operation bullfinch

i had intended on posting about this a lot, but the topic makes my blood pressure go up (no joke), so i’ve had to avoid it. but now i see that douglas murray referred to it in an article of his in standpoint, so i thought i’d at least quote him on it and maybe throw in some links to a few news stories.

operation bullfinch, in case you haven’t heard — and you may not have even if you live in the u.k., the media coverage has been so shamefully lacking — is an investigation into yet another one of these muslim-men-“grooming”-young-white-girls cases in the u.k. yes, ANOTHER one — not to be confused with what happened in rotherham which i posted about last autumn — and not to be confused with whatever the h*ll was going on here in birmingham. no, operation bullfinch was an investigation of a “grooming” case in oxfordshire which has now been brought to trial.

here from murray (you should read his whole article, btw, which is on immigration in general — great stuff):

“Census That Revealed a Troubling Future”

“… Although immigration has boosted the economy and made Britain a more diverse and in some ways interesting place, it has also made us poorer, drained our resources and brought cultural practices we could happily do without. In January a gang of nine Muslim men — seven of Pakistani origin, two from North Africa — went on trial at the Old Bailey for the sex trafficking of children from the ages of 11 to 15. One of the victims sold into slavery was a girl of 11. She was branded with the initial of her ‘owner’ abuser: ‘M’ for Mohammed. The court heard that Mohammed ‘branded her to make her his property and to ensure others knew about it’. This did not happen in some Saudi or Pakistani backwater, but in Oxfordshire from 2004 to 2012.

“Of course gang-rape and child abuse are not the preserve of immigrants. But as recent child rape-gang cases in the north of England have also shown, there are specific cultural ideas and attitudes that some immigrants bring with them — about women, other races and sexual minorities — which are not even medieval yet….

indeed.

“Attempts to impose parallel legal systems, ‘blasphemy laws’, and other new ‘norms’ of behaviour are subtler versions of the same. But so fearful of ‘racism’ and so in retreat is the core culture that it can barely rouse itself even to point any of this out. What media reporting there is of cases such as that in Oxfordshire is not only scant and periodic, but fearful and hedged with caveats to the point of obliqueness….
_____

the best reporting on this trial, which is still ongoing (we’re now up to day 26), has come out of a local oxford paper, The Oxford Times (here’s their Operation Bullfinch archive page). the case, so far anyway, seems mostly to be based on testimony from the girls (now women), some friends of the girls, and some social workers. there might be some other witnesses, too, but like i said, i haven’t been following the case all that closely.

what’s come out in the testimonies so far will make your stomach turn. if even only half of it is true…:

“Oxford sex ring trial begins”

“The prosecution has opened its case at the Old Bailey against nine men, aged between 24 and 38, accused of sexually exploiting six under-age girls in the Oxford area….

“The court heard that the nine men accused of sexually abusing young girls in Oxford ‘ensured girls were guarded so that they could not escape’.

“The charges, spanning a period from 2004 to January of last year, relate to offences that are alleged to have been committed against girls aged between 11 and 16. They took 30 minutes to be read out in court.

“Jurors at the Old Bailey were told that one alleged victim, who cannot be named, was ‘sold’ to Mohammed Karrar at 11 to ‘cure her bad attitude’, then repeatedly raped by him and his brother, Bassam Karrar.

“The court was told that Mohammed Karrar charged other men £400 to £600 to rape the girl, now in her 20s, in a way she described as ‘torture’ until she was 15. She also claimed to be injected with heroin.

“After being impregnated by a member of the group at age 12, the court heard that Mohammed Karrar arranged for her to have an illegal abortion in a back-room in Reading. The girl claims she was also beaten for falling pregnant.

“Jurors were also told that on one occasion Karrar heated a hair pin with a lighter and branded the girl’s buttock with the the letter M as he claimed to ‘own her’….”
_____

“Bullfinch Trial Day 24: Girl claims she was physically abused”

“A TEENAGER yesterday told a jury she was physically abused by a man who charged £600 for others to have sex with her….

“The woman is one of six to claim they were groomed and abused by nine men accused of running a child sex exploitation gang in Oxford. Known as Girl 4, as she cannot be named, she says brothers Mohammed and Bassam Karrar raped and prostituted her between the ages of 11 and 15.

“On Wednesday she told the jury Mohammed Karrar, 38, made her feel like they were in a relationship before making her have sex with other men.

“Yesterday, she said when she was 12 he physically abused her as well.

“The young woman said the two brothers would rape her together….

“Giving evidence through a video link, the teenager said when she was 12, Mohammed Karrar tried to rape her in a bathroom, but she grabbed his knife and threatened to stab him.

“He took her downstairs and hit her around the head with a metal baseball bat, the court heard.

“She said: ‘I remember whistling in my ear. My head felt really heavy and pounded.’

“When she came round he was assaulting her with the bat handle, the jury heard….

“She said Mohammed Karrar would take her to hotels and private properties to serve drink, drugs, and provide sex services.

“There would be up to 15 men and it could happen up to four times a week, the court heard.

“The child was made to act out men’s ‘weird fantasies’ and was sexually assaulted with knife handles and meat cleavers, the court heard….”
_____

i’ll stop there.

but before i end this post — the msm is bad, but i just want to have a go at the social workers and teachers and police, etc. — the people charged with looking after these girls who are all from low-class, troubled backgrounds. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!:

“Care staff ‘knew girl was being groomed'”

“A TEENAGER went missing from a children’s home 126 times and it was the ‘general consensus’ among staff that she was being groomed, the Old Bailey heard….”

well, jesus! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! it’s your JOB!

as somebody named doug, quoted by the derb (via roissy), said online the other day:

“I guarantee you the white people in these institutions are some of the most selfish, ambitious and unscrupulous human beings you will ever meet.”

previously: diversity über alles and rotten in rotherham

(note: comments do not require an email. the defendants.)

224 Comments

  1. The entire Standpoint article made my blood boil, reading this makes it worse. Get over it? This will never be over, not until long after we’re all in our graves. These greedy maniacs don’t even realize what they’ve done… or do they? It doesn’t matter at this point.

    Reply

  2. It is will be very interesting to see how the media handles this, I had not even heard of it before.

    Reply

  3. Those stories raise my blood pressure too. Were crimes like these ever overlooked in the past anywhere in the West? All I can think of is a phrase (from William Blake?) about “mind-forged manacles.” Moral cowardness, a slavish conformity to the canons of political correctness. . .

    Reply

  4. I have read about similar cases in the Daily Mail. I only skimmed this article because I find this so upsetting. The Daily Mail has pictures, which I can hardly stand to look at. The men are absolutely repulsive. (in breeding?)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286673/Sexual-predators-assaulted-14-year-old-girl-FIVE-DAYS-jailed-15-years.html

    Then there is the case of the 9 year old white boy who hung himself after being bullied by immigrants. It is so upsetting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279142/Aaron-Dugmore-Schoolboy-9-hanging-home-dies-hospital-targeted-bullies.html

    Reply

  5. @preston – “It is will be very interesting to see how the media handles this, I had not even heard of it before.”

    well, the msm is pretty much ignoring it. the trial’s been going on for nearly a month now and, as murray says, any reports by, say, the bbc are “oblique” … at best.

    and the authorities have known that this sort of thing has been going on for yearsa decade or more. and little has been done to stop it.

    the only large media house that has done any reporting on all this “grooming” in the u.k. has been the times.

    Reply

  6. @luke – “Moral cowardness, a slavish conformity to the canons of political correctness. . .”

    yes. those are the people i despise the most in these sorts of cases the. the rapists are bad … evil, obviously … but there ought to be a special place in hell (if only there was such a place) for the enablers: the media, the politicians, anyone more worried about their career than their fellow citizens.

    Reply

  7. @jayman – “Also see what I tweeted back to him…”

    nice!

    but, to borrow one of greg cochran’s favorite expressions: dawkins is a pinhead. the problem is not islam … it’s not even religion.

    Reply

  8. 1. The British National Party (BNP) have been trying to warn about this problem literally for decades.

    2. The BNP are never mentioned in “mainstream media discourse” without the addition of some helpful adjective: e.g. vile, repulsive, revolting, etc. See 1.

    3. If Winston Churchill came back to life, re-entered British politics and gave a speech setting out his views on race, only one party would not instantly expel him and only one party would support him when he was put on trial for inciting racial hatred (as he certainly would be). That party is not the Tories, Labour, LibDems or UKIP: it is the BNP. See 1 and 2.

    Personally, I wouldn’t like to see the BNP in power. But as far as I can see, the main reason for the vilification and demonization of the BNP is that it tries to do what the other parties once did: defend the interests of the indigenous white British, rather than destroy those interests.

    Reply

  9. I don’t know why Dawkins is anti-religion, but he will side with or against anyone, to attack religion, For example he was sympathetic towards ‘gentle paedophiles’ till it was convenient for him to join in the Catholic-paedos-in-the-bloody-Church stuff.

    Mind you the whole ‘paedophile’ angle is as much a red herring to detract people from discussing ethnicity, as is the whole ‘backwardness’ angle. Only when the younger party is under the onset of puberty, that it’s it paedophilia. Most ‘paedophile’ clergy, though they abused a position of trust, are still not paedophiles and nor are Moslem men who groom 13 year old girls paedophiles either.

    Sir Jimmy Saville wasn’t a paedo either and we all know how conveniently his case got dug up again once people started realising that ‘paedophile’ was a media code word for ‘arse reeks of curry’.

    Reply

  10. @hbd chick “the topic makes my blood pressure go up” I’m so angry I’m not sure I can make sense. It seems to me that blaming religion or inbreeding is a sort of a “round up the usual suspects reflex” understandbable of course. Maybe the right word is “evil.” You don’t see that one outside the comic books any longer. But I would apply it from the perpetrators right up to the main stream media and the mighty of the earth. Can anybody draw?

    Reply

  11. Islam is a big part of the problem. They are brainwashed from birth that kaffirs are evil and are to be regarded with contempt. In Vancouver there is a very large Sikh population, and while they have a lot of problems with domestic violence and gangs, nothing like this has happened that I am aware of. They also don’t make a lot of demands for special food, separate swimming for women, etc. in general they seem to adapt to the west much better than Muslims. Muslims make a LOT of trouble where ever they go.

    Reply

    1. @Melykin:

      “Islam is a big part of the problem. They are brainwashed from birth that kaffirs are evil and are to be regarded with contempt … Muslims make a LOT of trouble where ever they go.”

      What HBD Chick means is that it’s not the religion itself that causes the problem, but the traits of the adherents of the religion. Islam is no more the source of the problem than Christianity is the source of the problem. These religions’ roles are highly indirect, only in that they directed the course of centuries of evolution.

      Reply

  12. There may be arguments about the source of the problem, but as far as I am concerned, the solution is comprised of a tall tree and a short rope: some assembly required.

    Reply

  13. what’s come out in the testimonies so far will make your stomach turn. if even only half of it is true…

    Forget half – it’d be sickening if even one of those allegations/charges was true. Even more sickening is the blind eye many are apparently turning to these atrocities (though I bet that wouldn’t be the case if the alleged perps were of a different ethnic and/or religious background)…

    Reply

  14. @PaganAtheist

    “I don’t know why Dawkins is anti-religion, but he will side with or against anyone, to attack religion”

    Dawkins can correctly be described as an atheist zealot. While the beliefs he espouses are different (lack in belief in God), the way he pursues it is as adamant as anyone who proselytizes their religion. He’s apparently convinced that if the masses abandon religion (and becomes like him), all social ills will be cured.

    In many ways, he’s a neo-Puritan in his behavior. Just replace Puritan-esque Calvinism with atheism and you get the same outcome.

    Reply

  15. @JayMan: Fundamentalism – whether of a religious or atheist nature – doesn’t tend to better societies IMHO (e.g. Christian “utopias”, Islamic nations under Sharia law, or irreligious/atheist govt’s that actively persecute the religious); methinks societies do best when secular entities (i.e. gov’t) and religious entities (i.e. FBO’s) work together.

    Of course, the degree to which one is willing to “work together” with another goes back to traits and degrees (and types!) of altruism – and hbd* chick’s done a heckuva job of examining the role of some religions in a group’s evolution…

    Reply

  16. @nelson – “Forget half – it’d be sickening if even one of those allegations/charges was true.”

    true. =/

    @nelson – “Even more sickening is the blind eye many are apparently turning to these atrocities (though I bet that wouldn’t be the case if the alleged perps were of a different ethnic and/or religious background)…”

    exactly.

    the thing is — well, i’m something of an anglophile (lifelong, actually), so i follow the news from britain — and what’s also going on there at the same time as these “grooming” cases are being ignored is this endless coverage of the sexual misbehavings of a now-dead, but crucially WHITE, dj/celebrity (pagan atheist refers to this case in an above comment). the guy was obviously a creep and was sexually abusive, but the news coverage about him (and, now, anyone associated with him) has truly been ENDless. and, at the same time, next to nothing about these “grooming” cases. unbelievable.

    and what’s with this euphemism — “grooming” — anyway? makes it sound like they were running a pet salon for pampered poodles. these men are rapists — GANG rapists — and human traffickers (another euphemism i don’t like — i say we bring back the word “slavers”).

    to be honest with you, i don’t know how msm-types sleep at night.

    Reply

  17. Judge MacPherson’s report deemed the police institutionally racist, Sir Paul Condon, Metropolitan Police Commissioner was forced to agree. Serious sex crime and muggings increased quite a bit after this.

    A few years ago a relative in the police showed me the stuff police are examined on; scenarios like- far right party member is accused of insulting or assaulting a Muslim. The question: exactly what should policeman arrest him and charge him with (answer is usually: a racially aggravated offence) After Bradford’s (Muslim) riots in 2001, the (black) former commissioner for racial equality, Sir Herman Ouseley, called for more integration. (Such as schools). Of course many of the girls are first approached by one of the good looking Muslim schoolboys employed by the gangs to seduce girls.

    At that time there was, in the media, nothing about grooming by Muslims, though it had been going on for DECADES. In fact the police (who had been doing hardly anything about it) objected to the media mentioning the what was happening, and got the TV documentary that was trying to break the story, withdrawn. The journalist responsible, like everyone else, was horrified – about the BNP gaining support through ‘hijacking’ the issue. . It was already being dealt with according to the local labour MP ect. The BNP has now been driven out of local politics in Bradford and the rest of Britain. So there are a few trials now.

    Face it, the job of the police is a safe one with a pension at the end of it. Their superiors place a great deal of emphasis on certain crimes; that implicitly means don’t police certain other crimes. Outside the fantasy world of entertainment, heroes disinterestedly protecting young maidens do not exist. What you have is white hirelings following the orders of white careerists who are in turn worried about the media, who are themselves white people trying to progress in highly competitive careers like journalism and politics. They all think of themselves as being fearless moral paragons (though they’re not sticking their necks out). And the danger of white nationalism gaining support is of vastly more concern to the powers that be than anything else.

    Reply

  18. @Non Angeli, Sed Angli – “The British National Party (BNP) have been trying to warn about this problem literally for decades.”

    yup. they sure have. they’ve got ever right to say “told you so” now, but i’m sure they wouldn’t get much satisfaction out of it. =/

    afaics, this is very much a class thing: it’s lower/working class girls from “troubled” backgrounds who are getting abused by these muslim gangsters, not at all any middle or upper class. and it’s the upper class — or aspiring upper class — hoity-toities, who need to demonstrate their worthiness by strictly adhering to political correctness, who are allowing all of this to happen — by ignoring it. and what do they care? it’s not their girls.

    despicable.

    Reply

  19. @sean – “What you have is white hirelings following the orders of white careerists who are in turn worried about the media, who are themselves white people trying to progress in highly competitive careers like journalism and politics. They all think of themselves as being fearless moral paragons (though they’re not sticking their necks out).”

    well put!

    and it’s just disgusting. as doug said (quoted in the post):

    “I guarantee you the white people in these institutions are some of the most selfish, ambitious and unscrupulous human beings you will ever meet.”

    =/

    Reply

  20. @pagan atheist – “Only when the younger party is under the onset of puberty, that it’s it paedophilia. Most ‘paedophile’ clergy, though they abused a position of trust, are still not paedophiles and nor are Moslem men who groom 13 year old girls paedophiles either.”

    exactly. the whole “pedophilia” hysteria bugs me, too — because, like you say, it’s false. most of it is not pedophilia. (i’ve complained about this before, btw.)

    Reply

  21. Islam is an evil, supermist cult. They cause violence and dysfunction where ever they exist in substantial numbers. Burma, Indonesia , Malaysia , Chechnya, Bosnia, middle East, north Africa, and now Europe, and The Americas are next in their sites. Their goal is a worldwide Mislim caliphate run by sharia law.

    The Koran states that it ok to take non Muslim women as sex slaves.

    Reply

  22. You can hardly blame the teachers, social workers, etc for being afraid to speak up. If they are caused of racism or Islamiphobia they could not only lose their jobs, in Britain they could go to prison. I blame the politicians for bringing about this terrible situation. They should be hung for treason.

    Reply

  23. @linton – “It seems to me that blaming religion or inbreeding is a sort of a ’round up the usual suspects reflex’ understandbable of course.”

    well, the reason i blame inbreeding (although i’m sure that there are many roots to this problem) is because i think we’re looking at behaviors that have been shaped by evolution (by natural selection) — and, so, mating patterns tie in there somewhere. the fundamental “problem” is biology, though — not inbreeding (and not religion).

    @linton – “Maybe the right word is ‘evil.'”

    notice that i included it in the tags for this post. i mostly don’t like such value-laden terms, but sometimes they really do apply.

