An HBD Summary of the Foundations of Modern Civilization
Edit, 3/13/14 8/24/13: Post updated. See below!
This started as an e-mail I wrote to a friend to sum up the important events of the Middle Ages for Europe and the Near East. Then I decided that this was blog post worthy, so here it is: a nice, fairly concise summary of the events of the Middle Ages that set the stage for the rise of modern civilization, according to HBD Chick’s hypothesis—massive thanks to her. This post will be here to hopefully serve as a handy reference to the topic.
So it seems that many interesting things happened during the Middle Ages. It is this period that shaped the people of today. Two of the biggest instrumental forces were religions, particularly Christianity and Islam. Both of these religions set their adherents on special evolutionary paths, paths that continue to influence events to this day.
In Europe, after the fall of Rome and with the Germanic barbarians overrunning the former Western Empire, the Church took on extra importance. Unlike the Romans they conquered, the German barbarians were tribal, with strong clan loyalties (Edit also see medieval germanic kindreds … and the ditmarsians | hbd* chick). Needless to say, this wasn’t helpful to Church’s attempts to maintain order or any semblance of civil authority that had existed under the Romans. Of course, the Church made an effort to convert the barbarians to Christianity, and in so doing, the Church instituted several restrictions on marriage and family systems that discouraged the large kinship networks that typify tribal societies. Most important among them was banning cousin marriage. Western Europeans are fairly unique in the world in that they prefer to marry those who are unrelated. Most of the world prefers marriage between cousins, particularly cross-cousins. Without marriage between cousins, extended kinship networks broke down, for many reasons; including the fact that wealth was no longer so concentrated within the family (and often went to the Church). As well, this creates a different sort of evolutionary selective pressures. Members of an inbred family are much more related to each other than to outsiders, so kin altruism (doing things that benefit the family, even at great cost to the self) pays off much more evolutionarily. As Western Europeans married their cousins less, kinship began to spread around the whole society. Over time, this meant that everyone in a country became related everyone else to some degree, and the degree of relation of the individual to his immediate and extended family with respect to his society as a whole was a lot lower. This then encouraged the selection of genes for “reciprocal altruism” as opposed to kin altruism—helping others with the expectation that they may one day help you, as well as a general concern for the well-being of society as a whole as opposed to just one’s kin (since to an outbred individual, the entire nation is essentially one’s extended family). You can see that in the high rate of participation in civic organizations for Northwestern Europeans and their descendants, as opposed to everyone else in the world. Natural selection leads to more genes for one type of altruism over other types of altruism depending on the conditions, in this case the mating patterns, and the NW Europeans created something pretty new.
The strong outbreeding of NW Europeans allowed the growth of “corporate” entities, something that is much more difficult to impossible in an inbred society (since it’s hard to get unrelated people to cooperate). This allowed the development of large institutions, something that was largely absent in the rest of world. The preference for highly exogamous marriage was aided by the spread of the manor system in Western Europe. In fact, one can see this on a map:
The manor became popular with the northern Franks and spread in all directions. Manors selected for a particular type of worker, one that would be docile (in face of authority, as opposed to raucous and uncontrollable as those in tribal societies tend to be), hardworking, industrious (often savvy enough to spot opportunities to exploit one’s skills; this encouraged the growth of trade guilds), and somewhat clever. It is these individuals that left the most descendants, and over time, their genes became dominant in the population.
It is this reason that Europe was plunged into a Dark Age after the arrival of the German barbarians. It’s not just that the barbarians were uneducated and uncivilized; they were in essence uncivilizable, at least not for several generations. It was not until enough of the people had evolved new traits did society again begin to advance towards the end of the Middle Ages.
One characteristic of this new system was that marriage began to be postponed in the West. This is demarcated by the Hajnal line:
Western Europeans, exempting the periphery in Celtic Britain, southern Iberia and southern Italy, married late, and both spouses tended to be closer in age. This phenomenon clearly continues in the West today, and demonstrates the importance of Westerners needing to establish themselves economically before settling down with marriage and children.
The important historical oddities of Northwestern Europe gave them a unique history, one that gave rise to all the important institutions of modern civilization, including the modern concept of democracy, which first arose in England, and was finally firmly established by the nascent United States.
