By Jack Stevens for Patriotic Alternative
Recognising patterns and making generalisations are ways of thinking which are simply a part of being human. These processes have origins which can be traced back millions of years and they are a useful tool which is easily overlooked and underestimated. However, generalisations and forms of pattern recognition can be akin to heresy in today’s world when it concerns the anti-traditionalist, anti-White, anti-reality agenda, which is what this article is about.
In psychology and cognitive neuroscience, pattern recognition describes a cognitive process that matches information from a stimulus with information retrieved from memory. 
A generalisation is a statement or belief that is generally (broadly, mostly, largely) true.
Pattern recognition and generalisation abilities originate from the neocortex, the outermost layer of the brain, which is found only in mammals, according to psychologytoday.com. The roots of these abilities hail from many millions of years ago.
Mammalian brain diagram – source human-memory.net
The following is an example of a normal scenario in prehistoric times. A common problem during hunting is to estimate how many predators there are, based on cues like animal sounds, footprints, etc. If a pack of four hunters are trying to isolate prey for food, the hunters can only survive if they have the physical capability to defend themselves and successfully kill or escape. If they do not have this ability, they will die. The ones who survive must have had the ability to recognise patterns, identify cues and take action.
If ten wolves were lurking around the corner, four hunters could hardly fight them. The hunters can then decide to stay back and wait. This scenario plays out only if there is a specific sensitivity to magnitude estimation: can the hunters correctly estimate how many predators there are? If the hunters can’t distinguish between one and ten wolves, they might escape or kill one wolf, but against ten, they will die. If they could differentiate the pattern of sounds and environmental cues which estimate the magnitude of predators, they could make decisions that aid survival. The ability to recognise the differences in patterns created by ten wolves and one wolf is useful to survival. As a result, our senses have adapted alongside our cognitive ability to make sense of sensory signals. The survivors survived such scenarios when they could differentiate contextual cues. This is a primary type of pattern recognition, which is estimating magnitude in proportions.
Another evolutionary example of the use of pattern recognition is in sound, which was important to our ancient ancestors. Human voices modulate along with emotions. This association has a social advantage. Without sharing any more information, listening to human voices can predict others’ emotional states. Emotional states predict motivation, behaviour, ability, danger, need for care, etc. Giving automatic special attention to screaming and crying is also a pattern recognition-based survival advantage: to provide aid and care when one hears it. This is why certain melodies sound the saddest on a violin than other instruments: the timbre (sound characteristics) of violins is congruent with human cry vocalisations.
Logic and Usefulness
The generalisations and pattern-recognition which are against the establishment’s wishes can be useful. Comparable to the previous point of avoiding predators, if certain demographic groups are more statistically over-represented in being anti-White or in negative ethnocentrism or general violence or crime, then recognition of a certain pattern is probably not so bad.
Stereotypes (which are basically generalisations) can help us to make sense of the world. They are a form of categorisation that helps to simplify and systematise information. Thus, information is more easily identified, recalled, predicted and reacted to.
Generalising and recognising patterns can obviously save time and energy as well because it makes most analysing redundant.
Here are some examples of typical responses to acknowledgements of previously mentioned anti-establishment types of patterns and generalisations:
- Not all migrants are unskilled
- Not all of the LGBTQ agenda is to normalise paedophilia
- They don’t completely control the media
- Not all non-Whites are hostile
- White people commit crime and terrorism too
Generalisations about people and ideologies are not the only type of generalisations. There are less political generalisations which are normal:
- Dutch people are generally tall
- The weather has been nice this week
- Spain is hotter than the UK
A critic could give responses to the three above generalisations, such as:
- A Dutch child would obviously be shorter than most people in the world!
- What about that shower we had for two minutes on Tuesday?
- Well, Spain was slightly cooler than the UK for some time in summer, bigot!
You can see that criticising generalisations is therefore a weak counter-argument, including to nationalistic points or ideas. Dutch people have the greatest average height in the world and we can ignore that short spell of rain, and so on; similarly, White people do commit crime and terrorism, but what about proportional representation?.
The generalisations of groups of people being more criminal, privileged, violent, powerful, degenerate or negatively ethnocentric is very much discouraged by the mainstream and the elites, so long as it is unfavourable to people who are not White, heterosexual or socially conservative, especially men. This double standard could concern racial, ethnic, religious, ideological or sexual-orientation groups or individuals.
It is not malevolent to notice these trends of groups having their own traits or tendencies which are negative or are significant in regards to how society is against our interests. Non-Whites (and a few Whites) do this themselves about White people by believing that we are not able to tolerate spice, or that we are obsessed with handshakes, or whatever else. We are not harmed by non-Europeans having impressions like these, and they are not harmed by us having similar impressions of them either. The equivalent of this pattern recognition towards non-racial groups, and generalisations and pattern recognition in general, are also harmless.
