Calvin Cycle 2.0

An article recently came out about a a team which used a series of enzymes in a test tube to do something similar to what plants do in carbon fixation. However, the process is not entirely the same in that it uses different enzymes from a variety of sources, including animals and bacteria, to complete the reaction chain. This chimera test tube of enzymes is apparently 25% more efficient than its natural competitor, RuBisCo. Engineering a system more efficient than this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise because it is actually one of the least efficient enzymes in nature, as I have written previously (see also):

It is indisputable that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing, and the burning of fossil fuels causes some or most of it.  However, CO2 is a natural part of the life cycle. Plants fixate CO2 from the atmosphere in order to grow. RuBisCo is the enzyme which fixes gaseous carbon into simple sugars in plants. This is arguably the single most important enzyme in existence. In addition to plants themselves, all animals and fungi, and most bacteria, are dependent on this enzyme working. It creates the food for those organisms. It also happens to be one of the least efficient enzymes. That is, it doesn’t work very well at doing its job, surprisingly. For one thing, it is very slow. RuBisCo is also capable of catalyzing oxygenation of its substrate rather than fixing a carbon dioxide molecule and it does so at fairly high rates. When oxygenation occurs, the energy is completely wasted because the byproduct isn’t useful for the plant. Moreover, energy has to be expended to reverse the process to make the substrate available for carbon fixation again. Some plants have even evolved special CO2 concentrating mechanisms to try to combat this problem. Increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the air via burning fossil fuels should make plants better able to use this enzyme because increased concentration of the CO2 substrate increases the enzyme’s efficiency. For example, by increasing the likelihood that CO2 will be fixed rather than oxygen molecules. In other words, the expected result of increased carbon concentrations should be bigger plants, faster growing plants, and/or larger numbers of plants. Both agricultural and wild plants could be expected to benefit from this.

Intelligently designing a better system than RuBisCo, then, is seemingly one of the lowest bars in advanced genetics to cross. Not that that makes it easy in an absolute sense, only that it is easier than, say, designing human geniuses. Getting all these enzymes lined up physically and working well together in a chloroplast is no small barrier.

The obvious purpose of this work and research is to combat climate change. Personally, I am very skeptical that climate change as caused by released CO2 is actually something to worry about. I am inclined to think CO2 hysteria is more an expression of crypto-theology. So, the motivations for this work are suspect. That said, I could still see it being useful. Imagine the kinds of crops we could get if we made them 25% more efficient? What if we could use it to generate a very cheap source of organic fuels and/or starting chemical reagents. Even ignoring overblown warnings about an apocalypse, there is still potential use in this technology. I see no reason not to switch from fossil fuels to better sources if they are in fact better and cheaper.

However, there are other environmental considerations than climate change to at least think about. The first thing that comes to mind is what would be the consequences of introducing vastly more efficient plants into the wild, whether deliberate or inadvertent? Such a plant would presumably be at least a little more evolutionarily fit than its wild counterparts and potentially vastly more fit. If so, it could potentially disrupt entire ecosystems on a massive scale in a relatively short time. Out-competed plants would die out and all the life dependent on those plants would follow shortly thereafter, if they couldn’t adapt to the new composition of their environment. The quest to stop climate change could have unintended consequences far outstripping the largely imagined climate apocalypse. However, even in this case I have little doubt life as a whole would adapt and move on even if the disruption is quite severe. I am reminded of this rather charming documentary (called Cane toads: the conquest if the link goes bad) about the introduction of Cane Toads to Australia and all the havoc that caused. Unintended consequences are real, friends, and leftists are masters at generating them.

All this of course is assuming that this new system would actually work as well as they hope it might (and that the plants it was introduced in were otherwise capable of fierce ecological competition in addition to the new fixation system). This is possible. Evolution is subject to path dependence. Once the initial system of carbon fixation evolved, it would be stuck with the basic mechanism and could only adapt from that in minute steps. It would be very difficult to transfer to a completely different system naturally via small steps. In other words, it might be possible to tweak RuBisCo towards more efficiency, but nearly impossible to substitute a whole different enzyme which was much better overall. A newly evolved system, even if potentially better after additional evolution, would likely start off as less efficient as the already long extent and well adapted one and thus would have a hard time sticking around long enough to become a proper better alternative. Therefore, it is quite possible that better systems than RuBisCo are possible yet still unevolved. Some things are quite difficult to evolve.

