Adjusting the Connotation of White Privilege

To those who are paying attention, there is a lot of anti-white sentiments in our culture and they seem to be increasing at a dramatic rate year after year. You can see this article written that seeks to ban whites from holding elected office in student governments in Britain. Considering Britain is a natively white country, the audaciousness is astounding. That it is published in a mainstream newspaper, rather than some fringe blog, is even more concerning. In another example, a student banned white men from her organization then claimed she wasn’t racist because racism is a quality unique to whites. Sure. Or racism is a word used to attack whites by other ethnic groups, and that power isn’t as helpful if whites can use it too. There are plenty of other examples, but this drives the point home. A significant portion of society hates white people, and white males especially, and would like nothing better than to turn us all into second class citizens; in our own countries. Enough people agree with this that they can publish such articles and opinions in mainstream outlets. It isn’t clear that they won’t succeed either.

Knowing the attitudes of these people towards myself and people like me makes it very clear that they are my enemy. They want to see me and my kin reduced to nothing politically, socially, and economically. They probably would love to see us all dead too; though they usually avoid stating this preference publicly. Usually.

I didn’t ask for this. I have never gone out of my way to inconvenience anyone because of their race or gender. I would have loved to continue on neutral to the whole business of identity politics. This sort of increasing and outspoken aggression has convinced me to take a side. My side; which in this case means my people’s side. Since whites are being attacked as group, they must resist as a group. There are still many whites who have yet to realize this important turning point in their attitudes, but as the rhetoric against whites continues to increase, so will the willingness to “pick a side” increase. In theory, people will tend to pick the side that best promotes their personal interests; at least when things become saliently dire. In this case, that means picking the side of anyone that promotes a positive white identity; and if you look around there are preciously few groups with such a message. Given the candidates, I worry that this may end up very badly for a lot of people. Still, if forced to do so, I will choose which ever group is available and has its interests aligned with my own. If there is only one group which will protect my person and my interests as a white male, then the choice will be a no-brainer based purely on self-interest. Here’s to hoping against worse case scenarios, though.

One method of attempting to turn the tables on enemies, hopefully well before anything nasty happens, is to take their rhetoric and reconnotate or redefine it. By redefining racism as something justified and worthwhile, by showing drastically contrasting stats for criminal acts for example, you could make it so people no longer have to dodge the accusation. In fact, they may even embrace it. The attack term thus looses its claws and can even become an asset. There are many terms which could, with variable levels of difficulty, be redefined in such a way (racism has a long way to go, though).  Some time ago, there was a very good article which conceded “white privilege” as a concept worth discussing, but that it was not something that white people just got because they happened to be white. White privilege is a normative commons that white people as a group earn by foregoing opportunity costs. For example, stores where whites are the main customers can leave their merchandise out in the open and unguarded because whites as a group accept the opportunity cost of not stealing. As a group they support the normative commons of having open selections. Some other ethnicities support similar normative commons, and may even have commons unique to them, while others do not. The groups who do not support such commons and regularly steal items from stores are faced with straight-forward results; merchandise is kept behind the counter or there is a heavy security presence. Is this racism? Well, racist is just another word for someone who accepts the reality of group differences, so I guess so. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is a nice bit of white magic, but I think we can go even further. White privilege can be more than an abstraction; it can be a consciously pursued policy. Basically, white privilege is something whites should actively work towards granting other whites. When given a choice, say you have a project and have a series of different people to choose to hire, choose the white male. Choose the option that keeps the benefits within your in-group. Clearly the government limits choice for many businesses, but there are still opportunities where white males can be consciously favored by other white males. Do so every chance you can get without running afoul of the law (or when the eye of Sauron won’t spot you). We must still render unto Caesar, and thus follow the laws even when they are absurd, harm ourselves, and harm our group because we are not in a position of sovereignty, but that doesn’t mean we are completely unable to act. (The restrictions suck, but it is what it is).

