Category: individualism vs. collectivism

Ethnonationalism is Atomized Individualism at the Racial-Civilizational Level

Some thoughts.

Listening to this podcast (transcript here) I find that I agree with 95% of what Greg Johnson said.  As per the other 5%, some points are as follows.

There’s a widespread misconception that White Nationalism means just the idea that if you’re white, you belong in the same state. And I think that that’s a ridiculous idea, a parody actually, of what most White Nationalists believe.

That’s a parody of the pan-European perspective, but very few people actually promote this view.  It’s as much as a strawman argument as saying that ethnonationalists all want to restart WWII.

The great conflicts of the twentieth century were largely between different white nations. And, largely, those conflicts came about because these groups were not respecting the autonomy of other white groups

And who wasn’t respecting that autonomy?  Extreme ethnonationalists, each looking out for their perception of what was best for their nation, at the expense of the race as a whole. That explanation is nothing new, Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color said as much about WWI, as he was correct about that.

There’s also of course the Chinese question and South Asia, Africa, and so forth. These are distinct groups of people, distinct geopolitical blocs, and it would be nice if we can have white nations coordinating their plans regarding them in order to survive, rather than what we have today, which is our leadership basically conspiring to replace our population with non-whites from around the world.

There are some positive points in that paragraph.  Yes, the Chinese and South Asians should indeed be grouped with Africans as distinct geopolitical blocs that pose a question for Whites – a question of our very survival.  And, yes, coordination among Whites is good, but “coordination” per se does not go far enough when faced with this Clash of Civilizations.

How to balance coordination with sovereignty?  If a sovereign Ireland decides they want to import one million Negroes for cheap labor, would they have that right?  If England wanted to make an alliance with China against Germany, should we respect English sovereignty?  If so, racial coordination is impossible and White nationalism is a joke.  If not, then there are clear limits to sovereignty, and coordination leads to a certain amount of integration – an integration that still respects national boundaries and ethnocultural preservation.

…is that they’re trying to swindle the native European peoples of all the European lands and also European colonial peoples like Americans, Canadians, and others of having a future, of having homelands where they can be confident that they will control the government, control their destiny, and have a country that they feel is like home…

Yes, and the Silk Road Asian imperialists are chief among these swindlers.

Our individualism, our kind of “devil take the hindmost” attitude, and our unwillingness to confront the fact that this game is rigged against us—and that the long-term trends are quite dire, and that we simply will cease to exist as distinct nations and as a biological race in a couple hundred years if we don’t stop this—so we’re individualistic, we’re guilty, we try and make our own peace with the system, we’re afraid of joining together and actually trying to change it….

Isn’t ethnonationalism analogous to the type of atomized individualism that is decried by WNs?  In other words, as atomized individualism is to ethnic and racial nationalism, so is (narrow) ethnonationalism to pan-Europeanism. Ethnonationalism is atomized individualism at the racial-civilizational level.  At the national level, we observe selfish atomized individuals who ignore the collective good of the national ethny; at the racial-civilizational level we observe selfish atomized national ethnies and ethnonationalists who ignore the collective good of the overall Race-Culture.

One point brought up in the podcast is that Whites tend to project their own mentality to other peoples.  

And underlying that, though, is the same grandiose notion that really we’re the only people who matter, for good or evil, in the world, and other people are somewhat negligible as agents, and that assumption is very deep and a sort of bedrock assumption in a lot of Leftists.

And really, I stopped the projection and decided I need to try and understand the world as these people see it, and I came at a certain point to realize that a lot of peoples, in fact the majority of peoples on Earth, do not have a sort of transparent and trusting relationship to other groups. In fact, they have suspicious, hostile, and manipulative relationships to other groups, and that what’s going on in white countries is we’re inviting in people on the assumption that they’re going to be just like us; that we’re going to be generous to them and open to them, and they’re going to be open and generous to us.

Quite right, but WNs don’t realize that they do the same thing.  Many WNs believe in “universal nationalism” applicable to all peoples, and they assume that nationalists of other races believe the same, and would allow Europeans to exist in their own homogeneous ethnostates.