On the other hand, it is also quite possible that there are good biological reasons for this inefficiency that we don’t know about. If so, other considerations may prevent the newly developed system from working well and/or resulting in a net loss in fitness due to side effects. In which case it won’t work and there is nothing to worry about. Either way, great care should be taken before committing to the introduction of a vastly different system of doing things, and that applies to biology as much as to government.

Share Button

Differences in complex social behaviors can have purely genetic causes even within the same species

An article came out about cooperation between an African tribe and a type of bird called the honeyguide. The bird spots bee hives and guides the human to it, the human knocks it down, breaks it open and shares it with the bird. The tribesman and birds communicate via a series of chirps and calls. For example, there is one special call a tribesman can use to signal to a bird that he would like to look for honey. There is another special call the honeyguide can use to get the attention of a tribesmen when they have a hive they would like cracked open. Now, in the case of the tribesman, it is possible to culturally transmit the details of the various calls down the generations. The honeyguides, however, are very much like the cuckoo which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. This means it isn’t possible for direct cultural transmission of the calls and likely indicates that in the case of the birds, the transmission of call knowledge is purely genetic. To quote the popular mechanics article:

There’s still some mystery as to how exactly young honeyguides learn to recognize the Yao tribesmen’s calls. Like the European cuckoo, honeyguides are nest parasites. Adults will surreptitiously lay their eggs in other bird’s nests and those birds raise the young honeyguides. This pattern rules out the possibility that the honeyguides are learning how to interact with humans through parental training.

Bolding was mine. While I will agree that exactly how this is done is unknown, mystery is a bit too strong of a word. There are really only two possible explanations. Either they are learning it from other honeyguides a few years older, or it is being genetically transmitted. Even if certain aspects of the behavior, like what specific type of call, is being learned from peers, the overall behavior has to have a strong genetic component. Otherwise why aren’t the other birds in the area copying the honeyguides? It would be a very easy source of food.

This isn’t the first time that a complex behavior was observed which really could have no other explanation than genetic. Most notably in Darwin’s origin of species. In it he described the tumbler pigeon which had the following complex behavior:

The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch; and the common tumbler has the singular inherited habit of flying at a great height in a compact flock, and tumbling in the air head over heels.

No other pigeon showed this behavior (i.e., it was singular). And pigeon breeders kept different varieties close together so if it could be learned it probably would have. There is really no other choice but to conclude that the tumbling behavior was and is genetic. The tumbler pigeon was undoubtedly the same species as the other domesticated species. It could breed with and produce viable offspring with those other varieties, yet small and particular genetic differences were more than enough to generate wildly unique behavior. If this genetic determination of complex behavior via only a very small fraction of the genome is possible in pigeons, it is also possible in humans. The outrageously greater violent criminal activity in Blacks, for example.

Share Button

Cathedral Censorship in Action: Colin Flaherty banned from Youtube

This will be a short post. I just want to draw attention to yet another example of people not following the “right” narrative being bullied, badgered, pressured and purged.

Part of the “acceptable” narrative is that all races (and genders) are equal in every conceivable way. Not just in terms of being treated fairly before the law, but also in potential for success or potential for crime. When one group statistically commits more crimes than other groups, this axiom is violated. The strategy of progressives is not to look at this information and reject the axiom, but to double down and create rationalizations that allow the axiom to coexist with facts that clearly debunk it.

It is well known (and empirically verified) that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and that in interracial violence blacks are much more commonly the aggressor against the out-group, especially whites, than vice versa. This is a clear violation of the axiom that all groups are equally criminally, or equally non-criminal. In love with their axiom, progressives invent (rationalize) nonsense theories and hypotheses such as white privilege and systematic racism to explain the disparity and keep their axiom too. Of course that is bullshit, and genetics is in the process of showing these differences are innate. Once enough “warrior” alleles at various gene locations are identified, it is almost certain blacks will have a greater frequency of them than most other groups and that will be determined to be the true cause of their higher likelihood for violent crime.

