Is Poland even a Slavic country?
The most “based” (not to mention correct) countries are Eastern Europe minus Poland, Portugal, and the Brits and Irish.
Portugal is surprising. The usual explanation for why they don’t have a lot of Muslims – just 0.4% of the population, which is a basically Visegrad number – is that they are too poor, and that’s surely the most important point, but probably the racism helps.
I’m assuming the okayish British/Irish scores are thanks to much of the IQ/HBD literature being in English.
Czechs continues to impress. Sweden continues being Sweden Yes.
The questions aren’t exactly the same, but American polls [WaPo; Reuters] on Black intelligence suggest they’d score around 22%, slightly above the level of Britain and Ireland.
I suspect this may be partly linked to 90%+ of the HBD/IQ literature being in English.
Another interesting observation: Even the most hardcore East Europeans are only about as racist as late 1990s Americans.
I think that Russia would be around 30% on such a poll, based on e.g. support for miscegenation, but this is speculation.
Ugh ffs fam!
I have long feuded with my Swedish cousins about HBD. They’re not as spergy as my branch of the family and are thus unwilling to accept it.
They’re mainly focused on social climbing, and have done so successfully. My Patrick Bateman loving cousin Richard married a scion of the Nobel family.
I am making some progress lately–after Merkel’s boner they’re cautiously starting to admit that my brother and I are right.
One question that occurs is what the impact of social desirability bias might be in these rather depressing (in the sense that such a dramatic triumph of ideology over reality, over such a broad range of nations, is a pretty poor show) figures.
Czechs are famously snotty in a quiet way. But I would not to read too much into the survey, I suspect translation and language nuances play some role.
Except of course in Sweden where the madness is endemic and probably not curable, they have been mentally emasculated and there is no way back for most of them. Similar dynamic is in Netherlands and Germany – they have no balls, and one actually can’t survive with no balls. This is their last generation, they are the true dead-enders.
I too am surprised about Portugal. The stereotype is that they were less racist than any other colonial power. I’m guessing the reason they are based is not the late stage colonies but actually Brazil, plus the lack of diversity and lack of English language media.
I have a hard time believing the numbers for Western Europe. I think it is more like their beliefs aren’t different from Czechs, but those are the percentages who are willing to be honest in a climate of fear. I consider myself based, and I’m shocked when someone else admits it, even in a segregated setting.
I’ve long suspected that even most of the Left know. It is just that they have a political schizophrenia, or are stuck in a purity spiral, and are too vain to want to be thought of badly. What would I do, if I thought Africans had the same genetic potential as Chinese or whites? I’d borrow every cent I could, mortgage my house, and throw it all into Africa, as a personal investment. Then, I would move to the blackest city I could find in America and invest whatever else I could muster. I’d borrow from friends and family too. I don’t know of a single person who is doing that.
Can we also examine how attitudes on race changed over time? I assume that in 1918, probably the vast majority of people in European nations would’ve believed in racial differences in intelligence?
I follow European social surveys quite closely, and 2014 seems to be a year which gave us consistent results on some countries, but not others. The graph below is also from a poll done in 2014.
https://i.imgur.com/acXPhMi.jpg
But look at the UK, which is more liberal on these race questions despite you hailing it as “based”. Could it be that one shouldn’t base your world view on selected polls, AK?
But as I have already pointed out before, those 2014 polls clashes with more recent polls:
https://i.imgur.com/ZNimJpi.png
Logically speaking, if you believe in racial differences, then you’d be more likely to want a homogeneous state. That is what we see for Czechs. But notice the vast different for Poland. Also, the low numbers for Russia make a mockery of your assertions about Russia.
I don’t view Pew as an unreliable source. I’ve also pointed out that there has been a sharpening of social values in the last 5 years or so. Notice that the question in the poll below is not about muslims, but about people from Africa and the Middle East.
https://i.imgur.com/cLqqcLL.png
Even the previous government spoke about taking as many Christians as possible, yet it wasn’t exactly popular. And it’s even less so now.
I bring this up, because you often get to hear that Poland only cares about religion but not about race. Yet the chart above complicates this message, because it never asks about muslims but only about people. Furthermore, the social context in Poland is such that many understand that we’d taking many Christians. Yet the numbers keep going up in red. The only counter-arguments I ever get tend to be those 2014 polls.
