“Womanhood” might be an alternative title for this post, but the one chosen wins for its brevity and better accuracy. The previous post discussed the historic male virtues of the West, now inverted; this time it’s the women’s turn.

Ireland again offers us her instruction. At the time of the Famine, this poor and backward land saw rigorous conformity among women to their allotted role: that is, that they should marry young, stay married, and bear babies. Today Ireland has voted to permit abortion, removing a major barrier in the way of women achieving their preferred state, which is to be a slut.

The hightest aspiration of the modern woman is held to be independence; that is, independence from any particular man.  Dependence on men in general via the State is satisfactory.   She is also to enjoy her  sexual freedom, giving herself only with consent (which in practise may be withdrawn retrospectively) and not to devote herself to any individual male for longer than is convenient.

#MeToo takes us further down the path: a woman who sold herself for career advantage may now retrospectively cancel the deal and punish the buyer.  In this respect it extends to informal arrangements the same modification already applied to marriage. In the past a man might take exclusive possession of a women but could not in general easily discard her (not even Henry VIII). Now the woman may flit from one deal to another – a casting couch, a marriage – and cancel the deal whenever she wishes.

For the modern baizuo woman, bearing babies can’t compete with those options.



Defining baizuo

“Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you” – Luke 6-27

That particular Christian precept was not generally taken seriously during the Christian era (now coming to a close). The treatment by the Christian powers of their enemies usually consisted of attempting to kill them with various weapons, culminating in the atomic bombing of Japan by a still overwhelmingly Christian USA.

It is an irony of Fate that it is the Christians’ temporary successors, the baizuo, who really do love their enemies, provided they are not white. But loving their enemies is not enough: the baizuo have gone yet further by hating their friends.

Thus we see a spectacle previously unknown in history, that of civilised nations voluntarily importing alien barbarians to replace their own populations, while reviling any of their own people who dare resist the colonisation.

Let’s consider for a moment what a civilised western nation looked like in the period 1400 – 1900. Europe was a snake pit of armed rivalries and war was routine. Everywhere that humans lived they had to be of robust health in order to survive among infections and epidemics. But in addition, if a nation was to prosper it would have to fight and win against its rivals. It needed cohesion: a common culture that it would defend, a reciprocal loyalty among its people, a disdain for outsiders and a willingness to fight them, a restless instinct to go forth and conquer before a rival got there first. In a word, patriotism.

Spain, France, England, Holland, Russia, Germany and others, at various times, had these characteristics in abundance. In the centuries after 1500 these countries (and their offshoots in the Americas) ran the world.

That was then. The baizuo of today can be defined by the opposite characteristics: a loathing of their own historic peoples and cultures, a preference for aliens (the more dysfunctional the better) and an eagerness to be colonised and replaced by those aliens.

These anti-patriotic baizuo traits are sufficient to doom any nation in which they become dominant, yet there are still other baizuo traits that add to the rate of decline. We shall look at those next.

Passing the peak

Here we look at four events from the 1960s.

  1. The US Immigration Act of 1965
  2. “I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
  3. The onset of the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland
  4. A man walks on the Moon

One of these, number 4, is unlike the others. It was an inspiring and hopeful event, science fiction come true, a harbinger of great strides onwards and upwards.  Or so people thought. As we can see now, it was a bittersweet moment, the high point of Western scientific rationalism, of Western Civilisation itself.  It was an achievement unparalleled in all history and it led nowhere.

Numbers 1 and 2 however were truly forward looking. The US formally decided to begin importing a new people, or rather peoples.  It may have done so without entirely realising what it was doing; but as its course became clearer, its committment never wavered.  Less formally, the UK decisively rejected siding with its own people in the aftermath of Enoch Powell’s speech.  It too embarked on its own people-replacement journey, from whose terminus it is now a few decades away.

The “Troubles” has some contradictory and interesting facets.  It represents the last outbreak of blood-and-soil nationalism in the British Isles. It was no coincidence that this highly un-baizuo struggle began in the poorest and most backward part of these islands.  The British by then were sufficiently baizuo to disdain their own people in the island of Ireland and its efforts to defend them were always perfunctory and half-hearted.

Eager to discard this awkward fragment of the UK with its more-British-than-the-British majority, the UK government eventually arrived at a deal with the IRA. The Irish could begin subjugating the Unionists, preferably not too noisily, and the British would not look too closely into what was happening.  The government would, for example, observe the fiction that continuing bombings and shootings were the work of “dissidents” whom the peace loving IRA cannot restrain.

