Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.


I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button

Reversing the Demographic Winter

I found this documentary via reddit which found it via thinking housewife. It discusses an issue of deep concern to the dark enlightenment and that is the issue of population decline. For what I guess is a mainstream documentary, it is refreshingly frank with regards to the negative consequences modernism/post-modernism is having on our culture and subsequently population. Big factors in this decline and identified by the doc are feminism, the break down of sexual continence, divorce friendly laws, and promoting careerist women (mostly discussed in part 2) All of these things work together to destroy the family and set off a runaway effect of ever decreasing fertility. Watch it, it is pretty good:

Part 1

Part 2

As the documentary shows, it isn’t just white Europeans that are having fertility declines even if they are are most advanced in said decline (with the exception of some Asian countries). Even the countries which supply the current batch of immigrants to the west may not be able to keep that up if the same trends advance in their countries and they are only lagging by maybe 20-30 years behind the west. The whole white genocide meme put forward by identitarians may end up needing an overhaul and be redefined as human genocide. Actually, I think it is better called human suicide than genocide as it is mostly a voluntary action. Not to discount the fact that it is intentionally inspired cultural marxism, but people do assent to its ideas more or less voluntarily. It is an interesting idea to think that the immigration issue may be resolved by fertility drops in the rest of the world, though I am not holding my breath on that one. Lots of people worry about Muslim fertility, myself included, but Iran for example has one of the worst fertility crises in the middle east. Clearly this isn’t a European only problem. It is a global problem with various groups merely at different stages of it and with a few particularly disturbing exceptions to the trend. Though most of that population will probably remain confined to their current locations.

Of course,  I have written several posts tangentially related to this. Of Madonnas and whores is one, shrug is another. The first is on how a culture which has a healthy fertility rate is structured and the other is on how men should respond to the current horribly designed structure. It occurs to me that these two posts probably appear on the surface to be at odds with one another because one attempts to reverse the problem while the other attempts to exacerbate it. However, there is a method to my deep and frightful madness. I refer you to the analogy of a frog in boiling water. If you put a frog into luke-warm water and then slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will swim merrily and make no attempt at escape until it is too late. However, if you drop the frog into water that is already very hot it spends its few remaining moments among the living desperately attempting to escape. (I have never actually attempted to boil live frogs, so maybe they don’t act as described, but the analogy creates a vivid picture anyway and is thus rhetorically useful.)

The analogy demonstrates that it is the nature and speed of the transition which is the governing force of the response to the change rather than the destination of the change itself. A jarring transition spurs reaction, while a slow transition results in docile acquiescence. The purpose of articles like shrug is to create such a sudden and uncomfortable transition in our culture that it becomes fertile for introspection and ultimately action. Well, hopefully the correct sort of reaction like that described in Of Madonnas and whores and other articles. By magnifying the problems faced by both family destroying women and the state, you may, just may, catalyze some pragmatic thinking. Not to mention sparing as many individual men from the machinations of the state as possible.

Of course I am just some trivial blogger who very few people read. : ( My articles are likely to be quite inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Or maybe not. There are a lot of men in positions which make them quite receptive to a new and sympathetic view of their situation that not only successfully diagnoses their problem, but also suggests some sort of solution. It is that last part that is most important. Men naturally want solutions. If there is a problem in their lives, they are much more likely compared to women to take some sort of unilateral action. Even if there are downsides to that action in this situation, the alternative is something akin to slavery. Worse maybe because of the culture of contempt directed towards so-called “dead-beat dads.” Therefore, the level of acceptable costs and downsides with respect to the working of the divorce industry are quite high. Even more, many men are likely to accept a great deal of problems if it means they can ensure that the state and the parasitic ex-wife come up empty handed merely as a result of well-deserved spite.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which must be dealt with before men shrug en masse and inflict a painful jolt on the system. Men have to be ideologically deprogrammed. Both social conservatives and the cultural marxists demand sacrifice from men for the sake of women and children and indoctrinate them accordingly. Sacrifice of men for those groups isn’t so bad when it is paired with the rewards and assurances given them in a traditional context. It was merely a more or less fair contract. The dominant culture on the left and “right” have decided that they can get away with taking those rewards and assurances away without any consequences. Well, we already know that didn’t turn out to be true, but even with the current consequences things seem to be accelerating leftward rather than reversing. Perplexing that. It seems that the consequences haven’t been severe or blatant enough which is why it is probably still the time of creative destruction rather than direct building (outside of individual properly patriarchal families, a difficult thing to achieve today even for the most skilled). Acceleration towards the left singularity has continued unaltered because of the so far effective ideological indoctrination men face from both the left and “right.”

