Sign into an existing account

The reason white people are increasingly recognizing that “colorblindness” seems to be a one-way street, lacking any equivalent to “white guilt” in other groups, is easy to understand through the lens of group selection.

Group selection theory suggests that certain groups evolve not only at the individual level but also at the collective level. This means traits can persist even if they are costly or dangerous to the individual, as long as they benefit the group as a whole. An example of this would be the loud alarm call of ground squirrels, which alerts the group to a predator’s presence but endangers the individual sounding the warning. Such behaviors persist, particularly in cooperative groups, because they promote collective survival.

When applied to white European-descended peoples, whose historical survival has relied heavily on group cooperation, this framework explains much of today’s social dynamics and the danger facing white people. Group selection can be an effective, some might argue superior, method for passing on a group’s genes. However, its success is dependent on one of two critical conditions remaining relatively stable, or the strategy rapidly falls apart.

First, it requires a high degree of in-group preference, meaning altruistic behaviors are directed primarily toward members of the same group. Without this, group-selected individuals risk serving foreign groups at the expense of their own, undermining their collective strength.

Second, it assumes minimal migration between groups, particularly between those employing group-selection strategies and those prioritizing individual survival. When significant migration occurs, the group-selection strategy begins to collapse at the genetic level. Self-sacrificing behaviors, once beneficial, become detrimental as resources are diverted from the group to outsiders now present due to migration. This explains the behavior of individual white people who appear driven to serve members of incoming foreign groups they perceive as “disadvantaged” in some way. Under normal conditions with low levels of migration inline with what would have been experienced historically, these people would have been serving the disadvantaged in their own group, enhancing the strength and survival of white people.

This dynamic also operates in reverse. These same altruistic individuals from the group-selected population may migrate to other regions, redirecting their sacrifices toward foreign groups in their new environment. Consider Christian missionaries who, rather than aiding the impoverished within their own communities, prioritize the poor in distant lands like Africa or Haiti.

In essence, mass migration poses a death sentence to group-selected peoples unless they maintain a robust level of in-group preference to counteract these challenges. Without such resilience, their altruistic tendencies become a liability, eroding the very foundation of their group’s survival.

In other words, mass migration, combined with the deliberate suppression of white collective identity, is at best a tragic combination of conditions brewing a toxic cocktail destined to erase white populations. More likely, it is a meticulously researched and intentionally wielded strategic weapon, purposefully deployed to orchestrate the inevitable outcome of white genocide.