Category: White behavior

Power, Approach, and Inhibition

It applies to Der Movement.

Let’s give credit to the gamesters for bringing this to our attention.  PDF here.

We can ignore the absurd sociopolitical implications and statements in this paper made by the (obviously leftist) authors; e.g., that European-Americans are socially more powerful than are Coloreds and men are socially more powerful than women, while the reality of today’s Multicultural America is that the White man is a low caste subaltern demographic, discriminated against by both law and politically correct custom, and that the socially dominant groups are Jews, Coloreds, and shrieking feminist harridan women.

In all cases, emphasis added.

The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, B. 1938. Power: A new social analysis. London: Allen and Unwin, page 10.)

We define power as an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments.

That’s as good definition as any.  One can think of ways this applies to Der Movement.  One example – withholding access to blog forums and “banning” critics from participation.

Elevated power, we propose, involves reward-rich environments and freedom and, as a consequence, triggers approach-related positive affect, attention to rewards, automatic cognition, and disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related negative affect, vigilant, systematic cognition, and situationally constrained behavior.

This is key.  Why do people always want positions of authority? To think it is only about material rewards betrays a strictly economic-materialist worldview.  Status?  Yes, but status leads to power itself, and what good is status anyway?  The satisfaction of exercising authority and getting your ideas actualized?  Self-actualization itself?  Why are any of those things desirable?  Answer – it leads to: less stress, lower cortisol levels, more testosterone, more uninhibited behavior, a more positive affect in every way; people in power feel better, they are objectively better even at the level of their hormones.  Those not in power are depressed, anxious, inhibited, wary and worried, have a negative affect, more stress, and a negative hormonal profile.  Think of the contrast: a person who makes decisions about others, or another person who has decisions made about him by a powerful manager.  The first person controls his fate, the second person has his fate controlled by someone else.  Who do you think actually has more stress?  Feels better or worse?

When those in power complain about how “stressed” they are, and the “burdens” of “power and responsibility,” that is just a bunch of “squid ink” to fool their subordinates.  In reality, it are those subordinates who are the stressed and burdened.  If those in power were really “suffering” so much, why don’t they just resign their positions of authority and let someone else do it, eh?

Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements…Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.

Including “status” as a “movement leader.”

Powerful managers, as a consequence, valued subordinates’ performances less, attributed subordinates’ efforts to their own control rather than subordinates’ motivations, and desired greater distance from their subordinates.

Look at the tinpot “leaders” of Der Movement, who exemplify these traits very precisely.

Certain physical characteristics…are also associated with elevated power.

Such as Der Movement’s ethnic affirmative action program.

…we predict that elevated power will be associated with increased positive mood (Hypothesis 1) High-power individuals more frequently experience and express positive mood and emotion. Low-power individuals more frequently experience and express negative mood and emotion. This pattern of results was observed across various measures of affect, measurement contexts, and determinants of power (e.g., peer ratings, ethnicity, and SES).

That was discussed above.  Power improves quality of life.  It is the ultimate stimulant.  Powerlessness is a depressant.

We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest…We further expect low-power individuals to selectively attend to punishments and threats (Hypothesis 7). The literature on anxiety lends indirect support to this hypothesis.

Potential rewards, like the tin cup panhandling.  Or sex. The increase in positive affect is the primary reward, but why not enrich yourself in other ways at the same time?

elevated power is associated with more automatic, less complex styles of reasoning, whereas reduced power increases controlled information processing, deliberation, and the complexity of thought.

“Less complex styles of reasoning.”  See – Extreme vetting meaning “are you Swedish?”  Charlottesville Ragnarok.  Decades of constant failure and an inability to build an infrastructure.  The inability to realize you need such an infrastructure before “going public.”  Regurgitating fossilized dogma over and over again.  The constant Man on White Horse Syndrome mistakes, repeated endlessly.  Adulterous trailer park soap operas.  Gambling away supporter donations.

Proposition 12: Elevated Power Increases the Likelihood of Socially Inappropriate Behavior

Behold Der Movement!  Drunken Beavis-and-Butthead podcasts.  Acting like jackasses.  Petty feuding.  Adultery with colleagues’ wives. Gambling with supporter donations. The list goes on.