The incentives that should result in men exiting en masse are already well established and have been for a long time. The only thing keeping them around is the tiny thread of cultural mind control; a thread that is ripe for the cutting. This indoctrination mainly revolves around questions of what is and isn’t moral. So long as good men believe that exiting from the unfair arrangement is immoral, they will be loathe to do so regardless of the cost to themselves. In shrug, the question of the morality of exit is directly addressed, although briefly:

I can think of the obvious objection [with respect to exit from alimony and child support]: “Won’t someone please think of the children!” Well, I am. I am thinking about children (and the whole family), but I have escaped myopia and took a view that extends all the way to the horizon. Children are done a huge disservice by easy divorce. It is a fact that they are better off when their parents stay together until at least they grow up. So long as the system exists in the current state, the only thing we can be sure of is that millions more men and children will be caught in its clutches in the future. Suffering will only increase and increase. Anything that lets the system of easy, no-fault divorce with the concomitant asset division last even one week longer than it has to is immoral.

In a properly functioning society, going after fathers who shirked their duty is a just imperative. We don’t live in a properly functioning society. These days it is rare that family breakdown is caused by men unwilling to be fathers. Worse, they have absolutely no power to prevent the destruction of the family that causes so much suffering to everyone, especially children. When family breaks down, it is not their fault. Such men are thus morally guiltless for leaving. As much should be explained to them and they should be encouraged to shrug. The men who willingly continue to pay into this system are essentially complicit in its perpetuation, at least once they understand how it works. They are just like Hank Rearden who through his diligent efforts kept the morally bankrupt society going that much longer than otherwise had to be. He did this despite emotional torture by his ungrateful family and incrementally increased injustice towards him by society. By keeping the current system solvent, today’s men ensure that more men in the future will be dragged into it. By shrugging, they bring the day of its collapse closer and ensure that less children will ultimately be caught up in it. Continuing to pay into the system, judged by the number of future men and children who will be dragged into it by its continuation, is thus itself the height of immorality.

In other words, it is the demands society place on men without compensation or assurance that is immoral. Men not only have a justification for exit, they are morally obligated to demand their dues for their sacrifice because if they do not they are dooming future generations to the perdition caused by incorrigibly capricious women and the ever more greedy state. If they are not given what they are owed, they must exit as a moral imperative. The elucidation of pragmatic morality here cuts the thread of indoctrination and prepares men psychologically for the difficult decision to pursue exit as the difficult solution to their involuntary servitude. The sting of mass exit would then ultimately facilitate some move back towards tradition.

At least this is the theory. Why should anyone listen to someone like me? Well it seems that at least one person has. Though I am not a MGTOW myself, I subscribe to the subreddit because they sometimes have interesting links. If anything, MGTOW philosophy will just make the demographic winter even worse so ultimately it has no promise as an effective strategy for a better future. Anyway, I stumbled on this self post which stated:

Frankly, we need to be very specific here about a certain aspect of going your own way. I’m looking for that direct insider info strictly speaking of alimony and child support obligations and uprooting and leaving it all behind.

Has anyone up and left, and the consequences be damned? Like, as in – I Don’t Give One Single Fuck what the ex, or the courts are gonna do to me type of attitude.

Seriously looking into this, if the statistics of non-payment of child support are such that “billions of dollars have gone uncollected” Then I must be living a delusion that I will in-fact go to jail for non-payment, and this can all be managed in a way that we can call their bluff and move on with our lives.

