chickens … home … roost

today on both sides of the atlantic we’ve had a couple of positively shining examples of why it’s NOT a good idea to have all this mass immigration** to the west — especially from particularly violent places (see: chechnya, africa) — and doubly especially from particularly violent places where large parts of the population view us as the enemy, an assessment which frankly isn’t entirely wrong.

first, we’ve got a beheading and disemboweling of a soldier in london by a couple of black muslims — at least one of whom has a local london accent, btw:

“Terror at Woolwich barracks: Attacker tried to behead and disembowel British soldier”

“Terrorism returned to the streets of Britain today as a soldier was murdered by two suspected Islamists who attempted to behead and disembowel him as he left his barracks, in the first deadly attack since the 2005 London bombings.

“One of the suspected killers, who addressed an onlooker with a camera, said the pair had carried out the attack ‘because David Cameron, (the) British government sent troops in Arabic country’.

“As pedestrians stood close by the armed men, he went on: ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’ according to footage obtained by ITV News.

“The soldier was ambushed by the two men as he left the base in Woolwich, south-east London, who attacked him and then dragged his body into the middle of the road to pose for photographs while standing over him waving a machete and a gun, according to witnesses….”

you don’t get much more barbaric than hacking someone to death with a machete. and these guys were armed with handguns, so they specifically CHOSE to kill this unarmed soldier in the way that they did. to make a statement, presumably, but this is also often how they deal with their enemies “back in the old country” (or sweden).

no doubt they viewed a soldier as a legitimate target — a soldier who had actually served in iraq and afghanistan, btw — and it is a slightly less crazy choice than a random civilian — but NOT an unarmed soldier who is just walking down the street. that is just cowardly. and, again, the way they killed him was barbaric — and they had a cleaner option (i.e. they had guns). they preferred barbarism.

in the u.s., the plot thickens (as if it wasn’t already thick enough!) in the boston marathon bombings case:

Friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev shot dead by FBI after ‘pulling a knife as he prepared to sign a confession to 2011 triple homicide’

– Ibragim Todashev, 27, reportedly turned violent during an interview with an FBI agent
– He was being interviewed over his ties to Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev
– Todashev, from Chechnya, was shot dead by the agent just after midnight Wednesday
– He had reportedly confessed to the FBI that he played a role in a brutal triple slaying in the Boston area in 2011
– Todashev had met Tsarnaev while he was living in Boston and last spoke him about a week before the bombing
– He was arrested on May 4 in an unrelated incident after he knocked a man unconscious in a fight over a parking space

involvement in a triple homicide AND you beat a guy senseless in a fight over a parking space?! AND you pull a knife on some fbi agents?? wtf is wrong with you?

i’ll tell you what’s wrong with these people: human biodiversity. they all come from populations which are, on average, more violent than western populations. some of these people probably like the violence — they relish it. note that the elder tsarnaev brother as well as this ibragim todashev were both boxers. these people are quick to anger — and quick to act violently when they are angry.

we know that europeans have, for whatever reasons, become less violent on average since the medieval period. why that is remains open for debate, but it is a fact that cannot be denied. this pacification seems to have happened in other populations as well — japan, china, india. but, comparatively speaking, it has NOT really happened in places like sub-saharan africa, the arab world/middle east/north africa/pakistan/afghanistan, amongst certain tribal peoples of south america, etc.

westerners better wake the f*ck up soon to hbd and that different peoples are different and quit importing people from violent societies, otherwise these events are going to become much more common right here on our doorsteps.

this is not to say that some of these peoples don’t have legitimate grievances with us. sam francis was right about Why They Attack Us many years ago (he was right about a lot of things):

“[T]he blunt truth is that the United States has been at war for years — at least a decade, since we launched a war against Iraq in 1991, even though Iraq had done absolutely nothing to harm the United States or any American. Our bombing attacks on Iraq certainly caused civilian casualties, and if they were not deliberate, nobody beating the war drums at the time felt much regret for them. For ten years, we have maintained economic sanctions on Iraq that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and we have repeatedly bombed it whenever it failed to abide by standards we imposed on it.

“Under Bill Clinton, we again launched bombing raids against civilians — once against so-called ‘terrorist training camps’ supposedly under bin Laden’s control in Afghanistan and at the same time against a purported ‘chemical weapons factory’ in Sudan that almost certainly was no such thing….