This is not the case.  Jewish nationalists are often Jewish supremacists. Asian nationalists are often Asian imperialists, who believe they have a God-given right to colonize White lands. There are also people involved in the “movement” who grovel to Jewish supremacism and Asian imperialism; if “White racialists” are willing to do so, imagine how supine “normies” would be to aggressive Jews/Asians.  These non-European peoples will always be a threat to our race, for as long as we and they both exist, and we’ll need an integrated defense against them for our survival, in addition to the known threats from the general “Global South.”  This goes beyond mere “coordination.”

And in fact their attitude is that we are incredibly weak and naive, and they will dissimulate belief in our ideas when they want something from us, but when we want something from them, they’ll say, “Oh yes, yes,” but what they’ll end up doing is practice very ruthless ethnic nepotism.

That describes Asians in a nutshell – both the Silk Roaders and well as “cognitive elitists” who preach atomized individualism for Whites while practicing “very ruthless ethnic nepotism” for themselves.

Stability of Collective Welfare Systems

HBDers weep.

I have previously written about computational analyses that support the stability of ethnocentric cooperative strategies and the instability of atomized individualistic free-riding strategies.

In doing further online searches on the topic of collectivism vs. individualism as group strategies, I came across this interesting theoretical paper (emphasis added):

We propose quantization relationships which would let us describe and solution problems originated by conflicting or cooperative behaviors among the members of a system from the point of view of quantum mechanical interactions. The quantum analogue of the replicator dynamics is the equation of evolution of mixed states from quantum statistical mechanics. A system and all its members will cooperate and rearrange its states to improve their present condition. They strive to reach the best possible state for each of them which is also the best possible state for the whole system. This led us to propose a quantum equilibrium in which a system is stable only if it maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. If it is maximized the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the collective the system gets unstable and eventually it collapses.

“…maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. “  Sounds rather National Socialist, doesn’t it?

Now, this paper describes theoretical proposals and not “evidence” per se, but it is still thought-provoking, and the fact that collective well-being ends up as more stable than individualism is consistent with the more biologically-relevant computer modeling linked to above.  Of course, in this latter paper, one could define “collective” in leftist (any aracial group) as well as rightist (a defined biocultural group) terms.  However, when one combines the proposals of the latter paper with the stability of kinship-based ethnocentrism in the computational study, the conclusion must be that inherently rightist collectives based on race, ethnicity, and culture will be those that are most stable.

This is another blow to the anti-White/anti-racist/anti-Salterian/HBD school of thought and their “ethnocentrism for me but not for thee” self-interested memetic flim-flam.

On a more general basis, I have been unaware of lines of study that attempt to describe biological phenomena using the language of physics (and vice versa?), but this would seem to be a fruitful area of analysis that I need to look more into.  Viewing the major areas of science as disjunctive/orthogonal is, it seems, short-sighted and in error.

HBD in the News, 5/4/16

Two items.

Read abstract, emphasis added:

Modern humans arrived in Europe ~45,000 years ago, but little is known about their genetic composition before the start of farming ~8,500 years ago. Here we analyse genome-wide data from 51 Eurasians from ~45,000–7,000 years ago. Over this time, the proportion of Neanderthal DNA decreased from 3–6% to around 2%, consistent with natural selection against Neanderthal variants in modern humans. Whereas there is no evidence of the earliest modern humans in Europe contributing to the genetic composition of present-day Europeans, all individuals between ~37,000 and ~14,000 years ago descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans. An ~35,000-year-old individual from northwest Europe represents an early branch of this founder population which was then displaced across a broad region, before reappearing in southwest Europe at the height of the last Ice Age ~19,000 years ago. During the major warming period after ~14,000 years ago, a genetic component related to present-day Near Easterners became widespread in Europe. These results document how population turnover and migration have been recurring themes of European prehistory.

