Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:33 | #

One big question is what makes some “strains” more predisposed to universalism and others more prone to tribalism?

Some of my thinking about genetic gradients resulted from some work on 2D bacterial colony growth on a petri dish of nutrient agar.  In these colonies there emerges, whether through evolution or mere density dependent expression triggers (or both) strategies such that the digestive effluents (sewage) of bacteria in the densely populated center starts acting in such a way as to kill competing bacteria in the neighborhood—in effect using its shit as digestive juices that attack competing bacteria.  Meanwhile, the peripheral bacteria, that have primarily nutrient agar as food, express different metabolic pathways that are less toxic to neighboring bacteria and more effective at converting nutrient agar to bacteria.

Now, what happens when you artificially transport bacteria from the center of the colony to the periphery of the colony?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:49 | #

BTW: I should probably add that my awareness of these bacterial growth patterns started in the 1970s when my brother was working as a microbiologist but I didn’t mention anything about them being connected to human demography until circa 1992.  Then, in 1994, a bunch of stuff started being published from Israel about these bacterial patterns:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v53/i2/p1835_1

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:46 | #

<a ><img ></a>

Posted by PF on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:50 | #

I’d like to make the correction, or caveat, or whatever, that the percentage numbers I chose were arbitrary, and given telecommunication and mass-transit the real percentages corresponding to these meme shifts may be lower.

The point was just to show how foreign populations emerge gradually as direct outright antagonists to host populations, in a way that is density-dependent.

re: James’ point - I think the petri dish situation is interesting, and I see a looming parallel between populations from old civilizational centers (China, Mesopotamia, Greece) and populations from newly civilized lands (North Europe), the former being selected for tribalism and the latter being universalist (i.e. not yet selected for tribalism).

Were all these bacteria the same strain, what was the difference between the peripheral and central bacteria?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:45 | #

IIRC were all the same strain but am not sure how much selective pressure was being put on them nor how many generations were undergoing selection.  I suspect that there was more than enough generations*selective pressure for some differentiation to occur.

It may be that even without genetic differentiation that there is some sort of multigenerational hysteresis in gene expression so that by artificially transporting the bacteria in one mode of expression to a region with another mode of expression, that there is a globally suboptimal utilization of resource as the “foreign” expression pattern settles out in the new environment.

Posted by Rnl on Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:36 | #

A universalist population can have the majority advantage without ever using it: it will undoubtedly have reasoned that using its advantage was wrong!

And because minorities are confident (with, we must hope, a mistaken confidence) that the majority has unilaterally disarmed itself, many feel empowered to openly voice their angry intentions, secure in the knowledge that no retaliation will be forthcoming.

PROF. JOSE ANGEL GUTIERREZ (University of Texas, Arlington) “We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are shitting in their pants with fear! ... I love it!” - [Speech of Jan. 1995, quoted in Barbara Coe, Reconquista, The Takeover of America, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1998, p. 16.]

Professor Gutierrez is, of course, aware that physically the Euro-American majority retains the power to punish him and people like him. We also retain the power electorally; we can still bloc-vote against Chicanos and other non-Whites. If we became murderously angry, we could demolish Mexico City. We could eject every Chicano from Texas, including Gutierrez. More moderately, we could remove him from his comfortable job.

Gutierrez is speaking from a position of weakness, if his situation is analyzed concretely, but he knows it is really a position of strength, because raceless Whites are unwilling to practice on our own behalf anything like the racial activism that he so conspicously practices on behalf of his group. We’re like a heavy-weight champion who has taken a solemn vow of non-violence. A 100-pound weakling can now fearlessly attack him.

Reconquista does not reflect genuine Mexican power, but only our voluntary weakness.

***

“Hispanic” Leaders Brag About Anti-White Hate

“Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die. Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” - Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets

“They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. We are here to stay.” - Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Councilman

“We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population ... I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it!” - Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas

“Remember [Proposition] 187 [denying taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens] was the last gasp of white America in California.” - Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party

“We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, ‘I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.’” - Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor

“California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.” - Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton

“We are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California.” - Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General

“We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos.” - Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University

More on Prof. Gutierrez:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/JoseAngelGutierrezQuote.html
http://www.vdare.com/awall/gutierrez.htm

Posted by analytical brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:05 | #

“re: James’ point - I think the petri dish situation is interesting, and I see a looming parallel between populations from old civilizational centers (China, Mesopotamia, Greece) and populations from newly civilized lands (North Europe), the former being selected for tribalism and the latter being universalist (i.e. not yet selected for tribalism).”

