Counter-Currents
1,107 words
Liberals are set on the expectation of a future where race no longer matters.
The worldview of the liberal progressive is one where the world is fundamentally born in “sin” (patriarchy, racism, etc.) but ultimately redeems itself—inevitably, through the laws of progress—and ultimately takes on a form that is in the end radically different from the form it was born in.
In a theological context, these theses would variously be classified as eschatology and soteriology.
Like the apocalyptic Christian, the progressive liberal may not know when the End Times are coming, but he is certain that they are coming, and he knows what they will look like when they come.
Thus, liberal anti-racism combines with the progressive eschatology to create the idea that even if race matters now—even if race isn’t a mere “social construct,” but a real biological phenomenon—it will eventually disappear as we all inexorably meld into a single off-white race.
As a teenager, my first exposure to this idea was in a skit from the Indian comedian Russell Peters:
300 years from now . . . do you realize there’s not gonna be any more white people?
There’s not gonna be any more black people. Everybody’s gonna be beige.
And I don’t care; I’m already beige, you know?
But it’s true—the whole world’s mixing.
Eventually we’re all gonna become some sort of hybrid mix of Chinese and Indian. It’s inevitable—they’re the two largest populations in the world . . . so you can run from us now, but sooner or later we’re gonna hump you. And I’m thinking, if we’re already gonna mix anyway, we should start mixing now, you know? . . .
But it’s true, the whole world’s mixing. Eventually everybody’s gonna look the same.
Where Peters went on to joke about mixing Jamaicans and Italians to create “little Pastafarians,” mixing people from Holland and the Phillippines to create “little Jalapenos,” people from Cuba and Iceland to create “Ice Cubes,” National Geographic in 2013 recorded the unironic use of “such homespun terms as Blackanese, Filatino, Chicanese . . . Korgentinian . . . Juskimo . . . [and] Blaxican.” This was, of course, in the well-known series of articles showing us what it thinks Americans will look like in 2050.
This is the progressive utopia. They assure us that it’s “beautiful.” And they’re absolutely certain that it’s how their vision of a world where race no longer matters is going to be realized—and why they can rest assured even now that they are on the “winning side of history” while we register angry complaints that will barely even be recorded in the above couples’ childrens’ history books while we come kicking and screaming into this future they envision, whether we like it or not.
Well, I’d like that record to note that they were clearly warned just how naive this really was.
Because there is something very obvious that they haven’t stopped to consider.
It doesn’t bode well for them. And it makes sense that they wouldn’t consider it, given their well-registered denial of the scientific reality that biology plays a significant role in human personality and behavior.
But a meta-analysis of 50 years of twin studies, with 14.5 million subjects, found that every behavioral or personality trait that could be identified and measured was around 50% heritable.
And guess what?
What goes for every other trait known to mankind also goes for ethnocentrism, as well.
That’s right: ethnocentrism is heritable. Scientific estimates of its heritability are as high as 55%.
And since all of these studies merely rely on self-reporting, that’s based on what people will admit to in surveys. If social environment has an influence on anything, it has an influence on how willing people are to reveal preferences which potentially could be labeled as “racist.” The environmental influence over actual ethnocentric behavior is almost definitely less than its influence over how many people will admit to holding ethnocentric preferences.
Furthermore, it has been proven more recently that ordinary people instantly become more willing to admit to “racist” attitudes as soon as you give them the notion that they are on the path towards becoming a minority in their country (which they are).
Racist attitudes have been taboo for a long time because many whites agreed that they did in fact hold all of the power—so attacking someone who held none was simply poor form. It was targeting low-hanging fruit. White people generally don’t like bullies, and racist whites were seen as bullies because they were part of their country’s majority. Take that basic premise away, and the gloves are going to come off. That statement is not my personal wish or hope, or even a threat to people whose vision I hope doesn’t come to pass. It’s a proven finding of evidence-based research. It will happen.
So getting back to the point: ethnocentrism is heritable.
What does that mean for the vision of liberal utopia laid out above?
It means the inevitable result of interbreeding is not going to be a post-racial world.
The inevitable result is going to be ethnonationalism.
