By Max Musson:
There is within the minds of liberals a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the relationship between culture, religion, race and ethnicity and the part played by each of these factors in determining the way in which groups and individuals interact within the same society.
The liberal mindset assumes that all human beings are essentially the same, save for our external cosmetic features; our skin, hair and eye colour; and our facial bone structure.
Consequently, liberals expect that all peoples will have the same temperaments — will have the same needs, hopes and aspirations – and will ultimately behave in the same way and should therefore live harmoniously when juxtaposed within the same society.
Liberals fail to appreciate that culture, and religion as a facet of culture, are the products of race, and what I mean by this is that an individual’s genetic composition determines the customs and social mores with which they feel comfortable, and as groups of genetically similar individuals strive to mold their environment and create social structures with which they feel comfortable and with which they feel at home, so the interaction between them determines the characteristics of their culture.
Furthermore as these genetically similar individuals conduct their lives in accordance with the culture with which they feel comfortable, so a social environment is created which favours those among their children who are most attuned to that social environment. Children who are most closely attuned to the culture created by their forebears, prosper and flourish and increase in number, while those children who are least attuned, do not. In this way, the people mold their culture in accordance with their genetic predisposition and as time passes their culture creates an environment which molds them in return through natural selection.
The most fluidly changeable aspect of a culture is the language spoken and communities composed of racially similar people that are situated some considerable distance apart will frequently develop their own dialect of what was a common root language and will if the degree of geographic separation is great enough, develop what may come to be regarded as separate languages.
When individuals migrate from one end of their home country to the other, they will often encounter some slight difficulty understanding the dialect of the people they eventually settle among, but this is rarely a significant problem and usually such people are quick to adapt to and adopt the mode of speech of their new neighbours.
Similarly, if someone from the Netherlands (Dutch) migrates to Germany (Deutsch) the main difference they will notice is the difference in language, and in this case the difference in language is not that great, not much more pronounced than might exist between two dialects, however if they were to migrate to say England or the Czech Republic, the language difference would present a somewhat greater challenge albeit that there are still many similarities in the languages concerned because of their common origin.
When someone from the Netherlands migrates to the UK, they usually experience little difficulty settling in to the new environment and becoming attuned to their new neighbours, because racially they are indistinguishable from the British and other than regarding language, the culture they grew up with is identical in most respects to the culture they encounter in this new country. Migration of this sort therefore does not present any significant problems, the migrant soon feels comfortable with his new neighbours and they with him.
However, where migration takes place across continents such that the migrants concerned move between communities where there may not have historically been any linguistic, cultural or genetic links for a hundred-thousand years or more, the problems encountered will by comparison be massive and it is in these situations that the naive assumptions made by liberal thinking prove most dangerous.
Someone migrating to the UK from sub-Saharan Africa for example may have originated within a community that speaks a native language which in structure is nothing like the Aryan family of languages spoken in Europe, let alone a Northern European language that is predominantly Germanic in origin. Some sub-Saharan African languages for example are not even composed of what we would recognise as words, but a series of audible clicks.
Furthermore, such a migrant may originate from a community whose native culture never independently developed a system of counting higher than ten, never independently developed agriculture, never domesticated the horse, never invented the wheel, metalworking, knitting or the weaving of cloth and had no system of writing. For such an individual, even though such artifacts may have been introduced to their native community by Arabs or Europeans during colonial times, a sudden plunge into 21st Century British society will inevitably provide a ‘culture shock’ and present major difficulties.
The individual concerned may be bright enough to learn accomodate many of the cultural differences, but it is easy to imagine that this will not be without a significant amount of nervous stress. The fact that this individual’s forebears never felt the need or the desire to devise themselves many of the basic cultural artifacts that are fundamental to we Europeans, strongly suggests that these cultural artifacts are not something that the migrant concerned will have a natural affinity with and they will consequently continue to feel a degree of subconscious stress even in situations where they have manage to adapt to the use of those artifacts. We can call this on-going stress, ‘cultural stress’.
A consequence of this cultural stress, combined with the added stress created by having a physical appearance that is significantly different to everyone around them means that migrants of the kind described here will have great difficulty feeling at ease or ‘at home’ in their new environment and the alienation they feel will become a constant factor influencing the way they behave.
Psychologists tell us that people ultimately conform to the environment in which they find themselves and where individual migrants make the immense commitment to adapt to a completely alien culture they will ostensibly appear to conform to European norms of behaviour providing there are no major crises that they encounter. Under these circumstances they may appear to be just like their new European neighbours, appearing to dress the same way, to share the same tastes and to conform as I say, to the same European standards of behaviour, forming friendships with some of their White neighbours.
Should a crisis occur however, it is highly likely that the migrant will under pressure, react in a different way to their White neighbours who have the benefit of a hundred-thousands years or more of divergent behavioural adaption, especially when the migrant will already be experiencing a significant degree of background cultural stress coping with their new and significantly different cultural environment. The migrant is likely to be more agitated and excited by any such crisis than their indigenous counterparts would be and this strange behaviour would be very likely to cause problems between them and others with whom they might interact and would be likely to cause them to make poor choices in terms of how they should react during such crises – adopting inappropriately violent responses, for example.
