Or another interesting comment--

"I disagree. I agree with what you're saying in principle, and in an ideal world, that'd be sweet - but we live in a world where we have real, tangible inequalities based on race, class, and ethnicity. The reason why there is a Black History Month or Cesar Chavez day is to draw attention to the plight of those minority groups in our country who continue to suffer inequality and adversity based on their socio-economic or racial status. It seems rather outrageous and slightly offensive to me to hold a day in honor of straight, white Americans, as there are tangible social and economic benefits in the US solely for being white and straight."

what the hell is this reddit faggotree?
go back to your 4chan-lite echochamber for morons and liberal tiddy baby faggots.

I also found it highly interesting that someone said, "meh I don't see what's wrong with this. As long as they aren't making it out like this makes them better than other people what's so bad about it?"

and another persons reply--

"Because it's obviously motivated by homophobia and/or racism. There's no other purpose -- gay pride events exist because gay people are widely marginalized. I would say the same about a "black pride" event, but I've never even heard of anything like that happening at a high school (or, well, anywhere in the mainstream). Straight, white people aren't discriminated against at anywhere near the same scale as gay people or ethnic minorities. What's the point of this, really? Don't kid yourselves."

>>2892210

I was posting it to hear other's thoughts about said faggotry.

"When white people get excluded, it hurts their feelings, but it doesn't really damage their job prospects or their access to society generally. Compare that with the real-world effects of racism against black people or latinos, such as false convictions in court or police brutality. White Heritage Day would exclude minorities that are already marginalized. So while technically any classification based on race could be considered racism, that's a theoretical definition that fails to account for the real world."

>reddit

found your problem. shits full of faggot liberals and shitty old 4chan memes. worst site on the net.

>>2892231
A billion times this

Here is reddit's opinions on racism described in a single picture.

>>2892184

When I read comments this stupid, I start to wonder if a democratic system is really worth the price of admission.

If niggers, homos, and other minorities are so repressed then they should just leave Western nations.

>>2892231
>>2892241

>doesn't really damage their job prospects

Are you FUCKING serious?

You think the affirmative action bullshit they pull on college admissions doesn't disadvantage whites and especially asians?

Pull your head out of your goddamn ass.

When the fuck have whites ever benefited from the color of their skin? The success enjoyed by whites is owed to their professionalism, politeness, ingenuity, education and civility, and anybody from any race can possess these qualities; just because they tend not to does not make a white conspiracy to exclude non-whites from employment and education. In fact, since the rise of guilt politics in the western world, being white and male has become more of a detriment than a benefit, and the only recent case I can think of where being white has helped anyone is if they look for employment in China.

And for the last time, white is not a skin color, it is a race.

>>2892273

Exactly. Not only this, but lets say you are at work and a Negro or other minority calls you "whitey" or "cracka" or some other racial slur. Chances are his comments will go unchecked and a slap of the wrist will occur, if that.

If that same white person called a minority a racial slur on the job site, it would result in immediate termination of employment and if not some severe form of punishment.

>>2892244
expand that to everything else besides race as well
reddit is the site for the middle class brainwashed tards who think they're somehow not middle class brainwashed tards. They think there sooo much better than everyone else as well..

reddit was the site that woke me up to how hypocritical liberals are, and how they censor as bad as conservatives do when someone challenges their precious, shitty, second-hand ideals

fuck the hivemind and anyone who takes that shit seriously
I hate you all reddit. you're the reason the internet sucks
go back to reading faggot xkcds and thinking your soooo intellectual

>>2892184

OP had his ass ripped out because he had too much ass sex. Butthurt fag is butthurt

What I find really pathetic is that straight white males allow the societies and civilizations that their ancestors built, often paid with in blood, to be so fucked over by liberal racial double standards. If we had any balls or brains whatsoever we would silence opposition to our dominance in our own nations and kick out these minority and liberal scum who hate us so much.

Why is this even an issue?

>>2892303

Holy shit you sound just like me. I used to browse reddit, but redditors themselves opened my eyes to the hypocritical and hateful nature of leftist retards. I used to be somewhat liberal myself, but after my experiences on reddit I actually grew to feel disgust toward people like them.

We, as a society, have lost touch with the basics of survival. These idiots can name over 9000 ways to prepare chicken, but if you put one on a desert island with a knife and a live chicken, the chicken would have a pretty good chance of outliving him.

>>2892273

Fucking butthurt whites. If a kid can grow up in the ghetto, be around niggers and poverty constantly, go to shit schools that babysit rather than teach, AND get even near enough you to take 'your' spot at a school, you didn't deserve it.

"It's not fair! I got everything growing up, I should get this too even though I'm marginal!"

>>2892322

Bring it on. Unlike you I'm not so pathetic I need to hide behind my race, and I love shooting stupid fucks like you.

>>2892342

What about whites who grew up in similar conditions or around ghetto Negroes and have their chances of success limited because of some exaggerated events that happened to blacks in the past? Why should a white person who's ancestor may have been among the original pilgrims and who's ancestors fought to create this nation be ousted by some Jamaican fresh off the boat just because the latter is black?

>>2892349

Minorities hide behind their race all the time. It's whites who usually deny racial differences and thereby allow themselves to be fucked over in their own countries. If you don't like it go back to whatever third world shithole your ancestors crawled out of.

>>2892322
I'm with you, bro.

>>2892322

exactly. imagine if the same thing happened in china. if a bunch of non-chinese started mass immigration to china, started demanding rights, and in china chinese males began to lose dominance in their own country. it would never fucking happen. these type of things only happen in western countries and only brainwashed westerners are dumb enough to let shit like this slide.

>>2892366

I have as little in common with white trash that share my ethnicity as I do with ghetto niggers. I don't owe them shit. If some kid is able to live through that war zone and become civilized anyways I don't care what color he is.

>>2892354
You're saying there's not tons of handouts given to white poor people?

>>2892434

I don't like white trash either, but not all poor white people are white trash. And though there are welfare programs for poor whites as well, there is no racial program specifically aimed at assisting whites over other races like there are for minorities. White men built this nation and fought all of its major wars into the modern era, and in our own country we are taught to be ashamed of being white.

>>2892434
>I have as little in common with white trash that share my ethnicity as I do with ghetto niggers.

Would you feel the same way if we substituted "my retarded brother" for white trash? Family comes first, whether you like it or not, and race/ethnicity IS family. Anyone who believes differently has been perverted from what is right and natural, and most importantly, ADAPTIVE.

>Negates black history month.

That's the point, you niggerlover.

>>2892456

Poor, stupid white = white trash = white niggers.

They don't even have the excuse of being black.

>>2892570

No, sister fucking ignorant shitheads making up myths about the south and trying to take accomplishments for the deeds of their betters aren't my family. My family always valued intelligence, self-reliance, and the ability to make the world better for ourselves. White trash have none of these, yet want to not only leech off me financially, but have me put down other races just so they can feel better. Fuck them. If a Mexican, Nigger, or Chink can produce, he's welcome in my family. That's ADAPTIVE. Propping up failures because they're white isn't.

And if I had a retarded kid I'd drown it.

>>2892456
You didn't want blacks to serve. Blacks did serve, though, and the fact that you marginalize their efforts to serve our nation is the exact poblem that led to black history month. When blacks try to do the right thing and you people get butthurt, and act like blacks did nothing, so blacks HAVE to get uppity to get their recognition.

And you used slave labor to build this nation. Unlike other minorities, you FORCED blacks to come here. This isn't like Europe with the Muslims (why show up in Europe if you hate the West?! lol). You did it to yourselves, and you're still trying to blame blacks.

>>2892830

All the wars prior to World War II were fought by white men. Negroes were slaves for a large amount of this time. White men colonized, conquered, explored, and built the civilization all the minorities chose to live in and this is why their importance to America far outweighs any other races.

And yet white males are now brainwashed to believe we have a responsibility to do whats good for groups, like Negroes, who hate our guts. They actually think tolerating this garbage is justified.

>>2892706

I know plenty of poor white folks who are of higher class and dignity than most. Sure, white trash does indeed exist, I don't deny that. However, poor white males are the most disadvantaged when it comes to benefits of Affirmative Action and stuff like it.

>>2892876

So wait, they're born white, don't have to deal with the stigma of being judged equal to other dumb niggers, fail utterly to achieve in spite of this, and they're disadvantaged? And have dignity because they don't?

Fuck that. They're worse than niggers. At least niggers will TRY and fight for themselves. White trash is happy to be a poor fuck being kicked around as long as the black niggers get it worse. And then claims I should join him in sucking the dick of a system which has fucked him, just because my skin is the same color. Like I said, they're worse than niggers, they're whiny failures of life.

Hey, guys. I struggle to get up in the morning. I hate that my job starts so early. People call me lazy and a bum, because I'm late in the morning sometimes, and I really don't like it. I think we should have a "Get Up Early in the Morning Struggle Month". I feel pretty oppressed.

>>2892706
>>2892706
>If a Mexican, Nigger, or Chink can produce, he's welcome in my family.

Yeah, and when enough Mexicans show up Galt's Gulch will be renamed Garcia's Gulch and you'll be relegated to janitorial duty. Rand will serve you about as well as being a MalcolmX scholar, when push comes to shove; ask anyone who's been incarcerated. You're living in a fantasy world, a luxury permitted to you by the accomplishments of people you'd consider beneath you. Hope you learn before it's too late, bro.

I love this thread.

>>2893045

I'm not an objectivist, I've read Rand's work and it's overly assumptive and stupid.

