Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The acid that dissolves

Maurice Montaigne has an excellent column on multiculturalism at Everday Joe:
Multiculturalism is formally defined as the “acceptance or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction.”7 In practice, multiculturalism presents itself as a harmless commitment to tolerance that all well-intentioned people should share.

But in fact multiculturalism is an acid that dissolves nation-states. This is its purpose. Multiculturalism arose in the aftermath of the Second World War, a war launched by two ultranationalist states (National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) and characterized by the genocide of whole nations. The politicians and intellectuals of the post war era swore to never allow this to happen again, and multiculturalism was their solution. By promoting multiculturalism they hoped to destroy that which gave rise to total war. To save Western civilization, it was necessary to destroy it. Or so they believed.

How does multiculturalism destroy ethnic nation-state? We have already shown that an ethnic nation-state relies on its people’s common ancestry, language, and traditions – its unity – to provide social cohesion to its state. Multiculturalism erodes all three, by diversifying the ancestry, languages, and traditions. Where once stood a people united now stands a people divided. With the loss of unity go the social stability and social capital that unit brought and diversity destroys.

A civic nation relies on a particular expression of citizenship and individual rights, and as such seems like it would be protected from the acidic effects of multiculturalism. But from what source does a civic nation derive its particular expression of citizenship and rights? There are only two: from its religion or from its political philosophy. But both of these are deeply rooted in a people’s culture, language and tradition. Consider the difference between American and Chinese views on good governance. The former is rooted in Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison and the theory of social contract. The latter is rooted in Confucius, Han Fei, Mozi, and the theory of Heaven’s Mandate. The former idealizes republican democracy; the latter idealizes benevolent monarchy. Multiculturalism insists that a Chinese immigrant can maintain the cultural traditions of Chinese Legalism while still being an American; but Chinese Legalism is incompatible with republican democracy. If being an American does not mean sharing the values upon which America was founded – what does it mean? A state can, for a time, survive a diversity of values. But a civic nation cannot.

This, then, is the state of things. Ethnic nation-states are unified and therefore enjoy high social capital and stability. Multiethnic states are diverse and their diversity destroys social capital. Shared values in the form of civic nationalism can in time restore social capital and stability by creating a civic nationalism that trumps ethnicity. But multiculturalism is ruinous of both, adding more ethnic diversity and weakening civic unity.

Many will argue that ethnic diversity is inevitable in today’s global society and therefore that multiculturalism is necessary. This is a lie. It is worse than a lie: It is offering up poison when medicine is at hand. The right way to overcome ethnic diversity already exists. Civic nationalism, characterized by the American melting pot, has proven effective for centuries, as had the Roman melting pot of antiquity. The genius of civic nationalism is that it replaces the genetic with the memetic. In this way, a Gaul became a Roman, and a Swede became an American, because Roman-ness and American-ness were divorced from ethnicity. But civic nationalism must be allowed to replicate. Memes can die, just like genes. To replicate, civic nationalism must be instilled in each new generation by those who are its stewards. If a nation’s own citizens do not love their shared civic values enough to demand that immigrants adopt them, it is a surety that the immigrants will look at that nation with contempt.



Blogger Dave December 16, 2015 4:51 PM  

Multiculturalism only has this effect in prosperous western democracies. Where's the multiculti in Japan, China or India.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 16, 2015 4:52 PM  

The leftists know this is true as well. Thanks for Snowden releasing the Rivkin evidence. It explains the plan that turned France from banning McDonnalds to having thousands of cars torched by blacks a year in Paris.

"Why France? France has long been a thorn in the side of US globalism because of its stubborn adherence to French interests around the world, rather than those of the manufactured “world community.” Despite Sarkozy, France is one of the few states left in Western Europe with the remnant of a national consciousness. The best way of destroying any such sentiment is to weaken the concepts of nationhood and nationality by means of promoting “multiculturalism.” "

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2015 4:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2015 4:59 PM  

Wow. Extremely well done both as taxis and enthymeme.

Anonymous Xerox Copy December 16, 2015 4:59 PM  

Civic nationalism, characterized by the American melting pot, has proven effective for centuries

It is true, we have generally gotten along, for the most part.

because Roman-ness and American-ness were divorced from ethnicity.

Ethnicity didn't use to be a major problem, separated by railroad tracks.

The train was fine.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 16, 2015 5:07 PM  

Civic nationalism, characterized by the American melting pot, has proven effective for centuries, as had the Roman melting pot of antiquity.

Baloney. The melting pot was never once stable.
Mr. Montaigne also missed his modern biology lesson. Culture is genetic. G E N E T I C.

Explain to me how his civic melting pot isn't just Newspeak for Magic Dirt.

Also, there's a reason democracy and hetergeneous cultural mixing is impossible. Who can be so utterly stupid as to think that political factions won't split right along those multi-culti fracture zones.

Has anyone noticed what happens eventually with differing tribes battling over control of the political system? Hutus and Tutsis, anyone?

This essay posits that an American civic nationalism can be reestablished if its stewards are allowed to do so. The very notion of this occurring without a bloody civil war now is Pollyanna, the Poster Child.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 16, 2015 5:15 PM  

You can have democracy (three buddies deciding on what toppings to order on their pizza, splitting the bill evenly) at the same time you have social harmony.

What you can't have is social harmony when everyone is encouraged to muscle each other over 1) what toppings to get and 2) who foots the bill.

I have no doubt that inner-city blacks, rural whites and Chinese from Hong Kong would arrive at very different ideas of "what" and "who pays." There is no reason for people with those differing answers to live together...NONE.

Let there be high fences. They make for more peaceful, neighborly relations. And tough tiddlywinks if the property on the Northern European Ancestry, Western Civ & Culture side of the fence is richer. The people on that side of the fence don't owe anyone else jack shit.

I'm tired of the people of the West being handed the bill in perpetuity. From each according to his ability My Ass.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 16, 2015 5:16 PM  

VD, isn't it the position of you and a large majority of your commenters that civic nations don't actually exist, and that the Gauls who thought they were Roman, or the Swedes who thought they were American, were deceiving themselves?

Blogger dc.sunsets December 16, 2015 5:21 PM  

PS: Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracies destroy far more than just social capital.

They destroy the real McCoy, too. That fact will be revealed once the evolving rise in interest rates (the opposite side of whose coin is capital value destruction of existing debt) gets up a noticeable inertia.

Western democracies have voted for decades to get everything on every pizza, and put it all on the revolving charge account. That worked so well (the card company kept lowering the interest rate charged, so the politicians just rolled the balance for 500 months straight) that now we have a world of obese idiots who spend each night counting their wealth (in the form of shares held in the credit card company.)

