Psychological Mechanisms and White Interests, Part 1
April 28, 2019 /37 Comments/in Evolutionary Psychology, Featured Articles /by Kevin MacDonald
Turku Castle
Editor's note: This is a talk given at the Awakening Conference in Turku, Finland, April 6, 2019.
There are obviously many challenges for White people in the West, starting with the fact that throughout the West the media and academic culture are absolutely dedicated to importing new peoples into lands traditionally dominated by people of European descent. In every case, this transformation has been a top-down phenomenon, as described mainly for the United States in my book The Culture of Critique, in the UK by Andrew Joyce, in Australia by Brenton Sanderson, and in Sweden by .M. Eckehart. By this, I mean that there was never a popular movement demanding more immigration anywhere in the West. In general, these changes occurred as a result of activism by specific groups—my view is that Jewish groups were critical in every case. These activists have had ties to elite institutions in the media, the academic world, powerful institutions like the EU, and the political process. The policies they advocated aimed at changing government policy in a context where there was no public discussion of the long-term effects this would have on native populations. And in every case, the mainstream media has had a record of promoting immigration and preventing discussion of the negative consequences, either now or in the future, to native populations. This is because, quite obviously, these changes do not benefit native populations. It's one thing to import temporary workers for real economic needs. It's quite another thing to make them voting citizens, particularly when they typically have quite different interests in public policy on immigration and on the economic policies related to the availability of public goods like free healthcare, education, and welfare benefits. Most want free stuff. In the U.S., 63% of non-citizens and 50% of naturalized immigrants (i.e., the ones who become citizens) access welfare programs. The great majority of non-European immigrants have come from countries with lower IQ—a trait that is not easily influenced by changed environments. I would be interested in seeing a similar analysis for Finland.
The result of these shifts is that in most Western countries the traditionally dominant populations will be replaced within the lifetimes of many of the people who are alive today. In the United States, maybe even an old guy like me, White Americans are projected to become a minority at least by 2040 and likely sooner. Moreover, we are already at a tipping point because the Democrat Party, which is entirely in favour of replacing the White population, gets around 45% of its votes from non-Whites, so that even though many Whites have deserted the party in recent years, the growth of the non-White population combined with a still-significant number of Whites voting Democrat means that it will be impossible for Republicans to win national elections in the near future—indeed, as early as 2020. Add to that the fact that many Republicans favor high levels of immigration and because Pres. Trump has been unable or unwilling to fulfil his campaign promises; far too many Republicans are agents of big business and want to import cheap labor—and they are deathly afraid of being called a racist if they resist immigration. Illegal aliens now residing in the US have a huge incentive to have children because of birthright citizenship—people born here are citizens, so their parents can claim welfare and other financial support; again 63% are on welfare. It's not surprising that they don't want to leave.
What has happened as a result of Trump's election is a good example of how difficult it will be to put through a pro-White policy to address the demographic disaster that is unfolding even if a nationalist-sounding politician is elected. From the very beginning of Trump's administration, he has been beset with investigations and lawsuits, and there has been a torrent of hatred and invective directed at him in the media and on social media like Twitter and Facebook. Comparisons of Trump with Hitler and Nazism have been routine, during the campaign and since he became president. This is unprecedented in American history. Trump has been unable to get any good immigration-related legislation through Congress because of unanimous Democrat opposition and significant opposition from Republicans. And the courts have routinely ruled against him in the many jurisdictions with liberal judges.
But Trump is far from blameless in all this. He has not pursued other things that he could do, such as declare an end to birth-right citizenship. Recently it has gotten worse as Trump has declared a desire for increasing the level of legal immigration.
The worst part is the reality is that even if immigration were stopped tomorrow, there will be a non-White majority in the near future. Already a majority of children are non-White, and, while White birth rates have stagnated, Blacks and Latinos continue to have higher birth rates. Solutions that would preserve a White majority will soon be a political impossibility within the democratic process. But a cataclysmic upheaval that would result in violence and economic disaster is also not welcome—but, I hate to say it, it is perhaps the only way for White survival.