In fact, these very important ideological differences among the different European groups can be traced to the different familial/economic/marriage systems they had adopted in the Middle Ages and onward, as one can see here:
This is explained here. The country that gave us modern democracy, modern capitalism, and the Industrial Revolution, England, had embraced the modern nuclear family early on. In such a system, where all were related through extensive outbreeding, and each person needed to make it on their own abilities, and where the voice of every man was important, did the attitudes and beliefs that were the founding principles our modern society emerge (including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) (see these from HBD Chick: but what about the english?, english individualism, english individualism ii, and so my next question naturally is…).
A general and important phenomenon that occurred in Europe, and also in East Asia, was what I call the “Upper Class Advantage.” In these societies, the poor and lowest classes of society faced abysmal survival prospects (considering the harshness of medieval life, where it was challenging to obtain food and ward off illness), such that the ones who succeeded in raising the most offspring were those in the upper classes. Repeated for several generations, everyone came to be descended primarily from the nobility. The temperament and disposition of the middle class then came to be the dominant ones in the population, something with which most of the world outside Europe and East Asia haven’t been as successful.
The way the family was organized, and, more importantly, the way this caused other aspects of society to be organized had very important implications for ideology, as explained here. The differences between the English on one hand and the French or the Spanish on the other, in terms of attitudes towards work and success for example, can be traced to their system of inheritance. Pulling-oneself-up-by-one’s-bootstraps was somewhat less important in the latter countries, and today they embrace a much more socialist way of thinking with respect to the Anglophone world.
The edges of Western Europe, for different reasons, avoided this way of life. The Scots and the Irish, being herders, living in rough terrain in the case of the former, never adopted the manor system, and continued right on inbreeding (edit: also here, mating patterns in medieval/early modern scotland | hbd* chick), remaining clannish, which is evident in the great clan feuds in both these peoples’ histories. Southern Spain, under the domination of the Moors, continued a system of inbreeding common to Muslim societies. And southern Italy is a lost cause and has been for some time, as any Mafia movie shows (also my own blog post here). In these places the extended family remains the most important social unit, and violent completion between families (think Mafia family wars) in the spirit in the Scottish and Irish clan feuds continue (the latter of which having their own history of clan-based mafias). Edit: also see More on Farming and Inheritance Systems – Part I: IQ.
The Middle Ages also saw the evolution of the Ashkenazi Jews, whose restriction to cognitively demanding tasks selected for greatly increased IQ, as evident by the success of Ashkenazi Jews in every corner of the world today.
On the other side of the Hajnal line—which in later times became known as the Iron Curtain—a different way of life emerged entirely. The manor system never caught on with the Slavs. Christianity also didn’t make into Eastern Europe until much later than it did in the West, and Slavs were inbreeding for much longer than were Germanics on the other side of Europe. Instead of the manor, the basic unit in Slavic Europe was the zadruga, or the obshchina in Russia (Edit: also see: historic european homicide rates … and the hajnal line | hbd* chick). These were communal dwellings where farm land was evenly divided among all residents, and land and crops were redistributed from the more successful families to the less successful ones. Yep, sounds a lot like communism; indeed the Russians had essentially invented communism in the middle ages, not during the Bolshevik Revolution! The adverse conditions in Russia may have favored this type of system, since crop failure was a frequent problem in the harsh Russian winter. See HBD Chick’s ongoing discussion about mating patterns in Eastern Europe (also here). Edit: also see: Those Who Can See: The Tsar is Far
To the south, while Europe was in disarray recovering from the fall of Rome, a new force emerged in the Arabian Desert. This was Islam, formulated by Muhammad. The Arabs have been—and often remain to this day—nomadic herders. A herding lifestyle favors an aggressive personality, since it is so easy to strip a herder of what is important for survival (their herds). The Arabs also practice a form of cousin marriage where parallel cousin marriage, particularly one’s father’s-brother’s-daughter (FBD), is preferred as a wife for a young man. This is important for keeping the herd within the family, as splitting-up the herd through inheritance would be catastrophic for many. FBD marriage allows wealth to remain in the family. By the time of Muhammad, the Arabs were using this system, and it was spread around the Middle East and North Africa by the Islamic conquest. Prior to Muhammad, the Arabs had existed in atomized tribes, each doing their own thing and highly distrustful of other tribes. Various tribes occasionally united into temporary coalitions to defeat rival groups, and afterwards often went their own way. The key to Muhammad’s success was that he was able to unite the Arab tribes under their new faith, and in so doing they became a force to be reckoned with, easily swallowing the nomads of the Maghreb and posing a significant threat to Christian Europe. In so doing, they spread not just their faith but their family/mating system to the conquered groups (as far east as Pakistan):
This is, I suspect, the explanation for the rise and fall of the Islamic Golden Age. In Mesopotamia and Persia, after things settled down from the Muslim conquest, the people there, already fairly sophisticated, were able to benefit from the new technologies and ideas that were able to flow through the Caliphate. For a time, this led to the intellectual and scientific revolution that they experienced. However as the generations passed, having adopted the Arab method of inbreeding, social order became less corporate and more tribal. Women began to lose their status, and quite likely the average IQ of the population declined thanks to inbreeding depression, and perhaps to poorer reproductive success of the intelligentsia in favor of tribal tough guys (edit, also see: mating patterns, family types, social structures, and selection pressures | hbd* chick). Perhaps then the Seljuk Turk and later the Mongol invasions finished the job.