Yeah, that's going to go well now that rates are beginning to creep higher.

Blogger kurt9 December 16, 2015 5:23 PM  

I would put it a little differently. Multiculturalism can work if the people are of backgrounds that have a shared ethic of productive accomplishment. Hence, east Asian peoples such as Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans can fit in well with those from Western European backgrounds. An America that was comprise exclusively of Western Europeans and East Asians, for example, would do just fine and would be a very prosperous and sustainable society. Singapore and the coastal part of the U.S. Pacific Northwest are examples of such societies.

Thinking about it, the number of cultures in the world that have a history of industrial productive accomplishment is shockingly few. U.K. and Central Europe (Germany, Swiss, Austria, and Czech republic, maybe Northern Italy) for Caucasian people. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan for East Asia. The next 20 years will be telling for the mainland Chinese.

In general, the "northern" peoples of the world are the productive. The "southern" peoples generally are not. I think a super-state comprised exclusively of "northern" peoples would do just fine. It is introduction of "southern" peoples into the mix, in large numbers, that creates the problems.

Anonymous Maurice Montaigne December 16, 2015 5:32 PM  

@Melampus the Seer - thank you.

@dc.sunsets - "magic dirt" offers no explanation whatsoever as to why immigrants might change upon immigration, whereas what I am saying is that immigrants can assimilate into their nation only if the nation into which they immigrate has (a) strong values and (b) the confidence in itself and its values to assimilate them. Nowadays we are not even trying to assimilate - in fact, we are actively opposed to it, and praise non-assimilation, and our values are non-values like "tolerance". Or, put another way, a host nation's confidence in its own civic nationalism is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for immigration.

This is not to dispute that some peoples are vastly harder to assimilate than others. Obviously, the greater the differences between the immigrant and the host nation, the harder the assimilation. Genes will make it impossible for many groups to be successfully assimilated, but multiculturalism makes it impossibly for ANY groups to successfully be assimilated. It adds nothing to the essay to spend precious word count talking about those matters.

Likewise, it's entirely possible that a bloody civil war might be necessary before Americans with sufficient patriotism in the civic nation are in positions of power, but I'm not sure that the essay is any stronger if it ends by saying "None of the above matters until a civil war occurs to put people who agree with me in power because US elites have sold us out." I don't need to persuade neo-reactionaries who think like that. They're already on the ship.

Blogger dienw December 16, 2015 5:33 PM  

...merged into a new globalist synthesis; or what might be called a new humanity: Homo economicus, or what the financial analyst G Pascal Zachary calls “The Global Me,” to achieve what Rivkin describes as USA’s “national interests.

If, as has been covered in a recent post, a nation is a coherent people and the state is the ruling political apparatus, then in whose interest is to have this "Global Me"? To jump to the point: in the mind of Mr Rivkin, we, the Average Joe Americans, are not Rivkin's fellow nationals; his fellow elites and master class are the true nation of the United States; furthermore, the American state coincides with him and his fellows, not us: we are mere cloth of the land.

Blogger Cecil Henry December 16, 2015 5:36 PM  

It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain. ..... Or America, or Canada....

So when Justin Trudeau doesn't just let in 25000 Syrians as fast a possible but actually goes to the airport to greet them, you know this hatred runs deep under the veneer of benevolence.

That underlying hypocrisy must be rooted out.

Anonymous Set December 16, 2015 5:51 PM  

It's completely possible for contradictory cultures to coexist, if we syncretize the contradictions away until your Italian grandmother yells at you for not giving your second cousin a job. Chinese Legalism even lends itself to representative democracy - if you consider the Sovereign to be the People. Han Fei reads a little different if you make that update.

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2015 5:57 PM  

It would be interesting if we had data from a parallel universe in which conservative nationalist values were thoroughly inculcated into a multicultural population. I realize there is a foundational genetic basis for cultural values, and the data shows that all groups other than white europeans vote leftist in greater numbers. But I can't help but to wonder how different the USA would be today if for the past 50 years our schools and colleges were staffed by conservatives that had taught civics, American history, nationalism, and patriotism with the same fervor that today's youth are indoctrinated into leftism.

Blogger pyrrhus December 16, 2015 6:13 PM  

"Civic nation" is irrelevant, The fact is that modern states are welfare states, and the result of multiculturalism is a food fight over who gets what benefits and who has to pay for them. A food fight that will eventually turn extremely violent.

Blogger His Majesty December 16, 2015 6:16 PM  

I couldn't get past

"the Second World War, a war launched by two ultranationalist states (National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) and characterized by the genocide of whole nations."

Not true.

Anonymous Evolyn (channeling Ozymandias) December 16, 2015 6:34 PM  

Given that two of the worlds' most advanced, civilized and educated cultures did not manage multiculti, despite being very well merged to the point of it being often hard to figure out who was descended from whom and who emulated who*, what makes people think that when it goes eventually wrong (as it will), the end result of any other attempt will be less drastic?

Not one culture that exists nowadays comes close to the quality of those who failed so tragically. (no offense intended, but those few generations have never been outdone on quality in many spheres, anywhere. Inventions may have been more splendid lately, but those people I'm speaking of laid the groundwork for almost all we have and are nowadays).

It's all great when it works out, but when it goes wrong, it's very bad. As Vox asked the other day: How many dead are we willing to bury, and does the good that results weigh up and justify the inevitable carnage?

I think visiting often and exchanging knowledge and habits is very good, but moving in with each other for good is bad, for everyone. There should be a minimum of 3 years spent in another country by everyone on this planet, and a maximum of 10 years, capped by becoming a parent. If you marry a different nationality, the home country should be decided by lot.

*10 points if you figured out I am talking about Germany and the millions of German Jews who so much influenced German culture, and whose culture in turn was just as much influenced; mostly to the good all round, but sadly, the negative quickly ate up almost every gain made and many dead Germans resulted (Jewish and non-jewish, plus, everyone else in the world who paid the price at that time, to this day, we all lost out terribly because of WWII. Imagine where we would be if it never had occurred...)

Anonymous WillBest December 16, 2015 6:43 PM  

@10 Christians East Asians sort of assimilate and by that I mean they are willing to adhere to more than just the text of the law. But even then half of Christian Asians are well at home in the victim class system of the democrat party voting for the same type of corrupt government that exists back in their home country.

