Posted by a Finn on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:58 | #

“...moral high ground is more crucial to our folk than any other—which is precisely why our indigenous myths and authorities are most viciously attacked in “the culture war”.”

- I slightly disagree with this. Europeans are less moral than others, we are just more universal than others. Europeans are ready sell themselves and their people or anybody else to anybody who is able to pay thirty pieces of silver (Jesus, Judas and the Romans). Universalism is amorality. Universalism is a lack of morality and only possible morality is particularist morality. Universalism of Europeans is just a way to gain universal personal power or power to a any loose group (e.g. Eu bureaucracy) that helps personal goals at the expense of others. Universal morality is never created, decided and/or established by people universally (although some people are more predisposed to succumb to it than others), it is imposed on them by power cliques.

Thus in general Europeans have a morality of a whore. This is the basic reason why we are in trouble.

Posted by snax on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:45 | #

This is a terrific post, JB has a way of bringing the Big Picture into sharp relief.

Time to dust off the microphones and have Soren and James discuss this for MR radio….

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:55 | #

Addition: Having an universal morality means that there are no preferences for a people, and whatever it is and represents in it’s totality. It is thus natural that any external factor, small advantage in monetary offer, small advantage in good feelings created by movie fantasies, slightly higher level of social /political pressure, etc. will decide the preferences of Europeans in general.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:57 | #

The <strike>Civil Wrongs Act</strike> Civil Rights Act of 1964:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_1964#Title_VII

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:15 | #

“It is thus natural that any external factor, small advantage in monetary offer, small advantage in good feelings created by movie fantasies, slightly higher level of social/political pressure, etc. will decide the preferences of Europeans in general.”</i>  (—a Finn)

So ... if only relatively “slight” additional social/political pressure ... relatively slight ... suffices, we see how a smart, talented, singleminded, hard-driving, tightly-knit and aggressive little group “that’s only three percent of the population” can (by really concentrating its efforts on a few well-chosen strategic fronts, which is exactly what it does:  it really concentrates its efforts on a few specific ones it badly wants, wants more than anything else) steer a huge ship in a certain direction (this direction including unwavering support for Israel; prying the borders open and keeping anyone from closing them again; vastly leveraging its limited power by using the immense power of the United States to promote the opening of the borders among Euro states/“satellites” the U.S. influences and controls the way Moscow used to influence and control its own Euro states/“satellites” — leveraging this power the way, let’s say, a janitor who works for a huge company writes an intimidating letter to someone on that huge company’s official letterhead stationery; etc.).  When asking whether this group can actually do what it certainly appears to be doing (appears to be doing to anyone with functioning eyes), one can either dismiss the notion as too implausible, bordering on the impossible since the group is too small, OR ... or ... one can say to oneself, “Wait, maybe this question is actually telling us something potentially new about the way certain things in our societies work, to the effect that in certain ways only relatively small pressures in certain directions suffice, if consistently applied, to move the huge ship in certain directions, ones desired by said small groups.”  Maybe this question is actually telling us, for example, that the time-honored, traditional character of our Euro societies isn’t as solidly-based as we’d thought, but is instead the somewhat shaky, fragile, vulnerable culmination of a centuries-long series of narrowly-decided choices which got decided, not always but enough of the time, just barely in favor of a certain kind of end-goal — the kind of end-goal that led to, well, that led to the world we’ve had, with races, nation-states, ethnocultures, the European history we all know and love, etc. — maybe that world hangs by a thread and always did hang by a thread, and maybe something in our genetics makes it that the law of large numbers just barely decides these issues not every time but on average, over centuries, so as to produce what we’ve had but it wouldn’t take much to have pushed those decisions in another direction due to something external to our genetics, a direction that would’ve taken away everything we’ve had and left us with nothing.  Maybe to keep what we’ve had we need to identify this external disturbance unnaturally skewing the tiny net tendency of our genetics to, by the law of large numbers, make things turn out, on average and just barely, in the form of what’s known as European history, races, nation-states, societies, cultures.

I tried to explain my idea of the two ways of looking at claims about decisive Jewish influence here (the two ways being 1) dismissing such claims and 2) taking them seriously as possibly pointing to new understandings about how our society works):

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/moslem_migration_a_tool_of_the_elites/#c63226

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:46 | #

Yes, Fred. We were not universalists at the beginning, but we were close to it and we have an inclination towards it, more than probably any other people. With this then it was a question of time when we fall. Only a particularist morality can save part of our people. Those of us with the strongest propensity towards universal morality can’t be helped.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:26 | #

Finn, I disagree.  Our biological character is highly moral combined with a predisposition for self-reliant individualism.  Note, I said “self-reliant”, which is different from the parasitic extended phenotypics of the kind of “individualist” who basically incorporates other people into inhuman structures serving their selfish interests.  We are highly moral because we must, in order to learn self-reliance in harsh environments, learn lessons from our elders, primarily parents, that transfer technological mutations adapted to our newly (in evolutionary terms) occupied territory.

Where our apparent “universalism” comes from is two-fold:

1) A genuinely cornucopian character.

2) An abuse of our biological credulity toward moral authorities which plays on our cornucopian character.