This highly incestuous form of marriage and breeding favored by Muslim societies explains many of the peculiarities of their culture. Breeding must be strictly controlled, since unrelated men and women can’t be allowed to associate (and possibly mate), which why you get the burqa, honor killings, and the like. As well, individuals in such a society are not just related to their family members, but are in a way “super”-related to kin (see this family tree diagram of FBD marriage),
being twice as related to their cousins as they otherwise would be (if there was no inbreeding). As such, extreme kin-altruistic behaviors, like self-sacrifice in war, or killing one’s own offspring to protect the family’s “honor” (and reproductive prospects), in the case of honor killing, pay off much more greatly evolutionary; hence, we have suicide terrorism coming almost exclusively from Muslim societies.
The results of the family and mating structures become evident when one looks at a worldwide distribution of values, seen here:
Involvement in charitable or civic organizations is highest in the outbred West, and lowest in the inbred Muslim world and in ex-communist Eastern Europe. As well, individualism is greatly suppressed in those areas, emphasizing the importance of family ties over one’s direct connection to society at large, as in the West. In clannish societies, one inclined to distrust one’s non-family neighbors—for good reason, since each is looking out for their own clan’s interests. This explains the inability of democracy to truly take hold in either the Muslim world or much of Eastern Europe, especially the former Soviet republics.
(Greece, BTW, is not exempted from this problem, since they have been de facto inbreeding for some time. Greeks tend to marry locally, and if you do this long enough, after awhile everyone in your town becomes your cousin).
World War II, the Cold War, and perhaps 9/11 and the “War on Terror” were the great clashes of these ideologies, in which the liberal democratic ideology of Western Europe—particularly Britain and her products (esp. the U.S.) has (so far) prevailed.
Notice how all the outliers from the “core” of Europe are the current problem areas of the present E.U. (as seen on the map of the average IQ of the European nations with the Hajnal line superimposed):
The P.I.I.G.S., Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, are all areas outside the Hajnal line in whole or in part, all have lower-than-average IQ, all have had a recent history of inbreeding, and all today suffer from massive unemployment and economic malaise, which, as of this writing, is reaching critical levels in Spain. The facts gleamed here would indicate that there is no easy solution to these problems, as the people of the periphery of Europe are fundamentally less economically productive than those in the interior (edit: also see A Tale of Two Maps).
Indeed, the contrast of people and their differing ideals have significance for our country as well, as the United States is comprised of people from different parts of the British Isles (supplemented by immigrants from the rest of Europe and the world, who came here both willingly and unwillingly), each having a different evolutionary history and intractably different political views. 
Historian David Hackett Fischer’s book Albion’s Seed examined the origin of the early American settlers and each group’s influence on the regional culture of the United States. Broadly, Fischer explains that the northern part of the U.S. was settled by colonists from southeast England (the highly outbred part), with the Northeast U.S. settled by the Puritans and the upper Midwest ultimately settled by the Quakers (also see here). Meanwhile, the Southern and Western U.S. were settled by colonists from Western and Northern Britain (the inbred, clannish part), with the U.S. Deep South settled by Cavaliers and indentured servants from southwest England (who established the Southern plantations), and Appalachia, the lower Midwest, and ultimately the far West settled by the fierce (and highly clannish) Border Reivers and other Scotch-Irish.