More generally, we would expect factors that reduce the freedom with which the powerful can act to dampen approach-related tendencies. In fact, many social values and practices, from conceptions of virtuous leaders to institutionalized checks and balances, have as their very purpose the placing of constraints on those with power. Drawing on extant literatures, we propose that three processes—stability of power relations, accountability, and social values embodied in cultural and individual differences—act as constraints, thus moderating the effects of power on affect, cognition, and behavior.

Note the importance of accountability (and see the next point, below).  Of course those in power in Der Movement want to protect their petty fiefdoms by reacting hysterically to anyone who wants to hold them accountable.  Those in power have an inherent distaste for accountability, which by its very nature restrains their power and suppresses the positive affect they derive from that power.

The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.

And that is one key to EGI Notes – enabling the processes that hold “movement” “leadership” accountable for their behavior and for their failure, leading to “changes in leadership.”  “Error prone perceptions” – isn’t that interesting, particularly how I have been chronicling how Der Movement’s “leaders” are constantly wrong, while the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis is constantly correct.

Leaders can of course justify their power and its rewards by contributing positively to whatever they are leading, by benefiting others as they themselves benefit, by producing value for others, for their people, and for society.  In this manner, the positive affect and other rewards of power can be viewed as justified compensation.  But if the leaders are inept – at times, actually destructive – then they are just free-riding parasites.

Advertisements

Xenophobia Is Good Mental Health

There are many legitimate forms of trepidation.

Note that damage to the amygdala can result in an individual unable to recognize dangerous situations, an individual always in trouble, and an individual whose genetic interests are endangered by the inability to actualize prudent and reasonable caution.

The amygdala is also important for race recognition, and I have previously written about my hypothesis on autism, that ties together the various functions of this brain structure into a coherent whole, and which points put the potential dangers of South Asian phenotypes to young White children.

Getting back to the main point here: can we not say that an absence of xenophobia – in other words, typical liberal universalism – is akin to a defect in the amygdala that impairs the recognition of the danger of the racial other?  Isn’t the typical xenophile leftist akin to someone walking around with a damaged brain with a damaged amygdala?  Isn’t racial liberalism than akin to brain damage, and isn’t then xenophobia akin to mental and neurological good health?

Then we get into the question of race-mixing.

Putting aside the issue of casual miscegenation (which is bad enough), let us consider the gross enormity of actually producing children with someone of a different race; let us consider the horror of inter-racial marriage. Of inter-racial family formation: spending your life with, and reproducing with, an alien life form.  What can we see about the amygdala of such a person?  What kind of defect must hey have in their mentality, in their brain circuitry?  Can any such person be trusted?  Why would WNs embrace any individual who “sleeps with the enemy” and who donates their genetic material to produce more of your racial enemies?  Aren’t the ones who embrace such individuals mentally damaged themselves?

Pathological Universalist Altruism in Der Movement

Shining a light on “movement” pathology.

Readers of this blog know that I am skeptical of TOOs “high trust hunter gatherer” (HTHG) theory, which postulates that those Europeans heavily derived from Paleolithic Hunter Gatherer (PHG) ancestry are uniquely beset with the sort of individualism, moral universalism, pathological outgroup altruism, and tendencies for ingroup altruistic punishment that leaves them vulnerable to demographic displacement, acceptance of “refugee” invasions, and all the rest. And that contrasts to those European ethnies more heavily derived from Neolithic Farmer (NF) stock, allegedly more immune to those problems, and hence more ethnocentric, collectivist, and resistant to the “refugees.”  I pointed out the studies (even those whose data charts were on TOO itself years ago!) that clearly show no correlation between PHG vs. NF ancestry and the continuum of individualism vs. collectivism, that NF-derived nations are also being invaded by “refugees” and sending out ships to “rescue” the invaders, and that the relatively greater demographic displacement in the more PHG parts of Europe is, for the most part, due to those nations being wealthier, more orderly, with more generous social welfare benefits, and, hence, more attractive destinations for invaders and parasites; thus, they had a “head start” on the invasion now afflicting NF areas.

