i’m no good at this sort of thing ’cause i (for the most part) don’t instinctively understand how the neurotypicals** think/feel, however …
… if it is at all correct that northwest europeans have evolved to have less genes for “sib-altruism” (strong altruistic feelings towards extended-families/clans/tribes) due to all of their outbreeding, and have evolved instead to have more genes for reciprocal altruism … if that is at all the case …
… then i think that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to try to rally northwest europeans (in both the u.s. and europe) against all of the crazy amounts of mass immigration to the west (mexicans, peoples from muslim countries like pakistan or turkey, somalis, etc.) by trying to persuade them that they need to stand together with their fellow countrymen/ethnic group/whites ’cause all they’re gonna hear is – YOU NEED TO BE LESS ALTRUISTIC! – which will just rub them the wrong way entirely.
such a message might work fine with anyone from the periphery of europe (that includes, for instance, southerners in the u.s.) who haven’t been outbreeding for so long and, so, who still have plenty of genes for “sib-altruism.” but it just ain’t gonna work on the “core” europeans — i think.
what i’m thinking is that maybe the message needs to be something like this: “look [give plenty of real world examples] — these people from these other places will not reciprocate. they do not reciprocate back in their home countries. they do not reciprocate with each other. they do not reciprocate once they are here.”
maybe if/when core europeans learn that these other peoples won’t abide by the rules — won’t honor the social contract — they’d be less inclined to be happy to let all this mass immigration continue. maybe.
of course, (at least) two very difficult problems remain: 1) it would’ve been easier to communicate this if everyone didn’t believe “we are all equal.” maybe, as john derbyshire writes, those cognitive dissonances will go away one of these days. 2) the mainstream media will never let such a message be aired.
still, i think my tactic might be better than the “we whites should unite!” one. i could be wrong, tho.
btw, i guess that most everybody will quickly drop their pc-niceness if things get really, really bad (think: pre-war germany). i’d rather we fix all these problems without having to go there, though. =/
**more on neurotypicals.
previously: we’re doomed
(note: comments do not require an email. it’s ok….)
hbd chick 
Altruism also includes inclination towards altruistic punishment. What is needed is to convince Euro-Americans that their elites and NAMs in general have broken the rules of engagement and should not thereby continue to be shielded by them. My own work is to demonstrate the lack of moral standing of those who would wield the scourge of universalism.
100% agree.
@jehu – “Altruism also includes inclination towards altruistic punishment. …to demonstrate the lack of moral standing of those who would wield the scourge of universalism.”
altruistic punishment is a good technique to use, i agree. but i still think it’s going to be hard to convince core europeans (anglos, french, germanics, northern italians, scandinavians) that universalism is a bad thing if, as i suppose, they instinctively feel that it is right. once-upon-a-time it was christianity, now it’s swpl attitudes. universalism feels right to these people. trying to convince them that it’s wrong will just result in a backlash, i think.
HBD Chick,
What you have to convince them of is that pretty much all of the current purveyors of universalism are mendacious and basically just anti-white. If you can tar 80-90% of them as ‘bootleggers’, you can sweep the few ‘baptists’ under the rug as ‘useful idiots’. What you have to do is demonstrate how this group of people would behave if they REALLY believed what they say they believe, and point to the distance between rhetoric and reality. Then you point to different standard that white people are held to and conclude that this group isn’t REALLY universalist, but is rather just anti-white. It’s a painful sell for a lot of people, but it’s the only winning route when you are heavily disadvantaged in the cultural battlespace.