    Reply

  24. @melykin – “You can hardly blame the teachers, social workers, etc for being afraid to speak up. If they are caused of racism or Islamiphobia they could not only lose their jobs, in Britain they could go to prison. I blame the politicians for bringing about this terrible situation.”

    i absolutely blame the politicians, #1. and closely following them, media-types and (certain — most, unfortunately) academics.

    but i still blame the social workers in this case. there was a “consensus” among the staff at whatever children’s home the one girl was repeatedly taken out of by her “groomer.” the whole staff? even just a majority? then, i’d say, you can start to DO something when you’ve got a group of people to work with, not just one teacher or social worker thinking something dodgy is going on.

    at the end of the day, though, they should do their job. or get another one. go work in mcdonald’s if you can’t perform your duties. especially when you’re being paid by taxpayers’ money.

    Reply

  25. @melykin – “Islam is an evil, supermist cult.”

    yes, but islam (like any religion) arose out of a certain population group which had (has) certain traits. it did spread to some other populations, but it’s not exactly the same in those various populations as it is back in the arab world. for example, ask yourself this: why niqabs in saudi arabia but only headscarves in turkey or indonesia?

    islam is not one thing, any more than christianity is one thing.

    Reply

  26. @luke – “The problem is not islam, granted, but that doesn’t mean that islam is not a problem.”

    @melykin – “Islam is a big part of the problem.”

    yes, islam is part of the problem — but it’s not exactly islam that’s the problem but, rather: 1) the natures of the peoples involved, and 2) islamic leaders who might have influence on their followers. like st. augustine and thomas aquinas, they might direct their followers in certain ways that they, themselves, favor (people are such sheeple).

    but, ultimately, what jayman said:

    “it’s not the religion itself that causes the problem, but the traits of the adherents of the religion. Islam is no more the source of the problem than Christianity is the source of the problem. These religions’ roles are highly indirect, only in that they directed the course of centuries of evolution.”

    (jayman, you have some awesome “genes for eloquence”! (^_^) )

    Reply

  27. Yes there is no doubt that the social workers should have spoken up. It speaks of how brainwashed and cowed many are, terrified of being accused of racism more than almost anything. Britain is in a very bad way.

    I still maintain that it is Islam that is the main cause. Vancouver is now about one third Chinese, one third Sikh, and one third White. While there are some problems there is nothing like the troubles in Britain and Europe. We don’t have “no go” zones. We don’t have a large ethnic underclass on welfare.

    The Swedes even sent out a delegation to Vancouver to try to figure out why multiculturism seems to be working here. They wanted to know what we were doing differently. The answer is that we have better immigrants. The Swedes have invited in a bunch of Somolians and other Muslims. Vancouver has few Muslims and few sub Saharan Africans.

    Reply

  28. @jayman – “Dawkins can correctly be described as an atheist zealot. While the beliefs he espouses are different (lack in belief in God), the way he pursues it is as adamant as anyone who proselytizes their religion.”

    yeah, it’s pretty crazy, really.

    Reply

  29. So you think the Sikhs are that much genetically different from Muslims in Pakistan? They all look the same and are from the same part of the subcontinent.

    I agree that genes are very powerful but culture is too. Compare people in Finland to those across the border in Russia. The cultures are very different.

    Reply

  30. @melykin – “Vancouver is now about one third Chinese, one third Sikh, and one third White.”

    huh. i didn’t realize that you had so many sikhs.

    fyi, sikhs — in india, anyway — have very low inbreeding rates. i don’t know how long they’ve had such rates — i’ll have to look into it! — but it could be a clue as to why they’re not sooo much of a problem (if “the theory” is at all right, of course (~_^) ).

    @melykin – “The Swedes even sent out a delegation to Vancouver to try to figure out why multiculturism seems to be working here.”

    the swedes are so cute/naive/stupid. (~_^)

    @melykin – “They wanted to know what we were doing differently. The answer is that we have better immigrants. The Swedes have invited in a bunch of Somolians and other Muslims. Vancouver has few Muslims and few sub Saharan Africans.”

    i agree! i just don’t think — so much — that it’s the religion that’s the problem. it’s the different natures of the different populations.

    Reply

  31. @Melykin:

    “I agree that genes are very powerful but culture is too. Compare people in Finland to those across the border in Russia. The cultures are very different.”

    A better example for your case would have been North Korea and South Korea. And even there, genetic differences are at play (as we see between the former East Germany and the former West Germany).

    In any case, when it comes to genes, the devil is very much in the details. Indeed, a new study puts the exclamation point on this fact by pointing out that non-additive genetic effects are likely incredibly important, perhaps predominant, in determining behavioral traits. Tiny genetic differences can have huge impacts on behavior.

    Reply

  32. Declaration, with no attempt at proof. I am a Christian, from somewhere in the mainstream/evangelical borderland. I think Islam is at root a Jewish/Christian heresy, encourages some ver bad thinking, and can quote you chapter and verse of the dangerous parts.

    Nonetheless, I believe it is the culture – perhaps created and certainly perpetuated by tribal mating and genetic factors – that is the main problem in the Muslim countries, not Islam itself. If the whole batch of them converted to Christianity overnight, it would still take them centuries to become modern. They are well-constructed emotionally to live at peace under effective tyrants, even evil ones. But the give and take of intergroup living is beyond them at present.

    To be fair, almost no one manages intergroup peace very well, do they? The Anglosphere does best, perhaps because we deal with more diversity than say, Swedes or Chinese or Apaches.

    Reply

  33. A dying culture prostitutes its women; only a dead culture prostitutes its children. The elites of Britain are exterminating their native citizens using imported barbarians, and the native citizens are too far gone to even admit it is happening.

    Reply

    1. @Reverend Right “A dying culture prostitutes its women etc.” You sound as gloomy as I. And I suspect you are right beyond anything you can imagine unless you have taken a gander at the December 21 post of nobabies.net. I hope I’m wrong.

      Reply

  34. Islam is no more the source of the problem than Christianity is the source of the problem.

    JayMan is wrong this time.  Islam not only permits but exalts the sexual exploitation of the women (as young as girls of 6) of “the enemy”, because Mohammed did it and he was “the perfect man”.  You cannot get rid of this pathology until you get rid of the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, which is the whole of Islam itself.

    The problem was created by the stigmatization of law enforcement as “racist”, and any threat to “community cohesion” (such as enforcement of the law against child rape by Muslims) punished more brutally than actual crime.  This problem was created by the multi-culturalists and immigration enthusiasts, who ought to individually pay the criminal penalties appropriate to the horrors they’ve engendered.

    Reply

    1. @ Mr Rational. Jayman:”Islam is no more the source of the problem than Christianity”
      Mr, Rational.:”This problem was created by the multi-culturalists and immigration enthusiasts.” Forgive me, but I don’t see any unreconcilable conflict here.

      Reply

  35. BTW, just reread Terrorist by John Updike. Excellent read, one of his best, and very insightful about the problems of young Muslims fitting in (in this case half Muslim, his mother was Irish and his father deserted when he was a baby — naturally he idolized his absent father like somebody else we know who showed up after Updike wrote his book.

    Reply

  36. Thanks for drawing that Standpoint article to my attention Hbdchick. I occasionally browse your blog but never Standpoint.

    FWIW, IMHO that is an excellent article.

    I seem to be unusual in that I also don’t think Islam is the problem. If all Anglo-Celtic people over here converted to Islam, and because of that, started breeding like rabbits, our ultimate doom will have been postponed. And, also as you yourself point out, there are many different flavours of Islam: Saudi wahhabis are not the same as Bosnian muslims and followers of the Aga Khan are different again.

    afaics, this is very much a class thing: it’s lower/working class girls from “troubled” backgrounds who are getting abused by these muslim gangsters, not at all any middle or upper class. and it’s the upper class — or aspiring upper class — hoity-toities, who need to demonstrate their worthiness by strictly adhering to political correctness, who are allowing all of this to happen — by ignoring it. and what do they care? it’s not their girls.

    Yup. I think that’s an accurate assessment.

    Also, the paedophila thing – yeah good point and it is interesting how this Jimmy Saville stuff has conveniently turned up on time and continues to be made of interest by the MSM while the Muslim grooming stuff is largely ignored.

    yes, but islam (like any religion) arose out of a certain population group which had (has) certain traits.

    Did you know TE Lawrence had things to say along those lines in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:
    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100111.txt
    They were a limited, narrow-minded people, whose inert intellects lay
    fallow in incurious resignation. Their imaginations were vivid, but not
    creative…They invented no systems of philosophy, no complex mythologies…Their convictions were by instinct, their activities intuitional. Their largest manufacture was of creeds:almost they were monopolists of revealed religions. Three of these
    efforts had endured among them: two of the three had also borne export
    (in modified forms) to non-Semitic peoples.

    Just as an aside, did you know the Hindu Indra is Thor is Mars?

    Reply

  37. The Historian Corelli Barnett in his book The Collapse of British Power blames 19th Century evangelical Christianity for Britain’s demise and its easy to see a direct link from there to here.

    So, you could make a very good argument that Christianity is more to blame than Islam.

    Corelli Barnett on the other hand was influenced by the Prussian Von Clausewitz and has no time for sentimental moral arguments for war and you can bet your life if the Clausewitz influenced Germans had won World War One or World War Two, Britain or indeed anywhere in Europe wouldn’t have Muslim immigrants in the first place.

    I’d say its our soppy Christian morality and Christian influenced secular morality that has lead to where we are.

    Reply

  38. Pat Buchanan’s book on Churchill frequently references Corelli Barnett’s book The Collapse of British Power.

    Also, I think, whilst you can say Islam is fundamentally different to Judaism or Christianity in that it has specific parts for Holy War and so on, Islam is a proximate problem whereas it is evangelical Christianity that is the ultimate problem for creating the stupid morality for bringing alien immigrants into Britain and Europe in the first place.

    The same sort of thing can be said about Kevin MacDonald type accusations against Judaism.

    Mencius Moldbug with his stuff about the Cathedral seems to say similar thigs to Corelli Barnett – or maybe I’m missing something?

    Reply

  39. The response of most British people to these outrages will be, like their American cousins when faced with hostile ethnic violence, to just move further away.

    Reply

  40. @Mr. Rational:

    “JayMan is wrong this time. Islam not only permits but exalts the sexual exploitation of the women (as young as girls of 6) of “the enemy”, because Mohammed did it and he was “the perfect man”. You cannot get rid of this pathology until you get rid of the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, which is the whole of Islam itself.”

    But why do the adherents follow these practices? That’s the key question. Most religious teachings are selectively adhered to by believers. That itself is a clue. The religious tenets are both expressions of the cultures that espouse them and themselves have affected the course of evolution of the people, most particularly, as discussed by HBD Chick, Christianity, Islam, even Confucianism/Buddhism. If you were somehow able to get Muslims to give up their religion, it’s not like the behavior of the people would be all that different, since the behaviors are intrinsic to the people themselves (honor killings occur with Middle Eastern Christians, for example).

    Attacking the teachings of Islam itself would be as blind to reality of the situation (i.e., “different peoples is different”) as Dawkins is. While as a very long-term strategy, getting Muslims to give up their religion (and most importantly, cousin marriage) would, in time, produce a different set of traits in the people, well for one, you wouldn’t live to see the change, and second, good luck with that…

    Reply

    1. @Jayman “getting Muslims to give up their religion (and most importantly, cousin marriage)” My evidence is quite meager here, but that might just produce a baby boom for them. Our current demographic drought was proceeded by a baby boom. I won’t insist. It’s just a gut feel looking at the data.

      Reply

  41. @Working Class Englishman:

    “I seem to be unusual in that I also don’t think Islam is the problem. If all Anglo-Celtic people over here converted to Islam”

    Good luck with that too… ;)

    Reply

  42. @LInton Herbert:

    “Our current demographic drought was proceeded by a baby boom. I won’t insist. It’s just a gut feel looking at the data.”

    This was due to re-population (in Europe) and a high-wage to expenses ratio in the post-War era. That era then subsequently ended.

    People won’t have children if they can’t afford them…

    Reply

    1. @Jayman “People won’t have children if they can’t afford them…” I hope you are right about the cause of the baby boom. But my stats show an identical pattern of boom and bust in the third world, just displaced in time. Don’t let me seem fussy. Were I to want to fuss, I’d take exception with the remark in quotes. It is, indeed, a widespread belief. And I take it that the richest in the US are now having more children than the next richest. But it seems to me that the desperately poor have a lot. Sure, I know it’s a kind of individual enterprise social security thing; maybe the children you can’t afford will be able to affod to support you when you get old. As I said this is a gut thing. My serious arguments depend on less ambiguous data.
      Generally immigrants have a steep decline in their fertility. The Muslims in the UK might prove to be an exception, in case anybody cares. We do all believe in inbreeding depression I assume.

      Reply

  43. @hbd* chick:

    and what’s with this euphemism — “grooming” — anyway? makes it sound like they were running a pet salon for pampered poodles. these men are rapists — GANG rapists — and human traffickers (another euphemism i don’t like — i say we bring back the word “slavers”).

    It’s a stupid euphemism; I agree. Makes it sound as though the perps were “training” the girls to be prostitutes (despicable) while masking the even more despicable (alleged) acts of gang rape and vicious abuse.

    This is PC taken to a sickening extreme – simple as that.

    @JayMan:

    People won’t have children if they can’t afford them…

    Only true to a point; some poor might have kids for the bennies (or because of “unplanned” pregnancies)…

    Reply

  44. @avi – “If the whole batch of them converted to Christianity overnight, it would still take them centuries to become modern.”

    exactly.

    @avi – “They are well-constructed emotionally to live at peace under effective tyrants, even evil ones.”

    that’s an interesting thought/way of looking at it. i haven’t actually thought about it in those terms before.

    @avi – “But the give and take of intergroup living is beyond them at present.”

    exactly. too “clannish” — or tribal — or whatever you want to call it.

    @avi – “To be fair, almost no one manages intergroup peace very well, do they?”

    no, it’s not a thing that comes to most human (animal) groups easily — and it especially doesn’t work when resources are scarce and must be fought over. this is one of the things that worries me most about the modern multicultural project: that when the sh*t hits the fan economically speaking (and we seem to be well on the way along that path, unfortunately), any intergroup peace that we do have is going to quickly disappear. =/

    @avi – “The Anglosphere does best, perhaps because we deal with more diversity than say, Swedes or Chinese or Apaches.”

    and, perhaps, thanks to their curious evolutionary history, the anglos have the highest frequency of “genes for reciprocal altruism” or whatever you want to call them. -?-

    Reply

  45. and, perhaps, thanks to their curious evolutionary history, the anglos have the highest frequency of “genes for reciprocal altruism” or whatever you want to call them. -?

    What’s the evidence for these genes for reciprocal altruism? I’ve heard people suggest that people adopting black babies or donating to Africa is an example of reciprocal altruism. But that isn’t reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism would be something like the adopting parents being compensated by the black baby’s parents with a large sum of money to be devoted to raising their own additional biological children to make up for the cost of adopting and raising the unrelated black baby. That’s clearly not what’s going on here.

    Reply

  46. @bill – “I’ve heard people suggest that people adopting black babies or donating to Africa is an example of reciprocal altruism. But that isn’t reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism would be something like the adopting parents being compensated by the black baby’s parents with a large sum of money to be devoted to raising their own additional biological children to make up for the cost of adopting and raising the unrelated black baby. That’s clearly not what’s going on here.”

    no, but what you need to do is imagine that (if it’s correct at all) whatever “genes for reciprocal altruism” the english/nw europeans have — and have high frequencies of, i think — evolved in those populations in the past — when they were living with and interacting mostly between themselves, i.e. within populations in which their reciprocally altruistic behaviors would likely have been paid back.

    adopting black babies or donating to africa today is a misapplication of those reciprocal behaviors. it’s the english/nw europeans just behaving as they naturally do because they can’t help it, but they’re behaving this way towards peoples who, for the most part, won’t pay them back in the same way. but the english/nw europeans can’t help themselves ’cause this is just how they are.

    this is how altruism quickly gets de-selected for — or watered down — because the behaviors are mispplied to individuals/groups who don’t share your same sorts of altruism genes.

    Reply

  47. @working class englishman – “it is interesting how this Jimmy Saville stuff has conveniently turned up on time and continues to be made of interest by the MSM while the Muslim grooming stuff is largely ignored.”

    i happened to be in london last autumn (first time in a decade — and, yes, boy has the place changed…) when the savile story was just starting to gain momentum. meanwhile, what i had on my mind was the rotherham scandal….

    and i just couldn’t believe the amount of coverage the savile business was getting — and how EVERYbody was talking about it — even the little old lady shop clerks in marks & spencer — and NObody was talking about rotherham … definitely not the press. i was so annoyed.

    so i started a small campaign of my own to raise awareness amongst the brits that i know. anytime anyone brought up savile — which they were sure to — i would nod in agreement and say how horrible it all was … and then i’d stealthily add something like, “first savile, and now this business in rotherham … what IS the world coming to?” and then they’d make the mistake to ask me about rotherham….

    i can be so sneaky sometimes. (~_^)

    p.s. – it’s a sad state of affairs when a foreigner has to inform people of what’s going on in their own country.

    Reply

  48. @working class englishman – “Just as an aside, did you know the Hindu Indra is Thor is Mars?”

    huh! no i didn’t. interesting! thanks! (^_^)

    Reply

  49. @working class englishman – “I’d say its our soppy Christian morality and Christian influenced secular morality that has lead to where we are.”

    well, just like i think the different sects/practices of islam reflect the natures of the different populations out of which they arose, i think that the soppy christian morality of the english (and other nw europeans) just reflects their nature. again, why is coptic christianity or armenian christianity not like anglicanism?