No. no, a thousand times no!  And now, let’s cite some HBD Chick interviews…

Also, I wonder how the HBDers reconcile their inbred/outbred scheme with the greater genetic heterogeneity in Southern Europe. I assume the official, Der Movement-approved, explanation would invoke heavy admixture – that the greasers are a heterogeneous mix of 50% sub-Saharan African and 50% Arab, who subsequently spent the centuries marrying their cousins, hence combining heterogeneity with being inbred. But, still, one wonders.

Questions for the HBD Faction of Der Movement

Following through on their theories.

I’m skeptical about these theories.  But if the HBD faction of Der Movement believes all of it, then shouldn’t they stop eschewing those (allegedly) more ethnocentric Europeans (e.g., dumb greasy swarthoids and brutal slant-eyed slavoids), and ease off on the affirmative action program for their (allegedly) more altruistically universalist co-ethnics?  Wouldn’t a more even-handed and merit-based approach to Der Movement help stiffen White resistance to the machinations of the multiculturalist globalists, assuming the theories of the HBD faction is correct? 

More "Movement" Stupidity, 4/30/16

More incredible stupidity.

At this post, we see this comment made:

…but can’t have much more than 5 percent African ancestry.

About this individual. I mean, I can’t make this stuff up. Look at the picture, read the comment, and realize that these are the people we depend upon to write about racial issues, and present the “rightist” case to the public. I think the only case being made is the case for more regular eye exams.

This reminds me of something that happened some time ago, where a certain “movement” hero asserted that Mariah Carey – who has a part-Black father, who openly identifies as Black (albeit of course mixed), who even today with whatever cosmetic enhancements celebrities have displays obvious signs of African ancestry, and whose easily accessible high school picture clearly shows she’s a typical coffee-and-cream mulatto – “has no Black ancestry” whatsoever; further, she is “more recessive” (i.e., “more White”) than dago actor Al Pacino. Compare those two pictures. Is Carey the “more recessive/White” of the two?  Once again, these are the race experts of Der Movement.

Then we have Derbyshire writing:

In Taiwan once I actually saw two middle-aged businessmen get into a shoving match because both insisted on picking up the tab. They knocked the table over.

The only way that differs from Negro behavior is that the Negroes would be fighting over who would NOT pay.

And then we have this nonsense.

Here MacDonald cites a paper that – while it is certainly interesting and may be factually correct – was made by authors who consider “blaming others” a type of maladaptive pathology. Well, OK, at least it’s a peer-reviewed paper. But how does he justify a north-south cline on individualism and egalitarianism? An interview with HBD Chick (no, I’m not making this up), and citations of papers concerning the well known north-south cline of (ancestral) gene frequencies in Europe.

This chart – featured on his own site! – is not mentioned, showing Italy and Hungary relatively low on collectivism and high on individualism. Russians are part of the northern end of the European genetic cline, and yet are high on collectivism. [Oh – we will be told that they are “Eastern Europeans outside the Hajnal line” – there’s an answer for everything, don’t you know]. While Hungary takes a hard line, Spain accepts a large and growing immigrant population – despite sky-high unemployment – without “blaming others,” and Italy not only has a growing immigrant population, but cheerfully accepts the swarming masses of migrant invaders. Is that all consistent with the dogma? Let’s not let facts and data get in the way of nice HBD stories now, shall we?

And as has been discussed here and elsewhere, “amoral familism” is actually a variant of individualism, not collectivism (hence, the comical ineptness of social organization in dago-land). What then is this “blaming others?” Is it intra-ethnic or inter-ethnic?  If it is merely a bunch of greasy wops throwing meatballs at each other across the dinner table, while at the same time welcoming Nigerian migrants, the relevance for ethnic and racial politics is questionable.

Of course, unlike Der Movement and HBD, we must be open-minded.  It is very possible that MacDonald’s ideas about “northern hunter-gatherers” are correct.  It is possible that the paper cited in that TOO post has some relevance. It is even possible, albeit highly unlikely, that HBD Chick is some sort of “creative genius” – just like the charming, well-spoken, and mild-mannered Greg Cochran.  But for now, we must insist on actual evidence, said evidence not including self-citation or ignoring contrary data.