However, although this HTHG paradigm may not hold very well on the societal level, it may hold, ironically enough, among certain “movement leaders” who themselves are heavily of PHG stock, and who behave, within the confines of “movement” activism, with all of the outgroup altruism and ingroup altruistic punishment one would expect from universalists with their moral posturing and virtue signaling.

Thus, if we look at “movement leaders” themselves predominantly derived from “high trust hunter gatherers” we observe analogies to universalist moralist, extreme xenophile behavior.  They embrace enemies and shun friends; thus Jews and Asians are HBD gods, or obvious anti-racist infiltrators are quickly given “the keys to the kingdom” (“extreme vetting” being actually extremely porous, in the same way TOO claims that PHG types open their national borders to the alien – thus, outgroup altruism), miscegenating mudsharks are defended, “big tent” strategies are proposed, while on the other hand, long-time racial activists are blacklisted (thus, ingroup altruistic punishment), other “movement” leaders are feuded with, and White ethnics are attacked by the same types who swoon over Jews and Asians.  The similarities to the broader HTHG theory are striking. It’s the same basic attitude: love the alien, love the other, love your enemy, and welcome the stranger into your ranks, while hysterically acting out against people who are on your own side, often on delusional or hypocritical pretexts.  Does this behavior have a psychometric ethnic component?  Is it PHG-derived behavior?  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but it is a hypothesis worth considering.

This phenomenon may be in part behind some of the tensions in the “movement” and this is also in part underlying some of the tensions between Type I and Type II activists; the former being particularly enriched in HTHG PHG types, and the latter being a mix between PHG and NF types. I’ve been noticing this in my own interactions in 20+ years of “movement” activism – these HTHG types cannot be trusted, they have zero loyalty, they engage in hypocritical SJW hysteria, they embrace the memetic (and sometimes ethnoracial) outgroup with open arms, and are always ready to disdain the segments of their broader ingroup. 

In summary: “movement leaders” derived from PHG ancestry may be more prone to HTHG-type behavior within Der Movement itself, and are therefore vulnerable to exploitation by infiltrators and cunning yeastbuckets as well as to manipulation by Jews and Asians. In addition, to make matters worse, they are hostile to sincere activists, driving such people away.  


Is it any mystery that we’ve had so many decades of unremitting failure?

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.

Narcissism of Minor Differences

A world of difference.

Let us consider “the narcissism of small differences” also known as “the narcissism of minor differences” (NMD) – one of Freud’s few legitimate conceptions. The purpose of this analysis is not to deny the importance of differences that exist between, e.g., different types of Europeans, but instead to understand why such differences sometimes become exaggerated to maladaptive levels, inhibiting the development of the sort of pan-European cooperation that is necessary.

Let’s consider this nonsense from Anton Blok (emphasis added):

This essay explores the theoretical implications of Freud’s notion of `the narcissism of minor differences’ – the idea that it is precisely the minor differences between people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them. A comparative survey shows that minor differences underlie a wide range of conflicts: from relatively benign forms of campanilismo to bloody civil wars. Freud’s tentative statements link up with the insights of Simmel, Durkheim, Lévi-Strauss, Dumont, Elias, and Girard. Especially helpful is what Bourdieu writes in Distinction: social identity lies in difference, and difference is asserted against what is closest, which represents the greatest threat. An outline of a general theory of power and violence should include consideration of the narcissism of minor differences, also because its counterpart – hierarchy and great differences – makes for relative stability and peace.

The last sentence raises eyebrows – that polities groups containing “great differences” are more stable and peaceful – absolutely ludicrous given the conflicts of human history when disparate groups are brought into contact. Conflict between similar groups is partly due to NMD (something that needs to be carefully examined) but also because similar groups have historically been geographically proximate and hence in regular contact, and more likely to complete for shared resources and common ecological niches.  It does not follow that because of this, groups greatly different would be more stable – if brought into proximity they would compete for living space and their highly divergent natures would trigger mechanisms to reject the “other.” Indeed, one can argue that the presence of highly divergent others would actually diminish NMD among the similar groups, as the differences harped upon in the absence of a more contrasting highly divergent group would fade into insignificance compared to that divergent group (e.g., different types of White Americans experiencing heightened assimilation when contrasted to, e.g., the Negro).  Hierarchy, yes, I can understand the stabilizing influence of that, but not of “great differences.” 