Psychological Mechanisms Being Used Against Us
Personality Systems and White Replacement. There are psychological mechanisms that facilitate this ongoing disaster. These mechanisms generally revolve around individualism and are the topic of a book I am in the last stages of putting together on the Western liberal tradition. I could spend the whole hour on this but I thought that since I am in Finland, I would discuss evolutionary psychologist Edward Dutton's excellent new book, The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers. I should think that all Finns would be interested in this book just because it's about Finland, but what strikes me is the similarity between Finland and other Scandinavian and northwest European countries, Sweden (the "Humanitarian Superpower") being the exemplar. This is despite the fact that Finland is a genetic outlier from other Western countries. Finland has many of the same problems of other Western countries resulting from Muslim and African migration. Dutton notes a 2018 study by the Finnish Police Academy found that 93% of rapes by foreigners in Finland in 2016 had been committed by men from Islamic countries.
So why isn't there a public outcry and a new government that would end migration and begin the deportation process? Dutton notes that until quite recently, the identities of rapists were not disclosed to the public, either by the media (which trends left as elsewhere in the West) or the police. The names of Muslim criminals were redacted from police and court press releases as well. Official reports spoke only of men "of foreign background," as if Finnish women "were being attacked by German tourists or Japanese guest lecturers from the local university."
To their great credit, Junes Lokka and his fiancée Tiina Wiik, who was master of ceremonies for the Awakening conference and does a video podcast with Ramzpaul, began livestreaming phone-ins and interviews on YouTube. They also maintained contacts with 'Alt Right' figures worldwide: both Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald, for instance, have appeared on their internet shows. In 2017, Lokka won election to the Oulu city council as an independent, with Wiik serving as vice-councilor.
Dutton shows that Finns have the highest IQ of any European group. They are also high on what I term the" affectional system" related to nurturance, love and close family relationships This system is designed to cement husband-wife pair bonding and close family relationships between parents and children that are especially essential in a harsh environment such as the far north, where children need the investment of both parents to survive.
Related to this, Dutton finds the Finns have high social anxiety and a desire to please. In other words, they are concerned to have a good reputation in their moral community. (My view is that White people, especially northwest Europeans are prone to forming moral communities based on a moral reputation rather than kinship connections.) They want to please others and they have anxiety about being ostracized from the community, which makes them more conformist. They do not want to dissent from the moral consensus that defines the community. Being ostracized from the small face-to-face communities that Finns and many other northwest Europeans evolved in was certain evolutionary death.
Dutton also notes their low self-esteem which is linked to being low on extraversion. Extraverted people are outgoing and sociable; they are more likely to take risks and tend to evaluate situations by exaggerating benefits and minimizing possible costs—a dangerous strategy in a harsh environment where the downsides are all too real. Extraverts tend to high self-esteem, and often have inflated self-images, and they tend toward aggression, the males toward high testosterone. High self-esteem makes it more likely that you will have self-confidence and trust your own judgement in evaluating risks—again, not a good strategy in a harsh environment. For example, Black children have inflated self-esteem compared to Whites, and they are more extraverted on average, have higher testosterone, and are more aggressive and more involved in crime and other risky behaviors. But even among other introverted groups, Finns stand out. Dutton cites a study comparing the Swedes, the Estonians and the Finns—all relatively introverted compared to other human groups — that found that Finns are by far the least talkative and the most reserved, even when talking to their own babies (Tulviste et al., 2003).
This then shows up in low-self-esteem. A Finnish sociologist named Tarja Laine has studied the national inferiority complex in detail:
She claims Finns are often 'discontented with the nation' and 'ashamed of themselves.' Laine argues that there is a history of self-stigmatization in Finland, because Finnishness was defined as 'inferior to the rest of Europe' [and] also notes how deeply concerned Finns were about what foreigners would think of them when they hosted the summer Olympics in 1952.
This combination of high average IQ and being high on nurturance/love and introversion is also combined with not having many genetic outliers—people who are extreme on IQ or personality. Such people were likely less prone to stand out in the group and thus be ostracized from the moral communities of traditional Finnish society which, as Dutton notes, lasted much longer than elsewhere in Europe because industrialization came so late—not really until the 1950s. Dutton also emphasizes that industrialization results in accumulating negative genes, as selection pressures are relaxed—a possible explanation for why we see so many weird sexual non-conformists these days in the West.
In any case, the result is a society much like Sweden, where people strongly conform and do not 'rock the boat;' a society in which there is a very high level of trust in those who rise to power, and of course, this can be abused if sociopaths or people in power are eager to signal their virtue to other the powers that dominate the EU and are entirely in favor of replacement-level migration.