Posted by Populares on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:31 | #

Fred,

A locomotive moves because the wheels turn, water evaporates, the coal burns, the man shovels coal, the man is ordered to shovel coal, there is not a mountain in the way of the line; indeed a locomotive moves because an infinite number of things happened and because an infinite number of things do not happen. Our society is a great deal more complicated than a locomotive. In America Jews may be a rust that hinder the levers from leveraging, but our train is stalling for plenty of other reasons. There are plenty of Euro societies where this rust does not touch. They are just as broken.  Positing the Jews as the decisive malady seems almost wishful. Our task becomes as easy as applying a little grease, and our society will chug on. It also loses sight of quite how far we have fallen. We have not simply fallen from homogeneity but to almost enshrining our homogeneity over the world. If population growth had not switched dysgenic those migrants from Mexico would be little problem; indeed the subsequently 90% pure blood Spanish population would likely remain home. South Africa would be White, Zimbabwe, Namibia and probably much else. In Jew-less Peru they suffer the same problem. For sometime higher White survival rates plus immigration made them Whiter. Now the indigenous far out-breed the Euros, even among the Mestizos the more indigenous the more they successfully breed. Society has inverted, Idiocracy, and this switch is ignored. Jews did not engineer it. Without immigration you might say this would matter little, in our home lands. Without this switch I do not think the immigration would have happened. If it had, furthermore, it would matter far less.

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:57 | #

To James Bowery.

“We are highly moral because we must, in order to learn self-reliance in harsh environments, learn lessons from our elders, primarily parents, that transfer technological mutations adapted to our newly (in evolutionary terms) occupied territory.”

- Learning from the elders can be mostly explained by selfish motives, like western “elites” charity (individualistic altruism competition). Individualists’ have mostly weak and utilitarian group interests or in practice non at all. Individualists’ universal abstract moral principles that govern their groups, and to which they are mostly loyal, can at any time turn against their own people. Individualists are notorious altruistic punishers against their own group and it’s interests, in favor of any outsiders. This doesn’t mean they are loyal to outsiders, but to the abstract universal principles.

To be genuinely unselfish for own people requires strong group interests (strong particular intrests outside the individual), and that we lack.

Jews’ liberal policies are nothing compared to this problem.

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:07 | #

Addition: If we would have a particular morality, the Jews or any other people could move heaven and earth and they still could not hurt us.

Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:04 | #

This is not directly related to this thread, but was in the news this morning and is something that every white nationalist parent or soon to be parent should read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27573965/

There’s video as well.

Hail the Superman.

Posted by Celtic Preacher on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:07 | #

Addition: If we would have a particular morality, the Jews or any other people could move heaven and earth and they still could not hurt us.

And that’s been my point all along, first GET MORAL, then all your social issues will melt away as you emerge a strong, ethical people with family values, no divorce, no sleeping around etc.  First you got to learn to breed right though.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:30 | #

“First you got to learn to breed right though.”  (—Celtic Scold)

A future old-maid celibate-not-by-choice women’s libber who can’t get anywhere near a man because of her scolding which sends men running for cover in all directions with heavy-duty earplugs inserted in their ears is now going to teach the men here how to “breed right.” 

We know how, darling:  first, choose a feminine girl for the purpose.  (I guess that kinda .... leaves you out doesn’t it, Celtic .... )

Posted by Celtic Matron on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:14 | #

I love the internet for it’s anonymity.  You would have no idea how many children my husband and I have.

Seems the topic of “divorce” gets goat around here…...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:32 | #

“You would have no idea how many children my husband and I have.”

Well OK, but don’t you think you’d better tell the desis you’re trying to snag?

Posted by Celtic Mae West on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:44 | #

Well OK, but don’t you think you’d better tell the desis you’re trying to snag?

Not neccessarily.  Gotta keep some white euro-American “tradtions” alive, afterall right? (wink)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:50 | #

(excuse me, make that n in “snag” an h)

Posted by Populares on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:01 | #

Celtic,

If not divorcing and not sleeping around were the solution to our problems, as admirable as those might be, we would not be under threat from a bunch of Bantus who sleep around and divorce to a much greater extent.

Posted by Celtic Puritan on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:04 | #

Scroobs, the reason why you are “under threat” by Bantus who also sleep around to the same extent, if not more, is because you have been made weak-minded, weak-willed, and weak-bodied by all the uncontrolled activity.  Get some culture and regulation as a whole and I guarantee you that you will be “under threat” by no one.  Try it.  You might like it.  And you’ve got nothing to lose.

Posted by Populares on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:14 | #

Celtic,

You ignored my point and my name. All those problems you ascribe to Whites you could more easily ascribe to Blacks. Since it is White who are being dispossessed in their homelands not Blacks, logically, if your argument held water it would balance the other way. If there is a causative correlation then the facts mean we are too moral, too prone to monogamy and not enough prone to divorce.

Posted by Celtic Puritan on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:20 | #

No I’m not ignoring your point, your name I got mixed up with someone else, I cede. 

Blacks are weak for the same exact reasons whites are right now.  American blacks are so mixed up and factionalized with infighting and killing that there is no way they could be a “threat” to anyone but themselves at this point in time.  They are a diseased entity but their cure is the same as anyone else’s - get your head straight and get culture.  I hold Asians up as examples for white and black Americans to emulate with regards family values.  Maybe even Mediterrenean rural folk.  Any truly “traditional” culture .....

Posted by Populares on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:28 | #

Blacks as a proportion of the UK population increase every day. If that is not a threat of a problem such is only because it is an actual problem.

