1,237 words
The social sciences do not have as many laws as the hard sciences, but they do exist. If I may be so bold, I would like to add one:
Ingroup behavior sets the maximum for outgroup behavior.
In other words: Groups simply don’t treat outsiders better than they treat their own. They may treat them worse or the same, but not better.
Let’s first start with small groups before moving to big groups, as it will be easier to conceptualize, especially for hyper-individualistic conservatives. Absent some good reason, neighbors on one street do not treat neighbors from several streets over better than those on their same street. Families and friend circles do not treat random people better than their friends and family. Athletes on the cross-country team do not treat the water polo team better than their own teammates.
This becomes even more true for groups of greater size and importance, mainly races, countries, and religions.
Consider how Muslims treat their own women. Why would they treat white women better?
“Bachi bazi” is a form of child sexual abuse common in Afghanistan. Can we expect Afghan refugees to treat white children better than Afghan children?
Blacks call their women “bitches n hoes” while frequently slapping them up. Why would they treat white women any better? Judging from the social media posts of white women with black eyes and mulatto babies, they don’t.
Black fathers frequently abandon their own children. As of 2023, 52.5% of black children lived in a household with a father, which is actually a major improvement from 37% in the mid-1990s. And their mothers are often neglectful or abusive. Can we expect blacks to treat white kids better than black kids?
Consider black on black brutality. You don’t have to imagine it. Blacks routinely document it with hundreds of cellphone videos of vicious brawls between blacks of both sexes. Not just fisticuffs and slaps, but ganging up, stomping, clawing, gouging, and hair yanking are common. Blacks frequently escalate conflicts to lethal force, such as drive by shootings, often over trivial matters of perceived disrespect. “Aspiring rappers” have a notoriously short life expectancy for a reason.
If this is how they treat their own people, they won’t treat us any better.
If this is how blacks treat blacks, how would they treat whites if they could?
Why would they treat you any better?
Black lives don’t matter to blacks. What makes you think they would treat white lives any better, given the opportunity? The only reason that black on black crime is worse than black on white crime is proximity and opportunity. Whites will pay large sums of money and commute many extra miles each day to opt out of the Civil Rights regime.
Jayant Bhandari has written extensively about the dysfunctionality of India, particularly their “might makes right” attitude, corruption, deceit, and dehumanizing caste system. Their sacred Ganges is one of the most shockingly polluted rivers in the world, and it is hard to find a street view on Google Maps that doesn’t have litter.
It would be foolish to expect Indians to treat whites better than they treat other Indians from the same, let alone different, caste. Nor will they treat our national parks better than they treat the Ganges.
At this point, civic nationalists will suggest we import groups who treat their own people better.
Let’s look at Koreans. They don’t steal, brawl, or stab one another. But their society is still deeply dysfunctional. As I discussed in my article “Korean Capitalism and Prussian Socialism,” South Korea has a catastrophically low birthrate of 0.7 births per women. This is due to their hypercompetitive culture and feminism.
South Korean and other “tiger moms” torment their children to be academically hypercompetitive. Korea has had the highest suicide rate among developed countries for years, with suicide being the leading cause of death for young Koreans. It is also a problem among elderly Koreans. Korea’s dysfunctional culture also despises manual labor and sees it as a mark of failure.
If this is how “tiger mom” countries treat their own children and blue-collar workers, how will they treat white children and the white working class? Exactly like Vivek Ramaswamy did during his crash out during the Great Christmas H1B War of 2024, in which he scolded white American kids for sleepovers and sports.
But what about white liberals? Don’t white liberals regularly show preferences to members of outgroups over their own ingroup? Indeed, one would not even need to state Zsutty’s Maximum were it not for the fact that white liberals wish to import some of the most dysfunctional people on the planet into their own countries.
There are four explanations for the white liberal problem.
First, many white liberals aren’t actually members of our ingroup at all. Jews regard themselves as a nation unto themselves, and many Jews regard non-white immigration into white countries as a form of ethnic warfare, to weaken and dilute their host populations.