@jehu – no, i think a lot (edit: a majority) of the “core” europeans are universalist in their morality. it’s how the west
was wonworked so well for so long — until it met globalism and multiculturalism. then, of course, a universalist morality/altruism no longer works because the newcomers (the non-“core” europeans, i.e. everyone but “core” europeans) are not universalist. it becomes a liability.in other words, i don’t think that there are just a few purveyors of universalism. i think you just have to look at how anglos, germans, scandis behave — the puritans and the swpls of the world — to see that they are universalist by nature. and i think that telling them to NOT be universalistic will not be fruitful. (don’t look at the peripheral europeans — the italians or southerners in the u.s., for example — ’cause they are a different kettle of fish altogether.)
you’ve (we’ve) gotta come at it from a different angle for them, i think.
edit: but i agree — it would also be good to go after those who are hypocrites and sell immigration while living in their gated communities.
How do you define “core European”, hbdchick?
You’ve reminded me of this old BrusselsJournal article, where Paul Belien describes the political movements on the “spine of Europe”. (if it’s too tl;dr for you, skip to the paragraphi starting with “The Flemish provinces”)
This is really a Darwinian test, isn’t it? If West European universalist genes get displaced by Afro-Asian or Latin American particularist genes, then the West Europeans are genetically inferior, no?
Do America’s Ashkenazi elites reciprocate? I know that’s a touchy question. But what is the evidence? For instance, how many large general-interest foundations have they founded like Ford, Rockefeller, and MacArthur?
And its not just about immigration. I think our Ashkenazi elites have overlooked the interests of the majority when crafting trade policy with China. Yet they rely on — and expect — continuing American popular support for the state of Israel. That seems shortsighted to me.
I wouldn’t bring this up if it weren’t so doggone important.
Incidentally old-fashioned protectionism isn’t the only way to shield American workers from low-wage competition with China. You can also tax capital and subsidize labor. I won’t go into the theory but it has to be one or the other. There’s no third alternative either in theory or in practice.
@ – “This is really a Darwinian test, isn’t it? If West European universalist genes get displaced by Afro-Asian or Latin American particularist genes, then the West Europeans are genetically inferior, no?”
Euro-American genes won’t disappear. They’ll just be pauperized. America will lose influence both as an example and a power. We’ll deteriorate like the Roman Republic and Empire. Except it won’t take 600 years.
@ihtg – “How do you define ‘core European’, hbdchick?”
i’m defining core europeans as anyone inside the hajnal line, i.e. populations that went through the medieval outbreeding/manorialism meat grinder one way or another. (note that there might be some pockets of people here and there within the hajnal line boundaries who don’t “fit” the core european profile.)
@ihtg – “You’ve reminded me of this old BrusselsJournal article, where Paul Belien describes the political movements on the ‘spine of Europe’.”
AH! i have been looking for that article forever! THANK you! i couldn’t remember where i’d read about the “spine of europe” — for some reason i thought it was in foreign affairs.
when i read that article, i thought it was interesting that the spine seems to run along the interface where germanics and non-germanics meet in western europe. hmmmm.
now, can you please remember for me where i read about americans in different regions having different notions as to what constitutes “liberty”? thanks! (~_^)
@bob – “This is really a Darwinian test, isn’t it? If West European universalist genes get displaced by Afro-Asian or Latin American particularist genes, then the West Europeans are genetically inferior, no?”
yup. =/ you’d think all these high-iq genes would be good for something, tho….
(of course, Ma Nature doesn’t work with labels like “superior” or “inferior.” just what works or what doesn’t work. that’s all.)
@luke – “Do America’s Ashkenazi elites reciprocate? I know that’s a touchy question. But what is the evidence?”
good question. i dunno.
the problem, of course, is that ashkenazis are/were a separate sub-population within whatever broader population in which they live/d — germany, poland, russia — and so they’re going to have different genetic interests than the broader population. (and then we got the u.s. which just made everything much more complicated.) same is true, of course, of any sub-population within another population — volga germans in russia (presumably), all the germans in funny places like transylvania, gypsies, basques. any population that remains separate genetically is gonna have separate interests — and the more distinct they are (i.e. the more they marry their cousins AND the less they marry out with the broader population), the more pronounced the separate interests will be.