Posted by Celtic Puritan on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:30 | #

Like I said, the solution is for whites to get their heads straight, get culture, get family values and to breed in a respectable way, providing stable homes and families for their children.

Posted by Populares on Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:42 | #

...and still there´d be the problem of all the squatters….

Posted by Celtic Doctor on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:09 | #

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by Bo on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:13 | #

I wonder if we could have some examples on the ground from James and Soren in order to help those of us with only 140 IQs who need to connect high level discourse with ground-level implications.

Posted by Celtic IQ on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:34 | #

Exactly what I was thinkin’............

Implementation people!  Ethics start from within, not without.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:49 | #

GW, it seems its about time for “Celtic *” to get the boot and delete its posts.  This “person” isn’t engaging in anything approaching sincere conversation.  Since it’s operating out of a predominantly “Asian” area of the greater Chicago (read Desi), it is likely pursuing a particular kind of culture war here with which we are only too familiar.  I think its wasted more than enough of the commentariate’s time and contributed nothing of any real value.  Anyone who can’t be bothered to read the even the most rudimentary corpus of materials describing the subversion of our morals by alien forces can’t be bothered with in this forum or any other.

And “a Finn” doesn’t strike me as real either for similar reasons.

Posted by Chi-town Celtic??? on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:52 | #

My IP address is Chicago?  I’m in a COMPLETELY different area of the country, strange.

Good to know though, that way the Feds can’t find me.  LOL.

Don’t bother banning me.  I’ll bow out gracefully if I’m not wanted….

Bye bye boys.

Posted by One More Thing on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:04 | #

This will be my last post.  Just wanted to contribute something useful before bidding salam.

Something practical that North America can do to improve the overall quality of it’s human beings is this;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_time/shouldkidsbeabletograduateafter10thgrade

I feel that the “teenage” years of aimless rebellion and frolic carry on far too long in this country and that if young people are given responsibility at an earlier age, such was the case before the 1950s and is still the case in traditional eastern countries today, that they will mature faster and possible turn out to be more ethical citizens.  I’m not talking about child labor or anything like that, just earlier graduation, earlier work and responsibility and earlier marriage.  I think we need to shift dramatically and start instilling values in our kids, like we used to 50-100 years ago.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:28 | #

Bo, you have no doubt heard of “the culture war”.  The problem with that phrase is the same problem we have with “Politics is the continuation of war by other means.” or “Discourse is war.”  It is also the problem with the phrase “War is the father of all things.”

This is because we aren’t accustomed to the State of Nature where all are sovereign.

Take, for example, the ancient northern European cultural tradition of single combat to the death as appeal of last resort in dispute processing (I know Andrew Fraser thinks “dispute processing” means something inherently corrupt, but that’s because I think it has acquired some nasty, and unnecessary, connotations within the theocratic infection of our “diverse while peoples”).  When two men agree to take leave of the rest of society into the woods or off to an island where only one will emerge under the laws of nature, is it mere “metaphor” to talk of it as “war”?  Perhaps.  Likewise “the culture war” is metaphor.  Can a “race” have “intent” the way two sovereign individuals do when they enter single combat?  Again, perhaps in a metaphorical way.  But it cannot therefore be said that the individual members of those races have the same “intent” except as cognitive cogs in the gears of the gods grinding each other to hamburger.

When I said “war is dysgenic” I did not mean “war” in a metaphorical sense, but in the mundane sense of groups of humans intentionally battling each other as groups and even then I don’t exclude the possibility of eugenic modifications to war that would, as I have discussed previously, take tissue and/or gamete samples of warriors prior to battle for later cloning and/or surrogate childbirth to differentially propagate the genes of heroes, rather than differentially extinguishing them, as is usual with war (at least in the modern model of it).  “The father of all things” is not dysgenic or we would have to deny the entire premise that evolution has meaning hence that we, ourselves have meaning.  Our very motive for living continually disproves such a nihilistic conceit.

Nevertheless, there is a sense in which I think “war as discourse” may be dysgenic due to the fact that “the culture war” is based on some novel technological peculiarities of the modern, particularly the 20th century, world such as mass media under centralized control.  In this dysgenic kind of metaphorical war, we are attacking one of the great achievements of man’s biological evolution:  symbolic communication.  This attack results in people that frequently send signals that convey ideas that they themselves may sincerely believe right up to the point where it matters—when they mysteriously behave in ways diametrically opposed that coincidentally increases their ethnic genetic interests (at least in the short term).  The prime example is, of course, the Jew in his promulgation of universal morals for the rest of us via mass religions like Christianity and Holocaustianity (using mass media theocracies such as those centered in Rome or Hollywood) while behaving in very particular, ethnocentric ways toward other Jews.  The idea that this needs to be based on “conspiracy” and therefore be an intentional kind of war—a mundane war—is an appealing fallacy.  Most assuredly there are Jews who hate consciously and wish ill, but the reality is you could put almost all of the leading lights of Hollywood (and Christian theocracy) under lie-detector tests and they would come out squeaky clean in regards to the kind of malign intent most would identify clearly as “The International Jewish Conspiracy”—as opposed to simple-minded ethnocentrism or other masking motives.  That is because they are expressing genetic phenotypes in their culture—genetic phenotypes that are extended phenotypically toxic to our genotypes:  War in the universal sense.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:40 | #

“Celtic *” writes: My IP address is Chicago?  I’m in a COMPLETELY different area of the country, strange.