So speaking of what did you do, how far did you move? Out of county, out of state, out of country? How far did the legal system pursue you in your new found location? What and who did you leave behind? What would you have rather actually kept and/or sold or left behind? What legal ramifications were the result of leaving your “free-range prison” behind? (Think alimony, child support, garnishments, mortage, etc.) Were you able to successfully break free forever? Or did you come back and have to pay the piper? How did you hide assets like a home, or your money from being legally stolen from you? Would it have been a better idea to keep the home and rent it out while away, or sell the home because of the headaches, ramifications and hassle while gone? How have your children taken the change, and have you managed to keep in touch? Has the ex held them back from keeping a relationship with you because you are no longer paying for the extortion known as child support? Has she kept the children from relatives while you are gone? How much better was the new life compared to the old life? Any other comments or words of wisdom we could all potentially glean from you that aren’t covered here?

We are not discussing the morality of such decisions, or how you came to get to this point. We all come to our own point of no return, and I for one, and you yourself do not deserve to be ground into dust with no recompense for the rest of our lives.

Of course this reminded me of my shrug article so I told him about it in a comment to which he replied:

You have a really great website! I’ve read that article before too, and re-read it.

Flattery aside, I feel a bit like I may have opened pandora’s box (it was bound to be opened eventually by someone). If we take the 1% rule seriously, then there may be at least 100 more men out there somewhere who read that article and took it to heart and are seriously considering implementing the suggestion. That is assuming I have seen every instance of a re-post of this article, which I probably haven’t and would mean there are more than this. Of course, even if they don’t act on the idea it is in their head and they will think about it regularly because they will be faced with their burdens regularly. They will also likely spread the idea to other men (with or without linking back to me) and some of those men will act. The redefinition of appropriate moral response to the current divorce regime could eventually have significant repercussions and things will get worse generally before they get better. I have, in concert with the efforts of many others, engaged in black magic. What is and is not moral is changed to be a more accurate representation of reality. Moreover, from what we know about moral signaling behavior this redefinition could spread quickly and rabidly if it becomes entrenched in some dedicated minority. Considering the current incentive structure, such a result might be expected. People will fall all over themselves to do the right thing in the eyes of their peers, especially if they have overwhelming personal incentives rarely present in other moral signaling games.

All I can say is that I hope my appraisal of the situation is correct and that this action brings closer the light at the end of the tunnel. If I’m wrong about this, though I don’t think I am, then the spreading of the idea could result in some difficult to reverse consequences. Either way, what is done is done and the lid can not be put back on the box. At the very least, progressive culture will suffer mightily for ignoring gnon. Most importantly, though, individual men will be more likely to free themselves from involuntary servitude and that is a positive moral change even if that is the only positive change that results.


Here is another self-post titled “How to shrug at the family courts and evade slavery.” Though I didn’t ask him if this had anything to do with my article in my comment, the wording suggests he had read it.

Share Button

How Cultural Marxism ruined The Walking Dead

Even though I have previously written on something similar, at first I wasn’t going to write this post. I conceived of it, and halfheartedly dismissed it as being too trivial and not really worth the investment. But then, I don’t have children so there isn’t much point in thinking too hard about TV shows since I already know how most of them are crap and correspondingly almost never watch them. If I did have children, or if I do someday, I suppose that formula would necessarily change. That seems to be the case for 28Sherman in his latest post “They Progged Cartoons.” Since the topic was brought up, I guess it is only appropriate to add my two cents.

He complains (rightly) that the progs in the entertainment industry use their influence over plot lines to create propaganda for children, when they are least able to critically evaluate it and so soak that crap in like a sponge. I remember once we were talking about education around my teenage nephew and he, at different points, both said “that is sexist” and “that is racist.” Poor guy. This is probably more to do with the school system than cartoons, but same difference (same same, but different?). Keep in mind that I do sort of, maybe try to tone myself down at family events. Apparently dismissing blog posts isn’t the only thing I do halfheartedly. After the third or so statement of this sort, being the cold-hearted, insensitive asshole I am, I responded with “reality is racist” and he suddenly seemed to be deep in thought. I didn’t hear about being racist again. It turns out crazy uncles might have more influence than low-IQ education majors! Who knew?