“In all the buckets of media gabble about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, not once have I heard any journalist ask any expert the simple question, ‘Why did the terrorists attack us?’

“There is, of course, an implicit answer to the unasked question: It’s because the terrorists are ‘evil’; they ‘hate democracy’; they are ‘fanatics,’ ‘barbarians’ and ‘cowards.’ Those, of course, are answers that can satisfy only children. Some day it might actually dawn on someone in this country that the grown-up but unwelcome answer is that the terrorists attacked us because they were paying us back for what we started.

“Let us hear no more about how the ‘terrorists’ have ‘declared war on America….’

“The blunt and quite ugly truth is that the United States has been at war for years — that it started the war in the name of ‘spreading democracy,’ ‘building nations,’ ‘waging peace,’ ‘stopping aggression,’ ‘enforcing human rights,’ and all the other pious lies that warmongers always invoke to mask the truth, and that it continued the war simply to save a crook from political ruin. What is new is merely that this week, for the first time, the war we started came home — and all of a sudden, Americans don’t seem to care for it so much.”

**although as steve sailer keeps pointing out, there are only one or two hundred chechens totally in the u.s., so apparently ANY amount of immigration from chechnya is a bad idea.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

but what about the congenital disorders?

in response to the post on inbreeding in pakistan, j asked: “Many peoples discovered that inbreeding causes birth defects and they imposed social rules to avoid it. How is that these Pakistanis are not aware of the danger and on the contrary, they enforce it?”

well, really, endogamy of some sort seems to be the default setting for non-hunter-gatherer groups of humans, so it shouldn’t be a surprise when we come across a group that is rather fond of inbreeding. the rates of consanguineous marriages for pakistan (and places like saudi arabia, et. al.) are really extraordinary, tho; and in some areas of pakistan endogamous marriages (cousin marriage + marriage within the patrilineage) can reach levels like 90% of all marriages.

but why aren’t pakistanis (and other groups) put off all these close marriages by the negative side-effects like congenital disorders? some of it seems to be that they’re just not informed enough on the matter (so i suppose that they never figured out the connection on their own either?) — and some of it seems to be that they’re just resigned to their fate. pakistanis have decided that the benefits (e.g. keeping the property in the family) outweighs the drawbacks, i guess.

here from a paper entitled “Cosmopolitan Knowledge and Indigenous Perceptions of Congenital Diseases Among the Cousin Marriage Practitioners in Kabirwala Community – Pakistan” (which was read at quad-e-azam university, islamabad, but i’ll be d*mned if i can find where i got this paper from! – this is the author though):

“For the Pakistani communities, it is rather a matter of destiny and luck than a medical concern.”


“Mehboob [the names have been changed to protect the innocent], a 57-year-old male lawyer is married to his cousin Rubia, 42 years old. Rubia has 5 years schooling. The couple has 9 children (2 sons and 7 daughters), one of which died within his first month. Among the 9 children, two are blind and one has hearing problems…. However, the couple call it taqdeer (destiny) and argue that two children are blind due to their own sins and that one has died because ‘us kay din poray ho gaye that’ (He has completed his life period). It is believed that God has given a specific life to every person at the birth of a child. According to local belief, the child has to spend only the prescribed life which God has given. When I mentioned a genetic problem as a possible interpretation during the interview, the parents said that it was ‘God’s will’, that this was the reason for their son’s death. According to the couple, Islam does not forbid cousin marriage. Therefore, there is no need to argue the issue on the basis of genetics. It is a matter of luck and destiny. Genetics have a minor role to play.”

c’est la vie, eh?

previously: anarchy in the u.k. and inbreeding in pakistan

(note: comments do not require an email. why, thank you! i’d love another peanut.)

assimliation is a two-way street (or why endogamy means mexicans will find it hard to become middle-class anglos)

ron unz is at it again — arguing that, given a little time, hispanic immigrants will assimilate into american society just like non-anglo europeans did a hundred years ago. from his latest article in The American Conservative [sic] entitled “Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America” (the front page description of the article says: “Ron Unz asks whether mass immigration will destroy the GOP—and our middle-class society):

“Similarly, there is overwhelming evidence that today’s immigrants want to learn English, gain productive employment, assimilate into our society, and generally become ‘good Americans’ at least as much as did their European counterparts of a century ago.”