Generalisations and pattern-recognition relating to people in other ways is also broadly common and accepted, such as regarding generations of people and socio-economic classes as having certain traits or behaviours, but anything pro-social or traditionalist is usually not approved by the establishment and it is subverted or stigmatised through laws, social norms, taboos and propaganda so that the regime’s malevolent wishes can be carried out.
Old people are often labelled as bad drivers
The Establishment and These Methods of Thinking
Thanks to The Ayatollah, who is an articulate commentator and entertainer, for providing the following, which is a summary of why generalising and using pattern recognition is discouraged so much by Western establishments.
Pattern-recognition and generalisations have to be discouraged by the Regime because the Regime means us ill and has been up to no good in various ways for a long time. If we were able to speak openly and without fear about the patterns of behaviour we see among the foreigners and the sexually dysfunctional imposed upon and put on a pedestal by the Regime, and if we were free to make generalisations about them, it’d be a lot, lot harder for the Regime to keep doing what they’re doing without mass opposition.
For several generations, the Regime has been flooding our homelands with people of foreign races, whose presence is awful for us in almost every way. In their totality, they either cannot adhere to and maintain our standards of orderliness, conscientiousness, empathy, patience, civility, reciprocity, restraint, fairness, probity or even cleanliness, or simply do not want to. They certainly have no incentive to do so under a Regime which makes all kinds of allowances for them and tiptoes around them, whilst oppressing, abusing, bullying and atomising the native population so that it has almost no ability to hold these foreigners to any sort of decent standards and impose consequences for their failure to do so, or to stand up for itself. Many of these groups are also hostile to us; they view us as historically evil, but in the present, timid, weak, naive, contemptible and an easy target for exploitation, violence, brutalisation and dispossession. Hence the litany of atrocities many of their number perpetrate us.
Because of differing innate characteristics – to take just one example, the significantly lower average intelligence, lower impulse control, lower empathy, more limited time horizons, higher aggression and higher propensity for violence which can be observed in Sub-Saharan Africans – ethnic, racial, and religious groups differ from one another in the patterns of behaviour and the tendencies they display. Hence the existence of stereotypes, which are also very aggressively maligned and discouraged. In their totality, the presence of foreigners in our homelands is calamitous for us, and it’s imposed by a Regime which means us ill.
Now, if severe social, psychological, professional, economic, and legal/criminal penalties were not imposed against observing and commenting upon these differing patterns of behaviour, and making generalisations – general statements of truth – about these people publicly, it’d be very difficult for the Regime to continue doing what it’s doing. If it were socially and legal to just say “well a general rule, [group] are just violent and lawless” or “wherever [group] reside in any significant number, you get massive amounts of child sexual exploitation”, it would be a lot harder and involve a lot more risk for the Regime to continue to bring more and more of these people into our homelands and to keep them here whilst giving them more and more privileges and protections, and idealising and elevating them in the media and entertainment. If we were able to speak freely about these things, the conditions for a permanent loss of truth in and rejection of the political establishment and the media, and hence, the conditions for mass disobedience, could exist within a relatively short space of time – strikes and mass walkouts, civil disobedience, communities taking responsibility for their own security, and so on.
The same principles apply in slightly different ways to sexually dysfunctional groups, and to a lesser degree to observing innate differences between men and women – certainly where they entail observations that women in general are in any way less capable or less competent than men generally are in a given endeavour. Because as with foreign groups, sexual minorities and women are, to a degree, weaponised against what remains of the previous societal order and of all that was healthy and in accordance with human nature and natural order, which is to say patriarchy, hierarchy, recognition of the inherent, in-born inequality of peoples and their incompatibility when forced to live in proximity, and a healthy aversion to sexual deviancy.
In short, if people were not morally, socially, economically and legally discouraged from observing patterns and making generalisations – statements that are by their very definition generally true – then there would be much greater potential risk of the Regime’s programmes of deconstruction and White dispossession being derailed due to popular resistance, and much greater risk of those responsible having to stand trial for their crimes. Hence the moral condemnation and pathologisation – “racist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, “antisemite”, “misogynist”, “transphobe” etc. – as though these were revolting, contagious conditions and something akin to heresy. Hence the risk of losing your job. Hence the risk of being convicted of “hate speech” or a “hate crime” and potentially being imprisoned.
Essentially, the idea is to discourage as much as possible the use of the logical, epistemic, heuristic and rhetorical tools and vocabulary which would enable people to both criticise and deconstruct the policies and agendas of those who rule over us, and in particular to openly discuss the consequences, and also just to limit peoples’ access to and awareness of these tools and the vocabulary. This is necessary in order to limit as much as possible the spread, momentum and organisation of pushback against the policies and conditions imposed upon us by the Regime.
