crafting the message

i’m no good at this sort of thing ’cause i (for the most part) don’t instinctively understand how the neurotypicals** think/feel, however …

… if it is at all correct that northwest europeans have evolved to have less genes for “sib-altruism” (strong altruistic feelings towards extended-families/clans/tribes) due to all of their outbreeding, and have evolved instead to have more genes for reciprocal altruismif that is at all the case …

… then i think that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to try to rally northwest europeans (in both the u.s. and europe) against all of the crazy amounts of mass immigration to the west (mexicans, peoples from muslim countries like pakistan or turkey, somalis, etc.) by trying to persuade them that they need to stand together with their fellow countrymen/ethnic group/whites ’cause all they’re gonna hear is – YOU NEED TO BE LESS ALTRUISTIC! – which will just rub them the wrong way entirely.

such a message might work fine with anyone from the periphery of europe (that includes, for instance, southerners in the u.s.) who haven’t been outbreeding for so long and, so, who still have plenty of genes for “sib-altruism.” but it just ain’t gonna work on the “core” europeans — i think.

what i’m thinking is that maybe the message needs to be something like this: “look [give plenty of real world examples] — these people from these other places will not reciprocate. they do not reciprocate back in their home countries. they do not reciprocate with each other. they do not reciprocate once they are here.”

maybe if/when core europeans learn that these other peoples won’t abide by the rules — won’t honor the social contract — they’d be less inclined to be happy to let all this mass immigration continue. maybe.

of course, (at least) two very difficult problems remain: 1) it would’ve been easier to communicate this if everyone didn’t believe “we are all equal.” maybe, as john derbyshire writes, those cognitive dissonances will go away one of these days. 2) the mainstream media will never let such a message be aired.

still, i think my tactic might be better than the “we whites should unite!” one. i could be wrong, tho.

btw, i guess that most everybody will quickly drop their pc-niceness if things get really, really bad (think: pre-war germany). i’d rather we fix all these problems without having to go there, though. =/

**more on neurotypicals.

previously: we’re doomed

(note: comments do not require an email. it’s ok….)

the viagra war?

this is pretty bizarre if (IF) it’s true:

Gaddafi ‘supplies troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape’, claims diplomat

“US ambassador Susan Rice has also said, without offering evidence, that Iran was helping Syria to suppress dissent

“One of America’s most senior diplomats claimed at the United Nations security council that Muammar Gaddafi is supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape, according to diplomats.

“Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN made the claim while accusing Gaddafi of numerous human rights abuses. Earlier in the week Rice also claimed, without offering any evidence, that Iran is helping Syria suppress internal dissent.

“Foreign affairs specialists expressed scepticism about both claims.

“The Viagra claim surfaced in an al-Jazeera report last month from Libya-based doctors who said they had found Viagra in the pockets of pro-Gaddafi soldiers. But it is a jump from that to suggesting Gaddafi is supplying troops with it to encourage mass rape….”

people talk about rape during war as a weapon (pretty right) used to terrorize populations. eh. yeah, i guess hoardes of men entering your town and raping and pillaging everyone|thing in sight would be terrorizing, but i think (of course) the real reason for rape during wartime is more fundamental than even that.

what’s war all about? eliminating your competitors, i.e. competitors for resources. how do you eliminate them? well, killing them for one. you can also try to replace their genes by impregnating the women of whatever population you’re fighting. then you reduce the mating opportunities for the guys in that other group (’cause all their women are now pregnant) AND you increase your own reproduction rate. it’s a win-win situation!

also, i would think some really strong reproductive urges kick in when you’re at war. your genes are prolly “thinking”: sh*t. we could be dead any second now! better mate!

rape during human wars is kinda like my favorite example of male lions taking over a pride: they kill (or try to kill) the current males in the pride, kill all the young uns, and then mate with all the females. reproductive success! it’s all that matters.

(note: comments do not require an email.)