    Reply

  50. @working class englishman – “The response of most British people to these outrages will be, like their American cousins when faced with hostile ethnic violence, to just move further away.”

    well, and 600,000 white brits moved out of london in … what was it? … the past ten years?

    the problem with england/britain is that you don’t have very many wide open space to which to move. it’s getting kinda crowded there. =/

    Reply

  51. JayMan:

    But why do the adherents follow these practices?

    Because Mohammed is “the perfect man” and “an excellent example of conduct”.  Whatever he did is worthy of emulation, whatever he eschewed is sinful, whatever he said is law now and forever.  For instance, if you have to s**t in the desert and clean your bunghole with stones, you must always use an odd number of stones.  There are no new interpretations allowed.  “The gates of ijtihad are closed.”  Muslims kill apostates, and have a habit of declaring anyone arguing for a different interpretation an apostate.  The Sunni/Shia violence is a part of this.

    You’re assuming that people steeped in Islam—make that peoples steeped in Islam—are still free to think and interpret the world logically.  After reading Muslim sources for a while, it’s obvious that logic has nothing to do with much of it; it is slavish following of rules, because the rules are the rules and Allah will send you to hell if you don’t.  Killing off the apostates and stunting the imaginations (and social success) of those smart enough to think problematic thoughts in the interest of self-preservation has probably emptied the gene pool of traits you and I would consider essential to a modern society.  I don’t think the people in Islamic societies are like us.

    If you were somehow able to get Muslims to give up their religion, it’s not like the behavior of the people would be all that different, since the behaviors are intrinsic to the people themselves (honor killings occur with Middle Eastern Christians, for example).

    Honor killing was probably necessary to keep girls in the faith and the community from disappearing.  Otherwise, Muslim polygamists would just have married them all and poof, no next generation of Christians.

    WCE:

    If all Anglo-Celtic people over here converted to Islam, and because of that, started breeding like rabbits, our ultimate doom will have been postponed.

    There’s no historical example of a society or racial group which has gone Islamic which has ever recovered from it.  Ataturk tried to secularize Turkey; now look at it.

    Reply

  52. @jayman – “While as a very long-term strategy, getting Muslims to give up their religion (and most importantly, cousin marriage) would, in time, produce a different set of traits in the people, well for one, you wouldn’t live to see the change….”

    precisely.

    evolution, while it doesn’t have to take millions of years, does take some time.

    Reply

  53. @mr. rational – “Because Mohammed is ‘the perfect man’ and ‘an excellent example of conduct’. Whatever he did is worthy of emulation, whatever he eschewed is sinful, whatever he said is law now and forever.”

    yes, but why do muslims, especailly arabs and south asian muslims on the whole, feel this way about following one man? i’d say that this is indicative of some sort of average, quirky personality trait. as opposed to, say, the libertarian, free-thinking personalities of certain nw european populations.

    and, again — islam is not one thing. there are varieties. why? (hint: for the same reason that there are varieties of christianity — because the base populations are different, i.e. have different average traits.)

    Reply

  54. @mr. rational – “Honor killing was probably necessary to keep girls in the faith and the community from disappearing. Otherwise, Muslim polygamists would just have married them all and poof, no next generation of Christians.”

    i think that you get “honor” killings whenever you have close inbreeding — it doesn’t, necessarily, appear — but in inbred populations is where it pops up. did you know, for instance, that there were honor killings in eighth century bavaria? hmmm. i’ll post about that hopefully today or tomorrow.

    Reply

  55. @jayman – “People won’t have children if they can’t afford them…”

    the crazy thing is that, nowadays, realistically, most middle-class and upper-working-class americans could afford TEN kids if they really wanted them. but they’re all fixated on crazy ideas like that they need houses in the suburbs with three-car garages and 2.5 cars and 52″ hd televisions and new iPads and new iPhones for everybody in the house every year and two caribbean cruises a year (or maybe one cruise and one trip to disneyworld) … when in reality, nobody NEEDS any of those things.

    people spend a lot of money on status … which, i suppose, is important in this life … but in reality, most people could afford more kids than they think.

    Reply

  56. @HBD Chick:

    the crazy thing is that, nowadays, realistically, most middle-class and upper-working-class americans could afford TEN kids if they really wanted them. but they’re all fixated on crazy ideas like that they need houses in the suburbs with three-car garages and 2.5 cars and 52″ hd televisions and new iPads and new iPhones for everybody in the house every year and two caribbean cruises a year (or maybe one cruise and one trip to disneyworld) … when in reality, nobody NEEDS any of those things.

    Well, I was being somewhat figurative when I said “afford”. K-selected/slow life-history individuals would have evolved to be resource conscious before procreating. In this day and age, one unlocks resources by obtaining lengthy educations and securing career, etc. Since formidable obstacle courses to these have been established in modern society, we see fertility suffer as a result.

    Indeed, the quest for status is a huge part of it, but it’s not totally without warrant. Starvation may not be a real threat for most people in the developed world, but the toys and gifts parents lavish their children with are useful in giving their children a leg up in their own quest for status (repeating the cycle).

    Back in the day, people would postpone marriage until securing a plot of land to farm (and indeed, in NW Europe, that’d often happened at ages similar to modern ones). Today, we have replaced the farm with career and house in the ‘burbs. This, along with contraception, has created a selective environment that favors people who procreate dispite the modern signals of resource availability. It’ll be interesting to see what that does to the population of the future…

    Reply

    1. @Jayman “be interesting to see what that does to the population of the future…” It used to be said that the gods envied us our mortality. I used to think that meant they saw that it gave our lives a poignance, an intensity, a heroism they could never have. Now I think they just don’t want to live to see how things are going to turn out.
      You have sound ideas but are immune to suspecting any influence on ferility by consanguinity despite lots of evidence. And you are one of the brightest and most interested in such issues. I think I can see where this goes. Glad I’m no god.

      Reply

  57. well, just like i think the different sects/practices of islam reflect the natures of the different populations out of which they arose, i think that the soppy christian morality of the english (and other nw europeans) just reflects their nature. again, why is coptic christianity or armenian christianity not like anglicanism?

    I am unconvinced of this argument. I seem to remember Kevin MacDonald says something similar about libertarianism being a natural expression of innate European outgroup altruism – or something like that.

    I suspect this thinking ( libertarianism being a natural expression of innate European outgroup altruism) arises more from US culture grown out of its constitution than from any innate European tendency. With all due respect, I think that this is like the joke the two fish, where one fish says to the other “Hows the water?” and other fish responds with “What water?” You are so immersed in your own culture you cannot see that it is your culture that gives you individualism and libertarianism rather than something genetic. Would Bismark have agreed with you? I doubt it.

    Yet the English only adopted soppy Christian morality around about the same time as they repealed the corn laws and became freemarketeers. No doubt there are some conspiracy theories (not necessarily fantasies) about why this might be.

    The English were Christians, (but not soppy kumabya type Christians) under Cromwell and Elizabeth 1st and everyone was scared of us and/or respected us – with good reason! That was when we created an empire for the sole purposes of making more money and increasing our power, not so we could civilise the poor benighted natives.

    Reply

  58. civilise the poor benighted natives of whatever foreign land we had just taken invaded and taken over – that is!

    I suppose this is where you would run into difficulties talking to Americans about this because I suppose we are talking about Liberalism (free trade and soppy Christian/secular morality) in its British sense rather than in its American sense where it gets mixed up with all sorts of other left wing stuff.

    Reply

  59. evolved in those populations in the past — when they were living with and interacting mostly between themselves, i.e. within populations in which their reciprocally altruistic behaviors would likely have been paid back.

    Adopting a strange baby wouldn’t have been reciprocal altruism in the past either.

    An example of reciprocal altruism might be something like adopting a stray dog or chicken, and helping the dog or chicken survive and produce puppies and chicks, in exchange for the dog helping you hunt for meat or the chicken producing eggs and chicken meat that you can use to survive and produce human offspring.

    That’s not what’s going on with adoption, whether it’s adopting black babies today or strange English babies in the past. This kind of behavior that we see isn’t an example of reciprocal altruism. It’s something else.

    Reply

  60. this is how altruism quickly gets de-selected for — or watered down — because the behaviors are mispplied to individuals/groups who don’t share your same sorts of altruism genes.

    That is how kin altruism declines. The conditions for reciprocal altruism are different; they aren’t about shared genes. Which is why reciprocal altruism is invoked to explain things like cross-species altruism.

    Reply

  61. @bill – “This kind of behavior that we see isn’t an example of reciprocal altruism. It’s something else.”

    well, you seem to be all focused on adopting an unrelated baby, but i’ve never actually used that as an example of what i’ve been talking about.

    i’ve been contrasting what i call “familial altruism” — in which individuals concentrate most of their altruistic energies on family (like in the arab world) or conversely most of their non-altruistic energies on non-family (again, like in the arab world). the opposite of all that — or the other end of the spectrum — i’ve been calling reciprocal altruism simply because, the way i see it, people in these populations don’t concentrate most of their altruistic energies on family but, rather, simply towards anybody in their society. i’ve been referring to it as reciprocal altruism because the only way i can imagine it having evolved was that, on the whole, people got paid back for their altruistic behaviors toward non-family in some way or another, i.e. reciprocal altruism.

    that’s maybe not the exact or best term to use, but it’s the best that i could come up with. like i said, i also like chip’s term: “extra-familial altruism.”

    the problem with reciprocal or extra-familial or whatever-you-want-to-call-it altruism is that, if your population directs it for too long towards a population that practices familial altruism, you’re going to lose out because, overall, they’re not going to pay you back. adopting babies from africa or donating monies endlessly to africa will wind you up in the same boat.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “people got paid back for their altruistic behaviors toward non-family in some way or another” Coincidentally, I just got a letter from a renouned authorty reminding me that we are all family. We share half our genes with pumpkins. Every human is a cousin or closer. Even, alas, the rude ones. Denied the non-family concept I sometimes struggle to understand.

      But that’s beside the point. My nose is still totally out of joint over the issues raised by Operation Bullfinch. Well of course this whole line of discourse is relevant., but I don’t see any way to change things except scream to high heaven, which I shall do my best to do.

      Reply

  62. @working class englishman – “I am unconvinced of this argument. I seem to remember Kevin MacDonald says something similar about libertarianism being a natural expression of innate European outgroup altruism – or something like that.

    “I suspect this thinking ( libertarianism being a natural expression of innate European outgroup altruism) arises more from US culture grown out of its constitution than from any innate European tendency…. You are so immersed in your own culture you cannot see that it is your culture that gives you individualism and libertarianism rather than something genetic. Would Bismark have agreed with you? I doubt it.

    you mentioned above that you only “occasionally browse [my] blog” — not that there’s anything wrong with that (~_^) — except that i think you’ve missed the fact that most of what i’ve been blogging about over the last year or two is how europeans are different from one another — that includes, very much, the english vs. the germans.

    wrt individualism, i think that that is a strongly — extremely strongly, in fact — english trait (see my mating patterns in europe series in left-hand column below ↓ — particuarly the posts on the english — particularly the posts on english individualism).

    i’m also in complete disagreement with macdonald on the roots of libertarianism (if, that is, you’ve characterized what he’s had to say about it accurately). i don’t think it’s something pan-european at all. nor do i think it has anything to do with outgroup altruism, come to think of it.

    Reply

  63. @working class englishman – “Yet the English only adopted soppy Christian morality around about the same time as they repealed the corn laws and became freemarketeers…. The English were Christians, (but not soppy kumabya type Christians) under Cromwell and Elizabeth 1st….”

    yes. a couple of hundred years in between (6-8 generations?) during which time “the outbreeding project” (begun in the early medieval period) could continue to work its magic. (~_^)

    Reply

  64. “dawkins is a pinhead”

    He is not a pinhead. Fact is that he wrote a book that indirectly inspired HBD it’s called “The Selfish Gene”. I advice you to look it up, could be a nice change if Mein Kampf ever tires you.

    Reply

  65. @oskar – “He is not a pinhead. Fact is that he wrote a book that indirectly inspired HBD it’s called ‘The Selfish Gene’.”

    i’ve read it — including the last chapter where he goes into complete reverse wrt to everything he said in all the previous chapters. he was politically correct when he wrote the book, and he still is today.

    and, btw, what he wrote in that book about altruism, etc., was all based on other people’s work. you might want to read some of that: start with william d. hamilton.

    @oskar – “I advice you to look it up, could be a nice change if Mein Kampf ever tires you.”

    wtf, oskar?! don’t come back, got that? you are no longer welcome here.

    Reply

  66. This strays from the original topic , but is perhaps related to non-familial altruism. It was, I believe, in the UK that the idea of keeping dogs as pets ( as opposed to working dogs or status symbols) arose. Also the idea of treating animals humanely. The RSPCA, which I believe was formed around the time the anti slavery movement in Britain was active in the early 19th century.

    Muslim countries seem to be backwards in this regard, and are notorious for cruel behavior towards both animals and people. China isn’t looking too good either.

    Reply

  67. I should mention that the native population in Canada is noted for neglecting the animals they keep. This includes the Inuit who still keep dogs but treat them very callously. My son spent some time in the arctic, and when he was there he adopted a puppy from a white teacher whose dog had had pups. He has brought the dog south with him. The teacher would not let her puppies go to Inuit. They do not treat them as pets but just leave them chained up. The Inuit children used to follow my son around when he walked his dog and cautiously approach the puppy. The children are raised to fear dogs. The dogs they own are not family pets.

    Reply

  68. Assistant Village Idiot wrote:

    “Nonetheless, I believe it is the culture – perhaps created and certainly perpetuated by tribal mating and genetic factors – that is the main problem in the Muslim countries, not Islam itself. If the whole batch of them converted to Christianity overnight, it would still take them centuries to become modern. They are well-constructed emotionally to live at peace under effective tyrants, even evil ones. But the give and take of intergroup living is beyond them at present.”

    These lines really strike a bell with me. One of the real differences I have with hbd’chick (difference isn’t really the right word though) is over the question of whether extra genes for altruism are selected for in inbred societies. I am dubious on that point. Why? Well, for one thing, because people who move from inbred to outbred societies — the Scotch for example in England — seem to become like everybody else. Now IQ might be a problem. Thus when Africans move to the US, the extreme left-hand side of their bell curve end up as dysfunctional inhabitants of the inner-city ghettoes. Notice however that their are no clan-type loyalties in the ghetto. People shoot people almost randomly. Or maybe gang affiliations argue for something different. I dunno. Who belonged to gangs in the past? Wops, spics, dagos, kikes? Where were the English and Scotch gangs? Does this argue for hbd’chicks hypothesis?

    Reply

  69. Continuing my last comment:

    When I imagine myself belonging to an extended, inbred family to which exclusive loyalty is taken for granted, immersed in a larger matrix of like-minded clans, I doubt that I would behave much differently than the average person in most non-Western societies. Yet I doubt I have extra genes for clan loyalty, having almost exclusive northern European ancestry. What do other members of this thread think about themselves in this regard. It’s just a thought experiment — or imagination experiment I guess you would call it. Family is important no matter who you are.

    Reply

    1. @Luke Lea “What do other members of this thread think about themselves in this regard?” Hmm. Fair question. Let’s see. I am a pleurality Scotch Irish, but not really a majority, probably not even a quorum. Outbred beyond the call of sanity, if you will. I once traced my ancestry up to the point where I could name and establish the (Occasionally quite dubious) direct connection with more than two dozen people, all of whom spoke different languages. Were someone to do deliberate harm to a member of my family that I knew and knew the connection to … I’d react like a wild Sheik of the desert. At least that’s what I find when I consult my feelings. Fortunately no occasion has arisen. Maybe it’s a Southern thing. But I cannot remember anybody having mentioned anything of the sort to me, so how in the world I might have got indoctrinated I have no idea.

      Reply

  70. Continuing further”

    Notice that the inhabitants of our inner-city ghettoes don’t have any families for all practical purposes. Marriage has almost disappeared as a social institution. Most children don’t have fathers in the traditional sense. Even their mothers are often not really *there* very often — instead they are raised by their grandmothers, who’ve already sewed their wild oats. With no real families, family loyalty is not really an issue (except don’t you dare insult my mother — there is this residual).

    Reply

  71. @Bill

    “Adopting a strange baby wouldn’t have been reciprocal altruism in the past either.”

    Adopting strange babies used to be rare in the past.

    I agree while I understand exactly what HBD Chick means, calling NW Euro outbred altruism “reciprocal altruism” is not exactly the perfect name.

    “Extra-familial altrusim” is probably not quite ideal either, as there is some evidence that even among NW Euros (particularly Scandinavian-derived groups), altruism is more ethnocentric in nature, being more applied to countrymen than to outsiders (like a much watered-down version of Japanese altruism). Obviously, not completely so, but still visible.

    Reply

  72. @LInton Herbert:

    Well, taking a look at the fertility maps with rates of inbreeding, it seems the case for there being a correlation between

    “You have sound ideas but are immune to suspecting any influence on ferility by consanguinity despite lots of evidence. And you are one of the brightest and most interested in such issues.”

    Well thank you, first of all. I’m not so sure of the relationship between inbreeding and fertility between groups. A quick look at the maps of fertility rates in Europe and Asia doesn’t seem to show that those with a recent history of inbreeding have higher fertility. Indeed, for Europe, only Ireland and Turkey seem to fit the pattern.