Anecdote, not data, but the only pro 2nd Amendment Asian I know (I do know a bunch) that supports what Trump is saying in terms of nation, served in Vietnam. His two sons on the other hand, think trump is a racist.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab December 16, 2015 6:56 PM  

@15 Read "Conquistador" by S.M. Stirling. Generally a left leaning guy. But he has an almost alternate US history from the forties until today.

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2015 7:05 PM  

Assimilation = intermarriage.

If there is no visceral resistance on a large scale, there will be assimilation. If there is, there won't.


Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 16, 2015 7:07 PM  

Civic nations only work when the multicultural element is truly a minority. True minority status drives the individual to mimic the behavior and culture of the majority ethnic group. Civic nations generally work when they are ethnically homogeneous as well. Minorities are tolerated and may well flourish in this kind of civil society.

Once minorities reach the point of critical mass where they may operate in a civic nation without being forced to conform to the dominant culture the civic nation will begin its collapse.

Mono-ethnic societies still have their internal warfare, but can be united against an outside invader. It's the most primitive form of the uniform; how do you tell one side from another in a fight? It is near impossible in an idea based nation, as you have no way of identifying the operating ideas of the combatants.

Racial differences, however, are just as useful as the uniforms of the redcoats to identify potential enemies historically.

Anonymous Reader December 16, 2015 7:08 PM  

@5 Ethnicity didn't use to be a major problem, separated by railroad tracks.

You do not need railroad tracks anymore. Generally, one’s income will take care of the segregation.

@6 Baloney. The melting pot was never once stable.
Mr. Montaigne also missed his modern biology lesson. Culture is genetic. G E N E T I C.

Yes, I agree but there might be other things involved.
Maybe there is no more melting pot. Just the technology and the speed by which information is transmitted and the freer interaction between people relative to the past.

“Culture” CAN be learned. Maybe it would be hard for the first generation migrants but the second generation (gen.) can learn and adopt the dominant culture and the culture of the first gen. can slowly disappear with the third generation. Heck, they even learn and adopt even the worst practices by the “native” people of the land.

Of course, if you flood a country in a short time with people from mud/straw huts in number greater than the native people then maybe the third worlders culture will dominate sooner or later. But then these first gens. are not the people of power or influence.

People generally move to another place to better their lives. In Aus the second gen. children do much better than their parents. So assimilation and integration are possible. But of course there should be consideration for the critical mass in social dynamics.

I agree with the author that civic nationalism should replace multiculturalism. I myself is a migrant and I think policies that encourages and funds for migrants to live their culture in the west are crazy. I see in my country local government promoting diwali (the Indian celebration) ramadan, etc. I think that attitude is crazy and the people in power with this kind of attitude are the culprits and should be replaced.

I don’t go by any labels anymore, but I still find crazy and the height of PC, replacing the term “Xmas party” which has been used for centuries and with basis on the foundation of the society, with “end of year celebration”.

I had a young Chinese co-worker who came here to do part-time graduate student who recognized that the Aus society was much better than the chinese’s.

Migration is not bad per se. Selective migration can be a positive to a country.

Also, don’t think that liberal principles are unique to the west. Third worlders do die for them too.

Blogger Unknown December 16, 2015 7:11 PM  

@10 kurt9: I'm married to a Han Chinese, and have spent months at a time in the Orient, and hung out with Mainland and Taiwanese here in the US. I don't think that Chinese are going to assimilate easily into American culture. It's not impossible, maybe, but it's certainly a tall order. And Chinese culture matches ours closer than most. They are a productive bunch, with high ambition and decent work ethic. Unfortunately, they are a low-trust culture: if you aren't family I can't trust you, and certainly won't give you any charity. Chinese don't stand in lines, they assume that publicly traded companies exist so management can loot the shareholders (because the shareholders aren't of the management's family), and so on. Chinese average a little smarter than we do, so they can learn to behave as we behave, but actually internalizing it is a little bit harder.

Blogger Lovekraft December 16, 2015 7:15 PM  

Multiculturalism: imposing by force a dilution and eventual destruction of native culture by champagne mafia.

Anonymous Joe Blowe December 16, 2015 7:15 PM  

Multiculturalism only works when you have a city with millions of Whites and a few thousand Chinese in Chinatown, a small Amish community that keeps to themselves, or when Navy Joe marries a Filipino gal and brings her home. In other words when the multi-cultures are statistically insignificant and kept that way. Mass 3rd World immigration, on the other hand, is War.

a war launched by two ultranationalist states

Nope. That's war propaganda written by the victors. Search for "Judea Declares War on Germany", Stalin's plan to invade Europe in 1941, and the 8 point McCollum memo to instigate war with Japan.

Blogger VD December 16, 2015 7:23 PM  

VD, isn't it the position of you and a large majority of your commenters that civic nations don't actually exist, and that the Gauls who thought they were Roman, or the Swedes who thought they were American, were deceiving themselves?

More or less, yes. I didn't write the piece, but I thought it was well-written. I don't agree 100 percent with everything I link or feature.

Blogger Zick December 16, 2015 7:45 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Zick December 16, 2015 7:46 PM  

@1 Dave
Multiculturalism only has this effect in prosperous western democracies. Where's the multiculti in Japan, China or India.

I can't speak for Japan or China, but India is a Western idea--it was only foreigners who united the whole of what is today India.

Anonymous Reader December 16, 2015 7:48 PM  

As Nate says, VP is a fight club.

Ugh, Oh, Ah, I'm entertained.

Anonymous Victor F. Michaelson December 16, 2015 7:57 PM  

I don't think that Chinese are going to assimilate easily into American culture.
Chinatown's been screaming that for generations.

Blogger bara December 16, 2015 8:21 PM  

>The genius of civic nationalism is that it replaces the genetic with the memetic. In this way, a Gaul became a Roman, and a Swede became an American, because Roman-ness and American-ness were divorced from ethnicity.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes!

I am not ethnically Anglo-Saxon, but immigrated to the US because the culture, values and traditions are more in line with my personal ones than at my home country. (I'll concede that a stable economy and society are great positives too). As an adopted American I am now more worried that what I found attractive about this place is being undermined by unrestricted acceptance of people with different values. I couldn't care less about the newcomers ethnicity, origin, and maybe even quantity AS LONG AS THEY INTEGRATE INTO THE CULTURE. (I also think that this last restriction will greatly diminish the number of newcomers.)

Anonymous WillBest December 16, 2015 8:24 PM  

@34 And god bless Chinatown for selling herbs and spices at 10% of the cost of the white man's grocery store.

