richard spencer writes:

“Whatever the case, ‘genetic interests’ are unlikely to ever be a discussion topic at CPAC [the Conservative Political Action Conference], and it’s important to ask why.

“Kevin MacDonald has argued that modern Americans’ allergy to racialism is a product of Whites’ ‘attraction to abstractions,’ an expression of the ‘individualistic heritage that is an ethnic trait of Europeans, most obvious in the Puritan/WASP tradition….’

“No doubt, much of what MacDonald says is true, though some objections immediately present themselves:

“First, the Japanese have excelled in the abstract logic required in advanced electronics and industrial engineering, and their economy is geared towards exporting to global markets; yet, judging by their national consensus on immigration restriction, they have little compunction in fighting for their genetic interests.

“Secondly, though today’s self-styled ‘conservatives’ think in terms of America as a ‘Proposition Nation,’ the puritanical WASPs, deist intellectuals, and yeoman Calvinists who founded the country engaged in brutal wars for territory with the Indians, restricted immigration to ‘free, white persons,’ and maintained (disastrously, for future White generations) African slavery. The Left is certainly correct when it asserts that from its inception to the Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, America was a downright racist — even White supremacist — place. Perhaps innate Anglo-Saxon inclinations did evolve into ‘anti-racism,’ but for many generations, this was hardly a foregone conclusion.”

regarding the first point — kevin macdonald clears up spencer’s misunderstanding of “attraction to abstractions” in this post, explaining that, because we’ve have a very different evolutionary history from the Japanese (and other peoples throughout the world), europeans have evolved to have a set of personality traits that makes us more individualistic than collectivist in nature. our different evolutionary histories have made us different. human populations really are diverse — in very, very fundamental ways.

to illustrate, i’ll repeat a quote from cochran and harpending that i posted earlier this week:

“We know of a gene that may play a part in this story: the 7R (for 7-repeat) allele of the DRD4 (dopamine receptor D4) gene. It is associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a behavioral syndrome best characterized by actions that annoy elementary school teachers: restless-impulsive behavior, inattention, distractibility, and the like.

“The polymorphism is found at varying but significant levels in many parts of the world, but is almost totally absent from East Asia. Interestingly, alleles derived from the 7R allele are fairly common in China, even though the 7R alleles themselves are extremely rare there. It is possible that individuals bearing these alleles were selected against because of cultural patterns in China. The Japanese say that the nail that sticks out is hammered down, but in China it may have been pulled out and thrown away.”

so, there’s one gene that’s NOT present in east asian populations — a gene that contributes to making one … well, individualistic. we europeans have got it, but other populations don’t. there are probably many others like it.

europeans are more individualistic than other populations because of our biological make-up. on a good day, it’s a bit of a struggle for us to want to join together as a group and do what all the others in the group do. it’s like trying to herd cats. it goes against our nature. that, then, is one hurdle we have to overcome in the face of adversity.

clearly it can be done — i think most groups will unite when faced with opposition. the question is, how soon will they do so? how quick does a group reach its triggering point? different populations will differ on this. i’d say the japanese, for instance, would rally together much sooner than the english or the french.

ok.

regarding the second point — that americans used to be more racist and self-group-oriented in the past than today.

well, of course! first of all, americans of 250 years ago were almost all of the same stock! they were nearly all anglo-saxons! of COURSE they were group-oriented! they were all of the same group!

what do we have today? a “melting pot.” even if we go back to the early 1960s, americans were awfully diverse. not even including african-americans, i find it hard to see how a population of anglo-americans, dutch-americans, scots-irish, italian-americans, irish-americans, polish-americans, german-americans, jewish-americans, etc., etc., would ever manage to pull together as a group. it was ONLY possible in what were viewed as dire circumstances (wwii).

no. the ONLY way such a hodge-podge of peoples could unite as a group would have been if they had actually BECOME a group, i.e. if they had inter-bred enough. if we had actually “forged a new nation” in this land. but we haven’t had time enough to do that. and now we’re having MORE peoples added into the mix.

white americans are going to have an extremely hard time uniting as a group with its own ethnic genetic interests because of these two reasons outlined above: 1) having very individualistic natures; and 2) being composed of a diverse group of peoples.

PLUS … 3) we’re very outbred.

as i said in a previous post:

“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….

“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….

“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.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

a lot of us lament the fact that whites don’t seem to be interested in standing up for their own genetic interests. but group-orientation and acting as a group is a function of biology, NOT an ideological standpoint that one can just turn on and off at will.

i have a bad feeling that there are strong biological reasons for white america’s (and europe’s) apparent lack of ethnic genetic interests, and that they might not be overcome until, perhaps, the situation is extremely critical … at which point it may be too late.

i hope to be proven wrong.

previously: on the origins of the multicultacracy and on the non-violent japanese of today

update 06/24: see also exogamy

(note: comments do not require an email.)

Advertisements