    Indeed, the more inbred parts of Europe and East Asia seem to have a lower fertility rates today than in the more outbred parts. Perhaps this is because many of these places abandoned inbreeding more recently. Perhaps a sudden switch to outbreeding is more detrimental to a population that doesn’t have a long history of it than to one that does?

    Reply

    1. @JayMan “I’m not so sure of the relationship between inbreeding and fertility between groups” Cool. I’m not so sure myself. Almost all the evidence is indirect, although as they say “watch this space.” But there is a lot of evidence, and I think it’s important. So long as you don’t dismiss the possiblity out of hand, there’s no tension. I hardly expect anybody else to get as obsessed as I am. In fact I sort of dread the day when the news breaks. I imagine people saying things I shall quickly tire of hearing.

      “Perhaps a sudden switch to outbreeding is more detrimental to a population that doesn’t have a long history of it than to one that does?” Well, maybe. Hadn’t thought of that. As I’ve mentioned, I think there are five biologically significant degrees of consanguintiy, all very different, and they all play out by the time you reach tenth cousin or maybe a social pool of a thousand fertile adults. So what’s “inbreeding” and what’s “outbreeding?” I’d need to have something more specific. Of course sentimenally we are drawn to ethnicity, religion, nationality, and globality, but these are all way out past anything I can find biological significance to. (No quarel if you want to; just nothing falls out of my numbers and screams at me.) To return to your question, my gut feel is that such a sudden switch would boost birth rate for a generation or two before it declined.

      Thanks for looking at the data and letting me know your reaction.

      Best wishes.

      Reply

  73. @Luke Lea:

    “Well, for one thing, because people who move from inbred to outbred societies — the Scotch for example in England — seem to become like everybody else. Now IQ might be a problem. Thus when Africans move to the US, the extreme left-hand side of their bell curve end up as dysfunctional inhabitants of the inner-city ghettoes. Notice however that their are no clan-type loyalties in the ghetto. People shoot people almost randomly. Or maybe gang affiliations argue for something different. I dunno. Who belonged to gangs in the past? Wops, spics, dagos, kikes? Where were the English and Scotch gangs? Does this argue for hbd’chicks hypothesis?”

    You raise a very good point, and one I considered when thinking about the Scotch-Irish and other more inbred Britons that make up America. While, traditionally speaking, the “Dixie” realm of the U.S. was settled by people who had more clan loyalties than those who settled the Old North, Red Staters don’t seem to be necessarily very extended family-centric (at least, outside of the deepest parts of Appalachia). I’ve gotten the impression that in many parts of the U.S. South and West, the individual is on his own. Perhaps there is something to that, perhaps the clan loyalty system needs to be salient in a society for truly extended family-centric behaviors to rear their heads.

    Perhaps these people would drift towards clannishness but the “institutions” in the States discourage this?

    Reply

    1. @Luke Lea.”I’ve gotten the impression that in many parts of the U.S. South and West, the individual is on his own.” That’s what it looks like to me. Of course there are exceptions, but looking at headlines typically Americans tend to go psycho one at a time, while elsewhere it is as part of a group. Just a thought.

      Reply

  74. yes, but why do muslims, especailly arabs and south asian muslims on the whole, feel this way about following one man?

    Why do so many people feel that way about following Sun Myung Moon?  Even without the threat of amputation of hands and feet, stoning or beheading, the personality cult can be very powerful.  Add those threats and imbue into the culture and genome through generations of repetition and selection, and voila:  today’s (notice I don’t say “modern-day”) Arabia, Pakistan and the Maghreb.

    again — islam is not one thing. there are varieties. why?

    It’s probably more accurate to say that there are degrees of Islamization of cultures; the seven schools of Islamic jurisprudence differ very little in their conflict with Western values.  Syncretism crept in because most non-Arab Muslims were and are illiterate in Arabic.  This variation is now being racheted back toward the original, Wahhabist-style doctrine and practice.  This is a one-way ratchet, and even the distant variants weren’t good neighbors; the Moro didn’t become peaceful just because of their physical and social distance from Mecca.

    As you’ve noted before, Islam is an evolutionary stable strategy.  It doesn’t evolve into anything else.

    the crazy thing is that, nowadays, realistically, most middle-class and upper-working-class americans could afford TEN kids if they really wanted them. but they’re all fixated on crazy ideas like that they need houses in the suburbs with three-car garages and 2.5 cars and 52″ hd televisions

    And their friends would look down at them if they didn’t climb the social ladder in the approved direction.

    Reply

  75. Back during my reading up on Islam kick (post 9/11) I came to the conclusion that the only good Muslim was one that didn’t take his religion too seriously. :)

    P.S. The problem for young men of Muslim descent in the West is alienation: they have a hard time fitting into the larger Anglo culture. Maybe it’s skin color, maybe its IQ, or something else, it doesn’t really matter. The point is that alienated teenagers and twenty-somethings we see no bright future for themselves (and this includes an awful lot of young people nowadays all across the board) the attractions of religious extremism are particularly acute: a chance for meaning, adventure, or just something to do. Updike’s novel, Terrorism, brings this out very clearly. It’s an empathetic account of what it is like to be young and Muslim in multicultural greater NYC today. A real tour de force.

    Reply

  76. I think the clans and inbreeding in Scotland must have disappeared by the beginning of the 19th century. Maybe Scots emigrated to Appalachia while inbreeding and clannishness was still going on in Scotland. Most of the people who came to Canada from Scotland did so in the 19th and early 20th century, and were no longer practicing inbreeding or clannishness.

    I have never heard of Scottish crime gangs in North America, but I have heard of Irish gangs, in the Boston area maybe?

    Reply

  77. @Luke Lea:

    “The problem for young men of Muslim descent in the West is alienation: they have a hard time fitting into the larger Anglo culture. Maybe it’s skin color, maybe its IQ, or something else, it doesn’t really matter. The point is that alienated teenagers and twenty-somethings we see no bright future for themselves (and this includes an awful lot of young people nowadays all across the board) the attractions of religious extremism are particularly acute: a chance for meaning, adventure, or just something to do.”

    I like this explanation better.

    It’s usually better not to over-think things.

    Reply

  78. @Mr. Rational:

    “‘again — islam is not one thing. there are varieties. why?’

    It’s probably more accurate to say that there are degrees of Islamization of cultures; the seven schools of Islamic jurisprudence differ very little in their conflict with Western values.”

    No, HBD Chick is correct. Islam is NOT one thing, no more than Christianity is one thing. Rather, it’s a collection of related things.

    Even more importantly, why get caught up in the precise doctrines of the religions. As I said above, the doctrines of a religion are both a reflection of and secondary to the traits of the adherents of those doctrines.

    Reply

  79. The Muslims in Indonesia are blowing stuff up and causing all sorts of problems. I don’t know if they are inbred or not. Most Muslims seem to brainwash their children from birth to hate Jews and other kaffurs. It is a cult that controls their whole lives. This is bound to cause a lot of problems, regardless of genetics. If you took a bunch of Muslim babies and raised them outside of the cult, in the west, they might be a bit dim and dysfunctional but as long as you could keep them away from Islam I don’t think they would cause many problems.

    Reply

  80. @melykin:

    “If you took a bunch of Muslim babies and raised them outside of the cult, in the west, they might be a bit dim and dysfunctional but as long as you could keep them away from Islam I don’t think they would cause many problems.”

    That’s the Dawkinesque-hope. But you’d likely be in for a big surprise…

    Reply

  81. Jayman, I’m sure your simpler explanation is better for the rape thing. (I was thinking more about jihad. ) Is anybody aware of Muslims preying on white women here in the U.S.? I haven’t ready anything.

    Also, more generally, are there any no-go Muslim neighborhoods in America such as exist in England? I have heard of none. There are plenty of black areas like that (neighborhoods in almost every inner city) where white are in danger if they wander through, and I suppose there are plenty of *slow-go* white neighborhoods for blacks in America too (Beverly Hills for example) but I have heard of nothing like this for Muslims.

    Reply

  82. @Luke Lea:

    “Jayman, I’m sure your simpler explanation is better for the rape thing. (I was thinking more about jihad. )

    Fair point.

    “Is anybody aware of Muslims preying on white women here in the U.S.? I haven’t ready anything.”

    Apparently it does happen.

    “Also, more generally, are there any no-go Muslim neighborhoods in America such as exist in England? I have heard of none.”

    The above notwithstanding, I think the answer is that the U.S. gets better Muslims than the Europeans do. They seem to be content to let any old immigrant in, where as the ones that come to the U.S. are typically much more select. Not enough so to avoid some of them committing to jihad, but, better than what happens across the pond.

    Reply

  83. Returning to the the issue of gangs sexually abusing young girls here in the UK. Personally I am disgusted about what has happened and about how it was not dealt with by Police and Social Services long ago when these issues became known, apparently because certain people feared being branded ‘racist’. However, I wish to clarify some points. The issue of so-called ‘grooming gangs’ appears to relate predominantly to the Pakistani community in the UK. At least as far as I can tell from the cases highlighted so far in the British press. Unlike the American media, which has a strong liberal bias, a large section of the British press has a strong conservative bias and generally doesn’t suppress stories for reasons of ‘political correctness’. Indeed they have covered the grooming cases quite extensively. Even the BBC, which is normally accused of left-wing bias, has covered it. The Jimmy Savile story generated more headlines because of his celebrity status and as a result sold more newspapers. Anyway the point I wanted to raise is that the gangs involved almost entirely comprised men of Pakistani origin, rather than being ‘Muslim gangs’. There are large numbers of Muslims of Somali, Bengali, Afghan, Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Indian, Arab, African and Malaysian origin in the UK and members of their communities appear to not have been involved in this ‘grooming’, at least not to the same extent. Moreover, the Pakistani community in the UK is not homogenous. People seem to be under the impression that the UK government is admitting large numbers of uneducated economic migrants from Muslim countries such as Pakistan, but this has not been the case for over 40 years. Back in the late 1950s, a large number of villages in the Mirpur region of Kashmir in Pakistan were due to be flooded as a result of the construction of a dam. The men in this region had a history of supplementing their meagre earnings by joining the British army. These men and their families were given a chance to come to the UK and fill labour shortages in industrial cities, especially in the Midlands and the North, in the steel and textile industries. They were mostly poor, uneducated, spoke little English, and were very conservative and religious. By the early 1970s, this large wave of immigration, alongside migrants from the Punjab, was finished and the British textile and steel industries were in decline. Faced with losing their jobs they moved into self employment, in particular running corner shops, takeaways, restaurants, and taxi companies. They kept themselves to themselves and remained conservative and deeply religious, and the community continued importing wives from rural villages back in their home country and family members to work in their businesses. The second generation members of these communities have not always assimilated well, being torn between their parents culture and the western culture. It is from these communities that the so-called ‘grooming gangs’ , and also a large number of suspected terrorist cells, have emerged. I also suspect that due to in-breeding they are vulnerable to low IQ and mental health issues. However, most Pakistani immigrants in more recent years have been educated, professional middle class people from urban backgrounds, including doctors, nurses, IT professionals, and university students. In addition, a very large percentage of immigration into the UK over the last decade has been from Eastern European countries rather than Muslims countries. So I should caution people trying to blame UK government ‘open-door immigration’ policies, or ‘multi-culturalism’, for the grooming gangs. The issue is more complex than that, and the communities from which these gangs originate have a long history here in the UK and it is rather too late to blame the government of 50 years ago for mistakes in importing what were, with hindsight, people who very unsuited to easily transitioning from life in rural, remote Pakistan to urban, western industrialised Britain.

    Reply

  84. @chrisdavies09:

    “People seem to be under the impression that the UK government is admitting large numbers of uneducated economic migrants from Muslim countries such as Pakistan, but this has not been the case for over 40 years.”

    Thanks for the info!

    What seems to have happened is that the first wave consisted of fairly common folk. Importing wives from home would further reduce the overall quality of immigrants. Then, in the next generation, you get regression to the mean.

    Your points notwithstanding, the problems seen in other European countries with Muslims (e.g, Germany, Scandinavian countries) seem to stem from recent immigrants.

    Reply

  85. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities are large enough to shield them from the police. Make no mistake it fear of provoking ANOTHER riot was part of what held the police back in the last 10 years. Also those communities provide a customer base for the pimps. That is why they are driving about in Bentleys. There are other Muslims ethnicities involved in the court cases, and many are indeed immigrants; the man accused of murdering a 14 year old girl (and joking about using her body to make kebabs) is from Jordan. 80% of immigration under Labour was from outside the EU. It is simply not true that current Muslim immigration consists of qualified professionals with a negligible inflow of unskilled migrants. Though it may do on paper; it does not in practice .

    Reply

  86. @chris – “Unlike the American media, which has a strong liberal bias, a large section of the British press has a strong conservative bias and generally doesn’t suppress stories for reasons of ‘political correctness’. Indeed they have covered the grooming cases quite extensively. Even the BBC, which is normally accused of left-wing bias, has covered it.”

    i think you’re wrong about this, chris. yes, there has been some coverage by the beeb and papers like the guardian, but as murray said, the reports are so short and vague that they can be called “oblique” at best. i mean, look at this latest report from the bbc. why isn’t there a boiler-plate mentioning rotherham or other known “grooming” cases? there sure as h*ll ought to be.

    and the savile scandal coverage has been HUGE compared to all of these “grooming” cases — cases, plural. where is the outrage from the public because of these multiple “grooming” cases? there is no (or little) outrage because the public just doesn’t know about it. i was there last autumn — i know. nobody that i know over there — NOBODY — and this includes some quite bright people — knew anything about rotherham. and some of them hadn’t heard about this case in oxfordshire either until i dropped it into some emails. and there was nothing on the nightly news about rotherham last autumn — not when i was there, anyway. the only national paper that covered the rotherham scandal — and the accompanying police investigation report which acknowledged that this has been an ongoing problem for at least as decade — was the times.

    if you search on google news on google.co.uk: jimmy savile scandal gets 1,910 hits (right now) and oxford exploitation trial (which is how the british press seem to be phrasing it) gets you only 550 results (oxford grooming trial only gets 105 hits). that’s practically a 4-to-1 ratio of savile-to-grooming trial stories — AND JIMMY SAVILE IS DEAD.

    Reply

  87. why the *bleep* isn’t the headline about how she was with TWO adult men when she was AGE 14?! that ought to have been the headline.

    Exactly. It is absolutely disgraceful the way the BBC reports this ( and a lot of other things). The whole thing almost makes me physically sick. If one of these dirtbags had abused my daughter i think I would be angry enough to kill them with my bare hands.

    Reply

  88. @chris – “Anyway the point I wanted to raise is that the gangs involved almost entirely comprised men of Pakistani origin, rather than being ‘Muslim gangs’. There are large numbers of Muslims of Somali, Bengali, Afghan, Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Indian, Arab, African and Malaysian origin in the UK and members of their communities appear to not have been involved in this ‘grooming’, at least not to the same extent.”

    no, not to the same extent … at least so far as we are aware at this point, but since so much has been covered up until this point, i am in “wait and see” mode.

    for the record: two of the men involved in this oxfordshire case are north african (can’t remember where from) and, iirc, the rest are pakistani. the business in rotherham involved pakistanis, iraqi kurds, and kosovans (or whatever your preferred term for them is), again mostly pakistanis i believe.

    Reply

  89. @melykin – “It is absolutely disgraceful the way the BBC reports this ( and a lot of other things).”

    yup. =/ puts me of a mind to sit down and go through all the headlines (bbc and other media outlets) to see how they read. my blood pressure really does go through the roof over all of this, though, so i don’t know if i’ll be able to. =/ somebody should.

    Reply

  90. @chris – “So I should caution people trying to blame UK government ‘open-door immigration’ policies, or ‘multi-culturalism’, for the grooming gangs.”

    i’m not blaming the uk government’s “open-door immigration” policies for the grooming gangs. i’m blaming immigration, full-stop.

    if the uk hadn’t had any pakistani immigrants, you wouldn’t have pakistani “grooming” gangs. it really is that simple.

    Reply

  91. The 14-yr-old was one of those “who [his] right hand [possessed]” (her status as a kaffir was “slave”).

    Reply

  92. @chris – “However, most Pakistani immigrants in more recent years have been educated, professional middle class people from urban backgrounds, including doctors, nurses, IT professionals, and university students.”

    you need to provide a link for that.

    from wikipedia, i’ve got 1,125,000 pakistanis in britain, and 55% of them were living in poverty as of 2007. that doesn’t sound like enough doctors and computer geeks to me.

    also, in 2008, 7,050 brides were imported to britain from pakistan [pdf]. and let me tell you, a LOT of those are cousin marriages. you’ve got a chain migration problem there.

    Reply

  93. @melykin – “This strays from the original topic , but is perhaps related to non-familial altruism. It was, I believe, in the UK that the idea of keeping dogs as pets ( as opposed to working dogs or status symbols) arose. Also the idea of treating animals humanely. The RSPCA, which I believe was formed around the time the anti slavery movement in Britain was active in the early 19th century.”

    yes, i’ve had this in the back of my head for a while now, too — that those populations having a lot of “extra-familial altruism” genes (whatever they are) might extend those sentiments towards other species more than inbred/familial populations. big nose kate suggested this in a comment somewhere as well.

    i sorta looked into this late one saturday night over a glass (or two) of wine — did a little googling — and i found (it was on wikipedia somewhere) that the earliest established animal rights, rspca-type organization was founded in denmark in 18-something-or-other. need to go back and look at this properly one day. i think there might be something there.

    woof! (^_^)

    Reply

  94. @luke – “One of the real differences I have with hbd’chick (difference isn’t really the right word though) is over the question of whether extra genes for altruism are selected for in inbred societies. I am dubious on that point. Why? Well, for one thing, because people who move from inbred to outbred societies — the Scotch for example in England — seem to become like everybody else.”