Actually it is in another, heavily Jewish, city so I must have had it confused with another of the “contributors” of similar character.  Nevertheless checking the IP address source does reveal that the following news story may quite apply:

‘Social Interactions Can Alter Gene Expression In Brain, And Vice Versa’

[...]

‘Genes in the brain are malleable, turning on or off in response to internal and external cues. While genetic variation influences brain function and social behavior, the authors write, social information also alters gene expression in the brain to influence behavior.’

‘Thanks to the newly sequenced genomes of several social animals, including honey bees and zebra finches, and new technologies such as microarrays (which allow researchers to glimpse the activity of thousands of genes at a time) neuroscientists are gradually coming to understand that “there is a dynamic relationship between genes and behavior,” Robinson said. “Behavior is not etched in the DNA.”’

‘A critical insight came in 1992, in a study of songbirds led by David Clayton. He and his colleagues found that expression of a specific gene increases in the forebrain of a zebra finch or canary just after it hears a new song from a male of the same species. This gene, egr1, codes for a protein that itself regulates the expression of other genes.’

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081106153538.htm

I’m sure this study has no implications for whites who grow up exposed to Jew-controlled media and Jew-controlled educational institutions.

PS:  When Robinson said “Behavior is not etched in the DNA.“ he was trying to put Holocaustian-friendly spin on the results.  If genes conditionally express depending on environmental signals, behavioral plasticity is even more directly genetic than it is if such conditionality is merely hardwired in the neurons due to ontogeny.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 01:45 | #

“I must have had it confused with another of the ‘contributors’ of similar character.”  (—James B., just above)

That can only be “Tired of Idiots.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:13 | #

“I’m sure this study has no implications for whites who grow up exposed to Jew-controlled media and Jew-controlled educational institutions.”  (—James B.)

And no implications for whites who set up models of the Wailing Wall at church meetings and, as seen in that somewhat strange video recently, worship very emotionally at this fake Wailing Wall in imitation of Ultra-Orthodox Jews standing in front of the real thing in Jerusalem and “davening” (rocking back and forth as they pray, a sign of intensity), complete with gnashing of teeth, crying bitter tears (this is Christians in the U.S. acting like this), clenching of fists, tearing at clothes, and yes, davening.

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:54 | #

James Bowery: “And “a Finn” doesn’t strike me as real either for similar reasons.”

- That is simple way to avoid answering or thinking about the problem.

I am an European, so it certainly is not pleasure for me to say these things about Europeans. In Finland, we have a long tradition of “sanoa suoraan, juuri niinkuin se on”, which means “to say it straight, just like it is”. It is easy to see why it is so. The harsh conditions in Finland has required that problems are dealt with immediately, and if they can be predicted beforehand, they must also be dealt at once. This has created a tradition of brutal, but efficient way of saying (at least among Finns). Among sensitive people, it might be too brutal.

I identified a central problem, said it like it is, and there will be no apologies.

So I simplify:

- Europeans have a propensity towards universal morality, but they were traditionally ethnocentric enough (barely). European elites, liberal Jews, communists /socialists etc. and also the chancing situation (times of plenty because of technology and science, mass media technology and it’s artificial social proof, etc.) have exacerbated the universal morality problem. Jews, like you said, are generally, in one way or another, ethnocentric among themselves, and proclaim universal morality to outsiders.

- Mr X wants to bribe, cajole, entice and socially pressure A, who has a propensity to universal morality and ethnocentric B from two different ethnic groups to work against their ethnic group interests.

X offers A a well paid anti-racism propaganda job, shows A sobbing emotional interracial movies, creates liberal social pressure with mass media and it’s artificial social proof, produces shoddy science to support his claims and positions in famous and authoritative universities, etc. etc.

A has instinctual preference for his ethnic group (Phillippe J. Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behaviour; Genetic similarity theory), but he has less of it, less ethnocentrism than B (Kevin MacDonald, People That Shall Dwell Alone) and he has (more) ability to suppress it consciously with his frontal lobes because of e.g. social pressure (Kevin macDonald, Cultural Insurrections; Psychology and White ethnocentrism). So X’s influences overwhelm A’s feeble ethnocentrism and A becomes X’s political prostitute against his own ethnic group.

B has more instinctual preference for his ethnic group, more ethnocentrism and he is less able to suppress it with his frontal lobes. B’s group’s culture support*s this. B sees X to be (as it is) hostile to his ethnic group, and thinks and acts accordingly. If necessary, B mobilizes his ethnic group against X and soon X’s effort is either ineffective or inactive. B sees A as traitorous, untrustworthy, despicable and weak person because of his actions in addition to being a member of an outgroup (B is normally fairly immoral towards outgroups). This gives him more moral licence to be immmoral in his transactions with A. Because A’s qualities are general in his ethnic group, B’s strenghtened immorality is extended to A*s group. X*s methods in society are acceptable to B, if he sees them as a necessary protection, advantegeous, weakening the opposition, etc.

There is nothing X can do to change B*s (I lost some keys, and thus some signs) emotions, thinking and actions. Many are like this in B*s group, but not all. Prolonged liberal influences liberalize some of the members B*s group (although some residual double morality ethnocentrism remains), but at the same time conservatize others. Polarization is the result, but many common interests remain, thus cooperation continues.