well, perhaps they want to become good, middle-class americans, although i’m not convinced of that; but another critical question is are they able to? as steve sailer has repeatedly pointed out, there’s actually a real-life experiment on hispanic assimilation into middle-class american society that’s been running for 150+ years called new mexico and, so far, mexican-americans there have failed to become like your average minnesotan suburbanite — but mr. unz is obviously not bothered by mundane facts like that.

what really irritates me about the thinking of someone like mr. unz, tho, is that he seems to be under the impression that assimilation means that whatever immigrants we happen to be talking about will miraculously drop all of their traditions and (innate) ways of behaving and just become like the population in whatever country they’re migrating to — and that the culture of a receiving country will somehow be left unscathed by the addition of a new, unrelated people with a dissimilar culture.

i mean, does mr. unz really believe that america before and after all of the late nineteenth century immigration from non-anglo european countries is the same? did the italians and the irish and the swedes and the norwegians and the jews start behaving exactly like the founding anglo-americans — even after a few generations? to be blunt, only an idiot would think so.

no. the late nineteenth century immigrants might’ve changed their ways, some of them even becoming quite american-like in their behaviors and culture after a few generations (altho the process was arguably a struggle) — but the newcomers also altered america. many people today might like the changes — but many of the anglo-americans at the time prolly did not. and many of us today might not like some of the changes they brought: the mafia by the italians, for instance, and tammany hall-style politics thanks to the irish.

the italians (very much southern italians) have mafioso tendencies in large part because of their history of and particular pattern of inbreeding; same with the irish and their liking for machine-politics. these two groups are more given to corruption and nepotism than, say, the english simply because they have a longer history of inbreeding (which, due to inclusive fitness-related drives, leads to nepotism); the southern italians also have a very recent history of inbreeding. anglos, on the other hand, have a long history of outbreeding which has lead to an individualistic society based on middle-class values and trust between non-related individuals, a preference for democracy and little nepotism.

so, what are tens of millions of mexicans and other hispanics going to bring to the table? a lot more than tacos, i can assure you. in addition to whatever innate behavioral differences mexicans have compared to europeans (iq, temperament, etc.), there’s also all the stuff related to mating patterns and genetic relatedness that i’ve been exploring on this blog to be considered.

first of all, just looking at mexico alone, if we factor out the more recently arrived spanish and african mexicans for a sec, the base population of native mexicans is not one entity. there were (and still are) mayan mexicans, aztec mexicans, mixtec mexicans, and a myriad of other peoples in mexican that i’ve never even heard of. so, right there from the start, you’ve got relatedness differences that are bound to lead to discordance between so-called “mexicans” (and i’m not even dealing here with all the other hispanics from central america — guatemalans, salvadorans, costa ricans…).

on top of these ethnic differences — and this will not come as a surprise to regular readers — most of these groups also practiced endogamous mating. yes, even cousin marriage. most or all of it seems to have been cross-cousin marriage, the most common form found in the world — like amongst the chinese. the result? societies based on extended-families and clans — not nuclear families espousing middle-class values. here’s a little bit about aztec society, for example:

“Family and lineage

Family and lineage were the basic units of Aztec society. Ones lineage determined ones social standing, and noble lineages were traced back to the mythical past, as the nobles were said to be descended from the god Quetzalcoatl. Prestigious lineages also traced their kin back through ruling dynasties, preferably ones with a Toltec heritage. The extended family group was also the basic social unit and living patterns were largely determined by family ties, because networks of family groups settled together to form calpollis. Lineage was traced through both the maternal and paternal lines, although with a preference for paternal lineage.


The calpolli (from Nahuatl calpōlli meaning ‘big house’) was a political unit composed of several interrelated family groups. The exact nature of the calpolli is not completely understood and it has been variously described as a kind of clan, a town, a ward, a parish or an agriculture based cooperative. In Nahuatl another word for calpolli was tlaxilacalli – ‘a partition of houses’.

“The calpolli was centered around the local chief (calpōleh), to whom its members were normally related and he provided the calpolli members with lands for cultivation (calpōllālli) or with access to non-agricultural occupations in exchange for tribute and loyalty….


