Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession The moral and intellectual high ground in the contemporary

West is controlled by elites hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West and able to punish dissenters by loss of job or even penalties at law.

Within this context, the immediate short-term self-interest of most Whites is to go along with the current regime. public displays of White guilt and positive attitudes to

immigration, multiculturalism and “diversity” serve as markers of allegiance to the current power structure;

necessary for career advancement and opposition will lead to ostracism, job loss, etc.

The dispossession of Whites is massively incentivized.

Social Learning consequences of domination by hostile elites

Social learning. Models are far more effective if they have prestige and high status.

Fits well with an evolutionary perspective in which seeking high social status is a universal feature of the human mind.

Propaganda much more effective if promoted by elites that are seen as legitimate;

Elite academic and media institutions seen as legitimate by the great majority;

Harvard prof in the New York Times: a sign of intelligence and education;

Immigration is a consensus value among elites; opposing it is a sign lack of education and a moral defect.

The Culture of Critique: Jewish intellectual movements had access to the most prestigious academic institutions.

The New York Intellectuals: Ties with elite universities, particularly Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, University of California–Berkeley

Boasian Anthropology and psychoanalysis: Throughout academia

Anti-biologism in the social sciences: Harvard (Gould, Lewontin) and throughout academia

Frankfurt School: Columbia, University of California-Berkeley; now spread throughout academia

Neoconservatives: University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Cornell Success not based on truth or factual support but on networking

and elite dominance

The Consequences of Institutional Dominance

Once the new value set was institutionalized, it became the focus of status competition within the boundaries set by these movements;

Once an organization becomes dominated by a particular intellectual perspective, there is enormous inertia created by the fact that the informal networks dominating elite universities serve as gatekeepers for the next generation of scholars: hiring, tenure

Aspiring academics are subjected to a high level of indoctrination at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

The Consequences of Institutional Dominance

Tremendous psychological pressure to adopt the fundamental intellectual assumptions that lie at the center of the power hierarchy of the discipline: e.g., the White race is a social construct

Once such a movement attains intellectual predominance, people are attracted because of the prestige associated with them—social learning mechanisms

Conservatives who are turned off by these ideas simply self-select to go into a different line of work. Ethan Fosse and Neil Gross, “Why Are Professors Liberal?”

(Working paper. University of British Columbia), 2009. Dissenters shunned, ostracized, denied tenure, grants, promotions.

E. O. Wilson, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, J. Philippe Rushton, Helmuth Nyborg

Individualism and Evolution

Fritz Lenz (~1930): Nordic evolution in harsh environment of the Ice Ages; Less between-group competition: Ecology did not support tribes

and clan-type social organization. Natural selection for intelligence and inventiveness to deal with

difficult climate Tendency toward social isolation Individualism is part of Western uniqueness

Worldwide distribution of Individualism

Individualism and Patents

Individualism and Evolution: Individual Choice based on personal attraction

Natural selection for pair bonding (love) and high-investment in children

Monogamy: Polygyny not supportable for evolutionarily significant period as hunter-gatherers

Collectivist societies: Arranged marriage to kinsman

Individualism and Evolution: Individual Choice based on personal attraction rather than cousin marriage

Exogamous marriage based on individual choice, personal attraction rather than kinship and family strategy; many societies practice cousin marriage Love as basis of personal attraction (people too high on

this trait [especially women] tend to be pathologically altruistic)

Sexual selection for blond hair, blue eyes—the peacock’s tail

Far more hair-color and eye color diversity in Europe and particularly Northwest Europe

Individualism and Evolution Less ethnocentric: Europeans less selected for between

group competition; more for dealing with ecological adversity Less involvement in extended kinship networks Nuclear family: Mom, dad, and the kids rather than extended

family of collateral kin. Collectivist societies: Extended family, compound household

Bilateral kinship: Higher status for women

European Population Genetics

Western Hunter-Gatherers: >8000 years ago; northern h-g evolved white skin, pale eyes, light hair. ***

Middle Eastern Farmers: ~ 7000 years ago; white skin; most influential in the south where white skin spread among previously dark-skinned h-g’s;

Yamnaya/Indo-Europeans from Pontic Steppe: ~4500 years ago; around 20% in all Europeans

I. Lazaridis et al., “Ancient genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans” Nature 513 (Sept. 2014).

P. Skogland: Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe; Science 27 April 2012

People of southern, central and northern Swedish descent are, on average, of 41±8%, 36±7%, and 31±6% Neolithic farmer–related ancestry, respectively

Individualism and Evolution Hunter-gatherer groups are relatively egalitarian; leadership by consensus

rather than authoritarian; despots removed Egalitarian Individualism: No one can rise about the others. Common in hunter-gatherer groups; Christopher Boehm Scandinavia as the paradigm The 10 commitments of Jante Law 1. Don't think you are anything; 2. Don't think you are as good as us. 3. Don't

think you are smarter than us. 4. Don't fancy yourself better than us. 5. Don't think you know more than us. 6. Don't think you are greater than us. 7. Don't think you are good for anything. 8. Don't laugh at us. 9. Don't think that anyone cares about you. 10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

Aksel Sandemose (1899-1965) in his novel En flyktning krysser sitt spor ("A fugitive crosses his tracks", 1933).

