01 November 2014

There's Something About Teutonics



Every year thousands board rickety boats, hide in the backs of trucks, planes, and container ships, cross miles of barren desert on foot... All to get themselves to a land where they can be ruled by a racial group far distant from their own.


They cross the Mediterranean by the hundreds, many dying en route.  Not to get to Italy--that's only phase one--but to the real Eldorado: Northern Europe.


Calais, in the north of France, is now home to a tent encampment of several thousand third-world migrants. Are they content to have made it to one of the richest countries on the planet? They are not. Each day they lie in wait trying to jump in the backs of trucks embarking the Channel ferry for the promised land: the U.K.


Boats of fortune leave regularly from Sri Lanka and Indonesia, full to cracking with Pakistanis, Lebanese, Somalis...  Though these Asian and African 'refugees' are surrounded by dozens of safe countries which could take them in, they'd rather risk death on the open sea in hopes of reaching a land run by...Anglos. Why?



Gallup recently polled the citizens of Planet Earth, asking 1) Would you like to migrate abroad? and 2) If so, where?

They have concluded that three-quarters of a billion people would, in fact, like to leave their home country.


From this Gallup was able to cook up a Potential Net Migration Index: If everyone in the world could magically land in his country of choice tomorrow, Singapore's population would rise by 219%.  Zimbabwe's would fall by 47%.  The top 20 destinations, according to this measure:


Thirteen of these twenty, one may have noticed, have a little something in common.





Albert Gehring, in 1908 :
Most prominent among the Aryan races are the Græco-Latins and Teutons: besides the ancient Greeks and Romans, the former comprise the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, and Wallachians; the latter include the Germans, English, Dutch, and Scandinavians. Though resembling one another in many respects when compared with non-Aryan peoples, these races exhibit striking differences of character and institutions when contrasted inter se.

Ah yes, the famous 'Teutons.' We regret that the word has gone out of fashion, as it is more elegant than 'Ethnic Northwest Europeans' and sounds less country-specific than 'Germanics.' We would only add a little '-ic' to make it sound less tribal: 'the Teutonics.'


Say the etymologists,
"Teutonic" (adj.) -- 1610s, "of or pertaining to the Germanic languages and to peoples or tribes who speak or spoke them," from Latin Teutonicus, from Teutones, Teutoni, name of a tribe that inhabited coastal Germany near the mouth of the Elbe and devastated Gaul 113-101 B.C.E., probably via Celtic from Proto-Germanic *theudanoz, from PIE *teuta-, the common word for "people, tribe" (cognates: Lithuanian tauto, Oscan touto, Old Irish tuath, Gothic þiuda, Old English þeod "people, race, nation").  Used in English in anthropology to avoid the modern political association of German.

The racialists of yore saw a more or less Teutonic sphere in the area emanating from the stomping grounds of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons:




While it's not clear what mix of genes / language / culture has permeated the Germanic space, we have to draw lines somewhere.  We consider 'Teutonic' all the descendents of NW European Germanic language speakers, including all of the British Isles and their offspring-states, Scandinavia (with Finland), Germany, Austria, and Benelux.  (We do not include South Africa, as even though it was built and maintained by Teutons, the reins of power have now been passed to others.)

Though we are always told that the global 'South' wants to migrate to the 'North,' the reality is more nuanced. Hundreds of millions of people from the third world would like very much to live under the rule of a Teutonic people. Why is this so?  We shall turn to the indicators to try to understand.

(Any image can be clicked upon for a larger version.)



I. RULE OF LAW

Transparency International regularly polls the world on how corrupt they perceive their countries to be:



The World Economic Forum's annual Competitivity Report is a wealth of world-wide indicators, based on polling of businesspeople.  Out of 139 countries surveyed, here are some of the 'top 20's:






On many corruption/rule of law measures, then, the Teutonics seem to stand out from the crowd. What about barometers of societal trust?



II. TRUST

The biggest cross-cultural values poll in existence, the World Values Survey, asks if 'people can generally be trusted.' Delhey et al. as well as Bomhoff and Yean noted that by 'people' some ethnies mean 'the people in my immediate circle' and others mean 'people in society.' Bomhoff and Yean have thus re-normed the data by aggregating with a series of other trust-related queries. The results:


Another trust measure is the famous 'Wallet test,' conducted by Gallup.  'If you lost your wallet in your city/town,' goes the question, 'how likely is it to be returned to you by a neighbor / a policeman / a stranger?'

Developed countries only:


Fuller results:


(The Wallet Test was also done on American states, for those interested.)


Having considered Rule of Law and Trust, let us examine one of NW Euros' most salient traits--their egalitarianism.



III. EGALITARIANISM


The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes a yearly  'Democracy Index,' which we believe can in part be interpreted as a measure of egalitarianism in one's society (as seen in contrast to authoritarianism).



Egalitarian feeling can also be gauged in a country's corporate culture.  How frequently do upper managers delegate tasks to their underlings?  Out of 139 nations surveyed by World Economic Forum, here are the top 20:



'Consensual' cultures also tend to display high levels of cooperation between unions and management. (Strike-loving France, for the record, comes in at #129 on this list.) The top 20, according to polls:



Another way to look at the question is through 'Power Distance.' On one end are those who welcome a strict hierarchy and the inequality that implies; on the other end are those who seek a more flat, egalitarian structure. From cross-cultural researcher Geert Hofstede:



Let us now look at another trait Teutonics are often known for: their ability to delay gratification.


IV. FUTURE ORIENTATION

While it is hard to measure time preference exactly, we can spot some possible proxies for it. The World Economic Forum, through its polling of businesspeople in 139 countries, has found a few.