There's no reason I'll be a janitor even as a minority - I speak Spanish and have actual skills. I realize why the white trash is shitting themselves, though - they have nothing to offer but their skin color, and since they can't compete they're fucked.

>>2893045
Brofist lol.This is true.

That there is opposition to the very notion of straight white day is evidence that it's necessary.

>>2892903

What fantasy world do you live in where Negroes actually try and fight for themselves? All they do is play the race card and harp on how whitey keeps them down, its nearly their entire identity.

In any case, just because you are white doesn't mean you have some supreme advantage over other races and so therefore if you are not successful and white you are in fact worse than Negroes. Even if there were to be some sort of advantage for the underprivileged it should have literally nothing to do with race but with socio-economic status only.

And if you met niggers like I've met, you will instantly see that their subhuman nature is far lower than white trash even.

The problem with Black Pride, Gay Pride, etc. is that it automatically sets people against one another. It says that we are another group, distinct from you and we will celebrate it. However you (White people, straight people) cannot celebrate your difference from us.

Rather than say that we should all come together, it divides us and sets us against one another. I could care less about someone's sexuality, but once they start making a big deal about it, I am suddenly forced to define myself relative to them.

>>2893121

Sure is. How many lynchings of straight white people have there been in the past 20 years?

>>2893139

Uhhh actually Gay Pride is saying that gays aren't subhuman or mentally ill for their desires which are not the same as the majority of society. That they should instead be considered equally valid, which is pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming.

>>2893131
I live in the world where blacks Marched and boycotted their way to having civil rights.


You know, the actual world that exists...not the fantasy one you live in where accepting simplistic generalizations that fly in the face of reality is fine as long as it feels good

>>2893147
Quite a lot of racially motivated murders of straight white people have taken place in South Africa, actually.

>>2893147

Who cares? How many of those Negro lynchings were for actual crimes committed by Negroes. I am willing to bet a majority. Just take a look at the disproportionate amount of crimes committed by blacks today.

>>2893131

Niggers robbing whites, who have the money, is standing up in a fucked up way. White trash doesn't even do that - like I said, they just require that someone else is held below them, regardless of how low they are themselves.

And your own post proves my point - the fact that niggers are held to be subhuman, or EVEN IF THEY ARE, proves they don't have the advantages of whites.

It's impressive for a retard to be able to read, because they're lower than a normal person. My point is that white trash can't even do better than 'subhuman' niggers DESPITE not being subhuman niggers. Which is even more pathetic. If a retard can't read and you can't you're either a retard, or worse. White trash are either niggers or worse than niggers. Yet they want to claim they're my brother just because they're white.

>>2893165

Alright but what does civil rights have to do with anything? I am talking about blacks today, they have nothing to do with the civil rights movement. Jews and white liberals marched along with the civil rights movement as well, so it wasn't an explicitly black movement either. Their march for equality as evolved into a sense of entitlement.

>>2893168

Yup, that Matthew Sheppard was just raping any white woman he could.

>>2893100
>There's no reason I'll be a janitor even as a minority - I speak Spanish and have actual skills.

Except only white people think this way -- ethnic nepotism is very real, though outside of your experience. Pedro will give your job to his cousin, even if he's only half as competent as you.

>>2893198
Lol your logic is flawless so we should keep sub humans in a cage do you agree?

>>2893209

Yeah, that's why rich white people don't hire Mexicans, or Indians, or anyone else but white people.

>>2893198

Just the fact that you think niggers robbing whites who have money is standing up to them proves you are mentally unsound. In a shitty economy even skilled whites can become poor, so being poor and white doesn't automatically make one white trash.

You say whites aren't your brothers--try going to prison. That same white guy will be your brother, because in prisons it is race vs race. Spend some time around some prison blacks and see if you think there better than poor whites.

>>2893228

I really don't give a shit, they don't affect me. Since I'm not white trash I'm not competing with ghetto niggers or immigrant beaners for resources. Idiot white trash affects me more, since they vote and the others don't.

>>2893232

Yeah right, almost every white rich construction business owner or restaurant owner hires Mexicans in large numbers.

>>2893232
Yes, but it's only wrong if white people do it.

>>2893233

WHY WOULD I GO TO PRISON? I'M NOT STUPID WHITE TRASH! I don't need to cook meth to make a living. White trash are so fucking dumb they wind up in prisons which are cages for niggers. And yet you're arguing they're not niggers?

And yeah, if I was an ignorant nigger the best way to better myself is to rob white people. I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's MORE effort than white trash puts in.

>until people don't raise their kids encouraging the idea of heterosexual relationships, then every fucking day is your straight day."

Heaven forbid they want grandchildren and to see their genes pass on. I wish I could put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

>>2893245
This is true you have a fucked up way at looking at things if you think a black person robbing a white person is justifiable because they have money and now no one can take you serious.

>>2893249
>>2893261

Sarcasm there guys. What I'm saying is anyone worth a shit cares about what someone can do, not their stupid racial identity.

>>2893162

How at all am I implying that? I'm saying that people shouldn't define themselves by their sexuality. We should see people as people.

>>2893268

I never said it was justifiable. I said it was, from the stupid thug nigger with no other option's perspective, probably the best move FOR THEM. If a nigger robbed me I'd immediately have the police after them, which is the best move FOR ME.

Just because you can understand the motive for someone else's actions doesn't mean you approve of them or won't punish them for taking them.

>>2892864

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html

Blacks served on both sides of the Revolutionary war. Stop trying to ignore people's efforts.

>>2893279

> It says that we are another group, distinct from you and we will celebrate it. However you (White people, straight people) cannot celebrate your difference from us.

Gays aren't celebrating their difference, they're celebrating that though different they should be equal. Fine difference but important.

>>2893277

Racial identity is not so stupid. Like it or not most humans identify with their race, ethnicity, and culture. If people do not recognize they are part of a wider family called a race and stick together, other races will do so to the other race's disadvantage. I agree that you should judge people by individual merits over merely their race, but at the same time a folk needs to stick together.

>>2893306
You just ruined your argument

I've yet to see any stormfag actually refute OP's quote. Seriously. Anyone have anything thought out to debate? Spewing "faggot" "libfag" etc. doesn't make a good one.

>>2893318

People identify with their class far more than their race. It's why Bryan Gumbel and rich Latino heirs go to more fancy white parties than you.

>>2893326
Everything must be equal and that means a white history month as well we all get it or no one does period

>>2892864

Another Stormfag that doesn't know his history. Ever heard of the buffalo soldiers?

>>2893302

Still the amount of their service and their contribution to the building of America, aside from slave labor, is near zilch compared to white Americans. Aside from this, the amount of crime and violence they commit each year nullifies any positive contribution they may have ever done.

>>2893343

This doesn't change the fact that people identify with their race. Even among upper classes racism is to be found. Even if this is the case, it wouldn't mean that poor whites shouldn't stick together over poor people of other races.

>>2893360

They can do whatever they want. Like I've been saying, I'm not a poor ignorant white. So I don't give a shit about them. I have much more in common interest with a middle class Latino or Chinese than I do with white trash.

fuck reddit. /thread

Black history month isn't even about pointing out social injustices or celebrating black history, it is about reinforcing two main ideas. 1) White guilt. The idea that whites should be ashamed of the supposed atrocities of their ancestors. and 2) Black entitlement and indifference (hatred) toward whites. Besides this every other month of history has interjections about mistreatment of blacks or Indians.

If they really wanted racial equality, they would not have any racial history month and wouldn't create such a me vs. them attitude among people.

>>2893374

Yeah well white middle class liberals are often concerned with lifting up the black man, helping out Africa, enforcing political correctness, and preventing racial consciousness among whites. These same liberals often could give two shits about poor whites and in fact mock them in an attempt to prove that blacks are no worse than whites.

>>2893384

>implying white trash doesn't also hate niggers when they try to integrate

>>2893406
Niggers hate everyone lol whats your point?

>>2893406

>implying anyone who spends a good deal of time around real niggers like those from Camden, Philly, and Detroit doesn't hate niggers.

>>2893399

>Yeah well white middle class liberals are often concerned with lifting up the black man

No, the middle class cares about money and status only. That's one of their distinguishing characteristics, and a reason

Middle class people DO care that ability is rewarded, as they are workers. A large part of the reason for their support of civil rights was this, and not wanting to compete against black labor kept artificially cheap by Jim Crow.

>helping out Africa
Aside from Christian charities nobody gives a shit about Africa

>enforcing political correctness
99% of political correctness was made up by the right. The remaining 1% was overexaggerated caricatures of revisionist academic positions held briefly in the 90s, which overcompensated for past racial bias in an attempt to define events neutrally.

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ANYMORE. It's a boogeyman among conservatives.

>and preventing racial consciousness among whites.

Racial consciousness is the realm of idiots, as I've stated here. It's stupidiest in white people, who don't even have to band together.

>These same liberals often could give two shits about poor whites and in fact mock them in an attempt to prove that blacks are no worse than whites.

As I've stated, to me they're worse than stupid blacks, because white trash don't even have to deal with being black yet fail as bad as blacks.

>>2893384

>thinks racial equality will just happen on its own

From what I've gathered it's about making white recognise what massive assholes they were back in the day, and therefore encouraging them to reflect on how that shit. It's about education, that's all. I'm totally ok with that, the rest of you are just pussies who can't seem to handle a dissenting opinion.

When it comes to affirmative action...I dunno. I'm not entirely for or against. I can see why they'd want it; to give those blacks who actually want to advance themselves a chance against the prejudice they face, but at the same time it's a documented fact that poverty breeds idiots, and many blacks are poor. I think that we wouldn't need affirmative action if we just worked to combat poverty; as MLK said if you combat any one of the 'triple evils' you diminish the others. (The triple evils are racism, poverty and war).

