Category: multiracialism

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.

Advertisements

Three Simple Questions

On the Negro.
In the comments thread of a Yahoo article on the latest Negro hooliganism in Ferguson, we come across the following:
Here are a few questions for white taxpayers (or anyone else who ISN’T black): 
1. Can you name any black majority rule city or country whose civic order, educational standards, and economic status equal or exceed that of similar white run polities? 
2. Why, if blacks believe they are ‘oppressed’ by whites, do blacks mass migrate into white run cities and countries? 
3. Can you name the policies, programs or budgets which would cause blacks to have the same standards as whites when it comes to rates of violent crime, school graduation and economic achievement? 
Just think about it.
Interesting questions indeed.

Nemtsov and Blaming the Far-Right

Nemtsov.
Excerpts, emphasis added:
– Other opposition leaders within Russia or dark outside forces interested in “destabilizing Russia” and willing to make a “sacrificial victim” (Vladimir Markin); these include “right-wing Ukrainian field commanders like Dmitro Yarosh and Dmitro Korchinsky, ex-leader of UNA-UNSO,” who recently spoke of “the need to commit terrorist attacks in Russia (TV Zvezda)
Russian ultranationalists; Nemtsov’s case has been reportedly assigned to a group at the Investigative Committee headed by Maj. Gen. Igor Krasnov, a senior special cases investigator known for his past work on the cases of ultranationalists, RBC.ru reported, citing Prokhorov, lawyer for Anna Duritskaya, Nemtsov’s companion who was with him on the night he was murdered.
Krasnov’s cases include that of Ivan Mironov, the nationalist accused of attacking Anatoly Chubais, head of Unified Energy System (RAO UES) in 2006, who was later acquitted in 2010, and also the ultranationalist group BORN [Battle Organization of Russian Nationalists] some of whose members have been convicted of murdering a number of people associated with opposing hate crimes including anti-fascist activists and a judge, and some of whom are still awaiting a verdict.
That suggests that the Kremlin is moving in the direction of fingering extremists in the ultranationalist movements, which at first were encouraged during patriotic campaigns unleashed with Russia’s forcible annexation of the Crimea, then later reined in by Putin in some cases when intellectuals began to complain about their incitement of violent against Ukrainians.
But of course: pin the blame on those evil “right-wing” Ukrainians or those dastardly Russian “ultranationalists” – the latter of which are those totally unreasonable people who want Russia to be for Russians, as opposed to Trad Vlad’s multiculturalist vision of a Yellow-Brown Russia populated by Muslim Central Asians, Chinese, and other such Asiatics. The schoolgirls could excuse Putin for pointing the finger at the Ukrainians, an obvious choice given the current conflict. Why what about the Russianultranationalists?  Isn’t it interesting that when the pressure is on, Trad Vlad reflexively attacks those on his right and not those on his left? After all, if we need to find someone to pin blame on, what about radical neo-Marxists?  Central Asian immigrants?  Jewish gangsters? Maybe Femen killed Nemtsov, perhaps using this method.  But, no.  The darling of the traditionalist American WN Right views as his most hated internal enemies the same types as are the blushing WN schoolgirls themselves.
Putin apologists have all sorts of excuses for Vlad’s anti-White, far-Left, ultra-liberal, multiculturalist, anti-racist embrace of multiracialism.  We are told that “Russian identity has always been multiracial.”  Well, what’s the history behind that?  First, Russia was conquered by the Mongols (hardly an endorsement for multiculturalism and appeasement of Asiatics).  Later, Russia expanded to the East and South, incorporating all sorts of NECs, Tartars, and Mongoloids, and some figures in Russian history were of part or full Tartar ancestry.  Well then, cannot the same be said about America, a nation founded on lands including Amerindians and Negroes?  Look at Pocahontas, Martin Luther King, and our current President.  Obviously, American identity is multiracial!  And yet the American WNs reject that for their own country, while accepting it for Russia, all because….why?  Because they “cream their pants” while seeing a shirtless Vlad wresting with tigers?  Why?  Because their obsessive anti-Jewish Manichean worldview tells them to embrace anyone that the Neocons criticize?  Yet they don’t embrace the Islamists.  Is it because Vlad is “White,” and makes noises about traditionalism that resonate to folks desperate to identify themselves with some sort of powerful leader, since they are too weak-minded to accept the reality of their own powerlessness?  Hey, if they want to support an influential White multiracialist traditionalist, then they can rally around “Jeb for ’16!”
Putin wants a “strong Russia,” independent of the racial and cultural composition of that Russia.  If Russian “strength” means that, once again, Slavs must groan under the Tartar Yoke, so be it. Bow down before your Yellow-Brown Asiatic masters, you lowly Slavs! Slav, Slave, what’s the difference?  After all, in the not-too-distant future, half the “Russian” army will be Muslim, so we must appease them to win their loyalty.  Maybe, one young Russian Slavic woman for every Tartar soldier, eh?
A real leader would accept short-term weakness for long-term preservation and long-term power and glory.  A real leader would cut loose all the Asiatics, have a Russia for Russians, a Slavic Russia, and if that means a contracted economy, and a half-sized army, then so be it.  Russia could build an all-White military capable of defending its territory based on an advanced nuclear arsenal and other modernized weaponry, combined with a highly-trained, well equipped, professional conventional force.  The Russian economy can be re-booted for a smaller, but well educated, population, and end the corruption!  Maybe it is not necessary for a leader to be worth $40 billion?  Maybe, I don’t know, $1 billion could be enough to live on (we must be frugal after all!), and the other $39 billion put back into the national coffers to help build a modernized, productive, and mostly autarkic, economy?  Maybe Russia can “ride out” the demographic valley and bounce back after several generations – without selling out the nation’s body and soul to the degenerate hordes of Central Asia?  Why not?  Do the schoolgirls have any answers to these questions?

