Thursday, 16 September 2010

Just a thought.....

One of the foundations of this blog is the concept that immigration of incompatible races and cultures leads to social disruption and ultimately - potentially - large-scale ethnic conflict. This in turn rests on the almost unquestioned premise that people prefer to be among their own kind. The extensive research by Putnam and many others support this. Few on this blog would even question it.

But I do have a question: The thought crossed my mind that the most "ethnic" conflicts seem to have occurred between peoples who were in fact extremely close linguistically and racially. Even in recent times we've seen this in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Ukrainian/Polish massacres after WW II. Note that here I'm excluding wars between states, as these reflect strategic objectives, rather than the more improvisational inter-ethnic strife.

Now I realise that religion plays its usual ugly role in the cases I've mentioned. But not in all cases. And in the American Civil War there was virtually no religious or racial component, yet white 'Christians' slaughtered one another mercilessly.

One reason I suppose is that you can't really 'hate' someone you don't know. Still, it is a question, isn't it?

This is just a late night random thought. I'm sure on reflection we'll come to a satisfactory conclusion. Else I'll have to shut down the blog, and save Google the trouble!

29 comments:

Bemused stare said...

Erm Sav, don't all those events tend to have an element of "your crowding us out and cramping our space, so GTFO?"

Bemused stare said...

And that is supposed to be "you're crowding us out...". My apologies as it is 4:45 and I've not yet finished my coffee.

N Ackerman said...

I think that beneath the level of full blown conflicts, there are other issues with low iq/high testosterone immigration - such as:

- increased crime & gangs (ie Paris, London)

- increased welfare dependency & reduced academic standards (US with low skill Mexican migration)

- Demands for equality/diversity legislation & recruitment policies which discriminate against whites

Also, as David Friedman has pointed out, market dominant minorities (ie. as europeans could end up in Europe) have often been subject to persecution.

Ethnic Cleansing, Other Horrors

kulak said...

It's a good thought.

Note that here I'm excluding wars between states, as these reflect strategic objectives, rather than the more improvisational inter-ethnic strife.

I'm not so sure about that though. If people can be told apart, they can be told apart. Whether one racial distinction is important relative to another is relative and not necessarily symmetric. It's not like the distinction between protons and electrons. There's no objective answer, except perhaps in the long run sense of survival.

I don't know if you subscribe to AR, but the October issue's cover story gives a few examples. Like the Pelopponesian war. Athenians and Spartans were different racially, but might as well have been the same relative to Africans.

Were the same qualities responsible for both Greek achievement and Greek destruction? Maybe so. But I'm not going to spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I'm not an ancient Greek; and my goal is white survival.

Can you love someone you cannot know? Corn all one sheaf, grape all one vine and all that.

Anonymous said...

Might as well ask why blacks kill far more of each other than they do whites...proximity?

Potgieter

Anonymous said...

People are tribal. In the past this has been essential to survival. Should a non tribe member turn up at the edge of the village that person would be chased away or killed. That person could carry new diseases, could have malintent etc.
This reaction seems to be hardwired into humans.
For people like Putnam I believe he has a mutated gene whereby he has the complete opposite reaction. He rushes out to welcome the visitor to the dismay of the other tribe members. The first time he does this (after the visitor is taken care of ) he gets away with it due to pleading from his familly. The next time he shares the fate of the visitor (even some members of his familly join the purge).
In our society people like Putnam need to be controlled by ridiculing him, admitting him to an asylum for the insane etc.
I have believed for a very long time that ethnic conflict is absolutely inevitable. This belief colours my view of people like Putnam. Through stupidity of otherwise I view people such as him as contributers to the death of millions. He is just as bad as Hitler or Tony Blair.

Socrates said...

People in close proximity will, ipso facto, be more likley to turn on one another. Also stories and legends about the other build up over time.

Anonymous said...

You are right.

Sub-populations of a state need to be *sufficiently* similar in a number of ways (or dimensions if you want to sound scientific ;)). They need to be similar racially, politically and culturally.

http://www.irishnationfirst.org/?page_id=157

Anonymous said...

Zhou EnLai is famously supposed to have answered that it was too early to say what the impact of the French Revolution was.

I think that mass immigration has answered that question.

It is only now, when the full lunacy of universal human rights embodied in the arrival of millions of unwanted and unwelcome blacks and/or muslims that indigenous Europeans realise that we have more in common than separates us.

This should be a cause of optimism and if we are lucky, in the unlikely figure of Sarkozy flinging out the "Roma", perhaps the edifice of the EU will crack.

