The rest of the world? There were other regions where the State had successfully imposed its monopoly on violence, notably East Asia and much of South Asia. Moreover, pacification was still ongoing in 17th century Europe.
I agree with your main point. Pacification is key to social, economic, and cognitive progress.
Again, we have the example of other regions in the world, notably South Asia and East Asia.
Genetic pacification seems to have happened more rapidly in Europe, probably because it had the backing of both the State and the Church. It thus enjoyed a degree of moral legitimacy that it didn't elsewhere.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Whites had or have less friends (current time notwithstanding), but the selection for intelligence and placement of locus of importance on ideas and personal achievement over clan bonds is important. Europeans were more geographically mobile and tended to forge long-distant links over local ones where possible.
It must be observed though that Jews underwent similar selection for intelligence, however they retained their strong in-group preference, due to a different selection pressure (having to deal with imminent hostility at a moment's notice). Perhaps the current world situation will force another selection event, where in-group preferences will be reinforced as a trait.
Schulz et al. (2019) describe Western Europeans as being "impersonally prosocial." "People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty." So they can actually have more "friends" than other people but friendship is less likely to require deep emotional investment. Reciprocal obligations also tend to be weaker or even nonexistent.
In Western Europe, mean cognitive ability rose through the demographic success of middle class families, who gradually replaced the lower class through their downwardly mobile offspring. Ashkenazi Jews experienced a similar demographic expansion, but they did not replace the surrounding population.
Great article. It shows how evolutionary biological explanations for the rise and fall of cultures don't actually validate racism or supremacism, and how it debunks Colonialist and Orientalist explanations for why The West came to dominate the modern world.
"Such wealth creation required certain skills, like literacy, numeracy, and planning. Those were the skills of a growing middle class that translated economic success into demographic success, if only because the business partners were often married couples who expanded their workforce by having more children and, later, by helping their children do likewise. ... Gregory Clark has argued that this demographic change led to a shift in behavior and mindset: "Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving” (Clark, 2007, p. 166; Clark, 2009; Clark, 2023; Frost, 2022b)."
So what does this portend for our society going forward given more recent demographic changes? Educated men and women are having fewer children (and women are having them later in life). I work at a large hospital in a major US city and routinely have patients who have had children removed at birth d/t drug use (often meth. Just a personal anecdote, but I see it so often as to be personally disturbed by it). Our social policies seem to remove the seriousness of the decision to have children for those who can't truly afford them while those who could provide a stable home think twice about whether they can afford more kids (in my area my child's daycare costs more than my mortgage). Am I wrong to ponder how this might change our society given enough time?
I will also deal with your questions in an upcoming article at Aporia Magazine. No, you're not wrong to ponder this question. For that matter, it's not wrong to ponder any question.
What is missing from much of the West since the English Civil War and especially after 1945 is the warrior aristocracy. As long as the descendants of the Western Hunter-Gatherers are left alone, they can function incredibly well until 1965. But thrown against the foreigners and they become confused and isolated, uncertain to why their formerly successful customs and habits are no longer having results. The warriors, per Machiavelli’s theory of two humors, are much more spirited and aggressive and realistic than the more lawful and obedient plebeians, so they will spot hidden dangers quicker and provide defense and order. If our civilization was made up of tri-functions of priestly, martial, and productive values, then when one function go missing, the priestly and productive values will become unbalanced, leading to absurd levels like today’s. The warrior, to be effective, must think in collective terms as his success depends on the effectiveness of his army. So he must address the moral, mental, physical, emotional, and economic health of his nation always so that they can be ready to answer the call at any given moment. This give them a mindset that isn’t caught up in theories and oughts. The best warriors can see the weaknesses and strengths of different policy. Many commoners and priests resented the warriors, often with good reason, but dismissing them is the worst thing they could do for themselves. Universalism have its limits. Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, strongly advised that the plebs be organized in military to give them the discipline and confidence and teamwork to resist the elite abuses, and to give them legal institutions to allow the people structured means to debate and to try and to correct the abusers.
We had a warrior aristocracy in 1914. They went marching off to war, and many never came back. The main problem with warriors is that they can easily be stampeded into a war that is unnecessary and disastrous. To this day, Europe has not recovered from the two world wars, both demographically and culturally.
Armies no longer exist to defend nations. They serve other purposes and other interests.
Not just the Great War. Many top generals since the American Civil War kept trying to fight the last war, with Robert E. Lee trying to apply the Napoleonic tactics while the mid level officers like Stonewall Jackson and untrained Nathan Bedford Forrest were more responsive to the changing military circumstances.
Then too, there is a major role played by the technocrats and the democratic progress itself. Technocrats emerged with the mass industrialization and there was a cult of expert starting with Taylorism. They created a mass bureaucratic structure that was slow to respond to new facts on the ground.
But I think the biggest difference was the nature of the state itself. Before the French Revolution, the state was very much the personal property of the prince who can afford to be realistic about his prospects and make peace to buy time. After Napoleon, the state increasingly became the public property dependent on the popular favor. I recall one story about the French prime minister Clemenceau feeling bound to respect his voters’ desire for a total victory to justify the million dead. He doesn’t have as free a hand as did Napoleon. Otherwise, the truly powerful kings would make a truce much sooner when they realized that they were wasting too much blood and treasure for little result, preferring to wait for a better day.
I've only read his 2019 paper in Science. I agree with his belief that Western Christianity played a key role in the development of WEIRDness. I also believe, however, that Western Christianity was influenced by a pre-existing substrate of WEIRD mental and behavioral traits among northwestern Europeans.
This was a great read. You have a very intriguing thesis. My mind immediately set about re-examining my relationships in different cultures through the lens you provided. But also my relationships inside the US in very small rural towns, vs the urban environments of my later years. I will need to re-read this a couple more times over the next two weeks, a rarity. Thanks.
If you are new to Frost's writing and only know him from this Substack, his blog (linked also in the "About" section of the Substack page) might interest you and be illuminating on some of the subjects of this article, such as kinship ties, etc, too. He is a really thought provoking author. The references he gives also often make for good further reading, too.
And thanks for your kind words! I'm a midget on the shoulders of a giant. My ideas largely come from scholars who, in too many cases, have passed away or are now inactive.
How would the black death factor in regarding the change in European individualism as well? It occurred around the same time as the changes mentioned.
Would it also be the social changes brought about by the deaths of up to half the population in some nations, or more the ascendancy of peoples less affected?
The Black Death disrupted feudal relations of production and consumption and thus facilitated the growth of the market economy. Serfs found themselves in a "sellers' market." They could abandon their lord and move to an estate that offered better conditions. They could even demand payment for their services and become independent producers.
This growth of the market economy benefited the emerging middle class, and it was this class that would drive cognitive evolution over the following centuries.
Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that things would have been substantially different if the Black Death had never happened. The emergence of the middle class would have taken longer, but it still would have happened. In a sense, it was "overdetermined."
Once you have a pacified social environment that allows trade, you will get more and more trade. And you will get selection for the cognitive abilities that go with trade. This process will stop only when reproductive success becomes divorced from economic success.
The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism by Ellen Meiksins Wood is more persuasive about the origins of the market. The critical importance of the divide whereby a family stops employing its own members in production and begins hiring external labor has been pointed out in this newsletter elsewhere. After that divide, the bigger problem is however not that the production-owning family does not need to have children, the bigger problem is that the production-owning family does not pay sufficiently for the numerous hired labor to have children. The incessant pressure is to pay as little as possible. The labor is deskilled and atomized. The production-owning family then either just sits on their resources or spends them on random things of their liking and fancy. I am also more persuaded by the view that the never ending wars in Europe have been the ultimate driver of technological progress. A classical example, the telescope was widely used and promoted as a means of detecting and spying on the enemy formations. Fortuitously, it could be also used to look at the Moon by Galileo. This pattern has remained at least since then. "Individualistic" whites can be easily assembled into obedient armies and sent to war. I once told someone talking about European colonialism that whites just as readily kill other whites as they kill non-whites. Of course a major change took place in the war-making -- the nuclear bomb. When a state has a nuclear bomb, it does not really need to worry too much about being attacked and does not need its citizens as soldiers. Technological progress stopped (except for surveillance). Whites exploit each other to death. Their population is declining world-wide. And we should not be particularly sad. The way it looks to me, the life of a white man is full of fear, exploitation and loneliness.
I was trying to explain the fertility decline of the middle class. For the middle class, children became an ever more expensive investment that provided ever lower rates of return:
1. In the late 19th century, middle-class children ceased to contribute significantly to business operations because labor could be hired more cheaply from outside the family. In any case, the family could no longer provide enough labor for the needs of of mass-production.
2. Meanwhile, middle-class children required more and more investment (schooling, clothing, extracurricular activities). The return on this investment was more in the realm of family prestige, and that prestige could be maintained just as easily by two children as by four or six.
At first, mass-production depressed the fertility of the working class. The word "factory" itself had a negative connotation, like "workhouse." It was often a form of punishment for people who couldn't pay their debts. With the rise of unionism and corporate paternalism, workers could more easily have children and even buy their own homes. Worker fertility reached a high point during the postwar era (1945-1975), when employers had to provide a "breadwinner wage." The North American economy was run like a closed shop as a result of economic protectionism, severe restrictions on immigration, and a high rate of unionization.
This situation where a potter or shoe maker wanted to have as many children as possible to use his children as his workforce has never happened. The reasons are simple -- inheritance and competition. The more children one has, the smaller is the portion each one of them will inherit -- wealth begins fragmenting and disappearing. The English "solved" this problem through primogeniture -- the older William inherited the billions, the younger Harry the Spare is eking out a living in Hollywood. Same as it ever was -- the younger has to go out to earn his keep. Primogeniture and population explosion are the reasons English went out to harass everyone around the world -- the same reasons that led to the conquests of one minor king named Genghis Khan. Merchants and craftsmen used to form guilds and associations to restrict entry into the profession and limit completion. Now, imagine they had numerous sons, each of whom would demand being set-up as an independent operator, what would this do to the competition? An easier approach would be to hire apprentices, who would be from distantly related poor families. These apprentices would work long for the master and in many cases never acquire the license to independent operation. Land had been the reason for the large families in the North America. Displacing Native Americans opened a lot of land that was not very valuable because there was not many people desiring it. Solution -- encourage large families and pump in migrants from Europe. Once the land has been populated, the birth rate went down.
Something is expensive only if one can't afford it. So, why the so-called middle class can't afford children? At the higher end, it is because of competition from the wealthy white families. Wealthy white some time refer to themselves as those who love their children, the corollary of this is that those who are not wealthy do not love their children. To ensure a future for their children, the wealthier whites have created "elite" schools and universities that in theory admit the best and the brightest but in reality admit mostly wealthy -- this is to create a feeling of superiority in their offspring -- look my baby, your university is ranked in the top 10 of the US universities in the US News and World Report ranking-- you are the ruler of the world. The elite universities admit by subjective criteria allegedly to promote diversity but in reality to admit wealthy whites. It has been argued somewhere in this newsletter that the Flynn effect does not reflect an increase in intelligence and merely reflects test taking abilities. Wealthy families have the resources to practice test taking. Wealthy families have the resources to bid up the prices of extracurricular activities and cool things to do for the college application essay (like a trip to African to save baby hippos), so that less wealthy families can't afford. When everything else fails, like with the students from Asian families, then impose an admission sealing of 20%. On the lower level, the wealthy whites do not pay poor whites enough to have children and gut the schools where poor whites send their children. In the end of the day, why bother sustaining other whites if one can bring lots of workers from foreign countries "illegally" (there is no such thing as illegal immigration to the US) or through H1B visa...
This is getting long. Bottom line -- whites eat whites -- the white way of life is an evolutionary dead end. The low skilled whites are dying faster than they are procreating and are being replaced with non-whites, simple because non-whites are readily available. The higher skilled technocratic white men marry Asian women in droves, just walk on the campus of any Ivy League university. I hear that these white men like the Asian culture of family support. Even the very wealthy white often prefer to marry wealthy Arab oil magnates than other whites. I read somewhere that Texas, which is now a minority white state, has passed a number of laws that may essentially amount to the creation of an apartheid state. That is the future of the North America -- white apartheid states for a couple of generations, followed by a roll back of white people far into the Northern Territories...
Can it be so that Europe simply had lower crime rate compared with the rest of the world by 17C?
That liberalism and progress requires a degree of pacification above all?
The rest of the world? There were other regions where the State had successfully imposed its monopoly on violence, notably East Asia and much of South Asia. Moreover, pacification was still ongoing in 17th century Europe.
I agree with your main point. Pacification is key to social, economic, and cognitive progress.
Perhaps the European states were more effective in purging the violent and the impulsive from the gene pool?
Again, we have the example of other regions in the world, notably South Asia and East Asia.
Genetic pacification seems to have happened more rapidly in Europe, probably because it had the backing of both the State and the Church. It thus enjoyed a degree of moral legitimacy that it didn't elsewhere.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Whites had or have less friends (current time notwithstanding), but the selection for intelligence and placement of locus of importance on ideas and personal achievement over clan bonds is important. Europeans were more geographically mobile and tended to forge long-distant links over local ones where possible.
It must be observed though that Jews underwent similar selection for intelligence, however they retained their strong in-group preference, due to a different selection pressure (having to deal with imminent hostility at a moment's notice). Perhaps the current world situation will force another selection event, where in-group preferences will be reinforced as a trait.
Schulz et al. (2019) describe Western Europeans as being "impersonally prosocial." "People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty." So they can actually have more "friends" than other people but friendship is less likely to require deep emotional investment. Reciprocal obligations also tend to be weaker or even nonexistent.
In Western Europe, mean cognitive ability rose through the demographic success of middle class families, who gradually replaced the lower class through their downwardly mobile offspring. Ashkenazi Jews experienced a similar demographic expansion, but they did not replace the surrounding population.
Great article. It shows how evolutionary biological explanations for the rise and fall of cultures don't actually validate racism or supremacism, and how it debunks Colonialist and Orientalist explanations for why The West came to dominate the modern world.
Thanks! This was the original purpose of anthropology – to examine not only the Other but also the Otherer.
"Such wealth creation required certain skills, like literacy, numeracy, and planning. Those were the skills of a growing middle class that translated economic success into demographic success, if only because the business partners were often married couples who expanded their workforce by having more children and, later, by helping their children do likewise. ... Gregory Clark has argued that this demographic change led to a shift in behavior and mindset: "Thrift, prudence, negotiation, and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent, and leisure loving” (Clark, 2007, p. 166; Clark, 2009; Clark, 2023; Frost, 2022b)."
So what does this portend for our society going forward given more recent demographic changes? Educated men and women are having fewer children (and women are having them later in life). I work at a large hospital in a major US city and routinely have patients who have had children removed at birth d/t drug use (often meth. Just a personal anecdote, but I see it so often as to be personally disturbed by it). Our social policies seem to remove the seriousness of the decision to have children for those who can't truly afford them while those who could provide a stable home think twice about whether they can afford more kids (in my area my child's daycare costs more than my mortgage). Am I wrong to ponder how this might change our society given enough time?
You might want to read a previous article I wrote on this subject:
https://www.anthro1.net/p/the-great-decline
I will also deal with your questions in an upcoming article at Aporia Magazine. No, you're not wrong to ponder this question. For that matter, it's not wrong to ponder any question.
What is missing from much of the West since the English Civil War and especially after 1945 is the warrior aristocracy. As long as the descendants of the Western Hunter-Gatherers are left alone, they can function incredibly well until 1965. But thrown against the foreigners and they become confused and isolated, uncertain to why their formerly successful customs and habits are no longer having results. The warriors, per Machiavelli’s theory of two humors, are much more spirited and aggressive and realistic than the more lawful and obedient plebeians, so they will spot hidden dangers quicker and provide defense and order. If our civilization was made up of tri-functions of priestly, martial, and productive values, then when one function go missing, the priestly and productive values will become unbalanced, leading to absurd levels like today’s. The warrior, to be effective, must think in collective terms as his success depends on the effectiveness of his army. So he must address the moral, mental, physical, emotional, and economic health of his nation always so that they can be ready to answer the call at any given moment. This give them a mindset that isn’t caught up in theories and oughts. The best warriors can see the weaknesses and strengths of different policy. Many commoners and priests resented the warriors, often with good reason, but dismissing them is the worst thing they could do for themselves. Universalism have its limits. Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, strongly advised that the plebs be organized in military to give them the discipline and confidence and teamwork to resist the elite abuses, and to give them legal institutions to allow the people structured means to debate and to try and to correct the abusers.
A useful introduction to Machiavelli’s thought can be found in this article here: https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/2/237/700005?
We had a warrior aristocracy in 1914. They went marching off to war, and many never came back. The main problem with warriors is that they can easily be stampeded into a war that is unnecessary and disastrous. To this day, Europe has not recovered from the two world wars, both demographically and culturally.