 

Individualism and Psychology

Personal goals (not group goals) are paramount Socialization emphasizes the importance of self reliance,

independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.”

Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers; less ethnocentric

More likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers (e.g., White medical missionaries to Africa; adopting Haitian babies)

Empathy and pathological altruism not based on kinship; prone to universalist empathy.

Empathy/love as a (heritable) personality system

-4=sociopathic (Bill Clinton, Tony Blair); -2=cold, aloof, little desire for affection; 0=average; +1-+2=warm, affection-seeking; cohesive family relationships; nurturing, children; compartmentalized: focused on own family and close friends+2-+3=affection-craving, empathy and altruism less discriminating, more universal; more gullible and seeing the best in others; more prone to guilt+3-+4 pathologically empathic, altruistic; dependency disorder

Women > Men; MacDonald, K. B. (2012). Temperament and evolution. In M. Zentner and R. L. Shiner (Eds.), Handbook of Temperament. NY: Guilford.Racial/ethnic differences? Especially important among individualist h-g’s as marriage criterion; Richard Lynn on Blacks.

Individualism and Psychology: Creating Cohesive Groups of Individualists

19th-century racial scientists: Idealism as ethnic trait of Nordics.

Universalist moral ideals are erected and then steps are taken to achieve the moral vision by changing the world, often accompanied by a great deal of moral fervor. Yankee-Puritan utopian communities in 19th-century America

Morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal — e.g., Kant’s moral imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

Individualism and Psychology: Creating Cohesive Groups of Individualists

Moral idealism as consensus building and control in an individualistic society where kinship relations are weak or non-existent.

Individualism implies an equality of interest—that everyone has interests but no one has a privileged moral position—philosopher John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance.”

Creates morally defined ingroup, not defined by by ethnicity or kinship. Shame, Guilt as motivators: Internal control All intellectual movements in The Culture of Critique

involved moral critique.

Individualism and Psychology: Creating Cohesive Groups of Individualists

Arguments on morality therefore must necessarily seek an abstract sense of morality, independent of the interests of any particular individual.

Groups have no privileged moral standing at all.Collectivist societies based on kinship distance for

political factions. Arab proverb: I against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin …all of us against the foreigner.

“Is it good for the Jews?”

Individualism and Psychology: Creating Cohesive Groups of Individualists

Reputation is critical in the absence of kinship as the measure of all things: Personal honesty and integrity; upholding moral norms; guilt for transgressing

Collectivist societies: Familial obligations lead to corruption.

Individualistic societies have high levels of public trust, low levels of corruption.Strong emphasis on conformity to group norms; Stifling conformity of Puritan groups; to ignore group norms is to ruin public reputation

Extreme individualism is characteristic of Whites when internal controls based on guilt and shaming are rejected

Libertarian anarchism: 19th-century offshoot of Puritan New England Benjamin Tucker: unfettered individualism and opposition to

prohibitions on non-invasive behavior (“free love”, etc.) The New Bohemians in Greenwich Village (ca. 1910–1917);

Max Eastman (1883–1969); Cultural liberation defined as freedom from constraints—an early

version of 1960s hippies: self discovery, emotion over logic, intuition, rebellion, free love, Black jazz, and leftist politics. Eric Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America

Libertarianism: Ron Paul; oppose drug laws, race-based affirmative action, social safety net, foreign aid; tend to favor open borders and civil liberties Ayn Rand’s Objectivism; Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead

Individualism and Psychology: Creating Cohesive Groups of Individualists

Implicit Whiteness: Whites form groups but publically Whiteness has nothing to do with it: Tea Party, NASCAR, White suburbs

Explicit Whiteness: We are White and have interests as Whites

Cortical Control of subcortical feelings; can inhibit “prejudiced” responses

Media—Explicit messages self-control of pro-white attitudes

Leads to guilt

Controlling pro-White attitudesMedia messages: Pro-White attitudes are evil; creation of a

moral community

Cortex

— +

Limbic System: Pro-White attitudes, attraction to genetically

similar others (Rushton), xenophobia; MacDonald, K. (2008). Effortful Control, Explicit Processing and the Regulation of Human Evolved

Predispositions. Psychological Review, 115(4), 1012–1031.

The fight over control of the cortex

The Culture of Critique: human evolution is now being fought out in the realm of ideas.