and then there is the question of inbreeding/outbreeding and how long ashkenazi jews have been “evolving” whatever genes for altruism they might have. my guess right now is that german ashkenazi jews are/were less inbred for longer, and so they probably have — compared to, say, russian jews — less of those “sib-altruism” tendencies. i think you see this in the various sects — russian jews lean more towards very conservative, closed in traditions like hasidism or whatever, while it’s my impression that reform and progressive judaism is more of a german-/english-jewish thing, i.e. the more outbred jews. more inbred vs. more outbred.
linton herbert (from nobabies.net) said: “In regards to ‘crafting the message,’ I have no agenda but here’s something to consider. The individual in the host country makes a small sacrifice when there is immigration (press one for English) but the immigrant makes an enormous sacrifice. I think it has been documented that the fertiltiy of immigrants plummets within a few generations. Maybe somebody could warn them.”
@linton – “The individual in the host country makes a small sacrifice when there is immigration (press one for English) but the immigrant makes an enormous sacrifice.”
well, that’s the thing, tho. it may seem like a small sacrifice on the surface, but if you look more closely at the whole situation, it is actually quite a big sacrifice.
one of the biggest things, to my mind, that most people miss is the political/power sacrifice. without immigrants who are largely unrelated to you and me (mexicans, somalis), our children and our children’s children will retain the power to make decisions about their own lives and their children’s lives via the democratic political system in this country (such as it is). however, if the country becomes, let’s say, one-quarter mexican, in future elections, our descendents’ power and control over their own lives will have been diminished since they now have to share that power with a quarter of the population who are likely to have different goals and interests in life.
it’s not a good bargain — and it’s not just a matter of pressing one for english, i’m afraid.
@linton – “I think it has been documented that the fertiltiy of immigrants plummets within a few generations. Maybe somebody could warn them.”
that is a good point, though! maybe one could try to stem the tide from the other direction.
> This is really a Darwinian test, isn’t it? If West European universalist genes get displaced by Afro-Asian or Latin American particularist genes, then the West Europeans are genetically inferior, no?
We have a bio-determined potential for universal idiocy, but we don’t always behave that way.
> Euro-American genes won’t disappear. They’ll just be pauperized. America will lose influence both as an example and a power. We’ll deteriorate like the Roman Republic and Empire. Except it won’t take 600 years.
Looking at the stunning car and gasoline consumption figures recently seen at zerohedge, it feels like disorder could now be fairly close. Then again, who knows.
“I think you and I, all of us, have some sort of stake in the United States. If it fails, the failure will be that of us all. Of mankind itself. It will cost us all. . . . I think of the United States as a country which is an arena and in that arena there is a drama being played out. . . . . I have seen that the struggle is the struggle of free men.[54]” Elia Kazan
70 years ago, the core of the core Europeans weren’t exactly multicultural universalists. And while evolution can work fast, I doubt 2 generations would be quick enough for such selection to occur.
What we see now, I believe, are the result of cultural changes that occurred from the 1960’s onwards, (primarily as a reaction against Nazism, and propelled on by subversive Soviet elements).
When looking through the lens of biology to explain human behavior (as most people on this blog would), we must not neglect the effect that the environment (in this case culture) can have on the expression of that behaviour. Incentive structures do matter.
BTW, that Kazan quote was occasioned by watching On the Waterfront tonight with my wife. The theme seemed to be universalism, individualism, . . . and cowardice! It was a mixed ethnic group down on the waterfront, cowed by the mob, and only the Catholic priest could inspire one brave individual (Marlon) to courage.
I should have also mentioned the role of “conscience” in the Kazan movie. Is conscience an individualist thing? I’m not sure.
@chris – “70 years ago, the core of the core Europeans weren’t exactly multicultural universalists.”
no, but they were christian universalists. the exact form has changed due to, as you say, cultural changes, but the broad tendency to be all-inclusive has been there for quite a long time, i think. in a way that most other peoples have never been.
