By: Steve Sailer
October 3, 2004
The Iraqis’ fierce resistance to foreigners (us) invading their country was predictable on any number of grounds. But perhaps the most interesting is the most fundamental: the theory of “ethnic nepotism.” This explains the tendency of humans to favor members of their own racial group by postulating that all animals evolve toward being more altruistic toward kin in order to propagate more copies of their common genes.
Even the notoriously fractious Afghan Pashtuns think in terms of: “I against my brother. My brother and I against my cousin. My cousin and we against the world.” (Note that, by maintaining a smaller footprint in Afghanistan and letting the Afghans go back to being Afghans, we’ve provoked much less nationalist backlash there.)
You may not have ever heard of ethnic nepotism before. That’s largely because the most media savvy-explicators of Darwinism—such as Richard Dawkins, recently voted Britain’s top public intellectual by Prospect magazine—are terrified that their entire field might be tarred as “racist” if the concept is given a fair public discussion.
Disgusted by white oppression of Africans, van den Berghe became a fairly conventional liberal on race. But, as he overcame his Eurocentric focus on white crimes, he realized that race-based exploitation and violence are universal human curses. This led him to sociobiology and its bedrock finding: the late William D. Hamilton‘s theory of kin selection and inclusive fitness—the more genes we share with another individual, the more altruistic we feel toward him.
There are no clear boundaries between extended family, tribe, ethnic group, or race. So van den Berghe coined the term “ethnic nepotism” to describe the human tendency to favor “our people.”
Ethnocentrism, clannishness, xenophobia, nationalism, and racism are the almost inevitable flip sides of ethnic nepotism. (I say almost because it’s important to note that you can be patriotic and work for the good of your own fellow citizens without overtly wishing ill toward any other country. Nonetheless, even patriotism still implies discrimination against noncitizens.)
Hamilton, the leading evolutionary theorist of the second half of the 20th Century, had figured out the mathematics and extraordinary implications of an explanation for nepotism that had been kicking around half-formed among biologists.
Hamilton pointed out that it was often useful to think of “survival of the fittest” from the point of view, as it were, of individual genes. A gene that encourages you to sacrifice your life to save two brothers or eight cousins would tend to spread.
Hamilton used his new perspective to explain a mystery that had perplexed Darwin a century before: the extreme degree of nepotistic self-sacrifice among social insects. Worker ants give up reproducing in order to help their sister, the queen, reproduce on a vast scale. Hamilton pointed out that while most species’ siblings share 50 percent of their genes, ant sisters share 75 percent. This makes self-sacrifice by workers more genetically profitable.
This gene-centric viewpoint was made understandable to the reading public by Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 book Sociobiology and Richard Dawkins’ celebrated 1976 book, The Selfish Gene . (A better title for Dawkins’ book would have been The Dynastic Gene, since your genes spread by helping promulgate copies of themselves in one’s relatives).
“Impossible, I thought, this can’t be right. Too simple… By dinnertime, as the train rumbled on into Virginia, I was growing frustrated and angry… And because I modestly thought of myself as the world authority on social insects, I also thought it unlikely that anyone else could explain their origin, certainly not in one clean stroke… By the time we reached Miami, in the early afternoon, I gave up. I was a convert and put myself in Hamilton’s hands. I had undergone what historians of science call a paradigm shift.”
In 1975, Hamilton had extended his theory to humans. In a long essay entitled Innate Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics, (which appears in the first volume of Hamilton’s autobiographical Narrow Roads of Gene Land), Hamilton wrote:
“… I hope to produce evidence that some things which are often treated as purely cultural in humans—say racial discrimination—have deep roots in our animal past and thus are quite likely to rest on direct genetic foundations.”
Richard Dawkins’ tremendous career as a science journalist has been built on his talent at translating Hamilton’s formulas into engaging prose. But he has long denied the possibility of ethnic nepotism, even though Hamilton had published an elaborate model of it the year before Dawkins published The Selfish Gene.
This is the full one-hour presentation by the late Henry Lamb on the global environmental agenda that has been eroding our individual liberties for many years now. There was a short seven-minute clip of Henry Lamb’s presentation included in the article “Wildlands Project, Agenda 21, and Its Future Enforcers (Hardly Just the Bundy Ranch)” I posted here at TRP this week. So I thought it was worth posting the entire presentation.
Via YouTube description:
Henry Lamb’s full presentation to the Granada Forum on October 10, 1996. This is one of the first presentations of the Global Environmental Agenda to the public. Much of the global agenda he explained then is now reality, and what many scoffed at then is accepted now as fact.
FYI: There are lot of good source links under the “About” description for this video on YouTube.
