Here’s a challenge to open-borders advocates Bryan Caplan and Alex Nowrasteh. While Caplan & Nowrasteh seem thrilled at the idea of flooding white / Western countries with the Third World, they are rather silent on Israel’s immigration policies, such as:
Not that I personally oppose Israel wanting to restrict immigration from Africa; it’s quite sensible. But if Caplan & Nowrasteh are truly for mass immigration in general (and not harboring some animus against white gentile countries), shouldn’t they be for mass immigration for Israel too? Shouldn’t they be opposed to the above?
But Caplan & Nowrasteh are largely silent on this issue. So, here’s my challenge:
I’d like for Caplan & Nowrasteh to write a series of articles condemning Israel for restricting immigration and demanding that Israel open its borders to the millions of Africans who want to immigrate there.
What I’m advocating is a Fairness Doctrine: For every article or blog post that Caplan & Nowrasteh write demanding that white gentile countries be flooded with the Third World, they should write another article demanding the same for Israel. And I don’t want lackadaisical articles; I want impassioned pleas, some real heavy-handed lobbying, demanding that Israel open its borders to the millions of Africans who want to immigrate there.
Will Caplan & Nowrasteh accommodate, or do their views of “open borders” only apply to white gentile countries?
A long-standing “Trad Catholic” I know told recently me that he had left the Church. He, in essence, said that his “conservative” priest had become obsessed with promoting mass Third World immigration, peddling interracial adoption, speaking incessantly about various forms of “social justice” such as opposition to non-White abortions, and, of course, denouncing evolution because it’s “racist”. Contemporary Western Christianity, even in its so-called “conservative” guises, has become indistinguishable from the central values of Cultural Marxism.
As other commentators have already noted, two things are happening to Christianity today:
First, outside the West, Christianity is rapidly becoming a non-Western religion (e.g. African Christianity in Africa, Mestizo Christianity in Latin America, etc.). As noted by many scholars, a new, non-Western form of Christianity is being born, unlike anything preceding it. It has been estimated that within 50 years, Christianity will overwhelmingly be a non-Western religion, both demographically and theologically.
Second, inside the West, Christianity is becoming more universalized than ever—often substantially no different from the major tenets of Cultural Marxism. You currently have mainstream Christian leaders (both Catholic and Protestant) supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and cajoling White couples into adopting unwanted African or Haitian babies instead of birthing White babies. Pathological altruism and ethnomasochism rule the roost; in short, Western Christian leaders today are a bunch of girly men. Such maladaptive trends cannot last indefinitely.
Evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and science journalist Nicholas Wade have both argued that religion, by and large, is adaptive, in that religion increases one’s inclusive fitness. In short, religion provides group cohesion and, when overlapped with ethnicity or race, religion maintains strong group identity, which assists in group survival. A textbook example of the success of ethno-religion would be Ashkenazi Jews.
What is happening with Christianity in the West today, however, is arguably maladaptive. This extremely universalized girly-man form of Christianity (unlike the more manly earlier Germanic form) seems to be an unholy suicide pact. Not only does it lack any grounding in biological reality but it seems to be hostile toward it.
And what is grounding in biological reality? When religion overlaps with and reinforces racial identity, it is at its strongest. In fact, ethno-religion might be the strongest group identity known to man. Religious identity and racial identity can be strong by themselves, but combine the two and you are in a different league. It’s little wonder that throughout human history ethno-religion has been the norm. The more extreme, deracinated and universalized religion of the past century is the historical aberration.
And that is the gist of identitarian religion, as I understand it: it’s ethno-religion, a rejection of universalism, a return to human normalcy. So, identitarian religion is something “new” in that it’s juxtaposed to our current universalized suicide pact, but it’s also “old” as it’s a return to older norms.
What forms can identitarian religion take? Is it exclusive to a particular religion? Short answer: No.
While Christianity has become nearly synonymous with Cultural Marxism in the West, it must not necessarily be so. Identitarian Christianity is a possibility, and one certainly sees instances of it, ranging from Pro-Western Christianity to the Anglo paleoconservatives, to Kinist Protestantism, to forms of ethnonationalist Slavic Orthodox Christianity. But since Christianity has recently taken on an extremely universalist trajectory, any battle for Identitarian Christianity will be an uphill battle, but nonetheless perhaps a battle worth waging.
Another option one sees is a return to Paganism, ranging from Asatru in North America to other forms of Germanic Paganism, Celtic Paganism, Roman Paganism, Greek Paganism, and Slavic Paganism throughout Europe. Paganism properly understood, i.e. historically and accurately understood, is a blood-and-soil religion, an ancestral religion, an ethno-religion, the very antithesis to deracinated universalist religion.
And, of course, there are other forms of Non-Western identitarian religion that would be appropriate for Non-Westerners. But the question here is whether competing forms of Western identitarian religion can get along. Within the larger framework of Western identitarian religion, can, for example, Identitarian Christians and Pagans coexist?
I don’t see why not.
And what of identitarian atheists and agnostics? Can they co-exist with identitarian religion? Since identitarian religion is not at odds with nature, and thus not at odds with evolutionary science, it does not threaten secular knowledge but offers itself as an additional societal glue. And perhaps a necessary glue at that, as it is unclear that society can survive, long-term, without religion. While some individuals can function without religion, can society as a whole? Has it ever?
As Western Universalist Christianity wanes tepid, and as identitarian ideas continue to spread, now is a good time to outline a larger framework for identitarian religion as a guide for various Western religions. Hopefully this brief outline will help with this endeavor.
