Who? Whom?

Who will win? Whom do we take from?

That was Lenin’s philosophy. Says Wikipedia: “Who, whom? is a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in the Russian language as кто кого (kto kogo). In Lenin’s view, this was the fundamental question of politics — who will dominate whom; who will kill and who will die? In this view, all compromises and promises between enemies are just expedients — tactical manoeuvres in the struggle for mastery.”

I can’t think of two more important words for understanding the world today than “Who? Whom?”

For instance, though Barack Obama is half white and half black, he identifies as black. That is his group that he looks out for. So he develops programs such as Obamacare that massively distribute from the rich and the middle class (overwhelmingly white) to the underclass (disproportionately black).

Ideology and religion motivate much of the world today, but probably not as much as evolution (the desire to propagate your genes over everyone else’s). Who is our group? Whom do we take from?

Steve Sailer wrote: “In reality, the end of ideology was not the “end of history,” as Francis Fukuyama famously claimed. Instead, after two centuries of occasionally battling over what is the ideal form of government, the human race has reverted to its traditional pastime of brawling over who gets to run the government. In understanding affairs of state in the non-Western world today, neither Mein Kampf nor Das Kapital nor the Gettysburg Address is as insightful a guide as The Godfather.”

I just rewatched The Godfather I and II. These movies are a great guide to post-WASP America. The Italians in these movies embody the tribal mind set. Who will conquer? Don’t trust a stranger. Country means nothing, blood means everything. You can only trust family.

The Anglo-Saxon perspective is different. Australian professor Drew Fraser wrote:

Kevin McDonald explains Western “cultural” traits as an evolutionary adaptation to the rigors of life in cold, ecologically adverse climates. Natural selection worked there to favour the reproductive success of those individuals capable of sustaining “non-kinship based forms of reciprocity.” [30]

Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls an extended phenotype.

The one group in America that doesn’t think about its group interests is WASPs. I can’t see them winning out against tribes such as Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, blacks, Armenians, etc who are fervently devoted to their own interests. “But is it good for the Jews?” is a common statement in Jewish life. As one who grew up a WASP in Australia and America, I never heard the sentiment, “But is it good for WASPs?”

Jews are concerned about inter-marriage, blacks (particularly women) and Asians (particularly men) are somewhat concerned, but WASPs have almost no concern about inter-marriage and almost no concern about their group interests. WASPs are cool with talking to strangers. That’s become an American characteristic. It’s not so common with the tribal view of life.

A simple way of understanding race is that it is an extended family, partly in-bred. Because of in-breeding, there are common characteristics. There’s a certain look to many Australians and the English, to many Orientals and blacks, to many Mexican Indians and Mexicans of European descent.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been covered in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and on 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in Race. Bookmark the permalink.