Our Poisonous Culture. A second set of mechanisms being used against us relate to culture. Evolutionary psychologists have not been properly sensitive to the enormous gulf between humans and animals resulting from human general intelligence and other systems related to cognitive function. The downside of this in the present age is that it allows humans to come under the influence of the surrounding culture in a context where the surrounding culture is poisonous and utterly opposed to our interests. We are inundated with ideas and ideologies emanating from the academic world and the media: there is no such thing as race; genetics is not important; there are no biologically based race differences in intelligence; Africans fail in Western societies because of White racism; diversity is a strength—our greatest strength, etc.
Modern humans are exposed to an often-bewildering array of cultural messages emanating from prestigious institutions in the academic world and the media. In Finland that would mean universities like the Universities of Helsinki and Turku. The people creating these messages need not—and often don't— have the same interests as the recipients of the messages. It is a commonplace that media images have important effects on behavior even though people are often unaware that their behavior is influenced by the images.85 These images are often engineered by propagandists and advertisers who are consciously attempting to influence the recipients of the messages in ways that conform to the propagandists' interests, not those of the audience.
More important, media messages and academic culture—both dominated by the anti-White left in America and Western Europe—have been able to shape the discussion of issues related to White identity and interests. The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education, and for people with different interests and from different subcultures.86 White people are constantly exposed to suffering non-Whites as proper candidates for immigration and refugee status. They are exposed to messages intended to induce guilt for the history of slavery and dispossession of the Native Americans.
In attempting to find a way out of this morass, therefore, changing the explicit culture is critical. Trump's election in the teeth of massive media opposition and now his exoneration on media-manufactured claims about colluding with Russia show that massive numbers of Whites don't trust elite culture, and that will only increase as time goes on. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's presidential campaign slogan, it's the explicit culture, stupid. Changing the explicit culture is critical, and in particular legitimizing a strong sense among Whites not only to identify as Whites but to realize that Whites have legitimate interests as Whites. This will not happen in the establishment media, but it is happening anyway for the reasons I mentioned. Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among White people, and the creation of communities and sub-cultures where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism. The fact that such assertions appeal to some important psychological mechanisms is certainly an asset. It's always easier to go with a natural tendency than to oppose it. And in this case, opposing our natural ethnocentric tendencies by using our quintessentially human prefrontal inhibitory control against our own ethnic interests is nothing less than a death sentence.
Go to Part 2.
[1] The fact that the incredible media hype around Trump's supposed Russia collusion has collapsed is a major blow to the establishment media in the U.S.—and that's all to the good.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/IMG_3861.jpg 2664 4000 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2019-04-28 07:30:402019-04-29 09:57:27Psychological Mechanisms and White Interests, Part 1
Joe Six Pack says:
Whites are pretty pathetic, all in all, but we cannot underestimate fear of unemployment and the Dox-ing that causes these justified fears. Look at C-ville to see what happens if you stick up for Whites. No antifa prosecuted! And Tim Heaphy former US Attorney came out with a 210 page report criticizing C-ville's management. Nothing happens and anyone caught on video loses his job and his family goes to a ghetto school. The deck is stacked against Whites in the academic world, the media world and in our legal system.
A retired professor in Britain(he has to be retired) named Bruce Charlton has a blog where he discusses the Decline of the West. One of his entrys is a 25 pager titled 'The Decline of the West Explained'.
He says:
"I was always puzzled by the submissive flaccidity of modern Western societies: the way that – although people live to maximize gratification and minimize suffering – they will in practice do little or nothing to protect their future happiness or to defend against future suffering: will indeed act such as to ensure and hasten a future of misery for themselves and their children.
So, the elite ruling class of modern societies will not preserve stability, law and order within their societies; will not try to defend their societies against external threats; will not safeguard future growth or prosperity; will not suppress those who would abolish their most cherished freedoms; will not even allow discussion of ongoing massive demographic change and its implications; will not support or promote the high culture in which they live and about which they are expert…
It is strange that people who live almost-wholly for their lifestyles will not lift a finger to maintain the conditions which support these lifestyles."
He seems to lay a lot of the blame on the de transcendence of Western culture, we have lost our souls and gained an electronic gadgetrized multiculti world. I don't recall him mentioning the Dox-ing word 'Whites' much but he has a book online titled 'Thought Prison' where he discusses Political correctness and constricted patterns of thought it engenders. PC is our disguised new religion with its own blasphemy laws. There shall be no discussion of sex differences, race differences etc upon pain of the Lord of Dox.