To simplify this still as a pointed moral choice example: Universal morality N sees three ethnic groups as equal: Ethnic group 1. moral value to him 10, 2. value 10, 3. value 10. If X*s propaganda weakens the moral value of group 3. by 2 points and lifts the moral value of groups 1. and 2. by 2 points, then N sees groups 1. and 2. as morally superior and 3. as morally reprehensible. 3. happens to be N*s ethnic group. N punishes his ethnic group because of it*s “moral failure” | “moral transgression” (altruistic punishment). Alternatively e.g. relatively small sum is enough to move N*s preferences to favor the group 1. and 2.

That, James, is immorality to me.

M*s particular morality gives to his own group 2. moral value maximum and other groups can not reach the same value in any way. M gives group 1. value 5 and to group 3. value 5. Whatever X does or offers, M will always support and defend his own group and regards it as morally superior to other groups.

Morality*s purpose is to support and defend one*s own group, so this is morally good. This preference does not prevent good relationships to outgroups, because many arrangements can be made to create cooperation, and ingroup and intergroup morality can be different in a ways that favor cooperation. Of course if ethnocentrism of a group is excessively hostile and the outgroups have no ethnocentrism, there is high risk of exploitation, hostile policies etc. High ethnocentrism does not in itself mean hostile ethnocentrism (e.g. Hutterites).

Is it clear now?

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:19 | #

Addition: If a man from 50 000 years from past would be transferred to the present time, he would die in a couple of days because of microbes that doesn*t cause anything to us. We have developed immunity against them.

Universal morality is lack of immunity against outgroups. It means diseases and maybe death.

Particular morality is immunity against outgroups. It means health and life.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:05 | #

”Universal morality is lack of immunity against outgroups.  It means diseases and maybe death.  Particular morality is immunity against outgroups.  It means health and life.”  (—a Finn)

That is, we must go through a genetic bottleneck which unfortunately can’t be avoided but will leave us more immune, because only those more immune will make it through genetically intact (will make it through still white, in other words).

Leon Haller in the other thread <a >touches on this</a>:

with the rise of both racial integration and mass non-white immigration as well as racial egalitarianism and anti-anti-miscegenationist sentiment, […a]malgamation […] has increased.  We are living in this period, where miscegenation increases as multiculti doctrines become more widespread […].  But what is the basis for assuming that the trajectory of this trend is linear-until-white pure blood-extinction?  Such an asumption is empirically possible but not logically necessary and perhaps not even empirically likely.  Eventually white propensities towards miscegenation will be sated […] as [those] most predisposed to miscegenation will have done so.  Of the pure-blood whites remaining, an increasing percentage will be indisposed to miscegenate.

What can be said, then, about whites in mixed race societies is that any transformation from reproductively restrictive to permissive attitudes will initially increase amalgamation but its rate will eventually slow and finally almost peter out.  In each new generation there will be some miscegenators but there will also be pure-bloods still being born.  Eventually, most existing whites will not only, by definition, be pure-bloods, they will be self-consciously so [Scroob note:  because the Heidi Klums, Angelina Laides, and Madonnas will not have made it through the bottleneck, so their particular genetic make-ups will leave the population].

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:23 | #

A Finn wrote: Is it clear now

What is clear is that there is no good term for biological propensity to follow culturally endowed morals given your repeated use of the word “morality” to indicate biological predispositions toward evolutionary fitness—something that doesn’t let us distinguish man from animal very well.

Since it is this biologically evolved capacity to override instincts with learned morals that most distinguishes our people from most of the others that threaten us, as well as humans from animals, I have very serious problems with your rhetorical posture.

Think about it like this:

When we get control of our own morals, we can apply our natural cornucopian predispositions toward a technology of moral fitness.  Others are less capable of this.  If we place too high a premium on instinctive fitness we really are losing the advantages of that which makes us most human and most us.  Moreover, there really is a big advantage to being self-reliant in a highly cornucopian situation, such as we would be facing were it not for the parasites draining us of our self-determination.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:25 | #

Fred, you seem to understand always what I say.

James, I remind you about these things:

# Biological predispositions are predispositions, not absolute certainties. So people, e.g. ethnocentric people have room to adjust to possible e.g. harsh conditions | single ethnicity situations, where more individualistic approach might be suitable.

# In highly cornucopian situation group cooperation that doesn"t smother all individualism wins individualism. It doesn"t really matter if this competition is between ethnicities or inside one ethnicity (subgroups against individuals), the result is the same.

# When Europeans suppress their ethnocentrism, the resultant situation is not intellectualism + emotional and instinctual void. When ethnocentrism is suppressed other instincts of Europeans take hold, especially instincts to follow authorities and to conform to social pressure. Also emotions are necessary to make rational decisions. Without them people can"t make rational decisions or choices (Even sorting out of boring easy to understand papers to two stacks becomes impossible or almost impossible). This has been studied in people, whose emotion controlling brain areas have been damaged, but their intellectual ability is healthy and good in all areas (D"Amasio, 1994). If you think that instincts and emotions make humans animals, then that is what we Europeans are. Morals are always a mixture of instincts, emotions and rationality, and it"s likely that we don"t differ in their rations from e.g. the Jews.

# As bad and unwanted the current situation is, at least we have the possibility to develop highly ethnocentric groups, that are less hostile towards outgroups, more capable to cooperate with outgroups, and more versatile in different situations and conditions than middle/eastern groups. Pre/selection by instinctual endogamy | miscegenation is already there.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:45 | #

If you think that instincts and emotions make humans animals, then that is what we Europeans are.