In situations where inter-continental migration has involved large numbers of migrants rather than relatively isolated individuals, it is easy to understand why the migrants concerned tend to settle, in concentrations — in close proximity to each other.
Long distance migration will almost always be for economic reasons and by settling in close proximity to each other, individual migrants are afforded the opportunity to form expatriate communities and retain some, if not all of their native culture and customs, thereby enjoying the economic benefits of migration with fewer of the stresses of cultural adaption.
The existence of such expatriate communities in turn makes the decision to emigrate to the country concerned so much easier and the type of individual who might choose to migrate need not be restricted to those who are most prepared to adapt their behaviour. Mass migration makes migration a realistic proposition even for those individuals who have little or no desire to adapt culturally and as the expatriate community they form expands, so an area forms within a town or city where the prevailing culture is no longer that of the indigenous European people, but that which is native to the immigrant community.
Just as isolated immigrants will experience cultural stress, feeling uncomfortable and alienated within a cultural environment that is foreign to them, so too do the indigenous Europeans feel stressed, uncomfortable and alienated when they find that an area of their home town has been transformed into something ‘alien’, into what they see as an immigrant ghetto. In this way the indigenous population inevitably grows to resent the formation of immigrant enclaves and just as the immigrants concerned naturally strive to establish an area the cultural character of which is in keeping with their genetically determined behavioural preferences, so too do the indigenous population strive to limit, contain and reverse the cultural changes that the immigrants have brought with them. In this way inter-ethnic strife manifests as a struggle takes place for dominance between two or more disparate cultures.
In such situations, the social pressure for further immigrants to adapt to the indigenous culture of the country to which they have migrated is diminished as they tend to minimise the time spent outside of that part of the town or city they have transformed and which has become ‘theirs’.
When they venture out of their enclave, perhaps to go to work, they find themselves again temporarily exposed to the indigenous European culture, with which they come to associate feeling out of place, with feelings of discomfort and alienation and they rationalise these feelings as the effects of ‘institutional racism’. Furthermore, they interpret the existence of what they see as ‘institutional racism’ and the reluctance of the indigenous Europeans to change their culture to accommodate the different genetic predisposition of the immigrants as a form of racial oppression inflicted upon them by White people.
It is easy to see from the above why multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial societies inevitably become dysfunctional societies with high levels of violence and with seething rivalry and enmity between disparate communities that have become uncomfortably juxtaposed. Indeed it is so obvious that the creation of a multicultural society is a recipe for communal misery and strife, that one wonders why liberals persist in attempting to deny the undeniable.
Even when someone of a liberal disposition averse to the idea that European culture is in any way superior to the cultures of the Third World, or that Europeans are more able to create and sustain high technology societies than the peoples of the Third World , the explanations laid out above still demonstrate the fundamental flaws inherent within the concept of a multicultural society and explain why every multicultural or multiracial society ever created has inevitably become a dysfunctional society.
The only solution is to acknowledge the racial basis of culture and that if people are to live in harmonious communities we must dismantle the dysfunctional mess that liberals have created and persuade those immigrants who are racially incompatible with the indigenous peoples of Europe to return to their countries of origin.
By Max Musson © 2015
# # # #
Walter Greenway
- Edit
Concerning language.
Clicking on google translation services one might discover that four and a half clicks, for example ‘clickclickclickclickcla’ could either mean ‘time to go home’ or ‘clear off go back’. Dependent on the glottal emphasis used by a particular African tribe.
Max Musson
- Edit
I couldn’t possibly comment further, Walter! 😀
Walter Greenway
- Edit
Click, click, click, click.
Being accustomed as I am, to consciously thinking in the English language, I have spent the day trying to get my head round to thinking in African ‘clickerish’.
As you can see I have nearly mastered it.
Max Musson
- Edit
Have you considered Morse Code?
rerevisionist
- Edit
Very nice setting-out of perfectly logical beliefs about long-term development of races and peoples. Just a small niggle: ‘natural selection’ is something that happens with no human interference. So the feedback effect on children of any human group isn’t ‘natural selection’, but is ‘artificial selection’, though this phrase is usually applied to domesticated animals. There doesn’t seem to be any common phrase on children who suit their humanised environment being favoured. Maybe one could be found and pupularised? Just one slogan may have a significant effect.
NB it should be ‘expatriate’ (i.e. away from a native place) rather than ex-patriot (someone no longer patriotic).
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Rerevisionist, I always view ‘natural selection’ as selection that takes place ‘naturally’ and without conscious intervention by humans. I regard humans as ‘natural’ creatures with ‘natural’ habits, but I take your point as I know that many people regard everything that we humans do as ‘un-natural’ or ‘artificial’ as you put it.
.
You are right that it would be useful to have a single word or succinct phrase to describe the cultural feedback effect on future generations, perhaps we should open the quest for this up as a competition for all our readers?
