on the origins of the multicult-acracy

hail wonders where the cult of “capitalist liberal multicultacracy” comes from and why, nowadays, protestants keep getting blamed for it. as he commented over on his own blog:

“The author devotes only a single sentence out of his 2,100 words to how this all came about. He fails to mention any real historical basis for anything, almost as if to imply the ideology just fell out of the air one day like manna, unexplained and unexplainable. Considering this is a broad analytical piece, that is surprising.

“His single sentence to provide any historical background is: ‘[Multicultoacracy rose] out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots’, which makes no sense. Quakers have never been at the helm of opinion-shaping in the USA. And ‘Protestants’, generally, created racialist states where-ever they went: The USA, South-Africa, Australia. The Roman Catholic Church, as a self-consciously universalist entity, seems a more likely entity to blame. Sure enough, the rise of proto-Multicultacracy in the USA clearly correlates with the waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics through Ellis-Island. (Still, it is far too lazy to just wave the hand ‘It’s because of the Jews [and/or the Roman Church]’.)

“This ‘Blame the Protestants’ idea has been popular in recent years among Jewish conservative intellectuals (especially the celebrated Paul Gottfried). It has been picked up by many persons even of Protestant background, who want to seem respectable. The absurdity of the notion, again, is clear in the historical record: Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of white settlement of North America. (Although I will leave it at that, why this illogical argument appeals to Jewish conservatives should be obvious).

“But, then, how did the current racio-political climate come about?”

i don’t have an answer to what must be the question of the century (at least for whites). but i kinda|sorta grasp one piece of the puzzle … i think.

there are three elements here:

1) that whites can be rather easily guilt-tripped in a way that no other groups seem able to be (see mac donald on altruistic punishment and how traditional european societies worked);

2) that non-whites are used as pawns in a status game going on between whites (see steve sailer);

and, 3) whites — especially in places like the united states — are so outbred that they don’t have strong enough ethnocentric sentiments to protect themselves from “invasions” by outside groups.

the first two points have been discussed at length by kevin mac donald, steve sailer, and all over the hbd|altright blogosphere.

i talked about the opposite situation of point #3 in my post on egypt. i suggested that a “civil society” like that found in the united states (at least in the past) will not be possible in egypt because the people there are too inbred, just like the afghanis and iraqis that steve sailer and parapundit wrote about ever so long ago.

the afghanis and iraqis and egyptians — and all the other groups that inbreed locally and regularly — are clannish or tribal because of the way they inbreed. they keep their brides and their wealth in the extended family. in the clan.

democracy (for what it’s worth) will never work in such a society because those people do not feel like a united group (because they aren’t a united group!). they can’t stand the extended family next door. their sentiments are directed towards those to whom they are most related.

like i said somewhere else, imagine how you feel toward your kids. then imagine how you feel toward your cousins. then ADD those feelings together and you might get some understanding how people in the middle east, for instance, feel towards their kids, because their kids are BOTH their kids AND their cousins. (i’m sure the calculation doesn’t work exactly like that, but you get my point.) imagine how you feel towards your brother or sister, then (again) imagine how you feel toward your cousins. then (again) ADD those feelings together to understand how middle easterners feel about their siblings.

then we have europeans.

europeans do not, for the most part, inbreed. and we have NOT been inbreeding for a very, very long time (thanks to the holy roman catholic church and quite a few of the protestant churches).

so, our sentiments are more inclusive than other peoples’ (muslims, for instance) because we’re not so clannish. we can build rather large societies based upon trust — ’cause we actually trust our neighbors more — ’cause we are more related to them than peoples in other parts of the world are related to their neighbors.

see?

then you get the united states.

great idea for anglo-saxons to establish a new nation for themselves in a new land (unless you’re an american indian). bad idea to mix it up with (relatively) unrelated peoples from other parts of europe (even b. franklin was worried about all the germans in the states.) because: 1) you start to get too many groups of people with conflicting interests since they’re not related; and 2) once they started to inter-breed (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) the already loose genetic ties became even looser and, therefore, the sentiments tying the people together also loosened even more.