Western press and media are having trouble distinguishing facts from Russian propaganda. This is understandable – the Russian propaganda machine is a mature and venerable institution that engages in an art that, for better or for worse, the West simply does not practice as often nor as effectively. The intent of this guide is to help those less accustomed to the ways of the Russian government to discern between reporting and propaganda. There are a few simple tell-tale signs.
Types of propaganda to look for – the signs, the impact, and the facts:
SIGN #1: Reporting that points to ethnic divisions and Kyiv’s Maidan as a source of unrest.
IMPACT: Western media call into question the stability of the interim Ukrainian government, and speculate that Ukraine is a hotbed of prejudice on the brink of civil war.
FACT: Modern Ukraine has no history of ethnic conflict. Furthermore, the Maidan was a gathering place for Ukrainians of all ethnic backgrounds:
Just like the United States of America, Ukraine is multi-national and diverse. Are the diverse United States capable of being a unified democracy? Sure! So is Ukraine
SIGN #2: Reports of murders and violence attributed to “banderite” and “fascist” radicals.
IMPACT: Western media wonders whether the democratic and human rights movement might not be a front for “extremists”.
FACT: Some of the new government’s detractors have used provocative slurs and the corrupt judicial system to manufacture or inflate charges to discredit the Maidan movement. Violent provocations have been staged by paid provocateurs in order to implicate activists in brutal crimes. Yet even the Ukrainian soldiers under siege in Crimea obey strict orders to maintain passive resistance – which they do, even as their friends and families are threatened by the occupying forces. The people of Ukraine are doing all they can to keep the peace in their pursuit of human rights and democracy. Theirs is a genuine quest for freedom.
SIGN #3: Assertions that ethnic Russians and Russian speakers are under threat.
IMPACT: Western media suspects the people of Ukraine of violent vengeance and spite instigated by the new government.
FACT: Russian media has broadcast images purportedly of refugees escaping to Russia through Ukraine’s Eastern border – but in fact those were Ukrainian businessmen in line at the Polish-Ukrainian border, a daily routine, just like that of Americans who do business in Canada. Such are the tools of Russian propaganda.
Russian language and culture thrive across the whole of Ukraine. Russian is one of Ukraine’s two state languages, and was re-affirmed as such by the president of the interim government. Russian media and publications are freely imported and available throughout Ukraine, and represent the majority of publications available in Kyiv. Russian media will undoubtedly continue to thrive as an integral part of the multi-national Ukrainian landscape. On the other hand, several years ago some Ukrainian-language schools were shut down by regional Yanukovych authorities. Over time the Ukrainian government may wish to come to conduct all its business in Ukrainian, and so will wish to assure all students have access to an education in Ukrainian, if they desire it. Just as the United States government conducts its business in English and still makes information available in other languages, so has Ukraine been meeting the language requirements of its people.
SIGN #4: Assertions that ethnic Russians in Crimea are at particular risk.
IMPACT: Western media question the fate of ethnic Russians in Crimea as a unique circumstance that justifies Russian government concerns in that region.
FACT: In Crimea, Russia leases from Ukraine land for military bases. These Russian bases account in part for the large concentration of ethnic Russians there. As for Ukraine serving the needs of ethnic Russians in Crimea, consider the ethnic composition of Crimea (based on the latest 2001 census), and the languages used in the 589 Crimean schools:
Ongoing shifts in the Crimean ethnic composition are due in part to the Crimean Tatars’ return from exile.
The Crimean Tatars were forcibly deported by the Soviet government over half a century ago. Since Ukraine declared independence in 1991, nearly 300,000 Crimean Tatars have been welcomed back to their homeland. In addition, Crimean Tatars have the highest birth rate in the peninsula.
The Ukrainian Revolution poses no threat to Russians in Crimea – but the Russian incursion into Crimea poses a very real and existential threat to the Crimean Tatars, who have pledged their allegiance to the government in Kyiv.
SIGN #5: Geographic obfuscation and confusion.
IMPACT: This decades- (centuries!) old canard calls into question Ukraine’s boundaries and its right to exist as a sovereign nation. This propaganda has permeated western media, from subtleties like training the English-speaking west to write about “THE” Ukraine (implying it is a region, not a country), to more overt tactics like standardizing Ukrainian city names to their Russian transliterations. (…./KYIV is the Ukrainian capital, and KIEV is the Russian transliteration of that name. For consistency, style guides should also apply the same Russian conventions to the capital of the USA, “Vashington”, and to the home of their founding Continental Congress, “Filadelfiya”. Why not? Such standardizations in the western press would be as valid as is “Kiev.”) Western adoption of Russian names for Ukrainian cities has helped Russia marginalize Ukraine as a sovereign nation.