This doesn’t require a genius to figure out: who do you think is most likely to marry a member of a different race? And who do you think is most likely to marry a member of his own race?
It’s quite obvious that the least ethnocentric individuals are going to “marry out.”
Well, guess what?
They will carry their genes for low ethnocentrism with them.
Meanwhile, the most ethnocentric individuals are going to “marry in.” They’ll be the last, if ever, to get swept up in a changing social landscape where intermarriage is something everybody is doing. They’ll be the ones who most often find that they get along best with members of their own race. And they’ll be the ones who least often find that they get along with and find members of other races attractive enough to make it all the way through to the final step of marrying and raising children together.
What do we end up with after several generations of that? We get increasing concentrations of genes for high ethnocentrism in the remaining black, white, etc. populations. Those carrying low-ethnocentric genes will breed out. The remaining, high-ethnocentric population will mate more and more assortively, concentrating high-ethnocentric genes within.
What we end up in is not an off-white world of homogeneously “beige” post-racial people. What we end up with is a collection of “beige” people who have no instinctive ties of innate affinity for each other, surrounded by increasingly ethnocentric and united members of all races surrounding them.
That is the future we’re headed for.
. . . And again, just like the National Geographic, all I’m doing here is registering relevant facts.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
28 comments
A good article but it ignores the real possibility of large differences in the reproductive potential and rate between the ‘beige people’ and ethnocentric populations. Already the state favors and lavishes largess on various beige groups which boost their natural fertility, a fertility that is generally much higher than for Whites.
Historically the first and most obvious mixed beige people were the Muslims. From their inception their fertility has been high and have continued to expand their territorial base for the past 1500 years, much to the detriment of ‘purer’ ethnic groups. Muslim groups may be somewhat lacking in ethnocentrism but that deficiency is more than compensated by the unifying aspect of their religion. In effect religion is their ethnicity.
In this environment all reasonably homogeneous races will increase in their ethnocentric feelings, but what good will it do them, if the beige populations continue to expand, not by breeding outside of their group, but by their own inherent fertility. We see this today, the population of places like Egypt continue to expand, thanks to food aid, courtesy of the US government and ‘world planners’.
Right, my point here was only to focus on the aspect of the matter that liberals usually focus on and create a counter-hypothesis about that aspect that would scare them as much as they think theirs scares us.
So they’re saying “if we look at the empirical fact of interracial relationships, it’s just inevitable that eventually…”
And I’m responding to that by saying “Actually, if you look a little closer at that…”
I also think this is one reason why it can sometimes be silly to consider the fraction of people who really want to marry out a threat to their race. So long as overall fertility trends are taken care of, the appropriate attitude sometimes might be the one Trump had when throwing protesters out of his campaign rallies: “Good. Getttt emmmm out of heeeeere. We don’t need ’em! Get ’em out.”
I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to take away from this that they should stop having kids. From every angle all the way around, having children is the most important thing anyone can do.
But it’s still very unlikely the United States will end up in a South Africa situation any time soon. We most likely won’t end up with an ethnically continuous small white population facing off against an ethnically continuous large (other) population. More probably, we will end up with a large group of ‘beiges’ who feel few natural ties with each other and smaller groups of ethnocentric ‘purebreds’ of every race. The likelihood that the ‘purebreds’ will work together to build separate locations for themselves is much higher in that situation than it would be otherwise. So, at the very least, I’m pointing to a future where these ideas will inevitably at least be taken far more seriously.
And in the end, I think all of us know that these ideas are going to be taken far more seriously the more the general situation heats up. So the point was to add one other note of encouragement on that score while deflecting the liberal argument that this project is doomed no matter what any of us do. Fertility trends are obviously of extreme importance, but they don’t doom anyone “no matter what any of us do.”
Hey Bronco, I’m looking for some like-minded, good fellas to meet and greet in the Denver area. Are you interested or do you know anyone who might be?