Some examples of NMD are ludicrous, such as the “anti-Black racism” of “poor Whites” in the South.  A Neo-Marxist interpretation dismisses the wide racial gulf as a “small difference” and instead focuses on “economic similarity.” Hence, the “racism” is due to poor Whites exaggerating “slight” racial differences in order to distinguish themselves from former slaves who were on a similar economic level.  A more realistic interpretation is that poor Whites were forced to interact with Blacks and thus were exposed to the horror of Negroes and Negro behavior, which wealthier Whites were able to evade.  Many other examples (and this point will be amplified below) are simply a matter of circumstance – groups that happen to be in proximity, with local resources (including and especially territory) to squabble over, will come into conflict and focus on differences to maintain identity and to focus hatred and contempt on the enemy.  Over time, this can be ingrained into a group’s “historical DNA” and become part of their own identity (think Serbs vs. Croats or the English/Irish and Northern Ireland scenarios).  This in no way implies that even wider gulfs of race and culture wouldn’t trigger even more bitter hatred, as we have seen throughout history (look at the history of race relations in America, which, despite the Neo-Marxist interpretations ridiculed above, focus on the widest possible differences between human groups).

Another ludicrous example typically given of NMD is of “Jews persecuted by German Nazis.” Only a historical idiot can ignore the wide gulf between German and Jew (see Freud’s comment on Aryans/Semites below) – alleged “assimilation” notwithstanding – indeed, Yockey makes clear that Jews are derived from a completely different (and non-Western) High Culture and are thus a completely different people than their hosts, whatever “similarity” and “assimilation” is thought to have existed.

A more reasonable essay on the topic of NMD is here.  Excerpts (emphasis added) with comments:

Blok, in a sense, is more Freudian than Freud himself. He believes that when Freud wrote that ‘We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance’, the great Austrian doctor came very close to undermining his own theory. This sentence, Blok thinks, shows that Freud failed to recognize the importance of his own discovery and reduced its heuristic value (Blok 1998: 35). Blok even suggests that Freud may have misunderstood the quintessence of his own discovery, and he volunteers to rectify this by revealing its true purport. As it turns out, however, many of the examples Blok cites clearly show that other factors than NMD, such as status anxiety, economic interests, and competition for material resources play a greater role in conflicts than he himself is willing to admit…also cited by Blok, is anti-Black racism in the American South after the abolition. The most severe persecution, Blok points out, came ‘from poor and lower middle class whites… (who) feared being put on par with the former slaves.’ (ibid.) Again we see that status anxiety and fear of economic competition are the decisive factors rather than cultural distance per se. In any case, the phenotypical differences between poor Whites and poor Blacks in the United States are so evident that it is highly questionable whether this distinction may be regarded as ‘minor’.


The last sentence is key here and also discussed by me above.  Blok is an outrageous idiot if he thinks White-Black relations in the South are an example of NMD. One suspects that Europeans will become less naïve about racial differences as their nations in the 21st century become increasingly multiracial hellholes.

In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921) Freud developed this concept somewhat further and applied it to attitudes between nations and between regional groups within nations. ‘Closely related races keep one another at arm’s length; the South German can not endure the North German, the Englishman casts every kind of aspersion on the Scot, the Spaniard despises the Portuguese.’ However, in this book Freud did not claim that minor differences are more prone to lead to animosity and conflict than big ones. On the contrary, he immediately went on to suggest that greater differences may cause even greater hostility among groups: ‘We are no longer astonished that greater differences should lead to almost insuperable repugnance, such as the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the colored.’ (Freud 1921: 101).