I don't have exposure to a real Chinatown. The one in Chicago is basically a place where new immigrants come to cut their teeth, and the older Chinese go to retire. In between they are up in the NW Suburbs intermixed in all the white neighborhoods. Although in the last 20 years they appear to have hit a critical mass and are a majority in a couple elementary schools. No doubt the majority Asians will be eager to adhere to the minority's culture.

Anonymous Chris Cheeseman December 16, 2015 8:32 PM  

Question... how do we explain the success of the US in the World War II era, when white Americans were often both true believers in the American dream as well as closely tied to their ethnic identities?

I'm thinking of all those WWI doughboys and WWII GIs who went to fight, but who were also Irish-Americans going to ceilis with their friends, or guys from Little Italy whose wives barely spoke English, or Polish-Americans who went to Polaski Day parades and flew both the Polish Flag and the stars and stripes off their little rowhouses in South Philly?

Anonymous Anonymous December 16, 2015 8:54 PM  

"Multiculturalism only has this effect in prosperous western democracies. Where's the multiculti in Japan, China or India."

In China you will be referred to as a Gwailo. Also known as "White Devil".

Anonymous dt December 16, 2015 9:02 PM  

What the hell is "social capital"?

Blogger Phillip George December 16, 2015 9:20 PM  

Christianity is a meta narrative in civic nationalism.
Sorry but to put this bluntly God is on whose side? The destroyer or the builder of nations? Better sort that out before you go on.
America from day one was infected with French republicanism, light weight enlightenment, universal brotherhood of man freemasonry, Jefferson and Voltaire were no Christians - just more adolescent Utopians.
Again Christians are the only Conservatives - the benchmark is simply to where or from whence. Both Chinese Legalism and Republican Democracy are workable with common law constraints.

Christianity wins every time. Even if it involves a 12,000lb wrecking ball at close to terminal velocity - the close enough approximation to multicultic idealism.

Blogger Phillip George December 16, 2015 9:22 PM  

@39 - social capital is the monetary value that can be ascribed to not being at war.

Blogger Jason Rennie December 16, 2015 9:25 PM  

I don't think limited immigration over time is a problem in a civic state and I probably disagree with many of the commentators, I do think a civic state is possible.

It would seem that multiculturalism is like single motherhood. Your culture can tolerate a small amount of it, in small amounts, small numbers of immigrants or small numbers of single mothers, you can deal with the problems and the downsides are minor or non existent as the second generation is not to detrimentally effected by their origins. Either parents encouraging children to learn the language and integrate or other men helping out and standing in for an absent father.

This isn't true when you get a lot of it and the mechanisms that encourage amelioration break down or are over whelmed.

The problem is that the lunatic brigade don't understand that something that can be harmlessly tolerated in small doses is a deadly poison in large doses. Sadly I know too many idiots that fail to recognize this. They see a number of ethnic food restaurants and providing variety and change and see it as a good thing and fail to grasp that this is not the only change once you go from a little to a lot.

Blogger Jason Rennie December 16, 2015 9:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 16, 2015 9:41 PM  

@37 Chris Cheeseman

Question... how do we explain the success of the US in the World War II era, [...]

Maybe the factor of having an external enemy that was worse than their immediate others had something to do with it?

Blogger Sheila4g December 16, 2015 9:41 PM  

@10 and @26 -
I strongly disagree that Asians generally assimilate well with Europeans and can together form a high-functioning society. As Anonymous#26 notes, Han Chinese culture and values are starkly different from the "rights of Englishmen," despite their relatively high IQ and productivity. I lived in Singapore for 2 years, and I am utterly weary of reading how well it works or how wonderfully western it is. First, Lee Quan Yew made it work via autocracy and the forcible imposition of a lot of exterior western norms. People save to buy their apartments or for retirement because the government gives them no choice. There are urine sensors in elevators for a reason. Public spitting and littering is still endemic - and not merely among the Malays or Indians. Singapore is still run by Han Chinese, in everything from government to education, but along what used to be British upper-class norms. None of this was native, and Lee knew that none of this would have happened if his people had been left purely to their own devices.

As #23 PAworldandtimes notes, assimilation is, when it comes down to it, intermarriage. Ultimately, those Italians and Irish and Swedes who intermarried amongst one another and the native Anglo-Saxons birthed those Whites who consider their ethnicity "American." Those Italians who married only other Italians and remained living among Italians remain . . . Italians living in America. There is a significant difference. When one introduces a different race, even if an intelligent one, with an alien religious and cultural tradition, that assimilation via intermarriage is much more difficult, much more resisted, and occurs much more slowly if at all. There were numerous Foreign Service colleagues who married non-American women. Their children did not consider themselves generic Americans, and their cultural beliefs and habits were far more strongly shaped by their mothers - and, once resident in the US, by their foreign-born grandparents.

Blogger dienw December 16, 2015 10:15 PM  

OT: an alternative to youtube

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales December 16, 2015 10:48 PM  

Hey Vox, you gonna report on this horseshit?

This article NEEDS to get its ass torn a new one with some of your real politik style commentary

Anonymous Soga December 17, 2015 12:40 AM  


For starters, that article was disingenuous to exclude the deaths ensuing from the collapse of the World Trade Center during 9/11. He didn't just pick that cut-off point for no reason; he chose the cut-off to be after 9/11 so the numbers would agree with the narrative.

Second, 45 deaths over 14 years? I don't really buy that number, but I don't have the time or resources to look it up at the moment. But what strikes me the most about using that number as an argument for disregarding the very real threat of Islamic terrorism is that it's just an average over 14 years. It doesn't take into account how the rate has changed. For most of these years, ISIS - formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, had been rather busy with occupant troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the pullback, they were given breathing room to expand their operations. So it's easy to see why the rate was so low for most of the intervening years from 9/11. However, it seems that in recent years, the annual rate has risen significantly.

But that's not really why we should be shutting Islamic immigration down. We should be shutting it down because of the example set by the invaders in Europe.

Remember, immigration is rape culture.

Blogger weka December 17, 2015 12:43 AM  

@48. ZH is now following the narrative? Who let the SJW in?

@45. The Han do not assimilate or intermarry except at the very top of the pile. Only way I could get approval was because I had an MB. Otherwise, I would have been a white ghost.

Lee was smart. He knew that majority Chinese societies go clannish and corrupt, so he enforced a British colonial ethos. That -- particularly British Commercial Law -- allowed the nation to grow.

Blogger Rambam December 17, 2015 12:56 AM  

Christianity is the only thing that can unite men across cultural, ethnic, and economic lines.
But alas even this fails in the end as ultimately, the destruction of evil is what is really required and a new dimension of life is initiated. The wheat and the rates grow together till the end.