    1) first you have to distinguish between lowland scots and highland scots. big difference there in their respective histories of inbreeding. then i think you need to visit glasgow sometime. (~_^) and make sure to get to know some of the locals.

    2) do peoples from inbred societies really become just like anglos when they move to outbred societies? i don’t think so. they might stop battling the neighboring clans because there are no more neighboring clans (except in appalachia), but their “clannishness” gets expressed in other ways: corruption, nepotism, patronage-systems, etc. see: most of the posts on this blog over the last year or two. (^_^)

    @luke – “Notice however that their are no clan-type loyalties in the ghetto. People shoot people almost randomly.”

    really? i thought that’s what gangs were all about? clannish feelings being expressed in the absence of having clans.

    @luke – Where were the English and Scotch gangs?”

    there were no english gangs because they’re not clannish! dunno about scottish gangs.

    Reply

  95. Didn’t I read a story in the press recently about Kurdish gangs in Germany that are so *bad* even the police and judiciary are afraid of them?

    Reply

  96. @luke – “With no real families, family loyalty is not really an issue (except don’t you dare insult my mother — there is this residual).”

    i think you’re missing my larger point.

    sure, if you take one of my “clannish” people out of their clan and plunk them down somewhere else, they’re not going to exhibit any family loyalty because there’s no family present.

    what they’re still going to do, though, i think, is express (on average) “clannish” behaviors: they’re going to favor their own — whoever they happen to identify with — over others. they’re going to be nepotistic — but maybe give jobs to their friends rather than to actual nephews. they’re going to be corrupt and being willing to pay bribes — they’re going to expect that that’s the way that it’s done and feel ok with that. etc., etc.

    look — i spent several years associating almost only with latinos (mostly mexicans). great people! lots of fun. but, they’re just i describe above — away from home with no nephews or second cousins to be “clannish” with — and yet i found almost ALL of them to be corrupt in one way or another (there were a handful of exceptions — three, actually, that i can think of). now, most of the “corruption” that i witnessed among mexicans in the u.s. was small-time stuff: low-level insurance fraud, stealing the toilet paper from work, going behind normal, offficial channels whenever possible to get a deal on something (you know the sort of thing: a friends works somewhere and he can get the item cheap, wholesale … possibly fallen off the back of a truck).

    this is in stark, stark contrast to what i experienced growing up in the midwest where people have (had) vegetable stands where you paid by the honor system.

    all of THAT (above) is what i mean by “clannish” — not just literally looking after your own clan. sure, that’s how it worked “back home” ’cause the clan was present — but all of the related “clannish” behaviors are brought along into new worlds. why? (i think there’s something genetic here. (^_^) )

    Reply

  97. Speaking of which, I have never heard of German gangs in America either. Has anyone else? They were a late-coming minority (unlike the English) so you might expect to see gang activities in the second-generation in their new-found communities around Philadelphia at least. If not this might be because many of them were Mennonite refugees from the Palatinate, who came over by the thousands. Or maybe it was just because they were outbred Germans, which I guess is what hbd*chick thinks most likely.

    Reply

  98. @luke – “Or maybe it was just because they were outbred Germans, which I guess is what hbd*chick thinks most likely.”

    yup! (~_^)

    i have heard about (read about) nineteenth century irish and polish gangs (in chicago). carried switch-blades. =/

    Reply

  99. I have heard of Jewish gangs in early-20th-century Detroit (the Purple gang was one; they used Yiddish to keep the cops clueless), but no German gentile gangs.

    Reply

  100. @luke – “What do other members of this thread think about themselves in this regard. It’s just a thought experiment — or imagination experiment I guess you would call it. Family is important no matter who you are.”

    well, i can tell you how it feels to be a little clannish creature brought up amongst the outbreeders. (^_^)

    i’m not given to corruption — my father is very square about such things and would never cheat (i think i take after him), but my mother, otoh … kinda like my mexican friends above. other family back in “the old country” — plenty of low-level corrupt behaviors amongst at least half of them.

    anyway — pew keeps telling me that i’m a libertarian, although i don’t think i am. but what i do hate is big government. HATE big government. i don’t want any government interference in my life! or as little as possible anyway. (~_^) and libertarianism seems to, perhaps, be something that middle-range inbreeders are fond of (i.e. not the arabs, but the scots-irish). maybe.

    another personality trait — it really is a quirk — a quirky quirk! — that i, personally, have is that i get way more annoyed and indignant when someone i care about is threatened in some way than when i am. pick on me on the playground, and i’m likely just to shrug my shoulders and try to get away — pick on a friend of mine, and i turn into a completely irrational, bulldog-like protector, and everybody better just back the f*ck off. (~_^) it is a very weird personality trait that i could never understand in myself (normally i’m really quiet and shy, believe it or not) — but it starts to make a little sense to me, if it’s got something to do with “clannishness.”

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “and libertarianism seems to, perhaps, be something that middle-range inbreeders are fond of (i.e. not the arabs, but the scots-irish). maybe.” I thought it was here that I read that libertarians tended to be southern males, Scotch Irish in my teminology. The best size of government is just big enough to keep something worse from coming along. I feel comfortable with that.
      “pick on a friend of mine, and i turn into a completely irrational, bulldog-like protector, and everybody better just back the f*ck off. (~_^) it is a very weird personality trait ” Good for you. Try to stay out of jail. That feels right to me also, but I must admit (look down, shuffle, mumble, laugh inappropriately) they don’t pick on my friends or family much. We pull rank. Seriously we went to a perfomance of Christmas Carol wearing top hats. We looked more at home in them than the actors did. On the other hand, pick on somebody who seems vulnerable to me in my presence and heavy heavy hangs over your head. I’ve even had one such person ask, after the fact, what the heck my problem was. He was so used to being stepped on he didn’t even notice. His tormentor was somebody the social scientists would call high status. You’re right about the reaction: instantaneous, irrational, headlong … It’s not a good way to curry favor with the mighty of the earth.

      Reply

  101. @jayman – “I agree while I understand exactly what HBD Chick means, calling NW Euro outbred altruism ‘reciprocal altruism’ is not exactly the perfect name.

    ‘Extra-familial altrusim’ is probably not quite ideal either….”

    yeah. need a new phrase!

    Reply

  102. i said: “this is in stark, stark contrast to what i experienced growing up in the midwest where people have (had) vegetable stands where you paid by the honor system.”

    my own, favorite story of how things work amongst the outbred, commonweal-oriented populations of nw europe comes from when i worked for this jewish lawyer once-upon-a-time. he wanted to order a copy of his birth-certificate from a midwestern state, and the cost was $10. rather than write a check, he just stuck a ten-dollar bill in the envelope.

    a couple of weeks later, when the copy of the birth-certificate came, there were two quarters taped to the receipt. (^_^)

    we laughed so hard about that — and had a very interesting, long conversation about corruption and different sorts of peoples and stuff. this was in california, and we both agreed that that fifty cents would most likely NOT have been in an envelope coming from sacramento. (~_^)

    Reply

  103. @mr. rational – “Even without the threat of amputation of hands and feet, stoning or beheading, the personality cult can be very powerful.”

    sure. but just as some individuals are more likely to be drawn into personality cults, i’d bet that that some populations, on average, are more likely to be drawn towards personality cults than others. different peoples is different. (^_^)

    Reply

  104. @linton – “Coincidentally, I just got a letter from a renouned authorty reminding me that we are all family. We share half our genes with pumpkins.”

    well, sure. but, at the same time, and contrary to popular belief, i’m not a pumpkin! (~_^) nor am i an arab or a yanomamo, etc., etc. differences, however slight, are still differences.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “i’m not a pumpkin!” True. True indeed. Although I think you would have made an excellent one. Rather fancy being a turnip myself. There’s something about turnips and pumpkins being our cousins; like save yourself before one pumpkin but save three pumpkins before yourself. I’m not sure I have the logic straight. You don’t suppose I’m a tree hugger, do you?

      Reply

  105. @linton – “Outbred beyond the call of sanity, if you will.”

    yes. your own lineage may be outbred, but what sort of population(s) do you (did your ancestors) come from? long-term inbreeders or long-term outbreeders? if you answer “scots-irish” then you are more of an inbred character than an outbred one.

    @linton – “Were someone to do deliberate harm to a member of my family that I knew and knew the connection to … I’d react like a wild Sheik of the desert. At least that’s what I find when I consult my feelings. Fortunately no occasion has arisen. Maybe it’s a Southern thing. But I cannot remember anybody having mentioned anything of the sort to me, so how in the world I might have got indoctrinated I have no idea….”

    “clannish”/inbreeder traits, imho.

    @linton – “You’re right about the reaction: instantaneous, irrational, headlong…”

    it is! it’s completely irrational and very, very difficult to control. tempermental. (~_^) and, yes, i tend to side with the underdog, too.

    @linton – “It’s not a good way to curry favor with the mighty of the earth.”

    no, it’s not.

    @linton – “Good for you. Try to stay out of jail.”

    heh! (^_^) yes, so far i’ve been lucky. (~_^) so far….

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “but what sort of population(s) do you (did your ancestors) come from? long-term inbreeders or long-term outbreeders?” Well in living memory nobody has ever married traceable kin. However we are talking about dozens of different ancestors, and the degree to which each was inbreeding (well they all had to do it to a certain extent of course) is beyond me, as is the relative weighting of each in my ancestry. I think it would be fair to say that with that many crosses in the line, each society probably was on average pretty tolerant of outbreeding.
      Sorry, I cringe when I say that. I should say “relative outbreeding” or maybe “judicious outbreeding.” Abosolute outbreeding isn’t possible, even with pumpkins.
      Can we agree that trying to start a family with a pumpkin would be unlikely to be successful?

      Reply

  106. @luke – “dear hbd*chick — can’t you enable editing? I embarrass myself continuously.”

    i don’t think that’s possible on wordpress, unfortunately. i’ll poke around in the controls, though, and see if i see anything.

    Reply

  107. @linton – “…save yourself before one pumpkin but save three pumpkins before yourself….”

    (^_^) (^_^) (^_^)

    that’s the funniest thing i’ve read all week! thanks for that! (^_^)

    Reply

  108. just as some individuals are more likely to be drawn into personality cults, i’d bet that that some populations, on average, are more likely to be drawn towards personality cults than others.

    The one which trains its members to be willing to kill off all the adherents of its competitors unless they bow down and admit its superiority is going to have just a bit of an advantage.

    different peoples is different. (^_^)

    Swords and stones work remarkably similarly with all of them, though.

    contrary to popular belief, i’m not a pumpkin!

    Excuse me, ma’am, but I’m going to have to see your Animal Kingdom membership card.

    Reply

  109. @jayman – “While, traditionally speaking, the ‘Dixie’ realm of the U.S. was settled by people who had more clan loyalties than those who settled the Old North, Red Staters don’t seem to be necessarily very extended family-centric (at least, outside of the deepest parts of Appalachia). I’ve gotten the impression that in many parts of the U.S. South and West, the individual is on his own. Perhaps there is something to that, perhaps the clan loyalty system needs to be salient in a society for truly extended family-centric behaviors to rear their heads.

    Perhaps these people would drift towards clannishness but the ‘institutions’ in the States discourage this?”

    need to look more at the red-staters — like texans, for instance — see what’s going on there. remind me! (^_^)

    Reply

  110. @linton – “Well in living memory nobody has ever married traceable kin.”

    nope. you’re still talking about lineages. forget lineages. what population (or populations) did your ancestors come from?

    highland scots? – inbreeders.
    lowland scots/scots-irish? – inbreeders, but not as much as the highland scots.
    border reivers? – pretty inbred.
    southern english? – long-term outbreeders.
    saudi arabia? – very long-term inbreeders — and very close inbreeders.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “forget lineages. what population (or populations) did your ancestors come from?” Well for starters, Welsh, southern English, Northern English, Ulster, Dutch, Frizian, highland Scots, lowland Scots, Scandinavian (Goth I suspect), northern French, southern French, German, Salic Frank, Italian, Catalan, Chaldean, Yankee, then it begins to get kind of weird. No Greek. Sorry about that. There ought to be Greek.

      Reply

  111. @linton – “…Welsh, southern English, Northern English, Ulster, Dutch, Frizian, highland Scots, lowland Scots, Scandinavian (Goth I suspect), northern French, southern French, German, Salic Frank, Italian, Catalan, Chaldean, Yankee…”

    good heavens! you’re a mutt! (^_^)

    here are my guesstimates:

    long & recent history of inbreeding
    – Welsh
    – Northern English
    – Ulster
    – Frizian
    – highland Scots
    – Chaldean

    not quite so long history of inbreeding as above group
    – lowland Scots
    – Scandinavian (Goth I suspect)
    – Catalan

    long history of outbreeding
    – southern English
    – Dutch
    – northern French
    – German (depends, tho – some small groups of inbreeders like the ditmarsians)
    – Salic Frank
    – Yankee

    dunno – possibly an inbreeding group
    – southern French

    depends on north vs. south
    – Italian

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “good heavens! you’re a mutt!” Woof! (^_^) And it gets more complicated than that besideds leaving out a bunch I don’t remember well and having no idea about relative contributions. Each of those were stratified societies with presumably different mating strategies at different levels. Take Scotand; highland Scot includes Clan Bruce, which was royal at one time and goes back to Aflred the Great where you are in Southen England again and Campbell of Argyle, which does not. Different strategies there, I would say and of course quite different from the dirt farming lowland ancestors most likely. .

      Reply

  112. What do you mean by “recent” history of inbreeding? I don’t believe there has been inbreeding in Britain for several hundred years. Do you have links?

    I just googled and found this about the Highlands in an article called “Honour killings: when blood feuds ruled the clans” (it is a BBC article but the subject matter isn’t controversial in the PC sense )

    ” a time of clan and family vendettas … reached a chaotic height in the 1590s.”…
    ” Keith Brown, author of Bloodfeud in Scotland 1573-1625, believes that at least 390 feuds ravaged the peace of the nation.”…

    “With the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the “auld monster o deidly feud”, as described by James VI, declined.

    Social changes such as a focus on the nuclear family rather than the extended kindred after the Reformation, the rise of the state and the spread of law and commerce were also influential in bringing this violent period to a close.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/21431934

    Reply

  113. The Cultural Impact of the Highland Clearances

    “The Clearances undoubtedly stemmed in part from the attempt by the British establishment to destroy, once and for all, the archaic, militaristic Clan System, which had facilitated the Jacobite risings of the early part of the 18th century. “…

    Before the Clearances, most Highland families lived in such townships, in a kind of collective, or joint-tenancy farm, housing perhaps a hundred or so people, who were often kinsfolk. The buildings were substantial, but used materials alien to us in the western world today. The walls were of clay and wattle, or of thickly cut turf, with or without a leavening of rough stones, and the roofs were thatched in heather, broom, bracken, straw or rushes.

    Once they were cleared, these structures quickly reverted to nature. And little or nothing was to replace them in the new economic order. In one glen near where I live, I can find traces of six or seven such townships, housing perhaps 500 or more people. View the landscape today, and you will see a couple of stone-built houses for the shepherds. They too are now abandoned, and the glen stands empty.”

    —————————————————–
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/scotland_clearances_01.shtml

    I added the bolding, since the townships seem like the sort of places where inbreeding could occur. The townships were cleared out in the later part of the 18th and early 19th centuries.

    Reply

  114. @melykin – “What do you mean by ‘recent’ history of inbreeding? I don’t believe there has been inbreeding in Britain for several hundred years. Do you have links?”

    yes. LOTS of them. see the “mating patterns in europe series” below (↓) in left-hand column, in particular the posts under english and scotland.

    there hasn’t been a lot of inbreeding in england for several hundreds of years (starting in the early medieval period), but there was regular inbreeding in places like the highlands of scotland up until probably the 1800s. 1700s definitely. and the border regions, too.

    Reply

    1. If inbreeding in Scotland disappeared with the clans before 1800 then it has been gone for two hundred years. I suppose that is recent compared to some places. But it isn’t in the same league as Pakistan.

      Reply

  115. @melykin – “But it isn’t in the same league as Pakistan.”

    no, absolutely not. inbreeding is ongoing in pakistan (and all those muslim areas of the world), whereas it stopped, or definitely slowed down a LOT, in the highlands of scotland probably in the 1800s (maybe early 1900s in some remote corners) — from my cursory readings i think the date range is actually more like 1700s.

    also, cousin marriage may not have been as regular or frequent in scotland as it is in pakistan today. 50%+ of marriages in pakistan today are between first or second cousins (or closer like double-first cousins). not sure what the frequencies were in scotland, but the one clan genealogy that i have seen suggests that the rates throughout the medieval period were much lower – more on the order of 30%.

    finally, the preferred form of cousin marriage in pakistan (and saudi arabia and that whole part of the world) is this father’s brother’s daughter’s (fbd) marriage i keep going on about — and the significance of that is that it leads to even greater inbreeding than other forms of cousin marriage (because it leads to more double-first cousin marriages). i doubt that the scots were focused on fbd marriage. it’s very unlikely since most peoples in most parts of the world who do marry cousins choose to marry their maternal cousins. the fbd-ers of the world (i.e. arabs and middle easterners, north africans and pakistanis and afghanis) are the odd ones out.

    so the highland scots are (or were) clannish, but the pakistanis (and peoples like the arabs) are tribal (i.e. more clannish than just clannish!). it’s a gradient thing.