It’s fair to say that we have conflicting sets of polls, and AK prefers only the 2014 ones and ignores the later ones (which are unflattering for Russia and far more flattering for Poland). I’d be content in saying that unless we get a steady stream of polls, over a consistent time period, I’m not going to draw any immediate conclusions. The only country which passes this test is Czechia. The data for Poland is all over the map. We have less data for Russia, but unlike Poland, recent polls do not seem to suggest it is moving into a more pro-homogeneity direction.
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russians-are-increasingly-tolerant-of-foreigners-58734
One wonders what they REALLY think and what are supposed to say politely even in supposedly anonymous surveys. I cannot believe that so many really believe that blacks are no different to other races in terms of intelligence, one has to be at autism levels of perception to not notice these basic truths, regardless how much propaganda has been thrown at you since birth.
Also, one needs to ask what the hell Israel is doing in a survey on European attitudes???
How many people these days are going to believe that anyone gathering data can be trusted to keep that data confidential? Would you gamble your future and your livelihood on some stranger’s promise of anonymity?
And in countries like Britain you’re not just gambling your livelihood. Questioning the official line on diversity can get you a stiff prison sentence.
I don’t think any sensible person these days responds to surveys or polls. I have heard that response rates to surveys tend to be very very low. I’m inclined to think that most surveys are in practice worthless.
Maybe because Russia has always been less homogeneous. It is big.
What we see in all surveys is a strong split between east and west. We are becoming different cultures, and maybe we have been for a while. With demographic changes in the west and relative stability in the east, it will deepen. East also has an internal split – big cities are dominated by west-like liberals who have disproportionate power and control the media. Splits eventually lead to conflicts.
Czech Rep. and Slovakia are homogeneous with very strong nationalistic cultural attitudes, but even there the official culture from capitol cities is wishy-washy and promotes diversity and (eventual) open borders. Germany was a good buffer until 2015, not too diverse, but enough of a negative example. Since 2015 the situation is more polarised. We are heading for turmoil and nobody is ready for it.
That is correct. It is also true with regards to my own country. Our newly-found homogeneity is a very recent phenomenon, and we are still learning how to think about it. The same applies to Russia.
Well, so is China, yet their immigration policy is even more extreme than South Korea’s.
I’d say it is too early to tell if the post-1990 cultural convergence is off the rails or not. Until 2015, EE was steadily becoming more Westernised. Now, it is not clear yet.
I wouldn’t look so much at the politics, since politics is always reactionary. The vanguard is the youth, and especially educated youth and there the evidence is a lot more mixed.
I did follow the recent Czech presidential election and the vote for Zeman was typically correlated with the older, more rural and less educated voters. If the educated elite decide the future, then it’s not at all clear if we will really see a divergence.
Yes. The saving grace here for Poland is that our country is becoming more rural rather than urbanised, though it is happening slowly. More and more are moving out of the cities (though to be fair, often just 10-20 km outside it).
Same here.
Turmoil is already here, in many ways. This is a long-term process:
https://i.imgur.com/zx4BHIy.png
And the fall-out will be long-term as well.
I too am surprised about Portugal. The stereotype is that they were less racist than any other colonial power.
I think one has to distinguish between racism in terms of being nasty, and racism in terms of being “realistic”. Portugal is a small country and a not insignificant percentage of the population has experiential links with African countries, notably ex-colonies Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bisseau, Cape Verde, Sao Tome as well as South Africa. In South Africa, the current Portuguese population is 300,000 (3% of the “home country) and it used to be even higher.
Hence there is almost certainly a far higher percentage of Portuguese who have lived, worked or have close relatives in Africa than is the case for France, Germany or most any other European country. On the island of Madeira, with which I am most familiar, there is virtually not a single family that doesn’t have one or more relatives that lives in, or recently returned from, South Africa.
In this sense it is perhaps a bit like the south of the US. My experience is that people there were inherently less racist than in the north, but on the other hand they perhaps had fewer illusions.
What they really think and what they they claim to think are different things. Liberals judge blacks by much lower standards because they think them intellectually inferior:
http://people.virginia.edu/%7Ejra3ee/AEN2016.pdf
OT (or maybe not?)
I rarely visit Counter-Currents these days, but I stumbled upon this article, and it’s good.