>>2893326


What is to debate? They argue that Black History Month is an inclusive celebration of secular humanism., which if true, doesn't explain the reason that it needs a racial angle. It could very well be called Humanitarian Appreciation month.

they argue that Whites somehow benefit from the color of their skin. Where? Our society(which takes active steps to celebrate certain minority group's heritage, implements affirmative action that favors minorities, and whose academic institutions actively promote and therefor legitimize minority interests) is somehow deeply racist.

They argue that our society is "deeply white washed" while at the same time upholding the same old mantra of disparaging whites from showing pride in themselves as a group.

He goes on to claim that "we white people" are responsible for all of societies racism even tough many of us were not even born we histories most abhorrent acts took place, yet somehow we still have a moral obligation to share the collective guilt(but of course no collective pride) for the past, but doesn't acknowledge that collective guilt could, for example, be attributed to blacks for their role in slavery(tribal leaders involvement in the trade deal.

But most telling is despite all of his concern for the negative effects that lack of acknowledgment of black accomplishment could cause for the black community but fails to consider what the lack of positive group self identification(something all ethnicites posses as a part of healthy social well being) may do to whites.

ITT: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

>>2893455

should read "and a reason bourgeois was used as a perjorative at times"

>>2893384
THIS.

Black History is American history. I don't see why there has to be one.

Oh yeah, As you mentioned, White guilt and white hatred and also for Mcdonalds to put a plug-in for their shitty food.

I'm black and I say, fuck Black History Month.

liberals

The guy who started this was a black professor at some east side school.

It was originally 2 weeks, and he only did it so more history would be taught at schools surrounding the slave trade and whathaveyou. Ideally, he didn't want this to evolve into a month and the whole thing would eventually phase out once learning curricula were adjusted.

But now it got hijacked and turned into this monstrosity we have to live with.

Will people ever get sick of judging each other based on their skin color?

Probably not.

>>2893455

This post proves you are a total retard. You also sound like a sad, angry individual.

>Disenfranchise white people
>Claim they're privileged

>>2893487

HERP DERP I CAN'T ANSWER ANY OF YOUR POINTS BUT I STILL WANT TO POST!

>>2893493

Do you even know what disenfranchise means?

>>2893459

Whites weren't assholes back in the day. Everyone was assholes back in the day. People act like niggers and Indians weren't killing themselves before the white man came. If it wasn't whites exerting their dominance another race or people would do the same.

I think Teddy Roosevelt got it right,

The Winning of the West (1889–1896), Roosevelt's frontier thesis stressed the racial struggle between "civilization" and "savagery." He supported Nordicism, the belief in the superiority of the "Nordic" race, along with social Darwinism and racialism. Excerpts:

- "The settler and pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages."

- "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."

- "American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori, — in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."

- "..it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races."

- "The world would have halted had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands; but the victories of Moslem over Christian have always proved a curse in the end. Nothing but sheer evil has come from the victories of Turk and Tartar."

disenfranchisedpast participle, past tense of dis·en·fran·chise (Verb)
1. Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.
2. Deprived of power; marginalized.

refer to definition 2

ITT: White suburbanites comparing a minority of whites ("white trash") to an entire race. Steve Sailer is right: these posers are all about a white vs white status competition.

>As George Borjas says, ethnicity matters – and it matters for a long time.

>White anti-white racism is a broadly fashionable attitude that extends far beyond loonies like Ignatiev. I don't believe I've ever seen it formally explained, although Tom Wolfe's novels show it in action.

>The usual explanations of what drives whites like Ignatiev are "white guilt" or "self-loathing." But does Ignatiev appear as if he personally feels guilt or self-loathing?

>No—he sounds like he's having the time of his life arguing that you should feel guilt etc. He comes across as an arrogant, hostile jerk who thinks the world of himself.

>He wants to feel that he's better than other whites and to rub their faces in it. The bad guys in his book are Irish Catholics and Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Ignatiev himself is neither.

>And this is typical, in my experience: whites who proclaim their anti-white feelings don't really care much about blacks or other minorities, pro or con. What they care about is achieving social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their exquisite racial sensitivity and their aristocratic insouciance about any competitive threats posed by racial preferences.

>To these whites, minorities are just useful pawns in the great game of clawing your way to the top of the white status heap. Which, when you come right down to it, is the only game in town.

>>2893519
White people don't have power?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You aren't very fucking smart, are you? Here's a simple test, bitch.

"If the white race is so powerless, then you would clearly choose to be black if you could." True or false?

>>2893499

What points have you made that aren't entirely bullshit and worth replying to?

>>2892184

As I've said before anti-racism is simply a code word for anti-white

The OP's text argues that white don't need pride or celebration of their group, because in his view, their group already posses an over overwhelming amount of success in society, yet I never see the same arguments made for successful minority groups.

Asians for example are highly educated, highly prosperous group, yet somehow I never see these arguments used against Asian pride groups.

I'll be total /new/ cliche and also point out that jews as an ethnicity are extremely prosperous and not lacking in social power in America, yet I never see any objection to the numerous Jewish ethnocentric groups that abound.

>>2893549

The powers are largely in the hands of Jews and a very small minority of white corporatists who often support Jewish interests. So in general I think yes, the white man has lost his power.

>>2893549

I hate selfhating white people, its ok to be prideful, it isn't racist if you are, its racist if you put others down for their race.

>>2893536

Nope. I'm not calling middle class whites white trash, and I'm not equating the two at all. Quite the opposite. I've made it very clear they have nothing in common with white trash.

And thus they have no NEED to engage in white pride or solidarity or any of that other crap the white trash needs to try and excuse their own failure. Notice when idiot white trash goes on about the glories of the white race it's never anything they've done. Middle class whites don't give a shit about race because they're able. They're not worried about Mexicans coming over here to cut lawns, because they're not competing for yard work. White trash is.

>>2893585

Pride is what you have in something you earned, something you achieved, something you accomplished. Your so-called 'pride' is...being lucky enough to be born white. You're fucking pond scum white, but white nonetheless.

Chlorine for your gene pool would be too kind.

>>2893549
True. You shouldn't set yourself up to be knocked down so easily bro.

In any case, the majority of whites don't have power. It's an insulated community of CEOs, politicians, and academics who have power, and curiously enough they're the ones who wail the loudest and knash their teeth the hardest about the supposed white privilege. They don't acknowledge it as some sort of admission of what they have, they use it as a weapon to tell the lower class whites that they're the privileged ones and they're either ignorant or racist if they dare to protest that fact, but the noble wealthy politicians and academics are better than you poor, working class whites because at least they have the insight and tolerance to acknowledge your privilege.

>>2893596

There are working class, middle-class, and upper-class people who believe in white racial consciousness both now and throughout history so your argument fails.

>>2893585

The only people that need to be prideful in something as ambiguious as a 'white race' (which is not a unified culture, genotype, or any other grouping) are people that have nothing else going for them.

It's as dumb as American Negroes trying to trumpet the glory of ancient Africa, when it has no relation to them.

>>2893455
>Aside from Christian charities nobody gives a shit about Africa

Bill & Melinda Gates, Rockefeller Foundations Form Alliance to Help Spur "Green Revolution" in Africa

Major Effort to Move Millions of People out of Poverty and Hunger Begins with a $150 Million Investment to Improve Africa's Seed Systems

>>2893611

There's people of all types who believe in astrology as well, so what? It's still fucking stupid.

I'm not saying all middle class people believe the same as I do. I'm saying they should because it's in their best interest not to conflate what's good for them with what white trash wants.

>>2893596

This. The only time I ever hear 'white guilt' is from trolls, white trash and racists. Everyone else asks "Guilty about what?"

And I really don't understand why you're even support the idea of white guilt, cause it means you're admitting weakness and emasculating yourself.

>>2893612

Picking the white race instead of just a single ethnicity like German or Italian is suitable because in America there many various white ethnicities and white mixtures, so white American would be their identification.

On the other hand, the effects of globalization and a similar trend of non-white immigration into white Western nations gives all white people regardless of ethnicity a similar phenomena to resist.

>>2893616

meh, same difference, it's still charity. Most working white people could give a shit less about Africa one way or another. They're certainly not clamoring to give up any major money of their own, while the person I was responding to made it seem was liberal's main goal in life.

>>2893624

Cool opinion, bro.

>>2893549

>White people don't have power?

No, people who happen to be white have power.

But white people, as a group don't.

for example

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023025-503544.html


you have a major ethnocentric group meeting in the open with a leader of a major political party to discuss their ethnic interests nobody bats an eye.

another example

http://pressreleases.kcstar.com/?q=node/39196

Now could a similar group for whites do the same?

Whites as a group have no power, and whites as individuals are loosing power.


>You aren't very fucking smart, are you? Here's a simple test, bitch.

goddamn it's an honest to god internet badass

"If the white race is so powerless, then you would clearly choose to be black if you could." True or false?

So if I posed a similar question to a proud Cherokee

>"If the Cherokee people are so powerless, then you would clearly choose to be white black if you could." True or false?

and he answered no then that means that the Cherokee people are very powerful.


Your question ASSUMES that you have no ethnic pride to begin with and "power" is your only concern.

You accuse me being stupid? Your so ignorant you don't realize the assumptions in your own question. (which I understand you simply ripped it from a Chris Rock HBO comedy special)

hahahahahahahaha children

>>2893636

Really? Describe 'white culture' then. What are its traditional foods?

>>2893609
So you accomplished something being black/hispanic/other that makes you need to be prideful, you lucked out and were born that way, why do you have pride?