The settlers in the American north, originating from the part of Britain that embraced the classic nuclear family, were the classic independent outbred liberal/libertarian capitalists. The settlers of the South on the other hand, are inbred and clannish, and in the case of the Scotch-Irish, traditionally herders. It can be seen that the great family feuds of the American South essentially were a continuation of such conflicts from the north of Britain (as present-day Glasgow attests to). These groups favor more conservative values, such as faith, distrust of central authority (that is, favoring “freedom” from central authority to remain loyal to extended kin), and less enthusiasm for the welfare state (which distributes goods from kin to non-kin). This is blazingly evident on this map of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election results, by county:
Taking into consideration areas with large non-European ancestry, the places where these different British groups settled are evident from looking at the above map (outbred Pilgrims/Quakers blue, inbred Borderlanders red, likely then accentuated by other European groups, who may have sorted themselves into places where they meshed with the local culture). This is also evident by looking at the dominant religions in the various U.S. regions:
The Bible Belt is very evident, as is the Scandinavian/German Lutheran region of the upper Plains, and the Mormon stronghold of the West (the northern tier Protestant regions, and by extension the West Coast, being weaker in adherence to religion overall, do not have any large single dominant Christian sect, allowing the Catholic Church to be the largest religious body in these regions).
And indeed, the American Civil War was just the latest rematch of the ongoing conflict between the various factions of Britons, which included the English Civil War of the 1600s. This in good part explains the complete nonsense going on in American politics these days, and why it seems that Northerners and Southerners are from different planets at times (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuI2LEKHGiQ). I’m not sure how well this bodes for the future of the “greatest country on Earth”. Edit 8/24/13: About the various (White) American Nations, see my series of posts on the matter:
A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers”
Sound Familiar?
Flags of the American Nations
The Cavaliers
Maps of the American Nations
Rural White Liberals – a Key to Understanding the Political Divide
Edit 7/14/13: Also see HBD Chick’s start page: start here | hbd* chick
Edit 3/24/14: See also HBD Chick’s big summary post on the hajnal line
Edit 8/24/13: Also be sure to see my HBD Fundamentals page, particularly the section On the evolution of modern advanced civilized people
Edit: Theme for this post (“Silent” by Barry Goldberg):
JayMan's Blog 
Yes, England gave us modern democracy… But some of ideas, which were obvious e.g. in Poland (king is responsible to the law; king’s treasury should not be his private property) were so revolutionary, in England, that the Goslicki’s book was forbidden in England. Also, some of ideas (e.g. habeas corpus) appeared in England 200 years after they were introduced in that pesky Slavic, communist Poland. As I say, if you would discuss the state of affair as it was in XVI century, suddenly the picture would become quite different.
It’s often joked that for a typical man, an idea is never any good on until HE comes up with it himself, no matter how many times he’s heard it before. 😉 Indeed, many of the philosophies embraced by modern people weren’t technically original to them, but they don’t get codified and embraced by the people at large until enough people evolve the traits that incline them to those ideas. After all, the original principles of democracy go back to the Ancient Greeks. The Communist Manifesto wasn’t written by a Slav, but a German. It is possible that England of the time wasn’t ready for Goslicki’s ideas (or maybe it was, and that’s why such dangerous heretical concepts had to be forbidden). Magna Carta did date to the 13th Century…
@szopeno – “some of ideas (e.g. habeas corpus) appeared in England 200 years after they were introduced in that pesky Slavic, communist Poland.”
you had habeas corpus in poland in the 900s a.d.?! (~_^)
Also notice that the line demarcating the eastern extent of manorialism is a bit to the east of the Hajnal line. Indeed, rather than dividing Germans from Slavs, the manor line seems to divide Western Slavs from Eastern (and South) Slavs. I don’t know if the Western Slavs adapted the manor over the zadruga and when or if this area was populated by Germans instead, but it does seem that today, democracy seems to be much more successful with the Western Slavs than with the Eastern ones. Don’t know if the two facts are related.
Actually, you maybe right (about that England was ready and that’s why book was banned):
[quote]
The book proved immensely important in Britain among forces opposed to the Tudor monarchy; it was widely quoted and cited in opposition pamphlets and leaflets during the period leading up to the British Civil Wars of the 1640s.