@luke – “On the Waterfront”
ah! that’s one of my favorite movies. (^_^)
The anti-semitism of (the old) Germans seems at odds with altruism and universalism. A simpler explanation is that Germans are as xenophobic and homophilic (sib altruist, as you might put it) as the rest, but that “Hitler’s revenge” suppresses many of the natural instincts. At the moment there is in Germany a “Zwickauer Zelle,” a neo-Nazi serial murder gang that aimed to wipe out foreigners one at a time (the gang’s been arrested). So let’s not jump too fast to the conclusion that the “core Europeans” are altruist-universalist vs. sib-altruist. Breivik is and isn’t an aberration.
On the other hand, maybe anti-semitism is altruistic punishment. In other words, Jews were targeted precisely because they did not reciprocate. So the rallying cry of anti-semitism would then be: “we’re good and decent people, but these Jews don’t play by the rules!
@bjk – “The anti-semitism of (the old) Germans seems at odds with altruism and universalism. A simpler explanation is that Germans are as xenophobic and homophilic (sib altruist, as you might put it) as the rest, but that ‘Hitler’s revenge’ suppresses many of the natural instincts.”
no, i think everything points to the nw europeans being more universalistic and having greater tendencies toward reciprocal altruism rather than “sib-altruism” (which i should really call “kin-altruism” or something, ’cause i think “sib-altruism” really only relates to siblings). nw europeans are more trusting, more civic, more democratic, less attached to their extended families, have religions and ideologies that are universal (christianity and, now, political correctness).
what i think happened in pre-ww ii germany is that the economy just got really, really bad. i’m not saying that nw europeans will always under all circumstances be mr. nice guy. like i said in the post:
“btw, i guess that most everybody will quickly drop their pc-niceness if things get really, really bad (think: pre-war germany).”
times were tough in pre-war germany — very tough — and the jews were an unrelated group (which had increased in numbers in the preceding decades), so when push comes to shove:
“On the other hand, maybe anti-semitism is altruistic punishment. In other words, Jews were targeted precisely because they did not reciprocate.”
or, at least, were perceived not to reciprocate.
More civic and more trusting within the group. My mother is Swedish, and nothing is more mortifying to her than the idea that she might embarrass herself in front of the neighbors. But I think the jury is still out whether core Europeans are truly universalist; certainly non-Euro immigration is a new phenomena. Immigrants in Germany live in ghettos, and that’s the way the Germans like it. Publicly universalist (to save face) but privately racist sounds more plausible. Blonde hair and blue eyes did not select themselves.
According to Ernst Nolte, German Jews were threatening to erect a bolshevik regime – at worst, this would feature mass death as seen in USSR. The source is some interview that I read in English (can’t really read German). The 19th-C relative population expansion of Ashkenazim is of course interrelated with this rather than separate.
Perhaps they had also been deeply involved in converting the Kaiserreich to Weimer – I have no idea.
>> 70 years ago, the core of the core Europeans weren’t exactly multicultural universalists.
> no, but they were christian universalists. the exact form has changed due to, as you say, cultural changes, but the broad tendency to be all-inclusive has been there for quite a long time, i think.
Well, SS men had to sign that they were Catholic, Protestant, or other theist (‘believer in God’). But in most ways I see NS as almost diametrically antichristian, though I admit I’m not a huge NS expert. For one thing, you have only two NS state editions of any kind of literature: Hoelderlin (who wrote romantic national verse during the napoleonic struggles) and Nietzsche (who wrote Der Antichrist, and whose publications total some 1400 pages – including perhaps 200-300 pages more or less focused on antichristian polemic).
I suspect the theism of the SS had something to do with their death obsession, which has been justly described as death kitsch. They had a culture of fanatical self-sacrifice, slightly redolent of Japan (‘Treasury of Loyal Retainers’). What I’m saying is that a god, a divine plan, probably makes it easier to be annihilated. God may be trusted to grant oneself an afterlife, or otherwise do what is good.