Is it because you're gay? If you can be proud of being gay, why can't I be proud of staying straight even though mass media in America is making it cooler to be gay?

Fuck off you ignorant hypocrite.

>>2893662

White culture would mostly entail people of white European heritage. Sometimes it gets more specific and means white Western Europeans. And sometimes it gets even more specific and can mean white Europeans of Germanic heritage.

The traditional foods would be the foods belonging to various white European cultures.

>>2893596
>They're not worried about Mexicans coming over here to cut lawns, because they're not competing for yard work.

Which confirms the quote: it's status competition among whites.
see>>2893536

>>And this is typical, in my experience: whites who proclaim their anti-white feelings don't really care much about blacks or other minorities, pro or con. What they care about is achieving social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their exquisite racial sensitivity and their aristocratic insouciance about any competitive threats posed by racial preferences.

>>2893646

I know, it is!

>>2893662

>What are its traditional foods?

cheese

>>2893665

Cool to be gay? You can't be fucking serious. Straight is and still more encouraged than homosexuality, especially in a country where a fucking exposed boob sends people into a fucking tizzy.

And it's not like someone's stopping you from being straight since well, fucking ever.

>>2893612
So being Black is very ambiguous, same with being Hispanic.
You have people from the Congo, Jamaica, Kenya, all of which are different types of Black, just like you have Spanish, Mexican, Ecuadorian all of which are Hispanic profiles.

Just because I said white pride, I'm in the wrong because we have the Anglo, Slavic and other profiles?

Equality is the same for everyone, why do I need to be less than them because some ancestors amongst the white race had slaves. I'm Irish, and there were a lot of Irish slaves in America. I want my White Pride day.

>>2893709
>And it's not like someone's stopping you from being straight
No one's stopping you from being gay, either.

>>2893662

whites share a history of exploration as such their food culture is flexible and varied.

Individualism is a feature of white culture.

>>2893725

Republicans want to. Especially the gay ones.

>>2893681

Uhhh if anything I'm bragging about being racially insensitive. I'm saying I don't care what color someone is, I care about what they produce.

And like I said, I don't worry about Mexican immigrants because I'm not competing with them. I might worry about Indian engineers, but my solution isn't to claim I need people to support me because I'm white, it's to be better than they are. A capable white guy is just as much competition to me as anyone else, so WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT HIM OVER ANYONE ELSE?

EVERYTHING is a status competition. That's the way people are. Myself, I'm interested in raising the status of myself, and raising the status of my social class can help with that.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your narrative that anyone thinking white pride is stupid is just trying to look cool by supporting niggers.

>>2893726

the western concept of "romance" is also very unique to white cultures. Compare traditional concepts of marriage, courtship, and mate selection in the rest of the world and you'll find that this concept is uniquely western.

>>2893680

>The traditional foods would be the foods belonging to various white European cultures.

Completely circular reasoning. White food is that which white people eat. Who are defined as white by being part of white culture. Which includes foods that white people eat. Who are people that are part of white culture . . .

As opposed to something like "Traditional Scottish foods include clabber and haggis". "Traditional French foods include coq au vin", etc. Notice how there's no generalities there?

>>2893786
>As opposed to something like "Traditional Scottish foods include clabber and haggis". "Traditional French foods include coq au vin", etc. Notice how there's no generalities there?
There's no food black people as an abstraction specifically eat either, dipshit. By that same token there is no black culture.

>>2893726

Right, there's no individuals in any other culture.

No culture disvalues either individual genius or aiding their community. It's a bullshit non-statement to say a culture values individuality. Might as well say they like good and hate evil.

>>2893774
Right, tales of love and courtship don't exist in every culture, and the western world didn't primarily use marriage as a property arrangement as well.

>>2893662
>>2893774

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm

In general, cultural uniqueness could derive from either nature or nurture—the same old ageless dichotomy, but I think now we are in a better position to deal with these issues than in times past, and I will be arguing that both are important. Western cultures have experienced certain unique cultural transformations that cannot be predicted by any biological/evolutionary theory, but they also have had a unique evolutionary history. Western culture was built by people who differ genetically from those who have built the other civilizations and cultures of the world. In the following I will argue that Western cultures have a unique cultural profile compared to other traditional civilizations:

1. The Catholic Church and Christianity.
2. A tendency toward monogamy.
3. A tendency toward simple family structure based on the nuclear family.
4. A greater tendency for marriage to be companionate and based on mutual affection of the partners.
5. A de-emphasis on extended kinship relationships and its correlative, a relative lack of ethnocentrism.
6. A tendency toward individualism and all of its implications: individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science.

>>2893821

My background is in the field of evolutionary biology, and one of the first questions that struck me when I was exposed to the evolutionary theory of sex was "why are Western cultures monogamous?" The evolutionary theory of sex is quite simple: Females must invest greatly in reproduction - pregnancy, lactation, and often childcare require an extraordinary amount of time. As a result, the reproduction of females is highly limited. Even under the best of conditions women could have, say, 20 children. But the act of reproduction is cheap for men. As a result, males benefit from multiple mates, and it is expected that males with wealth and power should use their wealth and power to secure as many mates as possible. In short, intensive polygyny by wealthy, powerful males is an optimal male strategy i.e., it is behavior that optimizes individual male reproductive success.

>>2893826

This theory is well supported. There are strong associations between wealth and reproductive success in traditional societies from around the world. Wealthy, powerful males are able to control very large numbers of females. The elite males of all of the traditional civilizations around the world, including those of China, India, Muslim societies, the New World civilizations, ancient Egypt and ancient Israel, often had hundreds and even thousands of concubines. In sub-Saharan Africa, women were generally able to rear children without male provisioning, and the result was low-level polygyny in which males competed to control as many women as possible. In all of these societies, the children from these relationships were legitimate. They could inherit property and were not scorned by the public. The Emperor of China had thousands of concubines, and the Sultan of Morocco is in the Guinness Book of World Records as having 888 children.

>>2893809

American negro cuisine?

The term soul food became popular in the 1960s. The origins of soul food, however, are much older and can be traced back to Africa -- and to a lesser extent, to Europe, as well. Foods such as rice, sorghum (known by Europeans as "guinea corn"), and okra — all common elements of West African cuisine — -- were introduced to the Americas as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. They became dietary staples among enslaved Africans. They also comprise an important part of the cuisine of the American south, in general. Many culinary historians believe that in the beginning of the 14th century, around the time of early Euro-African exploration, European explorers brought their own food supplies and introduced them into local African diets. Foods such as corn and cassava from the Americas, turnips from Morocco, and cabbage from Portugal would play an important part in the history of African-American cooking.[1]

Overall 'Black Culture' doesn't exist. Immigrants from Africa in the US have very little in common with American negroes. Overall white culture doesn't exist either, despite what stormfags claim.

>>2893786

Of course, but all of these groups are of white Western European heritage, a common culture that existed in Western Europe and was termed Christendom in the past. All of these groups have a common history and all are white, thus white is a poorly chosen name for Western European culture. Though it is suitable since Western Europeans are white.

Take the Chinese. All of the Chinese identify with China, but the Han are not the only Chinese ethnicity and subculture.

>>2893835

To be sure, there are other societies where monogamy is the norm. It is common to distinguish ecologically imposed monogamy from socially imposed monogamy. In general, ecologically imposed monogamy is found in societies that have been forced to adapt to very harsh ecological conditions such as deserts and arctic conditions.1 Under such harsh conditions, it is impossible for males to control additional females because the investment of each male must be directed to the children of one woman. The basic idea is that under harsh conditions a woman would be unable to rear children by herself but would require provisioning from a male. If these conditions persisted for an evolutionarily significant time, one might expect to find that the population would develop a strong tendency toward monogamy. In fact, one might imagine that the tendency toward monogamy could become so strong that it would result in psychological and cultural tendencies toward monogamy even in the face of altered ecological conditions. Later I will propose that this is exactly what happened in the evolution of Europeans.

Richard Alexander used the term "socially imposed monogamy" (SIM) to refer to situations where monogamy occurs even in the absence of harsh ecological conditions.2 Harsh conditions imply that men are needed to directly provision children, but in other situations we expect and generally find that males compete to have as many wives as they can command.

>>2893846

The First Example of Western Uniqueness

Whereas all of the other economically advanced cultures of the world have been typified by polygyny by successful males, Western societies beginning with the ancient Greeks and Romans and extending up to the present have had a powerful tendency toward monogamy.

Ancient Rome had a variety of political institutions and ideological supports that tended toward monogamy.3 The origins of socially imposed monogamy in Rome are lost in history, but there were several mechanisms for maintaining monogamy, including laws that lowered the legal status of offspring born outside monogamous marriage, customs opposing divorce, negative social attitudes toward non‑conforming sexual behavior, and a religious ideology of monogamous sexual decorum. Variations of these mechanisms have persisted throughout Western history down to the present.

During the period of the Roman Republic, there were also mechanisms that prevented political despotism by any one aristocratic family, including term limits on the consulship, having two consuls concurrently. Legal requirements for the political representation of the lower orders gradually developed e.g., the Tribune of the Plebes. There were also extensive laws that prevented close relatives from marrying. These laws prevented the concentration of wealth within kinship groups and thus prevented the predominance of any one aristocratic family.4

>>2893853


Roman monogamy was far from complete. This was especially so in the Empire when there was a general breakdown of the earlier family functioning due to increases in divorce, and a decline in the ideology of monogamous sexual decorum that typified the early Republic. Nevertheless, from a legal point of view, and at least in theory, Roman culture remained monogamous to the end. Polygynous marriage was never sanctioned in law, and children born outside of monogamous marriage had no inheritance rights and took the social and legal status of the mother.


