Multiculturalism fails due to “behavioral immune system”

A new paper suggests that the human “behavioral immune system,” which generates feelings of disgust, can account for many of the failings of multiculturalism.

Lene Aarøe, one of the authors, has this to say:

The research results provide new understanding of why society does not absorb the new arrivals and why integration fails. Those who are very concerned about the risk of infection are those who are most reluctant to seek out social contact with immigrants–something that we otherwise know fosters tolerance.” (The immune system may explain skepticism towards immigrants)

“The behavioral immune system functions according to a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach,” said Michael Bang Petersen, co-author of the study. Furthermore,

People with birthmarks, physical disabilities, abnormalities and something as innocent as a different skin color are subconsciously considered disease carriers by the hypersensitive,” Petersen said.

The paper is here: The Behavioral Immune System Shapes Political Intuitions: Why and How Individual Differences in Disgust Sensitivity Underlie Opposition to Immigration.

The concept of an instinctive “behavioral immune system” was somewhat new to me. I understood the basic idea but did not appreciate how much our feelings of disgust can be involved in our feelings toward people and places.

From the paper’s abstract:

We present, test, and extend a theoretical framework that connects disgust, a powerful basic human emotion, to political attitudes through psychological mechanisms designed to protect humans from disease.”

Just last night, my partner and I had a conversation about how we both tend to avoid a neighborhood drug store in the winter because it is stuffy and there seem to always be sick people waiting for orders.

We said this before I read the paper this morning. It was a good confirmation for me of the concept of an instinctive “behavioral immune system.” Hand washing, food washing, keeping clean, avoiding crowds and so on are all “behavioral immune system” responses.

The authors of the paper extend their findings to musings on multiculturalism, a credible extension in my view.

In this respect, I want to make this point: Just because you have overcome your disgust with the people of another culture does not mean that they have overcome their disgust with you.

And this point: The “progressive left,” consciously or not,  has been using the “behavioral immune system” against people who want to see immigration laws enforced or strengthened. The left even uses the sciencey word “xenophobe” to arouse feelings of disgust for people who disagree with them.

Indeed, arousing disgust for their opponents on any issue is a main technique of the left. And they usually signal this technique by the use of special vocabulary words, such as “xenophobe,” “homophobe,” “rayciss,” “supremacist,” “deplorable,” “regressive,” “not who we are,” and so on.

That most of the spokespeople for the left live in wealthy MSM and DC political bubbles is why so many Americans are disgusted with them.

Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing

Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified.

In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10.

He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government. (Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing)

This seems to have put to bed the claim that “Russia hacked the election so Hillary lost.” Simultaneously, we can also notice that the false Russia claim disappeared from MSM at the same time Susan Rice’s misuse of intelligence was being made public.

Sean Hannity speaks up

In a nutshell, this is what I hate about the left. As a linguist, I see this side of the left as violent, stupid, and close-minded. As a person, I see it as dangerous groupthink that ostracizes individuals who disagree. I am glad Hannity is doing this. We need more of it.

Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people. (Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump)

Excellent comment on Jews and why criticizing them is good

The anonymous comment I am posting below is better than anything you will read in any newspaper.

Having browsed more than enough Chan board content in the last few months as a companion to t_d, the problem of Judaism is similar yet different than Islam. Some people of both religions have done really shitty things to other races and cultures by infiltrating them and undermining the host nation / ethnicity (using justification from the Talmud or Koran) while using similar victimhood claims to deflect blame and shame critics. Neither religious community stops it or does anything significant to warn of it, thus becoming guilty by association in the eyes of the victim nation/culture/ethnicity.

In my opinion, open criticism of every religion and their community should be allowed otherwise you give them absolute power of zero responsibility via blocking criticism and identification of wronghood. Censorship forces critics into more extreme stances, if you criticize Jews or Judaism you’re automatically a Nazi and persecuted as one, if you do the same for Muslims or Islam you’re an Islamophobe and persecuted as one. If you’re facing similar punishment for moderate and extreme criticisms* you’ll tend to take the more extreme stance as it awards more protection against what you’re worrying about with zero increase in social backlash. And that’s how you get moderate critics of Islam/Muslims and Jews/Judaism turning to extreme opinions on the solution to the problems they see.

  • (ex. “Some Jews like Soros need to be arrested” vs “Deport all the Jews! Ban Judaism!” And “Some Muslims like the Swedish rapists or Linda Sarsour need to be deported” vs “Deport all the Muslims! Ban Islam!”)

This is why I’m concerned about rule 3 of T_D: “No anti-semitism”. Normally you’d think that means “No saying gas the Jews”, which is reasonable, but in effect I’ve seen the mods enforce “No criticism of Jews or Judaism or even pointing out facts”. Criticism of Christianity and Islam is allowed, and we’re moderate and reasonable. Ban criticism of Judaism and youll just send more moderates to the extremist Jewish conspiracy theory sites like Stormfront. At the end of the day we’re fighting radicalism and best way to do that is allow all speech below the bar of advocating genocide or violence against anyone. This leads to moderate and reasonable discussion with reasonable decided solutions. Every religion has extremist douchebags with their own favourite methods of fighting everyone else while covering up their actions, we need freedom of criticism to figure out who that is so we can give them the boot or handcuffs, whichever is deemed appropriate by the justice system. Then all the moderates can go on living peacefully together.

Annnnnd if still reading this, thanks. I hoped this made sense. (Source)

(Archived link if original source is censored, which would prove the commenter’s point)

Two graphs on EU asylum seekers

These graphs reveal either willful blindness among EU “leaders” or deliberate deep-state policies that are designed to harm Europeans.

My guess is the “consensus culture” among EU leaders is difficult for anyone in that culture to oppose. Who controls that culture is another story.

A similar “establishment culture” exists within the USA with somewhat similar results, chief among them being profound alienation from the people it supposedly represents.

Click images for larger.

Source: Asylum and first time asylum applicants by citizenship, age and sex Annual aggregated data