It omits enormous corruption in the case of Orbán, in which he’s also personally implicated. And which will probably be his undoing.
what do you think about the recent turmoil in Slovakia? personally, I am a little bit confused. And it’s also because, as you write
is only partially true I would say. Thing is, no one from the (relevant) opposition is really on board with this. Sulik (of the strongest opposition party) is explicitly against it. The other one, Matovic (the madman) attacks foreign workers (mainly Serbs, Ukrainians) even now as part of his campaigning.
I guess the pro-immigration crowd in the current parliament could be around maybe 10% (some from Most, some from Sulik and maybe some outcasts) Actually, I think the best bet for an immigration push from the EU would be a deal with the ruling party SMER.
From the irrelevant opposition, I thing there is only the hipster commies ‘Progressive Slovakia’ who are truly open borders/diversity freaks, but com’on…nobody really believes they can get more than 2%. The other being the President, but he is just that, no big deal. The President is the chosen mascot of the capitol hipsters.
Now for those, who don’t know, there was a young journalist along his fiance murdered in their home a month ago. The journalist was dealing with relatively mundane and known corruption cases/accusations and possible connections of the Italian mafia to the government. Naturally, the opposition demands early elections(2 years early do be precise) and the mob demands bullets for the government on social networks and protests are organized every Friday since the murder and at the very beginning of the case, the leading opposition figures declared, that it is not important who killed the pair, there must be a revolt. What is your opinion on the murder/protests. I liked Chmelar’s take
I also don’t think it made sense for the mafia to kill him, nor anyone around Kali, as was implied. The more predatory the mainstream media and oppostioners behave, the more I cannot blame people for calling Soros. Personally, I think Sulik is a much riskier bet for the globalists/EU or Soros crowd than Fico, so it doesn’t make sense.
I have to agree with language maybe playing a role. And I have to point out that even in English, the answer here is technically “no”, blacks are not born less intelligent. How would you test IQ at the moment of birth? If anything, blacks are born more developed and remain more developed through early childhood, as JP Rushton observed.
If you would see the media demonisation in Prague you would be surprised that anyone voted for Zeman at all – and yet he got over 50% over a relatively respectful and mild establishment candidate. His voters were outside Prague-Brno, but they were in some ways more ‘educated’, less susceptible to the mindless media propaganda. Zeman also carried the third largest city, Ostrava, and was very strong in mid-size cities. Zeman run on ‘nationalism‘ pure and simple, no migrants, no multi-cultural nonsense, he was very open, almost vulgar about it. And it worked.
The best predictor for Zeman voters wasn’t age, location or education – it was not speaking English or German. Obviously urban professionals between 25-59 aspire to be English speakers, so the criteria are correlated. The key characteristic was domestic versus foreign-oriented split that has been emerging. I have cousins in countryside (small towns) that couldn’t understand much of anything here on Unz, although some ‘studied English’. Their attitude is ‘f..ck the bastards’ in the media who are trying to change us into a Third World cesspool. Usually all it takes are 1-2 trips to London, Paris, Brussels to see what the celebrated West really looks like. It is not religious at all, most are very lukewarm about Christianity, it is about identity.
Mixing ‘racial’ attitudes into it is also a stretch – individually nobody cares. This is about what people say it is: they don’t want mass influx of Third World people. They see what it has done to the West and they don’t want it. Since this is diametrically opposed to what Western Europe is all about today, the growing split is inevitable. And splits of this nature always end up in a confrontation and conflict. And you are right that early stages are already here.
Russia is an imperial, historically multi-national country.
Poland and Lithuania, et al, are mono-national countries, and their empire days were long ago.
This is not racism – there is no implication that they have bad feelings towards other groups – but simply awareness of differences. Portugal was a colonial power until recently, this may lay a role in being observant.
I didn’t read this reply when I posted mine, you said what I said but more comprehensively.
Until World War II Poland had large Ukrainian, German, and Jewish minorities (the latter were often unassimilated Yiddish-speaking people, Hasids, etc.)
The strategy is to weaken Visegrad resistance to migrants. Removing socialist leaders who were resisting (Fico and his interior minister) and replacing them with ‘new, improved’ socialist leaders is a step in that direction. It is a salami tactic – slowly grind down any opposition, punish visible opponents and wait. The interior minister really pissed off the globalists when he personally guarded the border in 2015 against migrants driving in a jeep with a machine gun. They had to get rid of him as an example.