“Whereas much of American libertarianism may have been grounded in implicit whiteness, and movement is still implicitly white, it is gradually growing more explicitly anti-white than even the kind of conservatism advocated by The Weekly Standard.” ~ Gregory Hood
Is there any salvation for libertarianism? Although libertarianism might benefit small, cohesive cosmopolitan in-groups, will libertarianism always be detrimental to the larger, ethno-core of a host country? In general, is libertarianism a doomed, suicidal philosophy?
“On its surface, the Dark Enlightenment may be some new form of entertainment product. When you pop the hood and look at the engine, however, you’ll find the shocking truth — it’s conservatism rewarmed.” – Brett Stevens
In a recent critical piece on the Dark Enlightenment, Brett Stevens seems to argue that what is needed is some good old fashioned conservatism to fix our ills. Uggg. I sure hope not. While I may not agree with all the libertarian ideas of some DE thinkers, I certainly don’t think that conservatism is the answer. Conservatism has been a catastrophic failure.
Look at it this way. Russell Kirk is probably the gold standard for intelligent American conservatism. Once upon a time, I read much Kirk and enjoyed what he had to say. However, as a general thinker, he is above average at best and his analysis is often shallow.
Take for instance Kirk’s critiques of egalitarianism, which often ignore long-view historic trends, unlike Nietzsche’s observations, which (rightly or wrongly) trace many egalitarian ideals back to Christianity. Same for Alain de Benoist who in Christianity’s “universal brotherhood of man” finds many seeds for modern egalitarianism. But Kirk would never address such controversial topics. He, in short, blamed “liberalism” for our ills, although liberalism didn’t exactly come into existence out of a vacuum.
Granted, Kirk was a historian, not a philosopher, but as a historian he was blind to or willfully ignored many of the more interesting American trends of the 20th century: (1) the replacement of the old American WASP elite by a new Ashkenazi elite, (2) the fact that American capitalism proved to be more corrosive than Soviet communism, (3) the Immigration Act of 1965 was probably the most important important piece of American legislation in the second half of the 20th century (in that it was America’s death knell).
Kirk at the end of his life came out against mass immigration, was probably “HBD aware” in a common-sense, non-scientific sort of way, and even mildly criticized the neoconservative take-over of conservatism, but he always tended to avoid such vital controversies, again proving the utter uselessness of conservatism.
And yet for all of Kirk’s problems, he was a pleasure to read and about 50x better than what followed him — I mean, first Buckley, and then Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Jonah Goldberg? Yes, conservatism just needs to die. It’s time to be put to rest.
Much has been said recently about the “dumbing down” of the SAT, which presumably was done in part to attempt to close the ever persistent racial gap between the low end (blacks & mestizos) and the high end (whites and North Asians).
The Cathedral asserts that all racial differences in such tests are a result of economics or culture, but this explanation seems very unlikely. As recently noted by Steve Sailer, on the 2008 SAT poor whites outperformed rich blacks. More specifically, whites from family incomes of $20 – $40K outperformed blacks from family incomes of more than $200K. Why are such privileged blacks scoring so low on the SAT? The obvious answer, noted by many others, is genetics and the fact that these affluent blacks probably have their incomes as a result of affirmative action.
And speaking of affirmative action, it might very well be that the poor whites outperforming rich blacks on the SAT are the most discriminated against group in college admissions. As discovered by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford in their landmark study:
“When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.”
But don’t expect the Cathedral to speak up for these poor, non-diversity-enhancement whites anytime soon.
“The native stock of the West is clearly suffering from a mental sickness caused by too much outbreeding.” ~ Heartiste
I suppose that different conclusions can be drawn from the amazing work that HBD Chick has done on the Hajnal Line and outbreeding of Northwest Europeans, but I tend to agree with the sentiment of Heartiste above. While outbreeding (i.e. outbreeding among co-ethnics but only distantly related ones) might have created certain advantages in smaller, homogenous countries (such as increased trust and individualism), in modern multiracial states it’s an Achilles’ heel, perhaps the Achilles’ heel for Westerners / whites, which in recent years has resulted in pathological altruism and ethnomasochism. I mean, you actually have many SWPLs and white fundamentalist Christians now opting to adopt low-IQ black babies in lieu of passing on their own DNA. At some point, outbreeding becomes maladaptive.
A recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes:
Elephants are able to differentiate between ethnicities and genders, and can tell an adult from a child – all from the sound of a human voice.
…Elephants can reliably discriminate between two different ethnic groups that differ in the level of threat they represent, significantly increasing their probability of defensive bunching and investigative smelling following playbacks of Maasai voices. Moreover, these responses were specific to the sex and age of Maasai presented, with the voices of Maasai women and boys, subcategories that would generally pose little threat, significantly less likely to produce these behavioral responses.
It stands to reason that if elephants can distinguish between various African ethnic groups, they also should be able to distinguish between larger racial groups as the cues demarcating larger racial groups are less subtle.
Can other animals? I have often wondered whether dogs can differentiate between human races. I have anecdotal evidence for such a claim, but before I give it let me say I often find anecdotal evidence about dogs to be lacking, sometimes even comical (such as people who want to claim that pit bulls are not more genetically violent than other breeds because they know someone with a gentle pit bull). That said, every dog I’ve owned (often living in larger multiracial cities) seems to distinguish between races, that is they seemed to be friendly around white people and more wary of blacks. Of course, many things could be going on here. Blacks (and mestizos to a lesser extent) seem to be more wary of dogs and certainly won’t dote on them as whites do, and dogs could pick up on these cues. Or it could be something else.
Do the scents of human races differ and dogs pick up on them? The keenest sense for dogs is smell — which is 10,000 – 100,000 times more acute than humans’. We’ve recently learned for instance that different races have different oral bacteria, so it is not entirely unreasonable that different races project different odors and dogs pick up on them?