Blogger Rambam December 17, 2015 12:57 AM  

Above meant to write tares instead of rates.

Anonymous I am Lorde December 17, 2015 1:39 AM  

I agree with what is being said on both sides of the China tangent. China is a fascinating country, it actually might be the exception to rule. What alot of people do not understand is China is multi-ethnic, in reality there is no such thing as Han Chinese. Although the modern era has erased some of the differences, Han Chinese from different areas see themselves as different. To put it in perspective you have the Southern dominated CCP enforcing a Northern Culture on a country dominated economically by two Southern and nationalistic 'Han' minorities, Cantonese and Minnan. Its held together because the culture has been so throughly rammed down peoples throats, and even then the leaderships panics about the country splitting in historical ethnic entities. Obviously diversity without cultural dominance in the West has no chance of working.

@26) Large private companies in China; 50% of time spent managing power structures so management only can steal small amounts instead of large amounts. 40% on managing all the useless employees of relatives of equity and management and 10% on work. Ok maybe a bit extreme but it can feel like that. In saying that I have a business partner in China which I trust as much as I would any Westerner, but he, although having hundreds of contacts has only a few friends he actually trusts.

@45) I think last year a Taiwanese politician said something along the lines of: 'why do we need to become more like China, China should become more like us and seek our approval to unify. Singapore is the best Chinese Country, then HK, then Taiwan and then China. Notice how it correlates with Western rule.'

@49) I am dating a Han woman. She is from a reasonably powerful family. There are conditions I have to meet as well as some I have set.

I only think inter-marriage immigration of East Asians can work long term. If too many come over simply on education visa to residency schemes there isn't the integration required to understand Western culture. Even my GF, although Western and hating the corruption etc. in China doesn't really understand the role checks and balances and democracy have in minimising those evils. To be honest who can I blame her, looking at what 'democracy' is currently doing to Europe (in particular) and the US they think we are insane and willing to cut our own throats for some weird 'democracy' ideal.

The PRC is trying to crack down on the clannish and corrupt behaviour with an iron fist at the moment. It will work, to a degree, but they equally need to change the culture.

Blogger Scuzzaman December 17, 2015 1:56 AM  


I had a Chinese girlfriend some years ago, before I got married. She was a very smart lady, from a very wealthy and powerful "old money" family. She studied in Paris and London, wore nothing but silk, and had a master's in English Lit (iirc).

For my birthday she wanted to buy me dinner and I expressed a liking for Indian cuisine. Her immediate replay was "Oh, no! They're dirty."

I smiled. "What - all of them?" but this banter went completely over her head.

She simply had no such sensibilities as we are raised with in the West, regarding such things. To her it was self-evident that her own culture was superior and to be acknowledged as such without any hint of false humility.

When I told her that I knew what she would call me if we were in China - a gwailo - she was only concerned that I would be personally offended because of our relationship. The use of the term itself held no particular emotion attached to it.

To this day my Christian upbringing and my nationalist intellectual inclinations cannot resolve the question of whether I should admire her attitude or despise it. Such is the place we, most of us in the West, find ourselves.

I had a similar argument with my sister regarding violence. She's an absolute pacifist, a Christian like me. But I reminded her that God instructs us that it is the responsibility of the strong to take up arms to defend the weak. That the soldier does not carry a sword for no reason. If the strong are forbidden from all violence, the weak are left as prey to the unbelievers. And this is, in fact, what is happening all across Europe today. The strong have abandoned the weak to invading unbelievers and the weak are without protectors.

These universalist ideals of tolerance of everything and acceptance of all 'immigrants', without respect to their moral character, have been deliberately engineered to so disarm us, in my opinion.

Anonymous I am Lorde December 17, 2015 2:40 AM  


Old money Chinese in the West (or even rich kids now largely educated in the West) who are adamant about the superiority of Chinese culture have all their illusions crushed when they go back to China.

The other day I was with a mainland Chinese friend who showed me his school photo from a religious school in the West. He said something like, "Look at all the Western kids, look into their eyes, their is life in them. Now look at the people around here (China), on the streets, there is nothing in their eyes, they are dead inside. We don't really have a culture anymore, only have a parody of what our culture once was."
I asked what he meant and he replied,
"Ruled by foreigners, everything great about our culture happened prior to the Mongols coming in and destroying it. Since then we have been ruled more by invaders than by ourselves and they degenerated our civilisation."
And then he spat out the name of the traitor general that opened the gates to the Mongol invasion. This guy is a Chinese cultural nationalist but even he thinks that China needs to redevelop its pre-barbarian civilisation/culture if it wants to succeed. I think their are parallels to pre-Islamic Iran and the pre-Islamic ruled Hindu civilisation as well. If the West doesn't protect its culture and civilisation it will take hundreds or years, if ever to recover from.

Anonymous Fnord Prefect December 17, 2015 2:44 AM  

@2 While France is opposed to a lot of American (i.e. Internationalist) policies, it is not in support of France or, god forbid, native Frenchmen. France is run by the same global elites with the same goals. The only difference is that they want francophones to be in charge of their socialist utopia instead of the "Anglo-Saxons".

France has a head start on the domestication of their populace. Their elites were the first to experience and adapt to the will of the people after their bloody revolution. Their language has been weaponised as the ideal tool to subdue, misinform and control the population.

-- French is more centralised than any other EU country (state control 51% of utilities and major industries, well over half of the population work directly or indirectly for the government).

-- French has the highest proportion of Arab/N African/muslims in EUrostan - the fact is hidden by making it illegal (yes illegal) to collect any kind of statistics on race or religion.

-- French language is centrally controlled (cf. Academie francaise) and English is deliberately badly taught in schools (becoming an English language teacher requires a high degree of written, literary French language skills).

-- French language culture is subsidised to the tune of billions of taxpayers' euros (no french language press, film, music, TV, publishing etc. is economically viable without state subsidies and preferential laws).

The US elites only wish they were as far down the globalist road of universalism as their gallic counterparts.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 17, 2015 4:24 AM  

If France is less than 20% Muslim by this point I'd be incredibly surprised.

Anonymous Bz December 17, 2015 5:37 AM  

The French policy of letting in Algerians and so on from their empire shows that assimilation only works to a point. Somehow, the gleaming highrises turn into dirty ghettoes packed with sullen strangers. That's the great problem of France and soon also Mad Mutti Merkel's Germany.