Battles over monogamy became an important feature of the Middle Ages as the Catholic Church attempted to impose monogamy on elite males.5 The Catholic Church is a unique aspect of Western culture. When Marco Polo visited the Chinese in the 13th century and when Cortez arrived among the Aztecs in 1519, they found a great many similarities with their own society, including a hereditary nobility, priests, warriors, craftsmen, and peasants all living off an agricultural economy. There was thus an overwhelming convergence among the societies. But they did not find societies where the religious establishment claimed to be superior to the secular establishment and was successfully regulating the reproductive behavior of the secular elite. Nor did they find a king like Louis IX (St. Louis) who ruled France while living like a monk with his one wife and went on a Crusade to free the Holy Land.

>>2893826

Rich European men were polygamous, they just only had one legitimate wife who could produce a legitimate heir. Mistresses and concubines for powerful men were the rule of Western society.

This was done for property rights.

>>2893858

The Catholic Church was the heir to Roman civilization where monogamy was ingrained in law and custom, and during the Middle Ages it took it upon itself to impose monogamy on the emerging European aristocracy. To be sure, the level of polygyny found among European aristocrats in the early Middle Ages was quite low compared to the harems of China and the Muslim countries, but that may well have been due partly to the relatively undeveloped economic situation of the early Middle Ages. After all, the emperor of China presided over a vast and populous country with huge surplus economic production. They were much wealthier than the tribal chieftains of early medieval Europe, and they used that wealth and power to obtain vastly more women.

>>2893864
In any case, polygyny did exist in Europe, and during the Middle Ages it became the object of conflict between the Church and the aristocracy. The Church was "the most influential and important governmental institution [of Europe] during the medieval period" and a major aspect of this power over the secular aristocracy involved the regulation of sex and reproduction.6 The result was that the same rules of sexual conduct were imposed on both rich and poor. The program of the Church "required above all that laymen, especially the most powerful among them, should submit to the authority of the Church and allow it to supervise their morals, especially their sexual morals. It was by this means, through marriage, that the aristocracy could be kept under control. All matrimonial problems had to be submitted to and resolved by the Church alone."7

Attempting to understand the behavior of the Church during this period in terms of evolutionary psychology is beyond the scope of this paper.8 However, one might note that the desire for power is a human universal but, like all human desires, it need not be linked with reproductive success. In the same way, people desire sex, but engaging in sex does not necessarily lead to having lots of children even though Mother Nature designed it that way.

>>2893840
>American negro cuisine?
No. Black. As in the race, not blacks in America, in the same way you mean white people to evoke whites everywhere, as opposed to those of particular countries.

>>2893871

One unique feature of the Church is that its popularity was aided by the image (and reality) that the Church was altruistic. The medieval Church successfully portrayed the image that it was not concerned with controlling women or having a high level of reproductive success. This was not always the case. Before the reforms of the Middle Ages, many priests had wives and concubines. Writing of the French Church in 742, Saint Boniface complained to the pope about "so-called deacons who have spent their lives since boyhood in debauchery, adultery, and every kind of filthiness, who entered the diaconate with this reputation, and who now, while they have four or five concubines in their beds, still read the gospel."9

Nevertheless, reform among the clergy was real. No English prelate of the 13th century is known to have had a wife or family. Married clergy even at lower levels were exceptional during this period in England, and low levels of clerical incontinence continued into the Reformation period.

>>2893879

The Church therefore projected the image of chastity and altruism. Its power and wealth were not directed at reproductive success. True reproductive altruism appears to have been a factor in the very widespread attraction of extremely ascetic monastic lifestyles. This asceticism was an important part of the public’s perception of the Church during the high Middle Ages. During the 11th and 12th centuries thousands of monasteries were founded. Composed of celibate and ascetic males and recruited mainly from the more affluent classes, monasteries "set the tone in the spirituality of the whole church, in education and in art, [and] in the transmission of culture . . ."10 The image of monastic altruism was also fostered by an ideology in which the prayers of monks were believed to aid all Christians.

These orders provided a very popular public image of the Church. During the 13th century, mendicant friars (Dominicans, Franciscans) were instrumental in reforming the Church to extend the power of the Pope over the Church, to enforce rules on clerical celibacy, to prevent nepotism and simony (the buying and selling of Church offices), and to give the Church substantial power over secular powers, including the ability to regulate sexual relationships. "The voluntary poverty and self-imposed destitution that identified the early Mendicants with the humblest and most deprived sections of the population, in loud contrast to the careerism and ostentation of the secular clergy and the corporate wealth and exclusiveness of the monasteries, moved the conscience and touched the generosity of commercial communities."11

>>2893845

Again, describe the culture then.

You can't, because the idea of 'racial culture' is a false construct. Nor could you describe the idea of 'Asian culture' - the Thai are as different from the Mongolians as they are from the Russians.

You can describe 'American culture' or 'Chinese culture' because these were unified countries that as a result formed their own shared mannerisms. No such thing exists for 'whites' or 'blacks' as a whole.

>>2893884
It is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the whole of history that in the high middle ages . . . many members of the highest and wealthiest or at least prosperous strata of society, who had the best chances of enjoying earthly pleasures to the full, renounced them. . . The flow of new candidates was particularly impressive in those places where the rules of monastic life had been restored to their ancient strictness, imposed more rigorously or even redefined more severely. . . We must assume that the main motive for the choice of a monastic life was always the eschatological ideal of monasticism, even if this may have lost something of its driving force in the course of a long life or was mixed with other motives from the start.12

During the 13th century, the mendicant friars were typically recruited from the aristocracy, the landed gentry, and other affluent families. Their parents often disapproved of their decision, presumably because, like most parents, they wanted grandchildren. "It was a nightmare for well-to-do families that their children might become friars."13 These families began to avoid sending their children to universities because of well-founded fears that they would be recruited into a religious life.

At the center of society was an institution with an ideology that people ought to be altruistic, that they ought to be celibate even when they were born to wealth. This explains popular acceptance of the authority of the church in matters of marriage and sex, but it still makes one wonder why these well-off people were entering monasteries and becoming celibate in the first place. Like it or not, whatever else one might say about Western Europe during this period, eugenics was not a part of the picture.

>>2893896

The medieval Church was a unique feature of Western culture, but a theme of this paper is that in critical ways it was most un-Western. This is because medieval Europe was a collectivist society with a strong sense of group identification and commitment, and I will be arguing that Western societies are also unique in their commitment to individualism—that in fact individualism is a defining feature of Western civilization.

The collectivism of Western European society in the late Middle Ages was real. There was intense group identification and group commitment to Christianity among all levels of society, as indicated, for example, by the multitudes of pilgrims and the outpouring of religious fervor and in-group fervor associated with the Crusades to free the Holy Land from Muslim control. The medieval Church had a strong sense of Christian group economic interests vis-à-vis the Jews, and often worked vigorously to exclude Jews from economic and political influence and to prevent social intercourse between Christians and Jews.14

As described above, there were also high levels of reproductive altruism, particularly among the mendicant friars, many other religious personnel, and eventually the secular elite. Reproductive altruism among the secular elite was mainly the result of coercion but there are also cases of voluntary restraint, as in the case of Louis IX of France—St. Louis. St. Louis was not only a paragon of proper Christian sexual behavior. He also had a powerful sense of Christian group economic interests vis-à-vis the Jews and he was heavily involved in the crusades to return the Holy Land to Christian control.15 Europeans considered themselves part of a Christian in-group arrayed against non‑Christian out-groups (particularly Muslims and Jews) who were seen as powerful and threatening enemies.16

>>2893900
There were indeed gaps between the ideal of a unified Christian society based on the power of the Church and sexual restraint among the elite. But these gaps must be balanced by the recognition that many medieval Christians, and especially the central actors in medieval society such as: The monastic movements, the mendicant friars, the reforming popes, the fervent Crusaders, the pious pilgrims, and even many elite aristocrats, saw themselves to be part of a highly unified, supranational collectivity. It is this fundamentally collectivist orientation—so foreign to contemporary Western life—that renders the high levels of group commitment and altruism characteristic of the medieval period comprehensible in psychological terms.
Social Controls & Ideology Maintaining Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe

In Western Europe the Church adopted an ecclesiastical model of marriage that was diametrically opposed to the reproductive interests of the aristocracy. As a direct result of these efforts, there was a transformation of family structure and the social imposition of monogamy by the Christian Church by the end of the 12th century. The following factors appear to have been most important in the imposition and maintenance of monogamy:

>>2893910

Prohibitions on Divorce. Wealthy males benefit most by being able to divorce easily because they can more easily remarry. While divorce was common in other Eurasian societies and was legal among the pre-Christian tribes of Europe, the Church’s point of view was that marriage was monogamous and indissoluble. Divorce became ever more restricted under the Christian Roman emperors, and between the 9th and the 12th century the Church engaged in a successful conflict with the aristocracy centering around a series of divorce cases involving the nobility. For example, in the late 12th century, King Phillip of France was prevented from divorcing his wife even though he disliked her and she was infertile. The king had to apologize to a group of religious personnel at an abbey in Paris.

>>2893916

At times divorce was allowed, but only if the goal was to obtain a male heir in cases where the first marriage had failed to produce one e.g., Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine in Medieval France. (But the Pope did not allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife even though they did not produce a son.) Divorce "was virtually impossible except for a handful of the very rich" in England until the reform of 1857. But even then divorce rates remained very low. "In those parts of Europe that had legalized divorce in the sixteenth century, it was three hundred years and more before any line of divorce could be distinguished from the horizontal axis of a graphic depiction of divorce rates." In England the divorce rate remained at less than 0.1/1000 marriages until 1914 and less than 1/1000 until 1943 (Stone 1990); in 1910 no European country had a divorce rate higher than .5/1000population. So far as I know, this powerful tendency in opposition to divorce is unique to Western European civilization.