In any event, I almost never watch TV anymore except stuff I can be very preselective with on the internet for this very reason. Every time I give a show a chance, which is rare anymore, I am invariably disappointed and disgusted by the progressive parasites infesting the story. For example, I like gore and zombies. Who doesn’t? I was told The Walking Dead was a pretty decent show and reluctantly gave it a chance. The first 4 seasons were on netflix so I watched them. For the most part it was pretty good, but they just can’t leave out the prog propaganda. A mindless show revolving around killing zombies can’t just be about killing zombies; it also must be progressive. At least the progs finally did something right though, a post-apocalyptic wasteland seems the appropriate setting and endpoint of progressivism. The third and final straw happened in the last episode in which they introduced some gay dudes and had them make out. Ya, I am not shitting you. The gay dudes make out in the show. I have a very bad feeling that those two are going to stay on as characters for a long time. I am not going to find out, though, because I am done watching it. It isn’t that I have anything against gays, like everything else in human psychology (most importantly intelligence), I am pretty sure it has biological origins and that they are unfortunate misfits born with a bad combination of alleles. Gnon was not kind to them. But understanding that does not mean I want to see them make out (or have civilization cater to them or give them special victim status). Even then, that isn’t even the major problem for me (though it is an important problem). The major problem is the er…hrmm northern aggression of it all. It is the fact that these assholes can’t keep their fucking values to themselves. They HAVE to try to propagandize me and everyone else who don’t want to have anything to do with them or their values; even if we would never bother or hinder them in their personal lives at all if they just left us alone. It isn’t enough that I am (or was) willing to just let them be if they let me be. They HAVE to get in my face about it. Fuck them. Goodbye libertarianism.

For the curious, the other two things that preceded the third and final straw was the first two lesbians and the whole miscegenation thing (black dude, white chic) at the prison. In the interest of full disclosure, two chics making out doesn’t exactly cause me direct offense. It is natural for men to like harems after all, right? In addition, it is probably accurate to say I have bedded more girls outside my own race than within it (mostly Asian and I haven’t kept count). I don’t think I can ever come down that hard against this without being a complete hypocrite. There may be good rationales for it, but I think I will let others tackle that consideration. I am much more concerned with IQ directly than any particular race even if there are large differences between races. Besides, preserving racial “purity” seems to be a female responsibility.

In any event, this was before my transition from the red pill to the dark enlightenment. I fully agree that this sort of cad behavior isn’t good for civilization, the traditionalists are right and I was wrong. But like I said before, I can’t control the culture I was born into and I am doing more than most to provide powerful secular arguments for traditional family values.

It isn’t that other people have different values that bothers me, it is that people are trying to forcibly push their values on me and others who may be ambivalent or in strong disagreement. Most important is that the values they push are objectively shit. Ya, maybe I haven’t been a paragon of virtue in the past, but at least when pressed I can objectively evaluate what values are best for civilization as a whole. I don’t pretend like self-interested behavior is anything other than self-interested behavior. If people disagree with a set of values they should be able to disassociate and allow Gnon to be the judge of who is right or wrong. We aren’t being allowed that privilege. This northern aggression can not stand.

EDIT: I just remembered there was another thing that was dumb in the show. There was a group at a hospital being lead by a small framed women. This was just stupid, in such an apocalyptic setting strength and endurance are what matter most and men wouldn’t follow someone who would never be able to keep up with them. Post-institutions affirmative action would not apply and she would have been demoted to a support role she was actually suited to.

Share Button

Career women are dysgenic

All Parts
<– Part 3                                                              Part 5–>

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.

<– Part 3                                                             Part 5–>

All Parts


Share Button

Avoid Monoculture

All Parts
<– Part 2                                                             Part 4–>

Experience in agriculture shows that monoculture in humans is best avoided

Eugenics, called selective breeding when applied to non-humans, is ubiquitously employed in agriculture with both with plants and animals. Human civilization could not exist without it since the majority of increases in agricultural productivity in human history would otherwise not have happened. In one of the most astounding examples of selective breeding, wild mustard was morphed through human intervention into multiple phenotypically divergent species including cabbage, broccoli, kale, brussel sprouts, and cauliflower. Applying some of the same methods and understanding to human populations holds just as much or more promise.