Blogger Sherwood family December 17, 2015 5:45 AM  

I'm on the other side of the question in terms of my experience. I live as a foreigner, a non-assimilating foreigner I might add, in other countries. (My job is the reason for that.) What I see is that other countries have very simple understandings of what it means to be part of their nation. You are born there of parents whose ancestors are from there and you are raised speaking the language. That's it. There is no propositional nationalism only ethnic nationalism. I have often been asked "what I am" and I say American. This is inevitably followed up by some variation on, "No...where are your people from." I say American (because my ancestors are multi-generational Americans) but they still insist on knowing from whence my ancestors came because to them that is what I am. They simply cannot comprehend the idea of a propositional nation. It makes no sense to them. You are what your ancestors are. Of course if you go back far enough practically everybody moves around some but you have to go waaaayyy back for some of these people in some of these places. And there is a reason they are still there: because they have blood and soil. And in a large extent...we don't.

Blogger Lovekraft December 17, 2015 6:06 AM  

Baby boomers, those vapid self-indulgent children of the 60s, should be scorned and shamed. Not raised up as heroes or generous.

All of their generosity has a price, a price they don't have to pay because of kicking the can. Today, their children are the goosestepping sjw fascists.

Anonymous Baseball Savant December 17, 2015 7:07 AM  

VD, isn't it the position of you and a large majority of your commenters that civic nations don't actually exist, and that the Gauls who thought they were Roman, or the Swedes who thought they were American, were deceiving themselves?

More or less, yes. I didn't write the piece, but I thought it was well-written. I don't agree 100 percent with everything I link or feature.

I thought the podcasts Serial & Undisclosed did something tricky with this in mind. They went out of their way on multiple occasions to remind us that the convict was an American and not Pakistani despite both parents being born in Pakistan and coming to the US. I thought this was extremely disingenuous which isn't surprising given that a bunch of SJWs are doing the podcasts (and they always lie) but it was amazing how flip they were about the whole thing. They kept coming back to how a lot of this was racism because Adnan was an American.

He might have been born in America, but he's not an American.

Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 8:14 AM  

This was a mostly good article except for the blatant lie that Germany and Japan started World War 2. Re: Japan, if America had been blockaded by a nation who refused to allow food, steel or fuel into America, we would have attacked and destroyed that nation's navy, in a sneak attack if necessary. Any rational, self-interested nation would have reacted to the American blockade exactly as the Japanese reacted. Re: Germany, Hitler tired for YEARS to avert the war and it was the Judeo-Masonic British that goaded Poland into attacking German citizens which precipitated the invasion of Poland. The US should have helped our German brothers exterminate Communism and remove the threat of Judaism from Europe by deporting the Jews. The world would be a much better place today if Germany had won the war. But instead the US chose to make the world safe for Communism.

Multiculturalism was invented by the Jewish Frankfurt School of Social Research.

Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 8:24 AM  

I'd also be curious to know whether Vox sees a difference between a "proposition nation" (rightly criticized in the "The heart of the debate" post recently) and a "civic nation". The line seems tenuous-to-non-existent to me.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 17, 2015 9:05 AM  

Right then.

I'm an intermittent visitor here, so I may have missed a few things, but the chief argument that civic nations are illusions which I have seen rests on the assumption that cultures are determined by genes; from this it follows that ideas which were developed by English and Scottish political philosophers can be truly understood only by people whose ancestors are largely English or Scottish.

The clearest way to refute this argument is to apply it to a few more political ideas that you have probably heard of. Say, "Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy was conceived in the culture of Hellas, and thus can be understood only by those of Greek ancestry." Or "Buddhism is the invention of an Indian contemplative, so only a person with Indian ancestors can truly claim to believe it." Or "Islam is a product of Arabian culture, and only people of Arab blood have a true understanding of its doctrine." Or even "Christ and His Apostles were all Jews; therefore only those with Jewish blood can be true Christians."

If, as history proves, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity have been well understood and firmly believed by people who had no blood relationship at all with the first propounders of those doctrines, the notion that genes wholly determine cultures must be false - and the claim that the nationalism of the USA is an abstract doctrine, rather than an ethnic tradition, cannot be cavalierly dismissed.

Blogger Sheila4g December 17, 2015 10:03 AM  

@60 - I don't have enough educational background to debate you regarding Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. However, you are making a couple of major false assumptions here. First of all, the movement and intermarriage of peoples historically, as noted in "Cuckservative," has already rendered many of the modern ethnies genetically radically different from the historic ethnies referred to by the same name. Greece is a particular example. No one here considers each modern nation a precise genetic copy of its predecessor. There have been outside influences and inner turmoil that has affected every nation to one degree or another, so no one that I've read of here claims a direct or unbroken line from a nation's historic forebearers and culture to the present.

Second, and more importantly, each culture (as produced by different genetics) has left its imprint on whichever historical philosophy or faith it adopted, and altered it to suit. This is explored quite thoroughly at <a href=">Faith and Heritage</a> in a three-part series on "ethno-christology." Those individuals who refer to themselves as "Jew-boos" (Jews who follow Buddhism) are hardly heirs to the precise beliefs articulated by Buddha. Wiggers often have no blood relation to American Negroes, but they certainly ape their mannerisms and attitudes - and yet still no black genuinely considers them black. The paint-job theory is derided for a reason. The exterior and interior often don't match precisely. For those in America, heirs often to mixed genetic heritage and varying assimilationist pressures, the disconnect is often stark.

Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 10:03 AM  

@60 -It is not either/or as your comment suggests. It is a matter of degrees and probability. It's not that "non-Anglos" can't "understand" e.g., small government, low taxes and personal responsibility; it is that they are less likely to do so. The further one moves culturally and genetically from the (say) Anglosphere, the less likely it is that the people in question will have an appreciation for traditional "Anglo" values. The debate between genes and culture is hopelessly muddled. Genes influence culture ("environment") and culture-environment influences genes. I don't know what people find so hard to grasp about this concept of mutual and reciprocal influence.

Anonymous Athor Pel December 17, 2015 10:49 AM  

"62. Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 10:03 AM
I don't know what people find so hard to grasp about this concept of mutual and reciprocal influence. "

A great many people do not understand cause and effect. If a person begins to understand cause and effect they begin to look for and get stuck on the single cause. If a person begins to understand multi-variable systems they begin to look for linear relationships and ignore inverse, geometric and logarithmic. See where this is going? It's kind of the peter principle of cognition.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 17, 2015 11:21 AM  

First of all, the movement and intermarriage of peoples historically, as noted in "Cuckservative," has already rendered many of the modern ethnies genetically radically different from the historic ethnies referred to by the same name.