It is somewhat difficult to come up with a quantitative measure of tribalism, and we have already discussed intermarriage rates with respect to the Jews.  One measure that may somewhat measure tribalism in the national homeland context is the relative willingness to accept a (net) migration influx, which can reasonably be seen as inversely related to tribalism.  One confounding factor is migratory pressures due to national wealth.  Thus, I made a crude graph of national GDP per capita vs. a demographic estimate of net migratory influx (year: 2000) for 15 EU countries.

The trendline formula was y = 0.0002x-2.516.

Actually, the only two nations whose “real” estimated influx was greater than predicted by the trendline were Greece and Sweden, those nations very close to even were Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and Portugal, those nations whose “real” influx was much lower than predicted included Finland, Belgium, and Spain.  Of course, Belgium had been taking in immigrants for a long time before 2000, and Finland and Spain have seen a significant increase since 2000.  This is certainly not a perfect metric, but looking at this alone doesn’t make Greece stand out as particularly tribalistic; given their relatively low GDP (for the EU context), they are taking in a significant number of migrants.  Only Sweden seems equally non-tribalistic.

Note that we may be slipping into the mindset that being “tribalistic” is “bad”, which should not be the case for westerners.  Better would be to characterize tribalism as being different from the current western norm.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 05:46 | #

White tribalism has another name: “racism”—a poisonous conflation of definitions from merely noticing racial differences to chasing down and destroying anyone who looks like they might benefit another “race” in any way.  And since we’re not allowed to be tribalist without being called “racist” I do not think “racism” is bad. 

The problem is that some of our most valuable genetically endowed characteristics include our individualism, open mindedness, tolerance and hospitality—all characteristics that make us particularly vulnerable to exploitation by others.  So we have some genetic “weaknesses” that we value.  So the question is how can we preserve these valuable “weaknesses” in the face of a world filled to the brim with toxic peoples ready to exploit our relative lack of groupism?

I think the answer is to consciously, dliberately, honestly, openly adopt “racist” ideologies—even in the form of religious beliefs if necessary—with morals, to which we are not particularly predisposed, that can make us competitive in a world of tribalists.  In so doing, we use our genetic indoctrinability and integrity—normally weaknesses in a world of genetically hypocritical tribalists —and thereby defend our genetic heritage of individualism.

Posted by PF on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:08 | #

re: brute
- Yes, I had difficulty myself trying to reason out which population in Europe might be the most tribalist.. your metric is interesting. I still dont know what to say about this - because I feel that even the most universalist Europeans are still deeply deeply tribalist. I mean, we do let people into our countries, but then we tend to move away, have low intermarriage rates, and develop anti-foreigner attitudes. So basically, it looks like a tribalist people had temporarily adopted a universalist meme set. Does anybody else see what I mean, or am I totally off base here? The thing about Europeans in general is - they do let people into their countries - and yet they are tribalist. Thats my feeling at least. Happy to be contradicted on this point, though.

<backquote>Note that we may be slipping into the mindset that being “tribalistic” is “bad”, which should not be the case for westerners.  Better would be to characterize tribalism as being different from the current western norm</backquote>

On the contrary, I regard tribalism as very, very positive.
Tribalism would essentially mean a set genetic boundary which remained fixed over time, and this leads ipso facto to cultural and historic continuity - thus the maintenance of a tradition. I think it is one of our goals, yes?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:07 | #

PF,

“We” do not let other peoples take our homelands.  Our power elites do that.  There is a moral dissonance in liberalism that is marked with the fautline of universalist idealism above and Pavlovianism below.  Or you can mark it as the dividing line between coercer and coerced.

You bacterial model, therefore, needs to account for a class in the host body that aids the invader’s interests as a suppressive of host interests - but not its own.  It enhances its reproductive fitness thereby.

Posted by moral brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:36 | #

“I think the answer is to consciously, dliberately, honestly, openly adopt “racist” ideologies—even in the form of religious beliefs if necessary—with morals, to which we are not particularly predisposed, that can make us competitive in a world of tribalists.”

Yes, exactly.  And if we are going to to do this overtly and consciously, then genetic interests are a good place to start.

I’m talking about elites here.  For the masses this can be translated as needed; e.g., “religious beliefs.”