    Reply

  116. @melykin – note from that first bbc article (great one, btw – thanks!):

    “Among those fighting, or continuing to ‘bang it out bravely’, were the Lindsays and Ogilvies in Angus in the 1400s, the Cunninghames and Montgomeries in Ayrshire in the 1520s, and Highland clans such as the McDonalds and Mcleans almost in perpetuity.”

    (~_^)

    Reply

  117. HDB-Chick — When you say our elite don’t care because of class, that isn’t the full picture. Someone called Sue Berelowitz conducted an enquiry into the sexual abuse of children in the UK and concluded that it was a problem in all “communities” and was committed by men of all races. Which is true, but ignores some interesting statistical patterns and some interesting increases in the problem due to certain factors. Before that, someone called Lady Stern conducted an enquiry into rape, which is another serious problem here, particularly in our vibrant multicultural cities, for one reason or another. Lady Stern reached similarly unspecific conclusions about the roots of the problem.

    There’s food for HBD thought there. But one has to be careful, in the UK, about drawing one’s own conclusions about the possible motives of Mesdames Berelowitz und Stern. We have laws against reckless and immoral thinking. Thanks to people who have the welfare of the white British just as much at heart as those two ladies of the elite.

    Reply

  118. Two quick questions (I have more but I don’t have the time at the moment):

    1, You state the Southern English have a history of outbreeding. If you haven’t done already could you provide a link?

    I have an unusual surname and 150+ years ago you could only find this surname in one single county in the South of England. Somehow, some people with my surname got to the USA and fought in the war of 1812 and also in the US Civil War – but that’s not the point. The point is, all of them stuck in one county in Southern England since records began doesn’t look much like outbreeding does it? I thought most people didn’t get around until the coming of the railways which would fit with all my namesakes stuck in one county.

    2, Assuming you are correct (in that the Southern English are an outbreeding population whereas the rest of the British population are less so) could that possibly explain the tendency amongst the Southern English to vote conservative/libertarian compared to the rest of the UK?

    Also, I have to admit Southern England does have a different culture to the rest of the UK – some connection maybe?

    Reply

  119. @working class englishman – “You state the Southern English have a history of outbreeding. If you haven’t done already could you provide a link?”

    check out my “mating patterns in europe” series in left-hand column below (↓) — i’ve got a section on the english. (^_^)

    these two posts…

    more on consanguinity in england (and scotland)

    consanguinity in england – north vs. south

    …sum up a lot of the available data for england (and scotland) from ca. the 1700s and onwards, but you really want to start by reading my posts on the anglo-saxons, because that’s when the english — or the people who would become the english — began outbreeding (i.e. avoiding marrying their cousins — more than most other populations on the planet).

    @working class englishman – “I have an unusual surname and 150+ years ago you could only find this surname in one single county in the South of England.”

    cool!

    @working class englishman – “The point is, all of them stuck in one county in Southern England since records began doesn’t look much like outbreeding does it?”

    yes, but now you’re thinking about only the male side of your lineage (i.e. your surname). who were all the women that your male ancestors married? were they often first or second cousins like pakistanis today? i can tell you right now that they weren’t because for long periods of time in english history, neither the church nor secular laws allowed it. and at some point it became socially unacceptable, too.

    @working class englishman – “I thought most people didn’t get around until the coming of the railways which would fit with all my namesakes stuck in one county.”

    no, not really. you’d be surprised. people in the middle ages in england actually moved around quite a bit, in part (probably) because of the marriage prohibitions (i.e. no first, second, third — and at some point sixth! — cousin marriage)

    Reply

  120. I wouldn’t say *all* of the southern English have a history of outbreeding. It seems (judging from what I’ve read previously and the behaviors of such inhabitants) that those in southwest England (headed towards Wessex and Cornwall) seems to have been inbreeding more frequently than those farther east…

    This was the primary source region for the inhabitants of the American Tidewater and Deep South…

    Reply

  121. @jayman – “I wouldn’t say *all* of the southern English have a history of outbreeding.”

    yeah. central and southeast. i have a tendency of thinking of the southeast of england as “the south” — and places like cornwall as being in the west. (^_^)

    Reply

  122. I was looking at HLA Class I haplotypes for Southern Irish, Northern Irish, Welsh, Cornish, North West English, and a generic ‘British’ population . The Southern Irish, Northern Irish, Welsh, and Cornish populations all cluster together very closely with similar frequencies of the same haplotypes. Whereas the generic British [people with various regional backgrounds] exhibit higher frequencies of other haplotypes found less frequently in those ‘celtic’ populations but much more frequently in other populations including the French. I could list these haplotypes but don’t wish to bore anybody.

    Reply

  123. hbd* chick wrote: “pick on a friend of mine, and i turn into a completely irrational, bulldog-like protector,”

    I think there is something about this in the game theory/hbd literature: over-the-top reactions to enforce norms, which makes no sense to the person doing it (very costly) but somehow is part of a stable strategy. Whether it is group selection or kin selection I don’t know.

    [btw, this has got to be the longest thread ever — all because you touched a nerve.]

    Reply

  124. Linton Herbert:

    highland scots? – inbreeders.
    lowland scots/scots-irish? – inbreeders, but not as much as the highland scots.
    border reivers? – pretty inbred.
    southern english? – long-term outbreeders.
    saudi arabia? – very long-term inbreeders — and very close inbreeders

    Don’t mess with Linton.

    I did my own family tree on ancestry.com recently. Half my ancestors were English divided between Virginia and New England (more than I expected), 20 percent Pennsylvania Dutch (ie Mennonites from Rhineland), 10 percent real Dutch Protestants from Holland, and 10 percent Scotts-Irish or pure Scott (which was less than I expected based on family oral tradition, in which one line of descent spoke the loudest). As you would expect there were no cousin marriages except in the Scottish line, where I counted several.

    Reply

  125. BTW, I am reading Bernard Bailyn’s The Barbarous Years right now. A fantastic story, supplements (and modifies) The Seeds of Albion nicely. There was a lot of natural selection going on, sort of like hitting the Normandy beaches, unbelievable mortality rates and, yes, barbarity — though I would say the Indians started it.

    Reply

  126. “anyway — pew keeps telling me that i’m a libertarian, although i don’t think i am. but what i do hate is big government. HATE big government. i don’t want any government interference in my life! or as little as possible anyway. (~_^) and libertarianism seems to, perhaps, be something that middle-range inbreeders are fond of (i.e. not the arabs, but the scots-irish). maybe.”

    I think you need to separate Libertarian ideology from Libertarian policy positions; agreeing with (at least some of) the latter doesn’t mean you agree with the former. Libertarians are stridently ideological; they love growth, they love mass society, they love efficiency, and they love–practically worship–the free market. These are not really “middle-range inbreeder” ideals. Middle-range inbreeders probably oppose big government simply because they have little faith in extra-familial authority; they are usually fine with authoritarianism within the clan, in fact prefer it. Libertarians oppose big government because they believe that things like “freedom” are valuable in and of themselves and their ideology is the only means to provide it, and therefore should be applied at all times everywhere–Utopian ideals, typical W.E.I.R.D. shit.

    Reply

  127. WCE
    “The point is, all of them stuck in one county in Southern England since records began doesn’t look much like outbreeding does it?”

    It’s relative rather than absolute – like a score out of 10. The idea is that people who are at 1 on the inbreeding-outbreeding scale will be different in various ways from those who score a 5 or a 7 or a 9. It’s not a yes/no thing.

    .
    “When you say our elite don’t care because of class, that isn’t the full picture”

    PC has ensured that very publically and overtly caring when the victims / perpetrators are the politically correct way round brings high political and career rewards.

    At the same time it has also made caring when the victims / perpetrators are the politically *incorrect* way round has a very high cost.

    People who cared lost their jobs, got transferred, had their career cards marked etc. The class difference – which to a certain extent is an ethnic sub-division – makes it easier for people to live with themselves but the lack of caring itself is driven by the negative consequences of caring.

    Reply

  128. WCE
    “The Historian Corelli Barnett in his book The Collapse of British Power blames 19th Century evangelical Christianity for Britain’s demise and its easy to see a direct link from there to here.”

    Britain had a massive head-start in the industrial race because Britain invented it. Britain’s *relative* power was always guaranteed to decline as other nations caught up.

    .
    Bill
    “What’s the evidence for these genes for reciprocal altruism? I’ve heard people suggest that people adopting black babies or donating to Africa is an example of reciprocal altruism. But that isn’t reciprocal altruism.”

    It doesn’t have to be. A *mechanism* for reciprocal altruism that developed in one environment might lead to distorted behavior in a different context.

    .
    “Adopting a strange baby wouldn’t have been reciprocal altruism in the past either.”

    People adopting the orphaned children of their relatives would be. So if people evolve a mechanism for doing that e.g. empathy, which was adaptive in the context of a small valley where everyone was related but then you shift the mechanism to a modern context with massive media manipulation e.g. endless pictures of starving african children, that empathy can be redirected.

    Reply

  129. well, you seem to be all focused on adopting an unrelated baby, but i’ve never actually used that as an example of what i’ve been talking about.

    I’m using it because it’s a salient example.

    i’ve been calling reciprocal altruism simply because, the way i see it, people in these populations don’t concentrate most of their altruistic energies on family but, rather, simply towards anybody in their society. i’ve been referring to it as reciprocal altruism because the only way i can imagine it having evolved was that, on the whole, people got paid back for their altruistic behaviors toward non-family in some way or another, i.e. reciprocal altruism.

    Reciprocal altruism doesn’t mean non-family altruism. Reciprocal altruism is claimed to require detection of cheating i.e. non-repayment and punishment and non-cooperation following cheating in order to evolve.

    Do the behaviors you’re referring to as reciprocal altruism involve expectation of repayment, detection of cheating, punishment and non-cooperation following cheating?

    For example, I don’t believe donating food to the homeless would be reciprocal altruism. There is no expectation of repayment, no attempt to detect cheating. People who donate to the homeless don’t punish the homeless and stop donating because they haven’t been paid back.

    Reply

  130. People adopting the orphaned children of their relatives would be. So if people evolve a mechanism for doing that e.g. empathy, which was adaptive in the context of a small valley where everyone was related but then you shift the mechanism to a modern context with massive media manipulation e.g. endless pictures of starving african children, that empathy can be redirected.

    That would be kin altruism, not reciprocal altruism.

    You are correct about altruism being manipulated, but my point is that what’s being manipulated is kin altruism, not reciprocal altruism. It’s no accident that religions and political movements play upon kin altruism, right down to the language of kinship (e.g. “brothers in Christ”, “Muslim Brotherhood”, “International Brotherhood of Teamsters”, etc.) Contemporary political correctness and egalitarianism do the same thing. By denying or downplaying biology, they imply that everyone is equally kin.

    Reply

  131. @bill – “For example, I don’t believe donating food to the homeless would be reciprocal altruism. There is no expectation of repayment, no attempt to detect cheating. People who donate to the homeless don’t punish the homeless and stop donating because they haven’t been paid back.”

    no, but you’re taking a very narrow view of it. point is, the kind of peoples who — on average — donate to the unrelated homeless imagine, somewhere in the back of their heads, maybe not consciously, that they would be treated the same by others in their society if they wound up in the same position (i.e. homeless).

    unfortunately, they fail to imagine that there are other sorts of peoples out there in the world who will take the donated food and run … and never, ever “pay it forward” as it were.

    what i’ve been trying to get at is the type of altruism that’s required to get a society based around the commonweal — a commonweal of non-family. like in england. as opposed to societies based around members focusing their altruistic acts towards the family, clan, tribe, etc.

    like i said, i’m not wedded to the term “reciprocal altruism” for what i’m talking about. if you can offer up a better one, please do.

    Reply

  132. Bill
    “That would be kin altruism, not reciprocal altruism.”

    I agree the terminology may need work but i think what we’re talking about here is half and half because – if the idea is correct – there would have to have been a process.

    Say you start off with standard kin altruism where kin is defined quite closely. Then the cousin ban starts to effect people – assuming it does – and their relatedness to their closest relatives decreases but at the same time their average relatedness to their wider community increases.

    So i think what we are calling reciprocal altruism would start off – if it did – as newer forms of kin altruism for a newly diluted kin network i.e. a method of compensating for that dilution, which because the number of diluted kin was substantially larger than the previous number of close kin actually turned out to be adaptive for reasons of synergy.

    So reciprocal altruism would be a *mechanism* for mimicing kin altruism.

    .
    “You are correct about altruism being manipulated, but my point is that what’s being manipulated is kin altruism, not reciprocal altruism.”

    Well if so then pictures of starving african children should have the same average effect on all ethnic groups? In my experience that’s not even remotely true.

    WEIRD populations are far more effected by stuff like that than other groups on average. That’s not to say the people more affected actually *care* more just that they have some trait which makes them more effected. Personally they make me angry now as i see it as a deliberate attempt to manipulate me but i’m still being *effected* more than a non-WEIRD person might be (on average).

    And if WEIRD populations do have some trait(s) that lead to them being more easily manipulated in that way then that something would need a name different to kin altruism.

    .
    “By denying or downplaying biology, they imply that everyone is equally kin.”

    Yes that is the logical part of the manipulation but i think the core is emotive.

    .
    “For example, I don’t believe donating food to the homeless would be reciprocal altruism. There is no expectation of repayment, no attempt to detect cheating. People who donate to the homeless don’t punish the homeless and stop donating because they haven’t been paid back.”

    True but again we come back to the possibility of a mechanism developed for one context being misapplied in a different context. For example what if one part of the mechanism is signalling?

    Or perhaps more interestingly what if one part of the evolved mechanism was guilt? Guilt could be very adaptive in a village where it makes you help someone fix his roof before the winter and he gives you a cow when yours dies but only if you *both* have it.

    Reply

    1. @ Greying Wanderer “Guilt could be very adaptive in a village where it makes you help someone fix his roof before the winter and he gives you a cow when yours dies but only if you *both* have it.”
      Mohammed started out his career because of his outrage that the urbanizing Arabs of his time were neglecting the strict obligations of tradition. Poor people were neglected. In the desert they were never neglected. A prinicple duty of the Sheik was to see to that. It was probably rare for anybody to go his whole life without at some point needing help. Desert warriors are fierce, but the desert is fiercer.
      As we all know, a bunch of young men took the American ambassador to Libya out for dinner. The fed him, entertained him and made sure he got home safely. Then they … same guys I understand … attacked, captured him, tortured him, sodomized him, murdered him and dragged his body through the streets. You just don’t trifle with the laws of hospitality no matter what kind of monster you are. I’ve read, ‘In the Arab world it’s not “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s more like “The enemy of my enemy is probably my enemy, too.” ‘ That’s an understatement. My friend is quite possibly my enemy.
      I think that has come up in Scotland as well. I had a friend who wore a tee shirt saying, “To our friends, may God bless them. And to our enemies, may God turn their hearts. And if their hearts be not turned, may He turn there ankles so we can know them by their limping.” The shirt had a picture of a highlander smirking at an Englsih soldier with a bandaged ankle. My friend was adamant that the joke of the motto was not about the perfidy of friends, but it sounds like it to me.
      I haven’t heard of Scottish hospitality particularly, but I suspect it was there in the the form of the, now legendary and almost mythical but once real, Southern hospitatity.

      Reply

  133. @luke – “One of the real differences I have with hbd’chick (difference isn’t really the right word though) is over the question of whether extra genes for altruism are selected for in inbred societies.”

    it is predicted. (^_^)

    Reply

  134. no, but you’re taking a very narrow view of it. point is, the kind of peoples who — on average — donate to the unrelated homeless imagine, somewhere in the back of their heads, maybe not consciously, that they would be treated the same by others in their society if they wound up in the same position (i.e. homeless).

    I’m not taking a narrow view of it. I’m describing what reciprocal altruism is.

    A man who helps his brother also consciously or subconsciously thinks that his brother would do the same for him if or when he needs help. People think this way when they imagine a sense of shared kinship.

    unfortunately, they fail to imagine that there are other sorts of peoples out there in the world who will take the donated food and run … and never, ever “pay it forward” as it were.

    Homeless people everywhere don’t pay back people who have given them food or money. Which is why helping the homeless isn’t an expression of reciprocal altruism.

    like i said, i’m not wedded to the term “reciprocal altruism” for what i’m talking about. if you can offer up a better one, please do.

    Reciprocal altruism isn’t just a term. It’s a theory of a certain kind of altruism.

    My view is that they’re expressions of kin altruism.

    Reply

  135. Well if so then pictures of starving african children should have the same average effect on all ethnic groups? In my experience that’s not even remotely true.

    I don’t see why they should have the same effect on all ethnic groups. And ethnic groups don’t share the same environment.

    And if WEIRD populations do have some trait(s) that lead to them being more easily manipulated in that way then that something would need a name different to kin altruism.

    It would be consistent with kin altruism. You wouldn’t need some additional or different form of altruism to explain it. Kin altruism is sufficient. If there were some wealthy family that was susceptible to hypnosis, and you hypnotized them into thinking that you were a son and an heir of the family, you wouldn’t need a different form of altruism to explain why they start treating you like a son and give you a part of the family fortune.

    Reply

  136. @bill – “People think this way when they imagine a sense of shared kinship.”

    so you think that nw europeans — the english, for example — simply imagine that they share kinship with one another, and that’s why they are altruistic towards most everyone in their societies rather than to just their family/kin/clan members?