Right now the right-wing opposition leaders – Sulik, Matovic – are vocally anti-migrant. But it is easy to replace the leaders with more ‘respectable’ people. Media is owned by German companies, they can generate a new scandal at will. Maybe we will find out that Sulik smoked pot with Miss Universe candidate (he probably did).
I agree that the open-border liberals are around 2% of the population, but somehow they control 80% of the media – and insist that it is their right. The globalist party in Bratislava a few years ago used to meet at a small table in a coffee shop (the joke was that they could fit on a park bench), then they got 0.3% in the election – but somehow they were asked to join the government and 2-3 became ministers. How can one explain that?
This was a small win for the Brussels open borders team, but only the first step. They never give an inch and never compromise. The ‘nationalist’ side constantly apologises, explains itself, denies constant media labels, and then folds the moment thousand ‘students’ with brand-new i-Phones start shouting at some square about ‘corruption’. The globalist side only has to win once. Then the ‘respectable Europeans’ quietly open the borders, migrants pour in, you get a ghetto, relatives join them – and the whole political situation changes permanently. It is a one way street as we have seen in the West. Brussels and Merkel need someone to fall on their sword and do the dirty deed – they will be rewarded. It might get ugly. Having 98% of voters on your side is seemingly not enough, that’s not ‘democracy’, that is I guess ‘populism’. Out of curiosity, what is a democracy where ‘popular’ views don’t prevail? What is it exactly?
“Portugal’s Guerrilla Wars in Africa” by Al Venter has some anecdotes of whites in Angola going on rampage killings of blacks. Also, the MPLA murdered quite a few whites and mulattoes after they took power. Something like a million whites fled to Portugal following the collapse of the empire, forming about a tenth of Portugal’s population. Portuguese racism isn’t really that surprising with that kind of history.
antiracist say racist have no balls, because they want to hide behind borders, fear competition of the partner market etc.
Sure, they used to be more multi-national than today. And in previous centuries, Polish had even acted as imperialists (there was special no reticence conquer other people’s countries, that was not found in other nations).
But Russia has hundreds of different nationalities, all treated as equal citizens. There is long and still a present experience of co-exist and tolerance. The reason for the more laidback answers to the questionnaire is not only a ‘virtue signalling’, but based in real actions as well.
I agree, I just didn’t see “long ago” as meaning World War II…
The vast majority of Russias “hundred nationalities” are “my heritage” memes who speak a few words of some functionally dead language, dress up in a national costume once a year for some recently invented “traditional” celebration and otherwise act exactly as Russians do. There are some non-assimilated exceptions like tribal Muslims from the Caucasus and most Russians do not say good things about them if you ask.
As for the survey, it’s a huge problem right now that most Europeans still have no real experience with various ethnic groups but they’re under a non-stop propaganda assault. I didn’t believe in the racial intelligence gap before my city was flooded with Africans and their nature became undeniable – and when I go back to my hometown and explain how blacks actually act they have trouble grasping what I’m talking about because they’ve only seen the black brain surgeons on TV. I don’t think it’s terribly surprising if these numbers are mostly accurate since even the cities are extremely segregated.
And what do you think? Borders exist for a reason, to create a country, to define it, to give it an identity. The ‘hiding’ part seems random, do we all just ‘hide’ in our houses?
What exactly would ‘world without borders’ look like? (May I suggest that Karachi or Lagos come close. Great life.)
The question posted is not about whether you want your city to be flooded with blacks – but the fact remains, that Russia has one of them as Foreign Minister – Lavrov. It’s a situation which is not comparable to Poland, where this kind of diversity is not.
E.g. Minister of Defense is a Tuvan. How many Tuvans do you have in your (Finnish?) cabinet?
Well I can answer the question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipil%C3%A4_Cabinet
So, we can see the situations of Russia is not comparable to countries such as Poland, or even Finland.
Well my reply didn’t answer this part of the question very well.
As you say, many nationalities, were heavily assimilated. But this is surely – at least as a result, if not the brutal circumstances in which it occurred – something commendable, rather than vice-versa.
The question posted is not about whether you want your city to be flooded with blacks – but the fact remains, that Russia has one of them as Foreign Minister – Lavrov.
Lavrov is black?
What good is a “white” country, when everything becomes perverted…
If Poland accepts faggotry, abortionsdemand, gender theory, radical feminism, The I will be ashamed of it.
You can not only depend on race. You need culture, you need morals. Preferable all three.
