Does Attachment Theory Matter?

The blogger Jayman wrote: “The transmission of misery or bliss in a family is entirely due to shared genes, just like most everything else.”

Rex responds: “But what about religion? Most people take their religion from their parents. Is it totally irrelevant whether a child is brought up Muslim, Scientologist, Jain or Jewish?”

Jayman responds:

To the incredulous commenters above, yes, I realize the idea that parenting has no lasting impact on children’s outcomes is a tough pill to swallow, one that you might say defies common sense and experience. But, as I said in one of my recent tweets, science does occasionally produce counter-intuitive results. Indeed, if it did not – if it always confirmed our naive intuitions – we wouldn’t have to do science.

The case for the non-existence of lasting parental effects is borne out of overwhelming evidence. I review a good bit of it in the following two posts:

The Son Becomes The Father | JayMan’s Blog

and

More Behavioral Genetic Facts | JayMan’s Blog

To be clear: I’m not talking just some broad nebulous personality traits, or even IQ. I mean all the stuff that “really matters” – all the stuff where you’d expect parental treatment, lessons, and examples to “make a difference” , including:

Political/societal views, attitudes, and values
Religiosity
Criminality
Psychopathology (mental problems, like anxiety disorders, depression, ADD, etc.)
Marital stability/divorce risk
Promiscuity
Substance abuse
Income
Mate choice
Adult life satisfaction (happiness)

Each one of these is backed by gigantic studies as discussed in the above posts. These studies span the Western world, as well as East Asia. Parents have an important task in keep their kids healthy and safe. But most of the parental efforts, beyond that which is devoted to this end (which itself was NOT any small job in the past, let’s not forget) or to pass on knowledge merely serves the end of bringing joy to parents and children. In other words, the things parents do for children should be enjoyed for their own sake.

Hmm. Over the past six months, I’ve spent hundreds of hours studying the work of UCLA psychiatrist Daniel J. Siegel (who is best known for promoting mindfulness to achieve secure attachment). I’ve Googled him and read all the negative reviews of his books and I can’t find any significant debunking. Still, I want to be sure I am not studying nonsense.

I find this essay fascinating:

Five hundred people sat in a packed workshop at the Networker Symposium last March, listening to eminent developmental psychologist and researcher Jerome Kagan draw on more than four decades of research he’s conducted as he discussed the clinical relevance of inborn temperament. Midway through the session, responding to a question from the audience, he tried to clarify an earlier, seemingly disparaging, comment he’d made about attachment theory. But he soon removed any possible doubt about where he stood. “I’m glad that attachment theory is dead,” he said. “I never thought it would go anywhere.”

There was a moment of stunned silence, followed by a low hum as people shifted in their seats and murmured to each other. Whatever their imperfect understanding of the voluminous research literature of attachment theory, for most therapists in the room, the idea that the early emotional attunement of a mother/caregiver (or lack of it) profoundly affects the child’s psychological development was as self-evident as the worthiness of therapy itself. Indeed, during the last 15 to 20 years, attachment theory has exerted more influence in the field of psychotherapy than just about any other model, approach, or movement. Though not a clinical methodology, it has justified a whole range of therapeutic perspectives and practices. Among them are a particular sensitivity to the role of traumatic or neglectful ties with early caregivers; the fundamental importance of affect regulation to successful therapy; the importance of establishing relationships with clients characterized by close, intense, emotional, and physical attunement; and the ultimate goal of recreating in therapy an attachment experience that makes up, at least to some degree, for what the client missed the first time around. That attachment theory itself has amassed a vast body of empirical evidence (see p.34) is often taken, by extension, to cast a glow of scientific credibility on attachment-based therapy. So when Kagan delivered his offhand rebuke, he was raising fundamental questions about the evidence supporting findings that most therapists there considered not just theory, but well-established fact.

Suddenly, in the wordless void that followed Kagan’s bombshell, psychiatrist, brain researcher, and staunch attachment theory proponent Daniel Siegel popped out of his seat, looked for a floor microphone to respond, and, finding none, strode up the center aisle and bounded onto the
stage. As a startled Kagan looked on and the entire ballroom audience sat dumbfounded, Siegel, the conference keynote speaker from that morning, asked for a microphone and announced: “I can’t let this audience listen to your argument without hearing the other side. Have you actually read the attachment research?” he demanded of his colleague.

There followed a heated, impromptu debate between the two men that later became the talk of the conference. Part of the buzz was because it was a disagreement between two stars—Jerome Kagan, arguably the most revered developmental psychologist in the world, and Daniel Siegel, one of the most influential thinkers and teachers in the field of psychotherapy today. Each brought to bear both an impressive resume and passionately held convictions on the age-old question about human development: which counts more—nature or nurture? Beyond its sheer drama, two things stood out about this spontaneous encounter—the surprise that a discussion of research findings could generate such intellectual fervor at a psychotherapy conference and, for the majority of the audience, the shock that there was any debate at all about the role of early experience in human development. It was as if a leading biologist had gotten up at a professional conference to denounce germ theory.

…psychologist and sex therapist David Schnarch suggests that it can keep adult couples stuck in the role of perpetually needy children. Author of the bestselling Passionate Marriage and several other books, and founder of a tough-minded, differentiation-based approach to couples’ counseling, Schnarch believes that relationship failure stems not from lack of emotional connection between partners—the focus of attachment-based therapy—but too much of the wrong kind. Partners become enmeshed, lose a sense of selfhood, and depend on positive reinforcement and reassurance from each other because they can’t soothe their own anxieties, and then have relationship difficulties when both demand validation from theother but neither will give it. Each partner needs, in effect, to grow up, learn to tolerate anxiety, and take charge of him- or herself before they can fully connect with the other.