If that happens my opinion is that real European unity could happen.

Anonymous said...

N Ackerman - yes, these of course would contribute to antagonism. However not all immigrants are like that. Mmmmmm.... come to think of it, most are!!

Anonymous said...

anon 7.38. I think you misunderstand Putnam. Sure he's a happy clappy multi-culti borg, but he admits in his study, if you check Savant'post' that such societies don't really work.

Louis IX said...

Very good thoughts indeed. I could suggest that maybe, since white civilizations have attained high cultural concepts they have fought over conceptual issues rather than basic needs. In rimitive society the fights have been for access to water, food, pasture, acess to women, etc. while Europeans pretty much resolved these issues 2000 years ago. From Julius Cesar and others, it was estimated that Gaul population reached ~ 10 millions, in agreement with good skills in farming and elaborate ways to produce and keep food. For two millenia, french population was only 4 times that number, which shows that ancient Gauls techniques was already near optimum. When basic needs are fulfilled, what to fight for? mostly power and ideological issues. But these issues can be no less divisive. It can be easyer to share food or water than a trade agreement which can only generate profit under the condition of a total monopoly. Here, sharing means loosing all of it. Higher conceptual conflicts can even rise from within a single family. Several of my family members are severe leftist goody gooders that promote a vision of the world very different from mine. Not only different, but their vision of the world can, and does, destroy my vision of the world. In a way, my leftist sister is more a thread for me than a recent immigrant who only has basic needs: food, home, access to white women, money.
I am not familiar with the Irish war, but it is likely that the fight occured because of two incompatible way of life in economy, religion, etc. One african immigrant in Ireland might have raped a local woman for what he perceives as his basic needs, but he is not a thread for the Irish culture or civilization. Also, look at how Little Chinas in big european cities don't threaten the european's way of life.
The problem is always quantitative with immigration anyway. One or few immigrants are fine, just many pose problems. Threrefore there is no need for Ireland or Europe to fight China or Zimbabwe.
So the idea here is that your immediate neighbor of even your own family can be more of a threat for your way of life than a swarm of immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Proximity has a lot to do with it. As a white man, I deal with white people all the time on all sorts of levels, and have less to do with non-whites. If anybody causes me to hate them, it is most likely they will be white. Just like blacks probably rape more black women than whites but this is only because they are around black women more. I am sure their preference would be for whites.

Anonymous said...

"But I do have a question: The thought crossed my mind that the most "ethnic" conflicts seem to have occurred between peoples who were in fact extremely close linguistically and racially. Even in recent times we've seen this in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Ukrainian/Polish massacres after WW II. Note that here I'm excluding wars between states, as these reflect strategic objectives, rather than the more improvisational inter-ethnic strife.

Now I realise that religion plays its usual ugly role in the cases I've mentioned. But not in all cases. And in the American Civil War there was virtually no religious or racial component, yet white 'Christians' slaughtered one another mercilessly."

Religion can also unite as well as divide. The main reason say the Irish more than the English would have felt affinity with the contintent in the past is because of shared Catholicism with Spanish, French, Flemish etc.

Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia and the Ukraine/Poland were unfortunately located at the faultline between different sects of Christianity. Add Islam in Yugoslavia. The religious differences made the ethnic differences that were already there worse.

There may have been a small ethnic element in the American Civil War if not entirely accurate. Scots-Irish rednecks on the rebel side against Anglo Yankees on the Union side.

Anonymous said...

"Also, as David Friedman has pointed out, market dominant minorities (ie. as europeans could end up in Europe) have often been subject to persecution."

Like the Jews.

joeballybrit said...

Lious IX - it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that "Higher conceptual conflicts" can rouse the hoi polloi to heights of passion. Hatred of your near neighbour can though.

Anonymous said...

Actually before WWII and especially before WWI, genocide was common in warfare.

The only reason England, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, and parts of Switzerland are considered different nations with different nationalities is due to the fact different Germanic tribes split off at different times and carved out domains through warfare and forced other people to submit to them.

The Romans were quite good at genocide when they felt the barbarians would not be suppressed or tried to rebell too much.

In the end modern Germany and Italy was united not due to war and I know in France, Germany, and Italy at different times dialects were suppressed.

Japan did the same thing, oppressing and absorbing or ethnically cleansing none "Japanese" ethnicities in Southern Kyushu, Hokkaido, and Northern Honshu. The Ainu did not give up there land willingly, neither did the Eimishi.