[/quote]
But note that at times of Goslicki, what he was writing was pretty much obvious for Poles of his time. It’s not like he was one man with idea, which could be just understood by people abroad. Byt our standards, actually, Goślicki’s book is quite reactionary and not democratic at all, and greater part of the book is possibly quite ordinary. But at the time of his writing i’d argue some ideas there were quite revolutionary.
However, my point is, that while I agree that biological factors always have a huge role, you cannot explain everything by them, and OTHER factors also play a role. If you have a theory which explains a lot, then there is this tendency to explain EVERYTHING by these theory. And explaining the differences in Eastern/Western Europe by biological factors alone may be one of those accidents (incidents? I hate English…).
But here’s what I realized: obviously, non-biological factors are important in causing human differences (for example, when people adapted to one environment move into a new one). When it comes to individuals within a culture, we have exact numbers (well, non-genetic factors, not necessarily non-biological). But when it comes to differences between human groups, we have no idea the exact extent that can and can not be attributed to heritable factors. Abundant evidence shows that a huge share of these differences can be attributed to heredity. While no doubt some are non-biological in nature, the fact that biological factors are at play makes it impossible to declare a priori which are definitely not rooted in heredity (since there is no equivalent of a twin study for human groups). It is indeed quite possible that ALL observed cultural differences between human groups have some biological basis, and as we see here, there is evidence for biological roots of the ideological differences between the European nations.
Maybe Goslicki was both a smart, visionary guy and was reflecting the general sentiment of Poles at the time. As you’ve noted, the Poles did experiment with a form of democracy (or republicanism, at least, even if it wasn’t exactly a successful model). Emmanuel Todd claims that communism wasn’t particularly workable in Poland (less than it was elsewhere). Maybe the features of Polish history biased it towards something less than autocracy. I will note that democracy in general seems to be much more successful today among the Western Slavs than among the Eastern ones.
@szopen “And explaining the differences in Eastern/Western Europe by biological factors alone may be one of those accidents (incidents? I hate English…).”
How do you explain the division between Ra and Rb being so distinct? (discrete? I love English … But the Polish have been more obliterated from the history of Europe than any country I can think of so I am hundred per cent behind your efforts to remind people of that history) 🙂
I think it’s all explainable by the Rb factor – a gang of crazy red-heads who swooped down from the Steppe and wreaked havoc across the world for 1,000 years. They’ve gone now, everyone else can come out now. 🙂
what a great topic for a blog post! (~_^)
@jayman – “As Western Europeans married their cousins less, kinship began to spread around the whole society. Over time, this meant that everyone in a country became related everyone else to some degree, and the degree of relation of the individual to his immediate and extended family with respect to his society as whole was a lot lower.”
nicely put! i struggle with how to phrase this all the time, even though i get it in my head.
@jayman – “It is this reason that Europe was plunged into a Dark Age after the arrival of the German barbarians. It’s not just that the barbarians were uneducated and uncivilized; they were in essence uncivilizable, at least not for several generations. It was not until enough of the people had evolved new traits did society again begin to advance towards the end of the Middle Ages.”
genius! i hadn’t thought of that. i really think you’re on to something there!
this is also genius:
“World War II, the Cold War … were the great clashes of these ideologies….”
i think you’re absolutely right. i’ve thought about this in terms of the english and american civil wars (you thought of that, too), but i never considered it on this grand scale. quite chilling. =/
Thank ya! 🙂
I was listening to quite a bit of music as I was writing this, including “God Bless the USA” when I discussed the origin of democracy, and this song when I got to the part of the different groups that populated the American frontier. 😉
Yes, very chilling, and unfortunately all too sensible in the context of your theory. Sort of Duel of the Fatesy, as well, yes?
Excellent summary of a fascinating line of reasoning. There is one issue that gets ignored. Fertility and kinship are related. Consider: You don’t want to be the friend of a hero. Their friends are always getting killed. You don’t want even to see a god. You could wind up a spider of a weed. The gods are so afraid of the fates they never mention them. The fates spin, measure and cut the thread of life. But without the stork the fates are powerless – no thread. And the stork only works properly for couples of cousins.
See: On the Regulation of Populations of Mammals, Birds, Fish and Insects, Richard M. Sibly, Daniel Barker, Michael C. Denham, Jim Hope and Mark Pagel SCIENCE vol. 309 July 22, 2005 page 609 for a start. There is more at silentnursery.com, which will lead you to nobabies.net.
I sure wish I could sum up a subject as well as you do.