Schnarch says that couples come to see him on the brink of divorce, whose own therapists told them not to see him, since they needed to attach before they could differentiate. This is exactly backward, he says. “Adults don’t need to go back and attach—that is not the right approach and just reinforces weakness, fragility, and dependency—characteristics of the emotional fusion, connection in the absence of differentiation, that is causing the problems in the first place. The solution is not to get them even closer together. Attachment-based therapy plugs together troubled couples only as long as they mutually validate and stroke each other, move in lock step, and keep on doing it. It encourages co-dependency.

Part Two

Posted in Psychology | Comments Off

How Can I Cash In On My White Privilege?

Chaim Amalek: “Sell your sperm to dusky women who harbor the desire for whiter children. Charge $50 a pop. This would seemingly combine two of your favorite things: The goy’s desire to get off, and the Jew’s desire for gelt.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

Why Are Young Americans Less Patriotic?

As a smaller proportion of young Americans are white, there is proportionately less patriotism aka national loyalty. Members of tribes have a different relationship to the United States and to other nation states (unless the nation state is also their tribal state, such as Israel).

The New York Times reports: “Past generations have declined only marginally in their nationalism over time – they start out high and mainly remain so. But today’s youngest generation begins adulthood with much lower levels of fondness for the symbols of America, and if the past is a guide, there is no reason to expect increases as they age.”

There is a WASP core to the United States and the further you get from WASP, the less loyalty you find towards America. Whites, for instance, pay the most taxes and take out the least welfare while blacks, proportionately, pay the least taxes and take the most welfare.

May 17, 2012, Dennis Prager said on his radio show: “As it happens, proportionately speaking, more whites seem to have identified with the American value system (liberty, in God we trust, y pluribus unum) than non-whites. That’s why whites vote disproportionately conservative.”

When Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, who did you see celebrating in the streets? It wasn’t primarily blacks, Jews, latinos or Asians. It was whites.

Samuel Francis said in 1994: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Do you think the millions of Mexicans who came to America and wave Mexican flags in America when they march and they boo the American soccer team and send billions of dollars home really love America or they want to transform it into an extension of Mexico? Do you think the tens of thousands of Chinese university students who come here for an education love America? I don’t.

Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in a 1990 interview: “The approach that we’ve seen throughout the Eastern European experience was largely one of isolation both imposed by the gentile society and also self‑imposed. That approach has been, by and large, continued in western societies by significant numbers of Orthodox Jews. They view gentile society simply as the arena in which they can pursue their own Jewish agenda, and they have very little interest in that society except insofar as it can help them pursue that agenda in indirect ways.”

That’s how tribes work, not just the Jewish tribe.

“I’m talking essentially about an approach that would have Jews weigh all societal questions on one scale of ‘How will this effect Jews?’ and should have very little, or a vastly secondary, concern for the wider society in and of itself. This parochial view is found in both religious and secular Jews, but it originally stems from the notion that the gentile is himself secondary in the eyes of the creator.”

“If Christianity is, as many maintain, Avodah Zorah, does this mean that the millions and millions of Catholics and Protestants who have lived for the past 2000 years have no share in haolam haba (the world to come)? Is that what we’re saying about these millions of sincere, pious people? In reality we often don’t assess the status of the gentile as if he himself had any intrinsic value. We always seem to be applying to him criteria that are relevant to us, but do not define either his objective or subjective status.”

“Can we live ethically in societies while not caring about them? What are the implications for anti‑semitism? If we hold to the notion that the gentile is secondary for God are we not in fact embracing a philosophy that is the fulfillment of every accusation that the anti‑semites have made about us?”

“Now, take the question of military service: should a Jew serve in the armies of the gentile nations he is living in? Should he try to get out of such service? try to get into it? If the answer is that he should try to get out of it or refuse to serve or lie his way out of it, then is the Jew a citizen? Should the gentile view him as a citizen. Should the Jew be granted equal rights if he is unwilling to make equal sacrifices? So I think you can’t escape the practical implications of these questions.”

Kahane has asked a very simple question. He asks: if we believe in absolute truth how can we believe in majority rule? He’s also asked another question, and that is whether a society which has a vision for itself (and in this particular case a religious vision, but I think this also applies to ethnic and cultural visions as well) allow for what I call ’1789′ or French revolutionary political rights? This is a very big problem and I don’t think that Jews have (confronted) or answered it honestly. On the one hand, for the past three or four hundred years of world history we have been in the forefront of those movements that have championed majority rule, pluralism, and ‘bill of rights’ type, 1789 rights. Yet when we get to Eretz Yisrael and we have our own country we’re all of a sudden saying ‘No, we don’t believe in simple majority rule. We believe that a nation has the right to preserve its own identity.’ Now, would we extend that right to Englishmen, to Frenchmen, to Germans, to Americans? I think Kahane is asking great questions. His answer is (and I’m just quoting him here from memory) that there are no nationalisms except Jewish nationalism. Now that might be an answer, and if you follow the really hard line traditionalist approach the answer would be that there really are no other nationalisms in God’s sight. All other nationalisms are a sham. So, when we’re Jews in Western Europe and America we try to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant in order to protect ourselves, but not because we think societies ought to be that way in order to be healthy societies. We think healthy societies are non‑pluralistic, but when you’re living amongst those ‘crazy goyim’ who can kill you at every turn you advocate political rights and pluralism.”