My point was that there’s a middle ground between kintruism and universalism. Danish universalism is going to be very different from US universalism for the simple reason that “Danes” is a much more homogenous group. Move to a German town and you’ll be a newcomer as long as you live there. Or just consider there is no US equivalent of Marie Le Pen or Theo Sarrazin or Geert Wilders.
chris
“70 years ago, the core of the core Europeans weren’t exactly multicultural universalists”
Universalism doesn’t have to be nice – it just has to be morally consistent and “fair” within its own logic. If the basis of the logic is that Noah had three sons and one was the best, one was okay and the third totally sucked and the same was true of all their descendents through to eternity because God said so then that would be a perfectly acceptable universalist basis for permanently discriminating against the third group – as long as the bulk of the population believed it. If the logical basis of the universalism changes to every group is equal in every way then everything has to change to fit.
The difference between universalism and particularism isn’t between what is morally good and what is morally bad. Particularist morality is simply “what’s good for my blood-kin is good and what’s bad for my blood-kin is bad” whereas universalist morality is “what do we (as a group) define as good and bad.”
The perfect example is slavery. One minute sinking slave ships was bad, next minute Britain had made a collective decision and changed their group’s universal rules and sinking slave ships became good.
.
“When looking through the lens of biology to explain human behavior (as most people on this blog would), we must not neglect the effect that the environment (in this case culture) can have on the expression of that behaviour.”
If anything i think one of the effects of exogamy was to make having commonly accepted cultural values a neccessary component of group cohesion hence why populations like that need to hold onto the means of creating their cultural values.
But what you’re arguing, GW, is that core Euros are not motivated by genetic interests. That’s not an HBD approved theory.
> Universalism doesn’t have to be nice – it just has to be morally consistent and “fair” within its own logic.
I definitely agree with that… but NS is clearly particularist: a for Germans, b for Russian prisoners, c for gays, d for addicts, e for Western Allies prisoners….
From Wikipedia:
“Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.[2]”
Shame and honor are different concepts altogether. Plus ingroups are not known for conscience in their treatment of outgroups. Right and wrong may be universalistic concepts that only make sense in the West. I admit I have never even thought about this before. But this blog makes me think.
Incidentally, Elia Kazan was shunned (for decades) in Hollywood for “naming names” during the HUAC hearings in the 1950’s. (Never mind that their names were already known.) That was also a theme in “On the Waterfront.” Brando was shunned for being “a stool pigeon.” Even by the local cops on the beat. And by the kids in his neighborhood. Loyalty to group trumped loyalty to society.
Ethos and ethnicity might be the theme.
RS
“but NS is clearly particularist”
I’m not entirely sure it was. It strikes me more as an idealogically contructed version of particularist morality with the Aryan thing including Dutch, Scandis etc – a racial version of a proposition nation – maybe the result of the north-south split?
@bjk – “But I think the jury is still out whether core Europeans are truly universalist….”
i think they truly are, but not 100% and not 100% of the time. that’s what you’ve got to remember. and, it’s a relative thing — you need to compare how nw europeans behave with how pretty much the rest of the world behaves (clannish, tribal) to see how striking nw european universalism is.
take liberal western-style democracy, for instance (read the quote at the link ’cause the points fox makes are essential). almost no one else manages it (maybe the japanese — they can do everything!), no one else invented it (not even the ancient greeks), and no one else feels comfortable with it.
that’s because most other peoples are focused on their extended families or their clans or their tribes and NOT on the broader society. nw europeans, who are more individualistic (because they are more unique individuals), come together in a corporate fashion. they have to — there’s no other option. (well, the other option is complete chaos, and that’ll pretty quickly be de-selected for).
@bjk – “My mother is Swedish, and nothing is more mortifying to her than the idea that she might embarrass herself in front of the neighbors.”
is that part of that law of jante thing? notice, too, that your mother is concerned about what the neighbors think. travel around in greece or siciliy — or north africa — and you’ll see (from the way the exterior of people’s houses look) that there is less concern about those things there.