What a thorough and detailed development of these kin-and-society questions. With the various maps and links as support, it’s a really complete stand-alone piece that works almost like an encyclopedia entry (though no modern encyclopedia publisher would touch these questions with a ten-foot pole).
Regarding this point:
I don’t know if the Western Slavs adapted the manor over the zadruga
Per this paper linked by HBD Chick (in French), the Poles did have a manor system in place from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Re: democracy and Western vs. Eastern Slavs, Hail suggested here (and I think it makes sense) that one big factor is that E. Slavs were traditionally under Mongol/Russian influence, while W. Slavs were under more Germanic influence. Thus the same feedback loop with despotism did not develop in the two regions.
OMG what a load of rubish…. Sorry, I gotta go now. I’ll be right back to write a bit more 😉
WTF are you saying about PIIGS countries having “lower-than-average IQ”? Please inform yourself ASAP and don’t fall into your own ridiculous trap, man:
Average IQ of Countries:
http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
Yup. See here. Sources linked within.
@Big Nose Kate
It is highly unlikely that early indoeuropeans were Rb. Most ancient DNA from kurhans is r1a, also higher castes in India are more R1a.
But thanks for the comment 🙂
“It is highly unlikely that early indoeuropeans were Rb. Most ancient DNA from kurhans is r1a, also higher castes in India are more R1a.”
What do you mean by “higher castes” and which particular regions of India are you referring to here?
I grew up in a traditional South Asian joint family household (google “Indian joint family” to learn more) and I feel very fortunate to have had that experience.
dont listen to his pseudo science about inbreeding and hajnal line with idiotic ricahrd lynn data.
Russians are the smartest non east asian students in the world according to timss and pirls therefor they have the highest IQ in europe see this video
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/unbenannthvk.png/
this is the real IQ map
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img12/1586/nationaliqlynnvanhanen2.png[/IMG]
Inbreeding is good in some degree. High IQ and high in-group tribalism in Ashkenazi Jews is an example. And, in the graphic, Catholic Europe had the best balance between religion-rationalism, tribalism-individualism.
And…. it’s ironic that low IQ Southerns Europeans are a problem, when NW Europeans are out breeding with people with IQ below 70.
It’s seems that the characteristics that make NW Europeans so bright are going to be the cause of their perdition. Bad luck.
Sorry for the mistakes. Low IQ Southern European here.
The key here is: IQ is a tool for survival. There are others. But the end goal, is survival. Like always. And the combinations of characteristics of NW Europeans don’t seems stable for survival in long term as a coherent group.
What average IQ had afro-americans? 83-85? NW Europeans are outbreeding with this people.
What average IQ had England Pakistanis? 85? NW Europeans are outbreeding with these people.
If NW Europeans had an edge above the rest, they will quickly lose it. In fact, they are marked for extinction.
The program of White genocide works like this:
1) Immigrants from the “developing world” are flooded into the West.
2) These immigrants and any national minorities are then forced integrated with the White populations, communities, and institutions. This is made law by removing freedom of association, creating affirmative action and requiring racial quotas. Whites who wish to move from these dangerous, integrated communities are forced to live in expensive suburban or exurban areas (which will be forced integrated over time anyway) which makes having large families difficult. Anyone who objects to this is denied economic opportunities, status, and in some cases freedom itself.
3) An information campaign is implemented which demonizes Western culture and history. The old myths that helped form the identities of the West are replaced with new mythologies that make Whites into enemies of humanity and non-whites (like MLK) as morally superior heroes. People who oppose mass immigration and forced integration are portrayed as mentally ill, evil, and lacking positive human qualities. Miscegenation is encouraged and glorified. The people of the West are constantly reminded of the inevitable brown future and that anything short of celebrating this makes you a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
This system leads to the end of the White-European people.
A little overly dramatic? It’s doubtful things will ever go that far. We have plenty of time to reverse negative demographic trends. It’s all a matter of gaining enough traction to do so.
There appears to be an optimal amount of outbreeding to encourage civilization and recipricoal altruism before it becomes pathological altruism and becomes its own undoing. The nw euros seem to have overshot the mark with universal suffrage and diversity and too strong a preference towards giving their own resources to Others who share none of their genetic code. Modern “mutt” white americans who may have some irish, scottish, polish, or southern italian lineage to go along with their ancestry from inside the hajnal line may tilt back to a healthier amount of altruism while still looking out for #1 so to speak.