However, there is a very important lesson that must be taken from our experience with selective breeding in agriculture. There is such a thing as evolved diversity. In some situations natural selection favors differences between individuals and does not converge on a single phenotype. For the genes involved in the immune system and immune responses, natural selection heavily favors hypervariable polymorphism. The reason for this should be obvious, but I will spell it out anyway. Pathogens and parasites engage in an evolutionary arms race with their hosts. Pathogens hinder the fitness of the individuals most vulnerable to them, and allow for resistant individuals to have more children and come to dominate the population. The pathogen must then adapt to the new normal of the population, which causes the process to repeat itself. A population with great diversity in its immune system genes stands a much better chance as a whole against pathogens because it makes it much more difficult for the pathogen to become highly specialized, and thus highly effective, against its host population. Maintaining this genetic diversity is so important, in fact, that the pheromone system developed primarily to preferentially boost attraction for mates with highly contrasting histocompatibility genes.*

In agriculture, there has been a repeated tendency to exclusively grow a single or small number of cultivars with a particularly useful trait or set of traits at the expense of maintaining genetic diversity in the crop population. In plants this can be especially onerous because in many cases it is possible for a plant to reproduce clonally. Propagating a cultivar clonally effectively freezes the evolution of that organism. From the perspective of pathogens this turns a moving target into a sitting duck. Invariably pathogens adapt to be especially virulent to that one strain and the entire crop gets wiped out. This is what caused the great potato famine in Ireland. This is also the reason apples always appear on the top of pesticide contamination lists. Apple trees grown from seeds mostly produce low quality fruits, with appealing fruits being a rare exception. This is because many genes take part in shaping the apple, and most of the allele combinations that result from sexual reproduction and meiosis in apple trees are agriculturally unappealing. Worse yet, years of growth must be allowed for a new tree before it can be known whether the apples it produces will be useful, which causes the costs of apple breeding to be higher than for other plants. When that rare tree with good traits appears, branches are cut from it and grafted onto the trees with unappealing fruit. Once these grafted branches have grown large enough, they can provide new grafts for even more trees which eventually creates a large population of trees producing genetically identical apples. All red delicious apples originate from one individual tree, as do granny smiths and all other apple varieties. Unfortunately, pathogens are well placed to infect these cloned trees and the only way they can be grown effectively is with a large amounts of pesticide. The benefit of providing fresh fruit to the population almost certainly outweighs the costs of consuming small amounts of pesticide. In the worst case scenario a crop is wiped out and certain fruit varieties become unavailable or more expensive. Though problematic, it is tolerable for the benefit received.

However, risking genetic weakness to disease would not be tolerable in human populations; especially considering how most people live in very densely packed areas where the opportunity for disease spread is plentiful. Excessive genetic homogeneity could result in entire cities or regions being wiped out. The number one consideration about the evolutionary direction in any eugenics policy is not increased intelligence, strength, or endurance, but avoiding the complication of increased disease susceptibility. This is why it would be very unwise to be too aggressive in promoting specific alleles or allele combinations. Moderate promotion of the fertility of individuals who express phenotypes with positive effects such as intelligence would be helpful generally, but at no point should it be arranged that single individual or small group become ancestral to too high a fraction of the population. However positive their traits may be, it isn’t worth the disease risk to create too much homogeneity.

Prevention of inbreeding is another advantage of the pheromone system. Inbreeding can make it more likely to inherit two copies of a recessive allele that causes a genetic disease.

<– Part 2                                                             Part 4–>
All Parts

Share Button

Compassionate Eugenics

All Parts
<– Part 1                                                             Part 3–>

Compassion and eugenics are not mutually exclusive 

The west is neurotically afraid of eugenics as a result of WWII because of Hitler and the Holocaust. Certainly his criteria for what constituted better humans would not proceed from a rational analysis of what is actually better for society. Blond hair and blue eyes, though perhaps aesthetically pleasing, do not offer any plausible mechanism for increasing order or otherwise advancing civilization. As criteria for good human traits, these two items are truly neutral and using them was the result of an irrational group of men.