@bjk – “Blonde hair and blue eyes did not select themselves.”
blonde hair and blue eyes were selected for a long time ago when the germanics were still tribal.
@anonymous (sorry, lost track of who you are!) – “My point was that there’s a middle ground between kintruism and universalism. Danish universalism is going to be very different from US universalism for the simple reason that ‘Danes’ is a much more homogenous group.”
yeah, absolutely. there are different types of nw european universalism here. anglos (or is it the french?) seem to be the most universalistic, while the germans less so — but still way more than southern or eastern europeans — or anyone else on the planet. but, then, the anglos seem to be a curious, unique bunch. something special happened there in their evolutionary history — not sure what it was.
i should say that when i say nw europeans subscribe to universalistic ideas, it has to be understood that these sentiments evolved at a time when nw europeans were, for the most part, not confronted with other peoples from all over the planet. these sentiments that everyone is equal and should have equal rights, yada, yada, yada, were originally applied to other people rather like themselves, i.e. other anglos, germans, whatever. what’s happening now, i think, is that these sentiments are being mis-applied. it’s like being a bunch of giraffes who evolved long necks presumably to eat the foliage in tall trees (amiright?) and then having the environment change completely to only low growing shrubbery. the “fit” is no longer quite right for the environment. universalism — which evolved in circumstances where the behaviors were only applied to like individuals — is now nw europeans’ achilles’ heel.
@anonymous – “Move to a German town and you’ll be a newcomer as long as you live there.”
just like on amity island (in jaws (~_^) )!
@rs – “I definitely agree with that… but NS is clearly particularist: a for Germans, b for Russian prisoners, c for gays, d for addicts, e for Western Allies prisoners….”
yes, but ns was clearly less particularist than arab tribalism or chinese clannishness. national socialismus reflected the fact that germans could build a nation from the ground up — that they wanted to — that they liked the idea — the idea of a german nation appealed to them. unlike the arabs or the chinese where the state building comes from the top down and is imposed and where individuals are much more concerned about their tribe or their clan.
“My point was that there’s a middle ground between kintruism and universalism.”
I’d say there’s a full spectrum between both extremes and every extended family will occupy a position along that spectrum and a nation’s or region’s position on the same spectrum will be based on their proportions of the different types of extended family. A nation might act mostly universalist when a minimum proportion of their constituent familes become mostly universalist or a minimum proportion of their elites or a minimum ratio of universalist to particularist. If the average is clannish then the country will fit the clannish mold and if the average is very open then the country will be more like Holland but it doesn’t require everyone in a country to be the same.
.
bjk
“But what you’re arguing, GW, is that core Euros are not motivated by genetic interests.”
Not exactly. I think there’s two scales involved: the family level and the group cohesion level and they’re in conflict. Once you get to the point where you have a very large and complex society maintaining group cohesion becomes a big part of EGI. A clannish society can afford to be clannish because the nature of that kind of society precludes cooperation except in wartime and the lack of cooperation means there’s no public goods to lose. A group which has achieved very large-scale cooperation will have a very great deal to lose if they lose group cohesion that is relevant to their EGI e.g. maternity, hospitals, paramedics, clean water, heating etc.
At the family level i think the standard instinctive motivations still apply but at the group cohesion level there is a conflict between the need to maintain group cohesion through acceptance of the current unifying idealogy to prevent rapid disintegration and the fact that the current ruling idealogy is genocidal but only slowly.
If true then the way the idealogy will be changed is under the surface and when everyone is convinced it will change almost overnight like switching to new software.
> I’m not entirely sure it was. It strikes me more as an idealogically contructed version of particularist morality with the Aryan thing including Dutch, Scandis etc – a racial version of a proposition nation – maybe the result of the north-south split?
I do think it was pretty seriously pan-European, though that is debated. Originally it was more like pan-Euro less the Slavs, and later I think Slavs were more included.
