When a culture no longer has, as its only focus survival, the belief systems that sustained them through that period, they will become out of synch with the needs of those who no longer depend on a direct relationship with the planet. A new type of system is needed that replicates the new social order of those with more power than others.
Monotheistic religions, with their systems of punishments and rewards for good and bad behaviour and codes of conduct to control people, are ideally suited to a society where a small number of people control most of the wealth and must ensure the obedience of countless others. Whether this is how the big three of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came about, or that they simply flourished because of that fact, is now irrelevant
Especially in the case of the latter two, they have been the focal point and motivation for much of the empire building from around 900AD until today. From the Ottoman empire to the Crusades of antiquity, they have each tried to dictate how others live or find new countries where they can establish themselves as the predominate belief system.
In North America we have had about four hundred years of this type of rule, more than long enough to develop the chauvinism required to believe that our way of life is not only the best, but to even consider another way preferable means you are potentially an enemy. That type of cultural paranoia is not limited to the West. When you isolate any species from the rest of the world or outside influences for too long, they tend to become insular and fearful of change.
They cling to their outmoded ways of thinking and attempt to force the world to accede to their wishes even if that threatens the well being of others. One need only look at the linkage between foreign aid and anti-family planning that the current administration in the Untied States has implemented. Or check out the Iranian government's attitude towards the same issues and you'll see the same thing, if not worse.
In fact, the United States and Iran have a great deal in common with each other when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. Both governments are very afraid of anything they don't understand, insist upon turning back the clock to a time when women had less control over their bodies, have blurred the line separating church and state, and have elements who believe that they should be imposing their way of life upon the rest of the world.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Rohan Venkat
The species that doesn't evolve risks extinction.
And rightly so!
The way you began had me thinking about what Daniel Quinn reminds us in Ishmael and the rest of his books in that line, which I'd recommend to you.
You say, every time there has been a major world power, they think of themselves as the epitome of what humans can strive to be. It just reminded me, that possibly every time a species becomes dominant, it thinks of itself as the epitome of what nature strives to reach.
Just a thought.
2 - RedTard
Feeling guilty for the color of your skin again?
Western civilization might not be any 'better' than most other cultures but for the vast majority we have ended hunger, many diseases, extended life, have running water, sewer, and electrical services, provided universal human rights to our citizens and implemented democracies where every person has a say in government.
Now as you have pointed out there's no objective way to define one culture as 'better', but most humans want to be comfortable. Our system provides for that and if that inspires cutural change or even extinction of other systems I'm not about to sit around and cry about it.
3 - Bryan
This was an interesting article, Richard, although I wish you had taken your evolution/extinction analogy to the logical conclusion. Genetic diversity is essential to evolution, and cultural imperialism, if it extinguishes human diversity, will restrict cultural evolution (although we can't make an exact one-to-one comparison between cultural/mimetic evolution and biological evolution).
Except we also should bear in mind that evolution and natural selection operates on the level of the individual, and individual freedoms and variations within a "unified" culture are actually more important than cross-cultural variations. There is more genetic variation within the population of Africa, for instance, than there is between Africans and the rest of the world.
And one minor caveat: evolution does not always equate with "progress." Species that end up extinct are the results of evolution too. Not everything that evolves is necessarily helpful.
4 - Richard Brodie
I would translate the title of this article into the opposite of a common American bromide, and say "United We Fall. Divided We Stand"
"Balkanism" is not a bad word. What authority says that having nations smaller than a certain size is bad? The only nations capable of imperialism on a global scale are obscenely large superpowers.
The more that nations could be divided up along natural ethnic and racial boundaries, the more coehesive and peaceful they would be, the safer their inhabitants would be against inwardly directed predations emanating from a powerful central government, and the more stable and safer from global corporate-inspired imperialism the world would be.
The planet is a lot better off with the Soviet Union broken up, and so it would be with America broken up into an Hispanic Southwest, a Black Southeast, and a White North.
The comming inevitable national economic collapse, brought on by unlimited Third World immigration, insourcing of cheap labor and outsourcing of skilled labor, and runaway deficit spending, will provide the ideal occasion for such a restructuring.
5 - Bryan
The more that nations could be divided up along natural ethnic and racial boundaries, the more coehesive and peaceful they would be [...].
This is a popular assumption, Richard, one that seems reasonable, but a study cited in yesterday's New York Times Magazine (how timely!) suggests otherwise:
So the "inevitable national economic collapse" would probably lead to more civil war and strife and not a benefical "restructuring." While it may seem that the current ethnic conflicts in the Middle East and Africa would be solved by dividing nations along ethnic lines, they would be better served by economic restructuring (and not the type offered by the World Bank and IMF).
6 - Victor Plenty
Ethnicity does not cause civil wars. It is an excuse the power-hungry use to destabilize societies and create situations where ruthless sociopaths can more easily rise to power.
