822 words
[Robert] Putnam’s work on diversity revealed that increasing diversity not only lowered levels of between-group trust, but also decreased the levels of trust between individuals of the same group.
If one considers that it is precisely collective group action that is a necessary component of a group’s resistance to the corrosive effects of diversity and multiculturalism, then one observes that diversity has the ability to disarm its own opposition.
One can consider a majority ethny subjected to increasing levels of diversity within their nation-state. This diversity directly damages the interest of the native, majority ethny through negative effects on ultimate interests (e.g., EGI [Ethnic Genetic Interests] decreased through race-replacement immigration, differential birthrates, and miscegenation) as well as important proximate interests (socioeconomic, political, cultural, etc. displacement, as well as legal and illegal acts of aggression by the newcomers against the natives).
The long-term interests of this endangered native ethny will require an organized resistance to diversity. This organized resistance will require collective action, a sense of group identity, and must be proofed against excessive free riding. All of this requires reasonably high levels of trust between group members. But the very diversity they wish to oppose erodes inter-group trust and makes a more collectivist mindset ever more difficult to create and maintain. Instead, diversity would tend to promote atomized individualism, derived from a sense of mistrust and alienation (“bowling alone”), that would sap the strength of any organized resistance movement.
While this process of group disarmament could in theory occur in any group subjected to diversity, it would have the most harmful effects on groups already relatively high on individualism and low on collectivism. A very collectivist group may well be more resistant to the ingroup mistrust promoted by diversity, and even if diversity caused this group to move in the individualist direction, if they had started high on the collectivist scale, they may be able to maintain a sufficient level of collective group action to protect themselves and their interests.
On the other hand, a group already individualist, with weaker abilities to engage in collective action, such a group would be pushed into pathologically radical atomized individualism by diversity, and lose whatever ability for collective action they had previously possessed.
Europeans are relatively low on collectivism, while being high on individualism, and are thus exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of diversity on ingroup mistrust. Jews and Asians, being more collectivist, would be far more resistant to diversity; even if they were to move toward a more individualist direction, they may still fall within a “safe” range that maintains the ability for group collective action.
For example, imagine a 0-100 scale, with 0 being maximum individualism, and 100 being maximum collectivism. Imagine that the position of different groups on this scale is fixed within a range, by both genes and deeply ingrained cultural and historical influences. A group may have some ability to move around within their range, based on circumstances, becoming a bit more collectivist under threat and a bit more individualist during times of peace and plenty (the magnitude of these shifts may also vary between groups, but we need not concern ourselves with this detail here).
Let’s say that the threshold for collective action is at a rating of 50 or greater. Europeans may fall within the 30-55 range, with the 30-45 range being the default position, and levels of collectivism of 45-55 observed in times of stress (as a historical example, National Socialist collective organizing of the German people against Jews and other enemies). Jews and Asians would be, normally, in the 65-90 range. If diversity causes a 10 point slide toward individualism, then Europeans would have their ability for collective action eliminated (they would now have a 20-45 range), while Jews and Asians, now in the 55-80 range, would still maintain the ability to act collectively.
Of course, these numbers are merely for the sake of illustration and are not meant to represent any objective, quantitative reality. Nevertheless, the point is clear. Given that it is the white world that is predominantly subjected to increasing diversity, and that is are whites who are, generally speaking, skewed toward individualism, it is obvious that diversity is a potent memetic-biological weapon in the war to destroy the White world.
This is a large hurdle to overcome. Enhancing inter-group trust through honorable and ethical behavior, should be a “must” for the “movement” — but I see little evidence of this actually occurring. This underscores why “free-riding” (from everything from politics to vaccination) is so deadly; if one sees others taking advantage of the group’s collective social goods while making no contribution to those goods themselves, this will further erode ingroup trust and make further collective action impossible.
We need to understand our place on the individualism-collectivism continuum, also understand the need for collective action, and further understand the pernicious effects of diversity. To not do so is folly and will lead inevitably to our final defeat.
Note: For background, read this.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/02/diversitytrust-individualism-and.html
10 comments
This is an interesting way of envisioning individualism/collectivism. I also wonder if the manner in which Europeans are wired to collectivize differs from other ethnies (including possibly a divide between Northern Europeans and other Europids). Certainly trust is an important factor in establishing an environment conducive to collectivity. When watching the film, “Triumph of the Will”, which depicts Northern Europeans at the height of collectivity, some other factors seem to be present:
1) Authority Figures
2) Symbols
3) Strength
Doubtless these and other factors have already been identified and discussed by Professor MacDonald and others. Something that seems to also be required is a sense of legitimacy and morality. This is challenging, as the law of the land and most moral figures are on the side of diversity for now (not to mention the authority figures, symbols and military power).
It would be interesting and probably useful to compile a list of what factors are necessary. I do sense though that there is a powerful force of racial nationalism within European nations that is being artificially suppressed and anesthetized.
The picture says it all. The man home from work, no wife to greet him, because she has too work to help make ends meet. No children playing in the yard, because it so inconvenient for the woman and it puts an overwhelming financial strain on the white couple (we’re too busy subsidizing non-white birth rates anyway). The darkened street, no sight of neighbors, no sense of community, because everybody rushes home and “turtles in.” All he has to look forward to is increasing desolation and finally that ultimate insult, “death.” At night, before he falls asleep, he probably thinks, “I hope I’m the first to die. Perhaps I can fall asleep tonight, and never wake up, just drift away in a dream of a happier time or place.”