More important than a poorly thought-out series of traits selected to artificially favor, obviously, was the massive amount of human suffering and unjustifiable death caused by the extermination campaign against the Jews. Noblise oblige requires that elites have a beneficent morality towards the public at large. Killing masses of people simply can’t be tolerated. As wise as elites might be compared to commoners, they are not so wise as to decide who lives and who dies. To paraphrase Tolkien:

“Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. “

In so far as fertility is shaped in the interest of advancing civilization, it must be guided by a profound sense of biotemperance. Biotemperance can temper the cold logic that might otherwise be employed should artificial selection be pursued with reckless abandon. The major criteria for a Eugenics policy to be humane or compassionate is that it must not increase human suffering and the people who participate must do so voluntarily.

In addition to being humane, a eugenics policy must also be smart. The ends that can’t be seen are the complex effects and interactions genes have. Some, possibly most, alleles contribute to the expression of multiple phenotypes, most of which are unknown and will likely stay thus for the conceivable future. An allele that is identified as promoting some negative phenotype may also cause an unknown positive phenotype and vice versa. The most well known example is probably the sickle cell gene. There are other examples, such as the genes causing the various neurological disorders common in Ashkenazi Jewish populations. A single allele probably confers heightened intelligence, but two cause significant problems. To put it simply, our knowledge has not reached a level where it is reasonable to identify specific alleles as unequivocally good or bad. Moreover, given the opportunity, natural selection might be able to adapt other parts of the genome to minimize the negative consequences of an allele while preserving the positive consequences. Eliminating alleles would prevent this process from being possible. For this reason, great care must be taken when guiding human evolution, and that guiding should probably avoid favoring or disfavoring specific alleles. Rather, a holistic consideration of phenotype should be considered when deciding how or if to modify fertility.

Self sufficiency as the minimum prerequisite for reproduction

To a large extent genetics is biologically deterministic which can and does limit the adaptability of individual organisms to changing environments and new challenges. Nature gets around this issue through sexual reproduction and meiosis. The effect of both is to greatly increase the possible variation available for natural selection to act upon by generating novel combinations of alleles across the genome every generation. This greatly increases the rate at which a species can potentially evolve. Adaptiveness or maladaptiveness with respect to the environment is thus primarily generated by what amounts to a random throw of the dice during gamete formation and conception. Since it is much easier for things to go wrong than to go right, this mechanism guarantees that some people will be born without much redeeming virtue or potential and that it is no way their personal fault. It is inevitable that some combinations will result in individuals poorly adapted to the environment. Many of these individuals would not be able to survive without some sort of state assistance.

Since social programs aren’t necessarily at odds with the preservation of order, they don’t have to be excluded from the formula of stable government. If a person has a choice between crime and death, they are going to choose crime. In the short term at least social aid policies do contribute to stability by making crime less necessary. They can also prevent the suffering of people who are otherwise unable to care for themselves for biological reasons outside their control.

However, if society is going to have policies of compassion towards the unfit, then it has every reason to expect something in exchange. Social programs that relieve suffering, starvation, and poverty absolutely must have the link between the social support and the artificial rise in fertility severed in order to prevent long term dysgenics and unaffordable increases in welfare spending. Anyone who must depend on wealth redistribution for their survival are presenting a strong signal that they received an unfit complement of alleles. Fortunately, modern technology will make it relatively easy to humanely stop reproduction among the recipients of state aid. Long term, temporary or reversible birth control is already available for women and will soon be available for men as well. Using temporary long term birth control allows for the possibility that some people might require state aid as a result of accidents of environment and circumstance rather than an innate inability to be self-sufficient. People who want children are given a very strong incentive and a better opportunity to become self sufficient net tax payers rather than being net tax consumers. Temporary or reversible birth control prevents people from having children prematurely. Early parenthood can impede them from reaching their full economic potential. Delaying reproduction thus would allow people on the margins to veer toward a k selection strategy over an r selected strategy. For those who can’t or won’t take advantage of the opportunity to prove self-sufficiency, making these birth control methods a mandatory requirement of receiving state aid will prevent wealth redistribution from becoming a means of increasing Darwinian fitness. They will prevent the complement of traits that lead to state dependence from being passed onto future generations.

