Simon Sheppard explores the collective mindset
Published in Heritage and Destiny, March-April 2018
This is a super subject and many discoveries could follow this brief exploration. The theme to be discussed is the actions of individuals which further the interests of their population. That is, when an individual acts not so much for himself, but in the interests of other members of his group (whatever group that might be). Probably individuals of all human populations do this, though evidently it varies in degree. Some minds are more hive than others. First, some background.
Western peoples, being civilised for a while, have become soft and feminine. The female encourages the female in everything: female influence reinforces itself. For example, females seek to foster a pleasant, cosy atmosphere, free from violence, because once force comes into play they are at a disadvantage. This advances, and with elevated female sensitivity come increasing demands for safety. Eventually there are continual warnings about everything, which is where we are today.
Many female strategies benefit not only the individual female enacting the strategy, but also help other females. Benefits occurring at multiple levels I have called Compound Benefit (CB). It is ubiquitous simply because it is so advantageous. A simple kind of CB is when a population makes a profit out of damaging another population it wishes to harm. Pornography and the Taliban exporting heroin to Western countries spring to mind. With CB the population wins two ways: financially and by harming their opponent.
A more subtle, and more interesting, instance of CB is IPoE, Inverted Proclamation of Enhancement. Plain, non-inverted Proclamation of Enhancement takes place when a female tells all her female friends that she has been asked out. She advertises her increased status (that she is desired by a male) and it also raises the cost of sex, because it diminishes the male’s chances of a relationship with other females in her circle. PoE is inverted when the female advertises her enhancement in the form of a complaint. Then she has raised her status and raised the costs of sex even more.
One aspect of a feminine environment is that we tend to project our natures onto others: we assume that other populations think and feel the same as us. This is a serious error.
The starting point in this exploration of the hive mind is Amsterdam some years ago. There, during election times, stickers appeared on street furniture exhorting people to vote a particular way. The stickers didn’t advocate a political party however: two I remember were “Kies kleurig” (Choose coloured) and “Stem op een vrouw” (Vote for a woman).
Then there was the OJ Simpson trial in 1995. When the trial ended, the verdict was evidently regarded by millions of American Blacks as a victory over “Whitey.” There are pictures of groups watching the announcement on TV with Blacks jubilantly celebrating, while Whites looked stunned or blank. These are telling cases but there are known to be disparities in the blood and organ donor rates of various populations. Incidentally, the hardest patients to find matching donors for are mixed-race individuals. Even close family members may not match.
Many populations are inherently more nationalistic than Whites. The antithesis of the hive mind is intense individualism, this perhaps reaching its zenith in Whites in modern North American culture. However, the media-approved manner of expressing that individuality is by consumer choice (Coca-Cola or Pepsi), or personal style (casual or punk). Any notion of Whites acting for collective White interests is strongly discouraged. Police stick together, politicians stick together and freemasons are famous for it, but anyone promoting explicit White interests is demonised and officially hounded.
The hive mind is an expression of the Conspiracy strategy, the policy of acting in concert or acting together. It is a female strategy: in this dichotomous system females conspire and males compete.
One recognised kind of individual action for collective benefit is “altruistic punishment.” In this, individuals take it upon themselves to punish, even though it is costly for them (e.g. in time and effort) and yields little or no material gain. When an individual sues someone or some organisation not for the money, but to discourage their behaviour being repeated to others in the future, this is a form of altruistic punishment.
Suppose altruistic punishment were extended, because actually it is. A member of an immigrant population might invent or exaggerate accusations against a nationalist, having identified him as an opponent of immigration in general. By attacking an opponent his actions benefit his population, plus members of other populations he perceives as allies. At least two people known to me personally have been imprisoned on perjured evidence, and I might be about to join them myself.
A population which has evolved in an environment of high mortality possessing a hive mind would be more inclined to “take one for the team.” A Black walking down the middle of an American road and provoking a cop to shoot him might be doing so in the interests of Blacks in general, knowing that the media will portray the incident as “racist police brutality against an unarmed teen.” Others support this narrative, applying the same hive mind, which explains why the circumstances of the incident are so often distorted. The cop might have been non-White; the “teen” could have been a bodybuilder high on some exotic drug. Anything which deviates from the hive line is downplayed or ignored altogether.
Really, this tribalism is not so much conscious as instinctive. Jews have reported feeling personally affected on hearing news of an anti-Jewish action abroad. It’s as if they feel an injury to their collective body. Jews mutually promote, citing each other in academic journals and the media generally. There is definitely a correlation between the number of times a name is uttered on the radio, particularly, and whether the individual is Jewish. It seems that a Jewish name will be mentioned very frequently.