Media standardizations have impact beyond their target readership: in the early days of Euromaidan, a couple of young Ukrainians spending a fearful night on the square were reading about “Kiev” in western press on-line. Demoralized, in their Facebook posts they wondered if the west could ever understand their goal, if the west could not even recognize their capital Kyiv as Ukrainian, not Russian. Morale and hope were critical to keeping the peace throughout the mass protests, and was undermined by misguided western style guides.
FACT: Ukrainian and Russian are distinct languages with common roots, also shared by Polish and other Slavic languages. Similarly, English and German share common roots, but are not mistakenly considered dialects of one another. As for history: Russia can no more claim Kyivan Rus’ as its origin than the United States of America can claim King Arthur’s Camelot as theirs.
SIGN #6: The reporting cites sources such as RT and Stephen F. Cohen whose assertions are often inconsistent with facts in evidence.
IMPACT: Western media prides itself on showing all sides of any story, and so disseminates propaganda in a doe-eyed pursuit of unbiased reporting.
FACT: “Propaganda” is not a “side”. It is an adversarial tactic intended to mislead and deceive. By reporting propaganda as an alternative perspective, western media becomes part of the machinery helping Putin advance his war-mongering cause.
Commentators whose observations are often egregiously at odds with verifiable facts: Stephen Cohen, Seamus Milne, William F. Engdahl, Mark Almond, Daniel McAdams, Vladimir Posner.
Russian-owned media outlets who have broadcast verifiably false information: It is important to keep in mind that Russian-owned news sources such as RT [Russia Today], Voice of Russia, ITAR-TASS, RIA-Novosti and other outlets operate under constant government guidance and suppression. Truthful newscasters risk great personal costs. Western media, operating freely, mock their courage every time the propaganda is ignorantly repeated, lending it a Western air credibility instead of countering it with data and facts.
LATEST SURVEY DATA
Facts, of course, must be supported by data, also amply available. For example, consider the results of polling performed by the Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (DIF) and Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. The polls were conducted over February 8-18, 2014, interviewing 2,032 respondents in all regions of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea:
Propaganda is a very powerful tool in times of war. Primary sources and data are readily available to verify the facts to counter that propaganda. Too many lives are at stake not to do so.
h/t: America’s Survival
By: Bob Owens
The natural reaction of the body politic is that it has begun generating massive amounts of cytotoxic T cells (the “killer T”) to fight the cancer. Those killer T cells attempting to save the body by fighting the cancer of government are the unorganized militia.
We’ve described the unorganized militia on numerous occasions at Bearing Arms (most recently here), and its role has never significantly changed. It exists as a bulwark against enemies both foreign and domestic. The Founders specifically included the self-evident right to keep and bear arms for a very simple reason. They’d just fought a long and costly war against a tyranny that was entirely legal, and wanted to ensure that citizens would be armed “with every terrible implement of war” to keep the new United States federal government in check, and if need be, depose that government and begin again.
We’ve watched the unorganized militia grow massively in recent years. We’ve seen citizens stockpiling arms and ammunition of contemporary military utility at a pace that exceeds the production of the Second World War. Down deep in their bones, Americans have felt the conflict between individual liberty and the corrupted greed of the state brewing. They’ve quietly took action as tensions rose, and the cancerous tyranny spread.
The killer T cells are growing and spreading in response to the threat of this cancer.
The clash between the cancer and the body politic may be imminent, and there is good reason to believe that the Bundy Ranch standoff could possibly develop into the catalyst.
Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Senator Harry Reid warns us that the battle over the ranch is far from over, and that the citizenry cannot be allowed to win:
Reid tells News4?s Samantha Boatman his take on the so-called cattle battle in southern Las Vegas. “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over,” Reid said.
In Reid’s diseased mind, the government must win, because the government must always win. The cancer must be fed.
The more I see of Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, the more I like what I see.
Fiore went at it with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last night and proved she can hold her own during a hostile interview.
You can see and read more about Michele Fiore at the links below:
h/t: The Right Scoop
Meet the Coalition of Western States Legislators formed in reponse to the Bundy Ranch Standoff.
h/t: Noisy Room
Via The Right Scoop:
Today Obama signed Ted Cruz’s bill that banned Iran’s terrorist UN Ambassador from coming into the United States, a bill that passed the Senate and the House without a single nay vote. But Obama apparently also issued a signing statement to the new law that said he would take the legislation as guidance, suggesting he may not enforce it.
She talks to J. Christopher Adams about it and plays some footage of Obama that Adams called ‘embarrassingly hypocritical’.
Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has launched a full federal investigation into President Obama and Senator Harry Reid’s involvement in the attempted land grab by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A 2010 memo titled “Internal Draft — NOT FOR RELEASE” that appears to lay the groundwork for such a seizure to take place.