The way I see it, as a white male I do not owe anything to anyone who hasn’t earned it. I especially do not owe anything to groups of people who regularly and without shame call for using the government to increase the difficulties for me and my kin; in the countries that were single-handedly built by MY ancestors, not theirs. Anyone who has applied for a job in recent years gets a constant reminder of anti-white discrimination on every. single. application. I think the constant reminder of the state of things is what is most frustrating. Businesses are forced to preferentially hire minorities over me, regardless of relative merits. If I can go out of my way to return the favor by discriminating against the people who discriminate against me, then I will. Quite happily I might add.

Even so, I realize that most people of any group are just trying to get along with their lives. I do not, and do not advocate, going out of the way to inconvenience or harm them. What I am advocating is going out of your way to benefit your in-group whenever possible. Given a choice, pick the option which ends up helping the white male. The other people are merely left at a neutral position; or to pursue similar treatment from their own co-ethnics. Undoubtedly they receive it all the time. Other than whites, all groups do this as a normal part of their lives and culture; and there is nothing wrong with it. There is no reason we shouldn’t also.

Recently, I was faced with such a decision. I needed some work performed and I posted a job to a forum asking for applications. I was given 10 or so options to choose from. Most of the applicants were ethnic minorities from other countries and two were white male Americans. As far as quality of work goes, most seemed perfectly capable of completing the project successfully based on their portfolios. Some of the foreign labor even had more references than the white males. At the end of the day I decided to use racism to help me with my decision. I gave the job to one of the white males, and the deciding factor was his identity as a white male. I couldn’t be happier with the results of the contract either. It exceeded my expectations.

Though granting white privilege purely to benefit your in-group is worthwhile on its own, it also increases the probability you will be the beneficiary of a higher quality performance or have better work completed. As a group, you know that whites have a long history called western civilization in which they collectively performed very well. There are exceptions, but you increase your probability of success by choosing someone from a group with a good track record. Not to mention group differences in IQ tests. By that logic, you could also use racism successfully in choosing whom to hire even when a white male isn’t an option. Northeast Asians, like the Japanese, would also be very likely to provide good labor. So would ethnic Indians (dot, not the feather). By applying your knowledge of group differences discriminately, you are more likely to get the quality you want. Though, you still have to work within the bounds of the law.

A person who utilizes white privilege in their business dealings is moral because to benefit your in-group is moral self interest. I am not saying that someone shouldn’t have to earn their white privilege, they do, but if they can then you help yourself by selectively helping them. Or, that would be true if most whites would act this way because the benefits would eventually hit everyone in the community. It is something worth working toward. In addition, you are also more likely to get higher quality work, and are less likely to be screwed over. European high trust societies mean that whites generally are more trustworthy as a result of their genetic inheritance. As savvy as Asians are at building civilizations, there is a reason they prefer to invest in governments, banks, and other institutions that are primarily European run. As a group, Europeans tend to engage in corruption less often and therefore their money is safer than with their own co-ethnics.

So be proud of your white privilege. Be proud to grant white privilege. Its a good thing, use it. You’ve earned it.

Share Button

“You are not open-minded”

I have had this post on the back burner for some time (I have a number of those actually). A while ago a thread on reddit talked about an extremely flawed study which found that black and white children raised in Germany after world war 2 had the same IQ. Well, not really but that is what prig progs want it to show.

I got into a conversation with a leftoid who had so much cognitive dissonance that not only did he himself point out the flaws in the study and why it didn’t technically show this, he still held firm that it qualified as good evidence that black and white IQs are the same on average just so long as you adjust the environment. Unfortunately this user has since deleted his comments and I didn’t bother saving them all at the time so I just have what I happened to copy over then. Sorry. However, this post isn’t strictly about that one study so summarizing the exchange should be sufficient.