Every one of the doctrines I listed has had mass conversions at times when no genetic mixing could have taken place. For example, the first non-Jewish Christians were baptized by Apostles (you can read about it in Acts). Buddhism has been a popular religion in China and India for many centuries, and almost nobody in China or Japan has ancestors from India. The Seljuk Turks became Muslims a full century before they descended from Central Asia to Persia and adopted Persian culture wholesale. If genes determined culture none of this could have happened.

Second, and more importantly, each culture (as produced by different genetics) has left its imprint on whichever historical philosophy or faith it adopted, and altered it to suit.

The claim "culture is genetic" goes much farther than you have recognized. It doesn't just say that ethnic temperament has an influence on local practice of a universal religion; it says that a religion developed by one ethnos will be rejected wholesale, or mutated to an unrecognizable form, by those of another ethnos unless the two ethnies intermarry. Which, as I've just mentioned, is clearly untrue.

The further one moves culturally and genetically from the (say) Anglosphere, the less likely it is that the people in question will have an appreciation for traditional "Anglo" values.

Culturally, yes, by definition. But genetically? Allow me to cite another example: the Progressive movement in America never really had an appreciation of the Anglo-American political tradition. But all of its founders had ancestors going back to colonial times; none of them had foreign blood.

No, culture is taught and learned, not inherited through the blood. Cultures tend to follow ethnies because, as a general rule, our parents are also our first teachers; but that is logically an accident.

Blogger John Wright December 17, 2015 11:56 AM  

typo: the magazine is called "Every Joe", not "Everday Joe".

Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 12:02 PM  

@64 "No, culture is taught and learned, not inherited through the blood. Cultures tend to follow ethnies because, as a general rule, our parents are also our first teachers; but that is logically an accident." This comment sums up nicely the autistic bent evident in your comments. You said, "culture is taught and learned", fair enough. But that formula leaves completely untouched the question of where culture comes from; where and how it originates. And the answer to the question is, "from the mutual interaction between genes and environment." Within any one natural environment, an organism with one suite of adaptive traits will fashion a "culture" different from an organism with a different suite of adaptive traits. This applies to different ethnies in just the same manner as it does to different species. Some groups develop pastoral cultures. Some don't. Why is that? What allows that? One thing that allows it is a genetic mutation that allows adults to consume dairy casein. The point to remember is that a "suite of adaptive traits" is not something that appears out of nowhere; it is something that evolves with environmental (e.g., "cultural") input. So again, it is not either/or. "Genes" absolutely DO influence, and to some extent determine, "culture" (i.e., shape the environment) but similarly, an "environment", including cultural milieu, influences what genes are "adaptive" which genes will successfully replicate. I think any reasonable person should assent to this position.

"our parents are also our first teachers; but that is logically an accident." This comment is particularly revealing and displays the same presumptive "framelessness" that characterizes post-modernism generally. A post-modernist reasons that, "since I can conceive of human beings as being totally formless, I should proceed on the premise that we actually are formless." But human beings are not formless; we are definitely formed. Just because you can conceive of a child not being reared by its parents, doesn't mean that such a perversion of the human form is reality. Just because something is logically an accident (which would be a function of the arbitrarily chosen premises one chose to work one's "logic" upon) doesn't mean that it is materially an accident or that we should make practical decision based on a logical possibility whose material application is belied by experience and history.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 17, 2015 12:02 PM  

No, culture is taught and learned, not inherited through the blood. Cultures tend to follow ethnies because, as a general rule, our parents are also our first teachers; but that is logically an accident.

What leftists call "future orientation" is caused by K style evolution. It turns out that nature makes nurture breaks. The ability to learn is capped by nature, but can be lowered by nurture. There is a tribe that wanted to learn how to count but missionaries tried teaching members of all ages for 8 months before giving up as none were capable of counting to 10. Even blacks can count to 10 if they have nothing in their hands. Oh noes that evil right wing, knot sea, news agency known as Slate.

"Because of [fear of being cheated], the Hiaitiihi reported a genuine desire to learn how to count and do simple sums. They asked [missionaries] Everett and his wife to teach them these skills. The Everetts offered regular classes each evening, for eight months in a row. The sessions were always initiated by the Hiaitiihi with much apparent enthusiasm. Still, after eight months of classes, not a single Hiaitiihi had learned to count from 1 to 10. Not a single person had learned how to solve problems such as "3+1=x" or even "1+1=x." Then, classes were discontinued."

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 17, 2015 1:09 PM  

Just because you can conceive of a child not being reared by its parents, doesn't mean that such a perversion of the human form is reality.

It is quite unnecessary to suppose that children could become separated from their parents in their infancy. Such things actually happen on a daily basis. Look up "adoption services" in your local phone directory, or favorite search engine. While you're at it, look up how many adopted children end up sharing the culture of their natural parents.

As for the rest of your remarks, when you can explain the reproductive advantage gained by the people who went to their deaths rather than deny the divinity of Christ, I might be willing to listen to your cod-Darwinist idea of culture. Till then, spare me.

Blogger Old Ez December 17, 2015 2:29 PM  

"It is quite unnecessary to suppose that children could become separated from their parents in their infancy. Such things actually happen on a daily basis." Again with the autism. You are missing the point completely. I should have been more explicit rather than assuming you would be able fill in the missing premise here. Its not that e.g., children can't be raised by people other than their parents, the point is that there is a norm and the norm is what we should take as our baseline, not the outlier. You want to point to an outlier and say, "see? The fact that this outlier exists proves that outliers and norms are the same; there's no difference between the two." Again, the point here is, with regard to e.g., adoption, if you tried to apply the categorical imperative, chaos and inhumanity would ensue. The existence of outliers does not invalidate averages.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 17, 2015 5:03 PM  

You want to point to an outlier and say, "see? The fact that this outlier exists proves that outliers and norms are the same; there's no difference between the two."

I want nothing of the sort. One doesn't point to an outlier to deny the existence of an obvious trend in the data. Rather, an outlier shows that there is a cause operating that the enquirer hasn't accounted for. It means one hasn't yet reached a complete understanding. Dismissing outliers to look only at the norm shuts off genuine thought and replaces it with false certitude.

In concrete terms, nothing in the theory you put forth actually accounts for such things as conversions of whole tribes to a foreign religion, the culture to which children adopted from foreign lands belong when grown, or martyrdom. On the other hand, I have no problem accounting for them, and I can also explain all the facts covered by your theory. You have work to do before you've caught up with me.

Blogger Horn of the Mark December 18, 2015 11:46 AM  


The multi-ethnic jumbling of peoples in the Austro-Hungarian Empire helped kick off Hitler's radicalism. It was one end of the pendulum swing that Nazism followed from in the other direction.