“Take, for example, Jewish involvement in the civil rights movements. Ask a Jew why he was in favor of civil rights and very often he’ll come up with something like the following rationale: ‘We could be next!’ In fact recently there was a press report on Le Pen’s movement in France which reported that French Jews are opposing Le Pen because they are afraid that after the Arabs they’ll be next. Now this feeling is often subconscious and I’m not saying that there weren’t also many Jews who were idealistic about their politics, but the question is did the Jew really feel that a white Protestant southerner should have an integrated society? Or did the Jew really feel that for our own political agenda their ought to be an integrated society. Would the Jews have wanted integration with the blacks if the southern whites were Jewish Orthodox?”

“If the Jew understood this contradiction would he then have the chutzpah to continue to do what he does in Western society? Maybe it’s better that he doesn’t grasp it because than he would lose his easy assent to these things and feel less at home in gentile society. If the assumption is correct that these rights are what protect us from the wrath of the goyim then maybe it’s better that we continue to fool ourselves; for to be consciously manipulative (in backing liberal causes for selfish reasons) would be far harder than to be subconsciously manipulative (consciously thinking you are backing these causes from pure motives), which is the way the Jew operates now.”

“Eastern Europeans, and consequently chasidim in America, don’t have some of the restraints that Anglo‑Saxon and Northern European cultures have. They’re not as reserved. They don’t need as much physical space. They push easier.”

Posted in America, Race | Comments Off

Is Sportsmanship A White Thing?

I’m disgusted at all the flopping about in the World Cup, not just among South Americans but also among Europeans such as the Dutch. The Americans and the British flop a lot less because they have these quaint Anglo-Saxon ideals of good sportsmanship.

As we let in more non-white immigrants such as Muslims, we get more horrors such as this, as reported by MLIVE.com:

LIVONIA, MI — The death of a Westland man who was assaulted during a Sunday soccer match has captured national attention, and the head of a referees’ group is speaking out on the matter — again.

Barry Mano, president of the Wisconsin-based National Association of Sports Officials has spoken at length on the violent death of a soccer referee once before, after Ricardo Portillo was punched by a teenage player and died a week later near Salt Lake City, Utah in 2013.

Mano was asked during an HBO interview last year whether he believed such an incident would ever happen again.

“My answer was ‘Yes.’ And, sadly, I have been proven right about something I wish with every bone in my body I would have been proven wrong,” Mano wrote in a column to be published in Referee magazine.

This time, the victim was John Bieniewicz, a 44-year-old dialysis technician at Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor.

Police believe Bassel Saad, 36, of Dearborn, punched Bieniewicz after growing angry when the referee signaled for his ejection during a soccer match at Mies Park on West Chicago Street in Livonia around noon Sunday.

JARED TAYLOR WROTE:

Respect for others suffuses the other qualities we think of as typifying Western man. Ideals of sportsmanship, for example, are meant to curb expressions of triumphalism and protect the loser from humiliation. They are also meant to instill in competitors a respect for fair play that is more powerful than the desire to win. In its most extreme form, fair play requires that a player refuse to believe he was cheated.

In his younger days Teddy Roosevelt pursued “the strenuous life.” Historians write of the time he was in a boxing match when the gong sounded the end of the round. Just as Roosevelt dropped his guard his opponent let fly and hit him square in the face.

Blood gushed from Roosevelt’s nose. A growl of disapproval rose from the crowd. Roosevelt went to the edge of the ring and shouted: “He didn’t hear the bell. He didn’t hear the bell.”

The history of the penalty kick in British soccer reflects the same tradition. The kick was granted on the assumption that a player who was fouled within scoring distance must have been deliberately fouled. When soccer became a professional sport, many former British amateurs would not take the penalty kick. They refused to believe that anyone in their sport could commit a deliberate foul.

Rooting for the underdog is another European sporting tradition. This, too, shows Western man’s concern for the other person’s point of view. Some competitors may be no-hopers, but we cheer their efforts and hope for the unexpected upset.

The swaggering, “trash talk,” corner cutting, and absence of gentlemanly play that characterize sports today are largely the importation of non-white behavior into a previously white arena. Sadly, many whites have been infected and act just as loutishly.

Posted in Sports, Whites | Comments Off

Should Schools Eject Disruptive Students?

Black educator Andre M. Perry writes in the Washington Post:

The achievement gap for black children is not a sufficient reason to push underperformers out. (It’s no better, and no less preposterous, than another path to close the gap: stop educating white people.) If schools don’t have everything they need to instill positive behaviors in their toughest kids, then let’s find the resources and staff for them to do it. Instead of lobbying for more disciplinary autonomy for schools, let’s petition for wrap-around services, restructured in-school suspensions, conflict mediation, restorative justice programs, parenting courses, out-of school behavioral services or a host of other interventions that address the problem. Just as long as we keep the kids in school.

It does not matter much for society if moronic and disruptive students are kept in school or not. No First World society has effectively assimilated most of its black citizens. There’s no prosperous majority-black country in the world. Mestizo-Mexicans don’t form first-world communities either, even with abundant government welfare. The main problem in our schools is bad students, not bad teachers.