Bo.  There’s defamation for you…

Finn, your argument boils down to the same argument vectorists make:

Just let nature take its course (despite the situation being anything but natural) and we’ll see an evolutionary bottleneck selecting for the new superman.

No. 

What we’ll see is a destruction of all that we value.

You may as argue against public health departments because those with weak immune systems shouldn’t survive anyway.  Never mind the unnatural population structure and practices of civilizations.

Are you African ancestry or something?

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:25 | #

Bowery: “Just let nature take its course (despite the situation being anything but natural) and we’ll see an evolutionary bottleneck selecting for the new superman.”

# I didn’t say that. You put words to peoples mouth. I talked about pre selection. I didn’t talk about superhumans. We need our own groups, where we can have the kind of controlled evolution we want.

“What we’ll see is a destruction of all that we value.”

# Might be. I didn’t want this situation. I have preached against it. I have voted against. I have participated in activism against it. And as long we don’t have our own groups, pre selection is almost the only thing positive we have in this situation. In bad situations people try to take advantages of any good things in it. Not doing it would be stupid.

“You may as argue against public health departments because those with weak immune systems shouldn’t survive anyway.  Never mind the unnatural population structure and practices of civilizations.”

# Wrong. See previous answer.

“Are you African ancestry or something?”

# The way your intellect works, I should ask the same thing from you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:28 | #

James please correct me:  you don’t want to see Euros changed by a bottleneck into something that’s less Euro and closer to what’s attacking Euros in the first place — closer to Semitic, let’s say.  Finn says there may be a possiblity of developing the much-needed greater ethnocentricity without losing too much of what distinguishes Euros from the Euro-attackers: 

“we have the possibility to develop highly ethnocentric groups, that are less hostile towards outgroups, more capable to cooperate with outgroups, and more versatile in different situations and conditions than middle/eastern groups.”

In other words, emerging from a bottleneck with greater ethnocentricity won’t necessarily mean we’ll be like our attackers in all the other ways he lists there.

“Pre/selection by instinctual endogamy | miscegenation is already there.”

The bottleneck is already there; it’s already begun.  At present there’s no way to avoid that.  If we held power we could avoid it but we don’t hold power and have to accept second-best:  the bottleneck.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:52 | #

If we held power we could avoid it but we don’t hold power and have to accept second-best:  the bottleneck.

And so we will remain as long as we are as confused about our strengths and weaknesses as a Finn seems to be when he says:

Morals are always a mixture of instincts, emotions and rationality, and it"s likely that we don"t differ in their rations from e.g. the Jews.

To be fair to him, Kevin MacDonald made a similar mistake—which I called him on in email early in the sequence of publication of his trilogy—when he posited Jews to have “high indoctrinability”.  If they were so indoctrinable—in my terminology: so moral—then there would be a far greater proportion of Jews who are anti-Zionist due to their own subverters having saturated the environment with universalist doctrines.

If we don’t get a clearer picture of our own genetic strengths and weaknesses vs others, then we are at the mercy of a most unnatural selection controlled by others: genocide.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:50 | #

“And so we will remain as long as we are as confused about our strengths and weaknesses as a Finn seems to be when he says:

Morals are always a mixture of instincts, emotions and rationality, and it"s likely that we don"t differ in their rations from e.g. the Jews.”

# No, it is not confusion, because the differences are in the contents (quality | quantity) of instincts, emotions and rationality, and their ratios in different situations. And likely not in their overall ratios. But I don’t preclude the possibility that overall ratios are different too.

“when he posited Jews to have “high indoctrinability”.  If they were so indoctrinable—in my terminology: so moral—then there would be a far greater proportion of Jews who are anti-Zionist due to their own subverters having saturated the environment with universalist doctrines.”

# Propensity to high ethnocentrism works in many Jews as a filter, that prevents espousing universalism as an ingroup strategy. But there are other filters like culture and social pressure. Indoctrinability yes, but the content must go through the filters.

Content of indoctrination can be immoral.

“If we don’t get a clearer picture of our own genetic strengths and weaknesses vs others, then we are at the mercy of a most unnatural selection controlled by others: genocide.”

# There certainly is knowledge that is based on observations and study of real life and history. That should give a reliable basis. Psychological studies, sociological studies etc. give additional information. The latter would need further study.

To survive or to succeed doesn’t necessarily require the knowledge of every detail of knowledge. E.g. Social construction theory lies and doesn’t correspond in every part to reality, but it has been efficient in gaining power. In a matter of fact, it’s lies | errors have helped it to gain power. Freudianism and cultural marxism are shoddy sciences, but they were effective political tools. Etc.

I say this beforehand: No I don’t advocate shoddy or lying science.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:45 | #

A slightly pointed thought experiment.

A is a leader of a group X, that relies on indoctrinated morality and part of it are indoctrinated endogamy and ethnocentrism. The members have a propensity to universal morality. Universal morality and the group X’s morality are contradictory. The surrounding environment is also full of influences that are contradictory to X’s morality and if the influences succeed, they will lead to dissolution of the group.