There were two major confounding influences which caused problems for the general application of the findings of this study (and this user pointed this out himself). He quoted the following from the study:

The mothers of the children studied were white German women, while their fathers were white and African-American members of the US occupation forces. In contrast to results obtained in many American studies, the average IQs of the children studied were roughly similar across racial groups

White and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces

The equal IQs were from people who were only half black, and their fathers were unrepresentative because the army didn’t recruit people who failed IQ tests. The blacks who made it to Germany from America in WWII were highly unrepresentative and had been specifically filtered by IQ tests. All of the potential black fathers were above the 30th percentile of the black IQ distribution. In addition, as I will show in my soon to be released book, intelligence is to a large extent X linked which means that when there are big differences in IQ between parents, a child is much more likely to resemble the (white and German) mother than the father. In other words, these results are not surprising, but do not invalidate or even contradict the vast amount of research done over the last century which shows blacks to have about a standard deviation lower IQ than whites. It is a very specific set of circumstances which led to a superficially contradictory result. Further consideration reveals that these kids do not represent blacks in general to any great extent. The consensus from studying racial differences in intelligence are quite clear: 30 years of racial iq studies [pdf]

What is weird about all this is that the guy who I was talking to knew all this was problematic, pointed it out himself in his own comments even, yet still argued with people that these flaws were irrelevant and the study showed that it was all environment. When faced with some opposition from myself and a few others, he eventually resorted to a common leftist shaming tactic which I am sure most of us are familiar with. He had no good arguments with which to defend his position and thus resorted to insulting his opponents character rather than admitting that the flawed study is more or less useless for his position. Here is the excerpt of his comment which is relevant and my response:

“You didn’t read it with an open mind at all”

I love it when leftists pull the “you’re not open minded” card. It shows such a lack of self-awareness it is amazing. There is a difference between rejecting a clearly very flawed study, which in your own comments you showed it to be, and being closed minded. Closed minded is seeing that the preponderance of evidence does not support your preferred happy talk version of things and sticking to the happy talk anyway. Especially if the happy talk is easier as it is the politically “correct” opinion. Open-mindedness is accepting the truth, however difficult it may be and however much people may hate you for it.

I originally planned to link to his comments directly so you could see everything he said, but unfortunately he deleted them. Probably because he realized he looked stupid. Anyway, I have found that some version of “You aren’t open-minded” is an extremely common leftist ploy when they can’t figure out any logical or rational way to defend their beliefs. (Though religious people use it too; stop doing that!) I have met many people in person who do the same thing and say the same damn phrase verbatim even. The problem isn’t that their idea is asinine and indefensible, the problem is that whoever just wont give the idea a chance or a try. They aren’t capable of being objective and thus their opinion should be dismissed. The problem is you as a person. This disingenuous way of shifting the focus of attention from their nonsense to your person is an unfortunately effective method of switching from defense to offense without having to do any rigorous intellectual work. They don’t even have to justify the claim about your person because being open or closed minded is such an ambiguous idea (and with connotations conveniently preset to leftist advantage) that most people immediately allow the topic to be changed and start defending their character when the accusation is in no way warranted. Don’t let leftists (or anyone else) get away with this tactic. Recognize it for what it is and immediately steer the conversation back to their asinine beliefs. Keep them on the defensive. You can point out what just happened explicitly and turn it back, or just ignore it like the shit test it is and make another criticism of their idea directly. Keep on point and keep focused.

I really hate the not open-minded “criticism” because it implies that you have very little knowledge of the subject under debate. It directly insults your integrity and is a very deep sign of disrespect that in better days would have led to an ass-kicking. When found together, ignorance and strong opinion do imply closed mindedness, but very often the ignorance ingredient isn’t actually present and there is little reason to think the “closed-minded” person is not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Often it is the accuser of closed-mindedness who has the smaller degree of knowledge and/or is manifestly losing the debate. Why else would they use this tactic rather than just pointedly defending their position? Even in circumstances where the accusation is true, it is no less of a logical fallacy and shouldn’t be engaged in. Don’t do it yourself, and don’t allow others to do it to you. With greater knowledge you would expect firmer stances on any given issue. If you know why something will or will not work, then you are much more likely not to be compromising about it and you shouldn’t compromise. If your mind is to be changed then it will result from honest, rational argumentation on part of the person trying to change your mind. Not from deceitful sophistry and changing the subject.

Edit: See more comments on this post here.