7 - Baronius
There is probably no better example of cultural imperialism than family planning policy. Richard is exactly wrong on this point.
The western powers fund multinational organizations which pour contraceptives into developing countries. We send experts into tribes, and tell them that they shouldn't have so many children. Europe is in economic decline, and India is in a boom, but we tell the world that population growth is harmful. This is a great example of the West forcing its culture on other countries.
Marcus sees the opposite. He thinks that the moment we *stop* changing cultures to fit our western lifestyle, we're meddling.
8 - diana hartman
I am pleased to tell you this article is being featured in the Culture Focus today, August 15.
Diana Hartman
Culture Editor
9 - RedTard
"The western powers fund multinational organizations which pour contraceptives into developing countries. We send experts into tribes, and tell them that they shouldn't have so many children."
That's because we end up having to pay for those children with food aid. I think we should stop meddling and stop supporting African governments. Let them find a sustainable balance on their own without outside interference. Only then will they be self sufficient.
on a side note, it's also much easier to hand out condoms than to let children starve to death in order demonstrate a point.
10 - Bryan
I think we should stop meddling and stop supporting African governments. Let them find a sustainable balance on their own without outside interference. Only then will they be self sufficient.
This would have been a great solution twenty years ago. We've already meddled to the point of creating economic collapse in many of these countries. It's too long a process to detail in a comments thread, but the World Bank and IMF (which are largely controlled by the United States and former European colonial powers) have installed structural adjustment policies in African nations that have crippled their ability to be self sufficient. By opening these countries to world markets, they haven't been able to find their own niche or learn to stand on their own two feet. There's nothing inherently wrong with global capitalism and international fair trade, but it needs to come after a country has a stable and structured government and economy. Most of these nations have never recovered from colonization and decolonization.
11 - Richard Brodie
Does South Africa now have a "stable and sructured government"? Right now there is a genocide going on there against Whites.
Before taking power in 1994, the communist ANC promised to turn over 30 per cent of White-owned farms to Blacks when it came to power - an arbitrary policy of stealing land owned by Whites who have farmed it for generations.
The Black agriculture and land affairs minister, Lulu Xingwana has said "We will no longer waste time negotiating with people who refuse to see the transformation of our country, from now on we will only negotiate for six months and if all fails, expropriation would take place."
Taking away people's livelihoods is taking away their lives. It seems that when a genocide is perpetrated by criminals and the police, no one sees it as a "humanitarian crisis" - only when it is perpetrated by the military, as with Milosevic. And in the case of South Africa, there is also the attitude that the Whites there are only getting what they "deserve".
It is instructive to contrast the relative benevolent version of "apartheid" practiced when the Whites were in power in that country, with today's savage and brutal Black version. If instead of killing them, Milosevic had only expropriated the property of all non-Serbs he would still have been hauled into an International Tribunal. But Xingwana and other the Black leaders in South Africa will go completely without so much as condemnation, let alone punishment, for their ethnic cleansing against Whites.
12 - Bryan
You actually know nothing about the current state of affairs in South Africa, do you, Richard? Your knowledge of the matter seems to be filtered through your bizarre racist view of the world.
See, I didn't want to have to call you a racist, because I thought I could approach you with reason and empirical data, but apparently you're immune to such things.
The majority of black South Africans live in absolute poverty. The white South Africans, on the other hand, typically live in the cities, often in gated communities. Many black South Africans currently live in makeshift shacks outside of the cities - you know, things constructed out of cardboard and scraps of wood and tin. The government has tried to provide housing for poor blacks, but the houses they've provided are smaller and less-equipped than the shacks they're currently living in.
The current state of the ANC and the South African government is in shambles. Even Nelson Mandela, the former hero of South Africa, has turned his back on his people since his release from prison.
It's been said that in postcolonial nations, there needs to be a second revolution following the first to remove the leaders who have taken power after the decolonization period. I believe in this principle in many cases, and I certainly won't deny that the ANC has it's problems.
Ethnic cleansing of whites isn't one of them though. Don't be an idiot. Read a book and stop talking about things you have no hope of understanding. Better yet, why don't you try talking to a black person! You might learn something!
13 - Richard Brodie
I didn't want to have to call you a racist
I take no offense. As far as I am concerned "racist" is not a bad word. "Racist" is no less morally neutral than "culturalist". Being racist simply means that I am aware of racial differences; I am open to the reality that each race has its own inferior points and its own superior points; I do not believe that any race should be politically supreme; and I would prefer to see different races geographically separated.
I'm content to let history judge between my own common sense, and your selective "study" quotations and other regurgatative PC sophistry ("reason").