The Native Americans definitely did not.

So in effect you can prevent ethnic conflict by exterminating the 'other'. Where's my gun?

I often think the best thing you can do for some nations, especially in Africa is to totally fund one side and let them annihilates or oppress the other side and force them to culturally assimilate. At one time there were many tribes in Europe that do not exist anymore and most of them did not go out of existence voluntarily.

Anonymous said...

Savant, From America:

We will be "getting to know" our immigrants. We didn't have to go to school with them, but our kids will. Believe me, there will be tensions.

In America, the blacks and hispanics are beginning to have friction with each other. The blacks pick on the Asians pretty badly, but the hispanics wont take the same abuse.


...................................

Economic note on Immigration. Immigrants live 2 families to a house. They have 3 and 4 working adults in a house, instead of just one or 2. They can easily afford to work cheaper than whites in this way. It confers a huge advantage to them. I hate to say it, but whites may be forced to do the same in the future in order to be able to afford family formation.

Our elites must get quite a chuckle out of this, but two families (one upstairs, one downstairs) might become the norm for our lower classes as the decades lurch by.

Anonymous said...

How about this as an explanation?

Human beings of all races, religions, and nationalities are too goddamn stupid and too goddamn nasty to get along with one another.

If we ever get mass cloning of biologically identical humans, the clones won't get along with each other either.

newboyintown said...

anon 7.39. May be some truth in what you say, but waht about societies like Japan? Even though there are 100 million people crammed into densely packed high rise buildings in a small country they have incredibly low crime rates.

Could it be that they're a homogenious people - no 'other' to accommodate?

Anonymous said...

IMHO it's a matter of time and numbers. It takes time to build up a view of the 'other' - for good or ill - and 'the other' won't matter if their numbers are very small. That's the reason why the West is making such a catastrophic mistake with its immigration policies.

Anonymous said...

With a hat-tip to Irish First, here's a short video clip from a transplanted American "tribal member" now residing in Sweden who says:

"I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time, Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we (Jews) are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which MUST take place.

Europe is NOT going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. JEWS are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make.

They (Europeans) are now going into a MULTICULTURAL mode and Jews will be resented because of OUR leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."


In jewish-speak, that is referred to as "Chutzpah".

This bold assertion reminds me of the paraphrased quote, "that to save the village, we must destroy it".

kulak said...

If we ever get mass cloning of biologically identical humans, the clones won't get along with each other either.

Groucho Marx said it better.

Anonymous said...

often wondered Savant if ROMA DOWNEY IS AS HOT AS SHE LOOKS FOR A 40ISH CHICK, THOUGHT PERHAPS YOU HAVE SAMPLED THIS HONEY POT. ENQUIREING MINDS IN OHIO WISH TO KNOW,

Californian said...

You might have had a civil war between Americans in the 19th century, or between Englishmen in the 17th, or whatever. But at the end of these wars, the countries were still White. What we are seeing today is a deliberate attempt to displace White people from countries in which they have lived for centuries (North America) or millennia (Europe).

Unrepentant British Nationalist said...

That's because closely related peoples have occupied the same continent - ie. blacks sub-Saharan Africa, Semitic peoples in the Middle East, orientals in the Far East, whites in Europe and well you know what happened to the Native Americans.

I suppose one interesting hypothesis may be that race was a natural boundary, too, and therefore where ethnic differences and cultures are less apparent there's more scope for mixing, followed by resentment and then ethnic cleansing.

For example - how many Jews are there in Japan? Or China? Or Nigeria? I would say very few - because they would stick out like a sore thumb. But that's also why they don't have a history of persecution in those countries.

clovis said...

anon 14.29. Well fuck me, that certainly IS chutzpah!!!

And in fact your analogy to destroying the village was exactly what was coming to my mind even before I read it.

And in fact this excerpt shows exactly what has happened and what is happening.

TVO said...

UBN says "I suppose one interesting hypothesis may be that race was a natural boundary, too, and therefore where ethnic differences and cultures are less apparent there's more scope for mixing, followed by resentment and then ethnic cleansing."

True maybe, but why should mixing lead to resentment? In ex-Yugoslavia there was ahuge amount of intere-marriage between Craots and Serbs, yet the hatred exploded when the fuse was lit.

Unrepentant British Nationalist said...

TVO,

The hatred exploded once Communism collapsed. That authoritarian regime in the Balkans prevented internecine violence. Saddam Hussein's regime did the same in Iraq.