“The altepetl (from Nahuatl āltepētl ‘water-mountain’) was a citystate composed of several calpollis and ruled by a tlatoani. The altepetl was the unit that held sway over a given territory and defended and possibly expanded it by military might. The tlatoani was the head of the most influential calpolli, often because of having the most prestigious lineage. The word altepetl, however, did not only refer to the area but also to its population, and altepetl affiliation is thought to have been the primary criteria for ethnic divisions in Mesoamerica – rather than linguistic affinities.”

well, h*ck — change the wording a bit and that could be a description of almost any clan-based or tribalistic society from the clans of scotland to the pre-christian germanic tribes (whatever happened to them anyway?). the important thing to note about the mexicans, tho, is that they were marrying endogamously and living in these clan-based societies right up to first contact with the spaniards and, presumably, their conversion to christianity. so, native-mexicans, like the swedes, don’t have the depth of out-breeding that north-western europeans have, only much more so — mexicans inbred right up until at least the 1500s.

fast-forward to the 1950s and the mexicans appear to be very good catholics, hardly marrying their first-cousins at all. the rate of first-cousin marriage in mexico in 1956-57 (1.3% giving an inbreeding coefficient of 0.0003) is exactly the same as that for quebec in the 1960s-70s. and neither of these are really that far off the rate for catholics in the united states in 1959-60 (0.2%) [pg. 92] (click on chart for LARGER version):

while this might sound pretty good, it really isn’t all that hopeful because, while the mexicans dutifully refrain from marrying their first-cousins, they do have a tendancy to marry very locally — like the greeks — and we all know how well greek society works. greeks marry within their villages (i.e. likely to distant cousins of some sort, so still to family) — mexicans marry within their barrios, formerly known as calpollis (see the bit about the aztecs above — how’s THAT for continuity?!).

here is a quote from “The Barrios of San Andrés Cholula” in “Essays on Mexican Kinship” about the marriage patterns in the barrios of san andrés cholula in the 1960s. while mating patterns might’ve changed in mexico in the last generation or two, mexicans in their 30s and 40s today are the children of those who married in the 1960s, so the effects of endogamous mating in mexico in the 1960s are, no doubt, still very much in effect today [pgs. 78 & 80]:

“Today there is no rigid rule of mate selection in San Andres. Of the 385 married pairs for whom we have information on place of birth for both husband and wife, 35 (9.1 percent) have both partners originating from outside the community. In addition, 43 women have married into the community, primarily in San Juan, Santiago, San Adres, and San Miguel. Thirty men have married into the community, and they reside for the most part in Santiago, Santo Nino, and San Juan. Altogether, 18.96 percent of the married couple have one spouse from outside the community. These couples reside mostly in the natal barrio of the community spouse. The remaining 71.76 percent originated in the community.

“At the barrio level, however, of the 277 couples originating from San Andres, only 172 (62.09 percent) came from the same barrio, with 105 (37.91 percent) marriages uniting people of different barrios. Barrios with the greatest amount of land, cohesion, and traditional customes (San Juan, Santiago, and La Satisima) also exhibit a clear preference for endogamy. In contrast, the barrios of San Pedro Colomochoco, Santa Maria Cuaco, and Santo Nino share a strong tendency toward spouse exchange (see table 4)….

“The present-day pattern of regulating marriage, inheritance, and barrio membership may have existed during the pre-Hispanic and colonial periods. Perhaps theres was a greater tendency toward barrio endogamy when there was a communal system of land tenure. Today, marriage and inheritance practices support the solidarity of barrios.”

72% of marriages in this mexican municipality consisted of couples from the municipality, and 62% of marriages were between couples from the same barrio (really extended family)? that’s huge! that’s some serious endogamy — and, if the rest of mexico is at all similar (and it’s my understanding that it is/was), it’s not surprising that the mexican corruption levels look like those in greece (and italy).

to sum up: you can’t take a clan- (or tribal-)based population with a long history of inbreeding and turn it into a population of individuals with a yearning for individualistic rights and middle-class american (anglo) values overnight. you prolly can’t even do it in a couple of generations of strong out-breeding. the (biological) process that turned a few germanic tribes (the anglos and the saxons and the jutes) into a hard-working, non-violent, frugal, literate population took aaaaaaages — and it started in the early medieval period with the church’s demands for out-breeding. from “The Tribal Imagination” [pgs. 69-70]:

In the West we had to move from tribalism, through city-states and small nations, through empire, feudalism, mercantile capitalism, and the industrial revolution to reach our present state of fragile open universalistic democracy (shrugging off communism and fascism along the way). Athens and Rome had a period of republicanism and democracy — at least voting and elections for free males — but this did not last and succumbed to autocracy and dictatorship with the growth of empire. The English were helped in the shedding of dominant kinship groups by the relative individualism of the Angles and Saxons, with their emphasis on the independent nuclear family. (See Alan Macfarlane’s ‘The Origins of English Individualism.’) Christian monogamy and the banning of cousin marriages by the Catholic Church helped to break down extended kinship groups and encouraged even more individualism.