This all goes along with one of the Sallis laws of activism: once any entity becomes tainted with HBD, it drifts away from being a vehicle for empiricism-based pro-White activism and starts to promote HBD for its own sake (and we know, ultimately, who benefits from that – just read Derbyshire).

Humanity vs. Ethny: Know Your Investments

System hypocrisy laid bare.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter provides some impressionistic (qualitative) graphs interpreting how different ideologies distribute interests along the continuum of Self-Family-Offspring-Humanity.  Putting aside minor quibbles (both offspring and ethny can be more fine-grained categories with different levels of relatedness – offspring can be extended to the entire family, including distinctions such as brother vs. cousin; ethny can have ethnic group vs. race, etc.) this is a quite useful instrument to think about the relationship between memes and genes, and how cultural artifacts and social technologies affect our genetic interests. These charts are an underestimated and under discussed part of the book; besides myself, the only other person I know of who tried to discuss this in a useful fashion is Bowery on a blog post from several years ago.
I’ll likely have more to say about this in the future – including a defense of the national socialist interest distribution – but for now I would like to comment on a key feature of System-approved ideologies – that they skip over ethny as a legitimate focus of interest.  Included in the ideologies that Salter (justifiably) claims do this are: (radical) Christianity, Humanism, and Communism, as well as Multiculturalism as practiced by majority groups (Capitalism he has as skipping both ethny and humanity and it will not be a topic of this discussion).
One can attempt to look at this from a logical, objective standpoint, a standpoint that values consistency and a fair distribution of interests along the chain of biological relatedness.
Salter has (radical) Christianity not only eliminating all interest in ethny, but also suppressing interest in self and offspring, consistent with the life-denying, masochistic nature of the creed.  Communism depresses interest in offspring while eliminating it for ethny, also demonstrating maladaptive aspects.  Even so, for both, they at least pay lip service to a minimal investment in self and offspring (it is low, but not zero) – even the most radical of the System’s approved ideologies (yes, Marxism is approved – compare how a Marxist academic is treated compared to a “Fascist” one; and the form of Christianity most valued by the System is the most self-effacing and maladaptive kind) dare not completely eliminate self and offspring as categories of interest.  They may wish to do so, but that is a “bridge too far,” so to speak.  