There are people out there who actively work against the progressives and make the information about the reality of inter-racial violence, and especially black violence, known. Jared Taylor and John Derbyshire for example. Another such person is Colin Flaherty, author of ‘White Girl Bleed A Lot’: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It and ‘Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry’: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it.. In these books he demonstrates the reality and extent of black on white violence and how much more often whites are the victims of blacks rather than the other way around.

In addition to these important books, he also had a youtube channel which posted videos, both privately recorded and found in the media, which demonstrated both black violence and the media’s blatant attempts to white wash the truth. This channel was gaining popularity at a very rapid rate because the general public could not access this information as a result of collusion in the mainstream media to cover it up.

“My channel documents how the media ignore, deny, condone, excuse, encourage and even lie about these kinds of crimes. I filled a vacuum, and the people responded to that.

“And all of this was based on facts and evidence. We produced videos, 9-1-1 calls, police reports, eyewitness accounts and statements from victims who all said the same thing. ‘Something very wrong is happening here, and we have to pay attention to it,’”

“My YouTube channel was getting 1 million views a month, generating about 5 to 10 million minutes of viewing. There were 25,000 to 50,000 comments a month, and 15,000 subscribers. And all of those numbers were growing 20 percent per month,” he said.

“This channel satisfied a craving for real information about black-on-white crime and black-on-white hostility that has reached epidemic levels. And I don’t apologize for pointing out the obvious: black mob violence and black-on-white crime is wildly out of proportion.”

When a white is the perpetrator of some crime the race is readily reported, but when a black is a perpetrator, the only information we get is “a man” or “youths” or “teenagers” and the public is left wondering the ethnicity of the perp. Well, not many people are dumb enough not to know implicitly. Most average people, white or otherwise, have easily figured out that when a description is intentionally vague it usually means a black is responsible (though Hispanics also will get similar treatment their crime rate  is lower than blacks).

Colin Flaherty’s work goes against the progressive narrative of the cathedral, which makes it a prime target for censorship. His work shows the reality of race relations today and calls into question both the axiom of equality and the rationalization that whites are the aggressors and thus are at fault. Such crimethink is not something progressives will tolerate, at least not for long and so now Flaherty’s work is no longer available from youtube. A platform which has a great potential for the truth to be made known. This is unfortunate for those who value truth above sentiment, but in this case the truth wants to be free and will continue becoming more widely known despite this bump in the road.

Share Button

Wikipedia in Action on Race

I like to refer to Lewontin’s fallacy frequently when debating people who deny the biological basis of race. Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, did have a reasonable article (at least for quick referral of lay-people) on the paper written by W.F. Edwards which coined “Lewontin’s fallacy.”(1) A brief overview is that in the 1970’s an academic social justice advocate published a paper(2) in which he claimed that there is more variation within individuals from one race than there is variation between different racial populations. So much that you can regularly find people of different races who are more similar to each other than they are to members of their own race. However, the first paper linked to above shows that the problem mainly stems from the fact that very few loci were studied by Lewontin. Allele frequencies differ between populations and with enough loci studied, the ability to distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information is quite high. Virtually 100%.

As is typical for pretty much all articles on Wikipedia, anything that isn’t politically correct can be expected to drift over time such that claims that are not PC are deleted, diluted, and placed next to a larger number of criticisms than is warranted such that it implies that the non-PC claims seem unsupported or only supported by very few outliers. Sometimes, like in this article, a paper which can be seen to support one conclusion actually supports the opposite on more careful inspection. All of this is the wikipedia version of death by 1000 cuts. I once tried editing the page on gender differences in intelligence and was basically run out and banned by marxist feminists. I assume this happens to anyone who objectively tries to include factual and balanced information into potentially politically incorrect articles. These same people got that article deleted or subsumed into gender differences in psychology for awhile, but it looks like it has been resurrected now. Honestly, the constant battle over these sorts of articles is just beyond all reason and I will never bother editing wikipedia again. Chances are your work is just going to get deleted and there are other platforms where that won’t happen.

Subjectively, it seems like this sort of thing has been happening to the Lewontin’s fallacy article, but I will let you be the judge:

Here is an old archived version of this article.