I made these same arguments to Jared Taylor about 15 years ago (though I first thought of this line of analysis in the early/mid 80s). Over time, I said, he would ‘win’, at least in the sense that White nationalism would become the dominant tendency, first among conservatives, and eventually among all Whites, as the racially weaker elements of our race eventually bred out of it (I am sure something like this has happened to the Jews over their two millennia of diaspora), with this endogenous trend being culturally intensified by the increasing racial conflicts over resources sure to characterize our multiracial semi-socialist future.
In the USA of tomorrow, Whites will be ever less numerous, especially proportionately, but we will also grow stronger ideologically. Our quality will rise as our quantity declines (which observation I like to make to some of my overly despairing pro-White friends, especially when they posit a perfect linear decline for America over the rest of our lives).
I still want the apartheid state. however.
How do you account for the fall of South Africa?
This is a good article.
However it doesn’t even the consider people who are mixed race who aren’t visually/obviously mixed, who therefore side with one of their genetic/ethnic “sides”
As someone who’s mixed race(70% white) I have always felt super ethnocentric in relation to whites, and never really felt any connection to my other “side”. I think it does have to do with the fact that when you have multiple ethnicities but look, and are identified by others with just one, you’ll realize the power of identity quicker than most people who are 90% of one race and are raised by boomers and “racially blind” parents.
All of this will just add to the increasing ethnocentrism you outlined.
Great article man.
What’s the other part?
Berber
An anti-racist sees a world teeming with 7.6 billion precious unique individual human beings just like herself, and says, “How could I possibly burden this fragile planet with another mouth to feed!”
A racist sees 600 million aging, low-fertility white people and 7 billion young, fecund subhuman vermin eager to kill them and take their stuff, and says, “I’d better find a husband and make some white babies pronto!”
The more narrowly we define “our people”, and the less worth we assign to “everyone else”, the stronger our motivation is to create more of ourselves. Thus racism is essential to long-term survival, and other races got a jump on us because they never stopped being racist.
If Russell Peters is correct and the whole world is going to be kind of beige, guess what. People will find reasons other than ethnicity or race to invade or make war. This should be obvious to anyone. I make this point because the marxists never tire of telling us that if everyone is the same race, it will be a time of peace and plenty. Oh glory day!
And Peters, by the way, ought to have mentioned that they’ll all be ugly. And while I’m here, I wonder how nonwhite audiences feel about his prediction. Or are white people the only ones stupid enough to fork out a shitload of money because they need to…laugh?
It’ll never happen; higher iq will always correlate with lighter skin color. In the Caribbean where there is a veritable spectrum from white to black, much lighter persons are considered white. “Stay light and bright”, Malcom gladwell’s grandmother advised his mother. Even among blacks there is a rigid hierarchy based on precise darkness of skin color. Recall in the movie Precious she dreams of having a light skinned boyfriend.
All that would happen is that society would decay to something where no one would have the leisure to sit around worrying about skin color! Bc life would revert to a continual fight for survival.
The Brahmin caste in India, who can be very dark, tend to lighter skin color than other Indians.
This is assuming that earth can actually sustain current rate of resource extraction and population of over 7 billion. I think it probably cant. In particular since the whole system requires perpetual growth to continue its existence. Its easy to predict what happens then.
Even if there’s no White people or White nationalism in the future, there will be Mulatto people and Mulatto Nationalists who will be in opposition to the African hoards. There’s simply going to be too many Africans and not enough Whites for a total merge to over go down.
Hardly any of these leftist miscegenation promoters are living in vibrant neighborhoods. On the contrary, they go broke to avoid them. Even they don’t escape innate ethnocentrism, which remains latent in their thinking. It’s not consciously chosen but is instead the psychological background against which they make conscious and deliberate decisions. Their holier-than-thou antiracist bullshit is really an attempt to rationalize this. It isn’t about stamping out racism so much as it’s about obscuring their own nature from themselves.
I don’t think the modern left is really thrown into the kind of eschatologal panmixia that they used to be, because that kind of ideology doesn’t square with their “everything is racial” and “safe spaces” and “microaggressive” mentality. It’s practically not possible to have identity politics without the particular peoples that have various identities, and pure panmixia of course eliminates all these peoples.
As white ethnocentrism increases we will see an increase in larger families among whites–the call of the blood.