Despite continuing far-left attempts to promote (White) self-abasement and to deconstruct (traditional) families, the natural impulses to preserve and protect self and offspring (even if Whites are not reproducing themselves) are still too strong.  Hence, the general lack of interest in radical Christianity and, even more importantly, the movement of the Left Core away from doctrinaire Marxism toward a more “cultural Marxist” memetic structure that emphasizes humanist and multiculturalist values that target ethnic interests for attack while for the most part preserving interest in self and offspring (*)
Thus, of greater interest for this discussion are “Humanism” and “Multiculturalism as practiced by majorities” as the major vehicles for the System’s Left Core ideology (apart from atomized Capitalism; see footnote*). Here, we see an acceptance of basic human nature regarding self and offspring (the most intense repositories of genetic interest – note, NOT the largest repositories, but most concentrated, intense, and linked to emotional responses). Instead, the target is specifically ethnic interests.  It is accepted that a (White) person should invest in self and offspring and also take a strong interest in humanity; but any interest in ethny is viciously attacked by social pricing, “hate” and “racism” laws, and social engineering to completely delegitimize the pursuit of group interests by European-descended peoples.
Given that we all agree on the importance of self and offspring, we need not talk about those any more now.  Instead, let us focus on the System’s meme that pursuit of ethnic interests is illegitimate but pursuit of pan-human interests is perfectly legitimate and, indeed, laudable.
We can consider a thought experiment that underscores the hypocrisy – and the ethnic aggression – underlying such arguments by demonstrating that there is no logical, objective reason for making this distinction.  Virtually every argument used to attack ethnic genetic interests can also be invoked, given the correct context, for human genetic interests.
Imagine an alien invasion of Earth, with these outer space aliens intent on displacing (demographically, socially, politically, in every way) humans as the dominant sentient species on Earth.  Imagine these aliens want to use some humans, particularly human elites, to assist them in their agenda of conquest.  Other humans fight the aliens; indeed, some sacrifice themselves in order to save humanity.  How would this scenario be viewed?
I guarantee that there would be near-unanimous agreement across the political spectrum: the traitors are despicable, the altruists are honorable, and “of course” we must fight for humanity and preserve the Earth for our patrimony.  Indeed, some may even say fighting for humanity is not truly altruism, since we as humans have a strong vested interest in the survival and prospering of our species.
Further, I assert that this position would be held as well by HBDers, Desi “cognitive elitists” and their White extended phenotypes, Salter-hating Jamaican mongrel bloggers, and all the rest, including the Left.
But we can ask: how is this different from the case of defense of ethny?  Why can’t we say that the self-sacrificing fighters for humanity will be outcompeted by free-riding traitors?  Why is preserving humanity adaptive?  Why, we may even have folks muttering about “green beard effects” and parsing the difference between “identical by descent” and “identical by state” (identical is not identical according to HBDers, you see) – all sorts of rationales.  Indeed, preserving humanity is simply “a preference” not more salient than a taste for toffee or an admiration for Mahler – right?  
The same people who argue against EGI on the basis that “human groups are virtually genetically the same” would probably be unconvinced by alien claims that dispossession of humans is no problem given that the great apes will be left unmolested and, by alien standards, humans and chimps are virtually genetically identical.  Further, if the aliens claim that there is “greater genetic variation within the human family than there is between humans and aliens” would that make the dispossession of the human race any more palatable to the same humanist-multiculturalist-HBD types who use all these same arguments to delegitimize Eurocentric activism?
Of course, the Left-HBD faction need to get their memes straight.  Take the argument that “there is more genetic variation within than between groups and there is virtually no real biological differences between human groups.”  Very well.  But, doesn’t that mean that investing in a single ethny has a great cost-benefit ratio?  After all, according to the anti-EGI crowd, a single ethny contains more genetic variation than that found between groups; indeed, we are told that the vast bulk of human genetic variation is found within single population groups.  So!  All you need to do is preserve one group and you have virtually all the genetic variation right there.  No need to preserve all humanity.  Why, after all, groups are all the same, aren’t they?  And isn’t it easier to invest in a single ethny, concentrating your investment there, than to dilute it over all humanity?  Indeed, if we are all the same, then investing in humanity is a superfluous waste of resources.  Save a single group, reap the benefits of all that internal genetic variation and diversity, and if the rest of humanity is lost, no problem – no differences between groups anyway.  QED.
However, that argument would never be made by the anti-White Left and the anti-White HBDers.  Instead, we’ll get talk about the “rich and diverse tapestry of humanity” – but when that tapestry is interpreted as including Europeans, watch the cognitive dissonance unfold and suddenly we are all the same and why be so concerned about individual groups.  Genetic and diversity arguments shift back and forth and the only unifying theme is that whatever bolsters investing in humanity over ethny, and more specifically, whatever delegitimizes the pursuit of White interests, is the meme promoted.
Getting back to the arguments supporting betraying humanity to aliens, of course, I doubt any of these Left-HBD specimens would dare make such arguments.  Therefore, we see a clear case of the legitimacy of the defense of ethny being specifically disregarded, specifically targeted.  For some reason – one that cannot be based on logic or objectivity – self, family, and humanity are considered worthwhile for defense, but the other link in the chain of interests – ethny – is somehow considered an illegitimate focus of interest or concern.  Well, let’s be honest – that’s not the case for everyone.  For most peoples, a concern for ethny is acceptable – it is ONLY for European-derived peoples that the ethny part of the chain of interests is skipped over, not legitimate, not considered as valid.  It is ONLY and SPECIFICALLY White ethnic interests that form a gap of interest, it is only for Whites that the chain goes self-offspring-humanity, while for every other group it is self-offspring-ethny-humanity.  This is proof positive that the delegitimization of White ethnic self-defense is not only illogical, but is an open attack against White interests, it is form of memetic warfare against the entire race as part of inter-group competition and as part of free-riding by White traitors.
Of course, the same arguments against ethnic genetic interests can be applied, following the course of “Left Logic,” to delegitimize pursuit of the interests of self and offspring, bringing us back to radical Christianity, extreme Communism, etc. – which promote decreased investment in those categories in favor of an indiscriminate humanism.  There is a consistency in leftist memes in which, ultimately, carried to their “logical” conclusions, every human distinction is eliminated (**)
To summarize: pursuit of genetic interests at every level of one’s continuum of relatedness is objectively and logically legitimate, and can be adaptive, particularly dependent upon context.  There is absolutely no objective or logical reason to pick one chain in the link, in this case ethny, to be specifically disregarded.  Arguments against the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests could just as easily be used, dependent upon context, against humanist universalism. Indeed, many of the same arguments can be made against the interests of self and offspring (a child that uses so much resources that it prevents its parents from producing more children – egads! – interfamilial free riding!).  Arguments that the pursuit of ethnic interests is wrong because of “wars, conflict, and bloodshed” ignore that the bloodiest ideologies in human history have been egalitarian humanist ones (starting with Communism at the top of the list), that multicultural diversity leads to conflict, and that even at the level of self and offspring, people have been historically violent (how many murders are committed for selfish and familial reasons?).  The hysterical denunciation of, specifically, ethnic genetic interests is illogical.  Given that this attack on EGI is most often targeted to Whites (usually implicitly, but sometimes explicitly – “Whites acting as Whites have caused unique oppression in human history, blah, blah, blah”), anti-Salterian attitudes are revealed to have an inner core of ethnic aggression against Whites and White interests.
*While Capitalism is not part of my analysis at this time, I note that the System likes to promote hedonistic, selfish, atomized individualism for Whites to the extent that Whites are not consumed by humanist values.  In other words, either be a Humanist who disregards ethny in favor of humanity, or be a libertarian Capitalist who disregards ethny and humanity (and to some extent interest in having children) in favor of self. 
**Which makes one wonder about human-alien distinctions – who would be overrepresented among the pro-space alien traitors to humanity – Leftists who deny the importance of human-alien differences, or atomized, hyper-individualistic Capitalists eager for their thirty pieces of silver?