Note that Freud acknowledges the alien nature of the Jew (the “Semite” in the above argument), does not consider European-Jewish (“Aryan-Semite”) relations to be NMD but something greater, and also realizes that perceptions of group differences run along a continuum, with greater distance potentially leading to greater conflict.  Note he reflects the racial “thought” of that age, in which different European national groups are akin to races (Gallic/French-German), but, overall, Freud is remarkably reasonable here.

Anton Blok is probably wrong when he surmises that Freud failed to develop NMD into an elaborate theory because he did not realize its full potential. A much more likely explanation for the undeveloped state of this idea in Freud’s writings is that he recognized its strictly limited usefulness.

Freud wiser than Blok.  How about that?

The NMD-idea may be challenged on both philosophical, logical, and empirical grounds. Firstly, the very concept of ‘minor differences’ presupposes that a clearly defined hierarchy of differences made be agreed upon, with big ones on top, medium-sized differences in the middle, and small ones at the bottom. Clearly, this is not possible…even if we for the sake of the argument accept that such an hierarchy can be identified, we run into almost insurmountable difficulties if we should try to use it empirically. We would soon discover that whichever differences we decide are ‘most major’ or ‘most minor’, some massive violent conflicts exhibit many of them while the same differences are more or less absent in other equally serious conflicts…Even if Huntington is wrong when he identifies fault lines between civilizations are particularly conflict-prone, we must nevertheless conclude that some serious conflicts do indeed unfold along those lines.

I personally don’t see Huntington as wrong.  Up until the modern era, conflicts between civilizations were much less frequent than those internal to each civilization, for the reasons discussed above: relative proximity of the within groups and the consequent fighting over local resources.  But think of the centuries old conflict between the West and Islam, continuing to this day, and you can see Huntington is correct.  At least this author is able to admit that civilization-wide conflicts do occur.

Finally, when carried to its logical end point, the strong version of NMD that Ignatieff toys with and rejects but Blok seems to endorse, leads straight into sheer mysticism. If it were true that ‘the smaller the real differences between two groups, the larger such differences are likely to loom in their imagination’, then differences that are so small that no-one is able to detect them, would be the ones most likely to produce conflict. This theory would be a social science version of homeopathy, the quasi-medical theory according to which the power of a chemical ingredient increases the more it is diluted in pure water. While many people believe this to be the case, chemically and medically this is simply impossible.

This is logical, but there are some precincts of the “movement” which apparently hold to the “homeopathy” model of group conflict.  And in general, there have been strands of pop-culture American history overlapping flawed and maladaptive NMD models. As a minor but amusing example of this, I can think of a famous American athlete and KKK member (who shall remain nameless), in the sport of baseball, who expressed a life-long distaste for White ethnic Catholics, but who joyfully groveled to the Negro and actively assisted the “integration” of America’s “National Pastime” with the Black male.  Surely, anyone (White) has the right to dislike White ethnics if they so wish, but being at the same time a pro-Negro cuck isn’t exactly an example of rational adaptiveness. This inversion of interests is ultimately maladaptive.

This means that some conflicts are structured as clashes between two competing identity claims, one of which insists that certain cultural differences in a certain population are minor, while the other maintains that they are major. In order to understand why some such conflicts turn violent while others do not we must not look for any objectively given differences but for differences in perceptions and how perceptions are publicly represented. This means that we much turn our attention to public rhetoric and discourse.

Well that’s fine as far as it goes, but the major point I think about NMD is that it manifests itself most strongly in the absence of more glaring contrasts of group distinctiveness. Contra Blok, I don’t believe – and history certainly does not support – peacefulness when highly disparate groups are brought into proximity.  Rather, in circumstances when and where highly disparate groups are separated and do not come into significant contact, then more similar groups will focus on those small differences that exist between them to help maintain their unique identities.  So, “difference” is relative – when the only differences are those between similar groups, then those “small differences” fill the niche space of popular conceptions of identity and difference and hence attain great significance and possibly become the focus of inter-group conflict.  When more disparate groups come into the picture, the “small differences” between similar groups will more likely fade into (relative) insignificance, in comparison. Let’s remember the words of Yockey:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro however, shows to Europe a very important fact — that race-difference between white men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Europe, where hitherto the race difference between, say, Frenchman and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Europe, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestani from the Russian Empire.

