Posted by GT on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:27 | #

I am generally supportive of MacDonald’s work.  However, I have to wonder what he really hopes to accomplish.  Does he hope to persuade upperclass Europids to see the error of their ways and change the law?  That’s not going to happen.  The upperclass can buy free association and security, and effectively exclude the hated Europid underclass indefinitely.

MacDonald says Europids are altruistic, but in Europid-dominated multiracial societies the upperclass has almost always elevated out-Europids above the underclass.  That period includes 245 years of slavery in North America, which I addressed in Svigor’s “white privilege” thread.  Do big jews treat little jews this way?  Not in multiracial Israel.  So, the Europid upperclass is not universally altruistic, its moral code is dual, and it has a penchant for elevating out-Europids above its own underclass in multiracial societies.  MacDonald doesn’t explicitly address this issue - at least, not that I’ve found.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:40 | #

I suspect MacDonald’s response would be that in Europeans, Socially Imposed Monogamy (SIM) which is a neolithic cultural adaptation to the paleolithic Ecologically Imposed Monogamy experienced by Europeans, is the main expression of elite altruism toward the populous.

Clearly, this is not adequate as the histories of western societies have shown us time and time again with the introduction of foreign slaves followed by the collapse of those societies.  But it is a far sight better than the polygynous traditions of most non-western peoples.

Posted by onlooker on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:59 | #

“the Europid upperclass is not universally altruistic, its moral code is dual, and it has a penchant for elevating out-Europids above its own underclass in multiracial societies.”—GT

Dr. Ian Jobling, addresses that very issue in his essay:-

Competitive Altruism and
White Self-Destruction
Why Whites do not Promote their own Interests

http://www.amren.com/compaltruism/compaltruism.html

Posted by GT on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:37 | #

I suspect MacDonald’s response would be that in Europeans, Socially Imposed Monogamy (SIM) which is a neolithic cultural adaptation to the paleolithic Ecologically Imposed Monogamy experienced by Europeans, is the main expression of elite altruism toward the populous.

I would consider the response to be a dodge.  Wealthy men sired far more bastards with underclass women than did underclass men with upperclass women, per capita and in total.  Monogamy’s purpose was to keep upperclass knickers and underclass trousers pulled up.  Noblesse oblige had a genetic purpose.  There was nothing altruistic about it.  Any benefits of Socially Imposed Monogamy for the underclass were unintended.

Posted by 2R on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47 | #

While I do certainly appreciate Dr MacDonald’s work, what I really respect about Dr. MacDonald is his steadfastness.  Can you imagine being him everyday?  Here’s a man who is literally being denied his freedom of speech while at the same time, there are Jews over at Harvard calling for the destruction of the White race.  Then there are radical leftest “identity studies” professors who do nothing but stir up hate towards white people but nothing is said about these people. 

Dr. MacDonald’s is coming under this kind of fire because no one in the last 60 years has exposed the Talmudic inspired behavior of world Jewry better than he.  I literally sit here in shame that such a man exists while all I do is type away at a keyboard. 

And what a bunch of hacks over at the “history” department.  In terms of honor, what a contrast between K-Mac and the “history” department.  If the “history” department had any honor at all, they’d at least write a paper refuting K-Mac’s work. Instead, all we get is blanket condemnation and calls for unconstitutional actions. 

Dr. MacDonald, I’m pretty sure you don’t read this blog?  But if you do, please know sir that when White people reverse the race-replacement process and we take control of our own destiny again, you will go down in history as a modern Galileo.  No matter what happens, you can be certain that all your labor is not for nothing.  The fact that one man could cause so much fear among the international manipulators is all the proof you need of your effectiveness.  These people have no honor and in fact, are probably not even capable of understanding what this concept even means?  You display all the best qualities of our people as you don’t write and work for fancy academic titles or appointments to elite positions on campus.  Instead, you work for your people, and this is something the people over at the “history” department can and will never understand. 

Thank you sir,

2R

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:52 | #

My view on socially imposed monogamy is that it is more a result of a cultural adaptation—rooted in sexual selection—involving single combat to the death (or death by mob for cowardice in the face of a challenge).  MacDonald pretty much identifies socially imposed monogamy with Christianity.  My view is that Christianity was a “deal” whereby men gave up their right to single combat to the death in exchange for sexual restraint by the elites (who would no longer be challenged to single combat by their “inferiors”—or at least would not be put to death by mob violence if they refused such challenges).

Yes, there was a lot of cheating by elites when Christianity took hold—which may be one of the reasons many of the Old Norse didn’t bother with the word “Christian” and simply used the word “hypocrite”.

Posted by GT on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:30 | #

I want to think about your perspective on SIM.