Posted by on the other hand brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:28 | #

On the other hand, this remarkable article (albeit somewhat anecdotal as it expresses one man’s opinion, although the intermarriage data are not anecdotal):
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/futuregreekamerica.html

suggests a heightened degree of tribalism in some Greeks living in America.  Substitute “Jewish” for “Greek” in this article and it can have been written by Dershowitz - who, not as racialist as Abrams, would accept some intermarriage and conversion to bolster Jewish numbers.

However, the point remains.  We can ask: is this a function of being relatively recent immigrants?  A 60% outmarriage rate, like the Jew’s “50%” rate is indicative of resistance to assimilation, given low Greek numbers in America.

The question remains unanswered.  In Greece itself, the migrant influx suggests muted tribalism, but there is some evidence that Greeks in America are more tribal that other white groups who had preceded them.

The author of the article is a middle-aged man.  What is the attitude of the younger Greek chorts living in America?

Posted by cohort brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:29 | #

correction: cohorts

Posted by Ahepan brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:35 | #

I just noticed that Moskos is described as a “third generation Ahepan”, meaning he is at least the third generation of his family living in America.  Therefore, he is not a “recent immigrant”, nor the offspring of such immigrants and, hence, his ethnocentrism must be examined in that context.  Evidence of significant tribalism in the Moskos family.

Posted by PF on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:29 | #

Replies to Guessedworker, Brute and James:

Guessedworker said :“‘We’ do not let other peoples take our homelands.  Our power elites do that.”

That is a tricky question - because a sufficiently mobilized Folk would never have let these elites do this. Please remember the assassination of Rabin in ‘95 and how one Israeli student brought Middle East peace talks to a halt.
Our elites are only this way because we are not 1/4th as mobilized for our common interests as Jewish people are.
So on whom does the blame lay? On us as a people, to be sure. At least that is how I view it.

Brute: and the hellenic question. Its great to see such blatant ethnic strategizing going on for Greek Americans. As the word ‘American’ loses its meaning, since every nation is now represented in the American population, we can expect a rise in tribalism. Alot of Americans realize the inadequacy of the term ‘American’, since it can refer to Pakistanis, Irish, Chinese, and Russian Jews. Since all these people are ‘American’ now, what the hell does that term even mean?
But what is infinitely more satisfying, would be some quantification of this trend, or a concrete statement about its future. I cant offer that, though. All I can say is anecdotal. I was turned on to tribalism by seeing Italian-Americans constantly flying their flags, speaking bits of Italian, and using their whole ethnic claptrap while simultaneously being Americans whenever it suited them. So tribalism was in my case highly contagious, I suspect it will be for others as well.

James -
“I think the answer is to consciously, dliberately, honestly, openly adopt “racist” ideologies—even in the form of religious beliefs if necessary—with morals, to which we are not particularly predisposed, that can make us competitive in a world of tribalists.”

Yes, I agree. I can’t see a future for us if we dont do this. Ironically, its probably the final ‘lesson’ we are going to learn from ‘diversity’ - to be as voraciously tribalist as the countries that have invaded us. Thats exactly, exactly what I want, as well. It will do us good, I feel.

Posted by questioning brute on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:03 | #

PF, but these small ethnicities, without the high-IQ and hyper-ethnocentrism and power of the Ashkenazi, are better off with a “Euro-American” identity.  Agreed that, post-1965, “American” has lost utility, but guys like Moskos are just fooling themselves if they think their “strategy” has any long-term staying power.  They are just whistling in the dark as the ship goes down.

More to the point: if they are so ethnically interested, you’d think they’d turn that energy and activism toward promoting preservation and homogeneity for their national homelands, threatened by immigration, etc.

But no, they are tribalistic in a nation founded by another ethny, in which atomized ethnic tribalism is exactly what the establishment wants (*), yet eschew ethnic tribalism were it would count most: in their lands of origin.  They are either confused, or moronic.

*note the system has no problem with Irish marching in St Patricks Day, Italians whining about the “Sopranos”, Greeks like Moskos, German-American or Polish-American cultural groups, or even Webb’s “Born Fighting”, in which defended the culture and interests of America’s Scots-Irish.

But, try and pursue Euro-American or “white” interests and they go ballistic and label it “hate.”  It’s an obvious divide and conquer strategy. 

I have nothing against guys like Moskos having ethnic self-interest, but, let’s face it - if he is so very much concerned about preserving a “Hellenic” identity, he’d better pay attention to Greece itself, rather than transplanting that identity in the USA.