That is exactly my point.  And the disparate groups do not necessarily need to be in the same territory in today’s globalist age of a Clash of Civilizations. Competing power blocs of Race-Culture ensure that differences between widely disparate groups will continue to be the major focus of rational attention moving forward.

That said, and despite the existential crisis facing the White Race, there are many who reject Yockey’s (and my) argument, and continue to focus on NMD-style intra-European division. However, to be honest, they do have a point in one sense.  Let us take for as an example an English nationalist concerned about the “Polish immigrant threat.”  This nationalist may believe that since Poles are White Europeans, then “British Poles” – unlike the more different and alien Blacks and Asians – would be accepted in any future White Britain, negatively affecting English ethnic interests and diluting English uniqueness.  Or, even in today’s multiracial Britain, the concern would be that the relative similarity of Poles would make their assimilation into the native British population far more likely than that of non-Whites, thus being a larger threat to English ethnic purity. In this view, more similar groups can be a greater threat to a given ingroup simply because such more similar groups are more likely to be accepted by the ingroup in question. Therefore, so the idea goes, to safeguard the uniqueness of any given ingroup, one must be especially on guard against those outgroups similar enough so as to threaten that uniqueness by being accepted into that ingroup.  The problem here is that the on-the-ground reality of what’s actually happening in the West is that it is truly the more distant groups that constitute the existential problem. Yes, Poles in Britain is a concern, but in a nationalist Europe, Britons and Poles, who ultimately can understand each other being derived from the same broad Race-Culture, can work this problem out – it is not an existential problem that threatens the very existence of the British peoples.  The Third World invasion of Britain is such an existential problem; if Britain is doomed it will be doomed because of the Afro-Asiatics, not because of Poles.  Just because some aspects of NMD are understandable does not mean they are necessarily correct.  What then to do?

On the one hand, we must acknowledge these as legitimate concerns, and these concerns are a reason why pan-Europeanism must never be confused with panmixia.  Reasonable concern with preserving group identity and uniqueness needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. Poles eventually would need to leave the UK.  On the other hand, these concerns, however legitimate, must not be used as an excuse to promote intra-White division that impairs the sort of pan-European cooperation we need for racial survival. On the broader arena of the Clash of Civilizations, Britons and Poles are on the same side. Thus, a balance must be struck in which legitimate narrower concerns are not blithely dismissed as NMD but are taken seriously and acted upon but, once taken into account, these concerns cannot descend into permanent intra-European grudges and grievances.

In summary, NMD is real, but is much less a factor than what Blok purports it to be.  Freud’s general conception of a continuum of difference leading to varied levels of conflict is reasonable, and compatible with both the existence of NMD and also the reality of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. From our White nationalist perspective, NMD can be a problem, but only if we neglect to consider legitimate concerns about narrower interests. However, while we need to take steps to defuse real problems that could lead to NMD, we shouldn’t tolerate irrational NMD simply out of a general principle that any and all differences must be accepted as equally legitimate foci of interest. That runs the risk of descent into “ethnoracial homeopathy” or into an inverted sense of interests in which genetically and culturally more distant groups are embraced while similar groups are rejected and opposed (even after steps are taken to ensure continuity of all groups).

Racial Politics in the News, 6/28/16

Two items.


A short-sighted gorilla.  Negroes are not too bright, so it doesn’t occur to this chimp that having sharply divergent racialized politics in America does not bode well for the multicultural utopia that some think is upon us.  What about the idea that White youth are liberal, and we just need to wait until the old Whities die off?  First, with the proper cultivation of balkanizing impulses, Multicultural America may not last that long.  Second, there is hope that the tendency for Whites to “move right” as they age will also apply to the current generation.

The bottom line is though that there must be clever and prudent leadership to take advantage of an increasingly racialized political scene in America,  We need far-sighted far-Right leadership, not the current crop of buffoons and idiots who are no more far-sighted than is your typical “ancestors evolved in the tropical jungle” Negro commentator.

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?