Second, many actual white liberals and many white conservatives for that matter don’t regard themselves as members of our ingroup either. They reject ingroups defined by kinship and culture and embrace new ingroups defined in terms of ideas: Christianity, Islam, liberalism, etc.
Third, some rank-and-file liberals suffer from white guilt simply due to decades of brainwashing. They are not naturally like this, but were psychologically coerced.
Fourth, some white liberals may simply be psychologically abnormal. Generalizations about human beings are seldom airtight. Instead, they take the form, “Not always, but for the most part, ______.”
Zsutty’s Maximum has an unstated caveat. It should read:
Under conditions of freedom and equality, ingroup behavior sets the maximum for outgroup behavior.
There were times when blacks treated whites better than they treated other blacks. Those were the days of white supremacy. Likewise, Indians were obsequious to whites when they felt we had power over them. Now that Indians feel that they have power over us, they are arrogant, condescending, and treat us like dalits. But still, when non-whites want something from whites, they are often very well-behaved.
When groups are subordinate or coerced, they will often treat outgroups as well as or better than they treat their ingroup.
In other words, multiracial societies “work” when a dominant group forces its culture and standards on subordinate groups.
If non-whites treat us badly merely due to cultural differences, then we will have to spend several generations stripping them of their culture and assimilating them to ours. That’s what we did with white immigrants. But such policies would entail abandoning liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism.
And what if the differences are not, ultimately, cultural but biological? That means that a permanent regime of inequality and coercion will have to be maintained. And a single moment of weakness can cause the whole system to collapse, as it did during the 1960s.
Absent hierarchy and coercion, ingroup behavior sets the maximum for outgroup behavior.
Thus, in a multicultural society the best whites can hope for is the pollution of the Ganges, the child abuse of Afghanistan, the corruption of India, the mass shootings of Chicago, and the beheadings of MS-13. This is how nonwhites routinely treat one another. Why would they treat us any better?
We need to make this a new “mantra.” Every photo, every video, every meme of non-white dysfunction needs a statement of Zsutty’s Maximum: If this is how they treat their own people, they won’t treat us any better.
Why would they treat you any better?
15 comments
Fantastic article. I have never seen a better explanation of group behavior.
C.E. Whiteoak: June 11, 2026 Fantastic article. I have never seen a better explanation of group behavior.
—
Yes, “Zsutty’s Maxim” should catch on among Whites as much or more so than David Lane’s “14 Words” maxim has.
The part in this essay about liberals is not new. Dr. Pierce gave a speech to a small gathering of followers 50 years ago, published later in his monthly snail-mailed National Alliance Members BULLETIN in early 1977. I transcribed the long-out-of-print gem in 2011 to share digitally with others online, because I could. See it here today: “A World Gone Mad” at nationalvanguard.org
… I used to have this theory, but it has a couple of weaknesses. For one thing, it became apparent that, although the great majority of queers are liberals, a great many liberals are not queers. One can almost, in fact, divide White liberals into two neat groups: the members of one group, whether queers or not, display in their personal behavior the essentially unmanly attitude toward life which is a fundamental characteristic of liberalism, while the members of the other group tend instead toward a hard-nosed, aggressive, non-effeminate posture.
Those in the first group are the hand-wringers, the bleeding hearts. They are the ones always babbling about “love,” the ones Jimmy Carter was able to con with his big smile and his platitudes during the recent election campaign. They are the mush-headed liberals, the saps, the ones who are perpetually participating in so-called “workshops” and “rap sessions” and “encounter groups” and “sensitivity seminars.” They wear their neurotic guilt and their self-hatred on their sleeves. It’s almost as if each of them has a sign on his back saying “I’m White. Please kick me.” Those are the ones who fit my theory.
But there are also plenty who don’t. They’re the ones who’ll kick back if you kick them — provided you’re White, of course. There’s nothing mush-headed about them, nothing fuzzy about their thinking. They know how to get the job done. And that job is the destruction of America, the destruction of Western civilization, the destruction of the White race.