Posted by PF on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:54 | #

Brute,

Agreed, ‘white’ consciousness is the future in America. Its resisted because it could become powerful, whereas hellenism and other XX-American movemnents are impotent.

  I personally think that the rediscovery of one’s roots and a rebirth of tribalism in America are not incompatible with a recognition of pan-‘White’ ethnic interests. I think we need tribalism and the concept of EGI allows tribalists to network amongst each other, despite their ethnic differences. But perhaps your observations are crafted for the American theatre, mine no longer are, so I no longer strategize in purely Euro-american terms.

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:48 | #

PF says, “So on whom does the blame lay? On us as a people, to be sure. At least that is how I view it.”

This comes pretty close to blaming the victim, and I think is an incomplete analysis. Here is what John Beatty says in his 1951 book, “The Iron Curtain Over America” at page 157 with reference to the failure of average Americans to respond to provocative insults, invasions, and attacks.

“Why is the average American deceived by such propaganda? He has been taught, in the various and devious ways of censorship, to see no evil except in his own kind, for on radio and in the motion picture the villain is by regular routine a man of native stock. Ashamed and bewildered, then, the poor American citizen takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own people and against the truth—and thereby, against the traditions of Western Christian civilization, which are, or were, the traditions of the United States.”

A different kind of analysis, to be sure. We’re like fish, swimming in waters that are so polluted that we cannot even discern the lies and hatreds any longer.

Posted by PF on Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:37 | #

Responding to Billy Joe Daniels:

“This comes pretty close to blaming the victim, and I think is an incomplete analysis.”

Yes, you’re right, I am blaming the victim, but I dont accord ‘victims’ any special rights, unlike moralist thinkers. The victim could have defended himself better, could have taken more precautions, could have found a way to circumvent his attacker. Because I dont believe in ‘justice’, I think that if we are victimized, the fault lies purely with us, I am not interested in calling the aggressor before some kind of universalist moralist tribunal.

Nations float or sink based on their ability to defend themselves. There’s nothing else to it, really. Milking victim status may be a strategic option, but if that reflects the degree of our self-understanding, we are still operating in a univeralist world with an omniscient Court judging between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This world, this court, universal ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ don’t exist, realizing that is the most important thing.

No one gives a f*ck who the victim is, basically. Just like nature doesn’t care if a wildebeest dies, and becomes food for a lion, our future isn’t a concern to anyone but ourselves, and no one else can be expected to look after us, whether we spawned Beethoven and Darwin or not. Other nations have every right to attack us, it is we who are to blame for giving in to them.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:02 | #

“Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you.”

My new bride (nee Hatch) recently observed me reading Albion’s Seed and asked what it had to say (if anything) about her Hatch ancestor who came over on the Great Ship Hercules during the Great Migration of the 1630’s.  The answer was “nothing”, but the internet revealed that her 8-times-great grandfather Walter Hatch came over from Kent and established the oldest European home on the new continent—the “Red House”.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-House-Accurate-Continuously-Lived/dp/B000BOB324

Anyone care to venture a guess as to the year in which the oldest continously inhabited house in the United States was sold out of the family?

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:28 | #

“Yes, you’re right, I am blaming the victim, but I dont accord ‘victims’ any special rights, unlike moralist thinkers. The victim could have defended himself better, could have taken more precautions, could have found a way to circumvent his attacker.”

How so?  The victim did what it was in its nature to do.  “Free will” is a fallacy, a fantasy. 

The victim contains rational elements that can strategize flexibly, and perhaps it will begin to act differently.  But the past could not have happened other than as it did.

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:57 | #

Ben Tillman says, “Anyone care to venture a guess as to the year in which the oldest continously inhabited house in the United States was sold out of the family?”

The most wreckage was accomplished 1929-1935, so I guess the house was lost to the family in 1933.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:38 | #

I looked at the Amazon link so Im going to say 1965.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:58 | #

Yes, 1965, the year of the opening of the immigration floodgates.

Posted by PF on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:25 | #

ben tillman wrote:

““Free will” is a fallacy, a fantasy.”
“But the past could not have happened other than as it did.”

In the most absolute and concrete sense, this is true.

But its possible when analyzing the past, to subtract or add an element and extrapolate future projections based on resulting changes. Everyone does this when they think, “What could I have done differently in that situation?” its just applied to historical time and groups of people. It may have no basis in objective reality, but it exists as a function of our mental model of reality.