Knowing that state dependents won’t contribute to future populations should make welfare spending more palatable to productive people who correctly observe that it is unfair to siphon their earnings off to provide for the unproductive. They usually wonder where expansion on social spending is going to end. With this policy they know: it ends with the person receiving the welfare. If anything, welfare spending could be expected to shrink over time as the fraction of the population requiring aid contributes relatively fewer children than other classes each generation. Secure in the knowledge that welfare spending will not increase the number of future recipients should make being compassionate to the less fortunate much easier to accept since there are no dire long term consequences.

Not only is this easier to accept, but with a eugenics welfare policy it is actually preferable that relatively incompetent people get on welfare over working. Bribing incompetent people to not have children is a better bargain for society in the long run than whatever limited benefit can be gotten from their bumbling labor. Indirect or otherwise opaque forms of welfare spending, such as bloated government jobs for incompetents, could be more tolerably formalized as direct welfare spending. Unneeded jobs could be guiltlessly gotten rid of since the people who lost their jobs don’t starve which would make all businesses more efficient. Taxpayers can be happy since the eugenics welfare program actively reduces the number of dependents in future generations.

Lastly, receiving state aid is essentially optional and must be willingly applied for. This means that government bureaucrats don’t get to decide who is fit and who isn’t. Unexpected and creative forms of self sufficiency would not be prevented and the government is forced into a passive role in this process. It is the people themselves who decide not to contribute their genes to the next generation.

Bribe poor mothers to have tubal ligation surgery

Tubal ligation is a procedure that permanently prevents further pregnancies in women. For women who have done their part to reach replacement level fertility by having at least two children, these procedures could be subsidized for them. Any women who haven’t had at least two children should not be eligible not only to make sure replacement level fertility is reached, but also to prevent state abuse of the system and regret in women who might later decide to want children. A progressive subsidy schedule would for the first time ever be preferable. The poorer and thus least able a woman is able to afford children, the more subsidized the tubal ligation should be. Possibly even offering to give her a payment of several thousand dollar on top of covering the surgery. The more wealthy a woman is, the less she should be subsidized. Women in the upper middle class and higher should not receive any sort of subsidy at all because society wants them to have more children.

<– Part 1                                                             Part 3–>
All Parts

Share Button

Why we need Eugenics

All Parts
<– Prologue                                                             Part 2–>

Personality and intelligence are genetically determined traits

Demographics matter. Biology matters. People’s personalities, including non-cognitive traits that affect life outcomes, are highly heritable. Specific pro-social temperaments conducive to civilization have been demonstrated to be genetically determined in animal studies with foxes and mice. In addition, all relevant identical twin studies have found that genetics accounts for at minimum 45% of the total variation in intelligence within populations. A significant portion of studies, notably including the most comprehensive ones, have estimated the genetic contribution to be between 70 and 80%. The heritability of intelligence has also been demonstrated in non-human primates.

IQ as a measure of intelligence and a predictor of positive outcomes has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt. Not only are those with high IQ more likely to have positive life outcomes on a personal level, but their efforts as a class contribute significantly more to the economic health and technological progress of civilization than the average or low IQ classes. IQ is so important to civilization, in fact, that the relative wealth of a country can be accurately predicted from average IQ*. Intriguingly gains that result from increasing intelligence do not suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, the relative fertility of high intelligence vs. low intelligence people has significant implications for the evolution of civilization and humanity.