As for Japan, they still have maybe the most restrictive immigration policy in the world and are as much of a mono-culture now as they ever were. How exactly has multiculturalism played a role in pacifying them?

Blogger Gerry Tork December 18, 2015 4:16 PM  

@13 That was brilliant, BTW. A photo op for token refugees to put off complaints while the security screening doesn'the turn us into Germany.

Trudeau and Trump are more similar than alike. Don't let the SJW social signaling fool you. There is very little in the way of competent right wing media in Canada (the kosher National Post and Rebel don'the count) and he'said playing the legacy media like a fiddle.

Blogger Old Ez December 19, 2015 8:15 AM  

@70 Mike, if you claim to have created a theory that explains unique, one-off events in history, like mass conversions, I suggest you write that theory down, publish it and thereby christen a new branch of scientific sociology. Of course, in reality, no theory explains unique historical events (though such a thing is not necessarily inconceivable). Maybe Islam succeeded in conquering a certain area because the opposing Commander ate a bad chick pea and had an off day that led to his army being routed. Maybe Jihadi Jim decides to blow himself up because his prospective bride was promised to another and now he feels he has nothing to live for. And in the opposite manner, maybe the Jannisaries adapted so well to their quasi-dhimmitude because they enjoyed being alive and did not wish die? These things fundamentally come to down to...chance. And this is all straight out of Clausewitz, by the way, Book 1, Chapter 1. What this dispute between us has come down to now is historicism and positivism. There is only one encompassing answer to questions like, "what explains mass conversions, suicide bombings and cultural adoption?" And that answer is "history", i.e., the unique and often chance happenings that surrounded the events and players themselves.

"It means one hasn't yet reached a complete understanding" - Right, of course. Which is where probabilities come in. But you seem to think that this "complete understanding" is possible. But its not. As human beings - necessarily limited (flawed) in our understanding - we cannot have robust, complete knowledge of the causes operating in history, which is why historical events have to be judge according to the unique circumstances in which they find themselves embedded, not according to some lifeless, ossified theory. Theories are better at explaining probabilities than unique events because in the realm of unique events the apple cart of "complete knowledge" can be upset by rotten chick pea, whereas in the realm of probabilities, a one-off event does not necessarily upset the logical "equilibrium" of the theory's explanatory power. Again, stepping back, I do not believe there is a theory broad enough to explain in a general manner why e.g., mass conversions happen or why some people are willing to martyr themselves for their beliefs and why some people are willing to utter abase themselves to preserve life. The only explanation for these are history and the unique stories of the actors that make it.

Anonymous Reader December 19, 2015 9:25 AM  

It's already 3 days since the blog was posted and you're still at it. Read about acculturation. Wikipedia will give you some ideas.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 19, 2015 3:12 PM  

@73: No, the argument has not come down to historicism vs. positivism. Not only do I reject both those schools in general, I can't even tell which one you imagine I belong to - or what the propriety of quantitative methods in historical study has to do with anything I said.

In any case: it's rather remote from the matter of civic nationalism, but it will serve to refute you, so I point out again that infants adopted from foreign countries belong, when grown, to the cultures of their adoptive families, and know nothing of the cultures of their birth parents. And this happens consistently; it is not a matter of chance, it is completely predictable and commonly expected. Yet if genes determined culture it would not be expected; if it did happen it would be a great surprise - much like seeing a dog give birth to kittens.

Blogger Old Ez December 19, 2015 9:06 PM  

@75 I think you side-stepped most of what I was argument, but I'll just address this: "so I point out again that infants adopted from foreign countries belong, when grown, to the cultures of their adoptive families, and know nothing of the cultures of their birth parents." Outliers. You're talking about outliers. A nation/culture (see how that works?) could not survive wholesale switching of children from genetically dissimilar stock, which is what you are implying. Just because a nation/culture can absorb a limited number of genetically dissimilar individuals does not mean that the biological stock of the nation/culture has no, or only a negligible bearing on the character and essence of itself. The fact that a culture/nation could not survive wholesale swapping of genetically dissimilar children proves that biology has a significant material impact on the character of the nation/culture in question. From the other view, that of the adopted child and its integration into a genetically dissimilar society, the reason why a small number of such individuals adapt to the alien biological and social environment is because they have no, or a very small number of specimens of their own people to emulate. The greater the number of such genetically dissimilar individuals that accumulate in an alien society, the less conscious incentive and less unconscious ability do those individuals have to integrate into the alien society. So the flaw in your argument is that your are implying because a certain class of outlier, A (assimilable aliens) exists under certain circumstances, X (a small number of A relative to alien group B), that the same outlier class, A, can exist under an altered set of circumstances, Y (a larger number of A relative to group B), but it does not follow. There are two extremist positions and one moderate position when it comes to this question. (1) Genetics are everything; (2) genetics are something; (3) genetics are nothing. My argument represents the moderate position and I think any reasonable person should be able to admit that biology and genetics must play some role, however "insignificant", in the character and essence of cultures and cultural transmission.

Anonymous Michael Brazier December 20, 2015 3:06 PM  

@76: I deny your claim that a culture cannot be taught to a different ethnos. Indeed, in the hypothetical case of infants of one ethnicity being raised together, but by adults of a different ethnicity, I firmly expect (as almost anyone would) that the infants would when grown share the culture of those who raised and taught them.

Indeed, we needn't go to such extremes. Consider the results of the African slave trade. Black Americans are largely descended from a variety of West African tribes. But their culture bears no resemblance to the ones extant in West Africa - instead it's closest to the culture of the Appalachian hills, the Scots-Irish "rednecks" or "Jacksonians". The reason is obvious enough; people who have been enslaved, shipped thousands of miles and separated from all their relatives cannot teach their children more than fragments of the culture they inherited, fragments which are soon forgotten. That the African slaves were, put together, a majority in some Southern states was of no consequence, for the only culture they shared was that of the white settlers who ruled them.

I will leave you to explain why, if you were right, the tribal feuds and cults of Africa have not reappeared in the US, and repeat the thesis. Cultures are detachable from the ethnies that originated them, because cultures are creations of reason and judgement. As the thoughts of a culture grow organized, from particular judgements in particular situations into general, abstract principles, the culture becomes easier to teach to people who don't share the history of its creators. And this is how civic nationalism comes to be.

Anonymous Discard December 21, 2015 12:27 AM  

To the extent that a culture selects for certain biological traits, genetic outsiders whose ancestral cultures have selected for different biological traits will remain foreign. r-selected children adopted into K-selected families will do poorly.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts