Yesterday I discussed the basic principle of consanguinity and how that affects societies that practice it.
To continue in this vein, today I want to describe how some very basic anthropological concepts apply to Europeans.
Yesterday we saw how large groups of clannish people from consanguineous cultures are all but guaranteed to cause problems in Europe, which historically eradicated consanguinity and most clans.
But that leaves open the question of why Europeans are blind to the inevitable problems that will arise when consanguineous clannish cultures migrate into Europe in large numbers.
In the news this morning, I found this article: ‘Cover-up’ over Cologne sex assaults blamed on migration sensitivities.
Here are some quotes from it:
Politicians and police were facing mounting questions on Wednesday over how a crowd of some 1,000 men “of North African or Arab appearance” was able to mass around the city’s main train station on New Year’s Eve, with roving gangs allegedly assaulting dozens of women with impunity.
There has been widespread condemnation of the city’s police force after an official press release on New Year’s Day described the celebrations as “peaceful”.
…questions are being asked over why it took five days for the media to report the incidents.
So why did that happen?
The basic anthropological reason is Europeans are extremely sensitive to feelings of shame.
This is so because European communal bonds are built on the ideas of fairness and universal morality that developed after clans were eradicated in Europe.
These ideas have existed in European populations for so long that those populations have evolved to rely on them for social cohesion. This is an example of the co-evolution of genes and culture.
Co-evolution of genes and culture is a feature of all societies. It almost certainly accelerated during the past 3,000 years since the advent of large-scale agriculture.
In European society, this sort of co-evolution encouraged the emergence of a strong sense of shame or guilt. These emotions emerged because shame, public shaming, and guilt are used to police European post-clannish, universal morality.
Now we can answer the questions posed above from the linked article.
Why did police allow the large crowd of rowdy men to gather? Because they were ashamed to do anything because if they had, they might have been criticized for being “racist.”
The police not only did not break up the crowd to protect German women, they further falsely described the celebrations as “peaceful” in a press release.
How could German police feel more ashamed of a word (racist) than of not protecting German women?
The answer is their natural tendencies and professional requirements to protect German women (or anyone) were overruled by the dictates of their consciences.
Their brains malfunctioned so much that the police protected themselves against false imaginary accusations instead of doing their jobs by protecting actual women.
I say malfunctioned because in a larger context that is surely a malfunction.
But within German or European culture, actions like theirs have not so far been seen as malfunctions, except sometimes after the fact.
The Rotherham sex scandal in England is another example of widespread fear among police and officials of being shamed. There are literally hundreds of other examples throughout Western Europe.
These examples show how a culture that evolved in response to the absence of clans developed a sense of moral shame that is poorly adapted to the present world.
The actions of European politicians who have allowed these problems to develop and of the press that consistently hides these same problems can be explained in the same way the actions of police in Cologne have been explained.