The Jewish bent for networking is famous: it’s been said that if you put two Jews together you get three organisations. Goodness knows how many “Hasbara trolls” there are, pretending to be ordinary individuals on internet comment forums. In Britain there is the Community Security Trust keeping files on anyone they deem “anti-Semitic.” According to reports, the recently formed “Campaign Against Antisemitism" is solely responsible for the current prosecutions of Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz. These organisations are undoubtedly seeking to further the interests of their population as a whole.
In perhaps a characteristic twist, it seems that Jews sometimes sacrifice not themselves, but nominate other Jews for sacrifice instead. It is arranged that others take one for the team. A case in illustration is the 1985 hijacking of the MS Achille Lauro, when Jewish cruise passengers were terrorised by members of the Palestinian Liberation Front. The event has since been immortalised in books, films and an opera. However Victor Ostrovsky revealed that the incident was actually a ‘false flag’ operation run by the Mossad, designed to paint Palestinians in a bad light. This has been confirmed by Ari Ben-Menashe, another former Mossad agent. It was in Israel’s interests to portray Palestinians as terrorists.
Of course, the ultimate in altruistic punishment is enacted by the suicide bomber, the usual contemporary form being the Moslem fundamentalist. Here, the punisher pays the ultimate cost to inflict his punishment. However, it is a personal theory of mine that most of these actions are not so much terrorist attacks as displays of devotion. Were punishment of the infidel population the primary goal, most of these atrocities could have been made much more devastating and deadly. Either this is the result of incompetence, which seems unlikely since they are usually planned in advance, or the main motivation is another. The real object may be to dramatically demonstrate their devotion to their co-religionists. But this is just a theory.
Many species have a “dispersal instinct”: the instinct to disperse to new territory. Darwin’s last paper discussed this, and how certain creatures attach themselves to the feet of birds to spread themselves from puddle to puddle. Whites express this instinct as exploration. In Amsterdam I saw repeated instances of a single roving Black seeking out all-White bars, where he could play up and perhaps have drinks bought for him. Blacks may instinctively seek out White areas, and Negro males certainly seek White mates. A single, isolated immigrant with a hive mind must be regarded not as an individual but as an advance party.
The suspicion is that some of this Negro pursuit of White females involves Spoiling. Spoiling is removing a component, thereby to devalue it. The model for Spoiling is a trick used at public auctions, to obtain the item more cheaply, but it is often done out of spite: “I can’t have it so I’ll ensure no-one else can either.” Jung said that “Just as every Jew has a Christ complex, so every Negro has a white complex.” Spoiling can take place when a female fails to secure a male she wants, and she interferes in some way in another female’s potential relationship with him. Out of bitterness and jealousy she prevents another getting what she wants.
Another expression of a hive mind would be the suppression or killing of exceptional individuals. For instance, an exceptionally clever or eccentric individual might be accused of witchcraft or paedophilia. Removing him from the society would be a way of enforcing uniformity and conformity. Several Scandinavian countries have a “Little Johnnie’s Law” whereby pride in exceptional individuals is discouraged: the dustman is supposed to be of equal value to the surgeon.
Before closing, there are a couple of other aspects which can be considered. One is whether altruistic punishment is in play when White “anti-racist” activists engage in counter-demonstrations and other forms of public shaming. Probably in their minds the investment they make in such activity is a contribution to the collective good. It is the standard modus operandi of one population in particular to present its agenda as moral imperatives for Whites to follow. It is defiance of these moral imperatives that is being punished. Altruism also takes place more conventionally, when individuals perform philanthropic acts (usually advertised or carefully directed) to increase the standing of their population in general.
Lastly we address the matter of non-White personnel in advertising and Western media generally. Britons may dismiss the black newsreader or mixed-race couple advertising furniture, but hive minds will not. The scenes will be regarded as symbolic, if not a deliberate snub to the native population. The blogger ‘Irish Savant’ highlighted an advertising campaign for Tullermore Dew whisky which featured what purports to be a typical Irish bar scene. However the patrons were patently not Irish, and the Irish bartender was romantically involved with a Negress. The campaign was traced to a Jewish advertising agency in New York. One might suspect that CB is again involved.
No doubt there are many other expressions of hive behaviour, but we cannot read minds. Nor can we expect mainstream psychologists to follow through on a topic such as this, they being wholly concerned with procuring grants and adhering to political correctness. In any case, much of contemporary psychology seems to rely on self-reports, often American students filling in questionnaires for course credits. ‘Ignore what people say they do and look at what they actually do’ is an excellent rule to follow.