Devotion to education can show, among other things, a keen eye for the future:



The World Economic Forum also collects non-polling data, for example different countries' credit rating, a classic sign of future orientation:


Though it is little mentioned, we believe the strength of a nation's currency says a lot about its people's time preference. When a large chunk of the world chooses to use your money as a reserve currency, it means they consider you not only economically sound but trustworthy, stable, predictable...  A glimpse at the world's reserve currencies today:


The 2001 GLOBE Study at the U. of Pennsylvania, one of the largest ever on cross-cultural values, found the following on time preference:



As well as the following about 'Uncertainty Avoidance,' that is, only feeling comfortable about the future when there are rules and order in place:



Wang et al. conducted a study on college students in 45 countries, measuring their ability to delay gratification.  Results are below (interesting to note the enormous spread on Anglos):



Next we shall examine a trait that has been stewed over by economists but largely ignored by values researchers: global economic development.



V.  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Analysts bicker endlessly about the sources of first-world wealth: Geography? Culture? Exploitation? Luck of the draw?  Whatever these sources may be, Teutonics, wherever they are found, tend to enjoy them in abundance.

Though it is rickety as a real measure of a people's wealth-creating potential (sitting on an oil field is just luck), GDP per capita is still a favorite of economists.  We prefer to use GNI (as does the World Bank), as it includes all output created by a country's residents, whether at home or abroad.  Fully aware of the problematic nature of GDP/GNI per capita data, we present it nonetheless:


A more reliable measure of wealth is median household income, but this data is hard to come by at the planetary level. However, the International Labor Organization has gathered data on median wage (adjusted for PPP) in 72 countries:



Strong infrastructure is often a sign of high economic development. From the World Economic Forum's ranking of 139 countries:



Or that sine qua non of modern communication, internet access:


Finally, the U.N.'s 'Human Development Index,' which aggregates life expectancy, total years of schooling, and GNI (gross national income) per capita, could be seen as a proxy for economic development.  As we feel the focus on national income is less important, we've chosen to use the version of the index which excludes this variable:




VI. OTHER INDICATORS

Having looked at how Teutonics measure up on Rule of Law, Trust, Egalitarianism, Future Orientation, and Economic Development, let us peer under a few more pots.  While not easy to categorize, the following indicators could nonetheless help us understand why 50% of the world's potential migrants want in to that 8% of the planet run by NW Euros.


INVENTIVITY

The ability to file patents depends on a hodge-podge of qualities--creativity, intelligence, economic development, no doubt many more...We present it here, only the top 20 of 139 countries consulted:



INDIVIDUALISM

Maciamo at Eupedia has made a map using value researcher Geert Hofstede's Individualism-Collectivism data for Europe:


From Eupedia via HBD Chick


WOMEN'S RIGHTS

The century of third-wave feminism has brought the notion of Women's Power to the fore. Considered by many to be a sign of 'development' or 'enlightenment,' this indicator is an aggregate of data from the U.N. Development Program, World Economic Forum, and Economist Intelligence Unit:



LIFE SATISFACTION

The E.U., through its 'Eurobarometer,' looks at diverse indicators among its member states. Two that may or may not give us some more clues about the attraction of NW Euro states for migrants:




PHYSICAL ACTIVITY




LACK OF IN-GROUP FEELING

The 62-nation GLOBE values study asked about levels of patriotism and family loyalty ('In-Group Collectivism'):







*     *     *


Gehring again:
The Greeks and Latins are talkative, vivacious, and quick in their actions, the English and Germans taciturn and deliberative. The latter are passionate lovers of nature, the former evince but little enthusiasm for the glories of Pan. [...] 
The persistency of the Teutons is shown in the patience and diligence of the German labourer, the tedious researches of the university professor, the dogged resistance of the English soldier, and the indomitable energy of the Yankee speculator. It may account for their marvellous success in colonisation and their mastery over the material world; for the commercial prosperity of the Dutch during the 17th century, the English supremacy of the last hundred years, and the German and American emergence of to-day [1908].  


Since the time when they were but a mild annoyance at the borders of mighty Rome, the Germanics have migrated, conquered, spread their languages and cultures far and wide--in the Anglos' case, to the four corners of the world.  Since they let go of their empires, a surprising reverse-colonialism has brought millions of Sun People to their shores, clamoring to be ruled by them once again.


How did we get here?  How has this group of marginal Teutonic tribes come to so utterly seduce the spirits of the world's migrants, creating societies that are the envy of the planet?

Before NW Euros start patting themselves on the back, they would do well to remember the traits that make their societies so pleasant are for the most part the result of chance.  It's been hypothesized that northern 'Ice Peoples' evolved in a harsh environment that selected for future orientation, organization, cooperation, and high parental investment ('R-k theory'). The abundant environment of 'Sun Peoples,' the theory goes, would have selected for just the opposite.

hajnal line - core europe


Much later, as HBD Chick has shown in detail, the Germanic 'core' of Northern Europe underwent a series of unusual selection pressures. Among them were Church-imposed outbreeding and manorialism, which seem to have fostered more nuclear families and individualism, commonweal-orientation, civicness and less violence.  (See also JayMan.)  The strange path NW Euros took has left its mark, and they in turn have left their mark on the world. Britannia once ruled the waves, now it is her Anglo cousins the Americans on whose empire the sun never sets.


Teutonics today only make up 8% of the world's population, yet they make up nearly 50% of the destinations of those who wish to migrate:




But part of what makes them such welcoming hosts--their out-group altruism and tolerance--can also lead them down a path of national self-destruction if they do not take care to preserve their own cultures. As Harpending and Cochran have shown, natural selection is roaring along faster than ever.  The very traits that allowed Teutonics to captivate the world may very well end up being their downfall.  Only time will tell.




Previously:

43 comments:

redzengenoist said...

Comprehensive as always, M.G.

Two things:
1) Don't forget the marshmallow test, by country! Never has a more intuitive result been more charming to explain. And the fact is, many people are receptive to truth to about the extent that it makes them feel good.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/which-nations-think-over-the-long-term/#.VFTZ1FOUfvU

2) It's interesting that East Asian countries also have peculiar strengths, and that their weaknesses tend to be greatly ameliorated in places like HK and SING with overwhelmingly EAS populace, when they're just given a few teutonic admins/seeders. It would be very interesting if you could make a post about how unique EAS are in their ability to match and surpass teutons on a host of metrics if they're just placed into the right context, and not stunted. On this point, I recently heard EAS analogised to the various species in Brin's UPLIFT universe, the (playful) analogy has some merit, in that many of the UPLIFT species surpass humans on several skills.

ckp said...