To have an effect on his group members, A relies heavily on two instincts of the group members; propensity to obey authorities and predisposition to conform to social pressure (To do /imitate what others are doing and conform to their expectations or face the negative consequences, e.g. social rejection). This has several problems:

* Authority and social instincts are not specific instincts, because authority can order wide range of things and there is large gamut of possible social pressures. Because of this there is always competing authorities and social pressures, both in the group and outside of it. Group’s authorities and social pressures are also inclined to change without significant competing or outside influences or discontinue, especially in longer timescales. Authority can die and the successor advocates different things. Group’s rules can change slowly, leading eventually to a total change of the original rules. Members’ propensity to universal morality causes the changes to often go to that direction.

* Some of the outside or inside pressures might be clearly hostile and maybe designed specifically to disrupt the group or the groups like it in general. They might make the leader A’s authority or the groups social pressures inefficient or replace them.

* Outside the group are competing incentives and possibilities. They might be in some or many respects better than what the group can offer.

* All kinds of decadence influences from inside or outside the group

Etc.

All this have tendency to have an effect that if the group wants to maintain it’s rules and morals permanently, it may have to become a closed authoritarian cult, a mini dictatorship hostile to outsiders, smothering and guarding it’s members continuously. Almost no communication to outsiders; minimal selected information from the outside world; minimal social or business contacts to outsiders; members can go to the outside world only rarely; if members go to the outside world, they almost exclusively go in big groups; severe punishments because of transgression of the most trivial and useless rules or morals; overabundance of rules controlling every action of the group members; constant watching and snitching of the group members; all the group’s dictator leader’s capricious rules must be obeyed, even if they are crazy, self-serving or corrupted; possibilities of developing living conditions are limited; the general feeling in the group is distressed; education of group members must remain limited to maintain the absolute control inside the group; technological and scientific level in the group are backward; etc.

This have two possible consequences. It leads to exhaustion, weariness, indifference, mutiny, desertion and the dissolving of the group. Or there is selection. Those who are best able to live in such group stay, and those least able leave. Either way, the group is backward and bad place to live.

Group has one more option. Because the outside world threatens the group and is evil, it can aggressively try to to change the outside world to be the same as the group or make it pliable to it’s rule. Not good options to the outside world.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

The environment has pre-selected group C’s (network of similar groups) members to have a propensity to endogamy and ethnocentrism. This selection is continued in the group. Those who have predisposition to mixed marriages and universal morality, leave the group. Let’s say that the propensity to endogamy and ethnocentrism becomes so intense, that the group members e.g. can’t engage in mixed marriages, they become immune to them (In real life that propensity is not so intense [read: ideal] at the group level, but is in practice so concerning part of the members of such groups). Group needs rules, but they don’t have to be so austere than in the group X and there is less of them. Group members can travel more freely, members have much less probability to leave the group. The group is more democratic, it is less hierarchical and there is more equality. Outside world, outside influences and outsiders are less threatening. Their possible bad effects can be assessed realistically. Group can gather and receive information from outside world fairly freely, filter the negative information and use the useful information. Interracial and universal morality propaganda does not have an effect on them. The group can arrange the best possible education to their children and espouse any useful technology and science. The living standards in the group are high and can compete succesfully with the outside world. The group can create and maintain good social and profitable business relations to outsiders. The general feeling in the group is uplifting and the environment they create is healthy and good to children and adults. Members trust each other and are loyal to each other and the group. If the group faces serious persecution and violence from the outside world, members are ready at the drop of a hat to voluntarily defend the group with their lives. Group is always more important than the individual. Group members are at the Egi level so closely related, that they are in essence a large family. Despite collectivism there is room for individual creativity and inventions and reasonable individuality. Group requires reciprocity from it’s members, everybody participates in his best ability. Loyality, diligence and honesty is tested in real life situations. Free-riders, unloyal, dishonest, lazy, etc. members will leave the group. Social pressure and proof are directed towards productive and useful purposes. Etc.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:30 | #

You present a false dichotomy between authoritarianism and vectorism.  Assortative migration is the third option.  I know that in your mind, you see enforcing rules by excluding people not consenting to them as the brittle kind of “authoritarianism” resulting in a loss of meaning of life, but I see it as just the opposite:  Finding and living with those who share your most cherished values and beliefs about what makes life meaningful.

There is no reconciling your position with my position.

Moreover, there is no way your vectorism is going to survive in practice.  It is _your_ belief that is impractical due to the fact that vectorism attacks not just northern Europeans, not just Euromen and not just humanity but all ecosystems at the most fundamental level:  the generalized evolution of virulence.

The natural environment—the environment in which Earth’s life evolved—is not one in which transportation technology mixed ecologies at viciously high rates in terms of evolutionary time.  Your desire for an “open society” is as doomed as Soros’s attempts to ameliorate its ecological effects through TB research.

No, what will happen is there will be a shut down of organic materials transport world-wide as emergent virulence afflicts not just financial networks, not just the rape frequency of Scandinavian women, not just the crime rates in Euroman territories, not just multi-drug resistant TB, community endemic multi-drug resistant staph originating from immigration, not just highly exploitative and mobile minorities, but agricultural productivity, ecological degradation and die-offs in the hundreds of millions if not billions.  People will become intensely “xenophobic” not just of other people entering their communities but of outside organic materials entering their communities.  The only question is whether they will keep people from leaving their communities and thereby become the authoritarian, brittle, lifeless, backward society your vectorism decries in your search for “vibrance”.

No.  I don’t think so.  These “inbred” communities will be happy to dispense with malcontents and will even pay their relocation fees to find those with whom they agree.  Your type will probably be among the first to be assisted to find your place among the vibrant ecological foment of “forward thinking communities”.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:08 | #

James, you beat that strawman you created real well. Now, let’s go to the facts.