But in the three decades since the Troubles began, Ireland has caught up with the baizuo British.  It too is replacing its people; blood and soil nationalism is fading fast.  The old implacable struggle by the IRA has no meaning to a baizuo people. Nor does Britain’s rejection of its own in Northern Ireland mean anything when it is rejecting them in Britain too.

Baizuo unchained

More from Lance Welton on the same theme as his excellent “Mice and Men” piece:

It may be objected that evolution is too slow, by orders of magnitude, to have the effects claimed.  Do we not hear of species (e.g. sharks) that have remained virtually unchanged for far longer than humans have been on Earth? How could a mere 150 years (since about 1860) produce the baizuo subspecies?

This is how. The telling sentence: “In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category.” In a drastically different evolutionary context, a mere half dozen generations are sufficient for large effects.  The virtual abolition of infant mortality was just such a drastic difference in context.

The spread of the baizuo that we have seen is consistent with this mechanism.  Constraints on the survivability of defects were relaxed first in the prosperous classes in prosperous countries, then among lower and lower classes in those countries.  The upper classes of England began to take on a baizuo colour before the lower classes of England who were in turn ahead of the still poorer lower classes in Ireland.

The King and Country debate and its outcome would have been inconceivable only a few decades earlier.  It set a pattern that has continued since then, of more-baizuofied elite and a less-baizuofied populace.  It remains today as the stereotype of a metropolitan elite that despises the masses for their failure to embrace baizuo beliefs adequately (see for example Brexit).

By about 1960 the baizuo had become sufficiently pervasive to start changing public policy in important ways, about which we shall have more to say presently.

The man from 1000 A.D.

For all but a sliver of human history, life has been a struggle.  Infant mortality was very high by modern standards at around 40%. Wealth and position conferred some advantage but no immunity from Nature’s toll, as witnessed by Queen Anne’s pathetic series of failures to bear a child that would live. Death and disease were

That was from the dawn of time until about the middle of the 19th century. But something remarkable, something new and unique under the sun, began an astonishing transformation. This was the Industrial Revolution, creating an explosion of wealth the world has never seen before or since. Some decades elapsed before the wealth reached the common man but from about 1850 general standards of living began a sustained and substantial rise, even as populations increased.

By the middle of the 20th century the typical man’s lifestyle in the Western world had been revolutionised by this wealth. Unlike all his predecessors, he had drinking water and sewerage plumbed into his dwelling. With cheap hot water, cleanliness became easy. Famine was banished. Antibiotics cured his infections. His babies had an excellent chance of surviving to adulthood.

One can imagine an observer brought by time machine from any time in the millenia preceding 1860 and marvelling at the lifestyle available to the common man in 1960. To him this astonishing and incredible wealth, this luxury and safety, would be the unfathomable blessing of a benevolent God, meriting the most heartfelt gratitude. Man, it would seem to our observer, had been lifted up to a state not far below Heaven itself.

But our observer would be mistaken. Instead, Western man’s apparent blessing is really his doom.

A physical principle

There is a general principle in science that the effect of a change tends to oppose the change that gave rise to it.  It could hardly be otherwise, else the change would become unstoppable and all-consuming, an appetite that grows with eating.  For all its sometimes startling phenomena the world is more stable than that: things tend to reach a balance.

In another neighbourhood of the modern mind lives a belief that contradicts that principle: that in the long run civilisation progresses only upwards.  Though not put in these terms, it is assumed that civilisation is an appetite that grows with the eating; that it will reinforce and grow itself, building upwards and onwards and improving on what went before.

It is the contention of this blog that these two concepts are irreconcilable and that one of them is mistaken.  Some homework for the reader before our next episode:


Peak civilisation

A condensed history of the world:

Prehistory to about 1760 Man evolves and builds civilisations.

1760-1860 England’s Industrial Revolution begins to change the evolutionary context of the human race.

1860-1960 Successive generations become increasingly different from their ancestors.

1960-? The baizuo become sufficiently numerous to destroy the civilisation that gave rise to them.

There’s a lot going on in that four step summary.  What does ‘peak’ mean and when was it?  What is the “evolutionary context” and what is “increasingly different”?  Who are the baizuo and what is the nature of the alledged destruction?

We shall consider these matters and more in posts to follow.