Why are you including Finns as Teutonic? Yes, they were ruled by Swedes, but Swedes were and are a minority in Finland - nowadays making up a mere 5.4%.

M.G. said...

redzengenoist--

Thank you for reading.

1) I'm a great fan of the marshmallow test! I've referenced it before, in relation to Euro/Afro impulse control. (This little dude is my favorite.)

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, it's never been performed on an international subject group. That's what I'm looking for in this article-- multi-country data (like the Wang et.al. experiment they did on college students in 45 countries). If I'm wrong, please throw a link my way.

2) The East Asian countries are a whole fascinating topic in themselves, I agree. Maybe you've seen this discussion at HBD Chick's about the origin of Singapore's and HK's very low corruption levels...how much is genetic, cultural, how great was British influence vs. that of autocrats like Lee Kwan Yew...?

I had not heard about Brin's universe, now having read up on it, I do see what you mean. (Link for those interested.) The interplay between these two branches of Ice People, the East Asians and the Teutonics, has been and continues to be an interesting puzzle. Definitely worth looking into further.

M.G. said...

ckp--

I realize including Finland is a choice many won't agree with. Genetically and linguistically they are in a different family, but geographically, culturally, and religiously they seem to fit into the Nordic sphere. What pushes me most to include them is that on the dozens of cross-cultural indicators I've studied--economic, political, sociological, educational, technological, business, judicial, the list goes on--they nearly always seem to cluster closely with the Scandinavian countries.

This makes me believe that genetics or conquest aside, there is some strong cultural connection between these lands that merits them being grouped together.

You may find this unpersuasive, and I shan't try to convince you further. I've drawn the lines where they are, that is the reasoning behind it, and I fully accept that many won't agree.

ckp said...

That's fair enough - I do disagree but it's a reasonable position to take nonetheless.

ckp said...

For what it's worth here are the reasons I find it objectionable (you've said you don't want to argue further so I don't expect a reply):

That Finns are so similar to the rest of the Nordics despite being genetically dissimilar is a (first-order) point AGAINST the HBD Zeitgeist, and a point IN FAVOR of traditional cultural-environmental hypotheses of national character. It's circular - you're not saying "here's a natural ethnogeographic category, look how successful they are!" - it's more like "I'm defining a group of people called 'Teutonics' based partially on success; gee-whiz, look at how successful they are!". Furthermore, you notably exclude the French despite significant Germanic admixture on top of their Celtic substrate, again because they aren't as successful.

Now you can make more complicated second-order HBD points (or add more epicycles depending on your outlook) about manorialism and outbreeding to explain the Finnish success story, and ditto for France's relative dysfunction, but you have to cut the "Teutonic" concept adrift. It isn't doing any useful inferential work, not to mention how Stormfront cranks will latch onto it despite being more neutral than "Nordic" or "Germanic" (which of course isn't your fault!)

Italian commenter said...

I must apologize for not having seen essential parts of your post, and for writing an inappropriate comment, which I would like to see deleted if possible.

M.G. said...

ckp--

Again, not trying to convince you about Finland per se, but you bring up larger points of great interest.

That Finns are so similar to the rest of the Nordics despite being genetically dissimilar is a (first-order) point AGAINST the HBD Zeitgeist, and a point IN FAVOR of traditional cultural-environmental hypotheses

Despite 'HBD' in the blog's title, its goal isn't to push a biologically determinist view. Sorry if I've given that impression. Culture in particular is an interplay of genes and environment that is maddeningly difficult to tease out. The Germanic tribes that spread out over Europe left wildly uneven traces of their language, customs, and DNA. I don't profess to be able to measure such things. Declaring a 'Teutonosphere' means painting with a gross, crude brush, there's no way around it.

Furthermore, you notably exclude the French despite significant Germanic admixture on top of their Celtic substrate, again because they aren't as successful.

France is indeed like a beast with two heads, one Gallo-Roman and one Teutonic. Its medieval aristocracy was mostly Germanic, its very name comes from a Germanic tribe. I have in fact lived in France for many years, and the natives never tire of telling me how the North and South are 'two different countries.' But unfortunately, almost every cross-cultural study in existence uses nation-state borders only. I'm forced to work with what I have. If sub-regional indicators were taken, much of northeastern/eastern France would easily fall into the 'Teutonosphere.'

And the messiness goes on: Switzerland and Belgium are both part francophone (with Swiss romansh); Wales/Scotland/Ireland have strong Celtic roots and loathed being identified with their Germanic conquerors; some western Slavic states went through heavy Germanic settlement/influence yet I've not included them,... And so on.

Now you can make more complicated second-order HBD points (or add more epicycles depending on your outlook) about manorialism and outbreeding to explain the Finnish success story

Again, because I'm not a biological determinist, I don't need manorialism or outbreeding to explain the Finnish success story. These are factors that have been suggested as contributing to Germanics' cultural pathways, who then had a cultural influence on many other peoples.

M.G. said...

[cont'd]

Culturally speaking, the lands where Germanic and Slavic (esp Russian) influence fought it out are of special interest, with Finland a stand-out example. That they came within a hair's breadth of being an S.S.R. is fascinating and brings on the counter-factual: If they had, would Finland today track with Estonia (with whom they share so much language and DNA) on cultural indices? Perhaps they would, and in that case I wouldn't include them with the Teutonics. HBD-ers tend to overplay genes and underplay environment (how to explain North and South Korea? East and West Germany?). The fact is that the Finns rankled at Russian rule in the 19th c. and successfully fought off the Soviets in the 20th c. The customs and political system were anathema to them--was this due to their centuries-long association with the Swedish Empire? To their Lutheranism? To some hard-wired personality traits? I don't claim to know, but the fact that they politically/culturally landed on the side of Scandinavia and fought like hell to stay there suggests to me a link to the 'Germanic way of doing things' that isn't any less real for not being linguistic or genetic.