.
PS Thanks for the tipping me off regarding my spelling mistake.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
It is a well known cultural phenomena that a good way to quell a Negro street riot and getting the rioters to disperse is by playing loud classical music. Likewise, playing Negro music has been used by supermarkets to help move shoppers on and prevent them lingering unduly. One of the pernicious aspects of modern life is the extent to which we’re constantly exposed to alien cultural forms, be it hideous ‘brutalist’ architecture or the constant bombardment of our ear drums by the inane, deracinated pap which serves as background music in most public places now.
Culture can either enhance our racial well-being or it can undermine it. A priority for our programme of racial survival must be to build on the Aryan traditions which will sustain our morale in the face of the current decadence.
Shaun
- Edit
Oh no! We can’t be reading this! A common sense attitude pertaining to race! What next? An acceptance of the scientific basis of individual differences? The facts of history being taught to the kiddies in our schools? Huge masses of people letting their biological needs, desires and proclivities (high culture for Whites) dictate how they construct their own environment?
No! Back to the TV! Nothing to see here…. The anti-reality of the left will lead to a multiracial utopia. Even if it takes a thousand years of riots, hatred, and civil discord, right?
Maurice
- Edit
This must be one of the best articles that Max has published. The ideas being presented here seem perfectly reasonable and should not offend the most politically correct even if they do not share his opinions on the influence of genetics on society. Max does not perpetuate the perverse ideas about race of Social Darwinists or National Socialists, so there is nothing in Western Spring about a hierarchy of races. Rather, his ideas are in accord with cutting edge research on the human genome which confirms the reality of race. A science writer called Nicholas Wade has reviewed most of the recent research into genetics and race and published his own interpretation in a book titled ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’. The book cites evidence for the physical adaption of human races by natural selection such as Tibetan’s tolerance of high altitudes. It is already widely accepted among geneticists that ‘the forces of natural selection have continued to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display directional selection in the past 15,000 years’ as Wikipedia puts it. However, what makes the book really controversial is that it ‘suggests that small genetic differences between members of different groups can have large impacts on their abilities and propensities, which in turn affect the outcomes of the societies in which they live’ as one reviewer put it. I think that it is the possibility that there could be genetic differences in the brains of human races that seems most perplexing and troublesome for liberals, because it challenges the doctrine of everyone being equal at birth. This doctrine developed in the enlightenment as liberals challenged the inherited privileges of the aristocracy and then became reinforced by the perverse ideas about race of Social Darwinists and early eugenicists. Yet evidence exists for differences in the brains of domestic cats compared to their wild forbears that can be linked to adaptions of their genes in 9000 years of evolution, so it is plausible that separate human groups could also also diverge in the development of their brains over 50,000 years.
Thus the belief of liberals that people who have originated from societies that evolved separately from Europeans will produce offspring that will become like us once they are raised in a European environment is questionable. The evidence seems to show that they do not become like us, even after three generations, and that the children and grandchildren of immigrants who arrived here in the 50s and 60s demonstrate their inability to adapt by occasional riots, segregation, lack of social mobility and instances of predatory behavior towards white females.
What is happening today is a massive social engineering experiment on the peoples of Europe, North America and Australia based on assumptions that are unproven, and whose outcome may not be known until a hundred years time. If it should turn out that race is more than skin deep and that western civilization has been compromised as a result of immigration, there will be nothing anyone can do about it because the changes made to our society will be irreversible.
Max Musson
- Edit
Maurice, Thank you for your complimentary remarks and your observations regarding the dangers and folly inherent within the multicultural/multiracial ‘experiment’. You would be wrong however to assume that my enlightened description of the factors at play in causing multiracial/multicultural dysfunction is a denial of Social Darwinism or a refutation of National Socialism. It is simply a more sophisticated and agreeable way of presenting ideas that have perhaps been presented rather too crudely in the past.
.
In ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’, Nicholas Wade goes through the obligatory ritual of denouncing Social Darwinism and National Socialism while at the same time expounding ideas which demonstrate that these now demonised thought trajectories are correct, because it would be impossible for him to get his books published by any mainstream publisher if he did not. One should not make the mistake of believing that such genuflection is always sincere.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I think the people behind all of this know that’ll break down & that’s what they truly want, so as to destroy our society.
The propaganda talks of the way the “Nazis” slowly tightened the screws & that’s what is happening to us.
The same result too, chaos & destruction.
Nicholas Mitchell
- Edit
Im a yank…yeah yeah yeah. ..lol. the problems that you euros are describing, is unfortunately the same in the states. But we have a plan of sorts. Look up ” northwestern American republic” . Hell, at least it’s something. Good luck my white brothers!!!
.
Check out “northwestern american republic” its our yank plan b.
Max Musson
- Edit
Good luck to you too Nicholas, many of us here in the UK are familiar with the Northwest project and we hope that Harold Covington is able bring the Butler Plan to fruition. However, if I were you, I would regard it as ‘Plan A’, rather than ‘Plan B’.