Penalties for Illegitimacy. From an evolutionary perspective, the most crucial aspect of social controls related to reproduction is the control of concubinage. Controls on illegitimacy oppose the reproductive interests of wealthy males by making concubinage difficult or impossible and by affecting the prospects of illegitimate children by, e.g., preventing them from inheriting property.

>>2893884

Church apologist ignoring that powerful church leaders often had children, one of the reasons Catholic priest chastity was forced on in the 1000s. Also ignoring the fact that the second sons of powerful families were put into the church so that (a) estates were not divided and (b) those church leaders would be able to help the decendents of the OTHER members of the family, especially the inheriting ones. Kinship effect - as a man I want to know that my grandchildren are succeeding as well as my kids, as it implies my genes will do better.

Read The Red Queen, it deals quite well with this.

>>2893922
The Church was actively opposed to concubinage, especially concubinage in the presence of a legitimate wife. It would appear that social controls on the abilities of illegitimate children to inherit were often effective. Church held the attitude that legitimate marriage produced legitimate children and that others had no legal standing, although in certain periods bastards had more standing than others (see below). The estates of bastards were subject to confiscation by the Church or the state, so that even if a man wanted to leave property to a bastard his wishes could be thwarted by the authorities. Bastards disappeared from wills altogether during the Puritan era in England.

Besides direct Church influence, there were a variety of other penalties attached to illegitimate birth arising from the secular authorities and public opinion. Being the father and especially the mother of an illegitimate child were causes for ostracism and jail, and it was common for the woman to take every effort to conceal the pregnancy, including leaving the area. These social controls had effects on mortality of illegitimate children. Infant mortality was higher for illegitimate children in both early modern England and France. Women often abandoned illegitimate children. Illegitimate children were often reported as stillborn, indicating infanticide, and women sometimes sought to avoid bearing illegitimate children via abortion.

>>2893929

Controls on Concubinage among the Elite. Controls on concubinage by elite males became increasingly effective during the Middle Ages. The 12th century thus appears to be pivotal. There are good examples from this period of elite males who were able to avoid social and ideological controls favoring monogamy as well as examples where such individuals were entirely monogamous. The general patterns may be perceived by considering the illegitimate fertility of English kings. Ten of the 18 kings who ruled England from 1066 to 1485 are known to have taken mistresses, and are known to have fathered 41 illegitimate offspring who can be identified with a fair degree of certainty. Henry I, who ruled from 1100 to 1135 sired 20 of these, and 5 more are listed as probable. No other Medieval king sired more than 3, and no certain illegitimate children are recorded for 8 of the kings. Henry I is unique in his apparent interest in obtaining large numbers of offspring to further his territorial ambitions. However, Henry treated his illegitimate children far less well than his legitimate children, the latter being pampered, tutored at court, and prepared for life as great nobles. Bastards, on the other hand, were excluded from inheriting the throne, and they were often not offered marriages. Reflecting the general change in attitudes and practices related to marriage occurring in the 12th century, there is a decline in both the numbers and importance of illegitimate children in the following centuries.

>>2893935

Policing Sexual Behavior in the Middle Ages and Later. One of the prime goals of the medieval Church was to police sexual behavior outside of monogamous marriage Policing sexual violations was an important function of the ecclesiastical courts beginning in the Middle Ages and extending at least to the end of the 17th century. These courts were very active in 17th century England prosecuting cases of fornication, adultery, incest, and illicit cohabitation. Although the effectiveness of these ecclesiastical sanctions varied by region and period, there were examples of devastating consequences in which "the victim was hounded by his fellows, deprived of his living by a community boycott, and treated as an outcast".

In the 17th century the ability of the High Commission of the Ecclesiastical Court system to impose sanctions, including sanctions for adultery, on the propertied who could expect to be immune from other judicial processes: "This enforcement of equality before the law did not endear the court to those who mattered in seventeenth-century England".17 The secular authorities, such as justices of the peace, also stood ready to prosecute such offenses. For example, pursuant to Elizabethan statutes, Justices of the Peace in the 16th and17th centuries commonly sentenced sexual offenders of both sexes to a public whipping while stripped to waist (the woman "until her back be bloody") and placed in the stocks.18

>>2893922

>implying lack on inheriting for illegitimates stopped concubinage

Right, that's why there weren't hordes of illegitimate sons of rich men

>>2893937

Ideologies Promoting Monogamy. Although ultimately relying on social controls, the Medieval Church developed elaborate ideologies to promote monogamy and sexual restraint. In general these writings emphasized the moral superiority of celibacy and the sinfulness of extra-marital sex of any kind. All sexual relationships, apart from monogamous marriage, were universally condemned by religious authority throughout the early modern period into contemporary times. Marital sex was viewed as a regrettable and sinful necessity, and excess passion towards one’s wife was considered adultery. While there was a relative relaxation of attitudes during the 18th century, a powerful anti-hedonist religious sexual ideology rose to prominence in the 19th century.

Conclusion. Beginning in the Middle Ages an elaborate system of social controls and ideologies resulted in the more or less complete imposition of monogamy in large areas of Western Europe. "The great social achievement of the early Middle Ages was the imposition of the same rules of sexual and domestic conduct on both rich and poor. The King in has palace, the peasant in his hovel: neither was exempt."19 Nevertheless, the system was by no means completely egalitarian. There was a positive association between wealth and reproductive success throughout pre-industrial Europe.

>>2893944

In Western Europe there has been a remarkable continuity within a varied set of institutions, which have penalized polygyny and channeled non-monogamous sexuality into non-reproductive outlets or suppressed it altogether. Despite changes in these institutions and despite vast changes in political and economic structures, Western family institutions deriving ultimately from Roman civilization have clearly aimed at the social imposition of monogamy. By and large, this effort has been successful.

Effects of Monogamy

Monogamy is a very central aspect of Western uniqueness with some important effects. Monogamy may well be a necessary condition for the unique European "low-pressure" demographic profile.20 This demographic profile results from late marriage and celibacy of large percentages of females during times of economic scarcity. The connection with monogamy is that monogamous marriage results in a situation where the poor of both sexes are unable to mate, whereas in polygynous systems an excess of poor females merely lowers the price of concubines for wealthy males. For example, at the end of the 17th century approximately 23% of both sexes remained unmarried between ages 40-44. But, as a result of altered economic opportunities, this percentage dropped at the beginning of the 18th century to 9%, and there was a corresponding decline in age of marriage. Like monogamy, this pattern was unique among the stratified societies of Eurasia.21

>>2893950
In turn, the low-pressure demographic profile appears to have had economic consequences. Not only was the marriage rate the main damper on population growth, but this response, especially in England, had a tendency to lag well behind favorable economic changes so that there was a tendency for capital accumulation during good times rather than a constant pressure of population on food supply:

The fact that the rolling adjustment between economic and demographic fluctuations took place in such a leisurely fashion, tending to produce large if gradual swings in real wages, represented an opportunity to break clear from the low-level income trap which is sometimes supposed to have inhibited all pre-industrial nations. A long period of rising real wages, by changing the structure of demand, will tend to give a disproportionately strong boost to demand for commodities other than the basic necessities of life, and so to sectors of the economy whose growth is especially important if an industrial revolution is to occur.22

>>2893957

There is therefore some reason to suppose that monogamy, by resulting in a low-pressure demographic profile, was a necessary condition for industrialization. The overall pattern, then, is not one in which there is a constant tendency toward late marriage and/or celibacy in females. Instead, marriage is influenced by economic constraints. In times of prosperity the age of marriage for both sexes declined and fewer females remained non-reproductive. The result was a marriage system which is highly sensitive to resource availability: "An important distinguishing feature of Europe, the pivot upon which the system turned, was the flexible marital regime, which allowed population to adjust to economy."23 This suggests that monogamy may indeed be a central aspect of the necessary architecture of Western modernization.

Monogamy and investment in children. Polygynous mating systems tend to result in resources being devoted to reproduction and relatively less to investment in children. For a male in a polygynous society it is attractive to invest in another wife or concubine and her low investment offspring.24 In polygynous societies, investment in additional concubines tends to have a large payoff and requires little investment in children. Offspring of concubines were typically given relatively small inheritances and allowed to descend the social ladder. There is a low sex ratio of offspring among harem women—a preponderance of daughters.25 In theoretical terms this implies a bias toward low investment offspring because in general it is easier for females to be able to mate.26 Although the daughters of these concubines will have low social status compared to their father, they will tend to mate. On the other hand, sons of the upper classes were targets of dowry competition for lower status families. In either case, there is little need for fathers to invest time, energy, or money in the offspring of their concubines.

>>2893959

Monogamy, however, restricts the investment of individual males to the offspring of one woman. With the decline in extended kinship relations (see below) and the institutionalization of monogamy on all social classes, support for children came to rest completely upon the independent nuclear family. As described below, this "simple" family was the critical vehicle of Western modernization.

Decline of Extended Kinship Relations and the Rise of the Simple Household

As in the case of monogamy, the Church also had a role in the decline of extended kinship relationships. In this case, however, Church policy was aided by the rise of strong central governments, which discouraged extended family relationships and replaced the role of the extended family in guaranteeing individual interests.