Also Edward Dutton was also co author of 'At Our Wits End' a good book on Dysgenics. Stefan Molyneux has a long podcast interview about 90 minutes with Michael Woodley, Dutton's co author. Basically we are getting dumber as a culture but the Flynn effect, our practice with symbols, is hiding our stupidity statistically but our lack of conceptual geniuses means we will never go to the moon again.
At the end of the podcast Molyneux mentions we humans had a brief two hundred year window without blasphemy fear, however now we are right back into the blasphemy world under the guise of 'Hate laws'
Watch out what you say out there or the Lord of Dox will excommunicate you from the religion of PC and henceforth unemployed, your children will go to bad schools.
Trenchant says:
We can't go to the Moon again because we've forgotten how to use slide-rules.
We can't go to the Moon again because we've never been there. Soundstages and jooish/Marxist videos and staged photos don't count.
pterodactyl says:
@Charlie Did you know there is a mirror on the moon and lasers are used with the mirror to calculate how many inches a year the moon is moving away from earth? Or is the conspiracy so powerful that every generation joins in with the lie?
Sure, it belongs to Princess Leia.
Pierre de Craon says:
If you'll pardon my literal-mindedness for a moment, I've still got my 57-year-old slide rule—a beryllium beauty from the world's leading manufacturer, Keuffel & Esser (RIP)—and I still know how to use it. It was a gift from my engineer brother when I began college, the same college that had trained him in engineering, an area of study in which, for better or worse, I rapidly lost interest.
Putting his own slide rule to good use, my brother later became one of the dozen or so guys at Hughes Aerospace who designed the engine for the Apollo 11 command module. While storing my slide rule on a shelf in a closet, I became … several less useful somethings.
Conclusion: for getting to the moon, inter alia, knowing how to use a slide rule may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.
Doing it again would be an administrative nightmare due to the sheer weight of regulations that would need to be complied with.
Richard B says:
"will not support or promote the high culture in which they live and about which they are expert…"
They're the beneficiaries of high culture, but in no way its experts. They want the prestige of our institutions. But not the work and responsibility that made those institutions prestigious in the first place.
And they have the gall to talk about cultural appropriation.
Anyway, while still young I became convinced that higher education, the gateway to high culture, somehow or other was my way out of a bad situation, poverty, violence in and around the home, etc.
Long story short, I eventually made it to college (before it, along with many other colleges, pretentiously nominated itself a "university"; a sure sign indicator that the institution's interest in higher education and high culture is about to vanish completely and forever).
I graduated 30 years ago, just as PC was coming into full swing, and in all of that time and ever since I have yet to come across anyone, who could give me a solid answer to the question,
What is high culture?
I wasn't so much interested in definitional answers, there were plenty of them. And, though some sounded nice, ultimately they were all unsatisfactory. What I was interested in was something more observable, or, at least something that could located as an aspect of human behavior.
So I started to frame the question in this way,
What is there in the world that the words "high culture" directs me to locate?
I began to frame pretty much all of my questions that way. And I started by focusing on the world culture.
What is there in the world that the world culture directs us to locate? Followed by other words, like Society, etc. and every other high-level abstraction I could thing of.
And since higher edcuation and high culture presumably having something to do with the life of the mind and the world of ideas the question then became,
What is there in the world that the word mind directs me to locate?
We could continue with this for as long as we like. But the point is, this sort of exercise, this sort of intellectual self-reflection, or self-criticism, isn't going on at all, especially in the academic world. And now we're back to why they are in no way products of high culture. How could they be? There is no higher education anymore from which they could begin to acquire a higher level of culture.
For the last 50+years college and university professors aren't interested in becoming more intellectual. They're interested in becoming more middle class. They're interested in social conformity not cultural vitality.
No one in on a university campus talks seriously to each other. If you want truly intellectually serious conversation you have to form a group and keep it a secret.
This explains the rise of The Thought Leaders of Clown World, like Jordan Peterson.
The point is, even those who consider themselves products of high culture (in other words, people who should know better) use the very words they live by vaguely, indefinitely and with the assumption that there's something in the mind that corresponds to word.
It's certainly naive of us to think that for any word there is something that corresponds to it. But that's the belief not only of almost everyone, but of the aforementioned products of high culture.
The explanatory system that they've constructed is held together by words that can scarcely support any serious examination: "Racism", "Sexism", "Antisemitism", etc.