14 - Bryan
Well, Richard, you're wrong about a lot of things. Where should I start? First you say that "racist" isn't a bad word and you don't believe in a superior race. Except a racist is specifically defined as "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." I have to say, I've never seen anyone own the word racist quite like you do.
Second, your belief that the races should be "geographically separated" is bullshit. Perserving the integrity of your "race" does absolutely nothing for genetics. Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with purebred dogs? They're more susceptible to genetic mutations because of all the inbreeding. Genetic diversity benefits all of humanity. And the "reality" that there are inferior and superior points to race? How about the "reality" that genetics don't indicate any of these differences?
By the way, "history" can't act as a judge, because "history" isn't capable of passing judgment, being an idea and all, and not an active arbitrator. But let's not be silly about semantics, because I'm sure you know what you meant!
And the "study" I quoted is an actual study. No need for the scare quotes, pal. People actually did study things. Not "study," but study, you know, in the active verb sense.
For someone who wants to defer to history, you seem to pointedly ignore the "historical" "findings" of said "study" and my "analysis" of the "current" political "climate" in "South" "Africa." I'm not sure what's "regurgatative" about "facts" that I've "learned," when you're the one who is "regurgating" the "National Vangard" "party line."
15 - Richard Brodie
Perserving the integrity of your "race" does absolutely nothing for genetics. Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with purebred dogs? They're more susceptible to genetic mutations because of all the inbreeding. Genetic diversity benefits all of humanity.
Now THAT'S bullshit. The different human races have been developing in isolation for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no evidence that they have continually been getting worse because of "inbreeding". The only inbreeding that is potentially bad is with very close relatives. As long as the population is large enough so that the vast majority of mating is between very distantly related individuals, there's not going to be any general degradation. Mozart, Michaelangelo, and Newton are not the product of a race debilitated to decrepitude through inbreeding.
Furthermore genetic mutation, which will occur with or without "inbreeding", is not a bad thing. In fact it is necessary fo evolution to progress. Beneficial mutations are selected, and non-beneficial ones are rejected, leading to racial improvement over time.
And if genetic diversity were, as you claim, necessary to maintain the quality of "humanity", then what happens after your multiculturalist ideal of universal micegenation finally homogenizes all diversity into non-existence? The human race would then enter into a period of unstoppable genetic decline!
You need to wake up and realize just how brainwashed you've been.
16 - Bryan
The different human races have been developing in isolation for hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no evidence that they have continually been getting worse because of "inbreeding".
You can look at high occurences of diseases like TSD in Ashkenazi Jews and sickle-cell anemia in African Americans as evidence against your argument.
Either way, you're taking my argument entirely out of context. The point was that breeding within small populations enhances harmful genetic mutations. It's called genetic drift, which is an undeniable biological fact, my friend. (Oh, and I emphasized the "harmful" in the previous sentence to bring attention to my missing word that you apparently decided to harp on for an entire paragraph. Surely you didn't really assume that I thought all genetic mutations were harmful! I think I've demonstrated a bit more scientific aptitude to dissuade you from that opinion, but you're entitled to pick at semantics if it makes you feel better about your feeble argument!)
And if genetic diversity were, as you claim, necessary to maintain the quality of "humanity", then what happens after your multiculturalist ideal of universal micegenation finally homogenizes all diversity into non-existence?
You, sir, are a fool. Genetic diversity does no good if the diversity is not shared. You might think that it would have a homogenizing effect, but actually the larger the population size, the more shared mutations there will be, and the more genetic material there is to go around! It's called gene flow and it's actually pretty neat! Look it up!
The more you know ;)
17 - Richard Brodie
Genetic diversity does no good if the diversity is not shared.
The individual races each consisted originally of around one-third of the total world population. They in turn were composed of a diversity of subraces (and still are). And so they would "share" your genetic diversity on a scale not significantly smaller than the human race as a whole - especially if you're into the current PC party line of race diversity denial, which totally negates everything you've been saying!
18 - Victor Plenty
Yet another Brodie threadjacking in progress, I see.
19 - Bryan
Are we going to play the game where we pick a single sentence out of a post and try and play silly junk science games with it until we run out of breath?
Let's try some real science, Dick! (Can I call you Dick?)
The individual races each consisted originally of around one-third of the total world population.
Actually, the total world population originated from one tribe around north/central Africa which spread throughout the world, depositing groups all over, which eventually formed the various ethnic groups you see today.
They in turn were composed of a diversity of subraces (and still are).
Which all came from one founder population. Which makes you something like my thirty-first billionth cousin or something, maybe. Same with some guy in Africa or the Middle East or South America.
And so they would "share" your genetic diversity on a scale not significantly smaller than the human race as a whole
Does this even make sense? Is something missing this sentence? I mean, other than logic and reason and science and anything resembling a cogent thought process.
especially if you're into the current PC party line of race diversity denial, which totally negates everything you've been saying!