>>2893965

From an evolutionary perspective one can scarcely overestimate the potential importance of kinship relationships. Because of the ties of biological relatedness, kin are expected to have common interests and lower thresholds for cooperation and even self-sacrificing behavior. The Germanic tribes who settled much of Western Europe at the end of the Roman Empire were organized as kinship groups based on biological relatedness among males. They tribes had a strong sense of group solidarity based on these ties of kinship. "Since the early Germans could not rely upon the protection and assistance of a bureaucratic empire when they were threatened with attack or famine, it was incumbent upon each man and woman of the community to adhere to the fundamental sociobiological principle of group survival embodied in the bonds of familial and communal solidarity."27 It was this world of tribally based kinship groups that the kings and the Church wanted to eradicate.

>>2893976

Forces Opposing Extended Kinship. The eradication of large, powerful kinship groups was in the interests of both the Church and the aristocracy. A higher degree of centralized state power by itself has a tendency to lessen the importance of extended kinship relations, especially if that power protects the interests of individuals. From an evolutionary perspective, extended kinship groups have costs and benefits. The benefits accrue from the protection and support provided by the wider kindred, but these benefits entail costs in terms of: 1.) increased demands by kin for reciprocated services; 2.) the fact that kin will tend to prevent any individual from rising too much above the others in the kinship group; and 3) the difficulty of establishing oneself in a kinship structure which is far from egalitarian. As a result, individuals are expected to avoid becoming enmeshed in extended kinship groups when their interests are protected by other institutions i.e., the benefits of extended kinship are removed, but the costs remain. In general individuals tend to seek the protection of the extended kinship group when centralized power fails, and they correspondingly flee the extended kinship group when state power is sufficient to protect their interests.28

>>2893983

The picture one gets is the gradual development in the West of an aristocracy based on the simple family and freed from obligations to collateral kin dominating a peasantry characterized by the simple family and embedded in a society of neighbors and friends, not an extended kinship group. This social structure was an achievement of the late Middle Ages. Extended kinship relations were not important among the peasantry in late Medieval England or France.29

Church Policy. For its part, the Church contributed to the eradication of extended kinship ties in Western Europe by opposing consanguineous marriage (marriage of blood relatives) and supporting marriage based solely on consent of the partners. In the case of consanguinity, the Church prohibited marriage between an ever-expanding set of individuals. In the sixth century the prohibition was extended to second cousins and by the eleventh century it was extended to 6th cousins i.e., individuals with a common great-great-great-great-great grandfather. Clearly these prohibitions on consanguinity go far beyond those predicted by evolutionary theory.30 Moreover, biological relatedness was not crucial here, since marriage was forbidden to similarly distant affinal relatives (i.e., relatives by marriage) as well as to individuals with spiritual kinship (i. e., relatives of godparents). The effect of the policy was to undermine extensive kinship networks and to create an aristocracy freed from obligations to the wider kin group.

>>2893986

Whatever the rationale given to these prohibitions by the Church, there is evidence that the aristocracy obeyed the ecclesiastical rules. There were very few marriages closer than 4th or 5th cousins among the French nobility of the 10th and 11th centuries.31 These practices weakened the extended kinship group, since the expanded range of incestuous marriages prevented the solidarity of extended kinship groups by excluding "the reinforcing of blood with marriage."32 The result was that biological relatedness was spread diffusely throughout the nobility rather than concentrated at the top. The direct descendents of the family rather than the wider kinship group also benefited: "Men in high secular positions . . . strove to consolidate their fortunes and their families in order to secure as much as possible for their direct descendants to the detriment of wider kin."33

In addition to its policy on consanguinity, the Church’s doctrine of consent in marriage acted as a force against extended kinship relationships. "The family, the tribe, the clan, were subordinated to the individual. If one wanted to marry enough, one could choose one’s own mate and the Church would vindicate one’s choice."34 Marriage came about as a result of consent and was ratified by sexual intercourse. By removing the fundamental nature of marriage from the control of the family and the secular lord to the individuals involved, the Church established its authority against the traditional ties of kinship and family. Freedom of choice of marriage partner was the rule in England throughout the modern period and that parental control was exercised only in the top 1% of the population.35

>>2893996

An Ethnic Basis for Western Individualism

The Magian [Eastern] man is but part of a pneumatic "We" which, descending from above, is one and the same in all members. As body and soul he belongs to himself alone, but something else, something alien and higher, dwells in him, making him with all his glimpses and convictions just a member of a consensus, which, as the emanation of God, excludes all possibility of the self-asserting Ego. Truth is for him something other than for us i.e., for us of specifically European mentality. All our epistemological methods, resting upon the individual judgment, are for him madness and infatuation and its scientific results a work of the Evil One, who has confused and deceived the spirit as to its true dispositions and purposes. Herein lies the ultimate, for unapproachable secret of Magian though in its cavern world — the impossibility of a thinking, believing, and knowing Ego is the presupposition in all the fundamentals of all these religions.

The Faustian Worldview: "In Wolfran von Eschenback, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and Goethe, the tragic line of the individual life develops from within outward, dynamically, functionally." " . . . willing to question even God if the mask that he shows—or is said to have shown—rings hollow when struck," Oswald Spengler.36

>>2893965

>Monogamy, however, restricts the investment of individual males to the offspring of one woman

AHAHAHAHAHA sure thing. Just because I can only leave my estate to one child doesn't mean I can't support many others growing up while I'm alive.

>>2893998

Thus far one might suppose that the creation of the individualistic nuclear family based on consent and love, monogamy, and the decline in the importance of extended kinship is simply the result of the social processes I have mentioned. But the fact is that these changes occurred much more quickly and much more thoroughly than in other parts of the world. The Western world remains the only culture area fundamentally characterized by all of the markers of individualism: Monogamy, the conjugal nuclear family, representative government with individual rights against the state, moral universalism, and science. Further, this culture was built on the robust base of Roman civilization, which had several of these features. I suggest therefore that these tendencies are unique to the Western European culture area and that they have an ethnic basis. I do not suppose that Western Europeans have any unique biological adaptations, only that we differ in degree in adaptations characteristic of all humans and that the differences are sufficient to enable the evolution of a unique human culture. Similarly, all humans have the distinctively human mental abilities like symbolic representation and language, but races show quantitative differences in IQ sufficient to have major effects on their cultures—perhaps sufficient to result in at least some qualitative differences.

>>2894003

I suggest thatover the course of their recent evolution, Europeans have been less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by Fritz Lenz, who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency toward social isolation.37 Such a perspective would not imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical environment than at competing with other groups, and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups.38 Evolutionary conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in-group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support large groups.

Reddit is full of white guilt, minority cocksuckers. In other news, the sky is blue.

>>2893996

Is this actually claiming that the European aristocracy wasn't extremely inbred?

>>2894009

European groups are part of the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area.39 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and marriage tends to be exogamous i.e., outside the kinship group. All of these characteristics are opposite those found in the Middle Old World culture area, comprising the lower part of Eurasia. This culture group includes Jews and similar Near Eastern groups.

This scenario implies that Northern European peoples are more prone to individualism because they existed for a very long period in an ecological context that did not support large tribal groups based on extended kinship relations. Based on mitochondrial DNA, around 80% of European genes are from people who arrived in Europe from the Middle East 30-40,000 years ago.40 These populations persisted through the Ice Ages. Presumably European populations who evolved in the cold and cloudy environments of the North for 40,000 years developed not just blond hair and blue eyes but temperaments and life style preferences to go with it.

>>2894016

These populations were hunters and gatherers, not agriculturalists. Because of the relatively low level of economic production, hunting favors male provision of females.41 This is because the energetic requirements of the human brain can only be met with a high quality diet. The human brain makes up only 2% of body mass but requires 20% of all energy, 70% in the fetal period. This then led to pair bonding—the psychological basis of monogamy—in which there is cooperation between nurturing females and provisioning males beginning around 500,000 years ago. Hunting also required "considerable experience, quality education, and years of intensive practice"42—in other words, it requires high-investment parenting. It also pulls for intelligence because hunting for humans relies on cognitive abilities rather than running ability or strength. The hunting scenario is complex and ever changing.43 Every animal species as well as individuals demonstrate unique behavioral characteristics depending on internal conditions of sex, age, weather, topography, etc. All of these trends are intensified in Northern areas because there is less energy per unit area.

>>2894026

The historical evidence shows that Europeans, and especially Northwest Europeans, were relatively quick to abandon extended kinship networks and collectivist social structures when their interests were protected with the rise of strong centralized governments. There is a general tendency throughout the world for a decline in extended kinship networks with the rise of central authority.44 But in the case of Northwest Europe this tendency quickly gave rise, at least by the late Middle Ages and probably earlier, to the unique Western European "simple household" type. The simple household type is based on a single married couple and their children. This household style was typical of Scandinavia (except Finland), British Isles, Low Countries, German-speaking areas, northern France. It contrasts with the joint family structure typical of the rest of Eurasia in which the household consists of two or more related couples, typically brothers and their wives.45 Before the industrial revolution, the simple household system was characterized by late age of marriage as well as methods of keeping unmarried young people occupied as servants and circulating among the households of the wealthy. The joint household system was characterized by earlier age of marriage for both men and women, a higher birthrate, as well as means of splitting up to form two or more households when the need arises.46

>>2894032

This simple household system is a fundamental feature of individualist culture. The individualist family was able to pursue its interests freed from the obligations and constraints of extended kinship relationships and free of the suffocating collectivism of the social structures typical of the rest of the world. Marriage based on individual consent and conjugal affection quickly replaced marriage based on kinship and, even considerations.