Rather have a Castizo who looks fairly white, over a Swede nordic homo, feminst, abortion, euthasia, supporters (90% of Sweden).
Rather a Spaniard who has minor Maghreb/Berber adxmiture too.
When almost 50% of Poles want American values, it makes me sick.
I also doubt Poland will legalize gay marriage in 10 years. Not even 20-30 years.
The first step would be homo civil unions (which would already be bad).
Certainly younger generations are becoming more socially liberalized. But not some great speed.
What my concern is also Poland allows American troops on its soil (retard idea).
American companies and banks (those same ones who help fund Nazi Germany).
Massive wave of Ukrainians coming in (why so many so fast? why not tiny numbers? caps?).
I have not much clue on what Poles see on races (because racial concepts vary around the world!).
But certainly Poles dont want Muslims. 70% or thereabouts.
Poles are sadly big supporters of EU. But that would change if Muslims come in large numbers.
And then that support for EU would be 50 or less.
Polish language is harder to much of West Europe. More trad, and more uni religion.
So it will probably stay white though.
In the colloquial way people using the word black.
In the colloquial way people using the word black.
“Colloquial way” in Russian?
just surrender on the gay stuff. It’s a losing battle.
If you surrender on the gay stuff you’ll end up surrendering on everything. If a nation loses its self-respect to the extent of surrendering on the gay stuff then it cannot survive, and does not deserve to. Such a nation decays from within.
If it’s a good idea to surrender because something looks like being a losing battle why not surrender on immigration as well? Why not surrender on everything?
The question was not about being racist but about believing in differences among races. Clearly Portugues believe in the differences. They know them firsthand for longer than almost anybody. But they do not discriminate or hate Africans. In this send they are not racist. They believe in miscegenation as a Portuguese mission to improve Africans. They believed they could civilize Africa using their sperm.
Good points. I remember watching a clip of Milo (not my cat, but the gay guy) speaking in front of a supposedly right-wing or conservative audience and some SJW guy stands up and accuses him of being racist. So Milo responds by saying he can’t be racist because of the number of Black men he has given oral sex to. The audience roared with applause…
I’m thinking, what kind of conservatives are these fools?
Peace.
For the record, Milo considers Islam “an existential threat” to gay people…no, homosexuality is the existential threat to gay people. It’s like finding a tribe that’s deliberately celibate complaining about how other people threaten their longevity.
Do you live up to your handle in regards to that too, GW?
Are you Portuguese?
This is a distinction without a difference to the left. Merely the idea that racial differences exist (other than “superficial” ones such as skin color) is racism to them. In fact thinking that races exist at all is racist to them. In America they have now gone so far as to state that being white means one is racist, period.
I don’t think it makes sense at all to try to “prove” that one is not racist. That’s ceding the moral high ground to the left. One should reminder that the word racism did not exist one century ago, and other than odd religious sects no one thought that racism (whether discrimination, classification, whatever) was a great moral evil. This is all a very strange development of the past 70 years.
I prefer to simply openly state that I am racist and that racism is objectively correct, but another good tactic is refusing entirely to respond to the accusation. Calling someone a racist today is really equivalent to calling someone a heretic, heathen, or a witch 400 years ago.
“And what do you think?”
I prefer living in a country without mass migration from muslim countries and subsaharan Africa.
Yes. We white folks have gotten quite a bit dumber over time, even while we developed the tools to measure and analyze the difference that anyone can perceive with a bit of personal experience.
The Chinese i’m sure are not this stupid, so congrats, you have something else to wave your flag of Chinese supremacism over.
Dfordoom, already said it. But if you surrender on the gay stuff–it’s over.
The gay stuff is essentially a marker for:
— inability to do logical reasoning and make critical distinctions between different things
— inability to stand your ground under “diversity” and “tolerance” assault
— lack of seriousness and commitment to the core issue of reproducing your civilization, which is in fact the core issue of any civilization.
You can be perfectly pleasant to and tolerant of gays off being gay. We (Americans) didn’t string up Cole Porter or toss Liberace off a building ISIS style. But he didn’t pretend homosexuality was normal or in the slightest bit equivalent to the normal male-female sexual bonding that civilization critcally depends on–much less celebrate it!
Once you’re running around with rainbow flags, you’ve basically surrendered–at the very core level–the very essence of what your civilization is and the desire to maintain it. That it caves in after that is pretty much a given.
I doubt GW was advocating for this.