LaidNYC very good point
Whatever traits NW Europeans brought to benefit humanity are, by 2013, threatening to be their undoing.
What was once healthy altruism toward the “other” is now pathological.
The people on top, with the best chance their descendants will survive and thrive: higher IQ, aggressive, more concerned with helping and breeding with their own kind, than the “other”.
A NEEDED OVERLAY to this excellent post needs to take into account: Neanderthal vs. Cro Magnon. Cochran has confirmed there was interbreeding. You can tell what you are facially, check out Koanic Soul blog for a starter
http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/reading-faces-the-eyes-are-the-windows-to-the-soul/
In my view, European-derived whites with a good deal of Neanderthal genes in them are the most evolutionary fit to survive and thrive at this stage in time.
You see this with certain strains of British, German, and Italian stock.
@Lucky White Male:
At least in the United States, that may very well be the direction that Whites are evolving:
Liberalism, HBD, Population, and Solutions for the Future
Who’s Having the Babies?
Perhaps. But had they had not done that, they may not have given us the modern world as we know it:
Evo and Proud: On global inequality
I am descended from several of England’s most famous manorial / manufacturing families. There was a reason for Galtonian eminence in the premier bloodlines. It was a massive eugenics experiment conducted for centuries. The top aristocratic lines interbred. There was enough outbreeding to avoid inbreeding issues and the stock was kept zealously restricted to the most accomplished and legendary families. By legendary, I mean generations of MP’s, industrialists, war heroes, etc. Dozens of my descendents were knighted. This prohibition against marrying outside of upper gentry persisted until the 1960s. If you broke it, you were ostracized.
What do you get after 800 years of pure breeding? You get tall and handsome WASPs who seem much like Jews in their capacity for over-achievement, but with reserved personalities and an extraordinary focus on long-term projects.
@Anon
Yes. The reason Brits grew strong and conquered the world: Jews were evicted from England around 1400 AD. Not to be allowed back in until a few hundred years later.
Result : There was no competition nor the familiar “guilt trip” that Jews tend to put on the native population. The Brits were literally free to ” do their orb thing”. That was to grow healthy and strong. In evolution, you grow a healthy tree by Pruning. Another word for eugenics, wise arranged marriages etc
In a book I read, forget the title, before the Jews were expelled, familiar arguments were trotted out before the English royals. One was “but we cannot do without the Jewish intelligence, who will collect our taxes”
One Duke responded, yes it may be true. “But for the sake of my British grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren” the Jews should be expelled. The deleterious effects were worse than any mitigating factors otherwise
Gee, that loan from the House of Rothschild sure came in handy defeating Napoleon…
Also, whatever happened in 1400 England was one of the less antisemitic countries in Europe afterwards, doesn’t seem to have hurt them…heck, you had Disraeli running your country for a while…
The exact teleology theories presented in the blog post may or not be accurate but the conclusion that we are evolving quite rapidly in various directions makes sense. The blog post is certainly a very compelling and well laid out story of of HBD.
Why on average certain ideas resonate with certain populations even after they have been displaced from their homelands and raised/adopted by other races makes perfect sense from the standpoint of genetics. Spicy (hot) food is enjoyed by the “brown” population across the globe, whether or not spicy food originated there.
There is a reason why bees have bee culture and ants have ant culture. Their DNA modulates their likes/dislikes/reflexes/instincts/physical options/fears at every level you can imagine, only part of which is the formation of their brain.
Some principles:
1. Free will does NOT exist, but 99% (or more) of the human race is incapable of comprehending /understanding this.
2. Some actions and thoughts involuntary
2. Some actions and thoughts are involuntary but they feel voluntary after they have occured.
3. ALL actions are involuntary.
5. The human cortex is a simulator of the traditional senses. Our evolved brain allows our brain to consider environmental situations that are not “real” in order to hone subconscious decisions when they occur to favor genetically determined imperatives. We are not in control over what we simulate either … the same way I have NO IDEA WHY I AM WRITING THIS REPLY instead of sleeping so I can wake up for work. I am compelled to speak perhaps… which is why I am a teacher at work.
@Anonymous:
Pretty much.
>Without marriage between cousins, extended kinship networks broke down
That is not true at all – you should look at Kazakhs – they prohibit marriages between relatives up to 7 generation and tribalism still quite strong out there.