The intellectual and psychological traits of the most fertile will come to dominate a population given enough generations

Social programs like welfare for single mothers support the r-selected mating strategies favored by the less intelligent and would not have been feasible in past cultures or in the state of nature. The indifference of natural selection and the proper disgust of our ancestors meant that irresponsibility in reproduction resulted in lower fitness for r selected breeding patterns and maintained a hard ceiling on the fraction of people who could employ those strategies. In the modern west, redistribution of wealth from k selected to r selected individuals simultaneously reduces the number of children the k selected can afford to raise to be productive, educated members of society and artificially increases the number of future net tax consumers the r selected can (just barely) maintain. Such policies are doomed to fail given enough generations because advantaging the fertility of the unproductive at the expense of the fertility of the productive enlarges demand for state funds while concurrently reducing supply as the relative ratio of k/r people shrinks over multiple generations. If preserving a stable and prosperous civilization is admitted as a valuable goal, then the fertility of irresponsible people with high time preference must be kept lower than those who collectively work towards a better future civilization through low time preference strategies. Though it is possible to temporarily support the r selected due to the productive inertia created by the far less charitable culture of our ancestors, there is no conceivable reality where that is sustainable over many generations. Ultimately, this path leads to the anarchy and destruction of civilization that has been described as the left singularity.

A left singularity, though brutal, would not be a permanent state of human affairs assuming there were survivors. The chaos would bring back unmitigated natural selection to act on humanity in all of its harsh and pitiless cruelty. It would undoubtedly be the r selected who would be preferentially culled.

How such an outcome, with the near universal expansion of human suffering associated with it, could be prevented is one of the the most important priorities of neoreactionary thought. Any durable, and thus sane, social organization that aims to “spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauch” must have mechanisms in place which boosts the fertility of the most productive members of society while minimizing the contribution to the next generation by the least productive. Preferably, the greater the contributions an individual yields to society, the greater his fertility is promoted by sound eugenics policies and would ultimately lead to a right singularity.

It is probable that such conditions, created by some accidental strokes of luck, primed the British population for the industrial revolution. As the natural aristocracy had significantly more children than the poor, the cultural and (mainly)biological traits that made them effective spread throughout all classes of British society. Once the intelligent fraction of society increased sufficiently, it perhaps was only a matter of time before a technological explosion took place.


* With regards to the wealth and IQ of nations study linked in the first paragraph.

In fairness, it must be noted that for particularly poor countries malnutrition, starvation, and disease can suppress average IQ, which suggests it might be possible for some improvement in the worst off countries. However, rich countries effectively control for these variables by eliminating the most extreme negative environmental conditions for the vast majority of the population. In the controlled and equal opportunity environment created by civilization, the contribution of genetics becomes overwhelmingly dominant and it is able to create considerable variation in and between individuals and populations without much need for a role of environmental factors. That very extreme environments can suppress IQ does not alter the high contribution genetics makes to the trait. Genetics are best thought of as determining the maximum potential intelligence an individual can achieve, while environment determines whether that potential is actually reached or not.

A good analogy would be a glass you are trying to fill with water. The size of the glass, and thus volume of water it can contain, is fixed based on its original manufacture specifications. Depending upon how much water you have, you can fill it to any level up to the maximum volume, but if you try to add more past that point the water is just spilled and wasted.

It should be possible to approximate how much traction could be expected to be gained from environmental interventions that ignore eugenics in third world countries by comparing populations from that country in the first world. In the United States, the mean IQ of the black population is 85, while in Africa it is 70. If a colonialist dictator were to go in and dismiss the corrupt native institutions, appointed only competent government administrators and created effective institutions thus affecting the sort of environmental interventions that would be required for maximizing native IQ, you would still only expect the average to move to 85. Now, a 15 point jump is nothing to sneeze at, it would be a huge improvement, but a civilization it could not make without meticulous administration by an intellectual elite (aristocracy) with a much higher mean.

There is no environmental alteration that can make a person exceed their innately defined ability. Therefore, environmental interventions have a hard ceiling on their potential effectiveness on improving individuals. As previously argued, however, environmental interventions which alter relative fertility can raise increase potential (the size of the glass) over several generations. What isn’t possible for the individual should be possible for a population.

<– Prologue                                                             Part 2–>
All Parts


Share Button