Here is an archived version of the current article.

Here is a direct link to the article. (It shouldn’t look different than the above link at the time of this post, but who knows what future changes will be made. In a year or two it could be interesting to compare these three versions)

The thing that is most obvious in my mind is that a paper discussed in an earlier version of the article which supported the concept of Lewontin’s fallacy has had any reference to it completely deleted. Here is the now deleted content:

Studies of human genetic clustering have shown that people can be accurately classified into racial groups using correlations between alleles from multiple loci. For instance, a 2001 paper by Wilson et al. reported that an analysis of 39 microsatellite loci divided their sample of 354 individuals into four natural clusters, which broadly correspond to four geographical areas (Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and New Guinea)

In addition, a paper which purports to undermine the concept that Lewontin’s thinking is fallacious is present at the end in both versions, but is quoted more (and very selectively) in the most recent version. In my opinion, the findings in both wikipedia versions are misrepresented.

In the old article this:

The paper claims that this masks a great deal of genetic similarity between individuals belonging to different clusters. Or in other words, two individuals from different clusters can be more similar to each other than to a member of their own cluster, while still both being more similar to the typical genotype of their own cluster than to the typical genotype of a different cluster. When differences between individual pairs of people are tested, Witherspoon et al. found that the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” is not adequately addressed by multi locus clustering analyses. They found that even for just three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian) the inclusion of many thousands of loci is required before the answer can become “never”

On the other hand, the accurate classification of the global population must include more closely related and admixed populations, which will increase this above zero, so they state “In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible”. Witherspoon et al. conclude “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population”

expanded into this:

In the 2007 paper “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations”,[20] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?”. The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was “never”. However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, “Since an individual’s geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one’s population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. […] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes”,[20] and warn that, “A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.”

This paper… It had decent data and methodology actually. But as is almost always the case with these sorts of things, interpretations and framing of the results are key. It is clear that the people who wrote this are deliberately softballing their wording either to cover their ass (my guess) or to promote a more progressive narrative.

ω in the following quotes is defined as given a certain number of loci considered, the probability of individuals originating from two distinct geographical areas will be more similar to each other than to someone originating closer to them. I.E., the probability that two randomly selected individuals from different races will be more similar to each other than each is similar to a randomly selected member of their own race. Keep in mind that ω is not the same as determining what race a person is based on genetic data. Even with small numbers of loci and a high ω, there is very low probability of misclassifying the race of an individual person. From the very same paper used to undermine the Edwards’ paper:

[A relatively large ω is found with low numbers of loci] It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

With the large and diverse data sets now available, we have been able to evaluate these contrasts quantitatively. Even the pairwise relatedness measure, ω, can show clear distinctions between populations if enough polymorphic loci are used. Observations of high ω and low classification errors are the norm with intermediate numbers of loci (up to several hundred)

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

Molecular biologists and geneticists use a little bit different definition of polymorphism than some other branches in biology. In this case, they are referring to single nucleotide differences in the genome. This is equivalent to having one letter different in spelling a word. Prog and prig mean almost the same thing, but there is one letter difference which slightly changes the meaning. This is a reasonable analogy to the differences in the genetic code.

What this paper says (and it should be said with less tip-toeing) is that if you only consider a small number of these single nucleotide polymorphisms, there is a high degree of error and you can often erroneously conclude that two people from different races are more similar to each other than they are to individuals of their own race. The key word here is erroneously. This is a statistical problem, not biological fact. If you consider thousands of SNPS at once, then you have virtually no chance of encountering this problem. The authors of this paper found that Edwards was right and Lewontin was wrong. Individuals from two different races are never more similarly related than people from the same race, and the genetics supports this when you consider enough loci. It is pretty unambiguous. The quotes in the Wikipedia article and in the paper don’t really represent what the researchers actually found. The researchers had to dress this language up the way they did because of progressive influence in academia. Chances are they wouldn’t have gotten published if they were straight forward about what they found, and even if they could have published political heresy they may have had their careers ruined by SJWs in academia. See what happens when you don’t toe the line with the progressive narrative by reading what happened to a University of Texas researcher who didn’t find the “right” conclusions with regards to gay couples raising children. Though there is a huge problem with how Wikipedia articles are written and “maintained,” they wouldn’t have been able to misconstrue these results so badly if it weren’t from the same sorts of SJWs in academia malevolently influencing researchers. Though it shouldn’t be understated that the wikipedia editors did in fact selectively quote from this already bludgeoned paper. Two layers of SJW influence changed the findings of this paper to mean the exact opposite of what it actually found. Unbelievable. It is truly amazing that this sort of shenanigans is allowed to go on.