It’s a question of priorities imo…if one wants an end to mass immigration above all else, an excessive focus on homos, feminism and gender ideology is somewhat of a distraction (not that I’m a fan of any of those, but they’re ultimately not that important imo).
And the people who really are obsessed with those issues, that is social conservatives of some Christian background, either (former) mainstream conservatives or throne and altar reactionaries, tend to be totally unreliable on issues of national identity and immigration, let alone anything to do with race. They get sentimental about Islam (because hey, aren’t Islamic “family values” and patriarchy something we should admire?) and sometimes even want to enlist Muslims as allies in fighting homos, pornography, atheists etc. (I guess Mideastern Christians might be immune to such delusions, but no one’s asking them). They do all manner of Christendom-Larping themselves which will never appeal to most modern Westerners, but then denounce and ridicule secular nationalists as fantasists or Nazi-like heathen. And if push comes to shove they’ll happily denounce you as “racist” (e.g. the pathetic Rod Dreher at Amconmag). Who needs such people as “allies” and why should nationalists pay much attention to their petty concerns?
Not saying that one should just cave in to all the perverted demands of the modern homo lobby, clearly on some issues (e.g. rights of adoption) things have gone much too far already. But at least in Europe I see no point in focusing on that issue instead of the truly existential threats of Islamic subversion and mass immigration.
I would advise against it. It is not smart. If racism is a belief that races are different this is a proposition that can be objectively tested. But if by racism you mean your attitude and actions with respect to people of other races this has nothing to do with objectivity.
Indeed; Portugal is puzzling in view of the fact that Lisbon was the first modern European city that a sub-Saharan African ever saw. And there is some “nappy-headiness” in the current White peninsular Portuguese genetic woodpile.
You don’t have to be a Christian to recognise feminism and the homosexual/transexual agendas as civilisationally destructive, unnatural and unhealthy. I’m certainly no Christian.
In my view you can’t save a civilisation that doesn’t want to be saved, and the feminist/homosexual stuff has created a civilisation that actually wants to die. Worrying about immigration is pointless when your society is dying inside.
As for Christians being unreliable allies, I agree. On the whole they’re not just useless, they’re actively harmful. They will surrender on every issue, not just immigration. They have already surrendered totally to feminism. Some churches are so far gone that they have women priests and pastors even though their own religion forbids such abominations.
To support what I wrote I want to add this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_whitening
Racial whitening, or “whitening” (branqueamento), is an ideology that was widely accepted in Brazil between 1889 and 1914, as the solution to the “Negro problem.”[1] Supporters of the Whitening ideology believed that the Negro race would advance culturally and genetically, or even disappear totally, within several generations of mixed breeding between whites and blacks. This ideology gained its support from two scientific racism beliefs that were prominent during this time. One being social Darwinism, which applied Darwin’s theory of natural selection to a society or race, and the other being Aryanism, the belief that the “white” “Aryan” race was superior to all other cultures. By combining these two ideas, the white elites of the time believed that because “white” blood was superior it would inevitably “whiten” the inferior races’ blood.
As we can see Portuguese use racial superiority as justification for miscegenation as long as it went in one direction of diluting (whitening) of the inferior race.
utu:
Regarding Portuguese miscegenation, in colonial Angola I believe that it was one way in that white males interacting with indigenous females was permitted and even encouraged, but the reverse (indigenous males with white females) was forbidden or at the very least heavily discouraged.
No coincidence Portugal is easily the most backward Western European country.
That is their key to success.
Its a pretty heavy marker at any rate that the civilization has rejected the norms of most standards that are heavily true on an instinctual basis and to which most norms were developed for, because obviously a society of Shakers(who do not have children) soon is a society of non-existent people.
The only way to adapt to it from that point on is to basically take on most liberal talking points, adopting homosexual and feminist values as universal civilized values and therefore using that as the new axioms to define the basis of a healthily adjusted individuals, something which the EU has done to some extent I believe.
In that sense, it might even be viable in spite of the reduced fertility so as long as it is inflicted on everyone else who matters. Poz oneself, then poz the world.
Such can take on missionary characteristics, with the end of history as earthly utopia.
Nice to see a moderate view here. When reading many others I am reminded of the blog whose “trad news” post Anatoly linked to:
https://altleft.com/2017/12/10/skirting-the-issue-with-tara-mccarthy/
The falling fertility is similar to diminishing heights with industrialization (people originally were getting shorter during the industrialization process), or peak oil, and various other temporary crises.