Armies no longer exist to defend nations. They serve other purposes and other interests.
Not just the Great War. Many top generals since the American Civil War kept trying to fight the last war, with Robert E. Lee trying to apply the Napoleonic tactics while the mid level officers like Stonewall Jackson and untrained Nathan Bedford Forrest were more responsive to the changing military circumstances.
Then too, there is a major role played by the technocrats and the democratic progress itself. Technocrats emerged with the mass industrialization and there was a cult of expert starting with Taylorism. They created a mass bureaucratic structure that was slow to respond to new facts on the ground.
But I think the biggest difference was the nature of the state itself. Before the French Revolution, the state was very much the personal property of the prince who can afford to be realistic about his prospects and make peace to buy time. After Napoleon, the state increasingly became the public property dependent on the popular favor. I recall one story about the French prime minister Clemenceau feeling bound to respect his voters’ desire for a total victory to justify the million dead. He doesn’t have as free a hand as did Napoleon. Otherwise, the truly powerful kings would make a truce much sooner when they realized that they were wasting too much blood and treasure for little result, preferring to wait for a better day.
Really interesting read!
I see similarities with Henrich's book The WEIRDest people in the World. What is your view on this book?
I've only read his 2019 paper in Science. I agree with his belief that Western Christianity played a key role in the development of WEIRDness. I also believe, however, that Western Christianity was influenced by a pre-existing substrate of WEIRD mental and behavioral traits among northwestern Europeans.
This was a great read. You have a very intriguing thesis. My mind immediately set about re-examining my relationships in different cultures through the lens you provided. But also my relationships inside the US in very small rural towns, vs the urban environments of my later years. I will need to re-read this a couple more times over the next two weeks, a rarity. Thanks.
If you are new to Frost's writing and only know him from this Substack, his blog (linked also in the "About" section of the Substack page) might interest you and be illuminating on some of the subjects of this article, such as kinship ties, etc, too. He is a really thought provoking author. The references he gives also often make for good further reading, too.
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/
And thanks for your kind words! I'm a midget on the shoulders of a giant. My ideas largely come from scholars who, in too many cases, have passed away or are now inactive.
How would the black death factor in regarding the change in European individualism as well? It occurred around the same time as the changes mentioned.
Would it also be the social changes brought about by the deaths of up to half the population in some nations, or more the ascendancy of peoples less affected?
The Black Death disrupted feudal relations of production and consumption and thus facilitated the growth of the market economy. Serfs found themselves in a "sellers' market." They could abandon their lord and move to an estate that offered better conditions. They could even demand payment for their services and become independent producers.
This growth of the market economy benefited the emerging middle class, and it was this class that would drive cognitive evolution over the following centuries.
Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that things would have been substantially different if the Black Death had never happened. The emergence of the middle class would have taken longer, but it still would have happened. In a sense, it was "overdetermined."
Once you have a pacified social environment that allows trade, you will get more and more trade. And you will get selection for the cognitive abilities that go with trade. This process will stop only when reproductive success becomes divorced from economic success.
>This process will stop only when reproductive success becomes divorced from economic success.
Like today I suppose
The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism by Ellen Meiksins Wood is more persuasive about the origins of the market. The critical importance of the divide whereby a family stops employing its own members in production and begins hiring external labor has been pointed out in this newsletter elsewhere. After that divide, the bigger problem is however not that the production-owning family does not need to have children, the bigger problem is that the production-owning family does not pay sufficiently for the numerous hired labor to have children. The incessant pressure is to pay as little as possible. The labor is deskilled and atomized. The production-owning family then either just sits on their resources or spends them on random things of their liking and fancy. I am also more persuaded by the view that the never ending wars in Europe have been the ultimate driver of technological progress. A classical example, the telescope was widely used and promoted as a means of detecting and spying on the enemy formations. Fortuitously, it could be also used to look at the Moon by Galileo. This pattern has remained at least since then. "Individualistic" whites can be easily assembled into obedient armies and sent to war. I once told someone talking about European colonialism that whites just as readily kill other whites as they kill non-whites. Of course a major change took place in the war-making -- the nuclear bomb. When a state has a nuclear bomb, it does not really need to worry too much about being attacked and does not need its citizens as soldiers. Technological progress stopped (except for surveillance). Whites exploit each other to death. Their population is declining world-wide. And we should not be particularly sad. The way it looks to me, the life of a white man is full of fear, exploitation and loneliness.