Thomas Jackson wrote in 1996:

Ever since crime started rising sharply in the 1960s, it has been a subject of increasingly intensive study by criminologists. Crime, edited by two of the most highly-regarded authorities on the subject, James Q. Wilson of UCLA and Joan Petersilia of UC Irvine, is a collection of 20 scholarly essays by experts, summarizing the current academic understanding of street crime. Although the authors either ignore the implications of race or speak of it sotto voce, it is clear that criminologists are shedding some of the social science illusions from previous decades. Among their findings:

Criminals almost always share certain characteristics, both genetic and environmental.
Poverty and unemployment do not cause crime.
Rehabilitation does not work.
The only practical benefit of prison is that it keeps criminals from committing more crime.
Drug treatment, “crime prevention,” and alternatives to imprisonment do not work.
Early “intervention” to reform juvenile delinquents does not work.

What this boils down to is that certain people are going to commit crimes no matter what society does. Only middle age — not punishment — cures them.

The personality of the typical criminal is already established by age two or three. He is aggressive, refractory, impulsive, unaffectionate, and difficult to rear. By contrast, a child with a sunny, winning disposition is very unlikely to become a criminal. As one of the authors explains, “antisocial personality almost never shows up in adulthood (barring brain injury or disease) without having been foreshadowed by antisocial behavior in childhood.”

Criminals tend to have sex and try drugs at an early age, and start offending when they are young, breaking windows and setting fires before they are teenagers. Nearly every career criminal had a long juvenile record, and nearly every juvenile with a long record becomes an adult criminal. These are the chronic offenders who terrorize society; about six percent of the male population accounts for 50 percent of all arrests. These same proportions have been found in other countries.

The association between low IQ and crime is now beyond doubt; the typical offender’s score is 10 to 15 points below normal. Low IQ is not, however, decisive, but must usually be combined with the typical criminal personality. One telling indicator of future deviance is a school record that is even worse than a child’s low IQ would predict. Disobedience and impulsiveness combine with dim-wittedness to make bad students, who often become offenders. Interestingly, the larger the family, the more likely that the children will be delinquent.

Consistent though these criminal characteristics are, they are not sure predictors. Many refractory, low-IQ children do not become predators. These traits indicate a strong propensity for crime but only a minority act on it. It is extremely likely that these characteristics are hereditary. Studies in Scandinavia have shown that children of criminals, when given up for adoption, are considerably more likely than other children to become criminals. Curiously, this link is stronger for property crime than for violent crime. If any given criminal has a twin, the twin is more likely than average also to be a criminal. If he has an identical twin, the chances are even greater…

A specialist on crime in schools proposes that high school be voluntary rather than compulsory. It is impossible to teach anything to dim, crime-prone boys who are in school against their wills. In fact, they often cause so much trouble it is impossible to teach anything to anyone. The author guesses that some tens of thousands of the worst cases would leave school if they could, which would be an unqualified blessing. He does not think they would then go on a crime binge. They are already committing crimes, and juvenile offending is not much higher when school is out than when it is in session.

Like the others, the chapter on gang crime concludes that “intervention” has no effect. Gangs have their own cycles of violence that have nothing to do with enforcement efforts. When the killing gets out of hand, even psychopaths get scared and declare cease-fires. If the cease-fire happens to coincide with a much-touted anti-gang campaign, the same technique will be tried in some other city but to no effect. The author argues that since gangs thrive on enemies, any specifically anti-gang effort or police unit will strengthen gang solidarity and increase crime.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

How Do We Preserve Western Civilization?

Rabbi Mayer Schiller wrote in 1995: If current trends continue, some time in the middle of the next century the majority of this nation’s inhabitants will be nonwhites. As has been shown repeatedly in the pages of American Renaissance, the presence of large numbers of nonwhites irrevocably changes the character of a school, neighborhood, city or state. Most whites find these changes so disagreeable that they simply move away. However, they can do this only because there are still many areas of the country that are overwhelmingly white. What will happen if whites become a minority?

Even before whites are reduced to a minority, the shift towards a largely nonwhite population will be felt in all areas of life. Taxes, crime, and disease will rise. “Reverse discrimination” will become the norm. Ever larger parts of the country will be essentially off limits to whites, even as government resorts to ever more draconian measures to enforce integration. Legislatures and schools dominated by nonwhites will rewrite our history, belittle our heritage, overturn our monuments, and abandon the cultural norms of our civilization. This is the great crisis of our times.1

As the demographic tide shifts, it will be futile to defend “the canon” of Western literature or, in the South, to try to keep the Confederate flag flying over state houses. A faculty that is largely black and Hispanic will not teach Melville; nor will nonwhite legislators assemble beneath a banner they see as a symbol of white consciousness…

It is important to note that there are black and Hispanic conservatives who are struggling to persuade their people to behave responsibly. They deserve the support of all fair-minded people. Their writings and movements should interest AR readers because they raise the question that all who believe in racial differences — be they genetic or deeply cultural — must answer honestly: How are we to approach those minorities who live and advocate lives of civility, who even acknowledge the European nature of our nation and live in deference to it?

We should support minority efforts at self-help. We should welcome black and Hispanic spokesmen who advocate self-reliance, religion, and the virtues of our civilization. Much could be accomplished if theirs were the dominant minority voices.