It isn't doing any useful inferential work

I disagree. If one looks at cultural influence only, I think Germanic-ness is a useful explanatory factor for a lot of what we see today in this sphere. But it is by no means an easy catch-all, and this post was meant as a broad-brush categorization. With the cross-cultural data available, it can only be such. I long for the day when researchers in this field focus more on sub-regional data.

Stormfront cranks will latch onto it despite being more neutral than "Nordic" or "Germanic"

Indeed they will, but ethnic boosterism is not the goal of this blog or this post. We are living one little blip of history. Many groups have had their day in the sun and then passed into the shadows; there's no reason to think Germanics will be any exception.

Thanks again for your thought-provoking comments.

M.G. said...

Italian commenter--

Per your request, I've deleted your post, but if I may just re-publish this part, because it brings up a point to highlight:

you'll notice that in many fields the best performing areas are Tuscany and emilia-Romagbna, south of the Po river. We Italians are familiar with the history of the cultural and migratory influences that shaped the people of the various regions; the Tuscans are generally acknowledged to be among the most accomplished of Italians and they would laugh if we told them they have any kind of Germanic background; they're essentially the same people as the ancient Etrurians, a people that has always been highly accomplished. And even the people of "Lombardy" up north are mostly of Celtic background, not Germanic - they were already lighter skinned than the other Italians before the Germanic migrations.

As you've now noticed, nowhere in the post did anyone claim Northern Italians as Germanics. But I do take your point that maybe 'northern European core' is better than 'European core' for the territory HBD Chick was talking about.

Also I'm well aware that many past Nordicists insisted that ancient Romans (and even Greeks!) simply had to be of Germanic blood, as if republican ideas or engineering prowess could somehow only be 'northern' traits. Genetic science has now proved them wrong, but I know those ideas do continue to circulate even today. As I hope you have seen, this is not a Nordicist blog, and the point of the post was simply to highlight the attraction that 'Teutonic' societies seem to have for today's migrants, and to look for some possible reasons why.

John Hostetler said...

I'm reasonably certain that Finns are not significantly different from Swedes genetically, and I'm a little surprised that that would not be common knowledge here. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Finns, Russians and a few others are a little closer to the old Steppe stock than some nearby groups, which might make them a little less amenable to third world invasion: less pathological altruism. However, the genetic distance is very small.

From the viewpoint of the invaders, it could be that some groups, most exemplified by the Swedes, are at a unique sweet spot in their genetic and culture history where they have all the conquering wealth of their Steppe ancestors, all the trust, cooperation and equality of hunters, and all the susceptibility to gentling of a farming people. Not so sweet for the Swedes anymore though.

That tiny genetic difference the Finns have may reflect this a little, but I suspect the difference is mostly cultural.

JayMan said...

Great post! Excellent assembly of data.

First, let me say I'm working on something bigger and badder. That's all I'll say for now. But in the mean time, two other must-see posts are:

How Inbred are Europeans? | JayMan's Blog

and

Where HBD Chick’s Hypothesis Works | JayMan's Blog

Now, first and foremost, about this conflict between genes and environment, this:

("That Finns are so similar to the rest of the Nordics despite being genetically dissimilar is a (first-order) point AGAINST the HBD Zeitgeist, and a point IN FAVOR of traditional cultural-environmental hypotheses of national character.")

...is complete and utter nonsense. Look, the reality is that there is broadly not much good evidence for "environmental" effects. There is certainly little evidence that differences between people, or groups of people at any given time has anything to do with "environment." And to the extent that it does, it is largely difficult to impossible to research. It is patently silly to point out that some society doesn't fit any neat theory (even HBD Chick's), hence, the difference must be environmental. (Have you failed to consider that the theory may be wrong/incomplete?)

Finland or the Koreas mean little or nothing for genes vs. environment.

In any case, on Finland, and for that matter, the Celtic fringe (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Britanny, and others), none of these nations are "Germanic" (not even partly so in the case of Finland). Indeed, Finns are distinct, genetically, from all other Europeans (the closest being Estonians). The similarity the Finns have with the present day Germanics is an example of convergent evolution: they have developed similar traits in response to (presumably) similar selective pressures (at least somewhat), despite not being particularly related.

On the matter of N vs. S. Korea, note that I had a post on that. I'll get to that in the next comment.

Returning to the aforementioned Celts, broadly, I wouldn't classify them with the Germanics (indeed, I typically exclude them when I talk about "Northwest Europeans"). Sure, there's some similarities, but there are some broad and important differences as well – differences that make themselves all too relevant in American politics, for examples.

Some areas fall under the pattern even though they're not necessarily Germanic: France, N. Spain, N. Italy. There however (consistent with expectations) appears to be a N-S gradient in all those countries, most pronounced in the latter two countries.

Piecing together what's going on here is an ongoing processes, spearheaded by many of us, HBD Chick in particular. There's a couple of things we can declare at this time.

1. While Germanic ancestry does today seem to be highly related to a particular set of outcomes, it is not THE thing (Finland, France, N. Spain, N. Italy).

2. There is no dichotomy between "genes" and "culture." HBD Chick would quizzically ask "where does culture come from?" As it's been said so often, "culture is personality writ large." Much other evidence points against thinking of some other worldly "environmental" force in making national differences, and inconsistencies from neat theories hardly calls for such.

Again excellent post! Though much misconception in the comments.

JayMan said...

As for Korea and Germany, well, I had something to say on that. See my post:

Stop Saying North and South Koreans Are Necessarily Completely Identical Populations | JayMan's Blog

In the case of Germany, the matter is clear: differences across Germany predate the Cold War and its division in WW II. (Those differences may be key in explaining variation in German-Americans, in fact).

A similar situation may exist with Korea. Small (or not so small)genetic differences across the peninsula may seriously contribute to the differences we see today. Unfortunately, at this time, it's hard to impossible to test.

JayMan said...

Then again, to correct myself:

"1. While Germanic ancestry does today seem to be highly related to a particular set of outcomes, it is not THE thing (Finland, France, N. Spain, N. Italy)."