Meanwhile, the following is just to let you know where I’m coming from:

MacDonald’s work is a huge step forward, but it is not the final word.  Evolutionary psychology can just as effectively be applied to intra-group behavior, and on this point I am sure he would agree.  Perhaps I’ve missed something in his books.  Perhaps I haven’t.  Nevertheless, the fact is many of us are descended from European nobility.  I wonder what effect that has on behavior and class selection.  Class selection is a historical process and IQ, while important, isn’t the only criteria used – not by a long shot.  The Europid nobility is not altruistic.  Neither are they necessarily more intelligent, except as a class.  Do poseurs or families of poseurs of above average intelligence have a better chance of “making it” to the upperclass than, say, some rude, crude, working-class slob with greater abstract, non-verbal intelligence?  I’d say so.  I’d definitely say so.  I think “plasticity” or moral “flexibility” is a weighted part of the selection process.  If true, then there is something wrong with all of us at Majority Rights.  We’re not sufficiently “flexible,” for if we were, most of us would be on “the other side” - going along to get along, talking the talk, not concerned with what’s happening, so on and so forth.

Posted by GT on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:00 | #

… for if we were, most of us would be on “the other side” - going along to get along, talking the talk, not concerned with what’s happening, so on and so forth.

… for if we were, most of us would be on “the other side” - encouraging and enforcing the “go along to get along” mode, talking the talk and setting the agenda for more of it, not be concerned with what’s happening to the underclass because we’re not effected, and so on and so forth.

Posted by expf on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:08 | #

GT wrote:

Nevertheless, the fact is many of us are descended from European nobility.

What does ‘us’ refer to here, whites, race realists or the MR readership?

Class selection is a historical process and IQ, while important, isn’t the only criteria used – not by a long shot.  The Europid nobility is not altruistic.

Is it possible for any human group to be ‘not altruistic’ in the absolute sense? Do you perhaps mean in a relative sense, i.e. less altruistic than, some other group? I guess I don’t think there is any human group that is non-altruistic. An example of altruism amongst European nobility would be the dedication to military service which was such a mainstay of Prussian noble society that both Friedrich the great and the writer von Kleist record their torturous attempts to pull themselves free of Prussian military culture in favor of self-expression and literary endeavor (one contemplating suicide and another actually ending in suicide).

I have reasons to question even such an example of group altruistic behavior as the one I have just given– the reasons for which I won’t go into–except to say that I think ultimately the only clean analysis of an altruistic act is literally of an altruistic act, not of a class, or a people, because that includes too many acts stemming from a variety of motivations. I mean, are we writing here on this website out of service to future generations of Europeans or because we actually think its fun? The murkiness of this distinction perplexes me. In all honesty its difficult enough to determine if a single act is altruistic and in what sense we mean this.

Neither are they necessarily more intelligent, except as a class.

If they are more intelligent as a class wouldn’t this coincide with them being more intelligent as individuals?

I think that estimations of intelligence are difficult because of cultural differences, most of all imposing them ex post facto on dead groups of human beings which we mostly know from stylized literary portraits– I mean in all honesty, GT, whom exactly are you thinking of when you talk about ‘Europid nobility’? How many European nobles have you known? How many have you given IQ tests to? Forgive me the harshness of that, but I wonder if you’ve even had a chance to have a long conversation with 5 European nobles, which would by no means form the basis for such a generalization reaching back over historical time and geographical space. The only thing I’ve managed to gather from associating with descendents of European nobility (in all cases mixed) is that their capacity for respect is greater, and they have a tendency to be demure, sensitive, intelligent, self-effacing and/or withdrawn. They seem to have the ability to feel deep reverence. And this is very much my own pop-culture philosophizing based on a sample size of 6 or 8 people.

Do poseurs or families of poseurs of above average intelligence have a better chance of “making it” to the upperclass than, say, some rude, crude, working-class slob with greater abstract, non-verbal intelligence?  I’d say so.  I’d definitely say so.  I think “plasticity” or moral “flexibility” is a weighted part of the selection process.  If true, then there is something wrong with all of us at Majority Rights.  We’re not sufficiently “flexible,” for if we were, most of us would be on “the other side” - going along to get along, talking the talk, not concerned with what’s happening, so on and so forth.

Being a ‘poseur’ presumably means paying high attention to symbols of status and manipulating them to elevate the appearance of one’s own, thus marrying higher than one might if one didn’t have this trait. That requires a kind of intelligence, and not by any means one which I would downplay, as the ability to read people and see oneself through their eyes is ever useful for reaching accurate objective assessments of social situations.

Unfortunately I feel that these two mental images you have conjured don’t occur with enough frequency to form the basis of any solid argument. Is anyone really so devoid of value as to have his entire merit summarized with the word ‘poseur’? Do such one-dimensional people exist outside of our fleeting perceptions of them? Do we often see men of high abstract, non-verbal intelligence who are “rude, crude, working-class slob"s? I think these are caricatures, most people are too alloyed of different qualities to be caught in nets like these.

Moral flexibility is of course beneficial in situations where quick betrayal can win lasting benefits, but I daresay most of our history has emphasized a tendency to win trust and behave cohesively with a group.