Which explains why they're not examined. In fact, there's a silent conspiracy that we should all agree that they do mean something or other and that we should not inquire too curiously exactly what.
This is their Achilles heel.
Unfortunately, it's also ours.
Some quick corrections of, and added commentary for, the above comment.
"And I started by focusing on the world culture." Should be "word" not "world."
"What is there in the world that the world culture directs us to locate?" Same thing, the second world should be word.
"and with the assumption that there's something in the mind that corresponds to word." Should be, "…the word."
Added Commentary
Ironically, for people who despise the West so much, their explanation of the world is entirely dependent on a Platonic use of language.
Their sacred words are filled with difficulties. They're mentalistic hypostatizations. Their sacred words (everyone here knows them all) are used just as such terms we all use, like "will" "intention" and, of course, "mind."
But, unlike those words, their sacred words are subject to no analysis whatsoever. This is why, as I've said before, though good at infiltration, subversion, destruction and betrayal, they're no good at social-management, at all. Because they never really think about what they're doing, because they never question their own assumptions. Or, nothing quite fails like their form of success.
So, we have people living by an explanatory system chock-o-block full of words, all of which are sources of imprecision and confusion, that are never exposed to any kind of analysis.
That their sacred words are useful for them, in terms of the aforementioned infiltration, subversion, etc. is undeniable.
But, their sacred words all exceedingly brittle. In any careful analysis they break in situations of any intellectual stress. And we live in stressful times.
Yes, this is true. Though, admittedly, considerably less so. Why? Because, though we consider certain words important to us, we don't consider them so sacred that we're scared to analyze them. This gives us far more perspective and orientative flexibility than them (two important attributes of high culture, by the way). Though, I must add, this is far less true of those among us with rigid ideological commitments.
In any event, our brightest and best would do well to examine the phenomenon of Explanatory Collapse and what happens to people who experience it.
Because, truth be told, this has been the underlying condition of European man for the last 200+years.
Understanding this would help us better understand ourselves, our situation, and also better enable us to begin to work our way out of our current dilema.
Excellent post. I will look up these sources.
It is surprising that there is such little interest in the West in our own demise generally and the reasons for it. Sites such as TOO are the exception. You would think an imminent and looming disaster of demographics and white loss of power and possible civil war would activate the people's interest more than, say, sport, but apparently not, and the majority of the people seem quite relaxed about it all, and are far more preoccupied with their house value.
"will indeed act such as to ensure and hasten a future of misery for themselves and their children."
This demonstrates that the people are making decisions about politics (how to vote) that are determined by their animal behaviour side and not their logical side.
Their logical side says: work out what your self-interest is, and act accordingly.
Their animal behaviour side says: observe what the prevailing culture is and follow it, or, when voting, identify which white sub group you belong to and vote for its 'representatives' without considering if its 'representatives' are your friend or your enemy. This is a very shallow and basic way to think, in fact it has similarities with the way the people think when they watch TV adverts.
This is how 90% behave – no logic involved. Meanwhile, 5% on the left and 5% on the right are able to make the connection between what they vote for and what the future will be like if this party wins or that one does, ie what the actual consequences will be and whether they want them..
These two 5% lots at the ends (left and right) wish to pull the ignorant 90% in their direction.
So the outcome of this way of thinking (by means of their animal behaviour side, not logic), is that the people on the Allies' side in 1939 enthusiastically rushed to war, and lost their best men, left a generation of single women, helped communism spread, and helped to launch the H industry. This was not a decision based on logic, obviously, as no self-interest was served. It was based on activating a primitive human behaviour response – to unite and fight – in this case the fight was a pointless cousin-cousin war in which we sided with the communists. The War was given the status of 'full cultural approval' as those who wanted it approved were in a very strong alliance – the Js, the banks, the Left, and by those such as Churchill who wanted to play at soldiers.
So the same people who rushed off to war that killed of their best men when there was no threat to them, the same people today will not lift a finger to do a thing when there is a very real threat to them.
The difference is that in 1939 the culture egged them on and now it tells them to submit.
In my view the whites in the West would just as readily accept a culture today of self-interest as readily as they accept the one they are being given of anti-self, it is just that no-one is giving them such a culture of self-interest, and, being sheep, there is nothing they can do until their TV sets tell them that the self-interest culture is dominant again.