But even in the unlikely event of a triumph by minority conservatives, our attitude towards them should be no different from that toward Asian immigrants (who often show lower levels of crime and poverty than whites). We can welcome a small number of people of different races into this nation if they embrace our civilization, but we cannot allow the nation to lose its European identity. No people is obligated to abandon its national identity — in which race plays a significant part.

Any large group of nonwhites, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually change our society in permanent ways. A nation dominated by blacks, Asians, or Hispanics, or one that is a majority-less farrago of races cannot help but be different from one that is dominated by whites. We have every right to prefer to live in a society of our own making, and we should not be compelled to open our nation and culture to the changes that large-scale racial incursion inevitably bring. For this reason, long-run demographic change demands a solution beyond anything that can be offered by minority conservatives.

What, then, are whites to do?

One undesirable possibility would be to abandon an increasingly third-world United States and return, en masse to Europe. This would assume that Europe had solved its own racial problems by strictly limiting nonwhite immigration. But would Europe want another 100 million citizens? In the waning days of white rule, the governments of Rhodesia and South Africa tried to prevent mass exodus by making it illegal to take assets out of the country. A black-Hispanic American government would probably do the same thing, turning most whites into penniless refugees.

Another possibility, which is nothing more than an extension of what most whites do now, is enclave existence. Today, whites pay a substantial premium to live in their own neighborhoods, free of blacks and Hispanics. They are also willing to pay for private schools for their children, in addition to the taxes they pay for public schools. For most whites, this is an acceptable exchange.

However, as the population shifts, as crime increases, and the government resorts to ever more ingenious methods of forced integration, enclaves will become precarious refuges. In South Africa, ever since the breakdown of apartheid, white neighborhoods have started hiring private security patrols. This is already happening in some American suburbs, and may become the norm in the future. Whites will develop various ways to barricade their neighborhoods against the “rising tide of color,” but will a nonwhite government allow whites to live separately and to protect themselves by private means? It is more likely that government will force “low-income housing” into all white areas; even if it does not, whites in their enclaves will still face oppressive taxation and systematic “affirmative” persecution.

What then remains? Separation. Whites should enter into serious dialogue with black and Hispanic nationalists who seek to establish racially based nations within the territory of the United States.

Opposition to this idea is most likely to come from whites. Many blacks and Hispanics already have a firmly developed racial consciousness, whether instinctual or sophisticated. Many have no interest in the study or practice of European culture, and this is neither wrong nor surprising. What remains to be achieved is a large-scale awakening of racial consciousness among whites, without which no serious dialogue can begin about the mechanics of separation.

Those who are daunted by the prospect of separation should once again consider the alternatives. Current trends will ineluctably reduce whites to minority status, and there is every sign that hostility to whites and to their culture only grows as nonwhites gain numbers and influence. Aside from emigration, the probable outcomes are some kind of violent resolution of racial conflicts or the reduction of whites to a persecuted minority in an increasingly lawless, third-world society. The former would be horrible for all people and the latter would be intolerable for the people whose ancestors built this nation.

At present, the idea of dividing the nation into racial zones seems impossible. (For fairness sake, in the interests of those who wish to continue the grand experiment, there could be a multiracial area. It would be interesting to see how many white liberals would want to live there.) However, there are still large parts of the country that are predominantly white. They could secede. This seems a wild prospect today, but as we move into the next century the burden of racial redistribution of wealth will become increasingly unbearable, and the spectacle of city after city following the path of Detroit and Washington will continue. Who is to say what the citizens of Montana or North Dakota may decide to do?

Indeed, it need not be whole states that secede. Groups of counties could declare independence from Washington. If these efforts were coordinated to occur at the same time their effect could be very powerful. How would the central government react? Given the size of the country and the notorious mismanagement of third world governments, it may not matter how it reacts.

Of course, none of this can happen without profound change in the hearts of whites and this does not now seem likely. Nevertheless, there is simmering unrest in the land. Given clear thinking and courageous leaders we may be able to move beyond the clichés that now govern us.

HERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE BY RABBI SCHILLER:

To hate a human being because of his race, religion or nationality is a horrible thing. The history of all mankind is marred by the outbreak of unspeakable violence against people perpetrated, not because of anything they did, but merely because of who they were. Bigotry is a vile thing, its prejudgment of a man in direct violation of Judeo-Christian morality as well as the norms of Western Civilization.

Yet, it is also clear that so much of what makes life worth living is to be found in group identity. We are who we are not only as individuals, but also as members of larger entities, i.e. families, neighborhoods, towns, nations, races, religions and civilizations. No man is born into a total vacuum of identity. We are the products of genetic, familial and cultural forces. In the end meaning is provided solely by these extra forces which provide our perceptions and action with conceptual or at least visceral coherence.

Whether these extra personal loyalties be of a metaphysical nature deriving their essence from an essentially spiritual (God centered universe) or be they merely an inherent part of the rational world is a question beyond the confines of this brief essay. What is relevant for our purpose is that man needs identity, meaning and purpose and becomes confused and demoralized without them.

Accordingly it is one of the moral imperatives of our era to articulate a philosophy and seek to implement a policy which will allow men to realize themselves in a group without falling prey to hating or harming other groups. This is far from an easy task. Indeed, there are those who would maintain that the enmity which often goes hand-in-hand with group identification is inevitable and it is best to pursue policies which will inexorably weaken those loyalties. It is an alluring position and one to which the “respectable” media and politicians of our era are all pledged.