I think it is considered to be at least pretty pan-Germanic by most people.
I guess there is a universalist aspect to it, now that I think of another angle on it. The idea was basically that the future condition of (Europe | the world) was the only thing that mattered – whether people would be profound, vivid, courageous, healthy, intelligent, cultured, etc – and that the suffering of individuals ought to be given a significance of virtually zero (though sadism should still be considered nasty). One should ‘sacrifice people to the future’ even at a high ratio of payment to gain. Unrepentant super-naziess Savitri Devi gives a more rhapsodic (and indeed, much better) exposition of the same idea. I guess it is an extreme position in a dialectic that’s essentially immemorial, but (by far) the major amplifier of it in the century before fascism was Nietzsche, whose impact on fascism I tend to consider quite large (a view that has a fair amount of mainstream representation).
In theory those rules could be applied to anyone, I think. I mean why not. Clearly no one could give a remotely-incontrovertible explanation, relying on the rules alone (which are a complete whole, not an arbitrary collection), of why it has to be a Germanic or European destiny to elevate man’s future during time interval A, and not the destiny of some other race or group. In practice though, I don’t think you would have fared very well in Germany if you said “I’m still a nazi fanatic, up for mass executions whenever, assuming it’s for a good reason – but I’ve realized that man’s destiny must belong to our biological superiors, the Ashkenazim (as well as gay Poles)”.
No, in practice Ashkenazi (etc) inferiority to Germanics was a ‘fact’, a regime fact. But this assertion appealed not least (and perhaps even mainly/solely) to this universal morality of “man’s future”. Which I don’t mean to mock; man’s future is pretty important and I’m a Nietzschean myself, just not the same kind.
But maybe almost all particularists advance universal arguments quite prominently, whether these really convince their minds powerfully or no. We would then be left to make a subjective assessment of how convinced we are that they are really convinced.
What we have now is basically the rules exactly opposite to the NS ones. No one can be permitted to suffer in any remotely ‘unfair’ way, and we don’t give a damn if the society degrades, even in gargantuan degrees. –Unless the degradatory process (such as global warming, which I assume is probably true) can be given a ‘feminine’ or empathetic, anti-unfairness salience – as opposed to dysgenesis, which you cannot cognize unless you have the ‘harshness’ (lol) to first cognize the inferiority and superiority of individual people. There’s a little more to it than that, but that’s the main part of the ethics of our doomed world.
Thanks for your responses, GW and HBD chick. So lets say that instead of marrying my cousin, I marry my sixth cousin (unknown to me, probably). In this case, I may not be as closely related to my children (as I would marrying my second cousin), but over time my great grandchildren will become more related to the man in the street. There must be a term for that.
@bjk – “There must be a term for that.”
if there isn’t, i say we coin one. (~_^)
seriously – i don’t know if there is a term for what happens to the genetic relatedness between members of a population when extensive outbreeding occurs. -?-
RS
“I guess there is a universalist aspect to it”
I think populations are a balance of the component families so it’s not that all Germans are x or y but the balance of all the component families comes down on the x or y ends of the spectrum. NS strikes me as being *over-thought* for a particularist idealogy which makes me wonder if it was an expression of a population where the balance was on the cusp between universalist and particularist.
.
bjk
“I may not be as closely related to my children (as I would marrying my second cousin), but over time my great grandchildren will become more related to the man in the street. There must be a term for that.”
chickmus.
.
hbdchick
“that germans could build a nation from the ground up — that they wanted to — that they liked the idea — the idea of a german nation appealed to them. unlike the arabs or the chinese where the state building comes from the top down and is imposed”
Very good point. The human default for most of history being clans come naturally and nations don’t.
“seriously – i don’t know if there is a term for what happens to the genetic relatedness between members of a population when extensive outbreeding occurs. -?-”
Nation-building
@chris – ha!! (^_^) (^_^) (^_^)