If the argument goes from that these usual peoples of NW Europe need to be entirely or predominantly Germanic to instead that they just need to be somewhat Germanic, then it might work. The Celtic fringe, France, at least N. Spain and N. Italy are at least somewhat Germanic in ancestry, even if just a minor fraction in some cases. One could even expand it to include the West Slavs, who are notably different from East and South Slavs (generally, intermediate in most traits of interest between Germanics and others) and are also somewhat Germanic in ancestry.

It's clear this isn't something that persisted from the ancient Germanic tribes to today; the Germans of Roman times were notably different from their modern descendants (having tribes back in the day, for one). However, perhaps there was some pre-existing genetic material in them that made the selective processes they have gone through for their present traits more efficient than in other groups (perhaps certain genes that could have been co-opted for reciprocal altruism, for example).

However, none of this explains the Finns (who again, like the Celts, are different from modern Germanics in many ways). Perhaps they shared these genes with the Germans, due to deep ancestry? Or maybe it was a fruitful artifact of convergent evolution? Further research is needed.

bjdubbs said...

The real question is, can Teutonium be bottled up and shipped overseas in sufficient quantities to power the rest of the world? Some sort of black box with power jacks on the outside. Plug your society into the Teutonium box and you're good to go. Somehow, the Teutonium has to be separated from one little patch of land in Europe. Teutonium is too valuable to be hoarded in one corner of the planet.

dab said...

The correlation between "Germanicness" and all these social metrics of freedom prosperity are striking enough to take the outliers in stried. Of course the interpretation of just what is behind the correlation will crucially depend on scrutiny of the "difficult cases", especially France, Finland, Ireland and Switzerland. But by cherry-picking Finland and not France may be seen as selection bias by people you wish to convince of the merit of the hypothesis. So I wouldn't do that, I would post correlation coefficients between objective measures. E.g. fraction of speakers of a Germanic language. Of course it isn't the language itself that triggers success, that's just to show correlation objectively. I would be interested in such correlation coefficients for all the observables discussed here with "Germanic speakers". I would say even from a glance at the maps that the coefficients will be sufficient to convince sociologists there is a significant effect. So after that there will still be time to go into more speculative and convoluted arguments trying to pinpoint causality.











pseudoerasmus said...

It is true, national borders disguise the fact that there are "Germanic" populations within non-Germanic countries.

MG -- as you know, I'm more interested in applying these observations to economic outcomes. In the The "Anthropology" of Financial Crises I argued there were some very unusual features about Germany and the Germanic-speaking countries at the start of the Great Recession. (It's not about the Euro crisis, but about the events prior.) I'm sure you will see in it echoes of what you are talking about in this blogpost. I also, observe, however, that Finland also fits that pattern but Great Britain does not.

M.G. said...

John Hostetler--

I'd always thought the Finns were more closely related to the Estonians than to the Swedes, both genetically and linguistically. This article from Gene Expression visualizes some DNA samples:

The Swedes – especially southern Swedes – were genetically close to the Germans and British, while their genetic distance to Finns was substantially longer.

It seems people often don't know whether to classify them as 'Baltic' or 'Scandinavian.'

In any case I agree that the disparate groups in this geographical area were surely subject to many of the same selection pressures over the long term. Also very much agree about the 'sweet spot' for the Swedes rapidly losing its sweetness.

M.G. said...

JayMan--

In any case, on Finland, and for that matter, the Celtic fringe (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Britanny, and others), none of these nations are "Germanic"

I think you and I are coming at the term 'Germanic' differently--I'm including cultural influence, whereas you're looking at things more genetically.

Returning to the aforementioned Celts, broadly, I wouldn't classify them with the Germanics

Indeed, the Celtic fringe was always the bête noire of the old race scientists. Some of them classified the Irish as 'Mediterranean,' puzzled as they were by their so-called 'southern' appearance and behavior. But here again, I'm leaning on the heavy Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) cultural influence on these peoples, not taking a purely genetic perspective.

There is no dichotomy between "genes" and "culture."... Much other evidence points against thinking of some other worldly "environmental" force in making national differences

Here you and I definitely part ways. While our cultures surely spring from our genes (which themselves, going back far enough, spring from our environment), there are many examples of People A evolving a certain way of doing things, then marching elsewhere and imposing this folkway on People B. In that case People B can 'take on' some traits that aren't strictly homegrown, and long-term it becomes tricky to tease out what came from where.

Stop Saying North and South Koreans Are Necessarily Completely Identical Populations | JayMan's Blog

I have seen this post, in fact, and while I agree it's plausible there are genetic differences between S. and N. Koreans (and there surely are between E. and W. Germans), the 'environmental' cause in this case I think weighs heavily. Let's not underestimate the force of a foreign powerhouse in changing a subject people's mores, if only temporarily.

Or maybe it was a fruitful artifact of convergent evolution? Further research is needed.

Indeed, the water remains somewhat murky here.

First, let me say I'm working on something bigger and badder. That's all I'll say for now.

Can't wait to see what you're cooking up! Bon courage.

M.G. said...

dab--

I would be interested in such correlation coefficients for all the observables discussed here with "Germanic speakers".

This would be an interesting metric. It would be tricky, as there are francophone Belgians and Swiss, Romansh-speaking Swiss, etc., though I think those are the only big non-germanic speaking groups, as the Celtic languages seem to be dead or dying and the Finnish-speaking Swedes are a tiny minority.

But by cherry-picking Finland and not France may be seen as selection bias by people you wish to convince of the merit of the hypothesis.

Undoubtedly. In this case, lacking sub-regional data on France (which so clearly has a foot in both the 'Latin' and 'Teutonic' worlds), I follow the major cross-cultural values researchers (Hofstede, House, WVS, etc.), who group them with 'Latins.' The truth is that one can make a strong argument in both directions.

JayMan said...

