If in the human body, the body could not differentiate between self and non-self, and friendly co-habiting organisms, and dangerous ones, then the immune system would cease to work, and the human organism would be over-run. Jonathan Sawyer argues that this fear of the other, or the stranger, is deliberately diluted by modernist doctrines like diversity and multiculturalism, but the effects can be a social disaster, and ultimate collapse and death.
Top of Form
“Let’s begin by saying that “The Other is not my brother,” in spite of the basic tenets of our Christian society which is founded on the concept: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” When we examine the evolution of social interactions, we find that the reason we do not love our neighbor (not necessarily the one who lives next to us but humans at large) is because we tend intuitively to hold unfamiliar individuals at arms’ length both emotionally and physically. To be blunt, strangers are initially considered “hostile” or untrustworthy unless proven otherwise.
This exclusionary attitude (or “otherization” as we say) is not an anti-social or malevolent choice on our part. It is firmly embedded in our cultural ethos and our DNA, given that strangers’ reputations, such as for honesty, would likely be less well known and hence interacting with them would be risky. It goes back many, many millennia to a time when we wandered in tribes or extended families across the Eurasian plains.
In the beginning, we were “hunter-gatherers” whose days were devoted to acquiring food off the land. To survive, homo sapiens or Cro-Magnons needed a cooperative and close-knit bond of familial unity. The hunt for prey and food was the focal point of each day’s activities. Women, if social paleontology is correct, did not stray far from home—whether a cave, a hut or some other form of habitat. They were presumably “keepers of the hearth.” They bore and raised children, searched for edible vegetation, and cared for the elderly or infirm. The familial unit within the tribe was a protective shield against a mysterious and dangerous world. When another humanoid or family group appeared unexpectedly, the entire unit’s stability and safety were threatened.
The “stranger-danger” motif was and continues to be wired into the individual psyche: without this defense mechanism, each member of the tribe was put in jeopardy. For the most part, the intruder was either expelled or killed. Throughout the animal kingdom, the rejection of the “other,” e.g., among chimpanzees—our closest relatives, is a basic survival instinct. Our bodies are programmed to “fight or flee.”
In the earliest days of humankind, the species was protected by the exclusion of unknown others. From a modern-day perspective, this hostility toward the “outsider” is a leitmotif that is woven into the fabric of literature and especially the western movie. A number of films portray this theme, notably Alan Ladd’s Shane and Clint Eastwood’s rebellious Pale Rider, who both challenge the forces of evil in a remote cattle ranch or mining encampment where only the steely-eyed gunfighter can impose law and order. This dichotomy is an integral part of the conquest of the Far West: the transitory “hero” or vigilante who symbolizes society’s need for justice and public safety in opposition to the antagonist who seeks to rule by brutal domination for “nefarious” reasons. Law-abiding citizens were at the mercy of amoral predators who roamed unchecked throughout the region. Fear and self-defense were triggered by challenges to familial and community stability. Under these conditions settlers were forced to choose either certain subjugation to a lawless invader or an orderly life under the protection of a hired gun and vigilantism.
Today, if we accept contemporary propaganda, the stranger or the interloper is a person who should be welcomed into the household or family unit. In America, the innate goodness of all people is a foundational principle of “our way of life.” And as a result, we highlight bits and pieces of our cultural history if it fits this narrative. In a pioneer society, a helping hand is extended to strangers in need. The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan resonates even today. We sometimes see examples of strangers performing potentially sacrificial acts to help others. For example, the donation of kidneys, portions of livers, or bone marrow transplants to unknown victims of disease isn’t all that surprising. Such gestures, of course, are not without considerable risk. The loss of a kidney can have lethal consequences for donors in case of renal failure.
Of course, altruism does exist, so we find ourselves asking: what drives this (actually quite rare) spontaneous altruism? Some putative acts of altruism actually may reflect ordinary self-interest. First responders are paid to have a professional obligation to put their lives at risk for the benefit of others who face danger. They are courageous but not altruistic. In a similar manner, people will give to needy individuals on “Go Fund Me” pages without the slightest proof of authenticity. Self-sacrifice for the public good competes with the preservation of those closest to us regardless of outside commitments.