Counter-Currents MacDonald Interview

Good, but with some problems.

Mostly good. I wasn’t thrilled with the excessive Trumpism: the man is useful for creating chaos, but all this “man on white horse” breathlessness is pathetic. How many times has the “movement” been burned? Doesn’t anyone ever learn? I wont’t even mention the pro-Orbanism.

The main problem was with all the HBD-style flim-flam. Any theory of European history and behavior has to include Neolithic farmers. Fact is, varying degrees of Neolithic ancestry is found throughout Europe, including Northern Europe, and one cannot conflate the whole issue to Indo-Europeans vs. Northern Hunter-Gatherers. 
Is there evidence for increased “clannishness” in Southern Europe? Let’s take a look at national individualism vs. collectivism. Does it go along with the dogmatic narrative? Italy is fairly high in individualism despite having more Neolithic ancestry. Despite being high in the Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, Russia has much greater collectivism. Hungary is resisting the refugees, and is low on collectivism. Italy and Greece, the assumed “clannish” nations, are taking in immigrants and refugees, and are sending out ships to rescue refugees at sea. How does that all fit into the narrative? And if these behaviors are genetic, shouldn’t people of these ancestries living in America recapitulate Old World behavior? Do they? Data? Or is this all more “just so” stories to retroactively fit square peg data into round hole theories? 
And why does anyone in the “movement” take trash like “HBD Chick” seriously? Her “theories” have as many holes as what was discussed in the podcast. HBD is all highly politicized pseudoscience. 
What is wrong with all these people?