    @bill – “Homeless people everywhere don’t pay back people who have given them food or money. Which is why helping the homeless isn’t an expression of reciprocal altruism.”

    you didn’t read, or missed, what i said:

    “the kind of peoples who — on average — donate to the unrelated homeless imagine, somewhere in the back of their heads, maybe not consciously, that they would be treated the same by others in their society if they wound up in the same position (i.e. homeless).”

    nw europeans, i think, tend to think or feel or expect that the system is a sort-of “pay-it-forward” one, i.e. NOT that the homeless person will repay them, but that they will be similarly treated BY SOMEONE ELSE if the need arises.

    and, btw, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that nw europeans — w.e.i.r.d. people — are, in fact, often operating under reciprocal altruism rules, i.e. in which others are punished if they don’t play by the altruism rules, whilst other peoples — not so much. see this article, for instance.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick: ” NOT that the homeless person will repay them, but that they will be similarly treated BY SOMEONE ELSE if the need arises.” I do believe that Mark Twain said, “If you find a dog that is starving and make it comfortable and well fed; it will not bite you; this is the principle difference between dogs and men.” I think he would have agreed with you.

      Reply

  137. The Daily Mail often has articles about people who abuse the social safety net, often by outright fraud. Most of these people are not native Brits. A lot of outrage is expressed in the comments sections of such articles. There is a lot of anger that their taxes are going to support these cheaters. The commentators often mention how unfair it is that these people (often foreigners) take from the system but never pay into it.

    Maybe a socialist type system with a strong social safety net simply won’t work unless everybody plays by the rules. When you have different ethnic groups it just won’t work. Maybe this is why there is so much outrage about Obamacare. White people don’t want their taxes to pay to support a huge underclass of blacks and Mexicans who don’t play by the rules (that is, don’t pay their fair share). When Canada brought in free health care in the early sixties it was an almost entirely white country.

    Reply

  138. @melykin – “Maybe a socialist type system with a strong social safety net simply won’t work unless everybody plays by the rules. When you have different ethnic groups it just won’t work. Maybe this is why there is so much outrage about Obamacare. White people don’t want their taxes to pay to support a huge underclass of blacks and Mexicans who don’t play by the rules (that is, don’t pay their fair share). When Canada brought in free health care in the early sixties it was an almost entirely white country.”

    yes, to all of that. unfortunately. i wish the world worked differently, and that we could “all just get along,” but i’m afraid that it just doesn’t. =/

    check out this site, mel — make sure you’re sitting down:

    http://muslimrapewave.wordpress.com/

    =/

    Reply

  139. @melykin – “I should mention that the native population in Canada is noted for neglecting the animals they keep.”

    yup. i happened to come across this and wasn’t even looking for anything about inuits and their dogs (i was curious about their clothing, actually). see what the guy has to say about picture number 16:

    http://www.johntyman.com/arctic/inuit501.html

    (and several of the eskimo/inuit groups have long-histories of inbreedings — which i thought i posted about, but i guess i didn’t. ANOTHER post i need to do!)

    Reply

  140. @linton – “You just don’t trifle with the laws of hospitality no matter what kind of monster you are.”

    yes. this is another post i’ve had lurking around in the back of my head along with the one on outbred peoples and how they treat animals (which both big nose kate and melykin thought of, too) — and that’s the apparent connection between inbreeding and ideas, or ideals maybe, of hospitality.

    inbred populations seem to take ideas of hospitality to an extreme. on the one hand, they’re ready to kill their neighbors (other clans/tribes) over the slightest slight, but on the other, you’ve just GOT to be hospitable — in certain circumstances — in inbred societies.

    i’m pretty sure that the arabs are known for this — that one must be hospitable to a stranger passing through (someone who means you no harm and is on legitimate business or whatever). i used to work with this persian girl, and sometimes we would go to lunch to her favorite persian cafe, and i remarked once how extremely gracious and friendly the owner and staff were. they really were. they just couldn’t do enough for you, really. and my friend told me that, oh yes — persians are very hospitable when you’re a stranger — but on a regular day they’re HORRIBLE to each other. (~_^) i found that funny at the time, but it starts to make an odd sort of sense now….

    according to patterson, rules on hospitality were even codified in the laws of the early medieval irish. it was clearly spelled out in the laws of the day how much hospitality was due to every rank in early irish society — and how much hospitality the different ranks were required to show (for example, if you were the lowest rank of farmer who didn’t actually own any land of your own, you didn’t have to offer any hospitality to anyone strolling by — you were exempt since you didn’t own anything yourself). all of this from a very inbred group (back in those days). i wouldn’t be surprised if the situation was similar in (highland) scotland.

    Reply

  141. @HBD Chick:

    “inbred populations seem to take ideas of hospitality to an extreme. on the one hand, they’re ready to kill their neighbors (other clans/tribes) over the slightest slight, but on the other, you’ve just GOT to be hospitable — in certain circumstances — in inbred societies.”

    Maybe that’s a way of avoiding creating additional enemies on top of what you have already? Unknown clans might be potential allies against clans you’re already fighting.

    Reply

  142. so you think that nw europeans — the english, for example — simply imagine that they share kinship with one another, and that’s why they are altruistic towards most everyone in their societies rather than to just their family/kin/clan members?

    I believe they’re expressions of kin altruism behavior.

    nw europeans, i think, tend to think or feel or expect that the system is a sort-of “pay-it-forward” one, i.e. NOT that the homeless person will repay them, but that they will be similarly treated BY SOMEONE ELSE if the need arises.

    A “pay-it-forward” system is not an example of reciprocal altruism since it’s not about potential reciprocation between donor and recipient. In reciprocal altruism, the donor imagines the recipient reciprocating in the future because of the original donation. A pay-it-forward system is an example of kin altruism behavior. One pays it forward to someone else entirely because one views them as kin.

    Reply

  143. Maybe a socialist type system with a strong social safety net simply won’t work unless everybody plays by the rules. When you have different ethnic groups it just won’t work.

    Socialism and universal religions like Christianity are social organizations based on kin altruism, and kin altruism only really works over the long term within tribal societies, that is relatively small, genetically related populations with common cultural values that are not at odds with such a familial structure. They cease being as effective in dealing with other tribes due to the fact that they no longer possess reciprocal altruism as a morally consistent tool due to their moral constraints, the moral constraints being that you’re supposed to treat everyone as your kin.

    Introduction of other tribes or populations to a socialist or Christianized tribe results in a rise of “defection” in the game theoretic situation called “the prisoner’s dilemma”, a situation in which cooperation benefits everyone but in which a greedy individual can benefit at the expense of those who treat them as kin. As a result, defection spreads among a population that relies on kin altruism as soon as that society becomes pluralistic. In such a situation, Christianity’s morals and socialism’s humanitarian ideals fail to activate, within the defector, the sense of kin altruism these morals and ideals are supposed to elicit, and which they do tend to elicit within more isolated tribal societies. Instead, they incentivize further defection. Contemporary political correctness, which followed Christianity and socialism, is just the most modern form of debilitating and exploitable over-extended kin altruism.

    Reciprocal altruism relies on keeping accounts for past interactions within what is known as the “iterated prisoner’s dilemma”, so that a “tit for tat” strategy may be followed to keep defection in check. This can be made relatively stable in the presence of genetic pluralism.

    Reply

  144. @bill – “I believe they’re expressions of kin altruism behavior.”

    so how do you — or would you — account for the differences in altruism-related behavioral patterns between, say, the english vs. southern italians — and/or the english vs. arabs?

    @bill – “In reciprocal altruism, the donor imagines the recipient reciprocating in the future because of the original donation.”

    i think you misunderstand how human (animal) behavioral patterns work. most of the time, most people don’t consciously think about what they do — how they’re going to treat other people. they just do what feels right to them. they might rationalize it to themselves or someone else afterwards if they’re made to think about it (eg. “i’m generous to the poor because jesus said that that’s the right way to be”), but really they’re just behaving naturally — and, for the most part, unconsciously.

    reciprocally altruistic behaviors, too, most likely just happen without much reflection on the part of most of the players. in everyday life, that is.

    @bill – “A pay-it-forward system is an example of kin altruism behavior.”

    not if the players involved are not kin.

    @bill – “One pays it forward to someone else entirely because one views them as kin.”

    how do you figure that? do you have some references?

    Reply

  145. @bill – “…universal religions like Christianity are social organizations based on kin altruism….”

    and your evidence for that is? references, please.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick ” “@bill – “…universal religions like Christianity are social organizations based on kin altruism….” and your evidence for that is? references, please.” Well it sort of does sound like “Selfish Gene” logic.

      Reply

  146. Bill
    “I don’t see why they [charity adverts featuring starving africans] should have the same effect on all ethnic groups.”

    No one is saying they should. I’m saying they don’t so there must be an explanation for it.

    .
    “A man who helps his brother also consciously or subconsciously thinks that his brother would do the same for him if or when he needs help.”

    Some of the time that’s true. Some of the time people just dive into rivers to rescue drowning strangers – and if some groups do that more than others. Why?

    .
    “It would be consistent with kin altruism. You wouldn’t need some additional or different form of altruism to explain it. Kin altruism is sufficient. If there were some wealthy family that was susceptible to hypnosis, and you hypnotized them into thinking that you were a son and an heir of the family, you wouldn’t need a different form of altruism to explain why they start treating you like a son and give you a part of the family fortune.”

    Yeah but you had to add hypnosis to make that work and it’s apt because what we’re calling reciprocal altruism – and i agree it’s probably not the best descriptor – might be traits that *make* people behave in certain ways.

    .
    The sequence as i see it.

    1) Inbreeding and kin-altruism – default human state.
    2) Outbreeding
    3) Problem: kin-altruism is adaptive and outbreeding weakens kin-altruism
    4) Solution: evolve a form of kin-altruism that works with diluted kin so it *is* kin-altruism (at least in the context it evolved in) but a modified version of kin-altruism
    5) Part of that solution involved increasing the frequencies of traits that produce an unconscious or pavlovian form of reciprocal altruism e.g. guilt i.e. traits that *make* people act in certain ways.

    .
    “Reciprocal altruism relies on keeping accounts for past interactions within what is known as the “iterated prisoner’s dilemma”, so that a “tit for tat” strategy may be followed to keep defection in check.”

    I think you’re right that this is basically what it comes down to but there are two ways to achieve that goal. One way is consciously playing the game in that “tit for tat” way. The other is for a population to develop (or increase the frequency of) traits that make them act that way unconsciously e.g. guilt i.e. a trait that makes each individual player keep their own defection in check.

    .
    I don’t know what to call it but i think what we’re talking about is a set of traits that developed to mimic kin-altruism in a diluted-kin environment through mimicing reciprocal altruism.

    Something in that general ballpark anyway.

    Reply

  147. so how do you — or would you — account for the differences in altruism-related behavioral patterns between, say, the english vs. southern italians — and/or the english vs. arabs?

    There are a number of possibilities. One may be selection for more accurate kin altruism, as Greg Cochran suggests here:

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/your-countrys-not-your-blood/

    reciprocally altruistic behaviors, too, most likely just happen without much reflection on the part of most of the players. in everyday life, that is.

    I didn’t say anything about conscious thinking. The mechanisms for reciprocal altruism don’t require sophisticated thinking. It could be mediated through pheromones or chemical signalling, for example.

    not if the players involved are not kin.

    I said it was an example of “kin altruism behavior”.

    What do you mean by “not kin”? Humans share kinship with onions, mice, chimps, etc.

    how do you figure that? do you have some references?

    A “pay it forward” ethic promotes altruistic behavior towards people not because they did something for you earlier, but because they are part of the same hypothetical community. Altruistic behavior predicated on some shared sense of identity is kin altruism behavior.

    and your evidence for that is? references, please.

    I’m sure you’re familiar with general Christian morality. Christian morality generally speaking encourages Christians to view and behave charitably towards fellow Christians (and even non-Christians as potential Christians) not because they did something good for you in the past, but because they are all “children of God” that worship the same “Father in Heaven”. Even if others behave poorly towards you, you are supposed to behave favorably towards them. One is supposed to “love thy enemy”. These are clearly inducements of kin altruism behavior. “Turn the other cheek” is an explicit rejection of the Old Testament reciprocal altruism morality of “an eye for an eye” in favor of kin altruistic behavior.

    Reply

  148. Note that unlike Christianity, Judaism promotes both kin altruism behavior and reciprocal altruism behavior, with a tighter, more restrictive operative definition of “kin”, which is defined by explicit rules of descent. For example, the Old Testament forbids lending at interest to fellow Jews (one is supposed to give charitably), while permitting lending at interest to non-Jews i.e. such reciprocal altruism behavior is allowed in an intertribal capacity while kin altruism is preserved in an intratribal capacity.

    Whereas in Christianity, the operative definition of “kin” is theoretically potentially every person on Earth and even off it:

    “Vatican astronomer: “The extraterrestrial is my brother””

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/?p=5258

    “In the interview headlined, “The extraterrestrial is my brother,” he said he saw no conflict between belief in such beings and faith in God.

    “Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contrast with our faith because we can’t put limits on God’s creative freedom,” he said.

    “Why can’t we speak of a ‘brother extraterrestrial’? It would still be part of creation.”

    Funes, who runs the observatory that is based south of Rome and in Arizona, held out the possibility that the human race might actually be the “lost sheep” of the universe.

    There could be other beings “who remained in full friendship with their creator,” he said.”

    Reply

  149. “Altruistic behavior predicated on some shared sense of identity is kin altruism behavior”

    It *mimics* kin altruism behavior.

    Reply

  150. I couple of questions about altruism:

    1. Is corruption and bribery a form of reciprocal altruism?

    2. Is cheating on exams (allowing someone to copy from you) a form of altruism? The Chinese (from the mainland) are noted for cheating when they study in North America. They aren’t even embarrassed when they are caught. They don’t see anything wrong with it. I know a person who has taught college in Canada for about 20 years. This person is from Yugoslavia (a very corrupt place). I assumed that her thoughts about cheating were the same as mine–that it is wrong because it is dishonest and unfair. So I was very surprised when she told me that she thinks North Americans don’t cheat much because they are competitive, and don’t want to help each other.

    Reply

  151. Melykin
    “1. Is corruption and bribery a form of reciprocal altruism?”

    Again we have the problem with terms. If we forget those terms for a minute and make another dichotomy then it’s easier to see imo. Call it

    amoral familialism vs commonwealism

    then corruption and bribery is on the amoral familialism side.

    .
    The confusion comes because amoral familialism is the flip side of kin altruism. It’s confusing because amoral familialism seems “bad” to WEIRD people whereas kin altruism sounds “good” because altruism always sounds “good” but that’s because WEIRD people are wired to think commonwealism is “good”.

    .
    That
    – amoral familialism and commonwealism are two ends of a spectrum
    and
    – kin-altruism is amoral familialism in a different guise
    is why [the other one we don’t have a good name for] can’t simply be kin altruism.

    .
    It’s doubly confusing because [the other one we don’t have a good name for] initially developed (imo) to provide the benefits of kin altruism among a larger and less related group.

    commonweal-altruism? commonwealism?

    Reply

  152. @linton – “Well it sort of does sound like ‘Selfish Gene’ logic.”

    this entire blog (or a good 90% of it) is based upon selfish gene logic. (~_^)

    Reply

  153. @g.w. – “The sequence as i see it.

    1) Inbreeding and kin-altruism – default human state.
    2) Outbreeding
    3) Problem: kin-altruism is adaptive and outbreeding weakens kin-altruism
    4) Solution: evolve a form of kin-altruism that works with diluted kin so it *is* kin-altruism (at least in the context it evolved in) but a modified version of kin-altruism
    5) Part of that solution involved increasing the frequencies of traits that produce an unconscious or pavlovian form of reciprocal altruism e.g. guilt i.e. traits that *make* people act in certain ways.”

    yes. that’s more-or-less the way i see it. i just wanted to come up with a different term for whatever we get in stages 4 and 5 to distinguish it from kin-altruism since it’s not, strictly speaking, directed towards kin anymore. not close kin anyway.

    at this point, i think i should answer bill’s question:

    @bill – “What do you mean by ‘not kin’? Humans share kinship with onions, mice, chimps, etc.”

    the population geneticists (like greg cochran) keep saying/telling me that the math for inclusive fitness and altruism doesn’t work beyond ca. second cousins … and the geneticists studying congenital diseases don’t seem to take inbreeding beyond second cousins into account (“consanguinity” is generally reckoned at second cousin matings or closer) … and even most clannish peoples (coincidentally?) don’t seem to bother keeping (close) track of their relatives beyond second cousins (maybe the arabs are an exception? dunno) … so i’m happy to call “kin” second cousins and closer.

    yes, we are related to onions and pumpkins, but we’re not (normally) very altruistic towards them. not, at any rate, as altruistic toward them as we are to our first cousins. and, the point is, regularly inbreeding people seem to be more altruistic to their first cousins than northwest europeans are.

    Reply

  154. @bill – “One may be selection for more accurate kin altruism, as Greg Cochran suggests here….”

    greg said: “I somewhat suspect that there may have been recent selection for more accurate altruism, in some populations…. They should feel altruistic about their families, maybe their clan – and nothing else.”

    well, that just sounds like my “familial altruism.”