This breaking up of tight kin groups by expanding ‘prohibited degrees’ (as far as third cousins) is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated. Think what it would have done to the Arab cousin-marriage system. In England the institution of primogeniture — inheritance by the eldest son — also helped prevent the dissipation of family fortunes produced by partible inheritance: division of the patrimony among all sons, common on the continent (and in China, but not Japan). It reduced the power of aristocratic clans by forcing the younger sons into the professions: the army, the law, and the church.

This move away from kinship and into the world of voluntary and non-kin organizations was in turn infused with the Protestant work and reinvestment ethic, and the Miracle happened. It did not happen all at once, but over several centuries of cumulative effort that fed on the new humanism and the growth of science and industry. As labor became ever more specialized and more mobile, family groups became ever less self-sufficient, and individuals became more and more dependent on strangers and on the institutions that made dependence on strangers possible: in particular, the rule of law and the enforcement of contracts.

“And we had to do it by our own efforts, pull ourselves up by the social bootstraps, to make it stick. We have seen in Germany, in Italy, and in Spain how fragile this really is. Russia never did make it. France is always problematic. Latin America and the Balkans continue to be a mess. But in making this move we had to change the entire particularistic, communalistic, ritualistic, kin-dominated society that is natural to us, and we have to keep at it all the time….”

“It did not happen all at once, but over several centuries….”


p.s. – btw, endogamy in new mexico? h*ll, yeah.

previously: recap and “hard-won democracy”

(note: comments do not require an email. they do, however, require a little more thought into the matter of mass immigration than mr. unz has obviously given it.)

stanford prison experiment interviews

in stanford magazine:

“The Superintendent

“Phil Zimbardo – Zimbardo joined Stanford’s psychology department in 1968 and taught there until his retirement in 2007.

“The study was focused originally on how individuals adapt to being in a relatively powerless situation. I was interested in prisoners and was not really interested in the guards. It was really meant to be a single, dramatic demonstration of the power of the situation on human behavior. We expected that we would write some articles about it and move on.

“After the end of the first day, I said, ‘There’s nothing here. Nothing’s happening.’ The guards had this antiauthority mentality. They felt awkward in their uniforms. They didn’t get into the guard mentality until the prisoners started to revolt. Throughout the experiment, there was this conspiracy of denial — everyone involved was in effect denying that this was an experiment and agreeing that this is a prison run by psychologists.

“There was zero time for reflection. We had to feed the prisoners three meals a day, deal with the prisoner breakdowns, deal with their parents, run a parole board. By the third day I was sleeping in my office. I had become the superintendent of the Stanford county jail. That was who I was: I’m not the researcher at all. Even my posture changes — when I walk through the prison yard, I’m walking with my hands behind my back, which I never in my life do, the way generals walk when they’re inspecting troops….

“The Guards

“Dave Eshelman – The son of a Stanford engineering professor, Eshelman was a student at Chapman University at the time of the experiment. He was the prison’s most abusive guard, patterning himself after the sadistic prison warden (portrayed by Strother Martin) in the movie Cool Hand Luke. Today he owns a mortgage business in Saratoga….

“What came over me was not an accident. It was planned. I set out with a definite plan in mind, to try to force the action, force something to happen, so that the researchers would have something to work with. After all, what could they possibly learn from guys sitting around like it was a country club? So I consciously created this persona. I was in all kinds of drama productions in high school and college. It was something I was very familiar with: to take on another personality before you step out on the stage. I was kind of running my own experiment in there, by saying, ‘How far can I push these things and how much abuse will these people take before they say, “knock it off?”‘ But the other guards didn’t stop me. They seemed to join in. They were taking my lead. Not a single guard said, ‘I don’t think we should do this….'”