@M.G.:

"Indeed, the Celtic fringe was always the bête noire of the old race scientists. Some of them classified the Irish as 'Mediterranean,' puzzled as they were by their so-called 'southern' appearance and behavior. But here again, I'm leaning on the heavy Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) cultural influence on these peoples, not taking a purely genetic perspective"

Well, here's the problem with that track, which will illustrate a key point I'd like to make: with the British Celts, you also have a heavy Germanic genetic input. As Razib Khan put it, "never forget the genetic confound." That's a fundamental flaw in most research claiming to demonstrate an "environmental" effect: you must first isolate the genetic impact.

"While our cultures surely spring from our genes (which themselves, going back far enough, spring from our environment), there are many examples of People A evolving a certain way of doing things, then marching elsewhere and imposing this folkway on People B. In that case People B can 'take on' some traits that aren't strictly homegrown, and long-term it becomes tricky to tease out what came from where."

Ehh, I don't know about that. In fact, that's a big point of discussion I have been pointing out lately:

https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/528700509474258945

Can you find a solid example of this "cultural transmission" that didn't involve genetic admixture? Typically, the best examples we have are things that tend to have low heritability (i.e., they are dependent on content), like language and dress. The more heritable things (i.e., just about everything else) show much more resistance to change.

Even if we think of areas that have been under heavy Germanic influence, well, at one time, that included much of the world. As you have excellently detailed here on this blog, despite this fact, spreading Germanic cultural traits hasn't worked out so well.

"Let's not underestimate the force of a foreign powerhouse in changing a subject people's mores, if only temporarily."

Let's not overestimate it either, I'd say. It seems finding solid examples is difficult.

M.G. said...

pseudoerasmus--

Thank you for the link, those are two excellent posts about Emmanuel Todd and Germany. I'm also very interested in the places where HBD meets economics, particularly international economic policy (trade, aid, eurozone), though I have less time than I'd like to research them. It's a great pleasure to read your posts as it seems you are the only one writing in-depth about these areas from a race-realist viewpoint. I've added your blog to the blogroll under 'Economics.'

ckp said...

@Jayman

>...is complete and utter nonsense. Look, the reality is that there is broadly not much good evidence for "environmental" effects. There is certainly little evidence that differences between people, or groups of people at any given time has anything to do with "environment." And to the extent that it does, it is largely difficult to impossible to research. It is patently silly to point out that some society doesn't fit any neat theory (even HBD Chick's), hence, the difference must be environmental. (Have you failed to consider that the theory may be wrong/incomplete?)

I feel you are being uncharitable. I didn't say that the Finnish example is proof of the environmentalist hypothesis, I said that it is evidence in favor of the environmentalist hypothesis. There is an important difference between the two. I haven't failed to consider that the theory is wrong or incomplete; that's exactly what I'm pointing out!

By Conservation of Expected Evidence, seeing that Finns have similar outcomes to Teutonics despite being genetically dissimilar must NECESSARILY reduce our credence in a HBD-like hypothesis, because the converse evidence (Finns and Teutonics with similar outcomes and genes) would obviously increase our credence. In order to retain the HBD-like argument, we have to augment it with more epicycles and hope that the increased explanatory power overcomes the added complexity penalty.

This is a far cry from saying Boas was right and I'd very much like if it you stopped representing it that way.

>Finland or the Koreas mean little or nothing for genes vs. environment.

What would mean something for genes vs environment, by your standard? Your post on Twitter asking for examples of assimilation without interbreeding is ludicrous - we couldn't possibly have such evidence even if it were the case that assimilation happened without genes! People like to fuck, and will generally do so across ethnic lines. If there's some kind of institutional barrier preventing two ethnic groups from mixing sexually, do you really think they can mix culturally? As long as that confound exists, the lack of examples means very little.

Sam said...

Can somebody explain why N. Korea vs S.Korea or West Germany vs East Germany proves anything with regards to nature/nurture?

Or are you guys refering to the fact that these people may/may not have been so different that they took different political/economical systems?


A great article again M.G. and keep it up. Not sure why the Finland/France thing is filling up the comments section. Considering his persuasive case he has built on many countries I would think he has proven his point.

M.G. said...

Sam--

Yes, exactly. Some people posit that if, for example, the North and South Koreans practice such radically different politics, economics, values, customs, etc. today, it's because each group has genetic differences that have drawn them to that way of thinking/governing. At the other extreme, the idea that outside influences (foreign powers) have pushed all those values onto them. I (and probably most who read this blog) suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

jgress said...

I don't know about Finnish genetics, but I do know something about linguistics, and while Finnish is a non-Germanic, and indeed non-Indo-European language, it shows evidence of very ancient contact with Germanic speakers. Loanwords like kuningas "king" even preserve the Proto-Germanic form mostly intact, where it has been worn down by sound change in every attested Germanic language. So it is highly plausible to include Finnish in the wider Germanic cultural sphere.

Anonymous said...

"the origin of Singapore's and HK's very low corruption levels...how much is genetic, cultural, how great was British influence vs. that of autocrats like Lee Kwan Yew...?"

My guess would be a combo of: Lee Kwan Yew observing the social and economic benefits of the British attitude to corruption, also observing the effectiveness of the Japanese methods of enforcing rules seen during the occupation and a base population willing to consent to those methods because they are capable of understanding the benefit.

.

"Not sure why the Finland/France thing is filling up the comments section"

Finns & Swedes ~ Irish & British ~ Basques & Spanish

etc

Simon in London said...

Finland may be only 5% people whi identify as ethnic-Swede, but in terms of ancestry it's closer to 25% Swedish.
I was just reading up on the post-WW1 Finnish Civil War recently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War
All the names of the victorious 'white' (right-wing) Finnish leaders were Swedish, all the names of the losing 'red' (socialist) Finns were Finnish or Russian.

Finland is pretty clearly clinal, being a fringe-Teutonosphere nation that could have gone either way. Were it not for the Russian threat, Finns would likely have followed the Irish path of creating a national identity in opposition to the Teutons (Swedes for Finland, English for Ireland). But for most ethnic Finns, having the Russian Bear as your neighbour made the Teutons a much more attractive prospect, so they *chose* the Teutonosphere over the Slavosphere. Likewise if Ireland were ever seriously threatened by Russian invasion they would look to the Anglo nations (UK & USA) for protection.