To put it into practical terms, consider something as simple as the question below, which one might ask of those who defend the ongoing influx of foreigners into our homelands, and all of the consequences thereof:
“What can non-Whites do that we cannot do ourselves, and that we cannot survive or thrive without?”
I have asked this question literally hundreds of times over the past five years, and I haven’t had a good answer yet. Most of those asked immediately resort to tactics of evasion or just give up – they might ask “what do you do?”, which is of course utterly irrelevant, because I’m where I belong; to live here is my birthright. But that’s about the best they can do. In other cases, they either misunderstand or just ignore the conditions within the question and come back with something about doctors and nurses, which we’re plenty capable of producing ourselves and have for centuries, or the remarkable range of restaurants, which we do not need to survive or thrive, but which, if we want that badly, we could easily open and operate ourselves because, well, recipes exist. In the former case, you just ask whether we had no hospitals and were all dying of in-growing toenails and the common cold before we had foreign doctors and nurses who, according to Medical Practitioners Tribunals Service records, are about 11.3 times more likely than British doctors to be the subject of malpractice tribunals. In the latter case, you can ask whether you need to be Pakistani to use a recipe to make biryani or chapatis, and why sushi is so readily available in Britain when there are fewer than 70,000 Japanese people in the UK, and large numbers of them are students.
Think about how simple and to the point a question like that one above is. It’s just common sense, isn’t it? But despite being an opponent of mass immigration and the anti-White agenda for as long as I’ve had any coherent opinions on either, despite a good four years very actively engaged in the whole counter-jihad milieu, and despite not being stupid by any means, it took me probably 20 years (by which time I understood the role of organised Jewry in all of this) to come up with such a simple and direct rhetorical tool to expose how mass immigration and the anti-White agenda has never been in the interests of the British people specifically, or the White race at large. That’s despite the fact that it’s just common sense. That shows how effective the agenda of preventing access to and usage of the logical, epistemic, heuristic and rhetorical tools and vocabulary we’re talking about, has been for the Regime.
As I so often say: what sort of Regime do we live under when it’s entirely normal for literally millions of people to, without ever questioning themselves, go through their lives morally condemning and attacking their compatriots for making “generalisations” – i.e., observations which even the critic acknowledges to be mostly true in the very act of branding it a “generalisation”?
What sort of Regime has to create taboos to induce Pavlovian responses to “generalisations” – again, statements which are acknowledged by the critic to be generally true – about the people it imports and elevates against our will, so that these generalisations are met with moral condemnation and outrage by normal people? What sort of Regime has to impose social, quasi-moral, economic and even legal/criminal deterrents against these generalisations?
A similar topic, extrapolation, can sometimes be an issue for our enemies, depending on the context. Extrapolation is the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable (Oxford Dictionary). The prediction of us becoming a minority in our country is based largely on immigration and fertility figures and is an adequate prediction. However, according to our enemies (and their useful idiots), it is not credible. This is because it is a taboo subject for the establishment and because we do not have a time machine or crystal ball to give us divine certainty of the future. As if we need perfect precision and certainty to believe that something will happen! This is ridiculous because other forms of extrapolation are commonplace and unchallenged:
- Weather forecasts
- Estimating the future height of a young child while they are growing up
- Rising sea level predictions
- If you are travelling at 60mph and have only been travelling for a minute, you would have travelled one mile. We can make an accurate prediction of how far you will travel after an hour: 60 miles. This is assuming a constant speed or an equivalent average speed
Therefore, like in the points I made in the previous paragraphs, it is completely reasonable to assert that we will become a minority without significant change to reverse demographic trends. Even though the 2066 prediction is most likely outdated, having been made in 2010 before the relentless invasion of illegals across the Channel, it was an adequate prediction for its time. Also, do the technicalities and any small errors really matter when it is actually happening?
Our enemies want us to stop using these natural, useful and largely harmless and everyday methods of thought when we even start to pose a threat to their sinister aims. This would be very difficult or impossible as it is basically rewiring our brains, and, as a saying by Horace goes, ‘You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet she’ll be constantly running back’.
Why should we listen to our enemies?
A lesson from all of this is that in a debate or conversation, many things that our opposition try to make out as dishonest, invalid, cruel, unintellectual or unreasonable… are actually not, and that not knowing the exact year, month and date that we become a racial minority means nothing.
Thanks again to The Ayatollah: t.me/s/theayatollah
- Eysenck, Michael W.; Keane, Mark T. (2003). Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th ed.). Hove; Philadelphia; New York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780863775512. OCLC 894210185