They worked to bring about the pardoning of draft-dodgers, and now they are working for the pardoning of military deserters too. They have re-written the public-school textbooks, so that they’re now full of Black leaders of the American Revolution, Black cowboys who won the West, and long, tear-jerking eulogies about St. Martin Luther King, how much we all owe him, and how we ought to hate ourselves because a White man finally got fed up with him and shot him. And they’re scheming now about how they can cancel vital defense-oriented research programs and prevent the development of new weapons for our armed forces.
Every important liberal project is a destructive project — in fact, a self-destructive project. And that gives us, I believe, the clue to the relationship between homosexuality and liberalism. Forget, for the moment, about the sexual aspect of homosexuality and regard it as simply a self-destructive aberration. It is hard to imagine anyone more self-destructive, anyone more obsessed with self-contempt than a homosexual.
So, now if we take an overall view of liberals, we can see this one, outstanding characteristic which they all share, whether the soft-headed or the hard-headed variety: they have all rebelled against their own nature, against their natural role in the world. Some have rejected their natural sexuality; they are the queers. All have rejected their racial role as the natural masters of this earth. For some this racial rejection is turned against themselves personally; they are the soft-heads, the guilt-ridden hand-wringers. Others, the hard-heads, direct their hostility outward, against Western political and social institutions, and against cultural norms, against White rule or White dominance or the maintenance of White racial quality.
And what a strange thing this liberalism is! There are so many questions we can ask: Is it some sort of perverse reaction to the egoism and materialism which rule our thinking today, and to which we also are opposed?
I don’t think so. Liberals hate what they are, their race, their traditions — but self-denial, that is, asceticism of a Spartan life-style, a rejection of materialism, certainly doesn’t seem to be characteristic of many of them. They seem to be about as interested in their own bank accounts as everyone else is.
Then one notes the striking liberalism of all the Christian churches in recent decades, and one may be inclined to jump to the conclusion that liberalism is Christianity run wild, a sort of compulsion to carry out the program of the Sermon on the Mount: “The scum shall inherit the earth.” But the fact is that, in addition to the Christian liberals, there are many White liberals who belong to no church and profess no Christianity…
See much more of Pierce’s early genius on the subject of liberalism as a disease of the brain, the two types of liberals, at the link.
This reminds me of how Black South Africans burn illegal Black immigrants alive when they enter their country. Or how, not so long ago, Winnie Mandela and her followers killed other Black people the same way, through “necklacing.”
Likewise, it’s the same argument I make when someone tells me that Franco carried out executions in the postwar period and how it was a tragedy that the “tyrants” won the war against the “democrats.” To those naive people I say that if those champions of democracy exterminated one another and used an industrial-scale torture network against their own comrades (Stalinists and socialists vs. Trotskyists and anarchists), what crimes could we not expect them to commit against others if they had won!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum#Liebig's_barrel
Kinda sorta analogous.
(Any Dune fans might recall Kynes discussing it at the banquet…)
Mr. Zsutty: [M]any actual white [sic] liberals and many white [sic] conservatives for that matter don’t regard themselves as members of our ingroup either. They reject ingroups defined by kinship and culture and embrace new ingroups defined in terms of ideas: Christianity, Islam, liberalism, etc.
—
Exactly!
Brilliant White loyalist, David Sims, explains this insanity further, here:
“Why do White Liberals Speak for Black People?” at nationalvanguard.org
THE REASON White “liberals” speak for Black people is because the liberal Whites are better-spoken — meaning they have superior language skills, as compared with the Blacks themselves. And the liberal Whites are cleverer liars than the Blacks are.
That’s not to say that Blacks aren’t frequently liars. But Blacks aren’t especially skilled in making their deceptions convincing. Blacks make mistakes when they lie, and then they have to resort to intimidation, violence, and dogged persistence and repetition (chanting in large numbers, for example) while pretending that their views aren’t internally contradictory when, indeed, they are.