Does Diversity Cause Autism?

What’s going on?
I was always intrigued by Bowery’s thoughts on autism.  If I remember correctly, he found some interesting correlations between autism incidence and the presence of certain population groups living together, particularly South Asians and northern groups like Finns.  His theory – again, if my memory fails, I apologize – was, I believe, based on parasites carried by South Asian immigrants to which groups like Finns (being “farther from human origins”) were more sensitive to.
There were some productive discussions at Majority Rights on this topic.  I proposed a different mechanism: that certain groups that evolved more in isolation (such as Finns) are more sensitive in the amygdala to exposure to the alien phenotypes of varied racial groups.  Thus, the developing brains of young (mostly male) children were being damaged by being “shocked” through exposure to alien phenotypes.  I conjectured that South Asians were particularly damaging in this regard because their “intermediate” phenotype – dark-skinned but with some Caucasian features but with some facial differences as well – caused more “confusion” to the “race recognition software” of young children than would more extreme, easily distinguished, racial types (e.g., comparing Danes, Chinamen, and Nigerians).
Of course, the “official” explanation for most of the increase is simply “better diagnosis.” I’m not sure about that. Should we just give up on the idea of a large, real rate increase?  Some cite “inbreeding” of “high-IQ” people – which I think is just thinly veiled propaganda for miscegenation and dysgenics.  Assortative mating need not necessarily lead to autism.  Then we have the finding, cited in the links in the linked article above, which suggest that autism rates for Black and Hispanic children (mostly male) are rising as well.
Let’s assume the last finding is correct.  That would suggest that the problem may be broader than just for susceptible groups like Finns, and may not be simply due to “intermediate” groups like South Asians.  And Blacks and Hispanics are hardly groups one associates with “assortative mating” for intelligence.  American Blacks are admixed and Hispanics are highly admixed, so there goes the “inbreeding” theory as well.
I would suggest then that the autism increase is real, and that it is a general effect of multiculturalism. I suggest that male brains, being more tuned to recognizing and opposing foreign male incursions, are being damaged during development through exposure to so many different racial types. Multiracialism causes autism in my theory, and this holds for all racial groups.  Thus, rates for Blacks and Hispanics are increasing due to “desegregation” and the increased infiltration of these groups into previously White communities (or Hispanics moving into Black areas), as well as the general increase in diversity in urban areas (where many Blacks and Hispanics live) due to Asian immigration, etc.
One would expect to find, for any group, higher rates of autism in areas where there is more diversity, comparing matched populations (i.e., a proper control group not exposed to [as much] diversity).  Has autism in Europe been increasing with immigration?  Is there a generalized correlation between diversity and autism?  Note that the pathogen load theory is also consistent with increased human diversity, although the “brain shock” theory is more general for both direct and indirect forms of diversity (see below).
This theory may be completely wrong and if proven wrong, that’s fine.  But it should at least be carefully considered and not immediately dismissed as “racist.”  And any analysis of the “brain shock” theory needs to be fair and without political bias.  In addition, it must consider not only direct diversity (direct exposure to various human types) but indirect as well (exposure to diverse human images in television, movies, Internet, books, etc.).  After all, the developing human brain will react to the images regardless of how they are presented, although it is possible (albeit not proven) that repeated direct contact would have the greatest effect.