It is, an illusory, immoral and unnatural agenda, however. Illusory, for history’s testimony is that widely diverse people cannot and will not live peacefully together. Immoral, because its ultimate results will be the end of the truths and virtues of the world’s various faiths, races and nations. Unnatural, because group identity is a fundamental need of all men.

The way out of our current impasse on matters of race, ethnicity, etc. would seem not to lie in the direction of totalitarian coercive mixing, but towards voluntary disentanglement by men of good intentions.

All any man really desires is a sense of physical security, some orientation towards a life of meaning, a community whose ways are familiar and pleasant to him and a place to call his (and his peoples’) own.

Sadly, today all the above is granted certain groupings but not others. Europeans, White people and those attached to traditional faiths and lifestyles of the West are told by the powers-that-be that they alone among mankind’s tribes are forbidden to have or even articulate a collective identity.

Perhaps this is due to their having overstepped the proper boundaries in the past, or alternatively to their own current weakness and gullibility. Whatever the reason none can deny the current threat to Western Man. Other peoples define themselves as groups, only European Man is forbidden to do this.

A solution to our crisis will be found to the degree that all of the world’s assorted tribes can say to each other: “You have your way of life and your place to live. We wish you well. Now let each of us live among our own. We bear you no ill will.”

It is in the spirit of separation founded on mutual respect that I have attempted on a personal level over the past decade to communicate with nationalists (White and Black), to patriots of many nations and to committed members of many faiths. My goal has been to strip group identity of hatred and the responses I have received have been almost uniformly encouraging. I have found that when you face a man and say; “Your people are a people with a unique identity. They have a right (perhaps an obligation) to survive as a people. Yet you must realize there are other peoples in the world who have similar yearnings. How can we work this out?” – that most men are willing to act in a positive fashion.

To sum up, groups should speak to each other as groups (away from media terror and self-seeking politicians). Far more important than speaking, though, is listening. To hear the other as we remain ourselves is our contemporary task.

HERE IS A 1990 INTERVIEW WITH RABBI SCHILLER:

Jewish Review: Could you comment on the contradiction which Rabbi Kahane has drawn between the Israeli state and democracy, or between the philosophy of Judaism and majority rule?

Rabbi Schiller: Kahane has asked a very simple question. He asks: if we believe in absolute truth how can we believe in majority rule? He’s also asked another question, and that is whether a society which has a vision for itself (and in this particular case a religious vision, but I think this also applies to ethnic and cultural visions as well) allow for what I call ?1789? or French revolutionary political rights? This is a very big problem and I don’t think that Jews have (confronted) or answered it honestly. On the one hand, for the past three or four hundred years of world history we have been in the forefront of those movements that have championed majority rule, pluralism, and ?bill of rights? type, 1789 rights. Yet when we get to Eretz Yisrael and we have our own country we’re all of a sudden saying ?No, we don’t believe in simple majority rule. We believe that a nation has the right to preserve its own identity.? Now, would we extend that right to Englishmen, to Frenchmen, to Germans, to Americans? I think Kahane is asking great questions. His answer is (and I’m just quoting him here from memory) that there are no nationalisms except Jewish nationalism.? Now that might be an answer, and if you follow the really hard line traditionalist approach the answer would be that there really are no other nationalisms in God’s sight. All other nationalisms are a sham. So, when we’re Jews in Western Europe and America we try to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant in order to protect ourselves, but not because we think societies ought to be that way in order to be healthy societies. We think healthy societies are non‑pluralistic, but when you’re living amongst those ?crazy goyim? who can kill you at every turn you advocate political rights and pluralism.

Jewish Review: Kahane’s view might be that since the gentiles have no legitimate nationalism their society should be democratic and pluralistic?

Rabbi Schiller: That’s probably his position. But I don’t think Kahane thinks about it very much. He’s like everybody else in that he’s not really seriously asking, for example, what a Catholic in Spain should want from his realm.? We don’t spend very much time as Jews thinking what a goy should be doing as a goy.

Jewish Review: Kahane would probably say ?let the goyim worry about it?. He creates his rationale in order to get to a certain endpoint and whatever gets him there is what’s important.

Rabbi Schiller: That’s right. He’s more of a practical political thinker than a philosopher. That’s not a condemnation, just a fact.

Jewish Review: But you hold that even for those who don’t hold his general political position the questions he raises are very important?

Rabbi Schiller: Sure he’s hit us right in the teeth, he really has.

Jewish Review: You’ve said that for the religious right, and I suppose you are also speaking, for example, about the Gush Emunim in Israel, that gentiles are seen as largely a means whereby God punishes, tests or protects the Jews. The gentile’s personal destiny is not only secondary to ours, but in some sense, part of our own destiny. Is this a philosophy that is clearly articulated?

Posted in Race | Comments Off

White Guys Most Responsive To Reporter

NPR’s Education Team tweets: “I reach out to diverse sources on deadline. Only the white guys get back to me :(”

In my experience, whites are the most timely and responsive of any racial groups I know. They are more likely to want to talk to the media than Asians. Whites tend to have more altruism than any other group.

JARED TAYLOR WRITES:

There is a common thread to the modern characteristics of European man, and he carries these characteristics wherever he migrates. This common thread is an abiding sense of reciprocity, a conviction that others have rights that must be respected. This conviction, which can be described as a kind of public morality, is at the heart of the institutions that are common to most white societies and absent from virtually every non-white one: democracy, free speech, and the rule of law. These appeared over time and took root more firmly in some white nations than in others.