White liberals, full of sympathy toward Blacks’ ineptitude in creating their own falsehoods, are often willing to lend them a hand by offering them, and by telling on their behalf, a wonderfully well-crafted set of monumental lies sure to win the hearts of dishonest media pundits and corrupt judges.
Of course, some Blacks might consider this unasked-for aid to be patronizing, and I can certainly understand their point of view. But liberals are liberals, and treating their inferiors with hypocritical condescension while at the same time assuring them, falsely, that they are “just as good as anybody else” is what liberals do.
“Likewise, Indians were obsequious to whites when they felt we had power over them”
It is an example of the saying: Those that bite the hand that feeds them, lick the boot that kicks them.
Someone who worked in a refugee camp once told me about a Muslim who consumed alcohol in the camp. None of the other Muslims seemed upset about the man’s habit of drinking; whereas if they had been in their home country, they may have beheaded the poor kafir. Lesson of the story is that the ecology and environment (the host country’s culture in this case) does matter and in fact has an impact on the behaviour of the organisms.
The only reason that black on black crime is worse than black on white crime is proximity and opportunity.
Great article! I disagree, the only reason black on White crime is not worse is because we have guns. 🙃
I don’t know. Is it ok if I disagree with you guys and it won’t hurt your feelings? I think we should have open discussions of ideas. I think whites can be very mean to each other, for example, on Derek chauvin and the McMichaels, or any number of trump supporters. In recent history during the world wars unimaginable savagery was inflicted upon Germany, who are almost ethnically indistinguishable. And on the south during the American civil war. But we tend to treat out groups better than ourselves. Maybe you would argue those are rare political upheavals, idk.
Indians tend to be nicer in the US, as they don’t suffer the extreme overpopulation and resource competition in India. Which is why we don’t want to get like that
Counter-Currents would not need to exist if whites were never mean to other whites.
That Whites can be very mean to each other is a correct observation. However, this is a case of mistaken ingroup or of how people prioritize membership in multiple ingroups. In WW2 and the US Civil War, many people identified more with their country or party than the broader European race. Likewise, religion was the dominant ingroup identification during the Thirty Years War. Liberals who hate Derek Chauvin identify as liberals, progressives, or Democrats rather than White. And historically speaking, anti-White liberals may be a short-lived exception to the general rule as their birthrates plummet.
That Whites are the only racial ingroup in which there seems to be any significant number of exceptions to the general rule heightens the need for remigration. Third-world migrants won’t voluntarily return the benevolence of White liberals.
All groups are mean to one another, to some extent. The question is whether this level of ingroup meanness sets the maximum for outgroup directed meanness. By and large, it does.
“That Whites are the only racial ingroup in which there seems to be any significant number of exceptions to the general rule heightens the need for remigration. Third-world migrants won’t voluntarily return the benevolence of White liberals.”
Yes, this follows.
Uniquely, Whites typically favor morally defined in-groups.* That means you can get us to treat you better than we treat ourselves if you convince us you are morally superior to us by our standards.
All the means of convincing Whites to treat non-Whites as morally superior are currently in use, with Jews as prime agents and beneficiaries of the system. Many of these means, such as antiwhite propaganda, deceit, and censorship of racial truths, are bad for Whites. When antiwhite propaganda makes Whites feel morally despicable, this makes it easier for non-White groups such as Jews to convince us that they are morally above us and we should treat them better than we treat ourselves, and it is psychologically harmful to White children to miseducate them in this way.
This White preference for morally defined in-groups does not apply to other races, and for them Zsutty’s Maximum will be a more reliable guide to what to expect.
* In saying this I rely on the work of Kevin MacDonald, and if someone has read his work and thinks he is wrong I have no further argument.
Thank you! This one will be added to my list.
I’ve always been obsessed with condensing insights into aphorisms and would love to one day compile a booklet of a 100 laws/maxims that explain most of human behavior and history.
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.