and we’ve been loosening them ever since. every generation.

i mean, how will “an american” who is 1/4 dutch, 1/4 german, 1/4 french and 1/4 irish possibly feel allied to a bunch of anglo-saxons? odds are they won’t. not really. not when the chips are down.

the problem with the united states is that it didn’t remain an anglo-saxon nation. and ever since it started to be settled by other europeans as well, americans haven’t had time to develop (genetically) into a “race of americans,” the members of which would’ve instinctively felt united. we haven’t had time to get everyone being “1/4 everything.” the whole process got interrupted by the immigration act of 1965.

very loose genetic ties + a strong tendancy for altruistic punishment (+ some ideological sabotage from Those Who Must Not Be Named) = our current multicultacratic hell.

i don’t know how to solve it. but certainly adding more immigrants from latin america, the middle east, south asia, africa and the far east AIN’T gonna do it.

see also: How PC Came to Be @mangan’s

previously: aígyptos, assimilation interrupted and kissin’ cousins.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. Yes i agree. The original settlers either needed to keep the land solely for their own kin or to filter newer migrants in at a much slower pace so they amalgamated fully into a new people – not because the newer arrivals were bad but because a nation needs to maintain minimum levels of genetic closeness. They realised the need in 1925 and if that had been maintained long enough then it could still have worked out but sadly that was over-turned and now one way or another a great tragedy will result from that over-turning.

    However, as you mention, there was also deliberate sabotage and anyone who denies that is being dishonest.

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=gramsci

    Reply

  2. @gw – “…not because the newer arrivals were bad but because a nation needs to maintain minimum levels of genetic closeness.”

    exactly!

    Reply

  3. I have been reading old books, finding the beginnings. Yes, it really was the protestants, the Christian left. Political correctness, the idea that all races and groups and genders are the same in mean and distribution, and if they are not, then it is an injustice and someone must be punished, shows up around 1775, and starts to exercise a scary amount of power around 1890. Around 1910, 1920, it is very clearly Christian socialists, the Christian left, pushing this idea. Jews don’t show up in PC activism until 1950 or so, by which time PC had long been in the seats of power.

    That multiculturalism is now nominally atheistic (or rather worships Gaia and her prophets) is because even in 1820, the Christian left was starting to toss the bible overboard due to it being horribly right wing on women’s rights, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, and whatnot. The anti Christian orientation of todays PC is just carrying the ideology of its purportedly Christian predecessors to its logical conclusion.

    Reply

  4. JAD,
    In reference to Moldbug’s favorite cite, consider as a possible partial corrective, if you feel like it, this. You can easily get into the relevant parts of the quoted book, on google books, to look at more material and context.

    As a possible corrective to that, you could look at this… and as a corrective to that, one might consider this — or the debate between Kaufmann and KMac.

    Hopefully you can more or less agree that I’m not trying to hide one thing and show another — or at least, I’m not trying terribly hard. If I were, I wouldn’t cite Moldie’s favorite cite, or EP Kaufmann’s ‘Suicide’ article in VDare.

    Reply

  5. JAD, have you any ref that maintains, in fine, the relative unimportance of Mme Sklodovska-Curie? After a quick look at Wik I’m skeptical.

    Reply

  6. The claim that Northern-Europeans are more prone to universalism:

    I think those who advance it are suffering from historical myopia. The fact is, universalism is a disease of all advanced civilizations. Generally, speaking, all great empires of the past declined because they developed a “nasty case of universalism.

    Reply

  7. James A. Donald wrote:
    “Jews don’t show up in PC activism until 1950 or so”

    What a silly statement.

    1.) The White World was too politically-chaotic to have any “PC” before 1950 “or so”. So it’s like saying: “The world had hardly any Christians before 30 AD or so”, claiming this is some kind of grand insight.