When National Geographic did that story on mixed race people they seem to have gone out of the way to find the strangest and most unattractive specimens they could find. Was it gaslighting or just an extreme version of the knee-jerk way SWPL women coo over how adorable half-black babies are?
The following quote is from Jamie Bartlett’s The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underground (Brooklyn: Melville House, 2015), p. 292:
“Facebook was originally called Facemash. Mark Zuckerberg and his university friends wanted to rate the pictures of female students they’d managed to grab — without permission, of course — from the Harvard University files. Facemash placed a photo of females students next to each other and asked users to vote on who they thought was the best looking, with an algorithm slowly pushing certain girls up or down the list.”
I’m sure that if something like this was done with a representative sample of photos of Whites and non-Whites, the non-Whites would end up at the bottom of the list.
“Facemash” is a good term for the appearance of the mongrel displayed above — and for what should be done to Jews like Zuckerberg.
The same endnote continues: “‘One thing is certain,’ wrote Zuckerberg on his personal blog at the time, ‘and that’s I’m a jerk for making this site. Oh well, someone had to do it eventually.” Further comment would be superfluous.
“The worldview of the liberal progressive is one where the world is fundamentally born in “sin” (patriarchy, racism, etc.) but ultimately redeems itself—inevitably, through the laws of progress”
So basically Western liberalism is the same as Chinese Communism which propagandises the notion all races and peoples will live in peace and harmony as the inevitable result of socialist economic and social progress. China believes it will rule the world with “socialist core values.” Chinese and Western leftists are deluded for believing in the inevitability of their Utopia.
Do you think the Jews and the current Chinese regime will ever conflict?
For the time being, I cannot imagine a clash between Jews and the Chinese Communist regime. Jews are among the most vocal supporters of the Chinese Communist regime. Jews are often the ones predicting the demise of Western democracies and the rise of Chinese Communist autocracy (tyranny). Jews criticise Western democracy for being too inefficient and they praise the Communists for being efficient. Essentially, the Jews are praising everything that makes China a totalitarian surveillance state where no one has freedom of thought but is only allowed to obey and work.
One can imagine a scenario in which the Jews see their hegemony in America challenged. This will be framed as a clash of superpowers. It remains ambiguous whether the Jewish elite in America can truly benefit from a strong China. I believe they will ultimately sense that the Chinese Communists, just as the Russian Communists, are not as willing to do their bidding as the Western liberals are. This will lead to war between America and China, which will definitely end in a US victory if the Jews support the US side completely. The only scenario that such a war could break out is if the Jews come to believe, for whatever reason, that the Chinese are not the best candidates to champion their Jewish one-world government.
Chinese Communism and Western liberalism are essentially two sides of the same Jewish coin. Either liberals take over the entire planet and create the much desired Jewish world government or the Communists take over and realise the Jewish dream of a totalitarian police-state one-world government.
Chinese Communists are heavily infected with ideas borrowed from the Jews. To be more exact, Marxism which is a Jewish ideology was imposed upon the Chinese population from without. China was infiltrated by Jews, which is how they got Communism going. The best example is Grigori Naumovich Voitinsky wihtout whose help there would have been no Chinese Communist Party (acronym: CCP).
That is depressing to hear (I guess it should not be surprising) and I am horrified at the idea of global dominance by China. The Chinese would completely enslave whites if they had the option, and I agree, I also don’t think the Chinese party would be the obediant dogs of the Jews. I guess it would be too much to ask for the Jews to fight their own war if it came to conflict.
One aspect of the Liberal promoted mono-racial future is the belief that if everyone were the same race (by which they mean “skin color”) then there would be no more conflict. Humanity would be One and Mankind would advance to Utopia. But that premise lacks validity.
For one thing, a mono-racial civilization/world would still see dynastic struggles, wars of religion, class conflict and whatever else people care to fight about. Look at two World Wars in Europe, in which people of the same race engaged in the greatest struggles of all times.
But there’s a deeper issue. And that is why is a world free of conflict (racial or otherwise) a desirable objective? There’s a strong case to be made that despotism exists where there is no counterbalance to power (see Burnham’s The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom ). Let’s assume the Liberals are correct, and that if all humans were members of one big mono-color Buy-the-World-a-Coke(tm) race there would be unity and thus peace. This sounds like a world of mindless conformism and totalitarianism, right out of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We.