The intellectual movements of the left—particularly the moral imperative of immigration and multiculturalism, the decline of evolutionary thinking in the social sciences, and the general loss of cultural confidence by the West—have been major components of the huge unfolding evolutionary disaster for Europeans.

Historical examples: Puritans Puritans: Based in East Anglia, originally from Denmark Relatively small social class differences; no slave class The tendency to pursue utopian causes framed as moral

issues Utopian appeals to a “higher law” and the belief that

government’s principal purpose is moral. Yankee-Puritan utopian communities in 19th-century America Willing to incur great costs to impose moral perfection: Altruistic

punishment Morally defined ingroup: Led the movement in the U.S. to abolish

slavery on moral grounds Strong controls within the group to enforce morality—17th-century

version of political correctness Low levels of criminal violence, highest level of public executions

Psychology of Moral idealismUtopian cause: Ending slavery, establishing ideal society

Cortex

— +

Limbic System: Self-interest; economic prosperity for Britain

New Zealand vs. U.S.: Fairness and Freedom

David Hackett Fischer’s book on comparing the treatment of the U.S. by the British Empire of the 18th century (which led to the American Revolution) with the treatment of New Zealand in the 19th century.

The most important characteristic of the British Empire at the time of New Zealand colonization beginning in 1840 was a greater emphasis on social justice (fairness). USA--Liberty

Colonial administrators like Captain William Hobson (“a leader of high probity … [who] recruited able and honorable men to serve in the colony” [p. 84]) were concerned about justice and fairness—self-consciously trying to uphold a universalist morality.

New Zealand vs. U.S.: Fairness and Freedom Already in the 19th century we see a strong sense of “high-

mindedness” (p. 87) and crusading moral universalism. Bishop George Augustus Selwyn, who became Anglican Bishop of New Zealand in 1841, was “a high-principled idealist” with a “broad ecumenical version of Christianity which in New Zealand became linked to an idea of racial equality between Pakeha [i.e., Whites] and Maoris” ; Selwyn was “a fierce defender of Maori rights” [p. 87]).

Andrew Joyce on the Morant Bay (Jamaica) Rebellion of 1861 TOQ, Summer, 2013 “To the clear-thinking individual, it was a plainly criminal, and

unimaginably brutal series of actions, carried out for malicious reasons against a population targeted for being White. And yet, there was a liberal faction in England convinced not only that it was the Black population that were the true victims, but also that their fellow Whites were reprehensible monsters who deserved the fate which befell them. This pathological response, laden with a misplaced hyper-emotionality, would shake the Empire to its core, sapping its confidence, and bequeathing a legacy which is still felt to this day.”

 

Andrew Joyce: “The Morant Bay of 1865” TOQ, Summer, 2013

The main warriors on behalf of the Blacks were Christian philanthropists who believed that these races could be raised to standards of education and conduct which would place them alongside Europeans.

Members of this group tended to be non-Conformist, middle-class, and liberal or radical in their politics.

Crucially, most had never travelled outside Britain, and had little or no experience with the races they so emphatically and persistently eulogized.

The Movement to End Slavery in England (TOQ, Summer, 2013

Late 18th century, Quakers, Methodists, Puritans, and increasingly as time went on, the Church of England. All of these groups opposed slavery.

Quakers central because they were the leaders at the very center of the movement to abolish slavery in England.

Quaker networks and Quaker money were “of critical importance” in the early campaigns of 1787–1788; they were “the foremost champions of liberty for enslaved Africans.” Quakers did the vast majority of the practical, day-to-day work of the Society and were a major source of funding.

Quaker ideology Quaker religious ideology is the apotheosis of moral

universalism—an ideology in which moral principles trump self-interest.

A basic Quaker belief was that “the ‘Inner Light’ of God’s revelation shone equally on human beings of any race or class.”

Anthony Benezet: human equality “was an ontological fact rather than a philosophical doctrine or maxim”; in addition to his African slaves, he extended his interest to the welfare of Native Americans and the poor in Philadelphia.

A statement by a Quaker subcommittee submitted to Parliament was titled The Case of Our Fellow-Creatures, the Oppressed Africans.

Quakers Highly egalitarian: they were “democratic and

nonhierarchical”; there were no bishops or ordained ministers, and any person (including women) could speak. As with hunter-gatherer groups (see below), policy was passed by consensus of the entire meeting.

Quakers were economically successful, a merchant class capable of devoting substantial resources to the cause of anti-slavery activism.

Like the original Puritans, the Quakers formed a group apart, where group membership was based on moral/ideological conformity. They were a “holy nation” who, also like the Puritans, desired that England become a Holy Commonwealth—the nation as moral ingroup, not kinship or race.

Dissenters shunned and ostracized: Sound familiar?!

Quakers

There was a watchful regard for morals of the society, and a strict determination to bring all misdemeanors to account. Friends were regularly appointed to examine into and to report on the state of the society. Did a member neglect to attend on the means of grace, or was he guilty of “disorderly walking,” he was exhorted in a brotherly way.