Is "race diversity denial" the same thing as color-blindness, because I'm pretty sure that's a conservative response to political correctness, not political correctness in itself. Of course there is genetic diversity between the races, silly! But not very much! The point is that a larger population size is good! The more genetic diversity, the better! And the more people breeding equals more genetic diversity through that nice thing called gene flow I mentioned before. Big = good. Small = bad. Got it, Dick?
And let's suppose JUST FOR A MOMENT (because I don't want to harp on this bit too long!) that there are "superior" qualities to individual races. If that's true, then those superior qualities would win out in a battle of natural selection, and thus it would be in our best interest to "interbreed" as much as possible in order to maximize the superior qualities into some big super hybrid human! Yeah!
Unless you don't want the "superior" qualities you say that the other races possess. Which means, as a "white activist," you don't actually want what's for the good of your race, right? That certainly doesn't bode well for your pals in the Natty V! Either you want the white race to suffer, or you actually think the other races are all inferior. If the former is true, your argument is weak and you're doing a disservice to your "white nation," and if the latter is true you're a bigot! Take your pick, Dickie!
20 - Richard Brodie
Victor accuses: Yet another Brodie threadjacking in progress
I express my viewpoint on the subject of this thread, and Bryan expresses his. Pray, by what principle of discrimination do you choose to characterize my contributions as a "hijacking", but not his?
21 - Richard Brodie
Bryan suggests: Unless you don't want the "superior" qualities you say that the other races possess. Which means, as a "white activist," you don't actually want what's for the good of your race, right?
We have vastly different values. What's important to you is to engineer the human race on a path toward the elimination of racial diversity, because you believe that this will result in a gene circulation that will lead to some kind of an improved specimen. I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with the human race as it is, and want it to stay that way with all of its wonderful existing racial diversity.
I actually DON'T want ANY qualities, superior or otherwise, that other races possess. Rather than chasing YOUR ideal of a race of "super hybrid humans" homogenized into a uniform robotic genetic endowment, I choose to be content with my own personal endowments and those of the White race to which I belong. If someone else is superior to me in some respect, I don't wallow in envy of that person. Instead I admire them.
I feel at home among people of my own kind, and if you want to call that "bigotry", I don't really care. Just note that *I* don't try to make up pejorative terms to smear you with, just because you may be differently disposed - nor do I engage in the puerility of addressing you with some kind of a diminuitive variant of your name.
22 - Christopher Rose
Richard, this white race you speak of is illusory. "Everybody" knows that real white people have thick dark hair like me and that all you blond/ginger people are nothing but sick deviants that ought to be exterminated for the good of racial purity!
23 - Bryan
Dammit, this is the third time I've tried to compose this comment and accidentally fucked it up in some way, so please forgive if my witty repartee is lacking.
What's important to you is to engineer the human race on a path toward the elimination of racial diversity, because you believe that this will result in a gene circulation that will lead to some kind of an improved specimen.
I'm not interesting in engineering anything. I do believe that a big gene pool benefits everybody, but I'm all for choice! If you don't want to have children with someone because of the color of their skin, that's fine, but you needn't enforce those values on anyone else!
I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy with the human race as it is, and want it to stay that way with all of its wonderful existing racial diversity.
If the diversity is so "wonderful," what's this obsession with shipping everybody off to other parts of the country and world to get them out of your pretty blonde hair?
Rather than chasing YOUR ideal of a race of "super hybrid humans" homogenized into a uniform robotic genetic endowment [...]
Your sense of humor (or lack thereof) is astonishing. I was being facetious.
I feel at home among people of my own kind, and if you want to call that "bigotry", I don't really care.
In that case, you are a bigot. Thanks, it felt good to get that off my chest. I'm glad you don't mind!
Just note that *I* don't try to make up pejorative terms to smear you with [...]
Believe it or not, "bigot" isn't a made-up word! And, hey, I'm just calling a spade a spade. You're the one that seems to have no problem with being called a racist or a bigot, so I'm not sure how exactly I'm "smearing" you. You own the terms, big guy, I'm not gonna try and take them away from you!
Just as a fun game, why don't you try listing some of the superior qualities of the white race for us? Let's not start talking about the negative qualities of anybody else, lest we start getting nasty, just think positive! Ready? Go!
24 - Richard Brodie
Yeah, Chris. It's a mystery to me how the world's black-haired and black-skinned males could be so desirous of polluting their obviously superior, melanin-rich gene pools with the likes of these:
anaemic sick deviants
25 - Bryan
Mmmm, nordic beauties. A healthy dose of bigotry with a little bit of pedophilia thrown in too!
Paedomorphic traits are those which are characteristic of infants and children. Paedomorphism is the evolutionary tendency - found in many species, including several hominid races (among them Northernkind) - for infantile or youthful traits to be retained into adulthood.