I was trying to explain the fertility decline of the middle class. For the middle class, children became an ever more expensive investment that provided ever lower rates of return:
1. In the late 19th century, middle-class children ceased to contribute significantly to business operations because labor could be hired more cheaply from outside the family. In any case, the family could no longer provide enough labor for the needs of of mass-production.
2. Meanwhile, middle-class children required more and more investment (schooling, clothing, extracurricular activities). The return on this investment was more in the realm of family prestige, and that prestige could be maintained just as easily by two children as by four or six.
At first, mass-production depressed the fertility of the working class. The word "factory" itself had a negative connotation, like "workhouse." It was often a form of punishment for people who couldn't pay their debts. With the rise of unionism and corporate paternalism, workers could more easily have children and even buy their own homes. Worker fertility reached a high point during the postwar era (1945-1975), when employers had to provide a "breadwinner wage." The North American economy was run like a closed shop as a result of economic protectionism, severe restrictions on immigration, and a high rate of unionization.
This situation where a potter or shoe maker wanted to have as many children as possible to use his children as his workforce has never happened. The reasons are simple -- inheritance and competition. The more children one has, the smaller is the portion each one of them will inherit -- wealth begins fragmenting and disappearing. The English "solved" this problem through primogeniture -- the older William inherited the billions, the younger Harry the Spare is eking out a living in Hollywood. Same as it ever was -- the younger has to go out to earn his keep. Primogeniture and population explosion are the reasons English went out to harass everyone around the world -- the same reasons that led to the conquests of one minor king named Genghis Khan. Merchants and craftsmen used to form guilds and associations to restrict entry into the profession and limit completion. Now, imagine they had numerous sons, each of whom would demand being set-up as an independent operator, what would this do to the competition? An easier approach would be to hire apprentices, who would be from distantly related poor families. These apprentices would work long for the master and in many cases never acquire the license to independent operation. Land had been the reason for the large families in the North America. Displacing Native Americans opened a lot of land that was not very valuable because there was not many people desiring it. Solution -- encourage large families and pump in migrants from Europe. Once the land has been populated, the birth rate went down.
Something is expensive only if one can't afford it. So, why the so-called middle class can't afford children? At the higher end, it is because of competition from the wealthy white families. Wealthy white some time refer to themselves as those who love their children, the corollary of this is that those who are not wealthy do not love their children. To ensure a future for their children, the wealthier whites have created "elite" schools and universities that in theory admit the best and the brightest but in reality admit mostly wealthy -- this is to create a feeling of superiority in their offspring -- look my baby, your university is ranked in the top 10 of the US universities in the US News and World Report ranking-- you are the ruler of the world. The elite universities admit by subjective criteria allegedly to promote diversity but in reality to admit wealthy whites. It has been argued somewhere in this newsletter that the Flynn effect does not reflect an increase in intelligence and merely reflects test taking abilities. Wealthy families have the resources to practice test taking. Wealthy families have the resources to bid up the prices of extracurricular activities and cool things to do for the college application essay (like a trip to African to save baby hippos), so that less wealthy families can't afford. When everything else fails, like with the students from Asian families, then impose an admission sealing of 20%. On the lower level, the wealthy whites do not pay poor whites enough to have children and gut the schools where poor whites send their children. In the end of the day, why bother sustaining other whites if one can bring lots of workers from foreign countries "illegally" (there is no such thing as illegal immigration to the US) or through H1B visa...
This is getting long. Bottom line -- whites eat whites -- the white way of life is an evolutionary dead end. The low skilled whites are dying faster than they are procreating and are being replaced with non-whites, simple because non-whites are readily available. The higher skilled technocratic white men marry Asian women in droves, just walk on the campus of any Ivy League university. I hear that these white men like the Asian culture of family support. Even the very wealthy white often prefer to marry wealthy Arab oil magnates than other whites. I read somewhere that Texas, which is now a minority white state, has passed a number of laws that may essentially amount to the creation of an apartheid state. That is the future of the North America -- white apartheid states for a couple of generations, followed by a roll back of white people far into the Northern Territories...
Is this the same, good article published on Aporia?
About 95% the same (I obsessively revise everything I write). Aporia allows me to republish on Substack after a month.