A simple binary scale from individualism to collectivism does not actually shed much light on the problem at hand. Whites do not simply differ in being more individualist rather than collectivist. We are different than other races in exactly how we are individualist and collectivist. All in all we are far more capable of meaningful collective action.
The collectivism of other races is, to a greater or lesser degree, along the lines of a primitive herd or pack mentality; a rapacious tribalism and mindless nepotism that causes individuals to band together when there is some kind of immediate object in view. Any sense of the real greater common good is often almost entirely lacking in this form of collectivism. In reality it is really based in a cynical egoism. Sadly, in the worst cases even simple collective action like digging latrines and safe wells becomes impossible for these supposed collectivist races. (see the documentary “Vice Guide to Liberia”). Europeans can be far more collectivist in any meaningful sense of the word.
The meaning of the word individualism is also different for Europeans. It really just means that we are less prone to the mindless conformity and groupthink that binds other peoples.
Because of these peculiarities, nationalism among us must be an idealistic movement for it to gain any traction.
I am aware that the situation is complex. However, in science (including so-called social”science”), simplified models often have explanatory power in helping understand more complex systems.
The major point in my essay is that diversity enhances atomized individualism, and impairs collective action and group identity, and that this negative effect of diversity is a greater threat to those groups already individualist to begin with.
In general, I see the point holding, despite Whites’ greater efficiency in leveraging collective action compared to other groups.
Link to he relevant scientific research ,otherwise this is just a load of baloney.
The biggest obstacle too collective action has always been “Christianity.” It is a corrosive solvent that destroys the bonds of community. Christianity destroys racial loyalty, and the will too survive in whites; in its most extreme form the victim thinks that they are jews (e.g., The Christian Identity/British Israel bunch). You never see white-christian clerics (WCC) organizing counter-marches or protests against what is being done to the white race. Not once has a WCC stood up to Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Malcolm X, etc. The WCC could have easily organized sit-ins to stop traffic and stopped the passage of immigration reform in 1965 and stopped the passage of desegregation legislation. What if every WCC had led their congregations outside to block traffic, until the government desisted and deceased its destructive legislation, -our rulers are motivated by threats to profit margins-. That would have been the way to fight the jews back then; whites made-up of over 90% of the population back then. But no, the WCC said, “It is inevitable, we have no choice.” Instead the WCC said, ‘We must pray and trust the wisdom of God.” knowing all along that the adults would grow older and weaker each passing day and that their children would be increasingly indoctrinated. The WCC did not practice that aphorism, “God helps them, who help themselves.” The WCC continually stalled and hem-hawed. After all, the WCC had more important things to think about: his retirement account; the kid’s college fund; his vacation fund; his tax exemptions, and his house payment (if it wasn’t provided for free by the congregation). The WCC gloated in satisfaction at the increasing miscegenation and the darkening neighborhoods. The WCC was thrilled at the establishment of the modern state of Israel and America’s increasing subsidizing of of that outlaw state. The WCC was so happy that they were finally able to force God’s hand and bring about the apocalypse and the new millennium. The WCC has always been an agent of subversion within our midst.
I asked some time ago on Sailer and didn’t get much response and so ask again here. This interesting subject area of trust and social capital has been looked at, as far as I can see, in some detail, within different social groups, population groups and nations since Putnam. Recall that he did not publish for some years after coming to his conclusions, due to the unfortunate results. Many academics appear to have taken on his implicit challenge to find evidence that confutes or forces that countervail those unwelcome findings. From the little, that I have seen, they have in some respects succeeded. I have though neither the technical expertise, nor the free time, nor, really, the disposable income to start pulling these more recent studies and analyzing them. In many cases, executive summaries have been my best indicator. Has anyone looked at this? The HBD folks don’t seem to get stuck into this particular subject and nor, as far as I can see, has anyone else from our side to give what I might accept as a fair summary of current thinking. It gets a little tiresome if we confidently quote ‘Putnam’ while being unfamiliar with how the science has moved on and whether for expediencies sake, it is for or agin.
Actually, apropos my earlier comment, I might ask Peter Frost.
Excellent. Now consider e.g., the music of The Rolling Stones as just one weapon the arsenal of diversity.
“If one sees others taking advantage of the group’s collective social goods while making no contribution to those goods themselves, this will further erode ingroup trust and make further collective action impossible.”
This is precisely why the American left – from FDR’s Jew Deal forwards – has been so aggressive in establishing the welfare state. They understood that any anger which arose in the white community as the result of being worked/taxed to death to support black/brown wards of the state would be greatly outweighed by the seeds of disintegration that would be sewn in the white community as it was increasingly divided between producers and recipients.
Whether the “codes” used are “redneck”, “hillbilly”, or something as seemingly innocuous at referring to the ethnic and cultural heart of the nation as “the hinterlands” or “flyover country”, the most virulent – and most applauded – of the few forms of “discrimination” that remain tolerated in our Judaized, Cultural Marxist utopia is that directed by middle-upper class “educated” (indoctrinated) whites at working-poor whites.
The pet ideological project of the Tribe may be Communism, but they have expertly subverted the twin prongs of individualism and capitalism into a more potent weapon of white disintegration than traditional class warfare (which is, however, still the “red meat” fed to the brown leftist hordes) could ever be.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.