Like the Puritans, an early version of political correctness  The hunter-gatherer ethic implies that one’s moral character

becomes the most important aspect of ingroup status. Individuals maintain their position in society by subscribing to its moral norms. Fundamentally, the movement to end slavery operated by defining abolitionism as a moral ingroup psychologically analogous to the situation in a hunter-gatherer ingroup. Those who continued to advocate the slave trade and slavery were shunned as moral pariahs.

Quakers The logic connecting these tendencies to the individualist

hunter-gather model is that like all humans in a dangerous and difficult world, hunter-gatherers need to develop cohesive, cooperative ingroups.

But rather than base them on known kinship relations, the prototypical egalitarian-individualist groups of Northwest Europe are based on moral reputation and trust.

Like the Puritans (East Anglia), the Quakers stem from a distinctive, ethnically based British subculture originating in Scandinavia. The predominant region for Quakers in England was the North Midlands colonized by Viking invaders who prized individual ownership of houses and fields; they spoke Norse into the twelfth century.

Quakers, et al. John Woolman, the “Quintessential Quaker,” was an

eighteenth-century figure who opposed slavery, lived humbly, and, amazingly from an evolutionary perspective, felt guilty about preferring his own children to children on the other side of the world.

Quakers created a moral ingroup in which those outside the ingroup were seen as immoral, while being inside the moral ingroup activated their brain circuits for pleasure and self-esteem.

Similar tendencies can be found among the Methodists, some influential Anglicans, and especially the descendants of the Puritans whose sense of moral idealism was a critical factor in the anti-slavery movement in the U.S.

Moral ingroups

Abolitionists framed the African slaves as members of a common humanity—as members of a universal moral ingroup rather than a racial outgroup.

Reverend James Ramsay, the leading intellectual light of the Evangelical Anglicans, the point of opposition to slavery was to “gain to society, to reason, to religion, half a million of our kind, equally with us adapted for advancing themselves in every art and science that can distinguish man from man, equally with us capable of looking forward to and enjoying futurity.”

HMS Brookes, 1792: Pulling for Universalist Empathy; Swedish PM: “Open Your Hearts”

“Am I not a man and a brother?” Medallion, 1792: Pulling for Universalist Empathy

Conclusion Western uniqueness results from two powerful currents:

1.) Hunter-gatherer culture indigenous to Europe, especially Northern Europe, and persisting through the Ice Ages Egalitarian individualism Exogamy, personal attraction as basis of marriage; weak extended

kinship relations Representative, non-despotic political culture Moral conformity and reputation as force for ingroup social cohesion

rather than kinship Policing the morals of the group—now opposition to “racism,” pro-White

sentiments

Conclusion Western uniqueness results mainly from two powerful

currents: 2.) Aristocratic egalitarianism likely stemming mainly from Indo-

European invaders after ~3500 BC Offshoot of Neolithic culture enabled by increasing productivity of

animal husbandry culture Strongly hierarchical military cultures Egalitarian within the elite of peers; non-despotic political culture Powerful relations of dominance and subordination between

themselves as an elite and the lower strata. European pre-modern military elites; planters in U.S. South

Individualism and the Decline of the West

Egalitarian individualism has consistently won out over aristocratic individualism in Western history at least since the English Civil War

E.g., American Civil War pitted the egalitarian individualists of the North (Puritan-descended) versus the aristocratic individualists (Cavaliers) of the South

In America, the Puritan tradition of moral universalism dominated culturally until the rise of Jewish-dominated intellectual movements of the 20 th century.

The Puritan liberal tradition altered by a period of ethnic defense from 1920-1965 based on Darwinian thinking. Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard

White ethnic defense collapsed after 1965 with rise of Jews as a “hostile elite.”

Relatively weak ethnocentrism (WASP elite was relatively permeable) and proneness to moral universalism made Whites susceptible

Moral idealism as the ideology of Western suicide

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in 20th-century Intellectual and Political Movements Moral indictment of the West: Slavery, colonialism, anti-Semitism,

exclusion of Jews from the Protestant elite The general dismantling of the culture of the West, and

eventually its demise as anything resembling an ethnic entity, will occur as a result of a moral onslaught.

Suggestions 1. Defending the moral legitimacy of defending the traditional

peoples and cultures of the West 2. Emphasize the costs of multiculturalism—conflict,

disengagement and lack of community, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods

3. Creating our own moral ingroups, shunning those who disagree

Suggestions 4. Make White people conscious of their hyper-moral,

universalist, indiscriminately empathic, individualist tendencies. Like other natural tendencies, they can be blocked by top-down cortical control.

Cortex: Racial/ethnic and cultural survival

— +

Individualism, Universalist Empathy, etc.