The Sweden Syndrome: The Collision of Humanitarianism Versus Ethnocentrism

Black Pigeon Speaks released a video the other day on the topic of how "Somali Fraud Explains Why Racism Will NEVER END." (It is embedded at the end of this piece for your convenience). In it, he explains how the Somali fraud is an example of ethnocentrism--Somalis looking out for their own versus what is best for the United States or other Americans--and, further, that there will always be ethnocentrism (and, hence, racism) because evolution favors it as THE winning strategy. This is based on a 2009 paper entitled "Why Is Ethnocentrism More Common Than Humanitarianism?" by three researchers from McGill University in Canada. 

    The researchers had developed a computer model in which "[a]gents could either defect against, or cooperate with, other in-group or out-group agents, creating four possible strategies: (1) a selfish strategy of universal defection, (2) a traitorous strategy of cooperation with out-group, but not in-group, agents, (3) an ethnocentric strategy of in-group cooperation and defection against agents from different groups, and (4) a humanitarian strategy of universal cooperation." The model was intended to gauge the effectiveness of each strategy in an evolutionary competition. "From a neutral starting point, ethnocentrism evolved to become the dominant strategy, eventually characterizing about 75% of the population," followed by humanitarian, selfish, and, at the bottom, traitorous. "The one exception is in the simulation without ethnocentrism (humanitarian-selfish-traitorous simulation), where traitorous agents perform better than selfish agents." 

    It should seem fairly obvious that Western Christian societies have generally followed a humanitarian strategy while the rest of the world follows an ethnocentric strategy. (Although not germane to this discussion, I would further suggest that within the West, many of our liberal elites and their leftist followers have followed the traitorous strategy which would be more effective within the Western milieu than the selfish strategy). This gives the peoples from those non-Western and/or non-Christian cultures a distinct advantage once they are admitted into the West and are competing against the humanitarian Westerners. 

    This is well illustrated by the author of the Postcards from Barsoom substack as he relates his experiences in Sweden, in a piece called "The Sweden Syndrome".  It is an interesting piece and I would recommend that you read the whole thing, but, in short, it shows how the native Swedes have been cowed into not pushing back, let alone fight back, against the invasion of their country by Muslims from the third world. He begins his article relating a tableau he witnessed riding a public bus one day: a group of girls being teased by a Arab boys while a group of Swedish boys glumly sat nearby saying and doing nothing. The author, going under the name "John Carter," observes:

It is a particularly sick society that binds the hands of its own men in this fashion, that its women may be offered up in the name of sexual liberation and gender equality to foreign invaders whom that same society refuses to hold to the same standard, because to do so would be culturally insensitive. 

 But the failure to act is more than just "sexual liberation" or "gender equality" holding back the boys. It is a pathological rejection of Swedish ethnocentrism. After regaling the reader with more examples of how ethnic migrants are ruining Sweden, Carter writes:

Meanwhile, the good Swedes I met at work or in social settings were resolutely blind to all of this, convinced that there was nothing to worry about, that there were no problems, and that anyone who said anything to the contrary was a sexist, a racist, an Islamophobe, and probably a Nazi. When I tentatively raised the subject with one, he proclaimed confidently that such thoughts were the short path to Auschwitz. Another conversation that stuck with me was with a colleague who had spent a year or so as a conscript in the Swedish military, an experience to which I could relate, having served a few years in the Canadian militia myself. The subject of bar brawls came up: for myself, I’d always enjoyed the sense that the boys from my platoon had my back and vice versa, and that any civilian who threw hands was starting a fight with all of us; he’d been in similar situations, but found the unreflective tribalism of it horrifying. I pointed out that there were good reasons of evolutionary psychology for this sort of pack instinct, and that tribes which lacked it tended to go extinct; he responded by saying that we’d evolved past such things. Later, he explained to me that he did not care at all whether there were no ethnic Swedes left in Sweden by the end of the twenty-first century, so long as the people living in Sweden continued to practice Swedish values of tolerance and so on.

Sweden hasn't evolved past tribalism--it evolved a humanitarian strategy parallel to the rest of the world, which strategy is now obsolete in the face of invaders with strong tribal instincts. The unnamed person in the quote may well live long enough to see Swedes effectively erased from Sweden, but their replacements will not continue "to practice Swedish values of tolerance and so on," because that was a losing strategy and wholly alien to their people.  

VIDEO: "Somali Fraud Explains Why Racism Will NEVER END"
Black Pigeon Speaks (17 min.)