    Nevertheless, Jews were agitating against white-Racialism, against Nationalism, and for hard-Leftism since they set foot in the USA. Two small examples:

    2.) Who founded the NAACP in 1909 again? My memory is fuzzy: Was it six Jews and an octoroon named DuBois, or was it just five Jews and DuBois?
    2a.) Did Jews consider themselves “colored”? If not, why did they dominate the NAACP’s leadership until the late 1960s?

    3.) Which ethnic group dominated the Stalin-era CPUSA? I suppose you will claim it was Episcopalians, and that all the quotes by the likes of Red Rabbi Wise (“Some call it Communism, I call it Judaism”) were anti-Semitic hoaxes, cooked up by evil Protestants to discredit the Jewish Master Race. If I point out that the majority of card-carriers in the CPUSA were Jews, you will claim this an insignificant detail and get back to the feast of red herring you’ve been enjoying.

    Reply

  8. Hi. I just noticed your website and thought I’d step up to the plate, so to speak. I am interested in HBD but have a problem with your contention that Euros outbreeding may have led to loss of national identity. Norway itself hasn’t outbred. Norwegians have been very genetically similar for ages. Yet until just recently Norwegians followed the same suicidal immigration policies we find all over the formerly European/Christian world.

    Are you familiar with Roger Scruton’s writings and definition of oikophobia? According to Scruton, culture is the ethical transmission “how to feel” passed down from one generation to the next. Virtue is taught through imitation of the heroes, gods and ancestors not by mere copying but through the imagination and “moving with them” which high culture provides. The repudiation of a common tradition blocks the individual’s path to membership in the “original experience of the community”.

    An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Judeo-Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is “significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric”.

    Reply

  9. @propercharlie – hey there! (^_^)

    i’ve seen people mentioning scrunton and oikophobia on some of the altright blogs but, no, i haven’t read anything about his work before now — and now all i looked at was wikipedia. (~_^)

    interesting. but my question for scrunton would be: where does this oikophobia come from?

    re.: the norwegians. norwegians have been a rather endogamous group it is true, altho a lot of people moved up there from denmark and saxony and the netherlands starting after the black death and up until, i dunno, the late 18th century(?), so the vikings they are not.

    also, norweigans, like other christian europeans, have not been marrying close relatives for a very long time. certainly not recently. part of my argument is that having rather loose levels of genetic relatedness within a population (the opposite of how the arabs have it) makes a group rather vulnerable (or open depending on your point-of-view) to “invasion” by outside peoples.

    the other “problem” with the scandinavians — with germanic peoples on the whole, i think — is the pervasive need to conform — kinda like the japanese. great for building and maintaining social democracies that benefit all members of the group, but NOT good if the ideology of political correctness takes hold within that society.

    Reply

  10. Hi,

    “where does this oikophobia come from?” – I’d imagine he’d say Marx, Darwin and Freud, being almost 100% in the nurture camp. Although I haven’t noticed the same self-hatred in Chinese or Indian intellectuals assuming they are equally Modernist. Possibly, they remain team boosters because of other cultural institutions. I do know Indian elites tend to scapegoat the British for their country’s problems.

    Cheers

    Reply

  11. yes, thank you for your contribution, señor bastardo. (~_^)

    what i was trying to get at, tho, is why western populations should be receptive to the whole multi-culti idea.

    Reply

  12. I’m going to have to say that the Parent or Grandparent of multicultural theory is the Catholic Church. Frankly it was the first to put out there that all humans regardless of race were deserving of respect and had dignity because they are human. I admit that they didn’t always follow through on this, and gave reasons why such respect could be refused. But all groups put forward ideas, that are often imperfectly followed.

    The problem is people like simplicity, so it changed from a person deserving respect regardless of where he is from to his actions and his culture (the groups actions) deserving respect. Now all cultures are to be respected and treated equally. (Which is why is suggest Grandparent, and not just parent).

    Trying to find a genetic source for multiculturalism I think is unwise. It is rather like trying to explain the paint color on a house by looking at the basement foundation – to far abstracted. Related, but only a little. Cultural shifts can and have happened faster, shorter, sometimes much shorter than a generation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s