You might object that “thousands” is a huge number and that this demonstration of statistical problems convincingly shows that races don’t differ if it takes that many to reduce error to zero. However, the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. If you were to use 3000 base pair SNPs, which is consistent with the minimum in the paper, then you need to utilize only .0001% of the whole genome to reduce this error to zero. Or, if you want to consider SNPs only, there are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome. A sample of 3000 SNPs is only .003% of the total number of SNPs that could be used. This is a conservative estimate because their figure 2 indicates it only takes about 1000 SNPS to minimize this error. In other words, it only takes a vanishingly small fraction of the genome to relieve you of this statistical error that can find that humans from two different races are more similar to each other than either is to their own race.

Yet this paper, which so conclusively shows that human races are different from each other on the genetic level, is used to debunk the original Edwards’ paper. The author’s of the paper attempt to debunk themselves or at least pretend like they found the opposite of what they actually did. This paper is absolutely one of the worst instances of doublethink I have ever come across. It literally blows my mind. As a society, we seem to have a real hatred for truth when it comes to biological realities and the uninformed are clearly being purposefully told lies.

Sidenote: I know there was another article on cathedral entryism on Wikipedia in the alt-right in the last year or so, but for the life of me I can’t find it. If anyone can provide a link I would appreciate it. Edit: Found it.

(1) Bioessays. 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. Edwards

(2) The Apportionment of Human Diversity. R. C. Lewontin. 1972

(3) Genetics. 2007 May; 176(1): 351–359. doi:  10.1534/genetics.106.067355 PMCID: PMC1893020 Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations J. Witherspoon, S. Wooding, A. R. Rogers, E. E. Marchani, W. S. Watkins, M. A. Batzer, and L. B. Jorde

Share Button

What Is Biotemperance?

[Edit: this post was written at a time when I was still reluctant to say publicly that I was both atavisionary and nemester but I still wanted to include this work here. I have since revealed this information, but I have left this post as was originally written.]

I was browsing through the Dark Enlightenment subreddit the other day when I clicked on one of the required reading links put up by one of the moderators there. I was pretty impressed by the word bio temperance coined in the post. I have had more or less a similar idea, undefined, in mind when considering how a good eugenics policy might by structured. Obviously, such a policy should aim to not result in increasing suffering. Here is the relevant part of the post excerpted:

There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.

However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. In the context of game and relationships there is a disparity between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this, then this, then this for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.

In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:

biotemperance is when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.

I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another (see Atlas Shrugged for more details).

I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards

It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.

Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.

If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)

Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.


Wanting to reduce the perceived association of neoreaction from the leftist movement that was national socialism seems reasonable. Certainly the movement gave a bad name to eugenics as a result of its irrational desire for genocide. Rather than attributing the genocidal delirium to the irrational mob who elected Hitler, they blame eugenics. On the topic of Nazism as a leftist product of democracy, I recommend the great three part series from the social pathologist on the topic (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).
Edit:
Part 1 of the Eugenics series: Why we need Eugenics.

Share Button

What is a leftoid?

According to urban dictionary a Leftoid is:

This is a derogatory term for left leaning people who have naive, unrealistic, and overly optimistic views about how the world works based on what they would like to be true rather than what is actually true in reality. How the leftoid would like the world to work is usually based on dogmatic ideologies like feminism.

There is an emphasis on them being biology, genetics, and evolution deniers. Leftoids don’t explicitly deny evolution in all of its forms like the religious right. They only deny evolution and biology in special cases where facts conflict with their ideologically motivated beliefs. Especially with regards to gender and race politics.
Realistic Cynic: “Men and women are different because of biology.
Leftoid: “Gender is a social construct and has no basis in biology!”
Share Button