@rus:
Interesting, but is that on both sides of the family? Marriages within the paternal lineage was forbidden across much of Eastern Europe, for example, but they tended to marry within the maternal lineage instead.
@JayMan Oh yeah, maternal lineage is allowed (since they are mostly grew up within other tribe which can be quite far away – just check the map of Kazakhstan). But the identity is passed by paternal line, not maternal.
@rus:
There’s your problem… 😉 See classic HBD Chick on it too.
@JayMan I do not quite see how it is _my_ problem 😉
Anyway, even it is allowed it is quite rare. Even in Xinjiang which was locked out of USSR from 50s to 90s the number of such marriages was only 2.9% (compare to 30% which is common for other settled turkish speaking groups there). Keep in mind that Xinjiang hold only a fraction of Kazakhs, so they faced limited choice of partners. In Kazakhstan itself it is smaller problem if at all.
Click to access Inbreeding%20Depression%20and%20IQ%20in%20a%20Study%20of%2072%20Countries%20%20%20Corrigendum%20(2012)%20by%20Michael%20Anthony%20Woodley.pdf
This article says it is “Kazakhstan” when in fact it is really “Kazakh Autonomous Region” which is in China – just compare numbers from this article:
http://www.research-paper-topics.net/259007/minority-nationalities-consanguineous-marriage-xinjiang
I do not think actual research was ever done in USSR or in Kazakhstan but I suspect the number will be well below 2.9%.
Still, even if take 2.9% for face value then there are plenty of groups elsewhere with higher level of consanguineous marriages but not as tribal as Kazakhs.
@rus:
We’re talking historically. Eastern Europeans stopped marrying their cousins centuries ago yet the clannish traits persist. The theory is not that cousin marriage does anything in and of itself, but marriage patterns affect the selective pressures in a society, which, over several generations shape behavioral traits.
So what were Central Asians doing over the past 500-1,000 years is the question.
@JayMan
> So what were Central Asians doing over the past 500-1,000 years is the question.
Kazakhs are quite close to Mongolians culturally, actually some Kazakh tribes are Mongolians (like Naimans). Mongolians followed Yassa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yassa ) since Gengis Khan established it. It prohibits first and second cousin marriages. Nevertheless Mongolians are very tribal as well.
> but marriage patterns affect the selective pressures in a society, which, over several generations shape behavioral traits.
I agree to some degree, but the question is what the size of the effect? There could be much stronger attributes in this picture. You mentioned East Europeans for instance, from my experience Russians are not tribal at all. Cannot say anything about others…
@rus:
Remember, we’re talking both sides of the family. Many societies banned FBD marriage but were OK with, if even only de facto, MBD marriages.
Clannishness can manifest in many ways, with tribalism being perhaps a more extreme example. Indeed other selective pressures are likely involved, operating upon the basic structure established by mating patterns.
@JayMan
> Remember, we’re talking both sides of the family. Many societies banned FBD marriage but were OK with, if even only de facto, MBD marriages
Mongols prohibit marriages across both lineages, and Kazakhs effectively do not have it. This is one of the reasons why Kazakhs think they are superior to “Sarts” (Tajiks, Uzbeks etc)…
> Clannishness can manifest in many ways, with tribalism being perhaps a more extreme example. Indeed other selective pressures are likely involved, operating upon the basic structure established by mating patterns.
Again, Mongols do not have this “basic structure”, at least not in this form.
There are examples of clans which are very strong and have nothing to do with marriages btw. And as a bonus – it is purely product of Western culture. Look at sport clubs – they represent all the features of the strong clan even the membership is temporary and players most likely are from other clubs. All you need is a harsh environment, common goal and team spirit. Marines are very good are fostering such context.
@rus:
You’re thinking of something very different from what we’re talking about. See HBD Chick’s clannishness defined
@JayMan OK, “by definition” 🙂
Well, you kinda rob yourself from finding higher order abstraction and might end up chasing false effect if you bound yourself to such definition. Just replace “family” with “surrogate family” and even that definition will hold. This is another “attribute” I am talking about.
@rus:
Did you see HBD Chick on corporate societies? There’s a good mass of her work I’d suggest reading to get up to speed on the topic. Please take some time to do so.
Wonderful post. Quite enlightening to say the least. I typed up a summary and published it on my blog. You are sourced.