    Reply

  155. @bill – “A ‘pay it forward’ ethic promotes altruistic behavior towards people not because they did something for you earlier, but because they are part of the same hypothetical community. Altruistic behavior predicated on some shared sense of identity is kin altruism behavior.”

    maybe. but not necessarily.

    thanks to the long-term outbreeding of nw europeans, which reduced the degree of relatedness within extended families, clans disappeared sometime during the medieval period in nw europe. and then you got a new sort of society — one in which individuals and nuclear families were the basic units of society. and how was it, if you imagine for a sec, that these small units managed in life? perhaps it was because they started cooperating more with (relatively) unrelated neighbors rather than their extended families (like inbred populations do), because it didn’t really pay off so much anymore inclusive fitness-wise to cooperate with mostly extended family members.

    so who succeeds in this new environment? individuals who are reciprocally altruistic with their (relatively) unrelated neighbors? i think it’s a possibility. which is why i called it “reciprocal” altruism.

    Reply

  156. @bill – “I’m sure you’re familiar with general Christian morality. Christian morality generally speaking encourages Christians to view and behave charitably towards fellow Christians (and even non-Christians as potential Christians) not because they did something good for you in the past, but because they are all ‘children of God’ that worship the same ‘Father in Heaven’. Even if others behave poorly towards you, you are supposed to behave favorably towards them. One is supposed to ‘love thy enemy’. These are clearly inducements of kin altruism behavior.

    no, i don’t see that at all. loving the enemy — being charitable towards non-christians — being charitable towards anybody who is not kin is *universalism* — vs. particularism.

    “love thy neighbor as thyself.” not kin — your neighbor. and the only ones who really took that to heart were (the outbred) european christians.

    Reply

  157. @bill – Socialism and universal religions like Christianity are social organizations based on kin altruism, and kin altruism only really works over the long term within tribal societies, that is relatively small, genetically related populations with common cultural values that are not at odds with such a familial structure.”

    how do you know that? just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it the case.

    i think — and i admit that i could be wrong — that another form of altruism was selected for in nw europeans during the medieval period as a result of all of the outbreeding. socialism and universal religions seem to me to be a form of *universalism,* not kin altruism. perhaps it’s kin altruism applied to EVERYbody, but then you need to explain why europeans would, so weirdly, decide to apply their kin altruism sentiments towards non-kin — UNLIKE almost everybody else in the world.

    Reply

  158. @melykin – “1. Is corruption and bribery a form of reciprocal altruism?”

    you could think of it in those terms, i suppose, since there is reciprocity back-and-forth, but i have been more interested in how nw europeans (and other populations) came to be the way that they are — behave in the ways that they do. i think g.w.’s explanation above was a good one!

    @melykin – “2. Is cheating on exams (allowing someone to copy from you) a form of altruism?”

    yes, i suppose it is. but, again, it think this has roots in what i call “familial altruism” (and g.w. above called “amoral familism”) — being more focused on the family rather than the commonweal. if you’re focused on the commonweal, you don’t tolerate cheating on exams because everyone should have an equal opportunity to do well on the exam. if you’re focused on yourself and your family, then cheating is a-okay because who cares about those unrelated others?

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “if you’re focused on yourself and your family, then cheating is a-okay because who cares about those unrelated others?” My own impression is that I don’t cheat because I come from a good family. It’s not because I think the others deserve a chance. It certainly isn’t because of pride in or interest in immitating European ancestors.
      Sample of one. Not very impressive statistically.

      Reply

  159. To me cheating on an exam would be a very shameful and dishonorable thing. This is why I find it hard to relate to Chinese students ( from the mainland) who see nothing wrong with it and aren’t ashamed at being caught. The whole society seems to be like that in China. The government probably isn’t embarrassed about being caught hacking computers and getting caught. They dont see that sort of thing as shameful (at least many of them don’t ).

    Reply

  160. “i just wanted to come up with a different term for whatever we get in stages 4 and 5 to distinguish it from kin-altruism since it’s not, strictly speaking, directed towards kin anymore. not close kin anyway.”

    yes, makes perfect sense. it’s just coming up with an all-encompassing description. my problem with the phrase is i feel the pressure to compensate for diluted kin-altruism may have gone in two directions: pressure towards reciprocal altruism like you say and pressure for a mechanism e.g. guilt, empathy, that wasn’t itself kin-altruism but where the *results* of the mechanism mimicked kin-altruism in the environment where it developed . That’s actually reciprocal altruism as well i guess but before the fact i.e. people aren’t doing it for reciprocity *when* they do it – they’re doing it for guilt, empathy, whatever – and it’s only reciprocal because everyone is a bit like that.

    Ugh.

    I think eventually you may need to coin two new terms of your own to differentiate the two clusters of inbred altruism and outbred altruism (or endogamous altruism vs exogamous altruism) because they both contain elements of each other but time will tell :)

    It may just be an academic vs non-academic split over the the technical meaning of “altruism” and the difficulty of not assigning moral value to the words used based on personal wiring.

    Reply

    1. @greying wanderer “and pressure for a mechanism e.g. guilt, empathy, that wasn’t itself kin-altruism” I don’t know if this is relevant, nor have a reference, but I do seem to remember they once scanned a monkey’s brain while showing him a movie of another monkey getting it’s hand (apparently) injured. The pain centers in the monkey watching the movie lit up.

      Reply

  161. “Outbreeding” does not weaken the instincts for kin altruism. What it does is make older identities less coherent and thus alter the expression of kin altruism behavior. If several tribes come together and mix, the older individual tribal identities will not persist among the mixed offspring, who obviously won’t be exemplars of the older identities. A new or dominant identity will obtain among the mixed generations. The promulgation of the new identity can precede outbreeding. Christian identity was promoted as a replacement of clan identity, followed by Christianity’s promotion of outbreeding, which facilitated the adoption of Christian identity and shedding of clan identity among the outbred offspring, who were no longer descendants of specific clans or tribes. Similarly, today we see the promotion of “global” identity and identification with the world and international brands as a replacement of identities of nation, race, ethny, etc., and the promotion of international, inter-ethnic, inter-racial, inter-cultural, etc. relations, whose offspring would be more amenable to adopting the new identity, and less amenable to the older identities.

    The analogue to the “amoral familism” of the extended family is the Holy War of universal religion or the Realpolitik or Total War of the nation-state. Most if not all of politics is about exploiting instincts for kin altruism.

    General Christian morality promotes kin altruism behavior towards a group of people called “Christians”, which serves as the operative definition of “kin”. What is “universalized” is kin altruism towards the group called “Christians”. “Particularism” doesn’t disappear, since non-Christians, such as the Cathars, aren’t necessarily treated with kin altruism, but with the exact opposite. Christian morality is not some mercenary ethic of reciprocal altruism. This really should not need to be explained unless you’re from a non-Christian background.

    Note that the national identities, which became the dominant identities among Europeans over the past few hundred years, promoted the extension of kin altruism behavior to the level of the “nation”, which served as the operative definition of “kin” and was particularist by definition. They were defined explicitly in blood based terms in living memory. The erosion of the identities over the past half century was not the expression of popular European will and can hardly be claimed to reflect European nature.

    Reply

  162. @bill – “‘Outbreeding’ does not weaken the instincts for kin altruism.”

    i’m not saying that it does (although it must water down the “genes for altruism” in particular lineages). what i’m saying is that it changes the playing field — alters the selection pressures by, for one thing, getting rid of clans (i.e. getting rid of that sort of environment in which people live). outbreeding changes the structure of society.

    read what i said again — only this time carefully. if you’ve got any questions, please ask — i know that i’m not always the clearest when it comes to explaining things:

    “thanks to the long-term outbreeding of nw europeans, which reduced the degree of relatedness within extended families, clans disappeared sometime during the medieval period in nw europe. and then you got a new sort of society — one in which individuals and nuclear families were the basic units of society. and how was it, if you imagine for a sec, that these small units managed in life? perhaps it was because they started cooperating more with (relatively) unrelated neighbors rather than their extended families (like inbred populations do), because it didn’t really pay off so much anymore inclusive fitness-wise to cooperate with mostly extended family members.

    “so who succeeds in this new environment? individuals who are reciprocally altruistic with their (relatively) unrelated neighbors? i think it’s a possibility. which is why i called it ‘reciprocal’ altruism.”

    Reply

  163. @bill – “Christian identity was promoted as a replacement of clan identity, followed by Christianity’s promotion of outbreeding….”

    nope. it was the other way around. at least in nw europe. read my post on the early medieval bavarians, for example. the population (the upper class landholding elites anyway) were already christian, but they were extremely clannish. in fact, st. augustine and thomas acquinas came up with outbreeding as the key to getting rid of clans and, so, make the world more christian.

    Reply

  164. @bill – “Similarly, today we see the promotion of ‘global’ identity and identification with the world and international brands as a replacement of identities of nation, race, ethny, etc., and the promotion of international, inter-ethnic, inter-racial, inter-cultural, etc. relations, whose offspring would be more amenable to adopting the new identity, and less amenable to the older identities.”

    heh. if you think that’s going to work anywhere but in western societies, then i’ve got this bridge in nyc i’m lookin’ to sell…. (~_^)

    Reply

  165. @bill – “Christian morality is not some mercenary ethic of reciprocal altruism. This really should not need to be explained unless you’re from a non-Christian background.”

    look. christianity is not one thing. what you’re describing is mostly western european christianity. other christianities — like the coptic church in ethiopia and the armenian church and the assyrian church in the middle east — are very different when it comes to preaching about and applying universalist ideals. this really should not need to be explained unless you’re not from planet earth (or haven’t been paying attentiontion to the world around you).

    the question is WHY are these christian churches different from one another?

    Reply

  166. @bill – “The erosion of the identities over the past half century was not the expression of popular European will and can hardly be claimed to reflect European nature.”

    no. but i think it exploited the nature of northwestern europeans which leans towards universalism. this is the achilles’ heel of nw europeans.

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick I trust you have noticed this.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/human-chain-saves-boy_n_2852696.html?1363018830&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D282311

      A boy was drowning in surf. A German tourist (Salic Frank, I’m sure ; ) had the courage to go in after him alone but in vain. Then the rest of the people on the beach formed a human chain to try to save the boy. Guess where it happened before you look at it.

      It doesn’t say whether they tried to save the German.

      Reply

  167. @linton – “Guess where it happened before you look at it.”

    ah! thanks. no, i hadn’t heard about this. since you mentioned a german tourist, i guessed turkey. (^_^) wrong! new zealand. everybody looked pretty european (i.e. white), but i think i spied some natives there. from other stories about the event, i take it that the german survived. (~_^)

    Reply

  168. @linton – ” My own impression is that I don’t cheat because I come from a good family. It’s not because I think the others deserve a chance.”

    i don’t cheat very much because i don’t think it would be fair. i used to hate it in school when i saw kids cheating because i thought, hey! — i studied for this test, you should’ve, too! not fair! they never thought it was fair, though, that i always (often) got the best grades and they didn’t (it was either me or lisa mischer). human biodiversity — it’s a b*tch sometimes. (~_^)

    Reply

  169. @melykin – “This is why I find it hard to relate to Chinese students ( from the mainland) who see nothing wrong with it and aren’t ashamed at being caught. The whole society seems to be like that in China. The government probably isn’t embarrassed about being caught hacking computers and getting caught. They dont see that sort of thing as shameful (at least many of them don’t).”

    did you see ron unz’s latest article about china? the article is good, but this comment from someone who claims to be chinese (or east asian, anyway) is really interesting!

    Reply

    1. @ hbd chick Unzi’s work is most impressive. I do notice he says, “there is no evidence that successful Chinese merchants or scholars were unwilling to take brides from the general population,” In other words they weren’t marrying family, certainly not fbd but in the absense of other clue probably not within fifth cousin most of the time.

      There is their Achilles’ heel. In England women could own property, so if you had property you wanted to marry someone with property nearby, not a member of the general population. That restricted mating pool size for the successful, and everything else follows. Notice that despite a thousand years of head start in having some semblance of stable government and social equality the Chinese did not sail into the seaports of Europe looking for trade opportunities.

      The birds are coming home to roost. You can blame China’s birth rate on the “one child policy” if you try hard enough, but it sure doesn’t apply in Singapore.

      Reply

  170. @g.w. – ” it’s just coming up with an all-encompassing description.”

    yes. “reciprocal altruism” came to my mind as i was trying to envision how nw european altruism evolved, or was selected for, and what i imagine is all these people being reciprocally altruistic towards neighbors, etc.

    @g.w. – “I think eventually you may need to coin two new terms of your own to differentiate the two clusters of inbred altruism and outbred altruism (or endogamous altruism vs exogamous altruism)….”

    yes. *gulp* i guess i’m most interested in: 1) who the altruistic behaviors are generally directed towards – family or non-family, and (to a lesser extent i’m interested in) 2) how these behaviors evolved/developed/were selected for.

    Reply

  171. Bill
    “General Christian morality promotes kin altruism behavior towards a group of people called “Christians”, which serves as the operative definition of “kin”.”

    mimics

    .
    hubchik
    “inbreeding in and of itself does not change the frequencies of genes in a population”

    wouldn’t ROH influence this? if inbreeding leads to longer runs then doesn’t that create a kind of genetic tetris?

    Reply

  172. @g.w. – “wouldn’t ROH influence this? if inbreeding leads to longer runs then doesn’t that create a kind of genetic tetris?”

    heh. yes, it is a kind of genetic tetris, but all you’re doing with inbreeding is segregating the blue blocks into the right-hand corner and all the green blocks into the left-hand corner, etc., etc. you’re not actually adding any new blocks via the inbreeding, so inbreeding in and of itself doesn’t increase the frequency of any particular type of gene in the whole population (it does increase them within a lineage, though, especially at the beginning of the inbreeding process, by drawing all the similar genes together).

    to increase the frequencies of genes in a population you need selection for those genes (or genetic drift — or replacement by other genes from outside the population). and that’s where i think the inbreeding comes into play: by altering the relatedness between family members, the inclusive fitness payoffs increase and, so, certain types of altruistic behaviors start to work better than they did before the inbreeding, so those behaviors (and the genes behind them) get selected for. or something like that. (^_^)

    Reply

  173. @hbd chick:

    “did you see ron unz’s latest article about china? the article is good, but this comment from someone who claims to be chinese (or east asian, anyway) is really interesting!”

    His comment is interesting, but it is almost certainly bass-ackwards. It’s a classic example of backwards projecting modern traits unto ancient peoples. Almost certainly the traits he describes about East Asians are the products of living in the society that they have been. Think of K-selection taken to an extreme: living in a society with high population, high population growth, under the power of a strong and organized central state (or strong local lords in the case of Korea and Japan), always running against the Malthusian limit, and consistently so for centuries (or millennia, in the case of China). Hyper-competitiveness, strong future-time orientation, academic orientation, and conformity are all to be expected. The rest, such as their stronger national/familial consciousnesses can be explained by their history of inbreeding.

    Granted, some traits possessed by East Asians going in undoubtedly influenced the way their civilizations developed. But, when we look at the less historically civilized East Asians, like the Tibetans or the Mongolians, is it so clear that the traits he describes were there to begin with?

    Reply

  174. Jayman
    “Think of K-selection taken to an extreme: living in a society with high population, high population growth, under the power of a strong and organized central state (or strong local lords in the case of Korea and Japan), always running against the Malthusian limit, and consistently so for centuries (or millennia, in the case of China).”

    Yup

    Reply

  175. nope. it was the other way around. at least in nw europe. read my post on the early medieval bavarians, for example. the population (the upper class landholding elites anyway) were already christian, but they were extremely clannish. in fact, st. augustine and thomas acquinas came up with outbreeding as the key to getting rid of clans and, so, make the world more christian.

    My point is that Christianity is a replacement of clan identity. Christianity is a memetic system that transfers kin altruism to a larger memetically controlled multi-ethnic group. The promotion of Christianity is the promotion of the replacement of clan identity. Outbreeding facilitates this replacement by creating multi-clan, multi-ethnic people and eroding the older identities.

    christianity is not one thing. what you’re describing is mostly western european christianity. other christianities — like the coptic church in ethiopia and the armenian church and the assyrian church in the middle east — are very different when it comes to preaching about and applying universalist ideals.

    The general doctrine and morality promoted by those churches are virtually identical to those of the Roman Church. They preach extended kin altruism. The differences are over technical theological matters – angels dancing on pinheads type stuff.

    Reply

  176. @bill – “My point is that Christianity is a replacement of clan identity.”

    but it’s not. the only way to replace clan identity is to get rid of clans, which is what happened over the course of the medieval period in nw europe — thanks to st. augustine and thomas acquinas’ clever idea to get people to breed out (which some other leaders tried, too, btw, at different points in human history — like in china, but they didn’t stick with it).

    @bill – “The promotion of Christianity is the promotion of the replacement of clan identity. Outbreeding facilitates this replacement by creating multi-clan, multi-ethnic people and eroding the older identities.”

    nope. you’ve got it backwards. the outbreeding comes first, then the christian idea that we’re all one. see st. augustine, thomas acquinas, and you might try michael mitterauer’s Why Europe? as well.

    Reply

  177. Bill
    “My point is that Christianity is a replacement of clan identity.”

    I think there’s an element of gene-culture coevolution here in that Christianity may have tried to promote a competing universalist identity but it didn’t *take* until after the weakening of clan bonds.

    The Christian writers who promoted the cousin ban explicitly stated that clan bonds needed to be weakened first to bring about their desired outcome.

    (I’m assuming Christianity spread in the Empire in the first place because this process had already happened by accident with slaves being brought from all over the empire and jumbled up so they lost their clan and tribal identities.)

    Reply

  178. […]  ”Although immigration has boosted the economy and made Britain a more diverse and in some ways interesting place, it has also made us poorer, drained our resources and brought cultural practices we could happily do without.” […]

    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