The whites in S Africa are another example of only doing what the culture tells them is okay, and self-interest is irrelevant. A little over 100 years ago the Boer whites rushed to war against other whites, the British, who did not want to kill them for even one day after the war was won, and now, 120 years later and with a different culture, their genetically-identical descendants of the Boers are loathe to go to war against an enemy that they know really does want to kill them all and will never stop until it achieves this. Perhaps the reason the whites are like this (ferocious against other whites but submissive to blacks) is because other whites in the rest of the world, and 15% perhaps of their own group, would strongly disapprove of any act of self-interest by these S African whites (even a defensive war against their own genocide) as that would involve 'racism', and they seek not their own safety, they seek cultural approval, including not being called racists.
[Mod. Note: pterodactyl, your suggestion has been forwarded to the author.]
RoyAlbrecht says:
"…Such people were likely less prone to stand out in the group…"
Is it "…less…" or "…more…" prone to… ??
"… this can be abused if sociopaths or people in power are eager to signal their virtue to other the [sic?] powers that dominate the EU and are entirely in favor of replacement-level migration."
This is a very truthful article that I hope Americans pay heed to. I have read the author's other fine work..
The US is being flooded with immigrants, and the Democrats could not care less because eventually most of those people will become citizens and vote for Democrats.
Everything about the Democratic party, and some parts of the Republican party, is destructive. The Democratic party is deranged, sick, and un-American.
LGBT destruction of marriage and the family; demographic destruction of the majority White population; destruction of the English language as a common language; destruction of Christianity and more.
Notice that the elite target only Christianity and not Judaism, Islam, or any other religion. This can be explained only by the elite's plan to destroy Christianity.
Even conservative media do not pay enough attention to these things the way they should because they are afraid of certain special interest groups and getting boycotted.
I won't spell out who dominate most of these special interest groups except to say that they are not, in my opinion, good Americans.
Democrats are suicidal and want America to go down with them. They are basically Bolsheviks.
I won't go along with what they want, and I hope my fellow Americans won't either.
"This is a very truthful article that I hope Americans pay heed to."
Unless it's posted to their FakeBox wall or Tweetblasted at them when would they ever be exposed to such a message? Anything other than Fake News is considered Annie-Septic or RAYSIS and they stay away for fear of having all their shiny beeping gadgets taken away.
[Mod. Note: TJ, we are looking into "extravert" vs "extrovert". The "correct" version is still a bit controversial, well beyond spellcheckers on computers. The author will decide. Thanks for pointing it out.]
@ TJ:
"Dr. Jung says it's ExtrAverted, because ExtrOverted is just bad latin."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/
Samuel Johnson was the last lexicographer with any measurable influence for whom soundness of linguistic derivation counted for more than a hill of beans when it came to orthography. Yet even he recognized that majority rule, in the form of usage in printed matter, would win out every time.
To move from the general to the specific, extrovert/extravert is one of those not especially numerous words where the minority's preference, extravert, has still enough presence to forestall a vote of lexicographic cloture against it. It is clear to language scholars that the extro- form has won out in no small part thanks to association (strong albeit misguided) with and the influence of the spelling of the term's opposite, introvert.
conradcgaarder says:
Kevin McDonald's soon to be published book, unavailable soon on Amazon.com.
Maybe nationalist writers could publish under Creative Commons to disseminate their ideas as widely as possible and solicit donations or settle for less efficient alternatives to Amazon for hard copy editions.
Mr Darcy says:
Try Castalia House:
http://www.castaliahouse.com/
I believe it's in Finland.
Avid reader says:
Props to B&N refusing to join Amazon in book banning. Far better service than Amazon, too.
The banal is usually overlooked as a proper cause when it comes to social movements and social ideological transformations, but I think there's a lot to be said for attaching importance to seemingly absurd explanations for a civilization's downward spiral. Cultural Marxism was around in Europe and America for a long time but it originally confined itself to elite academic institutions. The larger populace never heard of it and would not have paid any attention to it, even if it had been heard, simply because most people were too busy earning a living and raising families to care about any guilt-trips dreamed up by lunatic communist university intellectuals. This was true, I believe, until the rise of a large class of university students in the 60s and 70s who possessed two things that were ultimately able to instill the cultural Marxist nonsense into the mainstream – excessive leisure time and adolescent stupidity borne out of an as-yet undeveloped cognitive capacity. University students in the 60s and 70s were existing in virtual nurseries, free of all the constraints of necessity and survival. Like all adolescents, they were prone to the wishful thinking of leftist intellectuals who assured them that heaven could be achieved on earth if only they stopped caring about themselves and instead spread love to all around them – even if all those around them displayed hatred. Think here of the ridiculously banal song "Imagine" by John Lennon, which gave voice to the present racial and traditional nihilism that is destroying western civilization. The stupidity of adolescent university kids in the 60s and 70s did not die when they achieved nominal adulthood. As adults, they simply pushed their nonsense into the textbooks they wrote, the laws they passed, and the movements they inspired. The decline of the West has been accomplished by adolescent idiots who've never grown up.