I’m not even sure the morally flexible opportunist traitors you have in mind tend to be descended from nobility. Was Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or Al Gore, or McCain or anyone else, descended from nobility? Is Tony Blair descended from the nobility?

That being said I thought you’re observation about SIM preventing upper class ladies/lower class males breeding was fascinating and the moral flexibility idea definitely sounds like it factors in somewhere. Just think of how many rulers had to have brothers and relatives killed– when they later spent time with their harems, a few more ‘slippery’, question-mark souls entered the world.

Posted by the frolicsome one on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:32 | #

by the way GW, what’s some good cockney rhyming slang for “check ya spam filter”?

Check ya pan kilter!

as it said in a song…. nice legs, shame about the boat race!

lol!

Posted by Will Stuteley on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:18 | #

From the Ian Jobling Amren article mentioned above (thanks for the link, onlooker):

“The racial altruism high-status Americans promote does have a very high cost, but one that is, in the near-term, borne almost exclusively by low-status whites.”

How very liberal: to be overly generous with someone else’s money (and ethnic-genetic interests). High-status whites get the benefits; low-status whites pay the costs. Perhaps there’s a silver-lining here. [Sarcasm Alert] When the West is reduced to Brazil on a civilizational scale, perchance the Gentile rich will see a degraded white underclass as fitting objects for their (self-indulgent) pity. We must remember to bow and scrape, and sufficiently lick the altruistic hand that feeds us when we are reduced to such a state. We will also have to pretend—if we are to be the fortunate recipients of such noblesse oblige—that we do not remember the white societies that came before, when we were proud and self-sufficient, and walked on two legs.

Some other gems:

“A concern for the interests of whites or even for their survival as a group is now the worst sort of bad taste.”

“What better objects of generosity than those groups who were furthest from the mainstream: non-whites, homosexuals, criminals, and deviates of all kinds?”

“Burlington confirms one of the great laws of American race relations: the amount of sympathy whites feel for minorities is in inverse proportion to their experience with them.”

“The hypocrisies run so deep that, as Joseph Sobran has pointed out, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Klan.”

Posted by 2R on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:48 | #

“Burlington confirms one of the great laws of American race relations: the amount of sympathy whites feel for minorities is in inverse proportion to their experience with them.”

Diversity Price Curve:

As the amount of non-whites goes up, the tolerance for them goes down.  When the amount of non-whites goes down, the tolerance for them goes up.

Posted by onlooker on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:51 | #

“Ian Jobling Amren article mentioned above (thanks for the link, onlooker”—Will Stuteley

You’re welcome, Will Stutley.

Sometimes I can’t restrain myself from interjecting coherence into what sometimes evolves into a rats-nest of absurd postulations many pseudointellectuals propound at “WN” websites.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:02 | #

Revealed: The hedge fund bosses who made £4.6 billion from the credit crunch

John Paulson took home £1.9 billion last year by betting on mortgages last year as the U.S. property market plunged into crisis, according to the New York Times. 

George Soros – who made more than a £1 billion on Black Wednesday - came out of retirement last summer to earn almost £1.46 billion as property chaos spread, according to a report published today in Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine.

James H Simon, a mathematician and former U.S. defence department code breaker who uses complex computer models to trade, earned £1.36 billion last year while his Medallion fund returned 73 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=560051&in_page_id=1811

I’m not sure about Simon, but the surname is suggestive.

Posted by Frolic on Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:22 | #

GW, check the spam filter again please.

thank you. I think thats all for the moment.

Posted by Darren on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:28 | #

Altruism is a behavior that manifests itself in a group situation. So if you’re a peasant or anyone else who isn’t some sort of elite or a noble, altruism towards people who share your social standing. If you’re a leader of some sort, then you are elevated above the masses and as such the number of people you consider to be your peers is severely diminished (in comparison to the number of people below you in social standing).

I would tie that in with the fact that, as MacDonald himself points out, Europeans have a higher degree of individualism. As such, I would (personally) make the claim that those who are of the elite class of leaders tend to have less altruistic (or perhaps, more self-identified but not totally lacking in altruism) motivations simply because their pragmatism is to lead, not share in a common struggle with the peasants.

MacDonald shows, as a counterexample, Jews as a group of people who are not of continental European extraction that come from a different evolutionary background where individualism is much less prevalent and group-motivated and enforced behaviors are the norm.

Posted by ATBOTL on Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:12 | #

Good thing we have onlooker telling us to ignore the role of jews in the West’s destruction.  Without commissars like him keeping us in line, G_d knows where we might end up.

Posted by didier on Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:27 | #

not at all, Darren.it is the rich that are doing racial altruism competition.. the poor whites ,well just jealous of other whites..

so, the rich and poor whites both show their “support” to non whites ,especially blacks.

this happens when a culture reached the top.. ..and doomed to fall.