“I know that in your mind, you see enforcing rules by excluding people not consenting to them as the brittle kind of “authoritarianism” resulting in a loss of meaning of life, but I see it as just the opposite: Finding and living with those who share your most cherished values and beliefs about what makes life meaningful.”

- I have nothing against that. I wish you luck in those endeavours. I hope that they succeed. We need different approaches. I also don’t see any reason why these two approaches should not cooperate.  The ideal group I described must exclude people, e.g. free riders, lazy people, untrustworthy, etc., just as I described in the text. We should aim and I aim at European environments and the outsiders, hopefully, will be outside of these areas. Also we should aim that the closest non-European neighbors are the least virulent types who can defend their borders and cooperate.

My text was warning against excesses and possible problems, not against reasonable measures. It is possible to create a group out of universal morality people, but it must be thought out carefully how it can maintain itself in stable manner.

Moreover, there is no way your vectorism is going to survive in practice.  “It is _your_ belief that is impractical due to the fact that vectorism attacks not just northern Europeans, not just Euromen and not just humanity but all ecosystems at the most fundamental level:  the generalized evolution of virulence.”

- I first emphasize that that your vectorism label is wrong. As to the survival ability, at the Egi level closely related ethnocentric and endogamic groups have proven to be in real life the most resilient in brutally hostile environments (virulent ethnic competition) over thousands of years. I try to do anything in my power to avoid that kind of environments, but I also want my groups to hold ethnocentric group aces in shirt sleeves, if the worst happens. I prepare for the worst possible situations /environments and work to attain the best possible environments.

“The natural environment—the environment in which Earth’s life evolved—is not one in which transportation technology mixed ecologies at viciously high rates in terms of evolutionary time.”

- I agree. But if the worst happens we must be prepared to it.

“Your desire for an “open society” is as doomed as Soros’s attempts to ameliorate its ecological effects through TB research.”

- I have absolutely no desire for open society. I would be the happiest in single ethny Finland without all this mess.

No, what will happen is there will be a shut down of organic materials transport world-wide as emergent virulence afflicts not just financial networks, not just the rape frequency of Scandinavian women, not just the crime rates in Euroman territories, not just multi-drug resistant TB, community endemic multi-drug resistant staph originating from immigration, not just highly exploitative and mobile minorities, but agricultural productivity, ecological degradation and die-offs in the hundreds of millions if not billions.

- That is, whatever the scale, possible. Thus we should prepare for the worst.

“People will become intensely “xenophobic” not just of other people entering their communities but of outside organic materials entering their communities.”

That is possible, but universal morality people and groups have the most propensity to make mistakes in this matter. I remind you that highly ethnocentric groups can scale their xenophobia upwards if the worst happens.

“The only question is whether they will keep people from leaving their communities and thereby become the authoritarian, brittle, lifeless, backward society your vectorism decries in your search for “vibrance”.”

- Every reasonable group must select people. Single ethny Finland is for me all the vibrance I need and much more. But single ethny Finland or any other group has an advantage, if it gathers useful information from the outsiders (Especially from those who can produce it), trades with them, has useful agreements and alliances with them, etc.

“These “inbred” communities will be happy to dispense with malcontents and will even pay their relocation fees to find those with whom they agree.”

- In essence just like I described. Read again.

“Your type will probably be among the first to be assisted to find your place among the vibrant ecological foment of “forward thinking communities”.”

- No, you are wrong. Where do you end up? Do you survive only if there is paradise single ethny conditions? And you are still beating that lifeless strawman.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:32 | #

Addition.

“the generalized evolution of virulence.”

- I don’t believe in that because most of humanity prefers to be stationary and if there are pressures to move because of resource wars, nations and peoples generally resist. The means to move are also limited for a large part of humanity. The evolutionary development of virulence at the predisposition level takes a long time and requires selective processes. At this level virulence would then apply to selected subgroups. All peoples’ have strong reactance (resistance to free riding) reactions, so making a living with it is hard.

That said, massive immigration is catastrophic, whatever the predispositions of the immigrants.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:37 | #

Second addition.

I wrote: “We should aim and I aim at European environments and the outsiders, hopefully, will be outside of these areas.”

- .... even if those areas are smaller than our current areas. That is better than no areas at all.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:53 | #

Third addition.

“the generalized evolution of virulence.”

Also, in general the virulent population must be smaller than the host population for it succeed, otherwise the host can’t produce enough to itself and the free riders, at least not very long. Quantitatively overusing virulence makes it unstable strategy to the virulent also. Better strategies have then clear advantages, which they use to increase their power.

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:23 | #

The last addition: Closely related group at the Egi level does not mean consanguineous marriages / inbreeding, and that is contrary to your claim.

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:22 | #

On the other hand, horizontal transmission is not the only factor influencing virulence. E.g. hostile ethnic competition has created virulence in immobile muslim populations. There are many other factors that have influence on it. The following paper lists many basic factors. Many of them can be applied to modern human society:

http://helsinki.fi/science/ants/NordForsk/2008_Uppsala/fries&camazine;.pdf

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:24 | #

The corrected link:

http://helsinki.fi/science/ants/NordForsk/2008_Uppsala/fries&camazine;.pdf

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:28 | #

The software seems to add ; sign before the pdf end. Copy the address, put it to the address line, and remove the sign.