In like manner, European societies have given rise to a broad range of non-political traditions also based on concern for others. These have established the unique texture of life among whites, but now virtually all of these traditions have changed in ways that make them threats to our survival.

Posted in Race, Whites | Comments Off

Nordics vs Jews

Growing up as a WASP, I thought that in-group ethnic solidarity was primitive. Then I converted to Judaism and adopted a tribal outlook on life. I look back now on the WASP perspective as naive. All things being equal, a group with solidarity will defeat a group without that solidarity in the struggle for scarce resources.

Kevin MacDonald writes:

The psychological traits attributed to Nordics are principled moral behavior and idealism, high intellect, inventiveness, and, in the words of Gustav Friedrich Klemm, a proclivity to “constant progress” and science:

Members of that race most often strive for the unknown, for the sake of a pure idea, driven by the thirst of knowledge, and not self-seeking interest.

My view is that there is a strong empirical basis for this suite of traits, and that ultimately these traits, particularly moral idealism and science, are the psychological manifestation of individualism as a response to selection pressures in the far north. As Avdeyev notes:

…the home of the Nordic race may be located in the zone of a cool and moist climate, abundant with clouds of fog, in which water vapor is retained in the air [absorbing ultra-violet rays]. In this climate there should be strong and frequent fluctuations of temperature.

I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in Raciology. Lenz, like several modern theorists (e.g., Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton), gives major weight to the selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples. He proposed that the intellectual abilities of these peoples are due to a great need to master the natural environment, resulting in selection for traits related to mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness in problem solving (what psychologists term “performance IQ”). He argued that Jewish intelligence, in contrast, was the result of intensive social living (what psychologists term “verbal IQ”).

There is in fact good evidence that in general intelligence is linked to mastering the natural environment (see here), and this is particularly the case among Northern peoples.

Lenz argued that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. Because of the harsh environment of the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective does not imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

Under ecologically adverse circumstances like the Ice Ages, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical environment than at competing with other groups. In such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Ethnocentrism would be of no importance at all in combating the physical environment.

Europeans are therefore less ethnocentric than other groups—which makes them susceptible to being subverted by groups with a strong sense of in-group solidarity. Individualist cultures show relatively little emotional attachment to in-groups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.”

Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and out-group members. They are also more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of in-group/out-group boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes toward out-group members. They often disagree with in-group policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to in-groups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other in-group members.

Opposition to out-groups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the out-group members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few in-groups (see Harry Triandis, Individualism and Collectivism).

Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Posted in Kevin MacDonald | Comments Off

Jewish Flash Boys

I’m reading the new Michael Lewis book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt.

It seems that Russian Jews are behind much of the innovative high frequency trading. This shocked me. I thought such work would be the province of Africans and Mexicans.

Michael Lewis writes on page 95:

A surprisingly large number of the people pulled in by the big Wall Street banks to build the technology for high-frequency trading were Russians. “If you went to LinkedIn and looked at one of these Russian guys, you would see he was linked to all the other Russians,” said Schwall. “I’d go to find Dmitri and I’d also find Misha and Vladimir and Tolstoy or whatever.” The Russians came not from finance but from telecom, physics, medical research, university math departments, and a lot of other useful fields. The big Wall Street firms had become machines for turning analytically minded Russians into high-frequency traders…

From page 97:

Sergey Aleynikov wasn’t the world’s most eager immigrant to America, or, for that matter, to Wall Street. He’d left Russia in 1990, the year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but more in sadness than in hope. “When I was nineteen I haven’t imagined leaving it,” he says. “I was very patriotic about Russia. I cried when Brezhnev died. And I always hated English. I thought I was completely incapable of learning languages.” His problem with Russia was that its government wouldn’t allow him to study what he wanted to study. He wasn’t religious in any conventional sense, but he’d been born a Jew, which had been noted on his Russian passport to remind everyone of the fact. As a Jew he expected to be given especially difficult entrance exams to university, which, if he passed them, would grant him access to just one of two Moscow universities that were more accepting of Jews, where he would study whatever the authorities permitted Jews to study. Math, in Serge’s case.

From page 125:

Constantine was also Russian, born and raised in a small town on the Volga River. He had a theory about why so many Russians had wound up inside high-frequency trading. The old Soviet educational system channeled people away from the humanities and into math and science. The old Soviet culture also left its former citizens oddly prepared for Wall Street in the early twenty-first century. The Soviet-controlled economy was horrible and complicated but riddled with loopholes. Everything was scarce; everything was also gettable, if you knew how to get it. “We had this system for seventy years,” said Constantine. “People learn to work around the system. The more you cultivate a class of people who know how to work around the system, the more people you will have who know how to do it well. All of the Soviet Union for seventy years were people who are skilled at working around the system.” The population was thus well suited to exploit megatrends in both computers and the United States financial markets. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a lot of Russians fled to the United States without a lot of English; one way to make a living without having to converse with the locals was to program their computers. “I know people who never programmed computers but when they get here they say they are computer programmers,” said Constantine. A Russian also tended to be quicker than most to see holes built into the U.S. stock exchanges, even if those holes were unintentional, because he had been raised by parents, in turn raised by their own parents, to game a flawed system.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

We Should Require People To Have A License Before They Procreate

I believe that all Americans, all members of the First World, should be administered mandatory birth control shots by age 12 and not allowed to procreate until they get a license, beginning about age 22. We should only allow high IQ productive citizens to have kids.