The 60's and 70's were most influential in finally convincing the boomers that their genitals are the most important thing in the whole room.
" As adults, they simply pushed their nonsense into the textbooks they wrote, the laws they passed, and the movements they inspired."
…and the children they sired…
"If it's free you are the product"
A long-term contemplation, looking at anything that
the PTB wants to be free [free to the user, not to the taxpayer]. Is the freebie for the people, or for enhancing the Power of the Powers That Be?
Education. . .health care. . .free cell phones [sometimes]. . .and so on, and et cetera.
Looking at one today- education- college for the moment. We all remember Econ 1A- remember the intersecting points of supply and demand? What happens when the price is set to zero?
This is a subsidy situation- demand soars. Maybe X number of the young would go to college under a free market. Perhaps 2X or 3X go to "school" with total subsidy. The subsidy cannot be spent on hot rods and so on- only applies to [communist]
universities. In the 60s tuition was free. . .They went to college because it was free, not because they really really wanted a college education. . .Right here is huge reason why the young became leftists. . .with a price of zero they were the "product."
https://tinyurl.com/y38yhdx7
For those who think that a business education is easy. Subsidies paid in full by Mr. Whiteman.
Philip Smeeton says:
Do they really expect whites and blacks and muslims to live together. The very idea is preposterous, reality shows a different pattern of human behaviour. Because the fundamental differences in behaviour and attitude are so great that these groups will naturally self-segregate into ethnic minorities. Individuals will generally seek the safety and comfort of their own kind. This is fact supported by statistics.
The powers that be assume that it is possible to throw large numbers of people with vastly different mentalities into an area and that they will freely intermingle and cooperate in forming a civilized, lawabiding , just and economically viable society. This has never happened, in reality a conflict would ensue, the conglomerate would sort into various minorities and finally the strongest group would dominate or exterminate all of the others.
Everyone can only live together in peace if Whites are genocided because Whites want to keep everyone from riding unicorns and dining on lotus flowers.
I just read this while riding and stopping. I must say Kevin never ceases to amaze me. I am raising a grandchild don't have much time to be active, but would like to say we are truly blessed to have such wonderful people sticking up For our interests. It is people like him who are the hope for a progeny.
As long as someone is taking care of these things for you, you are free to play on FakeBox and watch negros run fast with a ball.
Regarding Trump's failure to build the wall, secure the border and deport illegals: He does not need the permission of Congress or the courts in order to do this. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Dwight David Eisenhower deported illegals and secured the border by treating illegal immigration as a national security crisis and invoking their emergency powers. They did not need Congress or the courts' approval to do this. Trump doesn't need their approval either. And Trump knows this. He also has the entire military budget to draw on — $740 billion dollars. So he doesn't need any money from Congress. Trump's excuse-making indicates to me that he was never serious about securing the border in the first place. If that wall isn't built by November 2020, I'm not voting for him again.
The methodology used by Ross et al (1986) – cited by Rushton – for measuring testosterone was flawed. Serum testosterone exhibits a circadian rhythm; highest levels early morning. Standardized sampling was not respected in the study.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/jnci/76.1.45
Ellis and Nyborg (1992) found only a 3% difference in serum testosterone levels between black and white subjects.
They are everywhere in our countries and they breed faster than us and they are allowed in in ever increasing numbers. They have brought their own ways with them and they neither respect nor fear us, why should they? In addition too many of our own in positions of power and influence welcome them and have denied us our natural rights.
What do we do, passively allow it to be done to us? To remove them we would have to be determined and without pity. They will not leave of their own accord but must be forced to go. I would do this and apply the force and pass the laws in a second, but I am only one. We must all, every freedom loving patriot, become ruthless and resolute. Fight and stand up for our rights, regain our country and return things to what they once were, normal.
"High self-esteem (a characteristic of extroverts) makes it more likely that you will have self-confidence and trust your own judgement in evaluating risks—again, not a good strategy in a harsh environment."