With technology, it will soon become very easy to adjust fertility as high or low as we wish.
And of course a century from now, they will laughing at our internet comments – if they use waybackmachine; as they genetically modify children to be a intelligent as they want, and delivering them in factory level quantities.
I do wonder if we’ll look upon pregnancy someday the way that we look upon horse-riding for transportation and blood-letting for medicine, as artificial wombs likely would be safer and of course, increase the productivity of women who will no longer serve in a direct role to reproduction(or men, for that matter, as sperm can be created from skin cells).
In some ways, I think that total divorce from the biological would be akin to extinction of humanity – and certainly of a lot of norms and culture that we consider as human. But self-extinction seems fitting in a way.
And of course, this all really relies on the idea that the dreamtime of energy availability goes on forever and ever. Biological systems, for all their flaws, are highly energy efficient. Our mechanical replacements are not.
I agree, that’s a problem, all that manosphere stuff must be immensely repellent to most normal people, it’s a huge mistake for right-wing movements to embrace that nonsense imo.
This relies on superstitious distinctions between natural, biological and artificial world.
The interesting (because unsolved even on any conceptual level) distinction for us, is only the distinction between things with consciousness (humans, animals), and things without consciousness (everything else).
E.g. Let’s say people start to become ‘bionic’ (using non-biologically originated objects in their bodies -as already seen with pace-makers for hearts), this is no great distinction – just another form of tool use.
Likewise if people (as they will do very soon) modify themselves genetically – this is just an extension of tool use to do things like cut your hair or cook dinner. For an animal without tool use, cooking dinner is as strange as a person genetically modifying their children.
As for reproduction of children in a factory. This will be not great leap forward on conceptual level. People have separated sex from reproduction since the dawn of history (or since people’s IQs reached above level of about 50) – and the moment the most primitive ideas for condoms were available (in Ancient Roman times), they were utilized.
The future – despite the fact it will soon incorporate things like this – will be a lot more ordinary, than people imagine.
When they use waybackmachine in a century, they will be people very similar to us, except they be laughing at some of the things we are obsessed with.
See the way we now are surprised at how originally industrialization led to a reduction in average heights and standard of living – in similar way, they will be laughing at our obsession with reduction in fertility and other easily solvable, on technological level, problems such as still to be studied alleged differences in intelligence between ethnic groups.
The interesting cultural effect might be if they can develop ways to improve attention spans, especially if there is a genetic component to this. In which case, Tarkovsky film re-releases in 2120s will become blockbusters.
In the future, every trait that can be identified genetically (which today has the stigma of being unalterable), will instead become most trivial and solvable traits – as they will be most technologically manipulable traits.
There’s no need for races. There was large (~1/3) German minority in prewar Czech lands. Conflicts lasting for generations ended with mutual attempts of extermination. For decades and decades we had one state with the Slovaks. They used every opportunity to demand more and more, until they got their dream – the independence.
Ethnic homogeneity is the only arrangement which didn’t bite us.
As for the intelligence of “races”: when asked Czechs probably did not think about blacks but about the gypsies and the Arabs (lot of them studied here and they didn’t send their best and brightest). On the other hand, there are young Vietnamese who are pushed by their parents to study incredibly hard (and no, it is not just media propaganda). Answering “no” would be contrary to one’s direct experience.
It’s also a huge mistake for right-wing movements to embrace other stuff that is nowadays regarded as repellant, such as opposition to immigration. If you want to build a genuinely successful right-wing movement that will be respectable and won’t upset people the best way is to jettison all right-wing principles.
A right-wing movement that embraces feminism, homosexuality and open borders would be a sure-fire winner.
Principles are so very inconvenient.
“It’s a question of priorities imo…if one wants an end to mass immigration above all else, an excessive focus on homos, feminism and gender ideology is somewhat of a distraction (not that I’m a fan of any of those, but they’re ultimately not that important imo).”
I am surprised by the fact that you don’t seem to find those issues to be intertwined…
They are all part of a common strategy – to fragment our, relatively, homogeneous societies and turn them into countless atomized “communities of communities”. The obvious goal being, of course, control. I have seen it happen before my own eyes in North America; however, I am really shocked by the speed at which the Western European “disciples” have caught up and far surpassed their “teachers”..