There’s the usual contradiction of Liberals banging the drum for “diversity,” yet at the same time calling for an end to the diversity of races and thus of cultures. Of course, it can be argued that the actual promoters of the mono-racial Utopia are the Kalergi echelon inner party of hostile elites, whose goals are more cynical: breaking down racial, national and cultural divides, thereby undermining opposition to the establishment of globalist level governance. They finance the outer party of Liberal academics, PR specialists, NGOs and chattering heads to push the mono-racial agitprop line. One race = one world = end to freedom.
I’d make a loose analogy with the establishment of Christianity as Rome’s state religion by Constantine and his successors. The idea was that if everyone practiced the same religion, then the Empire would be truly unified. But the religious unity led to political disaster, causing endless civil warfare over increasingly trivial points of orthodoxy. To modern audiences fighting over, say, monophysitism and Arianism versus Trinitarianism seems fantastic. But it’s hardly more absurdist than today’s mass hysterias over increasingly trivial points of political correctness.
It all adds up to a formula for continuing chaos, with Utopia always one color revolution over the rainbow.
Incidentally, “utopia” is Greek for “no place,” an apt enough description of the ideological delusions advocated by Liberals. The dilemma is the delusions provide the justification for the continuing catastrophe of White displacement.
people will just start identifying by asian mixed with white, half white half black, asian mixed with black, etc. the terms will just change.
White ethnocentrism is in part heritable I am not quite so optimistic.
A lot of people who have, let’s say, 1/8 or less non-White ancestry can pass as White, especially if they don’t have sub-Saharan Black ancestry. Ethnocentric Whites could be fooled into mating with them.
And, there’s examples of whole regions of White people becoming admixed, the Eurasian Steppe, India, etc.
Even the most ethnocentric people in the world, Jews, are admixed. PCA analysis shows them to be genetically half-way in-between Palestinians and Europeans.
Eurasians allowed Neanderthals who, if alive, would be considered a different race, and yet they make up 1-4% of our genome.
If people in the USA race-mix, it’s going to look more like Brazil, where I live. Too many ugly persons without any ethnic identity.
During the last decades of our Monarchy in the 1800’s and first Republican governments, our elites thought that the country needed to go through some “whitening” and that could be easily acomplished by importing millions of European immigrants.
One of the objectives was to develop the country. At this point, they were right. Our ancestors from Europe colonized the landscape, brought industry, commerce and civilization to this shithole, especially to the southern regions. Even a famous marxist sociologist called Florestan Fernandes realized and explicitly said that white people were fundamental in developing the economy and culture. Uneeded to say that the black movement around here feels butthurt and call “racists” the same leftists that defend them only for telling the truth.
The second reason to import Europeans was to avoid turning Brazil into a “second Haiti” and eventually turn quite everyone into whites. Our elites thought that only bringing our blood here, we would become a majority and the blacks and native Americans would starve to death because of their inability to sustain themselves.
Unfortunatelly, they were wrong. We went from a 70% white European majority country back in 1940 to a 40% whites in 2010, at best. This for two main ressons: interbreeding (especially between Italian and Portuguese single men with black/native women) and economic growth among whites leading to low birth rates. In the southern states, we’re still >70-80%.
“Whitening” policies could only work if non-white birth rates were severely controlled, whites were stimulated to have huge families and other races finally “absorved” and bred out of existence. But due to stupid governors now we stand here living in this “multirracial utopia” (AKA shithole) where people praise miscigenation and most people fall into the ideology of “racial democracy” and egalitarianism.
White Nationalism is really difficult to implement in Brazil, although there may be some good results in the South. As a white man with Italian ancestry, I would love to help my people, mainly Europe, during these hard times. But I don’t know what to do in a political level. There is virtually no space for WN here and donating is somehow useless, since our currency isn’t so worthy.
Besides, congratulations on the articles and I have to say I am very hopeful with the movement’s evolution in the Northern Hemisphere. Hail Victory!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment