The Language of Racial Psychology


This short article, How Evolutionary Psychology Illuminates Everyday Life, by Glenn Geher, highlights a few common idioms which have to do with group relations. These two are particularly interesting:

4. Eye for an eye.

I’ve written extensively that we are giving, altruistic species (see Geher, 2015). But we’re not dumb. The nature of altruism in a species like ours is conditional – we tend to help in a strategic manner. We tend to help people who have helped us in the past. Helping others who don’t help you leads to a scenario of possible exploitation, and evolutionary forces would have selected against such non-reciprocated helping (see Trivers, 1971). Similarly, it’s not good social policy to be a punching bag. If you let someone walk all over you and don’t retaliate, then (a) that person learns that he or she can continue to be a jerk to you and (b) others come to see you as exploitable. The whole “eye for an eye” things helps us understand all of these dynamics.

2. Tail between your legs.

Across many species, dominance hierarchies exist in social contexts (see Geher, 2014 for a summary of this concept). And lots of non-verbal behavior is associated with dominance-related contexts. When two dogs squabble for dominance, the loser takes on a unique and highly observable posture – it walks away with its tail between its legs. This is a signal that it has tried to achieve a higher status position than it really warranted – and is now signaling all this information to the others. When a person makes a bold social move that fails, you can see it in his or her face – as if he or she is a dog walking with its tail between its legs.

It’s easy enough to apply these terms to the anti-White/pro-jew zeitgeist. In the wake of the last big squabble for dominance seven decades ago the non-reciprocating eye-for-an-eye jerks have dominated and exploited the dumb punching bag losers, flaunting “our” altruistic norms not only without retaliation but with Whites instead tucking tail.

This way of describing the psychology seems more illuminating than the “pathological altruism” rhetoric I’ve been criticizing recently.

8 thoughts on “The Language of Racial Psychology”

  1. Many Whites are so simplistically gullible they direct their altruism to the least deserving. Then herd instinct takes hold and draws others into more of this misdirected altruism.
    Most Whites are very shallow.

  2. I always found Manfred Roeder’s explanation for the German acceptance of Holocaust guilt very interesting (from the introduction to Thies Christopherson’s ‘Auschwitz Lie‘):

    Why are we Germans so in love with the fairy tale of the six million gassed Jews? I can speak here from experience because I, myself, believed in it at one time. We Germans like brooding about a problem. We are God-fearing by nature. Therefore, we had to have a profound religious explanation for the immeasurable misery our people had been plunged into. To merely except the explanation that the others were stronger and more reckless, is insufficient for the German soul. We believe that nobody has to suffer such misery without a reasonable cause. It is the well-known problem of Job, who was talked into believing — by his ‘friends‘ and re-educators — that every blow from fate is a punishment from God. In that way, many Germans saw in the catastrophe of 1945 a divine judgment for sins and Crimes committed. The myth of six million innocent, murdered people actually satisfied the demand for a metaphysical explanation and was therefore so eagerly accepted. It seems to become all the more plausible when based on the Bible: We did not murder just ‘any‘ people, but we murdered the ‘chosen‘ people! As one of the readers wrote to me in these words: “Yes, we have assaulted the apple of God’s eye.“; what a ‘wonderful‘ explanation! Now we know why. Now we have got something to suffer for, and through subservience to all Jews and by paying colossal sums of money, we can regain at least part of God’s favor, or, as repentant sinners look forward to forgiveness. That is the reason why the German clings to the ‘murdered Jews‘ as though it meant the salvation of his soul. Without this explanation our terrible downfall would have had no higher meaning and be all the harder to bear.

  3. We have been lied to about the holocaust, about race, about our own history. It’s no wonder people are confused about what the “right thing to do” is. If the jewish world view was based in reality they wouldn’t have to go to such lengths to prop it up. Seventy years is no time at all. Our tail isn’t between our legs or we won’t be here. We’re not committing suicide and were not cowering in a corner. We are thinking, the first step in action, and our numbers are growing.

  4. That’s the spirit Helvena.

    The tail tucking fits the mindset Ben described, which strikes me as similar to the sentiment under “White man’s burden” – which is undone by getting your head straight about who you are and who the enemy is, which in turn produces a proper sense of right and wrong and cuts through all the lies.

    The enemy – according to jew lies – is Whites. That’s why the “suicide meme” and rhetoric about “White pathology” is so poisonous. It plays into the fraud rather than challenging it.

    The conditional altruism eye-for-an-eye part part above corresponds to MacDonald’s “altruistic punishment”, which I’ll expand on another time. Basically, most notions about why “we” do this or that are distorted by the confusion and conflation concerning who “we” are.

  5. Fred Wilson: “Most Whites are very shallow.”

    True as stated, take one more step: White nations are ruled by the enemies of European man, so “White shallowness” is rewarded.

    White politicians, performers, philosophers, and religious leaders are rewarded everytime they reinforce and propagate the most stagnant and repellent possibilities available to us. White elites are not shallow, they’re bought.

  6. so “White shallowness” is rewarded.
    Yes !!! In several different ways.

    I don’t believe that Whites are innately shallow, but they have bee acculturated to it via TV, sports, mass theology, so called ‘schools’ (mostly the public ones). I completely agree, the elites are bought and the few honest ones are hammered down to cower the rest.

  7. Tan,
    How far back into a person ancestry can one inherit genetics? I know in Germany according to what my grandmother remembers you had to show as far back as 5-7 generations (I think)
    With that model at what point does an ancestor even though related have little to no influence on you?

    I can trace back very far on some lines of mine, so I’m just wondering.

  8. Good question. DNA gets shuffled and handed down in relatively big chunks. IIRC it’s 250-odd blocks, which implies that’s the max number of recent ancestors whose DNA you might actually have. Whatever the number is, it’s not infinite.

Comments are closed.