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

The Silver Lining of the Ebola Outbreak

Before I begin with the main topic of this post, I want to write a disclaimer. The Ebola outbreak constitutes a horrible tragedy and I think it is in everyone’s interest that no expense be spared by wealthy governments around the world in attempting to contain the outbreak and reduce the number of casualties in Africa or elsewhere. As a rule, I am opposed to foreign aide for a variety of reasons, not least because it distorts the markets in the recipient countries and makes it harder for local workers. However, the Ebola outbreak is an exceptional case. The risk of a worldwide pandemic is not negligible and the consequences for it getting out of control are immense. Therefore it is actually in everyone’s interest to contain the outbreak and cooperation makes sense. Richer countries should spare no expense fighting it and should not expect for the recipient countries to give anything back for the help. After all, they would be spending the money to protect themselves as much as to help the afflicted countries.

That said, there is a cold logic that suggests the outbreak could in the long term have positive benefits to the afflicted countries, though obviously paid for at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. For a variety of reasons, the disease will disproportionately affect the poor and uneducated relative to the rich and educated:

  1. The rich can afford better care if they do become ill.
  2. The rich can afford to isolate themselves from others both within cities but especially by moving to homes they own in isolated areas.
  3. The educated know how the virus is spread and can behave in ways that directly minimize risk.
  4. The educated will not fall prey to quack cures and preventions of the disease.
  5. The educated wouldn’t break into a quarantine facility and steal bloody blankets and other contagious material to bring back to their slum.

Since intelligence is heritable, and wealth roughly correlates with intelligence, then it can be surmised that a virus that selectively targets the least wealthy (and thus least intelligent) fraction of a population will have a profound positive impact on the average intelligence of the population once everything is said and done. The virus in effect acts as a genetic bottleneck which changes the overall constitution of the current and thus future population. Since the uneducated won’t be around to have more children, a greater percentage of future children must come from the rich and educated which for both genetic and environmental reasons will also be more prone to education and higher socioeconomic status. With a greater percentage of educated people, these countries will likely have greater potential for economic achievement in the future. The economic benefit will probably materialize at least several generations down the road after the direct negative impacts of the virus are overcome.

It has been proposed that this mechanism might be what made both the renaissance and the industrial revolution possible for Europeans. In the case of the renaissance, it was the black death that immediately predated it that selectively killed off the least capable people in European society. Other diseases served the same purpose in British slums for some generations prior to the industrial revolution. It is possible that Ebola could serve as the precursor for an African renaissance.

Beyond increasing the smart fraction of the population, the second effect would result from the overall decrease in the population. When population size suddenly contracts, you also drastically decrease the labor supply. With a smaller supply of labor (which coincidentally happens to be smarter and more productive on average), businesses must offer more competitive salaries and benefits to persuade good employees to work for them instead of someone else. Competition between businesses for good employees puts a lot of bargaining power on the side of labor. So not only do you have greater overall wealth thanks to the increased smart fraction, that wealth also has to be more evenly distributed amongst the population.

At this point, it is too early to tell how bad the epidemic will eventually get. As of writing this post, there is a total of around 3000 confirmed cases and an official death count numbered about 1900. However, it can be expected that the information available seriously underestimates how many cases there are both because of the poor organisation in the African countries and because of the desire of health officials to limit panic. It is my hope that health officials do manage to contain the outbreak and limit further infections and suffering. Achieving the benefits outlined above aren’t worth the tremendous human costs. However, like a hurricane this virus is a force of nature and once it gets out of control (and this seems likely now) there may not be much those officials can do. If so, then the only thing left to do is for individuals to educate themselves on how to avoid infection and look at the silver lining of an event we may have little control over.

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

R vs. K selection

Dark Enlightenment bloggers talk about R vs. K selection quite a bit.  I found this video by Bozeman Science (unaffiliated with atavisionary.com) and thought it was worth sharing:

Though compared to other species, all humans are very k selected, humans do vary with respect to other in their level of r or k selection. Someone who has four kids and spends the bare minimum on raising them and doesn’t help them with university would be considered r selected by human standards. Someone else who only has one or two and invests heavily in providing them the best education and opportunities would be considered k selected.

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