The Interplay of Ideology, Biology, Guilt and Shame • Age of Treason (January 19, 2014)

Source: TANSTAAFL

In whatever happened to european tribes? hbd* chick posits that Christianity discouraged inbreeding, which in turn triggered the dissolution of European tribalism and consequent shift in emphasis to the nuclear family.

We can see in this the give and take between ideology and biology – the roots of identity are genetic, but memes, over generations, do shape the underlying gene pool. To the extent outbreeding produces a relative shift in identity rather than simply destroying it, this also provides a partial, biological explanation for why Whites tend toward both broader (nationalist, racialist) and narrower (individualist) forms of identity. An even more proximate and substantial cause lies in decades of anti-White propaganda, and it encourages more extreme shifts, whether outward into humanism or inward into solipsism.

hbd* chick has been writing thought-provoking articles about the nature and origins of Europeans for some time. This article on European tribalism is from 2011, part of her inbreeding in europe series. More recently she has written about what she calls the outbreeding project, a subset of her general theory of the west – all based on the realization that clannishness goes hand in hand with consanguinity.

Two of her more recent posts, more on the origins of guilt in northwestern european populations and the transition from shame to guilt in anglo-saxon england (and “core” europe), are a critique of Peter Frost’s The origins of Northwest European guilt culture and Part II.

Frost begins Part I by noting the crucial difference between shame and guilt:

Shame is the primary means of behavioral control in most societies. If you are seen breaking a social rule, you will feel shame, and this feeling will be reinforced by what people say and do (gossiping, malicious looks, spitting, ostracism, etc.). Shame is much less effective if you break a rule without being seen or if you merely think about breaking a rule.

Guilt is more important in European societies, particularly those of Northwest European origin. It operates even when you act alone or merely think about breaking a rule. Behavior can thus be regulated in all possible situations with a minimum of surveillance.

Put more plainly, shame is the means by which more particularist/collectivist non-Whites maintain group cohesion, whereas guilt is the means by which more universalist/individualist Whites are encouraged to selflessly maintain a civil society in which everyone but Whites can thrive. Shame is something groups inflict upon themselves, for their own benefit, whereas guilt-tripping is a weapon of group warfare, used by non-Whites to discourage White group cohesion in any form between family and race.

Ironically, Frost cites Ruth Benedict on how shame compares to guilt:

Ruth Benedict first made the distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures”. Pervasive feelings of guilt are part of a behavioral package that enabled Northwest Europeans to adapt to complex social environments where kinship is less important and where rules of correct behavior must be obeyed with a minimum of surveillance.

Benedict helped establish cultural anthropology, which has since largely displaced physical anthropology, substituting jewish pilpul and narrative for the objective science developed by Northwest Europeans. If nothing else Benedict’s cultural theorizing helps explain her own mindset, moved by her “guilt culture” to work with members of a “shame culture” – jews like her mentor Franz Boas, her colleague Gene Weltfish and a swarm of other social science activists who were more or less openly obsessed with advancing the interests of their own tribe.

In order to prevail these cultural anthropologists literally made up stories and falsified data. They shamelessly leveraged tribalist networking, using their power and authority to advance pseudo-science while denouncing, shunning, defunding and otherwise tearing down their opponents. What’s more, they never expressed the slightest twinge of shame or guilt about it. They were far too busy feeling morally righteous about themselves and their cause.

The “behavioral package” of jews is adapted to parasitism. They do not empathize with their hosts. They will use shame, guilt, or any other mechanism they can in order to marginalize their enemies and hijack or hoodwink others into serving their interests. In contrast to Whites, who actually do feel guilt and shame each other mercilessly over “racism”, jews feel guilt and shame each other for not being obsessed enough about what’s best for the jews.

Frost argues that Northwestern European “guilt culture” predates Christianity. hbd* chick argues the origins are more recent, a consequence of the avoidance of cousin marriage. I’m intrigued by the subject and recognize some truth in both arguments. What leaves me vaguely annoyed is the calm Northwestern European detachment with which they discuss the subject. The “guilt culture” is only one facet of White pathology, the more general attribute of which is the absurd pretense that everybody is, or with enough effort on our part can become, “us”. The affliction isn’t unique to either Northwestern Europeans or Christians. It also, frankly, doesn’t seem to be either shame or guilt which keeps Whites who are so intelligent and knowledgeable about history and science and conscious of Northwestern European distinctiveness from taking more notice of the jew elephant in the room.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the main mechanism lies even deeper in the psyche, below guilt and shame. In pain. In the fear of pain. In the fear of even mentioning those things we suspect might cause us pain. Here too I can see the interplay of evil thoughts and breeding. The dysgenic consequence of two centuries of fratricidal revolution and war selecting out Europe’s most fearless and noble. The sterile fruit of parasite-fomented, parasite-serving materialism and “enlightenment”.

