The Proper Dose

Let us consider together.

Long time readers of my work know that I am critical of the “worse is better” paradigm as it applies to the race crisis and to White racial activism. On the other hand, it is obvious that a certain amount of “worse” is required to stimulate an effective defensive response from Whites, who in general seem less ethnocentric than are other peoples.  Indeed, As Salter makes clear in his book On Genetic Interests, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does – since the latter leads to the relatively painless dispossession of the majority group without properly stimulating their resistance to that dispossession.  But how much “worse” is enough, and how much is too much?

Consider a dosing stimulus – for example, vitamins, medication, physical exercise, etc. – and the desired response.  If you give too little dose then you will of course have an inadequate response.  On the other hand, if you give an excessive dose, that can cause illness, injury, overtraining (for exercise), or even death.  What is required for a proper response is an appropriate dose, not too small and not too large. The dose must be large enough to stimulate the desire response, but no so great that it destroys the target in which the response is desired. Optimally, to be most efficient, what is best is the minimum effective dose (MED) – the least amount of stimulus required to result in the desired response. Of course, determining the MED is easier for things such as vitamins and medications, or even physical exercise, than it is for sociopolitical entities and events affecting large numbers of people.  However, even with that, the basic principle remains the same – an excessive dosage can be as bad, and often even worse, than too little.

In this sense, too little chaos and pain from multiracialism and multiculturalism may not trigger a defensive ethnocentric response from Whites – it would be an insufficient dosage not triggering an adequate response.  But “worse is better” excessive chaos and pain, too much anti-White repression, can cause the White population to be completely cowed, intimidated, and dispirited, leading them to give up and/or not having the opportunity to do anything effective even if they wanted to.  After all, taking “worse is better” to its extreme, one can say that total White extinction is “best” since that would trigger a White response more than anything else – a bit self-defeating, no?

An intermediate level of racial and cultural chaos should trigger a response but still leave people with scope for action, still leave them with hope, and provide opportunities to pressure the System to display weakness is granting concessions that can trigger Suvorov’s Law – that revolutions typically do not occur when the repression is greatest but instead occur when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That could be a result of what Salter calls democratic multiculturalism; that is, White majorities demanding a seat at the table and leveraging the multiculturalist apparatus for majoritarian benefit. If the System resists, then that exposes the anti-White nature of the regime and prompting Whites to continue to make demands, if they make concessions, then Whites should simply continuously “up” the demands, destabilizing the System and potentially leading to a Suvorov’s Law scenario. The scenarios to avoid here would be for too much “worse is better” and a completely stifling repression (that the System may try if they recognize the dangers of concessions leading to Suvorov’s Law), or, conversely, that weakly ethnocentric and gullible Whites becoming satisfied with piecemeal, temporary, and largely ineffective concessions (a tactic the System may use if they sense that more repression is not feasible, particularly if they depend on the White population to run things).  That is why we need clever and effective leaders to find the optimal path through all of these possibilities.

One can think of the dose-response relationship as a bell curve, with anti-White repression on the X axis and effective White responses on the Y axis. The optimal response would occur with an intermediate level of repression, enough to stimulate people to respond but not so much as to cow the people into complete submission. An intermediate level of repression allows for democratic multiculturalism, organization, and Suvorov’s Law.  

Again, we require wise leadership (that we currently do not have) to help Whites navigate between the two extremes and to leverage the dose into an effective response.  We can count on the System to continuously supply anti-White repression, at least for the foreseeable future; thus, leaders need to know when and how to act so as to take advantage of the “sweet spot” of intermediate levels of a repressive does so as to allow for the most effective White racial nationalist response.

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well.  That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  - given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites).  For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.