In a bleak environment with everyone spread out, there are reduced opportunities for the extroverts to use their talents, but as soon as industrialisation takes place, this results in larger groupings forming, and these provide the opportunity for the extroverts to gain an advantage. Who can be put in charge of the bank? The best talkers of course, as they have impressed everyone with their manner, and made everyone feel assured that they are a safe pair of hands. (Js have strong verbal skills needed for these roles).
So although the extroverts are favoured by industrialisation, due to the environment now suiting their particular talents, it does not follow that they will help the population or contribute some advantages to the population. This is because Natural Selection does not direct the population to look after its overall self-interest, rather, it directs the population to favour some of its individuals at the expense of others, in a sort of struggle within the population, like a parasite-host relationship, and Natural Selection will happily 'sit back' and let it happen even if the struggle within the population is going to be disastrous in the long term for the population.
Swedish people have a bad trait – they are such slaves to culture that if the culture demands that they submit to lower types who arrive from the third world, then they will do this willingly – even voting for it in free and fair elections, in order to comply with the anti-self culture that is delivered to them via their MSM and schools. There is no way that this bad trait can be gradually removed over the decades or centuries by Natural Selection, as for one thing it has never been relevant before, never been put to the test in order for Natural Selection to 'disapprove'. So this bad trait in their genes, that makes them obey their Left, it will simply wipe them all out in when it all comes to a head in the coming years (wipe some out and make the rest submit as slaves), unless an alternative behaviour mode gets switched on in time.
The important point is that there is no inbuilt or natural mechanism present in the population dynamics to stop the people acting in a way that will eventually cause themselves significant self-harm, in cases like this where the bad genes initially have no significant damaging effects in the short term (a few hundred murdered by immigrants are not significant overall, and the welfare cost is not yet devastating to their economy).
Extroverts and introverts are one pair of types that can compete with each other within a population. Another split is left-wing thinking and right-wing thinking. The left are wired to seek advantage by taking from others (getting stuff from others – 'takers'), and the right are wired to seek advantage by applying themselves to toil (getting stuff from the land and work – 'makers'). We can see which ones the Js are.
When modern society lets its Left take over in the internal struggle between types, the outcome is that the left introduces into the society a culture of self-hate, due to their intense and overwhelming hatred of the better, and that includes their own race, which antagonises them beyond endurance for being superior. There is no mechanism in Natural Selection to say "Stop, this is going to be disastrous for the whole population, this process of letting your Left take over", so the Left are able to take over even though there is no advantage to the population, like a parasite taking over the host. Natural Selection is not going to warn us and correct us, or the Swedes, it is going to wait until the consequences of the self-hatred as introduced by the Left comes to terrible fruition, then perhaps Natural Selection will finally act and will punish the Swedish population for having the bad genes in the gene pool that makes them (a) have a sub-population of Lefties in the first place (b) makes the rest obey their Left.
So, white populations have genes that are bad for us, but Natural Selection is doing nothing about it, but one day it will – it will wipe us all out, unless the people switch to a different mode, as the Germans did in the 1930s, perhaps after a trigger event. The harmful white genes are also the ones that made us successful over the millennia as Kevin MacDonald describes (the advantages of Individualism in a harsh environment). The genes causing our downfall are: genes for lack of racism, genes for seeing the individual not the ethnicity, and genes for empathy for others. Those who now intend to conquer us, at the invitation of our Left, have very high levels of racism, they see the ethnicity and tribe and not the individual, and they lack empathy for others as human beings. In other words, the opposite. Whether we win or get conquered all depends on whether another behaviour mode in the whites becomes activated in time.
"again 63% are on welfare. It's not surprising that they don't want to leave"
Money lured them to the West in the first place, and money can be used to lure them back if the West ever decides it wants them to go. There will be no need for civil war, just pay them benefits for life if they return to Somalia etc, and pay them nothing if they stay in the West.
In fact if you ask a third generation child, "What is your home country?" they will never say the Western host country, they will say 'Pakistan' or 'Sudan' etc, so most already love their home countries and can easily be induced to return. It would be well worth the financial cost of the bribe or inducement.
GODADDY security is blocking
Most people probably know something is wrong, but they instinctively recognize that there are no immediate solutions and probably don't know what can be done about it. Higher suicide rates are probably indicators that people are unhappy about the situation but are powerless to change it.