Tanstaafl at 1/19/2014 11:58:00 PM

We Are Not Sorry

“A politician in our party once said “Wouldn’t it be better if we presented ourselves as the victims?”

The problem with doing that is that it’s what everyone else does. And it can be done, because there are many white victims in this society now, in the way that its going, but if you concentrate on pain and defeat you will breed resentment, and I believe that resentment and pity are the things to be avoided. Fire, energy, glory and thinking, thinking is the important thing.

Being white isn’t enough. Being English isn’t enough. Being British isn’t enough. Know what you are! To read about your own culture is a revolutionary act. Many Western people feel that because it is generally a given in the society and culture that they’re in that variants of our group have committed atrocities, that our civilization is therefore rendered worthless, almost in its entirety, except when it apologizes for its right to exist.

And if you have a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you’re not going to get anywhere, are you?

And that’s what this weapon is. My view is the following: I am technically a pagan, and pagans believe that creation and destruction go together, that love is fury, that whatever occurred and whatever occurs, we don’t have to apologize. We step over what exists.

So, if somebody says to you that you’re descended from brigands, which is in a sense what that sort of contrary ideology is, you say “I’m not going to bother about figures and who did what to whom; I’ve overcome that!”

And they may say “Oh, well, I don’t like the sound of that! That’s a bit illiberal.”

And I’d say (or you just say) “Liberalism is moral syphilis, and I’m stepping over it!”

“I don’t like the sound of that! You sound like a bit of a fascist to me.”

And I’d say “There’s nothing wrong with fascism, nothing wrong with fascism at all.” I believe we’ve created a modern world that has been taken away from what it could have been. If people with our sorts of values ruled modernity, everything about this society would be at one level the same, and in every other respect completely different. People would still drive contemporary cars, There’d still be jets, and there’d still be supercomputers and so on, but the texture and the nature of life would be different in every respect.

How so?

Firstly, cultures would be mono-ethnic. Secondly, there would be a respect for the past glories of our civilisation. Thirdly, we would not preface every attempt to be strong by saying “I’m sorry…I’m sorry for what we have done…”

WE’RE NOT SORRY!

And we’ve stepped over the prospect of “Being sorry”.

We have to understand that belief is not a narrowness. Belief is an understanding that there are truths outside of nature and outside of the contingent universe that’s in front of us, that are absolute. The left wing view that it’s all relative and we make it up as we go along is false.

There was a thinker who lived 2500 years ago called Heraclitus, and my type of thinking is his linear descendant. He was a pre-Socratic, a sophist. He lived right at the beginning of Western thought, when we actually wrote down what we think. He wrote a book on nature which Aristotle glossed over and which has survived in fragments. What did he believe? He believed that everything is a form of energy, a fire that exists in all forms of organic and inorganic matter, that thought and the sentience of nature is what we are; nature has become sentient in us, which means that we must incarnate natural law as a principle of being. Its called Becoming, in my philosophy.

Right wing ideas aren’t just a bit of flag waving and baiting a few Muslims. Right wing ideas are spiritually about inequality.

“Did you hear that? He says people are unequal!”

PEOPLE ARE UNEQUAL!

Intelligence is biological. Beauty is biological. Ferocity (or a predisposition to it) is biological. Intellect is biological. You can do a bit, but you’re born to be what you are. And we should celebrate what we were born to be. The left loves equality; it believes that we are all the same and we must be treated the same, and they believe that as a morality, as a moral good which will be imposed. The right, even if you don’t want to use that term, stands for nature, and for that which is given.

What does that mean? It means that conflict is natural and good. It means domination is natural and good. It means that what you have to do in order to survive is natural and good. It means that we should not begin every sentence by apologizing for our past or apologizing for who we are.

Never apologise.