(note: comments do not require an email. you are number six.)

multiple baby daddies

1 in 5 US moms have kids with multiple dads, study says

bad idea.

in more ways than you might think. from “people are animals“:

“When might parent-offspring conflict get to be most intense? One answer is: When parents are in poor condition. Parents do best, in that case, to scrimp now and splurge later on child care. Another answer is: When mother’s babies have different fathers, and when father’s babies have different mothers….

“Second answers second. Do babies by different fathers fight harder with mother? Enter, again, David Haig. Hypertension is, it turns out, more common in mothers who have already borne children by someone other than fetus’ father. That makes sense, Haig says, since such a fetus is draining maternal resources away from its half sibs (brothers and sisters by the same mother but different fathers) rather than from its full sibs (brothers and sisters by the same mother and the same father). ‘Genetic imprinting,’ he suggests, may be the means to that end. Paternal genes, expressed in the fetus, might evolve to raise their demands where mother has had —- or is likely to have —- babies by other fathers. Interestingly, hypertension is less common in women who have lived with fetus’ father for longer. As Haig says, sperm may differently imprint in the testes of men in short-term and long-term relationships….”

i also can’t help but imagine that there will likely be more household conflicts between half-siblings than full-siblings because, of course, half-siblings are not as related to each other as full-siblings are.

(note: comments do not require an email)

on the origins of the multicult-acracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

there are three elements here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

then we have europeans.

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

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


then you get the united states.

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

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

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

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

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

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

see also: How PC Came to Be @mangan’s

previously: aígyptos, assimilation interrupted and kissin’ cousins.

(note: comments do not require an email.)

assimilation interrupted

via steve sailer:

Second generation Immigrants in Europe are de-assimilating

“The paper includes data on employment rate of first and second generation non-European immigrants in the 3 major European countries of France, Germany and U.K (the 4th largest European country – Italy – has few non-European immigrants).

“Looking carefully at the data in some of the tables, we can see that non-European immigrants in Europe are de-assimilating, with the second generation doing worse than the parents….

“For women, the second generation is slowly assimilating. Whereas the first generation works 35% less than natives, the second generation works 27% less than natives, an improvement of 8 percentage points. (the figures are the non-weighted, arithmetic mean of the 3 countries, below I have put data in each one).

“For men however the trend is the opposite. The second generation non-European immigrants are less likely to work than the previous generation! While the first generation work 10% less than natives, the second generation works 24% less, a deterioration of 14 percentage points….”

the children of muslim immigrants in the uk (and a lot of the non-european immigrants we’re talking about here are muslim immigrants) are also “de-assimilating” in other ways:

Young, British Muslims ‘getting more radical’

“A bleak picture of a generation of young British Muslims radicalised by anti-Western views and misplaced multicultural policies is shown in a survey published today.

“The study found disturbing evidence of young Muslims adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents.

Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent….

Turning to issues of faith, 36 per cent of the young people questioned said they believed that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be ‘punished by death.’ Among the over 55s, the figure is only 19 per cent.

Three out of four young Muslims would prefer Muslim women to ‘choose to wear the veil or hijab,’ compared to only a quarter of over-55s….

what the h*ck is going on?

well, i suggest that part of the problem is that many muslims marry their cousins – 55% of pakistani marriages in the uk, for instance, are between cousins.

as i said in a previous post:

“if the problem were just that britain suddenly wound up with more retarded kids than it would’ve had otherwise, that wouldn’t be so bad. but the thing is, most brits – and definitely 110% of their politicians – are completely unaware of the larger problems that institutionalized cousin marriage brings: the tribalism; the nepotism; the ingrained antipathy towards anything remotely resembling democracy; islam and all its accoutrements.”

i suspect that muslim-immigrants-in-europe-2.0 are failing to assimilate the way that the multi-culti proponents thought they would ’cause muslim immigrants are inbreeding heavily and, therefore, becoming more and more tribalistic in their sentiments. they’re getting more radical in their ideological thinking — and practically they figure they may as well sponge off the state ’cause, h*ll, they’re not at all related to those stupid english|germans|swedes who finance the welfare state anyway.

family reunification|chain-migration patterns will just continue to exacerbate all these problems with assimilation.

previously: kissin’ cousins

(note: comments do not require an email.)

bad idea…

…f*cking around with genius. especially when the guy is, like, a friggin’ war hero:

Turing was given a choice between imprisonment or probation conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections.”

imagine how that messed up his thinking [for example, see here, here and here]. (o_O)

(note: comments do not require an email.)