This relatively greater proneness to forming a simple household type is likely ethnically based. Not only does the simple household make compelling ecological sense for people adapted to harsh climates, but as previously pointed out, this tendency is stronger among the Germanic peoples. It is an intriguing finding that there are major differences within France corresponding to the division between the Germanic peoples who lived northeast of "the eternal line," which connects Saint Malo on the English Channel with Geneva in French-speaking Switzerland. This area developed large-scale agriculture capable of feeding the growing towns and cities, and did so prior to the agricultural revolution of the 18th century. It was supported by a large array of skilled craftsmen in the towns, and a large class of medium-sized ploughmen who "owned horses, copper bowls, glass goblets and often shoes; their children had fat cheeks and broad shoulders, and their babies wore tiny shoes. None of these children had the swollen bellies of the rachitics of the Third World."47 The northeast became the center of French industrialization and world trade.

>>2893819

>The nail which sticks out will get hammered (Japanese Proverb)

You're an ignorant, parochial moron

>>2894048

The northeast also differed from the southwest in literacy rates. In the early 19th century, while literacy rates for France as a whole were approximately 50%, the rate in the northeast was close to 100%, and differences occurred at least from the 17th century. Moreover, there was a pronounced difference in stature, with the northeasterners being taller by almost two centimeters in an 18th century sample of military recruits. Ladurie notes that the difference in the entire population was probably larger because the army would not accept many of the shorter men from the southwest. Family historians have noted that the trend toward the economically independent nuclear family was more prominent in the north, while there was a tendency toward joint families as one moves to the south and east.48

These findings strongly suggest that ethnic differences are a contributing factor to the geographical variation in family forms within Europe. The findings suggest that the Germanic peoples had a somewhat greater biological tendency toward individualism—a greater tendency toward nuclear family social structure because of selection occurring in a prolonged resource-limited period of their evolution in the north of Europe. These groups were less attracted to extended kinship groups, so that when the context altered with the decline of extended kinship networks, the simple household structure occurred quickly. This simple family structure was adopted relatively easily because this group already had relatively powerful psychological predispositions toward the simple household system resulting from its unique evolutionary history.

>>2894053

Although these differences between the Germanic peoples and other areas of Europe system are important, they do not belie the general difference between Western Europe and the rest of Eurasia. Although the trends toward simple households and the demographic transition occurred first in the northwest of Europe, they spread relatively quickly among all the Western countries.

Another element of Western uniqueness was the custom of placing young people from peasant families as servants in the homes of others in areas of Northwest Europe characterized by the simple family. Between 30 and 40% of the youth in pre-industrial England were in service, the largest single occupational group until the 20th century.49 The practice of taking in servants went beyond simply providing for one’s needs by bringing in outsiders. People would sometimes have their children go to work as servants elsewhere while at the same time taking in unrelated servants.50 It was not just the children of the poor and landless who became servants, but even large, successful farmers sent their children to be servants elsewhere. In the 17th and 18th centuries individuals often took in servants early in their marriage, before their own children could help out, and then passed their children to others when the children were older and there was more than enough help.51

>>2894059

This suggests a deeply ingrained cultural practice, which resulted in a high level of non-kinship based reciprocity. The practice also bespeaks a relative lack of ethnocentrism because people are taking in non-relatives as household members. These pre-industrial societies are not organized around extended kinship, and it is easy to see that they are pre-adapted to the industrial revolution and modern world generally. In the rest of Eurasia, there was a strong tendency for households to consist of kin.52

Interestingly, in a sexually competitive society such as classical China, the female servants would be concubines of the head of the household,53 so that the resources of the household could be directly translated into reproduction. Thus in the Western European model wealthy males were supporting far more non-relatives than in the sexually competitive societies of Eurasia. It is intriguing that hunter-gatherer societies living in harsh climates often have very elaborate systems of reciprocity aimed at sharing resources such as meat. I suspect that the system of non-kinship based reciprocity so typical of pre-industrial Western Europe was another relic of a prolonged evolution in harsh northern climates.

>>2894068

This establishment of the simple household freed from enmeshment in the wider kinship community was then followed by all the other markers of Western modernization: limited governments in which individuals have rights against the state, capitalist economic enterprise based on individual economic rights, and science as individualist truth seeking. Individualist societies develop republican political institutions and institutions of scientific inquiry that assume that groups are maximally permeable and highly subject to defection when individual needs are not met.
Individualistic Marriage: Consent, Love, and Companionship as the Basis of Marriage

The rise of the simple household based on consent between the partners meant that personal qualities of the mate became more important compared to the situation where families are enmeshed in extended kinship relationships. In situations where the extended family reigns supreme, marriage is typically consanguineous and affected by family strategizing. In the simple household system, the personal characteristics of the mate become more important, i.e., all those characteristics on which humans choose mates, including intelligence, personality, psychological compatibility, and socioeconomic status.

>>2894080

While collectivist societies emphasize genealogy and degree of genetic relatedness in marriage, individualist societies tend to emphasize personal attraction, e.g., romantic love, common interests.54 John Money has noted the relatively greater tendency of Northern European groups toward romantic love as the basis of marriage.55 Frank Salter has suggested that Northern European groups have a number of individualistic adaptations related to sexual behavior, including a greater tendency toward romantic love and genetic rather than social control mechanisms to prevent cuckoldry.56 At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism involves mechanisms like romantic love in which adaptive behavior is intrinsically rewarding57 rather than imposed by family strategizing or coerced, as in collectivist cultures. It is the difference between individual courtship between freely consenting and more or less equal partners, versus institutions like the purdah of Near Eastern civilization where the woman is sequestered and controlled by her male relatives until an arranged marriage is concluded.

There has been a trend, beginning in the Middle Ages, toward the companionate marriage based on affection and consent between the partners, eventually affecting even the marriage decisions of the high aristocracy.58 "Whereas in industrial Western societies the emotional relationship between man and wife is primary, it is not the pivot of social structure in the majority of societies."59 Indeed, this is a general point of contrast between Eastern and Western stratified societies.60 The idealization of romantic love as the basis of monogamous marriage has also periodically characterized Western secular intellectual movements, such as the Stoics of late antiquity and 19th‑century Romanticism.61 It’s not that love and affection between mates do not exist in other societies; it is just that there is greater emphasis on this in Western societies.

>>2894084

Individual consent to marriage, a characteristic of Western marriage since the Middle Ages, is expected to result in individuals weighing more heavily the personal characteristics of a prospective mate. One effect of this is greater age parity in marriage partners. Relative age parity of spouses combined with a late age of marriage is a mark of the Western European system of marriage.62 The age of marriage for women was higher in Western Europe than elsewhere in Eurasia or Africa, including peasant societies characterized by joint families.63 Indeed, in a large English sample from 1550-1775 the average age of marriage for females fluctuated around 26 years of age until 1675, when it began a decline to slightly above 24 years of age in 1800.

Another consequence of the simple household was that affection and pair bonding became the basis of marriage. Marriage became much less a matter of political alliance between and within kinship groups or a purely economic affair, or simply an aspect of sexual competition, and became based on interpersonal attraction, including affection. Affection within marriage became a cultural norm with the rise of the simple household. The Western phenomenon of courtship (unique among the cultures of Eurasia and Africa) provided a period in which prospective mates could assess personal compatibility; in Malthus’ terms, an opportunity was given for both sexes "of finding out kindred disposition, and of forming those strong and lasting attachments without which the married state is generally more productive of misery than of happiness."64

>>2894092

Individualism & the Decline in Ethnic Consciousness Among Europeans

Thus far I have sketched a scenario, which may be summarized by saying that Western Europeans are relatively non-ethnocentric because of a prolonged period of natural selection in an adverse environment where extended kinship relationships had relatively little utility. Freed from the shackles of extended kinship relationships, Westerners returned to their roots, readily adopting the simply household which set in motion all the other features of modernization: companionate marriage, individual rights against the state, representative government, moral universalism, and science. The result was an extraordinary period of creativity, conquest, and creation of wealth that continues into the present. However, one of the theses of my books on Judaism is that individualism is a poor strategy compared to cohesive group strategies. In the West, extended kinship groups were eliminated as a necessary prelude to modernization, but this did not eliminate between-group competition entirely. Beginning in the 19th century there has been competition between Jews as a collectivist, ethnically conscious group and Western individualistic elites.

Anthropologically, Jews derive from the Middle Old World Culture area. This culture area is quite the opposite from the characteristics of Western social organization. As indicated in Table 1, Judaism is collectivist and highly prone to ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and moral particularism.65

>>2893585
You're a bro. I wish more white dudes were like you: not insecure about your race, but not racist either. It's ok to be white and proud. It's not ok to be racist.

The problem is, well, white people are just so racist! The worst part is the denial. In another thread, they were comparing middle class blacks to poor whites in academic performance. The blacks weren't keeping up with their poorer white bros. Instead of listening to the post by the guy who claimed it was due to poor intellectual development in impressionable years (because, well...niggas don't read), what do whites latch on to? Race. Race, race, race. If there is a discrepancy, whites ALWAYS blame it on race. Then, after CENTURIES of nothing but race this and race that, they wonder why niggas hate them. Like they expected another outcome. I just don't fathom it.

It really is entirely white people's fault. They started all this race based nonsense. And instead of just moving on when they said they would (now we know what your promises are worth, lol) they kept at it. Racism, all the way up until now. And like I said...they don't even have the balls to do it overtly anymore. Now they claim niggas have it fine and dandy, while they are still being as racist as they can. It really is despicable behavior.

Just stop being racist (and sexist while you're at it). Why is that so hard for whites?

>>2894321

Obvious white troll is obvious