But there are examples of real altruism, and we can ask, whether they are acts of pure generosity—a social obligation—or do they respond to a need in the individual for self-fulfillment and public admiration? Are Western elites being altruistic when they promote mass immigration of ethnically heterogeneous peoples? It is notable that such acts of compassion toward complete strangers tend not to be practiced by those in positions of authority or extreme wealth outside the family unit. …
There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. … [The political class] failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens.
One can only marvel at the completely unhinged—pathological—altruism on display here, given that the speakers are themselves native White British. Countries whose policies ignore the good of their own people are surely headed for disaster. Such altruism is nothing but a recipe for evolutionary extinction.
It is well-known that massive non-White immigration has negative effects most of all on the traditional, White working class of Western societies, while wealthier Whites can escape the problems brought about by immigration by moving to better neighborhoods. They also tend to have jobs that have not been impacted by immigration, although visas for workers in technical areas are increasingly common. However, contemporary liberal-minded elites throughout the West are indifferent or even dismissive of the negative effects of immigration on the White working class in terms of lowered wages, lessened community cohesion and involvement, and deteriorating public schools. Like Charles Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby’s (i.e., the character from Bleak House), this included neglecting her own children—also characteristic of contemporary liberals who typically fail to think seriously about the effects of mass non-White migration on the long-term prospects of their own children as a minority in a majority non-White society.
Is it possible to absorb large numbers of ethnically heterogeneous migrants and maintain a stable and productive society? It’s at least doubtful. The outside world demands a different set of values from the dynamics of the home place. At first encounter all mammals are motivated by instinct to defend their “turf” against intruders. Suspicion of the “other” runs deep in our genetic code. The exclusion of strangers is a primordial means of survival.
In today’s highly politicized world, the criticism of the other’s motives and way of life is labeled a sign of bigotry, racism, or xenophobia, among other epithets. We are constantly reminded of this humanistic dimension of our social contract. This openness is often claimed to be more than an attitude; it is a duty. However, very few restrictions are placed on the outsider by the welcoming community—even obeying laws is waived given how illegal immigrants are simply waved in these days by a Biden administration intent on ending White America as quickly as possible. The supposed demands of being kind to the stranger (actually, a way of getting votes for Democrats—unrestricted immigration has become a demographic weapon in the hands of the progressives) and the availability of cheap labor supersede the application of the law. …
Homogeneity initially builds trust among strangers. It is much easier to incorporate an unknown person into a neighborhood when people have similar backgrounds. The “stranger-danger” reflex is activated when a community loses control over its values and relationships. Diverse families living in urban high-rise projects do not willingly socialize on a large scale. They are either suspicious of each other or realize they have very little in common. They are not in sync or, as we say, not on the same page in many aspects of daily life. …
We cannot unlearn the defensive strategies of our cultural and genetic heritage. At the very heart of our social dynamic is the need for survival and perpetuation of our genes, and that in turn is tied to the fate of those with whom we share the most genetic similarity—our race. But the reality is that wealthy and politically stable Western countries are being assaulted by hordes of desperately poor migrants as depicted in the French dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail (1973). As world economies worsen, vast numbers of Third World discontents will continue to seek refuge and a new life in wealthier countries—essentially a death sentence for the peoples who created the West.
As the adage tells us: “Birds of a feather flock together.” You are compelled by nature (or a powerful survival instinct) to associate with people who look like you and with whom you have a lot in common. As we have learned over the years, diversity is not a “strength” but a source of stress and division throughout the world. Highly diversified neighborhoods are more insular and less civic-minded than those with more homogeneous residents. If we are left alone and not counseled or threatened with punishment, we tend to select associates who are similar in many respects. Comfort level or quality of life is a determining criterion in our choice of friends and acquaintances. Social clubs, such as sororities and fraternities, are based on a selective process of similarity and congeniality. We are, in every respect, what nature made us to be: selective and protective.
In conclusion, we inherited profound tendencies that link us to the survival instincts of our earliest years. They served us well millennia ago and will continue to give us alternatives to the artificiality of enforced social relationships. The stability and longevity of our society depend on recognizing the legitimacy of these inbred tendencies that govern our ethnic behavior. Forcing us to live otherwise will bring about nothing but social disorder and internal conflict.”
Exactly, and that is what the West now faces, by design. My guess is the masters of the Universe have made the mistake of the sages, and they are going to go down with us.