirectional feedback, cultural group selection will, by its very nature if practiced by competing genetically distinct groups, will lead to genetic group selection (a form of kin selection) as a matter of course.

Also importantly, the concept of cultural group selection, particularly: “…culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance…” is a tool of social control to repress free-riding (the knee-jerk response of the mendacious who wish to poke holes in group selectionist theories, or even the EGI concept of Salter, which at its most fundamental is not dependent on group selection theory) – never mind my previous argument (made here at this blog) that inter-ethnic free-riding is always ignored by those who foam at the mouth about intra-ethnic free-riding, despite the fact that the inter-ethnic form is more damaging (due to the greater genetic distance between those riding and those being ridden) and also harder to control my social norms (it is easier to control the behavior of culturally similar people of your own group than bizarre aliens who are exploiting you).

Personality Variation and Group Selection

Food for thought.

The power of personality, by Elizabeth Pennisi, in Science 06 May 2016: Vol. 352, Issue 6286, pp. 644-647, DOI: 10.1126/science.352.6286.644

Excerpts, emphasis added:

As the existence of animal personalities becomes undeniable, researchers face a puzzle: how disparate personalities can coexist in a single species. Europe’s great tits are helping explain how. At long-term field sites in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Niels Dingemanse, a behavioral ecologist at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany, and others have manipulated the number of offspring in nests and the density of nest sites. They’ve found that different conditions favor opposite personalities, thereby enabling behavioral variation to persist. 

When bird populations are dense, competition for territories, mates, and food sharpens, and one might expect aggressive individuals to win out. But when Dingemanse’s postdoc, Marion Nicolaus, tracked 541 adults for 4 years, recording which survived and how many young they produced, she found the opposite was true. It seems that when birds have to compete for scarce resources, the aggressive ones often get into fights, which take a physical toll. Aggressive birds also strain to keep all their young fed, further taxing their health. Thus, compared with more docile individuals, these birds are more likely to wear themselves out and fail to survive to the next breeding year. Only when densities are low do type A birds outcompete gentler ones and thrive, Dingemanse says. 

The findings parallel predictions made a decade ago about humans: that “in growing populations, competitive environments should favor shy, non-explorative, non-aggressive individuals,” Nicolaus, Dingemanse, and colleagues write in an upcoming paper in Ecology Letters.

One can correlate that to Frost’s “genetic pacification” theory and hypothesize that in high-density, populated, areas of higher civilization, more passive, gentle, and shy organisms are selected. Thus, the sissified pansy Whites, particularly those of the urbanized “Western” areas of the race – Western Europe and as well as the overseas Anglosphere. The negative effects of Christianity in selecting for passive faggotry would exacerbate this problem. 

By looking for marked fish, they found that shy individuals hadn’t simply moved out of the groups; they had vanished, most likely because they were not aggressive enough to compete for food in the group and had starved, or were too slow in reacting to predators that homed in on the school. On their own, however, the shy fish thrived, because remaining still is an effective antipredator defense. Bold fish, in contrast, became targets when isolated.

The finding suggests that personality types could play a role in evolution by helping divide a species into separate populations. Such segregation can lead to further differentiation and, eventually, to reproductive isolation. “That is often the first step in models of speciation,” Duckworth says.

Again, the same principles can apply to humans. Will more aggressive and ethnocentric Whites become ever more differentiated from sissified cucks, forming a new ethny with radical different behavioral and other phenotypes and the variant genetic architecture to match? Will the pansies be selected out, leaving the more ethnocentric to survive as the more fit? Or are these different types too integrated, with a too shallow behavioral gradient between them, so that both types will become extinct because of the mistakes of the numerous and influential cuck fraction?

Anelosimus studiosus, a small, brownish U.S. spider, lives in groups of from two to two dozen individuals and can build car-sized webs capable of snaring a small bird or mammal. Over the past decade, behavioral ecologist Jonathan Pruitt of UC Santa Barbara has determined that not only do individual spiders have personalities—bold and active or docile and inactive—but also that the mix of the two types gives each colony a distinctive “group personality.” The group personality needs to fit the demands of the local environment if the colony is to survive, he and his colleagues reported in Nature in 2014.

Thus, group selection based on different mixes of personality variants in the population. Does the same hold for humans? Continuing the speculation from above, do the cuck and ethnocentric fractions of the White population form an integrated whole, with the problem being we have too high a cuck fraction? Will a change toward more ethnocentrics (if possible) solve the problem without complete elimination of the cucks, or a “speciation” between the groups?

Summary Of Jewish Behavior and the Real Cause of Anti-Semitism

HBDers take note.

One of the most fundamental positions for White advocates concerned with Jewish influence must be the conviction that antagonism against Jews lies in Jewish behavior rather than solely the cultural pathology or psychological tendencies of non-Jews. A major testing ground for this position is the necessity for anti-Jewish attitudes to be present among geographically, racially, and culturally diverse peoples, and for the reasons behind this antagonism to be fairly uniform. In Separation and Its Discontents Kevin MacDonald argued that a social identity theory of anti-Semitism is highly compatible with supposing that anti-Semitism will be a very common characteristic of human societies in general. Reasons for this pervasiveness lie in Jewish cultural separatism leading to the perception of the Jewish group as an alien entity; inter-group resource and reproductive competition; and finally, the fact that Jews are, for cultural and genetic reasons, highly adept in resource competition against non-Jews. Additionally, Jews are adept at influencing culture and creating and influencing intellectual and political movements which often run contrary to the interests of the host population. Wherever these behaviors and circumstances are present, they contribute to the arousal of hostility in a host population.

On the other hand, the HBD filth reject this reasoned and fact-based argument, and instead assert that Jews (and East Asians) are a master race, fit to be served by the lowly Gentiles. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the White race will never be truly free until all the HBDers have been hanged with piano wire from the ends of meathooks, in public, to the celebratory excitement of joyous crowds of onlookers.