I think this is actually strong support for the blog post thesis. Other peoples will certainly oppose the Teutonosphere when it is the main threat to them, but will prefer it to all rival threats. It takes some really appalling behaviour by Teutons (eg by the Nazis in the conquered Soviet territories)to change this dynamic.

YIH said...

Rather off topic:
As I'm sure we're all aware, African riots have revisited the US yet again.
Right after the event (and first riot), Fred Reed wrote about it:
The races spring from utterly different cultures. Compulsory integration is thus a form of social imperialism in which whites try to force blacks to conform to European norms. Blacks have no historical connection at all to Greece, Rome, the Old Testament Hebrews, Christianity, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, to Newton, LaGrange, or Galois, to the philosophic tradition of Thales, Aquinas, Schopenhauer, or Hegel. Nor do Eurowhites have roots in Africa. No commonality exists.
We talk multiculturalism, but try to impose a monoculture—ours—on blacks.

And after the second riot, same thing:
Yet it fits all the evidence. It explains why Africa never built cities, why it did not invent writing, why there was no African Fifth-Century Athens. It explains why Rhodesia, prosperous and an exporter of food when run by whites, fell immediately into hunger and barbarism when whites left. It explains the dysfunction of black societies from Africa to Haiti to Detroit. It explains why blacks invariably score far below whites and Asians on tests of IQ, on the SATs, GREs, on entrance and promotion exams for fire and police departments.
One of the biggest lies about Operation Iraqi Freedom was ''we (US forces) will be welcomed as liberators''. As we all discovered 10 years ago, no, we weren't.
They were seen (as Fred put it) ''as hostile occupiers, much as Parisians in 1943 saw their Wehrmacht masters''.
That is the situation between Whites and Africans. Like ''Native Americans'' a term that like ''African'' I don't have a problem with, because it's accurate, an advanced people fought with a less advanced people and the less advanced people LOST.
In a 'race war' the original people may lose, (see moslim invaders to France today) or an even better example: the Ainu of Japan (AKA, ''Native Japanese'').
If Africans in America are lucky they will will wind up in ''reservations''.

M.G. said...

Simon in London--

Good points about the Finland / Ireland comparison. Context is everything. I agree that looking at the historical 'what-ifs' can help us better understand the 'what-is.' It makes me wonder what the future will look like when the Teutonosphere (or parts of it) goes into decline. When the U.S. loses its global hegemony, in any case, we're in for a massive re-ordering whose shape I find it very hard to conceive of today.

M.G. said...

YIH--

Fred Reed is always worth a read. As to race war in the U.S., I think future historians will consider us today to be a in a low-grade race war. Random black-on-white violence is spreading, anti-white rhetoric is at an all-time high, and our media/entertainment serve as a kind of of wartime propaganda machine masking the ugly reality of the attack.

'Afros in reservations'--I think that's in a loose way what segregation/apartheid was, and it was in effect (de jure or de facto) from colonial times until just a few decades ago. The aberration is this little non-segregated oasis we're living in now. But will it last? Will Euro-Americans do what they've always done in the face of Afro crime waves (intense push-back)? Or will elite Whites retreat into their gated compounds and let the proles all fight it out? Interesting times ahead.

Robert Fitzpatrick said...

too many comments take the "germanic" designation too literally, essentially providing support for the more obscure "Teutonics" nomenclature. Consider the long history of human settlement in north west Europe along with the interbreeding amongst ethnic subgroups like the Irish, English, French etc. I suggest a common characteristic shared by all Teutonics as opposed to mediterraneans is the difference between civil and common law, the common law presumes you can do something unless a law precludes it while the Civil law presumes you can't do something unless the law says you can

Live-Evil said...

Hmmm.. that's strange, Singapore consistently ranks at the top on most of these rankings but you choose not to single them out for higher levels of trust/egalitarianism/lower levels of corruption, but Germanics. Okay... Then you decide to exclude France from your hypothesis of Germanics being more trusting, despite the fact the French themselves are largely Germanic. I'm just a little skeptical, that's all.

M.G. said...

Live-Evil--

Why would Singapore be singled out? This is a post about Northern Europeans. You would perhaps like to see a post about 'Northern peoples' in general, or 'Ice peoples,' which is fine, but this is not that post. A time and a place to every purpose under heaven. Maybe in the future.

Your point about France has been brought up and hashed out already in the comments section above. Nothing further to add.

jeppo said...

This is excellent work, congratulations. The point being that not only are Northern European nations and their overseas offshoots superior in almost every criteria imaginable to virtually all of the non-European world, but they also far outrank their fellow whites in Southern and Eastern Europe.

I believe that Europe, like ancient Gaul, is naturally divided into three parts, based on race, language and religion. Racially, Europeans are all Caucasians, but they are mainly divided into three general phenotypes: Nordic, Mediterranean and Alpine.

In terms of language, almost all European languages are part of the Indo-European family. Within Europe, the three great linguistic sub-families are Germanic, Latin and Slavic.

And while almost all Europeans are Christian (or post-Christian), Christianity has long been divided into three major sects: Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

So based on race, language and religion, Europe is divided into three meta-cultures: Nordic-Germanic-Protestantism in Northern Europe, Mediterranean-Latin-Catholicism in Southern Europe, and Alpine-Slavic-Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe. Of course not all European nations or individuals fit neatly into one of these categories, but I believe that a general North-South-East division is apparent.

I believe my definition of Northern Europeans is the exact same as yours, though you style them Teutonics. I count 18 Northern European nations: 6 English-speaking (Britain, Ireland, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), 5 German (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein), 5 Scandinavian (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Iceland), and 2 Dutch (Netherlands and Belgium).

For Southern Europe I count 7 nations (Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta), plus 4 micro-states (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican), and also the only 2 countries in Latin America where Europeans are clearly a majority (Argentina and Uruguay), for a total of 13 sovereign states.