I know this doesn’t sound democratic. Well, I’m increasingly disenchanted with democracy. At a minimum, I think we should restrict the franchise to men who own property.

I’m flirting with the Dark Enlightenment.

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

The first of the recent proposals for licenses for parenthood was made in 1980 by the American political scientist Hugh LaFollette (1980). He began by contending that some parents are unfit to rear children, notably those who neglect their children, ill-treat them, subject them to violent physical abuse, and even kill them. He noted that research has shown that a large proportion of the children of unfit parents become criminals. He asserted that these parents are incompetent and that they impose costs on society. To mitigate these costs, LaFollette argued that the state should take steps to prevent these children from being born. To make this proposal effective, he proposed that all couples should be required to obtain a license certifying their competence in child rearing before they are permitted to have children. This was the first use of the term license in this context.
In justification of this proposal, LaFollette pointed out that the state already requires people to acquire a license before they are permitted to undertake a number of activities that might cause social harm if performed incompetently. He gives the example of the automobile driving license. Incompetent drivers are a potential danger to the public, so the state reasonably requires people to demonstrate their driving competence and acquire a license before they are permitted to drive on the public highway. Similarly, physicians, lawyers, and pharmacists are required to obtain licenses certifying their competence. Practicing these professions without a license is illegal. The justification for this is that society would suffer if unqualified people practiced medicine, the law, or pharmacy; and steps need to be taken to ensure that this does not happen. LaFollette argued that the same case can be made for rearing children. Here, too, incompetent parenting imposes social costs; and to prevent these, parenthood should be licensed.
In a further justification of this proposal, LaFollette noted that the state already vets prospective adoptive parents for their fitness to rear children. Why, he asks, do we not allow just anyone to adopt a child? The answer is that we recognize that some people are unfit to rear children and that these people should be screened out in assessing the suitability of couples applying to adopt a child. Because society in effect requires the licensing of prospective adoptive parents, it should extend the principle to natural parents.
As regards the practical implementation of the scheme, LaFollette (1980) proposed that all prospective parents should be assessed for their child rearing competence by a psychological examination. This would consist of a personality assessment that would be designed to identify “the violence-prone, easily frustrated, or unduly self-centered” (p. 191). These are essentially the psychopathic, although he did not use that term.
LaFollette conceded that the psychological examination for fitness for parenthood would not be foolproof. No doubt some couples would be denied the parental license who would make adequate parents, while others would be granted the license who would turn out to be unsatisfactory parents. But, he argued, this is no different from the licensing of automobile drivers, physicians, lawyers, and pharmacists. No doubt a number of those who fail their tests for an automobile license and the qualifying examinations to practice medicine, the law, and pharmacy could nevertheless drive automobiles with-out having accidents and work as physicians, lawyers, and pharmacists without harming the public. Conversely, some of those who pass the automobile driving test turn out to be incompetent drivers, and some people succeed in qualifying as physicians but turn out to be incompetent doctors, and so forth. These competency tests for licensing are blunt instruments, but they unquestionably identify a number of the most incompetent thus protecting the public.
LaFollette realized he would have to consider the problem of the enforcement of his parental licensing plan. He conceded that it would be difficult to prevent unlicensed couples from producing children and suggested that this would best be dealt with by taking away the children of these parents and having them adopted or fostered.
LaFollette did not advance his parental licensing scheme on eugenic grounds. He did not point out that socially pathological behavior is transmitted genetically from parents to children, as well as environmentally, by example and poor child rearing practices. He did not mention low intelligence or mental retardation as disqualifications for obtaining the parental license, nor did he have any proposals to prevent babies being born to unlicensed parents. These are all weaknesses in his scheme. Nevertheless, his proposal was a valuable contribution to challenging the contention that everyone has a right to have children, and it stated the undoubted truth that some couples are unfit to be parents and should be prevented from having children.

THOMAS JACKSON WRITES:

Intelligence is not the only important trait now shaped by modern techniques. Medicine has a dysgenic effect on health, since weak children who would ordinarily have died young now survive to have children of their own. In the case of some heritable diseases that can now be treated, there will be a sharp increase in defective genes. In the next 30 years, hemophilia is likely to become 25 percent more common, and cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria (PKU) will increase by 120 percent and 300 percent.

Prof. Lynn also notes that criminal propensities, which he considers separately from intelligence, are also spreading through the population. Although this is a field that has been almost completely ignored, Prof. Lynn’s own findings are that, at least in Britain, criminals and psychopaths are 77 percent more fertile than other people. Given heritability estimates for criminality derived from twin and adoption studies, Prof. Lynn finds that the excessive fertility of criminals alone probably accounted for a 52 percent crime increase in Britain in a single generation. He considers the spread of criminality a potentially greater problem than the decline of intelligence.

Perhaps the book’s most dismal assertion is that the current reproductive habits of Western populations not only ensure decline, they rule out even the theoretical possibility of genetic improvement. In an era when the most able members of society limit themselves to two or three children, even the most dramatically favorable mutation would have no way to spread through a population. Improvement requires eugenic fertility, which is no longer found in Western populations. They have reached a genetic dead end.

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off