Eastern Europe is the most heterogenous part of the continent, but it is mostly Alpine and Slavic and largely Orthodox, and it also shares a recent political history, as it includes all the European former communist states (except East Germany). There are 20 such nations in Europe proper, plus Russia, for a total of 21.

It seems pretty obvious to me that in all the measurements you listed, we will find the Northern Europeans on top, followed by the Southerners, and with the Easterners bringing up the rear. Some of this may be due to the retarding effects of communism on the standard of living in Eastern Europe, and I would expect that some of the more northerly and westerly nations (like the Baltic states, Czech Republic and Slovenia) to catch up to Southern Europe, while the more southeasterly nations (like Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova) will be left in the dust. (continued)

jeppo said...

You briefly touched on the Human Development Index, which is arguably the best known and most widely respected measurement of standard of living and quality of life. The 2014 HDI rankings best show the utter domination of the 18 Northern European nations compared to the rest of the world:

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Switzerland
4. Netherlands
5. United States
6. Germany
7. New Zealand
8. Canada
10. Denmark
11. Ireland
12. Sweden
13. Iceland
14. United Kingdom
18. Liechtenstein
21. Austria
21. Belgium
21. Luxembourg
24. Finland

Northern Europeans take the top 8 places, and all 18 nations finish in the top 24. Predictably, in HBD terms, of the 6 nations to break into the Northern European stranglehold at the top of the heap, 4 are East Asian (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan), one Jewish (Israel), and one Southern European (France).

Can there be any doubt that Northern Europeans build not just better societies than anyone else, but far better than anyone else? And this is after decades of mass Third World immigration have greatly diluted the ethnic stock of the people who created these societies in the first place. Incredible.

I'm a bit late to the party here (I found the link to your site in an article at Alternative Right) but I just wanted to add my two cents and to congratulate you on an excellent post.

Anonymous said...

This post is in many ways disingenuous. It relies heavily on opinion polls, and going from that to the reasons why the "teutonics" are this way, the hajnal line and such, many people speculate this in ways has a side effect of tendencies towards extreme liberalism. Scandinavians are in ways suicidally so, they seem keen to bend over for anybody that comes into their countries and do away with virtually all immigration standards, among many other things. I also think it's fair to say there's a streak of sexual debauchery and hedonism in scandinavian culture. Denmark's sexual culture in particular. Through all this, what does it really say that people in these countries think they have a good allocation of funds, that their governments are honest and sane, when by any objective measurement, they're destroying themselves? Britain is also, by any measure, really, really corrupt.

Compared to the rest of Europe, yeah, they have the best living standards, but they're also the least capable with holding on to them in face of outsiders.

martin said...

Of course Singapore and Hong Kong are at the top. They were part of the British Empire and took on board British laws and institutions. All over the world, countries that were once part of the BE are better of - some a little, some a lot - than neighbouring countries that weren't. Its a pity the British didn't liberate the whole of China.

M.G. said...

jeppo--

Sorry I missed your very interesting comments. I think your classification system makes a lot of sense, especially adding Argentina and Uruguay to 'southern Europe'--on the WVS graphs the former often cluster not far from the latter.

Eastern Europe is the most heterogenous part of the continent... Easterners bringing up the rear. Some of this may be due to the retarding effects of communism

Agree and agree. Huntington always insisted on a 'civilizational split' between E. Europe's Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant regions, and I know you're necessarily painting with a broad brush, but there does seem to be something to it. I did some visualizing of the HDI / democracy / corruption data here, here, here, and here, and found the patterns striking. Don't really know what's at work there though.

The 2014 HDI rankings best show the utter domination of the 18 Northern European nations

That is really striking when you see the list this way. And there are still analysts who insist that 'geography' is the deciding factor on who succeeds and who does not!

one Southern European (France)

And even for this 'southern' country, as the debate in the comments above shows, good arguments can be made for it going into either the 'southern' or the 'northern' camp.

Again very interesting, thanks for taking the time.

eqwefssfd said...

"Northern Europeans take the top 8 places, and all 18 nations finish in the top 24. Predictably, in HBD terms, of the 6 nations to break into the Northern European stranglehold at the top of the heap, 4 are East Asian (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Japan), one Jewish (Israel), and one Southern European (France)."

France isn't exactly what I'd call southern european (but not northern european either, and the same goes for Austria), and Canada is heavily French.
"Can there be any doubt that Northern Europeans build not just better societies than anyone else, but far better than anyone else? And this is after decades of mass Third World immigration have greatly diluted the ethnic stock of the people who created these societies in the first place. Incredible."

Yes, there can be doubt (I mean, you mention multiple non-northern european countries in those rankings), and at the highest levels of HDI, even after the top 24, the differences in HDI rankings are minor, so they don't build societies "far better than anyone else". along with how at the high levels, rankings flucuate a good deal from year to year. And I'm not sure what you mean by "greatly diluted", because white british, scandinavian people etc. are still unmixed, and you mentioning "decades of mass third world immigration" does bring a good point against them, because they seem the least capable of holding on to their societies in face of third world immigration and such (and this can't be blamed entirely on jews), and HDI, like the opinion polls cited here, likely doesn't fully take into account measures of corruption that includes things like suicidal trends of liberalism that stifle speech, allow horrors like Rotherham and Sweden's skyrocketing rape rates to happen etc.

Target said...

Good gosh, the work done by the author of this blog is tremendous.

thetargetandthegun said...

How do we get more influential people to find this blog? Amazing work done here.

I have linked to you about 80 times at Heartiste and other places. I'd do it more if it would get through mod.

Thank you for working so hard to publish truth.

You should get off of google/blogger, and I hope you have all of this information backed up.

We need people like Trump to actually be aware of this blog and the information published here.

M.G. said...

thetargetandthegun--

Sorry I missed your kind comments, I was offline for quite some time. I'm glad you've found the blog of interest and are spreading the word. Re: backing up, yes everything here is backed up. I'm thinking hard about the idea of publishing a book, we'll see what this year brings.